Canadian Political Polls

[capricorn]

What's your hypothesis as to why less than 27% of Canadians with a university education now support CPC versus 40% for LPC?

My hypothesis is that it's not uncommon for telephone poll respondents to be less than honest in answering poll questions from a stranger at the other end. Even on this board, some posters have admitted lying to pollsters about which party they would support just for a laugh. Another example are calls I get from telemarketers asking me if someone in my household has allergies. I always say no although this is not true just to get rid of the pests who simply want to sell me something.

I would not be surprised that some political poll respondents would inflate their educational achievements because they don't want to come across as uneducated and think claiming higher education would give more credence to their answers. After all, those pollsters are strangers who would not verify or contest those claims. I'm not saying that fibs about education would significantly impact the findings you are enamoured with. I'm saying that human nature being what it is makes us want to be seen in the best light possible.

[ToadBrother]

How much of that lead and subsequent leads were attributable to the dissatisfaction of Canadians with Ignatieff and the Liberals? Was it fueled by Ignatieff's repeated threats of an election? I think in part, yes. It was also a product of general agreement with Harper's direction in addressing the global economic crisis. Liberal numbers have improved steadily since Ignatieff dropped election threats and started talking policy.

That may have explained the moderate drops in the fall, but there's no doubt that prorogation has lead to a massive slide in support. I know you're trying to turn the collapse in Tory support, particularly in Ontario, into some sort of hidden plus, but the numbers are clear, and even things that should be lifting Tory numbers don't seem to be helping. If I were a Tory, I'd be furious with Harper right now.

Although recent polls show a horse race in voter intentions, Harper continues to dominate the other leaders on leadership. If Canadians are dissatisfied with Harper why are his leadership scores so consistently high?

I haven't seen the latest stats for leadership popularity. Do you have a cite? The EKOS poll from the 4th didn't even seem to ask the question.

On a strict measurement of their personal popularity, it may be as simple as Canadians liking PMs who display a certain toughness.

There's toughness, but the prorogation was just plain reckless.

I can't answer as I don't know. Speaking personally, I'll continue to support the Conservatives as long as they stay scandal (a la sponsorship/shawinigate) free and the Liberals fail to provide an alternative I can believe in.

I do love how you qualify scandal. Pure ideological partisanship, by framing scandal as a no true scotsman fallacy.

[madmax]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/nanos-poll-predicts-reduced-tory-minority/article1459766/

CPC= 35.6

LPC= 33.9

NDP= 16.4

GPC= 5.6

BQ = 33.2 (Quebec) which is how BQ numbers should be reflected.

[capricorn]

That may have explained the moderate drops in the fall, but there's no doubt that prorogation has lead to a massive slide in support.

Back up. We were discussing what could explain 10+ point leads by Conservatives. I don't dispute prorogation caused a backlash.

I know you're trying to turn the collapse in Tory support, particularly in Ontario, into some sort of hidden plus,

I couldn't care less about polls except insofar as being amused by watching Liberals get delirious at the prospect of imminent power.

I haven't seen the latest stats for leadership popularity. Do you have a cite? The EKOS poll from the 4th didn't even seem to ask the question.

The latest EKOS leadership index numbers are dated Dec. 09 showing Harper with the highest numbers. The next report will be more useful as they will encompass the prorogation dates.

I do love how you qualify scandal. Pure ideological partisanship, by framing scandal as a no true scotsman fallacy.

When it comes to defining a scandal, I'm more realistic than the opposition who whipped up stuff like wafergate that Harper haters fed on.

Edit: link to Dec. 09 EKOS leadership scores

http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/151

Edited February 8, 2010 by capricorn

[nicky10013]

Back up. We were discussing what could explain 10+ point leads by Conservatives. I don't dispute prorogation caused a backlash.

I couldn't care less about polls except insofar as being amused by watching Liberals get delirious at the prospect of imminent power.

The latest EKOS leadership index numbers are dated Dec. 09 showing Harper with the highest numbers. The next report will be more useful as they will encompass the prorogation dates.

When it comes to defining a scandal, I'm more realistic than the opposition who whipped up stuff like wafergate that Harper haters fed on.

Edit: link to Dec. 09 EKOS leadership scores

http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/151

those numbers are literally 2 months old. A little dated, no?

[ToadBrother]

When it comes to defining a scandal, I'm more realistic than the opposition who whipped up stuff like wafergate that Harper haters fed on.

I think scandals come in different forms, corruption being but one kind. I think defying the constitutional right of Parliament to demand any and all documents at its pleasure is scandalous, and heck, I think the Afghan prisoner investigations are worse than a waste of time.

You have a strange notion of better and worse governments if you think stealing tax money is the ultimate evil, but defying our basic laws and over three hundred years of Parliamentary precedence is good, or at least worth nothing more than a "meh".

Edited February 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

So we have iggy telling canadians they are to stupid to raise their own kids that the goverment has to do it and harper is the bad guy. LOL And do you want to talk polls ,how about the one that said mulroney was to be luckky to get 20% and won the biggest majority at the time. When people do go to the polls when it counts, iggy will not be PM,, canadians are not as dumb as the liberal think they are.

Edited February 8, 2010 by PIK

[ToadBrother]

So we have iggy telling canadians they are to stupid to raise their own kids that the goverment has to do it and harper is the bad guy. LOL And do you want to talk polls ,how about the one that said mulroney was to be luckky to get 20% and won the biggest majority at the time. When people do go to the polls when it counts, iggy will not be PM,, canadians are not as dumb as the liberal think they are.

You're like Mr. Canada, except you can't spell.

[capricorn]

those numbers are literally 2 months old. A little dated, no?

The poll I linked in my edit was released Dec. 30th 09, which is actually six weeks ago, not two months (or eight weeks, take your pick). EKOS decides when they will conduct these in-depth leadership polls which accompany their more frequent polls on voter intentions. As I pointed out to Toad, the next such poll will be more telling and the numbers from both can then be compared.

[capricorn]

I think scandals come in different forms, corruption being but one kind.

IMO, corruption is not limited to money matters.

I think defying the constitutional right of Parliament to demand any and all documents at its pleasure is scandalous, and heck, I think the Afghan prisoner investigations are worse than a waste of time.

I would not use the term scandalous. I would call it objectionable. The Liberals will probably continue whipping up the Afghan detainees file as long as they think it has legs, especially with the media. Upcoming debates on the Throne Speech and budget will surely detract attention from that file and Liberals will readjust their focus accordingly. The game is fluid.

You have a strange notion of better and worse governments if you think stealing tax money is the ultimate evil, but defying our basic laws and over three hundred years of Parliamentary precedence is good, or at least worth nothing more than a "meh".

You of all people would know that measuring a good versus a bad government is made up of a multitude of elements. The Liberals have not convinced me that they are a better alternative regardless of 300 years of precedence.

[blueblood]

A Harper supporter suggesting that a university degree is worthless...why am I not in the least surprised?

You tell me who has a higher income a push on a rig or a hippy with a sociology degree. If University degrees are the holy grail of intelligence and social standing, shouldn't all University degrees net jobs with a 6 figure income?

Tell me, typical Harper supporter, where you would suggest that the physicians of tomorrow should be educated. A bible college? A Sunday school?

Given that physicians have 1-2 degrees and a phd, they seem to spend a lot of time there. However, that doesn't make them smart. It means they read a lot of books. However we can tell by your posts that a University Degree didn't help with improving your mental capacity.

Do you, like Stephen Harper and his Evangelical fundamentalist co-religionists, believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Do you, like Stephen Harper and Fred Flintstone, believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Do you, like the ignorant Stephen Harper and George Bush, oppose embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds?

No I don't, but I wouldn't say somebody shouldn't be in government because they believe in something. Stockwell Day for believing the Earth is 6000 years old is doing well in his cabinet post, the media seems to think that someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is more than capable enough to run his particular cabinet post. But apparently bigots like you can't. Last I checked, stem cell research is still going on in Canada. For you to comment on christians for being ignorant is the definition of hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised, your a bigot after all.

What's your hypothesis as to why less than 27% of Canadians with a university education now support CPC versus 40% for LPC?

Considering that most profs are left leaning because they want other people to fund their research, I wouldn't be surprised that rubbed off on their students. That and a lot more young people have a university education than older people, and younger people tend to vote Liberal because they're naive to believe the racist, bigotted crap people like you spread about Christians.

And if you seriously believe that Harper's social conservatism is a figment of his opponents' collective imagination, why'd he hire this man as his speech writer?

Call out the tinfoil hats, Harper hired somebody who knows how to write a speech!

The sad thing is University is supposed to be a place of tolerance and understanding, yet you are the most bigotted and ignorant person on this board. For you to say Christians are incompetant, evil, and shouldn't be in government is as ignorant and as evil as how the people of Alabama viewed blacks in the 1950's. Stay classy San Diego!

[blueblood]

You're like Mr. Canada, except you can't spell.

Oh come now, he's not THAT bad.

[nicky10013]

You tell me who has a higher income a push on a rig or a hippy with a sociology degree. If University degrees are the holy grail of intelligence and social standing, shouldn't all University degrees net jobs with a 6 figure income?

Who makes more money doesn't matter in the issue. It's who can best understand public issues. The fact that you couldn't recognize that speaks to that very point. People with money don't make them rational actors and the fact that truckers can make more people than degrees proves the point that the market is an irrational actor. It's like Ice Road Truckers. It makes money but that doesn't make it any less of a stupid and pointless show.

Given that physicians have 1-2 degrees and a phd, they seem to spend a lot of time there. However, that doesn't make them smart. It means they read a lot of books. However we can tell by your posts that a University Degree didn't help with improving your mental capacity.

With some people it doesn't. No one can make an argument that it can. What it does do is improve the odds, and that is something no one can deny.

No I don't, but I wouldn't say somebody shouldn't be in government because they believe in something. Stockwell Day for believing the Earth is 6000 years old is doing well in his cabinet post, the media seems to think that someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is more than capable enough to run his particular cabinet post. But apparently bigots like you can't. Last I checked, stem cell research is still going on in Canada. For you to comment on christians for being ignorant is the definition of hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised, your a bigot after all.

I don't recall anyone saying Stockwell Day has done anything well.

Considering that most profs are left leaning because they want other people to fund their research, I wouldn't be surprised that rubbed off on their students. That and a lot more young people have a university education than older people, and younger people tend to vote Liberal because they're naive to believe the racist, bigotted crap people like you spread about Christians.

Clearly you never went to university. Calling university and colleges havens of liberalism is merely a tool for Conservatives to swing at people who are better qualified. Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of the conservative platform. It seems like every threat emmenates from the ivory tower. People buy into that attack whole heartedly due to the simple fact that people naturally want to believe that anyone can become Prime Minister, President, etc. etc. That's the problem, though. Elections can't be about who we'd most like to have a beer with but who is the most qualified to win an election.

As for your quip about Christians, people don't hate Christians because they're Christian. People don't hate Christian's period. People are simply tired of being lectured at by a bunch of people who have no business casting the first stone in the first place.

Call out the tinfoil hats, Harper hired somebody who knows how to write a speech!

The sad thing is University is supposed to be a place of tolerance and understanding, yet you are the most bigotted and ignorant person on this board. For you to say Christians are incompetant, evil, and shouldn't be in government is as ignorant and as evil as how the people of Alabama viewed blacks in the 1950's. Stay classy San Diego!

It is. University is all about the debating of ideas. In that essence, universities are the perfect amalgams of capitalism. Ideas are debated vigorously and the best ones rise to the top and are published and even may become policy. It's where unbiased research is done (despite whatever you cliam to the contrary. Grants go to selection boards and are completely non-partisan). In essence, the university really IS the perfect place for the search for truth. You can't hold it to a higher standard and then dismiss what comes out of them for not fitting your dogmatic worldview. That defeats the point of university to begin with. Through the search for truth we are educated, not just about issues but about ourselves as well. The first thing you have to learn is that you have to be prepared to accept the truth despite preconcieved notion. By calling university liberal but then crying out that they should be a place for tolerance and understanding, you either didn't do very well in school or would do horribly there.

[blueblood]

Who makes more money doesn't matter in the issue. It's who can best understand public issues. The fact that you couldn't recognize that speaks to that very point. People with money don't make them rational actors and the fact that truckers can make more people than degrees proves the point that the market is an irrational actor. It's like Ice Road Truckers. It makes money but that doesn't make it any less of a stupid and pointless show.

It's all about the money. Money is the ultimate scorecard. Those who don't have money are the first to cry "it's not about the money".

The market is completely rational, truckers hauling goods in dangerous environments are in more demand than some flake with a sociology degree. The numbers don't lie.

Smallc bailed out of university, I'd say he understands public issues very well.

With some people it doesn't. No one can make an argument that it can. What it does do is improve the odds, and that is something no one can deny.

Well NormanChateau has defied the odds and has shown monumental ignorance, and stupidity. Fat lot of good that University education did.

I don't recall anyone saying Stockwell Day has done anything well.

Good for you, want a medal. From what I hear, he's doing a fine job. It must piss off the ivory tower elitists that a church minister can competantly handle key cabinet posts. What happened to Maxime Bernier?

Clearly you never went to university. Calling university and colleges havens of liberalism is merely a tool for Conservatives to swing at people who are better qualified. Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of the conservative platform. It seems like every threat emmenates from the ivory tower. People buy into that attack whole heartedly due to the simple fact that people naturally want to believe that anyone can become Prime Minister, President, etc. etc. That's the problem, though. Elections can't be about who we'd most like to have a beer with but who is the most qualified to win an election.

From what I've seen about University profs from publications is that they are leftist ivory tower fools who don't get the real world. There's the old saying "Those who can't do, teach". Going to University doesn't make someone magically competant, it just means you read a lot of books.

As for your quip about Christians, people don't hate Christians because they're Christian. People don't hate Christian's period. People are simply tired of being lectured at by a bunch of people who have no business casting the first stone in the first place.

That would be at Normanchateau for Hating Christians, seems like he has no problem casting stones. For someone who is University educated, you are in the same boat of painting all Christians with the same brush, I don't agree with the pushy bible thumpers, but I'm not ignorant enough to say all Christians are like that, you apparently are, and that's unfortunate. Normanchateau believes Christians shouldn't have the right to hold public office, and that if they get in they'll turn Canada into a fascist empire. I will call bullsh*t on that bigotted piece of garbage until the cows come home. If he wants to be a bigot, he can wear the label.

It is. University is all about the debating of ideas. In that essence, universities are the perfect amalgams of capitalism. Ideas are debated vigorously and the best ones rise to the top and are published and even may become policy. It's where unbiased research is done (despite whatever you cliam to the contrary. Grants go to selection boards and are completely non-partisan). In essence, the university really IS the perfect place for the search for truth. You can't hold it to a higher standard and then dismiss what comes out of them for not fitting your dogmatic worldview. That defeats the point of university to begin with. Through the search for truth we are educated, not just about issues but about ourselves as well. The first thing you have to learn is that you have to be prepared to accept the truth despite preconcieved notion. By calling university liberal but then crying out that they should be a place for tolerance and understanding, you either didn't do very well in school or would do horribly there.

Perfect amalgams of capitalism my ass. They can raise their own damn money instead of soaking me come property tax time. I've walked around some campuses and all I see is people whining about how they are owed tuition from society and profs whining about not getting funding. here's an idea get a loan.

The problem with Universities is that there are those leftist profs who will portray their ideas as truth and when taken outside of acedemia are epic failures. If you can't see that universities are one of the most biased places on earth shows that you need to get out more.

Making money is the biggest truth out there, it doesn't lie and is the scorecard of success.

[nicky10013]

It's all about the money. Money is the ultimate scorecard. Those who don't have money are the first to cry "it's not about the money".

The market is completely rational, truckers hauling goods in dangerous environments are in more demand than some flake with a sociology degree. The numbers don't lie.

Smallc bailed out of university, I'd say he understands public issues very well.

Did I not say that having a degree leads to a better chance of understanding the material? Never did I say that everyone who goes to university understands and everyone who doesn't, doesn't. Furthmore, no, it's not all about money. Money doesn't make you smart. It makes you rich. Can you be smart and rich? Sure, but one doesn't not indicate the presence of the other. End of story.

Well NormanChateau has defied the odds and has shown monumental ignorance, and stupidity. Fat lot of good that University education did.

You can't teach people who don't want to learn. You seem to be the perfect example.

Good for you, want a medal. From what I hear, he's doing a fine job. It must piss off the ivory tower elitists that a church minister can competantly handle key cabinet posts. What happened to Maxime Bernier?

Not only are people from "the ivory tower" liberals, but elitists now? Common. You're name is blueblood. Would you kindly remove your head from your ass?

From what I've seen about University profs from publications is that they are leftist ivory tower fools who don't get the real world. There's the old saying "Those who can't do, teach". Going to University doesn't make someone magically competant, it just means you read a lot of books.

A lot of professors I had actually "did." Furthermore, from what you've "seen" about university publications? What have you seen about publications? Or is this a magically thought up argument point intended to keep your personal narrative of horrible university elites alive and well in your brain? I just got out of university and quite a few of my professors were centre-right if not conservative.

That would be at Normanchateau for Hating Christians, seems like he has no problem casting stones. For someone who is University educated, you are in the same boat of painting all Christians with the same brush, I don't agree with the pushy bible thumpers, but I'm not ignorant enough to say all Christians are like that, you apparently are, and that's unfortunate. Normanchateau believes Christians shouldn't have the right to hold public office, and that if they get in they'll turn Canada into a fascist empire. I will call bullsh*t on that bigotted piece of garbage until the cows come home. If he wants to be a bigot, he can wear the label.

I never painted christians with the same brush so keep going. I just said I don't like being preached to. Is that so hard to understand. You're completely ready to complain of generalization and bigotry but you paint people with the same brush all the time. Lest we forget, all university professors are liberal hippies. Moron.

Perfect amalgams of capitalism my ass. They can raise their own damn money instead of soaking me come property tax time. I've walked around some campuses and all I see is people whining about how they are owed tuition from society and profs whining about not getting funding. here's an idea get a loan.

The problem with Universities is that there are those leftist profs who will portray their ideas as truth and when taken outside of acedemia are epic failures. If you can't see that universities are one of the most biased places on earth shows that you need to get out more.

Making money is the biggest truth out there, it doesn't lie and is the scorecard of success.

Depends on what you're looking at. Only science professors really get big grants, and those grants are pure scientific research. I'd rather have the government giving money to scientists to find cures for diseases than pharmaceutical companies. Bigpharma is big for blood thinners and boner meds, but honestly, the real breakthroughs are at universities generally with public money. For the record, I think you've got real balls to come out and say that you'd rather have a property tax cut then have the government fund medical research. Not many people can come off so self-rigtheous and selfish at the same time.

Furthermore, you may see protests when it comes to tuition, yes there are protests. To see those protests and automatically assign bias to an entire institution is, as Rahm Emmanuel would say, retarded. I served in student government and recieved threats from the very people you're talking about. So there's your proof that not everyone in a university reads from the same playbook.

Furthermore, you can't just say, "their conclusions can't support my unsubstantiated bias so therefore the university can't be actually looking for truth." As the saying goes, anyone looking to prove themselves right, will. Your entire argument about university is a fallacy of the worst kind and shows that you probably never went to begin with, and therefore wouldn't really understand university anyways.

Question time. Did you actually ever go to university?

Edited February 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[blueblood]

Did I not say that having a degree leads to a better chance of understanding the material? Never did I say that everyone who goes to university understands and everyone who doesn't, doesn't. Furthmore, no, it's not all about money. Money doesn't make you smart. It makes you rich. Can you be smart and rich? Sure, but one doesn't not indicate the presence of the other. End of story.

you are implying that people who have degrees are superior to those who don't. We proved that little concept wrong. It's always about the money, smarter people are better at making it, university degree or not. That's why some pushes on the rigs are loaded, and some pushes are up to their ears in debt.

You can't teach people who don't want to learn. You seem to be the perfect example.

I learned i can make more money than the average university grad and not waste five years of my life. If I want to learn something, I'll buy a book. However, I know that book doesn't improve my thinking skills.

Not only are people from "the ivory tower" liberals, but elitists now? Common. You're name is blueblood. Would you kindly remove your head from your ass?

Anyone who suggests that having a university degree is superior to those who don't is an ivory tower elitist. I'll remove mine, if you remove yours.

A lot of professors I had actually "did." Furthermore, from what you've "seen" about university publications? What have you seen about publications? Or is this a magically thought up argument point intended to keep your personal narrative of horrible university elites alive and well in your brain? I just got out of university and quite a few of my professors were centre-right if not conservative.

"did" is subjective, if they are so successful, why do they need handouts from taxpayers like me? Those publications are in the ag industry concerning policy, I read those for a laugh because I know ag profs are failures as ag producers, they need to go teach because their farm went belly up.

I never painted christians with the same brush so keep going. I just said I don't like being preached to. Is that so hard to understand. You're completely ready to complain of generalization and bigotry but you paint people with the same brush all the time. Lest we forget, all university professors are liberal hippies. Moron.

I'm not saying you did, that honor goes to the bigot normanchateau. Every prof I've ever ran into is a liberal hippy. If someone wants to play the generalization game with me, I can play along as well. Hurts doesn't it.

Depends on what you're looking at. Only science professors really get big grants, and those grants are pure scientific research. I'd rather have the government giving money to scientists to find cures for diseases than pharmaceutical companies. Bigpharma is big for blood thinners and boner meds, but honestly, the real breakthroughs are at universities generally with public money. For the record, I think you've got real balls to come out and say that you'd rather have a property tax cut then have the government fund medical research. Not many people can come off so self-rigtheous and selfish at the same time.

I'd rather invest in my money to pharmaceutical companies, they pay the scientists for the research, their stock value rises because of their new drug/cure, and I make a boatload of money. Welcome to business. The private sector outperforms the public sector when it comes to research that matters.

That cut in property tax allows me to invest more money into pharmaceutical companies that will come up with new drugs/cures, that will cause their stock price to rise and make me more money.

Furthermore, you may see protests when it comes to tuition, yes there are protests. To see those protests and automatically assign bias to an entire institution is, as Rahm Emmanuel would say, retarded. I served in student government and recieved threats from the very people you're talking about. So there's your proof that not everyone in a university reads from the same playbook.

Those kids want "free" education. It's madness, it hurts me at tax time and hurts other university students by causing "education inflation", that means their degree becomes less and less valuable due to the massive numbers of grads. Universities are always lined up at the public trough wanting money, go get a loan like everyone else.

Furthermore, you can't just say, "their conclusions can't support my unsubstantiated bias so therefore the university can't be actually looking for truth." As the saying goes, anyone looking to prove themselves right, will. Your entire argument about university is a fallacy of the worst kind and shows that you probably never went to begin with, and therefore wouldn't really understand university anyways.

Question time. Did you actually ever go to university?

I've walked around and sat in on a couple of lectures. Made me sick. The fact that I will earn more than most University grads puts a smile on my face every day.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This partisan crap is just that...crap. No single group is 100 % right or wrong. The entire question of intelligence and education ought to prove that point.

[Dave_ON]

Nicky and Blueblood, can we drop the education debate and take it to a new topic if you truly feel this needs to be discussed at length? This is the political polls thread not a discussion on the value of education.

Having said that it's quite interesting how very volatile public opinion is and how quickly it can turn. It's undeniable at this point that the CPC has fallen very far given that even Nick Nanos has them at less than 2% ahead of the LPC. The Margin for error is 3.1% so it's a statistical tie.

The thing about Harper is, he's his own worst enemy. It's kind of sad because I was just starting to come around and warm up to the guy, I was not particularly impressed with Ignatieff to this point and the line between CPC and LPC had grown thin indeed. I wouldn't say that I was going to vote for him but I had considered it and given enough time I might have done so, which was an immense surprise to me. Then, as it seems he inevitably does, he went and did something completely stupid. I don't know what it is with the guy, but he builds up this incredible momentum and then makes a colossal mistake. It will be interesting to see if the Olympics manage to bolster their support or at least halt their steady decline. I have to say Ignatieff is starting to win me over. I mean I don't see anything stellar policy wise from him as yet, but at least he's trying to come up with a plan. It seems he's finally started to focus his energies in a more constructive direction.

[capricorn]

I have to say Ignatieff is starting to win me over. I mean I don't see anything stellar policy wise from him as yet, but at least he's trying to come up with a plan. It seems he's finally started to focus his energies in a more constructive direction.

You mean reviving the decade old Liberal national child care plan and rekindling an abortion debate nobody wants?

For his big policy announcement, Ignatieff said a Liberal government would bring in a national daycare program, and wouldn't worry about the impact on the deficit.

Daycare is Ignatieff's big new idea? He has got to be kidding. He didn't say how much it would cost, and clearly has no idea. There are two problems with this, money and the constitution, to say nothing of the Liberals lack of credentials on an issue going back to 1988, when they allowed the Mulroney government's $6.4 billion daycare plan to die on the order paper in the Senate. That's quite a bit of money even today.

In the 1988 election and every one since, the Liberals have run on daycare promises, and with the exception of Paul Martin after the 2004 election, done nothing about them.

Oh, and there's this thing called the division of powers, between the feds and the provinces. Child care is early child education, and education is a provincial jurisdiction. This is why Paul Martin ended up signing cheques to the provinces, and looked like a head waiter rather than a prime minister. Ignatieff can use the word "national" all he wants, but it doesn't change a comma in the constitution.

Quebec, with 20 per cent of the kids in the country, provides half the daycare space through a $7-a-day program that actually costs $49. Jean Charest would be happy to receive a cheque from Ignatieff.

And then Ignatieff went and dragged in a dead cat called abortion. On Harper's G7 initiative to improve the health of mothers and infants around the globe, Ignatieff said his support was contingent on the availability of abortion and birth control in the developing world.

Iggy said he was "laying down a marker" on an issue that isn't even on the radar of public policy. Of course, if it reminded Canadians of a Conservative hidden agenda on abortion, the Liberals would benefit from it.

This is what happens when tactics drives policy. You get whacked, as Harper did on prorogation, and as Ignatieff has been for raising an issue that has been settled policy since he was living in another country. Ugh!

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ignatieff+still+stumbling+role+opposition+leader/2543188/story.html

Ugh, is right. This talk of adding billions to an already staggering deficit and poking the Conservatives with an issue that Harper killed some time ago may well enrage Canadians more than they were at Harper for prorogation. Mainstream Canadians will tune out of politics for the duration of the Olympics so IMO the polls will not move until the House resumes on March 3. Let's see then if the Liberals' steady climb in the polls is sustained. That's when the ill-timed child care policy and divisive antics on abortion will be savaged by the Conservatives, and the Throne Speech and budget will be presented. There will be plenty there for Canadians to digest in deciding which agenda they prefer.

It's true that Harper has made mistakes. It comes down to whether he has learned from those mistakes, whether those mistakes have seriously weakened Canada and whether someone more competent can step up to do a better job at advancing our country.

[ToadBrother]

It's true that Harper has made mistakes.

Rather big ones, I'd say.

It comes down to whether he has learned from those mistakes,

He clearly realizes the last prorogation was a bridge too far. I suspect he won't be doing that again.

whether those mistakes have seriously weakened Canada and whether someone more competent can step up to do a better job at advancing our country.

That's very much an open question. With the crazy National Day Care scheme being floated again, I'm almost hoping Harper survives. We're looking, one way or the other at either higher taxes or spending cuts (probably both, one way or the other), and day care is simply a luxury we cannot afford (we couldn't really afford it when times were good).

Edited February 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

Environics Poll:

Liberals: 37%

Conservatives: 33%

NDP: 13%

Green: 9%

Bloc: 8%

Other: 1%

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=720

Edited February 12, 2010 by nicky10013

[ToadBrother]

Environics Poll:

Liberals: 37%

Conservatives: 33%

NDP: 13%

Green: 9%

Bloc: 8%

Other: 1%

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=720

The numbers seem distinctly out of whack to the Ekos poll. I'm not exactly sure I'd trust them. Still, even cutting a bit off of it, it clearly shows a trend where Harper's prorogation has done his government some real harm, and that Iggy's calling the Liberals back to Ottawa at the end of January probably has had some effect. But unless these numbers (if they're the whole story, which like I said, I'm dubious) hold until March, it won't have much meaning over the spring session.

[Dave_ON]

You mean reviving the decade old Liberal national child care plan and rekindling an abortion debate nobody wants?

{/quote}

Hmmm and remind me again what Harper is doing? Still playing politics and out the screw the opposition and or escape the much talked about accountability he promised us nigh on half a decade ago?

Ugh, is right. This talk of adding billions to an already staggering deficit and poking the Conservatives with an issue that Harper killed some time ago may well enrage Canadians more than they were at Harper for prorogation. Mainstream Canadians will tune out of politics for the duration of the Olympics so IMO the polls will not move until the House resumes on March 3. Let's see then if the Liberals' steady climb in the polls is sustained. That's when the ill-timed child care policy and divisive antics on abortion will be savaged by the Conservatives, and the Throne Speech and budget will be presented. There will be plenty there for Canadians to digest in deciding which agenda they prefer.

Let's face it we all know what the Child care issue is, it's a means to get votes, especially in Quebec, which the LPC needs to get elected. What's to make us believe this will actually been inacted when they're in goverment. LPC always campgains to the left and governs from the middle, this is precisely why they have been in government more often then out in the past century and a half.

It's true that Harper has made mistakes. It comes down to whether he has learned from those mistakes, whether those mistakes have seriously weakened Canada and whether someone more competent can step up to do a better job at advancing our country.

Harper has made some major mistakes, most notably governing exactly like a Liberal after spending so very many years criticizing them for doing it. The truth is he's not learning from his mistakes otherwise he wouldn't keep making them. It's almost as if he can't take one step forward without taking two steps back.

[Oleg Bach]

The three Ps of modern politics. Polls Policy and Pandering. Kind of like a mob rule that is fleeting as a school of minnows when a beaver staps the water with his tail.

[Topaz]

I don't know in other areas but in my area, the Tories are handing out money again and my member is not going to Vancouver because he wasnts to get re-elected again and the thought is this area is high unemployement and no jobs and it wouldn't look right if he went.They aren't done spending now its the bridge in Windsor Ont., they want to buy.