Federal Election Polls

[Keepitsimple]

Yup - things do not appear to be too rosy for the Conservatives BUT there area number of factors that point to a comeback that might disappoint the new NDP fan club and the anti-harper club:

1) Incumbent governments are often behind in the polls until the rubber hits the road. One of the best examples was the last Ontario election where the Conservatives (pretend they are the NDP) were out in front by a mile - yet the Liberals - even after 10 years of incompetent, corrupt "governing" - ran away with the election once people entered the voting booth.

Forum asked this question of all respondents 3 weeks ago: "Are you in favor of a change of gov't?" Fully 77% of all respondents answered yes. Unbelievably, this appears to mean about 25% of Conservative supporters favor change of gov't. Come from behind victories must be especially difficult when sizable numbers in your own party favor a change.

You're making my point - if you would have asked that same question to the people of Ontario three months prior to the election - you would have gotten the exact same answer - Ontarians clearly wanted a change in government. Hudak went on to prove that he was a dunce - but also that he didn't have the right policies and the voters held their noses and re-elected the Liberals. I don't expect Mulcair to be the dunce that Hudak was - but there is a mountain of opportunity for Canadians to think twice about his policies. We also have not yet seen how Mulcair reacts under pressure - when he and his policies are the target. Will he revert to "Angry Tom"? Will his natural arrogance betray him? We'll have to wait and see.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

But, but Mr. Harper said he wouldn't go against his own fixed election date "law". He would't go back on his word would he?

Where are earth did you get that idea? A lot of the usual suspects speculated that he WOULD call an early election many months ago but he kept his word - many would say to his dis-advantage. I've said it before - maybe you should spends more time cheering for your guy - convincing us that Trudeau's new, fresh approach will win the day - instead of your comedy of drive-by anti-Harper rants. Too funny.

[On Guard for Thee]

Where are earth did you get that idea? A lot of the usual suspects speculated that he WOULD call an early election many months ago but he kept his word - many would say to his dis-advantage. I've said it before - maybe you should spends more time cheering for your guy - convincing us that Trudeau's new, fresh approach will win the day - instead of your comedy of drive-by anti-Harper rants. Too funny.

Check the link D2 posted and you will see where I got that idea. Try to keep up OK.

[WWWTT]

Campaigning outside the writ period is crap and it needs to stop. I'm sick of the perpetual campaign.

Suck it up buttercup, you live in an democracy where politicians campaign for re-election and political contributions are blessed with tax credits!

The federal conservatives have been campaigning for the last how many years with their "action plan adds".

What you are suggesting would put the opposition parties at such a disadvantage, we would have an totalitarian dictatorship.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Check the link D2 posted and you will see where I got that idea. Try to keep up OK.

The article had nothing to do with the date of the election - it was about when the writ would be dropped. Any chance you might admit you had it wrong?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[WWWTT]

The article had nothing to do with the date of the election - it was about when the writ would be dropped. Any chance you might admit you had it wrong?

As I understand it, Harper already broke his own law. For the second time!

Election every 4 years. Not 4.5 years. Last election was May 2nd 2011. So the next one should have been May 2nd 2015, 4 years.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

As I understand it, Harper already broke his own law. For the second time!

Election every 4 years. Not 4.5 years. Last election was May 2nd 2011. So the next one should have been May 2nd 2015, 4 years.

WWWTT

You understand wrongly. Here's the legislation, courtesy of Elections Canada:

When are federal elections held in Canada?

Since May 2007, the Canada Elections Act provides that a general election be held on a fixed date: the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. As the last election took place on May 2, 2011, the next fixed election date is October 19, 2015. The Chief Electoral Officer may recommend an alternate day for a fixed-date general election if the date set for polling is not suitable for that purpose.

That said, the Canada Elections Act does not prevent a general election from being called at another date.

General elections are called when, on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor General dissolves Parliament. The Governor in Council (the Governor General, acting on the advice of Cabinet) sets the date of the election. The Canada Elections Act (section 57) specifies that the election period must last a minimum of 36 days; it does not specify a maximum.

Link: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq&document=faqelec〈=e#a10

[waldo]

IBOE minutes from 03/02/15

You can read further from the above link or parse through other meetings from this link.

another of your go-fetch routines? You stated, unequivocally, that the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs... along with, as you say, the NDP used HOC/GoC assets for party purposes. I asked if you'd care to cite the IBOE summary findings in that regard. Instead of meeting that request, you presume to send me on a go-fetch adventure through numerous meeting minutes. That select meeting link you provided does not support your claims that, "the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs... along with, as you say, the NDP used HOC/GoC assets for party purposes". Are you sure you have the right meeting minutes link? I'm surprised you can't find some mainstream article coverage to support your claim - wassup with that, hey?

equally, you stated that Federal law was broken by the NDP in regards the IBOE declaring an internal bylaw was broken. I asked if you'd care to cite the specific bylaw that speaks to the physical location of employees of Members of Parliament? Still waiting...

.

[PrimeNumber]

another of your go-fetch routines?

He does that a lot. Until someone actually does fetch and proves him wrong. Then he backs down, until next time. It becomes a tiring routine.

[Derek 2.0]

another of your go-fetch routines? You stated, unequivocally, that the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs...

Where?

along with, as you say, the NDP used HOC/GoC assets for party purposes.

Yes, as reported in the MSM for months.

I asked if you'd care to cite the IBOE summary findings in that regard. Instead of meeting that request, you presume to send me on a go-fetch adventure through numerous meeting minutes. That select meeting link you provided does not support your claims that, "the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs... along with, as you say, the NDP used HOC/GoC assets for party purposes". Are you sure you have the right meeting minutes link? I'm surprised you can't find some mainstream article coverage to support your claim - wassup with that, hey?

I provided the minutes for the final ruling, I have zero intention of going through several years of minutes to locate the numerous rulings on over 23 NDP MPs..........is you want that, hire an intern or "go fetch".....

equally, you stated that Federal law was broken by the NDP in regards the IBOE declaring an internal bylaw was broken. I asked if you'd care to cite the specific bylaw that speaks to the physical location of employees of Members of Parliament? Still waiting...

I provided the Members By-Law, afforded to the Board of Internal Economy via the Parliament of Canada Act.......if you wish to find which specific rule was broken by which NDP MP........Go fetch!!!!!

[Derek 2.0]

He does that a lot. Until someone actually does fetch and proves him wrong. Then he backs down, until next time. It becomes a tiring routine.

Me backing down:

Parliamentary functions

4. (1) The funds, goods, services and premises provided by the House of Commons to a Member under theParliament of Canada Act, this By-law or any other by-law made under that Act may be used only for carrying out the Member’s parliamentary functions.

versus:

Not parliamentary functions

(3) For greater certainty, the following activities, when performed by a Member, are not parliamentary functions:

(a) activities related to the private interests of a Member or a Member’s immediate family;

(b ) activities related to the administration, organization and internal communications of a political party, including participation in a party leadership campaign or convention, solicitations of contributions and solicitations of membership to a political party;

[cybercoma]

Suck it up buttercup, you live in an democracy where politicians campaign for re-election and political contributions are blessed with tax credits!

The federal conservatives have been campaigning for the last how many years with their "action plan adds".

What you are suggesting would put the opposition parties at such a disadvantage, we would have an totalitarian dictatorship.

WWWTT

Why would it put the opposition parties at a disadvantage? The Conservatives shouldn't be campaigning either.

[WWWTT]

You understand wrongly. Here's the legislation, courtesy of Elections Canada:

Link: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq&document=faqelec〈=e#a10

Ok then thanks for the link.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Ok then thanks for the link.

WWWTT

You're welcome. I apologize for the "bold" lettering on my post. It's nice to see someone who acknowledges when they might misunderstand something. Humility is sadly lacking for some posters.

[waldo]

It's nice to see someone who acknowledges when they might misunderstand something. Humility is sadly lacking for some posters.

that's rich... coming from you!

.

[Keepitsimple]

that's rich... coming from you!

.

.....and Donald Trump-like, coming from you, my blustery friend!

[waldo]

Where?

huh! You're not claiming that now?

Again, you're not claiming that "the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs..."? Is that correct? You're not making that claim?

[waldo]

I provided a summation; this summation:

your "That" reference speaks to you stating, unequivocally, that the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs... along with, as you say, the NDP used HOC/GoC assets for party purposes.....

I asked if you would care to cite the IBOE summary findings in that regard? Your response is, "go fetch"!

you maintain that Federal law was broken by the NDP in regards the IBOE declaring an internal bylaw was broken...

I asked if you would care to cite the specific bylaw that speaks to the physical location of employees of Members of Parliament? Your response is, "go fetch"!

"go fetch".....

........Go fetch!!!!!

[WWWTT]

You're welcome. I apologize for the "bold" lettering on my post. It's nice to see someone who acknowledges when they might misunderstand something. Humility is sadly lacking for some posters.

I honestly only thought it was every four years. But it's more than that as you have pointed out.

More ignorance as opposed to misunderstanding.

I still think it's a dumb law because this is something already covered in the charter.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

that's rich... coming from you!

.

That's uncalled for man.

He just posted something I wasn't entirely educated on and I thanked him for it.

WWWTT

[waldo]

That's uncalled for man.

That's uncalled for man! If you re-read the post I replied to, it proclaims a lack of humility by "others in regards to acknowledging misunderstandings"... you only need to read the follow-up post to mine to see exactly where they guy was coming from. In that context, the originator has absolutely no claim on "expressed humility relative to acknowledging misunderstandings"!

[WWWTT]

That's uncalled for man! If you re-read the post I replied to, it proclaims a lack of humility by "others in regards to acknowledging misunderstandings"... you only need to read the follow-up post to mine to see exactly where they guy was coming from. In that context, the originator has absolutely no claim on "expressed humility relative to acknowledging misunderstandings"!

Ok I'm not going to get involved in this but I see where you're coming from.

WWWTT

[waldo]

early election call... extend upon the campaign period... bankrupt the Opposition parties early and leave an open advertising path toward the campaign end? Oh my!

Cunning Tories may plan early election call — with aim of draining opponents’ finances

The Conservatives are said to have a cunning plan to extend the campaign this time around for their own partisan advantage. The typical 36-day campaign would limit the amount parties are able to spend to $24-million — a level of expenditure the three main parties can afford with a degree of comfort.

But every day the campaign is extended, that limit is raised by $676,000.

It seems extremely likely that Harper will visit David Johnston sometime in mid-August, then launch a lopsided advertising war using his greater financial firepower.

All the signs for an early campaign are present. Conservative MPs say they were told to take their vacation in July and report that technology is being tested on the ground this month. No-one is confirming an early writ drop internally, but most MPs I spoke with are hedging their bets on a mid-August call.

The other potential advantage of jump-starting the campaign is that it would curtail the ability of third-party advertisers like unions to spend unlimited amounts attacking the Conservatives.

[Derek 2.0]

huh! You're not claiming that now?

Again, you're not claiming that "the NDP paid the involved employees for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs..."? Is that correct? You're not making that claim?

No, its not my claim, but the ruling by the Board of Internal Economy........as said countless times.

[waldo]

No, its not my claim, but the ruling by the Board of Internal Economy........as said countless times.

"payment for work/actions unrelated to the support of the related MPs"... your repeated ad nauseam statement/claim as per a finding you state came from the BOIE... that you've been asked to cite, several times now. Your response: "GO GETCH"!

.