Harper the big loser in polls

[bigdude]

Harper the big loser in polls

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is the big loser of last week's federal election warm-up. Harper who thought the NDP-Liberal budget pact would be the straw to break the minority government's back has found instead that his own lead has slipped away.In contrast, Prime Minister Paul Martin — by promising to call an election within 30 days of the final report of the sponsorship inquiry next December and by rewriting the Liberal budget with his left hand — has reversed the trend that had seen his party tumble in the polls.

While the Bloc Québécois' lead is rock solid in Quebec, the Conservatives are back in second place on the crucial battlefield of Ontario.

As things stand, Harper may burn the party's brakes if he tries to stop the train speeding to a June election. But on the other hand, he may lead the Conservatives to a crash if he rushes Canada to the polls. Looking back on the past week, it appears there is more to the malaise that is stunting the growth of the Conservative party than the frosty personality of its leader or the fear its policies may inspire in parts of the electorate.

I agree that this strategy to topple the government show a lot of desperation on Harper's behalf.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Harper's strategy now has to be to LOSE a no confidence motion.

[kimmy]

What has dragged down the Conservatives' numbers? Their talk of forcing an election. That's dominated the news for several weeks now. But once an election has been called, the election speculation stops being the #1 news item, and there will be plenty of opportunity for the election campaign to put the spotlight back on the issues that have torched the Liberals this spring.

If the Liberals are as buoyed by these new polls as you guys, they could start planning ways to lose a non-confidence vote, as they may have been doing in March by trying to press the "omnibus bill". Until last month, the conventional wisdom had been that they'd be better off to have their election before the Gomery report comes out.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Wishful thinking, kimmy.

The people want the Gomery report, and the people don't like to be defied. To side with separatism at the same time would be disastrous for the tories.

[kimmy]

Wishful thinking, kimmy. 

The people want the Gomery report, and the people don't like to be defied.  To side with separatism at the same time would be disastrous for the tories.

That the Liberals will decide now IS the time for an election, yes that's probably wishful thinking.

But I don't think it's wishful thinking to expect that an election campaign will put the spotlight back on the issues that put the Liberals behind in the polls.

-k

[fellowtraveller]

Wishful thinking, kimmy. 

The people want the Gomery report, and the people don't like to be defied.  To side with separatism at the same time would be disastrous for the tories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That the Liberals will decide now IS the time for an election, yes that's probably wishful thinking.

But I don't think it's wishful thinking to expect that an election campaign will put the spotlight back on the issues that put the Liberals behind in the polls.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the Liberals were certain of a win, certain that they are truly more popular, there would be an election in a heartbeat. That is the real story, not all this BS and posturing.

Siding with separatists? Do you mean in the same way that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe were singing exactly the same tune on Budget Day, promising to vote against the Liberals and Conservatives? Like that?

[Guest eureka]

Layton and Duceppe were complaining of the original budget because it did not contain provisions such as it now has. Duceppe, of course, with his own twisted slant. Haroer supported the budget because it was a "Conservative one

[mcqueen625]

Until last month, the conventional wisdom had been that they'd be better off to have their election before the Gomery report comes out.

Does anyone really expect the Gomery Inquiry to be enlightening? If you do you are delusional, since Justice Gomery has no mandate to determine guilt or express an opinion of guilt of any person or organization.

According to an article I just read on Canada Free Press, article (k) of the mandate given to Justice Gomery states; "The Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings."

Paul Martin assured Canadian's that this inquiry would get to the bottom of this scandal and inform Canadian's as to who was responsible. He stated that only the Judge is in a position to determine truth, yet the mandate given to Justice Gomery says he can deal with facts only he cannot, as the article states say for example, he thinks that Claude Boulay was telling the truth or not. The mandate does not allow for that to happen. The mandatre itself has tied the hands of the Inquiry and therefore it will not be able to, as Paul Martin puts it, "Get to the bottom."

For those who are looking for the findings of this Commission to point fingers at high profile individuals or organizations they are in for one a huge disappointment.

As the article goes on to state, "Ten months from now with the testimony behind us, and with a necessarily milquetoast report, the Liberals can wave the document around and say, "See, he couldn't convict anyone!" And Canadians will buy it, and nothing will change.

The Liberals will continue on with their corrupt ways and Ontarian's, along with many fools in Atlantic Canada will just keep on voting Liberal at every opportunity. We seems to like being stolen from. That si the only explanation I can think of fro our misplaced trust of a Party that has been shown to be the most corrupt government in Canadian history.

[I Miss Trudeau]

According to an article I just read on Canada Free Press, article (k) of the mandate given to Justice Gomery states; "The Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings."

Thats a pretty standard clause. It basically means that Gomery does not have the power to convict anyone in the inquiry. That, of course, is because its an inquiry, not a trial. Gomery is there to figure out what happened, not punish the offenders. That is an entirely different process.

[Argus]

According to an article I just read on Canada Free Press, article (k) of the mandate given to Justice Gomery states; "The Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings."

Thats a pretty standard clause. It basically means that Gomery does not have the power to convict anyone in the inquiry. That, of course, is because its an inquiry, not a trial. Gomery is there to figure out what happened, not punish the offenders. That is an entirely different process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice Liberal spin. The quote was "..without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization "

This is not merely a requirement that he not convict. It is a requirement that he say nothing about who he thinks is responsible or whether any individual or group (ie, Paul Martin and his gang of racketeers and bribe takers) did anything wrong.

[The Terrible Sweal]

So based on these beefs, when we see headlines like: "Oppositon Seeks Inquiry", I guess we could interpret that as "Tories Demand Witchhunt".

[Shakeyhands]

According to an article I just read on Canada Free Press, article (k) of the mandate given to Justice Gomery states; "The Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings."

Thats a pretty standard clause. It basically means that Gomery does not have the power to convict anyone in the inquiry. That, of course, is because its an inquiry, not a trial. Gomery is there to figure out what happened, not punish the offenders. That is an entirely different process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice Liberal spin. The quote was "..without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization "

This is not merely a requirement that he not convict. It is a requirement that he say nothing about who he thinks is responsible or whether any individual or group (ie, Paul Martin and his gang of racketeers and bribe takers) did anything wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liberal Spin? Wow.... How the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks to you come up with that comment... Fox on the brain perhaps?

IMHO I think that the Liberal plan is for a June election, but they want it to look like Harper is bringing it down, not for the good of Canadians but for his own ends. And yeah, I agree that is what he is interested in.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Nice Liberal spin.

Argus, anything that doesn't fit your simplistic world view, or is not conducive to your tiresome ranting, is "liberal spin."

The quote was "..without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization"

As I said earlier, that is because civil or criminal liability can not be decided in an inquiry.

This is not merely a requirement that he not convict. It is a requirement that he say nothing about who he thinks is responsible or whether any individual or group (ie, Paul Martin and his gang of racketeers and bribe takers) did anything wrong.

The inquiry is there to figure out what went on. So, for example, Gomery could say "This is what Guite did," but not "Guite is guilty of money laundering."

[August1991]

Nice Liberal spin. The quote was "..without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization "

This is not merely a requirement that he not convict. It is a requirement that he say nothing about who he thinks is responsible or whether any individual or group (ie, Paul Martin and his gang of racketeers and bribe takers) did anything wrong.

I'm with the "Liberal spin" on this paragraph k). It strikes me as standard boilerplate. Gomery is not a US Grand Jury nor even a coroner's report.

But if conspiracy theorists are interested in a new angle, I suggest we ask kimmy.

[kimmy]

But if conspiracy theorists are interested in a new angle, I suggest we ask kimmy.

-k

[August1991]

But if conspiracy theorists are interested in a new angle, I suggest we ask kimmy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-paragragh k

[bigdude]

SES was the most accurate polling company during the last federal election campaign, and the recent SES poll showing Harper dropping 8% says it all.

Why don't the Conservatives put the poor fellow out of his misery by dumping him as leader, and putting someone into the leadership role who realistically might have a chance of winning. Someone like Belinda Stronach perhaps ?

[Shakeyhands]

When did Kimmy become our resident conspiracy theorist?

Or was that a liberal spin? damn liberal media

[kimmy]

I guess somebody had to pick up the conspiracy slack when mapleleaf got banned. (banned? or was this "banning" just a cover for something more sinister? )

-konspiracy kimmy

{I know a guy who knows a guy... no names...}

[CAGERATTLER]

Harper the big loser in polls

I agree that this strategy to topple the government show a lot of desperation on Harper's behalf.

Remember Joe Who?

How about this one Stephen WHO?

[Shakeyhands]

You know, I think it makes Harper look like an absolute idiot to keep refering to PM PM as a ditherer, I have to imagine it is beginning to turn others off as well. Is he trying to be funny or coy? Does he really think that its effective to keep trotting it out? What a buffon, and to think that he and some of you think he is a capable leader... Just shows me how inappropriate a choice he is and would be at the polls.

"Mr. Martin's behaviour has gone from dithering, to desperate and now to dangerous," said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who said the Prime Minister's response to the key vote may be unconstitutional.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

Sad really.

[ScottBrison]

I think the number one issue for the Liberals is obviously The Sponsership file, and the #1 issue for the CONs whether they like it or not is are they genuinly interested in fixing the mess or just grabbing at power? How Canadians feel about those two issues will be key, everything else in my opinion, will get overshadowed.

[Bro]

The pollsters are as corrupt as the liberal party of Canada is.

They can put a spin on a question better than any politician,

and have it conform to the answer they want,or were paid off to get.

Ask anyone tomorrow if they support the grits,they will say no,but the grits are leading in the polls as usual.

[bigdude]

A good rule of thumb is if which party do you support is not asked by the second question in a political polling survey you can bet it is a PUSH POLL!

I think you will probably see the Globe and Mail and Strategic Counsel's Allan Gregg get discredited tomorrow.