Latest National Opinion Polls

[Argus]

What if it's not your water supply. What if it's someone else's water supply who puts up a sign saying stay away if you don't like poison in your water. Do you still have the right to assault them?

Water supplies as air supplies are shared; you don't own a water supply. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you wouldn't know that.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A bar is private property. If I open a bar and put a sign saying smoking is welcome here then everyone who doesn't like smoking can just stay away. If you enter anyway then you obviously don't care that much about second hand smoke.

Try to pay attention. We're talking about economies and social safety nets, not gum chewing and odd laws.

Were talking about social law, try to keep up.

We are talking about a social safety net, and in the post to which you so shrilly replied, I was responding to someone who supposed that places without social safety nets were pits of poverty like Zimbabwe - a particularly idiotic exmaple as Zimbabwe is a socialist nation.

If you had nothing to contribute on that score you'd have done best to keep quiet and thus be more discrete about how ignorant you are.

True enough, and you've done an excellent job very early in what I expect to be a brief tenure here to demonstrate the ample size of your oral orifice.

Yes, because I am the one that has lied constantly, representing a limited knowledge base as if it were somehow coming from above. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised ideologues don't need to do research, they have "intuition".

You know, it sounds very much like your are someone's sock puppet. You're not brand new here at all. You're someone else's alter ego - no doubt someone whose ass I have kicked on previous occasions and is still sore about it. As for lying, why don't you find a single example where I lied about anything, you pathetic zealot.

[Riverwind]

Drivel. Non-smokers always had a choice. There were more than enough of them that if they'd really cared much there'd have been more non-smoking bars, restaurants and clubs.

Non-smokers have always been the majority, however, until recently they had to suffer in silence because the presumption was that if someone did not like smoke then it was their problem - not the smoker's.

Fortunately, that presumption has changed and most smokers realize that they are the problem. The only question now is where do we draw the line. There was an incident locally where 'cigar club' was preventing from meeting in a business establishment after hours because of the complete ban. It thought that was going a bit far.

Worker's compensation pays people who get hurt in inherantly dangerous jobs all the time, but it doesn't close down those jobs because there's no way of making them safer. There were numerous ways of minimizing any danger to workers at a bar or restaurant that had smoking -starting with good ventilation. The risk to staff would have been negligible compared, for example, to someone who works in the streets every day inhaling pollution.

I agree that regulations could be drafted that would address workplace safety issue without a total ban, however, a total ban was the simplist approach since the vast majority of bar owners did not need to allow smoking in order to stay in business. I know one of the onwers of the local pub - he was thrilled at the smoking ban because he could not go non smoking as long as one local bar allowed smoking (all the smokers would go to that one bar). That was simply the nature of the business.

[Yaro]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A bar is private property. If I open a bar and put a sign saying smoking is welcome here then everyone who doesn't like smoking can just stay away. If you enter anyway then you obviously don't care that much about second hand smoke.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? It is a workplace, it falls under the jurisdiction of a workplace, and this isn't a private residence.

We are talking about a social safety net, and in the post to which you so shrilly replied, I was responding to someone who supposed that places without social safety nets were pits of poverty like Zimbabwe - a particularly idiotic example as Zimbabwe is a socialist nation.

We are NOT talking about a social safety net, we are talking about the totality of freedoms of which restrictions created by the existence of a social safety net are a miniscule part. But please prattle on its amusing.

You know, it sounds very much like your are someone's sock puppet. You're not brand new here at all. You're someone else's alter ego - no doubt someone whose ass I have kicked on previous occasions and is still sore about it. As for lying, why don't you find a single example where I lied about anything, you pathetic zealot.

Really, so you didn't just lie in this thread about the education levels of socialist/communist countries? That’s fascinating and no, I had never seen this site before a week ago and the idea of you beating me at anything is nothing short absurd. In this thread you have yet to make a single intelligent point much less the plethora of them that would be required for you to be considered mediocre.

[takeanumber]

The question is: why isn't the welfare state voluntary?

Because you can't opt out of society.

I see it all the time in Calgary.

Married women bitch and moan about taxes.

Then their husbands leave them, or they catch the husbands cheating.

Suddenly the tone that married women had changes. Quickly.

Suddenly, they want social services, because they need them.

So...if we have an opt out clause, just say we did.

Those women would opt out, naturally.

And then what happens when something bad happens?

Do we just let them live on the streets?

Do we want to live in a Victorian world of workhouses and rag pickers?

Seriously: that's the kind of world that results from such selfish, cold, Conservative ideaology.

You take current Conservative doctrine in Alberta and you get mentally handicapped people living on 800 bux a month, eating cat food and picking cans.....working people waiting years to get replacement joints while rich MP's fly to the United States and get better joints. You get oil companies that kick 1% of their profits back into the community and 5% into bonus' and Stampede week parties and expect a massive pat on the back. You get abused seniors in nursing homes (Shame on you sick bastards! shame on you!). You get neglected infrastructure. You get graduate schools where only the already wealthy get to attend.

I've seen the Conservative vision for Canada. It's a society where it's leaders believe that there are natural slaves.

I say to them: no thank you.

I'm happy that most Canadians see their vision too...have looked Kaiser Harper square in the monacle, and have shouted 'Nigne'!

[Argus]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A bar is private property. If I open a bar and put a sign saying smoking is welcome here then everyone who doesn't like smoking can just stay away. If you enter anyway then you obviously don't care that much about second hand smoke.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? It is a workplace, it falls under the jurisdiction of a workplace, and this isn't a private residence.

How dense can one sock puppet be? Your entire snivelling rant is based on someone interfering with your safety. Yet if a private institution has smoking then the only people whose safety is being compromised are those who choose to compromise it. Your problem is you can't stand the thought people might make free choices with which you disagree.

We are talking about a social safety net, and in the post to which you so shrilly replied, I was responding to someone who supposed that places without social safety nets were pits of poverty like Zimbabwe - a particularly idiotic example as Zimbabwe is a socialist nation.

We are NOT talking about a social safety net

Well _we_ aren't, because you lumbered into the thread squealing and screaming and waving your arms around like a braying ass and launched into your own subject matter.

However, that was the topic under discussion when you made your gentle, learned, softly spoken appearance.

, we are talking about the totality of freedoms

Very well. If you wish to discuss freedoms, start by telling us why you don't want people to have any, and why you think you are more capable of making decisions for others than they can themselves.

You know, it sounds very much like your are someone's sock puppet. You're not brand new here at all. You're someone else's alter ego - no doubt someone whose ass I have kicked on previous occasions and is still sore about it. As for lying, why don't you find a single example where I lied about anything, you pathetic zealot.

Really, so you didn't just lie in this thread about the education levels of socialist/communist countries?

I didn't make a statistical presentation. Try not to be quite so anall-retentive. What I said was that Communism thrives where people are ignorant and have no education. And that Socialism is its pale immitation, it's younger brother, if you will, which, while not quite so tyranical, or quite so incompetent in terms of economics, certainly shares many of the values in that its proponents tend to be in favour of limiting other people's freedoms to force them to conform with their own beliefs, and outraged when people disagree - to the point of wanting to silence them.

That’s fascinating and no, I had never seen this site before a week ago

I doubt that very much. I think you're a sock puppet. Can I call you Socks?

[Yaro]

How dense can one sock puppet be? Your entire snivelling rant is based on someone interfering with your safety. Yet if a private institution has smoking then the only people whose safety is being compromised are those who choose to compromise it. Your problem is you can't stand the thought people might make free choices with which you disagree.

Oh I understand you’re trying to define the upper limit of how dense one sock puppet can be... I understand.

As for freedom of choice, I am all for freedom of choice right up to the point where it interferes with mine. You can live as anti social a life as you want just so long as you do it without causing harm to me or mine. Difficult to understand?

Well _we_ aren't, because you lumbered into the thread squealing and screaming and waving your arms around like a braying ass and launched into your own subject matter.

However, that was the topic under discussion when you made your gentle, learned, softly spoken appearance.

Backpedal a little faster your almost there, when he made his statement he was referring to social freedoms just because you lost track or didn't bother to read the posts since then doesn't make me look bad, get it?

Very well. If you wish to discuss freedoms, start by telling us why you don't want people to have any, and why you think you are more capable of making decisions for others than they can themselves.

Personally I am all for personal freedom, I don't care what you do with your life. You want to put a gun in your mouth? Ok by me. You want to live in a cave and hump your dog every night? No skin off my nose. You want to breathe smoke in my face? Well that affects me, and when you’re not on your private residential property I don't have to move an inch to expect to not be affected by your shit.

I didn't make a statistical presentation. Try not to be quite so anal-retentive. What I said was that Communism thrives where people are ignorant and have no education. And that Socialism is its pale immitation, it's younger brother, if you will, which, while not quite so tyranical, or quite so incompetent in terms of economics, certainly shares many of the values in that its proponents tend to be in favour of limiting other people's freedoms to force them to conform with their own beliefs, and outraged when people disagree - to the point of wanting to silence them.

What you made was an asinine statement with no basis in reality, what you did was present your rather ignorant and as usual arrogant opinion as fact. That is a lie, get it? If you had put an IMO, IMHO, or said I think in front of that trash piece then everything is fine, sure you’re not too bright but at least you’re not a liar.

[Argus]

As for freedom of choice, I am all for freedom of choice right up to the point where it interferes with mine. You can live as anti social a life as you want just so long as you do it without causing harm to me or mine. Difficult to understand?

Fine. So I can invest my money and open a bar and run it whatever way I want, including with smoking. And since it's MY bar I invested MY money for you have NO right to even be in there. So stay out.

Very well. If you wish to discuss freedoms, start by telling us why you don't want people to have any, and why you think you are more capable of making decisions for others than they can themselves.

Personally I am all for personal freedom, I don't care what you do with your life. You want to put a gun in your mouth? Ok by me. You want to live in a cave and hump your dog every night? No skin off my nose. You want to breathe smoke in my face? Well that affects me,

But I don't want you around. I don't want you in my bar. If I could I would ban you. So if you come in anyway and then start bitching about the smoke I should be able to laugh at you and kick your ass out the door.

I didn't make a statistical presentation. Try not to be quite so anal-retentive. What I said was that Communism thrives where people are ignorant and have no education. And that Socialism is its pale immitation, it's younger brother, if you will, which, while not quite so tyranical, or quite so incompetent in terms of economics, certainly shares many of the values in that its proponents tend to be in favour of limiting other people's freedoms to force them to conform with their own beliefs, and outraged when people disagree - to the point of wanting to silence them.

What you made was an asinine statement with no basis in reality,

I disagree. I think history has shown that only ignorant herd animals and wild-eyed zealots embrace Communism.

what you did was present your rather ignorant and as usual arrogant opinion as fact.

Whine all you want. What your snivelling is really all about is your indignation I would insult Communism - which of course you don't advocate, oh no, not you, of course not. But you're offended nonetheless.

For some reason.

That is a lie, get it?

It's not a lie if I believe it's true - or if it is true.

And your only evidence it's not is gee, your opinion.

And I don't think you've impressed many people with your clear, rational thought processes thus far.

[mirror]

Thiese results are quite different than the other recent polls - have the Liberals been trying to smoke us?

Voter support for federal parties is holding steady, with the Liberals maintaining a SLIM lead over the opposition

Slim being the optional word here.

Lib - 34%

Con - 31%

Ndp - 20%

Bloc - 11%

Other - 4%

Individual approval ratings for each of the three national party leaders have shifted somewhat over the past three months, with approval ratings for both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper declining, and approval levels rising for Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe.

The percentage of Canadians who approve of the job being done by Prime Minister Paul Martin has continued its steady year long decline and now stands at an all-time low of 41 percent. Over half of Canadians (56%) now disapprove of Paul Martin.

There has also been a steep decline in the proportion of Canadians who approve of the job being done by Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Currently, just 33 percent approve, while six in ten (59%) disapprove. As has been the case with Paul Martin, approval of Stephen Harper has been declining steadily in each survey conducted over the past year.

Approval of the job Jack Layton has done as NDP leader has risen by five points to the current level of 57 percent, making him the only national party leader who is approved of by a majority of Canadians. Three in ten Canadians (31%) disapprove of Layton.

Almost two-thirds of Quebecers (64%) approve of Gilles Duceppe as Bloc Québécois leader, up slightly from April.

[kimmy]

I think Paul Wells noted in his blog recently that popular support for the government has increased while the government has been out for summer. It makes sense to me. Approval will no doubt stay fairly high for as long as the government stays away, and will no doubt sink when they return and start annoying people again.

-k

[mirror]

Wells is a perceptive guy.

I am blown away by these poll results. Maybe the folks that have been saying that some of the other recent polls were Liberal pollsters are on to something.

Environics don't seem to be attached to any political party, and their sample size is a good size, much larger than the others..

[kimmy]

Wells is a perceptive guy.

I am blown away by these poll results. Maybe the folks that have been saying that some of the other recent polls were Liberal pollsters are on to something.

Environics don't seem to be attached to any political party, and their sample size is a good size, much larger than the others..

It is a large discrepency. Something seems odd somwhere.

What struck me as odd about some of the recent polls showing big drops in support for the Conservatives was... based on what? I could understand support sinking if there was something going on in Ottawa; if the parties were doing anything in particular to create this shift in opinion... but why would the opinion shift so much when there's no activity in Ottawa to change peoples' opinions either way? Seems funny.

(and by "funny", I don't mean funny like Corner Gas. I mean "funny" like Corner Gas being shut out at the Gemini awards.)

-k

[mirror]

I remember when one of the other pollsters announced their recent results, it was suggested that Canadians wanted a majority government. This latest poll does NOT give any indication of that whatsoever, and I think that was strictly Liberal hype - all smoke and mirrors.

Maybe the Liberal tactics of trying to scare Canadians about the dangerous Conservatives is starting to backfire on the Liberals. With the Ndp holding low 20s percentile support, it looks like we have a solid 3 way race for a change.

[Riverwind]

I remember  when one of the other pollsters announced their recent results, it was suggested that Canadians wanted a majority government. This latest poll does NOT give any indication of that whatsoever, and I think that was strictly Liberal hype - all smoke and mirrors.

Or maybe it is just a result of random variations in the polling numbers or differences in the polling methodologies. You can introduce bias into a poll by simply changing the time of day you call people.

[mirror]

I don't think whether you call someone at noon or in the evening is going to result in changed voting preferences. I think someone who does not like the Liberals at lunchtime is going to like them any better in the evening.

One thing the large sample size Environics poll tells me is that the Liberals might be in serious trouble, much more trouble than they realize, because of the lack of popularity for Martin. Maybe they should consider changing their leader if they hope to form any kind of a government next time.

[Riverwind]

I don't think whether you call someone at noon or in the evening is going to result in changed voting preferences. I think someone who does not like the Liberals at lunchtime is going to like them any better in the evening.

If you make all of your calls around noon on weekdays you will not include the opinion of people with 9-5 jobs in your poll results. This introduces a bias into the poll.

[mirror]

I don't think whether you call someone at noon or in the evening is going to result in changed voting preferences. I think someone who does not like the Martin Liberals at lunchtime is going to like them any better in the evening.

If you make all of your calls around noon on weekdays you will not include the opinion of people with 9-5 jobs in your poll results. This introduces a bias into the poll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But there is nothing to suggest they are doing that. The other recent polls have connections to the Martin Liberals, and were a lot smaller in size as well. I think Environics from what I have seen is the most scientific poll out there recently. I can understand Martin Liberal supporters trying to discredit this poll as, compared to the other recent polls, it looks devastating for them.

[mirror]

Changes since the last election:

Party / Last Election / July 28/05 / Change

Liberals: 37% / 34% / Down 3%

Conservatives: 30% / 31% / Up 1%

New Democrats: 16% / 20% / Up 4%

Bloc: 11% / 11% / No change

[Canuck E Stan]

Anybody got the latest on party leader approval ratings?

[Yaro]

I disagree. I think history has shown that only ignorant herd animals and wild-eyed zealots embrace Communism.

I am not defending communism because I am "protecting communism". I don't like lies, whether they are about capitalism, communism, fascism, the church, Charles Manson, Hitler, martin Luther king, or Gandhi. Communism has enough bad points that lies don't need to be made up about it for it to be effectively argued against.

Whine all you want. What your snivelling is really all about is your indignation I would insult Communism - which of course you don't advocate, oh no, not you, of course not. But you're offended nonetheless.

For some reason.

Because apparently, unlike you, I value honesty in a discussion, I consider it to be of the highest importance if anything of value is ever to come from it. Rhetoric is for politicians and talk shows, not for mature discussion.

It's not a lie if I believe it's true - or if it is true.

And your only evidence it's not is gee, your opinion.

And I don't think you've impressed many people with your clear, rational thought processes thus far.

Actually it’s a lie if you state it as fact and you have no information to back you up or if you just don't know. I don't have the burden of proof since I didn't make the original statement.

But here’s an excerpt from one paper on the subject, and this paper doesn't examine the fact that the most highly educated portion of communist societies were much larger then there western counterparts. In fact they were far too large, so large that at one point the USSR used doctorate level mathematicians in there tanks.

And if one examines socialist (in the modern sense of the word) nations the contrast becomes even more stark. Iraq, Japan, Germany all socialist countries had the highest levels of education in there respective spheres.

Exhibit I provides some of the basic data of expansion between 1960 and 1981. In contrast to the much-publicized difficulties of the communist countries on the economic front -- problems of increasing labor productivity, of modernizing the processes of production, of introducing and adapting new techniques, of improving the quality of goods and services, and of expediting the wholesale and retail distribution of goods and services -- education by comparison emerges as the big success story of communist governments, at least in terms of quantitative expansion. The communist nations are raising the schooling level of their populations at a very fast rate, so fast in fact that in the Soviet Union there exists a surplus of the most highly educated alongside a shortage of workers with middle-level technical qualification. In China, too, college graduates are having difficulty in finding jobs commensurate with their qualifications.

It is important, of course, not to overrate the specific contribution of communism to these educational successes. First, many of the communist nations did not start from a zero baseline, though that is the impression generally given in their publications, both official and scholarly. Speaking of China, two U.S. observers have written:

[mirror]

This is the largest poll we have had in the past six months, and still no news in the mainstream media.

Do the Liberals have that much power to be able to supress negative news about themselves, or will we read about it in tomorrow's press?

Link

[mirror]

- from Warren Kinsella's website concerning the Environics poll released Jul 28, 2005

July 29, 2005 - I've felt like the guy in the tin foil hat, in recent weeks, whenever the subject of Stephen Harper comes up. "He's done like dinner," I am repeatedly told by all and sundry. "Don't be so sure," I reply meekly, adjusting my tin foil headpiece.

Well, here's a bit of vindication of me and my hat.  Honestly, folks: these kinds of numbers still say minority. And not necessarily a Liberal minority, either.

Now, where's that damn hat?

[mirror]

House of Commons representation at present:

98 Cons + 54 Bloc + 2 Ind (Kilgour & O'Brien) = 154 seats

133 Liberals + 19 NDP + 1 Ind (Parish) = 153 - 1 Speaker = 152 seats

Vacancy - 1 seat

Total - 308 seats

If there is another confidence vote in the House of Commons the Liberals could be defeated.

What the Liberals need to do is call a by-election right away in Cadman's old seat, and/or get a Conservative to take over as speaker, otherwise they could be toast.

[Argus]

I disagree. I think history has shown that only ignorant herd animals and wild-eyed zealots embrace Communism.

I am not defending communism because I am "protecting communism".

And yet - you are!

I don't like lies, whether they are about capitalism, communism, fascism, the church

Really? Then why do you lie in pretending to worry about the military losing respect in one post and describe military people as animals in the next?

But here’s an excerpt from one paper on the subject, and this paper doesn't examine the fact that the most highly educated portion of communist societies were much larger then there western counterparts.

Educated in what? And how? I recall an item on Soviet era doctors during the eighties which pointed out that were they to cross to the West they would not even be considered capable of being nurses due to how backward their training was.

If a person is educated on lies does that make them educated? If you grow up being taught that Communism is working wonderfully, and given false information prove it, and that the West is a den of misery and poverty, and given twisted and false information to prove that - are you really being educated? I don't think so.

Education requires information and the ability to judge. If you have no honest information, and anything which might contradict Commuist ideology is banned, and judgement is punished by your society then you don't have a real education.

And if one examines socialist (in the modern sense of the word) nations the contrast becomes even more stark. Iraq, Japan, Germany all socialist countries had the highest levels of education in there respective spheres.

I thought you said you valued honesty, yet here you are twisting reality to create a strawman you think yourself more capable of fighting off. To begin with, those countries are hardly socialist. They are a mixture of capitalism, conservatism and socialism. Further, I never claimed people in Socialist countries were uneducated.

However, I believe most of those who embrace Socialism are either naive or are, in their hearts, the kind of overbearing arrogant people who want to force everyone to do as they do, to think as they think, to watch what they watch, or else be punished. In other words, if given an opportunity they would be perfectly happy within a Communist system.

[Argus]

This is the largest poll we have had in the past six months, and still no news in the mainstream media.

Do the Liberals have that much power to be able to supress negative news about themselves, or will we read about it in tomorrow's press?

Link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I took a look around, CBC, CTV, the Star, The Sun, the Citizen, Globe, etc. and no mention on their web sites. Instead, what I found was more about the Grewal tapes. Interesting that suddenly an interview he gave with an unnamed Surrey newspaper (when?) is making headlines to yank this back into the news today.

[THELIBERAL]

Someone here seems to only pick parts of the poll that show Martin losing support seems they just cannot bring themselves to talk about how their man Harper is doing in the same poll.

So being the good Liberal I'am I'll Post it: NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HOW HARPER IS DOING:::!!!!

Leader Support. Liberal leader Paul Martin remains the party leader most likely seen by Canadians as best able to lead the country (32%, down three points since April), but this proportion has slowly eroded in every survey over the past year. Opposition leader Stephen Harper is the choice of """21 percent""" of Canadians (unchanged since April). The proportion who say that NDP leader Jack Layton would make the best prime minister has increased three points to 18 percent.

There has also been a steep decline in the proportion of Canadians who approve of the job being done by Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Currently, just 33 percent approve, while six in ten (59%) disapprove. As has been the case with Paul Martin, approval of Stephen Harper has been declining steadily in each survey conducted over the past year.

HELLO btw thanks for the link mirror!!!