Layton Overtakes Harper Second Most Popular Leader

mirror · August 15, 2005

Well, this didn't take very long, did it?

Taxpayers federation slams Harper for 'silent' summer

shoop · August 15, 2005

Shakeup is good.

Harper is creating his team and making sure he can go ahead with the new direction for the party. A lot of it is getting rid of the old Alliance dinosaurs.

The Taxpayers Federation can f**k off. Just an anchor around the neck of the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada). Having those guys go after the party is a sign they are moderating.

mirror · August 15, 2005

Strategic Counsel Polling

Notice the order and the questions asked before the question on your choice of political party is asked. This is a bogus poll and the Gobe and CTV should know better than to shovel out garbage like this.

Actually if I remeber correctly it was SES Research that led the way with any new polling trends during the last election campaign.

mcqueen625 · August 15, 2005

Liberals maintain lead over Tories
L - 39%

C - 25%

N - 19%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now who payed for this poll to be conducted? Polls are like statistics, they are usually worded in a way to get the most favourable response favouring whoever paid for the poll to be conducted. In this case I would suspect that the poll was paid for by either the Liberal's or the NDP themselves. The Liberal's will use any method to put the PC's in a bad light because they know they are the only Party that can unseat them from power. As for the NDP, they have shown what they are made of, and stand for. They stand for thievery and corruption just as does The Bloc, because it was those two Parties that kept Martin and the Liberal's from being defeated on a non-confidence vote. Layton has lost whatever credibility he had.

mirror · August 15, 2005

You have a point however not every polling company is connected with a political party. Actualy with how out of touch the Harper Conservatives are with the average Canadian and the issues that matter to them I'm surprised that the polling results for the Conservatives are not worse.

The Harper Cnservatives are in major freefall and the Layton New Democrats would be best to completely ignore the Conservatives, and focus their entire strategy on attacking and defeating the Martin Liberals.

Slavik44 · August 15, 2005

Now who payed for this poll to be conducted? Polls are like statistics, they are usually worded in a way to get the most favourable response favouring whoever paid for the poll to be conducted. In this case I would suspect that the poll was paid for by either the Liberal's or the NDP themselves. The Liberal's will use any method to put the PC's in a bad light because they know they are the only Party that can unseat them from power. As for the NDP, they have shown what they are made of, and stand for. They stand for thievery and corruption just as does The Bloc, because it was those two Parties that kept Martin and the Liberal's from being defeated on a non-confidence vote. Layton has lost whatever credibility he had.

A while ago I remember readin apolish joke (I know I am ashamed to admit myself) that went somethign along the lines of, How do you take over the polish...make them a country and wait. This also seems to apply very well to the conservatives...you just need to make them one big party and wait. To say that some one paid to have this poll conducted for the sole purpose of making the conservatives look bad is as laughable as the Conservative Party themselves. Its a waste of money they do not need any help looking bad, disunified, or out of sync, they do a great job by themselves. The Conservatives are making all the wrong mooves at all the wrong times. Its Like watching the Coyote in those road runner cartoons, with his stregnth, technological superiority, and endless bank account, every attempt to take down the road runner, results in an anvil being dropped on his head or a big explosion.

It is very odd that you want to bring up failed attempts to bring down the Martin government, as glaring examples of layton's loss of credibility when infact it was the biggest blunder Harper could have made, he was cross eyed and though his Ace high was a four of a kind...and got beat by an astute political move by Martin and his staff. Here harper is bangign on his cage like a caveman for an election, and martin turns right around and says, its all yours after the gomery report is released. What does Harper do, continue on his path to destruction, in the publics eyes he can no longer justify a summer election, and his polling starts to drop. But just like the coyote he has already lit the fuse to his rocket and sails right into a cliff, a public who is willing to wait for an election, and a parliment now in agreement with them. After that he gets smacked by an anvil the size of Gurmant Grewal, while trying to get into his sheeps clothing(visa vie Harper extreme make over eddition), for his next attack. The person who lost the most in the fiascal was Harper. Paul Martin got through it, thats been his life story...he gets by. Duceppe, well he isn't in contention for prime minister and unless he started drinking molson Canadian he can do what he wants. Layton...was able to play both sides of the coin and come out perfectly fine, with his loyal 19. It has now been three months since the CPC had Martin written off and the coronation plans set, and they have yet to be recusatated. Perhpas they might be when the gomery report comes out, but that will not be enough. Two times the conservatives have depended on the Liberals to defeat themselves, and two times the conservatives have defeated themselves, yet you and so many other conservatives still belive it will happen. Even if the Liberals don't deserve to be in power there has to be someone to take it from them, not some one praying to God 24/7 that the liberals will hand it to them on a golden platter, stop being so niave. The conservatives are the disaster of 2005, and the have let canadians down by not being the party to unseat the liberals. It pains me every time I read a post that exalts the conservatives as the party to unseet the liberals, when they are unseating themselves as official opposition, hopping the Liberals will just up and walk out. It saddens me more to see the conservatives continually using the tried and failed method to defeat the liberals, then the fact the liberals are in power. A party that stupid is too incompetent to run a family of one, let alone a country, and it is this that continues to paint the conservatives in a bad light. Not some possible poll out of 15, that the liberals or maybe the NDP, or maybe the block, may have spent $6,000 on, to maybe try and paint the Conservatives in a bad light. Maybe it is actually time to admit the truth, The conservatives have been killing themselves very loudly with their song, end of story.

Leader Circle · August 15, 2005

- from SES Research
To follow are the results of our latest national poll completed last week.
Our national survey completed Monday August 8, 2005 shows the Liberals with a 14 point lead over the Conservatives. Martin leads Layton as best PM by 16 points and 39% of Canadians would describe Liberal government performance as average.

"The big Liberal gains were in Quebec where they increased their support from 21% to 34% while the Conservatives have dropped from 11% to 4%."

"Polling clearly shows that Stephen Harper's image is in a free fall. In the past 90 days the percentage of Canadians who believe he would make the best Prime Minister has dropped from 27% to 14%. Jack Layton has mathematically placed second, the first time in SES Best PM tracking."

"The other dramatic move has been the number of Canadians who chose ënone of the aboveí as their best PM. This has more than doubled from 8% to 19%. This is truly our summer of discontent. Paul Martin still rates as the first choice of Canadians at 31%, 16 points ahead of his nearest rival."

Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Canada - Ballot (Change from Previous Quarter, N= 865 Decided voters, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)

LIB - 39% (+3)

CP - 25% (-5)

NDP -19% (+1)

BQ - 13% (+1)

GP - 5% (+1)

*14% were undecided (+2)

Best PM (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)

Martin - 31% (-1)

Layton - 15% (0)

Harper - 14% (-13)

Duceppe - 8% (+2)

None - 19% (+11)

Undecided - 13% (+4)

Government Performance (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)

Very good - 6% (0)

Somewhat good - 21% (+4)

Average - 39% (+8)

Somewhat poor - 17% (-1)

Very poor - 16% (-9)

Unsure - 2% (-1)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best PM, LOL @ 19% for none!!!!

Mad_Michael · August 16, 2005

The reputable pollster, by definition, has a vested interest in providing credible results.

Not necessarily. As a private interest, the pollster has an interest in selling his products. If credibility helps to sell the product, he'll be credible. If fudged results sell better, that's what will be sold.

Textbooks don't teach you about real life. If you had ever actually seen a poll constructed, performed or analyzed you wouldn't come off so misinformed.

Bemused giggles. I did my work placement in 4th year studies with Decima Research. So yes, I have been involved in the process on the inside. No I am not accusing Decima of deliberately fudging results.

My critique is leveled at a much higher theoretical level involving the assumptions and the mathematics that underpin the statistical process as used in the social sciences.

One link to one piece of this ample evidence you talk about?

Why? Do I need to post a bibliography for the sources of my own opinions? That is silly, tedious and tiresome. If you don't like my views, ignore them, but I'm not going to play google games for everyone who disagrees with me. 90% of my information comes from printed sources, not the web.

...So while I don't like those results I accept them at face value.

Fair enough. I don't. All public opinion polls are suspect in my book. The publication of a poll tells you more about the agenda of the person/organisation that paid for it than anything else. That is my considered opinion on the matter.

Same goes for the news-media that publishes the info. News media organisations may publish, hype, bury or ignore said polls for exactly the same reasons.

Ahhh, see that's where we disagree. I would call myself an 'intellectual' only if I worked in academia or a think tank perhaps. But denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatever.

For your information, I have not "identified myself" as an "intellectual" anywhere at this forum.

It doesn't really matter though. Where ever I go, someone, somewhere will accuse or describe me as such and then a half dozen others will start to attack me for a) claiming to be an intellectual or being an intellectual or c) not being an intellectual.

It is all quite tiresome, tedious and boring.

Btw, the one place you are least likely to find an actual intellectual is in academia - but that requires that you understand the term correctly as a form of a description, not a term of derision.

I'm not long for membership at this site if this keeps up. :roll:

mirror · August 16, 2005

It sure is beginning to look like the Cons are NOT even going to be a major factor in the next election. Now even the Bloc is attacking them for their lack of political savoir faire. I think Duceppe has a point.

Bloc criticizes Tories for lack of support

The Bloc and the Conservative Party will have to join forces if they want to bring down the Liberals in the fall, after the release of the first report by Mr. Justice John Gomery on his inquiry into the sponsorship program.
If they fail to precipitate an election, the vote will be held in February of next year, according to the timetable set by Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Duceppe has not forgotten how the Conservatives refused to join forces with the Bloc last April to defeat the Liberals after the damning testimony at the inquiry of advertising executive Jean Brault. The Conservatives tried to oust the government more than a month later, but were outmanoeuvred by the Liberals, who had time to forge a pact with the NDP and lure Tory MP Belinda Stronach into cabinet and the Liberal Party.

"If the Conservatives had supported the Bloc's non-confidence motion last April, we wouldn't be in this situation today. The situation would be very different, and I think they made a mistake at the time," Mr. Duceppe said in an interview.

He said that after the appearance of Mr. Brault, which had a clearly negative impact on the Liberals in the polls, he was told by his officials that there was more explosive testimony to come before Judge Gomery.

A series of people appeared at hearings in April and May to confess that the Liberals had broken the electoral law during the 1997 and 2000 elections, using taxpayers' dollars to pay for campaign expenses in Quebec.

In particular, a number of senior Liberal organizers described the movement of cash envelopes among party officials.

Mad_Michael...there are two ways to deal with personal attacks here. One and probably the best approach is to ignore the jerks that make them, and the other is to report them to the moderator. Don't let these yahoos get to you.

mirror · August 16, 2005

Chief of staff is sixth to leave Harper's office

It was officially termed a resignation, but party insiders who spoke on condition of anonymity said Harper made it clear to Murphy that his time was up as right-hand man.
"He booted him," said one well-placed source. "And there are going to be more of these changes in the next little while."

Harper had been under pressure for some time to replace Murphy, who was viewed by many as too confrontational in his relations with staff and with MPs in the caucus.

The problem is that it is now way too late for Harper to turn things around. He has taken on the stigma of a loser and he will be an albatross around the Conservatives neck come election time.

shoop · August 16, 2005

One link to one piece of this ample evidence you talk about?
Why? Do I need to post a bibliography for the sources of my own opinions? That is silly, tedious and tiresome. If you don't like my views, ignore them, but I'm not going to play google games for everyone who disagrees with me. 90% of my information comes from printed sources, not the web.

Mikey, it's such a hassle to do these multiple quotes in a thread so your desire not to play 'google games' appears to be a cover. 10% of ample is still ample. Just calling you on the bullsh*t that is apparent throughout your posts. I have no problem disagreeing with your views, but if I would like to see the 'evidence' you provide so I can decide for myself. Perhaps I'd change my misguided ways. :rolleyes:

Whatever.
For your information, I have not "identified myself" as an "intellectual" anywhere at this forum.

It doesn't really matter though. Where ever I go, someone, somewhere will accuse or describe me as such and then a half dozen others will start to attack me for a) claiming to be an intellectual or being an intellectual or c) not being an intellectual.

See Mikey, on top of being arrogant and self-deluded you are also utterly full of baloney. Evidence, with respect to your not identifying yourself as an intellectual. (From the Should Harper be replaced? thread)

Harper is making me homesick for Preston. Anyone who can make Preston look attractive to an urban intellectual from Toronto, really is a poor electoral choice.

Or maybe you were referring to a theoretical "urban intellectual from Toronto" and not really yourself.

I'm not long for membership at this site if this keeps up. :roll:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing quite sadder than somebody threatening to 'leave a message board'. Where you the kinda kid who would take his ball and go home if you didn't like how the game was going after school? :rolleyes:

shoop · August 16, 2005

there are two ways to deal with personal attacks here. One and probably the best approach is to ignore the jerks that make them, and the other is to report them to the moderator. Don't let these yahoos get to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that apply to when you called me a dickhead on the western separation thread? pot. kettle. black.

Oh wait, my 'attacks' actually dealt with the substance of his posts. Merely pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. As an 'intellectual' should be used to.

Mad_Michael · August 16, 2005

Nothing quite sadder than somebody threatening to 'leave a message board'. Where you the kinda kid who would take his ball and go home if you didn't like how the game was going after school?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not threatening to take my ball and go home. The ball remains here as it is not of my possession or ownership even if I choose to leave this forum.

Besides which, I have merely stated that I am not for long to be a member here. That is a simple statement of fact, not a threat.

The level of personal attack that I'm being subjected to at this specific forum is unacceptable to me and makes my participation here tiresome.

I'm looking for a quality discussion board, not a flame forum and I'm getting tired of saying so.

Forgive me for discussing these issues with opinions that are not conventional. Apparently that offends many. Forgive me for being educated - apparently that offends many more. Forgive me for defending the interests of the gay community - apparently that offends most of all.

shoop · August 16, 2005

I am not threatening to take my ball and go home. The ball remains here as it is not of my possession or ownership even if I choose to leave this forum.
Besides which, I have merely stated that I am not for long to be a member here. That is a simple statement of fact, not a threat.

The level of personal attack that I'm being subjected to at this specific forum is unacceptable to me and makes my participation here tiresome.

I'm looking for a quality discussion board, not a flame forum and I'm getting tired of saying so.

Forgive me for discussing these issues with opinions that are not conventional. Apparently that offends many. Forgive me for being educated - apparently that offends many more. Forgive me for defending the interests of the gay community - apparently that offends most of all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are truly looking for a quality discussion poll why not provide one link to the "ample evidence" of how polls are manipulated in order to advance a goal. If you view it as an attack then maybe the issue lies with you. Should be easily to find this ample evidence and could actually spark a debate.

Nobody is taking issue with your opinions being unconventional, your being 'educated' or defending the interests of the gay community.

Issue has been taken with your pomposity, lies (i.e. you didn't call yourself an intellectual, but wait ... you did) and childishness.

As an intellectual you should recognize the sociological underpinnings of message boards. The anonymity of this board allows for many members to avoid the social norms of maintaining a veneer of civility. Your pomposity on the board is an example of this. To some people this pomposity is allowed in "polite society". In reality it has probably been the cause for many awkward situations and feelings of isolation on your part. Given that you probably behave the same way in public.

If you really want to change things get a thicker skin and take an objective look at these so-called flames. Or you could start your own board, requiring people to post with their real identities and adhere to the Mikey code of behaviour.

Would probably be as exciting as your personal life...

Mad_Michael · August 16, 2005

If you are truly looking for a quality discussion poll why not provide one link to the "ample evidence" of how polls are manipulated in order to advance a goal. If you view it as an attack then maybe the issue lies with you. Should be easily to find this ample evidence and could actually spark a debate.

Perhaps the debate doesn't interest me. And convincing you even less so.

Nobody is taking issue with your opinions being unconventional, your being 'educated' or defending the interests of the gay community.

Speak for yourself. You are not privy to all of the posts on this board. Leader Circle has been quite profuse with insults regarding the above.

Issue has been taken with your pomposity, lies (i.e. you didn't call yourself an intellectual, but wait ... you did) and childishness.

And issue is taken with your pettiness.

As an intellectual you should recognize the sociological underpinnings of message boards. The anonymity of this board allows for many members to avoid the social norms of maintaining a veneer of civility.

Very aware. And I find it odd to find such incivility at a Canadian forum.

Your pomposity on the board is an example of this.

Whatever you say. I won't ask for examples or "proof" of the basis of your assertion as the basis of your opinion is your own.

To some people this pomposity is allowed in "polite society". In reality it has probably been the cause for many awkward situations and feelings of isolation on your part. Given that you probably behave the same way in public.

Bemused giggles. Getting into psychiatry now are you?

If you really want to change things get a thicker skin and take an objective look at these so-called flames.

I have no desire to "change" things as you suggest. I'm just disappointed to find them the way they are.

Or you could start your own board, requiring people to post with their real identities and adhere to the Mikey code of behaviour.

Or I could just quit this forum and return to all the other forums that I'm a longtime member (and moderator) of.

Would probably be as exciting as your personal life...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, gotta get that personal insult in there...

Enough is enough.

Bye.

P.S. Congratulations in running another one out of your little sandbox. If you want a flame war, you're going to have to look somewhere else to find one. I don't play those kind of games. I just walk away.

Argus · August 16, 2005

As I stated I am a supporter of the CPC and don't like the 12 percent lead the Liberals have in the most recent strategic council poll. But, Allan Gregg is a reputable pollster. So while I don't like those results I accept them at face value.

Is there such a thing as a disreputable pollster? I take every poll with a pinch of salt. To take them at face value I'd want to see the actual data; the questions asked, what was asked before, what the preface was, and where and when they were asked and on what basis those decisions were made. It is fairly easy to manipulate polls if you want to. As someone said in an earlier post, if you simply arrange to call in the daytime you're eliminating most of the working folk from your poll and going to get difference results. You'll also likely get more female respondants, which as we know, tends to strongly influence a poll.

shoop · August 16, 2005

Is there such a thing as a disreputable pollster?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. Most of them don't get very much exposure. The biggest name I could point to is Frank Luntz. He worked for Bush I in the U.S. but has been exposed as being really shady. Conflicting reports, but he was involved in the Contract with America back in 1994.

August 16, 2005

M.M.

I have tried to get through to some of these less than intellectuals that Google is not an answer to all things: that it is possible to have formed opinions and to have acquired information without Internet links. I, too, have gained most of what I know from print sources and don't even remember where a great deal came from.

That seems to be difficult for this generation to grasp: steeped as they are in electronic gadgetry.

Howvwer, there are some superb posters here who can play it both ways and will not pester you for links. Don't give up. Simply ignore the foolishness for the gain of reading the others. Admittedly, I sometimes lose my temper and patience but soldier on.

Shoop, I suspect, is Poohs reversed. Call him Winnie and you will recognise the value of his childishness.

shoop · August 16, 2005

And I find it odd to find such incivility at a Canadian forum.
Bye.

P.S. Congratulations in running another one out of your little sandbox. If you want a flame war, you're going to have to look somewhere else to find one. I don't play those kind of games. I just walk away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heartily apologize for my incivility. wtf? :rolleyes:

Don't let the door smack you in the ass on your way out.

Running another one out? Mikey, you were the first. (A boy always remembers his first time.) You appeared to be a worthy adversary for the verbal sparring, alas it was only an illusion.

I'm giving 6 to 5 odds, mikey sneaks back in.

shoop · August 16, 2005

M.M.
I have tried to get through to some of these less than intellectuals that Google is not an answer to all things: that it is possible to have formed opinions and to have acquired information without Internet links. I, too, have gained most of what I know from print sources and don't even remember where a great deal came from.

Shoop, I suspect, is Poohs reversed. Call him Winnie and you will recognise the value of his childishness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka where's the love? Does "less than intellectuals" mean that you too consider yourself to be an intellectual?

I went after mikey on an issue that is pretty weak. Conspiracy theories aside most pollsters are reputable and work to deal with question order problems and other issues in their polls. If somebody wants to state an opinion that is cool and the gang. If they are talking about "ample evidence" to support their opinion then provide some. I was asking for some of this evidence so I could read it and form an opinion on my own. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a link. I have access to libraries.

Let's see I have been called a dickhead and childish by kneejerk defenders of mikey. Oh no, should I run to the moderator? Admittedly I called mikey on referring to himself as an urban intellectual. That is pompous, and childish if you look at it closely. (Counting off the minutes before Mikey's stormy return...)

THELIBERAL · August 16, 2005

RE::Running another one out? Mikey, you were the first. (A boy always remembers his first time.) You appeared to be a worthy adversary for the verbal sparring, alas it was only an illusion.

I think we have a troll!!!

Leader Circle · August 16, 2005

If you are truly looking for a quality discussion poll why not provide one link to the "ample evidence" of how polls are manipulated in order to advance a goal. If you view it as an attack then maybe the issue lies with you. Should be easily to find this ample evidence and could actually spark a debate.
Perhaps the debate doesn't interest me. And convincing you even less so.
Nobody is taking issue with your opinions being unconventional, your being 'educated' or defending the interests of the gay community.
Speak for yourself. You are not privy to all of the posts on this board. Leader Circle has been quite profuse with insults regarding the above.
Issue has been taken with your pomposity, lies (i.e. you didn't call yourself an intellectual, but wait ... you did) and childishness.
And issue is taken with your pettiness.
As an intellectual you should recognize the sociological underpinnings of message boards. The anonymity of this board allows for many members to avoid the social norms of maintaining a veneer of civility.
Very aware. And I find it odd to find such incivility at a Canadian forum.
Your pomposity on the board is an example of this.
Whatever you say. I won't ask for examples or "proof" of the basis of your assertion as the basis of your opinion is your own.
To some people this pomposity is allowed in "polite society". In reality it has probably been the cause for many awkward situations and feelings of isolation on your part. Given that you probably behave the same way in public.
Bemused giggles. Getting into psychiatry now are you?
If you really want to change things get a thicker skin and take an objective look at these so-called flames.
I have no desire to "change" things as you suggest. I'm just disappointed to find them the way they are.
Or you could start your own board, requiring people to post with their real identities and adhere to the Mikey code of behaviour.
Or I could just quit this forum and return to all the other forums that I'm a longtime member (and moderator) of.
Would probably be as exciting as your personal life...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, gotta get that personal insult in there...
Enough is enough.

Bye.

P.S. Congratulations in running another one out of your little sandbox. If you want a flame war, you're going to have to look somewhere else to find one. I don't play those kind of games. I just walk away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bye bye Michael.

Under the advice of Greg, I will refrain from getting too emotional and sensitive in my farewell to you! Good luck in your future endeavours!

Leader!

shoop · August 16, 2005

RE::Running another one out? Mikey, you were the first. (A boy always remembers his first time.) You appeared to be a worthy adversary for the verbal sparring, alas it was only an illusion.
I think we have a troll!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks LIB. Although you use those annoying smilies far too much.

Argus · August 16, 2005

Is there such a thing as a disreputable pollster?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. Most of them don't get very much exposure. The biggest name I could point to is Frank Luntz. He worked for Bush I in the U.S. but has been exposed as being really shady. Conflicting reports, but he was involved in the Contract with America back in 1994.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me put it another way. On what basis do you refer to Gregg as a "reputable" pollster and suggest he would not, however slightly, tailor a poll to the taste of those paying hm for that poll. I mean, in the days where "reputable" companies like Arthur Anderson are caught tailoring their audits to suit corporate customers who says comparatively piddling little pollsters like Gregg wouldn't do the same? And please don't say the entire corporate world learned a lesson from Arthur Anderson. Some did, some didn't.

shoop · August 16, 2005

Let me put it another way. On what basis do you refer to Gregg as a "reputable" pollster and suggest he would not, however slightly, tailor a poll to the taste of those paying hm for that poll. I mean, in the days where "reputable" companies like Arthur Anderson are caught tailoring their audits to suit corporate customers who says comparatively piddling little pollsters like Gregg wouldn't do the same? And please don't say the entire corporate world learned a lesson from Arthur Anderson. Some did, some didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Canadian Association of Journalists covers reputable pollsters in their code of ethics.

"We should use polls prominently only when we know the full context of the results: the names of the sponsor and the polling agency; the population from which the sample was drawn; the sample size, margin of error, type of interview; the dates when the poll was taken and the exact wording and order of the questions. When possible we should broadcast or publish this information.

Polls commissioned by special interest groups and politically sponsored think tanks and institutes are especially suspect. It is easy to frame questions or choose a sample designed to produce an answer favourable to a point of view."

Gregg's polls get used prominently, ergo they have met the above criteria.

Dude, the analogy to the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal is tenous and lame. Most big pollsters in Canada do political work as a means of building name recognition for the big money ... market research.