Canadian Political Polls

jdobbin · August 22, 2007

Sorry....but anywhere you find a conflict where Islam is involved, Al Quaeda will be watching closely. Even though Muslims are killing Muslims in Darfur, if Western forces "desecrate" Islamic soil, Al Quaeda's murderous presence would soon be felt - along with all the bloody beheadings and roadside bombs. Although the Western world does not want the so-called "war on terror" to be a war against Islam - Al Quaeda encourages it. They want to weaken and divide Western society - the non-believers - the infidels - the blasphemers. They measure time differently than the West. We tend to lurch from election to election - Al Quaeda has all the time in the world and while we fight among ourselves, arguing whether this "war" is worth it - they are consolidating their fear campaign and religious fervour.....and country by country, from the inside out, they want an Islamic Caliphate that will rule the world - even if it takes 200 years.

I've seen no evidence that the African Union which is comprised of many Christian Africans has been subjected to IEDs and roadside bombs. The major problems their forces have had is not enough people, equipment or money. The mission has been peacekeeping on the cheap.

Not everything in the world has to turn into a crusade against Muslims.

Keepitsimple · August 22, 2007

I've seen no evidence that the African Union which is comprised of many Christian Africans has been subjected to IEDs and roadside bombs. The major problems their forces have had is not enough people, equipment or money. The mission has been peacekeeping on the cheap.
Not everything in the world has to turn into a crusade against Muslims.

You are correct, very little of that is going on today. African Union forces - even if some are Christian, are not the same as soldiers from Canada, the UK, United States, etc. (i.e. the West). In the context of Darfur, Muslims are not the problem, per se.....I'm saying if Western countries, as those described above, enter the fray, it will draw Al Queada into the "battle". I do not consider Al Queada Muslims - they are criminal terrorists who murderously distort the Koran and Islam to further their own goals.

jdobbin · August 23, 2007

Opposition to mission in Afghanistan rises sharply according to CROP poll.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

In a CROP poll released yesterday, the percentage of respondents who opposed sending troops from Quebec rose to 68 per cent from 57 per cent after Pte. Longtin's death. Also, 69 per cent wanted troops withdrawn before the 2009 deadline, compared with 57 per cent before the soldier's death on Sunday.
CROP had begun the poll last Friday. Midway through the survey, Pte. Longtin's death was announced and the firm noticed a change within the next two days.

Michael Bluth · August 23, 2007

Hmmm, the opposition to the mission in one province rose after the first casualty from that province in a long time???

I don't see a connection at all. :rolleyes:

Vancouver King · August 23, 2007

Opposition to mission in Afghanistan rises sharply according to CROP poll.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

And so it begins. Fresh on the heels of an upbeat national SES sounding, CROP records the inevitable melting of govt support in Quebec over that province's increased oppostion to war, jolted into sharp focus by death within the province's Van Doos.

Remember this turning point, hindsight might declare this was when Tory hopes for a majority were laid to rest.

jdobbin · August 23, 2007

And so it begins. Fresh on the heels of an upbeat national SES sounding, CROP records the inevitable melting of govt support in Quebec over that province's increased oppostion to war, jolted into sharp focus by death within the province's Van Doos.
Remember this turning point, hindsight might declare this was when Tory hopes for a majority were laid to rest.

It certainly doesn't look like gains in Quebec can be made as long as the situation is as volatile in Quebec. I'd day that their hopes in the by-elections are greatly reduced although I don't know the issues right on the ground in some of those ridings.

M.Dancer · August 24, 2007

An Election called because of Afghanistan would force me to vote Tory......otherwise I would vote for my Liberal MP.

Sad but I would not vote for surrender.

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

An Election called because of Afghanistan would force me to vote Tory......otherwise I would vote for my Liberal MP.
Sad but I would not vote for surrender.

It is probably why the Liberals are not supporting Duceppe at the moment. It doesn't mean the three parties won't have reasons of their own to vote down a throne speech. For the Liberals, it could be the environment since it is their own private member's bill that is being ignored. The C-30 Clean Air Act also has their support and the Tories now reject it because of the changes.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

It is probably why the Liberals are not supporting Duceppe at the moment. It doesn't mean the three parties won't have reasons of their own to vote down a throne speech. For the Liberals, it could be the environment since it is their own private member's bill that is being ignored. The C-30 Clean Air Act also has their support and the Tories now reject it because of the changes.

Great stuff dobbin.

Stephane Dion doesn't have the balls to vote down the Throne speech. Nobody thinks it will happen.

Who gives a flying f*ck if their PMB is ignored. There is a reason why 98% of PMBs never become law. Nice work though. :rolleyes:

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

You are correct, very little of that is going on today. African Union forces - even if some are Christian, are not the same as soldiers from Canada, the UK, United States, etc. (i.e. the West). In the context of Darfur, Muslims are not the problem, per se.....I'm saying if Western countries, as those described above, enter the fray, it will draw Al Queada into the "battle". I do not consider Al Queada Muslims - they are criminal terrorists who murderously distort the Koran and Islam to further their own goals.

Canada's diplomat was kicked out today.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Sudan expelled the Canadian and European Union envoys from the country Thursday for "meddling in its affairs," according to the state news agency.
Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that Nuala Lawlor, the charge d'affaires in Sudan, has been asked to leave.

"We have asked the Sudanese authorities why they have expelled her," Foreign Affairs spokesperson Rodney Moore told CTV.ca Thursday.

"In the finest example of Canadian diplomacy, she has stood up for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law in Sudan."

Al Qaeda already has a beef with Canada over Afghanistan, support for the African Union and just being Canada.

I mostly see the behaviour in Sudan being the result of cowards. I've never seen any indication that they are interested in roadside bombs and suicide. Nor do I think Sudan is likely to supplied with such the way Iran and Pakistan supply Afghanistan.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

I mostly see the behaviour in Sudan being the result of cowards. I've never seen any indication that they are interested in roadside bombs and suicide. Nor do I think Sudan is likely to supplied with such the way Iran and Pakistan supply Afghanistan.

Is there any reason why this is completely off the thread topic? Anything to do with the 'mischaracterization' about what a governing party can do with PMBs? :rolleyes:

jbg · August 24, 2007

The C-30 Clean Air Act also has their support and the Tories now reject it because of the changes.

Given its fiscal impact the C-30 Clean Air Act should have been tabled as a money bill. I have my doubts that the voters would be amused by the costs of complying with Kyoto so no one had the guts to properly table it as a confidence vote.

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

Given its fiscal impact the C-30 Clean Air Act should have been tabled as a money bill. I have my doubts that the voters would be amused by the costs of complying with Kyoto so no one had the guts to properly table it as a confidence vote.

The Speaker of the house disagreed.

In any event, the Tories can make any vote one about confidence in the government. They have chosen not to do so.

Let me repeat that: the government can make *every* vote a confidence vote if they want to.

The Opposition is restricted to making confidence votes that force an election to money bills and throne speeches.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

The Speaker of the house disagreed.
In any event, the Tories can make any vote one about confidence in the government. They have chosen not to do so.

Let me repeat that: the government can make *every* vote a confidence vote if they want to.

The Opposition is restricted to making confidence votes that force an election to money bills and throne speeches.

Still no response about the falsehood relating to what the Government can do with respect to Private Member's Bills. Any reason for that?

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

Ipsos did an analysis of all the polls on Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...f80&k=62450

n a string of polls for the National Defence Department in late 2006 and early 2007, Ipsos Reid tweaked the questions even further, and found dramatic differences in response.
When the question referred to military operations that help to secure "the environment for the civilian population" through activities "that include combat," backing shot up to the low 60s.

After a lengthy preamble that said Canada is trying to improve human rights for women and build a more free and democratic society in Afghanistan, another question drew support from 81%.

It suggests that explaining the purpose of the mission is all-important if the government wants to boost the tepid support among Canadians for the operation, said Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies.

"The polling has indicated to the government that it is not doing a good job of communicating why we are in Afghanistan. The government recognizes that but consistently refuses to do anything about it," he said.

"Unless the government starts telling Canadians often, frequently, why we are there, I don't think the numbers will change very much."

Silence has proved to be a problem in terms of support for the the mission.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

Ipsos did an analysis of all the polls on Afghanistan.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...f80&k=62450

Silence has proved to be a problem in terms of support for the the mission.

Peter MacKay is a much more effective communicator than Gordon O'Connor. He'll be able to put forth the Government's message on this mission quite well.

Fortunata · August 25, 2007

Peter MacKay is a much more effective communicator than Gordon O'Connor. He'll be able to put forth the Government's message on this mission quite well.

I remember a communication from Peter MacKay that wen't something like, I won't merge the Progressive Conservative Party with Reform/Alliance. It's really hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth when he is already a known liar.

jdobbin · August 25, 2007

I remember a communication from Peter MacKay that wen't something like, I won't merge the Progressive Conservative Party with Reform/Alliance. It's really hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth when he is already a known liar.

He has a record of making sexist remarks as well.

Fortunata · August 25, 2007

He has a record of making sexist remarks as well.

That's right, how could I forget? He thinks women should stay home and knit; if they don't he calls them dogs. Nice guy. He does communicate his true thoughts well tho don't you think?

jbg · August 26, 2007

He has a record of making sexist remarks as well.

Just ask Belinda.

jdobbin · August 27, 2007

Decima poll on public reaction to cabinet shuffle.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...26?hub=Politics

A new poll suggests most people greeted the federal cabinet shuffle earlier this month with a yawn.
The Canadian Press-Decima survey found 54 per cent of respondents said the shuffle would have no real impact on the government's performance. Only about one person in six felt the changes announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper would improve things. Even among Conservative voters, only 37 per cent said the shuffle would bolster the government's performance.

Although the shift of Peter MacKay from Foreign Affairs to Defence as a replacement for Gordon O'Connor was seen as a change for the better by 21 per cent of respondents, 54 per cent said it wouldn't make a difference.

The survey suggests the changes didn't help lure voters to the Tory camp. While nine per cent said the shuffle would make them more likely to vote Conservative, 10 per cent said they'd be less likely to support the Tories.

Decima president Bruce Anderson said the results underscore changing attitudes toward the minutiae of politics, such as cabinet shuffles, especially in the summer doldrums.

As expected, the cabinet shuffle hasn't done anything to really change perceptions. And if the government is prorogued, we might not see what these ministers are capable of until very late fall.

Edited August 27, 2007 by jdobbin

Michael Bluth · August 27, 2007

And if the government is prorogued, we might not see what these ministers are capable of until very late fall.

Ministers can only show what they are 'capable' of while the House is sitting?

Silly me, I thought they ran their departments year round.

jbg · August 27, 2007

Ministers can only show what they are 'capable' of while the House is sitting?
Silly me, I thought they ran their departments year round.

No, they're only runnig their departments when they're mugging for the media at Question Period.

jdobbin · August 27, 2007

No, they're only runnig their departments when they're mugging for the media at Question Period.

Until Parliament is called into session , it is difficult to assess just how effective a cabinet minister is doing. It isn't just Question Period where they are assessed but also in various committee meetings. This is where O'Connor came in for particular scrutiny. Before that, many had said he was doing a good job because he was getting military equipment purchased. A news conference is a poor substitute for asking questions about important decisions.

Michael Bluth · August 28, 2007

Until Parliament is called into session , it is difficult to assess just how effective a cabinet minister is doing. It isn't just Question Period where they are assessed but also in various committee meetings. This is where O'Connor came in for particular scrutiny. Before that, many had said he was doing a good job because he was getting military equipment purchased. A news conference is a poor substitute for asking questions about important decisions.

But weren't a couple of his comments on the TV show Quesiton Period part of his undoing.....