Canadian Political Polls

[jdobbin]

Sorry, but you have no proof of this. So I'll put it down to your interpretation of the numbers and nothing more.

Well, tell me what you think of the first two Ipsos polls in November. You dispute that those don't look good?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election

The Strategic Counsel poll taken after the Shreiber announcement has pushed the Tories down compared to even the last CTV/Globe poll.

This is what the pollster said of tonight's CTV poll.

Tim Woolstencroft, a managing partner with The Strategic Counsel, told CTV.ca that anytime the Conservatives come under the microscope, the Liberals stand to benefit.

"When the Conservatives hit a bump in the road, the data suggests the Liberals are the default opposition party to the government," he said. "If a voter is interested in defeating the government, they're going to have to align themselves with the Liberals."

I suppose it is their interpretation of the numbers.

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[Martin Chriton]

Well, tell me what you think of the first two Ipsos polls on November. You dispute that those don't look good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election

The Strategic Counsel poll taken after the Shreiber announcement has pushed the Tories down compared to even the last CTV/Globe poll.

The difference between those two polls is sampling error. It's highly doubtful anyone would be stupid enough to change their vote over something between an Ex-PM and a convicted criminal.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Martin Chriton

[jdobbin]

The difference between those two polls is sampling error. It's highly doubtful anyone would be stupid enough to change their vote over something between an Ex-PM and a convicted criminal.

I suppose we'll continue to see the sampling error argument until we see a few more polls on the subject.

[Smallc]

The difference between those two polls is sampling error. It's highly doubtful anyone would be stupid enough to change their vote over something between an Ex-PM and a convicted criminal.

Why is that so hard to believe?

[Michael Bluth]

The Tories were edging upwards over the fall but were mostly still in that 36% range throughout October. The first couple of weeks of November looked good for them but the Mulroney news has been like a cold shower.

But last week you were misrepresenting things by talking about averages over Octover rather than trends at the end of the month.

Any reason for this retrospective honesty? One poll is a cold shower?

Forget that last line. Better that you be encouraged to continue behaving honestly. It really isn't that tough is it?

Good work!

[capricorn]

Well, tell me what you think of the first two Ipsos polls in November. You dispute that those don't look good?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election

The Strategic Counsel poll taken after the Shreiber announcement has pushed the Tories down compared to even the last CTV/Globe poll.

This is what the pollster said of tonight's CTV poll.

I suppose it is their interpretation of the numbers.

Polls come and go like farts in the wind. That is why I really don't take much notice of them except when you post your interpretation of their meaning. When you ascribe a downward trend for the Conservatives to the Mulroney/Schreiber case, I call you on your assumption.

You pounce on the issue-du-jour, i.e. Mulroney/Schrieber, to back your assertion that the Conservatives are losing ground. There are other dynamics at play in Canadian politics apart from this soap opera. I happen to think other things are on the minds of Canadians that could explain the yoyo effect in the polls.

Tim Woolstencroft, a managing partner with The Strategic Counsel, told CTV.ca that anytime the Conservatives come under the microscope, the Liberals stand to benefit.

"When the Conservatives hit a bump in the road, the data suggests the Liberals are the default opposition party to the government," he said. "If a voter is interested in defeating the government, they're going to have to align themselves with the Liberals."

So what are these guys telling us? That the Liberals are the opposition? What a revelation.

Edited November 13, 2007 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

Polls come and go like farts in the wind. That is why I really don't take much notice of them except when you post your interpretation of their meaning. When you ascribe a downward trend for the Conservatives to the Mulroney/Schreiber case, I call you on your assumption.

You pounce on the issue-du-jour, i.e. Mulroney/Schrieber, to back your assertion that the Conservatives are losing ground. There are other dynamics at play in Canadian politics apart from this soap opera. I happen to think other things are on the minds of Canadians that could explain the yoyo effect in the polls.

Tim Woolstencroft, a managing partner with The Strategic Counsel, told CTV.ca that anytime the Conservatives come under the microscope, the Liberals stand to benefit.

"When the Conservatives hit a bump in the road, the data suggests the Liberals are the default opposition party to the government," he said. "If a voter is interested in defeating the government, they're going to have to align themselves with the Liberals."

So what are these guys telling us? That the Liberals are the opposition? What a revelation.

By all means think what you may about the results and why they are what they are. Certainly polls come and go but one thing is certain, I think that close numbers like these will probably affect confidence measures that could result in the fall of the government. It would take an extremely confident government to make the "fish or cut bait" stance this week. By that same token, numbers like these also don't indicate to the Opposition that a change in government is imminent.

Perhaps it isn't just the Shreiber issue at play. Perhaps the issue of not advocating for Canadian citizens on death row. Or it could be that some people are opposed to a Senate referendum. Or maybe some people have been underwhelmed by the budget.

Here's what Donolo of Strategic says:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

“Two weeks ago, when they had their mini-budget, with billions and billions of tax cuts, they couldn't have imagined that the Canadian public would thank them by seeing their numbers drop,” he said.

“I think that the timing of the Mulroney affair couldn't be worse for the Conservatives. They had obviously stage-managed this plan, and less than two weeks later they're embroiled.”

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Why is that so hard to believe?

The shadow Mulroney casts is a large one. Harper should have been trying to keep his distance from him all along. He once left the PCs and repudiated the man. However, since being elected there has been a slow attempt to rehabilitate Mulroney. Harper has said some kind words about Mulroney in recent years and now he is cutting all ties to keep his reputation from being tarnished.

There have been a few polls over the last months that show people still don't think highly of Mulroney. I don't think anyone should be surprised that Friday's announcement was likely to make some people bristle.

[Smallc]

The shadow Mulroney casts is a large one. Harper should have been trying to keep his distance from him all along. He once left the PCs and repudiated the man. However, since being elected there has been a slow attempt to rehabilitate Mulroney. Harper has said some kind words about Mulroney in recent years and now he is cutting all ties to keep his reputation from being tarnished.

There have been a few polls over the last months that show people still don't think highly of Mulroney. I don't think anyone should be surprised that Friday's announcement was likely to make some people bristle.

I just realized were from the same place lol.

[Michael Bluth]

Brian Mulroney has called for a full public inquiry.

From today's Globe. (I think the rbcinvest back door has been closed.)

OTTAWA — Former prime minister Brian Mulroney is calling for the government to launch a full-fledged public inquiry into allegations against him, and skip the review by a neutral adviser announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Mr. Mulroney is to issue a statement Tuesday in which he will assert that the only way to “put this matter to rest” is through a full public inquiry, according to a spokesman, long-time adviser Luc Lavoie, who read the statement to The Globe and Mail.

Talk about a way to get out in front of a story. It's uncommon for a guilty man to call for a full public inquiry.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[myata]

Liberals and Conservatives are now neck to neck, at 32% each: CTV story

Paying the price for Harpers policy attics and Mulroney affair?

[jbg]

Perhaps it isn't just the Shreiber issue at play. Perhaps the issue of not advocating for Canadian citizens on death row.

Yeah. That's a good one. I'm sure the average Canadian wakes up very concerned about the fate of an expat serial murdered in Texas.

[myata]

I'm sure the average Canadian wakes up very concerned about the fate of an expat serial murdered in Texas.

No - rather the role our, Canadian government plays in it.

[Smallc]

Yeah. That's a good one. I'm sure the average Canadian wakes up very concerned about the fate of an expat serial murdered in Texas.

Everyone needs to quit turning it around and making it sound like we are in favour of murder. It's the principle of the thing. The government is supposed to look out for its citizens abroad, no matter what they have done. Now, what does complicate this for me is that the guy got 16 years in jail, but asked for the death penalty, and now he changed his mind. Come to think of it, if the US didn't want to put him to death in the first place, why are they so set on going through with it now?

[old_bold&cold]

Everyone needs to quit turning it around and making it sound like we are in favour of murder. It's the principle of the thing. The government is supposed to look out for its citizens abroad, no matter what they have done. Now, what does complicate this for me is that the guy got 16 years in jail, but asked for the death penalty, and now he changed his mind. Come to think of it, if the US didn't want to put him to death in the first place, why are they so set on going through with it now?

No it is no the principal of the thing at all. It is just a new policy by a new government. The Liberals were left thinking and yes they allowed this to then be pulled way too far left when it came to expectations of the people of what the government does to protect them. That is it. There are no precidences as it is always a changing policy and will change with each new government, and even while the same government is sitting.

Just because you can not see that the government does not want to be your all consuming protector if you break laws in civilized countries with fair court sysytems, and yes they may well make a judgement call on just how far they will go to bat for you, will need to be based on the evidence. That means that Canadian law does not follow you around while you travel, but it can be of assistence when you are treated unfairly by another country.

This is a center right government and that means there are going to be limits on how far the government will go in assisting you, after you have stood trial in a fair court system. Get over it, that is how it is going to be. If you do not like that then may I suggest you find a country who will do all the things you want, and go there. We may again see a left thinking government here in Canada, but not for quite a while. So if all the things are so important to you then seeking another place would suit you better. As for me I like it here and yes I am hoping that we take our government a little more right in the future, as it is needed to correct the path to the left that so many years of Liberal rule. Hell we are not even back to the center yet and the cradle to grave types are already screaming.

[M.Dancer]

It's uncommon for a guilty man to call for a full public inquiry.

In which case, does this mean you accept that Paul Martin has nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal?

[Michael Bluth]

In which case, does this mean you accept that Paul Martin has nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal?

I accept that Paul Martin did not personally benefit from the theft of taxpayer money in Adscam.

However, Martin was unaware of the corruption taking place under his watch. He was guilty of incompetence.

[capricorn]

Perhaps it isn't just the Shreiber issue at play. Perhaps the issue of not advocating for Canadian citizens on death row. Or it could be that some people are opposed to a Senate referendum. Or maybe some people have been underwhelmed by the budget.

The causes for the fluctuation in the polls as proclaimed by political pundits and pollsters are indeed numerous. All are open to speculation.

[jdobbin]

Yeah. That's a good one. I'm sure the average Canadian wakes up very concerned about the fate of an expat serial murdered in Texas.

I'm sure you don't being the left Democrat that you are.

In Canada, the death penalty has been opposed by all political parties...until now.

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

No it is no the principal of the thing at all. It is just a new policy by a new government. The Liberals were left thinking and yes they allowed this to then be pulled way too far left when it came to expectations of the people of what the government does to protect them. That is it. There are no precidences as it is always a changing policy and will change with each new government, and even while the same government is sitting.

Debate the policy in Parliament rather than make a unilateral decision on it. Even supportive Tory media are saying this.

In any event, it isn't a policy that people in cities or women are liking that much. I don't know how winning more support from Alberta helps wins seats in Toronto.

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[gc1765]

It's uncommon for a guilty man to call for a full public inquiry.

Unless he wants you to think he's innocent

[gc1765]

And why didn't Mulroney call for an inquiry back in 2003, or 2006? Why did he wait until an inquiry was already likely imminent before calling for one himself?

[old_bold&cold]

Debate the policy in Parliament rather than make a unilateral decision on it. Even supportive Tory media are saying this.

In any event, it isn't a policy that people in cities or women are liking that much. I don't know how winning more support from Alberta helps wins seats in Toronto.

Are you trying to sound stupid? The government does not have to debate any policy changes at all. The government has all the power it needs to make those changes when it was elected. Just because the liberals are pouting that "they do not tell us about this or debate it" is just whining because they lost all the power they were used to having, and rightfully so. Just look at the pathetic arguments you get from that side.

Why would Harper debate policy with the opposition, he does not have to and the liberals never did when in power, so it is just sooo sad that they not cry and whine that they have no input any more. If they want input call the election tomorrow. But we know you will ot do that because you are in such pathetic shape when it comes to a political party, that there is nothing you will not stomach just so you do not have to face the voters.

[old_bold&cold]

And why didn't Mulroney call for an inquiry back in 2003, or 2006? Why did he wait until an inquiry was already likely imminent before calling for one himself?

People just do not understand th real reasons behind all of this and I do not like them but I can see them. Mulroney and Schrieber have been planing this all along, and the reason for it is because the federal immigration was about to pull the plug and extradite Schrieber back to Germany. Mulroney is a friend to Schrieber even if he denies it, and I think that all this was setup and choreographed by the both of them to force Harper's hand and have the extradition of Schrieber put off.

Mulroney probably tried to influence Harper earlier on things and Harper I would believe wanted no part in it and probably quickly stone walled any further attempts. So their try to setup the letter to the PMO etc.. Knowing that anything to do with Mulroney and airbus was a dead issue and therefore dead ended in the lower PMO. But this then allowed the case made by Schrieber that he send this months ago, and this then makes Harper call for an indenpdent advisor. In the mean time Mulroney turns the heat up so that he wants an immediate public inquirey. He and Schrieber both now know that the extradition of Schrieber will probably not go any where until this inquirey has been had and all witnesses have had their say. In the end it is all going to be some benign issue where Mulroney can claim he is forever cleared, and he has then helped his friend Schrieber stay in Canada longer. It all has to come to a head before the extraditon court this week. That is why it was fast tracked with tidbits everyday to keep the news on this and the public cry for an inquirey.

I personally think that Harper was lead into this and he will not be forgiving Mulroney for quite some time. This is one time I think harper was out gunned in setting up a series of things to get what he wanted in the end. That is going to make him even more controlling in his methods. But either way it will look good for him, as he will be seen as the one who called the inquirey, whether successful or not.

[jdobbin]

Are you trying to sound stupid? The government does not have to debate any policy changes at all. The government has all the power it needs to make those changes when it was elected. Just because the liberals are pouting that "they do not tell us about this or debate it" is just whining because they lost all the power they were used to having, and rightfully so. Just look at the pathetic arguments you get from that side.

Why would Harper debate policy with the opposition, he does not have to and the liberals never did when in power, so it is just sooo sad that they not cry and whine that they have no input any more. If they want input call the election tomorrow. But we know you will ot do that because you are in such pathetic shape when it comes to a political party, that there is nothing you will not stomach just so you do not have to face the voters.

I don't see any need here for abuse.

Political allies of the Tories are already saying it is a mistake not to debate the issue in Parliament. The belligerence some have on the issue probably accounts for some of the loss of support in the polls.