Hébert: Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper
Fri Sep 24 2010
Chantal Hébert
MONTREAL—With the NDP bleeding support left and right over the long-gun registry, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have to take matters in his own hands if he wants to head to the polls this fall.
By the most minuscule of margins, Jack Layton dodged the biggest bullet headed his way this week.
If just one more New Democrat had voted to scrap the registry, the result would have been a tie that Speaker Peter Milliken would have been bound by precedent to break in favour of the government.
The NDP would have been held responsible for paving the way to the permanent demise of the registry —an outcome Layton scrambled to avoid.
But the result still leaves him with a lot of broken eggs to mop up and not only in the half-dozen rural NDP ridings whose MPs switched sides in the days leading up to the vote.
The rationale that Layton’s refusal to whip his caucus into supporting the registry was an act of grassroots democracy is not washing with many of his urban-based constituencies. They tend to see it as a failure of leadership.
Chantal Hebert's rambling blah blah blah actually has squat to do with whether Harper would throw the switch now.
The overarching strategic reality for the Cons: because they have so polarized politics, in the next election they have to get a majority, or they will no longer be governing. Certainly there is a chance that they could survive as government with another minority. And we could argue that endlessly. But the question is moot. Because Harper Crew has to incorporate into its strategic choices the reality that if they dont get a majority, the odds are highest they will not be governing.
So it becomes a question of when are they most likely to get a majority. Because all the parties have been stalled within a narrow band of movement, and the top of that range for the Cons would see them with about the same number of seats.... the odds against them getting a majority are at least fairly high. Even with the reasonable expectation that they will make gains during the campaign.
The goal is within reach, but difficult enough that timing is critical. It is not the same as the choice in 2008- where just trying for a majority was good enough. Last time they could expect to keep government without a majority, and each election weakened the Liberal Party.
The Conservatives get to roll the dice once more. And of course, they dont have the choice not to- to just stay where they are... which works well for them, thank you very much.
They have 2 years left for that choice. Because they are stalled, opinion among swing voters about them does not change; and both the coming economic conditions and government fiscal situation are likely to worsen their prospects for making gains.... just waiting for things to get better is not good enough.
In fact, 'external' conditions for the Harper government will probably never be better than now. The likelihood is that they get a little bit worse over time.
People seize on that as the reason Harper will call an election now or soon. But it isnt that simple- because of that bar of needing to get a majority. If it doesnt look like you can get a majority now, then the fact conditions will probably be worse later does not do you any good. If you arent likely to get a majority, then you stay with what you have, and work to change the strategic situation. If nothing else, you wait to seize on a lucky break change in the conditions. Even that is a better plan than trying to get a majority when it isnt there... just because conditions dont look like they are going to get better.
So the Harper government is not going to call an election for the legions of reasons that Hebert and others bring up.
But those reasons are enough for them to seriously look at whether maybe they can force the situation.
What is Harper Crew good at? Good at campaigning and have a far superior organization. Not sufficient to make up the existing gap in getting a majority, but a big part of the solution. And they are good at polarizing the debate, driving the agenda. Often does not work in their favour. Backfires badly at times. But no question that they are good at getting it done, and somethimes it works for them.
So there is the solution, and why we may have an election very soon.
Stampede the voters, get them moving in a direction that there is at least a decent chance breaks in your favour. When the stampede is moving, poll like hell to see if the ballot question is having the desired effect. If it does, throw the switch on the election and run with the ballot question.
If you aren't getting the desired effect, then just carry on as you were. Not good that you dont get to use the conditions probably as good as they get, and not good that the ballot question of the Coalition bogeyman is now one time cried wolf.... but wait and work for the next opportunity.
We have already been throughone itteration of this: the prorogue followed by Throne Speech and Budget Speech. The weeks before the opening of Parliament were to be for turning up the heat on the ballot question. But that whole thing was stillborn almost as soon as it was out of the gate.
This time around, if it is happening now, it will be much faster. And my guess is that if it is happening, we'll start seeing it roll out in earnest today or this weekend.
Election now speculation has been very muted, but it Started with Flaherty's speech Monday. I cant find the full text.
Its definitely a turn up the heat speech. That doesnt mean it is with an election [if things break right] in mind. But I dont think it makes any sense just for the purpose to change the channel now. The Coalition bogeyman yoked to peoples' paramount concerns of the economy, is the one big sword the Conseravtives have.
Its the one thing that is latent out there, which they could make much more of. But it wont be a big bad sword in an election if they go waving it around any old time for some immediate effect at the moment.
Flaherty's speech has been met with derision from the press corps. It is pretty weird. And Flaherty not the most likely messenger.
But it fits as an opening salvo to get attention. A weird and out of character speech from the Finance Minister will do that.
And they werent going to turn up the heat until the gun registry was off the stage.
The gun registry as issue would muddy the ballot question. More to the point: its for use in the ridings, and might even harm them if it stayed on the national stage. So its off already. The decks are cleared.
And we'll see.
This is a cute article to make a story when there is not much of one.
First even if the polls are right and the NDP were down then the context would change just with a calling of the election.
*** In this case I actually know about this particular poll. ***
In this poll they asked gun registry questions first which performs two functions. On the one hand it exaggerates any actual gun registry bias where it exists by providing a distorted context to the "how would you vote" question. Secondly it sets up, before the interpretation an understanding of what the explanation for a phenomenon you have not seen yet actually is.
I think dishonest polls like this should be illegal and all opinion polls asking a how shall you vote question should not just tell you the lovely stuff like MOE etc. but they should disclose any questions asked before the ballot question or better yet require that they ask this first.
Of course the polling companies would not like that because they make a lot of money selling highly manipulated questions with the pre-context the method of manipulation.
I don't know who the client was but I am disgusted by a company like Harris Decima that would ask a highly charged partisan series of questions before a ballot question and not admit that they did that in the results.
People should complain to any media publishing this poll.
Edited only to correct distracting typos -- no actual words changed
The NDP has been playing games with the gun registry lately, and therefore it's certainly possible that women and urban voters may have been turned off by it and that some of that support may be moving to the Liberals. That's what the Harris-Decima poll shows.
I left the Liberals in 2004 because I was not happy with the right-turn the party was taking, but this week I was proud of the Liberals for the first time in a while. On this issue they took a more progressive stand than the NDP.
I see you cross-posted with Sean. Otherwise it looks like you are talking is if he said nothing, even though its on the very same subject.
And you'll pardon us if we're skeptical about how much it takes for you be proud [again].
This is not acurate, nor even true, in fact it is the Liberals and Conservatives in their unofficial coalition that are playing games.
No actually they did not.
The only parties playing games with the gun registry has been the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both need each other on this issue for their cyncial wedge politics games. You might have been proud of the Liberals, I have rarely been more disgusted.
In the circles I move in I think you will see this issue become a wash, so Hebert is really quite wrong. What it does though for the Liberals and Conservatives is motivate a base and raise some funds and for both of them that was the sum total of what this charade was about. There were no principles involved for either of them.
Chantal Hébert writes for a propaganda tool of the Liberal Party. I've long given up on seeing any modicum of objectivity from the Liberal Party birdcage liner that is the TO Star. Its op-ed and editorial pages serve to felate the Liberal Party while attempting to discredt anyone who hasn't had an overdose of their Atkinson kool-aid. Fuck them, they have no credibility.
Agreed (all but one) We escaped the noose they laid to retain their informal coalition. They don't care because one of the two big parties will be in charge and can twist enough arm to still wrong yet more concessions for big business. It was clearly a distract and divide issue. And it will come back just as harper and iggy promised.
Seriously make it a confidence motion, either party if they believe in it so much. Libs can use their opposition day or the cons can, well anytime they feel like it. Meanwhile we have G20 spending and imprisonment, jet fighters, prisons, omnibus budgets the liberals let ride through (along with so called leadership that can't pass a bill they put forward ). Political interfearance and the sacking of people who don't follow party lines.
And of course when the NDP asks for a debate on the census miliken(liberal regardless of speaker horsehsit) says no, when 85+% of canadians are worried about it. Its worse than how Mulroney stuffed the senate to pass the GST.
But somehow the registry is what all the hew and cry is about. Thanks liberals for nothing. This goes back to what a few of us saying iggy and may (speaking of charities that "manage" away money) are puppets for big business. Iggy has voted with the cons on everything that matters while sounding off on things that are platitudes to make some sort of visual difference as opposed to substancial differance between the two big parties. Abortion vote was all optics too.
Where are they on money issues. Oh right voting with the cons and not bothering to even separate bills they could. Well done. tell me another fairy tale. I was born at night but not last night.
Debater's comment is so far from the truth but it does expose how the NDP actually did misplay communications on this.
The NDP campaigned in part on parliamentary democracy including on the issue of free votes and committed to not whipping back-bench motions. The party did not however link their stance in this case to this commitment which in fact is far more progressive than anything the Liberals have done in a long time-- and they should have.
The NDP should have come out and said they could not whip this vote because it was a promise made. Then that would move the discussion back to the question of political "elites" controlling backbench votes by whipping and that the NDP is progressive by not doing so. In other words a communications error not a direction error. It is also not to late for the NDP to frame this in that way.
Everything else Debator said on this, I'm afraid is coming through Liberal rose-coloured glasses.
In any case, the damage to the NDP from this, if it really exists and polls conducted like the above can provide no legitimate indication, will be temporary. The only problem is the party by not communicating the rationale for the free vote effectively is giving up taking an advantage that likely would have lasted a while longer-- only because both the Liberals and the Cons already have weak points when it comes to democratic process (ones so evident that I don't think I have to enumerate them here).
Anti Gun Registry crowd is being played by Harper. And nobody is caring to point out his insincerity and hypocrisy. It should be pointed out that Harper once voted for the registry and he has been the PM for four years and the Govt. has not brought forward a bill to scrap the registry. Maybe he isnt interested in scrapping the registry. Cons want the registry to remain,if it is scrapped that is one less issue for them come election time. If they wanted it dead it would have happened a long time ago. The anti registry NDP MPs can use this effectively even the people who switched their vote can spin it and try to blame this on Cons cynicism.
Bring on an election it is about to backfire in Harper's face as the Conservatives take the economy and make a mess of it says so long Harper pack your bags as the red neck from Alberta finds his way home.
Ford will win the mayor's election because of Toronto's influx of immigration which has overcrowded the city and Canadians immigration is about to backfire in its face as little India is the place you just don't want to be especially if your a white women who isn't into living in hell as the hatred is real there is no mistaking the culture where women are second rate. As the prices of homes escalate as the only people who can seem to afford living in Canada is immigrants from other places as services and resources in major cities are almost impossible to find.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+avoid+European+style+immigration+backlash/3572870/story.html
Speaking of "free votes", its interesting that Iggy doesn't seem to be able to "crack the whip" on abortion rights as we saw when the Liberals put forth a motion on abortion rights and it lost because the Liberal caucus is still "honeycombed" catholic religipous freaks who oppose a woman's right to choose - and Iggy doesn't dare to try to whip those people.
Election is in the air without a doubt. Flaherty's address to the Canadian Club, Harper trying to look good (despite camera angles showing him speaking to a near empty UN) speaking at the UN, the lone gun fiasco and census cock-up are all clear signs.
Time to revive the coalition scenario. There remain no clear winners here. But Canadians as a whole do not want a Tory/Harper country. Work to be done.
Bring on an election it is about to backfire in Harper's face as the Conservatives take the economy and make a mess of it says so long Harper pack your bags as the red neck from Alberta finds his way home.
Ford will win the mayor's election because of Toronto's influx of immigration which has overcrowded the city and Canadians immigration is about to backfire in its face as little India is the place you just don't want to be especially if your a white women who isn't into living in hell as the hatred is real there is no mistaking the culture where women are second rate. As the prices of homes escalate as the only people who can seem to afford living in Canada is immigrants from other places as services and resources in major cities are almost impossible to find.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+avoid+European+style+immigration+backlash/3572870/story.html
Are you saying this is what the article is saying or that this is your opinion-- if it is the second that is a very hateful inaccurate and offensive post that is not allowed here.
We do not tar whole cultures as being racist or sexist it is a behaviour we hold individuals to account for.
Secondly, some immigrants can afford new houses, some can't just like the rest of society. Many immigrants live and work here in terrble economic conditions for a number of reasons let's not pretend that they are universally successful or that the rest of Canadians are not.
Please revise your post to indicate if that really was your opnion or one you were reporting.
Fri Sep 24 2010
Chantal Hébert
MONTREAL—With the NDP bleeding support left and right over the long-gun registry, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have to take matters in his own hands if he wants to head to the polls this fall.
By the most minuscule of margins, Jack Layton dodged the biggest bullet headed his way this week.
If just one more New Democrat had voted to scrap the registry, the result would have been a tie that Speaker Peter Milliken would have been bound by precedent to break in favour of the government.
Is this legally correct? I understood the vote to scrap the registry was based on a private members' bill. It certainly wasn't a confidence matter. While Miliken, as Speaker, would not be subject to the Liberal Party whip to vote against scrapping the registry, I don't see why precedent would bind him to support the affirmative either. I think he would be free to vote his conscience. I have no idea whether he has taken a prior position on the issue, but he was a member of the government that had introduced the registry. Even though this wasn't a necessary premise to support the rest of the substance of her article, when Hebert leads off with such a dubious statement, it does call into question whether she really knows what she's talking about.
The tradition is that the speaker always votes to maintain the status quo and to continue debate. The bill voted on this week was a Liberal motion to kill the private members bill to kill the long gun registry - the speaker would have voted against that motion to kill the bill. HOWEVER, if he had cast the tie breaking vote to defeat the Liberal motion - the reverse would have happened if there had been a tied vote on the actual private members bill - the speaker would then have voted no to the bill to preserve the status quo of keeping the LGR.
With all the revelations about the expenses around the G8 and G20 summits, if Harper were to pull the plug and call a fall election, the Conservatives would be roasted on a spit by the electorate.
Also, I love the comments from John Baird about 'Toronto elites' dominating the Liberals and NDP, and then Harper goes out and gets a 'Toronto elite' as his new Chief of Staff.
I wonder out of which side of their mouths will the Conservatives be talking next week!
Yes and miliken did a nice hatchet job on Layton when he put forth the emergency debate motion. LGR only the illusion of doing something, hence all the media around it. It literally costs next to nothing compared to the real issues we are facing.
Interesting ending to the week though. Harper appoints a Toronto Elitist, former mulroney now onyx corp banker president to the PMO replacing guy digiorno(sp) let the turnstly continue, more brown bags can't be far off. Then we get the Gsummit spending...Good luck in the polls next week Harpy. Even some of the conbots are having a touch time defending 14,000.00 for glow sticks.
Debater's comment is so far from the truth but it does expose how the NDP actually did misplay communications on this.
The NDP campaigned in part on parliamentary democracy including on the issue of free votes and committed to not whipping back-bench motions. The party did not however link their stance in this case to this commitment which in fact is far more progressive than anything the Liberals have done in a long time-- and they should have.
The NDP should have come out and said they could not whip this vote because it was a promise made. Then that would move the discussion back to the question of political "elites" controlling backbench votes by whipping and that the NDP is progressive by not doing so. In other words a communications error not a direction error. It is also not to late for the NDP to frame this in that way.
Everything else Debator said on this, I'm afraid is coming through Liberal rose-coloured glasses.
In any case, the damage to the NDP from this, if it really exists and polls conducted like the above can provide no legitimate indication, will be temporary. The only problem is the party by not communicating the rationale for the free vote effectively is giving up taking an advantage that likely would have lasted a while longer-- only because both the Liberals and the Cons already have weak points when it comes to democratic process (ones so evident that I don't think I have to enumerate them here).
There are basically 2 subjects in Hébert's column.
1. The first involves the issue of a possible election. I agree that a lot of her comments on this subject are speculation - that's what columnists do. They explore possibilities as to what might happen in the next election based on current political events and how they can lead to one outcome or another outcome. She is basing some of her discussion on the numbers from the recent Harris-Decima poll (the validity of which you have some problems with as you pointed out above).
2. The second topic Hébert is discussing is the way in which for the first time this year the Liberals may have outplayed the NDP and how the NDP may be losing women, urban and Quebec voters to the Liberals based on the gun registry issue. In her appearance on At Issue last night, Hébert also says that she thinks the NDP may be hurt in her riding of Outremont as a result:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2010/10/23/n...
Debator, you and Hébert are relying on a poll that lead with questions about the registry-- this exaggerates the impact of opinions related to the registry.
If we asked questions first about accountability and honesty in government then the Cons would go down.
If we asked questions about democratic process and the ability for parliamentarians to have a free vote then even on this topic the NDP vote might go up.
If we asked questions about the need for stability in difficult economic times then the Con vote might go up.
Any poll that leads with questions on other topics -- of a partisan nature will have a result that is nothing more than of propaganda value. It is nothing more than manipulation where you effectively purchase the result you want. It is only slightly better than not having a poll at all and making up the numbers you want.
No I did not have some "problems" with the validity. I thought I was clear in saying it has absolutely NO validity whatsoever, nada, bogus as a three dollar bill. Does that make my position clear enough for you that you can actually engage with what I am saying rather than half acknowledge it and then proceed along your merry way without actually addressing the substantive structural problem with your entire argument?
There are some polls that I suspect-- this one I actually know the order of the questions and what was asked and therefore I know the poll and every political conclusion drawn from it including (sorry) your own and Hébert's is bullshit.
Now, it is possible Hébert is not aware of what was asked first but you are. Will you choose to ignore that fact or at least address it?
Do you really think that a poll of public opinion support, when it is preceded by questions relating to a specific political story for the purpose of altering the result, is valid?
Before you answer, recognize that polls such as this have been done to hurt the Liberals as well as help them as in cases like this.
2. The second topic Hébert is discussing is the way in which for the first time this year the Liberals may have outplayed the NDP and how the NDP may be losing women, urban and Quebec voters to the Liberals based on the gun registry issue. In her appearance on At Issue last night, Hébert also says that she thinks the NDP may be hurt in her riding of Outremont as a result:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2010/10/23/n...
This is at least the 4th or 5th time Hebert has predicted doom for the NDP and in particular in Outremont. She has an unerring record of being totally wrong.
It almost seems to slip her mind that there are actually 307 other ridings in Canada!
I don't know why mybabble included the link to the Vancouver Sun article on immigration - but it is an interesting link.
I have been watching (what can be seen) of the Harper government's actions on immigration and been amazed the press has not picked up on how radical the change is.
Ignoring the Fraser Institute references in the article, it does note that the Harperites have given over a huge amount of power to corporations who, through their provinces, are directing immigration policies.
Does the NDP have a stance on this? Does anyone?
[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+avoid+European+style+immigration+backlash/3572870/story.html[/url]
Chantal Hebert is correct in reminding us that Outremont is ground zero for the gun registry issue, as the Montreal massacre (which she points out) occured in that riding (it also provided the Liberals with the imputus for creating the registry in the first place, as flawed as it may be). No doubt, the Liberals, who'll spare no expense or effort to retake the riding, will remind local constituents of that in the next election. Voters expect strong leadership and, unfortunately, Mulcair will probably pay the price for Layton's triangulation of the issue (the Liberals accepted that they may yet lose seats over this--and will be respected for it). Both Harper and Ignatieff (along with Duceppe) look principled on the issue. For the NDP, the public perception may be that Layton cares only about numbers, and retaining seats. He now appears to be strictly mercenary in both his leadership, and his party's calculated approach to politics. Jack still hasn't learned that he can't fool all of the people all of the time. What other central issues can't he and the party be trusted on?
2. The second topic Hébert is discussing is the way in which for the first time this year the Liberals may have outplayed the NDP and how the NDP may be losing women, urban and Quebec voters to the Liberals based on the gun registry issue. In her appearance on At Issue last night, Hébert also says that she thinks the NDP may be hurt in her riding of Outremont as a result:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2010/10/23/n...
This is at least the 4th or 5th time Hebert has predicted doom for the NDP and in particular in Outremont. She has an unerring record of being totally wrong.
Not true.
And Hébert is actually one of the smartest political commentators in Canada, IMO. That doesn't mean she is always right or that I always agree with her, but she is sharp. She could have you for breakfast, BA.
It almost seems to slip her mind that there are actually 307 other ridings in Canada!
Hardly. I know you think that type of quip is amusing, but it isn't accurate.
She's simply looking at Outremont as an on-going belwether for the race between the Liberals and the NDP. If you follow her columns on a regular basis, you will see that she doesn't spare the rod when it comes to anyone. She calls it like she sees it. A couple of months ago she had some tough love for the Liberals in that riding and Cauchon's lacklustre campaign.
I've mentioned before that while I enjoy Chantal Hebert's column - kind of like the way I sometimes indulge in Reese's Peanut Butter Cups! She is a very cheap read. Compared to some of the really good American pundits like EJ Dionne or Paul Krugman - she is a superficial nitwit. To be perfectly honest one the things that makes her "entertaining" to read is the fact that she is so gratuitously mean-spirited. I agree that she doesn't single out the NDP in this regard - every gets a turn being trashed by her. But I do find that when she decided to devote a column to shitting on any of the leaders or parties - she always tends to do so in a very gloating, cruel, condescending way - almost as if she was the kind of person who enjoys tearing the wings off flies.
I find I read her for the same reasons I read (and I hate to admit this) really nasty dining out columnists who are really cruel in the way they will tear apart a restaurant that falls short of perfection. I think a lot of people read her column because she appeals to people "schadenfreude" - whenever she decides to train her torpedo at any party other than the one you support.
Ford will win the mayor's election because of Toronto's influx of immigration which has overcrowded the city and Canadians immigration is about to backfire in its face as little India is the place you just don't want to be especially if your a white women who isn't into living in hell as the hatred is real there is no mistaking the culture where women are second rate. As the prices of homes escalate as the only people who can seem to afford living in Canada is immigrants from other places as services and resources in major cities are almost impossible to find.
mybabble your post above is racist. A Vancouver Sun article, on the topic of immigration, with lavish references from the Fraser Institute, will be racist and anti-immigrant and isn't welcome on babble.
As for your racist rant about little India, don't do it. With my mod hat on, I say to you: stop posting racist crap or you will be banned. First and last warning.
V
2. The second topic Hébert is discussing is the way in which for the first time this year the Liberals may have outplayed the NDP and how the NDP may be losing women, urban and Quebec voters to the Liberals based on the gun registry issue. In her appearance on At Issue last night, Hébert also says that she thinks the NDP may be hurt in her riding of Outremont as a result:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2010/10/23/n...
This is at least the 4th or 5th time Hebert has predicted doom for the NDP and in particular in Outremont. She has an unerring record of being totally wrong.
Not true.
And Hébert is actually one of the smartest political commentators in Canada, IMO. That doesn't mean she is always right or that I always agree with her, but she is sharp. She could have you for breakfast, BA.
Ah childish and curlish taunts- the last refuge of the ignorant. Hebert, over thelife of this parliament has predicted at least 4 or 5 times immediate doom for the NDP and in particular in Outremont. If you think she is so great and you follow her columns you must know this. There is nothing untrue about that, it is on the record.
As for what she has for breakfast, I have no idea, but what difference does that make when she continues to get things like this wrong it is obviously not wheaties. I am sure she is a nice person, and is kind to small children and fuzzy animals, but I have been consistent is my criticism of her so give us a break.
I'm going to defend Hébert. She writes seriously about serious topics, and doesn't follow the pack. She has virtually no NDP contacts, but a lot of contacts in the other parties, and thus she is prone to writing misinformed pieces about the NDP and is often successfully spun by the others in respect of the NDP. I guess people in the party could do a better job of cultivating her themselves, but she isn't the most approachable person in the world.
I'm inclined to say something similar about Hebert.
She thinks about things, she goes out on limbs. Thats useful no matter how often she turns out to be right. Its people treating her as if she is authoritative that is the problem.
I didnt know about here not having any NDP contacts. It would explain some things. I definitely dont think she bears the NDP any special ill will. The fact she doesnt think she needs them as a foundation for the kind of thing she says about the NDP- speaks to her limited wisdom about when she should go out on those limbs. But politics and political reporting doesnt exactly faovour that.
It's funny that Harper's 'you're going down' threat and the supposed 2/3 of Canadians who were against the registry has only bumped the Tories support by a whopping 1%.
I was expecting (seeing how over 60% of the populous were fightin' mad about the registry) to see Tory support jump into the 40 +% range.
Hmm...It didn't happen...
And maybe in the next few weeks or months,confused Canadians who thought the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies to Canadians will wake from the haze of banana peels they've been smoking to realize this is Canada and NOT the 51st state of the U.S.A. the Reform Party has been managing to get some people in this country to believe.
You are reading in that expectation on the part of Harper Crew.
The long gun registry is for polarizing ridings where it matters. It never was for tha national stage. Which is why we'll see they have taken it off already. That isnt some kind of reaction- it was planned.
I'm going to defend Hébert. She writes seriously about serious topics, and doesn't follow the pack. She has virtually no NDP contacts, but a lot of contacts in the other parties, and thus she is prone to writing misinformed pieces about the NDP and is often successfully spun by the others in respect of the NDP. I guess people in the party could do a better job of cultivating her themselves, but she isn't the most approachable person in the world.
I thought I had heard that she was good frienmds with Jamey Heath - but then again its been years since he was a major operative in the NDP and i think he's in New Zealand or Australia now.
Now that a 2nd pollster (Ipsos-Reid) appears to have confirmed the large drop in support for the NDP seen in the Harris-Decima poll, it looks like the hit to the NDP may be accurate afterall.
The NDP is now tied with the Green Party according to I-R, and I think 12% is the lowest level of support the NDP has had since Jack Layton became leader.
Looks like Hébert may be right afterall.
"Hebert, over thelife of this parliament has predicted at least 4 or 5 times immediate doom for the NDP and in particular in Outremont."
I suppose that the best that can be said about her is that a broken clock can be right twice a day. Her columns are entertaining, but I find that when it comes to her projections of what's going to happen down the road - if you look back at her columns over the past few years - she's almost always wrong (kind of like Dick Morris in the US - he is wrong not just 99% of the time but 100% of the time. If you want to have a crystal ball about US politics - all you have to is read what Dick Morris predicts will happen and then you know that what will happen is the exact opposite)
Hébert's argument is that the NDP appears to be hurting in support as a result of Layton's position on the gun registry, and her contention has now been backed up by a 2nd poll.
Obviously it is too soon to make predictions for the next election outcome based on these polls as the numbers will change before then, but do you agree that we appear to be seeing a loss in support for the NDP this month?
I dont think you even make predictions for the next few weeks based on that.
I care, and I'm not worried.
Debater keeps repeating this all the while ignoring the comments I am am making on the topic to the effect that there is a strategy it seems to bias the current crop of polls against the nDP by exaggerating the gun registry debate and framing it right before the ballot question -- this makes those polls bogus.
The point is that this type of twisting of the polls is required in order to keep the industry going-- those who purchase the polls are not looking for information most of the time but to claim and promote support for their position which is why these polls continue to be able to bias their results so badly.
I guess we are to let Debater have his fun since he clearly is not interested in debating or discussing or considering what is valid or not instead he is promoting his Liberal talking points and line all the while pretending not to be partisan. It is crap but what can you do?
This is another reason why when a poll is friendly to the NDP once in a while it is important not to go to town on it becaue you set up this kind of garbage so when you get a push poll like this people like Debater start spamming multiple threads with the same comment over and over trying to sell the idea while ignoring what is being said.
Sean, I am not a pollster. If you think there is a bias in the polls and that they are bogus, you should communicate your opinions through letters to the editor and by contacting the pollsters in question to cross-examine them on the questions you have about their methodology.
I already said on one of these threads that I agree that Ipsos-Reid has a pro-Conservative bias and that its numbers are probably off by a few points.
But just because you don't like certain polls, doesn't mean they are necessarily all "bogus".
Sean, I am not a pollster.
I don't think that's what you were accused of being.
I will say it again-- as I have a few times the order of the questions were that leading questions on the gun registry of a partisan nature were advanced in the Decima Poll PRIOR to the ballot questions-- can you answer as I ask you again do YOU think that the result could be legitimate after that.
I have enough knowledge about polling to tell you that it is a known fact that you can't ask any partisan questions before a ballot question unless you are purposefully distorting the results-- something pollsters will always do at the request of a high paying client because most polls are for advocacy not for information.
Do I have to raise this again before you acknowledge it?
I have to go out for now but I will try to respond every time you raise the same issue while failing to acknowledge this.
I have information on this poll because I know someone. I am trying not to be more specific because I don't want to damage someone's employment. What I can say, that is public, is the poll question order because any person who was called is aware.
So stop minimizing this complaint as a personal problem I have with this poll-- answer the question do you thin you can ask such leading questions as those concerning the registry before a political opinion poll on voting preferences and not have a biased result?
Sorry but if you think so then you know nothing about polling or the polling business where this is done all the time to get the result the client wants-- if you agree you can't then you should stop using this poll either on its own or with others to make a point..
I have also added that if a client really wanted to do this then hiring two pollsters to do the same series of questions would be effective.
One reason to do this would be to distort the public opinion in order to change how the parties will vote because a party afraid of an election will act differently. By this it is not the gun registry I am talking about but later House votes this fall.
Both the Cons and the Liberals therefore have a reason to do this-- I can't say which one is doing this or why but someone is distorting on purpose public perceptions of the voting support of parties and this can have real consequences in a minority parliament. It should, as I said before, be illegal.
Sean, I posted a longer response to your question on the other thread. You probably clicked this one first before seeing the other one.
Not sure why my opinion on polls is important, since most of what I say is usually dismissed anyway.
What I would like to ask you is, do you think your strong support for the NDP often leads you to play down negative polls for the NDP? I find that you sometimes have trouble being objective. On one of these recent threads you said something like "the Liberals will be competing with the NDP for 3rd place in the next election". Do you really believe the NDP is in contention to beat the Liberals?
Turnabout being fair play, do you think that this is in any way related to reality?
Do you not understand why most of us consider you to be a waste of pixels; a distortion field to be avoided?
Turnabout being fair play, do you think that this is in any way related to reality?
Do you not understand why most of us consider you to be a waste of pixels; a distortion field to be avoided?
LTJ, that's what I-R said - it's not my poll. I didn't say I agreed with all the numbers. I think it's unlikely that the NDP and the Greens are tied. Stop holding me responsible for the poll and complain to the pollsters who conducted it.
Whenever there is a poll with bad numbers for the NDP so many people here get emotional, angry, lash out and get condescending. It's one of the things that turns people off the NDP.
And your comment about me is somewhat rude. I don't think you should be claiming to speak for "most" people here.
LTJ, that's what I-R said - it's not my poll.
Absolute bullshit.
You dropped that turd in here; no one else. That's exactly the kind of distortion I was referring to on your part.
I think it's a good point to take poll results with a grain of salt.
Personally,I don't trust any of them.
As we have seen in the States,the consequences of biased and dishonest media which has literally made lunacy mainstream and knowing there is currently a huge push in Canada for a biased propaganda media network,I think it's safe to believe that public opinion is being manipulated by falsehoods and half truths.
Does anyone else remember the 'Canada's Economic Action Plan' commercials that littered TV every 10 minutes for a period of 15 months?
Did anyone else notice the 'Canada's Economic Action Plan' billboards sitting next to future sites of different projects?
The Reform Party has been since outed that these billboards were compulsory to any project involving government funds..AND it's been unearthed that the Reform Party spent $130 million on self promotion this year.
How about the Conservative logo being boldly displayed on oversized government cheques to foundations and projects photo ops?
The public is being manipulated and I agree with Sean...This shouldn't be legal.
I'm going to defend Hébert. She writes seriously about serious topics, and doesn't follow the pack. She has virtually no NDP contacts, but a lot of contacts in the other parties, and thus she is prone to writing misinformed pieces about the NDP and is often successfully spun by the others in respect of the NDP. I guess people in the party could do a better job of cultivating her themselves, but she isn't the most approachable person in the world.
We all have our favourite pundits. You are free to think Herbert is the bees knees if you like. No argument from me.
However, I find her opinion pieces facile, and completely lacking in any understanding of vast parts of the country. She is also a bit of a broken record. As a rural Canadian she is often dismissive and ignores our lived reality. So while she might have some insight on Quebec, when she strays into national punditry I don't find her relevant.
On top of that, from a purely technical standpoint, I find her to be a poor writer.
But hey that's just my opinion and no more valid than anyone else's.
as for you "Debater", the reason you are getting peoples backs up is because you are a partisan Liberal who tends to vanish into thin air when the news is bad for the Liberals (ie: these days most of the time) and then the moment you get one ray of hope from a poll that the NDP might be losing ground - just as sure as "Old Faithful" erupting every 14 minutes in Yellowstone Park, you pop up here for no other reason than to gloat and make condescending remarks about the NDP and people who support. Not very classy.
I support the NDP, but I seem to have better things to do with my time than to infiltrate Liberal-friendly blogs for no other reason than to glaot every time Ignatieff screw up or the Liberals drop a few points in a poll.
What I would like to ask you [Sean] is, do you think your strong support for the NDP often leads you to play down negative polls for the NDP? I find that you sometimes have trouble being objective. On one of these recent threads you said something like "the Liberals will be competing with the NDP for 3rd place in the next election". Do you really believe the NDP is in contention to beat the Liberals?
First of all, the "objectivity" that you talk about does not exist. What you mean, or what you should mean- the most you can expect from anyone- is that they are even handed in their analysis. Is that they are not led around by the nose by the interests and stakes that we all have. And I do mean everyone- including those who really are non-partisan [and who also have stakes], as much as partisans like myself, Sean, or you.
Even handed people who are also partisans are not that way to impress anyone, let alone trying for your chimera of "obejectivity".... they are that way because looking at things without being led around by your prejudices is the best way to help your party of choice.
And quite simply, I think its clear that Sean is not ill disposed to facing bad news and discussing it.
But a goodly part of the bad news spread about the NDP is just disinformation- ill intentioned or not does not matter. And you specialize in spreading it here. So, duh, it gets a reaction. Some of the reaction is not nice. Thats what you get as a reaction to someone who not only spreads disinformation, but claims objectivity of the information.
I frankly dont understand why you dont see yourself as a Liberal partisan. Whether you are a member of the Liberal Party, or are not often 'proud' of what it does- you absolutely consistently defend the standing of the Liberal Party, and do your best to bring up whatever bad news is out there floating around about the NDP.
I have done plenty of the same about the Liberal Party, but my partisanship is transparent. Yours is too, but you have this weird dance about being misunderstood or god knows what. And thats what pisses people off.
The point is that this type of twisting of the polls is required in order to keep the industry going-- those who purchase the polls are not looking for information most of the time but to claim and promote support for their position which is why these polls continue to be able to bias their results so badly.
Lately, in Australia there's been talk of legislating "truth in political advertising." I think Canada needs this kind of thing a lot more than Australia. Political advertising by parties should be regulated. Government advertising should not be biased in favour of the governing party.
If a political ad is aimed against another party or politician, that party or politician should automatically be given a chance to respond in kind.
Political polling that appears in the media should also have to follow some guidelines.
JKR thanks for this-- I'd like to see more on this
On a similar theme, you could almost overturn the entire ugly (capitalist) applecart simply by legislating some kind of punishment for politicians that don't keep their election promises. This practice of lying is so "normal" that we don't even think about it. A more robust right to recall would do this, I think, or go a long way towards addressing this disgusting practice.
Sean, I posted a longer response to your question on the other thread. You probably clicked this one first before seeing the other one.
Not sure why my opinion on polls is important, since most of what I say is usually dismissed anyway.
What I would like to ask you is, do you think your strong support for the NDP often leads you to play down negative polls for the NDP? I find that you sometimes have trouble being objective. On one of these recent threads you said something like "the Liberals will be competing with the NDP for 3rd place in the next election". Do you really believe the NDP is in contention to beat the Liberals?
You are misrepresenting me and I think you are doing it on purpose.
First I said the Liberals in attacking the NDP rather than the Cons on this was competing with the NDP for third place. It was not a comment on relative popular strengths. I was clear on that so either you are having some reading comprehension difficulties or you are lying. I am inclined to believe your comprehension is fine and that the problems are lying elsewhere.
When it comes to polls show me where I have trumpeted or exaggerated NDP polls. I am the one to always tell people to not celebrate when a positive poll for the NDP comes out and I say the exact same things about bad polls as good ones. Either you have trouble remembering my hundreds of posts on the topic or you are lying. I see no reason now to assume that you have a memory problem.
I also am very objective in my approach to analyzing things and am proud of it-- I pull back on over partisanship on the NDP side, I criticize, I defend people like May and Dion here fairly often and you even sometimes thank me for it. I believe in honesty and fair play which is why I get so annoyed with your dishonest representations and failure to interpret anything outside of the narrow pro-Liberal box you have created for yourself.
I even criticized the NDP on the issue for failing to present this as related to the promise the party made not to whip backbench votes. But your mischaracterizations and refusals to acknowledge what people are saying to you while you are picking over what they say to use against them is famous here.
I am so not surprised that you are a lawyer. I worked in law a while myself and met many like that. Highly selective and not quite honest. You are also in the right party it seems.
As for your concern about being dismissed-- if ever you were willing to take a point that was not in line with your party you could be taken more seriously. As it is you look and smell like propaganda. You have implied that is what I do except the problem in my case is it is not true and in your case it is.
Bring on an election it is about to backfire in Harper's face as the Conservatives take the economy and make a mess of it says so long Harper pack your bags as the red neck from Alberta finds his way home.
Ford will win the mayor's election because of Toronto's influx of immigration which has overcrowded the city and Canadians immigration is about to backfire in its face as little India is the place you just don't want to be especially if your a white women who isn't into living in hell as the hatred is real there is no mistaking the culture where women are second rate. As the prices of homes escalate as the only people who can seem to afford living in Canada is immigrants from other places as services and resources in major cities are almost impossible to find.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canada+avoid+European+style+immigration+backlash/3572870/story.html
On a progressive board an individual posts a racist post and except a couple of posters nobody bats an eyelid. And somebody says something negative about NDP and all hell broke lose. Is it that the progressive folk in this place care only about the so called progressive parties and not about social equality and justice or is it that nobody cares about what is said about a group they dont belong to.
(edited to add emphasis in response to post # 58)
Uh no- both Sean and Maysie dealt with it and Maysie is a moderator.
I'm going to defend Hébert. She writes seriously about serious topics, and doesn't follow the pack. She has virtually no NDP contacts, but a lot of contacts in the other parties, and thus she is prone to writing misinformed pieces about the NDP and is often successfully spun by the others in respect of the NDP. I guess people in the party could do a better job of cultivating her themselves, but she isn't the most approachable person in the world.
We all have our favourite pundits. You are free to think Herbert is the bees knees if you like. No argument from me.
However, I find her opinion pieces facile, and completely lacking in any understanding of vast parts of the country. She is also a bit of a broken record. As a rural Canadian she is often dismissive and ignores our lived reality. So while she might have some insight on Quebec, when she strays into national punditry I don't find her relevant.
On top of that, from a purely technical standpoint, I find her to be a poor writer.
But hey that's just my opinion and no more valid than anyone else's.
Just because I defend her as a serious commentator, doesn't mean I'm going to defend everything she writes, or all of her analysis. People have their fields of expertise and their blind spots, to be sure. All I mean to say is that she's serious, doesn't for the most part have an agenda, tries to be meaningful, and succeeds at that most of the time. I respect her bona fides, in other words. She may not always be right, but she's always worth reading and considering.
I totally agree with this perspective and I do like reading Hébert.
I also feel perfectly free to disagree with anyone including those I respect.
I also well understand purpose and economics. Her job is to write and be read, to create controversy if needed to accomplish that. Her job may be to be a respected pundit but that is not the prime purpose. Being interesting is much more important and you have to go out on a limb for that. Telling people what they already know is safe but does not make good reading.
Im also wondering why the GR vote isnt seen as a bad thing against the mostly countryside BQ. But its a really bad thing for the NDP?...