Latest federal political opinion polls - started Friday, September 3, 2010

No new poll but.....

Bellwether by-elections ahead

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/856298--hebert-bellwether-by-...

On the previous thread in this continuum someone mentioned that the Media were always biased against the Left. I tend to look at politics in four dimensions, and the four dimensions of politics seems to have boiled down to this.

1. The Democracy/Justice/Foreign Affairs/Military/Police dimension ("State"), which is primarily concerned with whatever concept of Law and Order and Democracy of the person speaking of it. I would think the Left would be pro-Democracy, pro-the Rights of the Accused, pro-the use of Diplomacy instead of Military, and pro-the rights of people who tend to be oppressed by Police. The media are going to take either side on this group of issues. In Canada the Liberal Party used to have a home in the left here, and one of the considerable qualms people may have about Michael Ignatieff and certainly have about Stephen Harper is that they are on the right in this dimension, whereas the vast majority of Canadians are on the Left. This is how you "stand up for the little guy" without necessarily being socialist. This is where you fight against discrimination (with a utilitarian intent). Not wishing to be higher than a yellow dog, the Media loves to play on certain Dictatorial, Authoritarian, Exceptionalist, and Militaristic impulses seen on the Right here. However they do not take them seriously.

2. The Economic dimension, defined as buying and selling and marketplaces. ("Markets") I would think that the Left would be very low on the Von Mises spectrum, as it should be. Generally the Left would support government involvement in and regulation of the economy. The Libertarian right would call for as little government involvement in the economy as possible except (mostly hypocritically) on issue 1 (more police to protect My Private Property). My criticism of most conservatives who are very Law'N'Order and pro police state bureaucracy is that this stance consumes too many economic resources. The business-owned Media are going to jump to the Libertarian bingo-callers in the business sector in no matter what society you live. The NDP is generally left here (although less so than in the past), Tories and Liberals Right. Let it be free, and tax it efficiently and regulate it effectively to maximize government revenue to pay for 1., 3., and 4.

3. The Utilitarian dimension. ("Scoiety") The greatest good for the greatest number, also described as Social Policy for People. Pensions. Health Care. Food security. Welfare. Unemployment. Working Income Tax Benefits (The WhITBys Jim Flaherty loves to talk about). All of the parties have some kind of Social Policy, if they want even a glimmer of a chance of being elected. Most Conservatives believe in more or less the status quo with incremental changes backward or forward, and a vocal minority believe this dimension should not even exist. Sorry, but it does. Having a utilitarian impulse is a necessary qualification.

4. The Environmental Dimension. This is a new entrant in the field of Ideology. If you believe in Environmental Justice, Regulation, and some kind of sustainable prosperity for all, you would have already shown your leftist colours on some of the other 3.

Then again all these dimensions conflict with each other as well as having "Left" and "Right" spectrums within themselves, forming a 4 x 4 matrix. For example you could say that a peaceful society leads to a greater good for a greater number, so therefore we should have more police on the street. A "State" solution to a "Utilitarian" goal. You could say that Free Markets provide the greatest good for the top 75%, who must be gradually taxed about a third to pay for the other 25% for some kind of economic equality.

I don't think any Canadian is hard left or hard right on all 4 things, because such stances tend to lead to hypocrisy. In the same way I don't think the media can be consistently left or consistently right on all things. It is hard to pull a surprise on an eager audience if you are one-trick pony.

What nonsense.

Democratic rule turns into game of horse trading

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/Democratic+rule+turns+into+game+ho...

Looks like the Con writers like Gunter are trying to put the best spin possible on their declining fortunes.

Someone made an interesting point to me recently that we should not assume that a party's vote breaks along the lines of its second choice support. 

Suppose the second choice of Party A breaks 2:1 for Party B over Party C, but most of Party's A firmest supporters are the same folks as the ones who pick Party C as their second-choice.  Then when Party A support starts to fall away, we'd still see most of it go to Party B, as the Party C second-choice supporters are the most hardcore Party A supporters, and would only vote for Party C if Party A no longer existed.

In other words, firmest of support and second choice may not be completely independent variables, or at least we shouldn't assume even distributions of one variable over the other, is what this person said to me.

Pretty much what I said to the political scientist who made it to me, too.  thanks.

Thanks for that interesting example, nicky.

You've skewed the libertarian stance to fit your reasoning.  It isn't "more police to protect My Private Property", it's believing that the federal government should be limited in scope; limited to: enforcement of laws, enforcement of contracts, and maintaining a national defence.  I would argue that Libertarians are more in favor of personal freedom, and far less inclined toward a police state than those on the left.  Libertarians believe civil liberties trump all, but they are not anarchists, and do reconcile that some form of law enforcement is necessary - though their powers should be quite limited in scope (much more limited than they are currently) - held to narrow mandates, and kept under vigilant watch by the citizens they serve.

A good example of just who is more inclined toward an authoritarian police state is watching what happens when a private business owner fails to comply with one of the hundreds of a socialist government's regulations.

Curious, but not necesssarily completely out of place. Its a question of how people fit into the discussions. We've had a few "house conservatives / libertarians".

When the BQ vote goes down, it also tends to benefit the Liberals, and some BQ voters actually pick the Liberals as their 2nd choice.  That's why the drop in BQ support in Quebec in 2008 helped the Liberals have a marginal recovery there in the last election as Chantal Hebert pointed out.

What can I say? I wish this place worked that way and sometimes it does. I was not encouraging you not to participate; I was just surprised you were here and so I wanted to know how you found the site and got interested in it. Most people who get involved turn up because of their affiliation with the NDP, labour movement or activist groups with a high proportion of New Democrats or trade unionists in them.

I'm happy to see you here and welcome the diversity you bring. But I'm not a mod here, just a poster and not even a very regular one.

I agree with you on that.  In a country like the United States where there are only 2 parties (except for a few elections where there is a 3rd party), it is much easier to determine where the vote is going.  If it's not going to the Democrats, it's going to the Republicans, and vice-versa.  In Canada, where there are 4 or 5 parties, it's much more difficult for a political analyst to figure out where the vote is going when it goes up and down.  It is very frustrating for all the federal parties in Canada nowadays to figure out what is happening in certain ridings, because the vote can go in so many different ways.

I will have to look for "The Disposessed", sounds like an interesting read.  Though, by the same token, I suppose I should read "Atlas Shrugged" first to have the benefit of comparison.

And, as I'm sure you know, Ayn Rand was hardly the inventor of libertarianism; nor are all libertarians "mentally unbalanced".  I prefer the work of Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek, both - in my opinion - are brilliant...far from unbalanced.

Also, being a libertarian does not mean turning a blind eye to the fact that humans are social animals; rather it's a belief in limiting government to a size and scope that does not interfere with an individuals right to determine for themselves how they'd prefer to live, and at what cost, etc.

Just because humans are social creatures does not mean they need a one-size-fits-all government.  Private property works much better than an individual or collective body presupposing they know better how another is to behave than the individual themselves, especially within their own dwelling.  We may not all be "rugged individualists", but I believe rights worth fighting for include the right to be left alone.

The idea of an "uncoerced consensus" is not that far afield from the brand of libertarianism to which I ascribe my views.  I believe anyone should have the right to do as they please, provided they don't impede another's right to do the same.  But social creatures or not, humans are inherently selfish, and thus you need enforcable boundaries like the property lines that come from ownership, lest every conflict that arises amongst those either unwilling or unable to share devolves into armed conflict.

I agree we need a government of the people to enact laws, and yes the primary responsibility of those laws should be protect the private property of everyone across the board - whether that be from polluting corporations or gun-toting loners.  But capitalism isn't the enemy...nor is it our current system of economy.  We live in an era of corporatism, which is the collusion of governments, and big business - where one institution is almost indistinguishable from the other, to the detriment of the constituency.  Banksters and robber barons continue to thrive, and would lose their subsidies, and competitive advantages when forced to survive in an unfettered market.

If you take out the prejuding word 'selfish' and instead ask if humans are [perhaps] incapable of making sacrifices that are going to cost me or mine..... then there are lots of cultures that do not have individual selfishness, and lots that can sustain the ecological balance when there is little pressure and limits on them... but where are the cultures who without having an extraordinary 'discussion' and effort, deal with pressures and limits in a reasonably responsible fashion?

There are lots of cultures that do not have individual selfishness.

And lots of cultures that can sustain the ecological balance when there is little pressure and limits on them.

But where are the cultures that deal with pressures and limits in a reasonably responsible fashion?

In other words: attributing the problem to 'selfishness' of and for the individual is too narrow. And that there are cultures that are 'unselfish' in that sense is not sufficient.

Does that make sense.

If not, we better stop.

Ken:

Yes, I think I get your point now. It reminds me of the Easter Islanders, who apparently cut down all the trees on their island over the course of a few generations, thus rendering it uninhabitable. And of course, no modern culture is dealing appropriately with the ecological downsides of technology. On the other hand, the traditional Inuit way of life was subject to very rigid constraints, and their culture managed to deal with it quite successfully.

Sean:

When I speak of my philosophical disapproval of private property, I am not urging that theft be legalized, or socially accepted. I am suggesting that the very concept of physical objects having an owner is a cultural construct, and not a universal characteristic of the human mind, such as language is. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that this belief in the concept of the ownership of property is the root cause of most of our social ills. I have no idea if it would ever be possible to get rid of this from a society that once had it, but it would certainly be very difficult. Nonetheless, that is one of the idealistic goals of anarchism, as I understand it. A few religious communities seem to have come pretty close to this ideal, and perhaps some of the republicans in the Spanish Civil War. To me, it is mainly a concept that I use to keep arguments over property laws and policies in perspective.

Michael,

sorry- my comment was not trying to suggest you believed in legalizing theft-- it was to say that we already have property rights in a fashion and that these rights are, I think, a subset of individual rights. The point is if we recognize any more property rights than we already have then we are actually interfering with individual rights creating a hierarchy of individual rights.

The example I gave -- real estate-- is rich with these-- most tenant protection statutes the world over would be in conflict with a notion of property rights as that would serve to even further tilt the power between tenant and landlord away from tenants-- to enhance landlord's property rights is nothing less than to reduce tenant rights. People like to think more and more rights is a good thing so they sell it that way. But of course when you think about it most assertions of rights are in fact conflicts and therefore allowing more property rights would come at the cost of individual rights.

I am not an anarchist although I can surely appreciate parts of the philosophy you are explaining and without disagreement. My reason for not being an anarchist comes from a belief that it is impossible in practice and that humans achieve great things (including survival) only by working collectively. I see working collectively as needing organization and structure in order to introduce fairness and therefore support government. As well, I also tolerate capitalism as a creator of wealth-- not because I like it but because I have no alternative. I cannot tolerate capitalism without strict limits to it and alternate means of division of wealth to minimize its unfairness. I believe, therefore, in the social welfare state.

So what I am saying is I am opposed to capitalism, I am in favour of collective moves to create fairness and to take care of each other. I am not aware of any instrument better than the social welfare state to do that. It is not that I am in love with the construct itself-- but I'm committed to its result in terms of creating greater justice, and the ability to take care of each other.

Another thing-- perhaps you might think of this like you do of other property or perhaps not-- I also believe in public property and shared value-- be it common security, health care, education, social justice. I suspect that collective property itself, however, is not in conflict with your beliefs although practically, I can't imagine a way to organize and develop these public social goods without the social organization anarchism rejects. Again this is not about right and wrong-- this is my own belief of how things should work among the possibilities of what can work.

I don't have a principled stand against anarchism as I understand it expressed by some-- my problems with it are practical (unlike capitalism which I dislike on grounds of principle as well as practicality even as I recognize that sufficiently "fettered" it can have some collective purpose, at least until we can find an alternative way to do it). On the other hand I find others describe anarchism as a form of radical libertarianism. This I reject on quite a few grounds, both the practical and the philosophical.

I guess in part I see ourselves as all being parts of a collective web that turns in to exploitation once it is denied and needs collective recognition and protection.

Perhaps, I can express this better later-- need to think on it but hopefully this explains part of where I am coming from.

Interesting read, thank you.  I do note however, that in gift economies the giving is not done without expectation of receiving something in return, which seems an awful lot like bartering to me...and in the wiki article you've linked I see that the 'gifting' can often devolve into a system of bribes amongst those who wish to curry favor or attain competitive advantage - be they kings or generals.  And that's my point really...I think it is in our nature to compete...for resources, for favor...at one time our individual survival depended on being 'the fittest', or having "the most", or at least more than someone else.  To me, a market economy, one that is free of any partisan meddling is the most humane way to organize a society.  I liked the idea of a gift economy at first blush, but upon further reflection can see where the conflicts would arise; that wiki article provides a decent insight into why or how that could happen as well.

The difference I have with this is that while I recognize that humans have some drives to compete and to selfishness, I see civilization as a historical progression towards an understanding that we do better when we moderate those and cooperate as well. Humans, have learned to cooperate and not always for immediate reward or even to curry favour but out of goodwill towards each other. And we have developed both tendencies.

Humans do indeed compete. But when they need to they also perform acts of altruism and they create systems that manage and balance these things. Just because humans have a tendency to greed and selfishness does not mean these are the only tendencies we have, these are the only ones to support organizationally or the best way to structure society around. In fact, I think society is formed around a balance of these. That balance allows us to survive and thrive by both taking care of ourselves and helping each other; acting in competition as well as cooperation.

when it comes to the survival of the fittest, this concept is perverted into a political ideology unsupported by evidence. Define "fittest"? the ability for humans to communicate, imagine and cooperate with each other and to help each other is exactly what made us so far fit enough to survive. Other animals achieve their fitness in various degrees of individual and group fitness. The "fitness" to survive was never predicated on that being purely individual and historically it has not been that way.

The concept of intent including selfish or altruistic is not part of the Darwinian equation for most beings, I should add. Survival for most had nothing to do with intent among beings incapable of reason although you will see dramatic examples of sacrifice, group behaviour and seemingly altruistic acts among animals acting by instinct. I think it is fair to say both self preservation and mutual cooperation have always been a part of instinct-- even prior to reason and humans inherited along with reason both-- and in fact with reason the ability to know when each should kick in.

Michael, I appreciate as well the distinction between what is practically possible and what is to be aspired to as a philosophy.

I am quite interested in Buddhist thought and recognize that it is an aspiration towards what is not possible in our imagination but certainly makes us better to aspire to it. When I am at my best I am leaning towards a standard I know I cannot meet but am better for being a little bit closer to it. a better person can lean further but there is no doubt that what little change is inspired is worthwhile.

I say all this distinguishing between a religion and a philosophy of the same name. I have found myself very much opposed to religion because I think we are each morally held to our own account and have the responsibility to be moral actors rather than follow instructions and to think rather than take on faith that which is central to our existence. (That on top of all the usual arguments against religion which I may share but not enumerate here-- injustice, exploitation, harm, lack of personal accountability etc. etc. etc.)

Wow. I had not thought about it that way. I see your point that it seems like a contradiction.

I think the reason for it is that I believe in democracy and have no trouble being coerced to follow a decision reached legitimately by the society I am a part of.

To go a step further, perhaps religion is analogous to a form of "taxation without representation"

anyway, now that you put it this way, I guess I don't feel much different about illegitimate governments acting undemocratically than I do religions. Indeed, the concept of magic in religion (Virgin Birth etc.) is no more ridiculous than magic in the capitalist system  (so-called justice by trickle-down).

Your connection has not won me over to Anarchism, but I like the way it made me think ;-)

I certainly consider religion to be a social construct so it is comparable to a political system-- you are right there. I remain somewhat hopeful that we can aspire to a better social construct than either illegitimate anti-democratic governments or religions although in Canada right now - I guess you pick your poison or take a healthy does of both.

Now that's a downer. Ugh. Harper as a religious cult leader.

hmm-- I guess my approval is at a macro level of the process. But I also obey other laws that I may not agree with just because I believe in the process. Perhaps my belief in the macro process coerces me to comply with an inividual law or requirement I do not believe in.

As well, I am involved in organizations that only work when you respect the will of the group and in others where you must respect the will of a boss or hierarchy. I understand and respect these systems even if I don't agree with individual decisions. For the most part I can exercise a right to free speech but then I still must do what I am told t do or what the majority wants. At times I can influence that power through persuassion but not always.

All this is normal isn't it?

That is for you to decide. But if it is normal, then it should give you cause to doubt your belief in the theoretical necessity of coercive social organization. I am glad that you found my not-very-expert views on anarchism interesting, but I think you have now seen all that I have to offer, so I will shut up for a while.

After re-reading this thread, I decided that I owed you a response to this paragraph. I agree with you that the political/economic system under which we currently suffer is not the Capitalism that was described in "Wealth of Nations". I also agree with your definition of corporatism, and that this is what the American Empire currently practices. In fact, I would suggest that it is very difficult to distinguish this corporatism from the Fascism of Mussolini and Franco. And, of course I agree that banksters and robber barons currently thrive.

Where I differ from you is in imagining that the removal of governmental regulation of business would in any way improve the situation. On the contrary, I believe that the only way to prevent Capitalism from becoming rampant corporatism is to have a democratic government which is independent of the influence of large corporations, and thus able to maintain robust laws which control the excesses of greed that would otherwise lead to monopolies, price fixing and all the other anti-competitive practices which undercut the theories of Adam Smith.

Indeed, after many years of thought about this question, I am of the opinion that the only way to have a pristine "Free Enterprise" system would be to have international laws which put absolute size restrictions on all business entities. When you read "Wealth of Nations" it is clear that Smith assumed that every market sector would have dozens of firms engaged in competition, and all of his conclusions are based on this assumption. As soon as any one or any few firms possess a dominant position in a given market segment, Smithian Capitalism becomes robber baron corporatism. Unless there were a way to restrict the worldwide market system such that no business entity could acquire more than say 5% of any market segment, the ideal of Smithian Capitalism is nothing more than a fairy tale.

I do not believe that any such world wide limitation of the market dominance of corporations will ever come about. Thus, I do not believe in ideal Capitalism any more than I believe in Santa Claus. Therefore, my only recourse is to work for a "mixed economy" as practiced in North America during the 1950s and 1960s, before the resurgence of the banksters and robber barons. Yes, they are doing fine right now, but we will not change that by regulating them even less than we do now.

We must crack down on them, and regulate them much more harshly, plus tax them much more heavily. Much higher marginal income tax rates on the wealthiest individuals are also necessary, to redress some of the widening gap between rich and poor which has developed over the last 30 years. A legislated maximum ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees of any business would also be useful. Many public utilities which have been privatized should also be re-nationalized, to remove the money sink of swollen corporate profits.

All of these measures are distasteful to me, since I am an anarchist at heart, but I see no other practical short term alternative, except a new feudal age, with 90% or more of the population becoming powerless, impoverished peasants.

- but going a bit deeper, if we are going to have any kind of equality in our society, then how can we justify any individual collecting rent from others for their 'right' to have a place to live? (beyond a simple non-big-business thing of renting out a spare room or something for temporary residents etc) This is one of the worst facets of capitalism vs social democracy - in a true social democracy, 'we the people' would collectively own the 'collective' apartment-style residences (private houses would, of course, be as always, owned by the owner) - and fair rents set - I'm not talking about charity (that would be available for some, of course).

(the money for this is another issue, but like everything, once we get the capitalist parasite out of our veins, there will be more than enough money to look after everything ... rather than capitalist 'profits', we would have some form of social savings from which much would be possible - the 'excess profits' the capitalists now claim, reverting to the people who actually create such profits, as they rightfully should ...)

Looks like that big red tent is starting to fill up after all.

So we sit at 17 % +-3 % like always. I don't see a reason to quible. There isn't a poll that doesn't show the NDP in that range. We always bumb a bit during the elction.

I don't agree with nanos on the long gun being poison because not many are following this. We are already in sept and we will have to wait to see the house sitting again to see where this goes. The link also doesn't mention what or how the questions were asked. If the questions alluded to the NDP not taking a stand on the GR then yes it would have a slight impact. But its asking a leading question.

I had that done by a liberal poll in the election 2 years ago. It described the function of carbon tax and then went on to ask me given my newfound knowledge who would I vote for in the coming election. HMMM who are you asking me to vote for is more appropriate.

I agree Stockholm.

I think that the registry has little to do with the fluctuation which I see as more connected to Central Canadian and Maritime voters getting so tired of Harper, they'll trudge back to the Liberal Party as the best shot at unseating Harper.

I think that what happens is that some people see the odd headline "NDP split...", "Layton in a difficult situation..." - they probably couldn't even tell you what the exact issue was just that the NDP was having a hard time with "something" this week.

The level of political illiteracy among about 95% of Canadians cannot be overestimated.

Tories, Liberals and NDP get bad news in latest poll

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-liberals-and-ndp-get...

I wouldnt put it so flatly about Layton not being the 'breakthrough guy', but I'd agree with the endpoint. I think Jack did the breakthrough- the one from incremental progress and confidence building. Which means back to our glass ceiling. 

The top definitely beats the pits. And grateful for that. But its still a glass ceiling.

I think Jack has the potential to go further. But not like this.

I'm going to pick up on a point made here. I reversed the order of the two sentences.

In the first place, theres an unexplained gap between 'people are ready to be done with Harper,' and 'for Harper to be taken down...'

and I think there is more to be said about the gap than the obvious 'ready' is different than 'taken down'.

As to how: its a heck of a lot more difficult than the counter-spin of focusing on wasteful spending. People rightfully read as so much predictable blah-blah. Doesnt beat the ballot question: its not who you like, bamkers are assholes too. "Who when it comes down to it do you want in charge?"

But possibly trumping that... why the opposition has such a low bar to clear: Harper has to get a majority or hes out. And all the good cop bad cop routine in the world, and the best campaign machine, its pretty unlikley to close the gap to get there. [Made even harder by having to beat down both the NDP and the Liberals. Differnt kinds of messages and different kinds of battles, all in one good seamless campaign. Beating down only one wont cut it. Very tall order.]

So in a way, probably all the opposition has to do is maintain enough of the status quo. Which can work with Iggy's drone, Jack's amorphous appeal, and the little yippy dog attacks on Harper.

Oh wow, another brilliant earth shattering investigative piece of journalism by the CBC. For fuck's sake, CBC, tell us something we don't know. As if this is news.

NRA involved for 10 years in the gun registry debate in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html

NR to be honest I bet a lot of canadians are shocked and this should be reported. If Michael Moore was funding the pharmacare study you know tories would go ape shit about a "foreigner" interfering with our doin's. Its also useful for future ref about political interferance from the states. For example...we worry about china gaining our resources by buying our companies-yet the papers have not a peep about the number of companies in canda owned by the US.

I personally have no problem with china buying our companies. I seriously cant see how it could be worse then the whole owned branch plant economy we have at present. Hell they may even create jobs instead of contracting them. Mostly cuz our american wannabes would cry a river if they tried to shut anything down(even if they don't do the same for american companies)

Because Nanos is a pollster - gets free license to express his personal opinions and present them as if they are derived from any data he has collected when in fact they are not. They are just his personal opinions.

Yet when Nanos had a poll earlier this year showing the NDP at the 20% mark it was lauded as an accurate poll and lead to several threads here stating that the NDP was now at 20% and on its way to 25%

Why is it then when a poll shows the NDP losing support it is an inaccurate poll, but when a poll shows the NDP doing well it is the gold standard?

People can't just pick and choose which polls they like.  One has to take the bad news along with the good.

Ipsos-Reid Poll:  Poll puts Tories on shaky ground

Conservatives - 34%

Liberals - 31%

NDP - 16%

BQ - 10%

Greens - 9%

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Poll+puts+Tories+shaky+ground/3520591/...

These kinds of numbers in Ontario would likely see the Liberals win the mosts seats overall in Canada.

The next election will likely be decided in "Battleground Ontario".

"Hey, Buddy. Can I bumb a few votes off you."   

LOL i know I have a kinda dyslexia while typing putting p's where b's belong and often putting they and the in the others spot. I have put, but in puts place a lot of times too. I don't take the time to proofread as my typing skills are slow and my reading skills are narrative instead of reading a whole line at a time I have to sound out the words in my head...make for reading novels very very long esp something dry like chomsky or the tech books I enjoy.

Good riddance to this creep. It's incredible that this rightwing hack thinks he is somehow represenative of the Canadian viewpoint. But don't worry, the right doesn't give up that easily, and they will soon be back with bigger and better plans, on how to brainwash Canadian society.  

By comparison unfortunately, it makes the CBC look good, so I suppose the CBC will continue to try and puff themselves up, in their pathetic attempts to make themselves look good, by comparing themselves to the garbage this guy was going to spew out on Fox News North. 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/15/kory-teneycke-sun-tv-quebeco...

I'm no right-winger, but if the CBC News Dept, and all their political bullshit got abolished, I would be the first to applaud.

My problem debater is the CBC has never given the NDP credit when it is due. That is partisan. As of the last 4 years it has swung so hard to the right (even while called left) that it make us on the left want to see it abolished. The only problem is we also know, should it be dissolved, we have nothing to be even a little bit of a counter to multiple fox news channels trying to out right each other using spurious accusations. It is no friend to us, but at least it isn't a complete enemey is about as close as it gets, of course Evan Soloman (amoungst others) is doing a bang up job of changing that.

It is as I suspected all along.

The Liberals, if the gun registry gets shot, will be responsible for killing it.

Liberals' turn to secure votes to save gun registry

At 32 per cent support, the Tories have held the slight but statistically significant lead over the past two weeks. The Liberals have also remained steady at 29 per cent support.

The Conservatives held a comfortable 11-percentage-point lead over the Liberals at the beginning of the summer, but have faced mounting criticism for their moves to scrap the mandatory long-form census and the federal long-gun registry.

The NDP's lead over the Green Party has widened, with the NDP receiving 16.6 per cent support compared with 10.7 per cent for the Greens, according to the poll.

Support for the Bloc Québécois has dropped in two weeks to 8.9 per cent, the poll suggests.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/15/ekos-poll.html#socialcomments#ixzz0zgzXcmEX
JKR I was thinking of starting a new thread but there are so many poll threads right now and almost non of them have any polling...hey looky they are still calling it almost a dead heat with the cons with 3.5% lead...they also mentioned the NDP has widened the gap with the greens. 16.6 in an ekos poll is damn high for the NDP. Might as well be 18-19% anywhere else. So this is before the compromise was worked out. Cearly niks analysis was spot on. People hate the NDP because of the gun registry, clearly it explains why their numbers are up slighlty in this ekos poll that is mostly from last week and this weekend. Hey wait no mention of that though? Wonder why
It should have said(if looking at the numbers means anything) tories bring back anti registry voters from the green and the bloc. Because that is what happened in the last 2 weeks. -3% greens and -1.5% bloc. If any other party tumbled by 3% you would have a headline talking about it. Much like the Nanos poll  that was everywhere last week. Even if it was from 2 weeks ago before the registry was in full swing.
Sorry just tireds of how they spin it. Want to report it, show the data and change from week to week. Don't just jump to a conclusion. You can still leave that for all the talking heads on the shows.

Smokin' Gun

Re: "Layton rallies MPs to save gun registry; NDP leader confident on vote,"

Sept. 15. I never thought I'd agree with Jack Layton on anything, but this time he and his NDP followers have my support. Let's fix the registry instead of scrapping it. Dumping the whole long-gun registry now would be akin to scrapping your new car because it has two flat tires. Fundamentally, the concept of a registry is a good idea. We've had it out for a very long test drive, now it's time to bring it into the shop to do some needed repairs on it. If the federal government works with legal Canadian gun owners, to fix the whole registry, then those same folks will likely support the newly repaired registry, instead of fighting it. There are many things that make little sense or are way too cumbersome to be effective. They may have been seen to be good ideas at the time, but are now quite obviously just plain silly!

Ray Courtman,

Beiseker, Alta.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Smoking/3532495/story.html

In that case Babble is the ultimate loser as people come here, see it's all about spin, and promptly leave.

How devastating for the Ignatieff Liberals.

No wonder the Layton-led NDP picked up, what was it 2%, in the last EKOS poll.

NDP's Layton looked like a leader in gun-registry debate

Ignatieff's heavy handedness has peeved his caucus, alienated rural voters and handed authorship of the political narrative over to Jack Layton and the NDP, who now get to exercise the balance of power in the Commons.

Having been thrust into the spotlight, NDP leader Jack Layton has quite frankly graced the stage.

His position on this private member's bill has always been clear: he wants the Commons to reform the registry to make it less invasive and offensive to rural and aboriginal Canadians while preserving its benefits for law enforcement. But he has also consistently endorsed his caucus colleagues' right to vote their consciences.

Following Ignatieff's decision to strip his colleagues of their democratic rights, Layton immediately went to work proffering his compromise position to Canadians and engaging his dissenting MPs in private, persuasive dialogue.

After weeks of sustained effort, on Tuesday afternoon Layton proudly announced he'd convinced enough of his formerly dissenting rural MPs to support the registry, meaning the firearms database will likely survive next week's crucial vote.

Layton has achieved a parliamentary and political masterstroke that should leave his peer leaders chastened and impressed.

The NDP leader has preserved democratic norms in his caucus; protected caucus unity by bringing his team around organically to a decisive consensus; and successfully withstood media and advocacy-group pressure to whip his parliamentary team. He opted instead for cool, patient persuasion and consistent, common-sense messaging.

Layton has achieved his objective of saving the gun registry while sending the right conciliatory messages to his party's crucial rural supporters in northern Ontario and the Prairies.

And perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, he's kept the NDP in the news and looking like a reasonable, responsible opposition party.

On this one, Ignatieff was outplayed by both Harper and Layton. The prime minister came out a winner because his key wedge issue and money-raiser is in tact for another election campaign. And Layton won because he gave Canadians a glimpse of what a constructive, competent and democratic opposition party is supposed to look like.

Ignatieff, however, lost the narrative, lost the initiative and deprived his MPs of long-standing democratic rights.

When Ignatieff shot himself in the foot, I hope the gun was registered.

http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/EditorialOpinion/article/687955

NDP MP's surprise switch likely means bid to scrap gun registry is dead

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/864025--ndp-mp-s-surprise-switch-likely-means-bid-to-scrap-gun-registry-is-dead

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-support-slumps-amid-gun...

IR today

Cons - 35%

Libs - 29%

NDP - 12%

Bloc - 11%

Yes let's get those pollsters to support the corrupt 2's contentions, and I notice you are still ignoring Sean's post about the HD BS poll.

It is also possible that the same client is manipulating the Ipsos poll the same way. Without knowing what was asked before the how will you vote question it is hard to say what the poll means. From the direct knowledge I have about the Decima poll, I know the tactic is in use now so unless someone who has direct knowledge of the question order for the IR poll, I won't assume anythign different.

As wel the NDP has had a lot of negaitve publicity over this -- a self fulfilling prophecy may also be happening even thugh there is no logic for this. The NDP may have to respond to this BS by clarifyinf that it does not ever whip backbench votes due to a promise it made.

IR chronically under-represents the NDP anyway and there are other reasons for this that relate to methodology and sample and even time of day for calling.

I agree that IR is a pro-Conservative pollster - I've said the same myself on other threads.  I don't necessarily agree with everything in the poll (I think Con support is probably inflated and the NDP support a bit too low), but that doesn't mean that the drop in NDP support measured in 2 polls isn't significant.  It may be a trend we will see in further polls.

I would just like to see some objectivity in looking at polling numbers here, rather than always seeing threads like "The NDP is at 20% on its way to 25% and about to dislodge the Liberals".

Debater how can you keep trotting out the garbage that ehre are two legitimate polls saying NDP support dropped when at least one has been identified as a push poll with leading questions on the gun registry before the ballot question.

If you want to ignore this then I can't respect you.

If you want to debate the legitimacy of a poll that asks other questions before the ballot question -- when those are partisan questions let's go there otherwise BS mis the most polite way of characterizing your debating-- or shall I just call it repeating of a talking point.

I don't see how you get to repeat over more than one thread the same damn thing without ever acknowledging what others are saying. I'll ask again -- Do you really respect a poll that asks partisan questions prior to going on to the who would you vote for question?

Be prepared that if you answer that you do then this may get thrown back at you later.

In this case the Decima poll has already been described as leading with gun registry questions so it is not valid on voting intention. The Ipsos poll might be an outlier or it might be lead in the same way but it sure can't be packaged with a known bogus poll to add any support to your argument.

Normally I can debate you respectfully but when you completely ignore what I am saying that is contrary to yours on the facts and keep repeating the same thing that ability is lost. If you want to continue-- with respect-- engage what I am saying, refute if you can the contention that you can lead with partisan questions and still have a valid poll or stop presenting this as a valid poll.

I do take this drop seriously.  However, I'd wait 'til the gun-registry-vote smoke clears before judging how enduring it is...

Debater, you should change your user profile. It says you are an office assistant. In your post #106 you say you are a lawyer.

Long-gun registry vote highlights divide within Liberal Party

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/long-gun-registry-vote-highlights-divide-within-liberal-party/article1725254/

Debater, isn't it a bit much to assume that a drop in NDP support in urban areas over the gun registry in the short run will hold up over the long run?

After all, it's not going to be long before urban voters remember that, while it's possible to spin it that the Liberal position was slightly more progressive than the NDP position on this one issue, on every OTHER issue the Liberals are sharply to the right of the opinions of voters in urban areas.

Urban voters are pro-labour; the Liberals aren't.

Urban voters want significant increases in social investment; the Liberals don't(and in fact, on spending the Liberals are barely different from the Tories at all).

Urban voters want human needs to be the first priority of government; the Liberals are more concerned with appeasing Bay Street bankers and the U.S. financial elite.

Other than the gun registry(and that issue is off the table now, for awhile)what do Liberals really have to offer urban voters at all?

It doesnt take brilliance to predict based on past patterns that whatever short horse race effect from the registry there may have been [if it wasnt just anomolous poliing movements] will be quickly gone.

And the playing out of the summit boondoggle will have no direct effect- definitely none you'll be able to point to. What effect it can have is to keep the Cons away from the messages that will help them... and there is really only one message, the ballot question of who best t manage the economy.

The boondoggle and more to come will not directly even dent them. What it could do is be noise that doesnt allow them to adequately sink in their ballot question. Which would certianly be something. But I wouldnt hold my breath on getting that either.

It's also worth noting that, until about a week before the vote, the coverage of the NDP's actions re: the registry were almost entirely negative.  That would be the time frame when these two polls were taken.

In the last few days before the vote and in the time since, the commentary on Layton's handling of the issue has been generally positive.

In any event, two polls from two different pollsters do not a trend make - as much as Liberal activists like Debator would wish.