You really do seem to be ratcheting up to a new overt provactive jag.
Cruising for being legitimately labelled as nothing but a troll.
All New Polling Thread (pt. 13)
Sun, 2010-05-02 20:45
#52
Sun, 2010-05-02 21:16
#53
Does it bother the NDP that their leader is the son of a Mulroney-era PC MP?
Sun, 2010-05-02 21:19
#54
Doesn't it bother the NDP that they have to rely on a former LIBERAL MP in order to win a seat?
Nope. More to come too. :)
Sun, 2010-05-02 21:52
#55
Sorry, RedRover. No, you cannot run for us as well.
Sun, 2010-05-02 22:37
#56
Sorry, RedRover. No, you cannot run for us as well.
You should try to address the content of my posts instead of taking the easy way out every single time. Pretty weak.
Sun, 2010-05-02 23:37
#57
I'm not feeding the trolls, sorry.
Mon, 2010-05-03 13:44
#58
New Angus Reid poll:
Con 35% (nc)
Lib 28% (-1)
NDP 19% (-1)
Bloc 11% (+2)
Green 5%
It has the Conservatives at 51% in BC
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.05.03_Poli...
Mon, 2010-05-03 17:45
#59
It has the Conservatives at 51% in BC
Interesting. I've seen predictions here in recent weeks saying that the Conservatives won't do as well as the 44% they got in B.C. in 2008, and yet according to this poll they are doing even better than in 2008.
Mon, 2010-05-03 19:43
#60
The Angus Reid regionals are always all over the place from one month to the next. I basically ignore them.
Mon, 2010-05-03 19:51
#61
The Conservatives are the only party showing less support now than what they received last election.
Thu, 2010-05-06 01:41
#62
Interesting how the federal numbers are wonky from pollster to pollster.
Just over one week ago we had the Cons at 29% and the Libs at 27% in a Harris-Decima poll, the first time that both major parties polled under 30% federally that I can recall. Combine that figure and it totals 56%.
Today Nanos comes out with a poll (~10 days later) and the Cons are at 37.2% and the Libs are at 33.2% for a combined figure of 70.4% - A 14.4% differential from the Harris-Decima poll.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T420E.pdf
Harris-Decima has a 2,014 sample size while Nanos has a 780 sample size.
Con: 29% (HD) - 37.2% (Nanos) - 8.2% differential;
Lib: 27% (HD) - 33.2% (Nanos) - 6.2% differential;
It's quite evident that one of these pollsters is waaaayyyyy off the mark here. That begs the question, which pollster is more accurate?
Is it Nanos because they accurately predicted the 2006 election and the last day of their 3-day rolling poll during the 2008 election was also relatively bang-on?
Or is it Harris-Decima because they have a much larger sample size than Nanos in their current polling? Any thoughts?
Thu, 2010-05-06 01:52
#63
Cueball
That really depends on the person intepretting the poll:
A) A normal person with a basic undrestanding of the technical aspects of polling will tell you it is the one with the larger sample size.
B) Some sort of wingnut with pre-identified partisan political beliefs will find a reason to support the one that is good for their political disposition.
Thu, 2010-05-06 02:50
#64
Today Nanos comes out with a poll (~10 days later) and the Cons are at 37.2% and the Libs are at 33.2% for a combined figure of 70.4% - A 14.4% differential from the Harris-Decima poll.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T420E.pdf
Yes, it is certainly an interesting poll. It means that the Conservatives and the Liberals are both doing well and that the NDP is not doing so well.
Other polls recently have shown that the Liberals weren't doing so well, so I'm not sure what has caused that increase.
Thu, 2010-05-06 03:18
#65
Today Nanos comes out with a poll (~10 days later) and the Cons are at 37.2% and the Libs are at 33.2% for a combined figure of 70.4% - A 14.4% differential from the Harris-Decima poll.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T420E.pdf
Yes, it is certainly an interesting poll. It means that the Conservatives and the Liberals are both doing well and that the NDP is not doing so well.
Other polls recently have shown that the Liberals weren't doing so well, so I'm not sure what has caused that increase.
That Conservative increase might be in for quite a jolt.
Another Conservative scandal may be on the horizon.
Conservative MP Shory accused in giant mortgage fraud
The Bank of Montreal is accusing Calgary Conservative MP Devinder Shory of having ties to what is believed to be Canada's largest mortgage fraud.
The bank has filed a lawsuit against hundreds of Albertans, including Shory. Civil court documents filed in the lawsuit, and obtained exclusively by CBC News, allege Shory, a lawyer, executed legal transactions that misrepresented the true mortgage owner of at least five Calgary properties.
None of the allegations contained in the lawsuit has been proven in court.
In a statement, Shory said he only learned about the lawsuit through the media.
"I want to state that I have not yet been served with a statement of claim. When I am, I will defend myself vigorously against these accusations. I have done nothing wrong," he said. "As the matter is before the courts, I have no further comment at this time."
The bank, which is suing lawyers, mortgage brokers and four of its own employees, alleges it was the target of a sophisticated scam operated by 14 interconnected groups that generated at least $140 million, about $70 million of which was for phoney mortgages.
The bank, which first discovered the alleged scheme in 2006, estimates it may lose as much as $30 million to the scheme.
The bank's investigators say the scam's ringleaders would identify the worst house in a good neighbourhood. They would buy at an affordable, fair-market-value price, but convince the bank the house was worth much more because of the neighbourhood it was in.
...
Investigators found Shory acted in at least five straw-buyer cases. The bank obtained Shory's trust account ledger. It shows he ran more than $3.7 million through an account that the bank has linked to the fraud.
The documents show Shory did not disclose to the bank that he was involved in a transaction involving a straw buyer.
In its lawsuit, the bank says the fraud's "central participants" arranged the "skip transfer." Using a skip transfer is a common method of falsely inflating the value of a property.
"In this case, the title to the property never was in the name of the central participant, but rather, went directly from the original owner to the straw buyer."
An affidavit sworn by Paul Hitchcock, the bank's head of security, refers to an April 19, 2007, letter from Shory to another lawyer, discussing a skip transfer.
"We confirm that this is a skip transfer, as such, we will be passing trust conditions imposed on us by the actual vendor's solicitor and will confirm undertakings based upon undertaking received from actual vendor's solicitor," the affidavit says.
The bank claims Shory had a legal duty to disclose this skip transfer or side deal because it's a precursor of fraud.
Shory was elected in the riding of Calgary Northeast in 2008, more than a year after his alleged involvement in the mortgage scheme.
On Monday, Shory added a link on his MP website headlined, "Conservatives Stand Up for Victims of White-Collar Crime."
In announcing tough new mandatory sentences for fraud, the Tories boasted that "our Government is building on our previous action by standing up for victims of white-collar crime. We have listened to Canadians' concerns and our Government is working hard to crack down on fraud."
Shory was in the House of Commons Wednesday evening to vote on several bills, including a Liberal motion to toughen the federal Lobbying Act in the wake of the Rahim Jaffer affair, which has embroiled the House for weeks.
Thu, 2010-05-06 03:22
#66
Yes, I just posted a new thread on that actually, because the story doesn't really involve the topic of polls.
I don't think it will have much impact with the public though - it's a private civil matter that does not involve the government or the Prime Minister. What does it have to do with the PM's ability to run the country?
Thu, 2010-05-06 06:26
#67
You have got to be joking Augustus.
Just a private civil matter? 
... that a Conservative MP is being sued by a bank for egregious fraud. Won't touch the PM or government, eh?
Geurgis wasn't accused of anything nearly as bad as that, and you were among those that thought she had to be thrown under the bus for the government to protect itself.
Thu, 2010-05-06 06:52
#68
Whatever else we may say about the Nanos poll, it gives the Greens a realistic sounding 3.8% of the vote as opposed to the fantasy 12% reflected in other recent polls.
Thu, 2010-05-06 07:06
#69
EKOS
C - 33.1%
L - 26.1%
N - 16%
B - 10.2%
Thu, 2010-05-06 08:38
#70
That really depends on the person intepretting the poll:
A) A normal person with a basic undrestanding of the technical aspects of polling will tell you it is the one with the larger sample size.
B) Some sort of wingnut with pre-identified partisan political beliefs will find a reason to support the one that is good for their political disposition.
It is not that simple as there are qualitative dfferences as well as quantatative differences.These are in the questions, the sample, the analysis and the interviewers.
Thu, 2010-05-06 08:50
#71
The issue of scandals affecting the government is clouding a disturbing issue that we are not addressing here enough-- As this government tilts more and more to the right, Canadians seemed ready to support those policies and government-- and will only turn away when there are serious scandals.
People are revolted by the Guergis affair etc. but they do not seem disturbed by the government's approach to women's rights, the environment, social policy etc.
So just how right wing are the people of Canada right now?
Sure the scandals might build up enough to defeat this current government but if Canadians are moving to the right that is most disturbing and the prospect of getting rid of the government is meaningless especially as the party most likely to replace them finds its ideology in the latest opinion poll.
As the people of Canada move more and more towards the overwhelming propaganda driven messages that bring them to the right, the individual fortunes of political parties may matter a lot less than they did before.
I'd be happy to hear that I am wrong on this btw.
Thu, 2010-05-06 10:52
#72
Nope it is 70 years of HARD propoganda called "news agencies" thta have made people apathetic or having not nearly enough time to read the stuff this government did on page H 89..plus they get a free pass for analysis. Where is the left represented even on the CBC..by Ian Capstick. The guy is useless and to me even seems bitter about the NDP.
On the cbc site the cons are yucking it up saying they are going to get a majority. Its 33%. I have a hard time thinking voters care about anything anymore. I know libs look like shit right now but holy cow harper is terrible. I also thinks this reflects a bit on the NDP. If they had been bold and took some stands(that might have been reported for once) we would surely be higher.
The propganda effect must be strong for the two dismal parties even having 20% right now. With the scandals of the cons coming out faster than any previous gov and quickly going down the memory hole it is no wonder that their fiscal legend is viwed as a good one which their actual record shows is clearly false.
I have a hard time explaining to people how come we `all of a sudden have homeless peolpe here` when it was paul martin and flaherty as finance ministers that changed the face of our country(ontario at least) No ability to connect the dots even when someone draws most of the picture for you.
Sad and I don`t know an answer. Hopefully clegg gets in and implements PR even if the CBC is writing him off saying he would need a coalition to govern...ummm so would the tories CBC.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:11
#73
You have got to be joking Augustus.
Just a private civil matter?
... that a Conservative MP is being sued by a bank for egregious fraud. Won't touch the PM or government, eh?
Geurgis wasn't accused of anything nearly as bad as that, and you were among those that thought she had to be thrown under the bus for the government to protect itself.
The mortgages controversy that the MP is alleged to be involved in happened several years ago before he was even an MP - it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister or the management of the Government. Don't you agree with this?
Remember, I correctly predicted that the controversy over Rahim Jaffer would not have any major negative effect on the Conservatives, and that turned out to be true. The Conservatives are still ahead in every poll.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:33
#74
You are getting conveniently formal and hair splitting.
Its all about perception and trust. I also did not think the Jaffer affair would necessarily stick. But now there's more. So the fact that it has not stuck on the government yet means nothing about whether it will now.
And if Geurgis had to be dumped for rumours- ones when push came to shove Harper would not formally ask to be investigated by anyone.... then where does that leave a member of the Caucus about whom there are not just rumours, but he has been named in a civil suit by a bank for what they are willing to call fraud. We're not talking some frivlous law suit here, we're talking BMO.
Potentially, it might not matter that an MP has been named in even such a compelling civil suit. But when you've just dumped a member of Cabinet right out of Caucus and taken away here nomination, for rumours of wrong doing.... that is very, very different situation.
At a bare minimum- the damage done to the government is that the longer they are on the defensive the more vulnerable they are. And it in no way requires on the ropes defensive. Just being unable to deliver your message is sufficeint to be thrown off track when it goes on long enough. The more so when this government has lingering trust issues with swing voters. Just because the tipping point on that has not been reached does not make it a toothless trap door.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:41
#75
Augustus-- it speaks to the kind of people the PM has in his caucus -- I have no idea how you can think this is not relevant. Of all crimes you would think that fraud would be a biggie. As well, the PM has not suspended him from caucus as yet.
Don't think the Jaffer story is over or that a trend is made in a poll. It is a bit early to crow that you were right. That commentary should be saved for after the next election. I have been cautious of both positive and negative polls (from my perspective) because they are brief windows to a given time-- a little like judging how the weather will look next week by looking out a peephole into a tiny portion of sky today. The point is people followed the story.
To illustrate my point read this poll for the Star La Presse (done by Ekos-- one of the two pollsters you are now relying on):
http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/TheStar14Nov2005.pdf
Toronto Star Nov 14. 2005.
"...anger over the scandal likely won't result in any major swings."
"it's not important enough in the minds of voters to topple the Liberals."
Edited to add-- I cross-posted with Ken.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:47
#76
All I'm saying is what most political experts would tell you - what damages a Government or a political party is when MP's are doing things which involve the Government or the party abusing the public trust by stealing money or wasting it at public expense. Examples would include the Sponsorship Scandal in Canada, and the Parliamentary Expenses scandal in the UK.
If those type of events were to occur in the Conservative Government, then you would have a scandal that would go to the heart of public trust and the government itself. What an individual MP (Devinder Shory) may have done before he was even in the government, or what an ex-MP (Rahim Jaffer) may have done when he isn't in the government anymore, is not the same thing.
The public will punish governments who steal money from the public or charge up greedy and unnecessary expenses on the public tab. They are not likely to throw a government out for what a couple of individuals may have done as private citizens.
At this point in time, the polls would appear to support my position.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:52
#77
Just more nonsense.
The Conservatives are polling at less than what they got last election, so I wouldn't be bragging about their low polling results.
Thu, 2010-05-06 15:53
#78
Hardly Augustus-- this government is special because it came in on a mandate related to ethics.
Frankly the secrecy issues may be bigger than these and there are enough problems that it is hard to point to why they are down in the polls but they certainly are.
Thu, 2010-05-06 16:08
#79
The Conservatives are polling at less than what they got last election
So are the other two federalist parties. It appears that only the BQ has improved right now.
The Liberals are stuck at where they were last time, and the NDP is down to 16% in the last 2 polls (Nanos and Ekos), not the 20% that you've been claiming.
Thu, 2010-05-06 17:24
#80
@ Augustus - Haven't you been constantly claiming that the BQ will do worse come election time, yet you've finally acknowledged that that's not necessarily true? I think all your posts on this website highlight the general pointlessness of debating margin of error swings.
Thu, 2010-05-06 18:12
#81
remind
yep....so not the babbler audience, these right wing propagandist people are speaking to, but the wider readership, making sure the talking points are everywhere, even where allegedly they are not supposed to be.
Thu, 2010-05-06 22:50
#82
@ Augustus - Haven't you been constantly claiming that the BQ will do worse come election time, yet you've finally acknowledged that that's not necessarily true? I think all your posts on this website highlight the general pointlessness of debating margin of error swings.
The trend for the BQ has been downward in the last 2 elections, and that may still continue in the next election.
But because of the current failures of the Charest government and the federalist parties, the BQ appears to be experiencing a moderate surge in support. I was simply acknowledging that.
Meanwhile, the latest 2 polls cast some doubt on North Report's theory of an NDP surge.
Thu, 2010-05-06 23:04
#83
Ever the master of the obvious. You could close your eyes and accurately opin that there is "some doubt" about NR's latest theory of an NDP surge.
Mind you, look beyond the over the top language of them and its readily obvious that its all about possibilities.
Fri, 2010-05-07 23:36
#84
New Ipsos Reid poll
Con 35% (NC)
Lib 29% (NC)
NDP 16% (NC)
Grn 9% ( -1)
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Afghan+detainee+issue+should+lead+elect...
Sat, 2010-05-08 01:35
#85
Hardly Augustus-- this government is special because it came in on a mandate related to ethics.
Frankly the secrecy issues may be bigger than these and there are enough problems that it is hard to point to why they are down in the polls but they certainly are.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/calgary-devinder-shory-bmo-c...
He was being sued just before the election.
Sat, 2010-05-08 10:31
#86
I don't understand the polls. It must be landlline answers because I find it hard to believe the cons are trending upwards with youth(under 45)
Sat, 2010-05-08 10:39
#87
Party / Last election / Nanos today / Change
Cons / 37.7% / 35% / Down 2.7%
Sat, 2010-05-08 18:54
#88
Hardly Augustus-- this government is special because it came in on a mandate related to ethics.
Frankly the secrecy issues may be bigger than these and there are enough problems that it is hard to point to why they are down in the polls but they certainly are.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/calgary-devinder-shory-bmo-c...
He was being sued just before the election.
This is a fair point. This development is new, and was not known when we first talked about it several days ago. If it is the case that Shory was sued about this way back in 2008 at the time he became a candidate, that makes it a potentially bigger issue than was originally thought.
Apparently some of the Conservative top brass are now getting angry with Shory, as it appears he did not reveal this on the disclosure statement you are required to make when you become a Candidate. You are required to name any potential problems or legal issues that you are involved in so that the party can vet you before approving your nomination. If Shory was not upfront with Conservatives when he sought the nomination, he may face some backlash.
Nevertheless, there isn't really a lot for the opposition parties to pursue at this point. If they keep asking questions about in the House, the basic response they will keep getting is that it is a matter before the courts and that until it is resolved it cannot be commented on.
Sat, 2010-05-08 20:29
#89
If Shory was not upfront with Conservatives when he sought the nomination, he may face some backlash.
Nevertheless, there isn't really a lot for the opposition parties to pursue at this point. If they keep asking questions about in the House, the basic response they will keep getting is that it is a matter before the courts and that until it is resolved it cannot be commented on.
If Shory did not disclose that he was sued in a fraud case- regardless of whether he was being sued for the fraud- then that is more than just not so good.
It wouldn't necessarily get you kicked out of Caucus when it became public. But this does come immdiately on the heels of Geurgis being tossed out of Caucus and 'un-nominated' over unsubstantiated rumours where there is as yet no indication that any body is going to take action against her.
While Shory has been sued for not cooperating in a large civil case of egregious fraud, and he only might face some serious consequences.
In case you don't get the logic we'll spell it out for you. It was convenient to not only remove Geurgis from Cabinet as was expected- but to put maximum distance from her by throwing her completely under the bus. Shoot first and ask questions later. [There are some allegations of wrongdoing. Its convenient for us to act as if they are true.]
But thats all predicated on framing Geurgis [and Jaffer] as bad apples tainting the whole barrel. There isn't an opportunity to deal with an immediate follow-up scandal in the same way. So in this case we'll have to stick with "nothing has been proven yet, its just a civil case."
No matter that Geurgis in fact got the total ejection because what she did looked bad... even further from any substantiation of that than is the case of Shory. And if rumoours about Geurgis looked so bad, what would a reasonable person say by comparison how it looks about an MP who was sued, says he was not, and is wrapped up in charges around which there is a great deal of substantiation?
Sat, 2010-05-08 20:32
#90
The excuse of "matter before the courts" is really threadbare when its a civil case.\
But it doesn't matter whether the opposition dogs this successfully or not- the media will be pulling at all the aspects of it.
Sat, 2010-05-08 23:42
#91
I don't understand the polls. It must be landlline answers because I find it hard to believe the cons are trending upwards with youth(under 45)
All these years I thought my "youth" was gone, but it turns out I've got one more year left
Sun, 2010-05-09 00:48
#92
If Shory was not upfront with Conservatives when he sought the nomination, he may face some backlash.
Nevertheless, there isn't really a lot for the opposition parties to pursue at this point. If they keep asking questions about in the House, the basic response they will keep getting is that it is a matter before the courts and that until it is resolved it cannot be commented on.
If Shory did not disclose that he was sued in a fraud case- regardless of whether he was being sued for the fraud- then that is more than just not so good.
It wouldn't necessarily get you kicked out of Caucus when it became public. But this does come immdiately on the heels of Geurgis being tossed out of Caucus and 'un-nominated' over unsubstantiated rumours where there is as yet no indication that any body is going to take action against her.
While Shory has been sued for not cooperating in a large civil case of egregious fraud, and he only might face some serious consequences.
In case you don't get the logic we'll spell it out for you. It was convenient to not only remove Geurgis from Cabinet as was expected- but to put maximum distance from her by throwing her completely under the bus. Shoot first and ask questions later. [There are some allegations of wrongdoing. Its convenient for us to act as if they are true.]
But thats all predicated on framing Geurgis [and Jaffer] as bad apples tainting the whole barrel. There isn't an opportunity to deal with an immediate follow-up scandal in the same way. So in this case we'll have to stick with "nothing has been proven yet, its just a civil case."
No matter that Geurgis in fact got the total ejection because what she did looked bad... even further from any substantiation of that than is the case of Shory. And if rumoours about Geurgis looked so bad, what would a reasonable person say by comparison how it looks about an MP who was sued, says he was not, and is wrapped up in charges around which there is a great deal of substantiation?
I agree that Harper will continue to face some lingering questions about why he removed Guergis, but that story is gradually going away.
As regards Shory, it's important to remember that if you read what the bank has said, he is not being accused of fraud - he is being accused of acting negligently in his capacity as a lawyer in the mortgage transactions. The bank's attorney said in court yesterday that none of the lawyers are being accused of fraud as a matter of fact.
As a result, I don't think this case has the salacious and juicy details around it that the Guergis and Jaffer cases did, and it isn't likely to attract as much attention. I'm not sure what you think the media is going to investigate - there's not a lot to investigate other than to follow the court case over the course of the next year.
Sun, 2010-05-09 12:19
#93
Hardly Augustus-- this government is special because it came in on a mandate related to ethics.
Frankly the secrecy issues may be bigger than these and there are enough problems that it is hard to point to why they are down in the polls but they certainly are.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/calgary-devinder-shory-bmo-c...
He was being sued just before the election.
How does the quote from me relate to your comment? I can't see a connection since my comment is to say there ae enough reasons to explain why the Cons are down in the polls and yours outlines a new story that cannot be reflected in the polls because it is just now breaking
Sun, 2010-05-09 12:27
#94
Thats really lame Augustus.
Its not about how a case proceeds in the court, nor the least bit limited to what Shory is charged with. I have said all along that it doesnt matter he's not being charged with fraud. Whatever happens in the court case, its well established that its a big scam, and Shory is well and truly tied to it. And not just tied- its well established that he ignored the banks repeated requests for documents and had to be sued to get his attention, and to boot now says he has never been sued.
All those established facts are sufficient in themselves for the media to dig further into shory's connections. Connections to perpetratrators [how did he get referred], what happened around the candidate disclosure statement, etc. And following what is found there, questions to Harper and spokespersons like [for example] "given that Mr. Shory did not disclose he had been sued and refused to provide documents, and given the nature of the case, why has Mr. Shory faced no/minimal consequences?"
Matter before the courts will not deflect those questions. The stories cannot come until thee has been a chance to do some of that digging. Yes, the case is not as lurid as the Geurgis/Jaffer affair. And it may well turn out the media is too lazy. So this might largely pass, but I wouldnt go predicting it as you have.
Nor is the comparison to the Geurgis case one of 'lingering doubts' about the strength of Harper's reaction. Its that the raw cynicism is patently obvious. Given this is strike two in short order, precipitously throwing Shory under the bus would not work. "Oops. Sorry. But just a bad apple." Once, could work. But twice in quick succession? Problem there: not a bad apple now [and lets move on]. This time there is no opportunity for precipitous ejection as a means to prempt the story- because its another bad apple already. Since you can't take the proactive route of throwing Shory under the bus too, you just pretend nothing is wrong and hope it goes away. And it might.
Even if it does- each of these incidents leaves the government more exposed for the next bad news, which doesn't even have to be around dubious ethics to touch off the now very short fuse. [Tick, tick, tick...]
Granted, around here we are all just itching for the fall. But your crew is doing a good job of bringing it on.
Sun, 2010-05-09 18:31
#95
Thats really lame Augustus.
Its not about how a case proceeds in the court, nor the least bit limited to what Shory is charged with. I have said all along that it doesnt matter he's not being charged with fraud. Whatever happens in the court case, its well established that its a big scam, and Shory is well and truly tied to it. And not just tied- its well established that he ignored the banks repeated requests for documents and had to be sued to get his attention, and to boot now says he has never been sued.
All those established facts are sufficient in themselves for the media to dig further into shory's connections. Connections to perpetratrators [how did he get referred], what happened around the candidate disclosure statement, etc. And following what is found there, questions to Harper and spokespersons like [for example] "given that Mr. Shory did not disclose he had been sued and refused to provide documents, and given the nature of the case, why has Mr. Shory faced no/minimal consequences?"
Matter before the courts will not deflect those questions. The stories cannot come until thee has been a chance to do some of that digging. Yes, the case is not as lurid as the Geurgis/Jaffer affair. And it may well turn out the media is too lazy. So this might largely pass, but I wouldnt go predicting it as you have.
Nor is the comparison to the Geurgis case one of 'lingering doubts' about the strength of Harper's reaction. Its that the raw cynicism is patently obvious. Given this is strike two in short order, precipitously throwing Shory under the bus would not work. "Oops. Sorry. But just a bad apple." Once, could work. But twice in quick succession? Problem there: not a bad apple now [and lets move on]. This time there is no opportunity for precipitous ejection as a means to prempt the story- because its another bad apple already. Since you can't take the proactive route of throwing Shory under the bus too, you just pretend nothing is wrong and hope it goes away. And it might.
Even if it does- each of these incidents leaves the government more exposed for the next bad news, which doesn't even have to be around dubious ethics to touch off the now very short fuse. [Tick, tick, tick...]
Granted, around here we are all just itching for the fall. But your crew is doing a good job of bringing it on.
The media will probably do a bit more digging into Shory's legal background and handling of the mortgages in question, but beyond that I don't see a lot of fallout unless he ends up being found guilty of negligence or is disbarred by his Law Society.
I do agree that if there were to be a large amount of scandals involving many MP's over a long period of time that were to go to the heart of trust in the Federal Government itself that it could be damaging, but at the moment that is not the case.
The Harper Government will only be in serious danger if one or both of two things happen:
1. A scandal arises that implicates the entire government and/or Stephen Harper himself which causes Canadians to stop trusting the Conservative leadership as the one to be at the helm of Canada.
2. The economy experiences a major dip or economic failure of such a degree as to call into question Harper and the Conservatives' managing of Canada's economic engine.
At the moment, neither of those 2 things has happened. Canadians do not hold Harper or the government personally responsible for the actions of Guergis, Jaffer, Shory etc., nor have they lost faith in Harper's ability to be the most trusted leader on economic leadership.
That is reflected by the fact that the Conservatives are still ahead in the polls.
If either of the two issues I listed above becomes a major problem, then the opposition parties would be in business, but not before.
Sun, 2010-05-09 18:35
#96
Pretty easy bar you set to clear there.
Nothing like nuance.
Sun, 2010-05-09 19:05
#97
Hardly Augustus-- this government is special because it came in on a mandate related to ethics.
Frankly the secrecy issues may be bigger than these and there are enough problems that it is hard to point to why they are down in the polls but they certainly are.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/calgary-devinder-shory-bmo-c...
He was being sued just before the election.
How does the quote from me relate to your comment? I can't see a connection since my comment is to say there ae enough reasons to explain why the Cons are down in the polls and yours outlines a new story that cannot be reflected in the polls because it is just now breaking
It relates to the ethics if not the polls.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:54
#98
I don't see how this relates to the ethics point either actually. The fact that they have a lawyer as MP who has been sued for being involved in a shady practice is the point-- whether or not he was sued before or after the election hardly seems relevant.
Mon, 2010-05-10 16:25
#99
The news in Quebec just keeps getting better with the NDP at 18% in this Leger poll out today!
Mon, 2010-05-10 17:04
#100
Unfortunately for the right wingers they are now falling off the electoral map in Quebec. The right wing Cons are now in 4th place there which is great news. 
Mon, 2010-05-10 17:13
#101
The news in Quebec just keeps getting better with the NDP at 18% in this Leger poll out today!
Yes, because it's objective to always focus on the good polls rather than the bad ones. Might as well ignore the last couple of polls that have had the NDP at 12% in Quebec, yes? 