babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Polling on support for coalition?
December 2, 2008 - 4:08pm
Has anyone become aware of any polling done since word of the possible coalition broke?
It would be interesting to gauge popular support at this point.
Failing that, can anyone point me to a poll that was conducted during the election campaign that asked voters who they would support as a second choice, and breaks those answers down by first choice party?
I've only seen a Quebec poll so far, by CROP.
76% in favour of the coalition, 15% would prefer an election instead.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/01/bloc-mps-should-be-welcomed-at-cabinet-table-poll.aspx
In any case, the coalition should go ahead. By the time the next election comes, it will be a non-issue.
I did a poll this morning
72 % of my cows think a coalition is a good thing
100% of my bulls saw themselves in Harper's behaviour
100% of my chickens feel ham, beef, fish or turkey are what you should have for dinner tonight.
I am willing to bet there are polls being conducted right now. I'm sure some Babble members will kindly post them here!
It's funny, I had the same question in my mind, and I was going to create a thread about it too.
Judging from commentary on places like CBC, CTV, etc. people are evenly split (overall), with a lot of people blaming both sides for what's happening. Even the Conservatives aren't letting Harper off the hook for this one. The polling results would probably depend heavily on the wording of the question.
The Globe is running a poll on thie rsite right now, which doesn't count for for anything, but it's still interesting. With 30,000 votes, it's a tie.
http://www.globeandmail.com/ (scroll down, next to Jeffrey Simpson's photo)
Ipsos-Reid found 39% support for the coalition in September. Harper's brinkmanship (and people's partisan instincts) have probably reinforced that somewhat, though the Bloc's participation has not.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4093
Well that's decided then! That's all the insight I need to form an opinion. I'm glad we get visitors from the right to share these compelling arguments and scientific polling data.
Treason? Really? How do you figure that? Would treason be trying to subvert the democratic will of Canadians as expressed through the representatives they sent to the House of Commons.
A majority of those representatives have now decided to work democratically together and even provided the contents of the accord they signed for all to see. So yes I can see how you could make the case that trying to subvert that will by Harper might be considered treason.
No you see BA you have to understand the rules. When it's Harper and the Cons that are threatened it's 'treason'. When it's Harper doing it and threatening the Liberals (see 2004) it's a perfectly legitimate course of action.
I found some fine print in the Constitution earlier today, called the IOKIYAC clause. (It's okay if your a Con) It's right on the bottom corner, scribbled in pencil.
Is it right next to the section of what everyone wanted in thier coffee?
LMAO Eliza, and go figure, calling non-confidence in Harper is treason, can we say dictatorship loud enough, or long enough?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
BA,
*checks* Yep as well as the Timmies doughnut order.
Hey, look... Harper likes cream filled ding dongs. Who knew!
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
I'd say throwing the country into a constitutional crisis during a recession, making a deal with the separatist bloc quebecois, and ignoring the results of an election not 6 weeks ago amounts to something close to treason.
Lefties on blogs like Babble should carefully consider what is being proposed here. Power to a separatist party that wants to break from Canada. Ignoring the votes of millions of ordinary Canadians in western Canada who are stunned by this naked power grab. Unreal.
How about the millions of Canadians who don't bother to vote, who don't see Harper as the devil incarnate, waking up one morning to see the Nutty Professor and Smilin' Jack Layton and the smooth talking Separatist leading the country! what does this say about the Canadian body politic? Constitution be damned.
I think the comments of Liberal Premier of BC pretty much summed the reaction of western Canadians well. Take a look at CTV news, the largest news outlet in the country to get an idea of the backlash to this deal.
Could you explain to me who supported Harper's first government and who was going to provide the votes to achieve confidence in this House? Wouldn't have been those damn separtists would it?
Any I really find your reference to the separtists as bordering on francophobia and rather distasteful. For good or ill the Canadians in the Bloq held ridings in Quebec, many of them not separtists sent these MPs to Ottawa to represent their concerns. It strikes me has highly undemocratic, un-Canadian and almost treasonous to suggest they should not be a part of the governing of Canada.
Francophobia be damned! Jack Parizeau is praising this coalition. Grab some sense give your head a shake! Unreal! totally unreal!
You can't let these separatists into government! What is "unity minister" Dion thinking!
Remember 1995 and the hair's breadth referendum? What about western Alienation. Dion is playing russian roulette with my country my Canada..
call me anything you like but don't take away Canada. Please!
Its not a "constitutional crisis". Dont be an idiot.
It is the constitution in action, exactly in the manner in which the COALITION led by CONSERVATIVE John A. MacDonald intended it to function, when they founded the country as a sovereign state.
Whatever you are smoking I want some it seems to be pretty powerful.
You clearly know almost nothing about this country you claim to love so much. You know nothing about Parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, or respect for Quebecers. My Canada includes Quebec, but it does not include idiots who have a thinly vieled hatred of Canadian values.
" ignoring the results of an election not 6 weeks."
No, it's honoring the results of the election.
Cmon guys. Parliamentary procedure could be on the coalitions side but this reeks of dirty pool and Western Canada isn't going to stand for it. I think it's Layton and Dion who've been smoking the funny stuff.
This coalition is childish nonsense by a bunch of losers who can't admit they lost an election.
I don't think he can help it. It's not part of the required talking points so maybe given em a break on that one. I've looked them over again and found a disclaimer, in pencil... (wtf is with this pencil thing anyways?)....that says.... warning: if you spout these you will likely sound like an idiot but I appreciate you taking one for the team, we're going for a "if we repeat it enough it will become 'true' strategy"......signed, SH. (looks like there's some sort of smear under it too, ding dong filling maybe?)
Yawn. I always find it funny that when people say 'the west' they really mean Alberta. There will be lots and lots of people in BC who will support this. And I had an email from a friend in Alberta today- a rancher even- and you know what he thinks this would be just great.
Look the alternative is having election after after election every three months, and in fact the ability of the GG to allow for the formulation of a coalition is a well recognized constitutional safe-guard against having a "constitutional crisis" because no party can form a stable government.
If you had your way we would have the fourth election in 8 years, and it is precisely to avoid this kind of instability that the parlimentary system allows for this option.
Tell me, what is so stable about having avowed separatists in the government? and voting no confidence and changing the government only 6 weeks after an election.
What's so magical about Layton's stimulus plan that Flaherty can't offer? Aren't we waiting for Barack Obama to prop up GM USA first? Wasn't that Clement's business in Washington?
What's the details on Laytons $30 Billion stimulus package? Don't have any insights about that? didn't think so.
Frankly, I didn't vote for any of these people, and I really don't care, but the last thing I want is to pay for another bogus FPTP election, this year.
You don't win, unless you win a majority. That is the FPTP game.
I thought these tories were supposed to be fiscal conservatives, but here they are demanding yet another election, which they will not win, not even in FPTP.
Wha? Flaherty has a plan? *looks under her pillow* Nope can't find it. Oh wait I forgot there isn't an actual plan. Just a bunch of BS political crap maquarading as a supposed plan, non-plan with a bunch of well we'll just wait and see platitudes.
If you have such a problem here Bruno then maybe you should get on the horn and have a chat with your guy about being and idiot and trying to pass off bullishit partisan agenda crap and trying to take advantage of the the economic situation to bully parliament, 6 weeks after an election in which he promised to work together blah blah bladdity blah. Bullshit begets bullshit. ---age old piece of wisdom that's particularly true when one is in a minority. If wisdom ain't your thing then try physics. For everything action there is a reaction.
It's pretty simple really, if you don't want non-confidence to be an issue, actually try to govern with the mandate that the electorate gave you. Heres a hint, MINORITY. I know it's hard, the word is oh so similar to the word MAJORITY so one might get confused, but hey most of here can actually spell (I do personally have spelling issues but I manage on the level of basic political comprehension) and can see the difference.
Okay, I did it too upthread a bit, but now I have to ask it. Why exactly are we feeding this troll?