New and Improved Polling Thread with extra fibre!

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
West Coast Lefty
New and Improved Polling Thread with extra fibre!

The latest Ipsos Reid national poll has the Cons back in the lead nationally at 35% with the Libs down a bit at 33%.  They have the NDP at 14%.  The Cons are gaining in Ontario where they lead the Libs 39% to 37%.  This is all within the MOE of course, but it's interesting that Harper has gained a bit even before the anti-Iggy ads reached their full force.  The Cons are still in abysmal shape in Quebec (a new CROP poll has them 4th behind the NDP in QC) and I suspect they've written off any hope there unless Mario Dumont decides to run in the federal by-election in Paul Crete's old seat.

This tells me there's no election this June/July despite all the sabre-rattling on Parliament Hill.  The BQ will likely blink or Iggy will find some way to cave in while saying how much he hates the Conservative agenda.  The big picture is the economy - if things feel like they are starting to turn around, Ontario will swing back to the Cons and Iggy will be hooped. 

Jack's best move is to keep the NDP focused on issues and getting results and let Iggy and Harper play the negative ad political games.

Debater

Ipsos-Reid tends to be the most pro-Conservative polling firm in Canada in terms of its numbers.  They always inflate Con support as evidenced by the fact that they have predicted Conservative majorities in the last 3 eleections as well as predicting only a Liberal minority in the 2000 election.

Still, even though it is only one poll, it indicates that the standings between the parties are close and that the Liberals should not be too cocky or arrogant and have a long way to go yet before they can be confident of a win.

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps they set up that poll to provide a less than accurate picture to scare off the Liberals from pulling the plug now.

It is easy to do-- actually it is harder to get an accurate poll than it is to bias one.

Don't give me the crap about pollsters wanting to be accurate-- the only time they do is the last one before a test-- at the end of a campaign. A poll like this which can never be tested-- that's another thing.

And I have seen it done-- I worked for a polling firm and saw up close how these polls get biased. If you want real accuracy in polling numbers then you need to see all the questions they asked before the political preference question.

All that said, the Liberals would win with these numbers anyway. A minority win right now would be very good strategy- they could see a long slow mend in the economy blaming the Cons for every step of the way. The Cons would lose the government microphone. And the Cons would wear the recession more than they might if they remain in power. The Liberals would bring in a budget statemtn showing the worst red ink in Canada's history and put that around Harper's neck.

The BQ would lose ten seats to the Liberals but probably sweep most of what the Cons now have and be about where they were going in. The NDP would lose a few seats in Ontario to the Liberals but might gain in the west. The Liberals might end up with the NDP as being all they need to control the house and in that dynamic who, other than Cons lose?

 

Debater

Well, one way or another, it must be upsetting for Harper to know that his chances of ever getting a majority may be gone now and that the best he can probably hope for is another minority, if that.

thanks

"The big picture is the economy - if things feel like they are starting to turn around..."

"they could see a long slow mend in the economy"

??

um, are you people talking about stock showings? how long will that last?

Debater

What I think all the politicians of all parties need to remember is that there is a difference between the economy turning around in terms of stocks, shares, global markets etc. and people's own individual economic realities.

Even if the economy recovers, it is going to be years before some people's lives go back to normal, and for some they never will.  For the thousands of people who have lost jobs, savings, houses etc. their lives are not going to suddenly stabalize because stocks rise.  It will take years for some people to find jobs again or to become financially secure.

thorin_bane

Not to mention sean the books would be open and seeing the HUGE mess they made would give even conservative voters a taste they wouldn't soon wash from their mouths. Imagine Reform Party 2 "This times it's a block party" Firewall Alberta and not even let King Harper back in to the country of the wild rose.

West Coast Lefty

Back to the thread topic Smile, a new CROP poll (article is in French) of Quebec federal voting intentions has the BQ back in the lead  with 36%, Libs at 32%, the Cons still at a dismal 15% and the NDP holding steady at 12%.  The poll is yet another confirmation of the complete collapse of whatever support Harper once had in Quebec - 65% are not satisfied with the federal government's performance, and Harper is at 15% for "best PM", behind Layton at 21% and Ignatieff at 39%.  The Libs are also in first place in the Quebec City region which is an amazing turnaround in what was thought to be the last bastion of Conservative support.

At this point, Harper can only hope to hang on to 2-3 seats (Bernier is rock-solid in Beauce, Lebel will probably hang on to Roberval unless the BQ vote goes up a lot, maybe Blackburn can hold Lac St-Jean) so his best bet is to prop up the BQ to limit Liberal gains in the province.

It will be interesting to see if the Lib vote continues to decline in Quebec (they were in first place with 37% in the last CROP) or if they have a solid support at around 30%.  If their support stays at that level, Iggy will lead at least a minority government after the next election.

Debater

If the Lib vote continues to decline?  What evidence is there that it is declining?  The polls show the Libs and BQ bouncing back and forth between #1 and #2 right now.  The Leger poll that just came out a few day ago had the Libs at #1 and the BQ at #2.

KenS

West Coast Lefty wrote:

It will be interesting to see if the Lib vote continues to decline in Quebec (they were in first place with 37% in the last CROP) or if they have a solid support at around 30%.  If their support stays at that level, Iggy will lead at least a minority government after the next election.

Debater

Ken S, the wording of the post above means that the Liberal vote is declining in Quebec, even though it contains the word "if".  It implies that there is a trend in the polls pointing to a decline (eg "continues to decline").  It was kind of awkward wording by West Coast Lefty.

Anyway, putting that aside, the point is that it is the BQ that has continued to decline in recent years and that's something they need to be careful of.  Just 5 years ago, in the June 2004 election, they received 48% of the vote in Quebec.  In January 2006 it fell to 42%.  In October 2008 it fell to 38%.

The fact that the BQ no longer polls anywhere near 48% and that even getting to 40% is a struggle, and that now they are often polling only in the 30's, is a problem for them.  They are lucky in that the electoral system gives them a disproportionate number of seats, but it still doesn't change the fact that fewer and fewer Quebecers are voting for it.

It is also good for the BQ that Gilles Duceppe has apparently decided to put off his retirement again so that they can benefit from his experience, but they have become very dependent on his leadership.  A party needs to be strong enough to survive the departure of its leader, and the BQ has to start thinking about where they are going to take the party when Duceppe retires.  They could drop even further in support otherwise.

KenS

Debater wrote:

Ken S, the wording of the post above means that the Liberal vote is declining in Quebec, even though it contains the word "if".  It implies that there is a trend in the polls pointing to a decline (eg "continues to decline").  It was kind of awkward wording by West Coast Lefty.

I'm sure it could have had a more perfect wording, but he didn't say there was a declining trend, he said it had declined from 37 to 30.

I'm sure that the 'medium term trend' of the Liberals has gone up in quebec... that it isn't going back to where it was. But all we know is that there has been a spike. It remains to be seen if they can even stay close to 30%. Obviously the vote in quebec is very volatile... the Liberals have just been the first to cash in on that.

We'll see what happens when the glow around Iggy fades, the NDP is back in the news and with clearer positions than the Liberals [which has more impact in Quebec], and the Bloc is reaping all sorts of benies, from merely the House sitting to extracting concessions from the government.

KenS

West Coast Lefty wrote:

will be interesting to see if the Lib vote continues to decline in Quebec (they were in first place with 37% in the last CROP) or if they have a solid support at around 30%.  If their support stays at that level, Iggy will lead at least a minority government after the next election.

Contingency #1 on that, and presumably we agree, we'll see about them maintaing that 30% neighbourhood.

Contingency #2: even if they did, that says little to nothing about what is going on in the rest of the country. And it would have to be a huge tidal wave for them to get a majority- which we've seen no signs of, even with the soon to end fawning honeymoon over Iggy. Then there is the little question of when. A year from now we may still be in the shuttle between:

1] The Liberals don't want an election.

2] When they are ready, Bloc deal with government.

By the time we are within sight of an election, lord knows how many support trends will have come and gone.

Debater

KenS wrote:

Debater wrote:

Ken S, the wording of the post above means that the Liberal vote is declining in Quebec, even though it contains the word "if".  It implies that there is a trend in the polls pointing to a decline (eg "continues to decline").  It was kind of awkward wording by West Coast Lefty.

I'm sure it could have had a more perfect wording, but he didn't say there was a declining trend, he said it had declined from 37 to 30.

You mean it declined in the one CROP poll.  (Btw, it is 32 for the Liberals in the poll you mention.)  But a decline is something that really has to be measured over more time.

For example, most people would agree it is accurate to say the Conservatives have declined in Quebec because they are down in every poll, month after month.

As I mentioned above, the other trend in Quebec is a decline for the BQ vote because it can be seen over a number of years.  The Liberal vote may have stabalized in Quebec for now though and may not go up again much for a while.  Iggy may have peaked for the present time.

It is also important to remember that the BQ often polls higher in opinion polls than it does on election night.  Usually you can knock off several points from the BQ's numbers to get a more accurate gauge of its real support.  For example, the BQ was polling at 40-42% going into October 14, 2008 - on election night they only got 38%.

The same thing has happened in many other elections over the years including in November 2000 when they ended up being beaten in the popular vote by Jean Chretien - something they were not expecting.

KenS

Debater wrote:
Yes, but a decline is something that has to be measured over a period of time in multiple polls, not just in one CROP poll.

By the same token, there is no trend yet established for the Liberals in quebec- beyond that they are no longer in the dumps.

Debater wrote:
For example, most people would agree it is accurate to say the Conservatives have declined in Quebec because they are down in every poll, month after month.

This is the only thing that is so certainly established. We don't have a basis for as much certainty about what is going on with the Liberal and BQ vote shares.

Debater wrote:
The Liberal vote may have stabalized in Quebec for now though and may not go up again much for a while.  Iggy may have peaked for the present time.

That substantialy understates the contingency of the Liberal vote in Quebec. It has not stabilized against some significant correction movement... we can only be pretty certain its not going back to the basement.

As to the Bloc vote, you mix long and shorter term trends. Over the long term- across multiple elections- the Bloc share is down. But in any given election cycle it can and does go both ways a lot.

You have an implicit assumption that the Liberals will stay high [possibly even higher, not substantially lower], and that the Bloc will do well to stay where they are. Thats just one plausible outcome- no basis really for considering it to be th expected one.

KenS

There is a simple summary to what we know of the trends in quebec, when you strip away all this ping pongy discussion.

First the Conservatives feast on a steady erosion of the Bloc vote.

Then Quebeckers wake up to who the Conservatives are, the vote collapses.

And the initial biggest beneficiaries of that Conservative collapse is the Liberal Party.

We haven't heard the last word on that- especially from the Bloc. Quebeckers will be seeing more of Iggy and his many 'facets,' the Bloc will be focused for the first time in a while on the Liberals... and the Bloc is ensconced in the cat birds seat for getting goodies for Quebec.

Debater

I'm not saying the Liberals are guaranteed to go higher or stay high - I agree with you that we need more time to see what happens.

But I disagree on the part that all we are seeing is that they are no longer in the basement - there's more to it than that.  The Liberals have overtaken the BQ in a couple of polls now for the first time since before the Sponsorship Scandal hit - that is a major change and one that began on election night when they stopped going down as they had in 04 and 06 and made a small recovery.

Anyway, the BQ and Liberals appear to be statistically tied in QC right now - the BQ is a bit ahead in the CROP poll above, and the Liberals are a bit ahead in the Leger poll that came out a few days ago which covered a similar (although not identical) period to that of the CROP poll:

http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/095251FR.pdf

Uncle John

I suspect that the Tories have determined that the anti-Iggy ads are working, which is why I am seeing them all the time on the TV. If there was a significant pushback on the ads they would have probably dumped them. At least they are not running ads with soldiers in the streets and firing guns. It is difficult to disagree with the actual content of the ads, as they merely report what Iggy said.

Considering the dire state of the economy the Tory numbers are mind-boggling. They are not in any kind of honeymoon period like Obama, and one would think they should be in the cellar with UK Labour. The same went for Gordo in B.C., and he won again handily.

The Federal Liberals keep shooting blanks. On the EI thing, it was Paul Martin who set the system up the way it is, with varying number of weeks to qualify depending on the unemployment rate in your district. So how can the Liberals say the Conservatives are wrong on this?

Again, the Liberals insisted that the Tories break the bank on the deficit, and now that the Tories have, the Liberals are saying that the finance minister should resign. Even the normally Liberal-friendly Toronto Star has noticed this incongruity (today's leader).

We still hear some nonsense about raising the GST, but the simple economic fact is that it is a consumption tax, and taxing anything tends to discourage it. That means that raising the GST will lower consumption, which is the biggest slice of GDP. We don't need anything which will tend to lower the GDP at this juncture. And anyway, the Liberals promised to scrap it in the first place (1993) so why are they saying they should raise it now?

Nonetheless, if the Liberals can steal some seats from the BQ, I would be very happy. It's going tobe hard for the Liberals to double their seats in one election. Change is pretty glacial these days, and it is doubtful we are going to get out of the minority- government-and-excessive-number-of-elections-per-decade stalemate any time soon.

Debater

Uncle John wrote:

I suspect that the Tories have determined that the anti-Iggy ads are working, which is why I am seeing them all the time on the Again, the Liberals insisted that the Tories break the bank on the deficit, and now that the Tories have, the Liberals are saying that the finance minister should resign. Even the normally Liberal-friendly Toronto Star has noticed this incongruity (today's leader).

I agree that the Liberals are guilty of some contradictions on the issue of spending and the deficit.  However, there are a couple of points the Liberals are correct about:

1.  Stephen Harper inherited a surplus from the Liberals

2.  Harper said during the fall that the government would have a surplus and not a deficit, and in reality it seems he had already used up that surplus before the economic crisis hit

3.  Flaherty grossly underestimated the size of the projected deficit earlier this year

adma

West Coast Lefty wrote:
At this point, Harper can only hope to hang on to 2-3 seats (Bernier is rock-solid in Beauce, Lebel will probably hang on to Roberval unless the BQ vote goes up a lot, maybe Blackburn can hold Lac St-Jean) so his best bet is to prop up the BQ to limit Liberal gains in the province.

Actually, while Lebel won his byelection in a landslide, his margin was whittled down to less than 4 points over the BQ in the general election.  So my assumption is, if the Tories are all but wiped out in Quebec, Lebel will be quick to fall.

If it were just 2-3 seats, I'd place Josee Verner or one of Bernier's south-shore neighbours ahead of Lebel.  (Or Blackburn, for that matter--though his is a special strategic-voting case.)

Debater

It's going to be kind of funny for the Cons if it turns out that their safest MP in QC ends up being Bernier and if only he is left after the next election.

Stockholm

Let's keep in mind that in 1988 the Tories won 63 out of 75 seats in Quebec - even after losing a dozen to the BQ in  defections, they still went into the 1993 election with something like 40-odd Tory Mps running for re-election. In 1993, the Tories ended up with something like 15% of the popular vote and that yielded ONE seat - Jean Charest. So, I think its safe to assume that if tory support in Quebec actually falls to the low teens - they will be lucky to salvage a single seat there.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Let's keep in mind that in 1988 the Tories won 63 out of 75 seats in Quebec - even after losing a dozen to the BQ in  defections, they still went into the 1993 election with something like 40-odd Tory Mps running for re-election. In 1993, the Tories ended up with something like 15% of the popular vote and that yielded ONE seat - Jean Charest. So, I think its safe to assume that if tory support in Quebec actually falls to the low teens - they will be lucky to salvage a single seat there.

Interesting point.

Although had Gilles Bernier (Maxime's father) not been charged with fraud and had his nomination papers rejected by Kim Campbell, the PC's would have had 2 seats in QC. Wink

Stockholm

OR, maybe he would have lost as a PC candidate and running as an Independent actially saved him from getting defeated by the anti-Kim Campbell tidal wave that hit Quebec that year.

Uncle John

I don't know how you can blame any government for failing to predict its revenues. It's a guessing game for the best of us. Government revenues are based on the performance of the economy.

When the stock market crashed last October, Harper said it was a good time to buy. He was right about that.

What should we do, slash government spending by $50 billion?

How would you like that? Or is it so hypocritical you would only want the NDP and Liberals to do it? Politically it might be a good idea, but economically it isn't.

The government is borrowing at historically low rates of interest, and on the supply side, investors would like some Canadian T-Bills.

GDP = Domestic Consumption + Business Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports.

Cut consumption taxes to encourage Consumption. No Brainer.

Stock market is up, allowing companies more money to invest. No Brainer.

Make up the difference with Goverhnment Spending. Cut the $50 billion and the economy loses that.

Commodities are up again so the balance of payments should be good, even though a higher dollar will encourage more imports.

I can't see what else they can do, and it is clear no one else can either.

Whether you have money or you don't, you have to do what you have to do.

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

OR, maybe he would have lost as a PC candidate and running as an Independent actially saved him from getting defeated by the anti-Kim Campbell tidal wave that hit Quebec that year.

That's a possibility, yes.  I guess there's no way to know for sure, although I get the sense that the Bernier name is strong enough in Beauce to get elected under any banner.  Afterall, Maxime was able to get re-elected there in October with over 60% of the vote again despite the anti-Harper backlash.

Stockholm

"I don't know how you can blame any government for failing to predict its revenues. It's a guessing game for the best of us. Government revenues are based on the performance of the economy."

Well then why do we bother with the charade of bringing in a federal budget with revenue estimates at all??  Why not just announce "This is what we think we will spend - and call us next year if you want to know if there was a deficit or not". Why don't you tell that to all the rightwing media and Liberal and Conservative opposition parties who raked the NDP over the coals over budget projectsions in BC in 1996 and in Ontario in the early 90s. Anytime, the NDP (and to a lesser extent the Liberals) are in power it seems like its open season to blame the government for everything - but God forbid that the Tories are in power when the economy collapses and the deficit goes through the roof and suddenly "bwaaaaa - its not our fault".

Does anyone seriously think that Gordon Campbell actually believed for one second that the deficit in BC was only going to $485 million?? He just made up a number that he thought could get him through the election campaign and now that the votes have been counted we find out that he knew all along that the deficit was going to be more like $3 billion. Its called LYING.

Debater

Uncle John wrote:

I don't know how you can blame any government for failing to predict its revenues. It's a guessing game for the best of us. Government revenues are based on the performance of the economy.

We are not saying that the government is expected to precisely predict every cent of its revenues, but when its projections are so far off, it deserves scrutiny and criticism.  16 billion in difference is a huge number.

Besides, I suspect that one of the reasons Harper held the election last September is because he suspected Canada was heading towards a deficit and didn't want to tell that to the Canadian people.  He is a smart man and knew a lot of spending had been done during his first 2 years in office - I think he wanted to get re-elected before news of the deficit hit.

Bookish Agrarian

Well in the real world, especially business, you need to be pretty good with that sort of projection.  Now if only the Conservatives believed in what they preach and had someone as Finance Minister that had even a lick of business sense.  Trouble is they are all academic business people with no actual real world expertise from the Prime Minister on down.  The hubris is to laugh if it didn't have real life impacts on real people.

 

 

Debater
janfromthebruce

Debater wrote:

Uncle John wrote:

I don't know how you can blame any government for failing to predict its revenues. It's a guessing game for the best of us. Government revenues are based on the performance of the economy.

We are not saying that the government is expected to precisely predict every cent of its revenues, but when its projections are so far off, it deserves scrutiny and criticism.  16 billion in difference is a huge number.

Besides, I suspect that one of the reasons Harper held the election last September is because he suspected Canada was heading towards a deficit and didn't want to tell that to the Canadian people.  He is a smart man and knew a lot of spending had been done during his first 2 years in office - I think he wanted to get re-elected before news of the deficit hit.

Actually Debater, they already knew they would be in deficit and that was before they spent one cent on stimulating the economy or paying out money for increaes in EI claims. This "pre-election deficit" was already stated by Kevin the watch dog who gives an accounting to the public of the "real state" of our finances.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

A_J

Debater wrote:
saying that the government is expected to precisely predict every cent of its revenues, but when its projections are so far off, it deserves scrutiny and criticism.  16 billion in difference is a huge number.

Well with total federal revenues of 1/4 trillion dollars, 16 billion is only 6% over.

But, seeing how previous governments had been able to balance the budget (or generate surpluses) with considerable accuracy, it's obvious that it's possible to keep track of finances to a much finer degree than +/- 6% . . . if you're trying.

West Coast Lefty

adma wrote:

West Coast Lefty wrote:
At this point, Harper can only hope to hang on to 2-3 seats (Bernier is rock-solid in Beauce, Lebel will probably hang on to Roberval unless the BQ vote goes up a lot, maybe Blackburn can hold Lac St-Jean) so his best bet is to prop up the BQ to limit Liberal gains in the province.

Actually, while Lebel won his byelection in a landslide, his margin was whittled down to less than 4 points over the BQ in the general election.  So my assumption is, if the Tories are all but wiped out in Quebec, Lebel will be quick to fall.

If it were just 2-3 seats, I'd place Josee Verner or one of Bernier's south-shore neighbours ahead of Lebel.  (Or Blackburn, for that matter--though his is a special strategic-voting case.)

You make a good point re Lebel, wasn't aware his margin was so slim in the general, which is pretty amazing given the massive landslide in the by-election.  To the extent that the BQ support goes down a bit from the 2008 general election levels, Lebel might squeak by in a 3-way split based on his personal appeal, but he is definitely at risk of losing.

Blackburn won the general by a wide margin and he's been around on and off since 1984 or 1988, so he will be hard to beat IMHO.  Verner won by a lot but Quebec City voters are notoriously fickle and if they swing Liberal as recent polls indicate, all bets are off. 

West Coast Lefty

KenS wrote:

Debater wrote:

Ken S, the wording of the post above means that the Liberal vote is declining in Quebec, even though it contains the word "if".  It implies that there is a trend in the polls pointing to a decline (eg "continues to decline").  It was kind of awkward wording by West Coast Lefty.

I'm sure it could have had a more perfect wording, but he didn't say there was a declining trend, he said it had declined from 37 to 30.

I'm sure that the 'medium term trend' of the Liberals has gone up in quebec... that it isn't going back to where it was. But all we know is that there has been a spike. It remains to be seen if they can even stay close to 30%. Obviously the vote in quebec is very volatile... the Liberals have just been the first to cash in on that.

We'll see what happens when the glow around Iggy fades, the NDP is back in the news and with clearer positions than the Liberals [which has more impact in Quebec], and the Bloc is reaping all sorts of benies, from merely the House sitting to extracting concessions from the government.

My wording was a bit awkward, I concede, but I think I was fairly clear in referring to a Lib decline compared to the last CROP poll, and speculating as to whether future polls would show stabilization of Lib support at 30-32% or a further decline in support from their March/April surge.  I agree it's just one poll, but with recent Ipsos polling showing the Cons ahead nationally and in Ontario (again by very slim margins), there may (and I stress the word "may") be an emerging trend of a stall in the Liberal momentum.  I also stressed the horrible underlying fundmentals for the Cons in Quebec (Harper at rock-bottom in "best PM" question and huge "not satisfied" responses on the federal government performance) and their likely preference to prop up BQ support to limit Liberal gains.  The only hope Harper has for Quebec is a massive game-changer like Dumont joining the federal Cabinet or a new constitutional deal with Charest, both of which are very unlikely in the near future.

Quebec aside, I still maintain that the fact that the national polls are showing a close race is great news for Harper.  He has had a horrible last few months, the economic news is dreadful, he is showing his nasty and ultra-partisan side more and more often...but yet the Libs are still either tied or just slightly ahead/behind in most national polls.  Chantal Hebert recently wrote that Iggy's EI campaign is likely to backfire, and the negative ads will have some impact on swing voters.  Fundamentally, Iggy has still not defined himself or taken any clear positions on the economy or other key issues, and that lack of definition is preventing the Libs from taking a sustained lead over the Cons nationally, IMHO.

 

remind remind's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
Actually Debater, they already knew they would be in deficit and that was before they spent one cent on stimulating the economy or paying out money for increaes in EI claims. This "pre-election deficit" was already stated by Kevin the watch dog who gives an accounting to the public of the "real state" of our finances.

Absolutely correct jan, in fact, there was a long thread or 2 here about what Harper's actual deficit was before, we even went into the election last year.

IMV, Harper is merely masking his deficit by stating it has been spent on the economical down turn and job stimulaiton etc etc etc, when not a cent has been spent so far apparently.

I first noted in this thread Layton's remarks in QP the other day the press refused to cover:

 

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):     Mr. Speaker, the reckless tax cuts to the big profitable banks and the oil corporations, that were brought in by the government and in fact by Paul Martin and the Liberals prior, have left us without the financial capacity to respond when Canadians need us the most, and now we have the biggest deficit in Canadian history.

 

    The chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Don Drummond, says that the decisions over the past 10 years have created this structural problem. The fact is the Conservatives have simultaneously created the biggest deficit since Mulroney and at the same time they have thousands of unemployed people who cannot get help. Will he not finally admit that he got it wrong?

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):    Mr. Speaker, even the banks who received the corporate tax cuts agree that those tax cuts have caused the structural deficit situation in this country.

 

One would think with such a big deficit the Prime Minister might be able to point to some results, but the truth is we have another confirmation today that the infrastructure money is just a bunch of announcements. It is not making it out the door. In fact, even federal projects in the exclusive federal jurisdiction to the tune of $462 million have not been approved. Bridges and railway projects and harbours, the money is not flowing.

And ken indicated that he thought the stimulus packages were already accounted for in the defict annoucement, however, I disagree with that synopsis, as if that were the case the money would still be there and the Cons would not be announcing further deficits to come

Moreover, considering the information in the deficit thread of a few months back, and before the economy collapsed, there is no way if the stimulus packages were in place, as a line item now, that we would be at a mere 50 billion. As if I remember correctly the estimated consealed real deficit,  was about 30 - 40 billion at that time. Damn for those old babble threads at a time like this.

 

KenS

Since the thread on attack ads is closed I'll throw this in here.

Look for round two after the Liberals puff and puff and then let Harper by in the confidence vote next month. Without explicitly bringing that fact up, "just a visitor" followed by "not a leader". Somewhat more subtle than the Dion version, but Iggy in his own words puffing and then equivocating on any number of topics.

They've got so much money they could produce ads like that, and then wait till the last minute to sniff the wind and see if they want to run them.

Even I've got the wrong idea for what is in round two... I'll bet anything it's done already [or alternate versions]. While Iggy is getting his free ride from the media [let alone his past] he is providing them with material. Never likely to do to Iggy what they did to Dion, but don't need to either... just successfully sow enough doubts to keep Iggy from establishing a consistent lead.

Its not as if there is any substance in what he says and does. There lies the opportunity for sowing doubts.

remind remind's picture

Well Harper did say the other day in QP, Weds, I believe, that he has Iggy "on tape"!

adma

Stockholm wrote:

Let's keep in mind that in 1988 the Tories won 63 out of 75 seats in Quebec - even after losing a dozen to the BQ in  defections, they still went into the 1993 election with something like 40-odd Tory Mps running for re-election. In 1993, the Tories ended up with something like 15% of the popular vote and that yielded ONE seat - Jean Charest. So, I think its safe to assume that if tory support in Quebec actually falls to the low teens - they will be lucky to salvage a single seat there.

Though keep one important factor in mind: that 1993 number might actually have been skewed a little high by the sheer number of incumbents running again.  Whereas today, with many fewer seats, the potential support might be more efficiently concentrated even at a lower percentage.  (Sort of like how the NDP got more seats than the Tories that year.)

What I'd like to see are regional figures: the Quebec City region, et al.  Don't be surprised if the Tories throw the rest in order to salvage what they've got.

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

Uncle John wrote:

I don't know how you can blame any government for failing to predict its revenues. It's a guessing game for the best of us. Government revenues are based on the performance of the economy.


BS. covered already in another post
Uncle John wrote:

When the stock market crashed last October, Harper said it was a good time to buy. He was right about that.

Buy what? GM? Nortel?
Uncle John wrote:

What should we do, slash government spending by $50 billion?

Slashing the GST, while simultaneously slashing corporate and personal tax rates, while spending incompetently,wastefully, carelessly, and recklessly, while implementing inefficient 3P boondoggles, while shoveling handfuls of money into the military, AND trying to buy the last and next election is how they fucked this up so bad, not kismet or the phases of the moon
Uncle John wrote:

-snip-
Cut consumption taxes to encourage Consumption. No Brainer.

Oh, yes! Cut taxes! Because that worked so well when it created the massive Reagan deficit (and the interest nightmare as that deficit squeezed the global money supply). And when it created the Bush deficit, and when it created Mike Harris' massive deficit in Ontario. Hey, y'know what else might help? Less government red tape. Deregulate! Deregulate! Wheeeeeeeee!!!
Uncle John wrote:

Stock market is up, allowing companies more money to invest. No Brainer.

Where? In CHINA
Uncle John wrote:

The government is borrowing at historically low rates of interest,

Which is great until massive deficits sqeeze the money supply and FLOATING interest rates go through the roof, just like they did under Reagan
Uncle John wrote:

I can't see what else they can do, and it is clear no one else can either.
Whether you have money or you don't, you have to do what you have to do.
 

Again, its the invisible hand of the market, its the inexorable laws of capitalism, it is the the anthropomorphosisation of a concept which allows you to say we are helpless in the thrall of greater forces.
This neocon garbage is OVER.
No one buys this anymore.
Nice try, though.

No brainer indeed

janfromthebruce

No brainer indeed - more of the same is not working except for neoliberal loving few who laugh all the way to the bank - so Uncle John's response is more of the same - over, and over and over again - privitize, deregulate, cut taxes.

How about try this - when more of the same is not working - quit digging.

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

I hope John quotes Milton Friedman as an authority for this nonsense. He's the neocon God who preached the evangel for most of this bilge. Friedman's also unbelievably stupid. But if there's enough money behind bad ideas, like Miltie, like 'disproving' global warming, like George W Bush, you get a house and a car and you even get to be on the TV.

adma

adma wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Let's keep in mind that in 1988 the Tories won 63 out of 75 seats in Quebec - even after losing a dozen to the BQ in  defections, they still went into the 1993 election with something like 40-odd Tory Mps running for re-election. In 1993, the Tories ended up with something like 15% of the popular vote and that yielded ONE seat - Jean Charest. So, I think its safe to assume that if tory support in Quebec actually falls to the low teens - they will be lucky to salvage a single seat there.

Though keep one important factor in mind: that 1993 number might actually have been skewed a little high by the sheer number of incumbents running again.  Whereas today, with many fewer seats, the potential support might be more efficiently concentrated even at a lower percentage.  (Sort of like how the NDP got more seats than the Tories that year.)

What I'd like to see are regional figures: the Quebec City region, et al.  Don't be surprised if the Tories throw the rest in order to salvage what they've got.

And to extend the train of thought, remember that a lot of the 1993-style Tory-implosion energy already took place in 2008--ballyhooed breakthrough star candidates in seats like Saint-Jean and Riviere-des-Mille-Iles wound up relegated as far back as the teens, percentage wise. 

And of course, we mustn't forget the case of Michael Fortier in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.  Though my favourite case in point was Saint-Lambert, in part because that's where one of the byelections aborted by the general election was to take place--there was a certain media fixation over how this was competitive for the CPC's Patrick Clune, a potential belwether for Harper's Quebec popularity, yet he finished a disappointing 3rd at 15.8%, only 1.35% ahead of the NDP--and on top of that, factor out the advance polls and Clune was in 4th place on e-day!

Debater

adma wrote:

Though my favourite case in point was Saint-Lambert, in part because that's where one of the byelections aborted by the general election was to take place--there was a certain media fixation over how this was competitive for the CPC's Patrick Clune, a potential belwether for Harper's Quebec popularity, yet he finished a disappointing 3rd at 15.8%, only 1.35% ahead of the NDP--and on top of that, factor out the advance polls and Clune was in 4th place on e-day!

Yes, the by-elections - another thing that was affected by Stephen Harper's, shall we say, unethical decision to bring down his own government last fall in contradiction of his own election law.

I believe he called the election the day before the by-elections were to take place - they were on the Monday, and the GE was called on the Sunday.  All that time and money spent on them and the day before they are to take place they are aborted.  I think the media should have gone after Harper more for that.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

As to a summer election, Layton was on CTV's QP just now saying he is not going to vote non-confidence in the govt, but rather work with all parties to get results - at least that is Jane Tabor's interpretation of Layton's comment. And Lawrence Martn said there's no way the BQ will vote non-confidence. The speculation on CTV now is that Iggy will hammer the govt and begin to vote non-confidence after propping the Cons up 71 times in a row, because he can now do so without triggering an election.

 

 

Debater

Why will the NDP not be voting non-confidence?

KenS

Boom Boom wrote:

As to a summer election, Layton was on CTV's QP just now saying he is not going to vote non-confidence in the govt, but rather work with all parties to get results - at least that is Jane Tabor's interpretation of Layton's comment.

What he said was that they would not move a non-confidence motion. Big difference. The emphasis as you said was on getting bills passed [esp EI and pension reform]... the only thing he said they would not do is force an election. This is at the same time a statement of intent/emphasis [passing bills], and of procedural fact [the Liberals have the schedule opportunity for a non-confidence motion].

In fact. he tacitly/implicitly said the NDP would go along if the Liberals did force an election. [Overall: "not our first choice, but..."]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090531/NDP_Layton_090531/20090531?hub=Canada

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, I thought he said something along those lines, but afterwards, Jane Tabor, in a "gotcha" moment, was gushing about how they got Layton 'on the record', so I assumed maybe she was right. Can't trust anyone at CTV it seems.  

nussy

How can Layton force an election? He does not have the numbers or support even if he wanted to. Layton talked non comfidnce when he knew the Liberals were not ready. 

KenS

Any opposition party can use opposition days to bring forward a confidence motion. It takes finesse even if you are the Official Opposition like the Liberals. But the opposition actually 'forcing' a confidence vote isn't the way it usually happens. 

And what makes you think the Liberals are ready now? and not just talking? 

That they have taken the step that they can bluster too, rather than hide, does not mean they are any more looking for an election. 

KenS

Prediction:

I think Jack is just first, and that the Liberals will now or soon stop initiating even possible election talk. They have their opposition day scheduled, and have said it is for a confidence vote- 'if need be'. But I think Iggy and others will stop bringing it up- only when asked by reporters, will it be the official line that an election 'may be necessary'.

I'm not at all sure of that. Just a hunch.

nussy

Jack may have been first...but who was listening? He does not have the votes. The Liberals are building and the Bloq is losing support. The Conservatives have no support at all in Quebec. 

 

I don't think anyone wants an election right now. Would you like to lead the government when we have all these problems? The Liberals will wait until things are improving and then If they win an election they will say its was them that pulled us out of the recession. In actual fact we have to wait for the USA to get us out pulling us on their coat tails. 

Pages

Topic locked