Poor Mr. Dion wasn't successful! In fact, the LPC lost 19 seats across the country. Now, he has been in seclusion at Stornaway for two days, trying to decide whether to stay or go as the leader. Many think he should stay. More think he should go. He had the right ideas but just couldn't sell them to the Canadian public. Here is Jeffrey Simpson's take on what Steve is going to have to do now, as he sits, gloating, in his chair at 24 Sussex Drive.
JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Friday's Globe and Mail
October 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM EDT
Stephen Harper has not had to govern in tough times. Now he will, and the country will get an even sharper insight into the man and his priorities.
Mr. Harper arrived in office to find federal coffers overflowing, debt declining and unemployment low, courtesy of the Chrétien-Martin stewardship. He could keep program spending ahead of the inflation rate, shovel billions of dollars to the provinces, cut taxes, diminish debt, and record surpluses. As governing goes, this was easy. Unwise in some cases, but easy.
Now come the economic furies. Yesterday, the Bank of Montreal predicted a contraction of the Canadian economy in the final quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 – the definition of a recession. The Bank of Nova Scotia is also forecasting one, as have economists at the University of Toronto.
Technical recession or not, growth will slow, government spending will rise, and government revenues will decline. The highly regarded TD Economics unit believes Ottawa will be facing a $10-billion deficit in fiscal 2009-2010 and another one of about the same size in 2010-2011. That would represent a $20-billion swing since the Conservatives took office in 2006.
Related Articles
Recent
News: Top economist says change course or run deficits
Globe editorial: Don't live in fear of a deficit
Tom Flanagan: Now comes the hard part for Mr. Harper
Internet Links
Politics: Globe stories, photos, graphics, interactives, columns, opinion and more.
Central Canada will be hammered by these numbers. But even energy-rich Western Canada will slow down. Yesterday, oil prices fell below $70 a barrel, almost half what they were not that long ago.
Under those circumstances, all parties can throw their campaign promises on the bonfire of illusions. At least the Conservative promises cost less than those of the other parties, but even most of these promises are for the bonfire.
One Conservative promise was never to run a deficit. Asked about the deficit possibility on Oct. 11, Mr. Harper said that any talk about cutting spending to avoid a deficit was a “ridiculous hypothetical scenario.” Similarly, he dismissed tax increases.
So, there you have it: no deficit, no spending decreases, no tax increases.
Maybe everyone who follows economic developments is wrong. Maybe the U.S. economy will avoid a recession. Maybe U.S. consumers who are already highly indebted will go into further debt and resume spending. Maybe Canada can float off into the Indian Ocean to hide from the U.S. storms.
In the real world, something will have to give in Canada if the banks' projections are correct. An economic slump that smashes Ontario will hasten that province's receipt of equalization payments, which, in turn, will put pressure on federal finances.
Lower corporate profits and higher levels of company closures and bankruptcies will reduce Ottawa's income, as will higher unemployment and slower growth. Economic growth will cool in the economic engines of the three westernmost provinces.
The U.S. Congress has already tried one stimulus package that failed. It has tried massive borrowing to stabilize banks. Another package is being talked about on Capitol Hill. The U.S. deficit, already running at $500-billion, is set to soar, perhaps as high as $1-trillion. When the world's biggest borrower borrows even more, it further destabilizes international markets. But this is what beckons. Countries can neither run nor hide from this U.S.-created tsunami of debt and its baleful consequences.
What to do? Refusing to run a deficit will require abandoning at least some of Mr. Harper's campaign promises, because his platform contained modest spending and tax cuts that collectively totalled about $8-billion over the next four years. Running a deficit would require abandoning his vow not to countenance one.
When times are tough or when government finances are a mess, as they were when the Liberals arrived in office in 1993 and the Progressive Conservatives in 1984, prime ministers have to say No and say it often. The governments post-1984 and post-1993 were blessed with solid parliamentary majorities.
Mr. Harper has a minority government, stronger than his first, but still a minority. Minorities work best when times are good and decisions are easy. Now times are worsening, so the decisions will get harder.
Canadians have never seen Mr. Harper govern in tough times. He campaigned on being the one to steer Canada through the turbulence. The campaign is over. Now governing begins.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Garth - Election Day 2008
LAST STREET
posted by Garth Turner on 10.13.08 @ 11:32 pm
Day Thirty-seven
Hard to believe it was Thanksgiving Day, sunny, twenty-seven degrees, kids in the street on Rosemount Crescent. I leaned over in the truck and pinned the Liberal badge onto the front of her sweater. “This is it,” I said to Dorothy. “Last street.” She smiled like a woman with a secret. “You owe me.”
A hundred houses, yet it took three hours. Perhaps it was the sun, the warm wind or the stock market bounce, but most wanted to talk. At the end of one driveway five people sat in fold-up canvas lawn chairs, the three guys drinking from long-necked beer bottles. They’d watched us snaking up one side of the street, and were ready when we hit. So, the guy with the mirrored shades said, why shouldn’t I vote Green?
Vote whatever way you want, I said, but know the consequences. The group talked about tight polls, first-past-the-post, proportional representation and green government. I was impressed enough to share some local polling with them. So, Shades said, you’re telling us one vote for the Greens means two votes she doesn’t need to score?
Exactly, I said. Vote how you want. Just know what you’ll get. They asked for copies of the literature in my hand. We shook. It was good.
We worked another block, lots of people home, warm greetings, expressions of support or at least respect. Then rounding a garage I spotted the homeowner, early 60s, baseball cap, shorts, fussing with the garden hose. I introduced myself, as he walked up. “I know who you are, and I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the last goddamned person on earth because I am a true Conservative.” I opted for a charm offensive, turned towards Dorothy and introduced her. “Yeah, well I’m happy for you, jerk.” We bailed. As we crossed the next lawn he was standing on his driveway, yelling.
Rosemount yielded fourteen identified Conservative voters, twenty-one identified Liberal voters, thirty-two friendly but not-saying voters and forty not-homes. Some people surely lied to the candidate. Others would never think of volunteering their politics (I don’t ask). Door-knocking is highly unscientific, but no less accurate than a cold call from a polling company.
Tonight I’m told Halton is a tight race. Esther says some people are predicting I will win, some that I won’t. I see that dozens of newspapers across Canada are highlighting this as a contest to watch. Television networks will be parking their satellite trucks in the lot behind our Main Street headquarters Tuesday night, and have already had technicians swarming in to install new data lines.
Stephen Harper has thrown everything at me that he’s got, and in the Conservative war room they’ll be anxiously awaiting my concession speech. Said a Canadian Press wire story today, “Turner has been an acid-dipped thorn in Harper’s side. The Conservatives badly want him defeated.”
And why would Tories, from Harper down to the rude dude in shorts, have me in the crosshairs?
Perhaps it’s because I’m even competitive in this election, when I was supposed to be dead. By kicking me out of caucus for refusing to be silent or putting the party ahead of my constituents, the plan was to force me out of public life. Stripped of party affiliation, I’d not survive an election.
Perhaps it was because I made a discovery. The Liberal party is now where Progressive Conservatives are finding a home, as my former Conservative brand is turned into neo-Reform. This is where the future will lie – a moderate, centrist team which can argue for less government and lower taxes while rejecting the laissez-faire doctrines which almost ruined our world last week.
Maybe it’s envy. I have people around me, like Esther, who epitomize all that is decent and passionate about public life. I have a leader who eschews the politics of fear and talks endlessly about the country that’s possible. I have the freedom to speak, write, blog and think independently, without a party muzzle or the threat of censure.
And I apparently have enough constituents who believe an MP should be more than a party sock puppet, to make the government worry about me so.
Tomorrow in Halton is not about me. It’s a contest between competing visions of how we should be led. By back room boys who anoint candidates and leaders who demand obedience, or by citizen-politicians who work for the people?
I’ve no idea what the day will bring. None. But I have hope.
I hope to show that more of us value freedom and choice, than will accept control and conformity. I hope to prove democracy starts on Rosemount Crescent.
I hope to show my wife these thirty-one months were worth the fight and all the attacks they brought into our marriage.
I hope to show my country that I stood for something. And I won.
Already have.
Please note: Elections Canada rules require web site content to be frozen on voting day until polls close. Therefore all comments posted here after midnight Oct. 13 will be released at 9:30 pm tonight.
posted by Garth Turner on 10.13.08 @ 11:32 pm
posted by Garth Turner on 10.13.08 @ 11:32 pm
Day Thirty-seven
Hard to believe it was Thanksgiving Day, sunny, twenty-seven degrees, kids in the street on Rosemount Crescent. I leaned over in the truck and pinned the Liberal badge onto the front of her sweater. “This is it,” I said to Dorothy. “Last street.” She smiled like a woman with a secret. “You owe me.”
A hundred houses, yet it took three hours. Perhaps it was the sun, the warm wind or the stock market bounce, but most wanted to talk. At the end of one driveway five people sat in fold-up canvas lawn chairs, the three guys drinking from long-necked beer bottles. They’d watched us snaking up one side of the street, and were ready when we hit. So, the guy with the mirrored shades said, why shouldn’t I vote Green?
Vote whatever way you want, I said, but know the consequences. The group talked about tight polls, first-past-the-post, proportional representation and green government. I was impressed enough to share some local polling with them. So, Shades said, you’re telling us one vote for the Greens means two votes she doesn’t need to score?
Exactly, I said. Vote how you want. Just know what you’ll get. They asked for copies of the literature in my hand. We shook. It was good.
We worked another block, lots of people home, warm greetings, expressions of support or at least respect. Then rounding a garage I spotted the homeowner, early 60s, baseball cap, shorts, fussing with the garden hose. I introduced myself, as he walked up. “I know who you are, and I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the last goddamned person on earth because I am a true Conservative.” I opted for a charm offensive, turned towards Dorothy and introduced her. “Yeah, well I’m happy for you, jerk.” We bailed. As we crossed the next lawn he was standing on his driveway, yelling.
Rosemount yielded fourteen identified Conservative voters, twenty-one identified Liberal voters, thirty-two friendly but not-saying voters and forty not-homes. Some people surely lied to the candidate. Others would never think of volunteering their politics (I don’t ask). Door-knocking is highly unscientific, but no less accurate than a cold call from a polling company.
Tonight I’m told Halton is a tight race. Esther says some people are predicting I will win, some that I won’t. I see that dozens of newspapers across Canada are highlighting this as a contest to watch. Television networks will be parking their satellite trucks in the lot behind our Main Street headquarters Tuesday night, and have already had technicians swarming in to install new data lines.
Stephen Harper has thrown everything at me that he’s got, and in the Conservative war room they’ll be anxiously awaiting my concession speech. Said a Canadian Press wire story today, “Turner has been an acid-dipped thorn in Harper’s side. The Conservatives badly want him defeated.”
And why would Tories, from Harper down to the rude dude in shorts, have me in the crosshairs?
Perhaps it’s because I’m even competitive in this election, when I was supposed to be dead. By kicking me out of caucus for refusing to be silent or putting the party ahead of my constituents, the plan was to force me out of public life. Stripped of party affiliation, I’d not survive an election.
Perhaps it was because I made a discovery. The Liberal party is now where Progressive Conservatives are finding a home, as my former Conservative brand is turned into neo-Reform. This is where the future will lie – a moderate, centrist team which can argue for less government and lower taxes while rejecting the laissez-faire doctrines which almost ruined our world last week.
Maybe it’s envy. I have people around me, like Esther, who epitomize all that is decent and passionate about public life. I have a leader who eschews the politics of fear and talks endlessly about the country that’s possible. I have the freedom to speak, write, blog and think independently, without a party muzzle or the threat of censure.
And I apparently have enough constituents who believe an MP should be more than a party sock puppet, to make the government worry about me so.
Tomorrow in Halton is not about me. It’s a contest between competing visions of how we should be led. By back room boys who anoint candidates and leaders who demand obedience, or by citizen-politicians who work for the people?
I’ve no idea what the day will bring. None. But I have hope.
I hope to show that more of us value freedom and choice, than will accept control and conformity. I hope to prove democracy starts on Rosemount Crescent.
I hope to show my wife these thirty-one months were worth the fight and all the attacks they brought into our marriage.
I hope to show my country that I stood for something. And I won.
Already have.
Please note: Elections Canada rules require web site content to be frozen on voting day until polls close. Therefore all comments posted here after midnight Oct. 13 will be released at 9:30 pm tonight.
posted by Garth Turner on 10.13.08 @ 11:32 pm
Jeffrey Simpson on Stephen Harper Election 2008
IT WAS ALL ABOUT HIM
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
October 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT
It was written here when the election began that “Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to win a majority government or he will have no one to blame but himself.” We're sticking with that assertion today, voting day.
A majority was there when the campaign began, although it would have been tough to achieve. Tough because of something seldom remarked upon but hugely consequential: Incumbent parties almost always lose ground in campaigns. Incumbents get hammered by opposition parties, some of which get equal billing with the governing party.
You could see this at work in the TV debates. Mr. Harper, leader of the largest party, got 22 per cent of the time in the English-language debate; his four opponents split the remaining 78 per cent. The greatest debater in the world, and Mr. Harper is far from that, could not “win” under those loaded circumstances.
So, yes, campaigns hurt incumbent parties, if the past be any guide. Nonetheless, the opportunity presented itself for history not to repeat itself, and for the Tories to get a majority.
Their leader was far more respected than Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, and rather better regarded than NDP Leader Jack Layton. Mr. Harper was running his third election campaign as leader, against Mr. Dion's first, and could therefore have been expected to avoid rookie mistakes.
The Tories had the time and money to prepare for a campaign. They ran ads showing an avuncular Mr. Harper in the days before dropping the writ. They were in the air with what was supposed to be a juggernaut campaign within hours of Mr. Harper seeing the Governor-General. The Conservative “war room” was deemed battle-hardened; sophisticated voter tracking efforts were ready for deployment.
In Quebec, all the attention and money lavished on the province – to say nothing of the existential stroking through the declaration of the Québécois as “nation” – was expected to reap dividends. The Bloc Québécois seemed on the defensive, with up to 20 of its seats in peril. The symbolism of Mr. Harper launching his campaign in Quebec City was apt: Francophones would pursue their self-interest this time through the Conservatives.
Best of all, the Liberals were led by Mr. Dion, whose popularity numbers were in the tank, and whose espousal of a carbon tax in the context of shifting taxes away from those on individuals and companies provided the Tories with a child's play target for negative advertising and scary predictions of economic ruination.
And yet, even before the economic downdraft that began on Wall Street and enveloped all economies, including Canada's, the Conservatives began to make mistakes.
He could not be blamed for the gaffes that marred the first few weeks: the website showing a pooping puffin dumping on Mr. Dion, the staffer who accused a veteran's parent of grieving as a partisan, the revelation of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's partisanship during a conference call about the listeriosis outbreak. These were mistakes by underlings and ministers, which in Mr. Harper's cabinet almost amount to the same thing.
But Mr. Harper did and said some strange things, or authorized policy prescriptions that boomeranged. Itsy-bitsy cuts to two cultural programs in the context of an enlarged arts budget should not have been a problem, despite predictable squawking from the Toronto arts crowd.
In Quebec, however, they became a cause célèbre for nationalists, manna for the Bloc and an entry point to one of those existential arguments almost utterly devoid of factual content – the programs would cost Quebec only about $20-million – but nonetheless rather potent politically.
Then came the tougher measures against juveniles who commit very serious crimes: a vote-winner in suburban English-Canada, or so the Tories believed, but a loser in Quebec. There, the measures reminded voters of the Conservatives' Reform roots, and they recoiled to a place of considerable comfort – the Bloc Québécois – a place for francophones who are no longer much interested in Canada, do not want to assume the responsibility for governing, but still insist on all the advantages of Canada.
Since the Conservative majority depended on big gains in Quebec, the policy errors and the francophones' retreat changed the course of the campaign and almost certainly cost Mr. Harper his majority.
There was more, however. The economic downdraft caught everyone by surprise. No prime minister could emerge unscathed from its ferocity. Suddenly, the Liberals developed a 30-day “Action Plan” and the NDP kept hammering away at lost manufacturing jobs and not enough government money to help beleaguered industries.
The Prime Minister could have emerged only slightly damaged from the downdraft, but for his apparent insensitivity to its impacts on real people. His comment about the downdraft providing a good time to buy stocks was a blunder.
Leave the details aside, the PM's standing declined in the campaign. That decline was particularly troubling for a party whose entire campaign – like the government itself – revolved around Mr. Harper, his image, his persona, his accomplishments, him.
A majority victory, should one unexpectedly emerge, would vindicate Mr. Harper's decision to call the election, the way he waged it, the issues he identified and, of course, his own three years as Prime Minister. A minority, despite so many favourable factors, would mean three elections fought as leader: one defeat and two minorities. He would have to carry the can for that.
Article Comments (84)
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
October 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT
It was written here when the election began that “Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to win a majority government or he will have no one to blame but himself.” We're sticking with that assertion today, voting day.
A majority was there when the campaign began, although it would have been tough to achieve. Tough because of something seldom remarked upon but hugely consequential: Incumbent parties almost always lose ground in campaigns. Incumbents get hammered by opposition parties, some of which get equal billing with the governing party.
You could see this at work in the TV debates. Mr. Harper, leader of the largest party, got 22 per cent of the time in the English-language debate; his four opponents split the remaining 78 per cent. The greatest debater in the world, and Mr. Harper is far from that, could not “win” under those loaded circumstances.
So, yes, campaigns hurt incumbent parties, if the past be any guide. Nonetheless, the opportunity presented itself for history not to repeat itself, and for the Tories to get a majority.
Their leader was far more respected than Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, and rather better regarded than NDP Leader Jack Layton. Mr. Harper was running his third election campaign as leader, against Mr. Dion's first, and could therefore have been expected to avoid rookie mistakes.
The Tories had the time and money to prepare for a campaign. They ran ads showing an avuncular Mr. Harper in the days before dropping the writ. They were in the air with what was supposed to be a juggernaut campaign within hours of Mr. Harper seeing the Governor-General. The Conservative “war room” was deemed battle-hardened; sophisticated voter tracking efforts were ready for deployment.
In Quebec, all the attention and money lavished on the province – to say nothing of the existential stroking through the declaration of the Québécois as “nation” – was expected to reap dividends. The Bloc Québécois seemed on the defensive, with up to 20 of its seats in peril. The symbolism of Mr. Harper launching his campaign in Quebec City was apt: Francophones would pursue their self-interest this time through the Conservatives.
Best of all, the Liberals were led by Mr. Dion, whose popularity numbers were in the tank, and whose espousal of a carbon tax in the context of shifting taxes away from those on individuals and companies provided the Tories with a child's play target for negative advertising and scary predictions of economic ruination.
And yet, even before the economic downdraft that began on Wall Street and enveloped all economies, including Canada's, the Conservatives began to make mistakes.
He could not be blamed for the gaffes that marred the first few weeks: the website showing a pooping puffin dumping on Mr. Dion, the staffer who accused a veteran's parent of grieving as a partisan, the revelation of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's partisanship during a conference call about the listeriosis outbreak. These were mistakes by underlings and ministers, which in Mr. Harper's cabinet almost amount to the same thing.
But Mr. Harper did and said some strange things, or authorized policy prescriptions that boomeranged. Itsy-bitsy cuts to two cultural programs in the context of an enlarged arts budget should not have been a problem, despite predictable squawking from the Toronto arts crowd.
In Quebec, however, they became a cause célèbre for nationalists, manna for the Bloc and an entry point to one of those existential arguments almost utterly devoid of factual content – the programs would cost Quebec only about $20-million – but nonetheless rather potent politically.
Then came the tougher measures against juveniles who commit very serious crimes: a vote-winner in suburban English-Canada, or so the Tories believed, but a loser in Quebec. There, the measures reminded voters of the Conservatives' Reform roots, and they recoiled to a place of considerable comfort – the Bloc Québécois – a place for francophones who are no longer much interested in Canada, do not want to assume the responsibility for governing, but still insist on all the advantages of Canada.
Since the Conservative majority depended on big gains in Quebec, the policy errors and the francophones' retreat changed the course of the campaign and almost certainly cost Mr. Harper his majority.
There was more, however. The economic downdraft caught everyone by surprise. No prime minister could emerge unscathed from its ferocity. Suddenly, the Liberals developed a 30-day “Action Plan” and the NDP kept hammering away at lost manufacturing jobs and not enough government money to help beleaguered industries.
The Prime Minister could have emerged only slightly damaged from the downdraft, but for his apparent insensitivity to its impacts on real people. His comment about the downdraft providing a good time to buy stocks was a blunder.
Leave the details aside, the PM's standing declined in the campaign. That decline was particularly troubling for a party whose entire campaign – like the government itself – revolved around Mr. Harper, his image, his persona, his accomplishments, him.
A majority victory, should one unexpectedly emerge, would vindicate Mr. Harper's decision to call the election, the way he waged it, the issues he identified and, of course, his own three years as Prime Minister. A minority, despite so many favourable factors, would mean three elections fought as leader: one defeat and two minorities. He would have to carry the can for that.
Article Comments (84)
Monday, October 6, 2008
Nik Nanos 6 October 2008
Apparently, Nik Nanos has the only accurate poll going these days as many of the MSM lean conservative because they work for Con papers. Ah, media spin!
_______________________________________________________
CPAC-Nanos Daily Election Tracking CP 34, LP 30, NDP 19, BQ 10, GP 7 (ending October 4)
148 comments Latest by gohabs1
The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minsiter at 20% although he still trails Stephen Harper by 12 points.
Regionally, the Liberals were more likely to realize gains in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Battleground Ontario remains a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives while the Conservatives enjoy a commanding lead in Western Canada.
Tune in to Goldhawk Live with Dale Goldhawk tonight at 7 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website.
Methodology and Results A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on October 3, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,029, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Conservative Party 34 (-1)
Liberal Party 30 (+2)
NDP 19 (NC)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 7% (-1)
Undecided 14% (-2)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,202,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
Conservative leader Stephen Harper 32% (NC)
Liberal leader Stephane Dion 20% (+3)
NDP leader Jack Layton 19% (NC)
Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (NC)
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (-1)
None of them 6% (-2)
Unsure 16% (-1)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The most trustworthy leader
The most competent leader
The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
Stephen Harper 98 (+9)
Jack Layton 60 (+1)
Stephane Dion 59 (+7)
Gilles Duceppe 16 (+4)
Elizabeth May 15 (-3)
What do you think?
Cheers, NJN
_______________________________________________________
CPAC-Nanos Daily Election Tracking CP 34, LP 30, NDP 19, BQ 10, GP 7 (ending October 4)
148 comments Latest by gohabs1
The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minsiter at 20% although he still trails Stephen Harper by 12 points.
Regionally, the Liberals were more likely to realize gains in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Battleground Ontario remains a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives while the Conservatives enjoy a commanding lead in Western Canada.
Tune in to Goldhawk Live with Dale Goldhawk tonight at 7 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website.
Methodology and Results A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on October 3, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,029, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Conservative Party 34 (-1)
Liberal Party 30 (+2)
NDP 19 (NC)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 7% (-1)
Undecided 14% (-2)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,202,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
Conservative leader Stephen Harper 32% (NC)
Liberal leader Stephane Dion 20% (+3)
NDP leader Jack Layton 19% (NC)
Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (NC)
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (-1)
None of them 6% (-2)
Unsure 16% (-1)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The most trustworthy leader
The most competent leader
The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
Stephen Harper 98 (+9)
Jack Layton 60 (+1)
Stephane Dion 59 (+7)
Gilles Duceppe 16 (+4)
Elizabeth May 15 (-3)
What do you think?
Cheers, NJN
Garth - 6 October 2008
WE ARE ALL ONE!
posted by Garth Turner on 10.05.08 @ 11:44 pm | 12 Comments
Spotted on a pole in Halton (a photo here of houses for sale in Halton, Ontario with zero down that didn't copy).
This is not ending well.
Day Twenty-nine (of the Canadian Federal election in 2008)
In the temple today, four local candidates (Tony from the Christian Heritage Party did not show up) stood in front of a few hundred men in turbans and women with covered heads and trolled for votes.
For white bread people like me, this is an unfamiliar environment. Shoeless, hair covered with a scarf, sitting on the floor, eating communally, straining to understand the ritual and so aware of being awkward or disrespectful, it is challenging. I could see that clearly as my candidate colleagues struggled with the apparent contradiction of making a political pitch in a religious place.
In truth, when I came to this Sikh community as a Conservative contender four years ago I felt exactly the same. I left the first encounter convinced it would be impossible for me ever to penetrate the many veils of this society.
But I was wrong.
These people put real effort into reaching out, into drawing me into their midst and making me understand what their priorities are. And my big discovery was this: They care about jobs, financial stress, house values and the economy.
So, while my Conservative opponent told them this morning how Conservatives love immigrants and minorities (she even took credit for Kim Campbell), I spoke instead about the industrial devastation now hitting Halton. In fact, four big operations with sizeable numbers of Sikhs employed, including Ford, have either closed, laid off, scaled back or announced downsizings. Hundreds of jobs around that Gurdwara have been lost, affecting thousands of people in as many families.
And in this, we are all one.
This weekend the global financial crisis which has enveloped the United States and which last week creamed the Canadian stock exchange, spread globally. Governments in Germany, Iceland, Italy and Britain are in the process of bailing out, nationalizing or propping up major lenders. In Japan Sunday night (Monday morning there), the stock market opened in a spiral of despair.
This week to come looks like it will be a pivotal one, as central bankers burn up the phone lines and economists huddle in Toronto to figure out what domino falls next. In a growing number of countries, governments are moving to guarantee private bank savings – a move designed to dampen panic and prevent a run before it happens. After all, these days, there is hardly a bank on the planet that could find the cash to pay off even half its depositors.
In Halton, real estate values have fallen by a tenth and on Friday came news of the first price collapse in the GTA in over a decade. Suddenly people are aware that recent homebuyers who took Ottawa up on its zero-down madness may owe more than they own.
So, how could this be more distressing? Factories that families depend on are closing here. The value of houses, where most net worth resides, is falling. Stock markets are erasing pensions, RRSPs and nesteggs.
This is why my friends in the Sikh community no more trust Stephen Harper than anyone else when he says Canada is not America, our fundamentals are strong and we should all take a Valium and vote Conservative.
I will say it again. We stand on the precipice of a chasm of danger. Look south to see what can happen to a middle class ignored. Do not fall for a siren song of complacency, and understand the Harper government had three years to prepare for the inevitable, yet squandered them.
I am sure Halton Sikhs appreciated it when Stephen Harper appointed a minister of multiculturalism. But they’d rather have had a competent minister of finance. Like the rest of us, they are awakening.
Next Tuesday I’m hoping for as many votes as there were Garth Turner signs growing in those fields around the Gurdwara. Demand truth.
posted by Garth Turner on 10.05.08 @ 11:44 pm | 12 Comments
<a
posted by Garth Turner on 10.05.08 @ 11:44 pm | 12 Comments
Spotted on a pole in Halton (a photo here of houses for sale in Halton, Ontario with zero down that didn't copy).
This is not ending well.
Day Twenty-nine (of the Canadian Federal election in 2008)
In the temple today, four local candidates (Tony from the Christian Heritage Party did not show up) stood in front of a few hundred men in turbans and women with covered heads and trolled for votes.
For white bread people like me, this is an unfamiliar environment. Shoeless, hair covered with a scarf, sitting on the floor, eating communally, straining to understand the ritual and so aware of being awkward or disrespectful, it is challenging. I could see that clearly as my candidate colleagues struggled with the apparent contradiction of making a political pitch in a religious place.
In truth, when I came to this Sikh community as a Conservative contender four years ago I felt exactly the same. I left the first encounter convinced it would be impossible for me ever to penetrate the many veils of this society.
But I was wrong.
These people put real effort into reaching out, into drawing me into their midst and making me understand what their priorities are. And my big discovery was this: They care about jobs, financial stress, house values and the economy.
So, while my Conservative opponent told them this morning how Conservatives love immigrants and minorities (she even took credit for Kim Campbell), I spoke instead about the industrial devastation now hitting Halton. In fact, four big operations with sizeable numbers of Sikhs employed, including Ford, have either closed, laid off, scaled back or announced downsizings. Hundreds of jobs around that Gurdwara have been lost, affecting thousands of people in as many families.
And in this, we are all one.
This weekend the global financial crisis which has enveloped the United States and which last week creamed the Canadian stock exchange, spread globally. Governments in Germany, Iceland, Italy and Britain are in the process of bailing out, nationalizing or propping up major lenders. In Japan Sunday night (Monday morning there), the stock market opened in a spiral of despair.
This week to come looks like it will be a pivotal one, as central bankers burn up the phone lines and economists huddle in Toronto to figure out what domino falls next. In a growing number of countries, governments are moving to guarantee private bank savings – a move designed to dampen panic and prevent a run before it happens. After all, these days, there is hardly a bank on the planet that could find the cash to pay off even half its depositors.
In Halton, real estate values have fallen by a tenth and on Friday came news of the first price collapse in the GTA in over a decade. Suddenly people are aware that recent homebuyers who took Ottawa up on its zero-down madness may owe more than they own.
So, how could this be more distressing? Factories that families depend on are closing here. The value of houses, where most net worth resides, is falling. Stock markets are erasing pensions, RRSPs and nesteggs.
This is why my friends in the Sikh community no more trust Stephen Harper than anyone else when he says Canada is not America, our fundamentals are strong and we should all take a Valium and vote Conservative.
I will say it again. We stand on the precipice of a chasm of danger. Look south to see what can happen to a middle class ignored. Do not fall for a siren song of complacency, and understand the Harper government had three years to prepare for the inevitable, yet squandered them.
I am sure Halton Sikhs appreciated it when Stephen Harper appointed a minister of multiculturalism. But they’d rather have had a competent minister of finance. Like the rest of us, they are awakening.
Next Tuesday I’m hoping for as many votes as there were Garth Turner signs growing in those fields around the Gurdwara. Demand truth.
posted by Garth Turner on 10.05.08 @ 11:44 pm | 12 Comments
<a
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Garth on Steve - 4 Oct 08
The risk called democracy
Day Twenty-sevenHere’s an instructive tale.
In the world’s greatest economy, bankers screwed up, government policies failed and millions of middle class people ended up suffering as a result. In an attempt to keep the economy from tanking further, the government decided to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the banks.
The administration came to that conclusion in, basically, one day. The law was just three pages long, but would cost $700,000,000,000. It was historic.
The people heard about it, wondered why the bankers would be saved when their own houses were being lost, and complained to their federal politicians. Actually, they buried them in emails and faxes and phone calls. They pointed out the inherent unfairness of the law and the huge gamble it represented. They called into question the wisdom of leaders who were so ready to use other people’s money to solve a problem they had themselves created, which would leave both Washington and Wall Street intact.
Bowled over by their constituents, a majority of the politicians voted against the bill, and it failed. As a result, leaders quickly made it better, tougher, more comprehensive and protective. The three-page law became 440 pages. And then it passed, but still with a vociferous opposition.
Is this an example, however imperfect, of democracy in action? Did the voters of America have a voice? Were they heard? Is this hopeful?
Not if you’re Stephen Harper, it ain’t.
Our current prime minister told voters in New Brunswick today that any Parliament he does not control after the coming election would be “dysfunctional.” That means, he warned, a minority government would be disastrous for the economy.
“Don’t go out and vote just to have an opposition,” he lectured. “Because I think if people start voting just for an opposition, we have the risk you have in the United States.”
Indeed. That risk is called democracy.
Just imagine if there’s an absolute Conservative majority government after October 14th, and if a financial or economic crisis befalls Canada. Imagine if the PMO came up with a fix which was unpalatable to you, but saved special interests. It might mean freezing bank accounts for a few months to prevent a run. Perhaps taxing RRSPs. Maybe suspending trade in stocks for a while. Or an emergency austerity program cutting social program spending. Or maybe a public bailout of CIBC or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, adding sharply to the deficit and guaranteeing future family tax increases.
If Stephen Harper had a majority, who would stop him? Opposition MPs would be outnumbered. The Conservative caucus would be docile and pliant. The all-powerful prime minister’s office would suddenly wield far more power over this country than the American president does over his - where Congressmen and women sometimes do what their constituents ask.
Before you tell me a scenario like this is far-fetched, that Canada is not America, that we have no crisis here and sweaterman will never be faced with such choices, consider this:
• The Bank of Canada has quietly injected $20 billion into the credit markets to ensure the system does not collapse. If it did, there would be no more car loans, for example. And precious few people building cars.
• The Toronto Stock market lost 11% of its value this week, equivalent to $150 billion. And there’s more to come. The magnitude of this drop is reminiscent of pre-Depression days.
• Oil has collapsed in value from $150 a barrel to $93 in just a few months. Commodity prices are plunging because of a global drop in demand as the USA implodes. In case you forgot, Canada is a commodity-rich country which has just allowed 400,000 manufacturing jobs to be erased and factories full of machines to leave for China. That was smart.
• Real estate values are tumbling everywhere, with Toronto being the latest to see absolute price declines. I sat in a government relations meeting in my riding this week and heard confidential numbers that housing starts across the region – Canada’s most populous – have crashed by half.
• In the past few days two of the leading experts on housing markets – one Canadian, one American – have warned bluntly that there will be a mortgage meltdown in Canada. It will be the direct result of tens of thousands of people buying houses without money – the inevitable residue of the Harper disaster called zero down and 40-year mortgages. This is Canada’s own subprime.
Sadly, we are much further out on the edge of trouble than Canadians appreciate, and certainly more at risk than we’re being told. There’s no protective bubble over this country. Nor do we have a superior system. It’s delusional to believe we will not be living out the drama we’ve all been watching on CNN.
And while we can’t much change the events that may take place, affecting us all, we can do one thing. We can prepare. We can keep democracy alive.
We can elect men and women who have pledged accountability to the people. We can ensure that Parliament does not become the rubber stamp for one man’s clouded and questionable judgment. We can make sure if a storm hits, new laws and strong measures will receive full debate, proper consideration and reflect the will of the voters.
I have worked with Stephen Harper and his crowd long enough to know their game. They speak disparagingly of the voter. They talk about ‘retail politics’ and the gullibility of people – about how they can be manipulated by simple messages. They see public service as marketing and have utter disdain for the democratic process.
When Garth Turner was too noisily independent and questioned the boss, out he went. When Bill Casey stood up for his constituents, he was punted. When Michael Chong opposed nation status for Quebec on principle, he was shunned. And yet when federal minister Gerry Ritz jokes about dead, poisoned Canadians, he’s defended. In this very election, my Conservative opponent was appointed over the wishes of local party members. If elected, she will answer to one person only.
In a few days we get to vote. To send a message. What will yours be?
posted by Garth Turner on 10.03.08 @ 10:51 pm
Day Twenty-sevenHere’s an instructive tale.
In the world’s greatest economy, bankers screwed up, government policies failed and millions of middle class people ended up suffering as a result. In an attempt to keep the economy from tanking further, the government decided to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the banks.
The administration came to that conclusion in, basically, one day. The law was just three pages long, but would cost $700,000,000,000. It was historic.
The people heard about it, wondered why the bankers would be saved when their own houses were being lost, and complained to their federal politicians. Actually, they buried them in emails and faxes and phone calls. They pointed out the inherent unfairness of the law and the huge gamble it represented. They called into question the wisdom of leaders who were so ready to use other people’s money to solve a problem they had themselves created, which would leave both Washington and Wall Street intact.
Bowled over by their constituents, a majority of the politicians voted against the bill, and it failed. As a result, leaders quickly made it better, tougher, more comprehensive and protective. The three-page law became 440 pages. And then it passed, but still with a vociferous opposition.
Is this an example, however imperfect, of democracy in action? Did the voters of America have a voice? Were they heard? Is this hopeful?
Not if you’re Stephen Harper, it ain’t.
Our current prime minister told voters in New Brunswick today that any Parliament he does not control after the coming election would be “dysfunctional.” That means, he warned, a minority government would be disastrous for the economy.
“Don’t go out and vote just to have an opposition,” he lectured. “Because I think if people start voting just for an opposition, we have the risk you have in the United States.”
Indeed. That risk is called democracy.
Just imagine if there’s an absolute Conservative majority government after October 14th, and if a financial or economic crisis befalls Canada. Imagine if the PMO came up with a fix which was unpalatable to you, but saved special interests. It might mean freezing bank accounts for a few months to prevent a run. Perhaps taxing RRSPs. Maybe suspending trade in stocks for a while. Or an emergency austerity program cutting social program spending. Or maybe a public bailout of CIBC or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, adding sharply to the deficit and guaranteeing future family tax increases.
If Stephen Harper had a majority, who would stop him? Opposition MPs would be outnumbered. The Conservative caucus would be docile and pliant. The all-powerful prime minister’s office would suddenly wield far more power over this country than the American president does over his - where Congressmen and women sometimes do what their constituents ask.
Before you tell me a scenario like this is far-fetched, that Canada is not America, that we have no crisis here and sweaterman will never be faced with such choices, consider this:
• The Bank of Canada has quietly injected $20 billion into the credit markets to ensure the system does not collapse. If it did, there would be no more car loans, for example. And precious few people building cars.
• The Toronto Stock market lost 11% of its value this week, equivalent to $150 billion. And there’s more to come. The magnitude of this drop is reminiscent of pre-Depression days.
• Oil has collapsed in value from $150 a barrel to $93 in just a few months. Commodity prices are plunging because of a global drop in demand as the USA implodes. In case you forgot, Canada is a commodity-rich country which has just allowed 400,000 manufacturing jobs to be erased and factories full of machines to leave for China. That was smart.
• Real estate values are tumbling everywhere, with Toronto being the latest to see absolute price declines. I sat in a government relations meeting in my riding this week and heard confidential numbers that housing starts across the region – Canada’s most populous – have crashed by half.
• In the past few days two of the leading experts on housing markets – one Canadian, one American – have warned bluntly that there will be a mortgage meltdown in Canada. It will be the direct result of tens of thousands of people buying houses without money – the inevitable residue of the Harper disaster called zero down and 40-year mortgages. This is Canada’s own subprime.
Sadly, we are much further out on the edge of trouble than Canadians appreciate, and certainly more at risk than we’re being told. There’s no protective bubble over this country. Nor do we have a superior system. It’s delusional to believe we will not be living out the drama we’ve all been watching on CNN.
And while we can’t much change the events that may take place, affecting us all, we can do one thing. We can prepare. We can keep democracy alive.
We can elect men and women who have pledged accountability to the people. We can ensure that Parliament does not become the rubber stamp for one man’s clouded and questionable judgment. We can make sure if a storm hits, new laws and strong measures will receive full debate, proper consideration and reflect the will of the voters.
I have worked with Stephen Harper and his crowd long enough to know their game. They speak disparagingly of the voter. They talk about ‘retail politics’ and the gullibility of people – about how they can be manipulated by simple messages. They see public service as marketing and have utter disdain for the democratic process.
When Garth Turner was too noisily independent and questioned the boss, out he went. When Bill Casey stood up for his constituents, he was punted. When Michael Chong opposed nation status for Quebec on principle, he was shunned. And yet when federal minister Gerry Ritz jokes about dead, poisoned Canadians, he’s defended. In this very election, my Conservative opponent was appointed over the wishes of local party members. If elected, she will answer to one person only.
In a few days we get to vote. To send a message. What will yours be?
posted by Garth Turner on 10.03.08 @ 10:51 pm
Garth and the Brain
Dear readers, please be aware of the reality that CTV Globemedia, the Globe and Mail and CHUM an organization of 35 radio stations across Canada are owned by Thompson Reuters which is family run and owned by the Woodbridges.
Please be aware as well, that Can West Global is also run by the Asper family from Israel, Zionists who also support the privatization of the CBC for greater market share. Both Woodbridge and CanWest own well over 60% of Canada’s mainstream media and daily newspapers. Who owns the remaining 40%? CBC clocks in at 23%. Quebecor, operating under Chapter 11, runs all the Suns except the Vancouver Sun (Can West), and the Toronto star. As well, Canada has weekly’s in rural areas.
If Quebecor/Osprey disappears quietly into that good night and CBC is privatized, we are looking at just two families, Woodbridge/Asper owning and controlling 85% of Canada’s mainstream media and if they take over Quebecor, these same two families would own virtually all mainstream media in Canada except for the Toronto Star.
Scary huh?
If the alliance between the Asper/Woodbridge families continue, after reaching their goal to achieve close to full market share of Canada’s mainstream media, they would effectively control the media message in Canada, putting themselves into the position of kingmakers that change CRTC regs to their satisfaction.
Folks… we could kiss goodbye objective news coverage on any and all future elections and election issues in this still fine nation.
Its spelled PROPAGANDA!
One thing that would be predictable at that point would be that the quality of news in general in Canada would also take a big hit as is almost always the case when media becomes this concentrated.
Keep in mind how serious the allegations truly are of polls that have been cooked 4 weeks ago in the province of Ontario grossly in favor of Conservative support over Nano’s polls which should be considered as unbiased and accurate. Cooked poll numbers and the opinion pieces that follow is a method of Propaganda that is as old as print itself. (All three contract pollsters Strategic Council, Angus Reid and Decima/Harris are under contract and controlled by Asper/Woodbridge) This election has seen a major share of propaganda to this respect.
Keep in mind that its not the first time Ontario polls have been juiced to try to create this effect. All three pollsters under contract to Asper/Woodbridge controlled media entities predicted a John H. Tory majority when in reality, a McGuinty majority was the outcome.
Folks… its spelled PROPAGANDA!
And keep in mind what seriously could happen if a majority Harper government is elected. If Harper truly does form a majority government, I’d say that Canadians would have a tremendous fight on their hands to keep the CBC and that would mean major pressure on elected Conservative MP’s to defect and/or possibly even a general strike… but this is, well, future speculation at this point. My point is that it is plausible that Canada could be headed there if Harper gets the majority he seeks.
Be well aware of these extremely important facts as the election moves on into the final two weeks.
Folks, its called propaganda, its coming through 60% of our mainstream media, and its all for greed and increased market share of two family owned (Asper/Woodbridge) media entities and Harper is their puppet.
Be well aware, Ontario… and if I was you all, knowing this information I’m telling you to be true, I’d be seeing red… if you all know what I mean.By brain on 10.02.08 3:22 pm
Please be aware as well, that Can West Global is also run by the Asper family from Israel, Zionists who also support the privatization of the CBC for greater market share. Both Woodbridge and CanWest own well over 60% of Canada’s mainstream media and daily newspapers. Who owns the remaining 40%? CBC clocks in at 23%. Quebecor, operating under Chapter 11, runs all the Suns except the Vancouver Sun (Can West), and the Toronto star. As well, Canada has weekly’s in rural areas.
If Quebecor/Osprey disappears quietly into that good night and CBC is privatized, we are looking at just two families, Woodbridge/Asper owning and controlling 85% of Canada’s mainstream media and if they take over Quebecor, these same two families would own virtually all mainstream media in Canada except for the Toronto Star.
Scary huh?
If the alliance between the Asper/Woodbridge families continue, after reaching their goal to achieve close to full market share of Canada’s mainstream media, they would effectively control the media message in Canada, putting themselves into the position of kingmakers that change CRTC regs to their satisfaction.
Folks… we could kiss goodbye objective news coverage on any and all future elections and election issues in this still fine nation.
Its spelled PROPAGANDA!
One thing that would be predictable at that point would be that the quality of news in general in Canada would also take a big hit as is almost always the case when media becomes this concentrated.
Keep in mind how serious the allegations truly are of polls that have been cooked 4 weeks ago in the province of Ontario grossly in favor of Conservative support over Nano’s polls which should be considered as unbiased and accurate. Cooked poll numbers and the opinion pieces that follow is a method of Propaganda that is as old as print itself. (All three contract pollsters Strategic Council, Angus Reid and Decima/Harris are under contract and controlled by Asper/Woodbridge) This election has seen a major share of propaganda to this respect.
Keep in mind that its not the first time Ontario polls have been juiced to try to create this effect. All three pollsters under contract to Asper/Woodbridge controlled media entities predicted a John H. Tory majority when in reality, a McGuinty majority was the outcome.
Folks… its spelled PROPAGANDA!
And keep in mind what seriously could happen if a majority Harper government is elected. If Harper truly does form a majority government, I’d say that Canadians would have a tremendous fight on their hands to keep the CBC and that would mean major pressure on elected Conservative MP’s to defect and/or possibly even a general strike… but this is, well, future speculation at this point. My point is that it is plausible that Canada could be headed there if Harper gets the majority he seeks.
Be well aware of these extremely important facts as the election moves on into the final two weeks.
Folks, its called propaganda, its coming through 60% of our mainstream media, and its all for greed and increased market share of two family owned (Asper/Woodbridge) media entities and Harper is their puppet.
Be well aware, Ontario… and if I was you all, knowing this information I’m telling you to be true, I’d be seeing red… if you all know what I mean.By brain on 10.02.08 3:22 pm
post it on the blog
From: low6050@telus.netTo: mattrlow@hotmail.comSubject: Re: Your ridingDate: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:57:58 -0700
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;}
.ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
Yes, it was a bit dull but I think the four opposition leaders nailed Steve on the important issues. Whether that will resonate with voters.......???? I thought Elizabeth May did exceptionally well.
In a nutshell:
I see the NDP as caring about the social issues: environment, poor and downtrodden, healthcare, and childcare but basically wanting to annihilate the corporate world to pay for their programs. That won't fly. They can't gut the Canadian economy.
The Cons under Steve are all about the corporate world and as Steve wanted to do a few years back, put a "firewall" around Alberta's resources.....and all that at the expense of the social programs. He cares not a whit for the arts sector, has done nothing for either healthcare or childcare. The small targeted handouts for the last two were just pathetic in the scheme of things.
The Green Party is just too marginal to make a difference for most Canadians. The fact that Liz came out and said that she'd legalize marihuana and tax it like alcohol and cigarettes, will not appeal to mainstream voters (even if it is the right idea).
The Bloc is a non-starter outside Quebec. Too bad as I thought Gilles had a great haircut!
Therefore, I feel that the Liberals are the most central party caring for both the corporate world and the social issues (The Green Shift). Balance is what it's all about and what it's always been about. Go, Stephane! Go!! He isn't the most charismatic fellow but he's on the right track. The head of the TD bank, Don Drummond, said Dion's plan is economically sound and Suzuki thinks so, too. None of the others leaders has had that support.
There's my rant for today.
Kisses and hugs
Card-packing Liberal
xoxo
(No, I don't have a brown shirt.......yet)
----- Original Message -----
From: matt low
To: The Lows
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: Your riding
the more info the better. Thanks. How 'bout those debaters?!
From: low6050@telus.netTo: mattrlow@hotmail.com; lsulek@fasken.caSubject: Your ridingDate: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:02:24 -0700
Here's an interesting site:
http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/node/111
They say to stop Stephen Harper you should vote for Hedy Fry, the Liberal incumbent.
You can never have TOO much information, can you?
Kisses
Political Poose
xoxo
From: low6050@telus.netTo: mattrlow@hotmail.comSubject: Re: Your ridingDate: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:57:58 -0700
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;}
.ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
Yes, it was a bit dull but I think the four opposition leaders nailed Steve on the important issues. Whether that will resonate with voters.......???? I thought Elizabeth May did exceptionally well.
In a nutshell:
I see the NDP as caring about the social issues: environment, poor and downtrodden, healthcare, and childcare but basically wanting to annihilate the corporate world to pay for their programs. That won't fly. They can't gut the Canadian economy.
The Cons under Steve are all about the corporate world and as Steve wanted to do a few years back, put a "firewall" around Alberta's resources.....and all that at the expense of the social programs. He cares not a whit for the arts sector, has done nothing for either healthcare or childcare. The small targeted handouts for the last two were just pathetic in the scheme of things.
The Green Party is just too marginal to make a difference for most Canadians. The fact that Liz came out and said that she'd legalize marihuana and tax it like alcohol and cigarettes, will not appeal to mainstream voters (even if it is the right idea).
The Bloc is a non-starter outside Quebec. Too bad as I thought Gilles had a great haircut!
Therefore, I feel that the Liberals are the most central party caring for both the corporate world and the social issues (The Green Shift). Balance is what it's all about and what it's always been about. Go, Stephane! Go!! He isn't the most charismatic fellow but he's on the right track. The head of the TD bank, Don Drummond, said Dion's plan is economically sound and Suzuki thinks so, too. None of the others leaders has had that support.
There's my rant for today.
Kisses and hugs
Card-packing Liberal
xoxo
(No, I don't have a brown shirt.......yet)
----- Original Message -----
From: matt low
To: The Lows
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: Your riding
the more info the better. Thanks. How 'bout those debaters?!
From: low6050@telus.netTo: mattrlow@hotmail.com; lsulek@fasken.caSubject: Your ridingDate: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:02:24 -0700
Here's an interesting site:
http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/node/111
They say to stop Stephen Harper you should vote for Hedy Fry, the Liberal incumbent.
You can never have TOO much information, can you?
Kisses
Political Poose
xoxo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
