Both the Angus Reid and EKOS poll show consistent results, providing further evidence that the Conservative lead is solidifying, something beyond a temporary blip. AR gives the government a 14% lead, EKOS 12%, both with no movement poll to poll. Slight improvement for the NDP, although still below 2008 totals.
The trend in Ontario, a 10% lead for the Conservatives has stayed consistent long enough to suggest a new paradigm in the province. One caution, these numbers were the same in reverse for a period of a couple months last spring. Still volatile, but the Conservative lead is holding.
In Quebec, all the pollsters show a worrying number for the Liberals, below Dion's totals. CROP also shows Ignatieff's personal stature on the wane, which comes as no surprise. The Liberals are mired in the low 20's, beside the Conservatives, who were once "dead" in the province. There is much speculation that part of Ignatieff's inner circle shuffle will include more francophones. An aggressive strategy in Quebec is of paramount importance, to undo the Coderre damage.
These polls are more of the same, but more of the same is the worrying part. If memory serves, the Conservatives weren't able to hold this kind of lead, for this long, last winter during the coalition crisis. Thoughts of a "blip" are diminishing, and it looks a long road back for the Liberals.
18 comments:
And since it appears to be along road back, perhaps it is time to do it right from the grassroots level all the way to the party leader. Give something for Canadians to believe in and a reason for hope. Though Harper et al are solidifying their strangle hold on Canadian politics, it isn't based on hope for a better Canada. It's based on reactionary right-wing isolationist "only me" values.
Your blog is kind of like a Radiohead song. I enjoy it, but it has a tendency to depress greatly.
rgl:
"Though Harper et al are solidifying their strangle hold on Canadian politics, it isn't based on hope for a better Canada. It's based on reactionary right-wing isolationist "only me" values."
If by that you mean values of rewarding hard work instead of rewarding unproductive, useless crap, I agree entirely.
Taxes are forcibly taken from the productive segment of society. That is understood and accepted, as long as taxes are used for things worthwhile that everybody should agree on.
But taking money from those who produce in order to buy the votes of those who never produce anything is nothing more than an extortion racket.
You sound like a thief who, when called out on his thievery, complaints that the victim is only thinking about themselves. NO SH!T SHERLOCK!
Ralph Klein, is that you?
Seriously, I don't think that whole idea of homeless people riding around in convertibles and laughing at the honest folk on there way to another blue collar day at work unless you vote conservative really resonates with anybody outside of Alberta.
Aside from Ontario during the Harris years, of course.
that's not the point Jamie.
Helping the homeless is not the issue. I know this is part of the playbook, as soon as conservative dare complaint to have their money taken away to be handed out unfairly to public sector unionized employees, grants to artists, special interest groups, native chiefs (and yes I know most natives live in abject poverty, and one of the reasons for that is that our tax dollars are given to unaccountable chiefs who then hold their community in some kind of feudal system, Im all for using tax dollars for worthwhile causes, like helping homeless or natives)
....Like the Court Challenges Program?
"I enjoy it, but it has a tendency to depress greatly."
And here I thought I was just a partisan hack that spouted the partyline ;) Can't win it seems.
Ah, let us all praise the false economies of selfishness.
"...(in BC) it turns out that a homeless person costs taxpayers almost 8 times as much as someone on welfare due to increased emergency supports, health care, policing and emergency housing.
Local and provincial taxpayers are now paying an estimated $644 million a year on emergency services for the province's 11,700 homeless people who are both severely addicted and mentally ill, according to an exhaustive study by SFU's Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction.
Put bluntly: Welfare pays $7,320 per person per year. Homelessness costs an estimated $55,000 per person per year.
"It's definitely a false economy," Klein said. But because that cost is spread between various ministries and shared among dozens of local municipalities, it's effectively hidden in plain sight.
yes thank you great example.
why pay people to sue you? Although, that in itself is bizarre, I do see the point of it, even if I disagree with it. However I dont believe that our laws are that oppressive, and although democracy is slow and imperfect, it is always preferable to have laws amended to reflect charter values by the legislatures rather than the courts.
But its worst than just that. These programs are inevitably corrupted. Whenever the government tasks bureaucrats to hand out $, that is an invitation to corruption, cronyism, patronage, political preferences, and the CPP was no stranger to that. It was specialized in funding left-wing interest groups, and that was wrong.
I dont want right-wing interest groups funded with my taxes (as im sure you dont either), and I dont want left-wing interest groups funded with my taxes.
I think the fact that we no longer have the CCP is the reason that human rights tribunals are hanging around so long, even though they're very unpopular.
There needs to be some sort of mechanism in place for those types of issues in Canada, and the CCP ensured that all of those cases would be heard in court by a judge (with legal aid given to those who can't afford it) instead of by some questionable tribunal. Human Rights tribunals should be done away with, the CCP should be brought back to fill in the void.
Governments are always going to be tempted to misuse taxpayer dollars, regardless of what party is in charge (see the cheque republic for a recent example), that's why it's important to have an independent parliamentary budget officer (which Harper opposes).
well i am 100% with you on the issue of HRCs, but the CPP was entirely different - it was about funding lawsuits for striking down laws which are contrary to the charter.
they are not really complementary.
HRCs may in fact play a valid role in housing/employment discrimination, but not in speech control.
charter challenges can and will always occur with some rich lawyer polishing off his resume doing probono work for charitable cases.
Agreed that gov will always misuses taxpayers money but it should at least be denounced and hopefully reigned in. It doesnt help though that cutting funding to a women's advocacy group is labeled as "hating women" or something. I forget which actual women's group got its funding cut by the harper gov but it did happen and they got lambasted for it.
Wanting tax $ to be spend wisely and thriftily doesnt mean people care about "only me". It means they dont like getting fleeced.
What i find too is that those like rgl who crap on the "selfish only-me" type are those who are in fact the recipients of government largess.
Oh stop it. It is utterly false to say we don't need a CCP because someone, somewhere, will take it on for free. You are going to have to do more than simply assert something if you want to use it to support your argument.
Gayle put it pretty bluntly, but is correct. The question is: Is the justice system just for those with deep pockets, or for all citizens regardless of wealth? The CPP was there so Joe Average could take on large organizations that could afford expensive teams of lawyers. If the CPP was being abused that's another matter and could have been dealt with appropriately. Killing the CPP is quite literally the proverbial 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm also not a big fan of the HRTs. I agree with Jamie that more cases should be heard in real courts vs. HRTs, and the CPP was part of the mechanism for doing just that.
Apologies - I of course meant the CCP (Court Challenges Program) in that last post. To many acronyms in modern society :)
I can't really comment on the funding to women's group comment because I don't know what you're referring to specifically.
You're opinion on Charter challenges seems to be based on some sort of unfounded myth conservatives use to advocate welfare cuts (the idea that disenfranchised groups are mocking you as they party with your hard earned money).
The CCP is (was) an important tool for people or groups of people who feel that their charter rights are being infringed upon. It's selfish and closed-minded to ignore this important benefit based solely on your unfounded fear that it's funding could be misused.
You're kind of poll obsessed, I prefer Kinsella pointing out that the polls were projecting a Kim Campbell majority 15 years ago.
This doesn't mean anything, except that 37-40% of the Canadian people are prepared to give Harper enough rope that 60-63% of Canadians hope Harper will hang himself with. It has to do with nastiness, we live in a nasty world, people want a prick for a leader: Harper is a prick, Iggy can't figure out why Stephen won't play fair, he won't play fair because he's a sociopath, but up to 40% of Canadians think sociopath is a good trait in a leader. The question not ask in every poll is, who is the person you are least likely to vote for:and the answer is Harper.
"You're kind of poll obsessed"
Kind of? ;)
Jerry,
Forty percent of Canadians do not care that Stephen Harper is a sociopath because they do not know that he is one.
Bloggers have to remember that the majority of Canadians do not follow politics on a daily basis. So they do not see what us bloggers see.
As for the polls, just more political white noise from our illustrious MSM. Again, the majority of Canadians look at them and shrug. It is only us political types who actually care, and sometimes obsess over them.
Post a Comment