6 minute, 18 second mark:
He never had a platform.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Where's Your Platform?
Yesterday, I posited that any argument that suggests the Conservatives always had a platform, the timing merely strategic, was just bad spin. I highlighted Harper's debate reactions, to demonstrate that the platform was only hatched in the aftermath of the debates, pure damage control, rather than a careful plan. Everyone knows Stephen Harper, does anyone really believe we would see the following, the blank stare, looking to the moderator for relief, if he KNEW that a platform was coming, if his team planned on announcing said platform the NEXT MORNING? You be the judge, Harper's deer in the headlights routine, as he takes it squarely on the chin, says it all from here:
6 minute, 18 second mark:
He never had a platform.
6 minute, 18 second mark:
He never had a platform.
A Tightening
Oh, the NANOS poll brings a smile. The race is down to a 4% lead, and Dion is closing in on the best PM rating. Today's Decima poll also shows a 5% tightening in just two days (although still a 10% gap), the Conservatives at their lowest since the election, the Liberals getting breathing room from the NDP. One other note from Decima, Harper's unfavorables are rising, his favorables at the lowest this pollster can remember.
This is good news:
Note the high undecided. Also, NANOS has the Conservatives at a low water mark for the campaign, mirroring Decima.
Dion:
Still a gap, but quite simply the closest Dion has been to Harper since the early days of "not a leader"
Liberals up everywhere, but what is really striking, NANOS has the Liberals up to 28% in Quebec (plus 2% from yesterday). This poll now encompasses the full debate effect, and the Conservatives are now a full 12% behind the Liberals in Quebec.
Big lead in Atlantic Canada, margin of error aside, these trends have held for four days now, so it looks credible. Slight uptick in Ontario, although the NDP remains strong at 22%. Slight uptick in the "west" for the Liberals.
The gap is miniscule, and when you look at my last post, the scenario becomes more realistic if true. What really excites me, Dion's numbers are up across the board, this isn't a Quebec only circumstance. A credible Dion, voters will make the leap back to the Liberals more easily.
Should be an exciting week...
This is good news:
Conservative Party 34 (-1)
Liberal Party 30 (+2)
NDP 19 (NC)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 7% (-1)
Undecided 14% (-2)
Note the high undecided. Also, NANOS has the Conservatives at a low water mark for the campaign, mirroring Decima.
Dion:
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)
Still a gap, but quite simply the closest Dion has been to Harper since the early days of "not a leader"
Liberals up everywhere, but what is really striking, NANOS has the Liberals up to 28% in Quebec (plus 2% from yesterday). This poll now encompasses the full debate effect, and the Conservatives are now a full 12% behind the Liberals in Quebec.
Big lead in Atlantic Canada, margin of error aside, these trends have held for four days now, so it looks credible. Slight uptick in Ontario, although the NDP remains strong at 22%. Slight uptick in the "west" for the Liberals.
The gap is miniscule, and when you look at my last post, the scenario becomes more realistic if true. What really excites me, Dion's numbers are up across the board, this isn't a Quebec only circumstance. A credible Dion, voters will make the leap back to the Liberals more easily.
Should be an exciting week...
How The Liberals Can Win?
Disclaimer, this is a best case scenario, more about potential than rose colored glasses. I still see a path to a weak Liberal minority, if everything falls into place, if there is maximum consolidation. For arguments sake, let's put the Conservatives ahead with 35%, the Liberals at 26%, NDP 19% and the Greens at 10%, seems a pretty fair averaging, giving more weight for past accuracy.
I believe the core Conservative vote is 32%, anything lower exceptional, but you can shave a couple points off their current total. I believe the core NDP vote is 15%, I believe the core Green vote is 6%. I base this on past elections, and a reading of vote "softness". I've seen a couple findings which peg the percentage of current Green vote potentially changing as high as 48%, which makes sense, given the lack of historical support. There also seems to be some softness in the NDP vote, but in fairness that also holds true for the Liberals, to a lesser degree. What is clear, amongst soft Green and NDP support, the Liberals are the clear "second choice", this is also the case with soft Conservative supporters.
I also believe, that when looking at the national numbers, given regional efficiency, the Liberals only need to be within 2% to have a chance at a minority. The Conservatives do suffer from over the top support in some regions, which skew the national numbers, meaning if we had a scenario where the Cons are shown at say 34%, the Libs 32%, we could still win. People will remember the pre-writ polls that showed a statistical tie, but when you drilled into the numbers, you saw a Liberal victory. So, I will factor that fact into the calculation.
I can see a realistic scenario where the Liberals can shave 3% off the current Con tally used at the beginning. Some of that support would move to the NDP, so we will give the Liberals 2% of that, the NDP 1%. It's now Cons 32%, Libs 28%, NDP 20%, Greens 10%. We've seen it before, as the race reaches crescendo, the NDP are challenged to keep the focus on them, as others try to narrow the choice. It is entirely possible that the Liberals could shave 2-3% of the NDP's current tally. Let's not forget, before the election, many pollsters showed the NDP battling for third in Ontario, any gains since hardly denotes FIRM support, it can move. Let's take a mere 2% off the current NDP tally, now it's Cons 32%, Libs 30%, NDP 18% (which is still a sizeable vote), Greens 10%. That leaves the Greens, the most fertile ground for the Liberals. When push comes to shove, I see a powerful argument- if you favor a carbon tax, you need to vote for the party that can bring make this policy into law. There are many differences between the two parties, but there is no question similarities do exist, any plea is not without substantive appeal. Let's say 3% of the Green vote is siphoned off, and we will even give the NDP 1% of that. It's now Cons 32%, Libs 32%, NDP 19%, Greens 7%.
Maybe it's just me, but those final numbers don't seem outrageous at all. The NDP are still above their 2006 total, the Greens well above. I mention this, because it demonstrates a path for victory that doesn't over-estimate any erosion in the other parties vote, those are good numbers, relatively. A tie translates to a Liberal victory, or has the real possibility. If I put the Conservative total too low, remember I give others much more than 2006, so you could still draw more Liberal support elsewhere to make up, just another calculation.
Will this happen? It's just a POSSIBLE path, an optimistic view, but not an outlandish one either. What it does show, how some minor tinkering with the various party votes, turns a sizeable lead into a statistical tie.
I believe the core Conservative vote is 32%, anything lower exceptional, but you can shave a couple points off their current total. I believe the core NDP vote is 15%, I believe the core Green vote is 6%. I base this on past elections, and a reading of vote "softness". I've seen a couple findings which peg the percentage of current Green vote potentially changing as high as 48%, which makes sense, given the lack of historical support. There also seems to be some softness in the NDP vote, but in fairness that also holds true for the Liberals, to a lesser degree. What is clear, amongst soft Green and NDP support, the Liberals are the clear "second choice", this is also the case with soft Conservative supporters.
I also believe, that when looking at the national numbers, given regional efficiency, the Liberals only need to be within 2% to have a chance at a minority. The Conservatives do suffer from over the top support in some regions, which skew the national numbers, meaning if we had a scenario where the Cons are shown at say 34%, the Libs 32%, we could still win. People will remember the pre-writ polls that showed a statistical tie, but when you drilled into the numbers, you saw a Liberal victory. So, I will factor that fact into the calculation.
I can see a realistic scenario where the Liberals can shave 3% off the current Con tally used at the beginning. Some of that support would move to the NDP, so we will give the Liberals 2% of that, the NDP 1%. It's now Cons 32%, Libs 28%, NDP 20%, Greens 10%. We've seen it before, as the race reaches crescendo, the NDP are challenged to keep the focus on them, as others try to narrow the choice. It is entirely possible that the Liberals could shave 2-3% of the NDP's current tally. Let's not forget, before the election, many pollsters showed the NDP battling for third in Ontario, any gains since hardly denotes FIRM support, it can move. Let's take a mere 2% off the current NDP tally, now it's Cons 32%, Libs 30%, NDP 18% (which is still a sizeable vote), Greens 10%. That leaves the Greens, the most fertile ground for the Liberals. When push comes to shove, I see a powerful argument- if you favor a carbon tax, you need to vote for the party that can bring make this policy into law. There are many differences between the two parties, but there is no question similarities do exist, any plea is not without substantive appeal. Let's say 3% of the Green vote is siphoned off, and we will even give the NDP 1% of that. It's now Cons 32%, Libs 32%, NDP 19%, Greens 7%.
Maybe it's just me, but those final numbers don't seem outrageous at all. The NDP are still above their 2006 total, the Greens well above. I mention this, because it demonstrates a path for victory that doesn't over-estimate any erosion in the other parties vote, those are good numbers, relatively. A tie translates to a Liberal victory, or has the real possibility. If I put the Conservative total too low, remember I give others much more than 2006, so you could still draw more Liberal support elsewhere to make up, just another calculation.
Will this happen? It's just a POSSIBLE path, an optimistic view, but not an outlandish one either. What it does show, how some minor tinkering with the various party votes, turns a sizeable lead into a statistical tie.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
One Thing Is Clear
There does appear to be some conflicting national polling, but that isn't the case in Quebec, where everyone shows the Conservatives in the tank, with the prospects for a majority fading badly. This fact is borne out in both the NANOS and Decima polls today, plus evidence from others in the last few days. Given the steep decline, and a mini-Liberal resurgence, I think it safe to say the hopes for the breakthrough are effectively over. There might be some slight rebound for the Conservatives, but it's hard to see any return to the early days threat, too much damage has been done.
I believe the above is realistic, which leads me to the rest of the country. Nanos has the gap at 7% today (up 2% from yesterday), which should surprise no one. The NPD fortunes are up slightly in both the Nanos and Decima offerings, reflecting Layton's strong performance. Decima also shows the Greens up to 13% nationally, but interestingly Nanos shows them down to 8%, some erosion in most parts of the country. Common sense leans towards the Decima trends, May performed well.
What I find encouraging, although the national numbers are still distant, and the Liberals are in serious trouble in the west, supported by everyone, Ontario is showing signs of a shift. Decima now has a tie in Ontario, both at 31%, the NDP showing an uptick. Decima hasn't shown a tie for quite some time, and this finding mirrors what Nanos reports. With Quebec cementing, I still see hope, because I sense a very fluid race in this province, there is a way to bring people back to the Liberal fold. No pollster disputes a very important fact, it is the Liberals that have the room for growth, and some of the findings show a real softness in the Green and NDP voters. It boils down to capitalization, and presenting a compelling reason to buy into the Liberal vision. Couple that with a historic preference for late deciders moving Liberal, and it's not a pipe dream.
Atlantic Canada appears to be firming up for the Liberals, if Nanos is correct. Although Atlantic Canada numbers have a high MOE, he essentially shows the Liberals holding strong at over 40% for three straight nights. The chief problem, which is killing the Liberal national numbers, the party are nowhere in the "west" and this is a real factor. Anything is possible, but we don't appear to be getting any traction in British Columbia, and that is key if we have a chance.
A couple interesting tidbits. Nanos has Dion coming back to earth a bit today, as the English debate is factored in (you will note I expected a "pull back" after yesterday's extraordinary numbers). However, the honeymoon continues in Quebec, where Dion is now tied for FIRST on the best PM score, the party up another 2% in the polls. It is entirely possible that the Liberals could pickup a couple seats in Quebec, a thought almost laughable a week ago.
I believe the above is realistic, which leads me to the rest of the country. Nanos has the gap at 7% today (up 2% from yesterday), which should surprise no one. The NPD fortunes are up slightly in both the Nanos and Decima offerings, reflecting Layton's strong performance. Decima also shows the Greens up to 13% nationally, but interestingly Nanos shows them down to 8%, some erosion in most parts of the country. Common sense leans towards the Decima trends, May performed well.
What I find encouraging, although the national numbers are still distant, and the Liberals are in serious trouble in the west, supported by everyone, Ontario is showing signs of a shift. Decima now has a tie in Ontario, both at 31%, the NDP showing an uptick. Decima hasn't shown a tie for quite some time, and this finding mirrors what Nanos reports. With Quebec cementing, I still see hope, because I sense a very fluid race in this province, there is a way to bring people back to the Liberal fold. No pollster disputes a very important fact, it is the Liberals that have the room for growth, and some of the findings show a real softness in the Green and NDP voters. It boils down to capitalization, and presenting a compelling reason to buy into the Liberal vision. Couple that with a historic preference for late deciders moving Liberal, and it's not a pipe dream.
Atlantic Canada appears to be firming up for the Liberals, if Nanos is correct. Although Atlantic Canada numbers have a high MOE, he essentially shows the Liberals holding strong at over 40% for three straight nights. The chief problem, which is killing the Liberal national numbers, the party are nowhere in the "west" and this is a real factor. Anything is possible, but we don't appear to be getting any traction in British Columbia, and that is key if we have a chance.
A couple interesting tidbits. Nanos has Dion coming back to earth a bit today, as the English debate is factored in (you will note I expected a "pull back" after yesterday's extraordinary numbers). However, the honeymoon continues in Quebec, where Dion is now tied for FIRST on the best PM score, the party up another 2% in the polls. It is entirely possible that the Liberals could pickup a couple seats in Quebec, a thought almost laughable a week ago.
Beyond BAD SPIN
I see that the Conservatives are arguing that they've had a platform all along, this is merely a tactical decision to present it at the end of the campaign. Don Martin offers some relative feeble rationalizations for the late platform release, but it's all irrelevant, after the fact, talking points.
Let's look at the timeline here, and it will be provide complete clarity, it will demonstrate that this platform idea was hatched in the debate aftermath, it's a bandaid, it's release was never part of a systematic election strategy.
Here is what we are too believe from the Conservatives, and their apologists. A mere 12 hours after the English debate, wherein Harper was called out directly on his lack of platform, with NO RESPONSE, suddenly a platform exists. That's right, the night before Harper was hammered for the absence of a platform, but he uttered NOTHING, he just sat there and looked at the moderator. According to the spin, the platform release was already on the table, just chess masters waiting for the right moment. If that were TRUE, wouldn't you think Harper would respond in the debate, a half day before the Conservatives leak a platform release of next week.
Here are the exchanges, and I wish I could provide the visuals of Harper too, because it adds to my point:
May, and particularly Layton, stomped on Harper's throat and he didn't react, he didn't think to say we have a platform, didn't dawn on him to say we will have news on that tomorrow, nothing, nada, zip. Harper just took it, clean shot, NO RESPONSE both times (I believe it came up again later too). Harper is sitting there with full knowledge of a platform release, and yet he offers no retort. More amazingly, the next morning all his handlers are crowing about this platform that is already in the can, part of a coherent election strategy. Not only doesn't that pass the smell test, it REEKS.
So please spare me this crap spin, this platform was a reaction to the debates, it's damage control and I GUARANTEE people are working on some new elements right now in the war room. Anybody who believes otherwise has to confront a timeline which is really simple common sense.
Let's look at the timeline here, and it will be provide complete clarity, it will demonstrate that this platform idea was hatched in the debate aftermath, it's a bandaid, it's release was never part of a systematic election strategy.
Here is what we are too believe from the Conservatives, and their apologists. A mere 12 hours after the English debate, wherein Harper was called out directly on his lack of platform, with NO RESPONSE, suddenly a platform exists. That's right, the night before Harper was hammered for the absence of a platform, but he uttered NOTHING, he just sat there and looked at the moderator. According to the spin, the platform release was already on the table, just chess masters waiting for the right moment. If that were TRUE, wouldn't you think Harper would respond in the debate, a half day before the Conservatives leak a platform release of next week.
Here are the exchanges, and I wish I could provide the visuals of Harper too, because it adds to my point:
May:
"Well, where is your platform? Your's is the only party that hasn't released a platform yet in this election, all the other parties have...
Harper:
blank look, no response
----
Layton:
You say you've got a plan, where is it, where's your platform, under the sweater? You haven't presented one in this election, I find that shocking. I can't remember in history when that's happened.
Harper:
Blank stare, dead air, looks to the moderator. No response.
May, and particularly Layton, stomped on Harper's throat and he didn't react, he didn't think to say we have a platform, didn't dawn on him to say we will have news on that tomorrow, nothing, nada, zip. Harper just took it, clean shot, NO RESPONSE both times (I believe it came up again later too). Harper is sitting there with full knowledge of a platform release, and yet he offers no retort. More amazingly, the next morning all his handlers are crowing about this platform that is already in the can, part of a coherent election strategy. Not only doesn't that pass the smell test, it REEKS.
So please spare me this crap spin, this platform was a reaction to the debates, it's damage control and I GUARANTEE people are working on some new elements right now in the war room. Anybody who believes otherwise has to confront a timeline which is really simple common sense.
Friday, October 03, 2008
"Panic"= Recognizing Reality And Acting
It's frankly one of the most absurd arguments I've heard in a long time, but it's really a testament to nothingness and deflection. Since when is outlining a plan to deal with fast changing economic circumstance an indication of "panic"? We've just seen two separate days this week, which showed the BIGGEST drops in stock market history, economic veterans with 30 years experience saying they've never seen anything like it. An American problem? No, actually I was referring to OUR stock market, our savings, our liquidity, people's investments, trivial matters of capital and profit.
Things are happening so quickly, OUR own Scotiabank has now uttered the R word for Canada, predicting that will we be in recession. That's not news to any of us in central Canada, and much of that has little to do with the past week, in fact we've seen erosion for MONTHS. Maybe an added factor, potash is in the tank, analysts are now predicting the party is over in Saskatchewan, expect a major housing market correction. Yes, yes, good news everywhere, the fundamentals are strong.
It's is debatable how much influence government can have on the economy, but no one disputes that the tenor of said government can really influence consumer confidence. When faced with a crisis, it is imperative that people have the impression that all oars are in the water, the government focused like a laser beam, doing everything in it's power to mitigate the damage. That, in a nutshell, is what leadership is all about... well, except in Canada apparently. No, in Canada, if a person outlines an action plan to bring together all our top minds, economic and political, to develop a coherent path forward, it's called "panic", it's a flip flop or some other asinine characterization.
And yet? The same character, who all week repeatedly told us all is well, now suddenly has a PLATFORM. Presto, it just appears and the nation will be better for it, a steady hand at the helm. Hypocrisy, double speak, intellectually dishonest, you name it, that's our Conservative government. Sounds to me like somebody is reacting to events on the ground, or more correctly somebody is in damage control mode.
How any rational person can criticize Dion for denoting the seriousness, for advocating swift response, is more a testament to their own partisan nonsense, than any fair judgement on the wisdom. When the populus is worried, they want a sense that you RECOGNIZE REALITY AND ARE ACTING, they don't want the "fundamentals are strong", don't worry, particularly when we can all see that those pillars are wobbling by the DAY.
The only panic I see, the Conservatives scrambling to cobble together a couple tertiary ideas for the sudden platform. A little behind the curve, don't you think?
Things are happening so quickly, OUR own Scotiabank has now uttered the R word for Canada, predicting that will we be in recession. That's not news to any of us in central Canada, and much of that has little to do with the past week, in fact we've seen erosion for MONTHS. Maybe an added factor, potash is in the tank, analysts are now predicting the party is over in Saskatchewan, expect a major housing market correction. Yes, yes, good news everywhere, the fundamentals are strong.
It's is debatable how much influence government can have on the economy, but no one disputes that the tenor of said government can really influence consumer confidence. When faced with a crisis, it is imperative that people have the impression that all oars are in the water, the government focused like a laser beam, doing everything in it's power to mitigate the damage. That, in a nutshell, is what leadership is all about... well, except in Canada apparently. No, in Canada, if a person outlines an action plan to bring together all our top minds, economic and political, to develop a coherent path forward, it's called "panic", it's a flip flop or some other asinine characterization.
And yet? The same character, who all week repeatedly told us all is well, now suddenly has a PLATFORM. Presto, it just appears and the nation will be better for it, a steady hand at the helm. Hypocrisy, double speak, intellectually dishonest, you name it, that's our Conservative government. Sounds to me like somebody is reacting to events on the ground, or more correctly somebody is in damage control mode.
How any rational person can criticize Dion for denoting the seriousness, for advocating swift response, is more a testament to their own partisan nonsense, than any fair judgement on the wisdom. When the populus is worried, they want a sense that you RECOGNIZE REALITY AND ARE ACTING, they don't want the "fundamentals are strong", don't worry, particularly when we can all see that those pillars are wobbling by the DAY.
The only panic I see, the Conservatives scrambling to cobble together a couple tertiary ideas for the sudden platform. A little behind the curve, don't you think?
Debate Bounce?
Some pretty striking numbers across the board from NANOS today, not the least of which Dion's numbers. EKOS and Decima still show a wide gap, although we really won't see the full debate fallout until Sunday. One tidbit from Decima, the NDP now fourth in Ontario, the Greens surging.
I'm focusing on NANOS today, particularly because they have detailed leadership numbers. I've always believed that the Liberals can't move until Dion starts getting his numbers up. What we see today is a clear co-relation between Dion's personal standing and the Liberal fortunes.
First, a dramatic change in the horse race numbers, with an 11% lead narrowing decisively to a mere 5%. Liberals up 4%, Conservatives down 2%, NDP down 1%, Greens unchanged- Cons 35%, Libs 30%, NDP 18%, Greens 10%. Last night's polling must have shown a massive change, that's a big change for a tracking poll, and it speaks to just how impressive Dion was with voters in the French debate.
As you scan down the NANOS pdf, I was really looking for the leadership scores. Let me just say, whoa! Dion's overall score up an incredible 130% from yesterday, a mere 8 points behind Harper (64 points yesterday), not to mention well ahead of Layton, who was double Dion in the previous sample. These numbers tend to bounce around quite a bit, so I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on the methodology, but when you see something this extreme, it's real. Even a pullback tomorrow, it's still quite striking. Dion statistically tied with Harper on competence and vision is uncharted territory.
On the best PM scoring, for the first time I can remember, Dion is ahead of Layton. While still behind, Dion is now the highest we've seen, the trend line over the past week a good one.
NANOS now puts the Liberals second in Quebec, up a full 7% to 24% (Cons 20%). Nobody sees a Liberal breakthrough, but Dion has clearly shored up support and I'm sure some Montreal MP's are quite happy today. NANOS also shows the Liberals dominating in Atlantic Canada, back to even in Ontario. The west remains a chief concern for the Liberals.
Now, we see how the English debate factors in, and if other pollsters show some movement. That aside, clearly Dion has risen in stature, while some of this dramatic rise may wane, it's still a very positive sign.
I'm focusing on NANOS today, particularly because they have detailed leadership numbers. I've always believed that the Liberals can't move until Dion starts getting his numbers up. What we see today is a clear co-relation between Dion's personal standing and the Liberal fortunes.
First, a dramatic change in the horse race numbers, with an 11% lead narrowing decisively to a mere 5%. Liberals up 4%, Conservatives down 2%, NDP down 1%, Greens unchanged- Cons 35%, Libs 30%, NDP 18%, Greens 10%. Last night's polling must have shown a massive change, that's a big change for a tracking poll, and it speaks to just how impressive Dion was with voters in the French debate.
As you scan down the NANOS pdf, I was really looking for the leadership scores. Let me just say, whoa! Dion's overall score up an incredible 130% from yesterday, a mere 8 points behind Harper (64 points yesterday), not to mention well ahead of Layton, who was double Dion in the previous sample. These numbers tend to bounce around quite a bit, so I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on the methodology, but when you see something this extreme, it's real. Even a pullback tomorrow, it's still quite striking. Dion statistically tied with Harper on competence and vision is uncharted territory.
On the best PM scoring, for the first time I can remember, Dion is ahead of Layton. While still behind, Dion is now the highest we've seen, the trend line over the past week a good one.
NANOS now puts the Liberals second in Quebec, up a full 7% to 24% (Cons 20%). Nobody sees a Liberal breakthrough, but Dion has clearly shored up support and I'm sure some Montreal MP's are quite happy today. NANOS also shows the Liberals dominating in Atlantic Canada, back to even in Ontario. The west remains a chief concern for the Liberals.
Now, we see how the English debate factors in, and if other pollsters show some movement. That aside, clearly Dion has risen in stature, while some of this dramatic rise may wane, it's still a very positive sign.
Debate Thoughts
In looking at reaction, this seems to be one of those debates where everyone can find something. Last night's Ipsos poll gave it too Harper, Layton strong, Dion not so much. One huge caveat with that sample, they only polled for the first half of the debate, and I would surely concede Dion was much better in the second half. That said, you can go here, and everytime Harper uttered a word the reaction went into the earth's mantle, all others receiving good reaction. The Globe and Mail gives it too Dion by a whisker, others liked Layton, etc, etc, etc.
I thought Stephane started slowly, slightly uncomfortable, struggling to find his words. Layton came out hard straight away, and objectively you could say he was strong all night. May was refreshing and candid, although I think she faded as the night wore on and the debate centered more on the principles. Harper did better than the French language debate, but he was hammered on the economy, the environment and arts, so overall he still lost in my estimation.
Dion really hit his stride in the middle of the debate, especially when challenged, he reacted with a sincerity that I think connected. The thing about Layton for me, and I thought this when I voted for the NDP too, he is passionate and forceful, but he's also slick and very much looks like a seasoned politican (that's not a compliment). Still, Layton did what he wanted, I'm sure his handlers are happy. I just think that Dion's genuine nature gave him the edge, his words weren't contrived or opportunistic.
May's a novelty, so she receives added attention. However, she did demonstrate a real depth on issues outside of the environment, which is important for the Greens, looking to show they aren't a one issue policy. I thought May did well on the economy.
What we will wait to see now, if the polls move over the next few days. By Monday, we should start to have a sense of where the race is, heading into the final week.
I thought Stephane started slowly, slightly uncomfortable, struggling to find his words. Layton came out hard straight away, and objectively you could say he was strong all night. May was refreshing and candid, although I think she faded as the night wore on and the debate centered more on the principles. Harper did better than the French language debate, but he was hammered on the economy, the environment and arts, so overall he still lost in my estimation.
Dion really hit his stride in the middle of the debate, especially when challenged, he reacted with a sincerity that I think connected. The thing about Layton for me, and I thought this when I voted for the NDP too, he is passionate and forceful, but he's also slick and very much looks like a seasoned politican (that's not a compliment). Still, Layton did what he wanted, I'm sure his handlers are happy. I just think that Dion's genuine nature gave him the edge, his words weren't contrived or opportunistic.
May's a novelty, so she receives added attention. However, she did demonstrate a real depth on issues outside of the environment, which is important for the Greens, looking to show they aren't a one issue policy. I thought May did well on the economy.
What we will wait to see now, if the polls move over the next few days. By Monday, we should start to have a sense of where the race is, heading into the final week.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
NDP Puke Out 35% More Carbon Than The Liberals
Remember all the criticism about the "gas guzzling plane", those cheeky NDP releases (which were objectively funny), the tsk tsk. Well, if the Liberals are reckless and their plane shows a clear disdain for the environment, as the pure argue, then what are we too make of the NDP. To be fair, the NDP have offsets, LIKE the Liberals, UNLIKE the Conservatives, but is that really the point, especially when you claim environmental responsibility, while poking fun at the LESSER offenders.
Them's big boots Jack:
I remember some easily dismissed Liberal defences, that said all the criticisms were unfounded, but nobody seemed to care, the optics too delicious. Apparently, the truth of the matter, the Liberals are leaving the smallest footprint, the NDP much larger.
It's a trivial point, but then again is it really? Walk the walk mustache ;)
Them's big boots Jack:
According to the David Suzuki Foundation, Jack Layton and the NDP have spewed the most emissions along their 38,343 km campaign trail, emitting 383 tonnes of carbon up to and including Sept. 30.
The Tories follow a close second, having emitted 317 tonnes along their 43-city tour, and the Liberals came in third at 284 tonnes.
But while the NDP may be the biggest campaign polluter at first glance, they've also committed to spending $60,000 of their election budget on carbon offsets, points out Dale Marshall, spokesman for the Suzuki Foundation.
Similarly, the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party have pledged to buy carbon offsets or credits to neutralize the emissions produced by plane and bus travel. The Conservatives, meanwhile, are the only party to refrain from offsetting their campaign.
But what's cleaner? To offset longer distances travelled, or to shorten the journey and not offset?
"I'm going to give you a very Canadian answer," Marshall said. "You have to do both. We favour buying high quality offsets, but what we tell everyone is that the first step is to reduce your emissions as much as possible."
I remember some easily dismissed Liberal defences, that said all the criticisms were unfounded, but nobody seemed to care, the optics too delicious. Apparently, the truth of the matter, the Liberals are leaving the smallest footprint, the NDP much larger.
It's a trivial point, but then again is it really? Walk the walk mustache ;)
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Lapierre: "Dion Won The Debate"
Sifting through the spin, a poll of Quebecers post-debate feelings gives it to DION. Lapierre citing a Quebec television sampling of views, says that Dion won hands down, Harper was "asleep at the switch". I haven't heard Lapierre say a good thing about Dion since he took the leadership, if he was generally excited about his performance, the best he's been in front of the Quebec people, then its objectively noted.
After hearing the feedback from Quebecers, I know what I saw wasn't partisan filter. I don't think there was any knockout blows, or that sort of frame, but Dion was measured, detailed, coherent, engaged and politely forceful. If you watched the body language, you would have seen Duceppe constantly looking to Dion as he spoke, as though an acknowledgement of respect, I found that unconscious cue quite telling.
Harper lost, period. At times he had no answers, at others feeble words, quickly talked over by others. Duceppe did well, but Duceppe always does well. Layton had his moments, but pretty forgettable. May "stole" the debate in the expectations department, refreshing and authentic. But, overall Dion wins, not just because people agree, but because he was able to confront the shallow negative impressions. Dion showed he can be PM, he provided a stark contrast. Interestingly, the Liberals Harper/Bush comparison was echoed continually by everyone, which only reinforces the talking point.
Bravo Stephane, and apparently that impression isn't just partisan spin ;)
UPDATE
Ipsos out with some reaction, and guess what:
Ah, voters, how quaint.
After hearing the feedback from Quebecers, I know what I saw wasn't partisan filter. I don't think there was any knockout blows, or that sort of frame, but Dion was measured, detailed, coherent, engaged and politely forceful. If you watched the body language, you would have seen Duceppe constantly looking to Dion as he spoke, as though an acknowledgement of respect, I found that unconscious cue quite telling.
Harper lost, period. At times he had no answers, at others feeble words, quickly talked over by others. Duceppe did well, but Duceppe always does well. Layton had his moments, but pretty forgettable. May "stole" the debate in the expectations department, refreshing and authentic. But, overall Dion wins, not just because people agree, but because he was able to confront the shallow negative impressions. Dion showed he can be PM, he provided a stark contrast. Interestingly, the Liberals Harper/Bush comparison was echoed continually by everyone, which only reinforces the talking point.
Bravo Stephane, and apparently that impression isn't just partisan spin ;)
UPDATE
Ipsos out with some reaction, and guess what:
French Leaders Debate Audience Says Dion Clear Winner
1 in 5 (20%) Viewers Say They Changed Their Mind
Toronto, ON — The results of a near instantaneous Ipsos Reid/CanWest News Service survey of French-speaking Canadian voters who watched Wednesday night’s French-language leaders’ debate has revealed:
The Winner…
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion emerges as the clear winner of Wednesday’s debate with 40% of Canadian voters who viewed the French language debate saying he won, compared with 24% who feel that Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe won, 16% who feel that Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper emerged victorious, 11% who feel that NDP Leader Jack Layton won, and just 1% who feel Green Leader Elizabeth May won.
Being Prime Ministerial…
Nearly four in ten (36%) found Stephane Dion (up 21 points) to be the leader who sounds and acts most like a Prime Minister, placing him ahead of Prime Minister Harper (31%, down 14 points). Gilles Duceppe was next (17%, up 4 points), followed by Jack Layton (12%, down 4 points) and Elizabeth May (1%, unchanged).
The Best Ideas and Policies…
According to 41% (up 15 points since pre-debate poll) of voters, Stephane Dion offered the best policies and ideas during the debate. In second place was Gilles Duceppe (22%, up 6 points), followed by Jack Layton (19%, down 5 points), Stephen Harper (13%, down 9 points) and Elizabeth May (1%, down 1 point).
Likeability of the Leaders…
Jack Layton scored the best in terms of likeability with 46% of viewers (down 12 points) saying that he was the most likeable and the person they’d most like to go out for a beer or coffee with. Next was Gilles Duceppe (18%, up 1 point), Stephan Dion (14%, up 5 points), Stephen Harper (10%, up 2 points) and finally Elizabeth May (9%, up 6 points).
Impressions of the Leaders…
Subtracting worsened impressions from improved impressions, opinions of Stephane Dion improved (net +56) the most as a result of the debate, while Jack Layton (net +48) also fared well. Gilles Duceppe (net +30) also had a solid performance, according to those who watched the debate, as did Elizabeth May (net +18). Opinions of Stephen Harper plummeted (net -39) among those who viewed the debate.
Improved Worsened
Stephen Harper 14% 53%
Stephane Dion 67% 11%
Jack Layton 55% 7%
Gilles Duceppe 41% 11%
Elizabeth May 42% 24%
Most Visually Attractive…
One in three (33%) who viewed the debate found Jack Layton to be the most visually attractive (down 7 points), followed by Gilles Duceppe (22%, up 2 points), Stephane Dion (19%, up 13 points), Stephen Harper (15%, down 5 points), and finally Elizabeth May (5%, unchanged).
Effect of Debate on Vote…
Overall, the effect of this debate on voters’ intentions has not been insignificant. Two in ten (20%) French-speaking Canadians who watched the debate say that they have changed their mind about who to vote for on October 14 as a result of viewing the debate.
Ah, voters, how quaint.
Coyne Misses The Point
Andrew Coyne scoffs at the plagiarism story, listing reasons why it's all irrelevant, contrary to what many of his colleagues argue. I think his arguments miss the point entirely:
Now ignoring the tertiary defences, the only real point. This wasn't just any speech, this was the speech that all the Harperites lauded, his guru Flanagan called "eloquent", so impressive it was copied and sent out to the masses, picked up by publications. In other words, this speech is Harper's supposed SHINING MOMENT, his foreign policy coming out party, the historical MARKER. Maybe Harper is an eloquent man as Coyne states, but isn't it kind of sad that your signature speech was VERBATUM Howard, whether aware or not, surely the least you can say is EMBARRASSING, or lessening in stature. What would Coyne say if the Beatles signature tune Hey Jude was really written by Mick Jagger? McCartney can still sing, remember all those other songs, it was Ringo that actually fed me the lines?
Having a speech writer is one thing, but to say Harper had a million things on his plate, so please understand, is weak. This wasn't some side issue, this was about Canada participating in the Iraq war, if Harper had a full plate, this was the 32 ounce steak, NOTHING was more important, this speech demanded full attention. And yet, we find out Harper's defining moment was nothing more than a copy and paste job, NO INPUT from him at all, just feed the words, here you go, try to look stately. It's one thing to have a collaborative effort, quite another to have a lip sync.
So, nobody thinks Harper is lying here, nobody thinks he's crazy, everybody understands speech writers, everyone gets it. What Coyne doesn't get, Harper's "moment", as described by his supports, was really a shallow, robotic message, crafted by others, taken from someone who could find his own words, on the defining "moment" of that time. At the very least, Harper appears a little smaller, another sign of manufactured messaging, which we see EVERYDAY with this outfit.
If Harper had knowingly plagiarized, in Parliament, a highly-publicized speech by a sitting Australian Prime Minister, delivered just 36 hours before, it wouldn’t call into question his judgment — it would call into question his sanity. It was crazy enough when Joe Biden did it, a hundred million years ago (I’m estimating). But this was in 2003, well into the age of the internet. Is it really to be imagined, knowing everything we know about Harper, that he would be so foolish as to think he would not get caught?I don't seem to recall anyone saying Harper KNOWINGLY lifted the lines, so Coyne creates a defence that was never necessary.
Since when does Harper need to steal anyone’s words, or thoughts? He’s famously opinionated, and notably articulate. I’ve read his stuff over the years - newspaper articles, magazine pieces, speeches. He has an unmistakeable voice, a clear writing style, analytical sharpness. If he hadn’t been a politician, he’d have been a fine pundit. So if he wrote the speech in question, it would be an odd departure, to say the least, for him to suddently start borrowing whole paragraphs from another person, even ignoring point 1.That's great Andrew, Harper's articulate and well spoken. So what?
But of course, he didn’t write the speech in question, if we believe the confession of poor Owen Lippert. Certainly, it is more persuasive to me to think that as the newly elected opposition leader, with a million other things on his plate, Harper would have started using a speechwriter, rather than write them himself.Harper busy boy, so natural to think he had some help. Got it, again, so what?
Now ignoring the tertiary defences, the only real point. This wasn't just any speech, this was the speech that all the Harperites lauded, his guru Flanagan called "eloquent", so impressive it was copied and sent out to the masses, picked up by publications. In other words, this speech is Harper's supposed SHINING MOMENT, his foreign policy coming out party, the historical MARKER. Maybe Harper is an eloquent man as Coyne states, but isn't it kind of sad that your signature speech was VERBATUM Howard, whether aware or not, surely the least you can say is EMBARRASSING, or lessening in stature. What would Coyne say if the Beatles signature tune Hey Jude was really written by Mick Jagger? McCartney can still sing, remember all those other songs, it was Ringo that actually fed me the lines?
Having a speech writer is one thing, but to say Harper had a million things on his plate, so please understand, is weak. This wasn't some side issue, this was about Canada participating in the Iraq war, if Harper had a full plate, this was the 32 ounce steak, NOTHING was more important, this speech demanded full attention. And yet, we find out Harper's defining moment was nothing more than a copy and paste job, NO INPUT from him at all, just feed the words, here you go, try to look stately. It's one thing to have a collaborative effort, quite another to have a lip sync.
So, nobody thinks Harper is lying here, nobody thinks he's crazy, everybody understands speech writers, everyone gets it. What Coyne doesn't get, Harper's "moment", as described by his supports, was really a shallow, robotic message, crafted by others, taken from someone who could find his own words, on the defining "moment" of that time. At the very least, Harper appears a little smaller, another sign of manufactured messaging, which we see EVERYDAY with this outfit.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Harper Scandal Goes International
Oh, it's really a nothing little issue, just a sideshow. Apparently, the international media disagrees, as the Harper government is once again "embarrassing" (Kory Teneycke's word) us on the world stage:
A sampling from the American press:
Here, here, here, and here.
New Zealand:
Here.
Australia:
Here and here.
Taiwan:
Here.
China:
Here
Not to mention every international news organization. There's more, but you get the gist.
Imagine if this was really news, Conservative apologists?
A sampling from the American press:
Here, here, here, and here.
New Zealand:
Here.
Australia:
Here and here.
Taiwan:
Here.
China:
Here
Not to mention every international news organization. There's more, but you get the gist.
Imagine if this was really news, Conservative apologists?
Poll Summary
Nanos has the gap at 11%, with some interesting tidbits. Decima has the gap at 10%, with signs the NDP are trending downward. EKOS has the gap narrowing again, this time to 7% (the Liberals at their highest for this pollster since the election call), and plenty of room for Liberal growth.
One additional poll, which does a detailed analysis of key Quebec ridings, shows the Conservatives dreams of a breakthrough are fading fast:
If the results are too be believed, the Cons will lose a cabinet minister and Fortier is in big trouble. Another interesting note, in the Decima poll, when Bloc supporters are asked for their second choice, the Cons have fallen to an abysmal 5%, down from as high as 34% since the election began (the Liberals the second choice of 21%). Bad numbers, and little evidence of growth potential, it would appear opinion is firming up against the Conservatives in Quebec.
Speaking of growth potential, this from Decima:
This brings me to what I think is the important aspect of today's polls. There is real evidence that the NDP are pulling back from their high water mark, especially in Ontario. Decima has them life and death for 3rd with the Greens, all of the polls have them well back. It would appear the NDP's platform has done absolutely nothing for their prospects, if anything we see some pullback, even with urban women, a clear target with the childcare initiative. Maybe outdated socialism isn't the answer afterall.
Now that the Liberals are getting some real distance from the NDP, and this media inspired battle for second is evaporating, Layton's talking point ringing hollow, it allows for a more focused choice. This is step one, if the Liberals do have a chance, the electorate must see a clear alternative, if they hope to use this potential for "growth". In the dying days, if Layton is a distant third, then some of the second choice vote could move to the Liberals (it's happened before). Ditto for the Green support, but this only happens if the Liberals stand apart.
One additional poll, which does a detailed analysis of key Quebec ridings, shows the Conservatives dreams of a breakthrough are fading fast:
A poll released yesterday by Léger Marketing indicated the party might not win any more seats at all.
If the results are too be believed, the Cons will lose a cabinet minister and Fortier is in big trouble. Another interesting note, in the Decima poll, when Bloc supporters are asked for their second choice, the Cons have fallen to an abysmal 5%, down from as high as 34% since the election began (the Liberals the second choice of 21%). Bad numbers, and little evidence of growth potential, it would appear opinion is firming up against the Conservatives in Quebec.
Speaking of growth potential, this from Decima:
The Liberals have considerable room to grow, as they are the second choice of 44% of NDP voters, 37% of Green Party voters, 38% of Conservative voters and 21% of BQ voters.
This brings me to what I think is the important aspect of today's polls. There is real evidence that the NDP are pulling back from their high water mark, especially in Ontario. Decima has them life and death for 3rd with the Greens, all of the polls have them well back. It would appear the NDP's platform has done absolutely nothing for their prospects, if anything we see some pullback, even with urban women, a clear target with the childcare initiative. Maybe outdated socialism isn't the answer afterall.
Now that the Liberals are getting some real distance from the NDP, and this media inspired battle for second is evaporating, Layton's talking point ringing hollow, it allows for a more focused choice. This is step one, if the Liberals do have a chance, the electorate must see a clear alternative, if they hope to use this potential for "growth". In the dying days, if Layton is a distant third, then some of the second choice vote could move to the Liberals (it's happened before). Ditto for the Green support, but this only happens if the Liberals stand apart.
Unbelievable
If anyone doubts the premise, that Harper takes his political cues from foreign inspiration, I'd love to see them spin this:
Yes, that is real leadership, too bad it's just imported.
UPDATE:
Another empty chair in the war room.
Yes, that is real leadership, too bad it's just imported.
UPDATE:
Another empty chair in the war room.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Attention War Room: Might Want To Edit The Website
It's almost kind of sad really. The Conservative website rolls out Harper's tough on kids crime agenda, relying on the wisdom of the Honorable Merlin Nunn. This is the person the Conservatives use for inspiration, they base their approach on many of Nunn's conclusions, or so the website argues. Trouble is, Mr. Nunn is out today PANNING the proposal, sort of like Marc Jaccard trashing the Green Shift if you will.
Might want to edit the website, you war room buddha's you:
More glowing reviews here:
Mr. Nunn, enough with the lavish praise, they're blushing.
The search continues, for one expert, on any file, that genuinely supports a Conservative policy. Fingers crossed, it's only a matter of time, law of averages and what not...
Might want to edit the website, you war room buddha's you:
Canadians would be unwise to follow the Conservative plan for harsher jail sentences, up to life imprisonment, for young offenders, warns the retired judge who shone a spotlight on the flawed youth justice system.
Merlin Nunn issued a landmark report on youth justice two years ago that Stephen Harper claims supports "many" of the Conservatives' newly unveiled proposals to toughen the youth justice law.
But the former Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice took issue with the Tory proposal to boost jail sentences for young offenders, including ratcheting up the maximum youth sentence for murder from 10 years to life in prison, and up to 14 years for other violent offences.
They have gone beyond what I did, and beyond the philosophy that I accepted," Judge Nunn told The Lawyers Weekly in an interview.
"I don't think it's wise," he added, speculating "it might be politically appealing to people who say 'these kids should all be in jail'."
More glowing reviews here:
Merlin Nunn, who penned a 381-page youth justice report two years ago in Nova Scotia, publicly panned the Conservative push for longer jail terms - up to life in prison - for violent convicts as young as 14.
It's a hefty blow given that Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly cites Nunn's work as tacit support for his promised legal overhaul.
Nunn said he agrees that less is more when it comes to sentencing minors. Harsh penalties don't deter crime, he said in an interview from his home near Halifax.
"There's no evidence anywhere in North America that I know of that keeping people in custody longer, punishing them longer, has any fruitful effects for society.
"Custody should be the last ditch thing for a child ... I have no doubt that some of the kids who get convicted have to be held in custody for some period of time - but not lock the door and put away the key.
"Instead of rehabilitating him, you've got a kid that may be 10 times worse than when he went in."
Mr. Nunn, enough with the lavish praise, they're blushing.
The search continues, for one expert, on any file, that genuinely supports a Conservative policy. Fingers crossed, it's only a matter of time, law of averages and what not...
Tracking Polls
All three of the tracking polls today have the Liberals with the identical national score of 26%. Decima leads with "Liberal Brand Shows Some Resilience", and shows the gap down to 10% (15% two days ago), the closest we've seen in close to two weeks. Interestingly, EKOS also releases it's poll, and it too shows the narrowest gap since the election call, at 8% today. The NANOS poll is virtually unchanged from yesterday, although the gap moves from 9% to 10% today, but still much better than the earlier days results of a 14-15% lead.
Overall, some sense of a complete Conservative stall, real erosion in Quebec, which makes any talk of a majority more unlikely. The NDP momentum would appeared to have stalled for the time being, and Liberals should be encouraged to hear Decima's representative scoff at this notion of a race for second, simply because that talk is a real distraction. The Liberal uptick, should help blunt that media narrative, which is an obvious positive if we hope to get some real traction.
The gap is still quite daunting, but there are now glimmers and the doom and gloom coverage should wane. Even if the numbers stabilize now, strong debate performances could get us to manageable numbers by the end of the week, and if that were to occur the last week would be a real frenzy. A quirky potential reality to remember- if the Liberals were to get back to 29-30% by week's end, that would appear relative strong, even though it's still less than pre-writ numbers, we would see this bizarre sense of momentum. I've always believed that, complete meltdown aside, if the Liberals can appear viable to voters in the last days, there will be a natural return of some soft support, we've seen it before.
Overall, some sense of a complete Conservative stall, real erosion in Quebec, which makes any talk of a majority more unlikely. The NDP momentum would appeared to have stalled for the time being, and Liberals should be encouraged to hear Decima's representative scoff at this notion of a race for second, simply because that talk is a real distraction. The Liberal uptick, should help blunt that media narrative, which is an obvious positive if we hope to get some real traction.
The gap is still quite daunting, but there are now glimmers and the doom and gloom coverage should wane. Even if the numbers stabilize now, strong debate performances could get us to manageable numbers by the end of the week, and if that were to occur the last week would be a real frenzy. A quirky potential reality to remember- if the Liberals were to get back to 29-30% by week's end, that would appear relative strong, even though it's still less than pre-writ numbers, we would see this bizarre sense of momentum. I've always believed that, complete meltdown aside, if the Liberals can appear viable to voters in the last days, there will be a natural return of some soft support, we've seen it before.
Layton's Reality Check
In an effort to defend against the argument that an NDP government isn't something that should be feared economically, Layton envoked NDP Premier Gary Doer as a practical example. On a day when the NDP released it's platform, Layton fielded questions on his corporate taxes policy and in so doing actually undercut his entire argument. You don't provide a practical example, the Doer government, when that reference shows the folly of the NDP approach. All Layton did, was highlight how out of step the NDP's tax policy is with economic realities.
Gary Doer, Layton's example, has done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the federal NDP proposes. In fact, the Doer government has recognized the need to have competitive tax rates for corporations. The Manitoba NDP budget for 2008:
So Layton's argument- just look at the NDP in Manitoba if you're worried- essentially confirms that his tax proposal is reckless and lacks a basic understanding of the economic global circumstance. It really is a serious blunder, to voluntarily highlight an example which contradicts your entire premise.
Maybe Jack should use Saskatchewan's former NDP Premier Lorne Calvert, there's another practical example to allay Canadians concerns. Oops, didn't Calvert bring in a 95 million dollar corporate tax cut in his 2006 budget? I guess Layton is really chastizing, not only Harper and Dion, but fellow NDP Premiers, who unlike Jack actually had to GOVERN.
Yes, if we look at the NDP Doer government, as Layton suggests, it should serve as a giant red flag for Canadians, that the NDP platform is completely and utterly on the fringe when it comes to future economic prosperity. Rational people realize the global economic realities, that Canada doesn't act in isolation, that we must react to some simple hard truths, rigid ideology aside. If the federal NDP wants to criticize corporate tax cuts, then they are essentially attacking their own, because it would seem anyone who is forced to move beyond the convenience of theoretical idealism, has come to the same sober conclusion, no matter the political stripe. At the core of the NDP's platform is an inherent fallacy, a base argument which is dangerous, behind the curve, and completely and utterly naive, not to mention lacking a elemental understanding of the modern circumstance. Canadians should compare the real world example of the NDP government in Manitoba, as Layton recommends, and that reading will speaks volumes.
Gary Doer, Layton's example, has done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the federal NDP proposes. In fact, the Doer government has recognized the need to have competitive tax rates for corporations. The Manitoba NDP budget for 2008:
The general Corporation Income Tax rate will be reduced to 13% in July 2008 and to 12% in July 2009 with a goal of reducing it to 11% in subsequent years.
The Corporation Capital Tax for manufacturers and processors will be eliminated July 1, 2008 – freeing up $25 million for these businesses.
So Layton's argument- just look at the NDP in Manitoba if you're worried- essentially confirms that his tax proposal is reckless and lacks a basic understanding of the economic global circumstance. It really is a serious blunder, to voluntarily highlight an example which contradicts your entire premise.
Maybe Jack should use Saskatchewan's former NDP Premier Lorne Calvert, there's another practical example to allay Canadians concerns. Oops, didn't Calvert bring in a 95 million dollar corporate tax cut in his 2006 budget? I guess Layton is really chastizing, not only Harper and Dion, but fellow NDP Premiers, who unlike Jack actually had to GOVERN.
Yes, if we look at the NDP Doer government, as Layton suggests, it should serve as a giant red flag for Canadians, that the NDP platform is completely and utterly on the fringe when it comes to future economic prosperity. Rational people realize the global economic realities, that Canada doesn't act in isolation, that we must react to some simple hard truths, rigid ideology aside. If the federal NDP wants to criticize corporate tax cuts, then they are essentially attacking their own, because it would seem anyone who is forced to move beyond the convenience of theoretical idealism, has come to the same sober conclusion, no matter the political stripe. At the core of the NDP's platform is an inherent fallacy, a base argument which is dangerous, behind the curve, and completely and utterly naive, not to mention lacking a elemental understanding of the modern circumstance. Canadians should compare the real world example of the NDP government in Manitoba, as Layton recommends, and that reading will speaks volumes.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Off The Mat?
You don't want to read too much into a suspect trend, and even if it's true the gap is still large, but both tracking polls today show a narrowing race, possible evidence of the Liberals coming off the mat. What I find intriguing, the narrowing seems to be occuring just as Dion has done away with the scripted approach, revealing a more organic presentation, which has caught the eye of some in the media.
NANOS has a sizeable change today, a 14% gap down to 9% nationally, the regionals starting to look better. Also, Dion's leadership index has soared in the last two days, he now achieves his highest rating since the election call. Whether that is just a statistical blip remains to be seen, but again it is curious it comes just as Dion has changed gears.
The Decima poll also shows a 15% lead now down to 11%, statistically significant. Decima mirrors NANOS on a Conservative slump in Ontario, they now have them at their lowest total since the election. The Liberals are rebounding, but the NDP remains strong, which may explain why Dion went after them more directly today. Both pollsters show a slight uptick in Quebec, with the Liberals coming up from their historic lows.
You can debate whether something is afoot, or this is simply some soft Liberal support coming home (a fact which I'm still confident we will see in the dying hours of this campaign, complete meltdowns aside). However, what may be relevant, if the media begins to buy into the "narrowing" heading into this crucial week. Dion did seem to curry some favor with his tactical pivot late this week, so couple that with better polling, and a fickle media might change focus. I'm not counting on anything, but I also know from past experience, the media likes to tear down what they've built up, particularly when the horserace gets boring. We'll see....
NANOS has a sizeable change today, a 14% gap down to 9% nationally, the regionals starting to look better. Also, Dion's leadership index has soared in the last two days, he now achieves his highest rating since the election call. Whether that is just a statistical blip remains to be seen, but again it is curious it comes just as Dion has changed gears.
The Decima poll also shows a 15% lead now down to 11%, statistically significant. Decima mirrors NANOS on a Conservative slump in Ontario, they now have them at their lowest total since the election. The Liberals are rebounding, but the NDP remains strong, which may explain why Dion went after them more directly today. Both pollsters show a slight uptick in Quebec, with the Liberals coming up from their historic lows.
You can debate whether something is afoot, or this is simply some soft Liberal support coming home (a fact which I'm still confident we will see in the dying hours of this campaign, complete meltdowns aside). However, what may be relevant, if the media begins to buy into the "narrowing" heading into this crucial week. Dion did seem to curry some favor with his tactical pivot late this week, so couple that with better polling, and a fickle media might change focus. I'm not counting on anything, but I also know from past experience, the media likes to tear down what they've built up, particularly when the horserace gets boring. We'll see....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)