You may have noticed I changed my banner during the election, on an afternoon when I had nothing to do and I was playing with Photoshop.
I still write the same crap as before though.
It's over, Liberal minority
Currently it looks like a Liberal-NDP coalition, with approximately 163 seats, but those numbers are likely to change by the time this is over.
Worst thing that could happen to the Liberals would be that they might have to rely on the BQ, which would give the Conservatives a compelling campaign issue 2 years from now.
Analysis: Bedtime.
Currently it looks like a Liberal-NDP coalition, with approximately 163 seats, but those numbers are likely to change by the time this is over.
Worst thing that could happen to the Liberals would be that they might have to rely on the BQ, which would give the Conservatives a compelling campaign issue 2 years from now.
Analysis: Bedtime.
Election results comparison with 2000
All results as of approx 11:30pm when I had to go to bed.
Atlantic Canada
2000
L 19
C 9
N 4
2004
L 22
C 7
N 3
It looks like the Sponsorship scandal didn't have a huge effect out east...
Quebec
2000
L 36
B 38
2004
L 19
B 56
Ontario
2000
L 100
C 2
N 1
2004
L 77
C 22
N 7
Man
2000
L 5
C 3
N 4
2004
L 3
C 7
N 4
Sask
2000
L 2
C 10
N 2
2004
L 1
C 13
N 0
Alta
2000
L 1
C 24
N 0
2004
L 2
C 26
N 0
BC
2000
L 5
C 27
N 2
2004
L 9
C 17
N 9
Territories
2000
L 3
2004
L 3
All results as of approx 11:30pm when I had to go to bed.
Atlantic Canada
2000
L 19
C 9
N 4
2004
L 22
C 7
N 3
It looks like the Sponsorship scandal didn't have a huge effect out east...
Quebec
2000
L 36
B 38
2004
L 19
B 56
Ontario
2000
L 100
C 2
N 1
2004
L 77
C 22
N 7
Man
2000
L 5
C 3
N 4
2004
L 3
C 7
N 4
Sask
2000
L 2
C 10
N 2
2004
L 1
C 13
N 0
Alta
2000
L 1
C 24
N 0
2004
L 2
C 26
N 0
BC
2000
L 5
C 27
N 2
2004
L 9
C 17
N 9
Territories
2000
L 3
2004
L 3
Election night
I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen tonight. I've started watching the 2 Towers as a distraction.
Still I can't help but wonder if there will be any point during the night when a winner will be declared/predicted, or even if we'll know before we go to bed. There are so many unknowns, and each region of the country will have to be looked at almost as a separate election.
We'll get results from Eastern Canada first, where the Liberals may do fairly well. If the Conservatives get a large proportion of the seats there then I would predict a Conservative government is likely.
Then we'll be waiting to see the ratio of seats in Quebec, where the Bloc is doing well but some predict that the Liberals will do better than recent polling would indicate. Most estimates give the Liberals 25 seats in Quebec, so anything under 25 seats there will be good news for Harper, and anything over is icing on the cake for Martin.
As we await each region's results, suspense, suspense.
Ontario. So many ridings here have gone Liberal in the past 3 elections due to vote splitting, it's really hard to judge. The Conservatives will definitely pick up seats here. I would say that the unknown factor, the factor that is most likely to affect the seat count, is the number of former Progressive Conservative supporters who decide to follow the lead of Joe Clark, and vote Liberal instead of Conservative.
The further west we start getting results throughout the night, the higher the Conservative seat count in proportion to the Liberals will grow.
I'll comment more on the effect the west will have on the election as the night goes on and we have some results from the other regions.
Meanwhile, back to the 2 Towers
I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen tonight. I've started watching the 2 Towers as a distraction.
Still I can't help but wonder if there will be any point during the night when a winner will be declared/predicted, or even if we'll know before we go to bed. There are so many unknowns, and each region of the country will have to be looked at almost as a separate election.
We'll get results from Eastern Canada first, where the Liberals may do fairly well. If the Conservatives get a large proportion of the seats there then I would predict a Conservative government is likely.
Then we'll be waiting to see the ratio of seats in Quebec, where the Bloc is doing well but some predict that the Liberals will do better than recent polling would indicate. Most estimates give the Liberals 25 seats in Quebec, so anything under 25 seats there will be good news for Harper, and anything over is icing on the cake for Martin.
As we await each region's results, suspense, suspense.
Ontario. So many ridings here have gone Liberal in the past 3 elections due to vote splitting, it's really hard to judge. The Conservatives will definitely pick up seats here. I would say that the unknown factor, the factor that is most likely to affect the seat count, is the number of former Progressive Conservative supporters who decide to follow the lead of Joe Clark, and vote Liberal instead of Conservative.
The further west we start getting results throughout the night, the higher the Conservative seat count in proportion to the Liberals will grow.
I'll comment more on the effect the west will have on the election as the night goes on and we have some results from the other regions.
Meanwhile, back to the 2 Towers
Centuries, Volume II
OK, here's my second-round election guesstimate.
Liberals: 121
Conservative: 112
NDP: 24
Bloc: 50
Independent 1
My first prediction was a little higher for the Liberals and a little lower for the Conservatives. So where does the credit lie for the stronger Conservative showing?
Harper has spent half the campaign on the defensive due to stupid comments by Conservative candidates. It was a much better campaign than the last one in 2000, much more professional, aside from the Conservative candidates' comments I just mentioned.
I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's book entitled "No Logo", in which she says:
"Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations"
When we think of the traditional political parties in this country, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, we think of them like brand names. Like Coke, Pepsi, and Tab, the majority of us have our favourite that we remain loyal to. Is Coke better than Pepsi? The taste difference is so negligible that if you gave a Coke drinker a glass of Pepsi without telling him, he wouldn't know the difference.
Traditionally Tories and Liberals have had more in common than they have had differences. Both parties have always governed by putting the best interests of the country ahead of any personal opinions that the members of either party might have. There has always been a fable that the Conservatives govern from further to the right than the Liberals, and the fable has fed upon itself by having the effect of encouraging conservative-minded people to join the Conservative party.
This in turn has had the effect of creating a party membership that is more conservative than the Liberal party, and has an effect on party policy and campaign policy, but as I said, it doesn't affect the way the party governs. "Liberal Tory, same old story" was one of the Reform Party slogans back in 1993, and it may have been the only insightful thing ever to come out of the Reform "braintrust".
Anyway, I started discussing Coke, Pepsi and Tab. The reason I included Tab cola is because for a long time it was the third option, a cola that always had it's fans but never really had a chance of winning the cola wars. That's where the NDP and the Reform/Alliance enter into the equation. Both of those parties had their supporters, but never enough to give them a chance at governing. They were perennial "third-parties".
This is where you are going to have to use your imagination a bit. Imagine if Tab Cola one day bought out Coca-Cola and repackaged it's own product in the familiar red and white bottles and cans under the Coke name. So long as it was done quietly, Coca Cola sales would likely continue without a glitch.
That's exactly what the Reform/Alliance did, took over the Conservative Party and repackaged itself as the new Conservative party, and this election has shown that Reform is reaping all the benefits of the "Conservative" brand-name recognition in this country.
Next they'll be telling us they are the "Party of MacDonald".
OK, here's my second-round election guesstimate.
Liberals: 121
Conservative: 112
NDP: 24
Bloc: 50
Independent 1
My first prediction was a little higher for the Liberals and a little lower for the Conservatives. So where does the credit lie for the stronger Conservative showing?
Harper has spent half the campaign on the defensive due to stupid comments by Conservative candidates. It was a much better campaign than the last one in 2000, much more professional, aside from the Conservative candidates' comments I just mentioned.
I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's book entitled "No Logo", in which she says:
"Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations"
When we think of the traditional political parties in this country, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, we think of them like brand names. Like Coke, Pepsi, and Tab, the majority of us have our favourite that we remain loyal to. Is Coke better than Pepsi? The taste difference is so negligible that if you gave a Coke drinker a glass of Pepsi without telling him, he wouldn't know the difference.
Traditionally Tories and Liberals have had more in common than they have had differences. Both parties have always governed by putting the best interests of the country ahead of any personal opinions that the members of either party might have. There has always been a fable that the Conservatives govern from further to the right than the Liberals, and the fable has fed upon itself by having the effect of encouraging conservative-minded people to join the Conservative party.
This in turn has had the effect of creating a party membership that is more conservative than the Liberal party, and has an effect on party policy and campaign policy, but as I said, it doesn't affect the way the party governs. "Liberal Tory, same old story" was one of the Reform Party slogans back in 1993, and it may have been the only insightful thing ever to come out of the Reform "braintrust".
Anyway, I started discussing Coke, Pepsi and Tab. The reason I included Tab cola is because for a long time it was the third option, a cola that always had it's fans but never really had a chance of winning the cola wars. That's where the NDP and the Reform/Alliance enter into the equation. Both of those parties had their supporters, but never enough to give them a chance at governing. They were perennial "third-parties".
This is where you are going to have to use your imagination a bit. Imagine if Tab Cola one day bought out Coca-Cola and repackaged it's own product in the familiar red and white bottles and cans under the Coke name. So long as it was done quietly, Coca Cola sales would likely continue without a glitch.
That's exactly what the Reform/Alliance did, took over the Conservative Party and repackaged itself as the new Conservative party, and this election has shown that Reform is reaping all the benefits of the "Conservative" brand-name recognition in this country.
Next they'll be telling us they are the "Party of MacDonald".
To those Quebec federalists who are condidering voting for the Bloc Quebecois
in order to send Paul Martin a message, why not try this instead: e-mail.
A vote for the Bloc will later be translated by them as a vote for sovereignty. Also it will help elect Stephen Harper.
in order to send Paul Martin a message, why not try this instead: e-mail.
A vote for the Bloc will later be translated by them as a vote for sovereignty. Also it will help elect Stephen Harper.
Still working on the prediction. It's getting late for predictions, but really I have no clue how the election is going to go.
update:
Thanks to Ian at Vancouver Scrum, and to Warren Kinsella (who ran against TED White back in 1997) for pointing out to me that I had confused Randy White with Ted White.
Anyway, today's post is entitled:
Holy Chickens!
(to heck with the courts, eh?)
I'm definitely going to be glad I'm a straight white male if the Conservatives win this election. Here's why.
Randy White, one of the brighter bulbs in the Conservative caucus (remember this is the same caucus that still contains Stockwell Day) made some comments back in May for a tv program which is set to be aired in August. White's says that the Conservative Party will use the notwithstanding clause to veto any court decisions that they don't like. That would include any Supreme Court of Canada decision to allow gay marriage, like the recent decision which allowed gays to marry in Ontario.
White is specically opposed to such Supreme court decisions as the one in the case R. v. Egan in 1995, in which the Supreme Court interpreted sexual orientation into the Charter of Rights.
Anyway, the story is that the Liberals have gotten ahold of the footage and now White's comments have been made public during the election, and now Stephen Harper has been forced onto the defensive during the last weekend of the election.
Without further ado, here are Randy White's strange remarks:
***
"The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'The politicians make the laws and the courts do not.' The courts interpret that law. And if we don't like that interpretation, there's the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal government has never invoked and said they will not use. I believe we'll see that with us in the House of Commons because enough is enough of this stuff…
"I think most people are getting sick and tired of judges writing the law to suit themselves and to suit the current Liberal government, in fact.
"It's time that we started to exert our responsibility as politicians in the country. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be for us conservatives out there a way to put checks and balances in there."
***
**
*
These attacks on the Supreme Court are nothing new for this party. In 2000, Alan Gold, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, had this to say about the (then) Reform Party's attacks on the Supreme Court's decisions:
*
**
***
"The Criminal Lawyers Association deplores recent attacks on the Supreme Court of Canada as ill-conceived and misguided applications of Parliamentary Supremacy doctrine and unfair attacks on an institution that cannot as a matter of law defend itself.
We see too many bullies because it is easy to be seduced by the power that comes from attacking someone who cannot defend themselves. It is shameful when such conduct comes from political leaders. Parliamentary Supremacy makes Parliament supreme within its jurisdiction. An exercise of that jurisdiction gave us a Charter of Rights that is a model and a beacon of liberty around the world. The guardian of that Charter is the Supreme Court of Canada. That Court since 1982 has given us world-class judgments involving human rights and fundamental liberties that are read and cited and admired by courts around the world. We are unaware of any jurisdiction that has looked to the Reform Party platform for guidance on any issue.
Politicians are too easily blown onto an ill-conceived course by whatever strong winds happen to fill their sails. They too easily jettison rationality and restraint whenever hailed by misinformed and intemperate lobby groups. On the other hand, there is a worldwide movement towards the recognition of fundamental rights and their indomitable protection in a basic Charter of Rights protected by an independent judiciary."
***
Ask yourself, do you seriously want to vote for a goverment that would give a man like Randy White (and Stockwell Day) cabinet positions?
update:
Thanks to Ian at Vancouver Scrum, and to Warren Kinsella (who ran against TED White back in 1997) for pointing out to me that I had confused Randy White with Ted White.
Anyway, today's post is entitled:
Holy Chickens!
(to heck with the courts, eh?)
I'm definitely going to be glad I'm a straight white male if the Conservatives win this election. Here's why.
Randy White, one of the brighter bulbs in the Conservative caucus (remember this is the same caucus that still contains Stockwell Day) made some comments back in May for a tv program which is set to be aired in August. White's says that the Conservative Party will use the notwithstanding clause to veto any court decisions that they don't like. That would include any Supreme Court of Canada decision to allow gay marriage, like the recent decision which allowed gays to marry in Ontario.
White is specically opposed to such Supreme court decisions as the one in the case R. v. Egan in 1995, in which the Supreme Court interpreted sexual orientation into the Charter of Rights.
Anyway, the story is that the Liberals have gotten ahold of the footage and now White's comments have been made public during the election, and now Stephen Harper has been forced onto the defensive during the last weekend of the election.
Without further ado, here are Randy White's strange remarks:
***
"The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'The politicians make the laws and the courts do not.' The courts interpret that law. And if we don't like that interpretation, there's the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal government has never invoked and said they will not use. I believe we'll see that with us in the House of Commons because enough is enough of this stuff…
"I think most people are getting sick and tired of judges writing the law to suit themselves and to suit the current Liberal government, in fact.
"It's time that we started to exert our responsibility as politicians in the country. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be for us conservatives out there a way to put checks and balances in there."
***
**
*
These attacks on the Supreme Court are nothing new for this party. In 2000, Alan Gold, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, had this to say about the (then) Reform Party's attacks on the Supreme Court's decisions:
*
**
***
"The Criminal Lawyers Association deplores recent attacks on the Supreme Court of Canada as ill-conceived and misguided applications of Parliamentary Supremacy doctrine and unfair attacks on an institution that cannot as a matter of law defend itself.
We see too many bullies because it is easy to be seduced by the power that comes from attacking someone who cannot defend themselves. It is shameful when such conduct comes from political leaders. Parliamentary Supremacy makes Parliament supreme within its jurisdiction. An exercise of that jurisdiction gave us a Charter of Rights that is a model and a beacon of liberty around the world. The guardian of that Charter is the Supreme Court of Canada. That Court since 1982 has given us world-class judgments involving human rights and fundamental liberties that are read and cited and admired by courts around the world. We are unaware of any jurisdiction that has looked to the Reform Party platform for guidance on any issue.
Politicians are too easily blown onto an ill-conceived course by whatever strong winds happen to fill their sails. They too easily jettison rationality and restraint whenever hailed by misinformed and intemperate lobby groups. On the other hand, there is a worldwide movement towards the recognition of fundamental rights and their indomitable protection in a basic Charter of Rights protected by an independent judiciary."
***
Ask yourself, do you seriously want to vote for a goverment that would give a man like Randy White (and Stockwell Day) cabinet positions?
I guess it's time for me to think about my second election pool prediction. Just to refresh, here was my first entry:
***
I'm obviously the only one who thinks the libs can still pull off a majority. Not wishful thinking, just faith in the Canadian voters to flock back to the "safe choice" the instant Harper makes his first dumb comment.
Liberals: 159
Conservative: 78
NDP: 26
Bloc: 45
***
I guess with the Bloc so far ahead in Quebec, and with the Tories no longer competing in Ontario for votes with the Alliance, it isn't very likely that my first prediction is going to happen.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the Bloc is likely to win at least 10 more seats than I predicted, and I'll give the Conservatives another 10 as well.
So tomorrow I will consider, then post my second prediction.
I really really need some sleep. Good night all.
***
I'm obviously the only one who thinks the libs can still pull off a majority. Not wishful thinking, just faith in the Canadian voters to flock back to the "safe choice" the instant Harper makes his first dumb comment.
Liberals: 159
Conservative: 78
NDP: 26
Bloc: 45
***
I guess with the Bloc so far ahead in Quebec, and with the Tories no longer competing in Ontario for votes with the Alliance, it isn't very likely that my first prediction is going to happen.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the Bloc is likely to win at least 10 more seats than I predicted, and I'll give the Conservatives another 10 as well.
So tomorrow I will consider, then post my second prediction.
I really really need some sleep. Good night all.
Conservative criticizes his party's exploitation of the Holly Jones trial.
from a letter published in yesterday's Toronto Star:
"The Tories are wrong to exploit the death of a young girl for political gain and are wrong to make wild accusations about Mr. Martin's view of child pornography,"
Stephen Thiele, first vice-president of the Etobicoke Centre Conservative Association
Actually, this is a letter that deserves to be read in full, so here:
Majority disgusted at Harper remark
June 20.
The Tories have miraculously snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their mean-spirited accusation that Prime Minister Paul Martin condones child pornography.
The vast majority of Canadians are disgusted with those who seek pleasure out of child pornography and are horrified with the circumstances that led to the death of Holly Jones. However, the Tories are wrong to exploit the death of a young girl for political gain and are wrong to make wild accusations about Martin's view of child pornography.
The decision to launch a cruel personal attack on the Prime Minister amplifies the perception among the public that the Tories, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, are a party that is prone to right-wing extremism. Fortunately, not all members of the Conservative Party of Canada believe the accusation levelled at Martin by our leader and his campaign staff. Unfortunately, none of the party's 308 candidates has courageously stepped forward to denounce the personal insult.
In my view, the shameless press release and the remarks merit an apology. The failure to issue an apology in the circumstances is arrogant and enhances the cynicism that many voters now have . Canadians should "Demand Better" of Harper and the Tories. Until the Tories behave in a more professional manner and until they are accountable to themselves, the party deserve to be relegated to the opposition benches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Thiele,
1st Vice-President, Etobicoke Centre Conservative Association
from a letter published in yesterday's Toronto Star:
"The Tories are wrong to exploit the death of a young girl for political gain and are wrong to make wild accusations about Mr. Martin's view of child pornography,"
Stephen Thiele, first vice-president of the Etobicoke Centre Conservative Association
Actually, this is a letter that deserves to be read in full, so here:
Majority disgusted at Harper remark
June 20.
The Tories have miraculously snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their mean-spirited accusation that Prime Minister Paul Martin condones child pornography.
The vast majority of Canadians are disgusted with those who seek pleasure out of child pornography and are horrified with the circumstances that led to the death of Holly Jones. However, the Tories are wrong to exploit the death of a young girl for political gain and are wrong to make wild accusations about Martin's view of child pornography.
The decision to launch a cruel personal attack on the Prime Minister amplifies the perception among the public that the Tories, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, are a party that is prone to right-wing extremism. Fortunately, not all members of the Conservative Party of Canada believe the accusation levelled at Martin by our leader and his campaign staff. Unfortunately, none of the party's 308 candidates has courageously stepped forward to denounce the personal insult.
In my view, the shameless press release and the remarks merit an apology. The failure to issue an apology in the circumstances is arrogant and enhances the cynicism that many voters now have . Canadians should "Demand Better" of Harper and the Tories. Until the Tories behave in a more professional manner and until they are accountable to themselves, the party deserve to be relegated to the opposition benches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Thiele,
1st Vice-President, Etobicoke Centre Conservative Association
More polls show the Liberals beginning to pull ahead of the Conservatives
Ipsos-Reid
Liberals 34%
Conservatives 28%
NDP 16%
SES
Liberals 34%
Conservatives 31%
NDP 21%
With a week left in the campaign, the voters are beginning to make their final decisions on what their voting intentions are. It's possible to define voting intentions almost in a formulaic way. This formula would go something like this:
appetite for change + opinion of the alternative = voting intention indicator
The "appetite for change" variable includes such things as a person's opinion of the governing party, their personal happiness, and the media's treatment of the government.
A low voting intention indicator (I'll call it a VII because I'm lazy) should lead to a vote for the incumbent party. The higher the VII, the greater the chance of voting for one of the opposition parties.
Of course these are really just concepts, not numerical variables that can be measured easily, so I'm not going to try to treat them as numberical values.
Essentially these are the factors that parties are concerned with during an election. The governing party wants people to have a low VII, so they use positive campaign techniques like emphasizing portions of their record in power, as well as negative tactics such as criticizing the opposition.
Opposition parties tend to rely partially on positive tactics, which include strategically timed releases of portions of their campaign platform, but mostly they rely on negative campaign techniques, critizing and attacking the governing party's record and platform.
Other factors:
The more momentum a party has during an election campaign, the more comfortable they feel with the latest polling numbers for instance, the more that party will rely on positive tactics. As that party begins to fall behind, they start to shift towards negative tactics.
Some examples:
June 16
polls
SES Conservative 34, Liberal 32
Ipsos-Reid Conservative 32, Liberal 31
Marzolini Conservative 36, Liberal 31
Harper
”If we continue to work hard in next few weeks. if we remain united, if we stick to our principles, if we continue to reach out to the supporters of other parties including all those disenchanted Liberals, we will be able to give Canadians a majority government we can all trust and be proud of.”
Martin
"I have asked Mr. Harper: that's fine, tell us what's going to give, tell us where you are going to find the $50 billion. And he has not been able to do so,"
June 22
Polls
SES Conservative 31, Liberal 34
Ipsos-Reid Conservative 28, Liberal 36
Harper
"He says health care is his No. 1 priority. The only time in the past decade it was his No. 1 priority is when he had to cut the budget. Then he cut health care first and he cut it deepest,"
Martin
"I feel very good about the way in which the whole race is unfolding. I feel very good about the realization of Canadians of the differences between Stephen Harper and myself on the issues of health care, childcare and the economy. They want a government that reflects their priorities, and reducing waiting times is their priority."
Computer problem, will finish post when I fix
Ipsos-Reid
Liberals 34%
Conservatives 28%
NDP 16%
SES
Liberals 34%
Conservatives 31%
NDP 21%
With a week left in the campaign, the voters are beginning to make their final decisions on what their voting intentions are. It's possible to define voting intentions almost in a formulaic way. This formula would go something like this:
appetite for change + opinion of the alternative = voting intention indicator
The "appetite for change" variable includes such things as a person's opinion of the governing party, their personal happiness, and the media's treatment of the government.
A low voting intention indicator (I'll call it a VII because I'm lazy) should lead to a vote for the incumbent party. The higher the VII, the greater the chance of voting for one of the opposition parties.
Of course these are really just concepts, not numerical variables that can be measured easily, so I'm not going to try to treat them as numberical values.
Essentially these are the factors that parties are concerned with during an election. The governing party wants people to have a low VII, so they use positive campaign techniques like emphasizing portions of their record in power, as well as negative tactics such as criticizing the opposition.
Opposition parties tend to rely partially on positive tactics, which include strategically timed releases of portions of their campaign platform, but mostly they rely on negative campaign techniques, critizing and attacking the governing party's record and platform.
Other factors:
The more momentum a party has during an election campaign, the more comfortable they feel with the latest polling numbers for instance, the more that party will rely on positive tactics. As that party begins to fall behind, they start to shift towards negative tactics.
Some examples:
June 16
polls
SES Conservative 34, Liberal 32
Ipsos-Reid Conservative 32, Liberal 31
Marzolini Conservative 36, Liberal 31
Harper
”If we continue to work hard in next few weeks. if we remain united, if we stick to our principles, if we continue to reach out to the supporters of other parties including all those disenchanted Liberals, we will be able to give Canadians a majority government we can all trust and be proud of.”
Martin
"I have asked Mr. Harper: that's fine, tell us what's going to give, tell us where you are going to find the $50 billion. And he has not been able to do so,"
June 22
Polls
SES Conservative 31, Liberal 34
Ipsos-Reid Conservative 28, Liberal 36
Harper
"He says health care is his No. 1 priority. The only time in the past decade it was his No. 1 priority is when he had to cut the budget. Then he cut health care first and he cut it deepest,"
Martin
"I feel very good about the way in which the whole race is unfolding. I feel very good about the realization of Canadians of the differences between Stephen Harper and myself on the issues of health care, childcare and the economy. They want a government that reflects their priorities, and reducing waiting times is their priority."
Computer problem, will finish post when I fix
Blah blah blah blah, blah blah Stephen Harper blah blah Air Canada. Blah, blah blah les blah et la blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Air Canada Public Participation Act (yawn).
Blah Harper Blah,
"Language service requirements would be moved to the Official Languages Act and would be consistent across the industry,"
blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah Bullshit blah blah.
Blah Harper Blah,
"Language service requirements would be moved to the Official Languages Act and would be consistent across the industry,"
blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah Bullshit blah blah.
Portrait of a frightening man
From an article in Sunday's Ottawa Sun
MAUGERVILLE, N.B. -- It is a dreary Saturday morning in small-town New Brunswick, and Stephen Harper isn't exactly warming hearts among the overflow crowd of Conservative faithful packed into the old two-room schoolhouse. On this day, the Conservative leader is in an ugly mood, the Iceman's habitual cool heading toward the temperature of liquid nitrogen.
Even a reporter's friendly "good morning, Stephen" is returned with silence and a withering glare from those frigid, malamute-blue eyes.
The cause of Harper's big chill was the Tories' big gaffe.
OK, I can understand that Harper couldn't have been pleased with the turn of events after Friday's Conservative campaign boondoggle. But worse political tides have happened to better men, and we don't usually see them stomping around displaying their anger to their followers and any media whose path they happen to cross.
Maybe Stephen Harper doesn't realize, but he's running for Prime Minister. A Prime Minister takes more heat than Harper has yet been exposed to, and if this is how Harper reacts to a little bit of media criticism then it's worrying to say the least, how he would act in the House, during Question Period, during scrums, in Cabinet, in meetings with international heads-of-state.
He isn't acting very Prime Ministerial at all.
From an article in Sunday's Ottawa Sun
MAUGERVILLE, N.B. -- It is a dreary Saturday morning in small-town New Brunswick, and Stephen Harper isn't exactly warming hearts among the overflow crowd of Conservative faithful packed into the old two-room schoolhouse. On this day, the Conservative leader is in an ugly mood, the Iceman's habitual cool heading toward the temperature of liquid nitrogen.
Even a reporter's friendly "good morning, Stephen" is returned with silence and a withering glare from those frigid, malamute-blue eyes.
The cause of Harper's big chill was the Tories' big gaffe.
OK, I can understand that Harper couldn't have been pleased with the turn of events after Friday's Conservative campaign boondoggle. But worse political tides have happened to better men, and we don't usually see them stomping around displaying their anger to their followers and any media whose path they happen to cross.
Maybe Stephen Harper doesn't realize, but he's running for Prime Minister. A Prime Minister takes more heat than Harper has yet been exposed to, and if this is how Harper reacts to a little bit of media criticism then it's worrying to say the least, how he would act in the House, during Question Period, during scrums, in Cabinet, in meetings with international heads-of-state.
He isn't acting very Prime Ministerial at all.
Apologize already, and be done with it!
Stephen Harper's insistance that the PM supports child porn is not winning him any points among the undecided voters.
The only folks who don't seem to think Harper is losing his cool are this guy:
a greasy long-haired Thunder Bay Conservative that CTV news last night showed hopping out of his pickup truck and lunging drunkenly at Jack Layton yesterday, waving a bible in one hand, and shouting "Pedophiles!",
and the folks who seem to live permanently in the comment section of Andrew Coyne's website.
According to the Globe and Mail, Harper put the blame "on over-caffeinated youngsters in the party's election war room who have been working long hours for nearly a year".
That's odd, the party is less than 6 months old. Anyway...
Later Harper compounded his shame, saying "Mr. Martin misrepresented — I'm tempted to say he lied — about his position on this"
Maybe Harper thought this would be a juicy little campaign tactic, accusing the prime minister of supporting "kiddie-porn". I'm not sure that there has ever been a more ridiculous campaign trick, even the Chretien-face ads seem to pale in comparison.
It should be noted that Harper's Canadian Alliance voted against bill C-12, which was intended to improve the protection of children and vulnerable persons from pornographic exploitation.
Among other things, the Liberals' Bill C-12 increased the prison terms for people convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor, and gave judges greater decision-making powers in such cases, including looking at the age difference between the adult and the minor.
The only criticism of the bill offered up by Harper's Canadian Alliance, was that they felt the legal age of consent should have been raised. According to Alliace MP Gumant Grewal: "Just imagine a grade 9 student giving consent to have sex with a 60 year old person or a 50 year old person." (hansard)
OK, so I've tried to imagine it. While it is a frightening statement (Harper's Alliance has made a career of trying to scare Canadians with their "what ifs"), it isn't much of a frightening reality. I just can't imagine a teenager wanting to have sex with a 60 year-old.
The truth is that there are no laws which can stop something like that from happening. The laws in place, including the age of consent, are there to provide consequences for an act after it has happened. And in Grewal's case of a 60 year old and a minor, as I have already pointed out, the bill the Alliance rejected included measures to allow a judge to consider the age difference between the adult and the minor in sentencing.
So why is it that the Alliance voted against the bill? Using their own logic does this mean they support child sexual exploitation?
***
If he was a real leader, at what point would Harper look at the statement that was made by his agents about Martin and say, politics aside, this statement was incorrect, and denigrates Martin not as a politician, but as a man.
At which point would Harper have apologized if he was a real leader.
In fact, forget about being a leader, even as a good man Harper should spoken out by now to Martin, and said "I'm sorry".
Stephen Harper's insistance that the PM supports child porn is not winning him any points among the undecided voters.
The only folks who don't seem to think Harper is losing his cool are this guy:
a greasy long-haired Thunder Bay Conservative that CTV news last night showed hopping out of his pickup truck and lunging drunkenly at Jack Layton yesterday, waving a bible in one hand, and shouting "Pedophiles!",
and the folks who seem to live permanently in the comment section of Andrew Coyne's website.
According to the Globe and Mail, Harper put the blame "on over-caffeinated youngsters in the party's election war room who have been working long hours for nearly a year".
That's odd, the party is less than 6 months old. Anyway...
Later Harper compounded his shame, saying "Mr. Martin misrepresented — I'm tempted to say he lied — about his position on this"
Maybe Harper thought this would be a juicy little campaign tactic, accusing the prime minister of supporting "kiddie-porn". I'm not sure that there has ever been a more ridiculous campaign trick, even the Chretien-face ads seem to pale in comparison.
It should be noted that Harper's Canadian Alliance voted against bill C-12, which was intended to improve the protection of children and vulnerable persons from pornographic exploitation.
Among other things, the Liberals' Bill C-12 increased the prison terms for people convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor, and gave judges greater decision-making powers in such cases, including looking at the age difference between the adult and the minor.
The only criticism of the bill offered up by Harper's Canadian Alliance, was that they felt the legal age of consent should have been raised. According to Alliace MP Gumant Grewal: "Just imagine a grade 9 student giving consent to have sex with a 60 year old person or a 50 year old person." (hansard)
OK, so I've tried to imagine it. While it is a frightening statement (Harper's Alliance has made a career of trying to scare Canadians with their "what ifs"), it isn't much of a frightening reality. I just can't imagine a teenager wanting to have sex with a 60 year-old.
The truth is that there are no laws which can stop something like that from happening. The laws in place, including the age of consent, are there to provide consequences for an act after it has happened. And in Grewal's case of a 60 year old and a minor, as I have already pointed out, the bill the Alliance rejected included measures to allow a judge to consider the age difference between the adult and the minor in sentencing.
So why is it that the Alliance voted against the bill? Using their own logic does this mean they support child sexual exploitation?
***
If he was a real leader, at what point would Harper look at the statement that was made by his agents about Martin and say, politics aside, this statement was incorrect, and denigrates Martin not as a politician, but as a man.
At which point would Harper have apologized if he was a real leader.
In fact, forget about being a leader, even as a good man Harper should spoken out by now to Martin, and said "I'm sorry".
Regarding the Conservatives and their accusations about child-porn
Yes this was a horrible attempt to cash in on the Holly Jones case, which made headlines 2 days ago, and yes it deserves some sort of an apology.
But it is unclear if it will affect the Conservative Party's polling numbers, which are already showing signs of falling (the SES polls which I despise show them dropping 8 points in the past week).
The media and the rest of us have been expecting another Stockwell Day scenario, with the wheels falling completely off of the Conservative Party's election campaign, but so far it has been a fairly well run campaign. Chances are that it will require a follow-up goof-up before the media begins to compare Harper to Day.
This is a high-profile issue, one that is simple for Canadians to understand, and as such it has the ability to ruin the Conservative campaign by itself. But still, I'd bet that the Conservatives can weather this if they put the right spin on it.
The next mistake, however, will spell certain victory for Martin.
It's obvious that the Harper campaign team contains a mixture of former PCs and CAers. The PCs have been responsible for the flawless campaign so far. Yet everywhere Harper goes during this election, he has been sideswiped by the idiotic statements and actions of former Canadian Alliance members. So it's not hard to conclude that the kiddie-porn press releases were the work of former Alliance members.
If Harper is smart, he'll send the CCrappers to the "back of the shop" and let the real Tories run the campaign from here on.
Yes this was a horrible attempt to cash in on the Holly Jones case, which made headlines 2 days ago, and yes it deserves some sort of an apology.
But it is unclear if it will affect the Conservative Party's polling numbers, which are already showing signs of falling (the SES polls which I despise show them dropping 8 points in the past week).
The media and the rest of us have been expecting another Stockwell Day scenario, with the wheels falling completely off of the Conservative Party's election campaign, but so far it has been a fairly well run campaign. Chances are that it will require a follow-up goof-up before the media begins to compare Harper to Day.
This is a high-profile issue, one that is simple for Canadians to understand, and as such it has the ability to ruin the Conservative campaign by itself. But still, I'd bet that the Conservatives can weather this if they put the right spin on it.
The next mistake, however, will spell certain victory for Martin.
It's obvious that the Harper campaign team contains a mixture of former PCs and CAers. The PCs have been responsible for the flawless campaign so far. Yet everywhere Harper goes during this election, he has been sideswiped by the idiotic statements and actions of former Canadian Alliance members. So it's not hard to conclude that the kiddie-porn press releases were the work of former Alliance members.
If Harper is smart, he'll send the CCrappers to the "back of the shop" and let the real Tories run the campaign from here on.
New Polls
Holy crap, the Conservatives really went a little overboard today with their suggestion that Paul Martin supports child porn. Stephen Harper even took 2 press conferences before he even suggested it might have been a mistake.
And now there have been 2 polls in a row showing the Libs ahead, one showing them ahead by 6 points.
Neat.
Holy crap, the Conservatives really went a little overboard today with their suggestion that Paul Martin supports child porn. Stephen Harper even took 2 press conferences before he even suggested it might have been a mistake.
And now there have been 2 polls in a row showing the Libs ahead, one showing them ahead by 6 points.
Neat.
Horror Story
Haven't been posting since my computer contracted a virus the other day. Don't know how it got there, and since it started I have only gone online to search for solutions.
Yet somehow my computer is getting more and more viruses.
I've run Norton and Ad-Aware, now both are finding approx 150 objects with each scan, but can't fix the problem. I'll probably have to reinstall Windows, however right now I'm wishing there was a more secure OS that I could use.
I actually took Thursday off work to try to resolve the issue, but could not get fixed. Every time that Norton deletes the viruses they just reappear as soon as Norton is closed.
Help would be appreciated.
Update
Sat Morning 12:17 am: it looks like I may have gotten rid of the viruses. Relentless searching of discussion pages finally led to a solution that looks, tentatively, like it has resolved the issue.
I have to get up super-duper early in the morning, but I want to run a Norton scan.
Update to the Update
Scan shows my computer clean. Now the investigation begins into how this got onto my computer. I may have to put a password on it so that others don't use it while I'm at work.
But I can surf the net again without constantly being redirected to naughty websites, and pop-ups, etc.
Incidentally, rumour has it that Microsoft will be addressing this issue with it's XP service pack 2, expected out this summer.
Haven't been posting since my computer contracted a virus the other day. Don't know how it got there, and since it started I have only gone online to search for solutions.
Yet somehow my computer is getting more and more viruses.
I've run Norton and Ad-Aware, now both are finding approx 150 objects with each scan, but can't fix the problem. I'll probably have to reinstall Windows, however right now I'm wishing there was a more secure OS that I could use.
I actually took Thursday off work to try to resolve the issue, but could not get fixed. Every time that Norton deletes the viruses they just reappear as soon as Norton is closed.
Help would be appreciated.
Update
Sat Morning 12:17 am: it looks like I may have gotten rid of the viruses. Relentless searching of discussion pages finally led to a solution that looks, tentatively, like it has resolved the issue.
I have to get up super-duper early in the morning, but I want to run a Norton scan.
Update to the Update
Scan shows my computer clean. Now the investigation begins into how this got onto my computer. I may have to put a password on it so that others don't use it while I'm at work.
But I can surf the net again without constantly being redirected to naughty websites, and pop-ups, etc.
Incidentally, rumour has it that Microsoft will be addressing this issue with it's XP service pack 2, expected out this summer.
The Exodus Continues
And you must not oppress a resident foreigner(Exodus 23:9)
The exodus grom the Conservatives continues to pick up pace. Yet another influential Tory has broken ranks to support the Liberals. Bruck Easton, the man who used to sign my PC Party membership cards, and a major figure in bringing together the PC Party and the Alliance, today announced his disillusionment with the leadership of Stephen Harper, and announced his support for the Liberals.
Read
And you must not oppress a resident foreigner(Exodus 23:9)
The exodus grom the Conservatives continues to pick up pace. Yet another influential Tory has broken ranks to support the Liberals. Bruck Easton, the man who used to sign my PC Party membership cards, and a major figure in bringing together the PC Party and the Alliance, today announced his disillusionment with the leadership of Stephen Harper, and announced his support for the Liberals.
Read
Raymod Tomlin over at VanRamblings discusses last night's debate and discusses what to look for in tonight's English debate.
French Debate
Tried to keep cribnotes, but nothing new was being said, so I started noting behaviour and stuff like that.
During the first hour, there were 2 times, once in a debate with Duceppe, and once with Layton, that Harper nearly blew a gasket.
Duceppe managed to control a lot of the debate through the first hour. During this time Harper looked nervous and was dominated by all 3 of the other leaders. At one point during a debate on taxes with Martin, Harper jumped in and practically shouted "You're talking about numbers. How can you seriously sit there and talk about numbers". He must have realized how dumb that sounded, as he seemed a bit confused as he continued.
Late in the first hour Duceppe to score on Martin by asking repeatedly "How much is left in the EI fund"? Whether you think this was a successful jab at Martin probably depends on whether you're a Duceppe supporter or a Martin supporter.
Second hour, Harper started to calm down a bit. Sometimes too much, as he appeared to be on valium at some points. At the same time Martin seemed as if he was getting frustrated, and he started to rock back and forth a lot as he was speaking.
Layton, meanwhile, was like a peacock the entire time, smiling, animated, like a Canadian Tony Randall. He was effective in his way, kind of like the cheerleader of the debate.
During the last half hour Harper either started to define party policy on the spot, decided to start announcing party policy during the debate, or else he lost one of his marbles.
First, he declared that he would be having a free vote on the issue of gay marriage, then later told Layton that he(Harper) and Layton had opposite opinions on gay marriage. Since Layton is announced as supporting gay marriage, Harper thus said for the first time in the campaign that he is opposed.
And really strange, when Martin asked Harper about the statements that Harper's MPs had made during the campaign about homosexuals and abortion, Harper told Martin that he (Martin) had made the exact same comments 2 days previous. I'm sure, during an election campaign especially, that if the PM came out and declared that gays would not be eligible for public jobs, we'd know about it.
Anyway, this is how I saw the leaders:
Duceppe: confident, very aggressive in a put-offish manner.
Layton: looked calm, no that's not true. He looked like he was on acid or happy pills, all smiley and bouncy. Scored some good points against Harper and Martin
Harper: Trying to control his emotions, sometimes nearly losing his temper. Calmed down later.
Martin: Initially calm and was doing a pretty good job considering he was the brunt of most of the attacks, but later on the attacks seemed to affect his performance.
the end.
Tried to keep cribnotes, but nothing new was being said, so I started noting behaviour and stuff like that.
During the first hour, there were 2 times, once in a debate with Duceppe, and once with Layton, that Harper nearly blew a gasket.
Duceppe managed to control a lot of the debate through the first hour. During this time Harper looked nervous and was dominated by all 3 of the other leaders. At one point during a debate on taxes with Martin, Harper jumped in and practically shouted "You're talking about numbers. How can you seriously sit there and talk about numbers". He must have realized how dumb that sounded, as he seemed a bit confused as he continued.
Late in the first hour Duceppe to score on Martin by asking repeatedly "How much is left in the EI fund"? Whether you think this was a successful jab at Martin probably depends on whether you're a Duceppe supporter or a Martin supporter.
Second hour, Harper started to calm down a bit. Sometimes too much, as he appeared to be on valium at some points. At the same time Martin seemed as if he was getting frustrated, and he started to rock back and forth a lot as he was speaking.
Layton, meanwhile, was like a peacock the entire time, smiling, animated, like a Canadian Tony Randall. He was effective in his way, kind of like the cheerleader of the debate.
During the last half hour Harper either started to define party policy on the spot, decided to start announcing party policy during the debate, or else he lost one of his marbles.
First, he declared that he would be having a free vote on the issue of gay marriage, then later told Layton that he(Harper) and Layton had opposite opinions on gay marriage. Since Layton is announced as supporting gay marriage, Harper thus said for the first time in the campaign that he is opposed.
And really strange, when Martin asked Harper about the statements that Harper's MPs had made during the campaign about homosexuals and abortion, Harper told Martin that he (Martin) had made the exact same comments 2 days previous. I'm sure, during an election campaign especially, that if the PM came out and declared that gays would not be eligible for public jobs, we'd know about it.
Anyway, this is how I saw the leaders:
Duceppe: confident, very aggressive in a put-offish manner.
Layton: looked calm, no that's not true. He looked like he was on acid or happy pills, all smiley and bouncy. Scored some good points against Harper and Martin
Harper: Trying to control his emotions, sometimes nearly losing his temper. Calmed down later.
Martin: Initially calm and was doing a pretty good job considering he was the brunt of most of the attacks, but later on the attacks seemed to affect his performance.
the end.
What does Stephen Harper have in store for this country?
Dec 8, 2000, Harper had an article published in the National Post, entitled "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"
A few quotes:
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta"
"Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one"
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country"
And of course there is his famous line about building firewalls around Alberta, but I was unable to find the article anyplace in cyberspace (is that term passe now? Is it still cool to talk about "surfing the web"?), so I'll let that one be.
But his cries for Albertan independance aside, the following Harper comment should shock all, and is particularly pertinent now that he is asking for votes:
"west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
Do these horrible people even deserve to vote? Perhaps they should be rounded up and...ok I doubt even he'd go that far.
***
Anyway, the subject of this entry was what does Harper have in store for us, and I think his own words speak volumes about what he believes. Even if this nasty fellow should ever become PM, there's hope in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although he has promised to repeal that.
Vote.
Dec 8, 2000, Harper had an article published in the National Post, entitled "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"
A few quotes:
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta"
"Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one"
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country"
And of course there is his famous line about building firewalls around Alberta, but I was unable to find the article anyplace in cyberspace (is that term passe now? Is it still cool to talk about "surfing the web"?), so I'll let that one be.
But his cries for Albertan independance aside, the following Harper comment should shock all, and is particularly pertinent now that he is asking for votes:
"west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
Do these horrible people even deserve to vote? Perhaps they should be rounded up and...ok I doubt even he'd go that far.
***
Anyway, the subject of this entry was what does Harper have in store for us, and I think his own words speak volumes about what he believes. Even if this nasty fellow should ever become PM
Vote.
More on the Perils of Polling
David Olive writes in the Star's election blog (why does everyone suddenly have to have an election blog this year?) on an issue I wrote about a few days ago, the SES election polls.
Olive addresses the polling question that SES uses, and points out that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not even mentioned in the question. OK, not much point in my giving a summary, since I've copy and pasted the whole thing right here, so take it away David Olive:
Pollster SES, whose daily polls in collaboration with CPAC have played such a prominent role in driving the media consensus that the Grits are doomed, reported last night that the Tory surge has gone into reverse. The Tories, according to SES, have slipped to 34 per cent, from 37 per cent the day before. That drops the Tories back to neck-and-neck status with the Grits, who clocked in yesterday at 33 per cent. And makes everything you've heard in the past few days about the "ineffectual" Liberal attack ads rather suspect.
We get a kick out of the question SES asks "200 potential voters" each night (which are blended results from 400 more voters interviewed the previous two nights to produce a "three day rolling sample" - don't ask):
"Some people think that the Liberals have done a good job running the country and that Paul Martin would be [a] strong prime minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long and that it's time for a change. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
No mention of Stephen Harper. Whenever Pierre Trudeau was asked about his dismal poll standings, he'd reply, "Consider the alternative." The alternative in 1972 and 1974 kept Trudeau in power, and in 1980 revived his briefly interrupted residency at 24 Sussex.
As the more candid pollsters will tell you, they can get you any results you want depending on what question they ask.
So how about:
"Some people think the Liberals have done a good job managing the economy over the past decade and that Paul Martin as PM would continue to build on his successful record as finance minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long, becoming arrogant and corrupt, and that it's time to replace Martin with Stephen Harper or one of the other leaders. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
Or:
"Some people think Stephen Harper is a strong leader who would end the Liberal era of arrogance and corruption. Others worry that he has no experience in running a government and would be more likely than Paul Martin or the other leaders to impose an agenda of 'social conservatism' on Canadians. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
The correct answer to all three questions, of course, is "Why are you bothering me, I'm only a 'potential' voter. Don't you want to speak to some real ones?"
note: here is a link to the SES poll that is referred to by David Olive.
David Olive writes in the Star's election blog (why does everyone suddenly have to have an election blog this year?) on an issue I wrote about a few days ago, the SES election polls.
Olive addresses the polling question that SES uses, and points out that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not even mentioned in the question. OK, not much point in my giving a summary, since I've copy and pasted the whole thing right here, so take it away David Olive:
Pollster SES, whose daily polls in collaboration with CPAC have played such a prominent role in driving the media consensus that the Grits are doomed, reported last night that the Tory surge has gone into reverse. The Tories, according to SES, have slipped to 34 per cent, from 37 per cent the day before. That drops the Tories back to neck-and-neck status with the Grits, who clocked in yesterday at 33 per cent. And makes everything you've heard in the past few days about the "ineffectual" Liberal attack ads rather suspect.
We get a kick out of the question SES asks "200 potential voters" each night (which are blended results from 400 more voters interviewed the previous two nights to produce a "three day rolling sample" - don't ask):
"Some people think that the Liberals have done a good job running the country and that Paul Martin would be [a] strong prime minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long and that it's time for a change. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
No mention of Stephen Harper. Whenever Pierre Trudeau was asked about his dismal poll standings, he'd reply, "Consider the alternative." The alternative in 1972 and 1974 kept Trudeau in power, and in 1980 revived his briefly interrupted residency at 24 Sussex.
As the more candid pollsters will tell you, they can get you any results you want depending on what question they ask.
So how about:
"Some people think the Liberals have done a good job managing the economy over the past decade and that Paul Martin as PM would continue to build on his successful record as finance minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long, becoming arrogant and corrupt, and that it's time to replace Martin with Stephen Harper or one of the other leaders. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
Or:
"Some people think Stephen Harper is a strong leader who would end the Liberal era of arrogance and corruption. Others worry that he has no experience in running a government and would be more likely than Paul Martin or the other leaders to impose an agenda of 'social conservatism' on Canadians. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
The correct answer to all three questions, of course, is "Why are you bothering me, I'm only a 'potential' voter. Don't you want to speak to some real ones?"
note: here is a link to the SES poll that is referred to by David Olive.
What's up with Bourque? The guy created the best site in the country (possibly one of the best in the world) for quick access to the most important news from all different sources. Mr Bourque is respected, and has always presented the headlines and links to the stories as is, until this election.
Now it seems he is colouring the headlines with his own opinions.
Ane xample is the CBC article entitled "Harper unfazed by Liberal attack ads", which on the Bourque site becomes "Harper Unfazed By Desperate Liberal Attack Ads".
Is Bourque Newswatch a news gateway or an opinion website? If he is going to colour his presentation of the news with his own opinion he should present his site as what it is.
Now it seems he is colouring the headlines with his own opinions.
Ane xample is the CBC article entitled "Harper unfazed by Liberal attack ads", which on the Bourque site becomes "Harper Unfazed By Desperate Liberal Attack Ads".
Is Bourque Newswatch a news gateway or an opinion website? If he is going to colour his presentation of the news with his own opinion he should present his site as what it is.
Why is it that when a movie comes on tv that I already own on DVD, meaning I could watch it without commercial interruption in 5.1 dolby surround with SRS and a bunch of other crap which I don't use because I don't know what the hell it is, that I always end up sitting and watching the "edited for tv" version.
You know, the version with the little TBS symbol in the bottom right, Mel Gibson swearing "Forget you!", and punctuated by ads for Ford and Minute Maid. Somehow they manage to cut out the best scenes (ever watch Desperado on TV?), and when you've seen the DVD version, you can't help but notice other little snip jobs they've done to save time.
So the next time "A Knight's Tale" comes on tv, you'd think I'd just get out my DVD version and watch it instead, but no, for some reason I'm sure I'll end up sitting through the whole thing on City-TV.
You know, the version with the little TBS symbol in the bottom right, Mel Gibson swearing "Forget you!", and punctuated by ads for Ford and Minute Maid. Somehow they manage to cut out the best scenes (ever watch Desperado on TV?), and when you've seen the DVD version, you can't help but notice other little snip jobs they've done to save time.
So the next time "A Knight's Tale" comes on tv, you'd think I'd just get out my DVD version and watch it instead, but no, for some reason I'm sure I'll end up sitting through the whole thing on City-TV.
I had to post something to move that horrible Stephen Harper head further down the page.
I'm trying to understand the polls that have been coming out recently over the past few days. First we have the SES rolling polls which for the past week have been giving the Conservatives a growing lead over the Liberals, then yesterday and today a Leger poll and an Ipsos Reid poll showed the Liberals still in the lead.
All three polls show the Liberals at 32 and 33 percent among decided voters, but while Leger and Ipsos Reid show the Conservatives at 30 and 31 percent, the SES rolling poll has them at 37%. That's quite a difference, and as the Sun has been more than pleased to point out it makes it appear as if the Conservatives have the makings of a good lead.
The Leger Poll was taken over a period of 4 days, with a total of 1500 respondents.
The Ipsos-Reid Poll was also taken over a 4-day period with a total of 2000 respondents.
The SES poll is a little more complicated. Simply put, it is a poll of 600 people (a very small sample) taken over 3 days. SES polls 200 people per day, and each day adds the new data to the poll and drops the old data from 3 days ago. Get it? Got it? Good.
Anyway, I can't believe how little of this stuff I remember from university. I'm supposed to have a degree in political science, and I can remember taking an entire year of this polling crap in second year, but do you think I can remember it now? Suffice to say that a poll of 1000 people is necessary for a poll to have an acceptable margin of error. The SES polls fall far short of that mark.
These SES polls are so out of whack with Ipsos-Reid, which sets the standard for polling in this country, that the folks at SES are going to have to spend some time reworking their model before the next election. Somebody said, and I've just done a bit of unsuccessful googling to try to get their name, that election polls can be weapons of mass destruction. With so many newspapers picking up these SES polls and concluding that the Conservatives are leading, it's entirely possible that this could have an affect on how some people vote. Conservatives, feeling secure that their party has a good lead, may find it less urgent to get out and vote. Some NDPers may choose to vote Liberal. Whatever.
Conclusion. There is something wrong with the polling model that SES is using in this election. It's nice, it's gratifying, to have day by day polling results, but it might be smarter to ignore SES poll results this election and wait a few days for more thorough poll results.
I'm trying to understand the polls that have been coming out recently over the past few days. First we have the SES rolling polls which for the past week have been giving the Conservatives a growing lead over the Liberals, then yesterday and today a Leger poll and an Ipsos Reid poll showed the Liberals still in the lead.
All three polls show the Liberals at 32 and 33 percent among decided voters, but while Leger and Ipsos Reid show the Conservatives at 30 and 31 percent, the SES rolling poll has them at 37%. That's quite a difference, and as the Sun has been more than pleased to point out it makes it appear as if the Conservatives have the makings of a good lead.
The Leger Poll was taken over a period of 4 days, with a total of 1500 respondents.
The Ipsos-Reid Poll was also taken over a 4-day period with a total of 2000 respondents.
The SES poll is a little more complicated. Simply put, it is a poll of 600 people (a very small sample) taken over 3 days. SES polls 200 people per day, and each day adds the new data to the poll and drops the old data from 3 days ago. Get it? Got it? Good.
Anyway, I can't believe how little of this stuff I remember from university. I'm supposed to have a degree in political science, and I can remember taking an entire year of this polling crap in second year, but do you think I can remember it now? Suffice to say that a poll of 1000 people is necessary for a poll to have an acceptable margin of error. The SES polls fall far short of that mark.
These SES polls are so out of whack with Ipsos-Reid, which sets the standard for polling in this country, that the folks at SES are going to have to spend some time reworking their model before the next election. Somebody said, and I've just done a bit of unsuccessful googling to try to get their name, that election polls can be weapons of mass destruction. With so many newspapers picking up these SES polls and concluding that the Conservatives are leading, it's entirely possible that this could have an affect on how some people vote. Conservatives, feeling secure that their party has a good lead, may find it less urgent to get out and vote. Some NDPers may choose to vote Liberal. Whatever.
Conclusion. There is something wrong with the polling model that SES is using in this election. It's nice, it's gratifying, to have day by day polling results, but it might be smarter to ignore SES poll results this election and wait a few days for more thorough poll results.
Ed's Back!
The NDP have a nice little website, simple yet it convey's their message. That is if orange on green doesn't make you ill.
Just watched a fun little video from their site called "Ed's Back", which looks like something a bunch of 80 year old ad execs might produce if they were trying to target the "MTV Generation". It runs a little long, but it's interesting.
Windows Media. For other formats visit their site.
The NDP have a nice little website, simple yet it convey's their message. That is if orange on green doesn't make you ill.
Just watched a fun little video from their site called "Ed's Back", which looks like something a bunch of 80 year old ad execs might produce if they were trying to target the "MTV Generation". It runs a little long, but it's interesting.
Windows Media. For other formats visit their site.
National Post story
Harper's press secretary slaps Canadian Press photographer, tells him to 'shut up'
Anger boiled over on the Stephen Harper campaign this week when press secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen told a Canadian Press photographer to "shut up" and gave him two gentle slaps on the face, saying she was not happy with the pictures he has been taking.
***
Harper's defenders are driven wild by the fact that the media appears to be waiting for him to slip up, for his campign to derail. Why, for instance, are questions about social issues being thrown at Harper by the media?
The reasons are thus: Anyone who has followed Harper's career is aware that he is a firebrand, a man whose mouth usually operates much more quickly than his brain (recall his comments in the House of Commons about where to find photos of Svend Robinson). The media is fully aware of the sudden change that has come over Harper since the election started, and they want to pop the bubble of artificiality that Harper's handlers have created around him. The rest of us are watching out of interest, waiting to see in which direction he will fly when that bubble is popped.
Harper's press secretary slaps Canadian Press photographer, tells him to 'shut up'
Anger boiled over on the Stephen Harper campaign this week when press secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen told a Canadian Press photographer to "shut up" and gave him two gentle slaps on the face, saying she was not happy with the pictures he has been taking.
***
Harper's defenders are driven wild by the fact that the media appears to be waiting for him to slip up, for his campign to derail. Why, for instance, are questions about social issues being thrown at Harper by the media?
The reasons are thus: Anyone who has followed Harper's career is aware that he is a firebrand, a man whose mouth usually operates much more quickly than his brain (recall his comments in the House of Commons about where to find photos of Svend Robinson). The media is fully aware of the sudden change that has come over Harper since the election started, and they want to pop the bubble of artificiality that Harper's handlers have created around him. The rest of us are watching out of interest, waiting to see in which direction he will fly when that bubble is popped.
I'm working on a post, go away.
No, wait, if you're looking for something to read, try this from the Washington Monthly. It's an article called Blog Navel Gazing, and is related to the issue of the post I'm working on.
No, wait, if you're looking for something to read, try this from the Washington Monthly. It's an article called Blog Navel Gazing, and is related to the issue of the post I'm working on.
I'm putting my foot down (some would say I'm stamping my feet). Nobody is allowed to phone me between 10:45 and 11:30 while the election campaign is on. Fortunately the hockey game is in OT which means I can still catch The National.
While writing this, Calgary scored the winning goal. I haven't watched a lot of Flames hockey, but I have to say that I am very impressed by their defence, based on tonight's game. No matter how intense the play in the opposing zone, Calgary seems to always have a man outside the zone, ready to pick up the puck if it is dumped towards their end. Toronto, like most NHL teams now, likes to move all their players into the opposing zone during a rush, emulating the tactics that made the Red Army teams so successful. However after 15 or so years of this being standard in the NHL, teams have worked out defense strategies to counter these tactics, so you don't have the team on offense standing in position in the 4 corners of the zone for instance, seemingly unchecked, and passing the puck back and forth waiting for scoring chances like the Red Army team was always able to do.
I'm an expert on everything.
While writing this, Calgary scored the winning goal. I haven't watched a lot of Flames hockey, but I have to say that I am very impressed by their defence, based on tonight's game. No matter how intense the play in the opposing zone, Calgary seems to always have a man outside the zone, ready to pick up the puck if it is dumped towards their end. Toronto, like most NHL teams now, likes to move all their players into the opposing zone during a rush, emulating the tactics that made the Red Army teams so successful. However after 15 or so years of this being standard in the NHL, teams have worked out defense strategies to counter these tactics, so you don't have the team on offense standing in position in the 4 corners of the zone for instance, seemingly unchecked, and passing the puck back and forth waiting for scoring chances like the Red Army team was always able to do.
I'm an expert on everything.
Things you don't need to happen during your election campaign
Stephen Harper's election campaign seems determined to go off the rails. I've avoided criticizing Harper for insignificant flaws in his campaign, but it's pretty hard to ignore what happened today, especially since the occurrence was caught on camera.
The picture below is of Bob Smyth, an elderly protester being punched in the face by a Conservative today at a Harper campaign function:
Click on the picture for the full article.
I've campaigned with a few PC Party leaders, and I've seen campaign stops get ugly, but taking it to this level is a bit out of the ordinary. Usually in situations with protesters our party supporters were advised to link arms and form a chain to try to keep the protesters away from where the leader was speaking. If the protesters became vocal, so did our folks, singing "O Canada", or something. There was never any violence, even when we were beset by organized busloads of youth party members from other parties.
According to Laurie Arron, political co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage:
Mr. Arron was shouted down by cries of "shut up, shut up."
Tory supporters then hit Mr. (Bob) Smyth with signs and a man punched him in the face before police intervened.
This is 2 days in a row that Stephen Harper's message has been overshadowed by questions about his position on hot topics like abortion and gay marriage. 2 days do not make or break an election campaign, but with the media exposure given to Mr Arron and Mr Smyth today, there's a high likelihood that Harper's troubles are not over yet.
Stephen Harper's election campaign seems determined to go off the rails. I've avoided criticizing Harper for insignificant flaws in his campaign, but it's pretty hard to ignore what happened today, especially since the occurrence was caught on camera.
The picture below is of Bob Smyth, an elderly protester being punched in the face by a Conservative today at a Harper campaign function:
Click on the picture for the full article.
I've campaigned with a few PC Party leaders, and I've seen campaign stops get ugly, but taking it to this level is a bit out of the ordinary. Usually in situations with protesters our party supporters were advised to link arms and form a chain to try to keep the protesters away from where the leader was speaking. If the protesters became vocal, so did our folks, singing "O Canada", or something. There was never any violence, even when we were beset by organized busloads of youth party members from other parties.
According to Laurie Arron, political co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage:
Mr. Arron was shouted down by cries of "shut up, shut up."
Tory supporters then hit Mr. (Bob) Smyth with signs and a man punched him in the face before police intervened.
This is 2 days in a row that Stephen Harper's message has been overshadowed by questions about his position on hot topics like abortion and gay marriage. 2 days do not make or break an election campaign, but with the media exposure given to Mr Arron and Mr Smyth today, there's a high likelihood that Harper's troubles are not over yet.
Happy 200th post!!!!
While I respect his decision to support his Conservative candidate's campaign financially, I have to express a bit of disappointment at Warren Kinsella's decision. After all, I keep my links categorized on the right side of my blog, and it's going to be a real hassle, almost 2 whole minutes out of my day, if I have to move the link to his website from the Liberal category to the Conservative one.
Thanks a lot Warren!!!
***
The odd thing is that Kinsella and I are on parallel but opposite tracks when it comes to which party we support right now. I am a Conservative Party member who plans to vote for my Liberal candidate (yes it's official- for now) until Stephen Harper is replaced as party leader, and Kinsella is a Liberal who doesn't support the current leadership of his party during this election.
***
I remember how the tv show Cheers feted it's 200th episode, by having the stars sit in a row and discuss their favouritest moments on the show.
I thought I'd do something similar, but since I'm the only star of this blog, well....
OK the only moment I am going to bring back is the first sentence I ever published:
"This Blog will deal mainly with Canadian politics, and will focus on the Progressive Conservative party of Canada."
Now that the subject of my blog no longer exists, I guess my writing is even pointlesser then ever.
While I respect his decision to support his Conservative candidate's campaign financially, I have to express a bit of disappointment at Warren Kinsella's decision. After all, I keep my links categorized on the right side of my blog, and it's going to be a real hassle, almost 2 whole minutes out of my day, if I have to move the link to his website from the Liberal category to the Conservative one.
Thanks a lot Warren!!!
***
The odd thing is that Kinsella and I are on parallel but opposite tracks when it comes to which party we support right now. I am a Conservative Party member who plans to vote for my Liberal candidate (yes it's official- for now) until Stephen Harper is replaced as party leader, and Kinsella is a Liberal who doesn't support the current leadership of his party during this election.
***
I remember how the tv show Cheers feted it's 200th episode, by having the stars sit in a row and discuss their favouritest moments on the show.
I thought I'd do something similar, but since I'm the only star of this blog, well....
OK the only moment I am going to bring back is the first sentence I ever published:
"This Blog will deal mainly with Canadian politics, and will focus on the Progressive Conservative party of Canada."
Now that the subject of my blog no longer exists, I guess my writing is even pointlesser then ever.
More talk of a Conservative-Bloc alliance. This time from the bloc, which is stating that their goal in such an alliance is the separation of Quebec in a "third referendum". Duh..
Are we clear on this now? Conservative minority government + Bloc Alliance = Quebec separation referendum. Just what else does Harper have planned for us?
Bloc wants big gains from any Tory deal
Longueuil, Que. and Ottawa — The Bloc Québécois said yesterday it would milk a Conservative minority for all it is worth in the hopes of improving the overall situation in Quebec and then bringing the province out of Canada.
After a speech south of Montreal, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said there is no contradiction in helping a federalist party govern Canada, and being fully committed to Quebec independence. The goal is to better economic and social conditions in Quebec to pave the way for a victory in a third referendum.
continued
Are we clear on this now? Conservative minority government + Bloc Alliance = Quebec separation referendum. Just what else does Harper have planned for us?
Bloc wants big gains from any Tory deal
Longueuil, Que. and Ottawa — The Bloc Québécois said yesterday it would milk a Conservative minority for all it is worth in the hopes of improving the overall situation in Quebec and then bringing the province out of Canada.
After a speech south of Montreal, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said there is no contradiction in helping a federalist party govern Canada, and being fully committed to Quebec independence. The goal is to better economic and social conditions in Quebec to pave the way for a victory in a third referendum.
continued
here's a reason why for the first time in this election, I am praying for a majority government, a Liberal majority government:
from today's Globe and Mail
Liberal woes fuel Tory-Bloc theories
Lindsay, Ont., Mirabel, Que., Ottawa — The Conservative Party could take office with the help of the Bloc Quebecois even if the Liberals end up with a razor-thin edge in seats in the coming vote, a key Conservative MP says.
House Leader John Reynolds said yesterday that he can see circumstances in which the Bloc and the Conservatives would vote together to defeat the Liberals should the Grits win a small minority.
"If the Liberals win one more seat than us and the Bloc and us defeat the government, it would be obvious what the next step would be," Mr. Reynolds said in an interview yesterday. "It would be irresponsible to hold another election right away."
read the rest of the story
***
PS, since when is the new party the "Tories"?
from today's Globe and Mail
Liberal woes fuel Tory-Bloc theories
Lindsay, Ont., Mirabel, Que., Ottawa — The Conservative Party could take office with the help of the Bloc Quebecois even if the Liberals end up with a razor-thin edge in seats in the coming vote, a key Conservative MP says.
House Leader John Reynolds said yesterday that he can see circumstances in which the Bloc and the Conservatives would vote together to defeat the Liberals should the Grits win a small minority.
"If the Liberals win one more seat than us and the Bloc and us defeat the government, it would be obvious what the next step would be," Mr. Reynolds said in an interview yesterday. "It would be irresponsible to hold another election right away."
read the rest of the story
***
PS, since when is the new party the "Tories"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
