The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[GAP]

Williams won’t support Green party
By STEPHEN MAHER Staff Reporter Tue. Sep 23 - 5:29 AM
Article Link

Anything But Conservative doesn’t seem to include the Greens.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams will not be coming to Central Nova to campaign for Green Leader Elizabeth May, a spokeswoman for the premier said Monday.

Ms. May, who is in an uphill battle to unseat Defence Minister Peter MacKay in his Central Nova riding, had hoped Mr. Williams would give her a hand, but her position on the seal hunt makes that impossible, the premier’s communications director, Elizabeth Matthews, said Monday.

"Actually, the premier sent Ms. May’s daughter a response to her request last week indicating that in large part due to the seal issue, he wouldn’t be able to campaign with her," Ms. Matthews said in an e-mail.

Mr. Williams has denounced Mr. MacKay in the past for sticking with Prime Minister Stephen Harper during the dispute over the offshore accord.

Mr. Williams has vowed to work against the re-election of Mr. Harper, saying a Harper majority would be a dark day in Canadian history.

He has even registered Anything But Conservative as a third party with Elections Canada, which would allow the group to advertise against the federal Tories.

Mr. Williams has offered to campaign against Mr. Harper for independent Bill Casey, for instance, but he observed recently that Mr. Casey doesn’t seem to need his help.

Asked if Mr. Williams’s refusal to campaign for Ms. May means that the group should be renamed Anything But Conservative or Green, Mr. Williams’s spokeswoman said the name can stick.
More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

That said, a lot of them were able to go on to pursue trades and have done well at them.  University doesn't seem to really be a determinant of success.

But grandpa is horrified and, in their culture, grandpa/elders must be satisfied. Grandpa may be mollified by, or may choose not to really notice the fact that grandson is going to a community college taking a mechanical/tool and die making programme.

Picking up from these points, I'm also noticing more people being WAY more flexible in their education options - the hybrid reflected by some saying "I went to university to get an education, and to college to get a job".  I value what I learned in university, but it certainly wasn't the preparation for the real-world job experience that college was.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was surfing the channels and Mike Duffy’s talking heads are saying that the NDP are, as we reach the middle of the campaign (week 3 of 5), shifting their attack towards the Liberals.

They are, finally, reminding Canadians that Jack Layton and the NDP were the (effective) Opposition in parliament because Celine Stéphane Dion and the Liberals chickened out on (according to Mike Duffy) 43 confidence votes over the past couple of years. 43! Is that right?

Layton must have some poll numbers that tell him, either:

1. He can shake loose some Liberal votes and gain a few seats at their expense – but enough to make him Leader of the Opposition? Hmmmm; or

2. He must fight, now, to prevent strategic voting which, in past elections, has seen votes and seats go from the NDP to the Liberals.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is the answer to two questions:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1d03c0cc-0b85-42c3-824e-1ea7979dfc99&sponsor=

Methodology explains higher support for Liberals in Nanos poll

Glen McGregor
Canwest News Service

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

A recurring head-scratcher of the campaign is the divergence in polling results offered by Nanos Research and all the other pollsters in the field. Nik Nanos spitballed the last two federal elections closer than any other company, but this year, his numbers have consistently put support for the Liberals higher than headcounts by most other public opinion firms.

Yesterday, for instance, the Nanos rolling overnight poll put the Conservatives at 35 per cent and the Liberals at 30 per cent -- a five-point margin that would likely give the Tories a narrow minority win. At the same time, Harris Decima pegged the Tories at 38 and the Liberals wallowing at 23 per cent, a 15-point spread wide enough to put the Tories into a majority government.

Why the split?

Mr. Nanos says the key difference is methodology. Unlike other polling firms, his asks open-ended questions on voter intention. Instead of offering a list of choices -- "Would you vote a) Conservative, b) Liberal ..." -- Nanos phone operators ask an open-ended question that requires respondents to come up with their own answers instead of multiple choice.

"If they don't get the list, you get the cleanest read because they have to articulate their support," Mr. Nanos said. The open-ended question eliminates the importance of the order in which the parties are listed, although most companies vary the the order to mitigate this factor.

Also, the open-ended method tends to put the Greens lower than other parties because, Mr. Nanos believes, respondents are not reminded of the party when they answer. Some will choose the Greens as a none-of-the-above if they hear the party name on a list before answering.

Another difference: Nanos pays more to get cellphone exchanges included in its calling list. Cell users tend to be young and more transient than those with land-lines, Mr. Nanos says.

"Those people are not as likely to have conservative attitudes."

Platform Erratum

The Liberal policy platform released yesterday positions the party as trusty steward of the economy, emphasizing "A Richer Canada" in the policy document ahead of other initiatives such as the Green Shift. The Liberals have lagged behind the Tories when pollsters ask about who they consider the best manager of the economy and the platform emphasis on financials was no accident.

So one can imagine the giant "Doh!" emanating from Liberal HQ when somebody spotted an error in the budget numbers in the printed booklet given to the media. The income projection used a lower figure for government revenues than appears elsewhere in the platform. The package of documents included a photocopied page that cited a "typographical error" and provided the correct figure.

A Fairer Deutschland

Another day, another stock-photo embarrassment. Page 37 of the Liberal platform document is a full-page image of an older man in a hospital bed. He clutches the hand of a doctor with a stethoscope, while another doc looks on with a smile. Were the picture painted in egg-tempura, it could easily adorn a Soviet-era poster hanging in the outpatient area at Minsk General. Large type over the photo promises "A fairer Canada."

While they might be receiving fair treatment, it does not appear that either the pretend patient or pretend doctors were in Canada at the time it was administered. The image is a stock photo taken by photographer Alexander Raths of ... Nuremberg, Germany.

Citizen Schmatas

The New Democratic war-room printed up T-shirts for party supporters to wear yesterday to the Liberal platform launch at the Delta Hotel in Ottawa.

The T-shirts carried the image of the front-page of the March 27 Citizen, with the banner headline "Absent Liberals under fire for giving Tories de facto majority."

The story detailed how a Citizen analysis of voting records showed Liberals on average voted in only 64 per cent of recorded votes in the House of Commons. The back of the shirts listed, in concert-tour style, all 43 confidence votes in which the Liberals had taken a dive. It read, "Harper Defacto Majority Tour, 07-08. Supporting act: The Dion Liberals."

Oddly, the labels of the shirts were pulled out. An oversight, no doubt, as Polls Notes is certain the shirts were made entirely by union labour in Canada, and not, say, in Mexico or China. Right?

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008​

 

[YZT580]

It would seem that Ms. May keeps lousy company.  The link will eventually bring you to some photos of the lady in question in attendence at a Hezbollah rally in Toronto (2006)  /torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/09/ellie-may-at-hezbollah-rally.html
That leaves only Jack as the leader of H.M. Loyal Opposition and that bodes ill for Canada for the next 4 years. There is a dirth of talent in the opposition leadership ranks and an even greater dirth of alternative ideas. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is ‘old hat’ but still interesting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.welectionstrategists0923/BNStory/politics/home/?pageRequested=1

Splitting the centre-left vote

Globe and Mail Update
September 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM EDT

Today's question: How do the Liberals, NDP and Greens deal with the fact they are splitting the centre-left vote in some parts of the country and how do the Tories take advantage of this?

Scott Reid, former director of communications for Paul Martin and a co-founder of the speechwriting firm Feschuk.Reid: Liberals take note: Jack Layton is trying to put an end to you. Not just win more seats. Not just raise his popular vote. Like Stephen Harper, he defines true victory as crippling the capacity of the Liberal Party to successfully compete in future elections.

That may seem like a far-flung notion but with some polls showing the Liberals drifting down to the low 20s and the NDP scratching up to the high teens, Mr. Layton sees the chance for a historic appeal.

Certainly, with the full influence of the Green vote impossible to gauge until after the debates the Liberals can take nothing for granted.

Mr. Layton's musings about a postelection coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Greens have a lot more to do with “help Jack” than “stop Harper.” He's attempting to reassure progressives it's safe to split their votes all over hell's half acre. But it's not.

Liberals must counter immediately. That begins by positioning themselves in the sensible centre rather than as the best of the left. They must emphasize their fiscal credentials, sharpen their critique of Mr. Harper and begin now with a blatant appeal to NDP and Green voters that the Liberals alone can keep the Conservatives from a majority.

Mr. Harper will exploit these factions by talking up the NDP in Quebec and even engaging Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in the debates. But it rests with the Liberals – beginning with their recalcitrant core voters. Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton are trying to kill your party. If you want to keep it, you'll have to defend it.

Goldy Hyder, former chief of staff to Joe Clark and currently senior vice-president with the communications firm Hill & Knowlton: In life and in politics, what goes around comes around. After having been the beneficiaries of a divided right that saw them win three consecutive majorities, the Liberal Party now finds itself as a part of the fractured left (with the NDP, BQ and, to a lesser extent, the Greens). While the outcome is not a given, this campaign suggests a fundamental realignment of the Canadian political spectrum is well under way.

For some time, the Liberal base and brand was so strong that it headed into federal elections with 30 per cent of the electorate in its camp. The same could not be said of the Conservative Party.

It can be argued that Stephen Harper conscientiously set out to level the playing field against the “natural governing party” by seeking to expand the traditional conservative base from rural, anglo, male, to include urban, francophone, minority communities, and women. And in doing so, Harper has moved the party closer to the centre (albeit still to the right of it).

Over the past two decades, Canadians have been moving more to the centre-right. Support for free trade, balanced budgets and paying down debt has taken hold even in provinces with NDP governments. Meanwhile the “new” Conservative Party's shift to its left meets Canadians in their comfort zone and creates an opportunity for the party to expand its base and strengthen its brand.

As for the left, perhaps it will come out of this election in need of engaging in its own “unite the left” exercise. There are already signs that such an effort is in the works at any cost. This week, Mr. Layton has mused that he would not rule out forming a coalition government with the Liberals if it would defeat the Tories. With Mr. Dion and Ms. May already working together, it seems there's a lot of love to go around on the left.

Peter Donolo, former director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and now a partner in the Strategic Counsel: If the opposition vote remains as diffuse as it is today, the Conservatives will be able to win the election just by standing still.

In Quebec, Jack Layton has become the Mario Dumont of this campaign.

Voters in surprising corners of the province are projecting a lot onto him - at a moment when they are reassessing the value proposition of the Bloc. Thanks to that - and the hard-hitting NDP ads - the NDP is resting comfortably in the mid-teens with voters in key battleground ridings in that province.

Here's the rub: That historic high is just high enough for the NDP to steal votes from the Bloc outside of Montreal and elect Conservative MPs, and to steal Liberal votes in Montreal and elect more Blocquistes on the island.

But it isn't likely - at this level - to put any additional Quebec seats into the NDP column. In battleground ridings in Ontario, it's the Green Party that is punching above its historic weight. But the effect is similar: If they hold onto the vote they're taking (mostly from Liberals), they'll be electing more Conservative MPs from these close-call Ontario ridings.

The only way that Stephane Dion could win this election, is by becoming the go-to-guy for anti-Harper voters. That isn't happening. In fact, the NDP and the Greens are eliciting more enthusiasm among opponents of the Harper government than the Liberals have. So, on balance, the growth on the left is a nightmare for the Liberals and a dream come true for the Tories.

Greg Lyle, managing director of the polling firm Innovative Research Group: Canada's first-past-the-post system forces voters to make compromises. In our system, only the voters who vote for the winning party in their riding are represented. If your candidate loses, even by just one vote, your voice is not heard in Parliament.

Moreover, in our system, you only need more votes than any other party. You don't need a majority. So if it is true there is a centre-left majority in Canada, the more options there are to divide the centre-left vote, the better for the Conservative Party.

However, whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.

There are also important differences with the Green Party. Most Canadians agree that we need to do more on the environment. There is certainly a consensus in the centre-left. But there is a major conflict on whether economic concerns or environmental concerns come first. New Democrats usually side with pocketbook concerns, Greens always put the environment first, and Liberals shift over time. Of course, the Bloc Québécois' core premise of Quebec sovereignty is in complete opposition to the federalist centre-left parties. The bottom line is that the ‘left' is far from united on its vision for Canada, and the differences are important.

Traditionally, the way the centre-left elites have sought to overcome these divisions and stop Tories from getting elected is with a call for strategic voting. The core premise of strategic voting is that centre-left voters should look for the party in their riding that has the best chance of beating the Conservatives and unite behind it. This is the strategy the Bloc is pushing in Quebec in this election. The problem with this strategy is that it is just not realistic. Many voters, particularly swing voters, do not have the information they need to make this choice. Even well-informed voters may not agree in many seats.

Moreover, it will take a wave of passionate fear of a Tory victory to trigger strategic voting. The only effective way to end vote splitting is to combine parties, and that won't happen in this election.

The Tories understand this. The new Conservative party exists as a vehicle to end vote splitting on the right. The Tories are trying to keep fear down by showing that Tories, even Stephen Harper, are people too.

That is why we see the sweater-vest ads. That is why there is no talk of market solutions to health care or revisiting equal marriage or abortion. In that light, it remains a puzzle why the Tories have yet to put to bed the culture issue which is mobilizing opposition to the Conservatives, especially in Quebec.

During this campaign all the centre-left parties can do is make a strategic voting appeal and stoke the fires of fear toward a Tory majority.

Joy MacPhail, former NDP leader in the B.C. Legislature, is a media commentator and chairwoman of OutTV: These two facts are indisputable: a solid majority of Canadians will not support the Conservatives under any circumstance and Canada has an energetic multiparty political system. Hallelujah to both.

For those who will not vote for Stephen Harper's Conservatives, the choice of an alternative will probably be based on who will make the best leader for all of Canada. Trust in that leader will colour their choice. Ability to deliver and a solid track record will be evaluated.

The Leader of the Bloc Québécois does not want the job of prime minister and therefore is no alternative for the citizens of Quebec who reject the Tories.

The Green Party Leader has already conceded the job to the flailing Liberal Leader and seems to be working mostly on getting herself elected as an MP. Even that seems dubious.

Stéphane Dion is skittish about his own sales pitch of the Liberal vision and cannot convince Canadians that he is actually in charge of his own team. His record to date has been to abstain from leadership.

That leaves Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democrats. Inside Parliament, he consistently opposed the Conservative agenda and demonstrated that in vote after vote against the Tories. Yet, even from his position as fourth party, he has had remarkable success in advancing his party's vision with legislation, particularly through laws protecting us against climate-change damage. He doesn't flip flop. He wants the job.

What advantage remains for Stephen Harper? He practises a divide-and-conquer strategy so I predict that a broader voter appeal is not in his cards.

Louise Beaudoin, former Parti Québécois cabinet minister: The killer question!

Stephen Harper is turning to the same playbook that Jean Chrétien used during the 2000 election, hoping that it will produce the same results, which is a majority government with 37 per cent of the vote. But this is a mirror image of that election since at the time it was the right which was divided between Reformers and Conservatives, whereas today it is the centre-left that has shattered into several parties.

The Liberals, the Greens, the NDP and the Bloc, all variously progressive parties, cannot unite. It is obviously too late in the campaign and they are too different (this would be possible only if, as in France, there were two rounds). In order not to lose in the hinterland whatever it gains in Montreal, the Bloc must turn to issues that garnered a Quebec-wide consensus, issues that garnered unanimous votes by all three parties in the National Assembly.

Or the Bloc should endorse, as Gilles Duceppe has just done, Mario Dumont's five priorities, which reflect the concerns of many Quebeckers: recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada's Constitution, respecting Quebec's autonomy and its areas of jurisdictions, a renewed commitment to Kyoto with absolute emission targets, setting up economic and financial packages to help the forestry and manufacturing sectors, as well as letting Quebec determine its own investment priorities in infrastructures.

Mr. Dumont supports Stephen Harper despite the fact that the Conservatives have already responded negatively to some of his requests. Whereas the Bloc has grounds to believe that its supporters will be more coherent.For the Bloc, it would not only the best strategy but it is the only one that would let them to find a balance between its centre-left platform and its support for Quebec sovereignty. This would allow the party to reconcile itself with nationalists on the right as those who are on the left.

The most important observation, I think comes from Greg Lyle, managing director of the polling firm Innovative Research Group. He noted that: ” whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.”

That’s about it: most people who support the BQ, Greens and NDP (say 21% of Canadians) and, probably more than half of those who support the Liberals (another 13% of Canadians, let’s say) (that’s 33.33%+) believe that income redistribution is the primary role of government. Most people who support the Conservatives (say 35% of Canadians) and some of those who support the Liberals (another 15%, I would guess) (50% of Canadian, overall) believe that creating equality of opportunity is government’s main role. I’m guessing that 15% of Canadians either do not know or do not care or think it is something else.

 

[PanaEng]

Agreed.
I think he might defer defense policy to Ignatieff (or let's hope so).   Dion has to keep some of the big names happy.  I don't think Iggy's views on defense are significantly different than Harpers. 

How about Colin Kenny (chair of the standing Senate Comity on National Security and Defence) - he is liberal but criticized the previous governments just as much as he criticizes the current one for not spending enough on the military to actually increase the size and quality of our equipment in the years to come. He suggested that the current level of spending will only maintain our capabilities and not address the commitment/capability gap.
Maybe he is too outspoken for the current liberals.

 

[a_majoor]

The most important observation, I think comes from Greg Lyle, managing director of the polling firm Innovative Research Group. He noted that: ” whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.”

That’s about it: most people who support the BQ, Greens and NDP (say 21% of Canadians) and, probably more than half of those who support the Liberals (another 13% of Canadians, let’s say) (that’s 33.33%+) believe that income redistribution is the primary role of government. Most people who support the Conservatives (say 35% of Canadians) and some of those who support the Liberals (another 15%, I would guess) (50% of Canadian, overall) believe that creating equality of opportunity is government’s main role. I’m guessing that 15% of Canadians either do not know or do not care or think it is something else.

I suspect you are being too generous with the number of Canadians who believe in equality of opportunity; neither polls, historical experience or examination of the issues under discussion seem to reveal anything like that level of support. If it was true, then I submit that there would have been Conservative governments at the national level much more often than was the case, and even more small "c" conservative governments at the provincial level (up until very recently most Conservative parties were Red Tory at the provincial level. Today, the Wild Rose Alliance, Saskatchewan Party and Reform Ontario stand out as the only small "c" conservative parties, and only the Saskatchewan party holds power).

Fracturing the left wing vote is the only clear way for a Tory majority (or even gains in a minority situation), and uniting the Left will probably be as difficult a job as uniting the Right was in the 1990's. Will a renamed New Democratic Party do a reverse takeover of the Liberal machine the way Reform eventually consumed the PC party? Will the 2020 election be fought between the Conservative Party and the "Liberal-Democrats" or "Gaia Party"?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Mod squad, feel free to move this to a separate thread if warranted - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Tories, Grits target military vote in '08 campaign
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, 21 Sept 08
Article link

Once again, the ignorance of the media comes out.  The majority of the Regular Force are not residents of the ridings where they live - for federal electoral purposes, unless they complete a set of paperwork, they are deemed to be electors in the riding where they enrolled.  While their spouses and families are deemed residents of the location where they are currently resident, the Regular Force member (or Reservist moved at Crown expense for full-time Reserve employment) are still deemed residents of their old home.

Thus, Flora MacDonald's claim to have been defeated by the military rings entirely hollow - the majority of the military votes out of Kingston went to other ridings.

I'm not surprised that journalists and politicians don't know about the electoral laws and regulations governing the military, though I always harbour a secret hope that some of them might take the time to learn...

It would be so if the "military" vote in a riding was defined only by serving military members (and their families), but it seems that some candidates' (and perhaps the media's) definition encompasses not just those who remain in uniform.

An additional quote from the article originally referenced:

One of the toughest fights is taking shape on the West Coast in the riding of Vancouver Island North, home of CFB Comox.

Conservative John Duncan is trying to unseat New Democrat Catherine Bell, who beat him by 1.1 per cent in 2006. Two years earlier, Mr. Duncan carried the day over Ms. Bell by an even slimmer 0.9 per cent.

This time, Mr. Duncan is confident his party's record, and Mr. Harper's stewardship of the war in Afghanistan, will help him win.

"There's fairly broad acceptance of the way we've handled the Afghan mission. They have a diversity of opinion as well, but we do have over 100 personnel from Comox in Afghanistan right now. It's top of mind," said Mr. Duncan. "It will play well for us because people believe the prime minister when he makes commitments. We have demonstrated results with acquisition on equipment."

Mr. Duncan predicted the 6,000 to 8,000 veterans living in the riding would not hurt his cause, either.

"When you talk about the military vote, you're really talking about a lot more than the people working at the base. You're talking about generations of people."

 

[Edward Campbell]

More polls:

---------------------
Ekos says:

TORIES ARE THE PARTY OF MEN AND THE OVER-65S, BUT NOT BOUND BY CLASS

[OTTAWA – September 23, 2008] With all the parties once again today tracking steadily in their well-established “zones”, it’s a chance to look at where the front-running Conservatives are finding their support; and while the typical Tory voter has some of the characteristics you might expect – older and much more likely to be male – somewhat more surprisingly, the party’s appeal now cuts across economic classes.

We’ve said it before: if only men could vote, Stephen Harper would easily triumph with a healthy majority. Forty per cent of men support the Conservatives. But if only women could vote, the Conservatives would be fighting to squeak out a win. Just 33% of women support the party.

Right now, the Conservatives are winning every age category, from youngest to oldest. But there are huge differences in the levels of support. Among seniors (over 65 years of age), the Conservatives have 44%. The second-place Liberals, with 28%, aren’t even close.

The middling age cohorts track quite closely to the national norm. But then, when you get to the 18-25 year olds, the story is different again. The Conservatives are narrowly in the lead in a four-way race, with 27%.  And who is in second spot? The Green Party. The Liberals and NDP trail not too far behind.

Perhaps the most fascinating story, however, has to do with household income. Contrary to the conventional picture of the Conservatives as the party of the better-off, they are an almost completely uniform across income groups in terms of their support. In other words, whether you are making less than $40,000 a year or more than $80,000, your likelihood of voting Conservative is almost exactly the same. Our other recent and more in-depth surveys have also shown that these voters tend to see themselves as being of middle rather than upper socioeconomic standing, and are more likely to be college rather than university-educated.

In contrast, the Liberals, once the prototypical class-less party, now skew clearly towards wealthier voters. The NDP, more in keeping with expectations, skew towards lower-income voters, as does the Bloc Québécois. The Greens, like the Tories, draw their support fairly evenly across income groups.

The Tories have serious demographic handicaps in the breadth of their appeal. They still have not connected with women. They are struggling to connect with urban voters. And they have not caught on with the very young the way they have with other age-groups. Unless they do so, they are going to have difficulty rising above the “glass ceiling” which seems to have prevented the party from rising from their accustomed levels of support.

But that should not disguise a historic accomplishment by the Conservatives, to have shucked off the trappings of class, appealing as much to Joe Lunch-Bucket as to the more prosperous who once were their main social base.

BQ: 8% (NC from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 36% (-1 “ “)
Greens: 12% (NC “ “)
Libs: 25% (+1 “ “)
NDP: 19% (NC “ “)

--------------------

Harri-Decima says:

Liberals stabilizing: Ontario tightening

BQ: 8% (+1 from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 37% (-1 “ “)
Greens: 11% (-1 “ “)
Libs: 24% (+1 “ “)
NDP:  17% (NC “ “)

In Ontario, the race has again tightened. The Conservatives have 35%, the Liberals 34%, the NDP 16%, and the Greens 12%
.
In Quebec, the BQ is at 33%, the Conservatives follow with 24%, the Liberals at 19%, the NDP 16% and the Greens at 8%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have 32%, the Conservatives 31%, the NDP 26% and theGreen Party 8%.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives lead with 39%, followed by the NDP with 30%, the Greens at 18% and the Liberals at 11%.

--------------------

Nanos says:

Conservatives lead Liberals by 11 points nationally


BQ: 8% (+1 from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 38% (+3 “ “)
Greens: 6% (NC “ “)
Libs: 27% (-3 “ “)
NDP: 21% (-1 “ “)

--------------------

The rather large changes in Conservative (+3) and Liberal (-3)scores today offset the equally large but reversed changes (Cons: -4/Libs: +2) recorded on 22 Sep 08, indicating it may have been that 19th time out of 20 when things go wrong.

Beyond that small observation things remain remarkably static – despite pollsters’ and the media’s attempts to sex up the news.  :boring:

 

[JBG]

The Liberal platform is here

On defence it says:

--------------------
6. Defence

Canada’s ongoing commitment to the military mission in Afghanistan has depleted our ability to deploy the Canadian Forces elsewhere in the world. When combined with the commitments that will be necessary in order to provide the needed security requirements when Canada welcomes the world to the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, we are severely limited in our ability to offer assistance to other international efforts as they arise.

I guess the LPOC forgets two things:

• They started Canada's Afghan role; and
• The war against radical Islam is the principal engagement of Western militaries. What other "deployments" are needed other than the war against terror?

 

[Edward Campbell]

... The war against radical Islam is the principal engagement of Western militaries. What other "deployments" are needed other than the war against terror?

I think one, even one who is not a Liberal partisan, can make a very good case - and make it very easily - that neither "radical Islam" as an the enemy nor the "war against terror" make a whole lot of sense for anyone, especially not Canada.

The Liberal platform is very well crafted. Canadians do not like the military; they (a few of them) may wear red T-shirts on Fridays but they have almost no personal connection to the military. Most Canadians oppose military spending, more even than oppose spending on symphony orchestras and opera houses. The Liberal platform trots out a few "feel good" platitudes - helping injured people, SAR, who can be against that? - and makes a very weak 'spending' promise. It will work well on the 60%± of Canadians who will always vote against Conservatives.

 

[GAP]

Cadman whisked out of Tories' candidates meeting
CAMPBELL CLARK Globe and Mail Update September 23, 2008 at 11:09 PM EDT
Article Link

SURREY, B.C. — The Conservatives whisked Surrey North candidate Dona Cadman out the door Tuesday night before reporters following Stephen Harper's campaign could speak to her.

Ms. Cadman is at the centre of the so-called Cadman-affair: She has said the party offered her dying husband, the late independent MP Chuck Cadman, a $1-million insurance policy for his vote in a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

But when reporters asked to speak to her after Mr. Harper gave a speech to a Surrey rally, she was instead whisked out of the back door, and out the building.

Reporters tried to reach her as she and other candidates were rushed off the stage by Mr. Harper's aides after the rally behind the Conservative Leader, but RCMP officers shielded the media.
More on link

Then there is this in the sidebar......

Harper seeks delay in hearing over Cadman libel suit
TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press September 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wants a judge to put off a hearing in his $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party that is scheduled to be held during the federal election campaign.

Mr. Harper's lawyers filed an “emergency” motion for an adjournment with Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland, court officials said Friday.

It is expected that Richard Dearden, Mr. Harper's lawyer, will argue Mr. Harper's campaign schedule prevents him from paying close attention to the legal details of the lawsuit he filed over an allegation that Conservatives attempted to bribe a terminally ill MP in 2005.

The move came at the same time lawyers for the Liberal party filed their own motion with Judge Hackland asking him to order Mr. Harper to produce documents which Mr. Dearden has failed to provide, despite promises to do so.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of today’s National Post, is one look at the spending promises:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/17/ka-ching-ka-ching-liberals-and-ndp-run-up-the-bill-of-election-promises.aspx

--------------------

By my calculation the totals are:

• Conservatives: $1.217 Billion
• Liberals: $4.335 Billion
• NDP:  $2.5 Billion

Given that the projected surplus for 2008/09 is only $2.3 Billion and for 2009/10 $1.3 Billion it appears that:

• The Conservatives are flirting with a deficit – not good;

• The Liberals are promising deficits year after year after year – very, very bad and totally irresponsible; and

• The NDP are promising continual deficits – very bad.

First, I would like to remind you that the TSX – a fair barometer of the state of the economy in Canada, and an excellent indicator of e.g. the ‘value’ or ‘strength’ of Canadians’ pension plans – has fallen to about the level as it sustained in early 2005. That means that we have ‘lost’ about three years worth of productive growth. I suspect we will need less than three years to get back to the levels we reached early this year, but it is still a time when fiscal prudence ought to be the order of the day.

Here is a link to a Globe and Mail interactive feature that shows spending promises to date:


BQ: N/A
Cons: $5.59 Billion over four years - sustainable, may not run a deficit
Greens: $22.5 Billion annually over four years - unsustainable but also unimportant because May/Greens don't matter
Libs: $54.5 Billion over four years – nearly an order of magnitude more than the Conservatives! - totally unsustainable during a recession
NDP: $37.4 Billion over four years - totally unsustainable during a recession


Celne Stéphane Dion says that ” “We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period.” But Layton appears quite moderate in his spending proposals – Dion’s plan is to drive Canada into deficit and a deep, long recession.

The 20% of Canadians who will vote Liberal despite everything must recognize that they, themselves, are greedy, envious economic illiterates.

 

[Celticgirl]

The 20% of Canadians who will vote Liberal despite everything must recognize that they, themselves, are greedy, envious economic illiterates.

You kind of have to wonder where their heads are, that is for sure. Perhaps, just too loyal to the party to see the economic pitfalls of voting for them this time around.

I'm just watching Canada A.M. and they were showing that the NDP is leaving a much bigger "carbon footprint" on their campaign trail than the Libs or Cons. (Cons being third behind the Libs.) Talk is cheap.  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail deals with another of the real issues - Canadian foreign policy/relations with China:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.wexlnharperchina24/BNStory/politics/home

Harper commits to China visit in interview

BRIAN LAGHI AND STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update
September 23, 2008 at 10:07 PM EDT

OTTAWA, VANCOUVER — Stephen Harper has committed to making a visit to China, after 21/2 years of sometimes testy relations with the economic superpower.

In an interview with a Chinese newspaper and radio station, Mr. Harper says that it's untrue that his government has had strained relations with China, and that he wants to maintain an open discussion with the world's most populous country and economic juggernaut.

Mr. Harper has not yet visited China and has been criticized by some for not doing so during the recent Olympic Games.

“I'm looking forward to visiting China at some point in the future,” Mr. Harper said in an interview with the Chinese language daily newspaper Sing Tao last week. The comments were also posted on A1 Chinese Radio in Toronto.

“We'll keep a dialogue with our Chinese counterparts at all levels and keep the channels of communications open.”

Mr. Harper has not said when a visit would take place.

However, any trip to China would probably occur in relative proximity to a leader-level visit between Canada and India.

That's because the Harper government has expressed great fondness for India given that the South Asian nation shares common values and heritage with Canada as a democracy and former British colony.

It has put India and its massive middle class on an equal footing with China in foreign trade policy statements and has been careful not to snub New Delhi by giving the impression of favouring Beijing.

Official relations with India improved significantly at the end of July with the removal of a long-standing irritant, which should pave the way for a leader-level visit between Canada and India – and by extension, a Harper visit to Beijing.

On July 31, Canada changed its policy on nuclear non-proliferation to accommodate India's entry into the club of countries that can trade openly in nuclear fuel and technology, despite its nuclear weapons programs.

India's emergence as an economic power is one reason Canada overlooked concerns about making it an exception to the world's non-proliferation rules, despite Pakistan's warning it could spark an Asian arms race and Canada's own sour history with India's nuclear ambitions.

In the interview, Mr. Harper did not apologize for his government's approach to relations with the country, characterizing them as frank.

“It's not true that we've had bad relations, but what is true is that when we disagree, we've been frank with them.”

Unlike many of his Western counterparts, Mr. Harper did not visit China for the recent Olympic Games.

Chinese leaders were livid when in October, 2007, Mr. Harper met the Dalai Lama, who opposes China's occupation of Tibet.

At one point, in late 2006, Mr. Harper said he would not “sell out” human rights in search of improving trade relations and was willing to risk a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the APEC summit in Hanoi.

But the Harper government appears to have tried to warm relations, particularly with the appointment earlier this year of David Emerson as Foreign Affairs minister. Last month, Mr. Emerson said it would be “very, very nice to see the Prime Minister come to China.”

At the time, the PMO would not say when or if Mr. Harper would go to the country.

In his interview, Mr. Harper was asked whether he believes his government's relationship with China has harmed his efforts to appeal to the Chinese-Canadian community.

“No, not at all,” he said.

“Look, I think Canadians of Chinese origin, they obviously want to see us have good relations with China,” he said. “But I think they also want us to see China be a country that continues to move in a positive direction, not just economically, but politically as well.”

An expert in foreign affairs said Mr. Harper may have decided that, given the turbulence in the economy, it may be time to demonstrate that Canada wants to have a constructive relationship with China.

“Is it an olive branch? I wouldn't go that far,” said Fen Hampson, director of Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. “It's an indication that Canada and China are open for business.”

Mr. Hampson added that Mr. Harper may be angling for votes among Chinese-Canadians.

“I dare say that the PM may also be pulling for votes with the Chinese-Canadian community who had a great sense of pride with the Beijing Olympics and who may have noticed the PM was not there to celebrate in the occasion.”

Another expert said Mr. Harper's frank talk does not appear to have harmed trade, which has increased between the two nations.

Charles Burton, a political science professor at Brock University, said previous efforts at human rights dialogues between China and Canada have not borne much fruit. Moreover, fear of losing exports has muted Canadian criticism of human rights abuses in China, he said.

With files from Qi Zhai, Special to The Globe and Mail

Harper’s China ‘policy’ plays well enough in the small Canadian ‘market.’ There is, in Canada, a strong and deep current of old fashioned anti-communism mixed with fear and racism.

Our China policy must have more to it than just trade. Harper claims he wants Canada to play a more important role in the world – well China matters in the world and we need to deal with it, like it or not.

Finally, it is a good idea to keep China and India on the same ‘level’ of importance.

 

[Rodahn]

First, I would like to remind you that the TSX – a fair barometer of the state of the economy in Canada, and an excellent indicator of e.g. the ‘value’ or ‘strength’ of Canadians’ pension plans – has fallen to about the level as it sustained in early 2005. That means that we have ‘lost’ about three years worth of productive growth. I suspect we will need less than three years to get back to the levels we reached early this year, but it is still a time when fiscal prudence ought to be the order of the day.

Here is a link to a Globe and Mail interactive feature that shows spending promises to date:


BQ: N/A
Cons: $5.59 Billion over four years - sustainable, may not run a deficit
Greens: $22.5 Billion annually over four years - unsustainable but also unimportant because May/Greens don't matter
Libs: $54.5 Billion over four years – nearly an order of magnitude more than the Conservatives! - totally unsustainable during a recession
NDP: $37.4 Billion over four years - totally unsustainable during a recession


Celne Stéphane Dion says that ” “We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period.” But Layton appears quite moderate in his spending proposals – Dion’s plan is to drive Canada into deficit and a deep, long recession.

The 20% of Canadians who will vote Liberal despite everything must recognize that they, themselves, are greedy, envious economic illiterates.

Mr. Campbell; just a quick question, but do your figures include the billions of dollars in promised spending announced by the government just prior to the election call?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr. Campbell; just a quick question, but do your figures include the billions of dollars in promised spending announced by the government just prior to the election call?

No, I think not. Those promises total about $8.9 Billion, right? But, the government claims that they (at least some (many? just a few?) of them) are already included in spending plans.

I think it is fair to say that at least some of those promises are new and that the Tories should be 'accused' of promising something like $10 Billion - still less than half of the least big spender (the Greens) amongst the other contenders.

Of course, I expect that IF the Liberals are elected the first things they will say is: "Oops! The Tories cooked the books! Things are worse than we were led to believe! We cannot keep our promises! Sorry ..." 

 

[Edward Campbell]

This opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, by former Liberal Party of Canada President  Stephen LeDrew, says much with which I agree:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=822209

A beating is what the Liberals need

Stephen Le Drew, National Post

Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008


Barring a miracle -- that intermittent visitor to political campaigns -- the Liberals are going to take a drubbing in this election -- which is exactly what they need in order to survive as a viable national force.

Sounds odd, doesn't it? Getting your clock cleaned in order to carry on? Nevertheless, a beating is exactly what the Grits desperately require, or else the Liberal Party of Canada could face the same fate as the once mighty Liberal Party of Great Britain, now relegated to the trash heap.

The immediate causes of the Liberals' campaign trouble are myriad: a leader who doesn't resonate with the public; a platform that is, depending on whom you talk to, either incomprehensible, or just plain dumb; a team that seems to have all its oars pulling on the same side of the boat -- the list goes on. And as anyone who has been involved in campaigns can attest, once a campaign gets bogged down, troubles that would normally be overlooked metastasize into a deadly condition.

Still, campaign workers will soldier on for three more weeks, fighting with vigour, delivering votes and reaping something from this disaster. But the real work begins after the polls close.

One hopes that in defeat, the Liberals will realize that they must do more than paint Stephen Harper as a Bush clone. They must do more than chant that the Conservatives will steer Canada inalterably toward its demise. The Tories are following a small-l liberal agenda because they know that the majority of Canadians will not vote for a right-wing platform. Conservative commentators like Theo Caldwell have all but admitted in these pages that the Conservatives have taken the guts of the Liberal party for their own.

To regain their relevance, Liberals will have to think beyond their traditional tenets, created in the 1950s and '60s. These have served Canadians well, but have by now either been fulfilled or passed by. Liberals must decide what it means to be a Liberal in the 21st century, what needs to be achieved in the new financial, industrial and communications fields and what needs to be done to allow citizens to flourish in this new society.

After that awesome task is finished, the Liberal party must figure out how to get those ideas across to Canadians and give them a reason to vote Liberal. Let's face it: When you ask people in the party why anyone should vote Liberal this time around, you usually get an answer that is neither inspiring nor plausible. It's the same shopworn "values" stuff that the Liberals tried to sell last time, only to receive their comeuppance. The Liberal party must create a new ethos and convert it into an understandable mantra. The party's very survival depends on it.

In this call for renewal, I do not mean to dishearten the hard-working people of all ages who are pounding in signs, looking up addresses, sending e-mails and knocking on doors under the Liberal banner. Keep it up, for you are vital to the political process. One must fight on against all odds -- look where it landed Stephen Harper!

But come Oct. 15, the loyal Liberal activists across Canada must think hard and begin the process of recalibrating the party. They are up to the task.

Stephen LeDrew, a Toronto lawyer and a radio host on CFRB 1010, was president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1998 to 2003.

I need to remind Army.ca members that, despite being a card-carrying Conservative:

• I regard the Liberal Party of Canada as a proud and important national institution that has, over the decades, done much good for Canada. I want it to survive and prosper as the Party of the Centre Left; and

• I used to vote Liberal, back in the ‘60s, when I found Lester Pearson’s principles better than John Diefenbaker’s politics.

The problems that I believe have finally brought the Liberals to this sad state are all rooted in the famous Kingston Conference of 1960 at which Tom Kent, Allan MacEachen and Mitchell Sharp shifted the Liberal Party sharply to the left, well away from the Laurier-King-St Laurent vision of Canada. They used King’s saying that “They (the CCF) are just Liberals in a hurry” as an excuse to “hurry up” the social-welfare state that was gaining popularity amongst Canadians – and threatening to squeeze the Liberals out. They imposed their vision on Lester B Pearson and made it possible, indeed very attractive for Trudeau to switch his allegiance, weak though it was, from the NDP to the Liberals.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Of course, I expect that IF the Liberals are elected the first things they will say is: "Oops! The Tories cooked the books! Things are worse than we were led to believe! We cannot keep our promises! Sorry ..." 

Standard fare and nothing more than a flimsy excuse to break promises they never intended on keeping anyway. The opposition parties may not be privy to the account books, but their finance critics and staff should be able to follow the gov't spending and revenues and be able to ball park, at almost any time, what is in the coffers. If they can't they are not being the watchdogs that their terms of reference define them to be. As such, when they trot out that line about not knowing, I know they have lied flat out and have NO intention whatsoever of keeping any promise they made, unless convenience dictates.

 

[Redeye]

I got lucky that I had some good "real world" experience and had a good job lined up when I graduated.  My wife, on the other hand, has found getting off the ground substantially more difficult.  She started university in the US a few years ago, left when her scholarship money ran out without finishing, and then finally went back after being able to transfer most of her credits to a university here.  In the interest of getting done faster she went to school year round and didn't really pick up any experience of value and has now basically found it hard to get doors to open for her, to the point that she may well end up going to college next year to try to build on what she got out of university, and get some real experience in a work term.  A lot of people I graduated with wound up going straight on to a college postgrad program, I too considered until I had an offer in my hand the February before I finished school.

Picking up from these points, I'm also noticing more people being WAY more flexible in their education options - the hybrid reflected by some saying "I went to university to get an education, and to college to get a job".  I value what I learned in university, but it certainly wasn't the preparation for the real-world job experience that college was.