New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is almost certainly the case. People who own landlines are generally more conservative.

I read this initially as "People who own landmines are generally more conservative."

Both statements are likely true I suppose.

[Tinordi]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/08/17/t...hat-ekos-poll/

It’s not just that it shows the Conservatives in deep trouble, just over a year before the October 2015 election. It’s the size of the sample (2,620 Canadians) and the time in the field (an entire week from July 16-23) that make the findings impossible to dismiss.

This isn’t the one bad poll in 20. And it wasn’t a one-night stand.

The Liberals now lead the Conservatives by 38.7 to 25.6 per cent, with the NDP at 23.4 per cent. In effect, the Liberals have doubled their vote from the 18.9 per cent they received in the 2011 election, while the Conservatives have plummeted from 39.6 per cent to the mid-20s. The Liberal brand is back.
The Liberals lead in every province except the Tory heartland of Alberta and Saskatchewan. And where it matters most — British Columbia and Ontario — the Liberals lead not by a little but by a lot: 37 to 22 in B.C., where the NDP is actually in second place at 26 per cent, and 46 to 28 in Ontario. Those are blow-out numbers, pointing to a Liberal sweep of the lower B.C. mainland and the Greater Toronto Area.

Just for you Resolute:

Around the table at the morning meeting in the Langevin Block last week there was, perhaps, an impulse to wave off these numbers — because EKOS president Frank Graves is thought to tilt Liberal. If so, that would be incredibly stupid.

Graves called the Quebec and Ontario elections in April and June to within 1.5 points in both cases. And his methodology — a hybrid of telephone, automated response and Internet samples — is virtually bulletproof, with a margin of error of less than two points.

[Resolute 14]

Not just for me, Tinordi. Even Eric Grenier frequently notes that EKOS polls favourably toward Liberal viewpoints.

Also, since you obviously don't read anything but your own writing, you clearly failed to note that while I criticized your choice of a single cherry picked poll, I noted the overall trend was not favourable to the Conservatives.

[Tinordi]

What is your definition of cherry picking? Choosing the most recent poll that has had the largest shock value to generate discussion on a message board is cherry picking to you? So every journalist and pundit who's been talking about this poll is just some cherry picking hack to you?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I'm not sure being in the field for longer necessarily makes the results more reliable... At the end of the day, it's a great number for the Grits, but it is still one poll, among many that show a much narrower spread.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Actually figured you were referring to the 90s since there had been much discussion of debt reduction.

50s 60s and 70s are very different times.

The 70s saw massive deficits, which got us into the mess that Chretien is credited with cleaning up.

50s were a boom for a lot of reasons. I agree that infrastructure needs more resources, but to suggest the 50s were a boom time because taxes were higher is quite the reach.

With a massive baby boom (that one you seem so find of), there was a tremendous need for schools and other infrastructure. There was also a generally positive view of the future and thus an appetite to spend and build.

Lots and lots of dynamics that could be discussed.

Attempting to correlate a time of higher taxes with a more robust economy though, is a stretch. I can just as easily list times when the economy sucked and taxes were higher than they are now.

I agree that more investment in infrastructure is needed. It doesn't follow that higher taxes are needed or are beneficial. It could also be achieved with more efficient spending.

A reduced debt load allows for more allocation to things like infrastructure. But one somewhat necessarily comes before the other.

Until someone shows me just where this 'more efficient spending' will achieve an extra 200 billion dollars in infrastructure budgeting, I'm going to have to assume it's a pink elephant.

What was happening in the country when corporate tax rates were double what they are now? Was that money just going into a savings account?

It was obviously being spent somewhere, and now that that money is no longer being taken in by the government, it's foolish to think it's still being spent on infrastructure. Where is it being spent? Nowhere, because it doesn't exist anymore.

Historically, there was more money coming in and more money coming out in the 50s and 60s than there is today. The result of that is there is less new infrastructure and the stuff that already exists is crumbling, literally.

A sunny disposition for the future isn't going to deposit hundreds of billions of dollars into the federal treasury.

[Aarongavey]

Harper is back in 2nd place as of today's polls.

[octothorp]

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, movement in the polls is still going strongly against them. Liberals up five points from the previous Ipsos Reid poll (in April), Conservatives down 2. So it went from a dead-even heat to Liberals up 7 (and looking back over Ipsos' history, it suggests that their spring poll showing the two parties tied was just an outlier). Liberals in the high 30s and Conservatives in the low 30s has been pretty consistent all summer.
Still need Angus Reid to report in (last poll in June had Conservatives up by 1).

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Until someone shows me just where this 'more efficient spending' will achieve an extra 200 billion dollars in infrastructure budgeting, I'm going to have to assume it's a pink elephant.

What was happening in the country when corporate tax rates were double what they are now? Was that money just going into a savings account?

It was obviously being spent somewhere, and now that that money is no longer being taken in by the government, it's foolish to think it's still being spent on infrastructure. Where is it being spent? Nowhere, because it doesn't exist anymore.

Historically, there was more money coming in and more money coming out in the 50s and 60s than there is today. The result of that is there is less new infrastructure and the stuff that already exists is crumbling, literally.

A sunny disposition for the future isn't going to deposit hundreds of billions of dollars into the federal treasury.

Shouldn't most infrastructure spending be done by the provincial and local governments? I hate the idea of the Federal government overtaxing and then handing the money back to the provinces conditionally.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Shouldn't most infrastructure spending be done by the provincial and local governments? I hate the idea of the Federal government overtaxing and then handing the money back to the provinces conditionally.

Probably, but that doesn't disqualify the feds from also earmarking dough for large infrastructure projects.

Trans Canada, education investments, energy infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, shipping, rail and sea ports, military and coastguard expansion, healthcare infrastructure.

But they can also do things like decrease tuition costs, underwrite more pragmatic social policies and make key research and development investments, incorporate psychiatric care into universal healthcare, etc etc.

[driveway]

Conservatives provide another argument to remain in power by bravely making it easier to spread hate-speech online and by phone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06...n_1581437.html

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

.

I do think the PCs are in trouble in Calgary Centre, but they should hold on to the rest of their seats in Alberta without too much difficulty.

They're in big trouble in Calgary-Centre and in trouble in Calgary-Skyview (Darshan Kang) and Calgary-Confederarion (Matt Grant).

Like Hehr, Kang is already a Liberal MLA with a lot of riding overlap and is very popular. In an area of the city that seems to vote heavily along racial and cultural lines the CPC AT be hard pressed to find a similarly influential candidate.

Grant probably has it in tougher than the others but that riding seemed almost gerrymandered to produce a Liberal victory. Lots of Ward 7 overlap and some Liberal provincial riding overlap, it is there for the taking. Grant may not be a big name in the political scene he is a pretty active member of the community and seems fairly charismatic (and will have some big name support in the riding as well).


I'd say the likelihood of 3 ridings in this city going Liberal is high.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by driveway

Conservatives provide another argument to remain in power by bravely making it easier to spread hate-speech online and by phone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06...n_1581437.html

June 2012?

Still, I hadn't heard of it, so thanks for posting.

[MarchHare]

Here's Justice Minister Peter MacKay posing with the new armoured vehicle he helped purchase using federal taxpayer dollars for the local PD in his home riding of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.

Determining why local law enforcement in a small town of 9500 people needs such a vehicle I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by evman150

June 2012?

Still, I hadn't heard of it, so thanks for posting.

Oh hell, that is old news. I didn't even check the date, just ran into it and assumed it was new news. Whoops.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Here's Justice Minister Peter MacKay posing with the new armoured vehicle he helped purchase using federal taxpayer dollars for the local PD in his home riding of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.

Determining why local law enforcement in a small town of 9500 people needs such a vehicle I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

haha, it's as if they just don't watch the news ... just zero awareness.

[Tinordi]

Maybe this can turn into the omnibus Conservative disapproval thread.

Check out the latest disgrace and farce that emerged from the Conservatives through Paul Calandra in question period yesterday:

http://globalnews.ca/video/1578828/u...vement-in-iraq

We might, for instance, insist on expecting that, if the government of the day commits the men and women of our military to a conflict, that that government should grace us with straightforward explanations for that commitment. That if our democratically elected representatives stand in the House of Commons and ask specific questions about that commitment, that those questions—questions ultimately asked on our behalf—deserve answers, not merely responses.

This is not quite rocket science. These are merely the hopey-changey principles on which we aim to govern ourselves.

We might shrug and dismiss the silliness that sometimes ensues. But at some point, the silliness itself threatens to become the dominant force. And so we should be mindful of just how silly things have become. At what point does that silliness become a serious problem?

Feel free to answer that question with some rant against what some previously unheard-of associate of mine once tweeted. In fact, feel free to answer all questions that way from now on. If we all commit to that, we should have society ruined by Thursday.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-...limate-change/

[rubecube]

Not a huge Mulcair fan, but credit for going after Scheer. Question period has become such a farce in general lately, but the Conservatives have really perfected the art of not answering questions directly.

[Blaster86]

"Tell me about Iraq."
"I can't believe this guy hates Israel."
"Well... okay... but tell me about Iraq."
"No seriously, this guy hates Israel."
"Uh.... Iraq?"
"WE SUPPORT ISRAEL!"
"...."
"IIIIIISRAAAAEEEEEEEL!"

[rubecube]

Not only that, but I think Harper's stance on Israel is pretty out of touch with most of the Western world (outside of the U.S.).