Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

You know that Rob Anders is about as far from influence as any member of the government, right? He has been an MP for 11 years and has risen to the lofty heights of being the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

He is a bum in a seat who votes with the government on command. He is my MP (being a Bownesian, obviously) and while I know he was a grandstanding idiot is (has he done anything stupid in the last 6 or 7 years?), I have long since accepted the idea that we don't really have a representative democracy in the local sense but instead vote for leaders and party platforms first and direct representatives a distant second.

Though I have voted against him in the past (and have voted against his nomination several times), I made my peace with the idea that a vote for Anders is money towards the party whose platform I least disagreed with.

I think that we need to stand up against parties nominating mediocre boobs in safe ridings as a general principle--because it decreases the overall talent pool in government. The Conservatives will never oust Anders because it makes no difference to them, and they'll run their most talented candidates in competitive ridings elsewhere.

I think Anders is a pernicious influence--just because I think that if we were in a truly open democracy, we could be represented by someone a whole lot better. The problem is that this is not a unique issue for Calgary West--it's something that affects our politics nationwide, and the result (especially with fewer and fewer competitive ridings) is a general drop in political talent across the country.

Rob Anders is just a symptom. He's not a bad guy (I knew him in University, actually) he just has no idea what he's doing and is woefully unqualified for the job he holds.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think that we need to stand up against parties nominating mediocre boobs in safe ridings as a general principle

I'm afraid Canadians don't care about this issue so it would be a pretty small gathering if you did get people to stand up.

I think the problem is one of supply reducing the competition for nomination. There aren't enough highly qualified people willing to run for public office in this country for a few reasons:

1) The pay is insufficient compared to what top professionals earn in the private sector. $158,000 is nowhere near enough compensation for a back bench MP. The government was budgeted to spend 258 Billion dollars in 2009. The board of directors of such an organisation should be compensated appropriately.

2) The abuse that public figures face is incredible. I remember in the first Conservative Minority when they fulfilled a promise to nominate a committee of eminent Canadians to make reccomendations about government accountability, and the nominated Chair was Gwyn Morgan - the former president of Encana. This is a man who was Canadian CEO of the year and served on the board of directors of many large international corporations - HSBC (the world's largest bank) as a director, SNC Lavalin and many others. He was drummed out of the running because he made some comments about gang culture and lawlessness in Jamaica (which is true) and the worries that that those cultural influence is being carried over to Canada by immigrants in Toronto (also true), all out of context from a speech he had given. Why would an intelligent, thoughtful professional such as myself want to expose my family to such a potential onslaught?

3) The travel is killer. If you're an MP from outside of Ontario/Quebec, you are flying across country every week that Parliament is in session to return to your riding for a couple of days over the weekend.

4) If you are successful (i.e. you own a business) those assets are frozen and can be leveraged against you.

This leads us to what we get for public servants:
- The Egomaniacal (those who believe that they should be PM someday, regardless of statistical evidence to the contrary)
- The Unqualified (those who have a political science degree or are Realtors or are former Property Developers and are unable to do much else plus those who believe that the salary would be an improvement over their current situation)
- The Press (tired of working from the outside, want to try the game from the inside)
- The Lawyers (see The Press, above)
- The Misinformed (those who belive that they can change the system from within or rise to the top on merit when the only thing that matters is how you play a game that is ran by Egomaniacs and Lawyers)

When, despite his high profile gaffes of a decade ago, Rob Anders can't be defeated in a riding nomination by a quality candidate in what is one of the safest ridings in the country, it points to a basic lack of competitiveness and the fact that name recognition is everything in those proccesses.

It's a sad state.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I agree pretty much top to bottom, Bownesian. My point was just that it isn't a Calgary West problem, and I think we agree.

At the same time, it's silly to pretend that party platform isn't a very reasonable basis on which voters should make a choice. After all, party discipline is very tight in Canadian politics. But I do think that the systemic problems you point out lead overall to a "talent deficit" in our politics. Canadians may not care about ousting Rob Anders, but my guess is that if asked, Canadians care about how mediocre our politicians are as a general rule.

[Bownesian]

Yeah, that was my point to Delgar above. He implied a general support for the Conservatives but refused to do so because our MP is a tool.

My biggest problem come election day (at any level) is that I may have too many opinions about how government should operate. I've thought through many of the issues and there is never a party that fairly represents what I would like to see.

For instance, I am extremely left wing on "family values" issues such as gay marriage but do not believe in socialized daycare (maybe that makes me libertarian). On economic issues, I am mostly hard right - no bailouts for automakers, no bailouts for failing banks, no wheat board, no industrial or agricultural subsidies of any kind, true free trade with willing partners.

I have waffled about government setting a price for all carbon emissions because in my heart I believe that as a species we will burn nearly every barrel of oil in place and will not switch from a petroleum-based energy system until the price dictates that we should. I think that if the current global warming trend is anthropogenic, then the world will get hotter, regardless of what the First World does.

I figure that if we do have a green tax (or cap and trade or whatever), it should be used to fund an alternative energy source of the scale that is being replaced so that when we do burn that last barrel, we will still be able to keep the lights on. At our current scientific development, that means building a *lot* of fission reactors everywhere in the country as hydro is nearly tapped out and wind power is neither storable nor consistent to operate without some other variable energy source. I think that taxes on the economy need to be returned to the economy.

I believe in gun control. I think that semi automatic weapons should be restricted to only those people who wish to hunt but cannot work a bolt action rifle or a pump action shotgun and I think that hand gun ownership should be banned in the general public, with the exception of police, licensed security guards (like armoured car guards) and members of the military while on operations. Following in the footsteps of my great great grandparents, I am a hunter.

I don't have a home in politics but I am engaged and believe in the process.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

His post

Screw "thanks for this post"

Thanks for signing up!

[ernie]

New Poll puts Liberals behind by 5% nationally and falling in Quebec (Bloc up to 49%).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1278722/

Other various polls have Ignatieff at about the same popularity as Harper in Quebec suggesting the Liberals have a huge hill to climb in that province.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by ernie

New Poll puts Liberals behind by 5% nationally and falling in Quebec (Bloc up to 49%).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1278722/

Other various polls have Ignatieff at about the same popularity as Harper in Quebec suggesting the Liberals have a huge hill to climb in that province.

Yep, those previously high Liberal Quebec numbers were startling. Interesting to see it finally come back down after some moderately intense Bloc messaging.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Yep, those previously high Liberal Quebec numbers were startling. Interesting to see it finally come back down after some moderately intense Bloc messaging.

That's just Quebec's way of saying that the Liberals are not pandering to Quebec enough in their policies to warrent voting for them at this time. There's plenty of things the Liberals can do to buy their votes back. The usual 'create a new multi billion dollar government funded/regulated bureaucracy project that is headquatered in Montreal' should do the trick.

If I were living in Quebec I would be looking to this election in particular to try to extort things nationally. Once the 2011 census numbers get implemented and new seats in Ontario, Alberta and BC get added, their electoral importance slides yet again. Once the number of seats increase so that the Conservatives don't need a large number of Quebec seats to win a majority, then Quebec could find themselves stripped of the power to set the national agenda.

[octothorp]

Interesting stuff; it's too bad that the margin of error in Quebec is higher than elsewhere: given how important it is, you'd think they would focus on it more than most other regions. That said, the thing the article misses is that it still shows the Liberals and Conservatives neck-and-neck in Ontario, which still might be telling the Liberals what they want to hear when it comes to deciding about calling an election. It's also bizarre how in the poll, the Tories are down 10% in the West. I hate polls that group everything west of Ontario into one demographic. 10% averaged across the region isn't that significant, but a 10% drop in BC would be huge.

Does anyone know of any good sites for following all Canadian polling results? I had been using www.electionalmanac.com/canada/ but they haven't updated since July, and Simon Fraser has a good tracker but it seems to only run during elections.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, at least you're honest. There are, however, at least two possibilities: 1. You're making stuff up, and 2. You're a very poor evaluator of political talent.

Either is fine with me. You can take your pick.

May I also say what a charming gentleman you seem to be, who handles debate and disagreement with maturity and dignity. Some people act like children when they're contradicted, but not you! I don't want to make you blush though, so I'll stop with the compliments.

Honesty is the best policy, they say. I've stated my opinion as you have yours - since neither can be factually proven. After all, possibility 3 could easily be that you're a very poor evaluator of political talent. I'm not suggesting that's the case; merely that the possibility exists.

As per "charming", "maturity" and "dignity", there is no place on the internet for those attributes. Or is the opinion that your comments are insightful and brilliant the only valid opinion?

My apologies for my terse remarks before, but I thought it might be humorous and a reasonable way to exit the thread prior to leaving for the long weekend. I'll keep any further comments more verbose, so as to register on your bafflegab-ometer.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Interesting stuff; it's too bad that the margin of error in Quebec is higher than elsewhere: given how important it is, you'd think they would focus on it more than most other regions. That said, the thing the article misses is that it still shows the Liberals and Conservatives neck-and-neck in Ontario, which still might be telling the Liberals what they want to hear when it comes to deciding about calling an election. It's also bizarre how in the poll, the Tories are down 10% in the West. I hate polls that group everything west of Ontario into one demographic. 10% averaged across the region isn't that significant, but a 10% drop in BC would be huge.

Yeah, the regional samples for this poll are so tiny as to be in my view meaningless. 250 in Ontario and Quebec, only 125 in each of the other regions.

The overall numbers aren't good for Ignatieff--but the overall sample of the poll is only 1000, which is pretty small in and of itself.

At this point, I don't know what to think. My feeling is that the overall vote share is likely to be very similar to last time--a slight edge to the conservatives, and a relatively weak showing for the Liberals. But for some reason the Liberals are very confident and hawkish. I figure that means one of two things: either they're confident that another party will prop up Harper (all he needs is the NDP), putting the Grits in a better political position next year, or they have their own internal polling indicating massive regional weakness for Harper in Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

As for the regional samples in this last poll--I'm pretty alarmed at how small they are. Borders on meaningless, in my view.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ernie

New Poll puts Liberals behind by 5% nationally and falling in Quebec (Bloc up to 49%).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1278722/

Other various polls have Ignatieff at about the same popularity as Harper in Quebec suggesting the Liberals have a huge hill to climb in that province.

Just remember that polls this early are just a smidge above having no importance whatsoever.

There is a reason MI said what he did. The Libs have to have internal polling in swing ridings that make them think its now or never.

No one is thinking about an election in these early polls, the case on either side has not been raised - wait until a week or 2 into the election call and then the polls start to have a better picture.

In Quebec I think the best thing is to hammer at the Bloc for being haters of Canada. I know it doesnt play well and likely sees the Bloc win the majority of seats there again but until provincial politics there kills it, or until something drastic happen I dont think any Federal party should give one inch to the Bloc. They are more embarrasing to Canada then the Khadr family IMO.

[calculoso]

Other election related news:

Rival Green complains to Elections Canada about Elizabeth May

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who will formally announce Tuesday she is seeking the nomination in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, is facing allegations by a rival Green candidate that the party is tipping the scales in her favour.

Stuart Hertzog lodged a complaint Thursday with Elections Canada claiming a possible illegal transfer of funds to May's campaign by the party and unfair access to party resources, such as membership lists.

May promptly dismissed Hertzog's allegations.

US Falls to #2 in Global Competitiveness Rankings
Canada increases to #9 from #10
- Story
- Rankings
- Full report (Canada on Pages 110-111, PDF pages 123-124)

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by zuluking

As per "charming", "maturity" and "dignity", there is no place on the internet for those attributes.

Yes there is, unless you're a troll.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, the regional samples for this poll are so tiny as to be in my view meaningless. 250 in Ontario and Quebec, only 125 in each of the other regions.

The overall numbers aren't good for Ignatieff--but the overall sample of the poll is only 1000, which is pretty small in and of itself.

I think a sample of 1000 Canadian voters is more then enough. With that you get 95% confidence level +/- 3% on the national level. I don't think you will find too many regular polls that will survey more people. But on the regional side there is more room for error.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Suave

I think a sample of 1000 Canadian voters is more then enough. With that you get 95% confidence level +/- 3% on the national level. I don't think you will find too many regular polls that will survey more people. But on the regional side there is more room for error.

Lots of polls survey more people. The Harris Decima one from last week had over 2000, and margin of errors at 4.4 and 3.8 in Quebec and Ontario, and 2.2 nationally. The Ekos one was also over 2000, with margin of errors of 4.6 and 3.7 in Quebec and Ontario and 2.3 nationally. I'm more interested in seeing the next iteration of both of those.

[metallicat]

A federal party should absolutely be forced to run at least one candidate of every province and territory within Canada. I am sick and tired of the provincial Bloc Quebecois being allowed to call themselves a federal party.

Despite that, Gilles Duceppe has always been my second favorite person in the leadership debates.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Lots of polls survey more people. The Harris Decima one from last week had over 2000, and margin of errors at 4.4 and 3.8 in Quebec and Ontario, and 2.2 nationally. The Ekos one was also over 2000, with margin of errors of 4.6 and 3.7 in Quebec and Ontario and 2.3 nationally. I'm more interested in seeing the next iteration of both of those.

I guess I jumped the gun a little there, I'm just too used to seeing people dismiss poll results because "only 1000" people were surveyed. And by "regular" polls I wasn't specifically referring to political polls but rather to the general polls we hear about everyday.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Suave

I guess I jumped the gun a little there, I'm just too used to seeing people dismiss poll results because "only 1000" people were surveyed. And by "regular" polls I wasn't specifically referring to political polls but rather to the general polls we hear about everyday.

Fair enough; I think we're so starved for any sort of polling information (when compared with what our American neighbours have access to) that any poll that comes out, even with a small sample size, should be looked at as an opportunity for more analysis. It's always difficult to tell, though, if this poll is different because of the sample size, or different because it's more recent, or just different through statistical variance.

[yads]

I find it hilarious that May continues to try to win a seat by running against entrenched MPs, who are cabinet members no less. It's that kind of idiocy that will keep the Greens from ever winning a seat under her leadership.