New Poll Sees Tory Lead Dramatically Shrink

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I watched most of 'Your Turn' last night and here are my $0.02

-Harper is a very sharp, straightforward (for most part) and refreshing leader. I can see why people are drawn to him as a leader, if he had an extra serving of charisma this would be a slam dunk.
-I was very suprised the gay marriage question was not asked (or did I miss it?). If it wasn't asked, then I suspect the Cons made it a condition of Harper appearing on the show that question would not be asked. This issue and the agenda that it speaks to is too important to ignore.
-I love the fact he answered the question clearly and directly, although I am voting NDP, Jack Layton p*ssed me off immensely with his style of answering questions.
-I like many of his governmental reforms
-I dislike his economic policies and am wary of his assumptions
-I really dislike the fact that he has a lack of international experience, and I felt that when he was asked about international issues, the military and war seemed to be his primary answer...I'm not saying he is a warmonger, but I think that he may undervalue other traditional Canadian foreign policies
-I didn't like his answer to the aboriginal concern, if I were Harper I would have said that the adjusting the Kelowna accord, while not in the top five, is a very important concern of mine. I don't think a Con majority would be busting their a** to help aboriginals.
-Overall I came out with an increased respect for Harper as a leader, but not a leader that I would follow. I could live with Harper as a minority PM, but with a majority I think he may try to change too much, too quickly and ignore too many social issues for my taste
________
California Dispensaries

[Footscray]

Harper made everyone who understands what they mean wary with his comments about the judiciary, no one in Canada wants our courts to become a battleground with the hardcore religious faction trying to place ideologically correct candidates. I think many can live with right wing economics but are scared of the potential intolerance of right wing social policies and that is preventing them from crossing the line into blue even though they are ****ed badly at the liberals.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

-I was very suprised the gay marriage question was not asked (or did I miss it?). If it wasn't asked, then I suspect the Cons made it a condition of Harper appearing on the show that question would not be asked. This issue and the agenda that it speaks to is too important to ignore.

nope wasn't asked. Nor was abortion. I don't believe the leaders had any control over the questions. in fact I think he may have loved to get the abortion question to give one final attempt at people to listen to his answer.

-I love the fact he answered the question clearly and directly, although I am voting NDP, Jack Layton p*ssed me off immensely with his style of answering questions.

Layton and martin both dodge questions in debates and town hall like this.

-I dislike his economic policies and am wary of his assumptions

That's fine. i trust his assumptions more. But that is you perogative. Atleast he has laid everything out and it has been validated by an independent party.

-I really dislike the fact that he has a lack of international experience, and I felt that when he was asked about international issues, the military and war seemed to be his primary answer...I'm not saying he is a warmonger, but I think that he may undervalue other traditional Canadian foreign policies

You do not get to socialize and talk turkey with head of state unless you are a head of state of some sort. Anybody coming out of a party that hasn't been a government for more than a decade is unlikely to have party leadership that has that experience. The fact is he's bright guy and he's perfectly correct in saying he has advisors and it will be a learning experience. I don't think military and war was his primary answer. I think he was saying that the government has to be flexible to react to the worlds ever changing needs. I thought he stressed foreign aid requirements, disaster response etc just as much. i would have like to see him talk about the liberal sinaction on getting the border opened up to beef sooner as well as the soft wood lumber issue etc.

-I didn't like his answer to the aboriginal concern, if I were Harper I would have said that the adjusting the Kelowna accord, while not in the top five, is a very important concern of mine. I don't think a Con majority would be busting their a** to help aboriginals.

I think everyone assumes the conservatives wouldn't have it as a concern. I don't think that is the case. they in fact do have people running for election that have worked very very closely with or for aboriginal groups (jim prentice). They also have people that have a more right wing "assimilation" opinion (Flanagan) but that is part of what a party has...differing views. I don't think harper shares the assimilation is better view at all and i think he stated that yesterday by saying he supports the aboriginals having there own government and running there own education housing etc...What he wants to do is have a program that ensures that the money is going where it needs to go. I think Harper sides with Jim Prentice much more than Flanagan on this issue. As well the the organization represented 800,000 non-reserve metis and aboriginals endorsed Harper last week (the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples)

-Overall I came out with an increased respect for Harper as a leader, but not a leader that I would follow. I could live with Harper as a minority PM, but with a majority I think he may try to change too much, too quickly and ignore too many social issues for my taste

That's perfectly fine if you don't agree with the policies. That's why there are the three main parties. And of course because of your view you think he may try to change things you don't want him to change...on the flipside I'd love to see a majority and have much of his platform implemented. But I think the key is from you first and last statements: Harper is an honest and straight shooting kind of guy and a guy to be respected...certainly not a guy to be "feared" into turning the nation into a male dominated tyrannical dictatorship that martin is trying to say (and people are buying). I'm not so sure you can say honest and straight shooting when it comes to Paul Martin. Layton I would agree is also honest and straightforward but the NDP platform does not represent my beliefs. And while LAyton is honest i just don't see in him the leadership necessary to propel the NDP to new heights. McDonough was twice the leader he is. I personally think that if McDonough was the leader right now she would be owning Paul Martin and the election wouldn't be in doubt.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Footscray

Harper made everyone who understands what they mean wary with his comments about the judiciary, no one in Canada wants our courts to become a battleground with the hardcore religious faction trying to place ideologically correct candidates. I think many can live with right wing economics but are scared of the potential intolerance of right wing social policies and that is preventing them from crossing the line into blue even though they are ****ed badly at the liberals.

Personally i think people are just scared to hear the truth. he's exactly right that the majority of the appointments have been made by the Liberals in a closed process. It isn't a slam on the Liberals that they may have appointed judges that lean a bit more to the left on some issues (after all though not biased judges do draw upon experience and beliefs...they are human and not infallible). He is not saying the Liberals stacked the deck or are pulling judges strings. He's simply saying what the reality of the situation is.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail had, earlier in the week, released a poll with the Conservatives having 18 point (42 to 24) lead on the Liberals. Their poll released today shows that lead shrinking to 9 points (37 to 28) and that while the Conservatives had the lead (39 to 33) in Ontario earlier the week, the Liberals have regained a 7 point lead (40 to 33) in Ontario.

Looks like there is starting to be a change of heart with less than week left to go in the campaign.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2006

That was absolutely no surprise to me. It's just the same thing that happened in the last election. Initial polls are always so misleading.

[Footscray]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally i think people are just scared to hear the truth. he's exactly right that the majority of the appointments have been made by the Liberals in a closed process. It isn't a slam on the Liberals that they may have appointed judges that lean a bit more to the left on some issues (after all though not biased judges do draw upon experience and beliefs...they are human and not infallible). He is not saying the Liberals stacked the deck or are pulling judges strings. He's simply saying what the reality of the situation is.

Ya I agree with you - any party in power in canada makes appointments on patronage all the time, it's less than desirable, all I'm saying is that the prospect of introducing judges chosen for their stance on particular issues is something we have seen happen in the states and I don't think anyone wants here. Ideally we want competant rational minds in these positions.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Footscray

Harper made everyone who understands what they mean wary with his comments about the judiciary, no one in Canada wants our courts to become a battleground with the hardcore religious faction trying to place ideologically correct candidates. I think many can live with right wing economics but are scared of the potential intolerance of right wing social policies and that is preventing them from crossing the line into blue even though they are ****ed badly at the liberals.

But he is right. When you have unchecked appointments, PMs can put whomever they want in that position, and essentially stack the deck in their favor. It didn't sound so touchy-feely, but he's telling it as it is.

Even though judges are supposed to be neutral, they all have leanings and that affects their interpretations of Law. Having a few (non-religious) but socially centrist or right of centre judges sprinkled in over time will add a much needed balance. Unfortunately, I don't see a Conservative Govt in power long enough to make those changes (2 terms or more). What I hope we do see is Parliament/Senate voting on appointments (like in the US) to prevent stacking of the deck in the courts. Of course, this would also require a triple E senate (which is also a stacked deck), which is also long overdue.

I bet if Harper gets a minority or even a majority, he changes the rules (with help from the NDP if minority) to change the system (Senate Reform, Judiciary Reform, checks on the PM's power) because he (and Jack) knows he might be a temporary thing until the Liberals rebuild.

[Zarathustra]

Not surprising. The Conservatives have already reached their high-mark, the numbers will continue to fall until election day. Boy, this election is going to be close.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Not surprising. The Conservatives have already reached their high-mark, the numbers will continue to fall until election day. Boy, this election is going to be close.

In terms of seats...you are likely correct.

In terms of total votes or % of votes, I think it's going to be a huge difference.

[Footscray]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But he is right. When you have unchecked appointments, PMs can put whomever they want in that position, and essentially stack the deck in their favor. It didn't sound so touchy-feely, but he's telling it as it is.

Even though judges are supposed to be neutral, they all have leanings and that affects their interpretations of Law. Having a few (non-religious) but socially centrist or right of centre judges sprinkled in over time will add a much needed balance. Unfortunately, I don't see a Conservative Govt in power long enough to make those changes (2 terms or more). What I hope we do see is Parliament/Senate voting on appointments (like in the US) to prevent stacking of the deck in the courts. Of course, this would also require a triple E senate (which is also a stacked deck), which is also long overdue.

I bet if Harper gets a minority or even a majority, he changes the rules (with help from the NDP if minority) to change the system (Senate Reform, Judiciary Reform, checks on the PM's power) because he (and Jack) knows he might be a temporary thing until the Liberals rebuild.

There are better systems for everyone in Canada than the partisanship that goes on now or bringing all the right wing vs left wing bull ##### into the judiciary. Promote people on merit of their craft - we do not need the all out war between morons who slot everything into black and white (or in this case conservative v. liberal) pervading every facet of our society. It's ridiculous in the states, it really is the way that these people turn every facet of society into a battleground and I don't want to see it here.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

It's starting to feel like a hockey game where you're leading 2-0 until the other team scores a goal early in the third period to make it 2-1.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Marc Ciampa

It's starting to feel like a hockey game where you're leading 2-0 until the other team scores a goal early in the third period to make it 2-1.

hmmm so the Conservatives better hold their 2 goal leads better than the Flames.