Jaffer queries got preferential treatment (from govt): MPs

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sa226

That is interesting, but if it is growing then why are the ratings still deadlocked with the tories holding a small lead?

I'm not starting a political debate, I also vote conservative. I find it actually impressive that the Conservatives are "growing their brand" despite a poor public image.

I would bet a large majority of a voters decision is based on whether they like the guy or not. I wonder if the sentiment towards Obama would be any different if he had the charm and charisma of Harper.

If I'm not mistaken, Trudeau was one of more famous and loved Politicians in Canadian history, despite being for all intents and purposes a "bad" prime minister.

At risk of being captain obvious, a good leader is someone who people want to follow and believe in. Harper kind of creeps me out, yet I still vote for him.

All I was saying was that with the Canadian political landscape the way it is, if some great Charismatic leader rode in on a white horse and took the country by storm, I think the voters would jump on his\her bandwagon in a heartbeat.

This is a great post to me, I think the Conservatives have been getting a pass by the voters on major issues (like the economy) and a fail in peripheral areas (detainees, transparency), I think they have survived the issues like closing down sessions of Parliment and they're going into the summer with few issues that are really going to spark voter anguish. Combine that with the fact that Ignatieff and the Liberal's right now are being perceived as rudderless and clueless and weak. The NDP are pretty much right where they usually are, but Layton probably benefited witht he bravery boost over his cancer issues.

I never take polls to seriously because they are such a small sample size, and sometimes too regionalized without being promoted as such.

I have this feeling that if the government went down today it would still be a minority government, but the Liberal's have done such a terrible job that it could slip into a razor thin majority, because I really don't think that Iggy has much to fight an election on.

In terms of charasmatic leaders, its strange, but Canada really doesn't build leaders that make you want to follow them to hell and back. They're not exciting or dripping charisma or character, its like the Futurama episode where the two clones are running against each other to be president.

The American's on the other hand seem to build strong leaders that have strengths more in the personal side then building overall leaders that can excite and administer. If you look at how their schools are built, the Harvards, Yales, West Points, Annapolis, etc they set out to make leaders. In Canadian schools I sometimes think they strive to make academics and then on graduation day suck all of the bong water and personality out of them.

Oh and Trudeau was popular in Quebec and Ontario and out east, he was pretty much reviled out west, and he was uniformly thought of as a jacka$$ by the American government and most of our Nato Allies, while loved by left leaning despots.

But he had charisma.

[Pastiche]

For a guy that calls himself a Red Tory, he has absolutely no philosophical foundation to his research.

I guess this is where we fundamentally differ. For a guy who measures public opinion not having a philosophical foundation is probably a very good thing. But even then I would disagree with the statement. Adams doesn't use a traditional left-right ideology but he still has a framework for evaluating opinions. He uses the individualism - responsibility and deference - authority paradigm. That may be his own creation and should be criticized in its design but I find it illuminating and refreshing to move away from the stale liberal-conservative tautology.

First off, I totally disagree that we focused on a narrow definition of conservatism.

I guess in trying to be very broad you end up being too focused. The broad brush strokes must be covered by specific questions. So when I say narrow, the idea that someone who thinks we need to learn from past mistakes is now a conservative is just much too narrow in its conclusion. I just don't think you can make any solid conclusions based on those kind of value statements of a person's political affinities.

I think a much more interesting study for you to do would be to nail down a 21st century definition of conservative. Ask people if they identify as conservative or liberal and then look at how they answer questions differently. That would be my first starting pointing instead of using old world proxies like learning from the past and family is important kind of labels.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

The family question is thrown out because that's not a 'conservative' value moreover you're biasing the respondent by simply asking that question in that way.

Yeah, I don't get how:
• Nothing is more important than family (89%)

Is a conservative value? More surprising to me, honestly, is that you only obtained 89% for that. I've started to skim through the survey, and I must agree with Pastiche, I'm not sure of the values and/or questions you've asked. In some cases it looks like you are relying on traditional definitions of conservatism (in this case) and just assume that they measure conservatism. E.g. the "its better to implement small changes than to try to change everything at once". Well, a lot of people on the left would probably agree with that as well. E.g. the end goal may be a bigger change, but over the long haul you do step by step changes. I would imagine that you would get people all over the political spectrum agreeing to something like that. Learn from the past to solve problems reflects the same thing to me; why is that an only conservative value?

Secondly, some of the questions or findings aren't really clear. E.g.:
• There is a right and wrong, not all about individual perception (42%)
To what extent are you talking about? Its unclear, even if you give people the likert scale to answer. You and I could give the same number for an answer, and agree completely differently on what that question is asking.

And, I agree that you need to show some sort of trends, longtitudinal studies, etc. I'm not really sure how the conclusion was drawn that Cdns are becoming increasingly conservative. Going by that I could look at slide #31 and say that reflects Cdns becoming more left-wing. You can't draw that conclusion just by looking at that, and that's the point.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I guess this is where we fundamentally differ. For a guy who measures public opinion not having a philosophical foundation is probably a very good thing. But even then I would disagree with the statement. Adams doesn't use a traditional left-right ideology but he still has a framework for evaluating opinions. He uses the individualism - responsibility and deference - authority paradigm. That may be his own creation and should be criticized in its design but I find it illuminating and refreshing to move away from the stale liberal-conservative tautology.

I guess in trying to be very broad you end up being too focused. The broad brush strokes must be covered by specific questions. So when I say narrow, the idea that someone who thinks we need to learn from past mistakes is now a conservative is just much too narrow in its conclusion. I just don't think you can make any solid conclusions based on those kind of value statements of a person's political affinities.

I think a much more interesting study for you to do would be to nail down a 21st century definition of conservative. Ask people if they identify as conservative or liberal and then look at how they answer questions differently. That would be my first starting pointing instead of using old world proxies like learning from the past and family is important kind of labels.

That's my summer project.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again though the question at the end of this investigation is simply if he did or didn't receive money from the Conservatives and how true the statement is that "He had opened the door to the Prime Ministers office". On that point I don't believe the testimony of his former associate that he "Was so pumped up" that he made his statement by mistake, I believe that Jaffer the SalesMan probably at some point bragged that he had access to the inner sanctum of the government and the ear of the Prime Minister.

I find it interesting that for Conservative supporters the litmus test in this whole affair is "Did Jaffer receive money?".

To me it's clear that he tried very hard to capitalize on his relationships with former colleagues and tried very hard to profit from them. It seems like a no brainer that he was acting as a lobbyist. Not a successful one, but that is not the test. Was he a registered lobbyist? Yes/No.

And secondly, it seems clear from the email correspondence that is coming out that several (I believe 6 or 7) ministers met with Jaffer and/or directed their staff to meet with Jaffer to discuss 'Projects'.

Why did none of these individuals raise the Lobbyist issue or conflict issue at that time? They had to have known they were against the rules. It seems they didn't care about optics or their own "Transparency Act" until Harper decided to toss Jaffer in front of the bus.

So while Conservative supporters can say they like the way Harper's handled this, in my opinion all Harper did or has done, was to deny any problem for as long as possible. Remember this had been going since at least September 2009, meetings, phonecalls and Jaffer's use of his wife's email, which SEVERAL prominent Cons knew about.

It was only after it became clear that there was a paper trail that led to government Ministers, that Harper tried to get out in front of it - first by denying Jaffer had any special access - although the evidence we see clearly shows he enjoyed unprecedented access, and finally by dumping Geurgis and contacting the RCMP and Ethnics Commissioner - although even then we found out that he didn't exactly do what he led us to believe he had done.

I guess perspective is everything.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually I think the Conservative brand is growing. All governments become corrupt. Let's not forget, before we point fingers at the Conservatives, that the previous Liberal government was responsible for one of the biggest public scandals in Canadian history.

Interesting. The Conservatives pretty much ran on "the Liberals are corrupt and need to go." They sold us on the notion that they will be different, and it's starting to become apparent that they are not.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think it's about shifting values, myself. Check out a poll on Canadian values here.

That would be unfortunate, but it's not what your poll shows.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

The 67% of people who think that marriage is between a man and woman really stands out.

That almost makes me want to cry. If that number is true, then I am ashamed to be Canadian. I thought we were the enlightened ones beyond that discrimination... apparently I thought wrong.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have this feeling that if the government went down today it would still be a minority government, but the Liberal's have done such a terrible job that it could slip into a razor thin majority, because I really don't think that Iggy has much to fight an election on.

I'm gonna re-open my bet. Ford Prefect and I have a $100 bet. I say that the Liberals will GAIN seats in the next election. FP disagreed.

CC seems to think the Conservatives will gain a majority at the expense of the Liberals as do some others in this thread. However, last time, FP was the only one to take the action. Are there more now willing to put their money where their mouth is? I'll take two more at $100. PM me if you are interested. First come, first serve.

BTW - I have never voted Liberal in my life. I flip back and forth between the NDP and Greens, depending on whether the NDP are pissing me off at any particular time....

Oh, and I'll make the same offer I made to FP. If you want we can make it a donation bet. If the Liberals lose seats, then I donate my $100 to CP. If the Liberals gain seats, then you donate your $100 to the Devils forum I frequent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm gonna re-open my bet. Ford Prefect and I have a $100 bet. I say that the Liberals will GAIN seats in the next election. FP disagreed.

CC seems to think the Conservatives will gain a majority at the expense of the Liberals as do some others in this thread. However, last time, FP was the only one to take the action. Are there more now willing to put their money where their mouth is? I'll take two more at $100. PM me if you are interested. First come, first serve.

BTW - I have never voted Liberal in my life. I flip back and forth between the NDP and Greens, depending on whether the NDP are pissing me off at any particular time....

Oh, and I'll make the same offer I made to FP. If you want we can make it a donation bet. If the Liberals lose seats, then I donate my $100 to CP. If the Liberals gain seats, then you donate your $100 to the Devils forum I frequent.

I've learned two solid core truths. 1) Never play cards against a man named after a city. 2) Never bet on politics.

What I'm saying is more speculation then anything else. Based on the notion that Ignatief's less then stellar performance and inexperience in politics would carry through an election. Also the notion that I just can't see an issue right now that would cause the government to fall, and if it did fall the initiator would get punished. And that right now polls show that Harper is believed to be the best prime minster option out of the three party leaders.

I just honestly don't see anything more then either status quo, or a slight gain by the conservatives.

I would love to see a brawl debate (Without Elizabeth May involved) between Ignatief and Harper.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just honestly don't see anything more then either status quo, or a slight gain by the conservatives.

Okay. If you truly believe that, there are two reasons why you would not take the bet.

1) You really don't believe what you are saying, or
2) You have very serious doubts about your own political savvy.

I think the Liberals will gain in the next election. I believe that conviction so much I'm willing to back that up with more than words.

If you doubt your own word so much that you are not willing to put up money, how about a simple avatar bet?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. If you truly believe that, there are two reasons why you would not take the bet.

1) You really don't believe what you are saying, or
2) You have very serious doubts about your own political savvy.

I think the Liberals will gain in the next election. I believe that conviction so much I'm willing to back that up with more than words.

If you doubt your own word so much that you are not willing to put up money, how about a simple avatar bet?

A) I'm not a money gambler, so an Avatar bet would work for me. Ask anyone who knows me, I don't gamble with cash anymore for personal reasons.
B) I never said I was truly politically saavy, I'm just a schmub with an opinion. Oh and gut feelings based on what I've seen and whats been polled. So for me to gamble based on that would be a fools game, for all I know the guy on the other side of the bet is a political science student with 40 years experience in predicting trends in elections.

But I'll take the avy bet.

[Caged Great]

The Liberals are screwed until all the old guard are gone and they get fresh faces in there.

The Conservatives won't get a majority government because Harper creeps a lot of people out.

The NDP marginalize themselves and until they stop sequestering themselves to the back bench and move a little on certain issues to make them viable, they'll continue to be the 10-25 seat party they've been.

Until those things happen, there's no scandal that will push any party out of their roughly defined seat range that they're in now into a majority.

Which is good for me because I would really really hate if Harper got a majority.

[CaptainCrunch]

Just like I would would really hate to see Ignatieff in charge of this country.

The Liberal's haven't done enough to separate themselves from the last regime, and giving a idiot like Bob Rae a seat of power in that party makes me nauseous.