And not a peep from the media, especially the CBC. Strange that.
The latest Nanos tracking shows the Conservatives with a ballot share of 33.6% nationally, while the NDP have slid to 30.3%. The Liberals remained in third with 26.5%, while the Greens and Bloc were at 4.4% and 4.2%, respectively.
Of note, in Quebec the Liberals were up by nearly 8 percentage points (25.0%). It is too early to say, however, if this is a one-month phenomenon or the start of a longer trend.
Healthcare and jobs remained tied as the top issue of national concern for Canadians (24.5% versus 23.7%). The environment registered the biggest change from the previous wave of tracking (up 3.2%), and was cited as the top issue of national concern by 9.4% of Canadians.
Stephen Harper continued to top the Nanos Leadership Index, some 25 points ahead of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair (72.7 versus 46.8). While Harper was more likely to be considered the most trustworthy leader, the most competent leader and the leader with the best vision for Canada in most regions, in Quebec it was Mulcair who continued to perform best on the Leadership Index.
Methodology
Between July 7th and 12th, 2012, Nanos Research conducted a national random telephone survey of 1,200 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,200 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For 954 committed voters, it is accurate plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Results for May 31st, 2012 are from a random telephone survey of 1,201 Canadians conducted between May 26th and 31st, 2012. A random telephone survey of 1,201 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
National Ballot: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)
Canada (n=954)
The numbers in parentheses denote the change from May 31st, 2012.
Decided Voters Only
Conservative: 33.6% (+0.1)
NDP: 30.3% (-3.3)
Liberal: 26.5% (+1.6)
Green: 4.4% (+2.0)
BQ: 4.2% (+0.8)
Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Today's History Lesson For Jennifer Ditchburn
Take a look at the latest feeble attempt by journalist Jenniffer Ditchburn to somehow imply scandalous or sinister plots by Conservatives skirting the rules for electoral gain. Ditchburn implies that because Toews mentioned $160,000 in funding for programs in his riding under the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP). She rightfully points out the original announcement came three day before the government fell and the writ dropped, but then seems to think Toews bringing up the funding at a campaign stop is playing loose with the rules. Really Jennifer?
First, allow me to quote a few paragraphs in which Ditchburn tries to smear Toews and the Conservative Party:Toews' campaign stop during the 2011 election falls into something of a grey zone. Should announcements be made when it's clear the government is about to fall? Where is the line drawn after the writ is dropped? On March 22, 2011 — one day after a committee found the government in contempt of Parliament and the same day NDP Leader Jack Layton said he would not support the federal budget — Toews put out a press release outlining $160,000 in funding for programs in his riding under the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP).The government fell three days later, following a motion of non-confidence related to the contempt of Parliament finding.A few days later, in full campaign mode, Toews appeared at a seniors' centre in Whitemouth, Man., to sing the praises of the new funding
And this is the best part:"What might have given the bureaucrats pause within Human Resources was a general understanding that government events are put on hold until following an election.A 1968 "Manual of Official Procedure of the Government of Canada," only released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, includes a section describing cases of "restraint" on government business.That includes situations where the government is facing censure in the Commons — a motion of non-confidence, for example."In addition to defeat in Parliament or at the polls other situations may indicate that some measure of restraint might be desirable at least until the Government's position is clarified," reads the document
Now this is where Ms. Ditchburn needs to pay attention. Today's history deals with the 2006, or more importantly the lead-up to it. November 9:
Layton announced that, in order to avoid an election of the Christmas holidays and to avoid the cancellation of the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, he would use his opposition day motion on November 24 to propose that an election be called in early January with a vote in mid-February. Such a motion would not be binding on the government and could not guarantee the election timing contained in its language.
Bloc MP Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC) resigned from the house to run as a Parti Québécois candidate in a coming provincial by-election.
November 13 - Harper, Duceppe and Layton met after Martin says he would not honour Layton's motion calling for an election campaign beginning in January. They proposed that they move forward with the NDP motion but, unless the Prime Minister committed to honouring it, they would vote no confidence in the government, forcing an election call sometime in November.
November 14 - Finance Minister Goodale tabled his fiscal update, which included a major tax cut package. The opposition denounced it as an attempt to buy votes.
November 21 - The NDP's motion to order Martin to call an election passed with a vote of 167-129.
November 24 - Stephen Harper introduced a motion of no confidence, seconded by Jack Layton. Harper tell the House of Commons: "This government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and needs to be removed." The vote was deferred until November 28.
November 28 - The motion of no confidence passed 171-133, defeating the government of the 38th Parliament, and forcing the 39th general election.
So you see Jennifer? Martin's Liberals, well aware of the fact their political days in government were numbered as a non-confidence motion was coming, proceeded with a full-steam-ahead way of governing. Goodale delivered a fiscal update, complete with tax cuts and spending announcements for things like public daycare. All repeated over and over again on the campaign trail by Liberal MP's and journalists like yourself Jennifer. Oh, and by the way, pay particular attention to November 24th. That was the day Stephen Harper introduced the motion to bring down the Liberals.One day after that motion was introduced, Paul Martin announced $5 billion dollars in spending on the Kelowna Accord. Something he oft-repeated during the 2006 campaign.
Now Jennifer, I'm sure you are all for journalistic integrity. And I'm sure the reason you either overlooked or forgot about all this was just a simple oversight. But I have to ask. Was what took place by the Liberals leading up to and during the 2006 campaign not significantly worse than what you accuse Toews of here? Did they not violate that 1968 "Manual of Official Procedure of the Government of Canada,"? You know, the one only released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, includes a section describing cases of "restraint" on government business?
First, allow me to quote a few paragraphs in which Ditchburn tries to smear Toews and the Conservative Party:Toews' campaign stop during the 2011 election falls into something of a grey zone. Should announcements be made when it's clear the government is about to fall? Where is the line drawn after the writ is dropped? On March 22, 2011 — one day after a committee found the government in contempt of Parliament and the same day NDP Leader Jack Layton said he would not support the federal budget — Toews put out a press release outlining $160,000 in funding for programs in his riding under the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP).The government fell three days later, following a motion of non-confidence related to the contempt of Parliament finding.A few days later, in full campaign mode, Toews appeared at a seniors' centre in Whitemouth, Man., to sing the praises of the new funding
And this is the best part:"What might have given the bureaucrats pause within Human Resources was a general understanding that government events are put on hold until following an election.A 1968 "Manual of Official Procedure of the Government of Canada," only released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, includes a section describing cases of "restraint" on government business.That includes situations where the government is facing censure in the Commons — a motion of non-confidence, for example."In addition to defeat in Parliament or at the polls other situations may indicate that some measure of restraint might be desirable at least until the Government's position is clarified," reads the document
Now this is where Ms. Ditchburn needs to pay attention. Today's history deals with the 2006, or more importantly the lead-up to it. November 9:
Layton announced that, in order to avoid an election of the Christmas holidays and to avoid the cancellation of the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, he would use his opposition day motion on November 24 to propose that an election be called in early January with a vote in mid-February. Such a motion would not be binding on the government and could not guarantee the election timing contained in its language.
Bloc MP Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC) resigned from the house to run as a Parti Québécois candidate in a coming provincial by-election.
November 13 - Harper, Duceppe and Layton met after Martin says he would not honour Layton's motion calling for an election campaign beginning in January. They proposed that they move forward with the NDP motion but, unless the Prime Minister committed to honouring it, they would vote no confidence in the government, forcing an election call sometime in November.
November 14 - Finance Minister Goodale tabled his fiscal update, which included a major tax cut package. The opposition denounced it as an attempt to buy votes.
November 21 - The NDP's motion to order Martin to call an election passed with a vote of 167-129.
November 24 - Stephen Harper introduced a motion of no confidence, seconded by Jack Layton. Harper tell the House of Commons: "This government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and needs to be removed." The vote was deferred until November 28.
November 28 - The motion of no confidence passed 171-133, defeating the government of the 38th Parliament, and forcing the 39th general election.
So you see Jennifer? Martin's Liberals, well aware of the fact their political days in government were numbered as a non-confidence motion was coming, proceeded with a full-steam-ahead way of governing. Goodale delivered a fiscal update, complete with tax cuts and spending announcements for things like public daycare. All repeated over and over again on the campaign trail by Liberal MP's and journalists like yourself Jennifer. Oh, and by the way, pay particular attention to November 24th. That was the day Stephen Harper introduced the motion to bring down the Liberals.One day after that motion was introduced, Paul Martin announced $5 billion dollars in spending on the Kelowna Accord. Something he oft-repeated during the 2006 campaign.
Now Jennifer, I'm sure you are all for journalistic integrity. And I'm sure the reason you either overlooked or forgot about all this was just a simple oversight. But I have to ask. Was what took place by the Liberals leading up to and during the 2006 campaign not significantly worse than what you accuse Toews of here? Did they not violate that 1968 "Manual of Official Procedure of the Government of Canada,"? You know, the one only released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, includes a section describing cases of "restraint" on government business?
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
McGuinty Government Covering Up Major Scandal?
It's been almost a month since the McGuinty government SHUT DOWN Service Ontario kiosks. An announcement by the Government Services Minister Harinder Takhar indicated four of the 72 kiosks province-wide had been tampered with, alluding to an attempt to skim credit/debit card info. Those 72 kiosks remain shut down province wide, with neither the government nor media providing any updates. One line of the Government Services Minister's comments stands out: "There is no indication that personal information accessed through the kiosks, such as health card numbers and addresses, was improperly released, the government says.
Now I have a source connected with the MTO, something similar to Maher/Macgregor's source with Elections Canada, who tells me the kiosks may never re-open. My source also tells me that the ministers statement was false and misleading, that in fact personal information had indeed been compromised. This includes, names, addresses, health card number, driver's license info, financial info, etc.
Now we've all seen news reports of skimming machines being found at banks, stores, gas stations. The end result is the skimming machine is removed by the police, and shortly thereafter the debit/credit card machine is back up and running. So why has the McGuinty government left these 72 kiosks across the province closed? All 4 machines that were tampered with were in the GTA. Why close all machines province wide. Why for a month?
Now if I were a member of the media looking for a juicy story, I'd be putting the question to McGuinty. Was the personal information of Ontarians at risk and accessed by security breaches at government kiosks. If he answers no and we find out that he indeed is lying (again), that should be a trigger for the next election. If he is truthful and answers the question yes, than he better be ready to explain why he and his government have remained quiet when the people of Ontario have faced potential identity theft?
Now I have a source connected with the MTO, something similar to Maher/Macgregor's source with Elections Canada, who tells me the kiosks may never re-open. My source also tells me that the ministers statement was false and misleading, that in fact personal information had indeed been compromised. This includes, names, addresses, health card number, driver's license info, financial info, etc.
Now we've all seen news reports of skimming machines being found at banks, stores, gas stations. The end result is the skimming machine is removed by the police, and shortly thereafter the debit/credit card machine is back up and running. So why has the McGuinty government left these 72 kiosks across the province closed? All 4 machines that were tampered with were in the GTA. Why close all machines province wide. Why for a month?
Now if I were a member of the media looking for a juicy story, I'd be putting the question to McGuinty. Was the personal information of Ontarians at risk and accessed by security breaches at government kiosks. If he answers no and we find out that he indeed is lying (again), that should be a trigger for the next election. If he is truthful and answers the question yes, than he better be ready to explain why he and his government have remained quiet when the people of Ontario have faced potential identity theft?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Ekos Frank Graves Gets Canadian History Wrong, And On Canada Day.
Story on iPolitics featuring a new poll by none other than Liberal adviser/psuedo political pollster Frank Graves from Ekos. Now you know that when the first line is factually incorrect, what's to follow is most likely wrong as well. And Graves doesn't disappoint.
Example 1: "For the first time ever, the federal New Democrats are leading in voting intention across the country." Note to Frank. The NDP led the polls shortly after Ed Broadbent being named leader of the federal NDP. They led both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives.
Example 2: "A new poll from EKOS and iPolitics shows the NDP sitting at 32.4 per cent nationally. The Conservatives sit second, having slipped to 29.3 per cent support, followed by the Liberals at 19.2 per cent." Interesting. All recent polls had both the Conservatives and NDP at around 35%. Looks like he got the Liberal number right, but used his vast political polling experience to lower the Conservative number. I also notice Graves never ever mentions his crystal ball prediction that PM Harper wouldn't win a majority in the 2011 election. Also noteworthy is Graves missed the actual percentage by 5% for Conservative voters. He also had the Conservatives at 31.5% in December 2011 as well as February 2012.
Example 3: "The major notable factor here is a pretty alarming for the government, decline in support,” EKOS president Frank Graves said. “They’ve lost over 11 points of support and to see a government that secured a majority under 30 points one year later, I think is pretty well unprecedented". Unprecedented? Doesn't that mean it never happened before. Like when Mulroney went from 47% to 31% after the 1984 election? Ditto Chretien, who saw support drop dramtically as a result of breaking his promise to scrap the GST. Both went on to win the following elections by the way Frank.
Example 4: :Canadians are also showing signs of losing confidence in the direction of the country. Only 44.5 per cent of those polled said they felt Canada was moving in the right direction, while almost the same (43.8 per cent) feel it’s moving in the right direction.
Those numbers are “really lousy leading indicators,” Graves said, and could also be “quite meaningful.”
“Typically those numbers should be much higher, particularly this early in an administration,” he said
Note to Frank. While it's true the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, they had already been in power since January 2006, and have won 3 elections in a row, upping their seat count consecutively each election.
Happy Canada Day everyone. Luckily we on the right have a better grasp of our history than Liberal pollsters like Graves
Example 1: "For the first time ever, the federal New Democrats are leading in voting intention across the country." Note to Frank. The NDP led the polls shortly after Ed Broadbent being named leader of the federal NDP. They led both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives.
Example 2: "A new poll from EKOS and iPolitics shows the NDP sitting at 32.4 per cent nationally. The Conservatives sit second, having slipped to 29.3 per cent support, followed by the Liberals at 19.2 per cent." Interesting. All recent polls had both the Conservatives and NDP at around 35%. Looks like he got the Liberal number right, but used his vast political polling experience to lower the Conservative number. I also notice Graves never ever mentions his crystal ball prediction that PM Harper wouldn't win a majority in the 2011 election. Also noteworthy is Graves missed the actual percentage by 5% for Conservative voters. He also had the Conservatives at 31.5% in December 2011 as well as February 2012.
Example 3: "The major notable factor here is a pretty alarming for the government, decline in support,” EKOS president Frank Graves said. “They’ve lost over 11 points of support and to see a government that secured a majority under 30 points one year later, I think is pretty well unprecedented". Unprecedented? Doesn't that mean it never happened before. Like when Mulroney went from 47% to 31% after the 1984 election? Ditto Chretien, who saw support drop dramtically as a result of breaking his promise to scrap the GST. Both went on to win the following elections by the way Frank.
Example 4: :Canadians are also showing signs of losing confidence in the direction of the country. Only 44.5 per cent of those polled said they felt Canada was moving in the right direction, while almost the same (43.8 per cent) feel it’s moving in the right direction.
Those numbers are “really lousy leading indicators,” Graves said, and could also be “quite meaningful.”
“Typically those numbers should be much higher, particularly this early in an administration,” he said
Note to Frank. While it's true the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, they had already been in power since January 2006, and have won 3 elections in a row, upping their seat count consecutively each election.
Happy Canada Day everyone. Luckily we on the right have a better grasp of our history than Liberal pollsters like Graves
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)