CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[Asher]

As expected, coalition talk is much ado about nothing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-10-points-up-in-early-days-of-stagnant-campaign/article1962815/

Nationally, the Conservatives are in front with 38.4 per cent. The Liberals are 10 points behind at 28.7 per cent, followed by the NDP at 19.6 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois at 9.1 per cent and the Greens at 4.1 per cent.

In comparison, a March 15 Nanos survey found the Tories at 38.6 per cent, the Liberals at 27.6 per cent, the NDP at 19.9 per cent, the Bloc at 10.1 per cent and the Greens at 3.8 per cent.

The October 2008 election results saw the Conservatives win 37.6 per cent of the vote, the Liberals 26.2 per cent, the NDP 18.2 per cent, the Bloc 10 had 10 per cent and the Greens at 6.8 per cent.

It's somewhat amusing that the Tories are polling higher now than when they were last elected. Even after all of the ****storms.

Speaks more about the competence of the Liberals than anything else.

[Fake Boris]

So the special interest is their incentive to keep one of the main drivers of the Canadian economy healthy?

This doesn't make any sense, except for a few people in Alberta.

-The long-term costs of oil dependency will be much higher than the money reaped from it.
-Refusal to advocate a true carbon strategy (following Europe's lead) is a disaster for most of Canada, and especially Quebec (this would greatly increase the value of our hydro power).
-The rise of the C$ due to oil prices hurts our export industry (IIRC Quebec has the most export-driven economy in Canada).

[Fake Boris]

Plus the Tories are spending the extra money on tax cuts, instead of shifting our economy towards something greener.

They are a disaster for all of us, and especially Quebec.

[Fake Boris]

The Conservatives are a national party that seeks to have MPs from across the country. They wouldn't say '**** the rest' and give cash or favours to one region or province at the expense of others. The Bloc does. The old Reform did.

Imagine the play in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes if the Reform party (or WCC) had propped up the Conservatives in a coalition of losers.

/Jesus

The general sentiment that the Bloc keeps asking for special Quebec-only grants is pure propaganda.

They tend to support national policies that help Quebec, that's it. Most of what is good for us is usually good for Ontario too.

[Asher]

This doesn't make any sense, except for a few people in Alberta.

I don't think you've any idea how much the energy industry in Alberta is helping out the ailing manufacturing sector in Ontario.

-The long-term costs of oil dependency will be much higher than the money reaped from it.

LOL

-Refusal to advocate a true carbon strategy (following Europe's lead) is a disaster for most of Canada, and especially Quebec (this would greatly increase the value of our hydro power).

It's not a disaster for most of Canada. It is a disaster for Quebec, because Quebec is completely and utterly incapable of innovating or doing anything remotely competent aside from hydro power. And all of the hydro power in the world won't power cars.

-The rise of the C$ due to oil prices hurts our export industry (IIRC Quebec has the most export-driven economy in Canada).

You do not recall that correctly.

Quebec exports less and imports more than Alberta and Ontario, in absolute terms. If you look at it per-capita, Alberta is far and away the #1 export-driven...

[Asher]

Plus the Tories are spending the extra money on tax cuts, instead of shifting our economy towards something greener.

They are a disaster for all of us, and especially Quebec.

I find it adorable this notion of a "green economy". Tell me what kind of jobs could be created within 5 years to make up for the 2% of Canada's entire GDP that the oil sands alone accounts for?

It's even more adorable that you think the government should be raising taxes (or keeping taxes high) to fund a "green economy". If it was economical to do so, the market would be moving there on its own. It doesn't need govermment funds to exist. How very Quebecois in thought you are. Nothing happens unless the government hands you money, preferably from the other regions of the country who work hard and pay more into confederation.

Life is so easy when you rely on handouts.

[Asher]

BTW.

Trade surpluses by province (2007):

Alberta ... US$60 billion trade surplus (up 12.4% in 2007, 148% increase since 2003)
Saskatchewan ... $12.1 billion (up 38.5%, 272% increase)
Newfoundland and Labrador … $7.9 billion (up 33.8%, 497% increase)
New Brunswick … $3.5 billion (up 35.6%, 186% increase)
Northwest Territories … $1.7 billion (up 23.7%, 155% increase)
Prince Edward Island … $696.2 million (up 0.1% increase).

Trade deficits by province (2007):

Ontario … US$35.2 billion (up 14.2% in 2007, 233% increase since 2003)
British Columbia … $3.5 billion (up 66%, 425% increase)
Nova Scotia … $1.9 billion (down 8%, 770% increase)
Manitoba … $1.2 billion (down 31.2%, 61% increase)
Quebec … $984.9 million (down 24.7%, 88.3% decrease)
Yukon ... $68.3 million (up 66.2%, 136% increase)
Nanuvut ... $11.2 million trade deficit (up 26.5%, 1731% increase).

Alberta's surplus has only increased since then.

Any guesses why Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Alberta dominate the top of the surpluses list? Hint: It has nothing to do with a "green economy".

[Wezil]

Conservatives stuck in the polls and heading to non-majority territory (again) and Asher dismisses it as so "much ado".

Why can't Harper lay a beating on the opposition you dismiss as being so incompetent?

[Asher]

Conservatives stuck in the polls and heading to non-majority territory (again) and Asher dismisses it as so "much ado".

Why can't Harper lay a beating on the opposition you dismiss as being so incompetent?

Because Harper is an unlikeable ***** with transparent political moves?

Harper will never, ever get a majority. The Tories might, depending on who they make a leader. But Harper is damaged goods at this point. The coalition talk is not affecting it at all.

However, because the Liberals keep point-blank denying they'll form a coalition, it DOES put them into an awkward position once Harper gets his minority government back. I suspect this is a ploy all along -- he'll keep trying to scare Canadians into saying there will be a coalition while the Liberals keep lying and say there won't be. Then when the Liberals come to form it, it would spark some outrage from many people who feel betrayed.

[Wezil]

The coalition talk is not affecting it at all.

Which is exactly the point I have been making in this thread (opposed by you) and is supported by the cite you posted.

This was Harpers's talk and he hammered it hard (mentioning the scary "coalition" over 20X in a single speech) expecting to get the visceral reaction from voters you mentioned earlier. What did he get? Zilch. Zero. Nada. I'm glad you think that's a success. I guess both of us will hope he continues to make this his main point for the next 30 days as it is working so well for him.

[Asher]

Where did I "oppose" that?

Where did I say it was a success?

What is going on here?

I'm pretty sure I've been saying the media coverage on this coalition **** is pointless because no one cares what they're saying about it. It goes both ways, Harper fearmongering and the media/Liberals/NDP/Bloc pointing out he wanted a coalition in 97.

[Wezil]

In response to this issue being stuffed back in his face you said:

Is this affecting poll numbers at all?

It can't be helping.

I think it is clear it is affecting his poll numbers. He's going nowhere on his winning issue.

[Wezil]

Meanwhile, one of the leaders is showing signs of life.

While support for all parties has changed little in the opening days of the 2011 campaign, Michael Ignatieff may be starting to catch some voters’ ears.

A rolling poll conducted for the Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research shows a tentative improvement in the Liberal Leader’s typically dismal Leadership Index Score, a compendium of responses measuring voter attitudes toward trust, competence, and vision among the party leaders.

...

It is far too early to tell if the latest numbers, measuring voter responses on March 29, are a blip or the beginning of a trend.

“It’s significant if it continues,” pollster Nik Nanos said. Leadership scores, he said, are a leading indicator of momentum. “When a leader’s numbers start going up or down, there’s usually movement in the poll after that.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-warming-to-michael-ignatieff-a-little/article1963870/

[Asher]

In response to this issue being stuffed back in his face you said:





I think it is clear it is affecting his poll numbers. He's going nowhere on his winning issue.

His poll numbers are virtually identical to what they were pre-coalition hubub. And from this you draw that the coalition talk affected his poll numbers?

I've made no claims at all to how SUCCESSFUL his fearmongering was. I made the point that people don't give a **** either way. Which is demonstrably what the polls show.

[Wezil]

Fine asher but that is not the impression I have been getting from you.

No, but it was an issue immediately after and polls were not swayed by the revelation that Harper wanted one too.

Tells me that you expected the same response (public anti- Lib coalition and disregarding Harper's earlier flirtation). It did not happen.

If this wasn't what you meant then so be it.