The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[Mike Baker]

Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......

Game on i guess !

I had 5 in about an hour earlier today.

The very last part matches me (This will be my first time voting, and I'm voting for Stephen Harper) ;D

-Deadpan

 

[stryte]

Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......

Game on i guess !

I had 4 Conservative party pamphlets in my mailbox today.

1) On how they right for farmers
2) On how they are tough on crime
3) On the gun registry fiasco
4) On how they are helping senior citizens

I read them all so they did accomplish that.

 

[RangerRay]

Dion has also stepped up his pre-election rhetoric. On Thursday, he portrayed his party as a champion of the arts during a campaign-style announcement in Montreal.

He pointed to Harper's plans to cut $45 million in arts and culture funding. He said a coming election would serve as a referendum on the arts in Canada.

If Dion's campaign is this and the Green Sha...er...Shift, then I would say that the Tories have a shot at a majority!

I'm not sure if this was already posted, but <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080827.welectionwhy0827/BNStory/National">Ted Flanagan</a> says that even if the Tories get another minority (with more seats), the PM will survive, and it's possibly part of the Grand Plan.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Harper set to trigger election call next week: PMO officials
Last Updated: Friday, August 29, 2008 | 7:59 PM ET
CBC News
Stephen Harper is poised to trigger an election call for Oct. 14, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.

The officials said no firm decision has been made, but that it's probable Harper will seek to dissolve his minority government next week, sending the country to the ballot box the day after Thanksgiving.

Harper has said the workings of the House of Commons, where his party's 127 seats give him a minority, have become "dysfunctional." The Liberals hold 95 seats, the Bloc 48 and the NDP 30. There are four independent MPs and four vacant seats.

PMO officials on Friday also intimated at the direction Harper's election campaign will take and the question Conservatives will pose to voters as they head into the vote.

"We think it will be a choice between certainty and risk," one official said on condition of anonymity.

Officials described Harper as the "steady hand at the wheel" as the Canadian economy faces "rough waters."

"Love him or hate him, our prime minister knows where he stands on the issues and will offer Canadians certainty," the official said.

In particular, officials pointed to the $15.3-billion carbon tax proposed as part of the Liberals' Green Shift environmental plan, warning it would bankrupt the country's treasury if implemented.

No compromises with Bloc
A meeting Friday between Harper and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe gave the prime minister little hope that a fall session of Parliament can be productive, the officials said.

Earlier Friday, Duceppe also suggested that a federal election is imminent, saying he and Harper had laid out their positions, but did not talk about compromises.

"We explained our positions and [Harper] will consider them. I told him what our position was on all of the issues. Now, I think that beyond that, he is determined to have an election," Duceppe said following the meeting at the prime minister's residence in Ottawa.

Duceppe is the first opposition leader to respond to Harper's call for one-on-one meetings. Harper has sought meetings with all three opposition leaders to see if they can agree on an agenda for the fall session of Parliament, scheduled to begin Sept. 15.

NDP Leader Jack Layton will meet with Harper at 24 Sussex Drive on Saturday.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's office has told Harper he would be available to meet with the prime minister on Sept. 9, a day after three byelections are to be held in Quebec and Ontario.

PM not willing to wait
Harper, however, has said he is unwilling to wait until Sept. 9 to discuss whether Parliament can continue as is.

PMO officials said Friday it is unlikely Harper will wait for a meeting with Dion to call the election.

The Jewish holiday of Sukkot, which falls on Oct. 14, may present a conflict for the Conservatives and prompt a backlash from the Jewish community, Liberal insiders said Friday.

A PMO official acknowledged that Sukkot, along with Thanksgiving and several other religious holidays during October, "does present challenges" in choosing an election date, but suggested people can make use of advance polls in such a situation.

With files from the Canadian Press

 

[stegner]

I'm not sure if this was already posted, but Ted Flanagan says that even if the Tories get another minority (with more seats), the PM will survive, and it's possibly part of the Grand Plan.

It's Thomas Flanagan not Ted Flanagan.

If Dion's campaign is this and the Green Sha...er...Shift, then I would say that the Tories have a shot at a majority!

If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?

 

[aesop081]

If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?

You can have all the pre-election polls you want. When people enter the voting booth, its all fair game.

 

[RangerRay]

It's Thomas Flanagan not Ted Flanagan.

Thanks.  I had a brain fart there.  :-[

If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?

Polls are good for observing trends, but things get quite fluid during an election campaign.  IMHO, if Dion were going on about funding arts and an inflationary policy to change peoples' behaviours, and PM Harper was going on about reducing taxes and fighting crime, in the full glare of an election campaign the Tories' poll numbers will rise significantly.

 

[brihard]

I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives got a majority. I just don't see it happening; with two mainstream left parties and a very centrist population, the Conservatives would have to perform brilliantly to pick up that many seats.

It would be nice to see a larger minority though- it would be an affirmation form the electorate that the Conservatives are on track.

 

[TCBF]

.... it would be an affirmation form the electorate that the Conservatives are on track.

- They aren't.  Even with a dead opposition, they accomplished little CONSERVATIVE work.  Most of their legislative action was increasing the powers of the bureaucracy - essentialy a Liberal agenda.  Their substitute for the Firearms Act would have made things WORSE for gun owners - not better, and the Gun press in Canada (such as it is ) was hoping it would not be enacted.  The one thing they COULD have done to please the two million known (and three million unknown) gun owners would be to allow the Library of Parliament's opinion on SAPs and start issuing transport permits for Prohibs again.

- If something positive is not done fast, a lot of us will just sit this one out.  Read Pierre Lemieux:

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2830

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am sure that we will continue to disagree on this, so let's just say you have your position and I have mine.  This is all very theoretical anyway.  Most likely the current GG will do whatever Harper tells her.   My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.  But meh not that big of a deal I guess-this kinda of thing has happened quite a bit.  I think everyone (political parties) wants an election at this point.   However, if all the opposition parties were to agree to a coalition government say theoretically as you read this email-what be your opinion be at that point Mr. Campbell on Harper's right to a dissolution?

Edited for grammar

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is the opinion of an expert in our Constitution which I copy here because Prof. Monahan agrees with me, right down the line  :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wcoessay30/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=2

The request the G-G can't refuse
If Stephen Harper comes calling, and wants an election, Michaelle Jean will have to dissolve Parliament

PATRICK MONAHAN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
August 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apparent plan to call a general election this coming week, in defiance of the government's own legislation fixing October, 2009, as the date of the next federal election, has triggered a good deal of controversy this past week.

A number of commentators have argued that calling an election without waiting for the House of Commons to reconvene on Sept. 15 would violate established constitutional conventions or norms. Some have even claimed that the election call would be illegal, in light of the government's fixed-election date legislation, and suggested that the Governor-General, Michaelle Jean, should carefully consider whether she should accept the Prime Minister's request.

In fact, while the Prime Minister's election gambit may violate political commitments, it is perfectly consistent with constitutional norms and practices, and would not violate the fixed-date election legislation.

The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election. While the formal legal power to trigger an election rests in the hands of the governor-general, there is a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister.

Thus when the prime minister asks the governor-general to dissolve Parliament and fix the date of the election, the governor-general is expected to automatically grant the request without making an independent assessment of its merits.

It has been suggested that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a governor-general might be justified in exercising a "reserve power" and refusing to grant a prime minister's request for a dissolution.

For example, in her 2006 memoir Heart Matters, Adrienne Clarkson, the former governor-general, revealed that in 2005 she would have refused a request for a dissolution from Paul Martin, if he had made the request within six months of the previous election. Ms. Clarkson claimed that "to put the Canadian people through an election before six months would have been irresponsible, and in that case I would have decided in favour of the good of the Canadian people and denied dissolution."

Ms. Clarkson reported that she had formulated this six-month principle on the basis of the opinions of "constitutional experts whom I consulted regularly." Yet the constitutional basis for the principle seems unsound, since it is surely for the elected prime minister, and not the unelected governor-general, to decide what is in the best interests of the Canadian people.

Ms. Clarkson's constitutional advice suggesting that a government must wait six months before seeking a dissolution was likely based on the celebrated "King-Byng" incident of 1926, the only time in Canadian history where a governor-general refused the request of a prime minister to dissolve Parliament. Mackenzie King's minority government had been in office for a little more than six months when, facing likely defeat on a vote of confidence, he asked Governor-General Byng to dissolve Parliament and fix an election date. Byng refused and, instead, called upon the leader of the Opposition, Arthur Meighen, to form a government.

Constitutional scholars have long debated whether Lord Byng acted properly in refusing the prime minister's request. But a number of quite distinctive circumstances prevailed in June, 1926, none of which is present today.

First, the prime minister was seeking a second election within a span of about six months, having previously sought and been granted a dissolution that led to the election of November, 1925. Second, it was virtually certain that King was about to be defeated on a confidence vote, which suggested that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons. On this basis, the governor-general might have regarded it as appropriate to refuse the prime minister's advice, since the governor-general is only required to follow advice from a first minister who has the support of the House.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen had in fact won significantly more seats than King's Liberals in the 1925 election and were just eight seats short of a majority, but King had continued to govern with the support of the Progressives. Thus Meighen could plausibly claim that he should be given the opportunity to form a government before another election. (In fact, Meighen's government was defeated within days of taking office, triggering the election of September, 1926, which returned King to office.)

The circumstances today are quite different on all counts from those in 1926. First, Stephen Harper would be seeking his first dissolution, and it has been almost a full three years since the previous election. In fact, Mr. Harper's minority government has been in office nearly twice as long as the average minority government in Canada. Moreover, despite Opposition Leader Stephane Dion's strong hints that he intends to defeat the government this fall, there can be no doubt but that the Prime Minister still enjoys the confidence of the House, having survived numerous confidence votes during the spring session of Parliament. Thus there is no basis for the Governor-General refusing to follow his advice. Finally, unlike in 1926, there is no suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is in a position to form a stable minority government and thus no practical alternative to an election should the Prime Minister request one.

In short, even if the governor-general has a "reserve power" that would entitle her in exceptional circumstances to refuse a prime minister's request for an election, no such special circumstances exist today. Thus there can be no doubt but that under established constitutional conventions, the Governor-General should grant Prime Minister Harper's request.

What of the fact that government committed itself to fixed-date elections, through amendments to the Canada Elections Act enacted just last year, with the next election scheduled by law to occur Oct. 19, 2009?

The legislation did include a "saving provision," stating that the requirement to hold an election in October, 2009, did not affect the power of the governor-general to dissolve the House earlier.

But Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who testified before the Senate Committee examining the bill on Dec. 6, 2006, explained that this "saving provision" was inserted in order to deal with a situation where the government had lost the confidence of the House, making an early election necessary. Mr. Nicholson went so far as to suggest that if the prime minister were to seek a dissolution before the date fixed for the next election, the governor-general would be entitled to satisfy herself that the prime minister had, in fact, lost the confidence of the House before granting the request.

While this would seem to have been the underlying purpose of the provision preserving the discretion of the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament before October, 2009, the terms of the legislation make no mention of this specific purpose. Instead, the legislation states simply that the fixed election date requirement does not affect the "powers of the Governor-General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General's discretion."

In fact, had the legislation attempted to impose legal limits on the power of the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, it would have been unconstitutional. The amending formula enacted in 1982 requires that changes to the powers of the governor-general can only be made through a constitutional amendment supported by the federal Houses of Parliament and the legislatures of all the provinces.

Nor does the legislation impose any limits on the discretion of the prime minister to advise the governor-general to dissolve Parliament. Any such limitation would have been unconstitutional in any event, as an attempt to indirectly limit the powers of the governor-general, without a constitutional amendment.

In short, the Governor-General (and thus, indirectly, the Prime Minister) retains full legal authority to dissolve Parliament and trigger an election at any time, regardless of whether the government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister does seek an election this week, it may well be inconsistent with the political objectives underlying the fixed-election-date legislation, but not the actual requirements of the law as enacted.

Accordingly, whether Canada is to have an election this fall is a political, not a legal question. Moreover, given the suggestions by Stephane Dion and other prominent members of the Liberal Party over the summer that Canadians have "more and more appetite for an election" and that the Opposition may well defeat the government this fall anyway, it seems unlikely that the calling of the election will prove to be a significant issue in the campaign.

One is reminded of the circumstances that led to the election of March, 1958, when the Opposition leader, Lester Pearson, demanded that the minority government of John Diefenbaker resign. Mr. Diefenbaker responded by immediately calling for a general election. Mr. Pearson's resignation demand made it impossible for him to criticize the timing of the election, although it took place less than a year after the election of June, 1957.

Similarly, with the Leader of the Opposition having suggested in late July that Canadians' appetite for an election is growing, the federal campaign of 2008 will likely turn on issues other than the timing of the election itself.

Patrick Monahan is dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University.

Dean Monahan touches on all the key points:

• The “saving provision” gives the GG nearly unfettered power to cal an election – and it does not say why she might do that;

• The situation in which Byng acted is not duplicated or even approached today – his experience, the Byng King thing is irrelevant; and

• This is a political, not a legal matter.

 

[stegner]

;D  This does not surprise me.  This is a position consistent with most legal scholars.  It is kind of worrisome though, that he  really only uses the Byng precedent of the use of the 'reserve powers.'  Does he not realize the 1975 Whitlam-Kerr precedent or any other actual usages?  There are a host of precedents that must be considered post-Byng-King.  I would be more curious about the opinions of specialists of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governor General in the social sciences who have a stronger understanding of history.  David E. Smith comes to mind.  Half the role of the Governor General deals with convention something that lawyers know almost nothing about, not should they, as conventions cannot be adjudicated by the courts.  Thank you Mr. Campbell for linking this.  It is nice to know that armyforums.ca was ahead of the MSM on this discussion   By way of critique, Monahan avoids a discussion on how Harper is delaying a returning  of session, which seriously saps the legitimacy of the PM.  If session was on I would have no problem with the election request.  However, delaying the return to the House and than trying to call an election seems a bit in breach of democratic principles and responsible government.    Harper cannot play the democracy card in a minority parliament which seeks to oust him! 

 

[Franko]

Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....

Regards

 

[Rodahn]

Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....

Regards

And they haven't even officially called an election yet.... Getting a bit of a head start...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....

Regards

Is it an actual new campaign ad, or just another 'public service' announcement telling us what a ditz Dion is?

 

[Franko]

Is it an actual new campaign ad, or just another 'public service' announcement telling us what a ditz Dion is?

Nope...an actual ad with a few people on it....including one fella that looks awfully familiar with his gongs on saying he likes how Harper supports the troops.

Regards

 

[Armymedic]

Layton is up to his normal no good.

Can't stay away from cameras, that one.

 

[a_majoor]

Well, looking at this as a positive...

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=755963

Six reasons Harper should call an election

National Post  Published: Friday, August 29, 2008

As Stephen Harper's government enters its 33rd month of life on the calendar, the Prime Minister finds himself painted into a corner -- and let no one say he did not wield the brush and apply every loving stroke with his own hand. After a tenure already twice as long as the average life span of a minority Parliament, he appears determined to ask the Governor-General to call an election.

Few can be convinced that the House of Commons is as "dysfunctional" as he claims; this, at any rate, is his excuse for abandoning the idea of a fixed election date next year. The Post's Don Martin did an excellent job yesterday of demonstrating that this minority government's legislative record compares favourably with that of recent majorities, and anyway, many of us are perfectly content with a state of federal gridlock that thwarts the most extreme ambitions of all parties.

Now Mr. Harper has admitted that he does not expect to attain a majority in the next election, anyway -- a confession that is likely to frustrate those who consider the whole exercise a waste of cash. Does it make any sense, they will ask, for a prime minister to venture upon an election he cannot hope to win outright? Can he have sound, non-selfish reasons for doing so? Purely as a means of furthering the debate -- for it seems we will probably not have long to discuss the matter -- we are willing to put forward the few we can think of:

1 and 2 David Emerson and Michael Fortier. As other Cabinet ministers have blown up around the Prime Minister, his two most controversial picks have justified Mr. Harper's confidence in their basic competence. But throughout the life of his government he has been pursued by the black clouds of original sin they brought with them:Mr. Emerson was elected as a Liberal, and Mr. Fortier, whisked into the Senate in the name of geographic expediency, has not yet been elected by anyone at all. Considering how much his enemies have made of their irregular status, the Prime Minister is surely entitled to use an election as a means of forcing the issue one way or another. (Fortier has his eye on a Quebec seat; Emerson has not yet declared his intentions, but may drop out of federal politics altogether.)

3 The strength of the governing party is not the only relevant consideration involved in judging the legitimacy of a particular House of Commons composition. Canadians are not just entitled to vote for an opposition member: They are entitled to an opposition member of their choice. Even if overall Conservative strength ends up unchanged, the polls occasionally offer some hope that the Bloc Quebecois may give up ground, which federalists of all stripes ought to favour in principle. And surely Green Party supporters should be grateful for their big chance to smuggle leader Elizabeth May into Parliament under Stephane Dion's overcoat at long last.

4 If we are going to have another minority Conservative government (opposition supporters can't really argue against an early election on the basis that they might win it), we might as well have one that has access to the best available ministerial and secretarial timber. Before the last election, outstanding Conservatives in private life could not be sure that Stephen Harper was a capable campaigner worth suspending a career for. Having exceeded all expectations, he could hardly be blamed for wanting to shake things up and see what surfaces in a new caucus.

5 A closely related point is the increasing difficulty Harper has had in meeting the geographical specifications of Cabinetmaking. Too much of the intellectual strength and experience of the current Conservative caucus is located in Alberta and B. C.; the Conservatives can only lose ground in Alberta, and B. C.'s electoral map is volatile, but compensating Conservative gains elsewhere would be better for the country (given the premise of a likely Conservative victory) and would make life easier, in a desirable way, for Harper.

6 If there is a point six, it must come under the vague heading of "general democratic principles." Since when was frequent consultation of the country a luxury and a nuisance? And when did we agree to leave the setting of an election date in the hands of pollsters? No one really knows what the outcome of the election will be: What's certain is that the Prime Minister is not taking advantage of any obvious transitory scandal or outrage in the ranks of the opposition. Although the Liberals are cash-poor, they have been given more time than they could have expected to prepare for an election. The public has been given time to digest and debate the details of Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan.

Under the circumstances, "Why wait?" may be at least as fair a question as "Why now?"

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

 

[larry Strong]

Some interesting news. Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

"Fall election right time for Conservatives: poll"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080901/strategic_counsel_080901/20080901?hub=TopStories

Fall election right time for Conservatives: poll
Updated Mon. Sep. 1 2008 10:00 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A new poll suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper has chosen the most opportune time to push for an election, with the Conservatives enjoying an eight-point lead at the end of a quiet summer recess -- and before a possible economic downturn.

The latest Strategic Counsel Poll, conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail, indicates that Conservative support rose sharply in the past few months (percentage-point change from a June 6-9 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 37 per cent (+5)
Liberals: 29 per cent (-1)
New Democrats: 17 per cent (-1)
Green Party: 9 per cent (-1)
Bloc Quebecois: 8 per cent (-2)
It's the largest lead the Conservatives have had over the Liberals since last March, when they were briefly ahead by 11 points. In addition, the latest poll suggests 49 per cent of Canadians feel Canada is on the right track, while only 34 per cent feel the country is on the wrong track.

By contrast, roughly 70 per cent of voters in the United States think their country is headed in the wrong direction.

The results suggest Liberal Leader Stephane Dion must work hard at convincing Canadians they need a change in government. He must also attract voters from the Green Party and NDP by convincing those supporters the Liberals have a better chance at preventing a large Conservative victory.

"What the Liberals have to do is essentially turn this into a referendum on whether Stephen Harper can be trusted with a majority," Peter Donolo, vice president of the Strategic Counsel, told CTV.ca on Monday.

The Conservatives have also made strong gains in voter-rich Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, the Tories have pulled ahead of the Liberals for the first time in about half a year (percentage-point change from a June 6-9 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 41 per cent (+10)
Liberals: 35 per cent (-4)
New Democrats: 15 per cent (-3)
Green Party: 10 per cent (-2)
Support for the Conservatives had fallen at the start of summer, after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty engaged in a war of words with Premier Dalton McGuinty over the province's struggling manufacturing industry.

"They were on the defensive over Flaherty's comments a couple months ago, and it seems that with the heat down on that issue, votes have gravitated towards them," said Donolo. "They've got to keep that from bumping up as an issue again; they've got to keep Flaherty's comments under lock."

Donolo told CTV.ca that Ontario remains in a position to decide the election. The province has 106 of 308 seats in the House of Commons.

"I know it's a cliché, but it's very true: Ontario has the potential to decide the election --whether it will be a Conservative or Liberal minority, or whether it might possibly be a Conservative majority."

In Quebec, the Conservatives have jumped seven points but the Bloc still has a strong lead (percentage-point change from a June 6-9 poll in brackets):

Bloc Quebecois: 34 per cent (-12)
Liberals: 26 per cent (+4)
Conservatives: 23 per cent (+7)
New Democrats: 12 per cent (+5)
Green Party: 5 per cent (-3)
Economy top issue

According to the poll, 33 per cent of Canadians feel the economy is getting worse, and only 13 per cent believe it's getting better. The possibility of an economic downturn has become the top political issue facing the country.

That could be difficult news for Dion, who has made the environment and his "Green Shift" plan a central issue to use against the Conservatives.

"The risk here is that he's shown up at a baseball game in full hockey gear," said Donolo.

"He's got to find a way to pivot over to the economy, particularly in Ontario and Quebec where there's more concern about (the economy)."

When respondents were asked which issue they thought was the most important for the election, the environment and healthcare also emerged as central points of interest (percentage-point change from a Feb. 14-17 poll in brackets):

Economic issues (including unemployment): 20 per cent (+5)
Environmental issues: 15 per cent (+3)
Healthcare: 14 per cent (-3)
Afghanistan/Iraq/Terrorism/military: 7 per cent (-9)
For the top issue, 45 per cent thought Harper would be best able to deal with tough economic times, compared to 21 per cent for Dion. And when voters were asked who would be more concerned about the economy of their particular province, 40 per cent replied Harper and only 26 per cent said Dion.

But when respondents were asked who would be better at making progress with climate change, 40 per cent said Dion and 27 per cent said Harper. Dion also had a slight edge on who would better respect the views of others, getting 33 per cent compared to Harper's 30 per cent.

Harper vs. Dion: leadership

The poll asked potential voters about several leadership qualities, and how they applied to Harper and Dion. Across Canada, most respondents preferred Harper.

The results suggest Dion has had a difficult time convincing Canadians he would be an effective prime minister:

Who would be better when it comes to...

Being prime minister of a majority government:

Harper: 46 per cent
Dion: 22 per cent
Being easygoing and likeable:

Harper: 38 per cent
Dion: 29 per cent
Standing up to the United States:

Harper: 42 per cent
Dion: 29 per cent
Caring about people like me:

Harper: 30 per cent
Dion: 28 per cent
"I would say that Harper currently holds an advantage, but we'll see what happens over the course of the campaign," said Donolo. "Right now, one reason he holds an advantage is that it's been a few months since the government has been on the defensive in the House of Commons from attacks. It's been a relatively quiet summer."

He also noted that Paul Martin had a similar advantage in 2006, along with Kim Campbell in 1993, but both former prime ministers eventually lost their elections.

Technical notes

The poll was conducted between Aug. 25-31 by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail.
The national sample size is 1,000 people and the margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The Ontario sample size is 383 people and the margin of error is plus or minus 5.0 percentage points.
In Quebec, the sample size is 243 people and the margin of error is plus or minus 6.3 percentage points.
Results are based on tracking among a proportionate national sample of Canadians 18 years of age or older.

 

[karl28]

              The new polls seem interesting  hopefully it will help strengthen Harper postion going into the election if and when it is going to be called .

 

[Edward Campbell]

The newspapers and TV news broadcasts are chock-a-block full of:

1. Polls showing that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (no longer just the Conservative Party of Canada, apparently) are poised to seize a majority government; and

2. Mostly anguished cries that Harper is one or more of –

a. Unfit to lead anything, anywhere,

b. A control freak who (inexplicably to journalists) detests journalists,

c. Dishonest – for using the dysfunctional parliament argument to secure a general election at the last, best possible moment, and

d. The best choice to lead Canada is perilous times.

There is no doubt that Harper is engineering an election despite both a law, his own law, that says (absent a defeat in the house) he ought to continue to govern until Oct 09, and not having (formally) lost the confidence of the HoC. His trust factor ought to have been reduced. On the other hand, Harper can, rightfully, claim that Canadians’ idea of a minority government, being one in which (some of) the opposition parties temper the government’s proposals thereby taking proper account of a majority of Canadians’ views, has been tossed on its head by opposition parties that, for PR reasons, propose legislation, on their own, for no practical reason except to embarrass the governing party. On that basis he can ague, not convincingly to those who are not Tory partisans, that he has lost the confidence of parliament but that the opposition wants to control he election date for it’s own partisan political advantage. Advantage to the opposition parties – but it is a diffused advantage, no big gain for anyone.

Canadians seem intent on addressing environmental issues but the parties, all of them, appear unable to connect their plans with Canadians’ ambitions.  It seems to me that Canadians want to ”do something” – for the better - about the environment but they are quite ignorant of the issues. My sense is that Canadians are frightened of climate change but concerned about pollution. The Tories, back in 06/07 tried to sell a pollution clean up plan that ignored climate change – they failed. The Liberals are now trying to sell their ”Green Shaft Shift” but it appears that Canadians are not ready to buy it – perhaps because it seems to do little about either pollution or climate change. I think one of the three main national parties can get some ‘traction’ by offering a comprehensive environmental plan that promises to ”do something” – for the better – about pollution and climate change. Potential advantage to the Conservatives – if they can move quickly and with some imagination.

Afghanistan has moved, I think from a major issue to something akin to ”festering sore” status – generally bad for the Tories but very dangerous ground for the Liberals. The advantage, such as there is one, probably goes to the NDP; the party has a consistent and broadly popular position.

The economy should be the big issue – but, as Kim Campbell so correctly said: complex policy matters cannot be (properly or adequately) discussed in a 47 day election campaign. The advantage, based on many polls, is with the Conservatives – except amongst the economically illiterate who vote NDP.