Liberals falling in the polls.

[Highland 0]

Ottawa — The popularity of Paul Martin's Liberals has plunged dramatically in the wake of this week's damning indictment of the federal sponsorship program, slashing the party's long-held Ontario lead and threatening its hopes in the West.

 

A honeymoon-ending poll, conducted immediately after the release of Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report, shows the new government dropped nine percentage points this month, down to 39 per cent of decided voters, from 48 per cent in January.

 

"Outside of an election period, I've never seen numbers move like this," said Darrell Bricker, president of the polling firm, Ipsos-Reid.

 

"This one is like a wildfire. It's out of control and everything the Prime Minister has done at this point has just blown the flames higher."

 

Another drop of five to six percentage points would put the government's majority in danger if an election were held this spring, he said. The once-unchallenged view that the Liberals would easily coast to another election majority now appears less than certain.

 

While the Grits were dropping, both the Conservative Party and the New Democrats were benefiting. The Conservatives saw their support jump to 24 per cent, from 19 per cent, while the NDP nudged upward by two percentage points to 18 per cent.

 

The poll, produced for The Globe and Mail and CTV News, was conducted over three days beginning on Tuesday night, the same day Ms. Fraser released her explosive audit. The poll surveyed 1,055 Canadians and is accurate to within 3.9 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

 

In an interview to be broadcast tomorrow on CTV's Question Period, Mr. Martin refused to speculate about whether he might now consider delaying an election widely expected to be held in May.

 

"We're going to have an election when it's appropriate to have an election," Mr. Martin said. "We'll go into an election making it very clear that we're dealing with [the sponsorship scandal]. If we go into the election basically saying to Canadians that we are going to improve the quality of their lives and that we are going to build a stronger country, we'll win the election."

 

The survey found that the Liberals have suffered the most in Western Canada, where Mr. Martin had been hoping to expand his party's popularity.

 

Voter support in British Columbia dropped 15 percentage points to 27 per cent of decided voters, and down to 28 per cent in Alberta, from 35 per cent. Party support dropped 13 per cent to 33 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

 

Mr. Bricker said the results remind him of the CF-18 contracting scandal that was the spark that created the Reform Party in the 1980s, and that destroyed the Progressive Conservatives in the region. The scandal saw a Montreal firm awarded an aircraft maintenance contract despite a cheaper and technically superior bid from a Winnipeg firm.

 

"[Westerners] just take a look at this and they say, 'This is what I always fear is wrong in Ottawa. You build up my hopes that it's going to be different and I find out that, guess what? I was right all along.'." In Ontario, the Liberals dropped to 47 per cent from 57 per cent.

 

Although support in Quebec is more stable, there, too, the government has seen a drop-off. Its popularity is down five points to 40 per cent.

 

Only in Atlantic Canada has the erosion been kept at bay, with a drop of one point to 42 per cent.

 

The Ontario drop is particularly dangerous because the Liberals' majority is made up of massive support in that province, said Mr. Bricker.

 

The Conservatives now have 25 per cent in Ontario, and would start creating difficulties for the Grits, should they cross the 30-per-cent threshold, Mr. Bricker said.

 

Mr. Martin's hoped-for breakthrough in the West is also threatened.

 

He Bricker said Mr. Martin's assertion that he wasn't aware of the breadth of the scandal is being doubted by rank-and-file Canadians, who think he either knew about it, or should have.

 

"He's been around for a long time and the idea that he didn't know is very hard for people to swallow," he said.

 

"He's now on the other side of common sense."

 

Mr. Martin's decision to call an inquiry about past events may conflict with the government's plan to go to the people this spring with an agenda of change, he said, adding that the issue has become a character test for Mr. Martin.

 

Mr. Bricker noted that much of what Ms. Fraser had to say had already been reported, but that her credibility with the public probably cemented a negative view of the government's conduct.

 

"The reality is, people have a lot of respect for this Auditor-General. It confirmed people's worst fears and actually indicated that it was worse than what a lot of people thought."

 

The poll also found that Liberal support is on the downswing in rural Canada, dropping 17 points to 28 per cent.

 

The Conservatives rose over the same period, jumping to 36 per cent from 25 per cent.

 

Mr. Martin's team is conducting its own polling to track the reaction to the scandal, but his aides refused to reveal any details.

 

However, with speculation mounting that the scandal could threaten plans to call an election in April, several aides insisted there has not yet been any move to push back the election timetable to the fall.

 

They said they would have to gauge public opinion after the initial shock of the scandal wore down, and when it is closer to the spring election window.

 

The Conservatives, however, insisted yesterday afternoon that the Liberals' stock is plummeting. "If those poll numbers start to come down, I suspect we're into a fall election," Conservative MP Peter MacKay said.

 

The Conservatives, who are still 15 points behind and do not choose a leader until late March, have called for the Liberals to wait until the results of the election are in. Mr. MacKay said the Conservatives want time for the scandal to sink in.

 

With reports from Campbell Clark and Drew Fagan

Article

 

Hopefully this will lead to an end to nearly 12 years of one-party rule.

[Vyce 0]

This does please me greatly.

[Red Baron 0]

The thing is.

 

Paul Martin is in a lose lose situation.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I have a decent grasp of Canadian government and politics but isn't it next to impossible for a group other than the Liberals to seize power? From what I understand, the Conservative or Republican equivalent party up there is split in two with the Canadian Alliance(?) or whatever? And since everything in Parliament and the P.M selection is based on majority party rule, doesn't this make it so that you're stuck with the Liberals unless the other two parties join up?

[Red Baron 0]

Until next election, we can vote. When the elections are finished, it can be a majority party (a party with 151 or more seats in the house of commons) or a minority party (a party less than 151 seats, but enough seats to be in control of the party)

 

If the Liberals were under a minority government right now, the other parties can kick the party out of power (see Joe Clark in 1979 witht the PC Party) and I'm not quite sure of this but will the opposition be in power?

 

 

Anyways, the federal party has the New Democratic Party (left wing) Liberals (more of a central party) Progressive Conservative (right wing) Canadian Alliance (really right wing) and Bloc de Quebecquos (separtists)

[Highland 0]

The problem other than there being no real united conservative movement is the Liberals have managed to take over the mainstream of the political spectrum and thus the perception among many is that those conservatives whom are not in the Liberal party are viewed as being far-right.

[Guest Ghettoman]

Finally those left wing hippy scum will get what they deserve, those pot smoking nigger lovers....

[EricMM 0]

nice...

[Dr. Tom 0]

Nice enough to get a two-day suspension, and that leniency is only because I thought it wasn't a serious post.

 

Here's a hint, kids: some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

The problem other than there being no real united conservative movement is the Liberals have managed to take over the mainstream of the political spectrum and thus the perception among many is that those conservatives whom are not in the Liberal party are viewed as being far-right.

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity. But, we have the same problem in the States. The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought. Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial." Subtle, but it's there.

[MrRant 0]

Finally those left wing hippy scum will get what they deserve, those pot smoking nigger lovers....

And to think that in this case... Ebonics would have helped him out.

[Reverb 0]

Anyways, the federal party has the New Democratic Party (left wing) Liberals (more of a central party) Progressive Conservative (right wing) Canadian Alliance (really right wing) and Bloc de Quebecquos (separtists)

The Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance have merged late last year. There is a leadership race going on. The Liberals will still have a majority in Canada. The Bloc is now just a bunch of old separatists that only has fear as their only ways of doing a campaign. The Bloc will crumble and the turncoats will go to the Liberal party.

[Slayer 0]

Here's a hint, kids: some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

Yes, and here they are

 

(Edited by DrTom)

 

There you go

[treble 0]

This will likely all blow over, anyway, and it will probably just mean that the election will be delayed, like the article said.

 

It's funny, though, since Martin was in town here for some meeting with local mayors so all of the national media was at this building that's the headquarters for the counties that used to be the old school board building that's right next to the school I used to go to.

[Highland 0]

The problem other than there being no real united conservative movement is the Liberals have managed to take over the mainstream of the political spectrum and thus the perception among many is that those conservatives whom are not in the Liberal party are viewed as being far-right.

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity. But, we have the same problem in the States. The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought. Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial." Subtle, but it's there.

You're absolutely right, and it also invades our universities. When I was going one of my profs was very far to the left and was incredibly apologetic to minorities to the point that any crime any of them did was due to a lack of cultural understanding or a racist justice system. He was so extreme I couldn't stand him, let alone bother debating with him and I'd consider myself slightly to the left of the spectrum.

Americans are, I think, more conservative than Canadians, but the difference really isn't that great, even though the media would try to tell you different, and yes I have noticed the subtle nuaces used to sway our opinons (the Limbaugh/Moore comparison)

[Firestarter 0]

some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

What the hell? It was obviously sarcastic, since he's pretty liberal himself. He was making fun of an exaggerated stereotype, not being a bigot. When did you get so PC?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

What the hell? It was obviously sarcastic, since he's pretty liberal himself. He was making fun of an exaggerated stereotype, not being a bigot. When did you get so PC?

So let me ask; was he "banned" for dropping the N-bomb, or for making fun of the stereotype that conservatives are racist? I don't think you have a case really for either one, but then again I'm not a mod.

 

To whoever is complaining about social liberalism, I made a post in another thread about Conrad Black selling the only socially conservative paper we have in Canada to some hippie guy, which pissed off the few social conservatives we have left. Ontario was run under communism for awhile (a.k.a. the NDP).

[Red Baron 0]

some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

What the hell? It was obviously sarcastic, since he's pretty liberal himself. He was making fun of an exaggerated stereotype, not being a bigot. When did you get so PC?

So let me ask; was he "banned" for dropping the N-bomb, or for making fun of the stereotype that conservatives are racist? I don't think you have a case really for either one, but then again I'm not a mod.

 

To whoever is complaining about social liberalism, I made a post in another thread about Conrad Black selling the only socially conservative paper we have in Canada to some hippie guy, which pissed off the few social conservatives we have left. Ontario was run under communism for awhile (a.k.a. the NDP).

Indeed, and put in an 11 Billion defecit in one year.

[Guest MikeSC]

some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

What the hell? It was obviously sarcastic, since he's pretty liberal himself. He was making fun of an exaggerated stereotype, not being a bigot. When did you get so PC?

So let me ask; was he "banned" for dropping the N-bomb, or for making fun of the stereotype that conservatives are racist? I don't think you have a case really for either one, but then again I'm not a mod.

In Tom's defense, I imagine there is zero tolerance policy for that particular term around here.

 

Think about it --- if he let it slide for him, he will be hard-pressed to not let it slide for others. They could simply argue that "It was OK for that guy to use it (though I didn't we have an ENTIRE thread on that term v "nigga" and what was appropriate?), why not me?"

 

Personally, I'd have no problem with allowing ANY word you wish, as long as you aren't trolling and flaming ad nauseum. If somebody wishes to use that term, let's see them try and get taken seriously again.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity. But, we have the same problem in the States. The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought. Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial." Subtle, but it's there.

You realize we're one of the few countries left anymore where conservatism is even taken seriously?

 

Worldwide, it is quickly becoming fringe thought indeed.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

In Tom's defense, I imagine there is zero tolerance policy for that particular term around here.

Before you bring out the slippery slope line, Marney and I have both used it in historical context when discussing a proposition on the recall ballot last year about the state documenting racial data. And there was no problem whatsoever.

 

I think the problem with what Ghetto posted is the insinuation of racism. Rather than using it in a historical context, he's using it a, ahem, hysterical context.

[snuffbox 0]

So ghettoman is gone for 2 days?...I wont miss him...

[Guest JMA]

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity. But, we have the same problem in the States. The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought. Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial." Subtle, but it's there.

I've read some of the things Limbaugh and Weiner have said. Seems to be pretty controversial to me (especially Weiner's). They're the right's version of guys like Dennis Kucinich. While social liberalism isn't as mainstream as some people think, it does seem to be held in higher regard than social conservatism is today. Still, I don't buy into the fact that social liberalism is subtlely being imprinted on Americans by the media and schools. It's almost like you're saying Americans are being brain-washed by them.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity.  But, we have the same problem in the States.  The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought.  Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial."  Subtle, but it's there.

You realize we're one of the few countries left anymore where conservatism is even taken seriously?

 

Worldwide, it is quickly becoming fringe thought indeed.

I could mention that the rest of the world is significantly beneath us in MOST categories, as well. And we're MORE open-minded and tolerant.

 

Apparently, conservativism is a darned good policy to hold.

Before you bring out the slippery slope line, Marney and I have both used it in historical context when discussing a proposition on the recall ballot last year about the state documenting racial data. And there was no problem whatsoever.

 

I think the problem with what Ghetto posted is the insinuation of racism. Rather than using it in a historical context, he's using it a, ahem, hysterical context.

Maybe so.

 

But I wouldn't call Ghetto's comment "hysterical". An insult to comedy.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

some words shouldn't be said on these forums.

What the hell? It was obviously sarcastic, since he's pretty liberal himself. He was making fun of an exaggerated stereotype, not being a bigot. When did you get so PC?

So let me ask; was he "banned" for dropping the N-bomb, or for making fun of the stereotype that conservatives are racist? I don't think you have a case really for either one, but then again I'm not a mod.

In Tom's defense, I imagine there is zero tolerance policy for that particular term around here.

 

Think about it --- if he let it slide for him, he will be hard-pressed to not let it slide for others. They could simply argue that "It was OK for that guy to use it (though I didn't we have an ENTIRE thread on that term v "nigga" and what was appropriate?), why not me?"

 

Personally, I'd have no problem with allowing ANY word you wish, as long as you aren't trolling and flaming ad nauseum. If somebody wishes to use that term, let's see them try and get taken seriously again.

-=Mike

I'm not complaining. But like you said, there was a thread discussing the term before (one that I'm not willing to get involved with again) and nothing happened, so I'd assume the "banning" was more or less due to the fact that he used it to stereotype conservatives (which shouldn't be taken seriously, but whatever). People say the word all the time on the board, in many different contexts, which is why that's not really something that would get started due to this being allowed. Also, I think that conservatives make fun of liberals all the time on the board, although I guess once you drop the N-bomb you've crossed the line. But two days isn't a big deal, he'll live. I'm not really one way or the other, I don't even know why we're arguing. Bleh, just drop it who cares.

 

Onto more important news regarding my home and native land; does anyone have an idea of who the frontrunner is regarding the Prime Minister hopeful for the Conservatives?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

does anyone have an idea of who the frontrunner is regarding the Prime Minister hopeful for the Conservatives?

 

Don Cherry?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

does anyone have an idea of who the frontrunner is regarding the Prime Minister hopeful for the Conservatives?

 

Don Cherry?

About that; what he said was wrong. It's not wrong in that he said that most French Canadians or Europeans wore visors, because that's factual. It's wrong in that he's implying that they're pussies for doing it. I also don't know why he points out they're French; after all, they're still French CANADIAN, just like he. They're his fellow countrymen.

 

Interesting note; in an attempt to "protest" the fact that Canadians were going crazy over some American coming up here (Conan), he denied the invitation to be on the show and instead went on..THE MIKE BULLARD SHOW~!

[Vyce 0]

I'm sure its worse in Canada where a lot of the liberalism is or was rooted in trying to create a national identity.  But, we have the same problem in the States.  The news and entertainment media along with our schools portray social liberalism as mainstream and conservatism (either tame versions like Rush Limbaugh or hard edged like Michael Savage) as fringe thought.  Example: Michael Moore is often reffered to as an "outrageous social critic" while Limbaugh or even a right-thinking Independent as "controversial."  Subtle, but it's there.

You realize we're one of the few countries left anymore where conservatism is even taken seriously?

 

Worldwide, it is quickly becoming fringe thought indeed.

I know that was meant to be insulting, but gosh darn it, it just didn't work.

 

Better luck next time!

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.electionworld.org/

 

feel free to go though this to see who's winning between the liberals and conservatives.

[Guest Brian]

Conservatism and liberalism here vs. the rest of the world also gets to be defined quite differently. Liberalism has generally been defined as being a little more progressive, dealing with individual's rights and small government only needed to enforce the protection of these rights. Conservatism worldwide is being conservative about the past, wanting to preserve the old order, keeping things the way they are. We happen to be more towards the middle, leaning right.