Harper won the English debate, Duceppe took home the French: poll - Macleans.ca
 

Harper won the English debate, Duceppe took home the French: poll

Real winner may be Layton, who was runner-up in both


 

According to a Maclean’s poll, Stephen Harper had the best performance in this week’s English-language leaders’ debate, while the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe handily won in French. But the real victor may be Jack Layton, who impressed not only his NDP stalwarts, but also Greens, undecided voters, and even Liberals, a scenario pollster Greg Lyle calls “a Liberal nightmare.”

The survey conducted by Innovative Research Group found 43 per cent of respondents thought Harper won Tuesday’s English-language debate, with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff coming third at 11 per cent. As for the French-language debate, 46 per cent thought Duceppe won, while Ignatieff was best in the eyes of 11 per cent of respondents (Harper, in fourth, won over only seven per cent of respondents). Meanwhile, Layton was a clear second in both English and French, which is “nothing to write home about,” says Lyle, managing director at Innovative Research. “But when you look at how leaders did according to different groups of voters, it’s a dream for the NDP.”

Both Harper and Duceppe managed to rally their own—78 per cent of Conservatives thought Harper performed best, and 67 per cent of the Bloc gave it to Duceppe—but the same can’t be said of Ignatieff. Only 32 per cent of Liberal voters thought he performed best, while a whopping 21 per cent thought it was Layton.

The NDP leader also won over 33 per cent of Greens and 25 per cent of the undecided, the highest of any leader. “He’s not just solidifying his base. He’s reaching into Liberal, Green and undecided voters,” Lyle says. The Conservatives came second among the undecided, with Harper convincing 17 per cent of them he performed best.

The picture isn’t completely grim for the Liberal leader. When measured against himself in terms of expectations, Ignatieff did best among Quebecers. In fact, 43 per cent of respondents thought Ignatieff performed better than expected in French, while only 4 per cent felt the same about Harper. Still, “he was found wanting in English,” Lyle says, with 25 per cent of people saying he did better than expected, while 38 per cent thought he did worse.

Overall, Lyle says, “Harper and Duceppe did their job, but Layton really won.”

The online survey was conducted on April 13 and 14 after the end of the leaders’ debates among a representative sample of 1,058 Canadians, including 249 in Quebec. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.16 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


 

Harper won the English debate, Duceppe took home the French: poll

  1. Those results are very realistic, methinks.

    Ignatieff may have thougth he scored points by saying that the bickering he was doing was in fact a democratic voice in action, but the average voter knows better; Ignatieff was bickering!

  2. Those results are very realistic, methinks.

    Ignatieff may have thougth he scored points by saying that the bickering he was doing was in fact a democratic voice in action, but the average voter knows better; Ignatieff was bickering!

    • My favourite part about Iggy's bickering comment was that he had to interupt and shout over Harper to make it.

  3. I'm looking for reasons to like Ignatieff. On paper, I quite like the guy. I find his credentials to be impressive, and I'm sure he'd do a good job. But there's just something about him I don't like. I kinda feel like if I never watched him appear in public or heard him speak, I'd be much more inclined to vote for the Liberals.

    In the hour or so of the English debate that I watched I thought he just came off as a complainer. I half-expected him to complain to the moderator that the other leaders weren't fully appreciating all his good ideas.

    Perhaps I should only listen to him speak French with someone translating, that way his irritating tone won't come across as strong.

  4. I'm looking for reasons to like Ignatieff. On paper, I quite like the guy. I find his credentials to be impressive, and I'm sure he'd do a good job. But there's just something about him I don't like. I kinda feel like if I never watched him appear in public or heard him speak, I'd be much more inclined to vote for the Liberals.

    In the hour or so of the English debate that I watched I thought he just came off as a complainer. I half-expected him to complain to the moderator that the other leaders weren't fully appreciating all his good ideas.

    Perhaps I should only listen to him speak French with someone translating, that way his irritating tone won't come across as strong.

    • Yes, a contemptuous criminal and former mail room clerk is a far better choice than a pulitzer prize winning author and globally respected academic (insert eye roll here)…

      • Oh puh-lease what a bunch of nonsense Franz!

        • And a liar. How come Harper never mentioned things like: His Science and Technology Minister is an Evangelical Christian who doesn't believe in: evolution, abortion, stem cell research so, he made huge cuts to funding in all those areas? Or that after he campaigned last election with women's rights as part of his platform, he cut all funding to 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices and, killed the national child care initiative because _his_ faith decrees children should be raised at home? of course that means all "you women should get back in the kitchen and raise your kinds." Right?
          Personally, I don't care what a person's faith is, as long as it does not infringe on _my_ rights. Mr Harper's faith _is_ interfering with me, since I am non-Christian in my religious practices. Mr Harper's faith decrees that I am "Damned" if I do not convert to _his_ brand of Christianity. Therefore, if I am damned, why should I have any services extended to 'me and mine?" To quote a friend. "The last time religion ran things people were burned at the stake." Read the article and tell me I'm a liar, not that _your_ opinion would matter in Mr Harper's Theocratic Canada. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/

  5. I think he was trying to come across as passionate, but what I heard was petulant.

  6. I think he was trying to come across as passionate, but what I heard was petulant.

  7. bottom line – NDP pick away at the Liberals, and grab a couple of seats in Quebec. Obviously bad for Ignatieff, and might be enough to put the CPC into a majority. If it doesn't, it makes the (almost certain) minority gov't that Ignatieff puts together with the NDP and Bloc lean more to the left. If moderate independent voters think about it long enough, very bad for the Liberals. If the left leaning voters start to swing to the NDP, the moderate ones might start looking at that blue door. :)

    Either outcome is bad for Ignatieff. He either sees a CPC majority, or a diminished liberal party trying to govern, but being beholden to the NDP even more. Heck, if the NDP get enough sets, they might demand a coalition, and cabinet positions.

    This begs the question – why did Ignatieff pick now to do this. Only thing I can think of was that if he passed the budget, he might have had to wait a year to bring them down. If he voted against the budget, he would have had to defend that decision. (Maybe he was just impatient) That is why, I think, he went the route of the contempt angle. Allows him to do it, and he thinks he won't get negative press for forcing the election.

    Time will tell, and he is obviously a smart man, but he doesn't appear to be a great politician. . . I have always said that I would vote for Layton over him.

  8. bottom line – NDP pick away at the Liberals, and grab a couple of seats in Quebec. Obviously bad for Ignatieff, and might be enough to put the CPC into a majority. If it doesn't, it makes the (almost certain) minority gov't that Ignatieff puts together with the NDP and Bloc lean more to the left. If moderate independent voters think about it long enough, very bad for the Liberals. If the left leaning voters start to swing to the NDP, the moderate ones might start looking at that blue door. :)

    Either outcome is bad for Ignatieff. He either sees a CPC majority, or a diminished liberal party trying to govern, but being beholden to the NDP even more. Heck, if the NDP get enough sets, they might demand a coalition, and cabinet positions.

    This begs the question – why did Ignatieff pick now to do this. Only thing I can think of was that if he passed the budget, he might have had to wait a year to bring them down. If he voted against the budget, he would have had to defend that decision. (Maybe he was just impatient) That is why, I think, he went the route of the contempt angle. Allows him to do it, and he thinks he won't get negative press for forcing the election.

    Time will tell, and he is obviously a smart man, but he doesn't appear to be a great politician. . . I have always said that I would vote for Layton over him.

    • He picked now because the government has been found in contempt. Supporting a government found in contempt is contemptible in and of itself.

      Why'd they find that then? Because this government has nothing BUT contempt for Parliament and our democracy. They look on it as simply some sort of game they have to play to attain power, and if that requires flaunting the rules, stopping the house from having the information it needs to make good decisions, lying, bribing MPs, instructing their members on how to disrupt committees so nothing gets done, they'll do it.

      • What utter nonsense. Keep parroting those Liberal talking points; I'm sure ey will make you feel better come election day!

        • Feel free to rebut. Though I'll acknowledge that the bribery hasn't been formally proven.. yet, we just have Mr. Harper on tape saying he was aware of it and his concern wasn't that it was wrong, but that it probably wouldn't work.

          • I think you'll find its only the "formally proven" that matters. Innocent till proven guilty is a fundmental Canadian principle and can not simply be thrown aside because one dislikes the accused.

          • I hate that argument, it's so incredibly unconnected to the real-world.

            Was Paul Bernardo any less of a murderer before the verdict came down?

            Isn't admitting it on tape significant enough proof, even if it hasn't been through the courts?

          • The reason we know he is a murder is because he was given a fair trial. What on earth is the point of laws if people are declared guilty without being able to present a formal defence? That principle is in place to prevent abuses from the goverment. You can't suddenly take it away from people because we have a fairly good reason to believe they are in fact guilty. And by the by the what you're touting as proof of his guilt is hersay unless you can link to the tape

          • I repeat my question. Was he any less of a murderer before the verdict came down?

            Do we formally declare Harper guilty? Hard to say.. money concerns caused a settlement to happen rather than justice.

            Hiding behind legal weasel talk is hardly new for CPC supporters, though, so I'm not surprised you'd discount readily available, multiple sourced reports about the tape. (Hint: google "Harper bribe cadman tape")

            So sure, it may be hearsay, but it's bloody reliable hearsay. Kind of like the existence of Australia is hearsay until you've been there.

  9. Yes, a contemptuous criminal and former mail room clerk is a far better choice than a pulitzer prize winning author and globally respected academic (insert eye roll here)…

  10. Oh puh-lease what a bunch of nonsense Franz!

  11. My projections are that the CPC will a plurality rather than a majority of the vote and form another minority government, since the Liberals and the NDP will probably be unable to form a coalition. The best thing that could happen to the Tories would be for them to get trounced at the polls. That way, they would have to get rid of Stephen Harper as their party leader and find someone who appeals to more than just party loyalists.

  12. My projections are that the CPC will a plurality rather than a majority of the vote and form another minority government, since the Liberals and the NDP will probably be unable to form a coalition. The best thing that could happen to the Tories would be for them to get trounced at the polls. That way, they would have to get rid of Stephen Harper as their party leader and find someone who appeals to more than just party loyalists.

  13. No one should buy for a second this contempt of parliament. That's lying politician for I wanted a kick at being Prime Minister before the Liberal party looks for another leader. There is a huge number of reasons this was not the time for this election greatest of which is that the budget as examined by all independant economists was the right budget for the time.

  14. No one should buy for a second this contempt of parliament. That's lying politician for I wanted a kick at being Prime Minister before the Liberal party looks for another leader. There is a huge number of reasons this was not the time for this election greatest of which is that the budget as examined by all independant economists was the right budget for the time.

    • All republican/conservative economists is more like it.

      • Really? That's the best you've got? Getting out the "evil Republicans are hiding unde my bed" nonsense?

    • And just to be clear, by "right" budget, you mean "ideologically right" not "correct".. because I generally don't think pulling numbers from your arse and having no contingencies if the numbers go south is correct, but hey..
      but this government is contemptuous of this parliament. They refuse to provide information needed for the house to govern, they refuse to tell the truth about their actions, they hide behind technicalities and rules-lawyering, hell some of them even flee the country rather than face committees, they use every trick in the book to stay in power and keep both Canadians and the House in the dark.

      They were judged to be in contempt of parliament because that's all they show her.

      • I think it"s Mike and Jack who are the ones pulling numbers from where you said

  15. All republican/conservative economists is more like it.

  16. As a Liberal I'm finding it more and more difficult each day to maintain my confidence in Ignatieff. As much as I dislike the thought of a Conservative majority it may be what's required in order to force the Liberal party to reorganize itself and come up with a leader who speaks for Canadians and not Liberal Party loyalists.

  17. As a Liberal I'm finding it more and more difficult each day to maintain my confidence in Ignatieff. As much as I dislike the thought of a Conservative majority it may be what's required in order to force the Liberal party to reorganize itself and come up with a leader who speaks for Canadians and not Liberal Party loyalists.

    • Ignatieff will allow his MPs to speak. He will allow them to represent their ridings. he will not be a Harper style dictator. Remember, we do not elect a prime minister, we elect a party.

      • No we elect an MP based on whether we believe that individual will represent our local interests well. Unfortunately none of the current leaders have really shown themselves willing to allow the MPs that form their party to have an independent voice. Note Jack Layton's "I am running to be Prime Minister" comment in his campaign opener, Mr. Igantieff's forcing liberal MPs to vote (or not vote at all) on confidence bills according to his desired political outcome (which admittedly they all do) and the actions of Mr. Harper are already well documented. If we wish to take our democracy back from corruption then we should vote not based upon party or leader but rather for the local representative who appears best fitted to speak and vote for his/her riding. Making our democracy work the way it's meant to, requires simply voting that way. Ignore Harper, Layton Ignatieff, Duceppe and May. Put the scrutiny on your local candidates.

    • Vote for the Tories and give the Grits five years to rebuild the party.

    • Do you think Steven Harper speaks for Canadians. What is a billion dollars do you know? Do you care that was spent in the middle of a recession? Do you care that we are becoming more American by the day under this government. Do you care it was the Conservatives that brought us free trade that we must live up to or be sued and the Americans were allowed to get away with stealing our natural resources. Ask yourself is Canada in better shape under this government maybe you should read more.

  18. Ignatieff will allow his MPs to speak. He will allow them to represent their ridings. he will not be a Harper style dictator. Remember, we do not elect a prime minister, we elect a party.

  19. He picked now because the government has been found in contempt. Supporting a government found in contempt is contemptible in and of itself.

    Why'd they find that then? Because this government has nothing BUT contempt for Parliament and our democracy. They look on it as simply some sort of game they have to play to attain power, and if that requires flaunting the rules, stopping the house from having the information it needs to make good decisions, lying, bribing MPs, instructing their members on how to disrupt committees so nothing gets done, they'll do it.

  20. And just to be clear, by "right" budget, you mean "ideologically right" not "correct".. because I generally don't think pulling numbers from your arse and having no contingencies if the numbers go south is correct, but hey..
    but this government is contemptuous of this parliament. They refuse to provide information needed for the house to govern, they refuse to tell the truth about their actions, they hide behind technicalities and rules-lawyering, hell some of them even flee the country rather than face committees, they use every trick in the book to stay in power and keep both Canadians and the House in the dark.

    They were judged to be in contempt of parliament because that's all they show her.

  21. I find it funny that people keep talking about the NDP being the reason the Cons might get a majority. I blame the people voting Conservative for the reason the Cons will get a minority or majority. The Liberals are slowing dying, and the NDP should be in place to replace or at least officially oppose them. If enough people start voting NDP instead of holding their nose and voting for the Liberal we might get a socially democratic government that truly reflects Canadian values and expectations.

    And I also feel to say the the Cons and Libs were in a coalition since the last election in 2008. If not for the Libs the Cons would have been thrown out of office a longtime ago.

  22. I find it funny that people keep talking about the NDP being the reason the Cons might get a majority. I blame the people voting Conservative for the reason the Cons will get a minority or majority. The Liberals are slowing dying, and the NDP should be in place to replace or at least officially oppose them. If enough people start voting NDP instead of holding their nose and voting for the Liberal we might get a socially democratic government that truly reflects Canadian values and expectations.

    And I also feel to say the the Cons and Libs were in a coalition since the last election in 2008. If not for the Libs the Cons would have been thrown out of office a longtime ago.

    • Fallenserpent you are kidding right….a Socialist Party…you think a Socialist party is the best "DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT" Canadians could vote for?????!!!! There are none so blind as those who cannot see….pity.

      • Ironic then that the "socialist" party shows more respect for democracy than the "free enterprise" party.

  23. BLING!!

  24. BLING!!

  25. What utter nonsense. Keep parroting those Liberal talking points; I'm sure ey will make you feel better come election day!

  26. Really? That's the best you've got? Getting out the "evil Republicans are hiding unde my bed" nonsense?

  27. And a liar. How come Harper never mentioned things like: His Science and Technology Minister is an Evangelical Christian who doesn't believe in: evolution, abortion, stem cell research so, he made huge cuts to funding in all those areas? Or that after he campaigned last election with women's rights as part of his platform, he cut all funding to 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices and, killed the national child care initiative because _his_ faith decrees children should be raised at home? of course that means all "you women should get back in the kitchen and raise your kinds." Right?
    Personally, I don't care what a person's faith is, as long as it does not infringe on _my_ rights. Mr Harper's faith _is_ interfering with me, since I am non-Christian in my religious practices. Mr Harper's faith decrees that I am "Damned" if I do not convert to _his_ brand of Christianity. Therefore, if I am damned, why should I have any services extended to 'me and mine?" To quote a friend. "The last time religion ran things people were burned at the stake." Read the article and tell me I'm a liar, not that _your_ opinion would matter in Mr Harper's Theocratic Canada. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/

  28. It's all a big mistake, right? Let's look at Mr. Harper's record and decide if the contempt of parliament was warranted…
    Mr Harper prorogued Parliament twice. The second time alone cost the Canadian Taxpayer over $150, 000,000 _and_ the 13 bills in process. In the month before the election, the Conservative party and four of its top officials have been charged with election overspending in the 2006 election that put Harper into power by using an illegal “in and out' cash transfer scheme.
    A minister recently used public office and material to pursue party-political goals of courting ethnic vote banks for the conservatives.

    Two RCMP investigations have been launched against former Conservative political staffers.

    3 Conservative MP's have been cited for contempt of Parliament in the last 16 months. The Conservative Party under Mr. Harper produced a 200 page "Playbook" on how to delay or block committee votes.
    Bureaucrats were directed late last year to start using “The Harper Government” in place of Government of Canada on all departmental news releases. (Another first for Mr Harper's Conservative party. )
    "As a minimum, a re-elected Conservative Government will reintroduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to provide for Senators to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics rules as the House of Commons.
    -Stephen Harper -2008 Election Policy paper. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers

    Harper put more of his friends and followers in civil service posts then any other PM in Canadian history. He filled 38 empty Senate seats with unelected Conservative politicians and has never brought forward a bill to reduce the time they could sit or, make them accountable to the same ethics that MP's are.

    In conclusion, Mr Harper has proven himself time and again of being contemptuous of Parliament and Parliamentary Process so, I don't think it unreasonable for Parliament to find him _in_ Contempt of Parliament. Frankly, I don't see why he is not under criminal investigation for some of his actions. I expect politicians to prevaricate somewhat but, what Mr Harper and his Conservatives have done is completely 'beyond the pale.'

  29. It's all a big mistake, right? Let's look at Mr. Harper's record and decide if the contempt of parliament was warranted…
    Mr Harper prorogued Parliament twice. The second time alone cost the Canadian Taxpayer over $150, 000,000 _and_ the 13 bills in process. In the month before the election, the Conservative party and four of its top officials have been charged with election overspending in the 2006 election that put Harper into power by using an illegal “in and out%E2%80%99 cash transfer scheme.
    A minister recently used public office and material to pursue party-political goals of courting ethnic vote banks for the conservatives.

    Two RCMP investigations have been launched against former Conservative political staffers.

    3 Conservative MP's have been cited for contempt of Parliament in the last 16 months. The Conservative Party under Mr. Harper produced a 200 page "Playbook" on how to delay or block committee votes.
    Bureaucrats were directed late last year to start using “The Harper Government” in place of Government of Canada on all departmental news releases. (Another first for Mr Harper's Conservative party. )
    "As a minimum, a re-elected Conservative Government will reintroduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to provide for Senators to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics rules as the House of Commons.
    -Stephen Harper -2008 Election Policy paper. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers

    Harper put more of his friends and followers in civil service posts then any other PM in Canadian history. He filled 38 empty Senate seats with unelected Conservative politicians and has never brought forward a bill to reduce the time they could sit or, make them accountable to the same ethics that MP's are.

    In conclusion, Mr Harper has proven himself time and again of being contemptuous of Parliament and Parliamentary Process so, I don't think it unreasonable for Parliament to find him _in_ Contempt of Parliament. Frankly, I don't see why he is not under criminal investigation for some of his actions. I expect politicians to prevaricate somewhat but, what Mr Harper and his Conservatives have done is completely 'beyond the pale.'

  30. Jack won the debates for me, no other leader can touch Jack as an average Joe Canadian you can TRUST.

    I was considering voting Liberal(ABHarperRegime), but when Jack mentioned the Liberal leaders lack of attendance it really hit a nerve for me, as I've always thought to myself that I just cant picture Iggy sitting their in opposition if he looses the leadership?, I think he'll be long gone back to his American home.

  31. Jack won the debates for me, no other leader can touch Jack as an average Joe Canadian you can TRUST.

    I was considering voting Liberal(ABHarperRegime), but when Jack mentioned the Liberal leaders lack of attendance it really hit a nerve for me, as I've always thought to myself that I just cant picture Iggy sitting their in opposition if he looses the leadership?, I think he'll be long gone back to his American home.

    • You must be on the NDP payroll

  32. It was once upon a time when I wanted to have a hotdog stand on the corner downtown. And mr. Layton was On city council. It was a long time to wait for approval so I slipped him some money and I had the permit the next day. All politicians are crooked

  33. It was once upon a time when I wanted to have a hotdog stand on the corner downtown. And mr. Layton was On city council. It was a long time to wait for approval so I slipped him some money and I had the permit the next day. All politicians are crooked

    • It would be a scandal if you could prove it, but I'm sure the lefties in the media would never follow up on it and report it.

    • PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew Jack Layton when he was in N York and NO ONE ever said Jack was dishonest in any way. You are aLIAR. We called him a Bas+4&d sometimes but, never dishonest. Can't actually find anything to say, so you make something up?

      • Well I obviously can’t prove it. I’m just telling you what happened to me. But that’s ok, let’s bring up another point. How about the low income housing he was living in Toronto. Took up a spot of someone that actually needed it….

  34. Fallenserpent you are kidding right….a Socialist Party…you think a Socialist party is the best "DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT" Canadians could vote for?????!!!! There are none so blind as those who cannot see….pity.

  35. Feel free to rebut. Though I'll acknowledge that the bribery hasn't been formally proven.. yet, we just have Mr. Harper on tape saying he was aware of it and his concern wasn't that it was wrong, but that it probably wouldn't work.

  36. One politician calls other politician a liar is like one prostitute calls other prostitute not chaste

  37. One politician calls other politician a liar is like one prostitute calls other prostitute not chaste

  38. Layton , like the others , is prepared to sell out the Canadian ideal of equal rights for all Canadian citizens in order to attract the vote of the language majority in Quebec. He seems to readily accept repressive language laws and the hate and fear mongering that goes on here which have decimated the non francophone communities.
    When are people going to realize that what is brewing in this place will not end well….it never does.

  39. Layton , like the others , is prepared to sell out the Canadian ideal of equal rights for all Canadian citizens in order to attract the vote of the language majority in Quebec. He seems to readily accept repressive language laws and the hate and fear mongering that goes on here which have decimated the non francophone communities.
    When are people going to realize that what is brewing in this place will not end well….it never does.

  40. Ironic then that the "socialist" party shows more respect for democracy than the "free enterprise" party.

  41. I think you'll find its only the "formally proven" that matters. Innocent till proven guilty is a fundmental Canadian principle and can not simply be thrown aside because one dislikes the accused.

  42. Okay lets see…..
    In the month before the election, the Conservative party and four of its top officials have been charged with election overspending in the 2006 election that put Harper into power by using an illegal “in and out' cash transfer scheme.
    That's a fact of criminal actions
    3 Conservative MP's have been cited for contempt of Parliament in the last 16 months.
    That's a fact they attempted to interfere with teh Parliamentary process. Amongst other things, they LIED to parliament.
    An aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney broke Parliamentary rules by distributing a letter from the minister's office seeking partisan donations from ethnic voters. Harper has refused to answer questions about it.
    That's a fact that he broke parliamentary rules. since Mr Harper controls everything his ministers and caucus does, I find it highly unlikely he was not aware of these activities, especially in light of more recent events regarding 'ethnic voting blocks."
    "As a minimum, a re-elected Conservative Government will reintroduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to provide for Senators to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics rules as the House of Commons.
    -Stephen Harper -2008 Election Policy paper. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers
    Harper put more of his friends and followers in civil service posts then any other PM in Canadian history. He filled 38 empty Senate seats with unelected Conservative politicians and has never brought forward a bill to reduce the time they could sit or, make them accountable to the same ethics that MP's are.
    That's a fact that Mr Harper made this campaign _promise_ and then did the exact opposite so, he LIED
    When Commons Speaker Peter Milliken ruled the Conservatives breached parliamentary privilege, Harper's reaction was: “you win some, you lose some.”
    That's a fact. That certainly doesn't show much respect for the House or, the Speaker for the House.
    "A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will introduce legislation to move closer towards representation by population in the House of Commons for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, while protecting the seat counts of other provinces." http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers
    Mr. Harper and the Conservative party has never brought forward any such legislation on Proportional Representation and has actively fought against any such proposed measure
    That's a fact.
    “The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House.”
    Stephen Harper
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/steph
    That's a fact. Funny how his own words keep coming back to bite him on the Butt.
    "The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."
    – Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
    That's a fact. Womens rights and universal health care are horrific? Ironic since he campaigned with women's rights as part of his platform in '08. Of course he then cut all funding to 12 of 16 SWAC offices, and reneged on his promise of pay equity for women 3 months after he won the election.
    Mr. Harper intends to make the Internet a place where privacy is not allowed as part of his new Law and Order package that he has promised to enact within 100 days of winning the election. Canadian Internet providers will be required by law, to revamp their systems so that any Government agency that wishes may spy on any person, in Canada without a warrant. They will be able to read your email, track your surfing habits and record every interaction you have while surfing on the Internet. Your Internet Provider will be required by law to give them all of your personal information without a warrant, whenever they want without any need to obtain any permission to invade your privacy for any reason they want. http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/10/canadian-tor
    And that's another Fact.

    Talking points? How about your 'fearless leader' was found in Contempt of Parliament for his intentional actions of attempting to suborn Parliamentary process, for deliberately misleading Parliament and generally acting completely contemptuous _of_ parliament.

  43. Okay lets see…..
    In the month before the election, the Conservative party and four of its top officials have been charged with election overspending in the 2006 election that put Harper into power by using an illegal “in and out%E2%80%99 cash transfer scheme.
    That's a fact of criminal actions
    3 Conservative MP's have been cited for contempt of Parliament in the last 16 months.
    That's a fact they attempted to interfere with teh Parliamentary process. Amongst other things, they LIED to parliament.
    An aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney broke Parliamentary rules by distributing a letter from the minister%E2%80%99s office seeking partisan donations from ethnic voters. Harper has refused to answer questions about it.
    That's a fact that he broke parliamentary rules. since Mr Harper controls everything his ministers and caucus does, I find it highly unlikely he was not aware of these activities, especially in light of more recent events regarding 'ethnic voting blocks."
    "As a minimum, a re-elected Conservative Government will reintroduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to provide for Senators to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics rules as the House of Commons.
    -Stephen Harper -2008 Election Policy paper. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers
    Harper put more of his friends and followers in civil service posts then any other PM in Canadian history. He filled 38 empty Senate seats with unelected Conservative politicians and has never brought forward a bill to reduce the time they could sit or, make them accountable to the same ethics that MP's are.
    That's a fact that Mr Harper made this campaign _promise_ and then did the exact opposite so, he LIED
    When Commons Speaker Peter Milliken ruled the Conservatives breached parliamentary privilege, Harper%E2%80%99s reaction was: “you win some, you lose some.”
    That's a fact. That certainly doesn't show much respect for the House or, the Speaker for the House.
    "A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will introduce legislation to move closer towards representation by population in the House of Commons for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, while protecting the seat counts of other provinces." http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433536/Stephen-Harpers
    Mr. Harper and the Conservative party has never brought forward any such legislation on Proportional Representation and has actively fought against any such proposed measure
    That's a fact.
    “The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House.”
    Stephen Harper
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/steph
    That's a fact. Funny how his own words keep coming back to bite him on the Butt.
    "The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."
    – Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
    That's a fact. Womens rights and universal health care are horrific? Ironic since he campaigned with women's rights as part of his platform in '08. Of course he then cut all funding to 12 of 16 SWAC offices, and reneged on his promise of pay equity for women 3 months after he won the election.
    Mr. Harper intends to make the Internet a place where privacy is not allowed as part of his new Law and Order package that he has promised to enact within 100 days of winning the election. Canadian Internet providers will be required by law, to revamp their systems so that any Government agency that wishes may spy on any person, in Canada without a warrant. They will be able to read your email, track your surfing habits and record every interaction you have while surfing on the Internet. Your Internet Provider will be required by law to give them all of your personal information without a warrant, whenever they want without any need to obtain any permission to invade your privacy for any reason they want. http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/10/canadian-tor
    And that's another Fact.

    Talking points? How about your 'fearless leader' was found in Contempt of Parliament for his intentional actions of attempting to suborn Parliamentary process, for deliberately misleading Parliament and generally acting completely contemptuous _of_ parliament.

  44. I hate that argument, it's so incredibly unconnected to the real-world.

    Was Paul Bernardo any less of a murderer before the verdict came down?

    Isn't admitting it on tape significant enough proof, even if it hasn't been through the courts?

  45. No we elect an MP based on whether we believe that individual will represent our local interests well. Unfortunately none of the current leaders have really shown themselves willing to allow the MPs that form their party to have an independent voice. Note Jack Layton's "I am running to be Prime Minister" comment in his campaign opener, Mr. Igantieff's forcing liberal MPs to vote (or not vote at all) on confidence bills according to his desired political outcome (which admittedly they all do) and the actions of Mr. Harper are already well documented. If we wish to take our democracy back from corruption then we should vote not based upon party or leader but rather for the local representative who appears best fitted to speak and vote for his/her riding. Making our democracy work the way it's meant to, requires simply voting that way. Ignore Harper, Layton Ignatieff, Duceppe and May. Put the scrutiny on your local candidates.

  46. No we elect an MP based on whether we believe that individual will represent our local interests well. Unfortunately none of the current leaders have really shown themselves willing to allow the MPs that form their party to have an independent voice. Note Jack Layton's "I am running to be Prime Minister" comment in his campaign opener, Mr. Igantieff's forcing liberal MPs to vote (or not vote at all) on confidence bills according to his desired political outcome (which admittedly they all do) and the actions of Mr. Harper are already well documented. If we wish to take our democracy back from corruption then we should vote not based upon party or leader but rather for the local representative who appears best fitted to speak and vote for his/her riding. Making our democracy work the way it%E2%80%99s meant to, requires simply voting that way. Ignore Harper, Layton Ignatieff, Duceppe and May. Put the scrutiny on your local candidates.

  47. The reason we know he is a murder is because he was given a fair trial. What on earth is the point of laws if people are declared guilty without being able to present a formal defence? That principle is in place to prevent abuses from the goverment. You can't suddenly take it away from people because we have a fairly good reason to believe they are in fact guilty. And by the by the what you're touting as proof of his guilt is hersay unless you can link to the tape

  48. I think it"s Mike and Jack who are the ones pulling numbers from where you said

  49. You must be on the NDP payroll

  50. It would be a scandal if you could prove it, but I'm sure the lefties in the media would never follow up on it and report it.

  51. PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew Jack Layton when he was in N York and NO ONE ever said Jack was dishonest in any way. You are aLIAR. We called him a Bas+4&d sometimes but, never dishonest. Can't actually find anything to say, so you make something up?

  52. Well I obviously can’t prove it. I’m just telling you what happened to me. But that’s ok, let’s bring up another point. How about the low income housing he was living in Toronto. Took up a spot of someone that actually needed it….

  53. My favourite part about Iggy's bickering comment was that he had to interupt and shout over Harper to make it.

  54. Vote for the Tories and give the Grits five years to rebuild the party.

  55. I repeat my question. Was he any less of a murderer before the verdict came down?

    Do we formally declare Harper guilty? Hard to say.. money concerns caused a settlement to happen rather than justice.

    Hiding behind legal weasel talk is hardly new for CPC supporters, though, so I'm not surprised you'd discount readily available, multiple sourced reports about the tape. (Hint: google "Harper bribe cadman tape")

    So sure, it may be hearsay, but it's bloody reliable hearsay. Kind of like the existence of Australia is hearsay until you've been there.

  56. Remember also Mr Harper promised an elected senate and we still don't have as he first wanted to stack. That is an old promise I don't hear much about these days. He should be at least branded as a liar.