‘We have defunded it’

by Aaron Wherry

Though the Prime Minister’s Office has suggested that Brad Trost doesn’t know what he’s talking about, Mr. Trost continues to talk about Planned Parenthood.

jenkew @bradtrostCPC answers. “I am very proud of the work I’ve done to defund Planned Parenthood Intl.” “We have defunded it for last 16 months.”

jenkew @bradtrostCPC ”I don’t see how anything I have said contradicts anything he [Stephen Harper] says.




Browse

‘We have defunded it’

  1. Something is very odd about the polls. Aside from never getting a call on my landline, so many people have cells! And these panels that Nanos uses, you can "apply" to be on them online – surely that means a certain type of person is attracted by being on a political panel, not exactly a normal thing for most people.

    And I know Facebook is not legit polling, but it has mattered in other elections around the world and what is happening there is completely different from published leadership/party polls. Stephen Harper was the most popular page BEFORE the election. But somewhere after that, Michael Ignatieff pulled into the lead, leaving Jack Layton in third about 13,000 behind Ignatieff. NOW, in just the last week, Stephen Harper's Facebook support has just stagnated. Layton was 7 or 8000 behind him weeks ago; today, he is just 3000 behind Harper and still moving. Harper's numbers on the page just dont' move anymore. As for Ignatieff, he has shot way past Harper, now over 10,000 people more popular than Harper, and 13,000 more than Layton. And both Layton and Ignatieff steadily add fans.

    Ok, I know there is nothing scientific about facebook. But all the margins of errors on Nanos polls and everyone else, particularly regional, can be up to +/- 10% . Especially the daily fluctuations that get the headlines, everyone is vastly within the margin of error from day to day.

    Facebook has to be an indicator of some kind, and its numbers for each leader is COMPLETELY different than anything I've seen reported.

    So does anyone care to comment or provide me with insight into this?

    • Excerpt from:

      Statistical probabilities
      by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, March 3, 2011 9:18am

      Consider, for instance, that the last three changes in government were not obviously foretold by publicly available polling data released immediately before the election was called.

      In November 2005, with a few exceptions, the lead for the governing Liberals was variously reported to be between five and nine points. An election was called on November 28 and two months later the Conservatives won the popular vote by six points.

      A Gallup poll in August 1993, gave the Liberals a one-point lead over the governing Progressive Conservatives among decided voters, 34% to 33%. As to who would make the best prime minister, Kim Campbell led Jean Chretien by a wide margin, 47% to 24%. An election was called on September 8 and six weeks later Chretien's Liberals won 41% of the popular vote and 177 seats in the House. Campbell's Tories, with 16% of the vote, were reduced to two seats.

      In June 1984, Gallup gave the governing Liberals a 12-point lead over the Progressive Conservatives, 40% to 28%. The new leader of the Liberal party, John Turner, enjoyed a 20-point lead over Brian Mulroney, 46% to 26%. An election was called on July 4 and two months later Mulroney's Conservatives won 211 seats with 50% of the popular vote. Turner's Liberals were reduced to 40 seats with 28% of the popular vote.
      http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/03/statistical-pr

    • Yes, we should move to abandon Nanos, Gallup, and any other polling agency and use facebook and twitter as indicators. Oh, and wikipedia too. Myspace can come too.

    • I thing polling companies have figured out a way to get money from gullible politicians by selling them polling results that can never be checked or verified.

    • I have a landline and I hang up on all pollers. I don't know how widespread that is or if any parties supporters are more likely than others to do so.

  2. I cannot help you as to the mechanics of the polling system but I do know that there is still a lot of people out there who tend to be dedicated voters who do not carry a cellphone, belong to Facebook, or even use the internet.

    You can decide yourself whether you think these people might be likely to vote for one Party or another but I do believe in the margin for error of a poll.

  3. As far as this non-story about what a Liberal-operative with a cheap tape recorder might have recorded at a meeting in a small town in Saskatchewan——I, along with all but the most partisan Liberals ( Wherry ), have no interest.

    • I disagree. As long as he keeps tweeting and Dimitri says he's a nobody backbench M.P. then I think there might be something for people to plug into to.

    • Ah – another Con who eagerly shoots the messenger. Do you also have no interest in election fraud?

  4. To Brad:

    STFU! Your appointment for the muzzle scheduled May 3 in Ottawa. BE THERE.

    Hugs and kisses
    Nigel W.

  5. Future Headline….Brad Trost found beaten in an alley last night….LOL

    • With one of his own signs…

    • By girls who had nowhere else to turn to.

      • Agreed.

    • Not true – he was the subject of a retroactive abortion ordered by Harper's office.

  6. What the heck is going on here? Ha the Canadian Conservative party become a party of American Tea Party nut cases? These personal issues do NOT belong on a politcal platform in a country as adult and intelligent as Canada.

    ENOUGH ALREADY! We have more pressing things to discuss and to discuss now. No more RED HERRINGS catering to the American Tea Party type crazies!

    • 'Has the Canadian Conservative party become a party of American Tea Party nut cases??? '

      The US Tea Party took lessons from Canadian Cons…!

    • You've hit the nail squarely on the head! Plaudits! Unfortunately, the Con clique are infected with the Sarah Palin school of thought – if you don't like it or understand it – then simply castigate it by any means.

  7. "It is axiomatic in government that hornets' nests should be left unstirred, cans of worms should remain unopened, and cats should be left firmly in bags and not set among the pigeons. Ministers should also leave boats unrocked, nettles ungrasped, refrain from taking bulls by the horns, and resolutely turn their backs to the music."

    I think Harper was wishing Trost listened to Sir Humphrey.

    One of my major disapointments with this Con admin is their unwillingless to engage in debate to advance conservatism within in Canada. I am sick of their obfuscation, the facts of life are conservative and people will support it if sold properly.

    Doug Saunders wrote a terrific column the other day in the Globe/Mail explaining why corporate taxes are bad from a left wing perspective. I was reading that article and thinking that Cons are useless, why couldn't they craft an arument like Saunders did. Instead we get looming Soudas saying bollocks like "Official Tory policy on abortion is neither pro-choice or pro-life, he said. It is simply a decision not to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada"

    • If the facts of life truly were conservative, they woudln't need to be "sold properly", or "sold" at all.

      • Margaret Thatcher has a terrific line: “The facts of life are conservative.” Just so. Alas, while the facts are conservative, everything else — the culture, the media, the institutions in which we educate our children, the language of public discourse, the societal air we breathe — is profoundly liberal." Mark Steyn, National Review, 2009

        • That's because societies evolve beyond the tribe and the cave….you'll just have to get used to it.

        • Bergkamp, I heard an interesting proposal today and I'd like to get your take on it.

          First, do away with corporate taxes completely. Also, do away with unions.
          Now, take the union dues money the worker was paying, and apply it to buying stocks in the company. Regulate companies so that profits must first be shared with the workers in the form of dividends, and if profitable above a modest and realistic goal, with bonuses. Shareholders outside of workers would also get dividends of course, leaving a small percentage for the company to put into reserves. CEOs and other top people would have no more of these million dollar plus salaries, perhaps regulated to be, say, five times what the lowest full-time worker is paid, or some other way of tying the average worker's pay to the corporate executives. This includes total remuneration (car allowance and pension etc.)

        • That's exactly what it is though… a line.

          Think really hard.. why might *everything* around us be liberal if the facts are conservative? Are we all just that incredibly stupid?

          Or perhaps the problem is with your initial assumption, and the stupid ones are those who think the facts of life are conservative.

          • So true.

    • .
      CHina taxes the tar out of their 'free-market-"reform"' wealthy, and personal tax over 20K is 45%

      They are were recently predicted (shock) to overtake the U.S. in scientific papers in 2013, 6 years ahead of schedule.

      Stop the Adam Smith/Milton Freidman apologism. It's sophomoric, Stephen Harper econ, claptrap. Keynes was at LEAST correct.
      .

      • And that's not in praise of Wen Jiabao, China's econ mechanic.

  8. What a day for Conservative unity.

    First, we have two cabinet ministers saying the PMO was trying to exert undue, illegal influence on the choice of the Montreal Port Authority president, and the Prime Minister saying it was OK, and now today recordings of conversations that imply there may have been some sort of kickbacks involved. Still trying to find a better translation.

    Second, we have the PMO saying one of its own MPs is a liar and that backbenchers are nobodies who don't make policy. And the MP turning around and saying that, no, the PMO is a liar and I did help defund Planned Parenthood.

    And finally we have the Prime Minister helself defending a Conservative candidate that defended terrorists on TV and today a senior Harper cabinet minister saying that the PM wrong to defend a terrorist sympathizer and withdrawing his support for the guy Harper said is A-OK.

    Maybe it's not just the opposition parties PM doesn't want to cooperate with after the election.

    • Are the rats jumping ship?

      When I saw the article below I was astonished: TWO cabinet ministers contradicting Harper, and going after his spokesman. In the papers that day also, someone (G&M) published all of Harper's competition for party leader. And there were stories and questions about whether Harper would quit if he got a minority.

      But then, was it yesterday? Giorno contradicting Harper also. Another rat jumping ship?

      And then, most recently, Brad contradicting Harper, although I suspect with less a rat with a strategy than one just jumping.

      And then, another minister today, Peter Kent, going against Harper by saying the "terrorist supporter" running as a conservative should never have been permitted. Another very senior rat jumping ship?

      All of this when Harper is on record as saying quite the opposite.

      The wildest thing in this election is that it is the National Post that is doing the most critical pieces on Harper, and the most objective and comprehensive on Ignatieff.

      What gives, folks? Are the progressive conservatives fighting back? Do they smell blood? Are are they just trying to save their own skins?

      Have fun with all my mixed metaphores.
      http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-m

  9. The headline at the Globe and Mail says that "any and all anit-abortion legislation 'will be defeated', Harper declares". Does that mean that he'd whip a PMB that originated from the Conservative backbench? Would he force his pro-life MPs to vote against their conscience?

    Dunno how he can make that guarantee.

    • I expect the same way he can guarantee he won't tax income trusts, won't appoint unelected people to senate or cabinet, and won't allow the US to walk away from the NAFTA rulings..

      ..that is, by bald-facedly and knowingly lying to us.

    • Why would any guarantee made by harper during an election hold any water? It's not as if he never lies or anthing!

      No majority, please: dump harper.

    • It's easy to make new promises when you break the old ones and nobody seems to care.

  10. And they're often from SK! Vellacott; Trost…Listeria Ritz…Block. There's no con like a SK con. Knuckle draggers, as Bob Fife so colourfully described them on air.

    • Lukiwski! How could I miss him?

  11. Trost is a religious lunatic and homophobic bigot.
    Sure hope he loses his seat!
    I didn't think that so many rednecks existed out there!

  12. Incumbent MP Trost:

    There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Our early human ancestors; on this earth … go back more than 6 million years … 5,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews. Christianity is basically a 2011 year old fictional cult.
    In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity – a fantasy – which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

    I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross?

    The evil writings in Leviticus 18:22 … against gays – depicts: “P” … “priestly rules” & expanded by the pope; homophobes and religious frauds … to attack the gay community and never meant to apply to the public — but to priests. Leviticus exists in the old testament & torah … & was written long after Moses — 600BC.

    How would you like it … if hate speech was directed to your brother or sister as you sat in the pew; spewed by some better than thou religious lunatic with a hateful black book about Leviticus — under his arm?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *