Thursday, August 03, 2006

In Denial

I don't look at polls. I don't look at polls. I don't look at polls...

Thanks a lot, Neale.

I'm going back to bed.

* * * *

A somewhat more hopeful note here.

31 comments:

Sara said...

something big will happen in the fall, that I've been sure of since summer started... remember it is summer right now so don't be discouraged :)

Brian said...

Look at them all you want Joanne, just don't believe them.

I judge the accuracy of a poll by how the parties react - internal polling is far more accurate than the public polling IMO.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

something big will happen in the fall

This blasted heat will go away?


Wecome back, Brian! What do you mean by 'internal polling' vs. public? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I still claim that Liberal poll numbers will go down once they have a leader in place. Let's say Iggy gets in, then we can throw this quote back in his face:

"Qana was, frankly, inevitable, in a situation in which you have rocket-launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on. This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."

Paul Wells and Calgary Grit are on this quote, but no need for the CPC to use it just yet. It clearly has the potential to cause damage to Iggy in the Muslim community what Harper's "culture of defeat" did to him in Atlantic Canada.

Lets wait for an election campaign, when Harper can become more partisan, take the gloves off, and focus his attacks on whichever leader is in place.

Calgary Junkie

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Calgary Junkie - Wise words, my friend. Thanks for putting it in perspective.

In fact, the worst thing that could happen here is that the Conservatives get too cocky. "Pride goeth before a fall." Are you paying attention, Mel Gibson?

Jay said...

I don't think much will happen in the fall except people jumping on the Liberal bandwagon, hype can do that. The main problem faced by the CPC is the perception that the CPC and Mr. Harper are cold, callous and mean spirited.

The promised GST cut came and went. It was hyped as money in your pocket that was better than the previous Liberal tax cut. I see no benefit. Most business are not returning it. I know its not the fault of the government put a provision forcing it to be turned over would have been nice. Instead I get no GST relief and my paycheque dropped over 200 dollars last week. Sure he delivered what he promised but he knew what would happen (ie. mean and cold). The Child care credit of 100 dollars is taxable and surprise we lose a 30 dollar credit we already have. So in actuality we get 70 dollars which is taxable (mean spirited).

So we have a PM that delivers what he says but in actuality he is delivering words to us only, because what he promised is useless to the average person whom it was intended to affect because companies and other levels of governement are hoarding it.

Choosing a side in a war that splits Canadians was a bad choice. What did Harper expect to accomplish with this? We are a country made up of people from ALL over the planet. So picking a side in a unwinnable war only pits one group of Canadians against another. I personally could care less about what is going on in the Middle East. Nobody is right in that situation but for Mr. Harper to take sides turned me agaist him and the CPC not because I favour one group over the other but because the PM is stirring up civil strife in our own backyard. That alone should have him booted out of Ottawa.

So in the fall we will possibly have a vote on SSM and that again wil pit one group of Canadians against another for the PM's political gain and the demoralization of another group of people (the same group over and over).

You reap what you sow. I think the CPC still has some sort of a future but it most definitely won't be under Harper. He managed to pick up the same baggage in just 6 months that it took George Bush and Tony Blair to pick up in 5 years. Well done if that was the goal.

Jay said...

PS: From what I could gather this poll was conducted prior to the Lebanon situation which would seem to point to a even worst situation right now because if you factor in Lebanon and Israel, your numbers could really be quite scary.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Interesting thoughts, Jay, and may I thank you for presenting them in a very logical and objective fashion? I think that this serves as a model for people who disagree, but are able to do so in an intelligent manner, instead of resorting to name-calling to get their point across.

That being said, the one statement I really have a problem with is this:

I personally could care less about what is going on in the Middle East. Nobody is right in that situation but for Mr. Harper to take sides turned me agaist him and the CPC not because I favour one group over the other but because the PM is stirring up civil strife in our own backyard. That alone should have him booted out of Ottawa.

So what you really want is another Paul Martin, who checks the polls and which way the wind is blowing that day before he utters a word. (And of course after he talks to Scott Reid).

I support a leader who has the guts to call a spade a spade. In this case, to call Hezbollah a terrorist group, and thus support Israel. On the other hand, nobody is blameless here. But I'm still proud of Stephen Harper.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jay, BTW, this is what happens when we don't face problems head on.

Jay said...

LOL Joanne. I most definitely do not want another Paul Martin ( I didn't want him when we had him).

I don't think that picking a side in the Middle East has any benefits. That doesn't entail checking polls to make a decision or not. It means working with both sides to achieve either a ceasefire or maybe to seek endorsement from Lebanon to target only specific areas within the borders of lebanon. This approach would have killed the idea of incursion on soveriegn soil. What we have now is over 600 people dead (mostly children and women) who had nothing to do with this. On top of that Lebanon is now suffering an environmental catastrophe which is spreading to Syria and will hit Greece and Turkey. This will affect the health of citizens in all those countries. All of which to free a single soldier. It not only does not make sense but screams of an alternative motive for this conflict.

Joanne, I have followed some of your comments over at Red Tory and thats why I am checking out your space. Your comments are very well thought out and supported. Thanks for reading mine.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Jay. Wow, that's the first nice thing anyone ever said about me regarding my boneheaded expeditions to Red's site.

I totally hear you about 'collateral damage'. Not sure what the answer is, but Hezbollah is deliberately using civilians as human shields. Should we be negotiating with this kind of monster? It's like doing a deal with the devil. I don't know.

Nicole said...

(And of course after he talks to Scott Reid

Does ANYONE even listen to what Scott Reid has to say anymore?

Steve said...

Instead I get no GST relief and my paycheque dropped over 200 dollars last week.

That sounds a little steep, Jay. I don't have the actual numbers at hand, but that is more likely the impact for the whole year.

To be sure, anecdotal evidence suggests some businesses (and governments) are raising their prices to offset the GST cut, but certainly not all.

We will get a clearer picture on the extent of such opportunism when the CPI for July comes out on August 22. I am pretty sure we will actually see inflation drop compared to previous months. It may turn out to be a wash, but you will benefit from the GST cut.

Gabby in QC said...

Jay said:
" ... the PM is stirring up civil strife in our own backyard."

I question your assertion that it is the PM who is stirring up the strife. Is it not rather some immigrants, who have come to this country, who benefit from its generosity and opportunities, yet are unwilling to leave their internecine wars behind them? When my parents brought my siblings & myself to this country, their intention was to start a new life, not to pick up where they left off back in "the old country."

Also
"What we have now is over 600 people dead (mostly children and women) who had nothing to do with this."
Although I share your view that the death of innocent civilians is abhorrent, it is a sad fact of life that deaths happen in any conflict.

However, I have read in other blogs I visit that the "massacre" at Qana and its death toll, for example, may have been inflated and staged by Hezbollah to win the media war.

One last point - there has been much outrage expressed in the media because Israel's actions have caused the death of civilians. Where is the outrage when suicide bombers blow themselves up in crowded market places in Baghdad? Or in Israel?

PS: I agree with Joanne about the way you present your views.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Does ANYONE even listen to what Scott Reid has to say anymore?

Only Scott Reid.

Steve, thanks for adding the financial perspective. It is certainly not my specialty.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

PS: I agree with Joanne about the way you present your views.

Indeed. It is very refreshing to have such civility on this blog!

Gabby, you are putting into words what I have been thinking. This is more than a war in the traditional sense. It is a media war for sure; and an attempt by various factions to shake out their allies and enemies. From what I understand, Hezbollah is the puppet of Iran.

I don't like to think too much about where this could all lead. It is frightening.

Jay said...

I believe what makes this a difficult conflict to pick a side in is that the Israeli's are bombing sites in Lebanon but are actually not fighting Lebanon,. They are fighting a group within it's borders. If Israel wants people to respect its borders then they should respect others borders and not violate them. Justifying incursions because a terrorist group uses them is not an appropriate action. It tends to lend legitimacy to not respecting sovereign nations. It should have been done with a little more tact, diplomacy and with partners before going in with a focused area to attack. What it appears to be happening is just bombings all over Lebanon when they say that Hizbollah is in the south.

Gaby I agree that immigrants should leave internecine wars behind them. Most do, thats why its best for the PM to not take a side. When you do pick a side, suddenly that conflict has now been expanded to Candian soil because unfortunately people leaving these strife torn areas still have families there. By picking a side we are telling everyone else we don't care about killing women and children which may not actually be true. People look to their government for support. If the governement is aginst your country and families living there who do they turn to? We can't pick and choose which group of people we will support and through out the rest. Picking sides just inflames the ones we overlooked. I know many will call this dithering on the issue but when dealing with issues that are so multi-faceted and entrenched in history, religion and culture we need to be careful and not try to be the first off the block because quick responses tend to be reactionary. To do so looks like pre-determined support that had nothing to do with whos right or wrong in this conflict.

Meaning to do something beneficial is great but its the optics of it that makes the history books.

I am sure good intentions were attempted all around but in the public eye it screams that people don't care about innocent life loss or there is a hidden agenda in motion in the Middle East and nobody is in the know except those currently supporting Israel.

As for making my points in a matter that is respectful, thank you. I don't see the sense in throwing insults when I really want to know how people think and see their logic. Otherwise I would be only here to aggravate myself and others.

On another note, anyone been following the BNP in the UK? Their support has doubled since the terrorist attacks in London. What I find interesting is the ethnic diversity within the party seeing their platform and its views on immigrants. I also heard of support occuring between fundamentalist muslims and neo-nazi's. Thats scary!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I also heard of support occuring between fundamentalist muslims and neo-nazi's. Thats scary!

Wow, you're right about that! I'll have to check into it.

Regarding the rest of your comments, I want to give them some thought before replying.

Nicole said...

Jo...glad to see that you were safe from all the storms...ours ended up being not much thunder, not much lightening, but TONS of rain.
Drop by my place and see if you find anything familar about my 70's post.

Gabby in QC said...

Jay said:
" ... its best for the PM to not take a side. When you do pick a side, suddenly that conflict has now been expanded to Candian soil ... "

As you have stated, the ME situation is a very complex one. Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I interpret Mr. Harper's stand in light of these facts:

1. Israel, a geographically minute entity, is surrounded by countries and other organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, among others) who would like nothing better than to see Israel disappear from the map.
An interesting comparison in the number of terrorist groups can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/d3yf7

2. Despite international interventions (Camp David, Geneva, Oslo), and the presence of UN observers, conflicts and wars have continued.

3. Prime Minister Harper has reaffirmed the right of Israel, as a sovereign nation, to protect its territory and its citizens against a group (Hezbollah) that the previous Liberal government also designated as a terrorist organization.

4. The Prime Minister is thus not "picking sides" per se, favouring the Israelis over the Lebanese or the Palestinians or whichever other group.

5. The people who claim that Mr. Harper has abandoned Canada's traditional role as an "honest broker" have yet to offer a CONCRETE solution to this long-standing problem, beyond calling for a ceasefire.

Annie said...

Wow Joanne... how wonderful to have a guest to your blog who can intelligently and civilly debate and disagree.

Jay, thank you for your comments, I've been trying for weeks to find someone to civilly explain this particular point of view.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow Joanne... how wonderful to have a guest to your blog who can intelligently and civilly debate and disagree.

Right on, Annie! After all the mud-slinging that's gone on here, it's so pleasant to have an intelligent debate.

Mac said...

It's interesting, isn't it? By affirming Israel's right to exist and therefore to protect it's citizens and soveignty, PM Harper is being accused of picking sides. Who is PM Harper siding against? Did someone revoke Hezbollah's status as an active terrorist organization while I wasn't looking? Is Hezbollah now a country?

No, wait... it's Lebanon that's bearing the brunt of Israel's attacks against Hezbollah. Lebanon... the country who promised the UN that they would disarm and disband all non-government 'militias' (Muslim code word for armed bandits?) but failed to do so.

Today is a sad day. Four more Armed Forces personnel killed in Afghanistan. Dang.

Zac said...

I'm certainly not doing backflips today or anything. It's one poll. It's one stinking poll.

The only good that could come of this is that Harper won't jump to a fall election and will be more cautious. Nothing more.

The Liberal numbers will go up a bit as the convention nears and attention is drawn to the race more. The MSM will be all over it so people will pay attention. Its been a snoozer to this point but when it comes to crunch time people will pay attention. The numbers might fall after that.

Plus the Tory numbers always move up 5 or 6 points during a campaign regardless.

I say that we not worry about this stuff for now. Write your platform and we'll write ours and we'll meet on election day and see who Canadians will give their vote to.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Write your platform and we'll write ours and we'll meet on election day and see who Canadians will give their vote to.

Another voice of reason.


Today is a sad day. Four more Armed Forces personnel killed in Afghanistan.

Mac, this is a sad day for sure. I know someone who will be going to Afghanistan soon, and I will be praying for him.

Mac said...

The best analogy I've ever heard for polls is that they're like a snapshot. It freezes everything seen in that moment. Sometimes, they're deadly accurate. Other times, they're way out there and highly misleading.

That's why polls make for lousy policy. Too easy to guide, too easy to misinterpret and sometimes just plain wrong. Go figure.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

there is a hidden agenda in motion in the Middle East and nobody is in the know except those currently supporting Israel. Jay, the only hidden agenda that I know of is the one to get rid of terrorists!

BTW, did you happen to read the editorial in today's Post? (Peter MacKay's Brutal Honesty).

Zac said...

I think Ernie Eves said it best:

"The only poll that counts in on election day"

Let's forget this non-sense and move on.

I notice some of my fellow Liblogers doing backflips over this but its really not that big of a deal. On the flip side I noticed the arrogance of the Blogging Tories after the election. You can never get too cocky.

Just make sure you get the best programs and policy out there and let the voters decide. If they vote against you, the other party's ideas were better than yours. Go back and regroup and come back with something better.

Brian said...

Hi Joanne, thanks, it's nice to be back.

Internal polling vs. public polling: what I mean is the parties do their own polling, it would bethe internal polls. It is far more likely to be accurate, as the party is looking specifically for accuracy. Public polls are the ones we see. They may or may not be accurate depending on any number of variables.

Watch how the parties act when polls come out, it will often tell you far more about the accuracy of the polls.

An example(a blatant example):last spring, when the Tories had a confidence motion (spring 2005 I am talking about). Remember the polls saying the Tories would not win an election? But, the Tories sure bloody tried, and the Liberals did every thing to stop them; denying two confidence votes where confidence votes, luring Belinda Stronach over.

Question: if the Tories couldn't win that election, why did the Liberals work so hard to stop it, and the Tories so hard to create it? Internal polling!

Believe the internal polling, never the public polling.

PS I'm writing this just before I crawl into bed. My apologies if it's incoherent.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Brian, thanks. That makes perfect sense.

The other factor that muddies the waters of public polling is who commissioned it. I'll bet there are hundreds of surveys we never hear about because the results aren't what the particular group was looking for. My guess is that they are buried away.

I mean, when have you ever hear a poll commissioned by any special interest group that disclosed details that would damage their own position?

Sara said...

a war can be won on attitude alone,

if this perks up one side or the other it was worth the money spent on the poll