CBC Vote Compass really really is bias

See!  I told you those Liberals were sneaky!

Turns out the guy who's a PhD analyst for the CBC Vote Compass was an adviser on Ignatieff 2006 campaign--one Peter Loewen.

Election notes - Day 6: Liberals rise, NDP fall

Nick Nanos has released a poll showing the Liberals have gained up to 4 points nationally where the NDP have dropped by about the same amount.

I'm wondering if talk of the coalition by Harper has actually scared lefty voters to just support the Liberals instead of swallowing their ideological pride and go Conservative.  Or, they hate Harper more than they like Jack and now find Ignatieff palatable.  Or that stupid CBC Vote Compass has fooled Canadians with no views into believing they're Liberal.
 
Conservative support is stagnant, so Harper appears to be solidifying his base.  But I also believe the business community have left the Liberals for the most part and are mostly Conservative now, same with immigrants.  So I believe the fight for Harper will be to sway at least 3% of centrists in Ontario.

However, this movement on the left shows me that Canadians are paying attention more than I thought.

CBC Vote Compass is BS

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been using CBC's Vote Compass to determine which party closely aligns with their views and opinions.

This blogger was very closely aligned with, you guessed it, the Conservative Party.  I was actually a bit perturbed though, seeing where the Conservative Party is on the political grid, thinking they would actually be closer to the centre than they were placed.  But I was to the right and south of them slightly.

Then, on advice of a friend, I decided to take the test again, but this time, choosing 'Neither agree nor disagree' and 'No Opinion' on all the questions.  And guess where I ended up?  Smack dab in the middle obviously, and closest with the Liberals.

What a joke. So if I'm completely a-political, I'm really a Liberal?  So who created this Vote Compass thingy?  Well, it was a bunch of University of Toronto students.  Go figure.

The problem with this compass thingy is that it ALLOWS you to have no opinion.  Not only that, but most of the questions are only relevant to today and not on general ideology.   Therefore, it is amateurish and non-applicable to the past or future.

A true compass thingy wouldn't allow it, which is why I recommend www.politicalcompass.org out of Britain. I've been using it for years to track my ideological views.  It is much more extensive and forces you to pick an actual answer.

Where am I on it?  +5 libertarian, +1 economic right.  Well, if you took where I am on it and transposed it to CBC's Compass, guess what?  I'm a Liberal!  Oh, the humanity!

No wonder the CBC is promoting the hell out of it and saying "Wow! Hundreds of thousands of people are using it!"  Why? Because they KNOW the default answer is LIBERAL!

Told ya those Liberals were sneaky.  Look for more sneakiness to come.  It's the only way they'll win. But they won't.

Election notes - Day 5

• Libs and Dips are now trumpeting a Stephen Harper interview from 1997 when he was head of the National Citizens' Coalition talking about ... coalitions..when he wasn't even an MP.. when the right.. the PCs and Reform Party were divided.  He made no mention of the Bloc.  But what Libs and Dips fail to see in ALL of this is that back in 2008, they went into a formal support agreement with the Bloc Quebecois separatists.  In 2004, there was no agreement between the opposition parties to form a coalition government.  In 2008, there was.  No one, not even Tom Flanagan, has provided proof otherwise, other than saying Harper was "contemplating" it.  I'm sure Ignatieff is "contemplating" going back to Harvard when he loses this election and steps down as leader too.
   
• Green Party leader Elizabeth May has not been invited to the leaders' debates.  Aw.  Win your own seat, Betty.  I'm trying to find out if Preston Manning was at the debates in 1988 and 1993.  Does anyone know?
  
• A friend of mine who's a Green supporter said to me, "May has the political acumen of a goldfish. Why she has to go up against Conservative cabinet ministers is beyond me.  Oh, and I'm voting Conservative this time because we need simply need a majority government."  I've heard this several times from traditionally non-Conservative voters.
  
• Jack then says he doesn't know why May cannot attend (good on him taking the higher road though).  The NDP is also moving to the right of the Liberals with today promising to lower the small business tax and provide incentives. Very smart move by the NDP but is it street-level Tim Hortons type policy?  Another TV spot is out too.  Not bad. Not bad at all.
  
• An NDP candidate in Ontario has dropped out of the race to support the Liberal saying he doesn't want to split the vote.  Methinks he actually was a Liberal in Dipper clothing.  Liberals are sneaky. Always have been.  You now wonder how many Liberals are going to join the NDP and cause a merger down the road.
  
• I've been following the website threehundredeight.com for some time now.  Here's the current numbers:
  Con 151 (+8) ... 4 more to the magic number
  Lib 73 (-4)
  BQ 51 (+4)
  NDP 33 (-3)
  
• Liberals are way down in Quebec.  Conservatives are leading well in battlegrounds of Ontario and BC.  Even if Ontario stays as it is, the Prairies and BC could actually and finally decide if it's a majority or not.  The key will be another strong NDP showing in urban centres to split the vote with Liberals.  Well, except for Edmonton-Strathcona.  The Liberals just finally nominated their candidate there.  I've been saying it for years... the Liberals and NDP in Edmonton work together and support the better candidate in many of the ridings.
  
• I think the debates will be key to this election. No one is really paying attention right now except us bloggers, hacks, and pundits.  Everyone is wondering why we're having an election.  Uh, because they're fun? Duh! ..lol..  I think to truly secure a majority, at the debate, Harper has to make Iggy trip up on his tongue, and in the last 16 days, Harper has to come out with some fuzzy hope and vision. I'm wondering if the Conservatives haven't over-played their hand with all the TV ads and 'coalition' talk.
  
• Messaging.  Here's the buzz words in my own head emanating from each party at the present moment.
  - Conservative:  "they'll form a coalition" -- ok, we get it.  Move on to something else.
  - Liberal:  "will give you poor students $4000" -- and so will the rich students
  - Bloc:  "Frère Jacques, frère Jacques, Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous? Sonnez les matines! Sonnez les matines! Din, dan, don. Din, dan, don". -- Campaigns are old hat for Gilles.
  - NDP:  "Now that's Canadian leadership." -- well, I wouldn't expect anything else. They need a better slogan though.  But Jack is impressing me the most again this election.  He's energetic despite the hip, he's positive, and he's speaking clearly and with vigour.

Debunking Flanagan

Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager and author of "Harper's Team", gave his thoughts on the 2004 letter.

Below is also a discussion I'm having on Facebook regarding this. 

• Hatrock
  The article and what Tom said is still speculation. There's no real proof here of actually proposing a formal coalition.
  

  
  
• 
  

  
  

  Steve
  Sure, but he's not just criticizing the Liberals for the formal coalition. He's criticizing them for being willing to lead a government upheld by the Bloc (which he was, by every account but his own, contemplating in 2004) and for trying to form a government without a plurality of seats (which he was, by every account but his own, contemplating in 2004).
  
  I've got no horse in this race, but there is no way to frame this that doesn't involve raging hypocrisy.
  

  
  
• Martin
  Ah, but while 04 was a coalition, this is a RECKLESS COALITION. Or so I hear.
  
  
• Hatrock
  Someone please show actual proof. Thank you.
  
  
• 
  

  RC
  Harper just wants to make us forget that he prorogued parliament to prevent the elected representatives of the people do what is done in a multiplicity of democracies. I say, ding him iwith the memory of how far he went to prevent parliament from working to his disadvantage.
  
  
• 
  

  Steve
  

  Mike: The notion of "proof" requires a threshold, and I sense you're asking for one that's not even theoretically reachable. What we have is the following:
  1. Three people who were in a position to know, one of whom was and is a supporter of Harper, say that Harper was seeking to become (or at least contemplating the possibility of becoming) Prime Minister without a plurality of seats.
  2. Harper signed his name to a letter urging the Governor General to consider options other than an immediate dissolution of Parliament in the event that the Martin government was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Can you offer a plausible interpretation of this letter that doesn't involve Harper contemplating the possibility of becoming Prime Minister despite lacking a plurality of seats?
  
  
• 
  

  Duncan
  In regards to proof. Hasn't Gilles Duceppe been waving a letter around talking about a coalition with the Bloc with Harper's signature on it?

Still no proof, just speculated "contemplation"? Sorry folks, that's not good enough.

2004 was not a coalition and Harper was not proposing that the then three opposition parties form one and take over the government by a vote of non-confidence and upsurping Canadian tradition and the will of voters.  Ignatieff/Layton/Duceppe almost did in 2008 and will try it again if the Conservatives win a minority again, otherwise, why have a vote of non-confidence and go to the polls when you know you're not going to win.

35 Years...

More Iffy...

TODAY:

Ignatieff said, "That's why we have a firm commitment not to raise taxes on small business or on Canadian families."

BEFORE:

Ignatieff has described himself as a “tax and spend” Liberal who is “not going to take a GST hike off the table.” 

THE OTHER DAY: 

Liberals announce they will raise the corporate tax rate from 16.5% to 18%.

Confused? 

Coalitions: comparing 2004 and 2008 again

A continual counterpoint being made by Liberals, NDP, and BQ supporters is that Harper is a hypocrite for denouncing the formal Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition when he tried to do it himself back in 2004.

Well he didn't.  He's not a hypocrite.

It bugs me that I feel compelled to have to regurgitate a post I made in May of 2010.

In 2004, there was no coalition.  Period.  All Harper, Layton, and Duceppe did was make the Governor General aware that she should consult the opposition parties before making a decision.

Here's a video to show you what Harper, Layton, and Duceppe said back in 2004.  It's VERY CLEAR.  No coalition.  Whereas early in this 2011 campaign, Mr. Ignatieff has not been clear on his intentions AND Layton and Duceppe have been calling Mr. Harper a liar regarding his intentions, when it is THEY who have been misleading.



And once again, here's the Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

(Also signed by Duceppe and Layton)

Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

2004:  "to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

2008:  "you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.... This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons."


Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.  See below...

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

Oh, and did I mention that this agreement between the Liberals and NDP is still in effect until June 2011?

And only 17% believe Ignatieff when he says he won't form a coalition.

It's on!

Months ago, I heard rumours that the vote would be May 2.  Looks like it's come to fruition.  I've also been speaking with some colleagues and some of them have said they're now voting Conservative because they don't see the need for an election, so they're going to punish the other parties for making us do so.  I suspect many soft Liberal/NDP supporters are going to stay home because they don't trust Ignatieff, and they know Layton won't be around much longer. Conservative supporters, however, will vote in droves.

Why would they want an election?

Yesterday, the budget debate got postponed, meaning the government will likely fall on Friday over the Liberal non-confidence motion on the Conservative government being in contempt of parliament, which in my opinion, is still debatable being that the house affairs committee has a majority opposition.

So I've been thinking, why would the Liberals and Dippers really want an election?  Poll numbers would indicate that things aren't looking that good for either of them where the Conservatives have been inching up toward a majority.

Are Liberal backroom dealers making Iggy go for it because they want him to lose so they can replace him with a Liberal-NDP merger-friendly leader, say, like Bob Rae?

Same with the NDP?  This is likely Jack's last election anyway. 


Or, primarily, are the Liberals and NDP still thinking that if Harper doesn't get his majority (and it will be close), they have a chance at forming a coalition government of losers in cahoots with the Bloc?

Yesterday, the media directly asked Iggy if he'd form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.  He didn't say 'no'. 

When pressed further at the news conference about whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of voters if they elect a minority Conservative government, Ignatieff returned to his previous answer.

"There's a blue door. There's a red door. We're going to form a Liberal government. Is that clear enough for you?" Ignatieff then abruptly ended the news conference and walked off.

Actually, Mr. Ignatieff, no, it's not clear.  Is that a Liberal government with an NDP/Bloc coalition?

Why else would you really want to head into an election then?  You are not going to win on your own.