What's Happened to Canada?

Brake lines cut? Cable and TV lines cuts? Cars being keyed and spray painted? This is what our democratic elections have come to in this country? Endagering peoples lives in now fair game in supporting your candidate?

"We're investigating. Officers are paying special attention to the designated area and we take this very seriously," Staff-Sgt. Shawn Meloche, from 53 Division, said last night. "This is a danger to life as well as to property. Regardless of the motivation – and there appears to be a connection (to the signs) – this is a public safety issue."

Homeowner Jennifer Lithgow awoke early Saturday morning to find “B. Rae lies” sprayed on her house and after buckling her six-year-old daughter into her car, she found her brakes weren’t working.

She didn’t immediately connect the two incidents but after making a call to Bennett’s campaign team to report the vandalism to her house, she was told about the other cars that had been tampered with, including her neighbour’s.

“I can’t believe that somebody would do that, it’s dangerous, I could have hurt myself, or my daughter who was in the car at the time, I could’ve hurt somebody else if I hadn’t been able to stop,” Lithgow said.

Sadly this is not the first time this has happened. If you recall, when the by- elections were going on in Guelph, the same thing occured.

There is no way at this point to know who is behind these heinous acts, but we can all hope that they are caught and caught soon.

I really want my Canada back!

Update - Here is a news clip and an interview with Caroline Bennett.

Jack's Grand Deception

Jack began this campaign by saying he was applying for the job of Prime Minister.

Even in this day and age, it seems to me that when you apply for a job, a CV is submitted and scrutinized. There has been no scrutiny though. There hasn't even been a passing glance at what Layton brings to the table in the form of a platform and what he is offering to Canadians at this moment in time.

In fact, what he is offering is disastrous for the country and is all about Layton and his legacy. Maybe it's time for a closer look.

He's been leader of the NDP party since 2005. He came into that role full of ambition. Ambition that upon some closer examination was willing to do just about anything to increase his power. Anything includes deluding his own members. What am I referring to? Let's look back a bit.

Once in power, Layton made a decision to prop up the Martin government by insisting that they redirect tax cuts to other programs that the NDP could support. This gave him a chance to puff up his chest and tell his supporters, ' I , We make Parliament work'. Fair enough. Not satisfied with that however, their real agenda was to defeat the Libs, not only in parliament, but by taking some of their seats and for that they needed timing. Having told their members that they were making Parliament work, this was going to be tricky.

The release of the Gomery report and the Chaoulli decision in Quebec gave the NDP some new found courage, well, sort of. It gave the brass some new found opportunity. The people at the top wanted an early election, but many of their supporters were happy with the alliance they had found with the Liberals and felt it was a progressive path worth pursuing. Hmmm. How to follow your blind ambition without letting on to those who believe in you that that's your ultimate aim?

Answer? Call the Conservatives. In early November of 2005, the NDP called the Conservatives to propose a plan. They would put forward a motion to ask the Liberals to hold an election in January. They didn't have the courage to put forward an non-confidence vote because that would blow their cover to their supporters. Instead, they claimed they were simply appealing to the masses by trying to avoid an election over Christmas. That of course left it open for the Con's to put forward a non-confidence motion.

Both Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe agreed to the plan that Tom Flanagan called the NDP two-step. On November 28th, all three parties supported the Conservative motion. The writ dropped the next day.

So, when the Liberals maintain that Harper is 'The house that Jack built', they are right. The NDP scream that the Canadian voters put Harper in power. In the end, the votes did create the parliament we had, but Layton set up and played up the conditions for that to happen by plotting with Harper.

Ancient history? Not really. You see it speaks to the character of the man. At present. Layton and Harper are still working together. Their common goal is to destroy the Liberal party. What do you think they really spoke about before Harper took his stroll, limo across the street last month? I have no proof, but I have an idea.

During this campaign, Layton developed this, 'I will be the next PM' line, knowing full well that his aspirations were to replace the Lib's as the official opposition. Let's look at what he is bringing to the table at this critical time.

His platform? Have you seen this platform actually analysed anywhere? When Canada is facing an economic slow down, Layton is proposing to cut back scheduled tax breaks for businesses. Precisely when we need to attract new business, sustain existing business and provide avenues for them to expand, Layton thinks it would be wise to make that next to impossible. How would the stock market react to this plan do you think? How many more companies would have to either cut back or close? how many jobs would be lost? How many investors would consider Canada a great place to start a business?

Have you seen one economist support this plan? More to the point, don't you think we should be seeing some denounce it for the foolishness that it is?

I know I ask too much, but in the last days of this campaign but wouldn't it be nice if some pundit or some reporter actually travelling with Jack would take the time to actually ask questions of substance?

Jack is presenting himself and being presented as a viable option to either form the official opposition or become PM. He has no platform, he has no experience and he has no team with any experience at a national level.

Now is not the time to play games or to fulfill Jack's ambition. Now is the time for an honest look at what each of the candidates have to offer, the entirety of what they have to offer, not just the inane headlines.

BTW - The 2005 recounting of what went on between the Con's and the NDP comes straight from Tom Flanagan's mouth, keyboard, in his book Harper's Team.

Dion as Dion - Reflected by Nanos

Imagine giving Canadians a chance to see Stephane Dion as he is. That is, without the media telling us what was asked of him, how many people were there, what their reactions were and what he did or did not say.

To an extent, that is what happens during a debate. Each candidate has an opportunity to present themselves and their ideas to an audience far broader than a single hall can hold. Those who watch the debate have an opportunity to see the candidates through their own filters, unencumbered by the media's meme.

New Nanos numbers have come out that seem to reflect that when people are engaged, looking out for what matters to them and seeking answers from our leaders, they see not only the Liberal party and what it has to offer but also Stephane Dion.

Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences?Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,006, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)

Conservative Party 35 (-2)
Liberal Party 30 (+4)
NDP 18 (-1)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 9% (+1)
Undecided 16% (+3)

Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:The most trustworthy leaderThe most competent leaderThe leader with the best vision for Canada's future [Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]

Stephen Harper 79 (-16)
Stephane Dion 71 (+40)
Jack Layton 48 (-12)
Elizabeth May 15 (-3)
Gilles Duceppe 11 (-3)

It's one poll, I realise that. It does though presumably include some people who watched the French debate, meaning, people who took the time to engage. Given that, these numbers are encouraging to me.

This particular snapshot indicates that part of the rolling sample seemed to see Dion as he is and the Liberals as they are, not as the media and the opposition would have you believe. Refreshing isn't it?

Bravo Stéphane

Well, some reviews, are in and so are some polls. Also, this graph is pretty interesting. Scroll your cursor across each party for audience reaction.

CROP

Most Convincing:

Duceppe 33%

Dion 30%

Layton 15%

Harper 12%

May 2%

Least Convincing:

Harper 46%

May 32%

Layton 9%

Dion 6%

Duceppe 5%

Did Your Opinion of the Parties Improve or Worsen?

Liberals: 45% improved, 10% worsened

NDP: 33% improved, 4% worsened

Green: 37% improved, 8% worsened

Bloc: 21% improved, 8% worsened

Tories: 9% improved, 29% worsened

IPSOS

Winner:

Dion 40%

Duceppe 24%

Harper 16%

Layton 11%

May 1%

Most Prime Ministerial:

Dion 36%

Harper 31%

Duceppe 17%

Layton 12%

May 1%

Did Your Opinion of the Leaders Improve or Worsen?

Dion: 67% improved, 11% worsened

Layton: 55% improved, 7% worsened

Duceppe: 41% improved, 11% worsened

May: 42% improved, 24% worsened

Harper: 14% improved, 53% worsened

This morning, I listened to some French Talk radio from Quebec City. Host, Martin Pouliot with 3 media pundits. They all basically confirmed the above with some interesting local colour. They all pointed out that Dion was the only one with a plan re' the economy question. He was prepared, Harper had nothing. Callers were mixed but primarily Harper supporters stating how great he was and how he defended his plan. I don't know what they were watching, but I heard neither a plan nor the defense of same.

Personally, I love the new format. I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it to be honest, but overall I found it provided a much better forum for a discussion/debate. The old 'presidential' podiums should be banished in my opinion.

One other point I find interesting but bogus, is how a lot of English press is devoting space to how poor Harper was 'attacked'. I cannot remember a debate where the incumbent wasn't attacked, so if that's all they've got, it tells you something about Harper's performance.

That's the English press though and really, Harper needed to reach French Quebecer's and expand his reach. It does not appear that he was successful.

Onto the English debates. The dynamics will change tonight and it will be interesting to see how the leaders change based on today's reviews. I'd bet good money that Harper's advisers got an earful this morning. I expect to see a much more combative and animated performance from both him and from Layton for that matter.

I think Dion would do well to take much the same tone. In fact, Dion was Dion, so I'm not sure we will see much change. May will be a bit of a wild card tonight, so that could be interesting.

Jean-Marc Léger or Léger Marketing suggests that the 48 hrs. following the debates are important. So far so good. Let's see what the future holds.

h/t - Calgary Grit for poll numbers.

Quick Thoughts

The Conservative spin has already begun so watch tomorrow for the repetition of a phrase that Dion has changed his platform mid-campaign. It's absolute BS of course, but hey, that's going to be the line.

That they developed the line during the debate and sent it to all and sundry tells you they are on the defensive.

The other line that will be repeated often is that Harper was ganged up on. Boo Hoo. As if the PM in any such debate hasn't been the target in the past. There was one more person there, but nothing was different in that regard.

To me it was interesting to see Harper faced by real questions and the lack of adoration he has surrounded himself with during this campaign. He seemed uncomfortable with it and offered little in the way of answers. He sounded flat, looked unengaged and offered no real platform. It was either the Liberals started it, we've already done that, or we shouldn't do anything different.

I wonder if the press will start asking real questions when they go back on the road?

Dion did really well. Do you think I'm being biased? A friend just told me that both LaPierre and Chantal Hebert concurred on this point on the National. La Pierre was going by focus groups on TVA. It's tough to call all those people bias.

Duceppe and Layton performed well, but pretty much as they were expected to do. In terms of the absolute ability to debate and being perfectly comfortable in that element, Duceppe gets that award. I personally didn't feel that Layton accomplished the task of being a viable federal leader. May was up and down in terms of effectiveness, but was gutsy all the way through. She certainly doesn't shy away from speaking her mind and while her French was anything but good, she was able to make herself understood and it takes courage to do that.

More tomorrow.