Newest Polls

Jersay
#1
SES Research January 06

Liberal:32

Conservative: 35

NDP: 17

BLOC: 10

Green: 6

The Liberals and the Conservatives seem to fluxuate a point here and there every poll remaining around 32-33 for the Libs, and around about 36 for the CONs. The NDP is still strong at 17%

Ekos January 05

Lib: 30.8

Con: 36.0

NDP: 17.5

BLOC: 10.6

Green: 4.7

So the Bloc keeps slidding. Excellent!
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#2
I am happy to see that the support for the Bloc Québecois appears to be dropping in Québec. While I support the Liberal Party of Canada , and oppose, by and large, a majority of the ideas out of the Conservative Party of Canada , I am happy to see that notwithstanding whichever party is elected, the support for the sovereigntist movement in Québec may be thinning.

I would be quite willing, any day, to put partisan differences aside for the purpose of securing the unity of the nation. That may be slightly aside the topic, though; I hope that with the upcoming announcements from the standing Government, some support may again swing from the Opposition to the Liberals.

Edit Corrected a typo.
 
Jersay
#3
Well, hopefully the Bloc keeps losing support but to me, I always thought that the Bloc was disgruntled conservatives who hadn't like the failure of Meech Lake. So even if they lose support it doesn't effect the PQ.

However, what would be neat is that if a large group of people vote for the Bloc,raises the hopes of the PQ, and when it comes time for election no one votes for the PQ. That would be a great day.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#4
I am sure that Gilles Duceppe would be thrilled.

He gets elected to the House of Commons again; and as soon as the Québec Legislature reforms, he finds out that he has nothing to do again. No Parti québecois? I guess he'd have to continue arguing for the sake of argument, as I would submit that he does, by and large, now.
 
Jersay
#5
Well, that is why my mom said he didn't accept the PQ leadership.

And he would have to forfeit his pension plan in Ottawa if he did.
 
Toro
#6
I think that Parliament should revoke the pension of any MP openly promoting the break-up of Canada if Quebec goes. They should receive their contributions plus interest but not the ridiculous pay-off the MPs have awarded themselves. Its outlandish that the taxpayers of Canada should pay those who destroyed their country.

Maybe we can get a grassroots campaign going to get Parliament to consider this option. It would be interesting to see what the Bloc would say.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#7
With all due respect, Toro, I could never support such a measure, if introduced in either the Senate or the House of Commons. While I do not support the position that the Bloc Québecois chooses to take, I recognize the fact that they have every right to make such a choice.

In my opinion, to threaten the sovereigntist cause with pay cuts and compromised benefits would serve only to strengthen their position, and advocate evermore fiercely for Québecois independence, and the fracturing of our great Confederation.
 
yballa09
#8
Agreed fiveparadox, it would simply put more fuel to the fire. And I agree with what you said earlier, if I had a choice of having my preferred party gain power, or have the separatist sentiment die down (which would consequently lead to better national unity), I would chose the latter.
 
the caracal kid
#9
This country is very poor at addressing needed change.

We need this country to break-up, or at least the resolution to break-up, to initiate the changes necessary.

I would not consider this a great confederation, but an acceptance of a woofully inadequate system out of an over-attachment to the familiar.
 
Finder
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

With all due respect, Toro, I could never support such a measure, if introduced in either the Senate or the House of Commons. While I do not support the position that the Bloc Québecois chooses to take, I recognize the fact that they have every right to make such a choice.

In my opinion, to threaten the sovereigntist cause with pay cuts and compromised benefits would serve only to strengthen their position, and advocate evermore fiercely for Québecois independence, and the fracturing of our great Confederation.


Totally agree.

We can not disenfranchise the minority, just because the magority doesn't agree with them. We are supposed to live in a system of inclussion not exclussion. To exclude them would only add oil to the fire.
 
Toro
#11
Wait a sec.

The government of Canada matches the pension contributions by a factor of 6, compared to 1-2x for a private or even government pension. After 6 years, the MP can start receiving a pension if they are out of Parliament for the rest of their lives. This is ridiculous unto itself, but to pay it to people who have contributed to the destruction of Canada is unfathomable!

You don't cut them off if Quebec stays in Canada. You cut them off after they've separated. And you give them back whatever they've contributed plus interest. Why should taxpayers - because its taxpayers who pay the pension, not the investment earnings of the pension plan - of not only individuals who are no longer Canadian but openly destroyed the country?

Quebecers have every right to make the decision about whether or not they want to stay in the country, and Canada has every right to determine how Canadians are going to pay for the people who broke up Canada.
 
Finder
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Wait a sec.

The government of Canada matches the pension contributions by a factor of 6, compared to 1-2x for a private or even government pension. After 6 years, the MP can start receiving a pension if they are out of Parliament for the rest of their lives. This is ridiculous unto itself, but to pay it to people who have contributed to the destruction of Canada is unfathomable!

You don't cut them off if Quebec stays in Canada. You cut them off after they've separated. And you give them back whatever they've contributed plus interest. Why should taxpayers - because its taxpayers who pay the pension, not the investment earnings of the pension plan - of not only individuals who are no longer Canadian but openly destroyed the country?

Quebecers have every right to make the decision about whether or not they want to stay in the country, and Canada has every right to determine how Canadians are going to pay for the people who broke up Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from on this. But they are getting the pension for work done in the Canadian parliment, destructive or not they were elected officials, by then Canadian citizens who paid taxes to Canada.

Plus no matter how much we feel they are damaging Canada it is really only an opinion and to remove peoples pensions over opinion....
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#13
The Government of Canada would be in breach of hundreds of thousands of contracts if it were to "refuse" to pay pensions as planned; the Government pays pensions to people whether or not they are residents in Canada (for example, a former employee of the Government living in the United States), so why should the Québecois be excluded, even if they separate?

Again, I must re-iterate that I do not think that we should set a double standard for ourselves. We need to fight separatism within the framework of the law — if they separate, then so be it, but we should think no less of them, and we should not abuse secondary institutions, such as that of pension, to get our point across.
 
Finder
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

The Government of Canada would be in breach of hundreds of thousands of contracts if it were to "refuse" to pay pensions as planned; the Government pays pensions to people whether or not they are residents in Canada (for example, a former employee of the Government living in the United States), so why should the Québecois be excluded, even if they separate?

Again, I must re-iterate that I do not think that we should set a double standard for ourselves. We need to fight separatism within the framework of the law — if they separate, then so be it, but we should think no less of them, and we should not abuse secondary institutions, such as that of pension, to get our point across.

Again the patrician, Paradox has said more elegantly then this plebian, bringing in the workings fairness and the law.
 
Toro
#15
Only in Canada would you get paid for treason.
 
the caracal kid
#16
It is not treason to seek separation.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#17
Actually, Toro, the only treason charge in relation to the Government of Canada and the Confederation as one unit is this provision of the Criminal Code:

Quote: Originally Posted by The Criminal Code

Treason
46. (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

The application of even this subsection is in question; but even if it were, then if the Bloc Québecois were to use neither force nor violence in their endeavour to become independent of Canada, then doing so would not constitute treason.

Since high treason pertains exclusively to crimes against the Queen (it is a separate charge altogether from treason), and treason requires that some sort of covert operation take place, or violence or force, then I would assert that the acquisition of independence from Canada cannot be deemed to be "treason" of any sort — if Québec gains independence through an Act of Parliament, and that is treason, then wouldn't the foundation of Canada be entirely treasonous, as being the result of an Act of the United Kingdom?

Edit Edited for clarity.
 
Toro
#18
The way I like to describe Canadians to Americans down here is that if you kicked a Canadian in the forehead, he'd thank you for not kicking him in the teeth (unless he's wearing hockey equipment!)

I find it stunning that you would have no problems continuing to pay people who've destroyed your country. Its not a technical issue about what is treason and what is not. Remember, the separatists say its their decision, and that English Canada has no say. However, even though English Canadians have no say, you still would willingly fork over your tax dollars to the people who say you have no say over how your tax dollars are used!

I've always argued with the separatists that if they do opt for independence that they'd be sitting across the table of a hard-ass Canadian negotiator who, first and foremost, would look out for the interests of Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. If you two are any indication, it appears that many are willing to roll over and be patsies to the separatists. I mean, I can't think of a bigger slap in the face than continuing to pay the people who've destroyed your country. That's like paying the guy who's sleeping with your wife. Don't you think you'd be the laughingstock of the world?
 
Finder
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Only in Canada would you get paid for treason.

hmmmm, again an opinion. you don't understand that what you are bringing forth are opinions. In your definition, American's are criminal for treason for breaking away from the British. Perhaps all of the former soviet republics are for leaving the soviet union. All the war saw pact nations. All the republics which formed Yugoslavia. Mexico for leaving spain, most of Africa for rebelling against there colonial powers. Hell most countries in one point of time you could consider treasones.

At least Quebec is doing it democraticly and lawfully. If you take away there enfracisment then you are only leaving them the gun and violance to voice there opinion. Thats worse then having to just talk to them and share government with them. Study the princibals of a republic and democracy, and minority rights in these systems. It's when you ignore the minority you have violent conflics
 
Citizen
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

The way I like to describe Canadians to Americans down here is that if you kicked a Canadian in the forehead, he'd thank you for not kicking him in the teeth (unless he's wearing hockey equipment!)

I find it stunning that you would have no problems continuing to pay people who've destroyed your country. Its not a technical issue about what is treason and what is not. Remember, the separatists say its their decision, and that English Canada has no say. However, even though English Canadians have no say, you still would willingly fork over your tax dollars to the people who say you have no say over how your tax dollars are used!

I've always argued with the separatists that if they do opt for independence that they'd be sitting across the table of a hard-ass Canadian negotiator who, first and foremost, would look out for the interests of Canada. Maybe I'm wrong. If you two are any indication, it appears that many are willing to roll over and be patsies to the separatists. I mean, I can't think of a bigger slap in the face than continuing to pay the people who've destroyed your country. That's like paying the guy who's sleeping with your wife. Don't you think you'd be the laughingstock of the world?

Toro, I totally agree with what you've said above.

This nicey nice attitude is a Canadian thing.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#21
I would hardly describe the attitude to be "nicey nice."

I would describe the attitude as recognizing the rule of law. We cannot argue that the Government proceed with the Québec sovereignty issue notwithstanding centuries of legislation and conventions, in my opinion. To do so would be an affront to the principles of democracy.

We must hold ourselves to the same standard that we would hold Québec.
 
Citizen
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

I would hardly describe the attitude to be "nicey nice."

I would describe the attitude as recognizing the rule of law. We cannot argue that the Government proceed with the Québec sovereignty issue notwithstanding centuries of legislation and conventions, in my opinion. To do so would be an affront to the principles of democracy.

We must hold ourselves to the same standard that we would hold Québec.

If the situation were reversed, i.e. Quebec paid all MP pensions and Canada then booted Quebec out (strange hypothetical), do you think Quebec would recognize the rule of law?

I think your rule of law could be argued either way, as can all laws.
 
Jersay
#23
I guess they would have too. It would depend on who would be in the National Assembly in Quebec.
 
I think not
#24
Tories head for majority
Poll shows `breakthrough' for party

`Significant growth' in Ontario, Quebec
Jan. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU


Conservatives are charting a course toward a majority on Jan. 23, according to a new national poll completed yesterday.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Toronto Star and La Presse, shows Stephen Harper's Conservatives have sailed into majority government territory after a stunning week of rising popularity, largely at the expense of the Liberal party.

The EKOS survey of 1,240 Canadians through the weekend and yesterday found 39.1 per cent support for the Conservatives. The Liberals had 26.8 per cent support; the NDP 16.2 per cent; the Bloc Québécois 12.6 per cent; and Green party 4.6 per cent.

"This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for," EKOS president Frank Graves said.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have widened the gap to a 10-percentage-point lead over the Liberals. Of the 518 Ontarians surveyed, 43.8 per cent supported the Tories, 33.5 per cent the Liberals, 16.2 per cent the NDP, and 5.4 per cent the Greens.

Even in Quebec, the Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals. A total of 330 people were surveyed in that province and 19.1 per cent threw their support behind the Tories, compared with 17.4 per cent for the Liberals.

The Bloc, however, remains miles ahead with 52.4 per cent.


"The Conservatives' gains are nationwide, but their most significant growth is in Ontario, where they have surpassed the Liberals in their traditional heartland, and in Quebec, where they are now the leading federalist alternative to the Bloc Québécois," Graves said.

The national poll numbers are considered accurate within 2.8 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The margin of error in Ontario was 4.3 percentage points.

EKOS's Paul Adams said Harper's popularity is driving the surge. When those surveyed were asked who had the most positive vision for the future, the Conservative leader received 32 per cent support. Prime Minister Paul Martin had 20 per cent, the NDP's Jack Layton 16 per cent, and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe 10 per cent. "None of the above" registered 10 per cent and 12 per cent said they didn't know.

But premature talk of winning a majority of Parliament's 308 seats spooks the Conservatives. A party would have to win 155 seats to win a majority.

At dissolution, there were 133 Liberals in the House of Commons. The Tories held 98 seats, the Bloc Québécois 53 and the NDP 18. There were four Independents and two vacancies.

The Tories are well aware that after Harper predicted a majority win in June 2004, their political fortunes started a downward spiral in the last election.

"I'm certainly not going to be drawn into any questions that can be used to have me making predictions," Harper said during last night's English-language leaders' debate.

"My role here is not to be a political analyst. My role here is to explain to Canadians why we need a new government."

Following stories Sunday in the Star and the Toronto Sun about Harper hinting at a majority, right-wing blogs were abuzz with dark — and unsubstantiated — suggestions of a mainstream media conspiracy to stall the Tories' momentum.

Ironically, hours after refusing to rule out a Tory majority win, Harper criticized EKOS by name while chatting with reporters aboard his campaign plane in Hamilton on Saturday.

"They are, in my view, the least believable," he said. "Our people feel the momentum, but it is a statistical dead heat. ... There is over two weeks to go and a lot of things can happen. ... There is no certainty."

Graves said the "wild card" in the campaign now is how Canadians react to the potential of a Harper government — minority or majority.

"What happens when Canadians fully realize the Conservatives' current potential?" Graves asked.

"Will there be a bandwagon effect, as there was for Brian Mulroney in the 1984 campaign after he surged into the lead? Or will Harper succumb to a whiplash as he did in 2004 with many voters recoiling from the prospect of a Tory victory after a serious Liberal onslaught in the last weeks of the campaign."

On June 16, 2004 in Niagara Falls, Harper boasted there were "no safe Liberal seats for the Liberals any more," and said the Tories could win a majority. Less than two weeks later, the Liberals won a minority government.

The Liberals received 36.7 per cent of the popular vote in the June 28, 2004 election. The Conservatives garnered 29.6 per cent of the vote, the NDP 15.7 per cent, the Bloc 12.4 per cent and the Greens 4.3 per cent.

Graves said the apparent Conservative breakthrough in Quebec is "especially astonishing," heralding the possible return of the Tories as a truly national party.

But he warned that because the Harper Conservatives are poised to win some seats in Quebec, the media spotlight will be on the aloof Harper more than ever before. Graves stressed that the party's growth in Quebec is inherently fragile.

With files from Robert Benzie

Link
 
Jay
#25
""This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for," EKOS president Frank Graves said. "


And if Harper is smart, he won't even mention it....time to ride the winds of change with a (fake) smile on your face and be as humble as possible.
 
Breakthrough2006
#26
I believe that this is just the beginning.

It is not out of the realm of possibility for the NDP to be the opposition party in the upcoming election. In fact, I hope that this is the case. As much as I couldn't disagree more with the NDP's policies, I do have respect for Layton.

Layton would likely make one of the best opposition leaders in political history.

Liberals reduced to 50 seats would be poetic justice.
 
Triple_R
#27
I think not - To comment on your posting, I do think that in the last election, Canadians were genuinely afraid of a Conservative majority government. I think that polls shifted them away from the Conservatives because while they perhaps could live with, and even liked, the idea of a Conservative Minority government (basically to teach the Liberals a lesson), they didn't want a Conservative majority government.

I do think that this election is different, however, for the following reason...

1) More than anything, I think that your average Canadian wants to avoid another federal election in a year or two. Many Canadians would rather not have an election campaign right now, and probably see Minority Governments in a less positive light due to how fragile they are, and easy to lead into new federal elections. I think that many Canadians would re-act to the prospect of a Conservative Majority with "Well, at least that means no more federal elections for at least 4 years".

2) This federal election campaign has a much different feel to it than the last federal election campaign did. Stephen Harper does seem more Prime Ministerial to me this time out, and in fact, his party, and even his election campaign, is starting to remind me of the old Mulrooney days. Now, Brian Mulrooney himself is highly unpopular in Canada right now (though that might be helped a bit by his Canadian Idol host/son Ben ), but the man did know how to very effectively win federal elections. Harper gives me that Mulrooney-esque feel right now - he seems like a man who has learned a great deal about the political landscape through out Canada, and is quite effectively going after certain target demographics to considerable success. Last federal election, I think it was nothing but anti-Liberal sentiment pushing the election. This time out, I think that some people are genuinely starting to like the Conservatives, and planning to vote FOR the Conservatives, and not merely AGAINST the Liberals. This is reflected in how recent polls show voters perfering the Conservative party platform over the Liberal party platform. This is one question that has nothing to do with corruption and scandals, and is simply policy-oriented. The Conservatives are winning on policy right now, and that's huge.

3) The Quebec effect. The Sponsorship Scandal has really hit home in Quebec. The Quebec poll numbers are astounding... simply astounding. Liberal support appears to be drying up massively in that province, and that's helping the Tories. This is the first time in my life-time that I can recall the Tories outpolling the Liberals in Quebec.

4) The very fact that the term "Tories" is being used casually to refer to Harper's party (Duceppe himself did this last night). Harper's party has done very well to distance itself from the old Canadian Alliance/Reform party. In actually fact, Harper's party currently makes me think much more of Mulrooney's Tories than of Stockwell Day/Preston Manning's Canadian Alliance.

All of that being said, Harper shouldn't even risk spooking Canadians. If I was a political strategist working with him, I'd even instruct him to ban the word "majority" from his vocabularly for the next two weeks.

As for the media, overall it seems fairly even. CBC often strikes me as anti-Conservative, but then CTV Newsword often strikes me as pro-Conservative. Neither of them appear to have much favourship between the Liberals/NDP.

I don't think the Conservative should raise the specter of the media out to get them.
 
Triple_R
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Breakthrough2006

I believe that this is just the beginning.

It is not out of the realm of possibility for the NDP to be the opposition party in the upcoming election. In fact, I hope that this is the case. As much as I couldn't disagree more with the NDP's policies, I do have respect for Layton.

Layton would likely make one of the best opposition leaders in political history.

Liberals reduced to 50 seats would be poetic justice.

I agree.

If I was Layton, I'd take a risk right now. A big risk, but potentially a breakthrough risk. If I was him, I'd say to Canadians...

"I myself dislike strategic voting. I think that you should vote for political candidates, and not against one particular candidate. You should vote for who you believe in, and not against who you dislike the most. That being said... I have a message to the strategic voters out there. Let's say we do get a Conservative minority, or even a Conservative majority, government. We've seen with this very election campaign, and the one before it, that we can't trust the Federal Liberals to make an effective stand against the Conservatives. In the last English debates, I highlighted the considerable policy similarities between the Liberals, and the Conservatives. They both agree on Corporate Tax Cuts. They both can not be trusted to properly maintain universal health care here in Canada. Both of them favour tax cuts, in general, over social programs. Many political editorials have been wrote about the Liberals stealing elements from the Conservative platform, and the platforms of the old Alliance/Reform parties.

If we get a Conservative government, and that might be virtually inevitable this time around, Canada will need strong NDP representation like never before. You will need us to keep the Conservatives' honest, and to be a strong voice for true Canadian values. You can't trust the Liberals to do that. You can trust the NDP. Vote NDP."
 
Calberty
#29
The NDP has no realistic means of being the opposition. If the Liberals collapse, the BQ will be the opposition...again.
 
I think not
#30


Poll: Conservatives build on lead across Canada

CTV.ca News Staff

New poll numbers show the Conservatives possibly passing the Liberals in Quebec and the dominant Bloc Quebecois falling below 50 per cent support for the first time in this campaign.

The survey, conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail between Jan. 7 and 9, shows support for the Conservatives continuing to climb in the province.

When asked how Canadians would vote if an election were held today, here's how Quebecers responded (percentage point change from a Jan. 5-8 poll in brackets):

Bloc Quebecois: 48 per cent (-4)
Conservatives: 22 per cent (+3)
Liberals: 19 per cent (-2)
NDP: 7 per cent (+1)
Greens: 4 per cent (+2)
The margin of error is 5.1 per cent for the Quebec sample.

"Our analysis shows the Bloc vote is declining, and you could see that in Monday night's debate performance," Tim Woolstencroft of The Strategic Counsel told CTV.ca. "Gilles Duceppe (the Bloc's leader) wasn't exclusively focused on (Prime Minister Paul) Martin; he was starting to take aim at Stephen Harper to stop the growth in Tory momentum."

In addition, the Conservatives have a huge advantage in momentum, even over the Bloc (percentage point change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 54 (+43)
Bloc Quebecois: 22 (-15)
Liberals: 10 (-19)
NDP: 4 (-3)
Greens: 1 (unchanged)
Other: 0 (-1)
None: 3 (-4)
DK/NA/Ref. 6 (-1)

On CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live, former Parti Quebecois cabinet minister Joseph Facal said Tuesday: "I don't think he (Harper) has the ground strength to fully capitalize on his momentum."

The Conservative growth is mainly coming outside Montreal at the expense of the Liberals.

In Montreal, the Liberals have held steady in the 27 to 29 per cent range over the course of the campaign, while the Conservatives have increased their support to 11 per cent.

However, in the rest of Quebec, the Liberals have fallen to 13 per cent, while the Conservatives have jumped to 25 per cent.

Meanwhile, in Ontario, which has 106 of 308 seats in Parliament, the Tories could be poised to end the 12-year run of Liberal dominance(percentage point change from a Jan. 5-8 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 40 per cent (-1)
Liberals: 38 per cent (+2)
NDP: 15 per cent (+1)
Greens: 7 (+2)

Regionally, the Liberals hold a 47-34 lead over the Tories in the Greater Toronto Area. However, outside the GTA, the Tories hold a 41-45 lead, and a 38-35 lead in southwest Ontario.

Atlantic Canada is another region where the Liberals have been strong in recent elections, yet the Conservatives appear to be in a statistical tie with them (percentage point change from a Dec. 12-21 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 40 per cent (+11)
Liberals: 37 per cent (-16)
NDP: 20 per cent (-3)
Greens: 3 per cent (-2)

In B.C., with 36 seats in play, the Conservatives and NDP have made gains at the expense of the Liberals and Greens (percentage point change from a Jan. 5-8 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 43 per cent (+6)
NDP: 27 per cent (+1)
Liberals: 24 per cent (-4)
Greens: 6 per cent (-3)

The survey also shows that the Conservatives are maintaining their lead ahead of the Liberals on the national front (percentage point change from a Jan. 5-8 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 38 per cent (+1)
Liberals: 28 per cent (-1)
NDP: 16 per cent (+1)
Bloc Quebecois: 12 per cent (-1)
Green Party: 6 per cent (unchanged)

If one looks at the numbers just for the rest of Canada, the Tories hold a 44-31 lead over the Liberals. The NDP have 18 per cent and the Greens just seven per cent.

When asked which party has the most momentum going towards the Jan. 23 federal election, the results showed the Tories continuing to surge (percentage point change from a Jan. 5-8 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 58 per cent (+5)
Liberals: 14 per cent (unchanged)
NDP: 5 per cent (-1)
Bloc Quebecois: 5 per cent (-1)
Greens: 2 per cent (+1)

Woolstencroft said Strategic Counsel wanted to see the impact of the new Liberal attack ads before making any predictions, with these Tory momentum numbers, "clearly they are heading towards a majority government."

Technical notes:

Results are based on nightly tracking among a proportionate national sample of Canadians 18 years of age or older.

Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a three-day period. Interviews were conducted between Jan. 7 and 9 (except for Atlantic Canada).

The sample size and margin of error (with the margin of error in brackets) for each region are as follows:

Canada: 1,500 (2.5)
Quebec: 370 (5.1)
Rest of Canada: 1,129 (2.9)
Ontario: 568 (4.1)
Prairies: 246 (6.3)
B.C.: 200 (7.0)
West: 446 (4.6)
Atlantic (Jan. 4-9): 192 (7.1)

Here are the questions asked:

Q. From what you can tell, which party, if any, is gaining the most popularity and momentum leading up to the election. Is it the ...?

Q. If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you'd be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
 

Similar Threads

0
Newest Race Info:
by Jersay | Dec 31st, 2005
2
The Newest O.B.E.
by missile | Dec 15th, 2005
2
Newest Mods
by Andem | Jun 18th, 2002