Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Either Nanos is a Liberal shill too, or his poll confirms Ekos numbers

The first part of my title is a tad facetious; it refers to the fact whenever Ekos polls come out that show very close results (such as the one last Friday showing a virtual dead heat), Conservative commentators copycat the Kory Teynecke line accusing Frank Graves (Ekos president) of being a “Liberal shill”; so therefore his poll results must be biased against Conservatives. That’s the reasoning, such as it is, that I’ve seen online from our shrill Conservative supporters.

Well, we now have a Nanos poll out for the first time in months, and guess what, their numbers are also a virtual tie:

A long summer of Tory controversies, from the Guergis affair to scrapping the mandatory long-form census, has eroded Conservative support and left them tied with the Liberals, according to a new poll. The latest Nanos Research survey, conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail, has the Conservatives and Liberals at 33 per cent support.

The regional breakdowns via province/region can be found here. The calculated seat totals from such a result can be found here, and shows a real “pizza Parliament”. The Globe and Mail tries to spin the results as “bad for all 3 parties”, as if the leadership numbers somehow are a fly in the ointment for Ignatieff. I disagree – as we elect parties here, not presidents. Steve does more analysis of the regionals here, and I think takes a bit of a shot at the Globe’s analysis and others who feel likewise, albeit indirectly.

Bottom line is, the Conservatives have scuttled away their lead, and a charge of a pollster being biased doesn’t stand up too well when other pollsters results mirror each other – unless all pollsters who show bad results for the Conservatives are automatically “biased” against them.

It seems to me though, that Conservative supporters don’t like statistics any more then their heroes in government do; it seems to be a (rather lamentable) trait nowadays on that side of the spectrum. From dismissing bad polls for their side (“its biased!”) to the Conservatives ditching a facts-rich mandatory longform Census because it’s too “intrusive”, and “unreported crime” being used as a reason to justify billions of dollars in spending money on prisons when stats show the crime rate has been going down is some examples of this filtering out of facts that do not adhere with their world view.

Hopefully, enough of the Canadian public will eventually reject this type of reality-denying thinking at the next election.

31 comments to Either Nanos is a Liberal shill too, or his poll confirms Ekos numbers

  • ridenrain

    .. and there you have it, the drunk with kool-aid moment. All the talk and bluster.. destroying the very foundations of Canadian democracy but… we just can’t seem to show up for the vote.

    Funny.. The NDP keep showing up for those votes. Maybe that’s why they won’t bother to save your registry boondoggle?

    • Redrum

      @ridingoffontangents, Huh? oh, you’re still (here… and) talking about the gun registry? I thought you’d switched topics, cuz you talked about triggering an election. I shoulda known you were just too dumb to know that could only be done on a confidence bill — a money bill — not on the upcoming gun registry vote which is on WHETHER TO LET A PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL PASS AS-IS, OR FORCE IT TO UNDERGO FURTHER DEBATE. And on that, yes, the Libs intend to show up to vote as one, that it be forced to go to the next stage, of debate. Moron.

      • Jon Pertwee

        @Redrum, I think Skidnstain has been getting his weed from CanadianSense because it seems to make him fall off topic like she does. Either that or he’s feeling threatened that CS has come in to usurp his biggest trailer trash talk award from him.

  • ridenrain

    Wow.. Your right. You guys need to force an election immediately.
    .. (sound of crickets)…

    • Redrum

      @pullinglame, nah, we’ll just wait for Herr Harper to break his own law, to do that. Again.

      • Jon Pertwee

        @Redrum, and when they have people you ArmpitStain on the tories side, its just a matter of time.

        • @Jon Pertwee, A pattern by some Liberal partisans when losing an argument is to resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling.

          As this is a Liberal blogging website his policy in allowing ad hominem attacks in his decision. It does little to generate traffic from non partisan Liberals. My apologies to the host Scott in responding to this off topic remark.

          Jon Pertwee, an internet alias pretending to be a British actor from Dr. Who series?

          Go ahead and make public the information that Terence Parnel Quinn has alleged. He failed to back it up when challenged, a pattern for many of the internet trolls who participate in dragging down the blogosphere with ad hominem attacks.

          Unlike Terence I don’t make empty threats and false claims. He has failed to provide any proof he is a (maximum) donor to the Federal Liberal Party. Feel free to check elections Canada website for donations under his name.

          No points Jon.

  • ridenrain

    You’d think that with all the whining and bitching for money that the CBC does, they’d think twice about these weekly push polls. At this rate, “Gravy-train” Graves is going to afford a couple more downpayments on his Liberal senate seat.

  • My reply was caught in the moderation basket

    The Police And The Registry — What Are The Facts?

    By Gary Mauser

    September 1, 2010

    The recently released RCMP evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program contains little new. The report recycles the same old canards that Canada’s long-gun registry is an important tool for law enforcement. It sidesteps the key question: whether the long-gun registry is more effective in protecting public safety than putting violent offenders in prison.

    The report does admit that the registry costs over $20 million per year, not the paltry four million the Chiefs of Police claimed earlier this year. The goal must be public safety, and the report implies that it is more important to focus on ordinary citizens who own firearms because they might commit suicide than on violent criminals.

    The report is a blatant attempt to influence public policy. The police are lobbying to write the laws they are employed to enforce. Policy-making is the mandate of elected governments on behalf of the people. Certainly police should be consulted on the efficacy of current policies, but it is not proper for police chiefs or Firearms Program civil servants to lobby the government attempting to dictate which laws it should adopt.
    http://www.nfa.ca/police-and-registry-what-are-facts

    • Redrum

      @CanadianSense, again w/ the misinformation: the RCMP report says the _total_ Registration costs for the whole CFP for fiscal 2008/9 were $22.3-M. But that includes all the guns they register, including long guns, handguns, & the other types of restricted guns used in firing ranges.

      But, ok, admittedly, it turns out the $1.6-$4-M figure was misread & taken out of context by me & others, based on this from the report,

      “the gun registration portion of the CFP has been
      determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million depending on the classification certification that will still be required” … which refers to what appears to be an unpublished consultants’ report:

      “Risks and Benefits of New Legislation – Canadian Firearms Centre Registration Services” PLEIAD Canada,
      2009. The study also demonstrates the excessive risks to the program in severing its registration portion.”

      So let’s split the diff. and say the LGR itself costs $10.M

      That’s still not much in the grand scheme of police things. The report notes that a single complex murder investigation can easily cost $2-M. And firearms deaths – even suicides — can cost the taxpayer $1-M one way or another. So if the LGR expedites some investigations (by helping them track who owns the gun &/or where it may have been stolen from)* or prevents some suicides (by helping them seize the right no. of guns) it can easily pay for itself each year.

      * As Chris Selley wrote in his blog in the National Post on Sunday (“Chris Selley: The long-gun registry — a cautionary tale”), the RCMP told him, “between 2003 and 2008, there were 152 homicides committed in Canada with long guns where the registration status of the weapon was known. Fully 35% of the long guns in question were, in fact, registered.”

      • @Redrum,
        Supporters of the registry cannot point to any research supporting their claim that stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence or criminal violence in general. None of the examples given by Vancouver Police Chief Chu, for example, include instances where the registry helped to stop a crime from being committed.

        It is shocking that the police claim to trust the accuracy of the registry. Police officers cannot and should not trust the information in the registry. Less than half of all firearms in Canada are included in the registry, and of course, none of the guns owned by criminals.

        You should read the study by this person including the link.

        http://www.nfa.ca/police-and-registry-what-are-facts

  • Martin, Keith – M.P.

    To: ‘Murray Jackson’

    Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:48 AM

    Subject: RE: Re : Bill C-301

    Dear Dr. Jackson,

    Thank you for your email regarding Bill C-301.

    When the gun registry was proposed I did all that I could to stop it, including appearing in front of the Justice Committee as a special witness. However, now that the registry is up and working and the costs to construct it have been spent, I have a dilemma. The operating costs have been capped at $50 million per year. Now we must ask if there is value for this money spent. The Association of Chiefs of Police say yes, that their officers need it. In speaking to police officers and their commanding officers, half do not think the registry is helpful and the other half does want it for their protection.

    I might also add that when we were in government we capped spending on the registry, decriminalized many registry violations, and toughened up penalties for the real criminals who use guns in committing offences (including mandatory minimum sentences for the use of trafficking of weapons and tougher penalties for those involved in organized crime, to name a few). I completely support these initiatives along with all the hoops one has to go through to get a long gun (hand guns have been registered since the 1930’s).

    I agree with you that law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Many of my Liberal colleagues agree with me on this. The registry was, as I have said before, an error; however, when half the police officers and Chiefs of Police that I have spoken to want it to remain I would not vote to dismantle it. If the police change their mind then I will vote to scrap it. I am also not in favour of any other penalties/restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Keith Martin, M.D., P.C., M.P.

    Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca

    http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17853

    When you repeat false information of $ 4 million per year it only reinforces the case to scrap the Registry. Why does the media report the savings vs the annual operating cost?

    • Redrum

      @CanadianSense, Speaking of quoting figures out of context: that $50-M cap wasn’t for the LGR itself — the actual database — which is now at the stage that it only costs b/w $2 to $4-M to update & maintain annually: it was the annual Estimates for the operating expenditures for the whole Canadian Firearms Centre (excluding registration activities, mind you: that was a further $14.7-M), which does a whole lot more than maintain the LGR. It also maintains the handgun registry & coordinates the screening & licensing programs for both. Admittedly, that’s a low-ball figure: the RCMP itself puts the CFC’s net annual operating costs for 2009/10 thru’ 2012 as $78.3, 76.4 & 76.5-M, respectively, incl. all the registry components, and that’s after the various provinces & other fed. ministries with a stake in it pony up their contributions. But, again, it’s the RCMP who are saying the LGR itself only costs a few million annually now. Too many people keep conflating all the costs of the Bill C-68 Firearms Act (which included a lot of costs for enforcement for those who wouldn’t get or renew their licenses) with the LGR itself.

      • @Redrum, So Keith Martin is wrong? Can you list the audit from Auditor General of PBO Kevin Page to confirm the RCMP claims?

        The recently released RCMP evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program contains little new. The report recycles the same old canards that Canada’s long-gun registry is an important tool for law enforcement. It sidesteps the key question: whether the long-gun registry is more effective in protecting public safety than putting violent offenders in prison.

        The report does admit that the registry costs over $20 million per year, not the paltry four million the Chiefs of Police claimed earlier this year. The goal must be public safety, and the report implies that it is more important to focus on ordinary citizens who own firearms because they might commit suicide than on violent criminals.

        The report is a blatant attempt to influence public policy. The police are lobbying to write the laws they are employed to enforce. Policy-making is the mandate of elected governments on behalf of the people. Certainly police should be consulted on the efficacy of current policies, but it is not proper for police chiefs or Firearms Program civil servants to lobby the government attempting to dictate which laws it should adopt.
        http://www.nfa.ca/police-and-registry-what-are-facts

        I prefer to include links to the source can you also in the future?

        • Redrum

          @CanadianSense, i don’t put links because they prevent posts; the figures I gave were from the Gov’ts Public Accounts 2007 & Gazette (OTTAWA, FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 2006) for the 2006/7 figures & the RCMP eval report for 2008 forward

  • slg

    Good grief – CanadianNoSense whining again. Blame that Liberal media, blame Liberal shills, blame the public servants – boo, hoo, hoo.

    You’re crying is getting extremely boring.

  • ridenrain

    I prefer the gun registry debate.
    Arguing about polls is a mugs game.
    Regardless of how many push-polls show you folks ahead, you never seem to find enough no votes to trigger an election anyways.

    • @ridenrain, They don’t debate the merit of the registry. They are defending the Liberal boondoggle. It is ideological for most of the partisans defending this costly program.

      • TofKW

        @CanadianSense, you argue the left defends ideology? I have to laugh at your hypocrisy.

        Back when I was a PC I was very solidly against the LGR because is really didn’t do anything about gangbangers and their illegal hand guns and instead criminalized honest hunters for not registering. The billions thrown away on this was definitely a boondoggle, but that money is spent and we can’t get it back.

        I’ll give Harper credit, he gave the registry to the RCMP and they in turn made it an efficient tool for public safety. I don’t mind spending $4 million/year for police and public safety if they say this is a good program. Coupled with the Liberals admitting they made a mistake and will no longer criminalize honest gun owners who fail to register, also stopping this stupid attempt to pay for their boondoggle with high gun registration fees.

        Exactly we should stop listening to blind ideology and come up with a commonsense solution that balances public safety, police concerns and hunter’s issues with the registry. Scrapping it in defiance of what the police have shown us is a good program …is purely an ideology over reason decision.

        OK CanadianSense are you willing like I did to admit there maybe a good reason to keep the registry (provided these promised changes do indeed occur)- or are you a pawn of the ideology of the lunatic libertarian fringe?

        BTW – nice way you two to get totally off the topic of this post …to remind you was about bad CPC poll numbers.

        • @TofKW, I live in Oakville, don’t own a gun and see no reason to punish Duck hunters and farmers. This is about gun control for confiscation and it not a cost effective use of money for public safety. I have no membership of skin in the game and can disagree with the Federal Government on many ocassions. (EAP to big, too fast, Auto bailout). I will not support the Hockey rink investment either if it happens.

          Why do you think Liberals hold 91% urban ridings and very few out West? Liberals hope to take seats from urban held Democrats? This is another example of wedge politics by the Liberals. It was a mistake to whip the vote.

          Back to LGR:
          Front line officers would be a better use of this money. More beds and programs to help rehabilitate criminals.

          It is a myth the registry is complete or accurate, so continued spending on this makes little sense. What is the compliance rate of guns and the registry 25-50% or higher?

          I don’t feel it is necessary to ask farmers and duck hunters to fund hundreds of civil servants on a database that is incomplete and filled with errors. (You are free to goggle the Auditor General Report)

          Your math is wrong on how much it costs to run the Liberal boondoggle. The savings is $ 4 million per year now that is has been transferred. It cost over $ 50 million per year. Do you think the salary, pension and benefits of those in the employ on the registry are employed by Walmart?

        • Jon Pertwee

          @TofKW, CanadianSense is the Oakville Crackpot. Im so happy Ive got relatives in the area who know her and can confirm her instability.

          Never able to stay on topic. Incredibly angry and with some bizarre John Nunziata fetish. Her MP tries to avoid her like the plague and he’s a tory too!.

          So there you go.

        • TofKW

          @Jon Pertwee, oh I know of CS’s instability and infamy within Oakville don’t you worry.

          Likewise I’m a Tory (admittedly an old-school one from the Stanfield/Clark side) and think she’s a crackpot …can’t say I blame the local MP for trying to avoid her.

  • No one has suggested Nik Nanos is a large donor to the Liberal Party or that he has suggested Liberals invoke a cultural war. Those two facts have lead to many of us citing a bias on the part of Frank Graves. (That’s it)

    It is interesting how everyone tries to excuse those two substantial facts for two polls conducted at end of summer and it must indicate pattern of significance.

    Angus was the most accurate, Ekos 2nd and Nanos 4th (I think in predicting results for 2008)

    Nik Nanos and Ekos use different polling methods and comparing them to each other is makes little sense. Look at Ekos for all of 2010 and Nanos for all of 2010.

    http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/02/political-polling-for-junkies.html
    http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/04/ekos-poll-april-2010-liberal-party-of.html

    Many partisans attacks a pollster for bias in their analysis. That being said the numbers for the party do not reflect well on the leadership of Ignatieff. He ties Gilles Duceppe on trust. Gilles is the guy who wants to break up the country!

    Without trust, a war chest, no election date, an organization that can’t match the CPC in fundraising why does the media fixate on two polls? Does the CBC, CTV spend more time speculating what this means?

    Liberals need to get their party in order and have the thirty missing MPs show up for work including votes. Nothing has changed much since 2006 with each opposition party taking turns to avoid triggering an election on a supply bill.

  • Redrum

    Hey, where’s Raininspain – the ubiquitous trash talker? Notably absent. Guess the conbots are progroguing their ‘debates’ until the next favourable poll. ‘Course, Leger will soon oblige: 56% of decided (um, QMI-media subscribers)will vote Con!

  • Kephalos

    What about the fact that Nanos shows the Greens around 5% while the other pollsters put the Greens around 11%?

    Methinks the other pollsters are hi-diddle-fiddling with the Green numbers.

  • TofKW

    In his speech last week Harper uttered those famous words again “Canadians don’t want an election now” …which we all know is HarperSpeak for “Our internal poll numbers suck right now”.

    Does that imply the Conservative’s own internal pollster is a “Liberal shill”?

    Hey Kory, if all the polling companies are “Liberal shills”, tell your buddy Sweaterboy to visit the GG and dissolve Parliament. Lets have an election and we’ll see how far off these horse-race poll numbers are from reality.

  • JMR

    Talk about intrusive has anyone completed a consumer survey lately where they want to know what credit cards you use, what bank you use, your annual income, your age name and address. I don’t mind telling these people what products I use but do draw the line a revealing my banking information.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.