Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Progressive Principles

I waited all day for it. In the morning I had seen on TV a desperate Paul Martin speaking in Burnaby. Knowing that B.C. will be a battle between the Conservatives and NDP, he attacked the NDP. Well actually as usual he attacked Jack Layton.

Layton Abandons Principle for Politics
NDP Leader Jack Layton has abandoned his principles during this election campaign in his quest for power, Prime Minister Paul Martin said in a speech today.

The Liberals are all abut personalizing politics. Not the personal is political mind you, but personality politics. All election Martin has not talked about the Liberals or the Conservatives or the NDP or the BQ but about their leaders. Then he compares them with himself.

His values. He is Canadian. His values are Canadian values. And he uses the royal or editorial we. Well yesterday he did it again and attacked the NDP by attacking Jack. And he claimed to be more progressive than the NDP.

The Prime Minister said only the Liberals will serve the values of “progressive voters.

Are we speaking of the same Liberal party that includes these folks that voted against same sex marriage, but unlike the NDP were not kicked out of the party. Or are wetalkingg about the progressive Liberals that voted with the Conservatives against the Anti-Scab law. Or is the definition of progressive now to include a Liberal Candidate who is a known war monger and apologist for George Bush.

Prime Minister Paul Martin Presents Progressive Vision for Canada

Excuse me. Pardon. Huh. This is the neo conservative Finance Minister who slashed and burned programs and payments in 1995 to deal with the debt and deficit problem. A solution NO different than one imposed by Conservatives Ralph Klein or Mike Harris as premiers.

Is this the same progressive vision he had when he opposed Same Sex Marriage until it was forced on him by the Supreme Court.

Is this the same progressive vision Paul Martin had when embraced Bono when he was annointed leader,and talked about ending world poverty and the debt burden of the Third World. But couldn't come up with the 1% foreign Aid Bono wanted. Because he was the guy that had cut it originally. And it wouldn't be prudent to rush into this sort of thing, financially you know.

It took the NDP to get it passed in their budget last summer.

In his attack on the NDP, Martin assured Canadians that in the fight for environmental sustainability, in the fight for a new deal for our cities, in the fight for public health care and lower tuition, he will never take a pass. But he did take a pass.

None of this was in last springs Liberal budget that the Conservatives liked. Nope. That budget had millions in Corporate Tax Cuts. Very little for cities. Nothing for tuition and nothing for theenvironmentt. It took the NDP budget to put the money into these programs.

Like his company; Canadian Steamship Lines which fly flags ofconveniencee, Paul Martin and the Liberals are progressives when it is convenient.

Tags











Posted by at No comments:

Quebec BQ vs Conservatives

Canada Tories win endorsement, surge in Quebec The endorsement today by formely Liberal La Presse, is as stunning as the Globe and Mail endorsement the other day. Like the Globe editorial it is not so much an endorsement of Harper or the Conservatives as much as a rejection of the tired old out of touch Liberals. It's a turf the Liberals editorial. Time for a change though as they say Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The Conservatives are now the qausi Federalist/quasi Nationalist party to beat in Quebec. Why quasi Nationalist you ask, well the Nationalist ADQ has endorsed them. The ADQ is of course right wing, pro privatization of everything standing and pro tax cuts. The ADQ is the Conservative party in Quebec.

Harpers capitulation to the BQ program of Fiscal Imbalance and recognizing Quebec's right to attend international meetings as a Province, something Alberta already does along with having its own embassies, err Provincial offices, abroad, puts the Conservatives squarely in the old Mulroney camp of supporting soft nationalism in Quebec.

Remember Mulroney's Conservatives was an alliance with Quebec nationalists, and endorsed by Rene Levesque and the PQ. His key Quebec cabinet minister Lucien Bouchard went on to found the BQ and then on to become the PQ leader and Premier. Bouchard is now is talking about the need for Quebec to dismantle its social democratic state in favour of a privatized one.

The Liberals are trailing behind the Conservatives in Quebec. In the homeland. Their Trudeau Federalism has never been about Canada it has always been about opposing Quebec Nationalism. The Bankruptcy of Liberal Federalism

But the NDP are making gains in popular voter intention in Quebec as well. They represent a Left Wing alternative to the BQ.

They are having their best showing in Quebec EVER, despite the flip flop Layton made over the Clarity Act early on. His appeal to get Quebec to sign the Constitution has even been picked up by Harper lately. It is the first time the NDP has had a Leader from Quebec. And that is what wins votes there.

While Harper is not from Quebec he has learned the Mulroney lesson well, and his candidates are well known Quebecois, Lieutants All.

More Quebec Articles


Tags











Posted by at No comments:

Liberals Opposed To Gay Marriage

A public service of Blogging Tory Rempelia Prime is a list of Liberals MP's running for re-election that would vote against gay marriage.

Repealing gay marriage, or Liberal MPs we hope will be re-elected

Martin likes to wear the Mantel of 'Progressive', and then the mantel of the Liberal 'Big Tent' but you can't have it both ways. Of course if he got rid of the Not Withstanding Clause he would solve his internal problem of his MP's voting to repeal Same Sex Marriage.

Which makes this another good reason forreal Progressives to vote NDP, who will not vote to repeal gay marriarge. Or a woman's right to choose. Or Kyoto. Or the Kelowna Accord. Or the Daycare deal with the provinces. There that should cover it.

Tags











Posted by at 1 comment:

Israel Sabre Rattles

This is fine bit of hypocrisy from the state which claims not to have nuclear weapons but won't allow the IAEA to inspect it.

That when it is exposed as illegally processing weapons grade plutonium and having an illegal nuclear weapons program locks away the whistleblower in detention and won't let him speak.

Now while the world negotiates with Iran, Israel, ever helpful says;

Israel's acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, today said that ``under no circumstances'' would Israel ``allow anyone with malicious designs against us to have control over weapons of destruction that threaten our existence.'' Olmert declined to say whether Israel might take military action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Just like they bombed Iraq's nuclear facility with no international reprecussions.
Of course this would suit the US just fine having Israel do their dirty work for the, and save them. It would save the US from having to open up a third front in the War on Terror. Not that they had any intention of doing that against one of the Axis of Evil anyways. Right? Right?

http://www.immediart.com/catalog/images/big_images/SPL_R_T165126-Atomic_bomb_explosion-SPL.jpg

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

RRSP Another Victim of Tory Tax Cut

The Conservatives annoncement that it will give wealthy Canadians, stock brokers, and the Bay Street Boys an additional tax cut on capital investments may create a crisis in the RRSP market just before the big push before tax time. Tory tax idea may hit RRSPs

The trusty old RRSP could be rendered obsolete for some investors under a campaign promise by the Conservatives to eliminate taxes on capital gains that are reinvested within six months.

"For people who are actively involved with their investments, committed and focused, there are some real advantages that can be made of this," said David Shymko, a partner at financial advisers Macdonald Shymko & Co. in Vancouver. "You could probably put aside the use of an RRSP."

One group that won't be especially happy is the majority of investors who hold stocks, bonds and mutual funds only in their RRSPs.

"It's actually an amazingly tiny group of well-off Canadians who will capture the lion's share of the benefit," said Jim Stanford, economist at the Canadian Auto Workers union.


Think of this as the Income Trust announcement in reverse. RRSP's are the biggest source of funding for Mutual funds.This could mean that 2005 was the last year that RRSP funded Mutual funds boomed. Mutual funds have banner year as sales, markets soar

Tags






Posted by at No comments:

Economics, Evolution and Mutual Aid

Two interesting articles appeared over the Christmas holidays, how deliciously ironic, about Darwinianism and Evolution.

One from the right and one from the left. Both though concluded that Darwinianism applied as much to society as to evolution, as an ideology of society, albeit a materialist one.

The Economist had an interesting editorial and a special supplement on evolution in their Christmas New Years edition. I will expand on the Economist article below.

And Mother Jones had this article by Canadian born Keynesian economist John Kenneth Galbraith. The old codger is still at it, bashing the supply side privateers on the right. The whole issue was dedicated to the debate on Intelligent Design.

Smith vs. Darwin

Commentary: Like Intelligent Design, the idea of the Invisible Hand stubbornly persists in the face of overwhelming evidence

By James K. Galbraith

December/January 2006 Issue


Before Darwin, when scientists gazed on the natural world, they imposed categories on it: order, families, genera, species, with Homo sapiens sapiens coming out on top. Evolution meant progress; order and progress were signs of God's plan. Darwin shifted the focus to individuals, to mutation, and to the processes of natural, sexual, and social selection. Order now recedes. Variations are key, and they occur entirely by chance. God is left out. "What was radical about On the Origin of Species," Menand writes, "was not its evolutionism, but its materialism."

Economists, on the other hand, have been Intelligent Designers since the beginning. Adam Smith was a deist; he believed in a world governed by a benevolent system of natural law. Consider this familiar passage from Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, with its now mostly forgotten anti-globalization flavor:

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry [every individual] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intentionÂ…. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Smith's Creator did not interfere. He simply wrote the laws and left them for events to demonstrate and man to discover. The greatest American economist, Thorstein Veblen, observed that "the guidance ofÂ…the invisible hand takes placeÂ…through a comprehensive scheme of contrivances established from the beginning." What is this if not Intelligent Design?

But to Veblen this was, precisely, unscientific. And so he made a mighty effort back in 1898 to move economics into the Darwinian age. In a magnificent essay entitled "Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?" Veblen pointed out the problems of classical economics: too much preoccupied with classification schemes and higher purposes, too little with material process and "cumulative or unfolding sequence." Economics could become a science, but only if it detached itself from the idea that change intrinsically led to improvement.

More than a century later, economics has not escaped its pre-Darwinian rut. Economists still don't understand variation; instead they write maddeningly about "representative agents" and "rational economic man." They still teach the "marginal product theory of wages," which excuses every gross inequality faced by the laboring poor. Alan Greenspan even recently resurrected the idea of a "natural rate of interest" to justify raising rates, though that doctrine had been extinct for 70 years. Economists still ignore the diversity of actual economic and social life. They say little about forms of ownership and the distribution of power, and almost nothing about how pointless product differentiation and technical change now shape and drive the struggle for survival among firms.

Metaphysics still persists in economics. It takes the form of "competitive equilibrium"—the conditions under which selfish individuals and tiny small businesses in free competitive markets interact to produce the best results for social welfare. Competitive equilibrium is a state of perpetual economic stagnation, its study an exercise in mental stasis. This is because there is nothing to study: The idea dominates textbooks and journals but has never existed in real life.


And it just gets better after that. Well worth the read.

Veblens essay refered to by Galbraith is here; "Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?", QJE, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Jul., 1898), pp. 373-397. For more on Veblen see:Veblen and Darwinism

Now for the Economist. Bet you didn't know that Herbert Spencer was a regular contributor to the Economist back in the 19th Century. Neither had I.

The story of man

Dec 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Modern Darwinism paints a more flattering portrait of humanity than traditionalists might suppose

IN THOSE parts of the planet that might once have been described as “Christendom”, this week marks the season of peace on Earth and goodwill towards men. A nice idea in a world more usually thought of as seasoned by the survival of the fittest. But goodwill and collaboration are as much part of the human condition as ill-will and competition. And that was a puzzle to 19th-century disciples of Charles Darwin, such as Herbert Spencer.

It was Spencer, an early contributor to The Economist, who invented that poisoned phrase, “survival of the fittest”. He originally applied it to the winnowing of firms in the harsh winds of high-Victorian capitalism, but when Darwin's masterwork, “On the Origin of Species”, was published, he quickly saw the parallel with natural selection and transferred his bon mot to the process of evolution. As a result, he became one of the band of philosophers known as social Darwinists. Capitalists all, they took what they thought were the lessons of Darwin's book and applied them to human society. Their hard-hearted conclusion, of which a 17th-century religious puritan might have been proud, was that people got what they deserved—albeit that the criterion of desert was genetic, rather than moral. The fittest not only survived, but prospered. Moreover, the social Darwinists thought that measures to help the poor were wasted, since such people were obviously unfit and thus doomed to sink.

Sadly, the slur stuck. For 100 years Darwinism was associated with a particularly harsh and unpleasant view of the world and, worse, one that was clearly not true—at least, not the whole truth. People certainly compete, but they collaborate, too. They also have compassion for the fallen and frequently try to help them, rather than treading on them. For this sort of behaviour, “On the Origin of Species” had no explanation. As a result, Darwinism had to tiptoe round the issue of how human society and behaviour evolved. Instead, the disciples of a second 19th-century creed, Marxism, dominated academic sociology departments with their cuddly collectivist ideas—even if the practical application of those ideas has been even more catastrophic than social Darwinism was.

Trust me, I'm a Darwinist

But the real world eventually penetrates even the ivory tower. The failure of Marxism has prompted an opening of minds, and Darwinism is back with a vengeance—and a twist. Exactly how humanity became human is still a matter of debate. But there are, at least, some well-formed hypotheses (see article). What these hypotheses have in common is that they rely not on Spencer's idea of individual competition, but on social interaction. That interaction is, indeed, sometimes confrontational and occasionally bloody. But it is frequently collaborative, and even when it is not, it is more often manipulative than violent.

Modern Darwinism's big breakthrough was the identification of the central role of trust in human evolution. People who are related collaborate on the basis of nepotism. It takes outrageous profit or provocation for someone to do down a relative with whom they share a lot of genes. Trust, though, allows the unrelated to collaborate, by keeping score of who does what when, and punishing cheats.

Thus both of the things needed to make an economy work, collaboration and competition, seem to have evolved under Charles Darwin's penetrating gaze.

Dystopia and Utopia

This is a view full of ironies, of course. One is that its reconciliation of competition and collaboration bears a remarkable similarity to the sort of Hegelian synthesis beloved of Marxists. Perhaps a bigger one, though, is that the Earth's most capitalist country, America, is the only place in the rich world that contains a significant group of dissenters from any sort of evolutionary explanation of human behaviour at all.

Such a stunning conclusion that the real nature of Darwinian society is trust, collaboration and altruism; Mutual Aid. In the editorial pages of the Economist yet, well I had to write a letter to the Editor.


Dear Editor;
Your December 20th editorial on Darwin and Evolution was rich in irony. Intentional or not. Your conclusion that the real basis of a Darwinian society was collaboration, trust and altruism of course was shocking. Especially for the pages of such a staunch capitalist publication as yours. One that embraces competition as the highest good. But you at least were honest enough to say it.

 The fact is that this very important element of evolutionary theory, that we advance more by collaboration, trust and altruism then competition was raised over 100 years ago by Peter Kropotkin in his work Mutual Aid. He called this collaboration, trust and altruism; solidarity the very basis of a voluntary society.

 Kropotkin the Russian anarchist lived in exile in England and published the Anarchist fortnightly Freedom, which still publishes to this day. You overlooked his work that proves your editorial correct. It is perhaps that he had not had a column in the Economist like Herbert Spencer, whose anarchism he opposed with his ideal of mutual aid and communism. More and more society, nature and Darwinism and now your editorial is proving Kropotkin, not Spencer, right.

Sincerely,
Eugene Plawiuk
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Tags















Posted by at 1 comment:

Smoking At Home Will Be Banned

The social fascists that want to stamp out smoking will now be calling for the end of smoking in your home.Most Canadian homes now smoke-free, poll finds

Its just a matter of time, we have been exiled from public places, forced to smoke outside and now we are being forced to smoke outside our homes.Smokers taking it outside

And no sooner will that be encouraged then some Anti Smoking Advocate, paid for with our tax dollars from our cigarette taxes will tell us they want to ban us from smoking outside. Cause it might conflict with all the toxins already in the air from gasoline, pollution, industrial exhausts, etc.

Smokers: Butt out this year
There is no better time to quit your habit, says Jim Watson
Jan. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM

As we mark Weedless Wednesday tomorrow, it is time to take a serious look at the costs of smoking in Ontario. The Conference Board of Canada says that it costs $1,995 more to employ a smoker than a non-smoker. That cost includes increased absenteeism, decreased productivity, higher life insurance premiums and costs related to maintaining a smoking area.In Ontario, smoking costs us $1.7 billion in health-care costs. Smoking harms every organ in the body and half of all heavy smokers will die as a result of their habit.Basic math tells us that a pack a day smoker will spend approximately $2,500 on cigarettes in 2006.

And thats all tax money for the provincial and federal government to use for healthcare. Smokers have rights too. Though the social fascists forget that.

The Public Health Risk from Second Hand Smoke is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT
Because they never measure the existing non-tobacco pollutants in either the outside or indoor air.

Also See: Where there's Smoke there's Smokers and Smoking Mad

SMOKERS RIGHTS GROUPS

Smokers' rights group takes to the web

http://www.mychoice.ca/

Smokers Blogs

Smoking Freedom Activist Network


FORCES INTERNATIONAL


http://www.smokersclub.com

http://www.security-protocols.com/gallery/sp-smoking.jpg

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Jaffer One for Three

Can you spell arrogance? J A F F E R. Rahim Jaffer missed another forum. That's two out of three. The only one he has showed up at was the U of A. Guess he thinks he's still the youth candidate. Far from it. Showing up at one forum and advertising in bars on Whyte (most drinkers and partiers are from other parts of the city) shows this guy is really out of touch with Edmonton Strathcona. Time for him to go.

And you know who to vote for....Linda Duncan, NDP she showed up and can be counted on to Stand Up For Edmonton Strathcona.

Public Interest Alberta forum closeup

Public Interest Alberta forum longshot

Linda participated in a City-Wide candidates' forum sponsored by Public Interest Alberta at the Royal Alberta Museum on Thursday, January 12th. Besides the NDP, representatives from the Liberal Party and the Green Party were in attendance, discussing the topics of child care, health care, the environment, and the democratic deficit. The Conservatives, although contacted in early December about the event, declined to attend. In a nod to humour, event organizers stood a plastic bobbing duck on the table and identified it with a "Conservative Party" sign. Throughout the evening, the Conservatives were referred to as the "bobbing duck party."


My Blog Articles
Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Edmonton Strathcona A Horse Race

Brad Lavigne of the NDP war room on Don Newmans Politics (CBC Newsworld) this morning stated that the NDP made a break through in Alberta coming in second place in the province for the first time ever. Must have read my blog from the other day.

And Jack Layton is making another trip here. Which puts him just behind Jim Harris of the Green Party for visits to Alberta and ahead of both Harper and Martin.

And where is Jack coming to in Edmonton? Why the neck and neck race in Edmonton Strathcona of course. What haven't you been reading my blog. This is the one to watch. Too close to call.

Jack will be out rallying the troops for Linda Duncan and the Edmonton Strathcona Campaign.

Linda and Jack Layton
The Elect Linda Duncan campaign proudly presents

Federal NDP leader Jack Layton

at a rally for Linda Duncan
Wednesday, January 18th, at 7:30PM
Bonnie Doon Community Hall, 9240-93 St.






My Blog Articles

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Friends, Canadians, Liberals Lend Me Your Vote

It's Jack Laytons new line. He is asking Liberals to lend him their vote. NDP courts Grit voters and it's working. The polls show it. Its the strategic move of the campaign. The SES polling last night on CPAC showed overall the NDP have been moving up while the Liberals and Conservatives have leveled out.Layton urges Tories to vote for NDP

Tories struggle in Toronto's Liberal strongholds

While Conservatives are leading in national polls across the country, in the core of Toronto the numbers are swapped: Liberals are solidly in front with 40 per cent support. Conservatives are behind with 27 per cent, and the NDP is a strong third with 25 per cent support. The Greens trail with eight per cent. (See bottom of story for poll details.)

More likely, however, the New Democrats will be the party to weaken the Liberal stranglehold. If Toronto voters are planning to punish the Liberals and change loyalties, they are much more likely to send their vote towards the NDP than the Tories.

"They know the NDP is the alternative and is the better choice," said Olivia Chow, who is bidding for an NDP seat.

"We're just not finding the Conservatives are a factor in these ridings," said her husband, Jack Layton.

The Liberals have taken it for granted that they can expect a strong showing in Toronto, said Layton. "They viewed Toronto seats as one more entitlement, part of their culture of entitlement," Layton said.

Allan Gregg, managing partner with The Strategic Counsel, said there are four seats in Toronto that the Liberals could lose, but none of them is likely to fall into Tory hands.

Layton is doing his best to capitalize on the situation and take advantage of the Liberals' misfortune, said Gregg.

"So when Layton … focuses exclusively on the Liberals and ignores the prospect of a Conservative win, concedes a Conservative win, he's basically trying to pick the corpse of the Liberal party," Gregg said.

And doing a damn fine job of it to. Martin has had to attack him in his B.C. speech. No one is ignoring Jack or his moustache anymore.

NDP Headlines
Tue 17 Jan 2006
» Liberals learn no lessons from Gomery Inquiry:
Tue 17 Jan 2006
» NDP unveils second tv ad extending invitation
Tue 17 Jan 2006
» Jack Layton's speech to the Toronto Board of Trade in Toronto, ON
Tue 17 Jan 2006
» Layton lays out some bottom lines for next Parliament

Layton's 'bottom line' for propping Tories


National

View Trend Graph

SES Research

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

BQ

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

37

29

18

11

5

±3.1

01/14/06

38

30

17

10

6

±3.1

01/13/06

38

29

16

11

7

±3.1


Ekos

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

BQ

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

38.6

27.2

18.6

10.6

4.4

±3.2



ATLANTIC Canada

Includes: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick

SES Research

DATE

LIB

CON

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

39

32

26

3

±9.9

01/14/06

37

39

22

2

±10.1

01/13/06

42

40

16

3

±9.9


Ekos

DATE

LIB

CON

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

45

32

21

1

±7.7


Ipsos-Reid

DATE

CON

NDP

LIB

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

42

30

26

2

-




QUEBEC

SES Research

DATE

BQ

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

48

22

19

9

3

±6.4

01/14/06

45

24

20

7

4

±6.5

01/13/06

48

24

17

6

4

±6.5


Strategic Counsel

DATE

BQ

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

43

26

17

9

5

±5.1

01/13/06

48

23

18

8

4

±3.6


Ekos

DATE

BQ

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

46.6

21.6

18.1

9.8

3.3

±5.8



Ontario

SES Research

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

38

34

23

5

±5.7

01/14/06

37

34

24

6

±5.6

01/13/06

38

33

21

7

±5.6

01/12/06

39

35

19

6

±5.6


Strategic Counsel

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

40

33

19

8

±4.1

01/13/06

39

35

19

7

±4.1

01/12/06

39

35

19

7

±4.1


Ekos

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

41.7

31.4

20.3

5.7

±4.3


Ipsos-Reid

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

40

37

19

4

-


Manitoba and Saskatchewan

Ipsos-Reid

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

45

32

20

3

-


Ekos

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

53

21

22

3

±7.9




Western Canada

Includes: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia

SES Research

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

47

28

18

7

±5.1

01/14/06

46

31

14

8

±5.1

01/13/06

45

31

16

8

±5.2


Prairies

Includes: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta

Strategic Counsel

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

59

18

15

8

±6.3

01/13/06

57

21

13

8

±6.3

01/12/06

58

22

13

7

±6.3



Alberta

Ipsos-Reid

DATE

CON

NDP

LIB

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

59

17

16

7

-


Ekos

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

65

15

15

4

±6.5



British Columbia

Strategic Counsel

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/15/06

42

31

22

5

±7.0

01/13/06

44

31

20

5

±7.0

01/12/06

47

28

20

5

±7.0



Ipsos-Reid

DATE

CON

LIB

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

30

29

25

16

-


Ekos

DATE

LIB

CON

NDP

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

40

34

22

4

±5.6




Seat Projections

Democratic Space

Methodology: Democratic Space takes the results of the last election as a baseline of support and adjusts each riding by the change of support in a given region based on a rolling average of the latest opinion polls. For the Democratic Space projections for individual polls, click here.

DATE

CON

LIB

BQ

NDP

OTH

01/15/06

135

82

59

32

0

01/14/06

133

84

60

31

0

01/13/06

133

89

57

28

0


Jord.ca

Methodology: Jord.ca obtains its projections by applying the latest poll results for each region to the relevant provices via Professor Werner Antweiler's Election Forecaster. Read more...

DATE

CON

LIB

BQ

NDP

OTH

01/12/06

144

67

59

37

1



Tags








Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)