Canada's next Prime Minister?

[Brandon716]

Keith, is it really necessary to respond line-by-line to a post like what I posted?? I think not.

Come on, the Green vote is totally pointless with the choices Canadians have. My opinion isn't changed.

If you are afraid Liberals don't really care about public health, vote NDP. If you aren't for public health, vote Harper. If you like the results of the Martin Health Accord and other Liberal funding methods to maintain the system, vote for Dion. If health care isn't your top issue, look at other policies. You've got some real choices. To throw that away on a Green vote just seems like a joke.

*edit*

And in regards to health care, it was Martin that forged the Health Care Accord, Martin being to the right of many Liberals. And if you ever get upset at the Liberals there is the NDP to consider at times when Liberals really have lost their way. I don't see the Dion Liberals have lost their way, they just don't have a campaign-centric eloquent speaker in Stephane Dion. Dion has his personality pitfalls, but he has a new vision for the Liberals that is quite positive and a fresh face compared with the past.

The bitter irony is that Martin damaged the Liberal party by opening up sponsorship and having it openly investigated trying to "redeem" his party. Instead he created a wound that is going to last for years, as if the party is nothing BUT corruption. So ironic that a movement to open up wrongs and make them right has branded the party into total corruption.

Harper has swept more corruption under the rug in his barely 3 years from his campaign finance trade system where he transferred illegal funds to certain ridings and back to other accounts to his buyout of certain individuals like the Cadman affair than anything that happened under Martin by far.

As far as history, you'll never take the Chretien or the Trudeau out of the Liberals, the history is there, so quit voting against something you supposedly support... If you indeed are a Liberal leaning voter.

I can't stand it when people say they would otherwise vote Liberal if the party wasn't filled with Liberals. Its almost like you're a paid Conservative staffer who blogs and posts pointlessly hoping to sway the last vote. I can't vote, I'm just waiting for my chance to be Canadian some day, but I still find it humorous.

 

[kEiThZ]

That's the kind of country Stephen Harper projects: no vision, no principles, just immediate self interest. Forget the future, just gimme $15 off my kid's ballet lesson and 2% off my new TV. .

That's arguable the most cogent statement against the Conservatives I have heard in a while. I can't see why Dion can't deliver a line like that....

 

[Brandon716]

That's arguable the most cogent statement against the Conservatives I have heard in a while. I can't see why Dion can't deliver a line like that....

Yet its people like you that say the GST 1% drop was a worthwhile tax cut and defend the deficit.

You're all over the map keith. LOL

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith, is it really necessary to respond line-by-line to a post like what I posted?? I think not.

I like to take the time to be thorough in my responses.

Come on, the Green vote is totally pointless with the choices Canadians have. My opinion isn't changed.

I guess me and you have different opinions on the practice of democracy. Like I said earlier, I like to vote for somebody's idea, not against somebody else's.

And in regards to health care, it was Martin that forged the Health Care Accord, Martin being to the right of many Liberals.

Yes, the accord that left the provinces saddled with higher health care costs than Mulroney.

And if you ever get upset at the Liberals there is the NDP to consider at times when Liberals really have lost their way.

Like many, many Canadians who are centrists, I would hardly go further to the left. The Liberals in Canada are supposed to be the centre-left party, not the left party. They have strayed from that role and that's why they are suffering for it. I am sure they'll re-discover the gooey centre by the next election.

I don't see the Dion Liberals have lost their way, they just don't have a campaign-centric eloquent speaker in Stephane Dion. Dion has his personality pitfalls, but he has a new vision for the Liberals that is quite positive and a fresh face compared with the past.

I don't think Dion's all that bad. In fact, I kinda like him more than Harper. I just disagree with some of his policies. That's all. That being said, I do think Dion is nowhere as effective a communicator as Harper. And let's face it, elections are about selling yourself.

The bitter irony is that Martin damaged the Liberal party by opening up sponsorship and having it openly investigated trying to "redeem" his party. Instead he created a wound that is going to last for years, as if the party is nothing BUT corruption. So ironic that a movement to open up wrongs and make them right has branded the party into total corruption.

Corruption has barely come up this election. Yes, the Liberals are suffering in Quebec for it, but elsewhere in Canada it's the Green Shift and Dion that's taking them to the gallows.

You'll never take the Chretien or the Trudeau out of the Liberals, the history is there, so quit voting against something you supposedly support... If you indeed are a Liberal leaning voter.

You are starting to sound like Mot. For all the crap Chretien did, I liked his little guy from Shawinigan attitude. And hell, I voted for Martin last election. I am just not a fan of their current drift leftward. I am fairly certain that if they get punished this election, they'll find the centre in a hurry.

I can't stand it when people say they would otherwise vote Liberal if the party wasn't filled with Liberals.

You poor mis-guided soul. Since when has the Liberal party ever been liberal? They were slowly drifting towards the right a la Australian Liberals or British Labour. And it's that drifting that won them votes.

Another big issue, is exactly what I posted an article about before....the urban/rural split. Nobody is voting for the liberals outside of the urban/suburban areas. That's actually a lot of why they are loosing. They were more dependent than they realized on that rural Quebec vote. Their leftward drift, pretty much cost them a good chunk of the country.

Its almost like you're a paid Conservative staffer who blogs and posts pointlessly hoping to sway the last vote.

Another Mot like comment....

 

[Brandon716]

You're like a Conservative paid staffer going around various forums and blogging away using those techniques, I didn't say you ARE one.

And keith, there you go with the line by line responses again. I thank you for such attention. LOL

I think you need to focus on your own feelings and beliefs and stop focusing so much on others. Its fine to analyze line by line on occasion, but you do it on virtually every post.

 

[Mot]

Keep me out of it. I am not in this duscussion, I am trying to learn from it. Don't lambaste me because you cannot present a clear understanding where you stand politically. I don't have a political identity crisis and ad hom attacks on me in a discusson with Brandon is simply diverting from your discussion/debate with Brandon and his valid point. Just address the point he made!

 

[Brandon716]

keith hasn't made a coherent argument in a long, long time. All he has done is over-analyze what others have said and ends up saying nothing at all for himself. He says he's a former Liberal who now hates the Liberals and wants them to be punished. Okay, I'll buy that. I'm a former US Democrat who no longer identifies with what the party stands for. But the difference is that I'm dealing with a political party that is diametrically opposed to some of my core beliefs: Obama is against genuine universal health insurance and doesn't even pretend to support it.

Watch his latest ad, btw:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1772825856/bclid1780606223/bctid1819819398

..health care is one of the primary reasons I supported Hillary over Obama during the primaries. Now that he's conquered the left and has the nomination he has no incentive to even rhetorically support universal guaranteed health insurance for everyone. He outright simply campaigns AGAINST it now. Yes, from the perfect Obama that everyone outside our borders loves... He'd be considered a right wing wacko in Canada.

Obama supports a slight draw-down in troops in Iraq, but on the contrary he supports expanding military budgets exponentially, refocusing and creating a new focused war centered in Afghanistan, and has plans to not only double recruitment efforts for the US military budget, but will actually EXPAND troop levels worldwide even if he pulls a few thousand out of Iraq.

So I literally have a reason to be upset.

But keith? He's just a complainer.

He's for the GST tax cut and the Harper deficit, but he's against it.

He's for a Harper win, but he's against the Conservatives.

He "prefers Liberals" but hates them and won't vote for them OR the NDP.

I say just take a stand for something, because if you don't stand for something you fall for anything. And the Greens have people falling for anything. They should rename it the Elizabeth May party. The NDP and Liberals are both more "green" than the Greens.

 

[Tewder]

I'm a former US Democrat who no longer identifies with what the party stands for. But the difference is that I'm dealing with a political party that is diametrically opposed to some of my core beliefs: Obama is against genuine universal health insurance and doesn't even pretend to support it.

He knows it would be political suicide to do so. A wise person understands that Politics are about patience, compromise and working towards what you believe in. Dogmatists don't tend to get this, but don't tend to get elected either.

..health care is one of the primary reasons I supported Hillary over Obama during the primaries. Now that he's conquered the left and has the nomination he has no incentive to even rhetorically support universal guaranteed health insurance for everyone. He outright simply campaigns AGAINST it now. Yes, from the perfect Obama that everyone outside our borders loves... He'd be considered a right wing wacko in Canada.

Obama didn't 'conquer' the democrats. It was a long and divisive campaign. He understands that it is not the time for the Democrats to force through an agenda that would be little understood and little accepted in the USA. Instead they need to gain power back from the Republicans and work to shift the public discourse back towards the centre of the political spectrum, laying the foundations for more meaningful public discussions on these issues in the future.

Obama supports a slight draw-down in troops in Iraq, but on the contrary he supports expanding military budgets exponentially, refocusing and creating a new focused war centered in Afghanistan, and has plans to not only double recruitment efforts for the US military budget, but will actually EXPAND troop levels worldwide even if he pulls a few thousand out of Iraq.

I'm not sure what you would advocate? Obama would be inheriting the aftermath of a corrupt and misguided foreign policy, but it would be irresponsible and dangerous for him to pull the US out of Iraq without a long term plan. In the meantime a refocusing on Afghanistan/Pakistan/al-Qaeda, which is to say the real aggressors of 911 and international terrorism, would seem to make sense considering the disastrous impact these forces can have if unchecked.

He'd be considered a right wing wacko in Canada.

Well it's true that the American 'left'/democrats are probably further right than our Conservatives, which makes the Republican propaganda painting them as communists quite ridiculous. At the same time it makes Canadian Liberal/NDP propaganda painting the Conservatives as nazi fascists a little ridiculous too. I would suspect that a position somewhere between Canadian Conservatives and American Democrats would appeal to the majority of moderate centrist Canadians and Americans.

 

[Hydrogen]

keith hasn't made a coherent argument in a long, long time.

Actually, neither have you. What you have been doing is stating your own preferences, backing them up with opinion, and telling people that if they don't vote like you that they are wasting their vote.

In Canada, political parties that receive more than two percent of the popular vote receive federal funding for future spending. In other words, votes continue to make those parties viable and relevant because people voted for them. Those votes are not wasted, as you so characterize them.

I think you need to focus on your own feelings and beliefs and stop focusing so much on others.

Why is it wrong to do this when you do the same thing?

I say just take a stand for something, because if you don't stand for something you fall for anything.

You might find this hard to believe, but people can actually like elements from different party platforms. Not everyone has to take a stand just like the one you wish to take.

It's fascinating that you casually toss around the word conservative as if it were put-down. You've learned well from the caustic politics of the United States where the word liberal is employed as a means to casting aspersions on someone. You are doing the same thing here.

But keith? He's just a complainer.

Takes one to know one?

 

[kEiThZ]

Yet its people like you that say the GST 1% drop was a worthwhile tax cut and defend the deficit.

You're all over the map keith. LOL

I have not argued that it was worthwhile from a revenue point of view. I have argued that there are some merits to the cut from a stimulus perspective and for the fact that it provides relief to low-income earners (since sales taxes are regressive in nature). I have also challenged the fact that the Liberals who promised to slash the GST are now working over time to defend the tax. I find that to be an inconsistent position. I have stated repeatedly that I would have preferred that the Conservatives not cut sales taxes. So what is so inconsistent or incoherent about all that?

keith hasn't made a coherent argument in a long, long time. All he has done is over-analyze what others have said and ends up saying nothing at all for himself.

Your opinion. Obviously a few other on this forum don't find my arguments to be incoherent at all. Perhaps you are having trouble keeping up with the class, but the rest of us are fine.

But keith? He's just a complainer.

Again, your opinion. If I voice my dissatisfaction about a certain party's political platform or their record, and that makes me a complainer so be it.

He's for the GST tax cut and the Harper deficit, but he's against it.

I am not for the tax cut, but I am for the deficit. It's ridiculous to run surpluses during a downturn just for the sake of political gain. I don't believe any government should be running huge numbers on either side of the ledger (deficit or surplus).

I say just take a stand for something, because if you don't stand for something you fall for anything.

Yes...good cliche line for movies. Kind of a bad way to decide the future of the country though....

He's for a Harper win, but he's against the Conservatives.

He "prefers Liberals" but hates them and won't vote for them OR the NDP.

That's the nature of the undecided voter faced with a plethora of choices, none of which seem particularly striking...

The NDP and Liberals are both more "green" than the Greens.

...and that's the nature of the dogmatic lemming....

 

[Brandon716]

He knows it would be political suicide to do so. A wise person understands that Politics are about patience, compromise and working towards what you believe in. Dogmatists don't tend to get this, but don't tend to get elected either.

On health care, Americans actually by majority want a universal social insurance program paid for by government, funded by taxpayers to control cost and increase accessibility. We already do this for seniors and people who make below the minimum wage called Medicare and Medicaid... Its not a revolutionary idea for Americans, many of us just want "Medicare for all."

The part Americans always disagree with and poll against is to fully socialize the system and both make doctors mostly government employees via government paid salary (like Britain's NHS which is even vastly different from Canada's Medicare and Health Act) and Americans also largely disagree with making it illegal to purchase out of pocket for those with the ability to do so (unlike in Canada where coverage is illegal to buy if its covered).

It is not political suicide to support universal care at all it is actually the contrary and very popular, but Obama has no leadership on this issue.

But this is not to detract from the issue at hand, and that is the Canadian election. The fact above needed to be set straight.

Hydrogen and Keith haven't brought up coherent arguments for a long time now. All they do is scream anyone who disagrees with them is dogmatic and anyone who doesn't think like them is just a party-towing moron. Between hydrogen's global warming is myth rants in the face of anti-dogmatic science and analytical testing with evidence AND keithz's simultaneous defense and dislike of the Conservatives, dogma seems to have nothing to do with anything in this discussion. The only people pointing fingers and bashing people for their beliefs on a personal level and throwing around the word DOGMA is them... I've talked about party platforms and compared the facts.

The NDP and Liberals both have a better green policy than the Green party as of 2008. If you want less environmentalism, clearly the Conservatives offer a largely anti-green platform that lets the industry regulate itself mostly. Its not dogma, its just reality. These are real choices.

In the political arena, just like others have hinted, politics is about power and policy. Not one OR the other. Without power nothing can happen, and I fail to see why dividing the left and centre-left vote is necessary given the circumstances.

As far as the Liberal party goes, it has a new leader, it has a new vision, it has a fresh face. They've moved on. To focus on sponsorship and for Quebec to still be upset over it is to focus on the past, and to focus on division IMO. Sponsorship was a fully public affair by the end of it and was fully investigated. Why don't we talk about the hidden, dirty secrets of the Conservative money shuffle program that is entirely illegal that occurred in the winter 2006 election? If we're going to think about these old things, we should take them in context IMO and consider the validity of both.

Otherwise we need to stop talking about "punishing" the Liberals and "purifying" them. That sounds pretty dogmatic to me, and that's all keithz has talked about. Sounds like the ultimate odor of hypocrisy when you guys lash out at EVERYONE else and start calling us all dogmatic mindless sheep.

Again, dogma has nothing to do with it. I drew the line comparing with the US where there really isn't much of a difference on domestic policy, and the biggest difference between our candidates is on FOREIGN POLICY. So I understand the world community rallying behind Obama... Domestically the US is going to have the same old, same old with Obama. To me its just sad.

At least Obama will put an end to the level of unilateralism from the Bush era.

Its too bad all you guys want to do is lash out, get personal, and call names like saying people are mindless dogmatics. My entire point was to talk about how Canada at least has choice, and to embrace the real choices you have. Because south of the border we simply don't have the true choices you guys have.

 

[Observer Walt]

I have to say...I am starting to hope for a minority, Liberal or Conservative....that way nobody get's free reign.

I agree. I was pleased after the 2006 election that we got a Conservative minority. It is now looking like it will again be that way on the morning of Oct. 15. If so, I will again be pleased. I think the Liberals need some more "time out" before they will be ready again to govern. But I want a strong opposition. We are not well served when one party (any party) has "carte blanche".

 

[Hydrogen]

Talk about ranting.

Hydrogen and Keith haven't brought up coherent arguments for a long time now. All they do is scream anyone who disagrees with them is dogmatic and anyone who doesn't think like them is just a party-towing moron. Between hydrogen's global warming is myth rants in the face of anti-dogmatic science and analytical testing with evidence AND keithz's simultaneous defense and dislike of the Conservatives, dogma seems to have nothing to do with anything in this discussion. The only people pointing fingers and bashing people for their beliefs on a personal level and throwing around the word DOGMA is them... I've talked about party platforms and compared the facts.

Are you suggesting that somehow you are the calm voice of reason, free of dogma? I think not. You seem singularly upset that people don't agree with you about an election you can't even vote in.

Have you noticed that I have not suggested who anyone should vote for - unlike you?

As for the global warming debate - it's another thread. And as for evidence, it shows a drop in globally averaged temperature this year compared to last - even though CO2 levels are up. In fact, no increase in globally averaged temperature for ten years. There's a nice clean record derived from a number of satellite measurements to back it up.

Otherwise we need to stop talking about "punishing" the Liberals and "purifying" them. That sounds pretty dogmatic to me, and that's all keithz has talked about.

Why should anyone shut up about such things? If people don't like aspects of the Liberal platform, then they don't like it. No one here is voting to satisfy you or your wants. And Dion is not a fresh face; he's been around for years. He is a leader by token of a compromise. You might love him, but it doesn't mean that those who don't are automatically dogmatic.

And as for arguments, you have not made one. You have stated your opinion.

 

[kEiThZ]

Excellent Comparison....

PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2008.10.03
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A15
COLUMN: Dan Gardner
BYLINE: Dan Gardner
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 1054

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Harper is no Mini-Me to George Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, Stéphane Dion's Liberals tried thoughtful policies and constructive debate. That didn't work so well. So the campaign has shifted to something a little more orthodox.

"My pal Steve and I have the same economic plan, if you can call it that," a George W. Bush impersonator cackles on a new Liberal website. "Heck, he would have joined me in Iraq and you'd still be there. I'm going back to Texas but if you vote for Steve, it'd be just like I moved up there with y'all."

Got it? Stephen Harper is Mini-Me to George W. Bush's Doctor Evil.

In political terms, it's a smart move. This meme has been proliferating for years and it's always good politics to tie your opponent to someone less popular than listeria.

But is it true? To answer that, we have to set the terms of reference.

First, "hidden agendas" are out. I can't read Harper's mind and neither can you.

Second, statements and actions that precede Harper's time as Conservative leader may be indications of his secret longings but they're not relevant here. All prime ministers are tied down by political constraints. They cannot indulge their beliefs, dreams and fantasies.

It is what Mr. Harper said and did as leader of the opposition and prime minister that counts.

- Iraq. Let's start with the obvious. Mr. Harper did indeed want to join the "coalition of the willing." But so did many others, in this country and elsewhere, who cannot possibly be described as W.'s ideological kin. One of them is currently the deputy leader of the Liberal party.

- The Military. George W. Bush massively increased the already massive budget of the U.S. military: In 2009, it tops half a trillion dollars.

When Stephen Harper took office, the budget of the Canadian military was so lean after the cutbacks of the 1990s that analysts warned operational effectiveness was in jeopardy. Mr. Harper boosted the budget to $18 billion, a substantial increase in line with what Paul Martin's Liberal government had budgeted.

And contrary to urban legend, the Kandahar mission is not evidence that Harper is doing his master's bidding. It was the aforementioned Paul Martin who signed us up.

- Economics. The Liberals don't say what "economic plan" W. shares with "my pal Steve" and I'm not sure what that might be.

In a recent interview, Harper was asked what factors he believes are responsible for the current crisis on Wall Street. It was mismanagement, he responded, including poor oversight, cheap credit and a tax structure that may encourage housing bubbles.

If Harper is Mini Me, he just kicked Dr. Evil in the shin.

- Spending. Among conservatives, "smaller government" is a mantra and there is no question that both Harper and Bush would like to shrink the size of government relative to the economy.

The two leaders also share results on this score: Under both, the size of government has grown.

- Balancing the books. Stephen Harper inherited a budget surplus and kept the government in surplus, although with a reduced margin for error.

George W. Bush inherited a surplus and then promptly maxed out Uncle Sam's credit cards.

- Taxes. George Bush made huge cuts to income taxes, the benefits of which went overwhelmingly to the rich. This was in line with conservative doctrine on taxes, which favours reducing progressive income taxes as much as possible. The same doctrine also calls for the tax burden to be shifted to consumption taxes, which are not progressive.

Stephen Harper cut the GST, which is a consumption tax. Lefties did not cheer but they should have.

Harper also cut corporate taxes. That may sound Bushian to the blinkered left -- I'm looking at you, Jack Layton --but the U.S. actually has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Some of the lowest corporate tax rates are found in Iceland, Denmark, the Netherlands and other northern European countries seldom described as bastions of unfettered capitalism.

- Foreign policy. The least we can say about Mr. Bush is that his foreign policy is clear. He even has a doctrine named after him.

And Mr. Harper? If he has a foreign policy, I can't find it. Sure, he talks about Canada being "back" on the world stage. But what does that mean? Where are the observable results? Even Mr. Dithers produced a windy, vague discussion paper. Harper hasn't managed half as much and Canada is as insignificant as ever.

And here's a little-known fact: While Harper let foreign aid slip, Bush boosted it.

- Climate change. One man is a politician from oil country who rejected Kyoto and didn't take climate change even slightly seriously until it became a political liability. The other is Bush. Or Harper.

Score one for the clone hypothesis.

- Health care. Let's get serious. If Stephen Harper were to deliver a speech outlining his government's health care policy at a Republican convention, he would be seized and tied to a stake. Burn the witch!

- Arts funding. Stephen Harper cut it and mocked artists for swanning about at lavish galas.

George W. Bush increased the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by 30 per cent.

- Criminal justice. No doubt about it, Conservative "tough on crime" policies are red-white-and-blue Americana. But they're not unique to George W. Bush or even the Republican party. Democrats embraced them as well, particularly during the 1990s.

I once saw Howard Dean extol the virtues of long mandatory minimum sentences, for goodness sake.

- Abortion. This is where the distinction between political beliefs and political reality kicks in hard.

Stephen Harper may secretly wish to curtail a woman's right to choose. I don't know. I do know that he can't. Even a whisper to that effect would devastate the Conservatives -- which is why Harper would sooner be exiled to a puffin colony than talk about abortion.

As a Republican in the U.S., the political reality is precisely the opposite for George W. Bush. Not only can he talk about it, he has to.

- God, guns and gays. It's true that neither Stephen Harper nor George W. Bush supports gay marriage. But then, neither does Hillary Clinton or almost any Democrat you can name. And Harper did support civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, which happens to be the position of Barack Obama.

Guns? Recently, a Conservative candidate who had written in a blog that he supports a concealed-carry law -- imagine handguns in women's purses instead of whistles -- was forced to resign. Try explaining that to a Texas Republican.

God? Harper once ended speeches with "God bless Canada" but he doesn't any more. Aside from that, the only real evidence that Harper is pushing the religious right's agenda is an amendment that bars funding for films deemed to be obscene or otherwise contrary to the public good. A smoking gun? Well, that amendment -- word for word -- was originally proposed in 2003 by Liberal minister and heroine of the arts Sheila Copps.

As regular readers of this space will know, I am a fan of neither the president nor the prime minister. It would be so much easier to drown these kittens if I could drop them both in one sack.

But I cannot. The facts do not permit it. The equation of Stephen Harper and George W. Bush is nothing more than a political caricature.

Dan Gardner writes Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com.

 

[Solaris]

Conservative lead widens in pre-debate poll

Race still close in Ontario, but Liberal support falling nationally

Oct 03, 2008 10:54 AM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – With the fallout from the televised leaders debates still to register, a new poll suggests the Conservatives established a comfortable lead over their Liberal challengers.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima rolling poll gave the Tories 37 per cent support, 15 points clear of the Liberals at just 22 per cent.

The NDP was breathing down Liberal necks with 18 per cent, followed by the Greens at 12 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois with nine per cent.

Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson says the Tory lead is more than twice the winning margin the party enjoyed in 2006, even though support levels are largely the same.

A much closer race was brewing in Ontario, home to more than a third of the seats in the House of Commons, with the Tories at 34 per cent, the Liberals 31 per cent and the Greens and NDP tied at 17 per cent.

The rolling sample represents 1,254 interviews conducted Monday through Thursday and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20 – though the margin is much higher for regional samples.

*****

More information on the poll is available from www.harrisdecima.com. Respondents to the poll were asked the following question: "If a federal election were to be held tomorrow, whom do you think you would be voting for in your area?"