Canadian Federal Election

[travis3000]

Abacus is the only firm with the huge CPC lead. At this point its Abacus VS Leger, Nanos, Ipsos, Angus Reid, Ekos, Mainstreet, Pallas.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Abacus is the only firm with the huge CPC lead. At this point its Abacus VS Leger, Nanos, Ipsos, Angus Reid, Ekos, Mainstreet, Pallas.

Huh? 3of 5 of the latest polls show CPC lead… as follows

Abacus Data Feb. 20–Feb. 25, 2025
LPC 29 CPC 41

Ipsos / Global News Feb. 21–Feb. 24, 2025
LPC 38 CPC 36

EKOS Research Feb. 17–Feb. 24, 2025
LPC 38 CPC 37

Léger Feb. 21–Feb. 23, 2025
LPC 35 CPC 38

Nanos Research Jan. 25–Feb. 21, 2025
LPC 33 CPC 37

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Huh? 3of 5 of the latest polls show CPC lead… as follows

Abacus Data Feb. 20–Feb. 25, 2025
LPC 29 CPC 41

Ipsos / Global News Feb. 21–Feb. 24, 2025
LPC 38 CPC 36

EKOS Research Feb. 17–Feb. 24, 2025
LPC 38 CPC 37

Léger Feb. 21–Feb. 23, 2025
LPC 35 CPC 38

Nanos Research Jan. 25–Feb. 21, 2025
LPC 33 CPC 37

He said “huuuuge”.

[Hackslack]

Well in that case the last Angus Reid poll and Mainstreet poll I’ve seen is:


Angus Reid Institute Dec. 27–Dec. 30, 2024
LPC 16 CPC 45

And last Mainstreet Jan. 10–Jan. 15, 2025
LPC 26 CPC 45


Maybe someone has later ones?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hecate

What more evidence do you need? Carney said he wasn’t on the board when the board voted to move the headquarters. He was. He then sent out a letter addressed to shareholders encouraging them to vote in favour of the move as well. He was being deceptive when he said he wasn’t involved with the shareholder vote.

Lets look at some clear reporting on the issue: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-brookfield-1.7469116

So the move needed shareholder, not board approval. The move was on paper, no change was made to where head office staff work or tax filling. They were trying to get the company on S&P 500 so they would pick up investments from a larger number of index funds.

He resigned the board by January 15. Shareholders voted on January 27. The board likely need to do some voting/resolution to implement the direction from shareholders.

In these difficult times where we are going to need to attract significant capital investment from some of the worlds largest corporations to deal with Trump, don't you think it is would be good to have a PM that has experience running one of the worlds largest corporations with extensive connection of Wall St and Bay St.

The choice is clear, we can have the former chair of a S&P 500 or we can have someone with no corporate experience.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

Lets look at some clear reporting on the issue: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-brookfield-1.7469116

So the move needed shareholder, not board approval. The move was on paper, no change was made to where head office staff work or tax filling. They were trying to get the company on S&P 500 so they would pick up investments from a larger number of index funds.

He resigned the board by January 15. Shareholders voted on January 27. The board likely need to do some voting/resolution to implement the direction from shareholders.

In these difficult times where we are going to need to attract significant capital investment from some of the worlds largest corporations to deal with Trump, don't you think it is would be good to have a PM that has experience running one of the worlds largest corporations with extensive connection of Wall St and Bay St.

The choice is clear, we can have the former chair of a S&P 500 or we can have someone with no corporate experience.

Why yes because having someone with business experience is working out so well forvthecUSA right now. Trump and his gang of business oligarchs.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by casper

Lets look at some clear reporting on the issue: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-brookfield-1.7469116

So the move needed shareholder, not board approval. The move was on paper, no change was made to where head office staff work or tax filling. They were trying to get the company on S&P 500 so they would pick up investments from a larger number of index funds.

He resigned the board by January 15. Shareholders voted on January 27. The board likely need to do some voting/resolution to implement the direction from shareholders.

In these difficult times where we are going to need to attract significant capital investment from some of the worlds largest corporations to deal with Trump, don't you think it is would be good to have a PM that has experience running one of the worlds largest corporations with extensive connection of Wall St and Bay St.

The choice is clear, we can have the former chair of a S&P 500 or we can have someone with no corporate experience.

Lol, I’m sorry, but apparently that same argument didn’t hold water back in 2015, Harpers accomplishments compared to Trudeau.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why yes because having someone with business experience is working out so well forvthecUSA right now. Trump and his gang of business oligarchs.

Trump has no experience leading a publicly traded corporation that is routinely audited and accountable to shareholders other than him.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Lol, I’m sorry, but apparently that same argument didn’t hold water back in 2015, Harpers accomplishments compared to Trudeau.

Canadians lose their patients for their PM after about 10 years. Harper was at 10 years.

While I disagree with his polices he was a competent leader and understood what he was doing and how to get their.

[samne]

Originally Posted by casper

Trump has no experience leading a publicly traded corporation that is routinely audited and accountable to shareholders other than him.

And Carney chose to relocate and send jobs to the US in that position. Imagine what he’d do as PM…this is not the time for this…

[casper]

Originally Posted by samne

And Carney chose to relocate and send jobs to the US in that position. Imagine what he’d do as PM…this is not the time for this…

No one is claiming he sent jobs to the US. In fact they are saying the opposite. The head office staff are still in Toronto and taxes are still being paid in Canada. They just changed some registration documents so they could get listed on the S&P 500.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by casper

Lets look at some clear reporting on the issue: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-brookfield-1.7469116

So the move needed shareholder, not board approval. The move was on paper, no change was made to where head office staff work or tax filling. They were trying to get the company on S&P 500 so they would pick up investments from a larger number of index funds.

He resigned the board by January 15. Shareholders voted on January 27. The board likely need to do some voting/resolution to implement the direction from shareholders.

In these difficult times where we are going to need to attract significant capital investment from some of the worlds largest corporations to deal with Trump, don't you think it is would be good to have a PM that has experience running one of the worlds largest corporations with extensive connection of Wall St and Bay St.

The choice is clear, we can have the former chair of a S&P 500 or we can have someone with no corporate experience.

The shareholders didn’t have a love in and decide this on their own in the two weeks of carney resigning. the board presented them with a proposal and they approved it. Carney was on the board. The shareholder is just giving consent to the boards decision.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by casper

No one is claiming he sent jobs to the US. In fact they are saying the opposite. The head office staff are still in Toronto and taxes are still being paid in Canada. They just changed some registration documents so they could get listed on the S&P 500.

You guys were telling me I shouldn’t go to Disneyworld because America bad, but it’s okay that the future PM just can’t wait to get his company down to New York so he can get on the S&P 500

Lolz

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Well in that case the last Angus Reid poll and Mainstreet poll I’ve seen is:


Angus Reid Institute Dec. 27–Dec. 30, 2024
LPC 16 CPC 45

And last Mainstreet Jan. 10–Jan. 15, 2025
LPC 26 CPC 45


Maybe someone has later ones?

Look on Wikipedia:



Abacus seems to be the outlier, but even so, the Conservative leads has shrunk from a 20 point lead to a 12 point lead. The other polls have the Conservatives ahead by a 3.6 points or less, or the Liberals now leading.

[Hecate]

I wonder if carney voted as a shareholder in the decision, he would have been resigned by then, and He’s not an mp, so it wouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

[lio45]

Of course the CPC’s lead has shrunk now that JT is out. The problem was JT. The LPC on its own isn’t really that toxic — it was JT who was.

Not surprising at all. Poilievre’s high numbers at his peak were mostly due to him “not being JT”, and now the two candidates (Poilievre and Carney) both benefit from that important characteristic. Note that the gap would (predictably) be significantly greater with Freeland, as Freeland cannot really brag that “she’s not (close to being) JT”, at least not anywhere near as much as Carney can.

[elly63]

• Video Link

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by lio45

Of course the CPC’s lead has shrunk now that JT is out. The problem was JT. The LPC on its own isn’t really that toxic — it was JT who was.

Not surprising at all. Poilievre’s high numbers at his peak were mostly due to him “not being JT”, and now the two candidates (Poilievre and Carney) both benefit from that important characteristic. Note that the gap would (predictably) be significantly greater with Freeland, as Freeland cannot really brag that “she’s not (close to being) JT”, at least not anywhere near as much as Carney can.

I expect Carney to get another boost, when the Liberals choose him as leader. By the third week of March, we could be looking at a 5 point Liberal lead.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hecate

The shareholders didn’t have a love in and decide this on their own in the two weeks of carney resigning. the board presented them with a proposal and they approved it. Carney was on the board. The shareholder is just giving consent to the boards decision.

The board made a recommendation but did not make a decision. The shareholders made the decision.

The conservatives are getting desperate. They want to paint the picture of moving trucks taking away furniture and people being let go. The reality is over priced lawyers filling papers with no material change. If that is the depts of the "scandals" the Conservatives are going to dream up the Liberals will have a landslide.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why yes because having someone with business experience is working out so well forvthecUSA right now. Trump and his gang of business oligarchs.

Well Trump has had multiple bankruptcies and I'm not aware that Carney has ever had any...

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by casper

The board made a recommendation but did not make a decision. The shareholders made the decision.

The conservatives are getting desperate. They want to paint the picture of moving trucks taking away furniture and people being let go. The reality is over priced lawyers filling papers with no material change. If that is the depts of the "scandals" the Conservatives are going to dream up the Liberals will have a landslide.

On paper yes, but it was a pro forma decision of the shareholders on a recommendation made by the board; of which Carney was the chair. The shareholders didn't come up with the idea independently. It was the board who pushed the move. The shareholders just rubber stamped the decision.