# Election 2011



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

By law, a Canadian federal election campaign must last for, at least, 36 days. (There is no upper limit but parliament must meet at least once in every 12 months so that is a _practical_ limit.)

By custom (common sense) elections are avoided in winter and high summer – elections then annoy the voters.

Given that we are nearing mid November I suggest that a 2010 election is a _practical_ impossibility – unless the _coalition_ decides to defeat the Tories on Afghanistan and haul us to the polls in the week before Christmas.

Hence, a new Elections 2011 thread.

The “start state” is:






Source: _The Globe and Mail_

My _guesstimate_ is that we go to the polls in mid to late April or even in early to mid May to make campaigning easier. That can be engineered by letting the budget go to committee and defeating it on second reading or even waiting and defeating the budget implementation bill or just by using a convenient (maybe mid March)  "opposition day" to move no confidence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

And so it begins, and, continuing with the theme of Harper making life difficult for Ignatieff, this is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pm-plans-cross-country-listening-tour-ahead-of-tough-love-budget/article1791727/ 


> PM plans cross-country listening tour ahead of tough-love budget
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...



There are “real” pre-budget consultations at Finance where key players from business, industry, the banks, labour and academe meet with the Finance Minister's budget team to express concerns, offer suggestions and critique proposals. But these “public consultations,” while they are political theatre, can and will make life more difficult for Ignatieff. Harper will say: _“we consulted with you, ordinary Canadians, coast to coast, and we're doing what most of you said we need to do. But Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals have their own plans; they, not you, know best how to spend your money on their cronies.”_


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2010)

The "town hall" fiasco of 2009 led directly to the TEA party's rollover of the US House and gains in the Senate. IF any Canadian political party attempts to play at listening to the people while stonewalling or ignoring what is being said, then they risk igniting the same populist backlash.

Spouting empty rhetoric at town halls or cross country tours will be marginally better (people will simply tune you out, witness Mr Ignatieff's magical mystery tour), but have very little effect.

Someone, somewhere needs to grow a pair and start talking about practical real changes in direction (even if only to differentiate themselves from the other parties. Impractical suggestions come from the Rhinos, Pirate Party or Greens).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

The problem with really listening to the 'people' and the even worse problem of doing what they ask is that takes you on the short route to fiscal disaster. The 'people' want more and more programme spending, especially on _entitlements_, including health care, and they want less taxes. The two goals are practically irreconcilable because in addition to the spending the 'people' _want_ there is the spending they actually _need_, like national defence, just as an example. We cannot 'grow' the economy enough, through lower and smarter taxes, to pay for both _wants_ and _needs_. The Americans will, probably within my (quite limited) lifetime, give us a demonstration of that.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2010)

The UK proposes some pretty heavy spending cuts. It is possible to speak of these things now, and even to do them (although action is always harder than words):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252836/lessons-london-piotr-brzezinski?page=1



> *Lessons from London *
> 
> The British Tories have demonstrated how a newly elected party can deliver a program of radical spending cuts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2010)

There is one poll I like to track. It is not scientific but I'm guessing that it's useful.

At this moment (you may see different numbers when you view it) over 1,000 people have responded, over 700 of them from Ontario and nearly 900 are in the 55 to 74 age group.

This poll matters, I think because that age group has, pretty much the highest and most reliably high voter turn out. Seniors and “near seniors” vote in disproportionately high numbers.

The current (1068 votes) results are:

Conservatives: *38.3%*
Liberals: *26.9%*
NDP: *7.6%*

Now there are too few Québec votes (only 1/10th of a reasonable sample, but, for BC and Ontario, I'm guessing the sample is fairly representative of how nearly ½ of voters will vote. In other words, the _grownups_, the ones who do vote are for Harper and against Layton.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2010)

According to reports which are reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_:

1. If we have a snap winter election the *combined* Liberal/NDP seat count would just, barely, exceed the Conservative one: 128 to 127 (with 53 _Bloqistes_).





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/where-federal-parties-stand-in-mid-november-2010/article1802314/?from=1802318 

2. Harper and his minions have, however, sowed the seeds of dissent for both the _Grits_ and the _Dippers_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-accuse-ndp-of-hypocrisy-on-afghanistan/article1802213/ 


> Liberals accuse NDP of ‘hypocrisy’ on Afghanistan
> 
> JANE TABER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




On this issue, Afghanistan, the NDP stands to grab a fair share of the Liberal hard left cohort making it easier for the Conservatives to win in some three way races - I'm not sure how many there are, right now.

*But*: If Ignatieff and Layton were to propose a _coalition_ without have 154 seats between them, i.e. Still needing tacit BQ support, then I suspect that several Liberals would leave the caucus – a few would actually cross the floor to sit with the Tories but most would sit as independents. All in all, bad news for Ignatieff.


----------



## Haletown (17 Nov 2010)

and factor in that there would be an election campaign, where Harper has a lot of experience and is at least competent, while Iggy has the political instincts of a bag of hammers.


----------



## GAP (17 Nov 2010)

Not necessarily.....Iggy played it right backing the Cons on 3 more years as training....it took the issue off the election mandate, gave the Libs equal billing on the issue, and pointed to the NDP & Bloc as hard far left.....it moves the Libs towards the center, where they want to be mostly....


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.....Iggy played it right backing the Cons on 3 more years as training....it took the issue off the election mandate, gave the Libs equal billing on the issue, and pointed to the NDP & Bloc as hard far left.....it moves the Libs towards the center, where they want to be mostly....



True enough, however it might also be enough to push the truly left leaning liberal voters over to the NDP or Greens. The result would definitely work in the Conservative's favour.


----------



## GAP (17 Nov 2010)

Careful there....not all Libs are radical left.....there's a whole wack of them that are moderate center, even slightly right.....they'll vote Conservative or not vote if the Libs are not at the center, but if they perceive the Libs taking a center stance, they'll come out in droves...


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Nov 2010)

You are forgetting the left bending Canadian media. If the training mission goes South, you will never hear/see/read:



> The Liberals say the Conservatives are basically adopting the position outlined Mr. Ignatieff in June when he called for troops to remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Nov 2010)

As a card carrying Conservative, it is my impression that the target is the large number of moderate Liberals who want no truck or trade with the NDP. The aim, after all, is to keep a centre-right focus (under CPC leadership) in Canadian government, and if that can best be done by building an alliance with some Liberals, so be it. And the way to do that is to frighten the snot out of them by raising the prospect of the NDP having access to their wallets courtesy of Finance Minister Jack Layton.

Every time a journalist raises the prospect of a left-leaning coalition being a logical desirable, outcome on programs like Power Play, hands are probably rubbed toether in glee.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As a card carrying Conservative, it is my impression that the target is the large number of moderate Liberals who want no truck or trade with the NDP. The aim, after all, is to keep a centre-right focus (under CPC leadership) in Canadian government, and if that can best be done by building an alliance with some Liberals, so be it. And the way to do that is to frighten the snot out of them by raising the prospect of the NDP having access to their wallets courtesy of Finance Minister Jack Layton.
> 
> Every time a journalist raises the prospect of a left-leaning coalition being a logical desirable, outcome on programs like Power Play, hands are probably rubbed toether in glee.




I agree, Liberals of the _John Manley_ school, and there are some, probably including e.g. Keith Martin (who will not run again and whose Vancouver Island seat *might* be competitive for the Conservatives) and Scott Brison (who was a Conservative) are on the radar if, and it's a Big *IF*, Iggy Iffy _Icarus_ is silly enough to go for a coalition that must have at least passive BQ support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2010)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Liberal dissent is already rearing its ugly head:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/michael-ignatieff-faces-caucus-rift-over-afghan-extension/article1803052/ 


> Michael Ignatieff faces caucus rift over Afghan extension
> 
> JANE TABER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




But there are other Liberals, more loyal ones, who have not run, whinging, to Jane Taber, who would be furious if the party did not support the government of Chrétien's war, Martin's war and, indeed, Harper's war, because they know that if they fail to support it Harper will nail them, all, to the political cross. If it was a good war when Jean Chrétien sent in the troops and if it was a good war when Paul Martin sent them to Kandahar then why is it a bad war now? What's that thing about being hoist on one's own petard?


----------



## GAP (23 Nov 2010)

The 1993 election changed everything
LAWRENCE MARTIN Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

There’s a lot of head-scratching in Liberal ranks these days. They’re confused as to why they can’t get untracked, as to why, in the great Canadian turtle derby, they’re forever trailing the Conservatives.

To find the reason for their woes, they might look back, strangely enough, at one of their successes – the election of 1993. That campaign, which gutted the Canadian political structure like no other, is known as the one that vanquished the old Progressive Conservative Party. The Tories came away with two seats. But it should also be known as the one that undermined the Liberals, who came away with a majority.

Although they won handily, that campaign effectively reduced the Grits to an Ontario party with a few regional add-ons. Post-1993, the party won successive majorities in 1997 and 2000, but in each it was an all-Ontario show, with the party registering unbelievable sweeps of 100 or so seats in that province.

That represented close to two-thirds of the party’s overall total in those elections. The warning signals were there. These majorities masked the Liberal Party’s geographical isolation.

The tumult of 1993 saw the simultaneous beanstalk ascendancies of the Reform Party in the West and the Bloc Québécois in the East. Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar. The arrival of the Bloc, which would take half or more of Quebec’s seats in the following campaigns, removed it. On the Prairies, the Liberals’ misfortune had begun long before. But they were still potentially competitive. Reform’s 1993 rise effectively sealed the door. Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation.

Outside of Ontario, the Liberals were left with only a sprinkling in British Columbia, less than half the loaf in Quebec and a measurable share in the Maritimes, where there weren’t many seats to begin with. Although it appeared that Paul Martin inherited a strong party in 2003, he didn’t. It was plagued by scandal, and as soon as the absolute hold on Ontario was loosened, as it inevitably would be, it had few places to look for help. Stéphane Dion faced similar circumstances, as has Michael Ignatieff. The party they commandeered was hardly the bastion it had often been.

While other federal elections have featured more prominently in the history books, few can match the 1993 campaign for altering the landscape. The reasons why we’ve had almost seven straight years of minority governments can be traced back to that campaign. It dramatically reduced the throw weight of both major parties while creating, with the two new potent formations, a pizza Parliament.

Of course, the Conservatives eventually recovered from the devastation and merged in late 2003. But the new party was dominated by the regional right-siders from Reform days and lacked the big-tent national appeal of the old Tories, who were occasionally capable of racking up big majorities. Unlike Brian Mulroney’s Tories, the new party has also been largely absent in Quebec.

As for the Liberals, they have no hope of making significant gains on the Prairies in the years to come and no hope, with the Bloc entrenched, of sweeping Quebec the way they once did. Mr. Ignatieff is getting a dozen ideas thrown at him daily on how to do the quick fix. But the problems may be too deeply entrenched for any fast remedy.

While the Conservatives have a powerful and reliable support base on the Prairies, the Liberals have no regional base to speak of. Even their Metro Toronto fortress, one of their last big strongholds in the country, may now be imperilled. Given the trendline of the ethnic vote, given the trendline locally (mayor-elect Rob Ford), and provincially (the sliding Dalton McGuinty), the Toronto seats may fall, starting on the outskirts, with the by-election in Vaughan next Monday.

In the 1993 election, the Tories suffered the worst drubbing of any party in Canadian history. Seventeen years on, as the turtle derby proceeds, it's starting to look like the other party got the worst of it.
end


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2010)

Now that the dust has settled on the 3 by-elections last night, the results are:

NDP - biggest looser (lost Wpg seat, lost substantial voter share in Vaughan)
Libs - next biggest looser (squeaker to take Wpg, lost in Vaugan)
Torries - biggest winners (safe seat in Dauphin = no big deal... won in Vaughn, a split NDP/Lib vote in Wpg seat they were never going to win)

I live near the Wpg riding, and I didn't see many Conservative signs out. It wasn't until last week that I learned who the Torrie candidate was. Perhaps they had written off the riding? This seat could easily change hands in the next election. I'd call it a marginal Lib/NDP seat now.

Given that historically the sitting government looses by-elections, I think the Torries are truly the big winners on the night. 

It will be interesting to read the ensuing spin in the next few days.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I live near the Wpg riding, and I didn't see many Conservative signs out. It wasn't until last week that I learned who the Torrie candidate was. Perhaps they had written off the riding? This seat could easily change hands in the next election. I'd call it a marginal Lib/NDP seat now.



I don't know the boundaries of Winnipeg North but aren't there more communists than conservatives in the area north of downtown, perhaps exagerating a bit.  Square miles of tiny run-down house  where visible minorites add up to a majority.  Definitely not a possibility of ever electing a Conservative MP unless perceptions change a lot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2010)

Very bad and sad news, if this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is correct:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-parties-agree-to-scrap-bill-to-correct-voting-inequalities/article1823068/ 


> Federal parties agree to scrap bill to correct voting inequalities
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Carolyn Bennett is much more concerned with preserving core, over-weighted, Liberal seats in Québec and Atlantic Canada than she is in trying to earn the confidence of most Canadians.

I think Harper should, now, bring this forward, to a vote, and expose the Liberals and maybe the NDP, too, as hypocrites during the runup to a 2011 election.

I have had rather a lot to say about this, most recently this:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals ride to the rescue, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-party-favours-more-federal-seats-for-quebec/article1570822/
> Some time back I presented a “model” based on New Brunswick, with 10 seats, being “fairly and properly, represented. I allowed that the three territories and PEI would remain grossly overrepresented and that no province should have a ‘variance’ from the ‘national average’ of more than about 10%. That produced a 451 seat legislature. I amended that to produce a 351 seat legislature - one with greater and, according to the anonymous Liberal official, unacceptable variances.
> ...




The fact is that equality of representation does matter and mature democracies strive to achieve it, overcoming entrenched resistance from the _heavy_ minorities.

I know Québec opposes equality, and I know that appeasing Québec is a Canadian political *requirement*, but it is time it stopped. Ditto appeasing Atlantic Canada, too. If they want more representation they can make their regions more attractive for e.g. immigrants and domestic migrants: you know, lower taxes, better job opportunities less restrictions on personal freedom ...


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know Québec opposes equality, and I know that appeasing Québec is a Canadian political *requirement*, but it is time it stopped. Ditto appeasing Atlantic Canada, too. If they want more representation they can make their regions more attractive for e.g. immigrants and domestic migrants: you know, lower taxes, better job opportunities less restrictions on personal freedom ...



As most immigrants migrate to the major metropolitan centers, it is rather difficult to encourage them to lesser centers.......Can we construct a high population density "Golden Horseshoe" along the NB/NS coastline opposite PEI overnight?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The fact is that equality of representation does matter and mature democracies strive to achieve it, overcoming entrenched resistance from the _heavy_ minorities.



So the 1991 census is frozen in time in Parliament.  Time for someone to ask the courts to redistribute as Parliament has failed.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Dec 2010)

The following story from The Hill Times is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright act.

'Vaughan showed us no seat is safe,' say Liberals 

The three federal byelections last week shifted the political landscape in favour of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. 

By TIM NAUMETZ

Published December 6, 2010 
           
The three federal byelections last week shifted the political landscape in favour of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives to an extent few observers and voters are aware and, because of a strategic Conservative decision on candidate selection for the Winnipeg North contest, gave the Liberals the sense and image of showing well while actually playing into Conservative hands. 

A top Tory from Winnipeg told The Hill Times that had the Conservatives mounted the same candidate who ran in Winnipeg North in the 2008 election, Ray Larkin, whose daughter Marni Larkin is a senior director and organizer for the federal Conservatives in Manitoba, NDP candidate Kevin Chief would likely have won. 

Instead, late last summer, after Mr. Lamoureux defeated a prominent member of the large Filipino community in the riding for the byelection nomination, the Conservatives dropped Mr. Larkin and selected a little-known member of the Filipino expatriate population, Julie Javier, who barely ran a campaign, avoided candidate debates and media interviews, featured a mobile poster mounted atop an automobile that sporadically appeared in the riding, and drew criticism from even Conservative party members for her lacklustre effort. 

The end result gave Ms. Javier a paltry 1,647 votes, which NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) says came largely from a diehard knot of Filipino Conservative supporters who supported the tough-on-crime agenda Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) drew attention to on his only low-profile visit to the riding. Had Mr. Larkin been the Conservative candidate, after having won 5,033 votes and 22 per cent of the vote in the 2008 election, Liberal candidate Kevin Lamoureux, who resigned his provincial legislative assembly seat to contest the byelection, would have lost, the senior Conservative said. 

It appears that despite allegations the Conservatives put up Ms. Javier to draw votes from the Liberals, the opposite was the case—Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives wanted Mr. Lamoureux to win. 

Party insiders say there is one main reason: They want Mr. Ignatieff to be leading the Liberal Party into the next general election. Mr. Ignatieff has the lowest personal voter support ratings on the federal scene, perhaps since Brian Mulroney, although not for the same reasons, and he has been unable to bring the party's support above the 30-per-cent threshold in public opinion polls. 

Critics say he has no political instincts and makes mistakes. For example, last week he got the Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette riding wrong when he was addressing his caucus. 

"If they lost all three, the knives would have been out," the Conservative said. Another told The Hill Times in an earlier interview after the byelections: "We're happy Iggy is staying." 

It was the second time Mr. Lamoureux, a veteran of the Manitoba assembly, had resigned his provincial seat to run federally. The first time, in 2000, he lost a bid to defeat Mr. Martin in Winnipeg Centre. Mr. Martin predicts Mr. Lamoureux will give no boost to Liberal chances in Manitoba in the next federal vote, calling him a "dilettante" in the provincial political scene. 

Mr. Martin and the senior Conservative agreed Mr. Lamoureux's victory will not threaten Conservative incumbents in Winnipeg going into the next federal election. "Rob Bruinooge [Winnipeg South, Man.]and Shelly Glover [Saint Boniface, Man.] are doing a good job, they're solid," the Conservative said. 

Not wanting to be identified, he noted, as well that the Conservative candidate placement also meant Mr. Lamoureux was running against members of two minorities—the Filipino community and a member of the large aboriginal community that the riding is also home to. 

Mr. Martin speculated that the credentials and history of the star NDP candidate, Kevin Chief, a gifted and accomplished leader at the University of Winnipeg who grew up in a poor district in Winnipeg North and obtained a degree at the university through basketball scholarships, would have given the NDP a boost nationally had he won a seat in the Commons. It might have been at the expense of certain Conservative ridings as well as Liberal-held territory. 

A second Conservative from Winnipeg also told The Hill Times the Conservatives wanted Mr. Lamoureux to win, although he later retracted the comment. 

In the meantime, organizers with each of the parties told The Hill Times the Conservatives threw everything they had into the Vaughan, Ont., byelection to get former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino into Parliament. Mr. Fantino's victory, as close as it was with his margin of only 964 votes against Liberal Tony Genco, represents a potential leap ahead for the Conservatives in neighbouring Metro Toronto ridings. 

One veteran Liberal told The Hill Times even though Liberal MPs played up the fact Mr. Fantino won with such a narrow margin, the fact that the Vaughan Italian-Canadian community swung heavily toward Mr. Fantino is another signal new and old immigrant communities in the City of Toronto proper are ready to change their voting patterns. The Liberal noted even the large Polish community is shifting toward Mr. Harper, in part out of discontent with past Liberal measures such as the legalization of same-sex marriage, and in part because of the Conservative focus on crime. The Liberal said Mr. Harper and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.,) have been working visible minority and immigrant communities more intensively than most people know. Mr. Harper recently attended a locally high-profile wedding in one of the neighbourhoods in Toronto, impressing local citizens, but did not publicize the appearance through the national news media. 

"Vaughan showed us that no seats are safe," the Liberal said. 

At the same time, say New Democrat organizers, the NDP nearly ignored Vaughan, focusing on Winnipeg North instead with its federal as well as local organizational support. Mr. Chief's campaign manager, Patrick Costigan, is a staffer at the party's Ottawa head office, and Brad Lavigne, the party's national director, told The Hill Times there was no point in wasting valuable resources in Vaughan, where 26-year-old NDP candidate Kevin Bordian garnered only 661 votes, 1.7 per cent of the byelection ballots, compared to 5,442 votes, 9.6 per cent, the party's candidate won in Vaughan in the 2008 general election. 

In the third byelection, in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette in Manitoba, the Liberal Party barely put up a fight, New Democrats and local Conservatives say. There, a district in which two Cabinet ministers from the Manitoba NDP government reside, and helped out in the bylections, the NDP increased its vote share to 26.5 per cent from 16 per cent in the 2008 election and its candidate, Denise Harder, placed a healthy second to Conservative Robert Sopuck. 

Pollster Frank Graves said he found it "incredible" that the Conservatives would construct such an election scenario, with the ulterior aim of helping the candidate representing their chief opponent in the riding. But he acknowledged the Conservative motive of doing everything it can—without suffering self-inflicted damage as in this case—to keep Mr. Ignatieff afloat. 

"That's even bigger than just two byelections," said Mr. Graves. "It's unprecedented." 

The NDP strategy in Vaughan and the Liberal approach to Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette raised suggestions that, while the Conservatives may have controlled the outcome of the byelections, the Liberals and NDP may be in a better position in the next general election, when they can pick and choose the districts in which they want to pour resources. 

Liberal MP Judy Sgro (York West, Ont.) said she heard hints of that message from voters when she knocked on doors supporting Mr. Genco in Vaughan. 

"People are getting fed up, they want to start seeing us, I think, get together and start eliminating the minority situation, they're clearly tired of that, I heard that," Ms. Sgro told The Hill Times.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> The Liberals, like the Conservatives, must figure out how to form a majority government without Québec; the first of them to figure out how to do this (hint: the answer surrounds Toronto and includes Alberta and BC and involves more HoC seats for all three places) will govern Canada most often.



As I said ...

This is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cluster-strategy-puts-tories-on-track-for-majority-poll-suggests/article1827215/ 


> ‘Cluster’ strategy puts Tories on track for majority, poll suggests
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




Looks like the Tories have figured it out first and, consequently, the universe, a Pierre Trudeau noted, is unfolding as it should.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2010)

Nanos' full numbers attached - this from the company's e-mail release:





> The latest Nanos poll shows that the Conservatives have recovered support lost over the summer and early fall. The Nanos national ballot stands at 38.1% for the Tories, 31.2% for the Liberals, 17.2% for the NDP, 10.2% for the BQ and 3.2% for the Green Party of Canada.
> 
> The current configuration of national support for the Conservatives suggests that numerically a Tory majority government can be formed without a significant breakthrough in the province of Quebec.
> 
> Although the Conservatives in the past have used various strategies to get to a majority, most recently the narrowcasting of issues suggests a new majority riding cluster strategy has emerged. In this paradigm, the Conservatives narrowcast messages to clusters of ridings on a diversity of issues such as crime, the long gun registry and social issues that align with their base and which divide the opposition. With a sweeping pan-Canadian mandate more difficult to attain, it would seem that the Conservatives are more focused on clusters of ridings and issues which divide the opposition to allow the Conservatives to divide the non-Harper universe ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2010)

See this for some background on the problem.

Every so often the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson gets it, mostly, right. He does so in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/electoral-injustice-cities-are-getting-the-shaft/article1828964/ 


> Electoral injustice: Cities are getting the shaft
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Notwithstanding Simpson's all too evident anti-Harper bias – but he is a columnist, not a reporter, so we expect bias – and his little fiction that the Liberal/NDP _urban_ strongholds are being shortchanged (it is, really, the Conservative leaning suburban regions that will, almost certainly, get most of the new seats) his thesis is correct: it is time, way past time, to stop pandering to *appeasing* Québec. It is less and less and less consequential to much of anything in Canada and the world, and Atlantic Canada matters not at all – except for the provision of singing groups and soldiers. The future of Canada rests, almost exclusively, West of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2010)

Brian Topp, one of the _Globe and Mail_'s political bloggers, is an NDP stalwart, but he's not a fool. Consider this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/don-cherry-the-eye-opener/article1833209/page2/ 

My *emphasis* added.



> Don Cherry, the eye-opener
> 
> BRIAN TOPP
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure Topp is right; the _neo-liberal_ Conservatives are demonizing the _elites_ in the Liberals and NDP and working for the _Timmies_ crowd – and, if they succeed, they may prove the conventional wisdom to be wrong and they may get the 'holy grail': a majority without much support from Québec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2010)

Here is what Patrick Muttart, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say in the article referenced by Topp and Henry Olsen's (the author) conclusions:

http://www.aei.org/article/102714 


> He [Muttart] emphasized that working-class voters do not fit neatly on the traditional left-right continuum. They are fiscally conservative, wanting low rates of taxation and wanting government to live within its means, but economically populist, suspicious of trade, outsourcing, and high finance. They are culturally orthodox but morally moderate, in the sense that they don't feel their lives will change much because of how social issues play out. They are patriotic and supportive of the military, but suspicious of foreign adventures.
> Most importantly, they are modest in their aspirations for themselves. They do not aspire to be "type A business owners"; they want to go to work, do what's asked of them, not have too much stress in their lives, and spend time with their families. They want structure and stability in their lives so that things are taken care of and they don't have to worry.
> 
> Drawing on Muttart's insights and my own thinking, I believe there are seven salient values or tendencies that are common to working-class voters across the decades. Call them the Seven Habits of the Working Class. They are:
> ...




Looks like the Tory political tactics to me. I believe Harper's political _strategy_ is to destroy the Liberal Party so that he/the Conservative Party (which will have absorbed many former Liberals) face a beefed up NDP (being reinforced with even more Liberals) and a Liberal rump.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Dec 2010)

This, I think is where the big battles of the (assumed) 2011 general election will be fought: on the Liberals’ left wing, between the  Liberals and the NDP. The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grits-dismiss-ndp-tory-dtente-as-electioneering/article1851914/


> Grits dismiss NDP-Tory détente as electioneering
> 
> BILL CURRY
> 
> ...




It sucks to be Ignatieff.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2010)

There are areas where common ground might be found, and the idea of the NDP working with the CPC on a particular piece of legislation isn't strange. Consider that the CPC and NDP _should_ officially be against subsidies for business, although for opposite ideological reasons. Given the current financial situation, it is conceivable that they might agree to eliminate subsidies in a future budget, allowing each side to claim a win for their base and actually achieving something as well:

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/dump-the-bipartisan-mush-heres-how-you-do-it-for-real/article_print



> *Dump the Bipartisan Mush: Here’s How You Do It for Real*
> 
> By Steven F. Hayward Tuesday, December 21, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2010)

On again, off again election sabre rattling. Now its off again...:

http://www.nationalpost.com/plan+topple+Tories+over+budget+Liberal/4042652/story.html



> *No plan to topple Tories over budget: Liberal MP*
> 
> Shaun Best/Reuters
> NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair says of Liberal criticism of Conservative corporate tax cuts: “The hypocrisy of the Liberals on this one is mind-boggling.”
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2010)

What's sad is that so few people who vote actually read through complete articles (let alone do their own research).
http://www.nationalpost.com/plan+topple+Tories+over+budget+Liberal/4042652/story.html

Based on this article, ostensibly about a Liberal complaining about NDP/Con.....I'd vote conservative; he's sold me.
_~shrug~_



[ hint for all parties: there's more to campaigning than bitchin' about the others; what do YOU offer....oh, and how do you plan on paying for it)


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> The “start state” is:
> 
> 
> ...




And here is the _projection_ for the end of 2010:





Source: The Globe and Mail

I still think a Spring 2011 election is very possible, but, based on recent news/analysis, perhaps a bit less probable than just two months ago when we started this thread. The Tories are _projected_ to be up by seven seats and the combined Lib/NDP seat count is down from 126 to 120 - far too few to tempt the GG to approve a coalition, unless it has formal BQ support which would be the kiss of death for both the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## Dissident (31 Dec 2010)

Am I wrong to view with scepticism a tally that give the Conservatives less seat than they currently have?


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Am I wrong to view with scepticism a tally that give the Conservatives less seat than they currently have?




No. I think the polls, while probably "fair and honest" can only measure _current_ intentions: election campaigns have a habit of focusing voters' attention on things that matter to them - right now economic issues regarding which _most_ voters trust the Conservatives far, far more than they trust the Liberals and NDP.

The _reported_/_apparent_ Conservative strategy of focusing on 25 or so key ridings where they might exploit the ongoing Liberal/NDP battle - the real story in my opinion - to 'come up the middle' and end up with something very close to a razor thin majority, even if they lose a few seats in QC, has real promise, I think, to produce some significant gains. the Conservative need a net gain of 11 or 12 (say 17 wins (from those 25) coupled with five or six losses) to get a slim majority.

My estimate guess hope is:

BQ: ........................ 52            
Conservatives: ... *156*
Liberals: ................ 72
NDP: ...................... 25
Others/Inds: .........   3


----------



## dapaterson (31 Dec 2010)

The challenge is that polling is wholesale, and politics is retail - it's the down and dirty work of convincing the undecided to vote your way, ensuring your supporters do come out, and doing everything legal in your power to deter supporters of your main opponent from voting for them (or at all).  (Robert Heinlein's short story "A Bathroom of Her Own" has some great pointers, though they are not entirely legal).

Given that all parties are sounding increasingly conciliatory, I'm becoming convinced that we will see an election in 2011 - since Canadian elections seem to happen only when no one wants it or is ready for it.  (And Tory claims of imminent elections are largely a ploy to keep their base motivated and writing cheques, not a real indication of national preparedness).

It would also provide great entertainment should the result of a running of the rascals be more or less status quo; I can't see any party keeping their leader for more than a year after such an event; the Liberals will degenerate into old-style backstabbing and self-immolation (and somewhere, Jean Chretien will laugh at his memories of the same, while John Turner shudders); Jack will discover that a fancy 'stache can only take you so far, and Stephen Harper will admit that he is the Moses of the Conservative Party - destined to bring them from the wilderness, but never quite to the promised land of a majority government.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Dec 2010)

I think the Torries have to hold the Lib/NDP feet to the fire on the coalition issue. Last time both leaders categorically ruled out a coalition, then tried to form one right after the vote. Making them state their positions early and often will burn it into the minds of the electorate, and perhaps give them pause next time, and might gibe the GG more ammunition to deny them their wish (ie: you said you didn't want one, I'm not going to give you one).


...but I wouldn't put money on it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think the Torries have to hold the Lib/NDP feet to the fire on the coalition issue. Last time both leaders categorically ruled out a coalition, then tried to form one right after the vote. Making them state their positions early and often will burn it into the minds of the electorate, and perhaps give them pause next time, and might gibe the GG more ammunition to deny them their wish (ie: you said you didn't want one, I'm not going to give you one).
> 
> 
> ...but I wouldn't put money on it.




There is nothing wrong, _constitutionally_, with a coalition. If the some opposition parties get more seats, combined, than does the first party then, after the first party loses a vote of confidence, the GG _should_ give the opposition coalition a chance. But: There is something *HUGELY* wrong, _politically_, with a coalition that involves the BQ; Canadians will not, I think, accept such a thing and they will severely punish all those (except the BQ) involved.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Dec 2010)

There is nothing wrong with a coalition, I agree. However to take a militant stance against a coalition before the vote, and sign on after the vote is completely beyond the pale. The Lib/NDP alliance have been accusing the Torries of lying or having a hidden agenda for years, yet they clearly demonstrated their own malfeasance and skulduggery after the last vote. Had everything been done above board, there wouldn't be any argument from me.


----------



## GAP (2 Jan 2011)

Election in 2011? Count on it
Article Link
The time is right for Harper to trigger an election, and immigrant votes will bring him victory
By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency Last Updated: January 2, 2011

Of course there will be a federal election this year.

The last one was in October of 2008. An election this spring would be about two-and-a-half years since the last one — which, historically, is a long term for a minority government. More recently, it’s the same period that elapsed between the 2006 and 2008 elections, and longer than the term of Paul Martin’s minority from 2004 to 2006.

So there won’t likely be a backlash if Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes the initiative to go to the polls for the bland reason of renewing his mandate, as he did last time. And anyone who says otherwise will surely be reminded of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s renewed sabre-rattling about forcing an election himself.

Opinion polls have been steady for months — the Conservatives have held a lead that fluctuates from three to 10 points.

But that national number hides more meaningful local developments. The breakthrough byelection win of the Conservatives in the Toronto suburb of Vaughan shows that some seats formerly regarded as strongholds for the Liberals are now at risk.

The winner of that byelection, former police chief Julian Fantino, not only bolsters the Conservatives’ reputation as the tough-on-crime party, but it also represents the party’s inroads to ethnic communities who once defaulted to the Liberals.

If having Fantino, a national Italian-Canadian role model, as a Toronto-area lieutenant for the party causes 10% of Italian Canadians to consider voting Conservative, that could be enough to tip a few close ridings into the Tory column.

Conservative ethnic outreach continues at full speed, especially in ridings like Brampton West, also in the Toronto area, where a large Sikh community will be presented with credible, well-organized Conservative candidates who are Sikh. If both Liberal and Conservative candidates are Sikh, which party would win a largely Sikh riding?

Vancouver’s Chinese community has already given us such a test. The riding of Richmond, B.C., is majority Chinese-Canadian, and both the Liberals and Conservatives fielded Chinese-Canadian candidates in 2008. In that contest, Tory Alice Wong beat former Liberal cabinet minister Raymond Chan by nearly 20 points.

A glance at Harper’s Senate appointments shows how this approach to building Conservative minority role models has been fortified, with Indo-Canadian appointees like Vim Kochhar and Salma Ataullahjan, Jamaican-Canadian Don Meredith, Korean-Canadian Yonah Martin, Jews like Linda Frum, Irving Gerstein and Judith Seidman, etc.

Of course, those senators are more than just ethnic symbols. But their symbolism is not lost on communities who once never considered voting for anyone but the Liberals.

Canada’s political press is based in Ottawa and naturally focuses on Parliament and polls, and big national news stories. But many election battles are fought at a neighbourhood level and, if just a half-dozen ridings flip from Liberal to Conservative, Harper will win his elusive majority government. Don’t count it out.

But if Harper slouches back to power with just another minority, isn’t a win still a win? Part of governing requires Parliament’s co-operation. But much doesn’t — from appointing judges to deciding foreign policy. And from a strategic point of view, how many elections in a row can the Liberal Party continue to lose?

If the Conservatives do get a majority, look for them to reintroduce Bill C-12. That bill would grant 30 new seats to the regions of Canada that have had the most population growth in the past decade — 18 to Ontario, seven to B.C. and five to Alberta. The opposition parties have opposed it, for fear of offending Quebec, whose population is stagnant.

But note the regions that are affected: Precisely those neighbourhoods in Canada teeming with new immigrants.

It’s obvious why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-12 — they want maximum control over Canada’s Parliament.

But it’s increasingly obvious why the Liberals oppose C-12, too. Do they really want seven more Alice Wongs or 18 more Julian Fantinos in Parliament?
end


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2011)

The Liberal "Brand" is in trouble:

http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberal-brand-suffers-severe-damage.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChasingApplePie+%28Chasing+Apple+Pie%29



> *Liberal Brand Suffers Severe Damage*
> 
> A new poll just out has suggested that the Liberal party is suffering severe damage to it's brand. Very few respondents in the poll had few positive things to say about the party.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2011)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is, despite being full of _caveats_, a pretty fair analysis of what _might_ happen in 2011 and, therefore, what _might_ cause us to have an Election 2012 page:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/can-harper-wait-out-the-election-traffic-jam/article1863565/


> Can Harper wait out the election traffic jam?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Globe and Mail
> ...




It only take one (at a time) of the three opposition parties to keep Harper in office, and both the Liberals and NDP will want to husband scarce resources for at least four of the five provincial elections Ibbitson suggests for 2011.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2011)

The *real* political battle of 2011, I contend, is between the Liberals and the NDP, as evidenced by this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/will-jack-layton-spoil-michael-ignatieffs-road-show/article1864806/


> Will Jack Layton spoil Michael Ignatieff’s road show?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




A coalition _might_ work – just not a Liberal/NDP coalition because the two parties, combined, are highly unlikely to get 155 seats between them, and Jack Layton knows it. He also knows that the Liberals and NDP cannot survive in a minority coalition: the NDP will not be able to spend enough to pacify their core and the Liberals will not be able to balance the budget, which they must do to have _centrist_ credibility. Both will end up paying a big price in the next election. The best hope for Ignatieff is that he can severely weaken the NDP and then, and only then, go after the Tories. The best hope for Layton is to help Harper destroy the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is what Patrick Muttart, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say in the article referenced by Topp and Henry Olsen's (the author) conclusions:
> 
> http://www.aei.org/article/102714
> 
> ...




The quote above is related to this one, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/why-stephen-harper-will-trigger-a-spring-election/article1867837/


> Why Stephen Harper will trigger a spring election
> 
> GERRY NICHOLLS
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




If Nicholls is correct, and I think he is, then:

1.	Mr. Harper wants something akin to British politics – Conservatives vs. Labour, with a or maybe a few small, _rump_ parties on the edges; and

2.	We ought to hope he fails because voters, in a free country, tend to “throw the rascals out" every now and again, as thet do in Australia, Britain and here in Canada, too. Do we really want three to 10 years of NDP government every five to 15 years when we "throw the (Tory) rascals out?"

What we have had, in Canada, for at least 100 years, is essentially _centrist_ government from both the Liberals and Conservatives – sometimes a bit too far to one _wing_ or the other (e.g. too far _left_ in the late ‘60s and throughout most of the ‘70s), but _centrist_ all the same because both the Conservatives and Liberals, although they may have campaigned ‘left’ or ‘right,’ generally governed from the centre-left, centre, or centre-right, sometimes despite the wishes of the prime minister and party _activists_. It would not be the same if we had a British style two party system with *clear* left/right distinctions. The Conservatives _might_ shift towards a pale copy of tooth and claw US Republicans but the NDP is unlikely to become an imitation of the US Democrats who, despite the rhetoric – from the Republicans and their own _activists_, are not anything like socialists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2011)

Good news, as far as I am concerned, in this piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-draw-line-in-election-sand-over-corporate-tax-cuts/article1868330/


> Tories draw line in election sand over corporate tax cuts
> 
> JANE TABER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I think that a good (expensive and slick) advertizing campaign can say “Ignatieff and the  Liberals want to raise taxes and take away your job. Sure, he *promises* to cut your income tax by a tiny percentage but how will that help when your ‘income’ is from EI? Will the Liberal Party of Canada give you a job? I hope so, because if they form the government they will raise taxes on business, big, medium and small and then those businesses will slow or stop hiring new people and even cut existing jobs.”

Also, Harper needs to say: “Look, we compromised with the Liberals and the NDP – we spent more on the _recovery_ and, therefore, ran up a bigger deficit than many Conservatives thought was necessary - because that was what the Liberals and NDP *demanded*. But now we need to recover through budget control and job creation. Governments do not create real, productive jobs – business, small and large, do that. Now is a good time to give job creation a boost by making it easier for business to hire new people – maybe you, maybe your husband, maybe your daughter or son. Ignatieff and the Liberals want to hit business with job killing taxes; they want you to be unemployed so that they can reward special interests. Now is not the time to kill jobs.”


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jan 2011)

ERC: 





> Do we really want three to 10 years of NDP government every five to 15 years when we "throw the (Tory) rascals out?"



If the NDP had a Gary Doer, it may not be horrific.

Re tax cuts. On the news down here, the talk was of the opportunities in near by Canada vis-a-vie all the late night corporate tax increases in Illinois. Reported to be an increase of 66%, but I do not know what the the rate is to start with.


----------



## GAP (13 Jan 2011)

Gary Doer was an dipper, but largely ran this province like a left leaning middle of the road conservative. That does not mean he was loved, he just had no competition. It was still a NDP government, and the changes to many of the rules and laws reflect that.

Mostly I would say he was pragmatic.....

ERC....go write policy for the Cons....the ones they got there now aren't doing much.... ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jan 2011)

Two articles from the National Post. 

Go for it Mr. Harper.

I must laugh (cry) when I read Jack Layton saying "It's not right' when he and his wife living in Toronto/Ottawa sucked a million dollars out of the Canadian taxpayer. Now his son is a Toronto city councilperson. It's like generations of welfare recipients.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Opposition+lashes+Harper+party+subsidies/4105853/story.html
*
Opposition lashes out at Harper vow to end party subsidies*

Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News • Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s opponents say his plan to campaign on killing direct financing for political parties is irresponsible, arguing the current subsidies are good for democracy.

The Liberals and New Democrats made it clear Thursday they have no intention of agreeing to repeal the subsidies introduced in the past decade, saying they ensure the ideas of voters are represented by vibrant political parties that no longer have to rely on “big money” from the business community.

But on Thursday, Mr. Harper wasn’t backing down on his plan — first revealed in an exclusive interview this week with Postmedia News — to make the end of the subsidies a “clear plank” of the Conservatives’ election platform.

“A subsidy where parties make no effort whatsoever to raise money is not acceptable, I don’t think, to Canadian taxpayers,” Mr. Harper said during a news conference in Toronto.

Also Thursday, the opposition reacted to two other comments made by Mr. Harper in the Postmedia News interview: that the opposition parties will try to immediately form a coalition government if the next election produces another Tory minority; and that the current minority Parliament appears headed for a conflict over the government’s refusal to bend to opposition pressure to back down on corporate tax cuts.
Liberal House leader David McGuinty mocked Mr. Harper over his allegation that a coalition is in the works.

“Apparently, we’re also going to be causing a hailstorm, and we’re going to be causing flash floods,” said Mr. McGuinty. “This is nonsense talk from the prime minister, who is desperate to try to create a bogeyman. He’s now retrenched, backed himself into a corner, and he’s lurching and he’s lashing out.”

And while Mr. Harper continued to bang the drum in Toronto over the need for corporate tax cuts to create jobs, NDP leader Jack Layton said he thinks the more pressing concern should be for people such as the seniors he recently met who can’t pay their heating bills.

“The banks and oil companies may be out of the recession, with profits of those companies soaring, but the average Canadian is not out of the recession,” Mr. Layton said.

“If he wants to campaign on that, if that is what he is deciding to do, I guess he can go out and explain that. I think a lot of Canadians feel that they get gouged by some of these companies.”

Mr. Harper’s government is preparing a budget to be tabled in February or March and speculation is swirling over whether it will be defeated by the opposition parties, thereby sparking an election.

In the Postmedia News interview, Mr. Harper spoke candidly about how he hasn’t given up on repealing direct subsidies for parties.
In late 2008, shortly after the last election, the Conservative government introduced an economic update that proposed to end the system of direct funding for political parties.

The subsidy was put in place in 2003 after the Chretien government banned contributions to parties from businesses and unions, and also set a $5,000 contribution limit from individuals (later reduced by the Harper government to $1,100.) The rationale was that if the parties were limited in how they could raise funds, they should be at least able to rely on public financing.

Under the system, parties receive every year just over $2 for every vote they received in the previous election — which amounts to $27-million a year given to the parties.

Critics said the government’s plan was a mere ploy because the Tories, thanks to their strong fundraising system, are less reliant on the public subsidies. They said the Conservatives knew that, if the subsidies were ended, rivals such as the Liberals could be left bankrupt. The Tories shelved their idea to avoid being toppled.

Mr. Harper told Postmedia News he thinks there is a clear role for some public finance (for instance, people get tax receipts to encourage them to contribute to parties)
.
“But it has got to be tied to a party’s own efforts, or to the willingness of voters to actually contribute this money,” Mr. Harper said. “And that’s not the case here, so it remains our position that that particular subsidy should be repealed.”

Mr. McGuinty said the Liberals support the subsidies because they enable a system that removes “private sector” money from politics. He accused Harper of putting forward a “self-serving” proposal.

“It’s an attempt by Mr. Harper to try to position himself as ‘Mr. Fiscally Responsible.’ If he was so fiscally responsible, he wouldn’t have spent $50-million on 9,800 signs across the country advertising infrastructure projects.”

Mr. Layton was equally supporting of the subsidies.

“A key element of democratic reform was to make sure that political parties represent the ideas of Canadians and can have their ideas considered in the public discourse.”

Ending the subsidies would have dire consequences, Mr. Layton warned.

“You’re going to end up with those who are able to ante up the bucks getting heard. And that is not democratic. It’s not right.”


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/14/tasha-kheiriddin-no-more-bucks-for-ballots-harper-firm-on-ending-political-subsidies/#more-24804

*Tasha Kheiriddin: No more bucks for ballots: Harper to stop political subsidies*

January 14, 2011 – 9:15 am

Kudos to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for pulling a Rob Ford… and standing firm in his intent to stop the gravy train for Canada’s political parties. This week Mr. Harper reiterated the Conservatives’ pledge to campaign for the repeal of public political subsidies – prompting predictable outrage from opposition parties.

I say “predictable” because when one crunches the numbers, the Tories leave the other parties in the fundraising dust. Remove the public subsidies and Michael Ignatieff would be riding a bicycle, not a bus; Jack Layton, a unicycle. Meanwhile, Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May would be on foot.

In 2009, parties received $27-million in per-vote-subsidies. The Bloc Québécois received $2,757,912 for receiving 10 per cent of the national vote, the Conservatives received $10,410,324 for receiving 37.7 per cent of the vote, the Green Party received $1,873,820 for 6.8 per cent of the vote, the Liberals received $7,260,920 for 26.3 per cent of the vote and the NDP received $5,026,804 for 18.2 per cent of the vote.

 This is compared to the money raised by direct donations to the parties. According to the quarterly returns by parties on Elections Canada’s website, in 2009, the Bloc fundraised $834,762.42; the Conservatives raised $17,770,477, the Greens raised $1,166,874.20; the Liberals raised $10,120,312 and the NDP raised $4,039,104.10.

The “bucks for ballots” scheme was implemented in 2004 by former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, yet another poisoned chalice left to his successor, Paul Martin. The legislation decimated the Grits’ corporate fundraising by setting a $5000 limit on donations. The Tories subsequently lowered that limit to $1,100 and banned all business and union contributions after they took office in 2006.

The result is not more democracy, as the opposition claims, but less. Taxpayers are forced to subsidize parties for whom they would not vote. They also subsidize incumbency, as parties with the most votes are favoured over parties with the fewest. And the restrictions don’t stamp out business or union influence; corporations in particular end-run them by having their executives make individual donations.

Parties should rely on funds from their supporters, and no one else. While Mr. Harper deserves full credit for pledging to scrap the subsidy, there remains the issue of income tax rebates for political donations. Why do donors to federal political parties benefit from write-offs akin to contributors to charities? While some parties and their leaders may well appear to be charity cases on certain days, that doesn’t mean they should get the same benefits. That issue, however, has yet to find a champion on Parliament Hill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2011)

At the risk of repeating myself (even more) here is what I said about this six months ago:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although I regard Tom Kent as one of the principle architects of the decline (and at least stumble of not, yet, fall) of Canada (see: _Kingston Conference_, 1960) I agree with what he says in this piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/paying-for-politics-and-putting-power-where-it-should-be/article1685363/
> First: I agree with Kent that a *2011* election is more likely than one in 2010.
> ...




I stick by that; some public financing is permissible, if only to keep big business and big labour away from politics.


----------



## nuclearzombies (14 Jan 2011)

Yikes! All that reading made my eyeballs sore...

Here's what I actually know (it's ok, it ain't much):

- not 100% on Harper, but they'd get my vote tomorrow if they wanted it.
- I'd vote for the Taliban before I voted Liberal.
- The thing that irates me more than politicians: voter apathy. I can only assume that being sheeple is comfortable and requires less thinking...
- Tht new chicken bacon thingy frm KFC? absolutely fantastic!


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jan 2011)

Harper's problems lie in the loose cannons in his cabinet (no pun intended).  With the media all aware of his wife's preferred social companion's residence in the closet, and a "family values" minister who knocked up a younger woman while married to someone else, there's plenty of ammunition out there should another party choose to use it.  Canada's mainstream media can't be counted on to sit on such stories forever; breaking them in the midst of a campaign could suppress core voters in an act of disapproval of such conduct.


You have to play the hand you're dealt, and I suspect the Right Honorable Mr Harper would prefer a few less wild cards in the deck.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2011)

On again, off again coalition. Frankly, if two or more parties were to announce they were willing to work together to form a coalition in advance I'd take that under consideration, but not this "peek a boo" coalition thing.

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/01/ignatieff-and-star-caught-in-major-lie.html



> *Ignatieff And The Star Caught In A Major Lie....*
> 
> So the Star was quick out of the gate to defend Ignatieff from the new Conservative ads about to be released. Pretty much expected. The l;arger problem for both Ignatieff and The Star is the article contains completely false information. From the Star article:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2011)

And the Conservative's ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x5otmNy1iE&feature=player_embedded


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Harper's problems lie in the loose cannons in his cabinet (no pun intended).  With the media all aware of his wife's preferred social companion's residence in the closet, and a "family values" minister who knocked up a younger woman while married to someone else, there's plenty of ammunition out there should another party choose to use it.  Canada's mainstream media can't be counted on to sit on such stories forever; breaking them in the midst of a campaign could suppress core voters in an act of disapproval of such conduct.
> 
> 
> You have to play the hand you're dealt, and I suspect the Right Honorable Mr Harper would prefer a few less wild cards in the deck.


You are seriously trying to say that outing one of the Conservative Cabinet Minister's as gay would provide ammuntion to either the NDP or the Liberals?  In what sense would that not boomerang?

As for the infidelity thing- I don't think any Party wants to go there.  Lots of MPs are away from their spouses for lots of the year.  That tactic could be like nuclear war- everyone gets destroyed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2011)

Something else to throw into the mix, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_....



> Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he'll bring down his next budget in March.
> 
> He says the budget will contain no major new spending, but says he is open to discussions with the New Democrats about helping seniors.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Mar 2011)

Verrry interesting, and maybe an anomaly.

The following story from the National Post web site is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Tories hit 43% support: poll

Mike Cassese/Reuters Files

Postmedia News · Tuesday, Mar. 1, 2011

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have opened up a wide lead against their political rivals in public favour and would be close to winning a majority if an election occurred now, a new poll has found.

The national survey, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, found that the Tories are now supported by 43% of decided voters — up by four points from early February.

That finding by pollster Ipsos Reid is significant, as the level of support is near the threshold that experts believe the Tories need to win their long-coveted majority.

The Conservatives haven’t been this popular since they enjoyed a brief spike in the polls in December 2008 when Canadians were opposed to the opposition parties’ efforts to create a coalition government.

The new survey shows the Tories have a 16-point lead over the Liberals, led by Michael Ignatieff. The Grits, who have been trying to stoke voter anger over the government’s performance, have the support of 27% of voters, up by two points.

Jack Layton’s NDP appears to be in political decline as it makes demands to the government over what should be in the budget. The New Democrats would receive 13% of the vote, down by five points.

Similarly, the Green party, led by Elizabeth May, is in trouble. It would receive five per cent of the vote, down by five points.

Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Quebecois has 10%of the vote nationally and still has a commanding lead in Quebec.

“What you’re seeing in the numbers is a continuation of a trend that started over the past two months,” said Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker on Tuesday.

“And one could say that with these types of numbers, the Tories are well poised to potentially form a majority.”

Bricker said that two major factors are at work: Canadians are generally optimistic about the economy and are giving credit to the Harper government, and the negative Conservative TV ads which take aim at Ignatieff’s political ambitions and patriotism are working.

“The Tories have been uncontested on television screens in this country,” said Bricker.

“The only thing that people know about Michael Ignatieff is what the Conservatives have told them.”

Bricker said another trend is occurring which works in the Tories’ favour: They are increasingly attracting support beyond their traditional base.

The new poll finds the Tories receiving more support from middle-income Canadians, women, university-educated voters and foreign-born Canadians.

“They’re flattening out those demographic differences and becoming more mainstream,” said Bricker.

The poll finds strong support throughout the West for the Tories, including in British Columbia, where there are some key seats up for grabs in the next election.

Most importantly, said Bricker, the Conservatives remain well ahead in vote-rich Ontario. That province has tended to be volatile in recent months, with voters changing their voting intentions almost by the week. 

But this is the second straight poll where the Tories are strongly in first place in Ontario, suggesting that the vote there is solidifying.

The federal political parties are preparing for the possibility of an election that could be precipitated by a budget in late March.

The odds of an election occurring hinge on whether Harper decides to avert one by including enough concessions in the budget to secure the support of the NDP.

In every region but Quebec, the Tories are leading in public opinion.

In Ontario, the Tories stand at 45%, compared to 33% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP, and 4% for the Green party.

In Quebec, the Bloc is supported by 41% of decided voters, with the Liberals at 27%, the Tories at 19%, the NDP at 6%, and the Green party at 4%.

In B.C., the Tories have 48% of the vote, compared to 22% for the NDP, 21% for the Liberals and 8% for the Green party.

In Alberta, the Tories stand at 68% support, while the Liberals have 17%, the NDP have 10% and the Green party has 4%.

In Saskatchewan/Manitoba, the Tories are ahead at 59%, while the Liberals and NDP both have 17% and the Green party has 7%.

In the Atlantic region, the Tories are at 52%, followed by the Liberals at 33%, the NDP at 12% and the Green party at 4%.

The poll was a telephone survey of 1,001 adult Canadians taken Feb. 23-27 and its national results have a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The margin of error for the regional results are: B.C. (9%); Alberta (9.8%); Manitoba/Saskatchewan (12.1%); Ontario (4.9%); Quebec (6.2%); Atlantic Canada (12.1%).

Postmedia News


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Mar 2011)

Easy prediction.  The NDP will fall on their swords with a nudge from Harper.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2011)

That number seems too high.  My underinformed guess is that Conservative popularity as measured by polls is just a proxy for the electorate's distaste for a federal election (ie. a warning to the other parties not to serve themselves first).


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Mar 2011)

More tidbits into the mix.....

1) Ipsos Reid's latest numbers, via Reuters:


> The Conservatives have built enough voter support to win the majority government that eluded them the past two elections, according to a poll released on Tuesday amid speculation an election could be held this spring.  The Conservatives have 43 percent support of decided voters, compared to the Liberals at 27 percent, New Democrats at 13 percent and Bloc Quebecois, at 10 percent, according to the Ipsos Reid survey.  Pollsters say a party usually needs to win the support of more than 40 percent of the voters to win a majority government that does not require at least some support from the opposition parties to pass major legislation.  The survey for PostMedia News and Global TV said it is the strongest voter support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's party has enjoyed since early 2009 …. Although the Ipsos Reid survey showed the Bloc Quebecois with only 10 percent support nationally, the party only runs candidates in Quebec and are far ahead of the other parties in that province at 41 percent.  The random survey of 1,000 adults was conducted from February 23 to February 27 and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.



2)  Next budget coming up 22 Mar 11:


> The Conservative government will hand down its federal budget on March 22, setting out a financial plan that could begin the countdown to a May election.
> 
> It will be Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's sixth budget in a minority situation, but this year it's unclear if the document will survive more than a few days.
> 
> ...



3)  Canada's spending plan for 2011-2012 released this week (DND bits attached) - more from MSM here.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Easy prediction.  The NDP will fall on their swords with a nudge from Harper.



Actually they will present the budget, and then call an election, blaming the opposition for lack of support.  There is a potential downside of negative public perception with waiting for defeat in the House.  Iggy might make the claim that he has the Conservatives on the ropes.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Mar 2011)

Security and Defence Forum is chopped, I see.  Waiting for Bercuson, Granatstein et al to start snivelling about their stipends being cut.

SDF is (for now) online at: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/SDF-eng.html


EDIT:  Mea culpa - missed the footnote: "Authority will be sought in 2011-12 for the renewal of this transfer payment program."


----------



## GAP (2 Mar 2011)

> Iggy might make the claim that he has the Conservatives on the ropes.



Oh, his Bagdad Bob stand...... :


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2011)

I will guess the opposition will find a way to let the budget pass. The numbers and funds available are all wrong for them and a potential wipe-out at the polls will deny them even the chance of forming a coalition of the losers.

Alternatively,  they might start trying political theater, something like the Democrat "Fleebaggers" (lovely name) leaving Wisconsin to prevent the bill from being passed without actually triggering an election. This will be more difficult to pull off (especially since the Fleebaggers have aroused a great deal of anger among the voters of WI, I believe recall petitions are already circulating), but perhaps more elegant Parliamentary moves can be employed....


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2011)

The two _national_ opposition parties are in a bind: they _*need*_ an election - to avoid being seen as propping Harper up, again or still - but neither *wants* an election any time soon. The BQ wants one - it stands to gain even more seats in QC. But the Liberals have painted themselves and the NDP into a corner. Ignatieff cannot, yet again, be seen to be firing blanks and Layton also needs to stand up to the dreaded, evil Harper, each in order to placate his own base. Maybe both can manage enough strategic absences on voting days to sustain Harper but if they do that more than once then they will be seen as cowards, etc. I think that we are off to the polls ... _Hi ho! Hi ho! It's off to vote we go ..."_ And I suspect the Conservatives are sniffing a razor thin majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Mar 2011)

John Ibbitson, in this column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, sees what I have been suggesting for several months (years?) – the _Manley Liberals_ are defecting to the Tories as Ignatieff moves the party to the left in order to steal NDP seats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-a-leftward-tilt-is-hobbling-michael-ignatieff/article1929777/


> Why a leftward tilt is hobbling Michael Ignatieff
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




While I am sure there are some (many?) Liberal and NDP MPs who are asking the questions Ibbitson poses as the end of his column, I suspect we are too far gone to avoid an election, now. There is one ‘hope:’ Layton is headed for the hospital for hip surgery; his party may decide that he – the most popular politician in the country, according to most polls – is ot up for a national campaign and they may decide that they want to defer the election to fall 2011 or, even, spring 2012, giving both them and the Liberals time to find new leaders.

Even better news might be that this represents a real shift in Canadian politics: the _Manley Liberals_ drag the Tories farther into the solid political centre and the loss of those _Manley Liberals_ moves the Liberals father towards the left of centre area.

----------

My political 'spectrum:' Hard left - Left of centre - Centre-left - Centre - Centre-right - Right of centre - Hard right
In my view: we rarely if ever elect anyone from the Hard left and right, the NDP and BQ are Left of centre, the Liberals *were* from 1945 onwards (save for the Trudeau and Dion periods) Centre and Centre-left, even, under St Laurent, Centre-right. The Conservatives are Right of centre but they were, and may again become, Centre right and Centre.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2011)

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/Projecting+Tory+majority/4405264/story.html

*Projecting a Tory majority*

Global News: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:21 PM

Barry Kay, an associate professor at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., is an expert on public opinion and elections. He is also part of Global National’s election team. Kay has developed a model for projecting parliamentary seat distributions, from popular vote or opinion polls.

Based on his findings, he says the Conservatives would win a majority government if an election were held today.

You can view his findings below. (See link)

Kay spoke to Global News about his projections and the Canadian political landscape.

_Question: The Conservatives are close to majority territory, seemingly at the expense of the NDP. Why?_

Answer: I tend to challenge the premise of the question. There are different ways to address this issue, pertaining to winning constituencies or gaining popularity with voters. In either case, however, recent Conservative gains are more likely to occur at the expense of the Liberals. That is certainly the case in Ontario, but sometimes less so in the West, especially B.C. When the NDP is competitive in a seat, it is usually the Liberals that are the main competition, again especially in Ontario.

_Q: Opposition parties are threatening to bring down the Conservatives and force an election. Would this be a wise strategy?_

A: By approaching the two-and-a-half year mark since the last election, this is already one of the longer-lasting minority governments on record.

Opposition parties establish their credibility by opposing government policies, and the Michael Ignatieff Liberals have frequently been criticized for being a "doormat" for Stephen Harper in accepting past budgets.

The NDP has stronger ideological differences with the Conservatives, and has regularly opposed them in the past. They still could switch, but they will be criticized by the Liberals for rolling over to the Conservatives, and acting out of fear and weakness. That argument could cost them votes to the Liberals once an election eventually occurs.

The Bloc's position politically has been fairly solid in Quebec, and they probably have little reason to fear an election.

Ignatieff hasn't impressed overly until now, but he has had two years to change the dynamic, and he probably is thinking that only the dynamic of a campaign will give swing voters the motivation to take a second look at him.

It doesn't always happen as with Dion in 2008, but Harper changed the political dynamic during the 2006 election campaign. Either way, there will be an election by next year.

_Q: If an election is called, where will the key battles be fought?_

A: The key battleground is clearly in Southern Ontario, more specifically in the bedroom suburbs of Toronto… It isn't simply that Ontario is the biggest province, but rather that it has greater electoral volatility, and more swing seats proportionately than anywhere else in the country.

A secondary example is the greater Vancouver area. If the Conservatives have a shot at a majority, this is where it will occur.

Conversely, if the Liberals are to stage a comeback, they will have to regain the southern Ontario seats they lost in the last two elections, but which had supported them in 2004 and earlier. The voting traditions in the other regions are too solid, for many seats to turn over.

_Q: What will the Conservatives need to do strategically to achieve that elusive majority?_

A: Stephen Harper isn't loved by most Canadians, but his strategy is to claim solid economic stewardship and question the competence of the Opposition parties. In the process, he seems to have put aside previous doubts about being "scary" on social conservative issues. His negative pre-emptive attacks on Ignatieff are part of the strategy, as is a warning about a Liberal-NDP coalition with separatist support.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Mar 2011)

Things just became much more interesting:

Reproduced with the appropriate caveats:

Tories slapped by 2 rulings
By Laura Payton, CBC News
Posted: Mar 9, 2011 3:48 PM ET 

There's a case against the government for breach of privilege after it refused to hand over detailed cost estimates of its anti-crime agenda, and a minister may have misled MPs, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said Wednesday in a ruling reasserting Parliament's authority.

Milliken ruled there was a "prima facie breach of privilege" — in other words, enough evidence to send two separate motions back to MPs to decide the next step.

Article Link


I think this is the opportunity the Liberals have been working towards. They want to bring down the government without having to vote against the budget to get there. The options now are:

BQ - want an election in any event
Cons - would like one - Polls show them edging into a majority
Libs - want one, badly - think they'll return to power, or at least cause the departure of Mr Harper
NDP - caught in the middle. Mr Layton needs hip surgery, and they want some budget compromises passed.


So the question is, will Mr Brison et al tender a motion of non-confidence?


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2011)

Cripes, even the left of left New York Times has some biting comments about Iffy. What a joke this guy is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/americas/12canada.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299935065-l40wRkmB36trK1qd16uCdA

The Saturday Profile. *Looking to Lead Canada, and for a Little Name Recognition*

By IAN AUSTEN, Published: March 11, 2011

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF may have written 17 books, gained some fame on British television as a serious thinker and led a human rights center at Harvard. But all that appeared to count for little when he laced up his skates and headed out on the 19th-century canal this city uses as a giant ice rink.
*
After spending most of his adult life outside of Canada, Mr. Ignatieff, 63, returned home six years ago with the ambitious goal of becoming prime minister.* If current political speculation is correct, he will finally have a chance this spring to put his case before the Canadian people.

But as he skated through a bitter wind on the Rideau Canal with 10 children and a gaggle of adults for a photo opportunity, *no one approached him or even waved. In a random sampling, few of the skaters that day even knew his name.*

Perhaps they did not recognize him in his hockey jersey and headband.

For all he has tried, Mr. Ignatieff has yet to connect closely with the average Canadian, and in the next few months, as he tries to lead the Liberal Party back to power, he will find out once and for all whether he ever will.

In an interview, Mr. Ignatieff (pronounced ig-NAT-ee-ef) openly acknowledged that his previous life — which included leading BBC camera crews into Balkan war zones and helping shape America’s debate over the invasion of Iraq as director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, had not fully prepared him for the battle of electoral politics.

“It is, by a country mile, the most difficult thing I’ve ever tried to do,” Mr. Ignatieff said last week in the grand paneled parliamentary office that comes with his title of Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. “I’ve done a lot of things. I’m proud of them. But this one is just at another level of sheer difficulty. It takes everything out of you.”

Even without an election call, the governing Conservative Party has already flooded “Hockey Night In Canada” and other popular shows with attack ads portraying Mr. Ignatieff as an interloper who is filled with patronizing contempt for his birthplace.

“I don’t care what they say about me, that’s not the issue,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “There came a moment at Harvard when I thought that I had to decide: do I want to be a spectator, or teacher, in someone else’s country? I was frustrated by the fact that you could keep writing these articles and nothing would happen. *It was time to come home and take responsibility.* I don’t want to get on my high horse about it but there was something there, existentially.”

ASSUMING authority is something of a theme in Mr. Ignatieff’s family history. His father, George, who left Russia at the age of 6 and ultimately became a prominent diplomat in Canada, was the son of the last czar’s education minister and a princess. His mother, Alison, came from a family whose members helped lay out the route for the transcontinental railway that stitched the country together and played leading roles in creating Canada’s modern education system. Even for a country with a tightly connected elite, it is an unusually illustrious history. But Canada is also a country where politicians with even the vaguest hint of self-importance are more likely to be mocked on satirical television programs than revered, potentially making his family history a political liability. It is a problem, Mr. Ignatieff said, that he is willing to bear.

“The egalitarianism which makes us very vigilant about public officials is a very good thing,” he said. “It’s not just idle social compassion. This is what makes this place go.”

Mr. Ignatieff said that Canada fared much better than the United States during the recession because its sense of egalitarianism has led to a stronger public education system, public health care, tighter regulation of business and a wider range of social programs. Those programs, he argues, have been steadily eroded by the Conservative government that came to power in 2006.

Like many of the ancestors in his mother’s family who went abroad, Mr. Ignatieff concluded that he would never be fully a part of life in either of his adopted homes in London and Cambridge, Mass.

“I know quite a bit about expatriation,” he said. “You always hit a glass ceiling.”

*In Britain, that realization came when he was told that he would not be given a television project because he was Canadian. In the United States, it was more a matter of gradual alienation.* Mr. Ignatieff said he found the debates in the last decade about stem cell research, abortion and public health care almost baffling.

“What are they arguing about?” he recalled thinking. “I don’t want to overstate this, as I love American politics. But you do come up that it’s not your home.”

SELLING his social vision over that of Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, has not been easy. He was appointed Liberal leader in late 2008, but soon discovered how hard it is for opposition leaders to set the agenda or even to attract news media attention. On a visibility scale, they rank somewhere between vice presidents and lieutenant governors.

During his four years at Harvard, Mr. Ignatieff was known for his hawkish policy positions. That culminated in an article for The New York Times Magazine in 2003 in which he supported the Iraq invasion. It was a position so out of line with Canadian thinking that even Mr. Harper, who otherwise enthusiastically embraces the use of Canada’s military, backed away from it as the invasion soured.

In 2007, Mr. Ignatieff acknowledged that he was wrong in another article for the same magazine. But the episode may blunt his effectiveness in foreign affairs during any election campaign, even though he has a clear advantage in knowledge and experience over Mr. Harper. An economist by training, Mr. Harper rarely left Canada before taking office.

Neither man is a natural campaigner. But while Mr. Harper usually restricts himself to tightly controlled events and audiences, Mr. Ignatieff has been actively seeking hands to shake and questions to answer. He spent most of last summer traveling the country in a chartered bus, a dry-run campaign that he said he enjoyed.

“They want to poke you. They want to see what you’re made of,” Mr. Ignatieff said of voters. *“They’re very demanding and extremely well informed. *Sometimes it’s a bit scary.”

When Mr. Ignatieff first returned to Canada, he was instantly, and perhaps predictably, compared with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister whose charismatic leadership many Liberals still hope to recapture.

Both men were latecomers to elected politics, equally at ease speaking French or English, and both might be fairly described as public intellectuals. Not tweedy intellectuals but handsome, fit and more youthful in appearance than their ages would suggest.

But it is an analogy that soon falls flat. Mr. Trudeau, for the most part, remained in Canada and was active in political debates and causes long before seeking election. He was so well known by the time he became prime minister in 1968 that his ability to draw crowds was known as Trudeau-mania.

For Mr. Ignatieff, the first step will be simply to introduce himself to Canadian voters. While he was untying his skates at the end of the photo opportunity last month, a small crowd did gather and some excitement built — Justin Trudeau, the 39-year-old son of the former prime minister and, for now at least, a Liberal member of Parliament from Montreal, had shown up.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Mar 2011)

Glad to see that Mr.Austen provides coverage of both sides of the aisle :

New York Times

March 9, 2011
Canada: Conservatives in Contempt
By IAN AUSTEN

The speaker of the House of Commons found the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament on Wednesday for refusing to provide cost estimates for a new anticrime program and because of potentially misleading remarks from a cabinet minister. It was the third such finding against the government in about a year. After a review by a parliamentary committee, there is a remote possibility that the decision might ultimately jeopardize the ruling Conservative government’s hold on power. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/americas/10briefs-Canada.html?ref=ianausten


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Mar 2011)

News broke yesterday. 

One of the Comments at the National Post: 


> This could set a dangerous precedent, if Quebec city gets an NHL team, Toronto will want one.



This guy wants to be PM. 

National Post   15 Mar 2011   BY MARIANNE WHITE   http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx    
*
IGNATIEFF DANGLES ARENA HELP*

Charges that Harper has let down Quebecers

QUEBEC CITY • Prime Minister Stephen Harper has let Quebecers down and they should get back at him by voting for the Liberals, Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday.
MATHIEU BELANGER / REUTERS Michael Ignatieff told an audience in Quebec Monday a Liberal government would invest in multi-purpose infrastructure projects across Canada.

The Liberal leader positioned his party as the only credible alternative in Quebec as he tried to woo voters despite devastating poll results showing the party is in second-last place in the province.

Mr. Ignatieff urged Quebecers who are looking to punish the ruling Conservatives for — among other things — failing to chip in for the new NHLsized arena in Quebec City, to vote Liberal and not for the Bloc or the NDP if they want to make a difference.

“Quebecers are fed up with Mr. Harper. Quebecers are looking for an alternative to Mr. Harper and the only party that can form a government to replace Mr. Harper is the Liberal Party of Canada,” the Liberal leader told reporters.

He said he is confident his party can make inroads in the province, especially in Quebec City, where the arena is a major issue.

“We’re very optimistic, we can gain a lot of seats in the region,” he said.

Results of a Leger Marketing survey published Monday suggested the Liberals trail the New Democratic Party in Quebec with 18% of voter intentions.

The Conservatives are last with 16%, while the NDP gets 20% and the Bloc Québécois leads with 41%.

Support for the federal Liberals elsewhere in the country is at 23%, according to a national survey. The poll suggests the Conservative party is the likely choice of 36% of Canadians, with the NDP at 18%.

“I don’t listen to the polls, I don’t pay attention to the polls. I’m on the ground and I’m talking to Canadians all over the place,” Mr. Ignatieff said in response to questions about his party’s ability to catch up if there is a spring election.

Mr. Ignatieff reiterated a Liberal government would put forward a national strategy to invest federal money in the construction of new multipurpose infrastructure, such as the Quebec City arena.

He declined to say, however, how much money his party would devote to it.

Mr. Ignatieff gave a luncheon speech before the local chamber of commerce Monday and told the sparse crowd of about 100 participants a Liberal government would give Quebec a strong voice in Ottawa.

“Canada needs Quebec; it can’t brush it aside like Mr. Harper is doing,” he said.

Mr. Ignatieff also pledged a Liberal government would settle the long-standing dispute with Quebec over the harmonization of sales taxes.

“Quebecers need to have a voice in the next Liberal Cabinet and for that, they need to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada,” he said.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Mar 2011)

The same sort of bribery he's chastised Mr Harper about. Hello pot, this is kettle!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Mar 2011)

Iggy is a Liberal from the right side of the spectrum tying to win votes by appealing to the left side of the spectrum.  He's making it up as he goes and he hasn't got a clue how to win.  I doubt the old "let's invade Iraq" Iggy feels all that comfortable with the socialist rhetoric he's now spewing.  I think he has a lot of bad advice.  I can't believe he's that silly all on his own.   Now he wants to give hundreds of millions to billionaires.  AAAaaaghhh!


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Glad to see that Mr.Austen provides coverage of both sides of the aisle :
> 
> New York Times
> 
> ...



The Prime Minister may use this to trigger the election; simply saying that he will take the issue to the people (ahead of a budget or anything else). This might catch the opposition flat footed (again), and with the political and financial stars lined up against them, this election will probably (at best) end up with little change in parliament, and at worst (for them) a CPC majority government.

Update: Or not

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2011/03/delaying-opposition-day.html



> *Delaying Opposition Day*
> 
> Rest assured that the federal budget will be released as scheduled next Tuesday, and the Liberals will not have an opportunity to introduce a non-confidence motion on Monday. The Tories have delayed the opposition day by one week, which I'm sure will draw the ire of the Liberals who would rather you don't see the budget. They are free to vote no on the budget and trigger an election if that's their prerogative, but there won't be a contempt of Parliament defeat before the budget is voted on. Great, I'd really like to see what's in the budget before I decide if we should have an election.
> 
> I'll admit that I did not like when Paul Martin delayed Conservative opposition days after the roof collapsed in the Gomery Inquiry, but Paulie delayed them for several months, not one week. I would like to see the budget before the next opposition day, and we won't have to wait very long. This was a great move.


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Mar 2011)

Surely Thucydides you not quoting a blogger as a source of information! Redeye will not be pleased. Next thing you know we will have to muddle through his renowned posts here.


----------



## Redeye (16 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Surely Thucydides you not quoting a blogger as a source of information! Redeye will not be pleased. Next thing you know we will have to muddle through his renowned posts here.



The blog's a source of opinion in this case.  And one which I share.  I'd rather see the government torpedoed on the budget (or the ridiculous Bill S-10) than the contempt measure (which I'd like to see stick), but the Liberals aren't really in a position to be demanding an election now since they stand to gain very little from it.  They still don't have an electable leader it seems, which is a shame in the face of the fact that Harper's done a not particularly inspiring job of running things lately, the LPC can't really capitalize on it.  It makes an election somewhat pointless I suppose.

What really infuriates me is the amount of money being spent on both attack ads (which disgust me) and the "Economic Action Plan" ads.  I pass a fond reminder of that plan, the Washmill Lake Underpass (AKA the Underpass to Nowhere), every day on my way to work.  A $10 million dollar boondoggle that was part of this "plan".  The money wasted on it could have been used for other more pressing infrastructure projects that were actually needed, but instead, it wasn't.  I'm sure it's but one of many examples.

Also rather sad that because of previous blustering about the GST, the Grits can't use the foolish decision to cut it to bludgeon the Tories.  It would have worked remarkably well for that.

Anyone notice the amusing snipe the Grits have used a few times?  When the "Harper Government" label issue came out, several Liberals started referred to the "Harper Regime".  Pretty funny as a potshot.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I pass a fond reminder of that plan, the Washmill Lake Underpass (AKA the Underpass to Nowhere), every day on my way to work.  A $10 million dollar boondoggle that was part of this "plan".  The money wasted on it could have been used for other more pressing infrastructure projects that were actually needed, but instead, it wasn't.  I'm sure it's but one of many examples.



The provincial governments selected the projects and if they met the criteria the federal government wrote the cheque.  Spending the money was the Federal stimulus.  Getting value was up to the province.


----------



## Redeye (17 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The provincial governments selected the projects and if they met the criteria the federal government wrote the cheque.  Spending the money was the Federal stimulus.  Getting value was up to the province.



Really?

Not accoring to this - in fact, it suggests the province didn't have any actual role:

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/tories-hijack-halifaxs-recession/Content?oid=1379211

(Yes, Tim Bousquet has a pretty left-leaning spin on it, but he's also about the only one reporting heaving on the complete incompetence of HRM's council, which is now just getting embroiled in another scandal)

Here's a little more on the the whole mess at Washmill Lake:

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2011/01/24/will-wayne-anstey-citys-top-staffer-be-fired-for-this

(It would appear Anstey didn't get fired for it, but he's at the centre of scandal over concert funding emerging now)

I've never become so interested in municipal politics as HRM has made me, because it's just a series of headscratchers.

Now, don't get me wrong - much of what was done as part of the EAP was good investment, and it was a timely decision to intervene in the economy.  That being said, how many projects went like this one?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Mar 2011)

The project was on a list of projects presented by the municipality.  The federal government had a preference for projects involving dirt, concrete, and asphalt because little of the value can be imported.  My municipality paved a road and built a water line with federal money.


----------



## Redeye (17 Mar 2011)

There were, however, several other projects of a similar nature on the list, and this one was a very, very low priority one on a large submitted list but it would seem that for whatever reason it was the one chosen.

More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.




One can, and the government does (or should) argue that the advertising is part of the "recovery" process - instilling public confidence in the overall _stimulus_ programme. Governments, of all stripes, have advertised their _programmes_ since, at least, World War I - always in order to gain and sustain public support. The EAP ads are, really, no different than:

                                                                                                                                                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Would you have argued that the above was a Liberal (king) re-election ad?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There were, however, several other projects of a similar nature on the list, and this one was a very, very low priority one on a large submitted list but it would seem that for whatever reason it was the one chosen.
> 
> More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.



Hold on. Let me go get my tinfoil hat. ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Mar 2011)

ERC beat me to the example.

The company that designs the product, the company that manufacturers the product, the company that puts the product up, or communicates all employ people, thus jobs are established/maintained.

The Liberals did the same thing to a point, hiring Liberal companies who sometimes did the work, and sometimes did not, all the time funneling funds to the Liberal Party one way or another. The scheme was called Adscam. Millions are still missing.


----------



## Redeye (17 Mar 2011)

And the Cons are as guilty of such scams.  They aren't exclusive to any party.  It's natural (if contemptible) to reward your friends as much as possible.  I just wish there was something to be done for it.  There isn't, of course.  The whole "Harper Government" bit lately was fun too - last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government... but I guess taking the credit for 2008's relatively soft hit on us (thanks, in a not exactly small  part, to Liberal policies too) is part of preparations for an election too.

Once again I have no idea who I'll vote for.  The last couple of elections I voted for the Green candidate because I couldn't stomach the idea of voting Liberal, but found the Conservative candidates (Dean Del Mastro in the first incidence, Colin Carrie in the second) not particularly satisfactory.  It's not that I'm particularly enamored with anything they have to say, just that another voice is good, and I'd like to see theirs rise.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC beat me to the example.
> 
> The company that designs the product, the company that manufacturers the product, the company that puts the product up, or communicates all employ people, thus jobs are established/maintained.
> 
> The Liberals did the same thing to a point, hiring Liberal companies who sometimes did the work, and sometimes did not, all the time funneling funds to the Liberal Party one way or another. The scheme was called Adscam. Millions are still missing.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Mar 2011)

Redeye: 





> last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government...



Is that your phrase, or are you quoting someone?

Modified to add: 

I am sure you have proof of 





> And the Cons are as guilty of such scams



Chretien: 





> "No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."


----------



## observor 69 (17 Mar 2011)

I couldn't bring myself to vote for "Wajid Khan" after he crossed the floor in Parliament.
The people of his riding didn't vote for a Conservative and that feeling lead to a Liberal win.


----------



## Redeye (17 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye:
> Is that your phrase, or are you quoting someone?



I'm recalling my high school civics type classes, but I'm pretty sure that is the correct term.




			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Modified to add:
> 
> I am sure you have proof of



Please, are you really going to try to suggest the Tories have never been embroiled in scandals?!  There's Bev Oda and "in & out" in more recent times.  The Airbus Affair is another that sticks in my head (though it wasn't really public money corruption).  The point I made is to suggest that any party is above scandal is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Please, are you really going to try to suggest the Tories have never been embroiled in scandals?!  There's Bev Oda and "in & out" in more recent times.



If you watch CBC the Conservatives have a scandal every week and nobody cares.  Why does nobody care?  Because the scandals are contrived, revolve around Parliamentary procedure, are not understandable by the average person, and money ended up in no-one's pocket.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2011)

Re:  whose government it is, how about the "Government of Canada"?  Just throwing it out there to consider...


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Mar 2011)

It was "such scams" I was questioning. Advertising, not your glib accusation. 

Yes, the Cons are not guilt free.

The phrase "last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government..." was posted this a.m. in, wait for it, horror of horrors, a _*Blog*_.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2011)

The whole "Steven Harper Government" thing gives me a laugh. After all, the Opposition and the Legacy media have been coflating the man and the government since the first minority government was elected in 2006, so the Prime Minister is simply formalizing the convention  

Think about that next time you go to the archives and read about what "the Harper government" was doing back when....


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Think about that next time you go to the archives and read about what "the Harper government" was doing back when....



In colloquial use, that's fine - that's how most people describe governments in history - but in official communication, it seems just inappropriate (just as it would be for any party, again, this isn't a partisan issue).


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2011)

I don’t want to appear cynical, and I am, in fact, a Conservative Party member and financial supporter, but, as I see it the opposition parties have two main lines of attack against Harper:

1.	Arrogance and abuse of democracy; and
2.	Spending on the “wrong” priorities – corporate tax cuts and the F-35.

It seems to me that Japan and Libya have, rather neatly, taken Item 2 off the table.

The Japan disaster makes the prospect of another economic slowdown, even another recession, _*possible*_ – not _probable_, in my opinion, but more possible than, say, a week ago. The Conservatives get pretty good marks from Canadians on economic management – they can 'sell' corporate tax cuts, unpopular though they are, as part of the recovery. Canadians are, by and large, economically illiterate but they can grasp that it is a corporation, not Aunt Agnes, who is likely to create a new job and paying less to government means the corporation can pay new employees. It’s not an easy sell but it’s possible.

The deployment of CF-188s to Libya should silence critics of the F-35: it would be bad form to tell our Air Force that it cannot have the new, 5th generation, fighter it wants even as it is flying 30 year old workhorses into battle.

That leaves arrogance and abuse of democracy – Bev Oda, parliamentary privilege, “in and out” campaign financing and so on. I’m not sure those issues resonate with Canadians voters _outside the greenbelt_.

Who says wars and disasters are bad?


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Mar 2011)

Stand by._ The _riposte is coming!


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The deployment of CF-188s to Libya should silence critics of the F-35...


I suspect it will have no effect on one _particular_ nay-sayer


----------



## Infanteer (20 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect it will have no effect on one _particular_ nay-sayer



<awaiting 17 news clippings in response>


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> <awaiting 17 news clippings in response>



In 17 seperate posts, but all linked to the same blog :


----------



## Remius (20 Mar 2011)

There was an interesting point this morning on Question Period.  The fact is that most Canadians could care less about the Conservatives being in contempt, the in and out scandal and even the Bev Oda ink ammendment.  But a 62 year old former top advisor to Harper with a 22 year old former escort fiance who maybe guilty of influence peddling makes for better dirt.  Even though in all likelyhood the "Harper government" may not have done anything wrong, they'll wear this and it will crystalise the other issues that no one cares about now.

Funny how that works.  You'd figure this was US politics at times.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> There was an interesting point this morning on Question Period.  The fact is that most Canadians could care less about the Conservatives being in contempt, the in and out scandal and even the Bev Oda ink ammendment.  But a 62 year old former top advisor to Harper with a 22 year old former escort fiance who maybe guilty of influence peddling makes for better dirt.  Even though in all likelyhood the "Harper government" may not have done anything wrong, they'll wear this and it will crystalise the other issues that no one cares about now.
> 
> Funny how that works.  You'd figure this was US politics at times.



The fact that Harper called an RCMP investigation before the story broke negates any scandal the liebrals may try make out of this. There has already been a number of polls (you believe them when they work for your argument, right?) and they all point to the populous not caring.

Most people don't even know who  Bruce Carson is, let alone care that he has a classy looking gal on his arm. The 'escort' in fact, has taken over the story, instead of the alleged influence peddling.

All indications are that people are waking up to the fact that Ignatieff is trying to manufacture a scandal, any scandal he can, to call the election rather than stick to his guns and vote down a budget he's said he won't vote for. Even though he hasn't seen it.

The public, including swing liberals, see everything that Iggy and Rae are doing as a desperate attempt, to force an election and hope to gain a minuscule, short lived, liebral government, so they can justify the acclamation of Prince Iggy at the last nomination gathering.

If they can't prove this time around that they have a viable platform (nothing so far), a viable candidate, (self explanatory) and a vision moving forward (nothing so far, except more taxes and social programs) they are a 'dead man walking.'

The liberals need a cleansing, like other parties have gone through. Total decimation, a thoughtful look and plan, and a rebuild. They have held the idea too long, that they are *THE NATURAL GOVERNING PARTY* and they are comletely deluded.

It will take a total trouncing to show them they have to get in touch with the majority of voters, who have grown up and think about business and pocketbooks, not global ideals and faith in helping the fellow man that is too friggin' lazy to get out of bed that they thought about in university. 

Their early, socialist, student party members now have businesses that are working under Harper, but are threatened under Ignatieff. 

They may still call themselves liberal when they are sipping spritzers and talking about homeless shelters at thier soirees, but they'll swallow thier pride in private and *X* the Conservative box in the polling booth when they think about their homes and businesses.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...
> Most people don't even know who  Bruce Carson is, let alone care that he has a classy looking gal on his arm. The 'escort' in fact, has taken over the story, instead of the alleged influence peddling.
> ...




This story, in the _National Post_, says different:

Extract follows
"In the poll, Canadians were given two choices for what they think is the most important issue in the election.

Sixty-three per cent said that “electing a party and leader that will provide honest, open and trustworthy government” is more important.

By comparison, 37% believe that “electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues” is more important.

Those findings, on their surface, should be good news for the Liberals. But in an ironic twist, the very issue the Liberals are trumpeting could backfire on them in a campaign.

Here’s why:

• 28% of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if re-elected, would do the best job of “providing honest, open and trustworthy government.”

• 22% believe the NDP would do the best job of this.

• Just 15% say the Liberals would be best at providing honest, open and trustworthy government.

• 7% say the Bloc would be best.

• 29% don’t endorse any of the major parties as best to deliver this type of government.

Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said the poll shows the Liberals were right to identify the correct issue for the campaign, but apparently neglected to ensure it would be a political winner for them.

“You can see people want to have ethical government. They’re not wrong about that. What they (the Liberals) are wrong about is seeing themselves as the people who are capable of delivering it. The proof is not there for the public.”"


As the article says, people want _"honest, open and trustworthy government"_ but they are (barely) persuaded that the Tories are more likely than the Liberals to provide it.

I continue to think that the "trust" issues, including Carson and his escort-girlfriend, are _inside the greenbelt_ issues; Carosn _*might*_ be a real scandal but I suspect we will have a new parliament before the police get around to reporting on anything juicy.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2011)

The Liberal Party certainly needs a new plan; the Red Book was rolled out in 1993, and reiterating promises that were not considered important enough to keep 18 years ago is more than just weak....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Liberal Party certainly needs a new plan; the Red Book was rolled out in 1993, and reiterating promises that were not considered important enough to keep 18 years ago is more than just weak....



Yet, to date, it is still the only plan that they have. You would have thought, a bourguois aristocrat, Ignatieff could have come up with something better than the communist agenda the librerals have tabled in the last 20 years. My dollars, and corporate dollars supporting all the people in, and out, of Canada that refuse to work for themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2011)

Budget day tomorrow and contradictory polls in the media, but this, from the _Globe and Mail_, is encouraging:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/where-federal-parties-stand-in-late-march-2011/article1949235/?from=1949232

The Conservatives and NDP appear to have gained a wee bit of popular support at the expense of the Liberals and Greens, but the _Dippers_ (like the Liberals) still stand to lose a few seats.

But, as Harold Wilson said, _"a week is a long time in politics"_ and we have many, many (probably six) weeks to go ...


----------



## GR66 (21 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Budget day tomorrow and contradictory polls in the media, but this, from the _Globe and Mail_, is encouraging:



I'm not certain that I'd call those projections "encouraging" for a number of reasons.  

The Conservatives are still sitting in minority territory which means they will likely stick to whatever policy line they think will keep them in power rather than following an ideological-based agenda which might actually solve some of the structural problems facing the country.  

While the numbers show the Conservatives gaining seats, if Harper yet again fails to win a majority against an opposition that is widely considered to be totally ineffective it will put his continuing leadership in serious question.  While I'm no fan of Harper personally I don't see a Conservative government handcuffed in minority territory AND having a divided caucus being able to achieve anything very positive.

Liberal losses projected are quite minimal which while likely being enough to force Iggy out of the leadership, they aren't nearly enough to force the party into a serious re-thinking of it's policies and backroom leadership.  Ditto for the NDP.  Survival for them is still a victory.  A divided minority Conservative government with still no viable opposition is a pretty crappy situation for a country that has so much potential.

The only real winners if this prediction holds true (and as with all pre-writ predictions that is a BIG "if") is the Bloc.  Oh, goodie!


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2011)

My responses in yellow



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that I'd call those projections "encouraging" for a number of reasons.
> 
> The Conservatives are still sitting in minority territory which means they will likely stick to whatever policy line they think will keep them in power rather than following an ideological-based agenda which might actually solve some of the structural problems facing the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (21 Mar 2011)

The Liberals, under Iggy, might just lose big time....the ethnic city vote (al la Toronto) is not likely to be there, as Jason Kenny and others have spent years courting them...the Liberals haven't had the last 6 years to scare them into voting for them.

Buzz Hargrove screwed the NDP  in 2005/6  by showing the union minions that they can vote for something other than the dippers....Some will vote conservative, not many, but more than normal...

The Bloc and Quebec are rapidly becoming irrelevant. If Harper can get a majority WITHOUT Quebec...it kills the constant handouts mentality to a large extent. If need be Quebec can go, but it will be a much reduced in size Quebec that goes, because the natives won't go, and they have the whole middle & northern land mass....


----------



## CougarKing (21 Mar 2011)

While I only recently became a Canadian citizen last February after years of waiting, I did not expect to have my first chance to vote in a federal election to possibly come so soon...



> link
> 
> *Commons committee finds government in contempt, could trigger election*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2011)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> While I only recently became a Canadian citizen last February after years of waiting, I did not expect to have my first chance to vote in a federal election to possibly come so soon...




The contempt motion need not trigger an election unless it is expressly framed as a motion of non-confidence because of contempt. The Liberals probably, almost certainly I think, want a non-confidence contempt motion; they do not want to fight an election on economic and leadership issues. The NDP _*may*_ prefer to fight on the budget - understanding that most Canadians neither know nor care about "contempt of parliament." If that's the case then the NDP can 'save' the government until it falls on the budget by, simply, not showing up for the contempt vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2011)

Further, I wouldn't worry too much about a "contempt" motion when the Conservatives now have this to use against the Liberals - confirming that Liberal = crook.





Fraudster Raymond Lavigne resigns from Senate to protect his pension
Picture: Reuters from the _Globe and Mail_


Another QC Liberal stealing the public's money. What more could the Tories want?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2011)

More of the numbers, from Nanos Research.


----------



## GAP (22 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further, I wouldn't worry too much about a "contempt" motion when the Conservatives now have this to use against the Liberals - confirming that Liberal = crook.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This and a new book coming out of Quebec on March 31st about how senior Liberals in Quebec were never charged during the Sponsorship Scandal.....


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> This and a new book coming out of Quebec on March 31st about how senior Liberals in Quebec were never charged during the Sponsorship Scandal.....



Great timing for the Liberals to bring down the government. A smart Conservative campaign can pick up and run with this.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Mar 2011)

The spoiler role clearly belongs to the NDP now. They can absent themselves for the impending Liberal non-confidence motion, and wait for the budget. If they don't like the budget, they can vote against it. We know the Bloc will, I suspect that the Liberals will vote against the budget, and the NDP may or may not. Still, nothing prevents the Liberals from playing the same numbers game as the NDP when the budget vote comes up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

I agree with Bruce Anderson* on this one. The Conservatives (the party of which I am a member and to which I make substantial contributions) needs to think back to 1957 (St Laurent) and 1979 (Trudeau). Canadians recognize arrogance in power when they see it and they don’t like it. It will, likely, I hope, not be the biggest issue in this election but it something that will, sooner rather than later, cost seats and even power.

The column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/


> Ethics, arrogance and the end of the Teflon Tories
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> 
> ...



----------
* Anderson’s bio, from the _Globe and Mail_:

Bruce Anderson has been a leading researcher and communications advisor for more than two decades. He started working on Parliament Hill in1979 and moved to the private sector in 1983. He was a founding partner of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group and has done two stints with Decima Research, including as CEO from 2004 to 2008. He has worked on national campaigns and advised politicians in both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties. During the 2008 federal election, he authored the Harris Decima nightly poll for The Canadian Press. He is presently pro-politics but non-partisan.
Today, Anderson serves a range of public and corporate clients on subjects including financial services, telecommunications, energy, trade, homebuilding and the environment. He provides research-informed advice on branding, marketing, reputation and issues management and is simultaneously senior associate with Harris Decima and senior vice-president with National Public Relations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

A budget snapshot, courtesy of the _Globe and Mail_





http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/budget-2011/article1952010/?from=1951966


Many, especially Jack Layton's family, will want him to find enough in this to stave off an election. I don't think he will; he knows that it will be hard to avoid supporting the "contempt of parliament" motion and the Liberals' non-confidence motion and he would rather fight the election on _handouts_ for "ordinary Canadians" than on the the Liberals' selected issue. Thus, if he has to fight an election he, rather than Ignatieff, might as well get the credit for defeating the government - after all, the media and the Tories have said it's his call.

This is, I think a good election budget: not too flashy - it demonstrates fiscal prudence - but with a fair few 'goodies' in any event.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

According to the _Globe and Mail's_ "live" feed, Layton is not taking the night to think things over: he says he will not support the budget. Looks like a May 11 general election. Hooray!


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to the _Globe and Mail's_ "live" feed, Layton is not taking the night to think things over: he says he will not support the budget. Looks like a May 11 general election. Hooray!



Unless the Liberal spine continues to be MIA and they have a convenient number of absent members for the vote.  :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2011)

I really want to know where Layton thinks all the money is going to come from to fund his programs? DND is already getting budgetary cuts, I'm almost afraid for my job if the NDP ever gets in.

I personally thought the budget was fiscally conservative, no big bang announcements, but no tax increases and small funding announcements. Definitely the kind of budget we needed with the global economy still fragile.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Unless the Liberal spine continues to be MIA and they have a convenient number of absent members for the vote.  :nod:




I don't think the Liberals can endure being seen as craven cowards any more. They need to so _something_ and they want to go to the polls, even though they know they have zero chance of winning. They are tired of being Harper's doormats.


----------



## GAP (22 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think the Liberals can endure being seen as craven cowards any more. They need to so _something_ and they want to go to the polls, even though they know they have zero chance of winning. They are tired of being Harper's doormats.



Ah....they make such nice doormats too!!.....they should keep doing what they know best..... :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

I think the forthcoming election will be good for the Liberal Party of Canada and, indeed, good for the country.

It has been over 40 years since the Liberal *Party* of Canada stood for anything: it's leaders, mainly Trudeau and Chrétien, have had policies and programmes they were “leader driven” policies that reflected, almost exclusively, the leaders’ proclivities (occasionally tempered by a few strong voices in the cabinet). The Liberal *Party* has not had a fresh idea since Kingston in 1960.

The Liberals need to get their act together and rank and file Liberals need to recapture their party from the “political professionals” who brought them, successively: Paul Martin as PM, Stéphane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff. One of the reasons that we, all of us, want the Liberals to get their act together is that we know (from  1935-1957, 1963-1979 and 1993-2006) what too many years of “one party rule” does to our country and one party rule by Conservatives is no better than one party rule by Liberals.


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Mar 2011)

Great.. This will most likely be a spring that burns $300+ Million in taxpayers monies while we will be tormented by telemarketers (aka politicians & wanna bees) and pollute our lawns with plastic signs because the Children at the Big Boys table can't play well in the sandbox. 

Honestly, you can never please everyone all of the time, but you sure can piss off everyone!!

Most likely the end result will be once again a minority government!!


----------



## Sigil (22 Mar 2011)

I'm actually thrilled that an election will be called. It's time to clear the air and start fresh. I think the only real question will be whether the Tories will have a minority or majority. I for one am hoping it is a majority. I'm tired of the political games and stunts, and am ready for 4 years of solid, steady governing. The erratic, irresponsible deals a minority government is forced to make with the Bloc or the NDP isn't good for the country.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I really want to know where Layton thinks all the money is going to come from to fund his programs?


To borrow a phrase from the Communist Party of Canada, "make the rich pay".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2011)

Layton doesn't care. He's a yappy little ghetto dog that knows his party will never take power. So he can make all the ridiculous demands and all the idiot promises he wants. He knows he'll never have to deliver.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> DND is already getting budgetary cuts, I'm almost afraid for my job if the NDP ever gets in.



Incorrect.  DND is getting less growth than previously forecast, but there are no reductions to DND funding.  Indeed, DND's overall funding will increase in 11/12.  Only in GOvernmetn would "more than before,  but less than Iwanted" be seen as a "cut".

As well, DND traditionally does quite well in the Supplementary Estimates; I suspect that is a trend that will continue.


----------



## nairna (23 Mar 2011)

I think this election could lead to the first Conservative majority government in a while. I mean, I would think many people don't want an election at this time. Many of the polls conducted recently show Conservative gains and higher trust. Though the Conservatives have had some bad press lately, they have led for a long time with only a minority and have done fairly well. I think that people will see various factors that push them to vote Conservative. I think it's a possibility.

I just can not see any just reason to vote Liberal or NDP. I don't see any policies or leaders worthy of my vote.

I am glad this thread is on here it is a great tool of discussion.


----------



## hold_fast (23 Mar 2011)

Don't count out the Libs. Polls don't mean anything when we're at least six weeks from the finish line, and who knows what stands between us and the ballot count. Majority Con? Not in this lifetime.

Libs know where they're going to attack the government from and it will most likely involve some Harper demonization to rival the "Iggy isn't here for you" attack ads.

As excited as I am for the very likely election, I'm going to get pretty tired of vomiting at the nationalist Conservative ads that attempt to use patriotism to win votes.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Mar 2011)

This article says a lot: http://*fullcomment.nationalpost.com*/2011/03/22/kelly-mcparland-harper-gets-lesson-on-ethics-from-an-ethics-free-parliament/

*Kelly McParland: Harper gets lecture on ethics from an ethics-free Parliament* 

Last Updated: Mar 22, 2011 8:26 AM ET 

*The opposition book on the Harper government was written almost the moment it was first elected, and hasn’t changed much since.*

Here’s an article from January 2006, when Stephen Harper has been in office all of seven days. Check the spin, the attitude, the language and the Liberal sense of their birthright to power:

_OTTAWA — Liberals are dreaming about a speedy return to power after watching the disastrous opening week of Stephen Harper’s new Conservative administration.
Only three weeks after suffering a humiliating defeat, Liberals are musing openly about whether Harper’s shaky minority government can survive the year.
And Liberal officials are being urged to hasten the selection of a new leader so that the party can be ready as soon as possible for an election.
“We are, I would say, reinvigorated and energized,” interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said in an interview at the end of Harper’s controversy-plagued inaugural week.
He said the opening week has stiffened Liberals’ resolve to oppose the Conservative agenda, even if it means toppling the government.
“We’re going to oppose those measures that we find are not in the interests of Canada and Canadians and we’ll oppose them all the way,” Graham said.
“And if that leads to the government falling, it’s going to lead to the government falling. And the way they’re making their decisions it’s clear that could happen earlier rather than later just given the nature of what they’re doing.”_

Got it? The Conservative government was illegitimate, despite have just been elected by Canadians. Conservative decisions were undemocratic and went against the values of Canadians. Liberal positions were “in the interests of Canada,” Tory positions were not. It was the Liberals’ responsibility — despite having just been repudiated — to make every attempt to undermine the government’s ability to carry out its platform, and to regain power at the earliest possible moment.

It has never really changed. The opposition continues to attack the government as undemocratic, illegitimate and antithetical to Canadian values, even though the Tories have won two consecutive elections and lead opinion polls by a healthy margin. After the 2008 vote, in which the government increased its caucus while the Liberals lost seats, it was the opposition that attempted just weeks later to overturn the results and organize a coalition government.

Unable to destabilize the government on major issues, opposition parties resorted to  a seemingly bottomless supply of manufactured pseudo-scandals. Stephen Harper goes to a funeral and puts the communion wafer in his pocket! Harper goes to a summit and is late for the photo op! Harper and his defence minister can’t decide what colour to paint his plane! Harper somehow connives to have the Olympic committee adopt the Tory ‘C’ as a logo! Harper has lunch with Rupert Murdoch and plots a subversive media campaign to undermine Canadian values.

When the dirty little relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber emerged, opposition MPs all but injured themselves trying to invent a link between Harper and events that took place before he’d even been elected as a rookie MP. A Parliamentary debate over Canadian treatment of Afghan prisoners deteriorated quickly into opposition efforts to portray the Conservatives as torturers, even though they’d inherited a bad policy from the Liberals and acted to clean it up. When Harper got along well with George W. Bush it was because he was a Republican stooge. Now that he gets along well with Barack Obama it’s because he’s plotting to sell out Canada to the Americans.

Liberals since Day One have insisted Harper has a “hidden agenda”. He’s portrayed as being homophobic, though he’s said nothing to justify the accusation or made any attempt to intrude on the legality of gay marriage. He’s accused of being “anti-choice”, though he has made no effort to raise the abortion issue and stated categorically that Canadians have no interest in reviving that debate. When he similarly stated that voters had no appetite for capital punishment, he was accused of trying to cram it down their throats.

Liberals accuse the Tories of being bigoted, biased, misogynistic and anti-immigrant, despite having boosted immigration levels to new highs.  They complain about Tory aggressiveness, but mock the prime minister as “Steve” and once sponsored a photo contest that produced an entry depicting him being assassinated. Michael Ignatieff  maintains there’s a “whiff of sulphur” about him, comparing him to Satan. Bob Rae rails about the “jihadis” in the Prime Minister’s office.  NDP MP Pat Martin, who specializes in being outraged by Tory behaviour, denounces International Co-operation MinisterBev Oda as  “the “minister of weasel words,” telling her she’s either a “very poor minister or equally poor liar.” Very polite Pat, very polite.

Mr. Ignatieff’s latest complaint is about a Tory suggestion that his family wasn’t as broke as he claims when his predecessors fled czarist Russia.

“These personal attacks are unprecedented in the history of Canadian democracy,” he insisted, ignoring the fact he’s the one who has twice written books about the glory of his family history, named one of them after a line in the national anthem, and released it just before a leadership convention in which he was a candidate.

This is not to justify the Conservatives’ tendency towards belligerency and oafishness, of which they are clearly guilty. But if anyone thinks a Liberal government would by better behaved, more co-operative with critics and tolerant of critics, think again. They haven’t achieved much in opposition, but they’ve learned a lot about oafishness.


----------



## Sigil (23 Mar 2011)

A major Ignatieff mistake was moving the Liberal party to the left to try to bleed off support from the NDP. Whatever he's gained (and polls suggest very little, if anything) in loony left support, he's more than made up for in losses among centrist voters who lean economically conservative -- voters who in the past have voted Liberal and many of whom are now bolting to the Conservatives. There's a reason the NDP have no chance of forming government...playing way off in left field doesn't appeal to most Canadians.

I think people are generally pleasantly surprised at what a centre-right government has produced over the past 5 years. Lower taxes, stronger military, an economy that has emerged from the recession as the envy of the G8, etc.

And it's hilarious how the Liberals...the party of AdScam, Shawinigate, and who knows how many other scandals...are attempting to portray themselves as saintly paragons of ethical responsibility and implacable foes of corruption. Do they seriously think Canadians were asleep during the entire period of 1993-2006? No wonder Canadians rank them last behind both the Conservatives AND the NDP when it comes to ethical and trustworthy government. Someone should have sent a memo to Michael Ignatieff.

I'm excited for an election. I think the Conservatives deserve to win, and I hope they get their majority. Canada deserves stable good government. I'd love 4 years without having to hear about the Bloc's constant demands.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2011)

FYI, here's what the Liberal and NDP party information machines have sent out post-Budget via e-mail - enjoy!

Liberals:


> Last week at a Working Families town hall, I met a steel worker who’d just lost his job. With his family beside him, he broke down in tears as he asked for help.
> 
> He doesn’t want charity, he wants a job. This government doesn’t care about him, but we do.
> 
> ...



NDP:


> A month ago I met with the Prime Minister to discuss the budget.
> 
> My message to him was clear: focus on the priorities of middle-class families or face an election.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2011)

Nik on the Numbers  Came by email

According to the latest CTV/Globe/Nanos survey, Canadians identified healthcare as the number one unprompted issue of concern (11 points higher than jobs/economy). This is interesting considering the current focus on jobs and the economy.

When asked about how they felt about the Harper government's plan to purchase military aircraft, a strong majority of Canadians (68%) did not think that now is the right time to make a major purchase of new jet fighters because of our deficit position. Opposition to this was high in the province of Quebec, and among undecided voters.

Finally, the Conservatives have a 9-point advantage over the Liberals (29.8% compared to 20.9%) on trust in terms of economic policy. Of note, one of four Canadians are unsure who to trust, which means that opinions on this could be more fluid than currently believed.

To chat about this poll, join the national political online chat at Nik on the Numbers.The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.


  Methodology
Between March 12th and March 15th, 2011, Nanos Research conducted a random telephone survey of 1,216 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,216 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Margins of accuracy are wider for subgroup samples.



  Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]

The numbers in parenthesis denote the one month change from the Nanos Ontario Omnibus survey completed on February 14th, 2011 (n=1,016).

Healthcare 29.2% (+6.3) 
Job/the economy 18.1% (-2.1)
Education 8.8% (+3.5)
The environment 7.5% (-2.8)
Debt/deficit 3.8% (-1.4)
Unsure 9.1% (-3.3)

F35 Jet Question: As you may know, the Harper government is looking to purchase 65 new F35 fighter jets. There are some reports that the total cost could be as high as $30 billion. [Rotate] Some people say that we need to make this purchase now to prepare the future. Others say that now is not a good time because Canada is running a deficit. Which of these two views best reflects your personal opinions?

Purchase now 27.2% 
Now is not a good time to purchase 67.8% 
Unsure 5.0% 

Net Scores - Regions* 
Canada -40.6 
Quebec -59.3 
British Columbia -42.9 
Ontario -40.4 
Prairies -24.7 
Atlantic -24.1 

Net Scores - Supporters*
BQ -80.2 
Undecided -54.1 
NDP -44.7 
Liberal -41.0 
Green -30.1 
Conservative -19.1

*Note that net scores for regions and supporters are obtained by substracting "Now not a good time to purchase" from "Purchase now"

Economic Policy trust Question: Which of the federal parties do you trust the most in terms of economic policy?

Conservative Party 29.8% 
Liberal Party 20.9% 
NDP 15.5%
Bloc Quebecois 6.4% 
Green Party 2.1%
Unsure/no answer 25.4%


----------



## GR66 (23 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the forthcoming election COULD  will  be good for the Liberal Party of Canada and, indeed, good for the country.
> 
> It has been over 40 years since the Liberal *Party* of Canada stood for anything: it's leaders, mainly Trudeau and Chrétien, have had policies and programmes they were “leader driven” policies that reflected, almost exclusively, the leaders’ proclivities (occasionally tempered by a few strong voices in the cabinet). The Liberal *Party* has not had a fresh idea since Kingston in 1960.
> 
> The Liberals need to get their act together and rank and file Liberals need to recapture their party from the “political professionals” who brought them, successively: Paul Martin as PM, Stéphane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff. One of the reasons that we, all of us, want the Liberals to get their act together is that we know (from  1935-1957, 1963-1979 and 1993-2006) what too many years of “one party rule” does to our country and one party rule by Conservatives is no better than one party rule by Liberals.



I agree totally with this assessment, however I fear that the total incompetence of the Liberals combined with the strength of the Bloc taking away the Lib's potential base of support in Quebec has resulted in the "Harper Government" developing the same type of arrogance that plagued both the Trudeau and Chretien/Martin Liberal Majorities and the Mulroney Majority.  Dion wasn't bad enough to push the Conservatives into a majority and Iggy may not be enough either.  There are enough people that just don't like or trust Harper (and because of his authoritarian leadership style) just don't like or trust the Conservative Party.  They are still seen as the lesser evil as opposed to the better choice.  

Unless the Liberals really get hammered (i.e. lose big in both Ontario and the Maritimes) giving the Conservatives a strong majority there just won't be the incentive to wipe the slate clean.  A minority Conservative government will keep the hope alive of just changing the window dressing then finally beating Harper in the next round.  The incentive to "stay the course" will only be strengthened if there are also leadership grumbles within the Conservatives if Harper's leadership becomes seen as the thing that's holding back the party from ever getting a majority.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2011)

It is a mistake to consider the Bloc as "strong"; their electoral success is more a reflection on the poor quality of the competition than anything else.  They have mastered narrowcasting a political message to a more or less homogeneous group.

That the Liberals have chosen to emulate the old Tory sport of long memories and short knives has hurt them significantly; the Conservative party has yet to make a compelling case for themselves other than "we're not the Liberals" (and their recent budgets make even that claim dubious); and the NDP is, well, the NDP - a party founded on the principle that it's easy to stand for ideas when you know there's not a snowball's chance that you'll ever have to implement them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2011)

What the PM has said about the budget - highlights mine:


> “Once again, as you know, the leaders of all three Opposition parties have stated their reluctance to support our Budget.
> 
> “I am disappointed that they did not take time to read the Budget before rushing to their conclusions.
> 
> ...


I don't think Iggy & Jack're going to bite.


----------



## Haletown (23 Mar 2011)

saw Iggy on the tube saying he can't support a budget that has $30 billion for fighter jets.

Guess I missed that part of the budget that was tabled yesterday.

Or maybe it wasn't there in the first place Mr. Iggy-Playing-Silly-Political-Games.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2011)

.... according to the latest from the Big Red Info Machine:


> With the Harper government facing a contempt vote in Parliament, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff gave notice today that he will be moving a non-confidence motion against the government.
> 
> “Liberals can no longer support a government that misleads Canadians, breaks the rules and weakens our democracy,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “The Conservative government has misled the House and all Canadians by hiding the details of their core spending priorities from Parliament – and it means we can’t trust their budget numbers.”
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Mar 2011)

> ...it’s not the ‘Harper Government’ it’s the Government of Canada...



Weren't the Liberals the first to use that term?

In any event, it looks like they'll have to vote on the budget first.

Edit to add:

I now realize that timing may favour the opposition. Regardless, I think:

1. Few Canadians care about the contempt issue outside the Ottawa core;
2. There are still far too many skeletons in the Liberal closet for them to profit from any perceived scandal here; and
3. The result of either vote will still look like a budget defeat.


----------



## kratz (24 Mar 2011)

I enjoy some smart editorial cartoons. This one today was one that I had to share:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2011)

Remember the "We can form a coalition, Madam GG" letter?  According to this blog, the document is no longer to be found on the Liberal.ca web page.  Funny that....  Thank heavens for archive.com - the petition is downloadable here ;D


----------



## hold_fast (24 Mar 2011)

It's is *not *undemocratic to lead by constitution. The misinformation and ignorance of some Canadians when that issue came up made me livid. The only questionable aspect was that it would have involved the Bloc, who only pull for Quebec and rarely all Canadians.

Then again, Harper was ready to do the same in 2004.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> ...
> Then again, Harper was ready to do the same in 2004.




And it, *proposing a coalition that involves the BQ*, was wrong then and it's wrong now.

I suspect that, even if the current *guesstimate* were to hold, the Liberals and NDP will want to try - without formal BQ support _in_ the coalition (cabinet) but with a formally acknowledged BQ pledge of support for, say, one year. And that, I also suspect will be too much for most Canadians and will cost both the Liberals and NDP dearly.


If the Liberals and NDP, combined, can muster more seats than the Conservatives then they should go ahead and form a government when the first opportunity arises - but without the BQ.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2011)

The issue wasn't a coalition per se, but rather the nature and timing of the event. 

During the last election, all parties protested vigorously they were not interested in a coalition, and after the results were announced seemed content to accept the will of the people. Only after about six weeks (and triggered by an austerity plan that would have forced political parties to get off the taxpayer dole and generate all their funds from their base) did a coalition suddenly materialize.

If two or more parties were to stand up today and announce they will run as a coalition, or will combine forces after the votes are counted, then I will take it under advisement and make an informed choice.

One thing that might cme back to bite the Liberals is the CF-35 purchase. The Conservatives can say they are simply bringing home a project initiated by the Chretien government in 1997, and neither Chretien, Martin, Dion or (until recently) Ignatieff have ever said or done anything to stop or protest the participation of Canada in the program. I'm sure there are a lot of programs the Liberals will claim to be against which will be, on examination, projects started by previous Liberal governments between 1993 to 2006. What, pray tell, are they going to replace these with?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> It's is *not *undemocratic to lead by constitution. The misinformation and ignorance of some Canadians when that issue came up made me livid. The only questionable aspect was that it would have involved the Bloc, who only pull for Quebec and rarely all Canadians.
> 
> Then again, Harper was ready to do the same in 2004.



A completely different kettle of fish. The letter in question only asked the GG to consider all constitutional options. It did not say "we've formed a coalition, give us the job", as the 2008 letter did. The two letters are significantly different.

Here's the Conservative one: http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-letter-to-clarkson-2004

And the Liberal/NDP/Bloc one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51479794/Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Coalition-Policy-Framework

I agree, though that it's not unconstitutional to have a coalition. It is however, dishonest to categorically state you won't form one, then engage in backroom dealings immediately after the vote.


----------



## Haletown (24 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A completely different kettle of fish.



ya got that right . . . .  having BQ members sitting in the government Caucus, having seats at the Cabinet table, having direct access to the Privy Council  . . .  the rape of Canada's bank account, also known as the BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan economies would proceed at a rapid pace.

Lorne sums it up quite nicely 

http://tinyurl.com/4mtrbvw


----------



## DCRabbit (24 Mar 2011)

A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.

 A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.

 IMO the choice is clear.

 What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.


----------



## Haletown (24 Mar 2011)

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.
> 
> A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.
> 
> IMO the choice is clear.



Works for me too . . .  same assessment, same conclusion.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2011)

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.



Which is a bit underhanded, but at least he is being clear that he *will* form a coalition ahead of the election. We need to press Liberal candidates to provide details about this putative coalition (for example, will London North Center MP Glenn Pearson be taking his marching orders from London Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen?). At least we now have an informed choice in the matter, and know what we are going to get if the vote breaks a certain way.

A bit OT, but a successful coalition *could* be formed between the "Blue" Liberals and the CPC as a "Coalition of the Winners", somewhat in the manner of the recent UK election. This would be far more palatable than a "Coalition of the Losers", which is what Ignatieff would represent. The real trick would be how to woo dissociated Liberal MP's to cross the floor; perhaps as part of a "National Unity Government" dedicated to keeping Canada on an even keel as the global economy continues its turmoil?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2011)

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.
> 
> A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.
> 
> ...



I agree with that assessment. I also agree with your conclusions on a coalition. There's gold here for the Conservatives... they can hammer the Libs over this issue. 

Just the same, for any left leaning coalition to work, the Bloc would have to be full participants, not just stage managers. The Lib/NDP will not have enough seats to form the government outright, and they'll need the Bloc. I think Canadian's reactions would be similar to last time.

In order for the Lib/NDP to form an above board coalition, they have to gain more than 30 seats at the expense of the Conservatives. I don't see that happening. I suspect the Bloc will pick up a couple of seats from both the Lib/Cons, the rest of the country might continue status quo, with the possibility of the Torries picking up seats in Ont and the Maritimes. Remember, there's no Danny Williams lead ABC campaign this year, so we might see a reversal of fortunes out east. The job for the Torries is slightly easier, they have to pick up 11 new seats while protecting their current numbers. They may be able to do this without Quebec this time.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2011)

Is Wile E. Coyote planning the opposition strategy?

http://onthehill.ca/2011/tories-lead/



> *Election Watch: Tories have large lead*
> Posted on March 24, 2011 by Brett Caven
> 
> BUDGET 2011 SPECIAL FEATURE
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2011)

The latest, from ThreeHundrenEight.com, which aggregates polling data and provides its own analysis. The site explains it's "weighting" system here.






Source: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/





Source: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2011)

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.



What's galling about a coalition?  That's entirely constitutional.  If he can present a coalition to the Governor-General that can form a working government and has a majority of seats in Parliament, nothing stops that coalition from forming the government.  Frankly, it would be about as effective as a minority government because it would reflect the interests of three parties that rarely agree.

Our voting system does not allow voters to express that a minority government headed by any particular party is their will, it reflects their choice for their local representation alone.  The rest is extrapolation.

Of course, in this case, I'd rather just see the Conservatives hear out amendment suggestions to the budgets and put off an election for a while, since it looks like the changes to composition of the Parliament will be minor.


----------



## Container (25 Mar 2011)

Redeye-

Can you explain why anyone would vote for parties with such different views that would just put aside their beliefs just so they can be in charge? It wouldnt appear that their convictions mean very much. I wouldn't appreciate any con/bloc alliances either. If I liked the NDP or Green ideas I would vote for them. I dont. SO why would I chance voting for the guy who'll do anything to be in charge?

I dont see that marriage to be a happy one? Or am I missing something?


----------



## MJP (25 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Of course, in this case, I'd rather just see the Conservatives hear out amendment suggestions to the budgets and put off an election for a while, since it looks like the changes to composition of the Parliament will be minor.



The budget vote is not what is going to send us to the polls but rather the contempt of Parliament vote later this afternoon.  The budget vote was pushed into next week on Wednesday.


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Can you explain why anyone would vote for parties with such different views that would just put aside their beliefs just so they can be in charge? It wouldnt appear that their convictions mean very much. I wouldn't appreciate any con/bloc alliances either. If I liked the NDP or Green ideas I would vote for them. I dont. SO why would I chance voting for the guy who'll do anything to be in charge?



I would expect the motivation to be that the parties could, or would attempt to find some common ground on policy issues to govern.  A minority government must do the same - find someone to add the additional votes necessary to pass the bills they wish to - either way theoretically forces the views of more people to be reflected.   To the specific point about "putting aside their views", any party I would submit would do that for power if need be.

Further, everyone votes for the party that reflect their views.  Where there is no clear majority, what happens is either a clearly estabilished coalition where parties agree to govern based on whatever policy objective they can concur on, or a series of ad hoc coalitions where the party that forms the government cobbles together whatever support they need to govern as they go along.  In the case where there is no majority, a leader of a party which can form a coalition submits to the G-G their proposal to do so.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> I dont see that marriage to be a happy one? Or am I missing something?



I don't know how much common ground they really would have, if any voice came to dominate, the system would basically fall apart.  I'm not even really interested in seeing one.  Certainly not Lib/NDP/Bloc, anyhow.  But it can happen, it is within the bounds of our constitution.


----------



## GR66 (25 Mar 2011)

If the seat projections above hold true I think it would be the worst of all possible worlds.  Still stuck with a minority government that is too biterly split to work effectively and a $300 million bill added to the deficit to boot.

- Liberals still the "official" opposition and not getting the drubbing required to force them to make any REAL changes to the party.  
- NDP clinging on with still less than a snowball's chance in hell of forming a government but still being large enough to be pandered to in any government's efforts to remain in power.  
- The Bloc effectively maintaining Quebec's sense of being "separate" from anything Canada does as a nation while at the same time preventing any other party from getting enough seats to form the majority needed to be the driver of national change.
- A Conservative party with a leader that's incapable of winning a majority even when up against Huey, Duey and Luey as opponents.  Compromises with potential leadership rivals in order to stay in control will be added to the compromises resulting from the public opinion poll based governing required to keep in power.
- Finally, the disdain that the governing conservatives have for the incompetent opposition parties will likely continue the current style of governance that many non-traditional Conservative voters find off-putting and arrogant which keeps them from making a major election breakthrough.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2011)

Just watched the vote on CPAC - Harper adjourned the house and it is officially on!


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a pretty fair analysis of the choices being offered to Canadians:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-and-ignatieff-two-leaders-two-visions-of-canada/article1956860/


> Harper and Ignatieff: Two leaders, two visions of Canada
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Of course, about 25-35% of Canadians habitually vote for other _visions_, those of the NDP, BQ and even the Greens and fringe movements. These votes are cast, sometimes, as Ibbitson suggests, because people don’t take their votes very seriously, but more often, in my opinion, because of greed – because the NDP, BQ and Greens promise something for nothing, they plan to make you and me pay for something she wants.

In any event I will, as I have since the 1960s - when (pre-Trudeau) I used to vote Liberal, cast my vote for the “night watchman state,” in part because I find the Liberal vision, the Ignatieff vision, described by Ibbitson, as being of a "modern liberal state," neither “modern” nor “liberal.”


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just watched the vote on CPAC - Harper adjourned the house and it is officially on!


The vote:
Final vote in House on Non- Confidence Motion.

Yays:  156

Nays:  145


----------



## dapaterson (25 Mar 2011)

And so, as the late lamented Frank would have said, the Running of the Reptiles begins...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Mar 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> If the seat projections above hold true I think it would be the worst of all possible worlds.  Still stuck with a minority government that is too bitterly split to work effectively and a $300 million bill added to the deficit to boot.



We went almost half a full term.  Given that the bitterness is contrived I wouldn't worry too much.  I remember most of 50 years and there was no time without bitterness.  It seems pretty mild today.




> - Liberals still the "official" opposition and not getting the drubbing required to force them to make any REAL changes to the party.



They have just had two A** Kickings.  Maybe three is the charm.  The party gurus seem to think there is fertile ground on the left and a loss in the election will probably lead them further to the sinister side.



> - The Bloc effectively maintaining Quebec's sense of being "separate" from anything Canada does as a nation while at the same time preventing any other party from getting enough seats to form the majority needed to be the driver of national change.



The mystery of why Quebecers decided to start electing short sighted ignorant backwoods fascist hillbillies as MPs when the Quebec element in the Liberal and Conservative Parties set the national agenda for so many years.  Before they governed, now they whine.



> - A Conservative party with a leader that's incapable of winning a majority even when up against Huey, Duey and Luey as opponents.  Compromises with potential leadership rivals in order to stay in control will be added to the compromises resulting from the public opinion poll based governing required to keep in power.



Well he's up against Luey and Luey is going down.



> - Finally, the disdain that the governing conservatives have for the incompetent opposition parties will likely continue the current style of governance that many non-traditional Conservative voters find off-putting and arrogant which keeps them from making a major election breakthrough.



Again, I don't see any more feigned disdain today than 50 years ago.


----------



## medicineman (25 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The mystery of why Quebecers decided to start electing short sighted ignorant backwoods fascist hillbillies as MPs when the Quebec element in the Liberal and Conservative Parties set the national agenda for so many years.  Before they governed, now they whine.



And still make more in retirement than I do in annual salary (and for less time served)...so who's really ignorant or short sighted I might ask?

MM


----------



## CougarKing (25 Mar 2011)

Globe and Mail

*Tories see majority in gaining women’s vote *  

JOHN IBBITSON AND JOE FRIESEN 
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Saturday's Globe and Mail 
Published Friday, Mar. 25, 2011 10:00PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Mar. 25, 2011 10:03PM EDT




> *Stephen Harper embarks on his fourth national election campaign in seven years with a mission: to finally secure a majority government. And he plans to achieve that majority by convincing more women to vote Conservative.*
> 
> Above anything else, this election is about Mr. Harper, a determined if extremely partisan leader whose personality earns the respect of some and the distrust of others.
> 
> ...


----------



## WingsofFury (26 Mar 2011)

If a Liberal candidate comes to your door and says that one of the reasons the government should be defeated is the potential purchase of the JSF, ask him/her how the Sea King helicopter replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone, is coming along and why we can't expect the same result if they cancel the F-35 purchase.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2011)

_Prince Michael_ Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the _coalition_ issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/


> Ignatieff rules out coalition
> 
> JANE TABER
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP _alliance_ is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.


----------



## GAP (26 Mar 2011)

One of the most telling statements made this morning by someone (I can't remember who) on CTV National, is that the Liberals cannot remove a leader under their party constitution, until he/she has had the opportunity to weather an election within their mandate.....The Liberals have a leadership convention in June....Great timing...

that pretty much says it all


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> ....The Liberals have a leadership convention in June....Great timing...
> 
> that pretty much says it all




As do the Conservatives, a week before the Liberals; see here and here.


----------



## GAP (26 Mar 2011)

Then all the parties are not going to waste any time getting rid of the chaff, once the election's done....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the _coalition_ issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
> 
> I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP _alliance_ is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.



Exactly. The way the self servers flip flop, and the weak leadership, I have no doubt Count Iggy would issue a statement along the lines of "Upon further reflection and having taken the recommedations of my caucus, we've decided the best way for this government to serve Canadians is with a full operating concensus of the three minority parties. Yada, yada, yada"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> One of the most telling statements made this morning by someone (I can't remember who) on CTV National, is that the Liberals cannot remove a leader under their party constitution, until he/she has had the opportunity to weather an election within their mandate.....The Liberals have a leadership convention in June....Great timing...
> 
> that pretty much says it all



I have no doubt that ALL parties are looking at this is a face saving exersize to replace any of their losers. Duceppe and Layton are stale and becoming a liability from boredom and Ignatieff is just plain incompetent and doesn't have anyone's support (Rae has been sharpening the knives all along)


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Mar 2011)

I'd be very happy if the Liberals pick up Bob Rae as the new leader. They'd be kissing the Ontario vote goodbye.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd be very happy if the Liberals pick up Bob Rae as the new leader. They'd be kissing the Ontario vote goodbye.



Well, it would give Power Corporation a tie to a House leader that they are currently missing, for the first time in a long time. The Raes, Martin, Chretien, Mulroney and even McGuinty (the federal one) are all tied to PC. The current leaders are not, that I can find anyway.

Can't find my tinfoil hat picture, but this one will do for now ;D


----------



## Jed (26 Mar 2011)

:warstory:I remember that. Too funny!  ;D What about the one where JC chokes the bystander.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Mar 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Can't find my tinfoil hat picture, but this one will do for now ;D



I have probably said this before, but every time that I see that picture, it fills me with a shame that is probably shared by most in uniform.  Although I was not there, other uniformed members were, and they allowed the leader of our nation to embarrass himself rather than help the man out.   

Having said that, given the glee with which military personnel point to this picture as somehow emblematic of the government of the day's military and foreign affairs policies, perhaps the shame is not "probably shared by moist in uniform" after all.


----------



## Jed (26 Mar 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I have probably said this before, but every time that I see that picture, it fills me with a shame that is probably shared by most in uniform.  Although I was not there, other uniformed members were, and they allowed the leader of our nation to embarrass himself rather than help the man out.
> 
> Having said that, given the glee with which military personnel point to this picture as somehow emblematic of the government of the day's military and foreign affairs policies, perhaps the shame is not "probably shared by moist in uniform" after all.



I agree, I felt the same at the time it ocurred but I have moved on and now am one of the people who see it as emblematic of the support for the military by the Liberal gov't of the day.


----------



## Donaill (26 Mar 2011)

This election is going to be a difficult one for many of us. There does not seem to be one party that covers the many things I believe in.  Economically and socially left but to the ride for law enforcement and defence. 
I believe in a fair tax system that would require ALL Canadians, people and corporations, would pay accordingly. 
Many say that it is the Cocervative gov's policies that are helping Canada weather this current crisis. In fact it also has to do with past decisions of former ruling parties. I don't like the way he has gone about several things and that he does appear to be very contemptuous of parliamentary policies. 
I find that the current Concervative party has very little in common with the old PC party. 

The big questions for me also include such things as:

1) How do we increase the buying power of the average person? Buying power allows for continued economic flow.

2) How do we convince corporations that paying a fair share of tax is better than taxing the middle class to death?

3) How do we increase education spending, military and health spending with out any large tax increases?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Mar 2011)

I'll help you with Number 2.

Corporations do not treat getting taxed in the same way that you or I do.  Corporations do one of four things when faced with a tax bill:

1)  Pass the cost of the tax on to their customers.  This, obviously, lowers the buying power of the consuming public.  It also makes the corporation less competitive internationally, if they happen to export.

2)  Cut Dividends to shareholders, if they are publically traded companies.  This is my favourite one, because when certain Federal Parties (cough**NDP** cough) advocate for more taxes on corporations, they are implying that a faceless rich guy will pony up the money.  In actual fact, most publically traded companies in Canada are owned by Pension funds (ie- you) or by Mutual Funds (ie- you again).  How do really feel about your retirement funds being taken away from you by Dividends that you did not receive?  

3) Cut their work force.  Labour is usually the largest cost for a company.  Tax a company enough and they will shed workers in a bid to stay profitable- I guarantee it.

4) Go out of business or leave the jurisdiction.  If taxes are high enough, corporations just pack up and leave.

In a perfect world, Corporations should pay no tax.  But, because Canadians are economic illiterates (tip of the hat to ER Campbell), that would never fly.

Have fun researching who to vote for!


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, Corporations should pay no tax.  But, because Canadians are economic illiterates (tip of the hat to ER Campbell), that would never fly.



Yes, Edward's tax talk is pretty good; I've learned a lot from it.

Ideally, we'd have a respectable consumption tax (ie - a national sales tax of 10-20%) across the board and a decent flat income tax (10%).  The average Canadian get's dinged twice - once when they get their money and once when they spend it.  The second doesn't have to be as bad as the first (more savings).  Cut off all the hidden taxes, the goofy taxes (corporate tax, employee tax, etc, etc) and just put it up front.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Mar 2011)

Whole heartedly agree.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Mar 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> I believe in a fair tax system that would require ALL Canadians, people and corporations, would pay accordingly.  Many say that it is the Conservative gov's policies that are helping Canada weather this current crisis. In fact it also has to do with past decisions of former ruling parties. I don't like the way he has gone about several things and that he does appear to be very contemptuous of parliamentary policies.
> I find that the current Conservative party has very little in common with the old PC party.
> 
> 1) How do we increase the buying power of the average person? Buying power allows for continued economic flow.
> ...



One would expect to increase buying power by increasing productivity.  Many socialist countries borrow and spend instead like Greece.

Inanimate imaginary creations don't pay tax.  People pay tax.  There is a world out there, much of it with better tax regimes than us.  Treat business like dirt and it will die or move, as much of it has already.  Much of the corporate world is owned by pension funds.

You do not increase education, military, or health spending without pain.  Since education and health are provincial matters, you're barking up the wrong tree.

And are you telling me that Harper treats Parliament with more contempt than Chretien?  I wouldn't think it possible.  Is Harper more socially conservative than Chretien?  I don't see any signs of that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> :warstory:I remember that. Too funny!  ;D What about the one where JC chokes the bystander.



I have this one 8)


----------



## Jed (26 Mar 2011)

That captures the moment perfectly.  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the _coalition_ issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
> 
> I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP _alliance_ is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.



He said exactly the same thing last time too. Kept that promise didn't he?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2011)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com, related to five just released polls:



> *SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 2011*
> Three polls, best Liberal and Tory outcomes
> 
> There has been a flurry of polls over the last two days, with new releases by EKOS, Léger Marketing, Angus-Reid, CROP, and Probe Research. I will cover them all in detail in Monday's poll summary, but for now I'd like to look at the best seat outcomes the Liberals and Conservatives could draw from the results of the three national polls.
> ...




I doubt this "good news” for the Conservatives can hold but it makes kicking the campaign off very, very difficult for the Liberals; it _may_ make them desperate to do something big, soon.

Here are links to the EKOS, Léger and Angus Reid polls.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2011)

Perhaps the best thing for the CPC to do is ask Canadians why the opposition triggered another election when the presumptive outcomes are not very different from what exists today? Constantly asking what the opposition hoped to gain and what is different about today compared to all the other opportunities to trigger a vote of non confidence (and a constant reminder of the $300 million cost of an election) may do far more to shift the polls than "He didn't come back for you" (clever as that ad is).

It will also shift attention to all the opposition parties rather than making this a "Steve vs Iggy" cage match. While I have little confidence in the legacy media to look at the broad picture, the growth of the blogosphere should raise these sorts of questions in quite a few more minds. We really do need to break the current situation open and generate new ideas.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Mar 2011)

I agree. It seems to me that the taxpayers are shelling out $300,000,000 so that the Liberals can have a leadership campaign.  Very lame.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2011)

An interesting tool for analyzing one's voting preference:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/


Like all surveys, I'm sure there's built in bias, but it's an interesting exercise just the same.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2011)

Hey- that was alot of fun!


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Hey- that was alot of fun!




Yep, and you'll never guess where I ended up ...  :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2011)

I have some idea, Edward.


----------



## wannabe SF member (27 Mar 2011)

Here's something I've been asking myself for a while. If the conservatives get their majority, do you think they'll go further with defense budget increases than what was just presented for the last budget?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Mar 2011)

Probably not - getting the fiscal house in order will be a priority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> Here's something I've been asking myself for a while. If the conservatives get their majority, do you think they'll go further with defense budget increases than what was just presented for the last budget?




I think you would be thinking rather wishfully.

While Stephen Harper, unlike some of his recent predecessors, is not anti-military and is, probably, not inclined to see DND take a disproportionate share of the deficit elimination burden, my sense is that majority or minority there will be some budget cutting. If he gets a majority then, I expect that the cuts, while painful, will be partially offset by additional allotments in the Supplementary Estimates when necessary.

I think Stephen Harper has an agenda - I suspect that he does want to change the political landscape in some quite fundamental ways. He is, I believe, pretty committed to the "night watchman" philosophy of government that John Ibbitson alluded to in a post I made a couple of days ago.

That means, as Infanteer suggests, getting our fiscal house in order by cutting expenditures without increasing e.g. the HST: partially by _vacating_ some areas of "shared" jurisdiction, like healthcare, and, thereby, forcing the provincial government to make the hard and unpopular choices about multi-tiered healthcare. He probably supports a "just strong enough" military that can be used to enhance Canada's international reputation and defend our sovereignty in the Arctic but i think you would be wrong to expect that a Harper majority would mean "good times" for DND and the CF.



Edit: punctuation  :-[


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2011)

> He probably supports a "just strong enough" military that can be used to enhance Canada's international reputation and defend our sovereignty in the Arctic but i think you would be wrong to expect that a Harper majority would mean "good times' for DND and the CF.



Of course, one must compare that with the alternatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Of course, one must compare that with the alternatives.




Yes, indeed, any or all of which would mean more _decades of darkness_© for DND and the CF.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

More data, this time reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, based on a March 2011 _Ipsos Reid_ poll:





Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Health+care+issue+Canadians+Election+poll/4510093/story.html

It looks like a long, uphill battle for _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff. That poor, immigrant boy is going to need all the backbone they were supposed to instill at _Upper Canada College_, Canada's elite and über-expensive boarding school. And his "issue" (Honesty/Trustworthiness) doesn't seem to be Canadians' top issue, either.

But the fears of a coalition are evident: check out _Prince Michael's_ _hidden agenda_ score - nearly half of Canadians think he has a coalition hidden up his sleeve.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2011)

Rather telling that the hottest issue in a Federal election, Healthcare, is actually a Provincial responsibility...


----------



## Hawk (27 Mar 2011)

I've been in here time and again spouting about how I hate polls and pollsters, having worked for a couple. I took the one on the cbc site, and rather enjoyed doing it! If the poll questions are right in front of you, you can read them slowly and think about the answer, unlike doing the same poll over the phone with a fast talking, rehersed pollster. (Those will, incidently, be the same questions worded exactly the same when Ipsos Ried calls your house.) The hidden bias comes in with the way the pollster emphasizes the words, and in the script they're capitalized or underlined so the kid knows how to bias the poll. This way, you read it for yourself. It came down clearly on the side I favour.

As for Iggy's hidden agenda - of course he has one. He'll form any coalition it takes!

Hawk


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2011)

The first polls out certainly look good for the Torries, but six weeks is a long time. I wager Mr Harper will emulate his previous approach of one announcement per day. The problem for Mr Ignatieff now is that the Liberals have no real platform other than "evil Harper = George Bush".


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

An earlier _projection_, in the _Globe and Mail_ but from ThreeHundredEight.com's Éric Grenier, gave the "best" and "worse" case scenarios as:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/startings-points-for-each-party-in-2011-election/article1958462/?from=1958461

Most recently ThreeHundredEight.com _predicted_, *based on "start of the campaign" polls*:





Source: ThreeHundredEight.com


It looks to me that, as the campaign opens, the Tories have a credible shot at a majority (around 165+/- seats) or, at worst, a reduced minority (around 135+/- seats). I expect the Liberals and NDP and the media to make much of the _potential_ "Harper majority" to try to frighten voters away from the Conservatives and encourage "strategic" voting - but this time both the Liberals and the NDP will be fishing in each other's waters.


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2011)

I really appreciate the diagram showing the seats in the Commons. If the Bloc Best and Worst seats were indicated as well, it would also illustrate a possible Coalition seat arrangement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

Count the BQ as 50+/-.

In my _guesstimation_: if the Liberal do their best (95+/-) it *must* coincide with the NDP doing almost their worst (25+/-). Let's say it's 95 Liberals + 25 NDP that's 120 seats, allow 50 for the BQ and that means the Tories are going to have 135+ (there may be a couple of independents) - they will be called upon to form a government. The three opposition parties *can* defeat that Conservative government and the GG can, probably should if the defeat comes early, ask _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff to form a coalition and try to earn the confidence of the HoC, but the only way a Liberal/NDP coalition can govern is with *active BQ support* and I repeat: Canadians will not stand for the BQ "calling the tunes," not even from the sidelines.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Count the BQ as 50+/-.
> 
> In my _guesstimation_: if the Liberal do their best (95+/-) it *must* coincide with the NDP doing almost their worst (25+/-). Let's say it's 95 Liberals + 25 NDP that's 120 seats, allow 50 for the BQ and that means the Tories are going to have 135+ (there may be a couple of independents) - they will be called upon to form a government. The three opposition parties *can* defeat that Conservative government and the GG can, probably should if the defeat comes early, ask _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff to form a coalition and try to earn the confidence of the HoC, but the only way a Liberal/NDP coalition can govern is with *active BQ support* and I repeat: Canadians will not stand for the BQ "calling the tunes," not even from the sidelines.



Yes, the fly in the ointment is the BQ. However, this scenario leaves the GG with an out. He can rule that unless the Bloc is a full and equal member of the coalition, unlike last time, then the Lib/NDP alliance can not form the government, BQ support notwithstanding.

I can't see Canadians accepting the Bloc as a full partner.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yep, and you'll never guess where I ended up ...  :nod:



The Black Bear Pub?


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Mar 2011)

I too can't see how the GG could accept a Liberal-NDP coalition that would very likely have notably fewer seats than the Conservatives, without the integration of the BQ within such a coalition.

For as much as I can objectively acknowledge how the BQ's agenda and manner of business makes sense to a large portion of Quebecers, the concept of having an acknowledged separatist party (let's call a spade a spade, here, sovereignty association...whatever, their agenda is to split from what we currently know as Canadian Confederation) being a formative part of the operation of Government???  No way!  

If such a coalition happened, how many cabinet ministers with avowed pledges to actively pursue separation would be in this new government?  Uugh...the thought turns my stomach... 

2 more cents.

G2G


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (27 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, the fly in the ointment is the BQ. However, this scenario leaves the GG with an out. He can rule that unless the Bloc is a full and equal member of the coalition, unlike last time, then the Lib/NDP alliance can not form the government, BQ support notwithstanding.



While any decision as to who will form a government in a minority situation is up to the governor general, it is interesting to note that the new GG was grilled by Harper as to what his reaction would be, prior to his appointment.

It is entirely possible that the only outcome of a defeat of a new Conservative minority in the House will be new elections.  Johnston may quite legitimately believe that his duty is to do whatever the PM orders.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

Given, just for the sake of argument, the "worst" case, for my Conservative Party (and I remind members that I am a card-carrying conservative and a regular financial supporter), that is:

BQ:       50
Cons: 135
Greens:  1
Inds:      2
Libs:     95
NDP:     25

Then, after the government is defeated only a few weeks after the general election, the *only coalition* that makes sense is: Conservatives + some, probably about half of the Liberals - enough to give the Con/Lib coalition a solid (175+/-) seat majority and to give Canada four full years of stable, fiscally responsible government. Harper, of course, remains PM; Ignatieff is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs; Flaherty remains in Finance but Scott Brison gets Industry and a Liberal gets Health. I think Ignatieff _might_ go for the deal - it would cost him half his caucus, many of whom would go to the NDP and some of whom would try to form a new party, I think. I also suspect that at least a half dozen, maybe even a dozen Conservatives would bolt and sit as independents until they could form another new, far right, party. If things worked well enough then the Conservative-Liberals would be the new "natural governing" party being, broadly, socially liberal but not overly progressive on social issue, and fiscally conservative; the New Democrats would be the new "natural" opposition being socially progressive and economically irresponsible - the latter is a sure vote getter. the BQ would remain the third party in the HoC and there might be two new parties: one on the right of the government and one on the left, between the government and the NDP.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Mar 2011)

I don't think the Greens will ever get a seat unless they change the voting system to assign seats based on % of the popular vote. Their platform is too far left for even NDP supporters.


----------



## Dissident (27 Mar 2011)

Mr Campbell, I hope no such coalition takes place. I, for one, would be supporting the emerging right wing party, but I know that it would have no real chance federally.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Given, just for the sake of argument, the "worst" case, for my Conservative Party (and I remind members that I am a card-carrying conservative and a regular financial supporter), that is:
> 
> BQ:       50
> Cons: 135
> ...



Edward, 

It is funny, but I had been thinking exactly the same thing earlier today.  I can actually see a scenario where the Conservatives go fishing for "Blue Liberals" to make a majority, taking the risk that they can gain more "Centrists", then they would lose on the Right.  While it may seem to be splitting hairs, it would not be a coalition- it would be a semi-hostile takeover.  It may be that enough Liberals are tired enough of sitting on the Opposition side and would like to be back in Government again.  Remember- guys like Scott Brisson were on the Conservative side before.  

To add my observation on the mood in Western Canada on any possible coalition deal that in anyway involves the Bloc in Government- it would be a complete non-starter.  It is my sense that there would be an immediate, sustained emotional and visceral response out of many Western Canadians that may well strain the fabric of Confederation to the breaking point.  Possibly, this is exactly the reaction the Bloc would like to see happen (it is easy to sell separation, when you are separating from wreckage).


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Mar 2011)

Is "enjoying the confidence of the House" necessarily the same as "forming a coalition"?

It seems to me that the current PM has enjoyed the confidence of the House with insufficient seats to create a majority for, what is it?, 5 years now?

If the Conservatives come up with a plurality but no majority again then the Liberals could vote no-confidence at any time, as they recently have.  In that case they could, and should, as the Loyal Opposition, be given the opportunity to see if they can secure the confidence of the House.  I am guessing it would be a fair bet that Jack and Gilles would, at least initially, give the Liberals that support even without a coalition per se.  The Liberals would then be in a position to try to manage the House and Government in the same manner that the Conservatives have.

In some respects they would be in a stronger position than the Conservatives, even with fewer seats, because their policies would track more closely with the NDP and the Bloc.

On the other hand, as Edward points out, they do face an internal division that the Conservatives have long since stitched over.  

If their government fell it would likely fall over those internal divisions - assuming that principle plays a role in their planning.

The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.   More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.

The way I see it "les trois amis" have a decent shot at overturning the Conservatives -  assuming that they have no principes and can live with the perceptions they will leave.

No matter if Harper isn't as "bleu" or libertarian as some might wish he seems to be the only alternative to "les rouges" on offer.


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the Conservatives come up with a plurality but no majority again then the Liberals could vote no-confidence at any time, as they recently have.  In that case they could, and should, as the Loyal Opposition, be given the opportunity to see if they can secure the confidence of the House.  I am guessing it would be a fair bet that Jack and Gilles would, at least initially, give the Liberals that support even without a coalition per se.  The Liberals would then be in a position to try to manage the House and Government in the same manner that the Conservatives have.
> 
> The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.   More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.
> 
> ...



I really feel that it is a given that Iffy, Gilles and Jack will overcome their squeamishness and ignore the true voice of the Canadian people. My instincts also tell me the Western backlash would be very extreme.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.   More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.
> ...




Actually, due to the well established parliamentary principle of "pairing," people like the PM and ministers and, indeed, ill members can be away from the house *for legitimate reasons* (government business, illness, etc) and the opposition will "pair" them by having an equal number their members absent themselves from votes on routine day-to-day business. Thus 154 is enough for a bare majority; something between 155 and 160 is workable, allowing for a defection or resignation or even a death, now and again; 160 and above, especially with today's divided house is a solid majority. Thus, a bare majority government can implement much (most) of its legislative programme even when ministers, for example, are away on business.

But, generally, pairing is not used for scheduled votes of confidence  or budget matters, which are _de facto_ confidence matters; all members are expected to be in their seats for really important matters.


Edit: additions for clarity


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think the Greens will ever get a seat unless they change the voting system to assign seats based on % of the popular vote. Their platform is too far left for even NDP supporters.




According to the polling I'm seeing the Greens are running in double digits in several ridings and are running second in two:

1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%

2. Bruce-Grey-Own Sound (ON) - the Greens are at 26%, well behind at Tory at 50%.

Do I really expect a Green to win? No. is it possible? Yes.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, generally, pairing is not used for scheduled votes of confidence  or budget matters, which are _de facto_ confidence matters; all members are expected to be in their seats for really important matters.



Unless the PM is from High River; in that case, all bets are off...


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to the polling I'm seeing the Greens are running in double digits in several ridings and are running second in two:
> 
> 1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%



That's Elizabeth May running against Gary Lunn. Last time she lost in Nova Scotia. Will she make it a coast to coast affair?


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Will she make it a coast to coast affair?



I'm trying to think of something witty to say....you said "affair"..... >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2011)

> 1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%



While anything in politics is possible, this riding is loaded with retirees from the Prairies. They aren't too stoned to get out and vote on election day.  There is also going to be brutal vote spliting between a pretty well regarded Liberal Candidate and Ms May- who are both chasing the same voter, along with an NDP candidate.  None of them have a prayer getting the 30% who will always vote Conservative.  What the Greens were thinking on picking this one, after West Nova last time, makes me wonder if they get election strategy tips from the Rhino Party.

I'd say this one stays Conservative again.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is funny, but I had been thinking exactly the same thing earlier today.  I can actually see a scenario where the Conservatives go fishing for "Blue Liberals" to make a majority, taking the risk that they can gain more "Centrists", then they would lose on the Right.  While it may seem to be splitting hairs, it would not be a coalition- it would be a semi-hostile takeover.  It may be that enough Liberals are tired enough of sitting on the Opposition side and would like to be back in Government again.  Remember- guys like Scott Brisson were on the Conservative side before.



There was an article in a recent MacLeans (Coyne, I believe) that was similar to this.  It basically stated that the centrists of both parties could really give Canada what it needs. 



> To add my observation on the mood in Western Canada on any possible coalition deal that in anyway involves the Bloc in Government- it would be a complete non-starter.  It is my sense that there would be an immediate, sustained emotional and visceral response out of many Western Canadians that may well strain the fabric of Confederation to the breaking point.  Possibly, this is exactly the reaction the Bloc would like to see happen (it is easy to sell separation, when you are separating from wreckage).



Good point - I think the BQ thrives off of riled up Albertans in "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way.


----------



## Donaill (28 Mar 2011)

I think we will have another minority.  I think people are just tired of politics period, no matter who is in power. As anyone that has lived for awhile can attest, it has been awhile since we have had a "good" party in charge of either province or federal house. I think that there may still be much internal conflict with in the Cons between the Reformists and the Progressive side. 

As for myself, I do not see a political party that really reflects my values. It has been some time since we have had one that does. Politics in this country has changed. I now see a fractured nation because regions feel alienated from the process. People feel alienated from the process. Minority govs have worked in our past. They just aren't working with Harper. He wishes to rule as a majority without actually having one. Obviously there is something wrong. He can not form a majority. 

Over the years, I have voted Liberal, PC, and NDP.  I honestly do not know who to vote for. I do not believe in voting for someone for the sake of just voting someone out. That leaves few options. 

What threw me from Harper was, and still is, the failure to bring in the Parliamentary reforms once promised. Free votes in parliament, and an elected senate.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2011)

Have politics changed?  I'm sure there were scoundrals, self-serving politicians, and idealists in the 1920s, 1950s and 1970s.  Just because we don't have a leader to worship doesn't mean our political system is broken.

Politics likely hasn't changed, but perceptions of the public have - this manifests itself in lower voter turnouts and greater interest in organizations outside of government (NGOs, etc).


----------



## Donaill (28 Mar 2011)

Fair enough. I would argue that the decreased time in the House and the seemed inability for the parties to reach compromise are two of the signs of the change in Canadian politics. Youth turn out for voting is at a low. Albeit we have not had an overly charismatic leader for awhile. That does seem to help in politics, no matter where you go within  the democratic countries. 

I have to admit that I am a disgruntled voter.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2011)

I'm not a great fan of the Conservative Government due to their vast increases in program spending (even before the economic crisis and threat of a coalition unleashed $50 billion in porkulus and additional debt). OTOH, they have stood closer to their principles in foreign affairs, the military, justice and taxation. 

One argument which has been trotted out many times is the really controversial issues like Parliamentary reform could not be touched because we have a minority government. The PM and cabinet select issues that they "should" get consensus from one or the other parties to assemble the votes to pass pieces of legislation.

The other argument is Prime Minister Harper is actually after a fundamental realignment in the political landscape, so the destruction of the Liberal Party and the shuffling of the wreckage into a new left or center left party that also encompasses most opf the NDP and Greens is the true goal, and reform has to wait until this is achieved.

There may be grains of truth in these arguments, or maybe something else is in play. WRT my vote, so far the CPC is demonstrating a more consistent approach to things, and are not seemingly running to grab political and economic power at any cost like the three amigos. The Liberals have never offered any platform except trotting out the 1993 Red Book every election since; I'm much more inclined to listen to Jack Layton simply because he will at least present an internally consistent platform of some sort (even if I believe it will be based on false premises and faulty logic, I must still give it informed consideration to understand what I will vote for and against).

One thing seems clear to me is the current situation of perpetual minority governments is paralyzing our society; lets get out the vote for *someone* so we can end this mess and have a stable four years.


----------



## Donaill (28 Mar 2011)

Everyone forgets that the Concervatives also tried bringing down minority houses in the not too distant past. Coalitions are not foreign to Canada and perhaps work better than most since it requires compromise.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2011)

Agreed Thucydides - the Conservatives seem to offer the best of the worst at this point.  But democracy itself is the best of the worst, so I guess we can be live with that....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Mar 2011)

Local Edmonton CTV pegged it tonight - The Seinfeld Election - the election about nothing.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Mar 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Everyone forgets that the Concervatives also tried bringing down minority houses in the not too distant past. Coalitions are not foreign to Canada and perhaps work better than most since it requires compromise.



So you have no problem with Gilles Duceppe sitting in Cabinet?


----------



## HavokFour (28 Mar 2011)

Can't wait to vote for the second time in my life. ;D

Here's to a Conservative Majority and Iggy shutting his yap and actually helping to improve our Great Country for once.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Everyone forgets that the Concervatives also tried bringing down minority houses in the not too distant past. Coalitions are not foreign to Canada and perhaps work better than most since it requires compromise.



And use the spell check.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2011)

I do not begrudge the Conservatives their "high spending" prior to the recession.  Much if not most of it seems to have restored the transfer payment cuts made by prior governments.  In my view, having made the cuts when it was felt necessary to balance the budget, it was fair to restore the funds when the budget was balanced and surpluses allowed.

The danger of the coalition is not separatism.  The danger is that all three potential member parties like to spend money, and the easiest "compromise" to make to agree to continue governing together is to spend someone else's (taxpayers') money on their respective wish lists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2011)

I think that ThreeHundredEight.com provides a useful - and I hope fairly reliable - aggregation of polling data. Their 28 Mar 11 projections are:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


This shows that while the projected seat distribution is unchanged (the Conservatives are just two seats shy of majority territory) the voting intentions have changed a bit:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


My guess (maybe it's just a *hope*) is that:

1. The NDP are making slight gains in QC;

2. Everywhere else, the NDP are gaining at the Liberals expense; and

3. Conservative support is firming up in Atlantic Canada and ON.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2011)

Ray Sturgeon was a very, very well connected soldier, senior public servant connected and lobbyist – almost the ultimate Ottawa _insider_.

This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a bit of a hatchet job, focused almost exclusively on his third career as a lobbyist for CFN* and ignoring his many and varied career accomplishments:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-candidate-lobbied-ottawa-for-us-fighter-jet-manufacturer/article1959650/


> Tory candidate lobbied Ottawa for U.S. fighter-jet manufacturer
> 
> TU THANH HA
> 
> ...




I had, some 25 or so years ago, the opportunity to work with Mr. Sturgeon a few times: after every meeting I carefully checked my pockets and wallet – he was a skilled bureaucratic infighter and I don’t know many people who ever bested him at NDHQ _politics_, a "game" which usually involved billions of dollars. He is, also, a pleasant and personable fellow; he can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip! So: connected, smart, pleasant and personable, plugged in, very knowledgeable about Ottawa – the voters of Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing could do a lot worse.






                        
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Ray Sturgeon – Conservative candidate     Carol Hughes, MP – NDP incumbent
Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing                  Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing

The early  polling has Ms. Hughes out in front 46.1% to 32.2% for Mr. Sturgeon.


_________
* CFN is the ultimate DND lobby. CFN stands for Crutchlow, Friedel, Nixon who were, respectively: ADM(Mat), Associate ADM(Mat) and DM of DND many, many years ago.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Mar 2011)

40.5 billion deficit this year. That is my big election issue. About 1300$ per person. We were already in debt at 36,000$ per person last year. How I wish voters could do math and be responsible. Not that voting for any of the corrupt opportunists out there will make much difference.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

It has long been my contention that government should only be involved in the following areas:

Public Safety - Police/Fire/Military
Health Care - Hospitals/ Ambulance etc
Education
Infrastructure - Roads/Bridges etc

Funding for third rate film makers/musicians/poets/etc....... >


----------



## aesop081 (28 Mar 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> That is my big election issue.



So you will vote Conservative then ?

Or did you already forget what parties *demanded* that $50B be sent on economic stimulus ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2011)

Notwithstanding what appears, to me, to be an anti-Harper bias in the _Globe and Mail_ news and politics departments, their business section seems less biased. This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is from their informative “Economy Lab” series and it explains why _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff’s nose grows a bit every time he talks about corporate tax cuts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/liberal-corporate-tax-plan-just-election-bumph/article1959392/
(Hyperlinks from the original.)


> Liberal corporate tax plan just election bumph
> 
> STEPHEN GORDON
> Globe and Mail Blog
> ...



In other words, as recceguy suggests: Liberals lie,


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think the Greens will ever get a seat unless they change the voting system to assign seats based on % of the popular vote. Their platform is too far left for even NDP supporters.



Have you ever actually read their platform?  I ask because I thought that way too, until someone asked me that question.

And I was surprised.  It's pretty interesting.

It's not particularly "left".  Parts are, perhaps, but I'd say probably less so than the NDP, but most of it is about some significant restructuring of the economy, especially the parts that tax dollars prop up.  The reality is they don't fit on the conventional left-right one dimensional spectrum.  It's got objectives that sound much more to the right as well.

I'm pretty okay with reworking the tax system to encourage sustainability.  I also like their plan to expand income splitting for income tax purposes.  I'm fine with not giving subsidies to oil & gas companies, too.  Or most industries, really.  I'm good with the idea of supporting a reorientation of what manufacturing base we have towards things we can do competitively, because we can't just export all those jobs.

I voted for them in the last two federal elections, not because I'm an ardent supporter, but because I think they have ideas worth discussing, and every vote they get helps them become a stronger voice.  So far, from what I've seen of the "major" parties, I've got no compelling reason to vote for any of them, and unless that changes, I'll probably vote for them again.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So you will vote Conservative then ?
> 
> Or did you already forget what parties *demanded* that $50B be sent on economic stimulus ?



What would the deficit be if they hadn't made those two rather short-sighted and foolhardy GST cuts?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2011)

It’s not like he needs it, but this _opinion_ piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, provides even more bleak news for _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/ignatieff-hoisted-on-his-own-petard-in-quebec/article1959492/


> Ignatieff hoisted on his own petard in Quebec
> 
> BRIAN TOPP
> 
> ...




But, do not despair Liberal supporters, and do not get complacent Conservative stalwarts, Harold Wilson’s old adage that “a week is a long time in politics” still holds; and an election campaign is an eternity; Liberal fortunes will get better and the Tories will decline in public support – the questions are: when, by how much and will those (inevitable) turnabouts be, in their turn, reversed before election day?


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Mar 2011)

Since the election was called, the media has been lining up taking any and every shot at (Mr.) Harper at every opportunity, or taking the opportunity to take shots.

Listening to Susan D (brother is a Liberal mover), early on Saturday, even then saying that the story of the three losers (not her words) getting together to form a government, would be dead in a couple of days. Since then, others have joined the choir, stated the same.

The body language of Jane T at the mere mention of the CPC or Harper. The way Harper's name is spoken, is like it is spit out. Always Harper, seldom Mr. Harper.    

Listening to McGuinty on CFRA this am who, would not, deny whatever word the host utilized to describe a coalition. 

"Not necessarily a coalition, but a coalition if necessary" comes to mind.

This election may be won by the liberal media, a scary thought that this bunch could influence so many. Gullible Canadians.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So you will vote Conservative then ?
> 
> Or did you already forget what parties *demanded* that $50B be sent on economic stimulus ?


'

My riding is filled with opportunistic demagogues. It's a wasteland. They will promise anything to win. One riding over is a very nice Provincial Conservative, Lisa Macleod, who spoke out publicly against corruption in her own party. She would be worth knocking on some doors for. She outed John Baird's scheme to give Terry Kilrea a plum parole board job if he dropped out of the Mayoral race. Odd to see a politician who still feels moral outrage. She still has a moral compass. 

The Party system the biggest flaw in Canadian politics. It is institutionalized corruption IMO. I want an MP who is answerable to their constituency for both FUNDING and votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ... I want an MP who is answerable to their constituency for both FUNDING and votes.




Good! Then support whichever party promises to get rid of our current campaign financing scheme: make candidates and parties earn their own money by proposing policies and _values_ that will convince "ordinary Canadians,' folks like you and me, to give them a few dollars - but not too many, say $2,500.00 per household, maximum, and none at all, not one red cent, from corporations, trade unions or special interest groups. Donations should come from "ordinary," tax paying, individual Canadian citizens, only. And, above all, no (or, at least, damned little - maybe $0.05/vote) public financing and no "donated" services like PR support from companies.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good! Then support whichever party promises to get rid of our current campaign financing scheme: make candidates and parties earn their own money by proposing policies and _values_ that will convince "ordinary Canadians,' folks like you and me, to give them a few dollars - but not too many, say $2,500.00 per household, maximum, and none at all, not one red cent, from corporations, trade unions or special interest groups. Donations should come from "ordinary," tax paying, individual Canadian citizens, only. And, above all, no (or, at least, damned little - maybe $0.05/vote) public financing and no "donated" services like PR support from companies.



I agree with ER. If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds. 

Now....I was trying to watch the election coverage but got fed up. I watched "The Cat in The Hat" instead. He made more sense, and is not as dense.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree with ER. If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds.
> 
> Now....I was trying to watch the election coverage but got fed up. I watched "The Cat in The Hat" instead. He made more sense, and is not as dense.



I pretty much agree on both points.

I don't object to a mechanism that directs some funding based on voting, but absolutely I think only individuals should be permitted to donate, not corporations or any other entities, and only to a fairly low limit.


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds.



That suggestion makes me thankful to live in a gated community.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> That suggestion makes me thankful to live in a gated community.



Or selling calenders, or subscriptions to Macleans magazine.....


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What would the deficit be if they hadn't made those two rather short-sighted and foolhardy GST cuts?



A whole heck of a lot more than if we were NDP and doubled CPP and made a National Daycare system. GST cuts allowed more money into the pockets of consumers to stimulate spending in a bad economy. More public spending means more jobs, which gives us less people on EI and more income tax being paid.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> GST cuts allowed more money into the pockets of consumers to stimulate spending in a bad economy. More public spending means more jobs, which gives us less people on EI and more income tax being paid.



Well, I did find one study the CBC reported on that suggests the answer to the question is somewhere between $40-42 billion, so it wouldn't have totally saved us.  It's here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html

As for GST cuts stimulating spending, I'm having a hard time finding any good studies on that, but it's probably too recent for a good bit of research, but it's interesting that at the time the Globe and Mail published article (it's here, by the way: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071024.wgstt1024/BNStory/National/) which noted that 20 economists from across the political interest spectrum all blasted the GST cuts for a variety of reasons.  Consumption taxes are generally accepted as being the "fairest" of taxes, particularly in Canada where lower income earners qualify for a credit against the GST anyhow to offset its impact on them.

When I did the math on how much it impacted me, the answer was "not much at all, really".  On small ticket items, I found a lot of retailers happily sucked up the difference in additional profits (keeping their "even" prices the same).  It did impact some bigger ticket purchases, but not in any way that it was a dealbreaker for spending decisions.  I can't assume my situation was universally applicable, but I would think that a cut in personal income taxes likely would have accomplished more at the same price, and a better policy decision.  Cutting the GST was a cheap, populist move rather than a considered economic decision.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A whole heck of a lot more than if we were NDP and doubled CPP and made a National Daycare syste.



Well, an NDP government's pretty much never going to happen.  Thankfully.

CPP has nothing to do with the deficit, incidentally - and the policy to double the CPP (both the contributions and the annuity payable) has some merit given that private sector pensions are becoming a distant memory for many people - forced savings in a well managed public pension doesn't strike me as a bad idea.  I deal on a daily basis with people getting closer and closer to retirement with nowhere near enough to maintain their standard of living, because they didn't save enough.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> CPP has nothing to do with the deficit, incidentally - and the policy to double the CPP (both the contributions and the annuity payable) has some merit given that private sector pensions are becoming a distant memory for many people - forced savings in a well managed public pension doesn't strike me as a bad idea.  I deal on a daily basis with people getting closer and closer to retirement with nowhere near enough to maintain their standard of living, because they didn't save enough.



That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?



Given that the Goverment pension plans (CFSA, PSSA, RCMPSA, arrangements for MPs) are extremely generous and far from self-financing, perhaps a bit of introspection might be in order - if you are "responsible for your fate" you'd be putting aside roughly 2 1/2 times your current pension contributions.

I suspect that the PSSA (at least) will undergo significant revisions in the near to medium term, with accrued benefits protected but future benefits accumulating at a slower rate - for the sake of argument, say 1.8% per year to a maximum of 39 years instead of the current 2%/35 year model.  Federal plans permit folks to retire at 55 with a 70% pension, without reduction.  It's a very generous benefit that's rarely seen with non-public sector employers.  And given the current mood in the country, I don't see any political party jumping in to defend the public service.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?



Not to echo dapaterson too much, you're not going to find a lot of sympathy amongst many voters or political parties for the woes of public service pension annuitants.  That said, I think you could see some manner of reform done to PSSA so that it integrates with CPP like private sector pensions do.

It's all fine and good to talk about holding people responsible for their fate, but guess who ends up paying regardless of how much finger-pointing we do.  Unless you think the country is likely to decide to toss people out on the street for their lack of "personal responsibility", it's hard to argue that some manner of improving pensions is a bad idea.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Mar 2011)

[rabbit hole]
The PSSA and other federal plans are integrated with the CPP, with the plan providing essentially a core benefit plus a bridge benefit that is lost at age 65.  There are loud complainers who dislike the fact that their pension is "reduced" at age 65; apparently all the briefings they received about their pension were ignored, and they faile dto ever read any information about it.
[/rabbit hole]


----------



## KJK (28 Mar 2011)

Actually Redeye, from my point of view it is very easy to argue against increasing CPP. At what point do we say enough and start holding people accountable for their actions? What you and others are proposing takes money out of my pocket while I'm trying to save for retirement and hands it to those too irresponsible to bother saving for their own retirement. Also we hand the money to a bunch of overpaid, over pensioned bureaucrats to mismanage. You may think that the CPP is well managed, I for one do not. Lending the money to the provinces at 1 or 2% interest hardly qualifies as a good investment since it is our tax dollars that are paying the interest.

KJK


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Mar 2011)

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/962165--mallick-what-if-harper-s-dream-of-a-majority-comes-true

The Toronto Star Mon Mar 28 2011
By Heather Mallick Star Columnist
*
Mallick: What if Harper's dream of a majority comes true?*

What if the Harper Government were to win a majority?

I won't lie to you, my job would become easier by yards, it being possible that Stephen Harper would ditch the metric system to please the Americans. (Although I was born at just the wrong time and still measure everything in ounces centigrade.)

I wouldn't patrol the newsroom looking for column ideas, they would simply arrive on my mental doorstep like cowpats.

A Harper majority government would be dishonest. That's an easy one, they're Dodgy Inc. now, with their in-and-out campaign financing, lying to Parliament, allegations of illegally blocking freedom of information, killing the long-form census to cater to invented online outrage, wildly underestimating the cost of those Lockheed Martin jets, padding the Senate they previously vowed to reform, accepting fat MP pensions they once decried . . . I could go on but lack the space and sometimes the will to live, frankly.

A recent poll shows that Canadians know the Harper government tells whoppers. For the Harper regime, lying is a core value, to the point where there's a bouncy aggressive incredulity when they're questioned about it in the House of Commons. They regard opposition MPs as dogs lunging at a G20 wire fence when they've already been trained with electroshocks to never do that again.

Old-tyme religion will reign, and our spiritual leader will be Harper's favourite evangelical, Charles McVety. I've met him. He's like Mike Huckabee without the affable (and convenient) stupidity. There's a canniness to McVety that worries me, because I've seen his followers and they are not canny. They are obedient though.

I used to decry the concept of tenure, suspecting it made professors coast in class, but now I see it as a fence standing between us and the intellectually primitive. In Harperland, your students would turn you in for Wrongspeak and you would lose your job.

I have had my occasional conceptual quarrels with unions but with Harper running the country, I would proudly wear the union label. I want jobs for all at reasonable pay, not an abandoned layer of unemployed and working poor people at the bottom. But this is a structure that works for Harper.

Canada would increasingly resemble the U.S., a model that makes European countries shudder. Guns on the street, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn . . . If Harper got his majority, these things would hit us like an avalanche.

Citizens regarded as “ethnics” would be courted until election day, and then abandoned. Forget family reunification, forget federal money to ease non-whites' path into Canadian society, forget English classes.

Women's rights would retreat, including abortion rights, access to medical advances and the right to go to court to protest inequality.

Everything would be up for privatization, from roads, parks and parking meters to schools and hospitals.

Individuals would be in trouble. As I have written before, Harper's targeting of perceived enemies verges on the Stalinist. I find Harper's treatment of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, whose Russian ancestors fled the Reds, as sinister as anything I have ever seen in politics. Harper's goons accuse Ignatieff of being an aristocrat passing himself off as a regular guy.

Funny, the Ignatieffs would have heard this from the Communists a century ago. No one's responsible for their relatives. And wealth — if Ignatieff's grandparents had any — isn't a crime. But the Stalinists, and indeed the Khmer Rouge who condemned intellectuals and killing anyone wearing glasses, didn't see it that way.

If that's what they say about Ignatieff, imagine what they'll say about you. The Conservative hate machine will swivel toward you like a Dalek and advance. You're doomed. A Harper majority government wouldn't just lash out generally. It would hunt down its enemies.

Fear these people. Don't get sick. Don't grow old. Don't have children. Make yourself invulnerable.

hmallick@thestar.ca


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2011)

I heard this on CJOB. What a load of crap. I hope someone schools her on her yellow journalism.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> By Heather Mallick     Star Columnist


Well, I have to admit, she's outdone herself with this one. There is not the remotest doubt that this is the most stupid opinion column she has ever written....and she's pulled some winners out of her "cowpat-like mental doorstep" in the past.



.....to say nothing of being insulting to _real_ Stalinists everywhere.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....and she's pulled some winners out of her "cowpat-like mental doorstep" in the past.


Ah, Heather Mallick, the voice of moderation, balance and reason....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/79969.0.html (here's the original article, since it's no longer up at CBC.ca )
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16536.0.html (here's the original article, courtesy of Archive.org, since it's no longer up at the _Globe & Mail_)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Mar 2011)

She's managed to invoke the newspaper version of Godwin's law two days into the campaign. I hope both she and the Star get hammered over this, but I won't hold my breath waiting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> She's managed to invoke the newspaper version of Godwin's law two days into the campaign. I hope both she and the Star get hammered over this, but I won't hold my breath waiting.


My fave comment so far:


> I just read the commenting guidelines. If the same guidelines were applied to this article, I doubt that it would have been published!


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Federal plans permit folks to retire at 55 with a 70% pension, without reduction.  It's a very generous benefit that's rarely seen with non-public sector employers.



Municipal is the same: 2% X 35 years of full-time service = 70% unreduced pension. Payable the month you turn 55.  

But, since I retired, the accrual rate has increased from 2% to 2.33%. Earnings used in the pension formula have improved from best five years to best three years. The 90 Factor ( member's age + service ) has improved to an 80 Factor. A 70% unreduced pension is now possible / payable the month you turn 50.
They had to amend Canada’s Income Tax Act in 2003 to do it. The unions ( police, fire, ambulance ) had been lobbying the federal Finance Ministry and members of parliament for it since 1999. 
The improvement was considered necessary for public safety because the average age of recruits in the emergency services has been increasing steadily in recent years:
http://www.omers.com/pdf/Supplemental_Plan_handbook.pdf


----------



## foresterab (28 Mar 2011)

Alberta provincial union member here (not by choice)

50/50 split on costs going into the pension, 85 factor for experience and age and pays out 40% of best 5 years average.  It is however apprently indexed to the national inflation (usually about half of Alberta's in my experience).

Contributions increased by 3% two years ago due to mismanagement of the fund making it short so all current employees are forced to pay for those already retired...yes I know it's common practice but as a younger employee I'll be paying that difference a long time.

Needless to say I won't be able to retire on 40% of my salary and meet my goals so I need to find additional savings somewhere.  On the other hand 40% should be enough to put a roof over the head and basic food on the table if a person only plans for that little in the future.    

I'm not sure how tough it would be to allow individuals the oportunity to participate in the plan contingent upon 100% of payment of pension dues in exchange for the same retirement oportunities the public sector offers.  While optomistic I doubt it would happen due to the increase in administration due to more people involved but a voluntary participation plan for those who do not know/care to learn how to manage their money should be doable.

Anyways...2 cents worth


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Mar 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I heard this on CJOB. What a load of crap. I hope someone schools her on her yellow journalism.




No, this is tongue-in-cheek, Mr. Seggie.  

She doesn't think people would see it for anything other than the satire that it is........right?  :-\


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2011)

>What would the deficit be if they hadn't made those two rather short-sighted and foolhardy GST cuts?

I can play that game, too.

What would the deficit be if (mostly Liberal) governments hadn't overspent by ~$65B from 1975 to 1987, inflating our accumulated deficit from ~$30B to ~$260B just in time for high interest rates to push it up to ~$575B by 1997?  (All debt accumulation from 1987 until our recent re-entry into operating deficits was due to debt servicing charges.)

What would the deficit be if Chretien & Martin had not cut income taxes?

What would the deficit be if Chretien & Martin had put every surplus penny toward reducing accumulated deficit rather than blowing some of it distributing goodies in a form of "March Madness"?

Our current deficit is somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 due to the cost of servicing debt.  What a fricking shame those paragons of fiscal rectitude, the Liberal Party of Canada, created such a big one.

A point of GST is worth about $10B per year.  By one estimate I read when the cut was first discussed, it is also worth about 300,000 jobs.  That's about $35,000 per job, but it seems like a better use of money than paying benefits to unemployed people.

The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc all have significant program spending shopping lists.  No thanks.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> Actually Redeye, from my point of view it is very easy to argue against increasing CPP. At what point do we say enough and start holding people accountable for their actions? What you and others are proposing takes money out of my pocket while I'm trying to save for retirement and hands it to those too irresponsible to bother saving for their own retirement. Also we hand the money to a bunch of overpaid, over pensioned bureaucrats to mismanage. You may think that the CPP is well managed, I for one do not. Lending the money to the provinces at 1 or 2% interest hardly qualifies as a good investment since it is our tax dollars that are paying the interest.
> 
> KJK



That's great.  I'll submit that you probably don't know very much about how the CPPIB invests, and you've demonstrated that amply, but I have a fairly good base of knowledge.  And they do a very good job of it, at a very good price.  In fact, the only pension as well managed in this country is probably the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.  In terms of the CPP's asset mix, it's more than half invested in a wide variety of equities, and the other half includes government and corporate bonds, including those from other countries, as well as real estate and infrastructure assets.  Their operating costs are quite low, as well.  If it was possible to buy a mutual fund that mirrored the CPP's  portfolio, it'd sell like hotcakes.  On top of that, its operating costs are relatively tiny.  And all transparent.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> [rabbit hole]
> The PSSA and other federal plans are integrated with the CPP, with the plan providing essentially a core benefit plus a bridge benefit that is lost at age 65.  There are loud complainers who dislike the fact that their pension is "reduced" at age 65; apparently all the briefings they received about their pension were ignored, and they faile dto ever read any information about it.
> [/rabbit hole]



I'm only now being in a town full of federal government employees starting to wrap my head around the way the PSSA works, because it seems, at least how the payments are presented to annuitants, to be far more complex than private sector pensions (or even provincial public sector pensions).  The large gap, however, seems to be that people don't understand that they haven't paid for that bridge benefit that ends at 65 to extend beyond that, and that's how the CPP was designed to work.  I vaguely remember one of my mentors ages ago explaining that there's a bit of a difference in how it works but honestly can't remember it anymore... will have to look into it.

In any case, the proposed concept of Pooled Retirement Pension Plans that the Conservatives have trumpeted also isn't a bad idea - sort of a happy medium, and perhaps one that's worth looking into further, but I don't know that they'll be any better or cheaper managed than the CPP.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What would the deficit be if they hadn't made those two rather short-sighted and foolhardy GST cuts?
> 
> I can play that game, too.
> 
> ...



Chretien & Martin I think tried to have something for everyone in their budgets, but without question, like all politicians are apt to do, they also give to their supporters.  That included tax breaks, specifically income tax breaks, which probably at the very least more progressive than cutting consumption taxes, and maybe marginally effective at stimulating economic growth.  I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that "tax cuts = growth, without increasing deficits" claim because no one yet's really been able to show me a good historical example of how that's worked, ever.

I almost fell off my chair when I read the "300,000 jobs" claim, though.  I can't find anything to support that claim - and it's still almost universally accepted that the cut was a bad policy decision.  By your logic of moaning about debt servicing costs, why should the government sacrifice any means of earning revenue in place?


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> In fact, the only pension as well managed in this country is probably the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.



OMERS is pretty good too: "OMERS Again Awarded Global Pension Fund of the Year, Canada by World Finance":
http://www.omers.com/corporate/news_article.aspx?newsid=3575


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> OMERS is pretty good too: "OMERS Again Awarded Global Pension Fund of the Year, Canada by World Finance":
> http://www.omers.com/corporate/news_article.aspx?newsid=3575



That's true, OMERS is good - they screwed themselves with the contribution holiday in the middle of the last decade, but that was basically forced on them.  Teachers has actually suggested they'd be willing to manage other firms/organizations' pensions as part of their system - but I'm sure that the list of conditions they'd want fulfilled before accepting such a massive potential liability would be huge.

Back to election issues, I'm looking forward to this campaign.  It will be interesting to see what Mr. Ignatieff does to try to shake off the rather vicious hits the Conservatives have launched on him.  I'm anticipating no major changes after the election's concluded, but there's a potential for a lot of different things.  As long as the outcome isn't a Conservative majority, I think I can live with whatever comes.  I'm not enthused by any of them for now.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> By your logic of moaning about debt servicing costs, why should the government sacrifice any means of earning revenue in place?



The government does not "earn revenue" it takes money from production and productive citizens.

The problem is spending; cut spending and the budget comes into balance, make further cuts and the debt can be paid down. Provide tax cuts from the savings due to spending cuts and the economy will ramp up.  Tax cuts on their own will also cause the economy to ramp up, but without corresponding spending cuts the effect is simply consumed by greater spending. Economic growth (and government spending) exploded in the United Statesdue to tax cuts in the 1920's, 1960's and 1980's, the UK during the early Thatcher years and Ontario during the Harris years, so the proof is there for anyone to see.

As for the GST cuts, I have seen figures of 110,000 jobs being created; I suspect the intent was to quantify the amount of potential job creation that would be due to the release of the resources back into the productive economy. A common figure of merit is a full time job requires $50,000 of investment, by that metric the GST cut should generate 200,000 jobs. 110,000 jobs would imply an investment of $91,000 per job, which seems a bit high, so the true figure falls somewhere in between.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The problem is spending; cut spending and the budget comes into balance, make further cuts and the debt can be paid down. Provide tax cuts from the savings due to spending cuts and the economy will ramp up.  Tax cuts on their own will also cause the economy to ramp up, but without corresponding spending cuts the effect is simply consumed by greater spending. Economic growth (and government spending) exploded in the United Statesdue to tax cuts in the 1920's, 1960's and 1980's, the UK during the early Thatcher years and Ontario during the Harris years, so the proof is there for anyone to see.



Yeah, I don't know why people trot out this ridiculous meme.  Under Reagan and Thatcher, deficits soared, and while the economy on aggregate grew, disparities between rich and poor increased markedly.  That suggests that it's harder to pull one's self up by one's bootstraps, so to speak.  They're lionized for reasons I don't quite understand, because they left fiscal messes in their wake, which their defenders will still try to apologize for.  Ditto with Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution that didn't really do much of anything, and then left the province with cooked booked and bad privatization details.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for the GST cuts, I have seen figures of 110,000 jobs being created; I suspect the intent was to quantify the amount of potential job creation that would be due to the release of the resources back into the productive economy. A common figure of merit is a full time job requires $50,000 of investment, by that metric the GST cut should generate 200,000 jobs. 110,000 jobs would imply an investment of $91,000 per job, which seems a bit high, so the true figure falls somewhere in between.



Really?  Where?  And what sorts of jobs?  I'm interested in good research on this but I don't seem to find any.  As for figures of merit, according to whom, exactly?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2011)

What sorts of jobs?

Seriously- does it matter?  Any sort of private sector job is inherently more productive to the economy than a public sector job.  That is not to say that we do not need a public sector, let's just be realistic- 100% of the wage of a Public servant comes from the taxes paid by a private sector worker, or from money borrowed by the Government.

And don't start the BS that "some jobs are beneath some people's dignity".  Any work is better than the trap of welfare or EI.


----------



## Redeye (28 Mar 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What sorts of jobs?
> 
> Seriously- does it matter?  Any sort of private sector job is inherently more productive to the economy than a public sector job.  That is not to say that we do not need a public sector, let's just be realistic- 100% of the wage of a Public servant comes from the taxes paid by a private sector worker, or from money borrowed by the Government.
> 
> And don't start the BS that "some jobs are beneath some people's dignity".  Any work is better than the trap of welfare or EI.



I wasn't - I meant, were these jobs permanent, full time jobs, or short term ones? What sectors benefited most?  Since that is a determinant of the "return on investment", it's pretty key.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2011)

Seen.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2011)

I believe Thatcher and Reagan are lionized because the sh!tty economy course charted during the '70s was changed during their watch.   And while it's fair to lay the blame for budgets at the PM's door in a parliament, it's a laughable oversimplification to lay it at the feet of a US president - I recall we already had that discussion.  The point of a tax cut to promote economic activity is to reap benefits later, just as the point of buying a bond instead of spending now is to reap benefits later.  Obviously there is an opportunity cost to be paid in the immediate term.

I would just as soon not have had the income tax and GST cuts and instead dealt with public debt, but if my taxes in excess of today's operating costs aren't to be used to pay yesterday's deficit operating costs, I'd like them back in my pocket.  I simply see nothing that the LPC, NDP, or Bloc are offering which promises better fiscal management, and fiscal management is the only problem which matters right now: all the other items on wish lists are just academic discussions if there is no sustainable foundation to pay for them.  Infrastructure doesn't crumble because there is no money to replace it; infrastructure crumbles because politicians and many people on public payrolls would rather cut ribbons for new projects than maintain what we already have.  Governments at all levels are swimming in revenue; they're just p!ss-poor at setting priorities.


----------



## KJK (29 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's great.  I'll submit that you probably don't know very much about how the CPPIB invests, and you've demonstrated that amply, but I have a fairly good base of knowledge.  And they do a very good job of it, at a very good price.  In fact, the only pension as well managed in this country is probably the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.  In terms of the CPP's asset mix, it's more than half invested in a wide variety of equities, and the other half includes government and corporate bonds, including those from other countries, as well as real estate and infrastructure assets.  Their operating costs are quite low, as well.  If it was possible to buy a mutual fund that mirrored the CPP's  portfolio, it'd sell like hotcakes.  On top of that, its operating costs are relatively tiny.  And all transparent.



Well Redeye, it would appear my info was a little out of date as far as the current asset mix goes however as recently as 2000 their portfolio was about 92% fixed income, e.g. government bonds. 

As for their operating cost I can't find anything that stated what their MER is but I would highly doubt it is anything like the MER of ETFs running in the .07-.35% range. If you are referring to the many CDN mutual funds with MERs running from 3-5% then that is sort of believable but why would anyone buy something like that is beyond me. Government = inefficient generally speaking.

You also didn't answer me as to why you think that I should pay double what I currently pay in CPP to bail out these clients of yours who were too irresponsible to bother saving for retirement.

KJK


----------



## Redeye (29 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> As for their operating cost I can't find anything that stated what their MER is but I would highly doubt it is anything like the MER of ETFs running in the .07-.35% range. If you are referring to the many CDN mutual funds with MERs running from 3-5% then that is sort of believable but why would anyone buy something like that is beyond me. Government = inefficient generally speaking.



Wow, another topic you don't seem to know anything about.  With about 3 notable exception I've never seen mutual funds running 3-5%.  MER wouldn't be the term applied to a pension fund, but its operating costs would be closer to what ETFs are.  Around 20bps if I remember right.



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> You also didn't answer me as to why you think that I should pay double what I currently pay in CPP to bail out these clients of yours who were too irresponsible to bother saving for retirement.



Well, I didn't say that to begin with.  CPP pays you out an annuity based on what you pay in, and that's it - just like any other pension does.  The Canada Pension Plan was designed to provide 25% of the average industrial wage in Canada in retirement - that's what the Yearly Maximum Pensionable Income is based on, what the contributions are based on, and what the payments are based on.  If instead it was to provide 50% of that, it would thus be an excellent form of forced savings for workers.  Other pensions would adjust their integration accordingly, and ultimately, people would probably be better off.  There's nothing there that suggests you're bailing out anyone, because that's not how the pension works.


----------



## KJK (29 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Wow, another topic you don't seem to know anything about.  With about 3 notable exception I've never seen mutual funds running 3-5%.  MER wouldn't be the term applied to a pension fund, but its operating costs would be closer to what ETFs are.  Around 20bps if I remember right.
> 
> Well, I didn't say that to begin with.  CPP pays you out an annuity based on what you pay in, and that's it - just like any other pension does.  The Canada Pension Plan was designed to provide 25% of the average industrial wage in Canada in retirement - that's what the Yearly Maximum Pensionable Income is based on, what the contributions are based on, and what the payments are based on.  If instead it was to provide 50% of that, it would thus be an excellent form of forced savings for workers.  Other pensions would adjust their integration accordingly, and ultimately, people would probably be better off.  There's nothing there that suggests you're bailing out anyone, because that's not how the pension works.



Quite the condescending attitude. As I look at the 1st page of mutual funds listed on my brokerage account I see 3 Acker 
Finley mutual funds with a 3-5% MER.

As for the CPP operating costs, they were 599 million + trading costs in 2007-2008 according to the Annual report. It states 122 billion under management so that would be 49 basis points + trading costs if I am reading this correctly. I will admit this is better than I expected but still a good bit higher than the ETFs I invest in.

As for the "not bailing your clients out" if they paid for a 25% average industrial wage pension and they receive a pension of 50% of average industrial wage I would call that a bailout.

The problem here is that you appear love the nanny state and I detest it. I believe there should consequences for behavior and you don't appear to. I remember the Grasshopper and Ant fable. It seems applicable here only you want the government to force the Ant to have to put aside some of his hard work so the Grasshopper doesn't starve. 

KJK

edited to add a qualifier to the CPP cost.


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2011)

Are you saving $14,180 a year for your pension? That is how much you would have needed to save – every year for the last 35 years – to pay yourself a pension equal to that of a federal public servant retiring today

http://taxpayer.com/node/13429

I don't know many peiople on civy street who can afford to put $1200 a month into a RRSP acount......


----------



## KJK (29 Mar 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Are you saving $14,180 a year for your pension? That is how much you would have needed to save – every year for the last 35 years – to pay yourself a pension equal to that of a federal public servant retiring today
> 
> http://taxpayer.com/node/13429
> 
> I don't know many people on civy street who can afford to put $1200 a month into a RRSP account......



If you are asking me Larry, I put in more than that these days. I could have a lot of fun with the money now but I prefer to know that I will have a comfortable retirement. I have never tried to compare my retirement savings to a public servant's indexed pension. As for other people I can't speak for them but I do know quite a few people who complain about how broke they are but they have a new house, 2 new cars, a boat and a travel trailer that are all financed.  

I'm not against having the CPP, only against a sudden huge jump in benefits for people who have finished paying into it while I and others will have to pay and hope there is still something there when I retire. Especially considering that certain parties want to give immigrants CPP benefits after paying into the plan for a very short time. As long as it is being used for a political football and is/was based on a Ponzi scheme I don't have much faith in it. 

KJK


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2011)

The average wage in Canada is around $24 and the average weekly income in 2009 was 805 a week *before* any deductions or taxes. Lop a third off for taxes/deductions and average income will be around $1200 a pay check. Rent/Mortgage (average rent in Ontario in 2009 ranged from $650 - $1200), food, utilities, mad money, loans, kids/child care, cloths, gas.....and on......and on....... So where are the average (that is the majority of Canadians) John and Mary six pack supposed to come up with money for retirement.....

And yes those with the toys etc have no excuse if they do not think of the future

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=18
http://www.livingin-canada.com/work-salaries-wages-canada.html
http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4001280


----------



## KJK (29 Mar 2011)

Larry, 

IMHO you are absolutely correct about the deductions but the reason they are so high is to feed the nanny state. I remember reading somewhere, perhaps even on this board that PET increased the size of the civil service 10x. Was this required? The country had run for 100 years on the smaller government and seemed to do fine. Also remember that 9.9% of your income is removed from your pay before you get it just for the CPP and now some are proposing we double that amount. I don't think your employer is going to give you a 10% raise just because the government now wants twice as much for CPP. If this comes to pass John and Mary Sixpack are going to be living on even less anyway.

FWIW I grew up on a dry land farm in the middle of nowhere SK. We never had much especially in the 80's with droughts and all. I remember having far less than most of my friends, we shopped at the Sally Ann etc so I had a fair bit of incentive to work my way out of that situation. I now live live in an older area of Edmonton. Most of the old Ukrainians are passing on or moving to assisted care facilities and the area is filling up with immigrants from all over the world. These people can certainly show the average Canadian about how to live below their means. One of my friends owns a DQ and employs several Filipinos. These girls make around $12/hr and still send home over half their after tax income. Every Friday at the post office here there is a long lineup of people using Canada Post to send money all over the world to their families and I'm sure most make far less than the average Canadian. Redeye I assume will be along shortly with the exact figure.

Most people would be horrified if they knew exactly where their money went. The joke about a latte or whatever a day is so true. I can't say I'm much better with my money only I pay myself first then piss away the rest. I started with $50 per month into what turned out to be worst mutual fund I could have chosen yet 10 years later there was a nice balance there. As Redeye has noted a couple of times I don't know much so if I can do it so can almost anyone.

Off my soapbox now.

KJK  

Note: I realize that the employee contribution for CPP is only 4.95% but the employer matches that so effectively it is your money paid to the government, you just don't see it.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2011)

Instead of watching Jack, Gilles, Iggy and Steve.....I watch "The Cat in the Hat".

He makes more sense, he is not so dense.

Have a nice day, or jump in the bay..... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2011)

More polling from ThreeHundredEight.com:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


Despite going up a bit in the popular vote, the latest data translates into one less seat for the Conservatives and one more for the NDP:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


Here, according to ThreeHundredEight.com, is why:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> NDP on the rise in new projection
> 
> The campaign continues, and yesterday we were treated to three new polls. Two of them, those by Abacus Data and Forum Research, were added in full to the projection model. Harris-Decima, however, has not yet put the full details of their poll on their site, so for the time being I am using the media reports on Harris-Decima's findings at the national level, in Ontario, and in Quebec. I will likely add the other regional data for tomorrow's projection. Note, too, that all of these polls were conducted in part or completely following the dissolution of the House.
> 
> ...




So, it appears the Conservatives are projected to lose one seat to the Liberals (in Atlantic Canada) and the NDP picked one up from the Liberals (in BC). But, on balance, things remain very much as theye were at the start date. 


Here is another useful graphic for those interested in potential coalition making:





PROJECTED CANADIAN PARLIAMENT
Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

Note that ThreeHundredEight.com projects that parliament will elect another Liberal as speaker.


----------



## Redeye (29 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> Quite the condescending attitude. As I look at the 1st page of mutual funds listed on my brokerage account I see 3 Acker Finley mutual funds with a 3-5% MER.



I've only ever heard of a few Sprott funds charging that much.  Most come in below 2.5% - and even that in most cases is still far too high, but that's another matter all together.



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> As for the CPP operating costs, they were 599 million + trading costs in 2007-2008 according to the Annual report. It states 122 billion under management so that would be 49 basis points + trading costs if I am reading this correctly. I will admit this is better than I expected but still a good bit higher than the ETFs I invest in.



There are some people who can do pretty well with that, but I'd submit a good chunk of people lack the knowledge, time, or interest to do so effectively.  That's the benefit of pension, economies of scale taking care of managing the assets for them.



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> As for the "not bailing your clients out" if they paid for a 25% average industrial wage pension and they receive a pension of 50% of average industrial wage I would call that a bailout.



Again, that's not what I said, and not what I'd argue for.  Any such change would take time to implement.  Some good CPP reforms have already been made, but there's room for more.  I'd even be interested in the idea of it being a voluntary system where one could double their contributions in exchange for a higher annuity later, however, I don't know that that could be practically or cost-effectively managed.  A one-size-fits-all system seems better.  The idea, thus, is to increase the amount the CPP collects in contributions and increase the payment levels proportionately.  That is to say, whatever benefits accrued under the old system remain the same, if a change in implemented it's only reflected in those years where it's implemented.  I'm not suggesting anything resembling "bailouts" or "something for nothing".  Such a change will not fix the situation for those who didn't save effectively now, but it will going forward - and going so would probably keep more people from using GAINS (supplements which are effectively entitlement programs) to live off.  It's a pretty forward thinking idea, a long term one, and politicians tend to concern themselves with instant gratification.



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> The problem here is that you appear love the nanny state and I detest it. I believe there should consequences for behavior and you don't appear to. I remember the Grasshopper and Ant fable. It seems applicable here only you want the government to force the Ant to have to put aside some of his hard work so the Grasshopper doesn't starve.



Not in the least.  The state's only role to should be to act where markets fail or cannot reasonably expected to produce a socially optimal outcome.  Given that private sector employers offer pensions less and less, I see a good argument for a decent public pension system.

(Edited to fix a couple of spelling mistakes and clarify a point)


----------



## MJP (29 Mar 2011)

This is an interesting sidebar about public sector compensation and other benefits but it is clouding up the election thread.  Perhaps a split is in order?



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Are you saving $14,180 a year for your pension? That is how much you would have needed to save – every year for the last 35 years – to pay yourself a pension equal to that of a federal public servant retiring today
> 
> http://taxpayer.com/node/13429
> 
> I don't know many peiople on civy street who can afford to put $1200 a month into a RRSP acount......



Larry I am firmly in the camp that public sector total compensation is much too high when compared to private sector.  I would be wary of using the article you put up as the base for my argument as it is rather partisan.  The author uses some extreme examples that are not indicative of reality (70% pensions, $100,000 salary @ 25 year old) to make his point, there is a ton of better information that isn't as biased as that to make the argument.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2011)

And interesting article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, discussing what the Liberal _strategy_ might be:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-take-aim-at-harper-but-are-gunning-for-each-other/article1960909/


> Liberals, NDP take aim at Harper but are gunning for each other
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Hamilton, Ont.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




The Conservatives are aiming for a “safe” majority – say 160± seats; the Liberals are aiming to grow their seat count somewhat, to say, 85 and the BQ and NDP want to hold on to their 50± and 35± respectively.

We don’t have enough seats in parliament for everyone to get what they want. If the Conservatives can get a “bare” majority (155) they must take 12 seats away from the BQ, Liberals and NDP and, based on the early going, that (a Conservative bare majority) seems the only realistic goal out there - although I suspect the BQ can and will hold on to at least 45 of the 47 seats they now have.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> This is an interesting sidebar about public sector compensation and other benefits but it is clouding up the election thread.  Perhaps a split is in order?


I'd second a split.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'd second a split.



Same..... :nod:


----------



## GR66 (29 Mar 2011)

I _think_ that the Liberals are actually playing it fairly smart by targeting the Conservatives in their rhetoric but targeting the NDP in practice in the opening stages of the election.  

I personally don't think there's much hope that many (any?) Conservative seats will have any hope of falling to the Liberals unless there were seen to be some kind of larger shift in voter preference toward the Liberals giving them at least the potential to pose a more realistic challenge to the Conservatives.  That's an impossible situation while the Centre/Left vote is split with the NDP.

If the Libs continue to present themselves as the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives and at the same time can pull off some poll numbers going forward showing momentum in the consolidation of the Centre/Left vote behind THEIR party then _some_ soft Conservatives, or much more likely some otherwise indifferent voters who weren't planning on voting because they thought it was hopeless, may give the Liberals some actual hope in ridings with tighter Liberal/Conservative races.

Frankly, I don't see them having many other options other than hoping the Conservatives make some kind of mis-step that they can pounce on.


----------



## Redeye (29 Mar 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I _think_ that the Liberals are actually playing it fairly smart by targeting the Conservatives in their rhetoric but targeting the NDP in practice in the opening stages of the election.
> 
> I personally don't think there's much hope that many (any?) Conservative seats will have any hope of falling to the Liberals unless there were seen to be some kind of larger shift in voter preference toward the Liberals giving them at least the potential to pose a more realistic challenge to the Conservatives.  That's an impossible situation while the Centre/Left vote is split with the NDP.
> 
> ...



I agree with your estimate.  It would seem that the Liberals have to fight on two fronts - against the Conservatives in their rhetoric (and against their attacks), but also to try to sway voters from the NDP over to them.  The centre/left vote, as GR66 notes, is now split much in the same way that the right was in the days of the Reform Party.

The key seems to get people out to the polls, since voter turnout was so miserable in the last few elections, if Liberals can encourage more people to go to the polls, that might help.

Frankly, I hate attack ads, but Ignatieff wants a shot, he has to come out swinging against the Conseravatives, because they've already been working on him for quite a while.

I haven't heard much about so-called "strategic voting" yet, but a movement called "Catch-22" is already working on it - the name comes from the goal of knocking out 22 Conservative MPs - that has a list compiled of their targets here: http://catch22campaign.ca/notes.  I don't see much likelihood of it working, it hasn't before.


----------



## Haletown (29 Mar 2011)

Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.

So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.

The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.


----------



## Jed (29 Mar 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.
> 
> So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.
> 
> The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.



There you go, typical Liberal Party approach: Sell out the security of the country to buy votes from the duped masses of the Canadian people. Its worked for them for years so why change a good thing?


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Same..... :nod:



My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.




No need to apologize: the _tangent_, which does deserve to be split into its own thread, is interesting; thanks to all three of you.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.
> 
> So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.
> 
> The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.



The " we don't need Cadillac Helicopters" statement virtually ensured Chretien a victory in that election. Will history repeat itself? I think it may.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.


What E.R. said - I think it's worth its own thread because of the detail involved and worthiness of separate debate away from the election in general.


----------



## KJK (29 Mar 2011)

A split sounds good to me.

ERC, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the possible CPP changes vs private investment.

KJK


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Mar 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The " we don't need Cadillac Helicopters" statement virtually ensured Chretien a victory in that election. Will history repeat itself? I think it may.



Anything is possible, but there are differences between '92 and today. First off, I don't know if the the "Cadillac Helicopters" statement alone, won the election for Chretien. Remember, he was campaigning against the Mulroney Conservatives who, at the time, were *despised * by the Canadian electorate; Chretien could have stayed home and would still of won. Secondly, the military had a very low profile and people didn't really think about or care what happened in the military. Today, just opposite, the military's profile is much higher; its been in combat for almost ten years and we know have a Canadian general running the NATO no-fly campaign against Qaddafi. 

Another factor is that the Canadian government/military/aircraft industry are defending the F-35 purchase much more vigorously than the Mulroney/Campbell governments defended the EH-101 purchase. In '92, no one, from the military or government tried to defend the purchase. It was only the aviation and defence associations who were defending the helicopter purchase. The Liberals pretty well had the airwaves to themselves and that's all the electorate heard; so its a small wonder that people were against the purchase.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2011)

There are Canadian companies literally participating in the design and production of parts for prototype F-35s as we speak -- shut that down and you directly endanger those jobs, the genesis for which was..........(click on link during rum roll).......the Liberals.

I think it's a "wise people shouldn't go there" issue...but one which the PLC seems committed to investigate....notwithstanding the potential link back to the Liberals' own position in 2002 when the Liberal Government commited to Level 3 involvement (as signed by the now "This is a bad deal" Mr. Alan Williams, see p. 7 for Williams' signature on the 2002 JSF MOU at the drum-roll link above...)


The perfect CPC rejoinder would be, "Great, when we're back in power in 2029, we'll see how the 47-year old CF-18's are doing, since you cancelled the JSF back in 2011....just the same as we were looking at 48-year old Sea Kings in 2011 due to your 1993 cancellation of those aircraft too.  You Liberals appear to like stretching 25-30 year old aircraft into 47-48 year old aircraft...is that in your Party Constitution?"

From the 2002 Liberal Government's own PWGSC Depository Services Program report on the Joint Strike Fighter - 15 Jul 2002 (rev. 19 Feb 2003): (interesting bits *highlighted*)


> ...
> C.  Canada’s Participation
> 
> Canada’s participation began in 1997, when it gained the status of informed partner upon making a US$10 million commitment to Phase 1, the Concept Demonstration Phase.  Unlike the United Kingdom, Canada did not announce plans to buy the JSF since its CF-18s are expected to remain in service until about 2017.  Indeed, the radars and other systems of the CF-18s are currently being modernized to ensure that the aircraft can effectively carry out operations for another decade.
> ...


 

...food for thought for those who choose bold words that could come back to bite them...


----------



## Infanteer (29 Mar 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...food for thought for those who choose bold words that could come back to bite them...



Oh, that guy quit the site in a huff....


----------



## GAP (30 Mar 2011)

CBC's voter quiz tool flawed, prof says
By Samantha Butler, QMI Agency  
Article Link

KINGSTON, Ont. — The CBC appears to have a new spin on the old joke about the answer to all multiple choice questions being "C". This time the answer is usually "G", as in Grit.

Queen's University political science professor Kathy Brock says the state broadcaster's Vote Compass online survey tool is flawed and tells people they're Liberal by default.

Vote Compass, a 30-question survey on the CBC's website, is supposed to show Canadians which party's political views are most like their own.

Brock said she completed the survey three times using three distinct strategies, and was aligned each time with the Liberal party.

"If you're giving opposite responses and getting the same result, that's not correct," she said.

Brock said the first time she did the survey she selected the "somewhat agree" response to every question. The second time, she selected "somewhat disagree," and the third time she chose "strongly agree."

The final questions in the survey pertain to leaders. They ask respondents to rank candidates for prime minister based on trustworthiness and competence. Brock said she selected the "I don't know" option for all the leader questions, every time.

"Every time, it told me I was politically centred and should vote Liberal," Brock said.

Cliff van der Linden, a Toronto researcher who developed the tool, said Brock received those responses because the questions are equally split between the left and right side of the political spectrum.

"So if you answer all one way or another, you're going to end up answering half left and half right -- and end up in the middle."

Brock argues the Liberal party doesn't necessarily represent the traditional centre of the political spectrum today.

"The Conservatives have also been moving towards the centre lately," she said.

"We're talking about the centre of the Canadian political landscape as it applies to these 30 statements," van der Linden said. He said all four parties were asked to verify the statements.

Van der Linden acknowledges the party platforms are more nuanced than the questions in the survey, but says "Canadians aren't engaging with those platforms, and haven't been for years."

"Over half a million Canadians have taken this survey in three days."

Van der Linden said an expert research team, based out of the University of Toronto, devised the tool using a "rigorous scientific process."

The tool is meant to generate discussion and give all Canadians a say, he said, but not to provide voting advice.

Brock says it's a "gimmick" that "impoverishes the level of discussion in our democracy."

"It might stir up some debate, but it doesn't encourage people to think deeply."

Van der Linden said the tool has been widely used in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands for the past 10 years.
end

"In Europe, this is a fixture of democratic discourse," he said.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2011)

When I tried the "all middle o' the pack" responses, I noticed one of the DS solutions indicated that the NDP would spend about the same amount of money on the military as is spent now (compared to "somewhat less" for the Liberals and Greens, "much less" for the Bloc and "somewhat more" for the CPC) - see attached.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Mar 2011)

We should be surprised it's biased?


----------



## Swingline1984 (30 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We should be surprised it's biased?



When I used the application I received a result of Social Conservative, which is a quite accurate.


----------



## GR66 (30 Mar 2011)

It's a very simplistic tool and at least has some usefulness for getting unengaged people looking at what in VERY general terms the parties are saying on some issues.

The questions however are obviously far too simplistic and isolated from every other related issue to allow you to use it as anything other than a starting point for discussion.  

For example, I'm personally in favour of totally eliminating corporate taxes to encourage investment and economic growth which pegs me quite clearly as a Conservative in the survey...but I'm only in favour of that if we were also to have corporations pay the REAL costs of the inputs (including energy, etc) that go into producing their products/services as well as the REAL costs of getting rid of the products they produce once they have reached the end of their lifespan (including waste product disposal, recyling, etc).  Where the heck does THAT put me in this survey?

Take the survey for what it is.  If it helps to develop interest in the party platforms and encourages people to actually become engaged in the election then it's a good thing...warts and all.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The tool is meant to generate discussion and give all Canadians a say, [Van der Linden] said, but not to provide voting advice.


Then why does the link to it lead with, "Voter Technique #1 - Coin Toss"? 

A coin toss doesn't generate discussion, it's to make a decision. The U of T "researcher" would have known that if they had real football in Europe where a coin-toss decides opening offence or defence.


p.s. - I notice that CBC isn't carrying this story. It obviously isn't 'news' to them that they're the Liberal Party News outlet.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Mar 2011)

I tried that "voting tool" and I was more conservative than the conservatives.  Not entirely accurate.


----------



## Haletown (30 Mar 2011)

Well the CBC knows where its bread is buttered.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Mar 2011)

Anyone else hear tell of Elizabeth May not being a participant in the televised debate?


----------



## GAP (30 Mar 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Anyone else hear tell of Elizabeth May not being a participant in the televised debate?



She shouldn't have been there in the first place....if only to have some decent (pun intended) discourse....


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

Here are today's (little changed) projections from ThreeHundredEight.com:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the explanation:



> Positive signs for the Liberals in new projection
> 
> Baby steps, but the Liberals have their first set of good news this morning. The party has made small but encouraging gains in most parts of the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> p.s. - I notice that CBC isn't carrying this story .....


I'm sure they will, given the commitment to, according to the CBC's Journalism Policies:


> On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held theses views are.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 :rofl:  I slay me....


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

The fact of the matter is that most of the public seems to want more discussion about the F-35 procurement program, and there's been an alarming lack of information about it, which is especially disturbing when numerous countries are facing controversy about the F-35.  In the USA the F-35 is already a political disaster because of massive cost overruns.  It's been called a white elephant in several circles, and the Pentagon, apparently, is trying to get Lockheed Martin to absorb some of the cost overruns rather than passing them on to end users.  I'm not sure how well that'll work.

In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office has already basically called the $16 billion cost estimate a joke, putting their estimate at almost double that ($29.3bn).  Further, and most importantly, there's been absolutely no effort to explain to the public why we need this particular aircraft.  I understand the efficiency of skipping a competitive process if there's only one aircraft that meets the requirement, but some effort needs to be undertaken to educate the public why that's the case, or the controversy is not going to go away.  Why, for example, aren't we looking at (currently in production) Super Hornets?  Yeah, not at Gucci as the JSF, but readily available with known costs and capability.  I'm not an Air Force type so I don't know what the argument for the JSF/against the Super Hornet (or any other aircraft for that matter) is, and neither do voters.

Oh yeah, and remember that whole "contempt of parliament" thing that brought down the government? (why aren't Liberals capitalizing more on that, by the way?)  That was primarily about the F-35 and the government's unwillingness to give the opposition more information about the program.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.



Source?  Most of his statements indicate that they know a CF-18 replacement's needed, and quickly, they're just not sold on the JSF.  I cannot find any reference whatsoever to support your claim, but by all means, prove me wrong.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.



Nice hyperbole.  The policy is to demand the public's money be used in an efficient manner.  They're going to have to replace the Hornets with something - and Ignatieff has said that repeatedly, but for the reasons I've outlined, they seem to feel they need to sell it better to the public.  Frankly, spending $30bn on education or healthcare rather than really fancy fighter jets is going to appeal to a lot of voters.  Further, since that $30bn (and hey, at least you're using the right numbers, not the cooked up $16bn) is a capital expenditure, I don't think it figures into that metric anyhow.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.



It did result in a dark decade, but I think the public mostly understands that know, and I hope that the Liberals do too.  Someone like Ignatieff probably does more than most, I'd expect.  There's a need to balance the guns/butter tradeoff somehow, and it's only reasonable to expect that the public have as much input as possible into that.


----------



## Dissident (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Further, since that $30bn (and hey, at least you're using the right numbers, not the cooked up $16bn) is a capital expenditure, I don't think it figures into that metric anyhow.



Have we not established in the CF35 thread that the $16b vs $30b were essentially the same, but that the $30b accounted for was over a longer period of time? I remember an analysis of the $30b accounted being broken down somewhere here.

Getting caught up in the headlines I see.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... I think the public mostly understands that know, and I hope that the Liberals do too.  Someone like Ignatieff probably does more than most, I'd expect.  There's a need to balance the guns/butter tradeoff somehow, and it's only reasonable to expect that the public have as much input as possible into that.




What *ALL* the Liberals understand is "we gotta get our snouts back in the trough" and "we can promise anything to win, no one cares after we're elected."


----------



## Jed (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It did result in a dark decade, but I think the public mostly understands that know, and I hope that the Liberals do too.  Someone like Ignatieff probably does more than most, I'd expect.  There's a need to balance the guns/butter tradeoff somehow, and it's only reasonable to expect that the public have as much input as possible into that.



Redeye, you seem to have a very short memory wrt Liberal Party SOP on these Defence procurement issues. Take off those rose coloured glasses and maybe you will see more clearly.


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What *ALL* the Liberals understand is "we gotta get our snouts back in the trough" and "we can promise anything to win, no one cares after we're elected."



So true and if we need any proof of that just look at the 1993 election promises and how many of them were fulfilled.

KJK


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

One interesting thing that I haven't seen so far is Omar Khadr's name and situation being used to hammer the CPC. In fact I haven't heard anything about him at all lately.

KJK


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> So true and if we need any proof of that just look at the 1993 election promises and how many of them were fulfilled.
> 
> KJK



I'm too busy in awe of all that transparency and accountability we've gotten from the CPC to look back that far.  Oh, weren't they going to refuse to appoint Senators and work towards the "Triple-E Senate"?  Right.

Well, at least they cut the GST.  A lot of good that did us.   :

I hate when it's election season and I feel the obligation to vote as my civic duty, but I can't find a single party worth voting for.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2011)

> Van der Linden said the tool has been widely used in *Belgium*, Spain and the Netherlands for the past 10 years.
> "In Europe, this is a fixture of democratic discourse," he said.




Mass striptease to protest Belgium's world record
Sex ban suggested for Belgian coalition negotiators

Anybody suppose there might be a connection?


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm too busy in awe of all that transparency and accountability we've gotten from the CPC to look back that far.  Oh, weren't they going to refuse to appoint Senators and work towards the "Triple-E Senate"?  Right.
> 
> Well, at least they cut the GST.  A lot of good that did us.   :
> 
> I hate when it's election season and I feel the obligation to vote as my civic duty, but I can't find a single party worth voting for.



It's pretty tough to work toward a Triple E senate when 1 opposition party won't hear of any changes and the other wants it abolished. 

I believe the CPC did ask the provinces to elect their Senators but most of them flipped the Feds the bird.

The GST cut I am a fan of even though it isn't optimal from an economists point of view. Anything that restricts the government's ability to increase in size is good IMHO. I know you will bring up the debt and deficit but I believe that it should be cuts to programs to reduce the debt not tax increases. I personally would love to see a law stating that spending can't be increased more than a combination of population growth times inflation but that shall we say is extremely unlikely. ;D

KJK


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2011)

Heard the Ignatieff ad on the radio for the first time: epic fail

Against the CF-35 purchase: Project initiated by the Chretien government in 1997, and supported by Mr Martin, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff (until he didn't support it) 

Against tax cuts to business: cuts his party voted in favour of back in 2007
  
Add the "against the Coalition" despite the fact he signed on and the document outlining the coalition agreement does not expire until June this year and we have essentially a man campaigning against his own party...Is his old office at Harvard still free?

Jack Layton's election promises are almost as good; forcibly capping interest rates and service charges on credit cards will do wonders as everyone's card debt is called, credit is eliminated to a huge number of people and merchant accounts are closed by the banks. If you think easy credit is bad then this is actually a good thing (although I would not go about tightening credit in quite _this_ manner... >)

So far the Prime Minister seems to have two themes; follow the economic recovery plan and fear the coalition. I am +1 for the first but really don't see much of an upside for the second (and I am a political junkie), so -1 on that.

That screeching noise in the background from the Green Party will go away if you ignore it; the NDP and Bloc have similar economic policies and I doubt anyone will seriously campaign to kill the whales in order to feed the people (heh).

Prediction; another minority after the polls close followed by an attempt by the opposition parties to force a coalition. The participation of the Bloc will be the critical factor; how this is handled will determine the reaction of His Excelency the GG and the Canadian public.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> It's pretty tough to work toward a Triple E senate when 1 opposition party won't hear of any changes and the other wants it abolished.
> 
> I believe the CPC did ask the provinces to elect their Senators but most of them flipped the Feds the bird.
> 
> ...




The answer to the HST dilemma is, in my opinion a carbon tax, paid to the government by all _producers, processors, transporters, wholesalers and retailers, etc_ and then always, 100% of the time, without regard to anything, passed completely on to the consumer; you and me. This would impact the cost of damned nearly everything I consume, to some degree or another: my heat/hydro, gas for the car, my grocery bill, my morning papers and my next flight to China. All the processors get their taxes rebated, the retailer does not but he gets it back from the consumer. The consumer pays 100% of the bill, all the time - as (s)he always must.


----------



## Haletown (30 Mar 2011)

More on the CBC . . shilling for their patron saint - the Liberal Party of Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNU3sL8T8RI&feature=player_embedded

Besides being funny, this is actually quite disgusting.  This is a publicly funded broadcasting organization, one that professes to professional and unbiased. That claims to be honest, to tell Canadians the truth, to be impartial, to cover all sides of a story.  

Hogwash.

And an entity that consumes over  $1 Billion taxpayer dollars every year.  Maybe that is just a coincidence, but the CBC costs about the same as those F-35's.

So which is providing Canadians with better value for money spent.

The Canadian Broadcorping Castration, so not entitles to having a lip-lock on the public teat any longer.

Defund the CBC and buy 65 additional F-35's ??  

What a jolly good idea  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm too busy in awe of all that transparency and accountability we've gotten from the CPC to look back that far.  Oh, weren't they going to refuse to appoint Senators and work towards the "Triple-E Senate"?  Right.


In all honesty, they would have to change the constitution to do so, requiring concurrence of the provinces.  I do believe that they are working towards this; however, I do believe that the point is that it was touted as a "top priority"; however other things got in the way (economic crash, etc)


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, at least they cut the GST.  A lot of good that did us.   :


It costs me less to buy things, so, it helped me out anyway.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> I hate when it's election season and I feel the obligation to vote as my civic duty, but I can't find a single party worth voting for.


I feel your pain; however, do as I do and vote the same way every time: by secret ballot ;D

Actually, when I vote, I do so keeping an eye on the party, but focussing as best as I can on the individual representative of my riding, Prince Edward-Hastings.


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The answer to the HST dilemma is, in my opinion a carbon tax, paid to the government by all _producers, processors, transporters, wholesalers and retailers, etc_ and then always, 100% of the time, without regard to anything, passed completely on to the consumer; you and me. This would impact the cost of damned nearly everything I consume, to some degree or another: my heat/hydro, gas for the car, my grocery bill, my morning papers and my next flight to China. All the processors get their taxes rebated, the retailer does not but he gets it back from the consumer. The consumer pays 100% of the bill, all the time - as (s)he always must.



E.R.

The business man in me knows you are correct that we need some sort of consumption tax nation wide, whatever it may be called. The oil patch worker in me nearly has a meltdown when I hear about a carbon tax. Look at BC's attempt and what people think of their carbon tax and they don't depend nearly as much as Alberta on oil production for their economy. Would you want to try to sell a national carbon tax in AB and SK? Rightly or wrongly it would be branded as NEP II and the fallout would be unreal. Too many people remember NEP I. It would be political suicide and assuming that BC and AB get those extra seats in the house the chance of it happening would even lower IMO.

The other part that bothers me about reducing income tax in favor of a large nation wide sales tax is the immigrant factor. As I posted earlier the immigrants and temporary workers in my neighborhood send very large sums of money out of the country and I'm sure what I see must be the tip of the iceberg. If we were to lower income taxes a great deal in favor of a sales/carbon tax that would allow even larger sums of money to leave the country with no benefit to our economy or government in the form of taxes. Would that mean we would then have to restrict money transfers out of country or tax them? It seems to me to be better the way we have it now but I have no formal education in business just what I picked up in the school of hard knocks.

Fire away.  ;D

KJK


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

That's a great big failure of a video.  Buddy proves nothing.

Given that the compass works by trying to plot responses against a two axis spectrum (social and economic positions), and the Liberal Party tends to fall in the middle, choosing all "middle" options probably would result in a Liberal outcome.  That's hardly "rigged", that's pretty much the predictable outcome.  Someone who doesn't take strong positions on social or economic issues will likely wind up in the centre, which is roughly on the Canadian spectrum where the LPC lies - the ambiguous "all-inclusive, be all things to all people" mushy middle.  I don't think that's a design issue by CBC, that's the reality of Canadian politics.  Besides, the tool's primary concept is to try to get people interested in the process, perhaps to get them discussing issues.  Given how pathetic voter turnout has been in the last few elections, that's not bad.

I do think their scatterplot is a little bit too simplified and linear perhaps, though it seems like there is a weighting feature built in that allows you to recalculate the plot based on choosing which issues are most important to you which does shift the result.  By this I mean it plots the CPC as probably more social conservative than it actually has been, though a majority might change that.  I find myself doubting that, mainly because it seems like they know that going really hard on social conservatism will see them booted from office fairly quickly.

As for the rest of this nonsense post (and really, that's what it is, and I'm not going to apologize for calling a spade a spade), well, you're not going to see broad public support for defunding the CBC any time soon.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> More on the CBC . . shilling for their patron saint - the Liberal Party of Canada
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNU3sL8T8RI&feature=player_embedded
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye, did you not take SHARP training? You cannot say (or think) 





> calling a spade a spade


----------



## GR66 (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> The oil patch worker in me nearly has a meltdown when I hear about a carbon tax. Look at BC's attempt and what people think of their carbon tax and they don't depend nearly as much as Alberta on oil production for their economy. Would you want to try to sell a national carbon tax in AB and SK? Rightly or wrongly it would be branded as NEP II and the fallout would be unreal. Too many people remember NEP I. It would be political suicide and assuming that BC and AB get those extra seats in the house the chance of it happening would even lower IMO.



Don't call it a Carbon Tax, it's simply a consumption tax that includes energy.  Don't weight it toward simply those forms of energy which produce the most carbon...apply it to ALL forms of energy equally.  Stop giving government subsidies (hidden and otherwise) to energy production so that consumers pay the real full price of the energy they use.  That will ultimately force consumers and business to become more efficient in their energy expenditures.

Ultimately, that's the solution to Global Warming that the enviro crowd are missing.  The problem is not that we're using too much "dirty" energy...it's that we're using too much energy PERIOD.  Put the market signals in place to drive companies and consumers to become more efficient in their energy use and we'll use less energy overall (and become "greener" as a result).  It will also make Canadian companies more competitive in the global market vs. other countries that don't force their industries to be efficient as energy prices worldwide continue to climb.

Apologies to ERC for jumping in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> E.R.
> 
> The business man in me knows you are correct that we need some sort of consumption tax nation wide, whatever it may be called. The oil patch worker in me nearly has a meltdown when I hear about a carbon tax. Look at BC's attempt and what people think of their carbon tax and they don't depend nearly as much as Alberta on oil production for their economy. Would you want to try to sell a national carbon tax in AB and SK? Rightly or wrongly it would be branded as NEP II and the fallout would be unreal. Too many people remember NEP I. It would be political suicide and assuming that BC and AB get those extra seats in the house the chance of it happening would even lower IMO.
> 
> ...




I understand your points, but I think we need a carbon tax for three reasons:

1. To encourage _optimal_ use - use gas, for example, for mobility and, to the degree possible non-carbon fuels (nuclear, hydro, etc) for _static_ operations;

2. Change behavior - encourage people to use less and less carbon, for the sake of the atmosphere and, consequently, the public's heath; and

3. Raise revenue.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2011)

Foreign remittances may not be a net benefit for the local economy, but it is great for Canadian exporters, who can easily sell their products and be paid in Canadian dollars. This frees the exporters to a large extent from currency exchange risks, and buyers appreciate no fuss transactions as well.

A lowered GST/HST also means the immigrant workers also have more to spend on local goods and services, which is where the boost to the local economy comes from. Really, tax cuts are a net benefit to everyone (even government workers, since a growing economy can pay for the @13% differential between private and public service union wages and @ 33% differentials when public sector benefits are added).


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Foreign remittances may not be a net benefit for the local economy, but it is great for Canadian exporters, who can easily sell their products and be paid in Canadian dollars. This frees the exporters to a large extent from currency exchange risks, and buyers appreciate no fuss transactions as well.



Thucydides,

That is an interesting point and one I hadn't considered at all. I'm not sure how many of these countries can afford to buy much from Canada but if they already have some of our currency in could save maybe .5-2% of the purchase in exchange fees and every little bit helps.

ERC, I believe you are correct but I still think it would be a very tough sell.

GR66 - It could be developed as a carbon tax but it would have to be sold to the public out here anyway as anything but a carbon tax.

KJK


----------



## kratz (30 Mar 2011)

From today's [ur=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Internet+rumours+Harper+candidacy+illegal/4522736/story.htmll]Ottawa Citizen[/url]

We all know the election is 2 May 2011, but the news is reporting a new twist that should be interesting to watch, Advance Polls are scheduled over the Easter weekend. How many people will make it out to the advanced polls?




> HOP TO THE POLLS
> 
> The dates for advance polls will fall on Easter weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

The tough sell part is the problem - it's all going to be in marketing.  I happen to believe that the sooner we rework the tax system to account for those presently externalized costs, the easier it will be to adjust to the reality that we squander resources at an alarming rate.  The fact is that tax incentivization works.  If we learned anything from Stephane Dion's campaigning on the "Green Shift" concept, it's that the presentation and marketing is the key.



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> Thucydides,
> 
> That is an interesting point and one I hadn't considered at all. I'm not sure how many of these countries can afford to buy much from Canada but if they already have some of our currency in could save maybe .5-2% of the purchase in exchange fees and every little bit helps.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If we learned anything from Stephane Dion's campaigning on the "Green Shift" concept, it's that the presentation and marketing is the key.



I'd rather we have the right plan coupled with a subpar marketing effort than some hodge-podge vote-grab plan with a great used car salesman pitch.


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd rather we have the right plan coupled with a subpar marketing effort than some hodge-podge vote-grab plan with a great used car salesman pitch.



Ideally, I want both, because even a perfect plan has to be sold to the masses in some fashion, particularly if it represents a major shift in how things are done, which any such changes would likely need to be.


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I happen to believe that the sooner we rework the tax system to account for those presently externalized costs, the easier it will be to adjust to the reality that we squander resources at an alarming rate.



You have to be care about wording Redeye. Some people say I 'squander' resources because I drive a full size 4WD truck instead of a subcompact. Not true, on the roads I use to get to work a Prius wouldn't completely fill some of the holes. We have to bear in mind that the further you get from either coast and the further north you get the energy requirement changes and not for the better. A few weeks ago at work it was -39 for several days while Medicine Hat was -6 and I believe Toronto was above 0. This is one reason why the people on the prairies dislike a carbon tax, their energy requirements day to day are far higher than someone in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax etc. My commute to work is 4.5 hours one way when the roads are good and maybe 7-8 hours when they are not. This is not easily comparable to driving across Toronto. Yes you have traffic, I have holes and heaves big enough to lose a car in, muskeg, moose and lots of mud. Needless to say though my truck is EPA rated at 20mpg I'm lucky to get half of that. I don't know if you could make a carbon tax fair for everyone, the country is huge and conflicting interests many.

KJK


----------



## foresterab (30 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I understand your points, but I think we need a carbon tax for three reasons:
> 
> 1. To encourage _optimal_ use - use gas, for example, for mobility and, to the degree possible non-carbon fuels (nuclear, hydro, etc) for _static_ operations;
> 
> ...



E.R...under this proposal does  this mean that we will consider hydro power as a natural resource for the puroposes of calculating equalization payments?  Because either you have the rivers to dam or you do not just like minerals to mine.

Dealing with some issues at work that are somewhat related in terms of non-carbon fuel based power generation.  Wood co-generation or pure generation of power is a possibility but most power facilities are not set up to allow them to switch source fuels...apparently Finland has multiple plants that are able to switch between coal/oil/gas/wood depending upon which is the cheapest feed stock at the time. I wonder how much funding it would cost to convert Canada's power plants over to a similar set-up starting with the worst emitters first irrespective of province?   To me this is the sort of national energy program that I could support assuming it was funded off the federal gov'ts share of the non-renewable resources revenue


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> You have to be care about wording Redeye. Some people say I 'squander' resources because I drive a full size 4WD truck instead of a subcompact. Not true, on the roads I use to get to work a Prius wouldn't completely fill some of the holes. We have to bear in mind that the further you get from either coast and the further north you get the energy requirement changes and not for the better. A few weeks ago at work it was -39 for several days while Medicine Hat was -6 and I believe Toronto was above 0. This is one reason why the people on the prairies dislike a carbon tax, their energy requirements day to day are far higher than someone in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax etc. My commute to work is 4.5 hours one way when the roads are good and maybe 7-8 hours when they are not. This is not easily comparable to driving across Toronto. Yes you have traffic, I have holes and heaves big enough to lose a car in, muskeg, moose and lots of mud. Needless to say though my truck is EPA rated at 20mpg I'm lucky to get half of that. I don't know if you could make a carbon tax fair for everyone, the country is huge and conflicting interests many.
> 
> KJK





Good points; I think you can use the tax system, rebates etc, to soften the blow, but, of course, not perfectly equalize, the impact of a carbon tax on rural Canada.


----------



## KJK (30 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good points; I think you can use the tax system, rebates etc, to soften the blow, but, of course, not perfectly equalize, the impact of a carbon tax on rural Canada.



Very true but the cynic in me says that that statement could also be translated to "Western Canada is going to take it in the wallet again!" ;D

KJK


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> Very true but the cynic in me says that that statement could also be translated to "Western Canada is going to take it in the wallet again!" ;D



The cynicism makes sense, I can't argue that.  It will take some creativity to find ways to address that issue for sure, that will be part of the process of figuring out how to do things different.

In October I visited the JFK Presidential Library at Columbia Point in Boston.  At the very end of the very well laid out "tour", you come into a massive glass structure with a huge American flag, and you come face to face with the close of Kennedy's 1960 Inaugural Speech: "All this will not be done in the first one hundred days, or the first one thousand days, or in the life of this Administration, or even perhaps in our lifetimes on this planet. But let us begin."

That statement's been a good inspiring point to start thinking about this the need for new ideas.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Mar 2011)

The latest wrinkle (reproduced under S29 of the Copyright Act):



> NDP candidate withdraws, backs Liberal
> 
> LONDON, Ont. -- In a move that has reignited talk of a coalition, an NDP candidate in this southern Ontario city has surprised everyone, including his own party, by withdrawing from the election race and throwing his support behind his Liberal rival.
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2011)

And again, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantinos-liberal-rival-defects-throws-support-behind-tories/article1963805/


> Fantino’s Liberal rival defects, throws support behind Tories
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Fun and games.


----------



## GR66 (30 Mar 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> Very true but the cynic in me says that that statement could also be translated to "Western Canada is going to take it in the wallet again!" ;D
> 
> KJK



Don't worry....the West has both energy and food.  I don't see the world prices of either going down any time soon.  A system like this wouldn't be put in place overnight either....and the negative market incentives against high energy use will also trigger innovation in energy efficiency...even in your SUV.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Mar 2011)

Exhibit C: From the Conservative campaign trail, this Tweet by CTV's Robert Fife: @RobertFife: At Brampton plant, Harper put workgloves on backwards. Laureen showed him how they were to be worn. 
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2011/03/-king-for-a-day.html

Remind anyone of this?


----------



## Jed (30 Mar 2011)

Somehow putting gloves on backwards just does not equate to putting a helmet on backwards or a hair net on your noggin in a chesse factory, etc. Just my opinion though.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Mar 2011)

I'm telling youg guys that you'll get better governance from the Cat in the Hat and Yertle the Turtle than some of these guys.

I do not like green eggs and ham. Said Sam I Am.....might make a good Minister of the Environment.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Mar 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Exhibit C: From the Conservative campaign trail, this Tweet by CTV's Robert Fife: @RobertFife: At Brampton plant, Harper put workgloves on backwards. Laureen showed him how they were to be worn.



How do you put work gloves on backwards??  ???


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2011)

This is like one of those dreams where you are running down a hall which never ends.....

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/03/ignatieff-finally-admits-plan-to-take.html



> *Ignatieff Finally Admits Plan To Take Power From A Conservative Minority...*
> 
> I've done two previous posts this week begging someone in the media to ask Ignatieff if he would support a Conservative minority budget should Stephen Harper win another minority government. I actually left a comment for the National Post's John Ivison on a column he did about the coalition talk being done with and put to rest, asking him to ask Ignatieff that question. Today we got the answer: "
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (31 Mar 2011)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> When I used the application I received a result of Social Conservative, which is a quite accurate.



Right where I landed...and it told me to vote Liberal.

Then I went and tried messing with it and it told me to vote Liberal.

Anyone remember the online career chooser the CF used to have? You'd answer bunches of multiple choice questions and be given a list of trades you might want to check out. No matter if you said you hated cooking and could not even boil water the bloody thing would suggest that you become a cook.

I could have sorted this Liberal as an answer problem with one question:

How much do you trust Michael Ignatieff?
a) about as much as I trust Stephen Harper
b) about as much as Jack Layton
*c) about as far as I could throw Bev Oda*
d) about as much as Gilles Duceppe

And I'd likely still be told to vote Liberal. :facepalm:

Objectivity: Fail.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2011)

Here is this morning’s _projection_ from ThreeHundredEight.com:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

The reasons for the changes, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, are:



> Liberals see an uptick in vote, Bloc gains a seat
> 
> Nanos Research's daily tracking has already come up with its first little shift, putting the Liberals within seven points of the Conservatives. And when we add the riding polls recently released by Segma Recherche, the result is a better situation for both Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe.
> 
> ...








Harold Wilson, former British (Labour) prime minister who said that
_“A week is a long time in politics.”_ We Canadians are nearing the end of the
first of six weeks of campaigning. I expect voter preferences to ebb and flow
again and again in the five weeks remaining.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

This is where Political Compass put me (the UK application).  The CBC application had me much farther to the right (economically) and further "south" socially.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Mar 2011)

Hmm... I think I'd label those quadrants:


North Korea  |  Germany
-------------+-----------
Scandinavia  |  USA


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2011)

I'm almost exactly with Milton Friedman in the UK test:






On the CBC "test" I was slightly more _socially liberal_ than the Conservatives but, also, a bit more to the right economically. That may be because of my views on e.g. same sex marriage, in fact marriage of all kinds, etc, about which I believe the government should take no interest save to help enforce domestic contracts to protect children and property.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Mar 2011)

Interesting how the UK and CBC results compare, especially given the tone of questions asked in each - thanks for pointing out the UK version, TV.


----------



## Nemo888 (31 Mar 2011)

Why is a coalition a scary thing? It wasn't fair when the Reform and Conservatives split the vote. The right was not represented in Federal politics for a decade because of that. Why can't the middle and left work together?


----------



## HavokFour (31 Mar 2011)

Apparently Ottawa—Orléans representative Royal Galipeau took that CBC political gimmick test and got Liberal as a result.

He's a Conservative...


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2011)

A coalition itself is not scary; but a coalition with the Bloc as a main player is just not palatable for most of Canada, especially the Western part of Canada.


----------



## Dissident (31 Mar 2011)

Pretty much where the CBC one was for me.

And I tend to be more Libertarian than ER Campbell? 

What shocked me a bit was that this website equated Anarchism with Libertarianism.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

One point to note is the major difference between the CBC "spectrum" and the british one.  The "left and right" match, but the "up and down" are inverted between the two.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> What shocked me a bit was that this website equated Anarchism with Libertarianism.


No government = anarchy, no?  Isn't that 'similar' to Libertarianism (to the extreme, mind you)


----------



## Dissident (31 Mar 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No government = anarchy, no?  Isn't that 'similar' to Libertarianism (to the extreme, mind you)



I guess to the extreme. I always saw Libertarianism as "with as little government as possible", not "No government whatsoever".


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (31 Mar 2011)

When you start labeling you end up with a lot of nonsense.  A classical liberal is todays conservative.  Todays liberals believe in more government, not less.  People try to peg the Nazi's as right wing conservatives - wrong.  They were left wing liberals(todays liberal).


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Mar 2011)

I am going to start my own party - The Cat in the Hat Party. 

Sam I Am is going to run for PM.
Yertle the Turtle will be Minister of the Environment.

We can go places in the Thingamajigger.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> People try to peg the Nazi's as right wing conservatives - wrong.  They were left wing liberals(todays liberal).


Not quite







As you can see, in terms of the social scale, they are shown as Authoritarian.  Having said that, they were pretty well centrist in the economics scale.  

For today's leaders, they have this:







As you can see, Mr. Harper is about the same as Frau Merkel of Germany when it comes to economics, but between Mr. Rudd and and Mr. Brown when it comes to the social scale.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

Also see this rather dated scale from the US primaries of 2008.  Note from this and the previous post that Mr. Harper is close to where Mr. Obama is.  Much closer, in fact, than where he is vis-a-vis Mr. Bush


----------



## Acer Syrup (31 Mar 2011)

Am I the only that didn't notice this till now, but have you seen the ND Party, that is Jack Layton, lately? He looks like he just walked out of Liberal internment camp.  I didn't know that he fighting prostate cancer and just had hip surgury. Intense. Has this been swept quickly under carpet or am I really out of touch since I got rid of cable TV a couple year ago?


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Mar 2011)

Acer Syrup said:
			
		

> Am I the only that didn't notice this till now, but have you seen the ND Party, that is Jack Layton, lately? He looks like he just walked out of Liberal internment camp.  I didn't know that he fighting prostate cancer and just had hip surgury. Intense. Has this been swept quickly under carpet or am I really out of touch since I got rid of cable TV a couple year ago?


You may have missed it.  Mr. Layton made a statement when the news broke that he would retain his full duties of leader of the party during his treatment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2011)

Acer Syrup said:
			
		

> Am I the only that didn't notice this till now, but have you seen the ND Party, that is Jack Layton, lately? He looks like he just walked out of Liberal internment camp.  I didn't know that he fighting prostate cancer and just had hip surgury. Intense. Has this been swept quickly under carpet or am I really out of touch since I got rid of cable TV a couple year ago?



Sorry. Didn't mean to wake you up!  ;D


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (31 Mar 2011)

Why is Harper wearing the emergency room Tim Horton's in the TV ad?  In fact it is a BC Liberal response to a temporary space emergency.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2011)

Surprise surprise, the creator of the Vote Compass was a policy advisor for the Liberals:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/03/31/17829881.html


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2011)

But I do like the graphic for the story   :nod:


----------



## HavokFour (31 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Surprise surprise, the creator of the Vote Compass was a policy advisor for the Liberals:
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/03/31/17829881.html



Ohhhhhh boy, this will go down _well_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2011)

A two-axis plot that has variations of "libertarian" on both axes does not really have orthogonal axes and is not much help to voters trying to place themselves.  Nor is a two-axis plot helpful to replace the left-right spectrum if it labels one of its axes left-right.  At least one of the axes should be some variation on total collectivism-pure individualism.  Anarchism is the extreme of individualism.  Communism (in its purest incarnation) is the extreme of collectivism.  For the other axis, pick something which is not just a rewording of collective vs individual.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Mar 2011)

I ended up Northeast of Dead Centre and Southwest of Obama.....still can't stand the man.  There again I would never vote for me either.

There was a question in there about discipline.  I wonder if that word holds the key to the  universe.  

Four Types of People:

Authoritarian - those that like to discipline others (sadists)
Socialists - those that are willing to be disciplined or like to be disciplined by others (masochists)
Libertarians - those that will only accept self-discipline and expect others to be self-disciplined
Anarchists - those that reject discipline.

Any takers?


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> For the other axis, pick something which is not just a rewording of collective vs individual.


Perhaps the four axes should be "on top," "on bottom," "in between others," and "standing on side, holding camera" -- corresponding to Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and BlocFLQ/Green?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2011)

And yet another defection, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-candidate-in-mississauga-bows-out-to-support-tories/article1966445/


> NDP candidate in Mississauga bows out to support Tories
> 
> ADRIAN MORROW
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I think that’s three already: one Liberal (who dropped out to support Conservative Julian Fantino) and two _Dippers_ (one to the Liberals and this one to the Tories).


----------



## Infanteer (1 Apr 2011)

The defections seem to indicate that people may be thinking that want to be on the right side of a narrow majority?

That being said, I can't help but think Stephen Harper's first week was pretty lame.  First, he harps about a coalition while Duceppe calls him on it.  Now he pipes out about a tete-a-tete debate (whichs seemed up Ignatief's alley) and when Iggy calls his bluff, he backs down to his shoddy coalition schtick.

He's gotta do better than that....


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2011)

Well, I got home to a telemarketer spam-style voicemail from the local Liberal candidate.   :


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Apr 2011)

I agree with Infanteer that the first week has been a bit...blasé.  But those defections....is it April Fools' day or something?


----------



## GAP (1 Apr 2011)

In some cases, I think the rank and file nominees just can't force themselves to drink the "going down with the ship"  KoolAid.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Apr 2011)

On the CBC National radio news, it was stated over 900,000 Canadians (anyone, from anywhere could fill in "your province/territory") have taken the CBC's Vote Compass.

Agree, Mr. Harper looks tired. Laureen Harper did not look happy at all during the piano interlude in Winnipeg.

I don't care who you are. The continuous slamming by the media is depressing.


----------



## Navalsnpr (1 Apr 2011)

Well considering this election didn't have to happen and that it is estimated that it will cost approximately $300 Million of tax payers money to run the election, I intend to ask any politician or wanna-be who does not belong to the conservative party for $21.92 for my time. If they don't want to pay, then they will get no audience with me!!

In 2008 13,686,146 voted in the Federal elections.. divide that by the estimated $300 Million it will cost and you get $21.92 per actual voter.

I wonder how many files that were on various ministers desks across all departments of the Government are now on hold because of this election. 

My 2 cents!

Just to clarify, the $21.92 isn't for my vote, just for my time to listen to their pitch!


----------



## Scott (1 Apr 2011)

So with your two cents you're willing to accept $21.90? ;D

I agree with you, though.

And as far as this vote compass load of bullshit goes: most people I know who have taken it (that wish to volunteer how they thought of voting) haven't changed their minds because they considered the source. It's not just folks like us that get sick of the CBC malingerers always trying to do their best to slam the CPC.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2011)

The defections suggest the shallowness of their convictions, although personally, I'd rather they walk before the elections than cross the floor once Parliament is in session -- regardless of which way they're going.


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I don't care who you are. The continuous slamming by the media is depressing.



Gee, then imagine the candidate who's been hit by attack ads and little more of substance since he became leader of the party...

I've got to agree with Infanteer, though.  Harper's actually got to put some effort into his campaigning, especially if Ignatieff figures out how to do it and starts somehow resonating with Canadians...  It's only a week in but this could, potentially, get very, very interesting.


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

I agree, better than floor-crossing... but this early, it's not really a big thing - the parties will simply nominate new candidates to take the place of the "defectors".



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> The defections suggest the shallowness of their convictions, although personally, I'd rather they walk before the elections than cross the floor once Parliament is in session -- regardless of which way they're going.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2011)

The latest from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ is their analysis:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> Wild swings in projection as Liberals roar ahead*
> 
> My grandfather once gave me three words to live by: patience, tolérance, détente. The first two mean the same thing in French and English, while the last means to relax, to take it easy. In other words, not to sweat the little things. And with Nanos Research the only polling firm reporting six days after the campaign has started, I think I need to take his advice to heart. But from what I can tell, at this time last year Harris-Decima, Ipsos Reid, Angus-Reid, and EKOS had all started reporting regularly, in addition to Nanos. What's the hold up?
> 
> ...




And, further, there is this analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/regional-poll-numbers-could-turn-over-a-lot-of-seats-for-harper/article1966649/


> Regional poll numbers could ‘turn over a lot of seats’ for Harper
> 
> BILL CURRY
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



So, at the end of the first week on the campaign trail, _"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”_ as Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Kar said.


----------
* I think the _ThreeHundredEight.com analysis headline "Liberals roar ahead" is their April Fools joke.__
_


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

This, from the not-normally-labelled "liberal media" Calgary Herald.  Fair dealing provisions apply...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/survey+biased/4540372/story.html

CBC survey isn't biased


Calgary Herald April 1, 2011 3:03 AM 
  
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but CBC's much-maligned Vote Compass, an online survey designed to tell users where they stand politically, is not rigged in favour of the Liberals.

Unlike Queen's University political science Prof. Kathy Brock, who blindly answered all 30 questions the same way using three different approaches, a member of the Herald's editorial board carefully read the questions and answered each as a rightleaning conservative might respond.

Presto, he was aligned with the Conservative party, first try.

Next, he carefully answered each question as a Liberal might, and came out Liberal. He then posed as a separatist and came out as supporting the BQ. He got lumped in with the Liberals when he tried to answer NDP, but on a second try, was correctly placed in Jack Layton's camp.

Brock completed the survey three times, first selecting the "somewhat agree" response to every question. The second time, she selected "somewhat disagree" to each question, and the third time, she chose "strongly agree." Each time, she came up Liberal, which she said proved the survey on the CBC website is flawed.

Cliff van der Linden, the Toronto researcher who developed the tool, said Brock received those responses because the questions are equally balanced between the left and right side of the political spectrum.

Brock's flawed analysis was, of course, cited by the usual cabal of CBC bashers as proof of the Crown corporation's Liberal bias.

Any informed person familiar with public policy can easily prove them wrong.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/survey+biased/4540372/story.html#ixzz1IH9ds4ts


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2011)

I've never claimed to be the sharpest crayon in the box, but it _appears_ to me that, "equally balanced between the left and right side of the political spectrum," is just a glib phrase, in that "balance" means extreme opposites are cancelled out.

....to wit: 
"Lower taxes" - Strongly Agree
"More government" - Strongly Disagree

The phrases are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but because they are equally opposing views, they cancel one another out, leaving centre or Liberal.

In which case, yes, the "Liberal vote generator" is a rigged game.



Edit: because my examples were RTFO   :-[


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Apr 2011)

> Rifleman62: I don't care who you are. The continuous slamming by the media is depressing.
> 
> 
> Redeye: Gee, then imagine the candidate who's been hit by attack ads and little more of substance since he became leader of the party...



To clarify, depressing to me. A bunch of humanoids,  I have very little respect for, who lack ethics IMHO, get to manufacture news, tell fibs, etc.

Getting hit by "attack" ads (is that like the F-35 being an attack aircraft?), run on a schedule is different from hearing it, seeing it day after day after day.

Mr. Redeye, you and I will seldom agree, but that's what freedom is. That's what the media takes advantage of.


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> To clarify, depressing to me. A bunch of humanoids,  I have very little respect for, who lack ethics IMHO, get to manufacture news, tell fibs, etc.
> 
> Getting hit by "attack" ads (is that like the F-35 being an attack aircraft?), run on a schedule is different from hearing it, seeing it day after day after day.
> 
> Mr. Redeye, you and I will seldom agree, but that's what freedom is. That's what the media takes advantage of.



Candidly, I think the "manufacture of news" in this country isn't nearly as severe as in others, and without beating a dead horse, one need only look at Fox News to see that it's not something that's only confined to one side of the spectrum, and as you well know I'll happily state that I think there's one particular side far more guilty.

That we will seldom agree is fine.  That is, after all, the beauty of our system, and disagreeing (done with civility) and vigourous debate is what makes the democratic system work so well.  The problem is that media can be easily harnessed to flood that debate with misinformation is the problem, and the only way to counter it is to shine as much light as possible on the information regardless of the source.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've never claimed to be the sharpest crayon in the box, but it _appears_ to me that, "equally balanced between the left and right side of the political spectrum," is just a glib phrase, in that "balance" means extreme opposites are cancelled out.
> 
> ....to wit:
> "Lower taxes" - Strongly Agree
> ...



I agree - (disregarding pencils momentarily) - the problem is not with the poll questions per se.  The problem is with the availability of the "opt out" answer - neither agree nor disagree - at the dead centrr - and then placing the Liberals right on top of the "opt out" position.

On the other hand maybe that is the right positioning for the Liberal party these days.  An Obamaesque blank slate that appeals to people with blank minds.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2011)

Some of this discussion has been approached before (especially since I am the biggest offender!  ;D)

Libertarians: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45537/post-399439.html#msg399439

Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html 

So far everyone hunkered down; this is like watching the NHL playoffs when the New Jersey Devils had perfected the Defense Trap play. I don't see any out of left field plays (mixed metaphor alert) until near the end as people get desperate and try to boost the poll numbers one way or another. Frankly, I think we had predicted the themes and outcomes in the Elections 2009 thread.


----------



## KJK (1 Apr 2011)

It looks like Justin's campaign is starting off with a bang so to speak.

http://blog.fagstein.com/2011/04/01/liberal-candidates-qr-code-leads-to-porn-site/comment-page-1/#comment-246683

Gotta watch those typos.

KJK


----------



## Haletown (1 Apr 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> It looks like Justin's campaign is starting off with a bang so to speak.
> 
> http://blog.fagstein.com/2011/04/01/liberal-candidates-qr-code-leads-to-porn-site/comment-page-1/#comment-246683
> 
> ...



that's not a typo, that's a warning to get yourself ready before you bend over and get some "attention"  from Justin.

Just like his father.


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I agree - (disregarding pencils momentarily) - the problem is not with the poll questions per se.  The problem is with the availability of the "opt out" answer - neither agree nor disagree - at the dead centrr - and then placing the Liberals right on top of the "opt out" position.
> 
> On the other hand maybe that is the right positioning for the Liberal party these days.  An Obamaesque blank slate that appeals to people with blank minds.



In so far as the Liberal Party as always seemed to be the party trying to present itself as all things to all people, it's probably not unrealistic to say that people who have no particular feelings on any issue will likely gravitate toward them.  That was always the joke when I was a young Tory - if you don't like what the Grits are selling today, come back tomorrow and they'll have something else.

Not only that, insofar as I understand the methodology of the quiz in terms of accounting for the shift, if the Grits are the "centre" party and "neither agree nor disagree" has to be an option, it seems reasonable to assume that answer would produce no shift on either axis leading one to wind up in the cetnre.


----------



## Jed (1 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not only that, insofar as I understand the methodology of the quiz in terms of accounting for the shift, if the Grits are the "centre" party and "neither agree nor disagree" has to be an option, it seems reasonable to assume  that answer would produce no shift on either axis leading one to wind up in the cetnre.



It only seems reasonable if you are a liberal or you work for CBC, for most others its seems very biased.


----------



## mercius (1 Apr 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> It looks like Justin's campaign is starting off with a bang so to speak.
> 
> http://blog.fagstein.com/2011/04/01/liberal-candidates-qr-code-leads-to-porn-site/comment-page-1/#comment-246683
> 
> ...



don't forget to check today's date...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> It looks like Justin's campaign is starting off with a bang so to speak.
> 
> http://blog.fagstein.com/2011/04/01/liberal-candidates-qr-code-leads-to-porn-site/comment-page-1/#comment-246683
> 
> ...


What Mercius said - also check the comments.....


----------



## KJK (1 Apr 2011)

mercius said:
			
		

> don't forget to check today's date...



 :nod: ;D ;D


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> It only seems reasonable if you are a liberal or you work for CBC, for most others its seems very biased.



Er, no.  I'm neither.  I guess it might look that way if you were desperate to assume there was a bias and couln't be bothered to consider the methodology.  It's just the way things lay out in terms of the actual orientation of the various political parties.  All parties but the Conservatives are in the upper left quandrant (economic left, socially liberal).  

It's just reasonable from a methodology point of view.  All parties but the Conservatives are in the upper left quandrant (economic left, socially liberal).  The Conservatives appear in the lower right (social conservative, economic right).  The thing works by assigning some numerical value along  the X-axis and/or Y-axis depending on one's positions as they answer.  If someone chooses as an answer that they "neither agree nor disagree" then there's no reason to believe that there's any numerical value.  That is, answering with no opinions would put someone at the 0,0 position.  Since the that's closest to where the Liberal Party is positioned on the spectrum, (and that's a reasonable location given its orientation).  So, as the Herald op ed put it, there's no conspiracy.

The compass puts me in the lower right quadrant, but just barely.  The lower part got me because I'm not really a social conservative, but I suppose on the questions related to languages and immigration I am a little more conservative, or at least less liberal than the parties.  Economically put puts me slightly right.  I'm still closest to the Liberals, which I'd consider reasonable both from a consideration of the Conservatives' social position, but that's balanced by the economic consideration which is why I've never voted Liberal (wither the Red Tory PCs, that was my party).


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2011)

Redeye -  I disagree that just because there is an absence of evidence therefore there is no evidence of absence.

The problem comes with the positioning of the Liberal label on the chart.  It might have been fairer to plot the current Liberal party conjointly with the NDP.  The party 6 months ago would have been conjoint with the Tories on the economy and defence (before the F35 brouhaha) and with the NDP on social issues.  Therefore they would have had to have two labels on the chart.  That would have allowed others to infer that they were divided or two-faced.

Putting a single label in the middle might reflect the party's position as expressed by the Count (derived from the law of averages as applied to a man with one foot in boiling water and the other in ice water - on balance he is comforable) but it would not fairly represent a consistent positioning of the party at any fixed point on the spectrum.

They can't take all positions, profess no position then claim a particular position.  And for any outside observer to declare they have a position at all is misleading.

As to the "evidence of conspiracy"  - ask "who benefits".


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2011)

On the Greens in the debate?  They're not - full stop.  Even if the CBC Ombudsman is all for having her participate.


> CBC Ombudsman Kirk LaPointe has added his voice to the Elizabeth May uproar. Although LaPointe has decided not to conduct a review into the Canadian broadcast consortium's decision to exclude the Green Party from the televised leaders' debate, despite what he called "hundreds of complaints", he does have a few choice words for the consortium (which includes the big five: CBC, Radio-Canada,CTV, Global and TVA).
> 
> "There is increased relevance mathematically, politically and journalistically to include in pivotal events any party voters have supported significantly and nationally," LaPointe writes in a blog entry posted to the Office of the Ombudsman website. "It is difficult to discern how the public interest is best served by exclusion ... There might be no better time for the media to demonstrate their commitment to democracy than in an election."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2011)

*"no better time for the media to demonstrate their commitment to democracy"*

Ombudsman, or not, that's really rich coming from the CBC :


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Redeye -  I disagree that just because there is an absence of evidence therefore there is no evidence of absence.
> 
> The problem comes with the positioning of the Liberal label on the chart.  It might have been fairer to plot the current Liberal party conjointly with the NDP.  The party 6 months ago would have been conjoint with the Tories on the economy and defence (before the F35 brouhaha) and with the NDP on social issues.  Therefore they would have had to have two labels on the chart.  That would have allowed others to infer that they were divided or two-faced.
> 
> ...




I agree; giving the Liberals the _centre_ when they are campaigning on the left leads the gullible (most Canadians) to think that their centrist views are paralleled by the Liberal Party of Toronto; they are not. The Liberal Party is an almost exact mirror image of the NDP. Most Liberals and most Liberal voters are centrists but the Party, _per se_ has moved quite far left.

Equally, the Conservatives - on the evidence of five years in power and on their campaign - do not deserve to be labelled as social conservatives. Harper, who controls the party, deserves to be about where I ended up, far "higher" up the "social" ladder, nearer to but still below the middle line. He has not, yet, earned a respectable place with me, father to the economic "right."

There is a socially conservative faction in the Conservative Party but it is less powerful than the economically "right wing" faction in the Liberals but, right now, for Election 2011, the CBC "tool" is a fake that reflects the authors wishes not the political reality.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Apr 2011)

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

Please stop wearing a Support the Troops ribbon during all your photo-ops. We all know what your party is willing to do to the CF to buy votes. You wearing the ribbon is a slap in the face of people that actually care for the CF and its members.

Signed,

Me

Edit: Fixed the last line after an excellent point via PM.


----------



## Gimpy (1 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Ignatieff,
> 
> Please stop wearing a Support the Troops ribbon during all your photo-ops. We all know what your party is willing to do to the CF to buy votes. You wearing the ribbon is a slap in the face of people that actually care for the CF and its members.
> 
> ...



Since when do Support the Troops ribbons strictly mean supporting only budgetary concerns? Is it not possible to support the well-being of troops in Afghanistan and at home without necessarily being in support of the current financial status of the CF? Is Mr. Ignatieff not allowed to support the well-being of troops in Afghanistan and at home simply because of proposed cuts to the CF?

I'll add that I do not agree with the proposed cuts, but I think your statement is unfair because the ribbon is not a political statement (At least in normal circumstances). It is a show of respect and compassion.


----------



## Jed (1 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Since when do Support the Troops ribbons strictly mean supporting only budgetary concerns? Is it not possible to support the well-being of troops in Afghanistan and at home without necessarily being in support of the current financial status of the CF? Is Mr. Ignatieff not allowed to support the well-being of troops in Afghanistan and at home simply because of proposed cuts to the CF?
> 
> I'll add that I do not agree with the proposed cuts, but I think your statement is unfair because the ribbon is not a political statement (At least in normal circumstances). It is a show of respect and compassion.



Gimpy, yes you are correct. This is Canada, all politians and the average Joes have the right to wear a pin or button of their choosing. Iggy could wear a PETA button or a Peace sign or a happy face or a pink ribbon if he wanted to express himself and show his support for whatever strikes his fancy.

In _my opinion_, when I see Iggy wear a support the troops ribbon, and I see him and his party being very hypocritical in their actions, in the past and in their current policy announcements, I have to restrain my urge to rip it off his chest.

I suppose this is the same urge the RSM has when he sees a troop pin some non standard badge on his uniform.  ;D


----------



## Gimpy (1 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Gimpy, yes you are correct. This is Canada, all politians and the average Joes have the right to wear a pin or button of their choosing. Iggy could wear a PETA button or a Peace sign or a happy face or a pink ribbon if he wanted to express himself and show his support for whatever strikes his fancy.
> 
> In _my opinion_, when I see Iggy wear a support the troops ribbon, and I see him and his party being very hypocritical in their actions, in the past and in their current policy announcements, I have to restrain my urge to rip it off his chest.
> 
> I suppose this is the same urge the RSM has when he sees a troop pin some non standard badge on his uniform.  ;D



All I am trying to say is that the ribbon cannot be equated only to budgetary care for troops. It is possible to not support a higher budget for the CF, but to support the safety and well-being of the troops. I definitely understand that wearing the ribbon is a political calculation for Mr. Ignatieff, but it is unfair to characterize it as a slap in the face to "people that actually care for the CF and its members".


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Apr 2011)

I don't think that its possible at all to support a limited CF budget, but still profess to support the troops. A limited budget means we head into a warzone with the Iltis when we needed armored patrol vehicles. I'm not saying we need new trucks every 5 years, but once every 30-40 years is pushing it. Heck, look at the Navy. We've needed new ships for 15-20 years, and its only from the hardwork of the ships' crew that we haven't had more serious safety incidents. No new ships is a direct result of the Liberal decade of darkness.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2011)

This was posted on CBC bias thread, but since the controversy has spread to here:

http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2011/03/cbc-political-compass-is-bs.html



> *CBC Vote Compass is BS*
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been using CBC's Vote Compass to determine which party closely aligns with their views and opinions.
> 
> ...



And watch it done on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNU3sL8T8RI&feature=player_embedded

Actually watching the blogger testing various premutations on screen and coming up Liberal each time is pretty convincing. How this will affect the outcome is not very certain, but if the CPC does pull off a majority I won't be surprised to see the knives come out for the CBC at long last.

WRT the military budget; I recall a time when the fiscal year end was marked by the annual "fire fest" on the ranges rather than the year end purchasefest from the Staples catalogue. How many new desks and ergonomic office chairs do you really need? (To put this in perspective, as a young private my platoon commanders and 2I/C's had oak desks and wooden "kitchen chairs", while the OC's desk was marked by an extra set of drawers and a wooden swivel chair. Needless to say, they were rarely in their office during the day). 

As part of the Brigade G6 staff, I was always stymied by the bryzantine rules and regulations concerning purchases. Even though I was capable of spending vast sums of money to digitize the Brigade, bring extra comms on line and train everyone in sight, getting the funds out to do so was often like digging for gold with a tea spoon...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Regardless of the approvals, the ability to say, year end, "Oops, here's a billion dollars we did not need" suggests failure of DND's internal systems to optimize use of the resources.  TB, PMO, PWGSC and others are all known quantities; delays are know, timelines are known to work through all of those agencies.  It's not rocket science at all.  If DND year after year finds itself with 20%+ of the capital budget unspent then, once again, the problem lies not outside but within the department.




There were, when I served, two problems:

1. DND was, in my day, poorly organized to procure the "stuff" the sailors, soldiers and air force personnel needed. For (just one) example: There was never a clean "hand off' between the _requirements_ folks, who specified (or were supposed to specify) in _operational performance_ terms (and the admirals and generals for whom they worked), and the _engineers_ who translated operational performance goals into hard, suitable for contract terms. There were, in short, too many fingers in the pie and, in my experience, some of them actually tried to scupper project _X_ in the (almost always mistaken) belief that it might help project _Y_; and

2. The entire government of Canada process was flawed. It introduced too many competing "players," most without any financial incentive to keep them honest. It also allowed too many other government departments to feather their own nests at the expense of the money the people of Canada thought (hoped) was being spent on national defence.

Both problems are soluble: one by the DM of DND, the other by the Clerk of the Privy Council.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This was posted on CBC bias thread, but since the controversy has spread to here:
> 
> http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2011/03/cbc-political-compass-is-bs.html
> 
> ...




The _You Tube_ video proves only that Kirkhill (see above a bit) is right: The Liberal "marker" is in the wrong place; see also my comment, just above re: the Conservative marker, too.

See my most recent comments about procurement: the solutions, ALL the solutions, lie within the bureaucracy. It is possible to design a system that allows for a modest level of political direction and interference - which will, and maybe even should occur in a democracy - but is, still, efficient and effective.


----------



## Gimpy (2 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This was posted on CBC bias thread, but since the controversy has spread to here:
> 
> http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2011/03/cbc-political-compass-is-bs.html
> 
> ...



No, actually watching the bloggers "test" is extremely unconvincing. Since when is picking the same answer every time a convincing research method? Others have used the tool by trying to emulate true party values as close as possible and have succeeded as Redeye posted on the last page. The person who made the quiz (who I actually know, which I just found out after reading an article with his name) specifically stated that " the questions are equally split between the left and right side of the political spectrum". Therefore, one will always end up in the center when answering the exact same throughout. 

Furthermore, this blogger didn't fully complete the quiz wherein you can rank issues on importance, thereby possibly moving the Conservatives closer to where you landed, and the Liberals further away and vice versa.

And do you not see the irony in using a biased blog as evidence towards bias in the CBC?


----------



## Infanteer (2 Apr 2011)

Why are we still talking about that stupid compass?  Is this about the election, or about stupid CBC gimics and bloggers with too much spare time?

What I liked today was Harper brought back the notion of getting rid of those subsidies - score another point for getting the fiscal house in order.  I am waiting to see if this gets traction, as it started the whole coalition thing a couple years back.

I can't help but imagine that Harper should have went through with his plan to scrap them and let the coalition form.  Judging by the enmity that arose, Harper could have fallen on his sword for about a week and rode the tide of discontent for about a week before the coalition formed to protect its subsidies was ridden from Parliament by the masses.  He'd probably be sitting in a huge majority government right now.


----------



## armyvern (2 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> The person who made the quiz (who I actually know, which I just found out after reading an article with his name) specifically stated that " the questions are equally split between the left and right side of the political spectrum". Therefore, one will always end up in the center  when answering the exact same throughout.



I'm centrist, but if you think the Liberal party is "central" these days I've got some prime waterfront to sell you in Arizona. That's the problem with this ... anything in the "middle" reverts to Liberal ... and they are FAR from "central" --- nice assumption for this program to run in it's 011011100101 though.

 :facepalm:

I won't be voting for them --- no matter what this damn program keeps telling me.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Apr 2011)

I would be much more interested in a list of major campaign contributors and a test for levels of corruption. Political ideologies are  smoke screens for career politicians. Face the facts, their only job is getting elected. They have no ideals. Every one of them is a used car salesman.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2011)

Nemo, I seldom find myself anyplace close to your positions but in this case i make an exception.

Cynics of the world unite!


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2011)

Fun with numbers - in keeping with yesterday's festivities I assumed that:

1. The general election was held on April Fool's Day;

2. _ThreeHindredEight.com's_ projections (see below) stood up; and

3. We had adopted the simplest possible form of proportional representation (% of popular vote (above 5%) = % of seats in commons).

Here are _ThreeHundredEight.com's_ figues for 1 Apr 11:






Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/
Based on regional data the Conservatives, with just under 40% of the popular vote, get just under 50%
of the seats; the Greens, with almost 7% of the popular vote get none of the seats.

Here are my _PR_ results:

	            BQ	CON	GRN	 LIB	 NDP	*TOTAL*
BC	          0	   15	    4	     9	     8	    36
AB	          0	   18	    2	     5	     3	    28
Prairies	  0	   15	    1	     6	     6	    28
ON	         0	   46	    7	   36	   17	  106
QC	       30	   15	    4	   15	   11	    75
Atlantic	  0	   12	    2	   12	     6	    32
North	     0	     1	    0	     1	     1	      3
*TOTAL	30	 122	 20	  84	  52	  308*

I had to round up a (very) few times, always in favour of the top or, in one case, top two parties in a province or region.

As expected and as advertised by its proponents _PR_ rewards the minor parties and, I suspect would guarantee eternal minority governments and equally eternal Liberal/Green/NDP coaliitons, even after major seat additions to favour suburban BC, AB and ON, which _might_, in the not too distant future, make majorities easier in the current, first past the post, system (by reducing the relative weight of QC's 75 seats).


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Apr 2011)

Funny how we never heard any chatter about Proportional Representation when the Liberals were in government. In any event, if the threehundredeight.com projections hold, and the Conservatives are 4 seats short of an absolute majority, it will make things interesting for the opposition. Will they consider it a repudiation of their "legitimacy"? I highly doubt it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is one poll I like to track. It is not scientific but I'm guessing that it's useful.
> 
> At this moment (you may see different numbers when you view it) over 1,000 people have responded, over 700 of them from Ontario and nearly 900 are in the 55 to 74 age group.
> 
> ...




Here are the latest results from CARP:

1341 votes of which 73.3% are from ON and 79,9% are between the ages of 55 and 74 (most likely to vote of any age groups)

Voting intentions:

Cons ........... 45.6%
Greens ........   3.7%
Libs ............. 30.9%
NDP .............   9.2%
Undecided ... 30.2%

Preferred election outcome:

Conservative majority .......................... 45.3 %
Conservative minority ..........................   5.5 %
Liberal majority .................................... 21.1 %
Liberal minority ....................................   9.2 %
Coalition between Liberals and NDP ...  13.4 %


So over 50% of senior and "near seniors" prefer a Conservative government of some sort while only 43.7 prefer any sort of government involving Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of repeating myself (even more) here is what I said about this six months ago:
> 
> Quote from: E.R. Campbell on 2010-08-26, 09:25:13
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an informative article on the topic of election financing:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/analysis-fears-about-scrapping-per-vote-subsidies-wildly-off-target/article1968366/


> Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target
> 
> PATRICK BRETHOUR
> Vancouver— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



Parties at the public trough

Published Sunday, Jan. 23, 2011

The per-vote subsidy is only part of the equation






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-at-the-public-trough/article1880300/?from=1968366

I remain convinced that Canada should abolish or, at least, greatly reduce, the per vote subsidy and reduce the electoral expense reimbursement while _increasing[/u] the political donation tax credit to encourage more and more Canadians to become more and more (say $500.00+/$10 per week) involved in politics.

_


----------



## mad dog 2020 (2 Apr 2011)

Youth Employment Training  Program (funding from Dept of Training colleges  and EI)
I would like to see YTEP restarted and used as an employment strategy for youth.  I thought it was a great idea then when I worked within it and more so now. Stress trades like Field engineer, supply, MSE Op, Field artillery and medic.  
Also some sea trades like Bosn, cook (seeing Hells Kitchen is so popular) and steward.
Sure beats community college like Iggy is flogging, more money to pay Profs and YTEP is a Yr while college is 3 or so.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Apr 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Youth Employment Training  Program (funding from Dept of Training colleges  and EI)
> I would like to see YTEP restarted and used as an employment strategy for youth.  I thought it was a great idea then when I worked within it and more so now. Stress trades like Field engineer, supply, MSE Op, Field artillery and medic.
> Also some sea trades like Bosn, cook (seeing Hells Kitchen is so popular) and steward.
> Sure beats community college like Iggy is flogging, more money to pay Profs and YTEP is a Yr while college is 3 or so.



And where exactly will the leadership come from?  Op Attention has a heavy leadership bill and the last thing we need is another bill.  You think those trades are stressed now?

Moreover,  we are not here to assist in reducing "youth unemployment".  We are here to win the nation's wars.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyrigt Act from the i]Ottawa Citizen[/i], is an election article with a double military slant:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Retired+officers+unleash+battle+strategies+Carleton+Mississippi+Mills/4550260/story.html


> Retired officers unleash battle strategies on Carleton-Mississippi Mills riding
> 
> BY ANDREW DUFFY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> APRIL 3, 2011
> ...





I expect Gord O’Connor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to win this one; _ThreeHundredEight.com_ show the vote _projection_ is, as of 1 Apr 11:

Conservatives … 60.6%
Greens …………….   8.8%
Liberals ………….   22.0%
NDP …………………   8.6% 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qP6Y5woqhuc/TZXFlX7HueI/AAAAAAAAEg0/XxAWaHaOCwI/s1600/11-04-01+Ridings.PNG 1 Apr 11 projection


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

From the same Ottawa Citizen article quoted just above:



> Curiously, the Ottawa-area riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell also features two candidates with significant military credentials. Conservative incumbent Pierre Lemieux and Green party challenger Sylvie Lemieux (no relation) attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel during 20-year careers as engineers in the Canadian Forces.




Here they are, with links to their web sites:






                                 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Pierre Lemieux - Conservative                       Sylvie Lemieux - Green
Source: http://www.pierrelemieux.ca/           Source: http://www.sylvielemieux.ca/


According to _ThreeHundredEight.com_ Conservative candidate Pierre Lemieux has a commanding (51.9% to 4.5%) lead over Green Candidate Sylvie Lemieux.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

I guess this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, counts as real news:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/03/liberals-release-election-platform/


> Liberals release election platform
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My initial reaction:


•	Save $3-billion in one year — rising to $5-billion in year 2 — by increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5%, to a level of 18%.  Bad, indeed a stupid idea! Economic irresponsibility and policy vandalism. 

•	Eliminate a tax break on stock options for the very rich that, they say, will bring in $300-million to the treasury. Canadians who earn more than $100,000 in annual stock options will have to pay income tax on their earnings. Bad idea – discourages the very investments that create jobs. More economic irresponsibility aimed at pandering to economically illiterate (but always greedy) Canadians – i.e. the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

•	Save $500-million in two years by slashing government advertising Good idea.

•	Limiting the size of the cabinet and the prime minister’s office Not a bad idea but, almost certainly, will never, ever happen in any Liberal or Conservative government. It is an unbelievable promise.

•	Cutting the amount of money spent on consultants. Good idea. Alternatively – keep hiring consultants but always offset them with fired civil servants.

•	Green renovation tax credit worth $2,025 for expenses of up to $13,500 on new windows, doors and roofing. Good idea.

•	A new youth hiring incentive would allow small- and medium-sized businesses to not pay employment insurance premiums for any youth hired. Fair idea, but why just youth. A good idea would involve cutting the employers’ shares of EI for all employees – new and old, young and old.

•	End the accelerated capital cost allowance for oilsands development and reinvest the $265-million into technologies to reduce the oilsands impact on the environment.  Stupid idea, aimed at killing the goose, etc.

•	Create a cap-and-trade system, such as the one that already exists in Europe. Bad idea. Cap and trade doesn’t work. A carbon tax would be a good idea.

•	Boost spending on aboriginal education, language training and pledged $40 million for a veterans learning benefit. Would be a good idea if it was accompanied by a whole hockey sock full of measures necessary to make more aboriginal funding productive – which almost none of it is now.

•	Restore the court challenges program. Bad idea. The programme was never a really good idea but whatever ‘good” was there has been exhausted.

•	Spend $100-million for a freshwater strategy A brain  fart – aimed at appeasing Maude Barlow.

•	Reallocate $1-billion in funding, after the Afghan mission, to increase development aid and Canada’s participation in UN missions. Bad idea – sending good money after bad.

•	Reform question period in the House of Commons, with one day dedicated to questions the prime minister would answer. Very good idea.

•	Create a ‘people’s question period’ in which cabinet ministers and the prime minister would answer questions from Canadians online. Maybe a useful idea … maybe not.

•	Develop Internet voting options to encourage more people to vote. An idea worth studying.

The Liberals have already announced – 

•	$700-million boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement; Good politics, probably not economically necessary.

•	$1 billion for post-secondary education; Good idea, should be $1 Billion per year, for ten years, to start.

•	$1-billion to help family caregivers; and Good idea.

•	$500 million for early childhood learning. Intruding, unnecessarily, into provincial jurisdiction.


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 
came by Email today.

The Harper Tories continue to enjoy an 11 point advantage over the Ignatieff Grits. Although the overall Tory numbers remain stable, some regional shifts have occurred. The Tories have picked up support in the province of Quebec over the last few nights of tracking but have declined in support in battleground Ontario. From a high of 47.2% in Ontario a few days ago, they are now at 40.8% as of last evening with the Liberals at 37.6% support in Ontario. Looking at the three day rolling average trend for the regional subsample in Ontario - it is a statistical tie. 

Policy as a vote factor has slid for the third day in succession to 48.0% but is still clearly the number one vote driver at this point in the campaign. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 1st (n=1,200; committed voters only n=983). 

Canada (n=986 committed voters) 
Conservative 40.7% (-0.6) 
Liberal 29.4% (-0.9) 
NDP 16.9% (+0.9) 
Bloc Quebecois 8.0% (-0.5) 
Green 4.0% (+0.3) 
Undecided 17.8% (-0.3) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 1st (n=1,200). 

Traditionally Vote for Party 9.3% (+0.6) 
Party Leader 23.2% (+1.0) 
Party Policies 48.0% (-4.0) 
Local Candidate 15.0% (+1.9) 
Unsure 4.5% (+0.6)


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2011)

Worthless without a concise breakdown of how we get from here to there on the deficit target; the rest is just a shopping list of new spending - a reason to not vote Liberal - and some overoptimistic revenue projections ("experts" agree the value of rolling back a 1.5% chunk of the corporate tax rate is not worth $3B or more a year).

Figures I found for 2010 GDP are $1335B.  1% is $13.35B  2010-11 deficit forecast is now sitting at ($40B).  Conservative projection for 2011-12 is just under ($30B).  This means figuring out a way to carve off $17B from the deficit rather than $10B or so for 2012-13 to hit a deficit target of 1% of GDP within two years.  Absent a balance sheet which can clearly lay down the assumed revenues and assumed spending cuts against the forecasted spending, the Liberal platform is bullsh!t with respect to the only important question facing us: can they reduce the deficit faster than the Conservatives?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Apr 2011)

An interesting platform that will resonate with voters.  I hope the Conservatives raise their sights from the purely tactical hand to hand combat that they are so good at to actually clearly outline their platform.

Some reasoned analysis from them vice a simple BAD EVIL AMERICAN TAX AND SPEND shouting slogan before even reading the platform might be useful as well.

They are badly underestimating Mr Ignatieff right now, and need to raise their game.  This one appears to be the Conservative's to lose, again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

The Liberal Party platform can be found (pdf form) here.

Particular items of interest to the military community:

•	Page 12 – _*Cancel the mismanaged, $30 billion deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets.* When it is necessary to buy new fighters, we’ll spend billions less than the Harper government would have.

But the higher priorities will be investments in middle-class families, and building a stronger economy for the future._

•	Page 27 – _ A Liberal government will implement *a new Veterans’ Learning Benefit that provides full support for the costs of up to four years of college, university or technical education for Canadian Forces veterans after completion of service.*

Following the Second World War, both Canada and the United States offered veterans full support for their post-secondary education. Although the GI Bill continues in the United States today, no similar program remains in Canada. It’s time we did more.

In addition to honouring veterans, post-service education support would contribute to other important objectives. It would provide a significant boost for recruitment at a time when the Forces face difficulty in meeting enrollment needs in many specific occupational categories, particularly high-skill and technical areas. In addition, education support would smooth the reintegration of Canadian Forces personnel into society and the workforce. That makes sense for both the individuals involved, and the knowledge and skills-dependent Canadian economy.

Based on current projections of attrition rates and the Forces’ needs, and assuming a high takeup rate, *this represents an estimated investment of up to $120 million in veterans’ learning over the first two years* of a Liberal government._

•	Page 82 – _The Modern Canadian Military

The Canadian Forces do extraordinary work around the world, as well as defending our security and sovereignty at home, undertaking search and rescue operations, and responding to civilian emergencies. The Forces ably serve Canada in our major alliances, NATO and NORAD, safeguarding peace and security and fighting terrorism. After years serving bravely and effectively in Afghanistan, Canada`s military is an experienced, battle-hardened force, respected internationally.

That force will be indispensible to a renewed concept of Canada’s role in the world.

*A Return to Peace Operations*

In 2009, the United Nations deployed more peacekeepers than ever before – five times the number of ten years ago – with almost 100,000 military and police personnel in 15 UN missions around the globe. Yet, while the number and the need for UN peacekeepers has never been greater, Canada’s contribution has never been smaller. While we were once the world’s single greatest contributor of UN peacekeepers, in 2009 we were 56th.

Traditional peacekeeping has changed significantly since Canada vacated the field. Increasingly, deployments are undertaken to more complex and often dangerous situations, better described as peace-making missions. These increasingly involve combat. Based on the hard-earned experience in Afghanistan, a Liberal government will develop a new leadership role for Canada in today’s  peace operations. It will include training, commanding and deploying personnel where it’s clear that a mission is consistent with Canada’s interests, values and capabilities. And while at present only  a small fraction of Canada’s defence budget is dedicated to the incremental cost of United Nations operations, Liberals will ensure that the Canadian Forces have the resources they need to engage in additional Peace Operations.

*Responsibility to Protect*

Under the umbrella of Peace, Order and Good Government, the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) will provide a rigorous framework for renewed Canadian leadership in preventing and addressing conflictand mass-scale human rights abuse. Michael Ignatieff played a key role in developing R2P, as part of the Canadian-initiated, and UN-endorsed, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.

The doctrine emphasizes that sovereign states have a n obligation to protect their citizens from harm, and when they do not, the international community must make every possible diplomatic effort to persuade them to do so. When a sovereign state will not or cannot protect its people, R2P requires intervention of the international community, including military intervention as a last resort, in UN-mandated operations to stop large-scale loss of innocent lives, such as in genocide or ethnic cleansing.

R2P was formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, with strong Canadian leadership. Since then, the Harper government has hardly mentioned it. Canada could have advocated R2P – from a seat on the UN Security Council – to help advance a coherent international response to the violence in Libya, for example. A Liberal government will work with the international community to solidify the doctrine’s acceptance and implementation. This does not mean Canada will be obliged to intervene in conflicts wherever they occur. It means that Canada will renew its leadership in conflict prevention, and that when the world must act to stop large-scale slaughter of innocent people, Canada will be able to contribute with military capacity experienced in the complexities of modern conflict.

*The Future of Our Engagement in Afghanistan*

Canada’s role with NATO in Afghanistan supports security and development in a troubled land previously governed by a repressive Taliban regime, which provided safe haven to Al-Qaeda to plot the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. More than 150 Canadian men and women have lost their lives, and many more face disabilities. The mission has been an honourable one in our national interest. Afghanistan must not revert to being a safe haven for terrorists.

The combat mission is ending in 2011. However, the basic objective will not be completed. The Afghan people will still not be fully able to govern themselves and maintain their own security.

That is why the Liberal Party supports the 2011-2014 training mission, and continued development work. The purpose is to help the Afghan people build a better future for themselves.

The post-combat presence for Canada must also include a substantive role in the diplomatic process and any political talks on Afghanistan’s future. A Liberal government will appoint a Special Envoy to the peace process for the region.

*Respect for Canada’s Veterans*

Canadian veterans deserve the best possible care and support, and an administrative structure mandated and organized to meet their needs in accordance with the lifelong social contract between the veteran and the nation. The New Veterans Charter has provided our veterans with many valuable tools to reintegrate into civilian life, but it’s not perfect. Veterans groups, advisory groups, Senate and House committees and individual injured veterans and their families, from the regulars and the reserves, have identified ways to the make the Charter more fair, responsive, family-focused, and veteran-friendly. A Liberal government will work with these groups to implement significant improvements, including re-visiting whether the disability award should continue to be a lump-sum payment.

A Liberal government will also implement a new Veterans’ Learning Benefit, supporting the costs of higher education after completion of service.

*Strengthening Bilingual Learning in the Canadian Forces*

Bilingualism is among the many attributes that enable the Canadian Forces to both serve and reflect our country with pride and professionalism. The same is true of their emphasis on knowledge and learning. A renewed commitment to bilingual learning is now required. College Militaire Royal de St-Jean (CMRSJ) has played an important role through various phases of its history. A Liberal government will invest in CMRSJ to restore it to full university status.

This will add needed capacity for educating the next generation of officers within the military system, complementing RMC Kingston, which is operating at full capacity. CMRSJ will build on its traditional strength in the liberal arts, which become more important in military education as modern conflict grows more complex, and more entangled with socio-political dynamics playing out beneath the level of traditional state-to-state clashes. Most importantly, the francophone milieu of CMRSJ will help attract motivated young francophones to the Canadian Forces, and offer Anglophone officer-students enhanced opportunities to master their second official language while advancing their studies in the RMC system.

*Military Procurement*

A Liberal government will have a very different vision of Canada’s role in the world. Naturally, the entire procurement programme in the Department of National Defence will have to be reviewed in the context of that changing role. A well-resourced military will be essential under a Liberal government. Procurement decisions will flow from mission needs in a straightforward and transparent manner. They also need to secure the best value for money and industrial benefits.

A Liberal government will immediately cancel the mismanaged $30 billion sole-source deal for  F-35 stealth fighter jets, and save billions of dollars. In the largest procurement in Canadian history, the Harper government never explained why that plane is essential at this time. It still cannot say what the actual price will be, and secured no guarantee for industrial benefits. Other countries, including the United States, are scaling back orders for an aircraft still under development, but the Conservatives charged ahead, despite the facts. There is a more responsible way to proceed.

After cancelling the Harper deal, a Liberal government will put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement in light of the new international policy described in this Global Networks Strategy. This review will include Canada’s search and rescue requirements as well as the needs of our air, naval and land forces. When Canada purchases new fighter planes, we will have a transparent, competitive process to procure equipment that best meets our needs, achieves best value for money, secures maximum industrial benefits, and fits a realistic budget.
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> An interesting platform that will resonate with voters.  I hope the Conservatives raise their sights from the purely tactical hand to hand combat that they are so good at to actually clearly outline their platform.
> 
> Some reasoned analysis from them vice a simple BAD EVIL AMERICAN TAX AND SPEND shouting slogan before even reading the platform might be useful as well.
> 
> They are badly underestimating Mr Ignatieff right now, and need to raise their game.  This one appears to be the Conservative's to lose, again.




I agree. But almost anything would be superior to the Foreign Policy and Defence Policy drivel (and I'm being charitable there) found in the Liberal platform.


----------



## Haletown (3 Apr 2011)

"After cancelling the Harper deal, a Liberal government will put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement in light of the new international policy described in this Global Networks Strategy. This review will include Canada’s search and rescue requirements as well as the needs of our air, naval and land forces."

Simplified English translation . . .  "Bend over, lube up and get ready because we plan to screw you like we have done before"


----------



## Nostix (3 Apr 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Simplified English translation . . .  "Bend over, lube up and get ready because we plan to screw you like we have done before"



Can I assume that we will have to pay for the lube out of our own pockets?


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Apr 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Can I assume that we will have to pay for the lube out of our own pockets?



If we can afford to after the pay cuts.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Apr 2011)

> ...Strengthening Bilingual Learning in the Canadian Forces
> 
> Bilingualism is among the many attributes that enable the Canadian Forces to both serve and reflect our country with pride and professionalism. The same is true of their emphasis on knowledge and learning. A renewed commitment to bilingual learning is now required. College Militaire Royal de St-Jean (CMRSJ) has played an important role through various phases of its history. A Liberal government will invest in CMRSJ to restore it to full university status.
> 
> This will add needed capacity for educating the next generation of officers within the military system, complementing RMC Kingston, which is operating at full capacity. CMRSJ will build on its traditional strength in the liberal arts, which become more important in military education as modern conflict grows more complex, and more entangled with socio-political dynamics playing out beneath the level of traditional state-to-state clashes. Most importantly, the francophone milieu of CMRSJ will help attract motivated young francophones to the Canadian Forces, and offer Anglophone officer-students enhanced opportunities to master their second official language while advancing their studies in the RMC system....



Ummm, would that be the same CMR St-Jean sur Richelieu that the Liberal Government under Chretien closed in 1995? (Along with Royal Roads Military College in British Columbia).  RMC already runs a completely bilingual program and without expanding the Canadian Forces any larger than it currently is, the additional officer production, be it francophone or bilingual at CMR St-Jean, is simply not required.  This would demonstrably decrease the efficiency (read increased cost with no proportional benefit) of the CF's officer education process.  :

This is but one aspect of the Liberals' "briefs well to voters, but doesn't translate to fiscally responsible action" plan.

Concur that the Cons need to run the Liberal plans full circle to validate or discredit the proposals.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Didn't the Conservative budget reestablish the rebates for energy saving improvements to citizens' homes?  How is the Liberal element new?  ???  Perhaps it should be named for what it is, "A plan to do what the Conservatives said they would do in the budget, a budget that we found totally unacceptable...er, mostly unacceptable...er...pretty unacceptable, except for these parts which we kind of think weren't bad ideas, so we'll put them into out budget when we win a landslide majority..."


----------



## dapaterson (3 Apr 2011)

Ideally, we could leverage this into closing RMC (Kingston) and moving to a smaller footprint in St Jean, decreasing the throughput of officers and rebalancing the military to being less top-heavy.

Though I suspect instead we'd end up with even more officers with nothing to do... and have to build an expansion on to Startop.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2011)

The main problem facing the Conservatives is that their approach so far has been "Stay the course with us; work the plan", and as of today the Liberals have unveiled "Look! Shiny new spending! And a smaller deficit too!".


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a pretty fair analysis of the Liberal platform:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-new-platform-ignatieff-seeks-return-to-land-of-trudeau/article1969240/


> With new platform, Ignatieff seeks return to land of Trudeau
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me or follows my scribbling here on Army.ca that I think a _” return to land of Trudeau”_ would be a total, unmitigated disaster for Canada and Canadians. I guess I won’t be voting Liberal.

But, this Liberal platform is not only a repudiation of Stephen Harper, it does away with the budgetary responsibility of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, too – and in that, in being irresponsible with the fiscal health of Canada and with Canadians’ hard earned money, it is pure Trudeau.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are some suggestions about what the party leaders might want to do in week 2 of the campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/what-leaders-must-do-to-win-week-two/article1969357/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Globe%20Politics&utm_type=text&utm_content=What%20leaders%20must%20do%20to%20win%20Week%20Two&utm_campaign=85528558


> What leaders must do to win Week Two
> 
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2011
> ...




I think the Liberals probably did well amongst middle-class voters last week. I suspect that their platform, which I think is poor, even destructive, will be popular. Therefore, I think the Conservative and NDP need to attack it from the right (it will destroy the economy) and the left (it doesn’t do enough) and offer alternatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2011)

An end of week analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29)  from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> Liberal and Conservative ceilings after Week 1
> 
> After the first week of campaigning, it seems that the Conservatives are capable of topping out at more than the 155 seats needed to get a majority government.  But the wiggle room the party has is miniscule.
> 
> ...




The colour code in the graphic is consistent: Conservatives = blue, Liberals = red and NDP = orange. Thus, the "best" the Conservatives can do, based on the first week's polling aggregations, is 160 seats, a working majority (top pie chart) and the best the Liberals can do (bottom pie chart) is 86 seats, holding the Tories to 146 - another, albeit slightly larger minority.

It will be interesting to see what impact the Liberal platform will have.


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

As we enter week two of the campaign, the Harper Conservatives enjoy a 14 point advantage over the Ignatieff Liberals. Support for the Tories stands at 42.3% nationally, followed by the Grits at 28.4%, the NDP at 16.4%, the BQ at 8.0% and the Green Party at 3.8% looking at the latest three day tracking national Nanos survey for CTV News and The Globe and Mail. Conservative support continues to be driven in the West. 

Policy still tops the vote driver measure at 47.3% followed by the party leader at 22.5% but the importance of local candidates is on the rise, increasing from 12.3% two weeks ago to 18.0%. This suggests that more Canadians are starting to look at local candidates in their ridings. 

With the three day rolling sample, the possible impact of the Liberal Platform will not be fully captured until mid week. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 2nd (n=1,200; committed voters only n=986). 

Canada (n=986 committed voters) 
Conservative 42.3% (+1.6) 
Liberal 28.4% (-1.0) 
NDP 16.4% (-0.5) 
Bloc Quebecois 8.0% (NC) 
Green 3.8% (-0.2) 
Undecided 17.8% (NC) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 2nd (n=1,200). 

Traditionally Vote for Party 8.1% (-1.2) 
Party Leader 22.5% (-0.7) 
Party Policies 47.3% (-0.7) 
Local Candidate 18.0% (+3.0) 
Unsure 4.1% (-0.4)


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Apr 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> .... RMC already runs a completely bilingual program and without expanding the Canadian Forces any larger than it currently is, the additional officer production, be it francophone or bilingual at CMR St-Jean, is simply not required.  This would demonstrably decrease the efficiency (read increased cost with no proportional benefit) of the CF's officer education process.  :
> 
> This is but one aspect of the Liberals' "briefs well to voters, but doesn't translate to fiscally responsible action" plan.
> 
> Concur that the Cons need to run the Liberal plans full circle to validate or discredit the proposals ....


Agree with yellow, but doubt orange will happen on _this_ promise, given that it would involve telling Quebec "no, you're NOT going to get a full military university back."


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2011)

Here is the latest _projection_, based on aggregate poll results, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

And here is the analysis:



> Small gains by Conservatives and NDP
> 
> With new polls from EKOS and Léger Marketing over the weekend, we now have some other polling firms to add to the model in addition to the daily numbers from Nanos Research. A full poll summary will follow later today.
> 
> ...




All this, of course, is before any polls reflect the impact of the Liberal platform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Nik on the Numbers
> 
> As we enter week two of the campaign, the Harper Conservatives enjoy a 14 point advantage over the Ignatieff Liberals. Support for the Tories stands at 42.3% nationally, followed by the Grits at 28.4%, the NDP at 16.4%, the BQ at 8.0% and the Green Party at 3.8% looking at the latest three day tracking national Nanos survey for CTV News and The Globe and Mail. Conservative support continues to be driven in the West.
> ...




Here, from the _Globe and Mail_ is a graphic to go with the _Nanon_ poll:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-enter-second-week-with-commanding-14-point-lead/article1969494/


Remember, again, please: we have yet to see any data that shows how the public reacts to the Liberal platform.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (4 Apr 2011)

42.3 % is a safe bet for a majority but it would be comforting to see the results repeated.

I wonder if people haven't started watching the video and noticed that Jack Layton  looks really old..  Jack looks about 80, Iggy about 70 and Harper about 50.  I think not looking like a walking corpse might be a plus to winning an election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> 42.3 % is a safe bet for a majority but it would be comforting to see the results repeated.
> ...




Remember Harold Wilson. We have five "long times" to go.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Remember Harold Wilson. We have five "long times" to go.



Indeed. The telling questions are:

1. Has the Liberal platform changed the popular vote intention?

2. If so, has it done so in the most critical sectors, ie: the high volume voters?

3. Is it enough to swing 60 or more seats away from the Torries and to the Liberals or NDP?

I think the answers are likely to be:

1. Probably, but by no more than 5%.

2. Unlikely, the Torries have a significant edge in this demographic.

3. Not in anyone's wildest dreams.

But then I've been wrong before.


----------



## Martino (5 Apr 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/04/cv-election-day10.html

The Liberals are offering to fund a 'Canadian GI Bill' that would pay for four years of university for Canadian veterans.


----------



## DCRabbit (5 Apr 2011)

Initiatives for vets are great.. my father is one. But I'm positive that any money spent on these initiatives is going to come from cutting the CF budget. It won't be new money.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2011)

Two somewhat contrasting stories, at least headlines, about polls this morning:

First, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is this:



> Liberals narrow gap to 9 points – but is it a ‘bump or a blip’?
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




But, second, _ThreeHundredeight.com_, says:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

The analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ is:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> 154 to the Conservatives, 154 to the Opposition
> 
> We're finally starting to get some new polls in addition to the very usefulNanos daily tracking. This morning the latest Harris-Decima was added to the projection (removing, where needed, the previous Harris-Decima poll that partly overlapped with some of the regional results in this newest release). The results of the update are a few seat gains for the Conservatives, and a few vote gains for the Liberals.
> 
> ...




So both analyses show relatively large gains for the Liberals and a small drop for the Tories but the effect, seen by _ThreeHundredEight.com_ is to bump the Tories up to the thin edge of a majority.

Here is another interesting graphic, courtesy _ThreeHundredEight.com_ again, showing aggregated polling trends:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


----------



## observor 69 (5 Apr 2011)

Mr. Harper, are you on your meds? 
RICK MERCER: If the Conservatives want Jack’s prostate to be an election issue, let all the leaders’ health be on the table

Week one of the campaign and I admit I am starting to side with my friends who occasionally question my sanity for following Canadian politics at all, let alone closely. “Why in God’s name would you pay any attention to that bunch of boobs and losers?” they ask. “Boobs and losers,” I say? “These are the best and the brightest that Canada has to offer.” Depression soon kicks in.

Being a political junkie in this country is a bit like being a diehard Leafs fan. Year in and year out you believe you will witness magic; year in and year out you experience the opposite. But yet, you continue to show up, cheer on the team, pay through the nose for a hot dog and it almost always ends in tears.

This election certainly started out with a bang. My prediction that the Liberals would at the last minute run away and hide behind the dumpsters on Parliament Hill, avoiding the vote they triggered, did not come to pass. The government was defeated on a confidence motion because they were in contempt of the Canadian Parliament—a vote that Stephen Harper immediately claimed did not occur. He didn’t argue about the semantics of the vote; he simply denied it happened at all, preferring instead to believe his government was defeated on the budget. There is evidence to the contrary: he was there and it was on TV, but still, as far as he is concerned, it didn’t happen. Some people might consider this inability to understand or admit to what is happening in one’s immediate surroundings systematic of a small stroke or a severe concussion, but in Ottawa it’s just a symptom of spending too much time around people in the PMO.

I like elections. Governments don’t just fall every day, but I understand why some people feel that they do. Three elections in five years is a lot. I have baking soda in the fridge that is older than the Harper government, and I still have Tabasco from the Paul Martin era.

But elections are important. We all know that $300 million is a lot of money—it is a sobering fact that $300 million could be used to purchase 1,000 MRI machines for rural Canada… or six gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding. But this is a democracy and this is the cost of doing business.

According to Stephen Harper, this election is about choices. We can elect a stable, majority Conservative government or a coalition of Liberals, socialists, separatists, criminals and child predators, and not in that particular order.

Michael Ignatieff also says this election is about choice. He says we have a choice between the Red Door and the Blue Door, blissfully unaware that it is not the doors that people are wary of, but the knobs out front.

Jack Layton says there is one choice: make him the next prime minister of Canada. He too may be suffering from a concussion.

That said, once the government fell, both Harper and Ignatieff showed they do things very differently. The choices are stark. Stephen Harper made a terse statement on the situation and refused to take questions. Michael Ignatieff made a terse statement on the situation, then took questions but refused to give answers.

How Michael Ignatieff could orchestrate the defeat of the government and launch himself into a campaign without an answer for the “coalition question” is beyond me. But that was what he did, dodging the question in both official languages. At one point he grabbed his man tits and declared for all to hear, “I am a democrat.” Still, the press was not sated, and he had no other choice but to go home and write a press release that said unequivocally he would not seek to form a coalition with any other political party.

Over at the Harper campaign, the celebration over the disaster that was Ignatieff’s first press conference was short-lived. Turns out Stephen Harper also dilly-dallied with separatist coalitions in the not-so-distant past; and there is proof, not in the form of a forgotten blue dress but in the form of a letter signed by Harper and Gilles Duceppe and sent to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson.

Personally, I am shocked that Stephen Harper tried to get into bed with Gilles Duceppe. Experimentation of this kind in college is one thing, but at that late in life it probably means you’re hiding a part of yourself that will always be there. Namely a hidden desire to do anything and everything to stay in power.

Jack Layton’s post-vote press conference should have gone well. Jack is born for this type of work. Except instead of talking to Canadians about his version of events, he had to answer personal questions about his health, revealing his prostate-specific antigen numbers. That not being enough, he offered to remove his clothes right there on Parliament Hill to allow journalists to inspect his scars. Nobody took him up on the offer, Rosemary Barton having not been in attendance.

That said, Jack Layton didn’t reveal personal information about his health because the gallery wanted to know, he did it because, earlier that day, Conservatives had fanned out across the country and were practising the dark arts. The whisper campaign about Jack’s health they had been carrying on in the shadows was stepped up a notch.

Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy, who can perhaps kindly be described as the most amoral partisan hack to ever draw a breath, went on radio in Nova Scotia, a province of potential growth for the NDP, and in a hushed tone usually reserved for a palliative care unit told the radio audience that he personally saw Jack on the Hill and “up close it doesn’t look good, Jack doesn’t look good… he is a valiant man for carrying on.”

It takes a certain kind of man to gleefully trade on a man’s battle with cancer, and Mike Duffy is that man. It is why Stephen Harper appointed him to the chamber of sober second thought. Personally, if the Conservatives want Jack’s prostate to be an issue in the campaign, let all the leaders’ health be on the table. Prostate exams for all, weekly if need be, and, perhaps more importantly, let us finally know what medications our leaders are on, or, more importantly, what meds they happen to be off on any given week. Mr. Ignatieff, how is your prostate? Mr. Prime Minister, are you on your meds? Thanks, Senator Duffy.

As I write this, the campaign is in full swing. This time around the Liberals have a plane, chartered from an outfit in Alberta, that looks like everyone else’s plane so nobody is making fun of them. The Conservative plane is chartered from Air Canada so if you’re a journalist that’s the plane to be on. Unlike the Liberal plane, every flight with the Tories gives you Aeroplan travel miles. By the end of the campaign, the journalists will have so many travel miles they will have a card that says super elite on it, just like the one John Baird carries wherever he goes.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/mr-harper-are-you-on-your-meds/



If you don't find this humourous then you need to get your meds checked.  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Apr 2011)

All the more reason to start a political party based on Dr. Seuss characters.

I like the Cat in the Hat....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Apr 2011)

What is or is not an election issue in Canada often tends to the unusual.  Jack's physically falling apart would be an issue to me if he had a snowball's chance.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Sure it is talk, but it gets the Bloc votes. I for one wish them happy trails. Conversely, if the LieLiberals get elected, Western Canada should look seriously at their options. It is not only Alberta in the west, that has oil. The "hidden" and ignored by the media "NEP" and tax measures in the LieLiberal platform should be enough. 

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

5 Apr 2011 - National Post - Graeme Hamilton
    
*Why is there no Quebec uprising? *

*Bloc platform paints a bleak life in Canada*

*The Bloc Québécois published its electoral policy statement Monday. And the picture it paints of life within Confederation is so relentlessly grim it’s a wonder the spirit driving the Arab Spring has not yet hit the shores of the St. Lawrence.
**
“Denying our aspirations, indifferent to our interests and opposed to our values,* the Conservatives have permanently turned their backs on Quebec,” Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe writes in his introduction. A Conservative majority would mean “the complete negation of what we are,” he continues, and the other parties are hardly better: “In Ottawa, Quebec and its difference are a bother. The Canadian parties would like us to be a province like the others,” subjected to policies tailored for the other provinces.

The document remarks that the other parties are glad to hand over billions to Ontario’s automobile industry but leave *“crumbs”* for the forestry sector in Quebec. Clean energy projects dear to* Quebecers’ hearts are ignored* “so as not to displease Calgary.” And the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are “lukewarm” about investing in research and development, “since it is in *Quebec that these state-of-the-art sectors are concentrated.”* My comment: Now, why is that?

Apparently the only malaise not attributable to the feds is the Canadiens’ lateseason swoon. (Then again, it was one of the Bloc’s cousins in the Parti Québécois, Pierre Curzi, who last year blamed plotting federalists for excluding Quebec-born players from the Habs; stay tuned in the event of an early exit from the playoffs.)

It would be enough to make a Quebecer start looking for a safe haven, except that this Bloc platform, like the others before it, is really just an exercise in creative writing. The Bloc is a political party, and parties run on platforms, so it has to be done. But the toughest job for the platform’s authors is not deciding where to stand on the death penalty (against) or *money owed to Quebec* (*its “fair share,” or roughly $5-billion.*) The real challenge is coming up with new ways of pretending the Bloc can actually do anything about the problems.

Running only in Quebec, the Bloc is eternally in opposition. So while other parties make promises and generally attach dollar figures, the Bloc, as its latest slogan indicates, talks. According to the policy statement, the Bloc “will demand” some things and it “undertakes to faithfully represent” other things. The party will be “keeping watch,” “proposing,” “showing its determination,” “putting forward,” “defending” and “continuing to say clearly what it thinks.”

Of course, having already *established that all the other parties are lined up against Quebec*, it might as well save its breath.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Funny, this guy "appears" out of the woodwork in Ottawa with his analysis during an election. No mention in the article as to why this fellow happened to be in Ottawa, or that a press conference was called to hear his announcement that, coincidentally refutes what the former government stated.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ottawas-fighter-jet-estimate-all-hogwash-us-watchdog-warns/article1971274/

*Ottawa’s fighter-jet estimate ‘all hogwash,’ U.S. watchdog warns*

CAMPBELL CLARK

Globe and Mail - Tuesday, April 5, 2011- Campbell Clark

The plan to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost billions more than the $29-billion estimated by Canada’s budget watchdog, a U.S. defence spending analyst says.

“It’s going to be significantly more. It’s not going to be $1-billion more, it’s going to be significantly more,” said Winslow Wheeler, a defence-spending watchdog with the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

The $29-billion estimate from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put a startling price tag on the cost of a fleet of 65 stealth jets, though the government insists they will cost about half that amount.

But Mr. Wheeler, a former staffer with the U.S. Government Accounting Office and with both Republican and Democratic senators, said even Mr. Page’s estimate – though reasonable now – doesn’t take into account key elements that will make the costs rise: problems with the complex planes that will be inevitably be discovered during testing and the slashing of the number of planes to be produced by the United States and its allies.

The Liberals say they’ll put the deal on hold, and hold a competition to determine what planes Canada needs. But the Conservatives, and the Defence Department, insist the F-35 is the only “fifth-generation” fighter, complete with stealth technology and next-generation communications available. It will be needed, the government argues, to defend against Russian interlopers and to take on missions like the one the current CF-18 fleet is now doing over Libya.

Ottawa says the planes will cost about $9-billion to buy, and another $6-billion for service over the first 20 years of their life span. That $9-billion cost estimate to buy the fleet includes a package of equipment and modifications to get the planes flying, but pegs the price of each plane at $75-million.

But Mr. Wheeler argues that price tag, once cited as the “non-recurring fly-away” in the United States, has been abandoned by the planes’ proponents. It usually doesn’t include engines and avionics to get the planes flying, and it includes adjustments to 2002 dollars, plus an ample expectation that the cost of each plane will get markedly cheaper as the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, learns how to build them more efficiently.

“To get to that number, they use several crude, disingenuous tricks. And they sprinkle a little fairy dust, in terms of ‘learning curve’ and other magical potions, to pretend it’s got some science behind it,” he said. “It’s all hogwash.”

“Ultimately,” Mr. Wheeler predicted, “the cost of this airplane is going to be about $200-million per airplane.”

In the United States, where the per-unit costs of the F-35 has been cited as $115-million, some defence estimates put it as high as $155-million per plane. But even that doesn’t take into account problems that will see it rise even further.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says Canada is buying the cheapest, “A” version of the plane – but Mr. Wheeler argues that will only save at most 10 per cent. And the cost of supporting the airplane will be more than buying them, and will also rise.

The biggest problems with the cost estimates is that they don’t include allowances for problems looming on the horizon.

The F-35 has only gone through about 10 per cent of developmental tests, so it’s still unclear what problems will have to be fixed even though several have been found so far. And the plane is so complex the costs are likely to baloon. For example, the plane’s older brother, the F-22, is experiencing pricy problems with its stealth coatings.

“The [F-35] is only about 10 per cent through its developmental flight tests. Those are the easy tests. Those are the laboratory tests. Those tests will be finished in 2016,” Mr. Wheeler said. “That’s when the operational tests are [to be done].”

And the number of F-35s that will eventually be built will be far less than current official projections, he argued, further increasing the cost per plane.

Several countries, like Denmark and Norway, are still debating whether to buy the planes. Britain is cutting its planned buy, and Turkey has put its plan to purchase 100 F-35s on hold because of a dispute sparked because the U.S. refuses to allow the sale of the software “source code” that allows buyers to modify the systems.

Washington has cuts its own plans to buy 2,700 planes to 2,500, and can be expected to reduce it further, Mr. Wheeler said.. The U.S. Defense Department has put the development of one variant of the planes, the “B” version, on probation and a deficit commission suggested dramatically reducing the purchase of other variants.

No one can know the costs of an airplane that’s still not developed, but Mr. Wheeler argued the best way to buy a fighter is “a competitive fly-off” of real airplanes. “And make a decision based on real evidence rather than paper studies,” he said.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Funny, this guy "appears" out of the woodwork in Ottawa with his analysis during an election. No mention in the article as to why this fellow happened to be in Ottawa, or that a press conference was called to hear his announcement that, coincidentally refutes what the former government stated.


It appears the news conference was hosted by ceasefire.ca.  In fact, based on this wording:


> .... None of this would be possible without the generous support we have received from people like you to our “No Stealth Fighters” campaign. We are more than halfway to reaching our fundraising goal of $15,000 for this stage of the campaign .... We are very happy to be hosting Winslow T. Wheeler in collaboration with our friends at the Physicians for Global Survival ....


it appears ceasefire.ca may have helped pay, along with PGS, to bring this gentleman to Ottawa.


----------



## Northalbertan (5 Apr 2011)

As more people out west read exactly what is in the lieberals platform they are starting to get angrier.  A new NEP thinly disguised as carbon trade designed to steal 30 Billion from Western Canada's coffers over 5 years.   

I think if I was Iggy I'd have steered clear of trying something like that.  In Alberta we have a strong right wing challenger to the PCs provincially.  The Wild Rose Alliance has VERY strong views on Federal interference in provincial politics and our resources, and with a provincial election in the works I wouldn't want to alienate Canada's economic powerhouse.

The Wild Rose Alliance, during it's genesis, had a separatist agenda.  It has since moderated it's views somewhat but, if the Lieberals were actually able to form a government I would be concerned about a reversion to their former point of view.

Simply put, I don't think Western Canada would stand for it again.  Far from uniting a nation this platform alienates half the country.

I  would expect Western Politicians to start voicing their opposition to the Lieberal platform soon.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Apr 2011)

It seems the Globe is squarely in the Liberal camp.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It seems the Globe is squarely in the Liberal camp.



Yuh think? ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yuh think? ;D



Never let it be said I don't have an adequate grasp of the obvious.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ......
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ottawas-fighter-jet-estimate-all-hogwash-us-watchdog-warns/article1971274/
> 
> *Ottawa’s fighter-jet estimate ‘all hogwash,’ U.S. watchdog warns*



Wheeler vs Angus Watt

As of now.....

Wheeler's position:

Canada needs fighters.  _Yay_.
Canada needs long range fighters with supercruise.  _Presumably like the F22 that we can't buy_.  
The F-35 is a piece of crap like the F-111 and all other Multi-Role Aircraft. 
But so is the Super Hornet and all other 4th Generation aircraft 
We should wait until the US builds a really good aircraft at some indefinite point in the future.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As of now.....
> 
> Wheeler's position:
> .... Canada needs long range fighters with supercruise.  _Presumably like the F22 that we can't buy_ ....


He's not a fan of the F22, either.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> We should wait until the US builds a really good aircraft at some indefinite point in the future.


Whenever that happens, right?  And as long as the yardstick for "acceptable" doesn't keep moving, right?


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Two articles from the National Post. Readers comments at links.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/kelly-mcparland-liberals-hide-their-agenda-on-canadas-military/
*
Kelly McParland: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military*

Postmedia - Kelly McParland - Updated: Apr 5, 2011 

I have no clue whether the F-35 fighter jet is the one Canada needs, whether it’s worth the money, or whether we need fighter jets at all.

I doubt anyone does: it’s almost entirely an issue of opinion. If you think Canada needs the capabilities the F-35 can deliver, then it’s worth the money. If we don’t, it’s not.

The real question is whether we should have an Air Force that can be sent into battle in places like Libya or Kosovo in the first place.  And that’s where the hypocrisy of Michael Ignatieff’s position on the F-35 really comes into focus. Because if there’s a hidden agenda on the federal political front, it’s the Liberal position on Canada’s military.

If you believe Canada should have an air force capable of combat, then you have to equip it. You don’t send pilots into combat in the cheapest planes you can find. When the navy concluded it needed new submarines a decade ago, it tried to save money by buying used boats from Britain, and spent much of the past 10 years just trying to keep them seaworthy.  Buying second-rate planes to save a few bucks is a waste of money and a risk to lives.

But maybe we don’t need an air force capable of combat. Peter Worthington, who is no weak-kneed lefty, argues that unless we plan to attack another country, Canada’s need is for aircraft capable of patrolling our northern borders, not fighters. (Even if we caught the Russians straying, would we shoot at them? Not likely.) Although we’ve used the existing CF-18s in Libya and Kosovo, neither deployment was really necessary. We could have contributed to those conflicts in other ways.  It’s a valid point: Canada is an enormous country and perhaps we should focus solely on protecting our own borders, building ships that can perform rescue duty, chase away illegal fishing vessels or escort occasional refugee ships. Rather than fighters, maybe we should spend the money on support aircraft, rescue helicopters and transport planes for humanitarian missions.

It’s a debate worth having. The Conservatives position is clear: they believe Canada is mature and wealthy enough to contribute to world policing, and should have the equipment to do so.

The Liberals appear to believe the opposite, but are afraid to say so. It is evident from the platform released on Sunday that Michael Ignatieff favours a return to the decades of Liberal practice under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, which oversaw the slow but persistent erosion of Canada’s military, to the point of international embarrassment. We lacked troops, we lacked equipment,  we lacked influence. Canadian soldiers heading overseas had to hitch rides on foreign aircraft. We couldn’t deliver our own equipment on aid missions.

It’s hard to find a single plank of the Liberal position on the F-35s that doesn’t creak with empty talk and insincerity. The Liberals say they would immediately cancel the purchase and think about it again later. They can’t say when. They promise they would “save billions of dollars”, but can’t say how. They say they will “put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement,” which means more delay and more uncertainty for the forces. They promise any future purchases — when they get around to it — would undergo a “transparent competitive process to procure equipment that best suits our needs,” without spelling out what they see as Canada’s “needs.”

We’ve been here before, of course. Jean Chretien campaigned for the 1993 election on a promise to cancel the Conservatives’ $4.8 billion purchase of replacement helicopters for the military’s decrepit Sea Kings. Like Ignatieff, he claimed they were too expensive and unnecessary. Once elected, he carried out the promise, paying $500 million in penalties and dooming Canadian troops to two more decades aboard dangerous aircraft that spend as much time being repaired as they do in the air. Chretien could never admit the mistake, of course, so it wasn’t until he left office that Paul Martin could place the same $5 billion order for new helicopters.

Ignatieff is in the same position, and for the same reason. The new party platform concentrates on supporting UN operations and promises a “new leadership role in peace operations,” the same puffery used by previous Liberals governments to justify starving the forces. “Peacekeeping” means sending troops to areas where they won’t have to fight, and might not even have to be armed. The UN has been “peacekeeping” in the Congo through years of slaughter, doing nothing to halt the horrors there. It did nothing to avert similar bloodshed in Rwanda or Darfur.

“Peacekeeping” is a pleasant code word that hides the Liberal intent to save money by cutting back again on the military. There is nothing wrong with that, if, and it’s a big if, the party is willing to be open and honest about its policy and its implications, and let Canadians pass judgement. But it’s not.  Like Trudeau and Chretien, Ignatieff isn’t willing to have that debate, so he hides behind spurious claims about the high cost of jet planes and pledges to look for a better deal. He knows, (or should know) that cancelling the F-35 purchase means cancelling any purchase for years to come. Like Chretien, he could never admit the decision was a mistake, so no new plane would be ordered for the life of an Ignatieff government.

The Liberals’ policy on the military is to have no policy, and hope no one notices. Mr. Ignatieff has a weakness for tough talk (“Mr. Harper, your time is up.” “Anywhere, any time”), but he plainly lacks the nerve for this debate.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/matt-gurney-liberals-come-down-with-a-case-of-eh-101-deja-vu/
*
Matt Gurney: Liberals come down with a case of EH-101 deja vu*

Matt Gurney - Apr 5, 2011 

The Liberal platform is out, and they’re very clear about one particular issue. The Liberals will:

Cancel the mismanaged, $30 billion deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets. When it is necessary to buy new fighters, we’ll spend billions less than the Harper government would have. But the higher priorities will be investments in middle-class families, and building a stronger economy for the future.

They later explain further. After taking office, the Liberals will cancel the fighters, reinvest that money in the afore-mentioned “higher priorities”, conduct a full review of the military’s needs and hold competitive tenders for any equipment that we might need, when we need it.

There’s something very familiar about this.

Oh, yeah: This sounds a lot like when Jean Chretien cancelled an order for 42 EH-101 “Cadillac helicopters” that the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered in 1987, to replace the Canadian navy’s fleet of 1950s-vintage Sea Kings. Chretien campaigned on cancelling the choppers, and was even willing to eat a half-billion dollar fine from the builder to do it. So it was done, and the Liberals patted themselves on the back, and only belatedly realized that, whoops. We badly need new helicopters.

To their everlasting credit, the Liberals were quick to correct their mistake, needing a mere 11 years, three elections and one contentious leadership change before getting around to ordering replacement aircraft. The new birds, ordered in 2004, still haven’t arrived and likely won’t go into service for another two years (assuming no further delays). During that time, the Sea Kings have continued in service, occasional serious crashes and embarrassing mishaps not withstanding. Assuming they are replaced in 2013, that will mean the Sea Kings have served for 50 years. And they weren’t a brand new design when we got them, either — the American design the Sea Kings were based on first flew in 1959. That year was midway through Dwight Eisenhower’s second term, when Barbie dolls were introduced and when Stephen Harper was born.

Having not learned their lesson, the Liberals seem intent on repeating this mistake. The suspect line of their policy is “when we need new jets.” That’s now. Military aircraft have long lead-times — order ‘em today, you might get them in five, six, maybe even seven years. Might. Our existing CF-18 fighters were recently upgraded, but are due for retirement in 2020, by which point they’ll be 5o-year-old technology inside nearly 40-year-old aircraft. We can perhaps extend that by a few years, but only by a few, n0t the 20 years the Liberals’ cancellation of the EH-101 set us back.

The Liberals oppose the F-35 purchase — or at least oppose the fact that it was a sole-source contract, not open to tender (though somehow I doubt that after a tender, they’d be happy to admit that, gosh, the F-35 was the right plane all along!). If they want to campaign on stopping the F-35, they can, and there’s no doubt a few votes to be had there. But in order to be responsible caretakers of the armed forces, the Liberals must at least concede that new jets are needed soon, and must be ordered as soon as humanly possible. It would blunt their claims that the Tories are the big bad party that wants to spend billions on jets if the Liberals were honest enough to admit that they’re still going to spend billions on (possibly) different jets, but it’s the responsible thing to do. Their refusal to be honest with the Canadian public about the needs of our air force, even while calling the Tories secretive and dishonest, raises the grim prospect that another decade of darkness might lay ahead for the Canadian Forces.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Apr 2011)

As an aside, sorry for the slight tangent (rant) here:

In 1993 I wrote a letter to to editor to denounce the Liberal party (Chretien's) position that the EH 101 was an unneccesary purchase. It is my contenton now, as it was then, when a Sea King crew goes down the PM and  the Leader of the Opposition accompany the notification team(s) to explain to a grieving family WHY THE HELICOPTER CRASHED.

Rant ends.


----------



## Nostix (5 Apr 2011)

Two articles from the National Post which will never see the light of day in 99% of Canadian households, unfortunately.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2011)

This may be a “trend” or just a “blip” – from an article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ that notes that some of Harper’s perceived problems may be caused because _”… the Conservative Leader has come under increasing fire from *journalists* on the campaign trail, who have criticized the Tory machine for … limiting the number of questions reporters can ask”_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-slips-in-leaders-poll-after-liberals-unveil-platform/article1971777/


> Harper slips in leaders’ poll after Liberals unveil platform
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



So some (most?) journalists have made themselves part of the story: they don’t like the Tory campaign rules so they slag the leader - very _professional_, boys and girls, but almost exactly what we expect from you.


Edited to add:

Here is link to a better version of the _Nanos_ leadership index.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 repeating himself:  



> The truth shall not stand in the way. I think, as posted previously, that the media has influence way out of proportion to any of their human abilities.
> 
> I fear that the election may be lost (my preference) due to the hatred of the media to all things/anything Mr. Harper.





> A bunch of humanoids,  I have very little respect for, who lack ethics IMHO, get to manufacture news, tell fibs, etc.



In the olden days, they could have been labeled "Plugs". Why, the term "Plug" I do not know. Plugs have a use.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Why the term "Plug," I do not know. Plugs have a use.


Plugs are simply cylindrical versions of the wedge; and a wedge is one of the simplest tools used throughout the ages.   ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Plugs/wedges have a use.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2011)

This is amazing! The crux of the story is in the final paragraph: “But even so, the idea that any publisher should think they have a God-given right to anyone’s money is absurd … That’s definitely something they may have wanted to think about before letting the editor run as a Liberal candidate. We live in a free and democratic society, but I’d suggest she screwed up by not stepping down sooner.”

Now read the headline and story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:



> Editor runs for Liberals; Tory boycotts her newspaper
> 
> STEVE LADURANTAYE
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



If, as I suppose many do, one only reads the headline and first few paragraphs the message is: *Evil Conservatives ”shutting out media outlets that don’t publish favourable coverage.”* But that, of course, is not the story, not at all – it’s not even related to the story.

I know many (most?) journalists dislike Stephen Harper for both his personal style and the substance of his policy, but this is over the top.

By the way, _ThreeHundredEight.com_ has the Tory leading the Liberal by 59.2% to 20.8%. I guess she needs all the help she can get from her fellow journalists.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Apr 2011)

Is the editor still on paid staff while running for office? If so, that's a huge conflict of interest and I complete agree with the Tory MP for shutting them out. If the candidate resigned, or took an unpaid leave from the job then MAYBE their complaints are founded.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is the editor still on paid staff while running for office? If so, that's a huge conflict of interest and I complete agree with the Tory MP for shutting them out. If the candidate resigned, or took an unpaid leave from the job then MAYBE their complaints are founded.



Regardless, you target your ads where you think you will get the best returns.  The beauty of the system is that newspaper owners may want to decide editorial policy with their revenue stream in mind.  It doesn't take a big reach to conclude that a newspaper whose editor is an opposing candidate is hostile.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

ERC, why do you continue to call the humanoids who write their slanted opinion, label it reporting events, journalists?

The Editors, and Publishers are in the same class. They set the objectives and allow the opinion to be published.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Another example. Whining re "attack ads" (no not the ones about soldiers in the street, with guns) is not enough. The CPC released a different ad. The result below. Is there nothing that the CPC/Mr. Harper does correctly???

See CPC Ad: Our Country http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-accused-of-following-tea-partiers-script-in-triumphant-new-ad/article1972359/

*Plagiarism?
Tories accused of following Tea Partier's script in new ad*

Globe and Mail - 5 Apr 11 - Simon Houpt

A slick new Conservative television ad that seeks to present Stephen Harper as a statesmanlike leader bears an unusual number of similarities to a recent commercial for the Tea Party-backed Republican former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, and his 2012 presidential run.

The 60-second Tory spot titled Our Country, which unfolds like the trailer for a Hollywood political thriller or a boastful Molson Canadian ad, mixes archival scenes from Canada’s glorious past, including the 1988 Olympic torch relay and a black-and-white newsreel snippet of marching soldiers, with sweeping images of the country’s awesome geography, fighter jets and a multicultural passel of faces.

All are set against a backdrop of a thumping orchestral score and the speech Mr. Harper delivered to the Conservative Party faithful last January on the fifth anniversary of his 2006 ascent to the Prime Minister’s Office, in which he declared: “We want Canada to be a True North that is as strong and as free as it can be, in every way that matters – the best country in the world.”

But hours after it was released on the Conservative Party’s YouTube channel Tuesday, the Liberals uploaded a video to their own YouTube channel titled “Harper ad strikingly similar to Tea Party Governor ad,” which stitched the Conservative spot to the end of Mr. Pawlenty’s commercial promoting his political action committee and his memoir Courage to Stand: An American Story. The book was released in January by the Illinois-based Christian publisher Tyndale House.

The Pawlenty ad is a noisier, flashier, more expensive version of the Conservative spot, though both feature fighter jets, flag waving, ringing speeches by the leaders and clips of important national hockey games. (Mr. Pawlenty’s has the 1980 U.S. Miracle on Ice, while Mr. Harper’s uses Paul Henderson’s Game Seven winner from the 1972 Summit Series.) Where Mr. Harper says Canada “must be great for all Canadians, it must be a country of hope and an example to the world,” Mr. Pawlenty’s features a clip of the Berlin Wall falling and the Statue of Liberty.

Each also features the men striding purposefully through a hallway as the music track turns bombastic. And both conclude with white-on-black title cards promoting their protagonists, like those used in trailers for Will Smith or Matt Damon action movies.

When Mr. Pawlenty’s ad hit the Internet in January, its near-apocalyptic tone was widely mocked for feeling like a trailer from the action-movie director Michael Bay, who has helmed both the Transformers series and amped-up ads for Victoria’s Secret.

The Pawlenty plagiarism allegations threaten to derail the Conservative attempt to pivot in their messaging, from using their ads to sow fear over Michael Ignatieff to a more hopeful stance.

But Mr. Harper wouldn’t necessarily enjoy all of Mr. Pawlenty’s offerings: In an ad released last month prior to his appearance at a Tea Party Summit in Arizona, Mr. Pawlenty praises the movement as “a great addition to the conservative coalition.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are proud of the ad. We are proud of our country. We don't comment on strategy.”

With a report from Paul Attfield

*Rebuttal:* http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/04/ignatieff-plagiarized-obama-campaign-ad.html
*

See link to see the Iggy/Obama ads.

Ignatieff Plagiarized Obama Campaign Ad? You Tell Me...*

So the Liberals are trying to spin the newest Conservative ad, which is not an attack ad, as being plagiarized from a Tea Party Ad. Seems both ads feature the respective National Flags. Who would think a campaign ad would have a shot of the countries flag. Both feature various shots of scenery from each country, as well as film clips of the countries history. Sure, I guess this is the first time any party in the history of politics thought to use those items in a campaign ad. And of course the media laps it all up.

So following that same storyline, let's compare an Ignatieff ad from 2011 with a Obama ad from the last U.S. election. *Wanna bet any of the Canadian media report on it? I doubt it.*


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC, why do you continue to call the humanoids who write their slanted opinion, label it reporting events, journalists?
> 
> The Editors, and Publishers are in the same class. They set the objectives and allow the opinion to be published.




Because I regard journalist as a pejorative term; it describes someone who cannot qualify for any real job - except as a stenographer who takes the press releases from big banks, trade unions, political parties, manufacturers, special interest groups and telephone companies and submits them for publication with only one change: the journalist's name and today's date at the top. We don't have a "smiley" for a sneer but that's the expression on my face almost every time I type the word  j o u r n a l i s t.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2011)

Thanks for that. I should have known.


----------



## Kalatzi (5 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> All the more reason to start a political party based on Dr. Seuss characters.
> 
> I like the Cat in the Hat....



I see you and raise 8)

Conservative 

 Leader - Don Cherry
Finance - Donald Trump maybe not he did bankrupt a couple of his companies
Defense - Ahnold
Justice - Dirty Harry

FYE


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> I see you and raise 8)
> 
> Conservative
> 
> ...



Yes. He's done so well with California hasn't he? :


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2011)

Here is the latest, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> April 6, 2011 Projection - Conservative Government
> 
> *WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011*
> Split House ensues
> ...




So, although the _national_ changes are very, very minor – limited to another slight drop in Green support – there is some good news for the Tories in vote rich ON which is offset by bad news in BC.

But, it appears that the Liberal platform has not, yet, changed the broad outlook.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2011)

With steady leakage from the Greens, the left wing vote could now be in play for the Liberals and NDP. The 6.3% nationally won't create a government, even if it all went to the Liberals, but it might shake up some of the riding's where the Liberals and NDP are close.

I'm still wondering if the CPC will make a push for the "Blue Liberals" to cross the floor after the election. A coalition of the winners would create a stable majority and finally allow Canadians to get on with life.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> With steady leakage from the Greens, the left wing vote could now be in play for the Liberals and NDP. The 6.3% nationally won't create a government, even if it all went to the Liberals, but it might shake up some of the riding's where the Liberals and NDP are close.
> 
> I'm still wondering if the CPC will make a push for the "Blue Liberals" to cross the floor after the election. A coalition of the winners would create a stable majority and finally allow Canadians to get on with life.




The Blue Liberals, AKA the Manley Liberals will agree with the _Good Grey Globe_ on economic nationalism by stealth. Hell’s bells, even I agree with most of this editorial, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-stealthy-return-of-economic-nationalism/article1972114/


> [GLOBE EDITORIAL
> 
> The stealthy return of economic nationalism
> 
> ...




One place where I disagree with the _Globe_ (and with the Ignatieff the Liberals) is the need to “clarify” the “net benefit” provision. Sometimes a little ambiguity is a good thing in politics and in policy. Deciding on whether something is or will be a “net benefit to Canada” is, probably, impossible in any concrete sense – it will almost always be a subjective, arguable calculation. Sometimes subjective things are best left ill-defined.

Anyway, there are _Manley Liberals_ and, according to the _Globe and Mail_ there are _Ignatieff Liberals_, too. Maybe the _twain_* shall separate.


__________
* Remember Kiplimg's The Ballad of East and West?

_OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,	
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;	
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,	
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!_
etc


----------



## observor 69 (6 Apr 2011)

Headlines (News Releases)
Communications, Public Affairs & Marketing


Liberals cutting into Harper majority, research institute finds
Apr 6/11| For Immediate Release

Contact: Barry Kay, Department of Political Science
Wilfrid Laurier University
519-884-0710 ext. 3362 or 519-886-5668 or bkay@wlu.ca

or  Andrea Perella, Director
Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy
519-884-0710 ext. 2719 or aperrella@wlu.ca



WATERLOO – An analysis of new polls projects another minority for the Conservative Party, according to The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP). 

A LISPOP analysis of recent polls projects a seat distribution of 150 seats for the Harper Conservatives, a loss of seven seats over two weeks. Today’s projection is based on an aggregation of polls conducted by Nanos Research, Ekos and Leger Marketing between March 28 and April 2, 2011, with a blended sample of about 8,000 individuals. The regional swing model also projects 74 seats for the Liberals, 33 seats for the NDP and 51 seats for the Bloc Québécois. 

Much of the shift has occurred in seat-rich Ontario, where the Liberals have recaptured some lost ground, although this currently translates only to a modest three-seat gain, all at the expense of the Conservatives. 

The Conservative numbers hold amid a string of ethical controversies that carried into the campaign. 

“The story at the moment is that there hasn't been much change in the last two months despite the political games,” said Barry Kay, an associate of LISPOP. “As with other recent projections since early February, the overall numbers represent only marginal shifting which hardly exceeds sampling error in most regions.” 

A tightening of the race is not a surprise. 

“Historically, whoever is leading at the beginning of the campaign usually loses support, sometimes dramatically,” said Kay. “The most dramatic were John Turner in 1984 and Kim Campbell in 1993. Both were ahead in pre-campaign polls, but lost 20 points.” 

The seat projection is one of several features on LISPOP’s election tracker coverage of the 2011 campaign. Visitors to www.wlu.ca/lispop can view a map of all federal constituencies, colour-coded to reflect the standing of each of the main parties and general level of competitiveness, as per LISPOP’s analysis of the latest surveys. 

Currently, 32 seats are designated as “too close to call,” which is an increase from 26 ridings from LISPOP’s March 25 projection. Another 29 show one party “leaning”: eight for the Conservatives, nine for the Liberals, 10 for the NDP, and two for the Bloc Québécois. 

Three Toronto-area ridings – Don Valley West, York Centre and Ajax-Pickering – show a slight Liberal lead, a change from LISPOP’s previous projection which had these ridings categorized as “too close to call.” Liberal standing in Bramalea-Gore-Malton has improved from “leaning” to the more comfortable “leading.” 

Liberal gains in Ontario are also making some seats more hotly contested. Kitchener-Centre, Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga-Erindale, Oak Ridges-Markam, Brampton-West previously showed a slight Conservative lead, but are now too close to call. 

Updates will be announced through LISPOP’s Twitter account, @LaurierInst. 

About LISPOP: The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy is a research centre at Wilfrid Laurier University which studies issues pertaining to the creation, use and representation of public opinion in the policy process. The institute serves as a catalyst to promote individual and collaborative research on these issues. In addition, the institute monitors the practices and claims of the public opinion and interest group industries, and serves as an educational resource to the university and the larger community on questions and issues pertaining to those claims and practices.


http://www.wlu.ca/news_detail.php?grp_id=28&nws_id=7706


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Apr 2011)

The future, if the LPC becomes the government with their published Red Book new "NEP" and tax changes for the oil industry.

From the Blog: http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/04/journalism-just-does-not-get-any-better.html

_"Journalism just does not get any better than this! Licia Corbella writes...
On Dec. 19, 2009 the Calgary Herald ran this remarkable article by Editor, Licia Corbella. It's relevance to the election in front of us simply cannot be understated!"_
*
Playing fairy godmother to Quebec not so fun*

Calgary Herald- Dec 19 2009 - Licia Corbella

Today, let's have some fun and play fairy godmother to Quebec. Let's grant the province the wish it articulated in Copenhagen. Wave the magic wand and poof, wish granted. Shut down Alberta's oilsands, except, since it's Quebec making the wish, we have to call it tarsands, even though it's not tar they use to run their Bombardier planes, trains and Skidoos.

Ah, at last! The blight on Canada's reputation shut down. All those dastardly workers from across Canada living in Fort McMurray, Calgary and Edmonton out of jobs, including those waitresses, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, doctors, pilots, engineers etc. They can all go on employment insurance like Ontario autoworkers and Quebec parts makers!

Closing down Alberta's oil industry would immediately stop the production of 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Supply and demand being what it is, oil prices will go up and therefore the cost at the pump will go up, too, increasing the cost of everything else.

But lost jobs in Alberta and across the country along with higher gas prices are a small price to pay to save the world and not "embarrass" Quebecers on the world stage. Not to worry though, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Nigeria can come to the rescue. You know, the guys who pump money into al-Qaeda and help Osama bin Laden target those Van Doos fighting in Afghanistan. Bloody oil is so much nicer than dirty tarsands oil.

Shutting down the oilsands will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 38.4 Mt (megatonnes). Hooray! It's so fun to be a fairy godmother! While that sounds like a lot, Canada only produces two per cent of the world's man-made GHGs and the oilsands only produce five per cent of Canada's total emissions or 0.1 per cent of the world's emissions. By comparison, the U.S. produces 20.2 per cent of the world's GHG emissions -- 27 per cent of which comes from coal-fired electricity.

The 530 sq.-km piece of land currently disturbed by the tarsands (which is smaller than the John F. Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida at 570 sq. km) must be reclaimed by law and will return to Alberta's 381,000 sq. km of boreal forest, a huge carbon sink. Quebec, of course, has clean hydro power, but more than 13,000 sq. km were drowned for the James Bay hydroelectric project, permanently removing that forest from acting as a carbon sink.

But fairy godmother is digressing all over the place. While the oilsands only produce five per cent of Canada's GHGs, it contributes much more to Canada's economy, with oil and gas making up one-quarter of the value on the TSX alone. Alberta is also the largest net contributor per capita by far to Confederation and there are only two more -- B.C. and Ontario.

Quebec hasn't made a net contribution to the rest of Canada for a very long time. This is not to be critical (after all, fairy godmothers never criticize) it's just a fact.

In 2009, Albertans paid $40.46 billion in income, corporate and other taxes to the federal government and received back just $19.35 billion in services and goods from the feds. That means the rest of Canada got $21.1 billion from Albertans or $5,742 for each and every Alberta man, woman and child. In 2007 (the last year national figures are available), Alberta sent a net contribution of $19.49 billion to the ROC or $5,553 per Albertan -- more than three times what every Ontarian contributes at $1,757. Quebecers, on the other hand, each received $627 net or a total of $8 billion, money which was designed to help "equalize" social programs across the country. Except, that's not what's happening. Quebec has more generous social programs, like (nearly) free university tuition (paid for mostly by Albertans) and cheap provincial day care (paid for mostly by Albertans).

But in this fairy godmother world, poof! those delightful unequal programs have now disappeared! Quel dommage!

The July 2009 Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) report states that between 2008 and 2032, the oilsands will account for 172,000 person-years of employment in Ontario during the construction phase, plus 640,000 for operations over the 25-year period. For Quebec, the oilsands will account for 84,000 person-years of employment during the construction phase, plus 292,000 for operations over the 25-year period. In total, the tarsands are expected to add $1.7 trillion to Canada's GDP over the next 25 years.

Wave wand. Poof. Jobs, gone! This fairy godmother role isn't all it's cracked up to be. So, now that the oil industry has shut down and left Alberta, Alberta has become a have-not province and so has every other province. Equality at last! Hugo Chavez will be so pleased. Meeting our Copenhagen targets suddenly looks possible, as most of us can't afford to drive our cars or buy anything but necessities, so manufacturers have closed their doors and emissions are way down.

The dream of many Quebecers to form their own nation and separate from Canada has died at last. Fairy godmothers always like to look on the bright side. Quebecers finally realize they can't thrive without the ROC. Alas, in Alberta, separatist sentiment has risen dramatically, citizens vote to separate and the oil and gas industry returns. Albertans start to pocket that almost $6,000 for each person that used to get sent elsewhere and now their kids get free tuition.

Fairy godmother's work is done. Wish granted. Quebecers must now sign up for a foreign worker visas to work in Alberta to send their cheques back home so junior can start saving up to pay for college.

lcorbella@theherald.canwest.com


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2011)

Tar = BAD!  Bad Alberta!

Asbestos = wonderful insulative material.  Good Quebec, for helping the rest of the developing world warm in an ecologically-considerate way!


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Apr 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Tar = BAD!  Bad Alberta!
> 
> Asbestos = wonderful insulative material.  Good Quebec, for helping the rest of the developing world warm in an ecologically-considerate way!



What's a little incurable mesothelioma between friends.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

Maybe Ignatieff did get a "bounce" from his platform in the place where it matters most, Ontario - which has over ⅓ of the seats in the HoC. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is a report:

 http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> * WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011*
> Close race in Ontario in two new polls
> 
> Today's daily Nanos poll for CTV and The Globe and Mail shows very little change from yesterday, but the close race that Nanos has found to be the case in Ontario has been further confirmed by a new release by the Innovative Research Group, an opinion polling firm with offices in Vancouver and Toronto. Apparently, we should expect to hear from them periodically during the campaign with a look at the situation in Ontario.
> ...




Harper’s majority is impossible without substantial gains in ON.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2011)

The Innovative Research poll is flawed as it didn't ask balanced questions:

Do you agree or disagree "The Conservative Party is too extreme for me." - no similar question about the Liberal or other parties

"Stephen Harper scares me." - no similar question for the other leaders.

Without equal questions, the bias is magnified. It is improper in this context to infer that if the answer to A is B, then the answer to B is A. This is politics, it is just as likely that the answer to B is C.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Apr 2011)

Morning Analysis
A Tory minority seems as inevitable as its demise 
Patrick Brethour 
Vancouver— Globe and Mail Update 
Posted on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:00AM EDT


See story at  LINK


----------



## HavokFour (7 Apr 2011)

*Liberals turf Que. candidate over aboriginal comments*​
Article



> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff turfed a Quebec candidate Wednesday after it was revealed the man made disparaging remarks about aboriginal people.
> 
> A news release by the NDP earlier Wednesday accused Liberal candidate André Forbes of making disparaging remarks about First Nations and Innu people. The release says he's a former leader of l’Association des Droits des Blancs, the Association for the Rights of Whites, in Sept-Iles, Que.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danjanou (7 Apr 2011)

Hmm you'd think the Natural Governing Party of Canada would do a better screening job on their candidates. you know at least check their Facebook page for stuff like this ;D


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2011)

People, being people, will say and do things that surprise you.

Look for equally embarrassing events in the other party camps over the next few weeks (although any missteps by CPC candidates will be headline, front and center, while similar missteps from other parties will be below the fold....sigh)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

Here, during the second week and based on _ThreeHundredEight.com’s_ aggregation of other polls, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the first indication of a (bare) Conservative majority government:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/








> * THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011*
> Conservative majority
> 
> Four new polls this morning. Four! In 2008 this would have been nothing special, but in 2011 this is a deluge. However, new polls don't always mean new changes, and this set of polls has had little effect on the projection. But we do have a few seat swaps, and the end result is a Conservative majority government. But only just.
> ...




This is what parliament looks like with a Tory majority:

* PROJECTED CANADIAN PARLIAMENT*




Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

But note the analyst’s last sentence. The Liberals will now spread fear of the “hidden agenda”© which will surely kill medicare and bring back capital punishment if the Tories get a majority. The question is: are Canadians sufficiently comfortable with Stephen Harper, after five years, to ignore the Liberal fear smear?


----------



## HavokFour (7 Apr 2011)

*Catholic teachers target Tories*​
Article



> A $3-million election war chest paid for by Ontario’s Catholic teachers has left the provincial Tories feeling outgunned.
> 
> Tory MPP Lisa MacLeod said the political action campaign fund set up by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) will put PCs at a severe spending disadvantage during the upcoming fall campaign.
> 
> ...



This is insane, unions should not have power at that level especially when Canadian kid's education is involved. My mother works at a Catholic school as an EA and is a member of OECTA, and I can tell you now that they are the slimiest people on the face of the planet. She is treated like dirt, and is usually doing the teaching (and still payed for only half a day) while the real teacher hangs out in the staff room doing jack-all.

Vote Conservative so we can kick these lizards out of power.


----------



## Danjanou (7 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> People, being people, will say and do things that surprise you.
> 
> Look for equally embarrassing events in the other party camps over the next few weeks (although any missteps by CPC candidates will be headline, front and center, while similar missteps from other parties will be below the fold....sigh)



True the PQ Lib candidates outing is buried way back in CTV, CBC reporting.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Apr 2011)

Compare the coverage of a Liberal candidate who was convicted of a *Criminal Code of Canada* offense with the appearance of a Conservative supporter at a rally:

Todays National Post, page 6:  http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
(Can not find this in other media)

A *Liberal candidate* for a Vancouver-area riding was *convicted *of driving drunk in 2005, according to court records reviewed by Postmedia News. Mandeep Bhuller, who is running for the Liberals in Pitt MeadowsMaple Ridge-Mission, was pulled over by police in Maple Ridge, B.C., on Nov. 29, 2003 and charged with impaired driving. Mr. Bhuller fought the charge in court but he was found guilty on March 29, 2005 in Port Coquitlam, B.C., provincial court and handed a $800 fine and a one-year driving prohibition. “I made a serious mistake,” the candidate said in an interview Wednesday. “I’m embarrassed by it.” Liberal party spokesman Brad Zubyk said Mr. Bhuller disclosed his conviction during the party’s vetting process. “There was openness and contrition,” Mr. Zubyk said. Mr. Bhuller has spina bifida and his condition has worsened. He is now in a wheelchair and no longer drives. 

Todays on line Globe & Mail (don't know what page, but it got a headline):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-supporter-accused-of-fraud-gets-coveted-seat-at-harper-rally/article1974672/

Headline: *Tory supporter accused of fraud gets coveted seat at Harper rally* 

A Toronto businessman and self-described *campaign volunteer* who circulates in Conservative circles is* facing a criminal charge for allegedly fraudulent *credit- and debit-card withdrawals – a background that did not prevent him from sitting right behind the Harper family at a rally last week.

My Comment: This proves, unequivocally, that along with the Bruce Carson"affair", the Harper government surrounds itself with criminals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Todays National Post, page 6:  http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
> (Can not find this in other media)


CBC did a bit on this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/06/cv-election-liberals-bhuller-drunk-driving.html
as did Vancouver radio
http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1397952
... but it was mostly the NatPost/Postmedia outlets that ran it significantly.

Good catch on the differences.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Apr 2011)

From a Blog.

Lets see if the main stream media pick this up, and where it is placed. Of interest also because of the F-35 and law & order issues. The guy was a Judge.

http://blog.decisioncanada.ca/conservatives/liberal-candidate-suggest-some-sexual-assault-offenders-should-not-go-to-jail/

*Liberal candidate suggests some sexual assault offenders should not go to jail*

April 7, 2011. 10:16 am • Section: Conservatives, Liberals

OTTAWA — John Reilly, the Liberal candidate for Wild Rose, is coming under attack for suggesting last month that some sexual offenders should not go to jail.

The Conservative Party is handing out transcripts and audio clips from an interview Reilly, a retired provincial court judge with 35 years experience on the bench, did with The Rutherford Show on March 31, 2011.

The Rutherford Show with guest John Reilly

Reilly went on to say that in a specific case where a young 19, 20, year-old man who penetrated a woman with his fingers should not go to jail for three years.

You can listen to the whole interview on the Rutherford’s website, click March 31, 2011. Select the 10:00 AM hour. Rutherford spoke with Reilly at 9:25 and took calls from listeners at 27:00.

Reilly, who has been described as a maverick, told Rutherford he was inspired to run because he believes “the vast majority of the people who have appeared in front of me over my thirty-plus years on the bench are *disadvantaged poor people, uneducated a lot of them have learning difficulties, a lot of them with drug addictions.*

I see the majority of people as needing help, and what motivated me to just resign my position and run in this election is that *I was disgusted by the Conservative government policies that have all these mandatory minimums. * And I see those policies as policies that will incarcerate thousands of people that don’t need to be incarcerated, and the cost is billions of dollars.”

Reilly could not be immediately reached for comment.

This is the full transcript:

….his name is John Reilly and you would think a guy who has that kind of attitude towards the criminal justice system, personal responsibility, liability, he might be you know, sort of a tough guy.  He says ‘I’m not that guy anymore.’ He’s going to run for the federal Liberals in the riding of Wild Rose because he does not like some of the things coming from the criminal justice reform agenda of the Conservative Party.  Can I still call you Judge Reilly, John?
JR:  You can call me anything you want to…
Host:  Just don’t call me late for dinner, I know.
JR:  I’m not a judge anymore.
Host:  Alright.
JR:  So you can just call me John.
Host:  Call you John.  Alright, listen John, what I said in the introduction was correct.  People who have seen you in court, we’ve seen some of your decisions, we’ve seen you on the bench, at least we think we’ve seen you on the bench, for over 30 years in the criminal justice system doing a certain thing.  Have you changed your attitude?
JR:  Well, no, I think I wasn’t sure about that guy you were talking about.  I’ve always thought that I had the reputation as the soft touch.  I have criticized the concepts of punishment and deterrents for their own sake.  My position in relation to criminal law is that I think you have to make a decision between whether you just want to punish crime which I think is an attitude that’s somewhat prevalent, whether you just want to punish it or whether you actually want to reduce it, and while there are some people who are bad and just need to be locked away, I think the vast majority of the people who have appeared in front of me over my thirty-plus years on the bench are disadvantaged poor people, uneducated, a lot of them have learning difficulties, a lot of them with drug addictions. I see the majority of people as needing help. And what motivated me to just resign my position and run in this election is that I was disgusted by the Conservative government policies that have all these mandatory minimums.  And I see those policies as policies that will incarcerate thousands of people that don’t need to be incarcerated, and the cost is billions of dollars.  And of course, the other thing that motivated me is that the party was found to be in contempt of Parliament because they had, the had these policies and also their F-35 policies that were going to cost the taxpayers of Canada billions of dollars and they were trying to pass that legislation without telling us how much it was going to cost.  That was the contempt of Parliament, and that was sort of the icing on the cake for me running in this election. I

Host:  Wait a second, John, you’re talking about the cost of criminal justice reforms, is that mostly what you’re, not the jets?

JR:  I mention the jets because that was part of the contempt of Parliament motion that has caused this election.  But it was also the cost of the criminal justice initiatives — which I understand might be as high as six billion dollars — their prison expansion policies. And you know, they’ve been doing this in the United States and they finally decided that they were wrong.  They had all these mandatory sentences in California, and they were locking up so many people that it was bankrupting the state of California, so one day last year, Arnie Swartzeneger just releases forty thousand prisoners and goes on national television to tell the people ‘Don’t worry about this because these people aren’t dangerous.’  Well, my question is:  if they’re not dangerous, why are we locking them up in the first place?

*Host*:  But you know that the California situation was not just a one-off, there all kinds of other problems in the California economy, not just the cost of incarceration.  But it was one of the things the governments do, yes.  But, some new stats, I mean our analysis of incarceration statistics, John, are here.  *As my last, I talked about this with Dr. Ian Lee, who is a professor at Carleton, myths and urban legends surrounding crime in Canada, pretty extensive report.  He said ‘You know, it’s really tough to get into federal prison in Canada.  It’s not just stealing a piece of pizza.’ It’s hard to get into prison, you got to kill people, rape people, be in gangs, you know.  It’s hard to get into federal prison, John. We don’t just throw pizza thieves in there.*

JR:  You know, I have had a number of cases that I’ve written judgments on where the crown prosecutor is saying the starting point for this offence is three years in the federal penitentiary.  And one lad that I think of who was a cocaine addict he’d buy half a dozen hits and sell three of them to pay for the ones he was using, he managed to do this a few times with undercover officers, and he is now in front of me and it was kind of funny, that I looked at this young man and he was sweating and looked pale, looked like he was going to faint, and I asked him is something wrong, and the crown prosecutor said ‘This man just came up and said he’ll plead guilty to charges of trafficking cocaine and wondered what we were looking for by way of sentencing?’ and I told him three years.  And so I said, well you know, what you should do is talk to a lawyer and if you want to proceed with this guilty plea we should get a pre-sentence report, we should find out some stuff about you and decide what we’re going to do.  And I ended up giving this young man a sentence of two years less a day that I allowed him to serve in the community, a conditional sentence order.  And this is about four years ago.  The crown wanted him to go to a federal penitentiary.  I left him on the street.  Part of the conditional sentence order was treatment and also community service work. He did his community service work, he successfully completed his conditional sentence order and this is now some four years later, and I was down at the Victory store dropping some stuff off that we were donating a month or two ago, and this guy says ‘Hi Judge Reilly!’ and it’s the guy.  And he’s still doing, he still goes down and does volunteer work at the Victory store.  And you know, I can’t tell you thousands of those stories, but they wanted him in the federal penitentiary, and I wouldn’t do it, but I’m afraid that there are a lot of people in his position that are going there, and they’re soft.  If that boy, boy, young man, would not have survived a federal penitentiary.
Host:  Judge Reilly, John, no, it’s good to hear those, you analyze a situation, you looked at the kid, you realized this guy is not a dangerous criminal, et cetera, great.  That’s your role, isn’t it?
JR:  The role that I think the Conservatives are trying to take away from judges.
Host:  But you’ve got also, you can’t deny that 70% of inmates in federal prisons are there for violent crimes.  First and second degree murder, sex assault, arson, kidnapping.  Those, 70% of them judge, so it’s not again they’re just a bunch of innocent people sitting in prison.  There’s some bad dudes in there.
JR:  There are.  But I believe that the percentage of ‘bad dudes’ that are in there is a lot lower than the, I mean, this is one of my problems with the criminal justice system the way it is, is that I say we put too much emphasis on the offence and not enough emphasis on the offender.  If you’re looking at what the Conservative government wants to do is say if this is the offence, you go to jail.  And that’s going to put people in jail that don’t need to be there.
Host:  But what kind of offences though?
JR:  Sexual assault.
*Host:  You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?
JR:  Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.*
Host:  Sure?
JR:  And I had another young man, not a young offender, but a 19, 20 year old.  He’s at a party, there’s a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they’re drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away.  They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her, the crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman’s vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offence.  And I’m looking at this 20 year old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it’s one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration.  I don’t think in those circumstances that that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years.
*Host:  Unless it’s your daughter, and then maybe you’ve got a whole another perspective!  You haven’t mentioned the word ‘victim’ once yet!*
JR:  You know, I am concerned about victims, but what I’m concerned about is our society as a whole.  Often, these minimum sentences that I’m stuck with, if I have an assault occasioning bodily harm, that’ll qualify now as a crime of violence.  Again, a couple of guys have too much to drink in a bar and get into a fight, maybe somebody gets hit with a glass.  I had a woman in front of me who was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm.  She was drunk, guy offended her, she went to throw the beer in her glass in his face and she hit his face with the glass and it broke and there was huge damage done to his face.  Now, they’re saying she’s got to go to jail, this is an aggravated assault because it has caused serious bodily injury.
Host:  You say booze.
JR:  No, I just say is this a person that needs to go to a federal penitentiary, and if I can keep her out of the federal penitentiary, that guy has just suffered a big financial loss, because this is going to cost him a lot.  If we send the offender to jail automatically, this is the offence he’s committed, he’s not able to earn the money that’s going to allow him to make restitution for the damage he’s done.  And so some of these things you know….
Host:  John, hang on, don’t go away, I want to continue.  And I have people that want to ask you questions, I do need to take a break here John.  John Reilly back after this!


----------



## Container (7 Apr 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/07/cv-election-liberal-apologizes.html

Here is the CBC article- more of a one page space for his apology.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Apr 2011)

Further, same Blog source:

http://blog.decisioncanada.ca/

*Michael Ignatieff says John Reilly can remain a candidate*

April 7, 2011

LAVAL, Que. — Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal Thursday a candidate who suggested not all sexual offenders deserve to go to prison, can remain a representative of the party.

Ignatieff said he was *“disgusted”* by the comments but John Reilly, a retired Alberta judge, had a good reputation for public service and he had apologized unreservedly.
*
    “The comments are totally unacceptable. I, personally, was disgusted. But he is a judge*, he has a record of public service that goes back some 30 years — i*t’s a whole life that has to be judged.* He had made comments that are totally unacceptable for all Canadian, he apologized unreservedly on that statement. I had to look at his life, I had to gage the fact that this was a judge with a good reputation, good public service. And for that reason, because he has apologized unreservedly, well he can remain a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada,” Ignatieff said.

My comment: *...it’s a whole life that has to be judged.* OK, judge Stephen Harper's whole life!


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2011)

And people talk about the Conservatives being cold? How would you like to get fired by a reporter?

*Disgraced candidate learned he was fired through media*
_By QMI Agency  _

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/07/17906561.html


> Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was in such a hurry to distance himself from his party’s now-disgraced candidate in Manicouagan, Andre Forbes, that he let the media tell him he was fired.
> 
> A reporter from the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil was the first to reach Forbes, founder of the Association for the Rights of Whites, to tell him his leader had given him the boot over statements perceived as intolerant toward aboriginals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ignatieff:*  “The comments are totally unacceptable. I, personally, was disgusted. But.....*


....the Liberal Party can't afford any more candidates being fired or defecting....so we'll keep whoever we can get to run for us."


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Apr 2011)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm going to vote this time the same way I vote every time: by secret ballot.  



But.....


WTF has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada?  And why does it _seem _ that if the Conservative Party of Canada trips, it's made out to be a major collapse, and if the Liberal Party of Canada has a major collapse, it's made out to be a trip?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2011)

> it’s a whole life that has to be judged



Well there is a lot to judge out there, from Jack Layton's creative living arrangements in subsidized housing to the "Alberta Firewall" (I think we all have had a full serving of Mr Ignatieff's past via CPC ads).

Past performance is an indicator of what we _could_ expect of a candidate, but I am also willing to suggest there should be some context as well. Did the candidate say this recently? In the heat of the moment? As an answer to a hypothetical? All the time? 

How about their record in government? In opposition? Their voting record? How does the voting record match with their rhetoric or platform?

Of course, this election would be far better served by the media asking hard questions and not inserting themselves into the narrative. For myself, I have read the party platforms (such as they exist today), looked at past voting records and the demonstrated results of policies (including any analogous policies enacted by past Liberal governments) and am making my decision accordingly. Candidates are not welcome to knock on my door unless they bring coffee...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is more on the leadership issue, which I think may be the most important part of the reason the Tories are staying on top, at or near, majority territory:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-layton-fight-for-distant-second-as-harper-coasts-above-white-noise/article1975208/


> Ignatieff, Layton fight for distant second as Harper coasts above ‘white noise’
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON, OTTAWA
> 
> ...




I appears to me that the leadership debates are more and more crucial for _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff. He will have to try to present himself as a _reasonable_ _desirable_ alternative to Harper in every way, but the need to appear both “reasonable” and “strong” may conflict. Plus, of course, he will be under attack from Layton who is a skilled debater.

I think it is time for the Conservatives to give some more voice – through surrogates - to the idea that Harper is being treated unfairly by a biased media, thereby reducing expectations of his performance in the debates and reminding Canadians that they ought not to believe everything they see on TV, especially not on the news.


----------



## larry Strong (7 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> and reminding Canadians that they ought not to believe everything they see on TV, especially not on the news.



You mean like John Q Public would have to get off their collective rear ends and actually do some real live thinking........do people have the ability any more, or has society been spoon fed for too long..........????


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Apr 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You mean like John Q Public would have to get off their collective rear ends and actually do some real live thinking........do people have the ability any more, or has society been spoon fed for too long..........????



We had a discussion about this today. Each one of us has been issued with a working, functional brain. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to use it, and let others do the thinking for us.
This is why Charlie Sheen's latest meltdown, or who got voted off on Survivor is far more important than a minor thing like who will govern us.

We really do deserve the government we get.


----------



## larry Strong (8 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We had a discussion about this today. Each one of us has been issued with a working, functional brain. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to use it, and let others do the thinking for us.
> This is why Charlie Sheen's latest meltdown, or who got voted off on Survivor is far more important than a minor thing like who will govern us.
> 
> We really do deserve the government we get.



Amen


----------



## hold_fast (8 Apr 2011)

I hear Prince Ignatiev's wife is Hungarian. Not even a Canadian citizen.

Oh... oh my...


 :
Meanwhile, vote Conservative and you'll get more gifts for your riding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/07/lac-saint-louis-riding-campaign-liberals-conservatives.html
Vote Conservative and you won't have your goodies taken away.
http://www.timescolonist.com/elected+Harper+vows+keep+command+Pacific+fleet+Esquimalt/4578847/story.html

Vote Conservative and the world won't come to an end, the economy won't crumble, and Canada won't fall into multiple pieces led by a separatist coalition!

Sorry. I don't buy it. No party's perfect, but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.


----------



## Dissident (8 Apr 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.



Which one is that? 

Cons are saying look at the big bad possible coalition. Here are new jets and ...
Libs are saying look at big bad scary Harper and his hidden agenda. Here are a whole lot of goodies we will give you (you are going to be taxed to death.)
NDP are saying look at big bad scary Harper and his hidden agenda. Here are a whole lot of goodies we will give you (you are going to be taxed to death.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2011)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a double edged sword:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-vow-to-maintain-annual-increase-in-health-care-transfers/article1976243/


> Liberals vow to maintain annual increase in health-care transfers
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




Health care funding _may_ be a, perhaps even is *the* big sleeper issue of the election and _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff’s promise is sure to please a great many Canadians who live in a sort of low level dread of the costs/availability of health care for their own, personal crises that _may_ come many years in the future. On the other hand an equally great number (I hope) will ask one simple question: how are we (not just you, _Prince Michael_, we – you, me and millions and millions of other Canadian taxpayers) going to pay for it?

David Doge, one of the really smart guys out there, has been asking for an “adult conversation,” most recently in this article, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-harper-and-ignatieff-mum-on-medicare-alarm-sounds-on-spending-disease/article1972949/


> With Harper and Ignatieff mum on medicare, alarm sounds on ‘spending disease’
> 
> JEREMY TOROBIN
> 
> ...




It looks, to me, as if _Prince Michael_ has closed the door on the plea for an “adult conversation” by deciding that public spending will continue to increase, going on and on and on and up and up and up until it squeezes out national defence and education and so on. This is not policy, it is pandering to the fears of the ignorant masses; it is typically Liberal in that.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Apr 2011)

Scott Reid plants the seed (of course he has been at the beer and popcorn so has no substantiation):

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

*THIS WEEK ON THE ELECTION TRAIL*

Every Friday until the election, our trio of experts — Scott Reid, Tasha Kheiriddin and John Moore — will analyze the ongoing campaign.
This week: What, if anything, should the parties be saying about health care?

*
SCOTT REID*
*
Stephen Harper is planning to cut health-care funding if re-elected*. You might think this would qualify as a controversial position worthy of spirited campaign debate. Yet, so far, the top-ranking concern of Canadians can’t even squeeze past Facebook-creeping to score a few minutes mention on the evening news.
*
Partly that’s because it might not be true. But don’t spike the football just yet, Harper Nation. The available evidence suggests that it probably is true*. Certainly, Flaherty’s stalled budget hints that the Conservatives are at least preserving the option of trimming health-care transfers after 2014.

According to the 2004 Health Accord, transfers from the federal government rise annually at a rate of 6%. It’s called the escalator clause. Now look at the March 22nd budget. Nowhere in that big abandoned book will you find a commitment to transfer levels beyond 2014, even though the government boastfully projects budget balance by 2015-16. Why? The federal government wants to maintain its negotiating position. Translated from government-speak, that means they’re gunning for the escalator — perhaps hoping to lower it by a couple percent or even tying it GDP growth.

Experts call this flattening the curve. Hospitals, doctors, nurses and patients call it a cutback.

Of course, it’s possible that Harper will declare that he’ll preserve the escalator at or above its current level. But notably, he’s not actually said that. Even more notably, 13 days deep into this election, he hasn’t yet been asked about it. That’s baffling because, as David Dodge pointed out this week, cost pressures are rising. This debate is needed and trade-offs are inevitable.

Seven years after Paul Martin signed the current deal, wait times are down, public confidence is up and intergovernmental bickering has largely evaporated. Canadians would likely attach priority to maintaining this approach even at the expense of tough expenditure choices elsewhere.

It’s the sleeper issue of this campaign. Layton talks about health care but his focus is on who should lead the re-negotiations, not what is to be achieved. The Liberals are left with a golden opportunity. They can lead this debate, reassert their traditional trust advantage on health care and flush the Conservatives out of the bushes, possibly even exposing a position that could be dangerously discordant with voters.

So stay tuned. Harper blew the 2004 election by, in part, mishandling the hot-potato politics of health care. Who says history can’t repeat itself?

Scott Reid is a principal with the communications firm Feschuk.Reid and has served as a senior advisor to Liberal campaigns and governments for two decades.

*TASHA KHEIRIDDIN*

Health-care spending now consumes 40%-50% of provincial budgets. A new report co-authored by David Dodge for the C.D. Howe Institute shows that if current rates of increase hold it will soar from 12% of GDP in 2009 to 19% in 2031. At the same time, studies reveal that despite ballooning budgets, wait times have doubled since 2003. While a recent Canadian Institute for Health Information study reported that wait times for certain “priority” procedures have improved, 20% of patients needing those treatments still experience unacceptable delays.

The evidence is plain that a) projected increases in health-care spending are fiscally unsustainable, (unless you tax Canadians into oblivion) and b) throwing more money at wait lists doesn’t make them go away. Clearly something else must change – and that something is the structure of our health care system.

To date, the Tories have evinced a mortal fear of supporting anything but the status quo — but they shouldn’t. This election presents an opportunity to set themselves apart from the rest of the herd, and craft a policy that will not only win votes, but improve the lives of millions of Canadians.

The Tories should not ignore the health-care issue, but tackle it head on. They should call the other parties’ health-care policies what they are: a bald-faced lie. Spending more money will not fix the problem for this generation or any other. You can ride all the escalator clauses you want, but our wait lists will still end up in the basement.

Second, the Tories should propose a solution that tackles the inefficiency of our single-payer monopoly system. This should include amending the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with health-care delivery as they see fit. Whether that would involve allowing more private care, contracting out, or delisting would be up to provincial governments — as it should be, since constitutionally, health care is a provincial issue.

Third, the party should gradually replace the bulk of health transfer payments with the transfer of tax points. Since this is the touchiest part of the equation, in our equalization-obsessed nation, it could only be done gradually, and would likely always maintain a certain portion of federal cash, but now with no strings attached.

So bring on the health-care debate, Conservatives. The opposition’s “fixes” would fail, respecting provincial jurisidiction will please in Quebec and the West, and no one could accuse Stephen Harper of dodging the debate. For the Tories, it’s a winning hand — if they’re willing to play it.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a columnist and editorial board member at the
*
JOHN MOORE*

It took a week and a half but they finally got to the substantive issues this week: hockey arenas and long guns. If you listen through the electoral din you’ll actually hear the collective party avoidance of the debate we should be having on health care.

Currently the only reference to the file has been the three major party leaders asking the same question, “Who do you want to be at the table when Ottawa negotiates a new health-care accord with the provinces?” Well as things stand: None of you, thanks.

Canada may not be staring down the entitlement tsunami that will inevitably swamp the United States but we urgently need a rational, math-based discussion about our collective future. Notwithstanding Kim Campbell’s 1993 blow-out, the campaign trail is very much the venue for such a conversation.

It’s a myth that health care is an electrified third rail. Polling shows Canadians are quite open to a mixed system. It’s the parties that run from the issue to avoid agitating noisy ideologues within their respective bases.

For the left, health care is fused with our national DNA, perhaps the first time outside of a Maoist country that a government program rivals the flag in cultural significance. The right bows before the alter of private enterprise decrying the notion that soulless bureaucrats ration health resources, as if in the private system those same resources aren’t rationed by soulless clerks who are sometimes paid bonuses for denying treatment.

Whatever debate we do have in Canada suffers from our proximity to one of the worst examples of public/private mix. Sure, a Harvard study found that Canadians enjoy “better outcomes for less money” but that comes as little comfort to those waiting months for hip replacement and cataract surgery.

Here’s the deal, the left needs to admit that as long as standards are maintained in the general system, there is nothing wrong with for-profit health care. If an ambitious doctor wants to offer thousand-dollar vanity MRIs at night while leasing a government machine, what’s not to like? For its part the right needs to concede that the annual per capita cost of providing decent health care to all Canadians is simply an insurance premium that needs to be funded. It’s nothing short of duplicitous to starve government of revenue by cutting taxes and then declare that health care is an unsustainable and selfish entitlement.

John Moore is host of Moore in the Morning on NewsTalk 1010 AM Toronto. Outside of southern Ontario he can be heard at Newstalk1010.com.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2011)

There are changes, for a change, to the _projections_ based on aggregated polls in the report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions(§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTION*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> .....but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.


So I guess you're not voting (or maybe you're missing the electioneering from all parties)?   :


----------



## Scott (8 Apr 2011)

Nevermind, JM. I think I hit the nail on the head in the debates thread: he's just bored because exams are over and has nothing better to do but drive by's.

hold fast: Enough is enough. These steady and quite useless hit and run posts are getting tiresome and detract from the thread(s) at hand. 

I am not warning you again

Scott
Staff


----------



## GAP (8 Apr 2011)

> One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?



On CBC NewWorld last night the speculation was on mostly people wandering away from the Bloc, but the main recipient seems to be NDP....they are projected to contest at least one Bloc seat.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2011)

Well, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ the Conservatives are finally releasing their platform:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pledge-to-tackle-deficit-a-year-ahead-of-schedule/article1976365/


> Tories pledge to tackle deficit a year ahead of schedule
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




My quick assessment:

+ Arming Coast Guard vessels – So-so idea – in my opinion we should limited the number of “armed” forces – ideally to two: the CF and the police. Maybe we need to rethink who does enforcement and transfer some CG vessels to the RCMP;

+ Stationing a rapid-reaction air-force wing for international emergencies in Bagotville, Que -  OK;

+ Run a surplus of at least $2.8-billion in the 2014-15 fiscal year. That's a year ahead of what the Harper government pledged only 17 days ago – Good!

+ Pledging not to cut is a 6-per-cent annual increase to health-care transfers to the provinces. Mr. Flaherty said the 6 per cent built into the 2011 budget's fiscal framework for two years beyond a 2013-14 renegotiating date for a transfer deal with provinces represents a commitment – Probably politically necessary but not a really good idea;

+ A “one-for-one” rule that would commit them to eliminating an existing government regulation every time they propose a new one – Good and would be better if it was a simple pledge to cut, Cut, CUT away at reams of regulations;

+ $2.5-million to install defibrillators in every hockey arena – A good idea but is it the Feds job?

+ Employment-insurance benefits for parents of murdered or missing children as well as parents of gravely ill children – Relatively harmless political pandering of the worst sort;

+ Establish a $5-million “Office of Religious Freedom” within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to monitor religious freedom around the world “as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy” – Nonsense, the sate has no business in the bedrooms of the national and even less in the temples of the world. A monumentally stupid idea;

+ Create a new national park in the Greater Toronto Area: at Rouge Valley, east of Toronto – More fairly harmless political pandering;

+ Guarantee a $4.2-billion loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project that angered Quebec – Good;

+ Give QC as much as $2.2-billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal goods and services levy – Yet more (this time expensive) but also probably necessary political pandering;

+ Scrap a per-vote taxpayer subsidy, one that his rivals have come to depend on heavily – Excellent! and overdue;

+ Enhanced Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors – Pandering, again;

+ Toughening laws on elder abuse by amending the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating factor when sentencing those who commit crimes against elderly Canadians – Specialized crimes, including “hate” crimes are a bad idea, just enforce the laws we have;

+ 100-per-cent drug testing in prisons from 75 per cent, which would see every federal inmate undergo drug testing at least once a year – Excellent, but even more needs to be done to separate convicts from drugs, even if that means making life more difficult for corrections personnel.


----------



## HavokFour (8 Apr 2011)

There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.



> Dear Prime Minister I hear you would like to freeze the pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets reduce all MP's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? RE-POST if you support our troops



Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.
> 
> Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.



I asked the one that posted this where he got his info.....and no reply.


----------



## Scott (8 Apr 2011)

I think it's doubtful, one of my 'Merican mates has the same thing posted, remove Prime Minister, insert Barack Obama...yadda, yadda, yadda

HavokFour, next thing you're going to tell us that Bill Gates is shutting down Hotmail unless you forward an email to 17,000 of your friends!

 ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> I think it's doubtful, one of my 'Merican mates has the same thing posted, remove Prime Minister, insert Barack Obama...yadda, yadda, yadda


Out there in the British version, too.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i9659-k4380151-Dear_Prime_Minister-Off_topic_chatter.html


----------



## Redeye (8 Apr 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.
> 
> Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.



No.  It's a "Canadianization" of another completely false meme making the rounds about President Obama.

From the ever-useful snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/payfreeze.asp

My wife (who's American) has been picking many a fight on facebook with her old friends down there about how stupid it is to repost this kind of crap without checking facts.  It's lazy when it's so easy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2011)

Here is a link to the Conservative Party of Canada’s platform.

The bits of primary concern to the CF begin on page 32, but it is pretty thin gruel.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?



The NDP. The Bloc is a National Socialist Party (the state uses taxes and revenues to provide favourable outcomes to particular ethnic groups) while the NDP is a Social Democratic Party (the state uses taxes and revenues to provide favourable outcomes to particular economic groups). Just convince _Pure Laine Québécois_ they are actually "_Working Families_ and most of the economic and social policies of the NDP will overlap the BQ by a considerable margin.


----------



## Riverain96 (9 Apr 2011)

I would tend to disagree with you Thucydides. 

As a quebecois francais myself, I am confident in saying that the majority of votes going to the BQ are centered around nationalist motives as well as language issues more than anything else. Many french Canadians feel they are not heard or simply do not associate with any of the other parties. The decrease in votes going to the BQ is coming mainly from a drop in nationalism as an issue of importance to french voters. 

The change in votes might help the NDP, and like you said it makes sense considering the social left part of their platforms. However, being that most votes going to the Bloc are not due to a socialist platform, most voters will actually not change their votes from BQ to NDP. I would say votes would be split more between the Liberals and the Conservatives, with more going to the liberals being as we Quebecers tend to prefer center left to center right.

You can also look to provincial politics to confirm this. If you look at the provincial situation for the past 10 years, you will notice the PLQ (Liberal Party of Quebec) has been in power. The PLQ is a center right party and shares more similarity with the liberals and conservatives than the NDP.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Apr 2011)

I don't really want to vote for anyone. Plutocrats have corrupted our Democracy. Politicians now look to me like opportunists with all the credibility of used car salesmen. Bill Moyers said it better criticizing the biggest threat to the US Democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-TYGOE1O0

_"The Gilded Age returned with a vengeance in our time. It slipped in quietly at first, back in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan began a "massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich".

The trend continued under George W. Bush — those huge tax cuts for the rich, remember, which are now about to be extended because both parties have been bought off by the wealthy — and by 2007 the wealthiest 10 per cent of Americans were taking in 50 per cent of the national income. Today, a fraction of people at the top today earn more than the bottom 120 million Americans.

Over the past 30 years, with the complicity of Republicans and Democrats alike, the plutocrats, or plutonomists have used their vastly increased wealth to assure that government does their bidding."_

_"Everyone knows millions of Americans are in trouble. As Robert Reich recently summed it the state of working people: they have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.

Their grown children have moved back in with them. Their state and local taxes are rising. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.

Why isn't government working for them? Because it has been bought off. It is as simple as that. And until we get clean money we are not going to get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss goodbye government of, by, and for the people. Welcome to the plutocracy."_


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Apr 2011)

When rates are examined there had been a general downward trend in tax rates from 91% in 1963 to 35% today.  Democrats led it off with a 14% drop in 1964.  While the big drops since then have been initiated by Republicans there appears to be no great philosophical gulf that is remedied with the Democrats massively hiking taxes while in power.  The evil 3.6% Bush tax cuts are pretty insignificant compared to an overall 56% cut since 1964.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

I look at lower tax rates as economic stimulus, undertaken to maintain competition with the rest of the world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is the Jeffrey Simpson wishin’ and hopin’ that something, anything will happen to boost his hero his only viable alternative to the ‘evil,’ hated Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-election-aint-over-till-the-voters-sing/article1977464/


> The election ain’t over till the voters sing
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Simpson is right about a few things:

1.	Debates do matter – above all, the media’s response, which I predict will be “Harper failed,” matter because most Canadians get their information from TV;
2.	Votes can and sometimes do change in the second half of the campaign – after the debates; and
3.	Canadians don’t much like Stephen Harper – but, sadly for Simpson and his fellow Torontonians, they like and trust _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff even less.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Apr 2011)

Key:

Liberals 





> The media are giving them good coverage,....



Conservatives 





> ....Prime Minister in a bubble....



All media labeling access as a "bubble". Gotcha, invent, repeat is what the media aim is IRT the CPC. No ethics.

Liberal media love fest with all things Liberal, and media hatred of all things, anything Mr. Harper.

Lots of things on the internet to prove the hatred, including tweets from the media themselves.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't really want to vote for anyone. Plutocrats have corrupted our Democracy. Politicians now look to me like opportunists with all the credibility of used car salesmen. Bill Moyers said it better criticizing the biggest threat to the US Democracy.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-TYGOE1O0
> 
> ...



A yes, a little raw information (data) without comparative context is a dangerous thing.

As I would suggest all people should do when presented with apparent "facts" is apply some critical thinking and dig below the apparent surface of the issues presented.  In the example quoted above, let's take a look at global Rich/Poor ratios (Wiki link to UN open source data: here) to see how "bad/unequitable" the U.S. really is, thus helping people put words such as those from Moyers in greater context.

A few extracts from the UN R/P ratios:  (R/P ratios are the ratio of wealth of a bracket of Rich-to-Poor, most often 10th(poor)/90th(rich) and 20th/80th wealth percentiles)

[note: larger number = greater disparity between rich and poor, the 10% is always more extreme than the 20%]


R/P ratio     10%  20%

Argentina    40.9, 17.8
Bolivia       168.1, 42.3
Bosnia-H       5.4,   3.8
Brazil          51.3, 21.8
Canada         9.4,   5.5
China          22.6, 12.2
Egypt           8.0,    5.1
Finland         5.6,    3.8
France          9.1,    5.6
Germany      6.9,    4.3
Haiti            71.7, 21.6
Hong Kong  17.8,   9.7
India             8.6,   5.6
Jamaica       17.3,   9.8
Mexico        24.6,  12.8
Namibia     128.8, 56.1
Russia         12.7,   7.2
Singapore    17.7,   9.7
Turkey        16.8,   9.3
UK              13.8,   7.2
U.S             15.9,   8.4
Venezuala   48.3, 16.0

The full list is at the link above, but one sees that the U.S is in a middle block of wealth distribution (mid-teen % in the 10% P/R category), along with peers such as: UK, Russia, Turkey, Singapore, Jamaica and Hong Kong...a relatively global diverse lot, and not countries that would immediately come to mind as "oppressing the poor".

The most equitably distributed nation is Bosnia-Herzogvina and a hair's width less in the 10%P/R category is  Finland.  These most economically (not talking social rights, etc...) equitable nations are then followed closely by nations with high single-digit % P/R ratios, such as Germany, Egypt (economic wealth, remember), India France and Canada.

Interestingly, the category of nations with significantly less wealth equity starts in the low 20%'s with China (YES, the People's Republic of China, as communist as it purports to be!) gradually degrading to less and less equitable wealth distribution through Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil and Haiti up to the most inequitable wealth distribution in Namibia and Bolivia.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that notwithstanding the "woe are us, the poor downtrodden" case Bill Moyers tries to make in the words noted above, the U.S. sits square in the middle of the pack of nations when it comes to equitable wealth distribution, and not that far quantitatively from those nations with the most equitably distributed wealth.

When it comes to information presented, might I suggest _caveat emptor_?


Regards
G2G


----------



## Riverain96 (9 Apr 2011)

I am a 24 year old graduating university student who is undecided as to my voting decision for the upcoming election. I believe in making educated decisions so I have been doing research on the liberal and the conservative platform and have one question maybe someone could help me out with.

Why should I vote for the Conservative Party? In their adds I hear more about why we shouldn't vote for the liberals than anything that actually has to do with the Conservative agenda. I also read through their platform and every paragraph it makes reference to the "reckless coalition" and how terrible the liberals are. Why? I want to read your platform, to understand what you will do to continue the growth of our country, not an editorial on why you dislike the other parties. 

I personally like the Conservative platform better than the Liberal one, however I have trouble voting for a party that seemingly does not have confidence it's own ability or beliefs. A party that fully believed they were the best option for the Canadian people would not feel the need to spend time and money insulting the other party...s in the running. In fact they would waste as little time as possible talking about other parties because they would need to take all the time they have to make sure Canadians know they will give them the best. Yes you can compare yourself to the competition in order to differentiate yourself, but what I've seen so far is a long way from being constructive and frankly, is quite unprofessional. 

That being said, I am aware the Liberals take part in the same type of behavior so I have posed them the same question.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2011)

Riverain96-

You have posed an interesting question.  Without advocating for either the Liberals or the Conservatives, I think your choice really comes down to this question:  Do you really believe that the Federal Government can solve all of your problems?  If you do, then you may be more comfortable voting Liberal. If not, you may be more comfortable with the Conservatives.

This difference in basic philosophies also (partly) explains the campaign advertising.  It is difficult for the Conservatives to run much of a platform that promises you much of anything, except to leave you alone (I greatly simplify, of course).  The Liberal approach is much more activist- they offer you, the voter, much more in programmes to "fix" things for you (in return for taxing you or your neighbour or your employer more- naturally that part is down-played), thus there are relatively more promises.

There is no magic bullet here.  You have to decide (hopefully on your own) which philosophy you agree with more and who you believe is telling (relatively) more of the truth.  Good on you for doing the research. I wish all Canadians would go to the trouble that you are going to.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Apr 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A yes, a little raw information (data) without comparative context is a dangerous thing.
> 
> As I would suggest all people should do when presented with apparent "facts" is apply some critical thinking and dig below the apparent surface of the issues presented.  In the example quoted above, let's take a look at global Rich/Poor ratios (Wiki link to UN open source data: here) to see how "bad/unequitable" the U.S. really is, thus helping people put words such as those from Moyers in greater context.
> 
> ...



The US is not doing that well IMO using the 10% richest to poorest ratio. The only other country I have experience with that is close to the US's ratio(15.9) is the Philippines(15.5) and that is as corrupt a kleptocracy as you can get.  Ivory Coast and Uganda(both 16.6) are the next two below the US. You have low standards. Canada is a 9.4. Japan is the most equitable at 4.5. Haiti is close to the bottom at 71.7. Interesting stat.  

The Gini coefficient is even worse with the US being number 71. 48 spots below Canada. The US is becoming the Philippines IMO. I'd rather emulate Japan, Norway or Denmark. I don't want to compete to the bottom and try to emulate Mexico.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2011)

You're using American politics applied to a Canadian election. That's going to fail every time. The vast majority of our MPs are hardworking rural types who are honest and well meaning. Unlike the US and many other nations, you don't need to be an elite or have millions of dollars of personal wealth to be elected.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The US is not doing that well IMO using the 10% richest to poorest ratio. The only other country I have experience with that is close to the US's ratio(15.9) is the Philippines(15.5) and that is as corrupt a kleptocracy as you can get.  Ivory Coast and Uganda(both 16.6) are the next two below the US. You have low standards. Canada is a 9.4. Japan is the most equitable at 4.5. Haiti is close to the bottom at 71.7. Interesting stat.
> 
> The Gini coefficient is even worse with the US being number 71. 48 spots below Canada. The US is becoming the Philippines IMO. I'd rather emulate Japan, Norway or Denmark. I don't want to compete to the bottom and try to emulate Mexico.



Well, you can pick and choose nations with similar R/P ratios all day long to support your "plutocratic/oligarchic" charges against the U.S.  You certainly are using examples that suite your US=despotic, wealth-ruled oligarchy argument...what about Jamaica at 17.3?  That's more wealth to the rich than the poor than the Philippines, Ivory Coast and Uganda.  What say you about sunny Jamaica?

I cited a few examples (Egypt in in the sub 10% P/R bracket) where one should not inappropriately draw causality from correlation regarding mode of governance to distribution of wealth.  The point is to look critically at issues where the surface may indicate one thing but for which there is greater complexity to the issue, thus a need to be wary of facile and potentially inaccurate conclusions.

2 more ¢

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2011)

It figures; the one Conservative promise I described as being ”Nonsense” and monumentally stupid” is the one _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff likes, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/


> A Tory promise Mr. Ignatieff actually likes
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...



I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.

Like I said, the proposal is nonsense and I’m not surprised someone as unctuous as _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff approves of it.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Apr 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well, you can pick and choose nations with similar R/P ratios all day long to support your "plutocratic/oligarchic" charges against the U.S.  You certainly are using examples that suite your US=despotic, wealth-ruled oligarchy argument...what about Jamaica at 17.3?  That's more wealth to the rich than the poor than the Philippines, Ivory Coast and Uganda.  What say you about sunny Jamaica?
> 
> I cited a few examples (Egypt in in the sub 10% P/R bracket) where one should not inappropriately draw causality from correlation regarding mode of governance to distribution of wealth.  The point is to look critically at issues where the surface may indicate one thing but for which there is greater complexity to the issue, thus a need to be wary of facile and potentially inaccurate conclusions.
> 
> ...



The higher the number the worse the disparity. Jamaica's 17.3 is slightly worse than the Philippines 15.5 or the US's 15.9, but obviously it is rather corrupt and crime ridden like the other countries in that bracket. I am saying that the USA has been getting worse for about 30 years. I don't want to follow their bad example. I think our major parties are not trustworthy and that paid lobbyists have undue influence.


----------



## GAP (9 Apr 2011)

Nemo888....take you silly argument and quit messing up this thread.....go start a new one. :


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Apr 2011)

The US sure must be a distasteful place.  By the way, why do they have to build fences to keep out the rabble of the world?  It must be to keep their own suffering people in.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Apr 2011)

http://smalldeadanimals.com/

*The First American Prime Minister, On The Law*

Oops. Wrong country. (see attached picture)


SUN News TV will be a breath of fresh air, as long as your provider will supply the network (some are not)!

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/brian_lilley/2011/04/07/17915821.html

*Selective scandal coverage is a disservice*

BRIAN LILLEY, QMI Agency

Last Updated: April 8, 2011 

Who knew that the most pressing issue facing the country was whether the Conservative Party of Canada checked the Facebook statuses of people coming to their rallies to see if they are friends with other politicians.

I’m not saying the Tory tactics are right, in fact it was one of our family of papers, the London Free Press, that started the ball rolling on this. In essence, we broke the story and the rest of the media ran with it.

And how have they run with it.

Almost all other issues were put aside while reporters following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s election tour quizzed the PM and tried to force an apology. They got one Thursday.

Questions about his plans for a cap-and-trade system, the economy and Quebec’s rejection of federalist parties were all vetoed so that we could get to the bottom of Facebookgate. Oh, and there were no questions about Canada sending more troops to Libya.

What is interesting is that while there has been plenty of pick-up on the story we started with the Facebook flap, other media outlets ignored another part of our story that ran on Tuesday.

“When Ignatieff was here last week, the RCMP got physical with two Free Press reporters, even elbowing a pregnant reporter in the stomach. Told she was pregnant, the male Mountie said: ‘That’s what you get for rushing a bodyguard.’ ”

I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines and watched the nightly indignant reports on Ignatieff’s goons roughing up reporters.

What’s that? You haven’t seen any reports like that?

I wonder why?

It’s not like the media hasn’t been tough on Jack Layton. In between snide tweets, the NDP leader has had to deal with claims that his schedule was slower than the other leaders because of his fragile health. Of course that’s not true. Layton’s schedule has been as busy as the other two federalist leaders and he’s covered the same ground.

It’s almost like some reporters are trying to kick the cane out from Jack as he walks by.

Meanwhile it’s all hugs at the Big Red Tent.

On Wednesday, we found out from the NDP that the Liberals had a candidate in Quebec who referred to Native Canadians as “featherheads” and belonged to a white rights group. He had been the candidate since August 2009 but was booted quickly.

We also found out that the Liberals have a candidate in Vancouver who was convicted of drunk driving in 2003. Given how Ignatieff has made it clear he doesn’t believe in criminal rehabilitation for former Harper aide Bruce Carson, you would think he would have something to say. Not really.

You also might think that with two candidates in trouble you’d have seen headlines on Thursday morning that declared the Liberals had racist, drunk-driving candidates.

No, those issues weren’t on any of the front pages, but the Toronto Star did put the Facebook flap back on the front page. Top story, above the fold.

Stories on Liberal woes were downplayed.

I’d rather see election coverage focus on policy. What would each of the leaders do if elected? How would they change Canada?

But if media outlets plan on running story after breathless story about the latest mini-scandal, then it should happen on all the campaigns.

That’s not happening right now and Canadians are poorer for it.

— Lilley will host Byline on Sun News Network


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Apr 2011)

Reports in various media continue to repeat the message: Harper refuses to state how he will reduce spending. No questions to Iffy re his spending programs.

 http://*www.montrealgazette.com*/news/While+media+their+best+trip+Harper+landing+feet/4592819/story.html

*While media do their best to trip Harper up, he's landing on his feet*

By L. IAN MACDONALD, Freelance April 11, 2011

In this election, there are two campaigns: the one in the bubble and the one on the ground. The one in the bubble is just noise; the one on the ground is fundamental.

Stephen Harper is losing the campaign in the bubble, but in the walk-up to this week's leaders' debates, he is holding his own on the ground.

He's running a classic front-runner's campaign, trying to avoid unforced errors, while *the media on his plane do their best to trip him up.

They whine about rope lines, whinge about access, and complain about staged photo ops. They also behave like children in need of adult supervision, making all kinds of rude noises.

On Harper's tour last week, the CBC's Terry Milewski actually asked him if he was a chicken and a coward for dodging a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff. Journalism is the only profession, my former wife used to say, in which inappropriate behaviour is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
*
There's a new element in the bubble in this campaign: Twitter. If you didn't have a job, or a family, or a life, you could spend your whole day reading tweets from leaders and reporters inside the bubble.

None of this noise from the bubble resonates on the ground, for two reasons. First, it's not fundamental to voters' lives; and second, they're not yet engaged in the campaign. The debates are the one moment when they'll pay attention.

In all of this, there are distinct echoes of the 1988 campaign. In Brian Mulroney's bubble, the main story on the news one night was a media rope line and stanchions at a factory in Brampton, Ont., put there by the advance team so the media could have a cleaner shot. They whined about that, about access, about everything.

Nothing changed until the debates, when John Turner landed a haymaker, telling Mulroney he had "sold us out" on free trade with the United States.

Turner, like Michael Ignatieff in this campaign, had already exceeded expectations just by showing up. But in a single sound bite, he also defined the ballot question of a one-issue campaign. The rest of the 1988 campaign was a roller-coaster ride, totally authentic.

A trio of hecklers actually followed Mulroney around from one event to the next, and one day in Victoria, he invited them to debate him after a rally. It was a major turning point in the campaign, in which Mulroney proved that he knew what he was talking about. But at another level, the video images made a point about democracy, in which dissenters got a debate with a prime minister.

There was a moment like that in Hamilton, Ont., last Thursday, when the Conservatives relented in their stupid policy of controlled access to Harper's events, and allowed a group of young voters into his rally. Afterward, he met with them. And there was even a heckler from the NDP. Why would this surprise anyone in Hamilton? Harper handled it well, and the moment livened up his event. It woke him up, and broke him out of the bubble.

Which brings us to the debates. As in 1988, they represent the Liberal leader's best, and perhaps only, chance of transforming a losing campaign into a competitive election.

Ignatieff does not have to worry about managing expectations, and he is almost certain to exceed them. When you run behind "none of the above" on the bestprime-minister question, there's nowhere to go but up. But Ignatieff is a seasoned television performer from his years at the BBC in London, and he's also no stranger to debates from his years at Harvard.

The format for the debates allows for one-on-one exchanges among the four leaders. But the only one that matters in Tuesday's English-language debate is the six minutes between Harper and Ignatieff. The media are always looking for a knockout, and Iggy kind of needs one.

But he doesn't have what Turner had going for him - a one-issue election. There is no single issue in this campaign, except perhaps the election itself. Voters are annoyed by it, know the cost of it, and dread the prospect of doing this all over again in a year or so.

And there's the emerging ballot question: majority or minority?

imacdonald@irpp.org


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2011)

There are a few changes to the projections based on aggregated polls in the report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions(§29) of the Copyright Act fromThreeHundredEight.com:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/



> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We shall see, in a few days, if the debate makes any difference.


----------



## GR66 (11 Apr 2011)

Riverain96 said:
			
		

> I am a 24 year old graduating university student who is undecided as to my voting decision for the upcoming election. I believe in making educated decisions so I have been doing research on the liberal and the conservative platform and have one question maybe someone could help me out with.
> 
> Why should I vote for the Conservative Party? In their adds I hear more about why we shouldn't vote for the liberals than anything that actually has to do with the Conservative agenda. I also read through their platform and every paragraph it makes reference to the "reckless coalition" and how terrible the liberals are. Why? I want to read your platform, to understand what you will do to continue the growth of our country, not an editorial on why you dislike the other parties.
> 
> ...



The honest truth (despite the desperate claims and wishes of those of us that are political junkies on ALL sides) is that whichever party gets in power there will be little fundamental change to the future course of the country.  Certainly there will be specific differences in the issues that we'll face as a result going forward, but the overall long-term difference will not be that huge.

We talk in theory about the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals (and even the perma-opposition NDP) but in reality their respective governing policies are not _that_ different (on a grand scale on the political spectrum).  They are in most cases greatly influenced by world events as much as by their own ideologies.  When jobs are at risk from various economic bubbles bursting governments worldwide (even Conservatives, Republicans and their ilk) will spend in an attempt to soften the blow.  When debt servicing becomes a burden due to high deficits and high interest rates then governments (even Liberals, Democrats and their ilk) will tighten belts and cut programs.  

The economic tides will ebb and flow as will the governing style of whichever party is in power.  Politicians of ALL parties being politicians first (and Conservatives/Liberals/Social Democrats, etc second) will continue to grow government and buy our votes with our own tax dollars when they can, and then brace us for difficult decisions, spending cuts and "deregulation" when things get too far out of hand.

When such a time comes as we get a leader that defines a clear ideological vision for the country and can sell the bulk of the public on that vision, and then both runs on those principles as well as sticks to GOVERNING by those principles we can talk again.  Until then I'm not really concerned that the "Evil Harper Conservatives" will grind up my poor, destitute Grandmother as lubricant for a Tar-Sand extractor...or that the "Commie in hiding Prince Iggy Liberals" will raise my tax rate to 115% to pay for free invitro treatments for immigrant welfare moms.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/
> I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.


I cannot express how much I agree with you, Mr. Campbell.  I say this as a practicing Roman Catholic, and I feel that there is NO NEED for such an office.  "Stupid" only starts to describe this idea, as far as I am concerned.  Bloody nonsense.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Apr 2011)

The following story which appeared in the Ottawa Sun is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

*Iggy caught double-talking
Liberal leader needs to come clean on voting record*By BRIAN LILLEY, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: April 11, 2011 8:47am

OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff has some 'splainin' to do. 

As the Liberal leader scoots across the country asking for your vote, it seems he has forgotten where he has voted in the past. 

Ignatieff now claims he has never voted in a foreign country, but quotations from his past suggest he voted Labour in Britain and would vote Democrat in the U.S.

"I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November," Ignatieff told The Glasgow Herald in 2004. 

Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard at the time, was defending his record as a human rights advocate against charges that he had become a neo-conservative who backed then-president George W. Bush in the Iraq war. Ignatieff and some other left-leaning intellectuals supported Bush in the early days of the war. 

Despite the statement that he would vote for Kerry, Ignatieff now says he has never voted outside of Canada. 

"Mr. Ignatieff is and always has been a Canadian citizen, period. He has never held any other citizenship and as such, has never voted in a foreign election," Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron told QMI Agency. 

Asked to clarify why Ignatieff once said he would vote for Kerry and why he says now that he has never voted outside of Canada, Ignatieff's spokesman dodged the questions. 

"Mr. Ignatieff has simply confirmed what we already know — that he is a progressive, compassionate liberal. Always has been, always will be," Liboiron said in an e-mail. 

American law states that only citizens can vote. Ignatieff was living in Cambridge, Mass., at the time. Voting without being a citizen is considered a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and/or fines of up to $10,000. Illegally registering to vote carries the same penalty. 

While the public record only shows Ignatieff said he would vote for the Democrats, his record in Britain shows he did vote. 

In a 1998 book, Ignatieff says he voted Labour in 1997 to oust the ruling Conservatives. The Conservatives had been in power since 1979, first under Margaret Thatcher and then under John Major. 

"Why did I vote Labour? I wanted the rascals out," Ignatieff said in Identity and Politics: A Discussion with Michael Ignatieff and Sean Neeson. 

Identity and Politics is a record of an Ignatieff speech and a question and answer session at the Liberal-Democrat conference in Brighton, England, in 1998. A copy of the short book is kept at the Library of Parliament. 

The Liberal-Democrats are a left-of-centre party that used to place third in British politics but recently became part of a coalition government with the Conservative Party under Prime Minister David Cameron. 

In Britain, it would have been completely legal for Ignatieff to vote. British law allows citizens of Commonwealth nations living in Britain to cast ballots. Residents aren't automatically registered to vote and are required to sign up to get their name on the voters list. According to online records, Ignatieff was registered to vote in Britain as recently as 2002.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Apr 2011)

Apparently Liboiron misspoke because on Monday, Ignatieff himself said:

Q: You say you’ve never voted in a foreign election. But you said something different in 1998 and 2004. So which one is true?

Ignatieff: I’m a Canadian citizen. I’ve never been the citizen of another country. I’ve never voted – can’t vote in the United States. But I’m a Commonwealth citizen, so I have voted in a British election. But you know, I’m also someone who didn’t go to a foreign audience and call this country a second call failed socialist state in front of a Republican audience. You know, I’m a proud Canadian. I’m a proud Canadian. And I’ve lived overseas – ya. And wherever I’ve been, I’ve always supported progressive policies. So, you know, in 2004, I thought that John Kerry was a better idea than George W. Bush. And only a Conservative would think that George W. Bush was a better choice for the United States. But I can’t vote in the United States. Never did.

Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas.

Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can’t remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011/4/11/4792947.html


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Until then I'm not really concerned that the "Evil Harper Conservatives" will grind up my poor, destitute Grandmother as lubricant for a Tar-Sand extractor...or that the "Commie in hiding Prince Iggy Liberals" will raise my tax rate to 115% to pay for free invitro treatments for immigrant welfare moms.




There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.


----------



## GR66 (11 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.



When it comes down to it people will vote with their wallets.  If any Canadian government follows a path that is so deeply out of step with what the rest of the industrialized world is doing then business investment will dry up and Canadians will see their standard of living plummet compared to the rest of the First World.  Canadians will then wake up as voters and kick out the bums that are taking us down that path.  

We (Canadian voters) may be asleep at the wheel when it comes to pushing the political parties to be responsible with OUR money, but when the tires hit the rumble strip on the centre line I'm very confident that we'll wake with a start and yank the wheel to the right to get us back in our comfortable lane.

Heck, even Greece as an economic basket case beyond what Canadians collectively would allow to happen aren't eating tulip bulbs.  Thank goodness we've got all this cropland, oil, gas, fish, lumber and water that everyone else will continue to want in order to keep THEIR economies growing.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Apr 2011)

Don't count on it.

Canadians are spoiled, I'm Aright Jack.

The timely leak of the Draft AG report has probably killed, as was the aim, a CPC government. The AG, IAW the Act, will not release or comment on the completed Report on the G8.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Apr 2011)

One wonders whether the fall of the government was engineered by the Tories to try to avoid the AG report being released.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One wonders whether the fall of the government was engineered by the Tories to try to avoid the AG report being released.



That's a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2011)

I've said it before, but it is worth repeating:

Mr Ignatieff _will_ trigger a coalition if there is a minority CPC government. Simple understanding of human nature ensures this is so; in one fell swoop he can:

1. Become Prime Minister
2. Avoid a hostile leadership review
3. Discipline (or extract revenge on) unsupportive members of his caucus. Bob Rae, are you listening?

This being the case, it is extremely disturbing the LPC platform has something like $24 billion in unfunded promises. Worse yet, a coalition will have Jack Layton in cabinet, and Mr Ignatieff will be compelled to add the unfunded NDP and Bloc wish list to government spending year after year in order to remain in power.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.



Mr Ignatieff will be compelled to "tell the truth" and be pushed beyond. The forecast after a coalition victory is pretty grim (and if the economy in Western Canada "goes Galt" in response to the sudden demands for cash from the coalition, the day of reckoning comes that much faster).


----------



## dapaterson (11 Apr 2011)

Governments routinely manage the news cycle to release bad news on Fridays, good news during slow news weeks... and get copies of OAG reports in advance and neegotiate to have them amended, and thus are well aware of the contents in advance of their release.

It's no tinfoil conspiracy theory to point out that having a damning OAG report on the street would be damaging to the Tories, and that having an election without that on the table would be in their best interests.  Joe Clark aside, most political leaders, even with a minority, are able to channel and arrange for battle at times of their choosing; choosing a time before the enemy gets some new artillery is a sound tactic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Governments routinely manage the news cycle to release bad news on Fridays, good news during slow news weeks... and get copies of OAG reports in advance and neegotiate to have them amended, and thus are well aware of the contents in advance of their release.
> 
> It's no tinfoil conspiracy theory to point out that having a damning OAG report on the street would be damaging to the Tories, and that having an election without that on the table would be in their best interests.  Joe Clark aside, most political leaders, even with a minority, are able to channel and arrange for battle at times of their choosing; choosing a time before the enemy gets some new artillery is a sound tactic.




Departments must have the Final DRAFT AG's report in advance because the report cannot be completed and presented to parliament until after the departments' responses, which may include objections and/or proposed remedial measures, have been included. When I worked for ADM(Mat) (1980s) I think I negotiated over five or six 'final' drafts with the OAG folks - until we got one to which we could all agree.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Apr 2011)

What does everyone in Canada think is in the AG report?  Somehow I don't think that all the good press from the G8/G20 will be negated as there was none.  Just a rehash.  All the supposed Conservative corruption is procedure, a big yawn.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2011)

Mr Ignatieff's gaff aboout voting for John Kerry gets a response in the United States:

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/04/11/american-democrat-for-prime-minister-of-canada-or-another-non-citizen-caught-voting-in-u-s-elections/



> *‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada? Or Another Non-citizen Caught Voting in U.S Elections?*
> by Capitol Confidential
> 
> Canadians will go to the polls on May 2nd to elect a Prime Minister.  The election has gained almost no attention in the U.S. but one candidate suddenly has a very American problem.
> ...


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2011)

And I thought the only press our election would get in the US would be about our rescheduling the debate because of a Habs game...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Apr 2011)

Iggy may have voted anyway, even if he was not eligible. Many states allow people to vote without ID of any type. This was a big controversy  in Texas, for example, in the last Presidential election. Texas is currently changing it's legislation. Of course the Democrats shidt is in a knot about having to identify ones self to vote. Incredible.

http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ is the latest _projection_ based on aggregated polls:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

My guess is that the ethics, accountability and contempt issues are, finally, starting to take hold, thanks to a very well timed leak, which I suspect came from an anti-Harper civil servant in a federal government line department (not from the Office of the Auditor General). I expect Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton to go after Harper, endlessly, on those issues – that may backfire if some (many? most?) Canadians feel their economic and health care issues are being ignored for a bunch more “inside the greenbelt” stuff. *


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2011)

I think if Harper can stay on message and continue with his platform, he can ride this "accountability" stuff out and pull off the election win. People are going to slowly start seeing through all the yelling about other things that the Libs and NDP have no real plan for the country other than to inflate the social safety net off the backs of people with jobs and using money they've knit out of nothing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2011)

I am especially upset by this latest leak and I hope that when, not if, the Conservatives form the next government they root out the person who leaked the AG's early DRAFT report and very publicly drum him or her out of the public service, and then fight hard against the inevitable appeals to the PSSRB.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Governments routinely manage the news cycle to release bad news on Fridays, good news during slow news weeks... and get copies of OAG reports in advance and negotiate to have them amended, and thus are well aware of the contents in advance of their release.
> 
> It's no tinfoil conspiracy theory to point out that having a damning OAG report on the street would be damaging to the Tories, and that having an election without that on the table would be in their best interests.  Joe Clark aside, most political leaders, even with a minority, are able to channel and arrange for battle at times of their choosing; choosing a time before the enemy gets some new artillery is a sound tactic.


But even the Tories are OK with releasing the final version, no?  (Although all that means is that it's FAR less damaging than the earlier draft shared with CP).


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Apr 2011)

If it is the Auditor General's practice to make over the top accusations in initial reports as part of a process to negotiate final reports, it must end.  I fail to see how there was any attempt by the government to falsify anything.  Every point, at the time, was the subject to daily attack in the media.  Nothing new here.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2011)

"Over the top"?  Hardly.  If, as alleged in the news,  claiming funds were for the conference when they were expended a hundred KM away on things that were not associated with the event is signficant and misleading to Parliament at the very least.

Not that others have not done similar things in the past; but if things are as asserted it speaks poorly to the probity of some individuals.

(Mr Campbell has also raised the problem of the source of this leak; governments require a degree of confidentiality to do their work; this sort of event corrodes the relationship between government and the public service.  Regardless of the outcome, this will set back relations and make governance more difficult.)


----------



## GR66 (12 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that the _ethics_, _accountability_ and _contempt_ issues are, finally, starting to take hold, thanks to a very well timed leak, which I suspect came from an anti-Harper civil servant in a federal government line department (not from the Office of the Auditor General). I expect Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton to go after Harper, endlessly, on those issues – that _may_ backfire if some (many? most?) Canadians feel their economic and health care issues are being ignored for a bunch more “inside the greenbelt” stuff.



Unfortunately it's exactly this kind of issue that continues to prevent the Conservatives from breaking out into solid majority territory.  Trust issues (especially in vote-rich Ontario) existed right from the start as the Reform Party was seen as too socially conservative for many Central and Eastern Canadians.  While they may have been able to overcome that concern by delivering on their other policy track of a more open and cleaner government, the tightly controlled leadership style of Harper and his inner circle have just added another dimension of mistrust to what already existed.  I personally don't think many people see the Harper Conservatives as any different than the rest of a bad bunch of political leaders we're stuck with.

While not suprising in light of the economic downturn and the stimulus actions of every other industrial nation, the fact that the Conservatives in all honesty DON'T have a great economic track record to fall back on leaves them vulnerable to attack there as well.  

Yes, Canada has suffered much less in the downturn than other western countries but to be honest it has much more to do with our natural resourse based economy (and a pretty well regulated banking sector) than with any policies followed by the Conservatives.   The Conservatives promised NEVER to run a deficit and then run record deficits.  They spend huge on dubious summit related expenses.  It all adds up to a big wasted opportunity that the CPC had to make a fresh start.  Sad.  Not a huge suprise I guess...but sad none the less.


----------



## Redeye (12 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it's exactly this kind of issue that continues to prevent the Conservatives from breaking out into solid majority territory.  Trust issues (especially in vote-rich Ontario) existed right from the start as the Reform Party was seen as too socially conservative for many Central and Eastern Canadians.  While they may have been able to overcome that concern by delivering on their other policy track of a more open and cleaner government, the tightly controlled leadership style of Harper and his inner circle have just added another dimension of mistrust to what already existed.  I personally don't think many people see the Harper Conservatives as any different than the rest of a bad bunch of political leaders we're stuck with.



I'll go one better and suggest that at least a few see them as worse.  Including life long conservatives who are not happy with the idea of supporting the party anymore.  My parents are great examples, but there's many, many more than that.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> While not suprising in light of the economic downturn and the stimulus actions of every other industrial nation, the fact that the Conservatives in all honesty DON'T have a great economic track record to fall back on leaves them vulnerable to attack there as well.
> 
> Yes, Canada has suffered much less in the downturn than other western countries but to be honest it has much more to do with our natural resourse based economy (and a pretty well regulated banking sector) than with any policies followed by the Conservatives.   The Conservatives promised NEVER to run a deficit and then run record deficits.  They spend huge on dubious summit related expenses.  It all adds up to a big wasted opportunity that the CPC had to make a fresh start.  Sad.  Not a huge suprise I guess...but sad none the less.



That's what did it for me.  They made a whole series of boasts in 2008 when the writing was on the wall about how bad things were getting, and our relatively soft hit had little to do with anything they did.  The sound financial regulation that got our banking system through the mess without a penny in public money wasn't their doing (it was in part the Mulroney government, and the Liberals refused to engage in deregulation during their term), and I suspect they would have pushed ahead with deregulation earlier on if they thought the public had the stomach for it.


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one.



The gossip in Ottawa is that Harper's wife wants a divorce. She has been living in the Chateau Laurier for months. A divorced Conservative does not have much traction with the base. There is more to the gossip that makes now a good time to finally try for a majority.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The gossip in Ottawa is that Harper's wife wants a divorce. She has been living in the Chateau Laurier for months. A divorced Conservative does not have much traction with the base. There is more to the gossip that makes now a good time to finally try for a majority.



He could take after our very first Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John A. and head out to a quiet Tavern on March Road, well removed from the Capital city and escape scrutiny..........I guess he'd now have to head way out to Almonte.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> The Conservatives promised NEVER to run a deficit and then run record deficits.  They spend huge on dubious summit related expenses.  It all adds up to a big wasted opportunity that the CPC had to make a fresh start.  Sad.  Not a huge suprise I guess...but sad none the less.



Do not forget that when the world's economy started tanking it was the three opposition parties that went around crying the "_the sky is falling, the sky is falling_" shouting that the government has to start to spend, spend spend. That's what happened and now the same three Chicken Little's are castigating the government for following their wishes.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Do not forget that when the world's economy started tanking it was the three opposition parties that went around crying the "_the sky is falling, the sky is falling_" shouting that the government has to start to spend, spend spend. That's what happened and now the same three Chicken Little's are castigating the government for following their wishes.



Amen, Brother.  Preach it.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Do not forget that when the world's economy started tanking it was the three opposition parties that went around crying the "_the sky is falling, the sky is falling_" shouting that the government has to start to spend, spend spend. That's what happened and now the same three Chicken Little's are castigating the government for following their wishes.



Strange that eh?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2011)

Anyone else watch the debate? You can tell all 3 parties are banding together to try to stop a likely Conservative government. Layton can debate well, but physically just looks so sick. I hope his campaigning doesn't make his health take a turn for the worse. Duceppe is so out of touch I have no idea why he is even allowed at the debate. Ignatieff had such a "I'm smarter than you, I'm right and here's how things are attitude" I wanted to punch the TV.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Apr 2011)

Nemo888

That is a very old rumor, and you did not include the juiciest part.

On a leadership course you will find that a leader finds out what is circulating amongst the troops, gets the facts, and informs the troops. Rumors destroy moral and are dangerous in war. 

By the way, rumor has it Nemo888 spreads unfounded rumors without substantiation or source.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2011)

.........and we don't allow rumourmongering at Milnet  Nuff said.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anyone else watch the debate? You can tell all 3 parties are banding together to try to stop a likely Conservative government. Layton can debate well, but physically just looks so sick. I hope his campaigning doesn't make his health take a turn for the worse. Duceppe is so out of touch I have no idea why he is even allowed at the debate. Ignatieff had such a "I'm smarter than you, I'm right and here's how things are attitude" I wanted to punch the TV.



I would love for someone to call Jack on his bluffs with something smart like "It's easy to promise everything when you know you aren't going to get elected, I'm waiting for you to promise everybody a free car," but what Iggy said about "Your party has never been elected" just made him look like a sulking baby.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2011)

Nice screenshot:


----------



## armyvern (13 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The gossip in Ottawa is that Harper's wife wants a divorce. She has been living in the Chateau Laurier for months. A divorced Conservative does not have much traction with the base. There is more to the gossip that makes now a good time to finally try for a majority.



1)  I don't place my vote based on gossip. What an absolute assinine statement to be making on here. WTF does that have to do with how he could/could not lead the party and/or this nation?

2)  That's as bad as saying "well, the Yanks think Ignatieff is a Yank ... so, can't vote him in as PM."

I'd much rather see the facts with regards to the 2nd item ... 30 years of out of country with an alleged statement of "I am an American Democrat" certainly may make me pause to think about where my tick in the box should go.


----------



## GAP (13 Apr 2011)

Tories destined for a majority: Pollster
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO QMI Agency 
Article Link

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have gained a massive 21-point lead over Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, according to a new COMPAS Research poll obtained exclusively by QMI Agency.

In Ontario, the Liberals trail their Conservative opponents in every area of the province except Toronto — although Harper leads in the city's suburbs.

The poll, the largest telephone survey of the campaign, also found that Ignatieff is trailing both the Conservatives and the NDP in Quebec, as NDP Leader Jack Layton shows some surprising strength in the province.

Pollster Conrad Winn said Harper is particularly strong in Ontario and all points west.

"The way things are going, he's destined for a majority," Winn said. "The only chance they have is to prevent him from forming a majority, and for that they would need far higher public confidence in the leaders of the opposition than exists."

The COMPAS poll results differ from other recent surveys that found the Conservatives were about nine points ahead of the Liberals, although most appear to place Harper in at least minority government territory.

The Liberals are a distant second place in Alberta and Ontario, but only three points behind in the Atlantic provinces.

Layton's New Democrats are stronger than the Liberals in B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

And in what Winn calls one of the most interesting revelations, the New Democrats are doing relatively well in Quebec.

The Conservatives are fighting it out for first place in Quebec City and Eastern Quebec; the NDP is a contender in Montreal and the rest of Quebec, the poll says.

"New Democrats have been praying for openings in Quebec for half a century," Winn said. "It's like a man lost in the desert praying for rain. Occasionally, the prayer works."

Bloc support in Quebec tops that of the second place Conservatives by 12 percentage points.

In Ontario, the Conservatives lead the Liberals by 17 points, although they trail in Toronto. The NDP has strength in the northern part of the province.

The Conservatives dominate in Manitoba and Saskatchewan with a 35-40 point lead, the poll found.

The Atlantic provinces give Harper only a small edge because people are concerned about his plans to cut spending, Winn said.

Alberta, always fertile vote-hunting ground for the Conservatives, shows Harper with a 50-point lead.

B.C. voters polled favour the Conservatives by 20 points.

"Falling short of a Kim Campbell-style shellacking, the Liberals nonetheless face the prospect of a historic shutout in French Quebec and being limited to islands of support in Atlantic Canada, English-speaking Montreal, the City of Toronto, parts of southern and eastern Ontario, and parts of Vancouver," a poll analysis says.

The COMPAS poll surveyed 2,300 voters by telephone April 6-11, and is considered accurate within 2.1 percentage points.
end


----------



## Sapplicant (13 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anyone else watch the debate? You can tell all 3 parties are banding together to try to stop a likely Conservative government. Layton can debate well, but physically just looks so sick. I hope his campaigning doesn't make his health take a turn for the worse. Duceppe is so out of touch I have no idea why he is even allowed at the debate. Ignatieff had such a "I'm smarter than you, I'm right and here's how things are attitude" I wanted to punch the TV.



I had it on, and paid attention when I was in the room. I got a good laugh out of Layton citing Iggy's poor attendance record. It's true, if I skipped that many days of work, I wouldn't get promoted. Heck, I'd've been s*******ed within a couple months, if not, weeks! Definitely knocked him down a peg or 8. Completely agree about Duceppe. I'd almost rather have seen them let May take to the podium in lieu of Duceppe, but I'd also rather be punched in the gut than kicked in the teeth.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2011)

Jane Taber eating crow? Now I've seen everything!


----------



## GR66 (13 Apr 2011)

What a sorry statement on the quality of leadership and the state of politics in general in our poor country.  

The only one that in my opinion didn't have a very poor performance was Layton who has the benefit of being able to promise anything under the sun without risk of having to actually ever keep any of his promises.  Even at that Iggy's attempt to call him on the fact was a pathetic "you've never been the government".   Any hopes the Liberals have of making gains in the election depend on ending the vote splitting of the Conservative's opponents.   

Harper's handlers I'm sure just pushed the strategy to just stay on message and look "Prime Ministerial".  That he did...and did a disservice to Canadians in the process I think.  Corporate tax rates were one of the major discussion points throughout the debate and all he can muster was "there are no new corporate tax cuts".  He hides behind semantics (he's "technically" right...the rate reductions still coming aren't "new"...they've already been approved).   Instead of trusting Canadians to understand reason and explaining WHY the ongoing tax cuts SHOULD continue...he hides behind wording to give the impression that corporate tax rates aren't being lowered.  

Fortunately for Harper, Iggy & Jack's responses were totally incompetent.  What the hell happened to the great "Harvard Debater"?  They could have said "What was the corporate tax rate in 2010?  What is it now in 2011?  What will it be in 2012?  Is that not a tax cut???".  When Harper suggested that raising the rate (or halting the cuts?) would drive away investment why didn't anyone compare Canada's corporate tax rate (15-18% depending on the party) to the US corporate tax rate (35%-ish if I remember right)?  

I don't know why I still get suprised, disappointed and frustrated by the poor quality of the debate and of our political class.  Maybe I should just learn to stay down instead of continuing to try and get back up in naive hope.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2011)

I was half-watching and listening while sitting in a pub, having a pint or two.  They helped make it less painful to watch.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2011)

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised to see the NDP making gains in Quebec. A Social Democrat party will have similar policy planks to a National Socialist party, with the added advantage that the NDP is a national party with greater access to resources (especially in the post 2014 time period, when it will be possible to form majority governments without reference to Quebec). This is just people starting to react to the changing trends in society, demographics and economics.

The Liberals are Socialist Lite, why vote for them when you can get the real thing?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> When Harper suggested that raising the rate (or halting the cuts?) would drive away investment why didn't anyone compare Canada's corporate tax rate (15-18% depending on the party) to the US corporate tax rate (35%-ish if I remember right)?



Comparing tax rates is tough.  Provincial income taxes almost double Canadian taxes while state taxes are less to none in the US.  US taxes are graduated, Canadian taxes are less so.  It's a bit of a case of comparing apples and oranges.  Canadian rates appear to be cheaper but not as much as it appears at first sight.


----------



## ekpiper (13 Apr 2011)

One point on the Corporate tax rates that I've discovered recently is that while the Federal corporate rate is 16.5% now, Provincial tax is another 2-16%.  Thus, when you look at the world state of affairs, we seem to be quite average.

The Opposition leaders also seem to think that raising taxes is a solidly known quantity, when in fact it could cause companies to not invest and/or lower current investment, lowering the total earnings of companies in Canada, causing tax revenue to go down, even with a higher tax rate.  If that will happen, and by how much is an unknown quantity, but we'll only find out after the fact.

Neither fact was spelled out clearly by the Conservatives during the debate.


----------



## Jed (13 Apr 2011)

ekpiper said:
			
		

> One point on the Corporate tax rates that I've discovered recently is that while the Federal corporate rate is 16.5% now, Provincial tax is another 2-16%.  Thus, when you look at the world state of affairs, we seem to be quite average.
> 
> The Opposition leaders also seem to think that raising taxes is a solidly known quantity, when in fact it could cause companies to not invest and/or lower current investment, lowering the total earnings of companies in Canada, causing tax revenue to go down, even with a higher tax rate.  If that will happen, and by how much is an unknown quantity, but we'll only find out after the fact.
> 
> Neither fact was spelled out clearly by the Conservatives during the debate.



The average voter will not be able to follow a technical explanation of how and why the corporate tax rate should be what it is, especially during a free for all debate such as we saw last night. People will only change their vote if they begin to trust the individual speaking. Who really knows that magic formula on how to win the trust from the man on the street? From what I have seen, it is far easier to lose trust in your speaker. In my opinion, Ignatief and Duceppe lost at lot more trust than Layton or Harper.


----------



## 57Chevy (13 Apr 2011)

Ignatieff is likely to win a lot of votes on this one, especially in and around Montreal
Got mine  

article:
Canadians need not fear replacing Harper: Ignatieff
By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News April 13, 2011 9:36 AM
http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+need+fear+replacing+Harper+Ignatieff/4568597/story.html
---
"This government has patched the Champlain Bridge enough," he said. "It's time for a new bridge. It's that simple."

He said work on a new bridge would start early in the mandate of a Liberal government.

"It's our promise and we must start right away," he said. "There is engineering work (to do), environmental studies, and we must do this quickly because the (existing) bridge is reaching the end of its life in 10 years. We need a new bridge well before 10 years. This is a promise of the party. It's the promise of our team."

He added that the bridge was not just one for Montreal or its south shore but for all of Canada.
---


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Apr 2011)

Who was the only one wearing a Cdn flag lapel pin?

Iggy lacked grit!


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Ignatieff is likely to win a lot of votes on this one, especially in and around Montreal
> Got mine
> 
> article:
> ...



Am I wrong in thinking that there are already plans for a bridge to connect Hwy 30 to Hwy 20 to the West of Montreal?  If so, then this promise isn't a promise at all.


----------



## 57Chevy (13 Apr 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Am I wrong in thinking that there are already plans for a bridge to connect Hwy 30 to Hwy 20 to the West of Montreal?  If so, then this promise isn't a promise at all.


Wrong side of the island George
The Champlain bridge connects toward the eastern townships.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Layton can debate well, but physically just looks so sick. I hope his campaigning doesn't make his health take a turn for the worse.


I agree on both points.  I hope that his zeal to lead the NDP doesn't lead him down to further detriment of his health.


----------



## Redeye (13 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Who was the only one wearing a Cdn flag lapel pin?



If that's an issue to anyone or any sort of weight in the debate, then things are far worse in this country than I ever might have suspected.

I only caught the last hour of the debate on the drive home.  It seemed a little better than any I remembered, though nothing really of substance, nothing compelling from anyone.  Jack Layton, as usual, was probably the best of the bunch, he delivers his points well, he's well spoken... I guess that's easy when you can't reasonably expect to be held to account for anything you say.

I don't get why Duceppe is even there.  I can't imagine there are many Anglo Quebeckers that would ever vote for the Bloc.  If he was there, why not Elizabeth May?

I'm wondering what it'll do to polls, probably nothing significant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ is the latest _projection_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So no change and no impact, yet, from the debate.

Here is another graphic showing the aggregated polling *trends*:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2011)

Ditto!

That, and when Iggy berated Jack for pointing out he is the leader most absent from Parliament: "I have no lessons to receive from you on democracy". Pretty arrogant if you ask me.


----------



## Dissident (13 Apr 2011)

Globe and Mail is showing PM Harper at 40% for impressing people the most in the debage, Iggy at 34%, Layton 22%.

NP on who do you think won the debate:
Stephen Harper 68.83% (8,673 votes)

Michael Ignatieff 15.04% (1,895 votes)

Jack Layton 8.55% (1,077 votes)

Gilles Duceppe 1.63% (205 votes)

None of them won 5.95% (750 votes)


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Wrong side of the island George
> The Champlain bridge connects toward the eastern townships.



The Champlain connect to the 30.  If another was built to the West that would take a lot of traffic off the Champlain that now uses the 30.  As for another bridge between the Champlain, the La Salle and the Tunnel, where would it go without ripping whole parts of the city apart?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't get why Duceppe is even there.  I can't imagine there are many Anglo Quebeckers that would ever vote for the Bloc.



I grew up in NDG, as safe a Liberal riding as there is.  Provincially, it went for the Equality Party for an election or two, but other than that, every Federal and Provincial election it's a safe Liberal seat, though Nick Auf Der Maur made a go of it in '84.

Given the poor record of the Federal Liberals in defending Englsh minority langauge rights, I did vote for the Bloc in one election as a protest (an idea that was solidified on actually meeting the candidates who were a sorry, unimpressive lot); I'm certain that there were many head-scratches when that ballot was counted...



> If [Duceppe] was there, why not Elizabeth May?



Because he heads a party with seats in the House of Commons, she does not.  If we open the debates to all parties, then we'll have the Marxist-Leninists, the Christian Heritage Party and all the others demanding equal time.


----------



## 57Chevy (13 Apr 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Champlain connect to the 30.  If another was built to the West that would take a lot of traffic off the Champlain that now uses the 30.  As for another bridge between the Champlain, the La Salle and the Tunnel, where would it go without ripping whole parts of the city apart?



I'm attaching a map. The 30 is farther inland that junctions with the 10 ( toward the USA or the Lafontaine tunnel )

in the map....starting from the bottom where it says Lasalle, that is the Mercier bridge heading almost due south.
going downstream, where it says Brossard...that is the Champlain bridge which is highway 10 toward St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and farther east...Sherbrooke.
The next one just above that is the Jacques Cartier bridge which gives access to "La Ronde"
And then farther up where it says Boucherville....that's the Lafontaine tunnel. ( Trans-Canada )

They are promising replacing the old bridge with a sturdy new one at a cost of several billion dollars.

That may be just promises, promises, promises. ;D 
however;
If Canada's most-travelled bridge were to break or be condemned as unsafe, it would be disastrous for the metropolitan economy. The pessimistic engineering reports coincide fortuitously with the federal election campaign, so you'd expect Montreal's mayor to be using what leverage he has to press for a new bridge.
---
The most energetic support for replacing the Champlain comes not from Montreal but from the South Shore. Several weeks ago, 12 South Shore mayors, including Longueuil's Caroline St-Hilaire and Brossard's Paul Leduc, asked the federal transport ministry for a precise schedule for building a new bridge.

South Shore commuters plainly need the bridge for coming into the city, but Montreal's need for the link is just as urgent. Imagine the straits Montrealers would be in if, among other things, trucks couldn't use it to get into and out of the city.
---
article:
Why aren't local politicians making Champlain Bridge a federal election issue?
By HENRY AUBIN, The GazetteApril 12, 2011
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/aren+local+politicians+making+Champlain+Bridge+federal+election+issue/4598832/story.html#ixzz1JQSRP4Dk


----------



## Journeyman (13 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we open the debates to all parties, then we'll have the Marxist-Leninists, the Christian Heritage Party and all the others demanding equal time.


Like the Rhino Party!!   :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2011)

Looking at ERC's 308 numbers it looks to me like there are 4 separate constituencies represented there:

Tories at 39-40% and firm
Liberals and Greens at 35-36% and firm (when the Greens go down the Libs go up and vicky versey)
NDP and undecided at 34% and firm (when undecided go down Jack goes up - but undecided never shows up for the party anyway).
Bloc at 9% and inconsequential

The question will be decided by who supplies the best transportation system for getting voters to the polls.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2011)

Dont knock the Rhino's. They were on the local TV news here in Montreal last night.

You see, one of their long standing promise is that, like all other parties, they would not fulfil any of their promises if elected.

Problem is (apparently, dixit local CTV news) they also promised they would abolish the law of gravity. When the owner of Cirque du Soleil went in space, he took one of the Rhino party election badge and filmed it floating freely in (you guessed it) zero gravity: So its a fail for the Rhino as they kept at least one of their promise. The piece was well made.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2011)

So when the Rhinos fail to keep their promise they keep their promise thereby failing to keep their promise thereby keeping their promise......

I like it.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So when the Rhinos fail to keep their promise they keep their promise thereby failing to keep their promise thereby keeping their promise......
> 
> I like it.



They also promised to change the side of the road we drive on to the left. They planned to do this in a phased manner, starting with semis.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2011)

Interesting take on the debate from Global News:

Article Link

Debate fails to change voters' minds: poll
Canadians think Harper won the debate but they haven't changed their minds about the strengths and weaknesses of the leaders.

Read it on Global News: Debate fails to change voters' minds: poll

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

The most interesting part of the piece are the poll results which clearly show that the respondents favour Mr Harper. He seems to have stayed on message, and is considered the most equipped to deal with the most pressing concerns these voters have.

Two questions surprised me, but not necessarily the outcome:



> Before: Forgetting about their policies for a moment, who do you find to be the most likeable. That is, the person you would most like to go out for a beer or coffee with?
> 
> Stephen Harper 25%
> Michael Ignatieff 10%
> ...



Certainly doesn't illustrate much traction for the "Mr Harper = evil, ogre" meme. From this survey, it looks like Mr Ignatieff still thought of as the least likeable, which has been a key election issue for his campaign.

BTW, I'm finding Global to be remarkably balanced in its coverage, but that could just be luck at this point.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Apr 2011)

> Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?


And when they're all equally attractive, I guess you have to vote for congeniality   :


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2011)

The numbers are interesting. 40% is considered what is needed to achieve a majority but no one seems to be saying it at this point (even though the graph has shown a fairly consistent line). Of course, there is still a long way to go.

If anything, there are at least 19 registered political parties in Canada, so a debate will be rather cumbersome at best. Maybe an internet Forum (Politics.ca?) could be established for them  >


----------



## midget-boyd91 (14 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Ignatieff is likely to win a lot of votes on this one, especially in and around Montreal
> Got mine
> 
> 
> ...



"I'm going to give everyone in this riding a new bridge in exchange for your votes!!!"
Sounds more like a bribe if you ask me.... but nobody did.


----------



## 2010newbie (14 Apr 2011)

I wonder who's funding this site??

http://www.shitharperdid.ca.nyud.net/

There's a drawing of Stephen Harper holding a cat beside random quotes relating to things he has done in the past few years like:



> Stephen Harper is a cold hearted jerk and a horrible detective.
> 
> In 2010, Harper eliminated funding for Sisters in Spirit. An internationally praised organization leading investigations into 600 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls.



There is a button that you press that refreshes the "quote", but it seems as though there are only a handful. I keep getting the same ones over and over.. 

Edited to add:

I found a Globe article that interviews the website's creator...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/scatological-attack-on-stephen-harpers-record-goes-viral/article1984598/


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2011)

Lookup info:


Daily visitors: 119Daily pageviews: 224
DNS:	 128.112.139.27.ip4.nyucd.net 
128.208.4.199.ip4.nyucd.net 
132.170.3.33.ip4.nyucd.net 
143.215.131.197.ip4.nyucd.net 
171.66.3.181.ip4.nyucd.net 
212.235.189.114.ip4.nyucd.net

Stats & Details

Whois

IP Whois


No Whois? Thats odd....


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2011)

Equally interesting, the IP addresses seem to be hosted at foreign universities. I saw Princeton, UWash, Berkley, UC Florida, GIT, Stanford, and even University of Ljubljana. Digging a little deeper I get:

Registrant:
Coral Content Distribution Network
   c/o Michael Freedman
   35 Olden Street
   Princeton, NJ 08540
   US

   Domain Name: NYUCD.NET


Makes one raise an eyebrow.


----------



## armchair_throwaway (14 Apr 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Content_Distribution_Network

Using the CDN, by adding .nyud.net at the end of the url, prevents the site from getting 'slashdotted' (reduces load).

Running Whois on shitharperdid.ca

Domain name:	 	shitharperdid.ca
Domain name status:	 	registered
Creation date:	 	2011/04/13
Expiry date:	 	2012/04/13
Updated date:	 	2011/04/13

Registrar name:	 	DomainsAtCost Corp.
Registrar number:	 	45

Name servers	 	 
DNS 1 hostname:	 	ns1.ecobytes.net
DNS 2 hostname:		ns2.ecobytes.net


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2011)

The side-bar on electoral reform has been split to here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-1036214.html#msg1036214


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Apr 2011)

Last night in French, and similar in English debat:

Iggy: "If Mr. Harper receives more seats than us, he is going to *try* to form a government. If I receive more seats, it will be me who *forms* a government,” he said. “And both will seek the confidence of Parliament. Those are the rules of our Constitution.”

Why Iggy if the CPC gets more seats they get to *"try"* to form the government, but if the LieLiberals get the votes you will "form" the government.

Coalition?


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Last night in French, and similar in English debat:
> 
> Iggy: "If Mr. Harper receives more seats than us, he is going to *try* to form a government. If I receive more seats, it will be me who *forms* a government,” he said. “And both will seek the confidence of Parliament. Those are the rules of our Constitution.”
> 
> ...



While I trust no politician to keep their word, Mr Ignatieff had this to say last night:



> "If Mr. Harper gets more seats than us, he'll try to form government. If I get more seats, it's me who will try to form government," Ignatieff said in an exchange with Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.
> 
> "Those are the rules in our constitution," he told Duceppe. "I can work with you, with Mr. Layton, *but not in a coalition*."



He was similarly emphatic during the english debate. The opposition is bound and determined to deny the Conservatives the opportunity to govern in a minority, regardless of the will of the electorate. The challenge now is to hold Mr Ignatieff to account for his position.

In the greater sense, this election is also about the leader's futures. Anything less than a majority for Mr Harper might see his replacement within two years. A loss of seats, that much sooner. If the Liberals lose seats, or even fail to gain, it might be "night of the long knives" for Mr Ignatieff. Mr Layton is perhaps the safest right now. His party loves him, and as they don't expect him to be PM, will keep him around. Only his health will influence his remaining leader for now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Yet another slide in seats _projected_ for the Conservative and yet another gain _projected_ for for the Liberals, according to aggregated polls, in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are approaching the half-way point in the campaign but advance polling occurs over the Easter weekend (*not* some sort of anti-Christian plot: advance poll dates are set by regulation _n_ days before the general election date) so this is good news for the anti-Harper factions.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He was similarly emphatic during the english debate. The opposition is bound and determined to deny the Conservatives the opportunity to govern in a minority, regardless of the will of the electorate. The challenge now is to hold Mr Ignatieff to account for his position.



Well, that's the Constitution for you.  If parties holding more seats in total than the Conservatives think they can run the Government, they can suggest to the Governor-General that they be given the chance.  Kind of like Stephen Harper did in 2004 when he formed his own "coalition" with "socialists and separatists" to try to take power, and sent a letter to Adrienne Clarkson to that effect.  The text of that letter is here: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/text-of-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-by-layton-and-duceppe-118672384.html among other places.

Last time I checked, nowhere on the ballot I'll cast is my will with respect to who I want to govern, and whether I want a majority or a minority.  Under our system, I vote for who I want to represent my riding in Parliament and that's all.  Neither is there any constitutional requirement that the party with the most seats, should it not have a majority, form the government.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In the greater sense, this election is also about the leader's futures. Anything less than a majority for Mr Harper might see his replacement within two years. A loss of seats, that much sooner. If the Liberals lose seats, or even fail to gain, it might be "night of the long knives" for Mr Ignatieff. Mr Layton is perhaps the safest right now. His party loves him, and as they don't expect him to be PM, will keep him around. Only his health will influence his remaining leader for now.



I suspect this will be Mr. Ignatieff's only kick at the can, for sure, but I also have to wonder if the knives will come out for Mr. Harper, being unable to actually convince the electorate to give him a majority repeatedly.  I do have to wonder, in the case of both parties, who will be their successors.  I can't say I can think of anyone who is really impressive such that I'd consider them to be the man waiting in the wings.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2011)

You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.

I don't disagree that constitutionally there's good legal standing. Asking the GG to consider other options, is not the same as telling them you're the only option.

Had Mr Ignatieff not categorically (twice) ruled out the possibility of coalition, then that would be another matter.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.



They're politicians.  I don't consider any of them particularly trustworthy.  Frankly, if they get the Bloc & NDP to agree to some basic governing principles that are amenable to all and choose to put themselves forward even as a formal coalition to govern, I see absolutely no problem with that.  I couldn't care less that the BQ are a bunch of separatist pricks, they hold a lot of seats all the same, and on issues they can find some common ground I don't see any reason for them not to put themselves forward as an option to govern.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Apr 2011)

Again - Harper vetted the current Governor-General and asked him what he would do in such circumstances.  We know this from an interview with Johnston.  We do not know his answers to Harper but as he was appointed, it can't be all that displeasing.  It is a legitimate constitutional opinion that the alternative to a Conservative minority might very well be new elections as the Governor-General might very well consider himself bound by the prime minister's decision.  If the Liberal Party expects a chance to govern with only 1/4 of the seats, they might very well have a surprise.  It would not be unusual for the Governor-General to say 1/4 of the seats is not enough.  If the Liberals show up with a coalition agreement as a basis to govern, the Governor-General might very well say that it is contrary to their word in the election campaign and as such undemocratic.  Prediction - Harper majority or new elections.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Apr 2011)

Despite the continuing drip in the 308 numbers I still think that the Tories have a shot at a majority.  I figure that the more this election is seen as an unnecessary snorer with the same players touting the same lines then the greater the likelihood that more people will stay home and watch the playoffs.  In that case a motivated Tory base is likely to be the determining factor.


----------



## GR66 (14 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.
> 
> I don't disagree that constitutionally there's good legal standing. Asking the GG to consider other options, is not the same as telling them you're the only option.
> 
> Had Mr Ignatieff not categorically (twice) ruled out the possibility of coalition, then that would be another matter.



The problem here is an understanding of the word "coalition".  Iggy has said he will NOT form a Coalition government and I have no reason to believe that he will go back on that pledge even if he DOES become PM.  

A "Coalition" governement means that there is an official sharing of the governing duties between two or more parties.  That would mean that an Ignatieff government would have NDP members in the cabinet sitting around the table running the government beside the Liberal members.  

As the current PM has shown there is no need to have an "official" coalition in order to be the government even if you don't have a majority of the seats.  You just need the tacit agreement of at least enough of the opposition to NOT defeat your party on a confidence measure.  

Whenever ANY Conservative confidence bill passed in the House during their terms in government they were in practice being propped up by one or more of the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc.  Does that mean that the Conservatives were "in bed with the Socialists and Seperatists"?  Of course not.  Every confidence vote that passed in the last 5 years passed because at least one of the other parties determined that it was not in their best interest (or if you're feeling generous, not in the best interest of their constituents and the country) to force an election.

Also remember that the Conservative party is a MINORITY government which received a MINORITY of the votes from the Canadian public in the elections which brought them to power.  Even though they have more seats than any other individual party, MOST Canadians however preferred NOT to support them.  That would be the same situation if Iggy were to form a government if a Harper minority were unable to obtain the confidence of the House...just that they wouldn't be the LARGEST group of the various minority parties.  

While I'm not in favour of such an outcome I think it's wrong that some are portraying this as something un-Constitutional, un-Democratic, underhanded and/or immoral.  It's the way our system works and was intended to work.  Our MP's are _supposed_ to be OUR representatives in parliament, NOT their Party's representatives in the ridings.  The largest group of these representatives, regardless of their party affiliation, that can agree on who should govern have earned that right in our democratic system.

[/rant]


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

That would seem to be why there's such a concerted effort to get young people out to vote, because they tend not to vote Conservative.  The problem will remain splits between the NDP and Liberals in ridings, but there's also efforts (as there usually are) to persuade people to vote strategically.

I don't think we'll see a majority.  Probably more or less the same will be the outcome.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Despite the continuing drip in the 308 numbers I still think that the Tories have a shot at a majority.  I figure that the more this election is seen as an unnecessary snorer with the same players touting the same lines then the greater the likelihood that more people will stay home and watch the playoffs.  In that case a motivated Tory base is likely to be the determining factor.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Our MP's are _supposed_ to be OUR representatives in parliament, NOT their Party's representatives in the ridings.



It is this very problem that has prompted my father's frustration with the Conservative Party.  He lives in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, which was previously represented by Bill Casey, who was booted from the CPC caucus because he refused to vote for a budget that violated the Atlantic Accord.  He enjoyed quite a bit of popularity because he stood up for his riding.  His successor, Scott Armstrong, is viewed by him more as the Party's local mouthpiece in the riding rather than someone who's going to defend the interests of those who live there.  In truth, that seems to be the case with most politicians in most parties, and that, I suspect, isn' t helping voter apathy much.[/quote]


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Also remember that the Conservative party is a MINORITY government which received a MINORITY of the votes from the Canadian public in the elections which brought them to power.



No, they received the majority of the votes, and secured the most seats. What they didn't do was secure the majority of the seats in the house. However, neither did any of the other parties. What the other parties did accomplish was to receive fewer votes and attain fewer seats. Collectively more, individually less. Then again, we only get to vote for one party (candidate) at a time, so the collective argument is a red herring.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> No, they received the majority of the votes, and secured the most seats. What they didn't do was secure the majority of the seats in the house. However, neither did any of the other parties. What the other parties did accomplish was to receive fewer votes and attain fewer seats. Collectively more, individually less. Then again, we only get to vote for one party (candidate) at a time, so the collective argument is a red herring.



No, they did not.  They received a plurarity, not a majority.  The Conservative Party of Canada netted 37.65% of the popular vote.  That means the majority of Canadians did not vote for them.


----------



## Scott (14 Apr 2011)

Enough with the numbers game, please. I don't want to have to split that one off as well.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Apr 2011)

It's called humour folks.  

Say cheese with Stephen Harper
by Scott Feschuk on Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:45am - 25 Comments
What a moment.

I never thought that I – a regular, ordinary Canadian – would get the chance to have my photo taken with the Prime Minister of Canada.

But as luck and crass political calculation would have it, he’s eager to be seen with me! All I have to do is attire myself in such a manner as to flamboyantly display my heritage, thereby rendering me a subhuman prop that Stephen Harper can exploit to woo more of my kind.

Needless to say, I’m in.

As is true of much national folklore garb, it can take quite a while to get into my ethnic costume. Each item has been carefully selected to represent a historic and sacred element relating to my suitably exotic but non-threatening culture.

Join me, won’t you, as I get dressed.

Boxers. This simple undergarment serves as solemn commemoration of the triumphs of my ancestors, who bravely rebelled against the tyranny of the cramped ballsack in the Jockey wars of 1973.

Tube socks. A tribal adornment claimed by legend to have the mystical power to effectively ward off shin splints and, when worn with shorts, female attention.

Jeans. The very foundation of my ethnic costume. The people in my culture differentiate themselves by their selection of colour, with some choosing “blue” and others choosing “bluer.” My ancient male forebears once had to subject their jeans to months or even years of rugged use to forge the holes and other signs of wear that they imagined would make hot ladies find them desirable for mating. Now the Gap does that for us. Note the way the very top of the denim is slightly folded over in an outward-facing manner. This means I’m overweight, and therefore regarded as prosperous and virile among my kind so far as you know.

Sneakers. This footwear represents one of my culture’s proudest and most defining successes: the fact that our children don’t have to spend 14 hours a day making this footwear.

T-shirt. It’s white like me.

Hoodie. For ones of years, my people have sported this hallowed apparel as a way to signify to friends and rivals alike that our other clothes are in the wash. The mustard stain near the pouch is an undying symbol that asserts my individuality and honours my family’s historic napkinlessness.

Baseball cap. The crowning, iconic flourish atop my ethnic costume. The pattern of the sweat ring serves as compelling evidence of our culture’s ongoing and epic summertime struggle against the lawn.

Attired in my visually striking, voter-attracting costume, I am now ready with others of my tribe to be photographed with and simultaneously dehumanized by Stephen Harper. Please advise the Prime Minister not to be alarmed when we all extend our middle fingers. Tell him it’s my culture’s way of saying he’s No. 1.


http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/14/say-cheese-with-stephen-harper/


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> No, they did not.  They received a plurarity, not a majority.  The Conservative Party of Canada netted 37.65% of the popular vote.  That means the majority of Canadians did not vote for them.




The *fact* that a _majority_ of Canadians did not vote FOR the Conservatives does not mean that the _majority_ wants anything but a Green, Liberal or NDP government: no one was asked, in recently past elections, or is being asked, in 2011, to vote FOR a coalition. If _Prince Michael_ or _Taliban Jack_ asked Canadians to vote for e.g. a Liberal/NDP coalition then I suspect that many Canadians would do so but many, many more voters would switch their votes from Liberal or NDP to the Conservatives (some to the BQ and Greens). Many (most?) fiscally responsible Liberals (and there are some) would abhor a coalition with the "socialist hordes." Many (most?) committed _Dipperrs_ (who are, by definition, fiscal fools) would also reject the very idea of formally cooperating with the "campaign left/govern right" Liberals - they remember Peterson/Rae in Ontario (1985-87).

Pluralities have been the rule in Canadian elections since 1958 (when _Dief the Chief_'s Conservatives got 53% of the popular vote). Pierre Trudeau's Liberals  never got more than about 45% of the popular vote.

A "coalition of the losers" is constitutionally possible - early in the life of a new parliament, but I am pretty sure it would be political suicide for the Liberals in 2011/12. After about December 2011 the GG will give PM Harper a new general election, based on precedent - no matter how much whinging _Prince Michael_ might do.


----------



## GAP (14 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

The first night after the leaders' English debate has the Conservatives with an 8 point advantage over the Liberals and the NDP trending up to 18.3% support nationally. Support for the Tories stands at 38.9% followed by the Liberals at 31.1%, the NDP at 18.3%, the BQ at 7.5% and the Green Party at 3.1% nationally. 

In the wake of the English debate, the Conservatives opened up an advantage over the Liberals in Atlantic Canada outside of the margin of error for the regional sub-sample with support at 49.3% for the Tories compared to 35.6% for the Grits (NDP support stood at 14.0% in Atlantic Canada). 

Over the past three days in BC, Conservative support has slid while NDP support has increased although the Conservatives still lead. The ballot support in British Columbia is at 40.8% for the Conservatives, 28.7% for the Liberals, 22.4% for the NDP and 7.3% for the Green Party. 

Policy was cited by 54.5% of Canadians as top vote factor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> It's called humour folks.
> 
> Say cheese with Stephen Harper
> by Scott Feschuk on Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:45am - 25 Comments
> ...




Well, not quite: Feschuk was a speech writer for Paul Martin during the latter's brief tour of duty as prime minister and later partnered with former Liberal PMO deputy chief of staff Scott Reid to form a speech writing company: Feschuk Reid.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> Enough with the numbers game, please. I don't want to have to split that one off as well.




With all possible sympathy for the Mods, Scott   , and with your desire to keep threads focused, numbers, even at two decimal places, matter in elections - especially when a 'coalition' is, despite _Prince Michael's_ protestations, remains an issue.


----------



## Scott (14 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> With all possible sympathy for the Mods, Scott   , and with your desire to keep threads focused, numbers, even at two decimal places, matter in elections - especially when a 'coalition' is, despite _Prince Michael's_ protestations, remains an issue.



E.R. 

My issue isn't with the numbers themselves, only with the banter about whats constitutes a majority in certain people's minds.

Cheers


----------



## GR66 (14 Apr 2011)

I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians.  

I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.


----------



## Dissident (14 Apr 2011)

Number for past elections can be found here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians.
> 
> I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.



The Opposition parties are going to use their loss in the upcoming election as an opportunity to run new leadership conventions. Iggy is gone. Jack and Gilles may well be also. These three haven't been able to steamroller Harper yet and their parties are getting tired of them.


----------



## GAP (14 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Opposition parties are going to use their loss in the upcoming election as an opportunity to run new leadership conventions. Iggy is gone. Jack and Gilles may well be also.



Iggy definitely, Jack maybe, but it will be a health retirement...blah, blah....Gilles....not so much, he may want to replace Marois....


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians.
> 
> I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by *putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept* without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.




My guess is that Harper reintroduces the exact same budget that the BQ, Liberals and NDP categorically rejected last month. That puts all three opposition leaders between a rock and a hard place: especially if Harper gets an even larger minority.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2011)

The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have stated they will re introduce the budget once Parliament reconvenes. This is indeed a challenge to the other parties; they forced an election which they and everyone else knew full well would only make a change around the margins so there will be no "reset".

As Edward said, there is not much of a possibility that a coalition (formal or informal) can last long; the BQ and NDP as different brands of Socialist parties (National Socialist and Social Democratic respectively) can probably find common ground but they will be pushing the Liberals very hard as a condition to remaining in power on the one side, and many Canadians will not see this as legitimate *regardless* of constitutional or other precedents. I suspect there may even be a revolt within the Liberal caucus depending on extraneous  factors like personality clashes or if the "Blue" Liberals can stomach working with the NDP/Bloc.

Mr Ignatieff has clearly signaled for a coalition, it gains him the ability to become Prime Minister, allows him to stave off a hostile leadership review and discipline or punish parts of his caucus that have been less than supportive; all positive outcomes in his mind.

Maybe we need "_Another_ election 2011" thread prepared....


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2011)

How many seats do the Conservatives need to gain in order to replace Mr Ignatieff? At least one, but probably five to eight. That being said, a Conservative majority will seal the deal. Any loss of seats for the Liberals could be construed as a rejection of Mr Ignatieff's leadership.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2011)

There is risk to the Tories in causing too much damage to the opposition.  They may wish to reflect on the Campbell Tories: reduced to a rump in Parliament, with only Jean Charest and Elsie Wayne.  That ultimately resulted in the dissolution of the Progressive Conservatives and the creation of the new Conservative Party, which embraced a larger tent by taking in the Reform voters and thus pushing the Liberals to the left, where they have stayed (and have refused to try to re-occupy the middle, choosing instead to fight the greens and NDP, a dubious strategy).

I'm sure the Liberals were delighted to see the Tories go down in flames; the Conservatives would be well advised to beware causing such disruption to their opponents, as systems move towards new equilibia after disruption, and the "new normal" could well be against their best interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How many seats do the Conservatives need to gain in order to replace Mr Ignatieff? At least one, but probably five to eight. That being said, a Conservative majority will seal the deal. Any loss of seats for the Liberals could be construed as a rejection of Mr Ignatieff's leadership.




I think Ignatieff is toast if he gets anything less than Liberals + NDP = 155 seats and Liberals = 4 X NDP, i.e. if the Liberals get 125 seats and NDP gets 30 seats then I think _Prince Michael_ can plead with his party that he deserves a chance to broker a deal with _Taliban Jack_, à la Peterson/Rae in 1985, which brings the Liberals back to power – not in a coalition, _per se_, but with guaranteed NDP support for, say, two years. I'm not sure the NDP will want that deal – I suspect they want a couple of seats at the cabinet table and some guaranteed budgetary provisions and either but especially both of those conditions may split the Liberals.

If Harper gets 144 or above and the BQ doesn't collapse then he can go back to parliament saying “OK, here we are again; the people have spoken and I am the people's choice. Here's the same budget – you have no moral right to defeat my government because I am back with an even larger minority and none of you are anywhere near “form a government” territory unless you form a formal coalition – which you, _Prince Michael_ said you would not do.” My guess is that in that circumstance Jack Layton announces his retirement for health reasons* and that the NDP has no interest in a coalition before a leadership convention. That being the case I think _Iggy_ is gone at the June Liberal convention.

I also suspect that Harper is on his way out, too. Sooner, maybe 2012 if he gets another minority, or later, maybe late fall/winter 2014 if he wins a majority.

__________
* I have met Jack Layton a few times – not enough to say I know him – and I have always found him a pleasant, likable fellow, even though I disagree with his politics and policies. I hope this campaign doesn't do his health any serious harm and I wish him every success in his fight with cancer.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Prince Michael_





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Taliban Jack_



With respect, just for naming conventions, can we start referring to the pompous, secretive autocrat who last held the title of Prime Minister as "Der Führer" or something?  Or perhaps, could we instead treat all the candidates with a modicum of dignity and respect, regardless or our partisan opinions?

Just a thought.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * I have met Jack Layton a few times – not enough to say I know him – and I have always found him a pleasant, likable fellow, even though I disagree with his politics and policies. I hope this campaign doesn't do his health any serious harm and I wish him every success in his fight with cancer.



I've met him too.  It's no wonder he generally comes off well in debates.  He presents his positions eloquently, he's got a very statesman-like demeanour.  Unfortunately, his policy ideas are, as army.ca Elder Statesman Mortar Guy once put it to me (I don't remember what he was describing), "Two Fingers Left Of Right The F*** Out Of 'Er."


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... the pompous, secretive autocrat who last held the title of Prime Minister as "Der Führer" or something?




I've met Harper, too; he, like _Taliban Jack_, is pleasant and likable. As to being "secretive" and an "autocrat," I see it as following _'tit Jean_ Chrétien's lead and imposing some much needed *discipline* on a party and caucus that are both new to power and too accustomed to being “outsiders.”

I understand that the media hates *discipline* because it makes “gotcha” journalism too difficult – but we Canadians should feel a bit comforted, if anything. (Some journalists like to parrot the entirely stupid idea that the “role” of journalists is _“comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,”_ but, of course, amongst the most “comfortable” in modern North America are the smug, self satisfied journalists, themselves. I'm glad to see Harper _afflicting_ them for a change.)


----------



## observor 69 (14 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I've met him too.  It's no wonder he generally comes off well in debates.  He presents his positions eloquently, he's got a very statesman-like demeanour.  Unfortunately, his policy ideas are, as army.ca Elder Statesman Mortar Guy once put it to me (I don't remember what he was describing), "Two Fingers Left Of Right The F*** Out Of 'Er."



As for example during last nights French debate were Iggy is growing increasingly frustrated trying to explain to Jack why we aren't withdrawing from Afghanistan immediately after the end of our combat role.
'Like talking to the moon.'


----------



## observor 69 (14 Apr 2011)

Go Ethnics Go !?!? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5UE0SgN5ic&feature=youtu.be   ;D


‘Ethnic costumes’ sought for Conservative photo op
Published On Thu Apr 14 2011Email Print (22) Share95Rss Article
 Comments (22) 
Kenyon Wallace
 Toronto Star 
A group Immigration Minister Jason Kenney once characterized as harbouring “hateful sentiments” toward Israel and Jews was invited to wear “ethnic costumes” for a photo op with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/974447--ethnic-costumes-sought-for-conservative-photo-op


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2011)

So the Cons are looking for "Money and Ethnic Votes?"

 >


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2011)

I honestly don't understand where this idea of Jack Layton being a good debater comes from. Sure, he's got a loud/clear voice and good variation in volume/tone, maybe even a bit of charisma, and the person that writes his one-liners is above their competition... but I haven't yet seen any of them actually debate anything. No facts/figures/proof/good explanations for the laymen/etc brought forward by him or the other leaders.

We've got plenty of people on this website that can do that for god's sake. None of them are called "good debaters" for it, quite the contrary when someone runs a fact into their face.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> We've got plenty of people on this website that can do that for god's sake. None of them are called "good debaters" for it, quite the contrary when someone runs a fact into their face.



Well, Jack _did_ run the fact of Mr Ignatieffs attendance in parliament into his face.... >

On an earlier post, it was mentioned that a total collapse of the Liberal Party would create a new equilibrium. I have heard it sugested several times that this is actually Mr Harper's intention; remodel Canadian politics between two "big tent" parties representing the Left and Right. How true this is I canot say, but it does seem to be working itself out in the background.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> With respect, just for naming conventions, can we start referring to the pompous, secretive autocrat who* last held the title of Prime Minister *  as "Der Führer" or something?


This guy?  (As in "the last one who held the title of Prime Minister?")






???


----------



## infantryian (14 Apr 2011)

I have to agree with redeye. They are respectable public figures even though their values and policies may be disagreeable. Calling them Prince and Taliban I think is rude. I have been in a position to have met several politicians, including PM Martin, PM Harper. Mr. Layton, but unfortunately not Mr. Ignatieff. For the most part they are likeable people and they need to be. It is hard to garner support without charisma. 



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is risk to the Tories in causing too much damage to the opposition.  They may wish to reflect on the Campbell Tories...  That ultimately ... thus pushing the Liberals to the left.



I personally would be quite happy with the Liberals going down in flames and regrouping as a Centre Right party, pushing the Conservatives to the Right. I think then there would be some intelligent debate between two right wing parties. This left or centre-right business that we have now isn't to my liking. The NDP would pick up a strong amount of support, but I don't think they would be in official opposition territory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, Jack _did_ run the fact of Mr Ignatieffs attendance in parliament into his face.... >
> 
> On an earlier post, it was mentioned that a total collapse of the Liberal Party would create a new equilibrium. I have heard it sugested several times that this is actually Mr Harper's intention; remodel Canadian politics between two "big tent" parties representing the Left and Right. How true this is I canot say, but it does seem to be working itself out in the background.





I generally divide the political spectrum this way:

    Left             Left of Centre                 Centre Left                   Centre                  Centre Right                 Right of Centre               Right
<===============================================================================================>

Communists
and
similar loonies
                         <------------- BQ and NDP ------------->
                                                              <------------------------- Liberals ------------------------->
                                                                                                           <-------------------------- Conservatives --------------------------->
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Christian Heritage Party
                                                                                                                                                                                                             and
                                                                                                                                                                                                             similar loonies

I think there is room for:

Left wing
loonies
                                    Left of Centre, Centre Left and Centre “big tent” party
                                                                                                            Centre, Centre Right and Right of Centre “big tent” party
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Right wing loonies

That means the some Liberals and most of the NDP need to merge to form the Left_ish_ party and some Liberals and most Conservatives need to merge to for the Risght_ish_ party.


----------



## Dissident (14 Apr 2011)

Although I too look forward to a rebirth of the Liberal party, I would rather Canadian politics not be a 2 party system. Then again I can not see how we can have a stable long lasting non minority government with 4 main parties.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2011)

Sapperian said:
			
		

> I have to agree with redeye. They are respectable public figures even though their values and policies may be disagreeable. Calling them Prince and Taliban I think is rude. I have been in a position to have met several politicians, including PM Martin, PM Harper. Mr. Layton, but unfortunately not Mr. Ignatieff. For the most part they are likeable people and they need to be. It is hard to garner support without charisma.



I wholeheartedly agree.  The pejorative monikers just bring the tone of the discussion down into the gutter.  Sometimes it feels like I am visiting a neo-con version of Rabble.ca.

Just a thought.

<<Edited to remove inflammatory comment - no sense in adding fuel to the fire>>


----------



## Jed (14 Apr 2011)

OK, What's wrong with small jabs with wrt titles of key polititians? I am heartily sick of the sensitivity on these matters. I am heartily sick of the ever pervasive Political Correctness. 'Take a pill' or 'get a sense of Ha Ha'


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> OK, What's wrong with small jabs with wrt titles of key polititians? I am heartily sick of the sensitivity on these matters. I am heartily sick of the ever pervasive Political Correctness. 'Take a pill' or 'get a sense of Ha Ha'



As a wise man once said:



> When a faceless, militant organization of people use wholesale intimidation ala a gang or mob, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, that, in my opinion is 'thuggery'.


----------



## infantryian (14 Apr 2011)

I don't think that we should call public figures by their proper titles and names because they are too sensitive and cannot handle being called otherwise, but rather:

1. It's rude to call them names.

2. You may have an intelligent, well reasoned, and correct argument for why a particular politician would be a bad choice for the country. That argument can be tainted and loose all credibility with moderates and undecided when name calling is thrown into the mix. I think that Mr. Layton would be bad for this country because of his taxation intents and the spending that would result of the social programs being created and bolstered. Aligning him with the Taliban, an organization who seeks to kill our men and enslave our women, is simply not correct and would cause someone whom I am trying to convince to tune out.


----------



## Jed (14 Apr 2011)

PPCLI  :-[, Its tough when you see your own words come back at you!  ;D

Sapperian - How are thing with 46 FES?


----------



## ekpiper (14 Apr 2011)

Sapperian said:
			
		

> I don't think that we should call public figures by their proper titles and names because they are too sensitive and cannot handle being called otherwise, but rather:
> 
> 1. It's rude to call them names.
> 
> 2. You may have an intelligent, well reasoned, and correct argument for why a particular politician would be a bad choice for the country. That argument can be tainted and loose all credibility with moderates and undecided when name calling is thrown into the mix. I think that Mr. Layton would be bad for this country because of his taxation intents and the spending that would result of the social programs being created and bolstered. Aligning him with the Taliban, an organization who seeks to kill our men and enslave our women, is simply not correct and would cause someone whom I am trying to convince to tune out.



I agree.  I think that nicknames of those sort tend to make one appear completely one-sided and desperate, as though they are needing to stoop to that to emphasize their points instead of the points and their evidence itself.  I think that the Conservatives would be better served if it was refrained from.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Apr 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Although I too look forward to a rebirth of the Liberal party, I would rather Canadian politics not be a 2 party system. Then again I can not see how we can have a stable long lasting non minority government with 4 main parties.



Federal politics has always been a 2 party system since the CPC came to be, the Liberals and the CPC. NDP and BQ have never threatened to do anything, and only the Bloc has ever been in opposition. They'll never do that again unless the separatist movement takes flight again. I see the NDP as an irrelevant fringe party, and I'm happy they're stealing votes from the Liberals.


----------



## Donaill (14 Apr 2011)

Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Apr 2011)

Socialist ideas got us where we are today, which is awesome. The NDP of today is pushing an almost communist agenda of having a big communal pot of money that pays for everything. I'm thankful people like Tommy Douglas came up with the idea, and that makes us a unique country. Their policies will drive big business out of Canada and cripple the economy to appease the working masses who want to "stick it to the man". Well, the man will just pack up and leave. Someone should ask Ignatieff and Layton what 19% of nothing is.


----------



## VinceW (14 Apr 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.



That's not true if Pearson didn't accept communist medical practices for our healthcare systems we would have done something else probably more similar to Western European models of private regulated healthcare and then government pays for healthcare to those who can't afford it.

The danger with the NDP is that if you like a few aspects of their programs you have to accept the rest of the baggage that comes with them like all their socialist social engineering and job destroying overtaxing of businesses and people.


----------



## Jed (14 Apr 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.



Have you ever wondered why the 'Home of Tommy Douglas', Saskatchewan does not have any NDP seats in Parliament? You just have to compare Alta and Sask governmental history to see what fuzzy headed thinking will do to the Economy when you suffer through decades of near communistic approach to governing. Thank the lord enough of the  'Dirty Thirties' survivors have passed on and sanity now prevails in the Province.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.




It is not clear, not to me anyway, that Douglas wanted what we have. His aim was clear: to save us from the catastrophic costs of major medical crises.

One day in a modern hospital ICU costs about $10,000.00, about two month's pay for a typical master seaman/master corporal for one night in an ICU. A day in intensive care in the 1950s took about the same share of a Canadian's pay cheque. That, not small charges for visits to a doctors office or for an X-ray or even for routine hospital procedures, was what troubled Douglas and his constituents. The problem was implementation. The doctors, especially, fought Douglas tooth and nail - not because they feared being 'conscripted' but, rather, because they did not trust governments to regulate medical care. Finally the MDs in Saskatchewan literally went on strike - in 1962 (I was a young private soldier, maybe even a junior NCO at the time). Douglas won but not before opinions on both sides of the debate hardened. 






Tommy Douglas
Source: http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/history_of_saskatchewan.html

But, despite all the fear mongering, Douglas never proposed "socialized medicine." What he did implement was a clumsy single payer system that must - it is the very nature of single payer, monopolistic systems - rely upon rationing since money still does not grow on trees.

When the Canada Health Act was introduced, by Monique  Begin, 20 years later, it enshrined the worts parts of various provincial health regimes but few of their good ideas. The processes it enshrined and that Brian Mulroney later described as a "sacred trust" provided, above all that the health *insurance* system must be universal, must cover _"all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners or dentists"_ (Section 9) and has to be _"administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority, responsible to the provincial/territorial governments and subject to audits of their accounts and financial transactions."_ (Section 8 ). These provisions effectively preclude "extra billing" and "two tier" (private) medical insurance. By so doing it limits the "inputs" to the system to your and my tax dollars.





Monique Begin
Source: http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/sfu_news/archives/sfunews03230601.shtml

I doubt anyone in their right mind disagrees with the core of Douglas' "public healthcare:" we are all sheltered from the catastrophic costs of major medical crises. But we are, also, _sheltered_ from paying anything at all, except through taxes, and because health care costs are rising at rates that are two, three or four times the rate of inflation and the rate at which you and I get pay or pension raises, those increased costs are not, cannot be covered by incremental tax increases. To pay for the heath care we want we must accept all of: higher taxes, decaying infrastructure, declining resources for education and so on. I know I don't want that and I'm pretty sure Douglas wouldn't either.


Edit: punctuation  :-[


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Apr 2011)

On the subject of coalitions, I've read the much-celebrated 2004 letter several times and see no mention of a coalition - only a pointed reminder to the G-G to consider certain options.  Understanding that the negotiated support of the Bloc in 2008 did not make the Bloc a coalition member of the proposed coalition, one - and particularly the ones who took pains to make that point - should be hard-pressed to interpret anything in the 2004 letter as a coalition. Using a looser interpretation of the term to include any formal agreement to vote with the government, one still does not find in the 2004 letter a coalition.   A vote or series of successive votes to support the government on issues of confidence does not equal a coalition.  I assume that if the NDP or Bloc had more evidence than the hint to the G-G by which they could condemn Harper in his own words, they would present it to attack his credibility on the issue.  They have not, so I infer there is none and there were no negotiations of any more significance than the agreement to write a reminder to the G-G.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Apr 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.



Tommie Douglas also beleived in forced sterilization.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Tommie Douglas also beleived in forced sterilization.



As did pretty much everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Sterilization_Act_of_Alberta

The Alberta government paid out tens of millions to institutionalized individuals who were sterilized, many with their parents concurrence or at their request.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2011)

All the ore reason for Mr Ignatieff to trigger a coalition. Remember, for him it boils down to:

Become Prime minister
Avoid a hostile leadership revew, and,
Discipline or punish members of his caucus who dared oppose him

This shows hs fears about items two and three are well founded:

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/04/mark-holland-looking-to-replace-michael.html



> *Mark Holland Looking To Replace Michael Ignatieff After Election?*
> The following is a letter to the editor of the News Advertiser Ajax, concerning Liberal candidate Mark Holland:
> 
> "To the editor:
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Apr 2011)

I wager the MSM doesn't pick this up. However, if they do, it could be catastrophic for the Liberals. Looking to replace the leader while still in campaign mode? That's got to hurt.


----------



## Dissident (15 Apr 2011)

I think Mark Holland dreams in colour. He might hang on for this election, but there is a movement afoot to get rid of him on the political scene:

http://www.turfmholland.ca/


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, are the latest _projection_ and analysis:



> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, two or three days after the debates we see precisely nothing new.

And, to demonstrate that "nothing," here, also from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is a graph showing voting intention trends for the first half of the campaign:


----------



## Redeye (15 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Have you ever wondered why the 'Home of Tommy Douglas', Saskatchewan does not have any NDP seats in Parliament? You just have to compare Alta and Sask governmental history to see what fuzzy headed thinking will do to the Economy when you suffer through decades of near communistic approach to governing. Thank the lord enough of the  'Dirty Thirties' survivors have passed on and sanity now prevails in the Province.



And yet, the NDP is a political stalwart in provincial politics in Saskatchewan, which is why the Saskatchewan Party had to be formed to oppose them.  They're currently the official opposition with a sizeable presence in the Provincial Legislature.  They also came in well ahead of the Liberals in the popular vote in the last election.  So, your point again was what?  They still exist and still are quite a force.


----------



## Redeye (15 Apr 2011)

VinceW said:
			
		

> That's not true if Pearson didn't accept communist medical practices for our healthcare systems we would have done something else probably more similar to Western European models of private regulated healthcare and then government pays for healthcare to those who can't afford it.



What "communist medical practices" are those?  A single payer insurance system where most services are delivered by private sector actors?  Not really clear on the meaning of the word "communist", are you?

No two Western European systems are alike, incidentally, so using that term as though they were substantially similar is folly. 

But we're getting off track here.


----------



## Container (15 Apr 2011)

Why are Afghan Detainee docs so important in this election all of the sudden? Am I crazy or does that seem like a fishing expedition at what could possibly at the expense of the troops?

If I am wrong Id appreciate knowing it as it seems like its going to be used distastefully.....


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Apr 2011)

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post - 15 Apr 11 - Editorial

*Putting our political disease on display*

Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. Instead, we got three good ones

Depressed and disappointed. Those are the two words that encapsulate the reaction of many federalist Canadians to the French leaders’ debate. Not simply because the three federalist party leaders gave the impression of fish gasping for air, as they struggled to find words in their second language, but because of what the debate says about the Canadian political system, and our country more generally.

Canada’s two solitudes are alive and well. If anything, the gulf between English and French Canada has grown wider in the past five years, in terms of priorities, cultural differences and political attitudes. Stephen Harper’s resolution identifying Quebec as a “nation” within Canada — which seemed a good idea at the time — has blurred many of the red lines that used to demarcate what federalists could and could not say. Critics of Michael Ignatieff may not like his Wednesday-night declaration that “You can be a Quebecer or a Canadian in the order you prefer.” But once the word “nation” is used by a Prime Minister to describe a Canadian province, all bets are off.

As for Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québécois leader’s arguments in the French debate could be summed up in two sentences: Quebec should be its own country. Until then, please send money.

Money for forestry companies. For R&D. For HST harmonization. And for Montreal’s Champlain Bridge — a local issue that the journalists moderating the debate inexplicably took great pains to emphasize (perhaps they themselves are south-shore commuters). How embarrassingly parochial is it that in a national leaders’ debate, the issue of a single bridge took up more time than the environment, international trade or other matters of truly national importance?

Stephen Harper, who was impressively calm during the English debate, occasionally faltered on Wednesday night, his voice rising as he betrayed an (admittedly understandable) irritation at the tone of the discussion. Only when the debate moved to the subject of Quebec’s place in Canada did Mr. Harper find his feet — stepping into a pointless back and forth between Messrs. Duceppe and Ignatieff to say, in effect, “this is what you get with a minority Parliament.” 

As in the English debate, Jack Layton started strong but weakened as the night went on. He came out with a few good one-liners and hockey metaphors. But when he started talking about running for Prime Minister, Mr. Duceppe ran him into the boards with a hockey analogy of his own: “[The Bloc] won’t form government, [even though] we’ve always had more players on the ice than you.”

Which, sadly, is true: Thanks to the interplay of regionalism and our first-past-the-post electoral system, the BQ has 11 more seats than the NDP — despite having only about half the NDP’s overall national vote.

Having been christened the intellectual heir to Pierre Trudeau, Michael Ignatieff once was seen as a figure who might break through in Quebec. But his Wednesday-night lectures about democracy and the allegedly outdated nature of sovereignty were too professorial: The time when Quebecers went in for this sort of faculty-lounge approach to identity politics is long past. (And, in any event, one glance at the map of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia proves the argument wrong.)

What Mr. Ignatieff might have emphasized instead was that a sovereign Quebec would be an economic basket case — which at least would hit Quebec’s upwardly mobile, apolitical middle-class voters where it counts. He might also have played tough guy by declaring: If you want to separate so badly, Mr. Duceppe, go take over the Parti Québécois and stop living off political subsidies from English Canada. Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. But instead, all we got were three good cops.

Overall, the debate showed what a destructive force the Bloc has become in Canadian politics. For it is not only an obstacle to majority government, as Mr. Harper noted, but also a permanent distraction for any federalist party seeking to discuss the substantive issues that should be at the forefront of debate — rather than federal-provincial nation-envy, or the funding of a single bridge project.

How long this situation can continue before Canadian federalists get well and truly sick of BQ agitation is anyone’s guess. But when the moment does come, the result may be that separation is achieved on the initiative of English Canada, not Quebec — and on terms that neither Mr. Duceppe nor his fellow travellers much like. For now, Quebecers treat a vote for the BQ as a cost-free gesture of nationalist solidarity. But if and when their province gets asked to leave confederation, if only to cure the debilitating regionalism that now infects our political culture, the province’s BQ voters may come to regret their choice.

Which, sadly, is true: Thanks to the interplay of regionalism and our first-past-the-post electoral system, the BQ has 11 more seats than the NDP — despite having only about half the NDP’s overall national vote.

Having been christened the intellectual heir to Pierre Trudeau, Michael Ignatieff once was seen as a figure who might break through in Quebec. But his Wednesday-night lectures about democracy and the allegedly outdated nature of sovereignty were too professorial: The time when Quebecers went in for this sort of faculty-lounge approach to identity politics is long past. (And, in any event, one glance at the map of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia proves the argument wrong.)

What Mr. Ignatieff might have emphasized instead was that a sovereign Quebec would be an economic basket case — which at least would hit Quebec’s upwardly mobile, apolitical middle-class voters where it counts. He might also have played tough guy by declaring: If you want to separate so badly, Mr. Duceppe, go take over the Parti Québécois and stop living off political subsidies from English Canada. Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. But instead, all we got were three good cops.

Overall, the debate showed what a destructive force the Bloc has become in Canadian politics. For it is not only an obstacle to majority government, as Mr. Harper noted, but also a permanent distraction for any federalist party seeking to discuss the substantive issues that should be at the forefront of debate — rather than federal-provincial nation-envy, or the funding of a single bridge project.

How long this situation can continue before Canadian federalists get well and truly sick of BQ agitation is anyone’s guess. But when the moment does come, the result may be that separation is achieved on the initiative of English Canada, not Quebec — and on terms that neither Mr. Duceppe nor his fellow travellers much like. For now, Quebecers treat a vote for the BQ as a cost-free gesture of nationalist solidarity. But if and when their province gets asked to leave confederation, if only to cure the debilitating regionalism that now infects our political culture, the province’s BQ voters may come to regret their choice.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2011)

When I hear Iggy's attack on the money Harper is spending on F-35s on this "Red Friday", I get the impression that the Liberals DO NOT SUPPORT the Troops.


----------



## Container (15 Apr 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When I hear Iggy's attack on the money Harper is spending on F-35s on this "Red Friday", I get the impression that the Liberals DO NOT SUPPORT the Troops.



I agree with you. When I read the article about "Trudeau's Amry" on CBC I am shocked by the revisionist history. The liberals are no friend of the military, although Martin seemed like he may have been had he stuck around, but Im trying not to vote soley on defence. But it seems like defence spending, and Quebec are all anyone wants to talk about. And since all parties are wrong on Quebec....whats a guy to do?


----------



## Jed (15 Apr 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> When I read the article about "Trudeau's Amry" on CBC I am shocked by the revisionist history. The liberals are no friend of the military, etc. ....whats a guy to do?



Exactly on the money, _in my opinion_. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone wearing a uniform, who follows past history, even entertains the idea that the Liberal party lead by Mr. Ignatieff will support the military. Or the NDP, lead by Mr. Layton for that matter. It is difficult enough just getting adequate support from the Conservatives.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2011)

It was not always this way.

I am old enough to remember sitting around the hanger listening to NDP true believers in uniform. Ed Broadbent was the leader then and the NDP was not so scary as they are today, nor did they openly call soldier war criminals.

Politics have evolved and polarized since then; politics is defined in organizational theory as a means of allocating scarce resources, *our* resources are being targeted by people who want to allocate them to feed the welfare state and preserve their own political power.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Apr 2011)

This could turn out badly. Even if Elections Canada rules the poll illegal, the Torries are likely to take a hit:

Article Link

Conservatives accused of trying to halt U of Guelph vote
CBC News
Posted: Apr 15, 2011 10:50 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 15, 2011 10:59 AM ET 

The Conservatives come under fresh criticism Friday over the actions of a campaign volunteer who allegedly attempted to grab a ballot and halt voting at the University of Guelph.


Of course the Liberals have their typical short memories:

Artilcle

Three polling stations to open on U of T campus
Anthony Reinhart
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 8:41AM EST
Last updated Sunday, Apr. 05, 2009 12:58AM EDT


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

Personal observation: Why do I feel there's always some type of shenanigans at this the University of Guelph?


----------



## Jed (15 Apr 2011)

Coming from Saskatchewan has really colored my thinking on NDP. In this province, they started out as true CCFers "against the man" at a time when it was a good thing for the people. Things morphed over the years just like the book, Animal Farm, and they became just another Party doing a dog and pony to get your vote. They got too used to being in power and some pretty wrong headed folks made things very bleak in this province. A number of my close family members were well respected NDP leaders, but even they were put out to pasture by some of recent leaders in the party, just like the Horses in Animal Farm. In the past couple of decades, the left side of the political spectrum has always been ready to throw the Canadian Forces under the wheels of progress.

When Jack Layton yapped out the old line about the NDP being the only party that cared about Health Care, my gag reflex kicked in. Almost as bad as when the Liberals came out with the 'Guns. On our Streets. In Canada' nonsense.


----------



## GR66 (15 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Coming from Saskatchewan has really colored my thinking on NDP. In this province, they started out as true CCFers "against the man" at a time when it was a good thing for the people. Things morphed over the years just like the book, Animal Farm, and they became just another Party doing a dog and pony to get your vote. They got too used to being in power and some pretty wrong headed folks made things very bleak in this province. A number of my close family members were well respected NDP leaders, but even they were put out to pasture by some of recent leaders in the party, just like the Horses in Animal Farm. In the past couple of decades, the left side of the political spectrum has always been ready to throw the Canadian Forces under the wheels of progress.
> 
> When Jack Layton yapped out the old line about the NDP being the only party that cared about Health Care, my gag reflex kicked in. Almost as bad as when the Liberals came out with the 'Guns. On our Streets. In Canada' nonsense.



Some might suggest that you could almost substitute "Reform Party" and "Conservative Party of Canada" for "CCF" and "NDP" in your comment.  The Liberals have equally abandoned their roots...just without a name change in their case.


----------



## Jed (15 Apr 2011)

Some might equate the CCF to NDP transition story as same, same the Reform Party to CPC story but they would be gravely mistaken. Since when has the current CPC really had a chance to govern? They have been continually sniped at from the cheap seats. The shoddy gottcha journalism in play today and the past culture of entitlement in the traditional ruling party (Liberals) have made it next to impossible to carry on with a plan. The NDP, provincially in SK, had a stranglehold on the province for decades, incidentally driving the Healthcare process in to the ground in these parts.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Apr 2011)

Why does Saskatchewan get the blame? Medicare is really Alberta's fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Health_Insurance_Act_%281935%29


----------



## Jeremy360 (15 Apr 2011)

It shames me to think that I took CBC articles seriously at one point.  If half of the allegations about the polling station at the university are true then I don't blame the Conservatives for their actions.  The University of Guelph is hardly a remote location and it sounds like few, if any proper procedures were followed.  All parties involved should be in on the issue, but instead took the opportunity to snipe at the Conservatives.

That said, I've had trouble finding unbiased media on real issues.  Most of them are painted such a deep shade of red or blue that it's hard to form a valid opinion without blending it with common sense first.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Apr 2011)

The response from Elections Canada:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53086308/Press-Release-EN-1-copy

The response from the Conservatives:

    Statement by the Conservative Campaign 

    We welcome the statement by Elections Canada concerning voting on campuses and in the electoral district of Guelph. As we observed this morning, voting is a democratic right and a fair election process is an equally important democratic right. 

    While the Elections Canada statement confirms that what happened in Guelph lacked proper authorization, we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer. These student voters should not suffer because of mistakes by the local election officials. 

    At the same time, we are pleased that the rules for special balloting have been clarified and reconfirmed. The same rules should apply everywhere and be applied consistently across the country. 

    We urge all Canadians to vote, whether by special ballot, at advance polls, or on May 2.

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

Let's see where the spin takes us. I would hope the issue is put to rest now that the Conservatives have accepted the result.

I wonder though, how many of these students are actually eligible to vote in that riding? Does simply being present in a specific riding on voting day grant that eligibility? I hope not, as that could lead to serious voter fraud, with scores of folks traveling to swing ridings to alter the outcome. I seem to recall them harping on us to have our SOR sorted out so that we voted in the appropriate riding regardless of our current geographical location. Does the same apply here, or have all these students become deemed residents solely by virtue of being present that day? Would they not need to be on the list of electors?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Apr 2011)

Students are on their way home.  On election day they may very well be resident in a different riding.  The obvious intent of the special unauthorized poll is to allow people to vote who may not otherwise be eligible once their address changes.  The intent is simply fraudulent.  They can vote where they are resident once they move.


----------



## Donaill (15 Apr 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Thank the lord enough of the  'Dirty Thirties' survivors have passed on and sanity now prevails in the Province.



The Great Depression did not have to last as long as it did. A lot of heart ache could have been saved had the Feds used some of the policies that we now take for granted.


----------



## VinceW (15 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What "communist medical practices" are those?  A single payer insurance system where most services are delivered by private sector actors?  Not really clear on the meaning of the word "communist", are you?
> 
> No two Western European systems are alike, incidentally, so using that term as though they were substantially similar is folly.
> 
> But we're getting off track here.



Considering that the only two countries that copied our healthcare system are Cuba and North Korea and the fact that most of the Healthcare is run by the government I'm confident saying that it's communist/socialist healthcare we practice.


----------



## MJP (15 Apr 2011)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Considering that the only two countries that copied our healthcare system are Cuba and North Korea and the fact that most of the Healthcare is run by the government I'm confident saying that it's communist/socialist healthcare we practice.



Ummm there are quite a few countries that have very similar health care regimes like us.  I am glad your confident but I think you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care 

I usually don't like wikipedia as a source but for the few errors in the list I think it will suffice to show you that your assertions are off base.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Apr 2011)

I am posting this old Jim Travers column because it speaks to a concern I increasingly feel with the slow erosion of the democratic values of our federal government.

Toronto Star

 Back to The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy 
The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy
April 04, 2009

James Travers 

OTTAWA–For a foreign correspondent reporting some of the world's grimmest stories, Canada in the '80s was more than a faraway home. Seen from the flattering distance of Africa, this country was a model democracy. Reflected in its distant mirror was everything wrong with what was then called the Third World. From Cape to Cairo, power was in the hands of Big Men. Police and army held control. Institutions were empty shells. Corruption was as accepted as the steeped-in-pessimism proposition that it's a duty to clan as well as to family to grab whatever has value before the state inevitably returns to dust.

By contrast and comparison, Canada was a cold but shimmering Camelot. Ballots, not bullets, changed governments. Men and women in uniform were discreet servants of the state. Institutions were structurally sound. Corruption, a part of politics everywhere, was firmly enough in check that scandals were aberrations demanding public scrutiny and sometimes even justice.

Canada today is not Africa then or now. Our wealth and health, and our communal respect for legal, civil and human rights position this favoured country on a higher plane. Still, 10 years of close observation and some 1,500 Star columns lead to an unsettling conclusion: Africa, despite popular perception, despite the Somalias and Zimbabwes, is moving in one direction, Canada in another. Read the headlines, examine the evidence, plot the trend line dots and find that as Africans – from turnaround Ghana to impoverished Malawi – struggle to strengthen their democracies, Canadians are letting theirs slip. 

There, dictatorships are now more the exception than the rule and accountability is accepted as a precondition for stability. Here, power and control are increasingly concentrated and accountability honoured more in promise than practice. Canadian politicians flout the will of voters and parties. Once-solid institutions are being pulled apart by rising complexity and falling legitimacy. Scandals come and go without full public exposure or cleansing political punishment. If not yet lost, Camelot is under siege.

Laughter or disbelief would have been my '80s response to any gloomy prediction that within the next 20 odd years Canada's iconic police force would twist the outcome of a federal election. I would have rejected out of hand the suggestion that Parliament would become a largely ceremonial body incapable of performing its defining functions of safeguarding public spending and holding ministers to account. I would have treated as ridiculous any forecast that the senior bureaucracy would become politicized, that many of the powers of a monarch would flow from Parliament to the prime minister or that the authority of the Governor General, the de facto head of state, would be openly challenged.

Yet every one has happened and each has chipped away another brick of the democratic foundations underpinning Parliament. Incrementally and by stealth, Canada has become a situational democracy. What matters now is what works. Precedents, procedures and even laws have given way to the political doctrine of expediency. 

No single party or prime minister is solely to blame. Since Pierre Trudeau first dismissed backbenchers as nobodies and began drawing power out of Parliament and into his office, all have contributed to the creep toward a more authoritarian, less accountable Canadian polity.

Some of the changes are understandable. Government evolves with its environment, and that environment has become more complex even as the controls have become wobblier, less connected. The terrible twins of globalization and subsidiarity – the sound theory that services are most efficiently delivered by the administrative level closest to the user – now sorely test the ability of national legislatures to respond to challenges at home and abroad. Think of it this way: Trade, the economy and the environment have all gone global while the things that matter most to most of us – health, education and the quality of city life – are the guarded responsibility of provinces and municipalities.

Politics and politicians being what they are, the reflex response is to grasp for all remaining power. Once secured, it can be used to exercise political will more easily by overruling rules and rewriting or simply ignoring laws. Power alone is effective in cross-cutting through the silo walls that isolate departments and frustrate co-ordinated policies. Important to all administrations, unfettered manoeuvring room is that much more important to minority governments desperate to maximize limited options and minimize opposition influence.

Good for prime ministers, that's not nearly good enough for the rest of us. It fuels an inexorable power drift to the opaque political centre, creating what Donald Savoie, Canada's eminent chronicler of Westminster parliaments, calls "court government." It's his clear and credible view that between elections, prime ministers now operate in the omnipotent manner of kings. Surrounded by subservient cabinet barons, fawning unelected courtiers and answerable to no one, they manage the affairs of state more or less as they please. 

Prime ministers are freeing themselves from the chains that once bound them to voters, Parliament, cabinet and party. From bottom to top, from citizen to head of state, every link in those chains is stressed, fractured or broken.

One man's short political career helps explain how those connections fail. David Emerson, a respected former forestry executive and top B.C. bureaucrat, is recalled as one of Paul Martin's most competent ministers. Almost forgotten now is his corrosive effect on public trust.

In 2006, Emerson ran for re-election in Vancouver-Kingsway, winning easily as a Liberal. Weeks after promising to be Stephen Harper's "worst nightmare," Emerson was named to the Conservative cabinet in the trade portfolio he had long wanted and was well-suited for. His rationale was simple: There's no point in being in the capital if there's no real possibility of influencing the nation's course.

Emerson is an honest man and his motives genuine. But in severing the link between ballots and voter choice, he made nonsense of the electoral process.

Continued at LINK


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 Apr 2011)

I hardly think democracy is in danger.  Perhaps Travers hasn't lived long enough to realize little has changed over time.  An individual MP was just as impotent 100 years ago as he is now.  The people's one chance for democracy is on election day.  After that the government rules the country with the blessing of Parliament.  100 years ago Parliament didn't meet very much.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2011)

The media may be starting to abandon their favorites:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/314842.php



> *The End? The first Ignatieff obituary*
> 
> Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 07:35 AM
> It has been noted that the media has been giving Michael Ignatieff quite the boost during the election.  But now, as the election enters the final stretch, and there appears to be no chance for a media-engineered Liberal surprise, the media has begun to turn.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2011)

And a bit of election humour:

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2011/04/iggy-and-jack-crypto-commies.html



> Iggy and Jack: crypto-commies
> Here's my choice for National Post letter of the day:
> 
> *Re: A Communist Party Manifesto for Canada, Miguel Figueroa, April 14.*
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2011)

I know I've made the "night of the long knives" reference before, but I can't help but think I hear some blade sharpening going on. One of the most insightful comments on the Liberals, from someone who purports to be liberal, comes from the Janke site:



> Oxygentax:
> 
> One of the problems with the Liberals is that they keep looking for the One. The leader with personality that holds everyone in awe. They had it once. They haven't had it since.
> 
> ...



I think he's hit the nail on the head. The Liberal party is consistently searching for the next PET. Perhaps not in substance, but in essence. They're trying to recapture the public adoration that Trudeau managed... and consistently failing. I wonder how that bodes for Trudeau the younger? The BQ seem to be nipping at his feet in Papineau.


----------



## 57Chevy (16 Apr 2011)

CPAC host Peter Van Dusen discusses the parties' election promises 
to veterans with Sean Bruyea and Michel Drapeau.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMyaPyEi1Hc#at=419


you may have to restart the video ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2011)

Are the ghosts of PMs past going to haunt or help the Liberal campaign? Is using two former leaders, one of whom Mr Harper defeated last time out, really a good idea? 

Article Link

*Liberals bring big guns to lend firepower to campaign*

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Sat. Apr. 16 2011 12:04 PM ET

The Liberals are bringing out the big guns, with two former prime ministers coming out to lend support to Michael Ignatieff's campaign with just over two weeks to go before the election.

Former prime minister Paul Martin will join Ignatieff for a rally in Edmonton on Saturday, before travelling with the leader to Vancouver for campaign stops on Sunday.

More at link.


Modified for clarity.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2011)

This is disturbing on so many levels:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Ignatieff+whistle+anti+Israel+voters/4626050/story.html



> *Ignatieff 's dog whistle for anti-Israel voters*
> 
> David Frum, National Post · Apr. 16, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 16, 2011 4:11 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2011)

Helena Guergis 2. What do you expect from politicians?
Article Link
Chris Selley  Apr 15, 2011 – 6:58 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 15, 2011 7:11 PM ET
REUTERS/Mike Cassese

The most eye-rolling moment in Helena Guergis’s weepy press conference on Friday was when she tried to universalize her plight. “There isn’t anyone in this room that this couldn’t happen to,” she said. “If it can happen to me as a Member of Parliament, where somebody can make up some crazy allegations, take it to your boss, have your boss completely toss you aside without any evidence and not even tell you what is wrong, and then just walk away and leaving your life in destruction, it can happen to anyone.”

Technically, she’s absolutely correct. Anyone who wasn’t an MP could indeed find herself under suspicion of having, say, snorted cocaine off a prostitute’s breast, and those suspicions might be relayed to this person’s boss’s lawyer by a private investigator who, strangely, doesn’t have any concrete evidence at all to back it up. Anyone who wasn’t an MP might get fired as a result.

At that point, anyone who wasn’t an MP would make a bee line towards the best legal representation she could afford and launch a wrongful dismissal suit with extreme prejudice. Ms. Guergis, on the other hand, is still very much hoping one day to rejoin what she calls “my Conservative family.” So, it’s not quite like getting fired from Burger King or the photocopy place.

Ms. Guergis wasn’t fired anyway, in any traditional sense. She was an MP until Parliament was dissolved last month, on the same salary and the same job description — to represent the people of Simcoe-Grey — as when she was in the Tory caucus. She had offered her resignation from Cabinet, and Stephen Harper had accepted it. Even if he’d turfed her, no Prime Minister is under any obligation to explain his shuffles, and the sorts of low- to medium-level embarrassments that were orbiting around Ms. Guergis are precisely the sorts of things that earn junior Cabinet ministers a time out in the back benches.
More on link


----------



## marshall sl (16 Apr 2011)

Start each day with a positive outlook:

Open a new file in your computer
Name it Michael Ignatieff
Send it to the Recycle Bin


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2011)

I have not been able to stop derisively referring to her as our "Illustrious Member of Parliament"

Her extended family, who has been a political force locally was handed defeats this past year due to the fall out federally.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The media may be starting to abandon their favorites:
> 
> http://stevejanke.com/archives/314842.php




It will be a pity, in a way. Members will recall that there were high hopes that Ignatieff _might_ be something other than an empty suite parroting the "ideas" from the last remnants of the Trudeau brain-trust. Alas, it appears that he has either changed his mind, done pretty much a 180o course change, or has submerged his own views and is being something of a ventriloquist's dummy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It will be a pity, in a way. Members will recall that there were high hopes that Ignatieff _might_ be something other than an empty suite parroting the "ideas" from the last remnants of the Trudeau brain-trust. Alas, it appears that he has either changed his mind, done pretty much a 180o course change, or has submerged his own views and is being something of a ventriloquist's dummy.



I think he's just in panic mode. Spouting anything that he thinks _may_ resonate with the voters and he can latch onto. "OK, that didn't work, let's try this".

As has been put forward previous, barring some catastrophic last minute faux pas by the CPC, Ignatieff is a dead man walking.

His own party knows it. That's why you haven't seen Bob Rae out there stumping for him. The best he's been able to do is bring out the past two has been Dons of the Librano's, Chretian and Martin. Yup, that'll get people behind you


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2011)

I'm not sure that the fat lady has sung just yet.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that the fat lady has sung just yet.



Totally agree. It will be down to the wire and I have a feeling the end results will be most unsatisfactory for any party looking for a mandate, with the exception of the Bloc.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2011)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Totally agree. It will be down to the wire and I have a feeling the end results will be most unsatisfactory for any party looking for a mandate, with the exception of the Bloc.



I don't know. Bringing out the architects of Adscam, as much as Mr Martin might be blameless, probably won't help. It may very well serve as a visual reminder that the other parties, particularly the Bloc and Torries, use to their advantage.


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2011)

I would not count the Liberals out yet....with Dion you could see the writing on the wall from day one.....don't be so quick with Iggy...The Liberals have a good machine and can grind it through, enough, at least to spoil the majority....


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2011)

I suspect the results will simply be a change around the margins, but if this sort of sentiment is true, then perhaps the real outcome will be the LPC simply will not allow Mr Ignatieff to trigger a coalition.

Triggering the coalition would make Mr Ignatieff the Prime Minister, insulate him from a hostile leadership review and allow Mr Ignatieff and his "faction" to gain the upper hand in caucus, rewarding his followers and exacting revenge on opponents or anyone who was less than loyal and supportive. Given his generally poor performance on the hustings, in the debate and now watching the NDP gaining ground on the Liberals, I don't think the Liberal brain trust and the people who provide the funding will be very amused or supportive of attempts by Mr Ignatieff to remain as leader.

The only real outlier result I can see might be the NDP gaining enough traction to start splitting the left wing vote in close ridings and allowing the CPC to advance through the center, resulting in a much larger minority or even the long hoped for majority government. Second possibility is the Liberals loose some seats to the NDP, either result triggering the hostile leadership review post haste.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

It becomes a numbers game: if, despite the near steady polling during the first half and the lack of a debate `bump` for the Liberals, the Liberals can gain a lot of seats, 30+ and all from the Conservatives, to bring them up to about 110 seats and to bring the Conservatives down to about 115 seats (with about 50 for the BQ and 35 for the NDP), then I would expect the Conservative government to be defeated fairly early on and I would expect the GG to ask Ignatieff to form a government and meet the HoC. If there is a repeat of the Petereson/Rae deal then he might be able to govern for two years or so with both BQ and NDP support.

But I think the Conservatives will make hay out of the BQ support and every time a motion passes with BQ support then Liberal support will decline.

If the combined Liberal and NDP vote is greater than 155, i.e. If the Liberals take 120 seats, if they take over 40 seats away from the Conservatives then a 'good' deal is possible – but the NDP might not want to play.

If, however, the status quo maintains itself: Conservatives with 150± and the Liberals with only 75± then I expect Ignatieff to be bounced pretty quickly. It is possible that if the three opposition parties defeated a government which had actually just improved its standing to 150± the GG _might_ not ask a party with only 75 seats to try to form a government; he might decide that Canadians need to try again to elect a stable majority.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2011)

I have a hard time seeing the GG accepting the case that might be made by Ignatieff for a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by some sort of tacit understanding of case-by-case support by the BQ, should the Conservatives fail to get a majority.  The argument that might be made by Ignatieff that the Conservatives have failed thrice to achieve a majority and thus don't deserve to form the next Government fails in great part to the fact that the potential "hard coalition" (Lib-NDP) would as well be a numerical minority.  To ask the GG to replace a likely large minority with a smaller composite minority and some as-yet-undefined relationship with an avowed separatist party...sorry, don't see that as being acceptable to the Canadian people, via the GG as proxy of the people. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2011)

This is not a continental European republican system.

The G.G. does what the P.M. advises lest he wants a constitutional crisis. And as far as appointing the government, he's not like an elected president, who waits for the first elected person to come to him with proof that he/she can form a government. The G.G. has no such choice to make: He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government. If, and only when, that government is defeated on a confidence vote will the G.G. have the option of asking the next party with the most seats to form a government instead of dissolving Parliament again - but he cannot do so against the advice of his then P.M. or he'll trow the country into a constitutional crisis, as happened the last time a G.G. tried to pull something like that (early 30's if memory serves).

So, regardless of all the "coalition" politics-speak out there, another minority PC government would have some life because it would have meant that:
1- it is still the party endorsed by the most voters;
2- these voters obviously have no problem with the proposed budget; 
3- these voters did not perceive any of what the government did as "contemptuous" of Parliament; and,
4- the opposition parties would self destruct if they risked sending the country into another election too quickly on the flimsy hope that the G.G. would ask a coalition to govern regardless of the P.M. advice to dissolve Parliament (which, I am sure would be the advice).

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government.



Note that a sitting prime minister is under no obligation to resign until Parliament fires him.  The Liberals received 101 seats to the Conservative's 116 seats in the 1926 election but refused to resign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This is not a continental European republican system.
> 
> The G.G. does what the P.M. advises lest he wants a constitutional crisis. And as far as appointing the government, he's not like an elected president, who waits for the first elected person to come to him with proof that he/she can form a government. The G.G. has no such choice to make: He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government. If, and only when, that government is defeated on a confidence vote will the G.G. have the option of asking the next party with the most seats to form a government instead of dissolving Parliament again - but he cannot do so against the advice of his then P.M. or he'll trow the country into a constitutional crisis, as happened the last time a G.G. tried to pull something like that (early 30's if memory serves).
> 
> ...




Re: the highlighted bit - I beg to differ. I think the GG's residual powers do give him or her some wiggle room IF a minority government falls very soon (say less than six months?) after a general election AND IF the next party looks to have nearly as many seats. 

Thus, I think a lot of Liberals are hoping for:

BQ     ≈   50
Cons ≈ 115 (a loss of 30± seats)
Libs   ≈ 115 (a gain of 40± seats)
NDP   ≈  30

IF the Liberals have more seats they will be asked for form a government and they can, probably, count on a reasonable (1 year, plus) chance to govern.

IF the Conservatives have more seats then they can be defeated quickly, on the budget, and the GG can and, arguably, should ask the Liberal leader to form a government.


----------



## Sapplicant (17 Apr 2011)

I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.

Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (_possible_, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Apr 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.
> 
> Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (_possible_, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?



I think that it's not only possible, but also probable. There might be enough blue liberals that don't want another election and are willing to cross the floor. However, they could also be conveniently absent from the house when the next confidence vote is scheduled thereby ensuring its defeat. Much depends on the internal Liberal party politics following an increased Tory minority and a loss of seats for the Liberals.


----------



## Dissident (17 Apr 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.
> 
> Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (_possible_, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?



I'm sure it is. It will not make me happy.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2011)

It's possible that they could also walk sideways...there are more than a few "orange liberals" who could find greater harmony with Layton & Co.  Jack Layton isn't a fool, and he did get half his wish list added to the budget, so I don't think Layton is 100% dedicated to a coalition with Ignatieff. If the Conservatives still get a minority, they may further tweak the budget, but specifically only to address a few more of the NDP ideas, thus deflating any reason for Layton to support a coalition. Then, layton's only motivation to be part of a coalition is to be a minister in a coalition cabinet, and that self-serving aspirational perspective is counter to the 'all for one' doctrine of the NDP.

2 more cents

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2011)

Dissident's happines aside, the most likely scenario after such an increase in Conservative seats is for the opposition whip to come up with good face saving excuses for a convenient number of members to be away when confidence votes take place (with small numbers, its easier to find "valid" excuses), at least until the Liberals have replaced Prince Michael (who after such defeat would quit and return to teaching).


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.
> 
> Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (_possible_, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?




First, it is _possible_ that two independents who have, traditionally, voted with the Conservative Government, will be re-elected (André Arthur in Pontneuf-Jacques-Cartier and Helena Guergis in Simcoe-Grey, both are currently running in a respectable second place in their ridings). I think that a few Liberal defections are possible. I hope that Scott Brison might be wooed back into the Conservative ranks. There are constant rumours that Ruby Dhalla might bolt the Liberals but I doubt the Conservatives would want her in their caucus - but her loss might encourage one or two others, especially if Brison returns to the Conservatives.


Edit: typo


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hope that Scott Brison might be wooed back into the Conservative ranks.



Has there been any indications that this may happen?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

I have mentioned before that I like to track the CARP poll because we know that the 55-74 age cohort votes in disproportionately high numbers.

Here are the latest results (it's a “rolling” poll so the number may have changed when you take a look:

Effective 2011-04-17 at 1045 Hrs

Total respondents:   2737
In the 55-77 cohort: 2196
In Ontario:               1616

Party choice:

Conservative -   1079 Votes/39.4 %
Liberal -               846 Votes/30.9 %
NDP -                   315 Votes/11.5 %
Green Party -        79 Votes/2.9 %
Bloc Quebecois -     4 Votes/0.1 %
OTHER -                13 Votes/0.5 %
UNDECIDED -      401 Votes/14.7 %
Total -               2737 Votes

Election outcome preference:

Conservative majority -                    1152 Votes/42.1 %
Conservative minority -                      146 Votes/5.3 %
Liberal majority -                                497 Votes/18.2 %
Liberal minority -                                205 Votes/7.5 %
Liberal minority supported by NDP -   542 Votes/19.8 %
OTHER -                                              103 Votes/3.8 %
DON’T KNOW -                                      92 Votes/3.4 %
Total -                                               2737 Votes


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2011)

Interesting CARP numbers - not widely off the electorate at large it seems to me.

Here's a question ERC:  what might the odds be of a caucus split in the Liberals?  Either an internal split (continuing to caucus together but voting independently a la Joe Lieberman) or a more open split creating a  separate caucus of Independent Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting CARP numbers - not widely off the electorate at large it seems to me.
> 
> Here's a question ERC:  what might the odds be of a caucus split in the Liberals?  Either an internal split (continuing to caucus together but voting independently a la Joe Lieberman) or a more open split creating a  separate caucus of Independent Liberals.




I honestly don't know, Kirkhill. I used to have a pretty useful Liberal _insider_ contact but she moved away so I am bereft of political gossip from that part of the spectrum, but I still have a few friends acquaintances contacts with a few people in the Conservative Party who still speak to me, so, re:



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Has there been any indications that this may happen?



... rumour has it that PM Harper was deeply hurt by Brison's defection and he has taken/is taking pains to silence, even marginalize the 'religious right" fringe which does exist in the Conservative party so that Brison can return.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, about the "ceilings" after three weeks:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com, related to five just released polls:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 2011*
> [szie=14pt]Week 3 Ceilings[/size]
> 
> The Conservative ceiling in this past third week of the campaign has risen to a very comfortable level for Stephen Harper. The Liberal ceiling, on the other, has dropped by 16 seats.
> ...



So, based on _ThreeHunbdredEight.com_'s modelling of the results of the aggregated polling data, the worst that could happen to the Conservatives is another minority with a net loss of eight seats. The *best* possible (but *NOT* probable) Conservative outcome is a solid Conservative majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Apr 2011)

It still remains to be seen what effect adding Paul Martin and Jean Cretien to the campaign will have. We also need to see what the increased popularity of the NDP in Quebec does. I _think_ that the former PMs might work against the Liberals out west and in Quebec, and for them in Ontario and the Maritimes. Although much depends on what the Conservatives can make of their prior attachment to Adscam etc. There's also the pesky raiding of EI, CPP and transfer payments that the Liberals have now offered up as targets.

The trickier analysis is the NDP effect in Quebec. As one article I read today stated their support is "a mile wide but an inch deep". With that as the case, it may give the Liberals or Conservatives a chance to steal a BQ seat through vote migration away from the BQ. As has been eloquently stated here and elsewhere, the BQ and NDP are similar in their appeal. Again, I _think_ that the Conservatives might be the net beneficiaries as Quebec Liberals are more likely to go NDP than BQ. The retention and gain of seats in Quebec is a bigger challenge for the Liberals than for the Conservatives. I don't think the Conservatives have put much energy into gaining seats in Quebec, but then again I haven't paid too much attention to that part of the campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2011)

More data, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:






http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-and-ndp-gains-dampen-tory-hopes-for-majority-three-weeks-in/article1988534/ 


> *CRUNCHING NUMBERS*
> Liberal and NDP gains dampen Tory hopes for majority three weeks in
> 
> ÉRIC GRENIER
> ...




Remember, please, Harold Wilson's definition of 'a long time in politics,' it's a week. We have two long times to go before most of us go to the polls.


Edit: format


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Ignatieff is likely to win a lot of votes on this one, especially in and around Montreal
> Got mine
> 
> article:
> ...



Looks like Igtnatieff is promising bridges everwhere he goes:

Ignatieff promises new Ottawa-Gatineau bridge
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Ignatieff+promises+Ottawa+Gatineau+bridge/4623814/story.html


By Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen 
April 15, 2011 
A Liberal government would begin construction of a long-discussed new bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau by 2017, says party leader Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff made the commitment this week while campaigning for Steve MacKinnon, the Liberal candidate in Gatineau.

“A Liberal government will advance the project, and it would be a magnificent project for the 150th anniversary of Canada in 2017,” he said.

MacKinnon said Friday he’s “thrilled” by Ignatieff’s support for a new Ottawa River crossing, which he describes as his “number one priority. It’s been 50 years that this bridge has been under discussion, and it’s high time to get on with the job.”

One major stumbling block has been finding a politically acceptable location for a new bridge. The National Capital Commission, the two provincial governments and the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau are currently completing environmental assessments of three possible east-end routes: Kettle Island, Lower Duck Island and McLaurin Bay.

While the Liberal party hasn’t endorsed a location for the bridge yet, MacKinnon said his personal choice is Kettle Island, the location favoured by the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. “I’ll keep an open mind but I’d have to be persuaded of other routes,” he said.

MacKinnon said it was premature to say how much a Liberal government would contribute toward the cost of building the new bridge.

The Liberals are trying to recapture Gatineau riding, currently held by the Bloc Québécois’s Richard Nadeau. Nadeau won the seat in 2006 and was re-elected in 2008 in a tight three-way battle with the NDP and the Liberals.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Jed (17 Apr 2011)

I guess with all his time in the 'Big Apple', Mr. Ignatieff took lessons on how to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2011)

> MacKinnon said it was premature to say how much a Liberal government would contribute toward the cost of building the new bridge.



...but not premature to make this non-quantified commitment six years into the future?  ???


----------



## midget-boyd91 (17 Apr 2011)

I hate to quote myself buuuut 



> "I'm going to give everyone in this riding a new bridge in exchange for your votes!!!" Sounds more like a bribe if you ask me.... but nobody did.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2011)

The guy is supposed to be running for Prime Minister of Canada. Not stumping like a municipal politician in a race for Mayor. :


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Apr 2011)

Can Ignatieff come and build the Third Crossing bridge in Kingston? That project needs a little kick in the butt. I agree that he's throwing out promises like a municipal race.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Apr 2011)

Municipal politics?  Well Iggy did say that he would have financially supported Edmonton's Worlds Fair bid, unlike the evil Harper.  He would also give hundreds of millions to hockey owner billionaires, again unlike the evil Harper.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Apr 2011)

Hmmmm....

A bridge for Montreal, a bridge for Gatineau, and a hockey rink for Quebec city. A cynic might say he's trying to buy Quebec's votes. Then again, a non-cynic might say the same thing.


----------



## HavokFour (17 Apr 2011)

Stop hiring City of Ottawa workers in Quebec and you'd cut the traffic in half.  ;D


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 Apr 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Stop hiring City of Ottawa workers in Quebec and you'd cut the traffic in half.  ;D



Gatineau has a Bloc MP?  I suppose they expect to keep their Federal government jobs if Quebec leaves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Gatineau has a Bloc MP?  I suppose they expect to keep their Federal government jobs if Quebec leaves.



As long as they show their passport when they cross the border ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Apr 2011)

Instead of a new bridge, encouraging more car travel, why not invest a fraction of the price of a new bridge for more incentives to use public transit?  Just asking (You know, environment, and all that)


----------



## 57Chevy (17 Apr 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looks like Igtnatieff is promising bridges everwhere he goes:



Maybe he's trying to bridge the gap  :


----------



## midget-boyd91 (17 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Maybe he's trying to bridge the gap  :



Noo, I think I'm going to have to stick with bribes.  If he was trying to bridge any gaps he should be doing so on issues that matter to Canada and all Canadians.... not those in a particular riding or two.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Maybe he's trying to bridge the gap  :



That's okay, 57...I got it!  Good one... ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (17 Apr 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Noo, I think I'm going to have to stick with bribes.  If he was trying to bridge any gaps he should be doing so on issues that matter to Canada and all Canadians.... not those in a particular riding or two.





			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> "He added that the bridge was not just one for Montreal or its south shore but for all of Canada."



Just saying
 ;D


----------



## midget-boyd91 (17 Apr 2011)

Offer a bridge for Newfoundland to mainland Canada.... They're still pissed off that those Spud heads got their own bridge and they didn't get anything...


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2011)

Just watching the CBC National....boy, is the CBC trying to do a hatchet job on Harper.....they interview anyone with nothing good to say about the conservatives, voting for one of the other parties, highlight liberal and NDP election promises.......and then, when they do turn to the Conservatives, it's all about a reiteration of all the scandals they are trying to tag them with.......nope.....no bias there...... :


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2011)

Maybe we really need the _*Bridge Party*_ to run in the next election?


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Apr 2011)

For those who disfavour floor crossing and don't want another election, there's another possibility if the CPC is 3-4 seats short and a confidence vote is taken: 3-4 opposition members break with their parties and sit as independents (more likely if they are centre/centre-right Liberals and the Liberals and NDP start talking).  They should be able to cut some decent deals for their ridings.  An "independent caucus" could reasonably be large enough to be a fourth (and relatively inexpensive in lump sums) block of votes the government can bargain for in order to obtain legislative majorities.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> For those who disfavour floor crossing and don't want another election, there's another possibility if the CPC is 3-4 seats short and a confidence vote is taken: 3-4 opposition members break with their parties and sit as independents (more likely if they are centre/centre-right Liberals and the Liberals and NDP start talking).  They should be able to cut some decent deals for their ridings.  An "independent caucus" could reasonably be large enough to be a fourth (and relatively inexpensive in lump sums) block of votes the government can bargain for in order to obtain legislative majorities.



At the risk of making another unfortunate Count reference, a move like that would just about nail Mr Ignatieff's political coffin closed.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Just watching the CBC National....boy, is the CBC trying to do a hatchet job on Harper.....they interview anyone with nothing good to say about the conservatives, voting for one of the other parties, highlight liberal and NDP election promises.......and then, when they do turn to the Conservatives, it's all about a reiteration of all the scandals they are trying to tag them with.......nope.....no bias there...... :



My whole life, I've watched slick lefties and buffoon right wingers to the exclusion of eloquent right wingers and buffoon lefties.  I'm sure all CBC guests are selected to prove their agenda.  I do wish the people at CBC an early congratulation on their upcoming retirement.  I suspect there may be one more item added to the upcoming budget to be introduced by a majority Conservative government.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Apr 2011)

The CBC could take a lesson from the state-funded BBC, which is arguably one of the most objective and professional news-reporting networks in the world.


----------



## 57Chevy (18 Apr 2011)

reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

Postmedia News April 18, 2011 8:37 AM
Military personnel cast first ballots of the election

http://www.canada.com/news/Military+personnel+cast+first+ballots+election/4633398/story.html#ixzz1JsapIaZV


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2011)

The Conservative slide continues according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _threeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is worth looking at a few of the changes:

1. _Brampton-Springdale_ has moved from Conservative to Liberal with poll results showing 41.7 and 41.8 respectively;
2. _Random - Burin - St. George'_s has moved from Conservative to Liberal with poll results showing 42.2 and 43.7 respectively;
3. _Egmont_ has moved from Conservative to Liberal with poll results showing 44.3 and 44.8 respectively;
4. _Ahuntsic_ has moved from BQ to Liberal with poll results showing 36.6 and 37.3 respectively; 
5. _Brossard - La Prairie_ has moved from BQ to Liberal with poll results showing 30.0 and 30.5 respectively; and
6. _Gatineau_ has moved from BQ to NDP with poll results showing 28.6 and 31.1 respectively, the only change with a spread of greater than 1.5% in the local polls.

Expect more changes during the last two weeks of the campaign.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2011)

As usual, a lot is going to depend on which party can get it's voters out to vote on election day....in 2008, Liberal supports stayed away in droves...


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2011)

The erosion of BQ support may turn out to be the story of this campaign; if it happens to the extent predicted (and I suspect the slide is going to worsen) and is sustained in future elections we may be witnessing the end of the Bloc.

The other interesting aspect to this is the NDP's steady inroads into Quebec.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The erosion of BQ support may turn out to be the story of this campaign; if it happens to the extent predicted (and I suspect the slide is going to worsen) and is sustained in future elections we may be witnessing the end of the Bloc.
> 
> The other interesting aspect to this is the NDP's steady inroads into Quebec.



And if we see the end of the bloc or even a large drop in support, I can see Gilles Duceppe (once again) stepping down as leader of the Bloc with the intention of rallying support to strengthen a newly revived separatist movement..


----------



## kratz (18 Apr 2011)

It's a sad reality, but it has been almost 20 years. The RoC is almost due for another constitution crisis. A political watcher could almost set their clock by it.  :worms:


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The erosion of BQ support may turn out to be the story of this campaign; if it happens to the extent predicted (and I suspect the slide is going to worsen) and is sustained in future elections we may be witnessing the end of the Bloc.
> 
> The other interesting aspect to this is the NDP's steady inroads into Quebec.



And that will be the first step in the absorbtion/amalgamation of the NDP and the left wing of the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2011)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is, I suspect, written, largely, with tongue in cheek, but it does point out the dilemma that can arise when Canadians vote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/want-a-coalition-scenario-try-duceppe-as-pm/article1987578/ 


> Want a coalition scenario? Try Duceppe as PM
> 
> NEIL REYNOLDS
> 
> ...




The last sentence is a crux of the matter: If the Liberals + the NDP have 155 seats then no one, not even the most rabid Conservative, can complain about either a coalition or an understanding à la the Peterson/Rae _accord_ in Ontario a few years ago. *But* if the Liberals + NDP have less than 155 seats then Gilles Duceppe has, _de facto_, a big say in how the Government of Canada goes about its business.

Consider this graphic from the end of last week:






The worst case for Conservatives sees:

BQ:                      50
Conservatives:  141
Liberals:               87
NDP:                    29

In that model the Liberals + NDP have 116 seats, a Liberal PM *must, always*, bill after bill, have *active* BQ support to pass anything. In that scenario Gilles Duceppe may not be the PM, he may not even be in the cabinet but he is calling the shots.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Apr 2011)

Or Harper could do a deal with the devil and offer the Bloc the chance to form a coalition with the CPC. Probable political suicide, but better than having the Bloc calling the shots.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Apr 2011)

It is interesting that nobody is raising the possibililty of one or more opposition parties using strategic flu on the part of a few of their members to allow the CPC to survive the confidence votes on the budget. This would then be followed by the House rising for a long summer recess.


----------



## HavokFour (18 Apr 2011)

Online polls are FAR too easy to exploit, I have never and will never trust any results that come from them.

In other news, I found this today.
http://blog.agoracom.com/2011/03/27/michael-ignatieff-political-career-death-clock/


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2011)

My suspicion is that, if the numbers hold up for two more weeks and the Conservatives have an increased minority, that - _strategic_ flu - is exaclty what will happen. The Liberals will know that they, with only say 77 seats, the same as at dissolution, have no _*political* right_ to try to seize power and that if they do try they will be punished for it at the polls. None of the parties, not even the BQ, will want to force another general election so it is likely that Harper, if he can get an increased minority (145-153 seats) will govern, for two years anyway, as though he has a majority.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2011)

In other news, today the Technoviking exercised his political right and voted.  He voted the same way he always does: by secret ballot.


_"The Technoviking doesn't vote with an "x", the "x" votes with a Technoviking"_



Get out and VOTE.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In other news, today the Technoviking exercised his political right and voted.


  rly:
Advance polls in Upper Canada, my riding anyway, aren't until 22, 23 and 25 April. 
I can't believe we're making 'special conditions' for the Maritimes...again   :



 ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Apr 2011)

Either the Chief Electoral Officer made a special trip to the Infantry School to personally hand deliver a ballot to the TV, or he voted at the service poll. Your choice!


----------



## Sapplicant (18 Apr 2011)

Some food for thought about the numbers of the latest polls according to Mr. Campbell;

As the university semesters have wound down, and exams are in full swing, more students are at home studying and available to answer the phone, vs. out doing the weekend usual. As well, most/all of the (very) left of centre students I know (There are a lot of them out there, especially back East) will tell absolutely anyone who's willing to listen just how much they hate Conservatives, and why we should all vote for the NDP, since they know what's best for everybody, just like them. Plus, Jack Layton never exhaled, which is pretty cool if you someone who probably has half a dozen bongs and pipes laying around their dorm room/apt.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2011)

Just found this little tidbit from Mr. Ignatieff's speech just prior to the vote on non confidence:



> It is not just democracy that the House will be called upon to affirm this afternoon. The House should also affirm Canadians' hunger, nay their longing, for change. It is time to change Canada's direction. It is time to get us on the right path. After five years of Conservative government, it is time to say enough is enough. Enough of the politics of fear. Enough of the politics of division. Enough of the politics of personal destruction.



Source

I think that the indications are that Mr. Ignatieff was wrong.  Canadians are not "hungry for change".

The thing, though, about the polls is how they can even reasonably predict that person "A" will win seat "X", based on a percentage difference that is well within the margin of error.  Are their polls out that label certain ridings that fall within the percentage of error as "undecided" or "uncertain"?


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Either the Chief Electoral Officer made a special trip to the Infantry School to personally hand deliver a ballot to the TV, or he voted at the service poll. Your choice!


I think we all know that the Technoviking gets special treatment.


(Or is that he ought to get treatment for being "special"?)  

Either way, his vote was cast for the riding of Prince Edward - Hastings, firmly in Upper Canada's domain ;D


----------



## Sapplicant (18 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (Or is that he ought to get treatment for being "special"?)




Didn't they give you a helmet when you joined?


----------



## observor 69 (18 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Just found this little tidbit from Mr. Ignatieff's speech just prior to the vote on non confidence:
> 
> Source
> 
> ...



I find this site of interest if you are looking for info on the trend in a riding:

http://www.electionprediction.org/


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I find this site of interest if you are looking for info on the trend in a riding:
> 
> http://www.electionprediction.org/


That's perfect.  Thank you!


----------



## Dissident (18 Apr 2011)

Wow, 73 seats are too close to call.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Wow, 73 seats are too close to call.




If you apportion those 73 seats in accordance with the split of the decided seats the _prediction_ is, roughly:*

BQ:      48 seats
Con:   151 seats
Lib:      76 seats
NDP:    33 seats

Which is pretty close to what _ThreeHundredEight.com_ says:







Thus, it appears that the polling _might_ be fairly consistent.


----------
* I say roughly because the BQ is not competing for all 73 uncontested seats so one has to develop a formula that accounts for the _Bloc's_ "fair share" of the 22 seats that are too close to call in QC.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2011)

Re Voting:

Kirkhill has already voted as well.  And he got a Special Ballot to do it on - secret squirrel style.  Go down to your local Elections Canada office, as for the Special Ballot and they will give you a blank "write in" ballot.  Write the candidate's name and put it in an envelope, which you put in another envelope which you put in the ballot box.

And nobody guess which way I voted..... I want it to be a surprise.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Re Voting:
> 
> Kirkhill has already voted as well.  And he got a Special Ballot to do it on - secret squirrel style.  Go down to your local Elections Canada office, as for the Special Ballot and they will give you a blank "write in" ballot.  Write the candidate's name and put it in an envelope, which you put in another envelope which you put in the ballot box.
> 
> And nobody guess which way I voted..... I want it to be a surprise.



yep.....works like a charm......


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Apr 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Re Voting:
> 
> Kirkhill has already voted as well.  And he got a Special Ballot to do it on - secret squirrel style.  Go down to your local Elections Canada office, as for the Special Ballot and they will give you a blank "write in" ballot.  Write the candidate's name and put it in an envelope, which you put in another envelope which you put in the ballot box.
> 
> And nobody guess which way I voted..... I want it to be a surprise.


Technoviking doesn't run for office....office runs for the Technoviking!  Thanks for the vote ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2011)

Come on Kirkhill, it is well known you have been a rabid supporter of the Pirate Party. 

After the local Pirate riding association promised rum, wenches and fist fulls of gold doubloons, I've been taking a much closer look at them as well....


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2011)

Here's a burning question as yet unanswered during the campaign...

Where's Bob? His silence speaks volumes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an article that puts a new, to me, 'spin' on the vote splitting/strategic voting debate – it is true that the NDP vote often collapses and many end up voting Liberal but only when the Liberals have a real chance at forming a government, according to Darrell Bricker of _Ipsos Reid_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Vote+splitting+likely+benefit+Tories+most/4637362/story.html 


> Divided, Harper stands: how the left-wing split could return the Conservatives to power.
> 
> By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




Caution: twenty plus years ago Bricker was Director of Public Opinion Research in Brian Mulroney's PMO so his thinking may be a bit wishful.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

Another interesting bit of speculation, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_  that touches some well known former DND people (Art Eggleton and Bob Fowler) and touches, through a Fowler remark, a keystone of Canadian (Conservative) foreign policy:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/18/john-ivison-york-centre-key-battleground-between-tories-grits/ 


> John Ivison: York Centre key battleground between Tories, Grits
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...


_


Right now Dryden still appears to have a fairly comfortable grip on York Centre:

Dryden leads Alder, the Tory, by 44.2% to 40.2% according to ThreeHundredEight.com; and

The The Election Prediction Project (Wilfred Laurier University) still has it in the Liberal column – not too close to call.

But it illustrates the tactical differences between the Conservatives and the other national parties: the Tories are running riding by riding campaigns, courting the ethnic vote here and and the anti-gun registry there while the Liberals and Dippers are running, essentially, national and leader-focused campaigns.

It is the latter aspect that puzzles me about the Liberals: prince Michael Ignatieff is, still, far and away the least popular 'leader' - running well below the low levels of popularity his weakened party enjoys. Why base the campaign on him? Why is he front and centre all the time, reminding Canadians that they really don't like (trust?) him?
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

The _Good Grey Globe_'s Lawrence Martin is fairly well known for his staunch anti-Harper views but this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, seems to have been written more in sorrow than in anger:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/this-campaigns-about-plodders-not-prophets/article1990109/ 


> This campaign’s about plodders, not prophets
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Now, I take issue with Martin's suggestion that St Laurent was a plodder and Trudeau a visionary. He seems to have forgotten that under St Laurent Canada became a “player” in the  modern world, he seems to have forgotten the St Lawrence Seaway, etc. St Laurent was a real intellectual, an internationally respected legal scholar and practitioner, one of the fathers of the UN and NATO. Trudeau was a ligthweight – a third rate human being upon whom a first rate education was wasted.

But I do share his general view: we do go through periods of “visionaries” and “plodders” and Harper, like Chrétien, is a plodder. (I suspect That Paul Martin _might_ have been a visionary and some of us had high hopes for Ignatieff, but ...) I'm also not so sure the visionaries have been all that successful.


----------



## GR66 (19 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is, I suspect, written, largely, with tongue in cheek, but it does point out the dilemma that can arise when Canadians vote:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/want-a-coalition-scenario-try-duceppe-as-pm/article1987578/
> 
> ...




Granted, this may have been written tongue-in-cheek but it's still just about the biggest load of horse hooey I've read in a long time.

The GG is NOT "obliged" to turn to the 2nd place party to form a goverment if the leading party does not have the confidence of the House.  A potential 2nd place party leader must show that he/she has enough support in the House to offer an alternative to the leading party.  This is why the Harper/Layton/Duceppe letter was prepared when PM Martin had his minority.  

The Liberals (if they came in 2nd and defeated a Conservative budget) would have to either provide the GG with a signed coalition agreement with the NDP (and Bloc if necessary) or at least a signed Accord agreement (a la Peterson/Rae) indicating that the NDP (and again the Bloc of necessary) would agree NOT to defeat a Liberal government for a minimum period of time even in the absence of an actual coalition government.

IF the Bloc were the 2nd place party it would be a reasonable assumption by the GG that they would NOT be able to count on the support of the other parties in order to make Duceppe the Prime Minister.  IF Duceppe DID claim that he had that support he would be required to provide a signed agreement from the Liberals and NDP supporting that claim.  No Liberal or NDP leader would sign off on making the leader of the seperatist Bloc the Prime Minister of Canada.  Not only would it be their own political suicide but the end of their party.  Even if in your wildest imagination you could picture either Layton or Ignatieff signing such a document in a fit of total insanity their parties would dump them long before the ink dried on the paper. 


GR66: Edited to correct formatting error which did not properly insert quotations from original post.


----------



## GR66 (19 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I do share his general view: we do go through periods of “visionaries” and “plodders” and Harper, like Chrétien, is a plodder. (I suspect That Paul Martin _might_ have been a visionary and some of us had high hopes for Ignatieff, but ...) I'm also not so sure the visionaries have been all that successful.



I think any nation (or any organization really) needs BOTH visionaries and plodders.  Visionaries can often inspire a country or group toward lofty goals but often fail at actually making their visions come true.  That is often left to the "Plodders".  

I personally think we're overdue for a new "Visionary" to unite the nation behind a worthy path for the country...likely to be followed shortly thereafter by a "Plodder" to actually make that dream become a reality.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

The _projections_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, continue to be good for the Liberals and NDP and bad for the Conservatives:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The last paragraph is key - there is time for *either*:

Harper to find his “groove” and win a convincing minority or even a slim majority; or

Ignatieff and Layton to continue to make gains – enough gains, if BQ support continues to decline, to form a coalition.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ModlrMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think there's your answer. Bob Rae is also aware of the Ignatieff's unpopularity; once he crashes and burns, Rae can come out with clean hands, disavowing any involvement with the debacle. I feel that Rae remaining in the shadows when the Liberals have thawed previous leaders to shore up the campaign merely reaffirms his desire to avoid the limelight.

Mind you, he also comes across as pretty weak in the "team player" category, but I guess that's the inevitable nature of political factions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think there's your answer. Bob Rae is also aware of the Ignatieff's unpopularity; once he crashes and burns, Rae can come out with clean hands, disavowing any involvement with the debacle. I feel that Rae remaining in the shadows when the Liberals have thawed previous leaders to shore up the campaign merely reaffirms his desire to avoid the limelight.
> 
> Mind you, he also comes across as pretty weak in the "team player" category, but I guess that's the inevitable nature of political factions.




Rae has to cope with the Liberal _tradition_ of alternating between English and French leaders. If, and it is still a Big IF, Ignatieff cannot lead the Liberals back to power, and it is still a very uphill struggle, even if the _Dippers_ are game for a coalition - and they might not be, then these fellows, and probably a few others, too, will contest the leadership:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Dominic Leblanc, _Beauséjour_ (NB)                                                                                                      Denis Coderre, _Bourassa_ (QC)






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Martin Cochon, _Outremont_ (QC)                                                                                                        Justin Trudeau, _Papineau_ (QC)

If the Liberals are smart they'll pick Leblanc, but ...


----------



## wannabe SF member (19 Apr 2011)

A letter posted by Lester B. Pearson's granddaughter. Quite entertaining to read I might add.

http://www.pearsonspost.com/wp/?p=249#comments


This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Pearson Post

Dear Olivia Chow,
(Or, campaign staffer who is screening the emails she gets),
Thank you for calling me tonight at home in the riding of Trinity-Spadina to ask if you could count on my volunteer help.
As I said at the time: “No, you may not.” I do apologize if I sounded a little testy, but I was watching a new episode of “Family Guy,” and you guys have already called me approximately 7,000 times, as well as appearing at my door. We’ve talked. You haven’t listened.
I’m angry at the NDP. Why? The system is broken, and you’re not fixing it, and you’re asking me to behave as if it doesn’t matter that you’re not trying to fix it.
By system, I mean that a vote for you translates, once again, into a vote for Stephen Harper, the most odious and manipulative politician I have ever seen operate in Canada.
You know this, that he’s relying on a split centre-left vote, and yet you’re not offering any solution. On the contrary, the NDP is bolstering Harper’s credibility by going after the Liberals. Tripping up Ignatieff every which way, whenever you can find dirt, or suitable rhetoric.
You are putting ego, and traditional party ideology, ahead of the good of our nation. You know that you can’t win as a party, yet you are ensuring that the Liberals cannot win either. Even though you surely know that a Harper majority would spell disaster for everything that you – and I – hold dear.
Let me be clear. Harper is not a folksy man who may disagree with other parties, but is willing to compromise. You know that. My grandfather, Lester B. Pearson, was actually that kind of man. He held a minority government, but his skill at negotiation and pragmatic collaboration enabled the country to realize huge and lasting benefits from his brief tenure in office. Our flag. Our healthcare system. Global peacekeeping. Great, optimistic initiatives that continue to bear fruit nearly fifty years later.
Harper is the chilling opposite of my grandfather. He has no vision for a compassionate and caring society based on deep respect for democracy. He would rather fling university students out of rallies and muzzle scientists and silence journalists than lose a single vote. Why? Because he’ll stop at nothing to win a majority that will enable him to roll out a radical, right-wing Christian agenda that very few Canadians buy into, and even fewer appear to be aware of.
He has figured out how to pitch himself into power with safe, controlled messaging so that he can gain “the mandate” to wreak havoc on Canadian values.
A stacked Senate.
A (soon-to-be) stacked Supreme Court.
A silenced civil service.
A discredited media.
A systematically de-funded system of governmental opposition. Good bye Human Rights Commissions, and women’s agencies, and immigrant groups.
This couldn’t be more calculated if it were fascism.
The Governor of Wisconsin was recently ‘punked’ by a journalist pretending to be one of the billionaire Koch brothers, giving him telephone advice on how to handle dissent against his union-busting measures. You don’t think Harper’s not getting similar advice?
Stop being naïve.
We are in a new century, where global corporations are accumulating massive amounts of power and are underwriting “grassroots” movements for Manchurian ends.
If you want me to volunteer for Olivia, give me a reason that takes all of the above factors into account.


----------



## Dissident (19 Apr 2011)

Why do I keep reading that PM Harper's vision will destroy Canada? As far as I am concerned his vision is, from what I can tell, very close to mine. Much closer than anything put forth by the NDP or Liberals at any rate. And I am Canadian, last time I checked.  I do also recognize that my vision is not shared by many (the majority?) and that is why we have the NDP and Liberals. Does the left wing, however, not recognize that a significant portion of Canadians not share their leftish vision?


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Why do I keep reading that PM Harper's vision will destroy Canada?




Because "he's just like the rest of us" doesn't create the same amount of fear as "he's the devil incarnate".




> Does the left wing, however, not recognize that a significant portion of Canadians do not share their leftish vision?



Without getting into another numbers game/argument... no.


----------



## Dissident (19 Apr 2011)

It was more of a rethorical question...


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> Dear Olivia Chow.....


So Lester Pearson's grand-daughter is Chicken Little? I hadn't realized that the sky was falling.  :


.....mind you, I didn't know that the media being discredited was Harper's fault either.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Apr 2011)

Tongue-in-cheek or not, that letter was inflammatory and baseless.  The only thing that Mr. Harper appears not to do according to that letter is dine on aborted foetuses.


I especially loved this little gem:



> He held a minority government, but his skill at negotiation and pragmatic collaboration enabled the country to realize huge and lasting benefits from his brief tenure in office. Our flag. Our healthcare system. Global peacekeeping.


One item at a time:

The flag.  I think that our flag is amazing.  It is simple in its design, and is instantly recognisable.  But if that is the highest achievement of a government, well.....

Our Healthcare System.  Yes, so great, you get to go stand on line for hours on end for mediocre service.  Unless you're a politician or sports star, and off to the front of the line you go.

Global Peacekeeping.  Yes, his efforts were noteworthy.  But let us not forget the back story.  The USA, UK and the USSR were on the brink of war when he offered them all an "out".  This "tradition" carried on into the 1960's when UN forces deployed to Cyprus (they are still there today).  The aim wasn't nobility, or peace, but to keep two NATO allies from going to war.  And throughout this all, the majority of our forces were in Europe, ready to oppose a Soviet invasion of the Federal Republic of Germany.  And for most of its tenure, those forces in Europe were armed with nuclear weapons (either as Canadian Weapons, or US weapons to be delivered by Canadian forces upon stacks of Motor Rifle and Tank Regiments).  

Sorry, I don't buy her fear mongering.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the _coalition_ issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
> 
> ...




Despite his start of campaign statement, the _coalition of the losers_ issue still dogs Ignatieff. He is still trying to deal with the issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-clears-the-air-grits-could-govern-if-tories-win-minority/article1991584/ 


> Ignatieff clears the air: Grits could govern if Tories win minority
> 
> BILL CURRY
> MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




That is a constitutionally valid programme. Layton is describing the 1985 “Accord” between David Peterson and Bob Rae which produced a Liberal government despite the fact that the PCs won more seats (52 to 48).

If the Conservatives come back with the most, but fewer, seats and if the Liberals + NDP have enough seats (combined) for a majority then I suspect that, despite Conservative howls of outrage, such a programme would satisfy _most_ Canadians. But, the problem for Ignatieff is that we have four parties and even if the Conservatives have fewer seats IF he requires BQ support then the _optics_ will be much different and _most_ Canadians might well disapprove.

The other problem is that the Conservatives might come back with an increased minority – and the Liberals and NDP will, likely, come back with fewer seats. In that circumstance Stephen Harper will say that Ignatieff and Layton have no moral right to defeat his government and form a _coalition of the *losers*_, who have just been rejected by Canadians, and that will, I think resonate with Canadians.


----------



## Jed (19 Apr 2011)

Is it just my personal perception or has CBC and other journalists of a feather stepped it up a notch in their very biased approach to writing and in selecting articles to discredit the Conservatives? I swear it appears to me like they have made it a personal mission to influence the Canadian public to their personal points of view.

For the record, I am not a card carrying Conservative, I switch my party as a see fit. It is my belief that all parties sucumb to the power and they need to be changed every decade or so or after doing something monumentally stupid, like Adscam for instance.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Apr 2011)

I hate to pee on Ms Pearson's parade, but as I recall the sixties, Pearson was considered to be a bumbler who could not keep control of his caucus. It was fairly normal for both caucus discussions and cabinet deliberations to be leaked almost immediately, and he was not ruthless enough to stamp out the practice. His administration also had its share of scandals, although to be fair Diefenbaker and his crowd were not prime candidates for sainthood either. Lester also caved re the adoption of the CF Reorganization Act, when Hellyer threatened to resign if the PM did not allow the plan to go forward.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Apr 2011)

That's funny, I always thought Grampa Pearson to be a retard who hated all things Canadian.  What did Pearson do?   He armed Canadian troops in the field with nukes.  No Conservative has done that.   He destroyed our Army, Navy, and Airforce, something the Kaiser and Fuhrer couldn't do.

Universal hospital care in Canada was provided by the Conservative Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act  Act of 1957 which was adopted by all provinces by 1961.  Pearson expanded it to include free sniffles in 1966.  Social Credit (Liberals insert Fascist) Alberta had hospital coverage in 1950, 4 years after Saskatchewan and 15 years after the first legislation in Alberta in 1935 which was never implemented.  The Liberals weren't even the big force behind national health care.  They were part of a transition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Canada%29


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> It was more of a rethorical question...


Yea, I know, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## larry Strong (19 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's a burning question as yet unanswered during the campaign...
> 
> Where's Bob? His silence speaks volumes.


  

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act 

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/view/rae_crisscrossing_country_04-19-2011



> Rae positioning himself 'if Iggy falls on his sword,' says York University professor Drache
> With Harper heading for another minority government—and some say perhaps, just maybe, a slim majority—it might not be long before Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff heads back to the halls of higher learning.
> 
> By Tim Naumetz
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2011)

Sounds like the setup to a civil war inside the Liberal Party.

Mr Ignatieff has every incentive to trigger a coalition (become Prime Minister, fend off a hostile leadership review, reward/punish members of the caucus).
Bob Rae hasn't really concealed his ambitions to become leader of the Liberal party
Tradition says the leadership should pass to someone from Quebec
Many Liberals seem to believe that all they really need to lead again is the Young Dauphin's name
The people who are funding the Liberal Party and the "brain trust" who actually run things (the so called Toronto Party) are thrashing about now looking for a way to stop the bleeding and may not be very amused by either Mr Ignatieff overstaying his welcome or various other potential leadership candidates (regardless of origin) who are either not team players or don't seem to have the "x" factor to lead the LPC back to victory. They may still hold the various levers of power but the years of exile and their inability to raise the level of public support for the party will certainly reduce their ability to shape the battlespace.

The best might yet come after the election results are in....


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Tradition says the leadership should pass to someone from Quebec


I had read that in an earlier thread. Having given it some thought, I suspect the combination of how the Liberals fare in Quebec, and the Bloc results overall, _may_ negate that 'tradition.' 

Quite simply, Bob Rae is the biggest 'name' they have right now; yes, yes, Trudeau is more recognizable, but he's still too young (and prone to political mistakes) to command national attention.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2011)

I agree to a certain extent (if everyone looks at this rationally), but since this is the Party of being "entitled to their entitlements" I doubt any of the contenders from Quebec will step aside quietly regardless of how the election results turn out in Quebec.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Apr 2011)

The best outcome for the Conservatives would be either Denis Coderre or Martin Cochon, followed distantly by Justin Trudeau.


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Apr 2011)

Looking at the next contenders for LPC leadership I really have the impression that this party is going to be in the benches for a looong time should it manage to subsist beyond the next few years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sounds like the setup to a civil war inside the Liberal Party.
> ...




That "civil war" has been raging for over 40 years, ever since Trudeau arrived on the scene.

There was a small 'civil war' in 1949/50 when St Laurent, who took office in late '48, upended King's timid, tentative, _isolationist_ foreign policy (if "policy" is the right word) and imposed his own view of Canada in the world.

But Trudeau really tore the Liberal apart: first, he repudiated everything for which St Laurent and Pearson had stood; and second, he championed social and economic policies that had never, ever been in the Liberal mainstream. John Turner kept the _traditional_ (Pearson, St Laurent and back) flag flying within the party in the 1970s and '80s. Jean Chrétien was a Trudeau_ite_, but, in his gut, a fiscal conservative; he pushed Turner, _et al_ aside. Paul Martin was a St Laurent-Pearson-Turner Liberal and the battles between the _Chrétienistas_ and the _Martinis_ were the stuff of legend.

What's coming next? Who will carry the St Laurent-Pearson-Turner-Martin banner and who will drink the Trudeau-Chrétien _kool-aid_? Is there any room for the _Manley Liberals_ in the 21st century?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2011)

With 12 days to go, including a “holiday” week-end, check out these 14 ridings (data for which is from _ThreeHundredEight.com_) which appear to me to be the closest in the country:

1. Vancouver Kingsway: *Cons* at 35.6% leading NDP at 34.1%
2. Ajax-Pickering: *Cons* at 43.6% leading Libs at 43.2
3. Brampton-Springdale: Cons at 41.6% trailing *Libs* at 41.9%
4. Brampton West: Cons at 41.0% trailing *Libs* at 42%
5. Kitchener-Waterloo: Cons at 38.0% trailing the *Libs* at 38.1%
6. Vaughn: *Cons* at 46.1% leading Libs at 45.1%
7. Welland: *Cons* at 33.5% leading NDP at 31.9%
8. Brome-Missisquoi: *BQ* at 31.1% leading Libs at 30.8%
9. Brossard-La Prairie: BQ at 29.7% trailing *Libs* at 30.6%
10. Haute-Gaspésie-Le Matis-Matane-Matapédia: BQ at 34.2% trailing *Libs* at 34.5%
11. Saint John: *Cons* at 43% leading Libs at42.5%
12. West Nova: *Cons* at 42.2% leading Libs at 40.0%
13. Egmont: Cons at 44.3% trailing *Libs* at44.7%
14. Random-Burin-St. George's: Cons at 42.1% trailing *Libs* at 43.5%

The Conservatives are leading in 6 and “contending” in 5 of them. If they can hold their leads and gain the other five then they are back at 152 seats, only three away from a majority.

There are other close races.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2011)

More _projections_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So: no real change, but the election game does look interesting.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That "civil war" has been raging for over 40 years, ever since Trudeau arrived on the scene.
> 
> There was a small 'civil war' in 1949/50 when St Laurent, who took office in late '48, upended King's timid, tentative, _isolationist_ foreign policy (if "policy" is the right word) and imposed his own view of Canada in the world.
> 
> ...



Having recently read Granatstein's Who Killed the Canadian Military? for a grad. level Canadian foreign policy class, I was appalled to read that Trudeau once told Bill Lee, a former RCAF Wing Commander that "Why would would a guy as smart as you waste his time in the military?" (116, Granatstein)

Granatstein then went on further to describe Trudeau's disdain for the CF when he made his case to try to withdraw the Canadian brigade group from NATO and Canada's CF104s from Europe, though he conceded that they must retain 5,000 troops. Then the drop in the defence budget from 18 to 13 percent under Trudeau from 1967-68 was also discussed. 

But you are already well aware of all this, having seen it first-hand.

Still, I take it Iggy would ascribe less to Trudeau's views than Chretien? He seemed to recognize the importance of the military- at least as a stabilizing factor to create the environments necessary for nation-building- in his book Empire Lite, if I can recall correctly, which was also required reading in our grad. class.  

However, I definitely won't be voting for "Prince Iggy's" party.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2011)

Disturbing, frustrating in a way, that the MSM, with CBC's particular Liberal bias, that I was listening to As it Happens last night. Being promoted was "the average citizen's voice" etc.   There was one person who for some silly reason was going to vote NDP...fine they're right outre' anyway, on liberal that compared his mother who had Alzheimer's, Iggy's mother had Alzheimer's, and had a friend to once spoke to Iggy and liked him, so he's going to vote Liberal..........

huh? That's your reasoning behind voting?  :

Oh, and no Conservative voters.....at all....


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Apr 2011)

This story by Jane Taber in today's Globe and Mail raises an interesting possibility. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Faring well from B.C. to Ontario, Harper faces ‘fault line’ in Quebec 


Jane Taber 

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update 

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:34AM EDT

A new scenario is emerging that could see Stephen Harper’s Conservatives lead a government in which the Ottawa River is the political dividing line. They’re ahead in every region west of there but are tied in Atlantic Canada and faring poorly in Quebec, according to the latest Nanos Research poll. 

Nationally, the Conservatives are 11 points up on Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals – 39.1 per cent support compared to 28.4 per cent. The NDP is at 19.8 per cent, the Bloc Québécois is at 7.7 per cent and the Green Party is at a mere 3.9 per cent. 

Pollster Nik Nanos, however, stressed the real action is in the regions. “We could see a new political fault line running down the Ottawa River,” he said, noting that as of Tuesday night the Conservatives “were leading outside of the margin of error” in British Columbia, the Prairies and Ontario. But they lag in Quebec and are statistically tied with the Liberals in Atlantic Canada. 

He pointed first to Quebec where Mr. Harper’s support continues to sag. Over the past two days, the Conservatives have had between 15.4 and 16.6 per cent support compared to the Liberals at 20.9 per cent. And Mr. Nanos said with that low Tory score, it’s now conceivable that a few of the 11 seats they now represent in the province will be “in play.”

The big story in Quebec, though, is Jack Layton and his New Democrats – he has seen party support grow from 23 per cent to 25.4 per cent over the past two days. Mr. Layton’s challenge, Mr. Nanos said, is to convert that “goodwill” into votes. (The margin of error in the Quebec sample is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points 19 times out of 20.) 

In Atlantic Canada the parties are all competitive. The Conservatives are polling at 38.2 per cent for the Conservatives, the Liberals are at 34 per cent and the NDP is at 25.5 per cent. (The margin of error is plus or minus 9.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.) 

But the story west of the Ottawa River is one of Tory strength. In Ontario, the Conservatives continue to lead with 44.9 per cent support compared to 36.9 per cent for the Liberals and only 12.7 per cent for the NDP. (The margin of error is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.) 

In the Prairies, the Tories are dominant – 55.3 per cent compared to 24 for the Liberals and 16.8 per cent for the NDP. (The margin of error is plus or minus 6.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.) 

And even in British Columbia, the Tories are back on top after having been on a slide. Their support increased to 41.8 per cent Tuesday from 36.4 per cent on Monday. Compare this to the Liberals, who have now dropped over that same period to 25.9 per cent from 34.1 per cent support. (The margin of error is plus or minus 7.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.) 

The poll of 1,018 Canadians was conducted between April 17 and April 19. The national numbers have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> huh? That's your reasoning behind voting?  :



That's not my reason for voting. And I don't have to explain my reason for doing so.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2011)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> That's not my reason for voting. And I don't have to explain my reason for doing so.



Did you think I was commenting on your post? wrong...I was talking about the "logic" of why people decide who to vote for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This story by Jane Taber in today's Globe and Mail raises an interesting possibility. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Faring well from B.C. to Ontario, Harper faces ‘fault line’ in Quebec
> 
> ...




This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago and to which I refer now and again. It was entitled "_Old Canada, New Canada_," I think, and I cannot remember who wrote it - I want to say Michael Bliss but I have not found it amongst his (fairly well) archived works.

Anyway, the _Old Canada. New Canada_ thesis says that the Ottawa River divides Canada into two distinct societies:

1. One, _Old Canada_, is very _conservative_* - it wants to hang on to everything it has and it, especially in QC, is very _collectivist_;

2. The second, _New Canada_ is _liberal_,* individualistic, full of new Canadian immigrants, entrepreneurial, mistrustful of big, remote governments and so on.

That divide, the author suggested was just as great as, and growing more quickly than the traditional English/French divide.

Brian Lee Crowley, in _Fearful Symmetry: the fall and rise of Canada's founding values_, suggests something similar. He argues that a Liberal Party of Canada that was overly beholden to, especially, QC's _conservative_* interests ruined Canada by debasing its "founding" (Anglo-Scots) _liberal_* values and replacing them with _foreign, conservative_* ones.

But consider future elections when, not if, we have 30 more seats in the HoC - all of them West of the Ottawa River. 20 of those seats will likely be "safe" Conservative seats meaning that a post 2015 general election might see the Conservatives having to get 170 of 338 seats. Not too hard if they can, already, win 150 of 308 and they count of 20 of the 30 new seats - in the suburbs of Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.


----------
* In the _classic_ senses of those words, which is exactly the reverse of the way almost everyone in, especially, the USA misuses those terms - mainly because they are ill-educated and lazy.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Apr 2011)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Having recently read Granatstein's Who Killed the Canadian Military? for a grad. level Canadian foreign policy class, I was appalled to read that Trudeau once told *Bill Lee, a former RCAF Wing Commander* that "Why would would a guy as smart as you waste his time in the military?" (116, Granatstein)
> 
> . . . . . . .



I don't wish to derail this thread by mentioning something not directly related to the forthcoming election, but, since much of what we hear about the candidates is mostly imagemaking and spin, there is a tenuous connection because it refers to past masters of that political art.

Not having read that Granatstein book, I don't know the context in which the author mentions Bill (Leaky) Lee, however the Canadian military may have looked much different following reorganization integration unification if he had decided much earlier to "waste" his intelligence elsewhere.  For those who don't know about this former officer who passed away last month, then this excerpt from his obituary may provide some insight into what he considered (or what his family thought he considered) the highlights of his life.

http://www.lifenews.ca/thespec/profile/190672--lee-william-maurice-bill


> LEE, William Maurice (Bill) The Lee family sadly announces that Bill passed away peacefully on Friday, March 18, 2011, in Ottawa after having lived 86 years to the fullest. He was born in Hamilton, ON, on June 14, 1924. Bill had three highly successful careers: the military, politics and business. He was a bon-vivant and a brilliant character with a few eccentricities. A life-long Hamilton Tiger-Cats fan, he was famous for his "boyish good looks"; daily summer attire almost exclusively of white sport shirts and white terry-cloth shorts; great family BBQs; his generosity to friends and family; and his taste for good wines and single-malt Scotches. In the RCAF during WWII, Bill was a navigator with RAF Ferry Command and flew countless times across the Atlantic and in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. After WWII, Bill was the RCAF public relations officer at Trenton, then head of RCAF (Europe) public relations in Metz, France, and later the head of RCAF public relations in Ottawa. He was seconded to lead communications for the Royal Tour of Prince Philip and the Canadian tour of US President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy. *Bill retired from the RCAF as a Group Captain (Colonel) at 39 years of age to become Executive Assistant to Defence Minister Paul Hellyer. He managed Mr. Hellyer's campaign for the Liberal Party leadership and, when Pierre Trudeau won, he managed Prime Minister Trudeau's successful election campaign tour of 1968, and was a force behind "Trudeau-mania"*. Don Peacock, in his book "Journey to Power", called Bill "one of the most skilled and professional political organizers in Canada." Judy LaMarshe, in her book "Memoires of a Bird in a Guilded Cage", called Bill "the best of the back-room boys." Peter Dempson, in his book "Assignment Ottawa", referred to Bill as "a boyish-looking man with a keen mind and a quick wit". Martin Sullivan, in his book "Mandate '68", called Bill "a man of great charm and awesome efficiency." Greg Weston, in his book "Reign of Error", described him as "a veteran political analyst … who knew more names and faces in the powerhouse backrooms of the capital than most who occupied elected office." Bill founded, with William (Bill) Neville, Executive Consultants Limited, the first (and highly successful) government-relations company in Ottawa. He was founding Vice-chairman of the Public Policy Forum.  . . . . .



While Helleyer didn't function as a puppet for Lee, it was often alleged that much of the eventual change to the Canadian Forces resulted from his advice.

Trudeau may not have had much use for the Canadian military but, apparently, he had no such reservations about using (Air Force) public relations/affairs officers (both retired and serving/seconded?) in his office.  During the years of 1974 to 1984 (with the nine month interlude of Joe Clark not included) the PM's press secretary (well, 74-79 as assistant press secretary) was Ralph Coleman who later came back to wearing uniform on a daily basis until he retired in 1999 as a colonel.


----------



## HavokFour (20 Apr 2011)

Back on topic...





Metro​


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2011)

It is pretty well known, I hope, that I am a very partisan Conservative, but I can only hope that PM Harper knows what he's doing when he says “The other parties _“are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can ... They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government.”_” See this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/minority-or-not-harper-sees-no-point-in-compromise/article1992800/ 


> Minority or not, Harper sees no point in compromise
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I wish Harper would say: _“If Canadians see fit to return me with another minority government then I will reach out – not to the BQ, because I do not believe we can kowtow to separatists and still do what is best for Canada, and not to the NDP, because Mr. Layton has said that he cannot abide me and my party in power, but to Liberals because many of them think like us, many are centrists who want what is best for all Canadians, not just for special interest groups.

What will I offer those Liberals?

Democratic reform through - 
     - More equitable votes for Canadians because we will add 30 seats, from Ontario, Alberta and BC, to the House of Commons,
     - Senate reform,  and
     - Better procedures for our work in the House of Commons, including a question period regime that more closely parallels that used in Westminster;

A sane, sensible budget that controls spending but still allows for at least three more years of 6% increases for health care and enhanced benefits for seniors;

A revised Veterans' Charter that incorporates the Liberals' good idea about education funding for veterans;

Serious consideration of how to implement the good ideas in the Liberal's “learning Passport” - especially “If you get the grades, you get to go.”

[*]We will talk with our Liberal colleagues about how to improve Canadian productivity; how to create more new, better jobs. 


In short, my fellow Canadians, we will be prepared to work with Liberals, if they want what is best for Canada – and we think many of them do.”

What you are reading is, of course, the triumph of hope over experience.
_


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2011)

But right now Harper has to try to grab the brass majority ring....he can do that by presenting a bleak alternative to Iggy's musings....


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2011)

A real bombshell, should energize the CPC base. (Obviously the Legacy Media has not cared to follow up this information and I'm sure most Liberals, Dippers and BQ supporters are fine with this). Follow link to hear the recordings:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2011/04/unanswered-questions-from-november-2008.html



> *Unanswered questions from November 2008 and some from today.*
> October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.
> 
> November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.
> ...


----------



## Benji88 (20 Apr 2011)

It makes some sense for the conservatives to stick to their previous budget - their stance earlier was that they had spoken to the opposition and tried to accomodate their concerns before releasing the final budget. Essentially saying "hey, we tried to work with these people, but they thought it'd be better to have an election, yadda yadda yadda." In that view, and considering that one of the worst mistakes Harper has yet made (IMO) was caving to the other parties over the whole stimulus package, I don't think they should make any further changes on the basis of trying to accomodate the other parties.

As for the evil coalition of doom, what's been lost in all the media attention and various sound bytes over that issue is that:
A) A coalition gov't is perfectly legal and technically viable
B) A coalition involving the Bloc scares the sh!t out of many canucks
C) A coalition involving Jack Layton is probably a really bad idea, at least financially speaking.

I think a less formal "coalition" between the conservatives and the liberals might not be too bad IF the proposed spending was tempered with a good dose of reality (i.e. a certain amount of defense budget is simply a requirement of running a country with a military, and even if there is no political cost for slashing defense spending, you simply cannot starve the military of funds - just as one example).

BUT, I strongly doubt we'll see any coalitions with the current crop of party leaders, and unless Harper does get a majority, he'll probably have to throw a bone or two at the opposition to get his budget passed. At least, he or someone he listens to will think that he has to buy them off with something.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2011)

It needs to be restated again and again:

A coalition is legal, but if all parites deny they wish to go into a coalition it is immoral to "bait and switch" the electorate.

If party leaders wish to form a coalition, say so up front so voters can examine the idea and make an informed vote.

Since all party leaders have denied wanting to form a coalition, we should not have to read between the lines or rely on hints leaders like Mr Ignatieff or Mr Layton have let slip during the campaign.


----------



## Martino (20 Apr 2011)

The electorate can only vote for their local MP who then interprets their will as best as they can. If the possibility of the Liberals forming a government with the support of other parties is so appalling to the majority of Canadians we'll see them say so with their votes on May 2nd.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

To follow is the new research on the impact leaders have on local candidates, as well as new Leadership Index and issue numbers. 

Leader impact on local candidates 

Research indicates that, on the question of whether each of the federal party leaders will have a positive, neutral or negative impact on their local riding candidates, Jack Layton has come out ahead during this election, with a net impact score of +28, followed by a +10 net score for Stephen Harper, and a -7 net score for Michael Ignatieff. Duceppe, whose impact was tested only among Quebecers, received a net impact score of +33. Since February, when this measure was last tested, Layton has improved by 20 points, Ignatieff by 5 points, Harper has remained the same, and Duceppe is down 6 points in terms of their net impact on local candidates. 

Note: Net impact is calculated by subtracting those who thought a leader would have a negative impact on a local candidate from those who thought a leader would have a positive impact on a local candidate. 

Leadership Index and Top Issue 

The one day index numbers for Layton yesterday jumped while they dropped for Harper largely on leadership perceptions in the province of Quebec. Layton has an advantage in Quebec on both trust and vision for Canada. This suggests that as of yesterday, with the improvement of NDP support in Quebec over the last week compared to the last election (from 12.2% to 25.4%) and the strong personal scores of Layton in the province, Layton today could be considered the new federalist alternative in Quebec. We will have to monitor this to see if this continues as the other parties will likely target Layton in Quebec. One outstanding issue, however, is whether this good will can convert itself into seats in Quebec for the New Democrats. 

Looking at the top national issues, healthcare remained the top unprompted issue of concern (32.0%), followed by jobs/the economy (23.0%), education (7.1%), the environment (5.9%), and high taxes (4.0%). 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on www.nanosresearch.com where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

Retrouvez les tableaux détaillés ainsi que les notes méthodologiques sur notre site web en français où vous pouvez également vous inscrire afin de recevoir des mises à jours regulières sur nos sondages.


  Methodology
The poll on leader impact on local candidates is based on a three day random telephone sample of 1,200 eligible voters conducted between April 14th and April 16th, 2011. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 

The leadership index score is a summation of the three leadership indicators (trust, competence, vision). It is tracked daily with updated results from the previous night of polling. The margin of error for a survey of 400 Canadians is ±5.0%, 19 times out of 20. 


  Impact Question: Based on what you have seen or heard THIS ELECTION, please indicate whether you think the following federal party leaders will have a positive, neutral or negative impact on the local candidate in your riding? [Rotate]*** 

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos survey with this question conducted between February 11th and February 14th, 2011 (n=1,016). 

Net Leader Impact on Local Candidates (n=1,200)
Gilles Duceppe** Positive 52.6%, Negative 19.6% (+33.0 net, -6.2 point change since February)
Jack Layton Positive 44.8%, Negative 17.2% (+27.6 net, +19.6 point change since February)
Stephen Harper Positive 40.3%, Negative 30.4 (+9.9 net, +0.4 point change since February)
Michael Ignatieff Positive 28.4%, Negative 35.0% (-6.6 net, +5.2 point change since February)

Note: Net impact is calculated by subtracting those who thought a leader would have a negative impact on a local candidate from those who thought a leader would have a positive impact on a local candidate.
**Asked in Quebec only (n=300)
***In the February 14 wave of research, the question did not include the phrase "THIS ELECTION".

Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos Nightly Tracking completed on April 18th (n=400). 

Leadership Index Scores: 
Stephen Harper 92.8 (-17.8) 
Jack Layton 76.8 (+17.3) 
Michael Ignatieff 41.5 (-7.6) 
Elizabeth May 13.5 (+6.0) 
Gilles Duceppe 10.8 (-4.7) 


The Most Trustworthy Leader: 
Stephen Harper 25.5% (-5.9) 
Jack Layton 29.7% (+5.9) 
Michael Ignatieff 13.7% (-2.1) 
Elizabeth May 6.2% (+3.3) 
Gilles Duceppe 4.1% (-1.4) 
None of them 13.8% (+2.9)
Undecided 6.9% (-2.8)


The Most Competent Leader: 
Stephen Harper 37.9% (-5.2) 
Jack Layton 19.4% (+6.6) 
Michael Ignatieff 13.8% (-2.5) 
Gilles Duceppe 4.8% (-2.9) 
Elizabeth May 2.5% (+0.7) 
None of them 10.2% (+4.9)
Undecided 11.4% (-1.6) 


The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future: 
Stephen Harper 29.4% (-6.7) 
Jack Layton 27.7% (+4.8) 
Michael Ignatieff 14.0% (-3.0) 
Elizabeth May 4.8% (+2.0) 
Gilles Duceppe 1.9% (-0.4) 
None of them 10.8% (+4.6)
Undecided 11.4% (-1.3)


Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 18th (n=1,200). 

Healthcare 32.0% (+0.5)
Jobs/economy 23.0% (-2.7)
Education 7.1% (-0.2)
The environment 5.9% (+1.2)
High taxes 4.0% (-0.2) 
Unsure 9.2% (NC)


----------



## GR66 (20 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is pretty well known, I hope, that I am a very partisan Conservative, but I can only hope that PM Harper knows what he's doing when he says “The other parties _“are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can ... They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government.”_” See this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/minority-or-not-harper-sees-no-point-in-compromise/article1992800/
> 
> ...


_

I also wish that PM Harper would follow this path.  After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans.  By simply putting forth the same budget and telling parliament (and that majority of the Canadian people that DON'T support him) "too bad...take it or leave it" is to my mind a very self-centered partisan move based on the hope that he'd just be giving the Liberals enough rope to hang themselves as a party.

This I believe is exactly the type of attitude that has prevented PM Harper and the Conservative Party from securing the support of the majority of the Canadian voters, despite the absolutely pathetic opposition which they face.  It's a very sad statement on the state of politics and democracy in our great country when we're faced with a choice between two leaders each of which in their own way are willing to snub the democratic will of the electorate in order to retain or gain power.  _


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> This I believe is exactly the type of attitude that has prevented PM Harper and the Conservative Party from securing the support of the majority of the Canadian voters, despite the absolutely pathetic opposition which they face.  It's a very sad statement on the state of politics and democracy in our great country when we're faced with a choice between two leaders each of which in their own way are willing to snub the democratic will of the electorate in order to retain or gain power.



Having spent 5 years in a minority Parliament, I suspect that Harper has done nothing but compromise.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2011)

A Crop poll out of Quebec put the NDP ahead of the Bloc....interesting if this translates to Ontario.....it's gonna smack Iggy hard if them and the NDP split the vote and the Cons come up the middle....


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> A Crop poll out of Quebec put the NDP ahead of the Bloc....interesting if this translates to Ontario.....it's gonna smack Iggy hard if them and the NDP split the vote and the Cons come up the middle....




And, in this article, in the _Globe and Mail_, Jane Taber discuss the "halo effect" - which helps Layton and the NDP who are going up, *Up, UP* while Ignatieff and the Liberals keep going *DOWN, Down*, down.

Here is the graphic from the article:


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2011)

It seems as if the rush to leave the Liberals is flooding over to the NDP....very little to anyone else......the last week should be getting more interesting....Iggy is getting shrill in his accusations.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2011)

"After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans. "

The latter part is pretty much the case regardless whether a party holds a minority or majority in parliament.  Actual majority vote share ownership is rare, much less dominant majority share.  It can be said of almost every government we've ever had that "the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support" etc, if the vote share is to be expressed in those terms.

There has been a lot of talk since the CPC formed government in 2006 about the legitimacy and fairness of a government which represents "only" 35-38% of Canadians.  No-one ever seems to think it through beyond that facile horsesh!t.  If 35-38% of Canadians experience the satisfaction of having the government (majority) they want 35-38% of the time, that is more fair than 62-65% of Canadians denying that government, ever (and I meet more people "against Harper" than "for anyone else" these days).  We have long stretches of Liberal government with shorter interregnums of Conservative government in this country.  It is "fair" - by the electorate vote share numbers - for the Conservatives to hold 5 to 8 years of government after each 12+ year span of Liberal government - and not just to hold government, but to hold it with a majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2011)

The interesting thing will be if the NDP can continue their momentum, and translate it into seats. Conceivably, they could form the largest opposition party. Mr Layton has specifically articulated his willingness to work with Mr Harper, so perhaps no snap non-confidence motion?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is useful primer on what happens if or when Harper wins another minority:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/21/what-the-will-happen-on-may-3/ 


> What the #!%* will happen on May 3?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_


A few observations:

1. The 'time' issue is interesting but not, as Prof. Franks suggests, especially “frightening.” Clearly, based on precedent, something in excess of, say, 120 days or four full months, is quite acceptable. Thus, given a 2 May election parliament need not be recalled until, say, just after Labour Day. Ignatieff et al could defeat the government on the Throne Speech – but it would make them look very opportunistic. If he survives the Throne Speech debate and delays the budget until, say, early Nov then Harper probably will be on solid ground to demand another general election – just before Christmas (we have not had a Dec general election since, at least, World War II). Harper might, even, decide to bring down the budget in Feb 2012, as has become customary, and then there is no doubt that a defeat on the budget would require another general election. Thus, opportunistic or not, Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton must conspire to defeat Harper on the Throne Speech or they will not be able to give Ignatieff the keys to 24 Sussex Drive.

2. If the polls are accurate and if they hold then the BQ's *formal* involvement will be necessary for Ignatieff to form a government. That is a big problem for the Liberals.

3. Prof. Siemiatycki is quite correct: there is no formal “threshold” of seats that the “biggest loser” needs to have but public opinion is unlikely to favour a party with, say, only ¼ of the seats in the house (and just over ¼ of the popular vote) governing the country – with the active support of the separatists.
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans. "
> 
> The latter part is pretty much the case regardless whether a party holds a minority or majority in parliament.  Actual majority vote share ownership is rare, much less dominant majority share.  It can be said of almost every government we've ever had that "the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support" etc, if the vote share is to be expressed in those terms.
> 
> There has been a lot of talk since the CPC formed government in 2006 about the legitimacy and fairness of a government which represents "only" 35-38% of Canadians.  No-one ever seems to think it through beyond that facile horsesh!t.  If 35-38% of Canadians experience the satisfaction of having the government (majority) they want 35-38% of the time, that is more fair than 62-65% of Canadians denying that government, ever (and I meet more people "against Harper" than "for anyone else" these days).  We have long stretches of Liberal government with shorter interregnums of Conservative government in this country.  It is "fair" - by the electorate vote share numbers - for the Conservatives to hold 5 to 8 years of government after each 12+ year span of Liberal government - and not just to hold government, but to hold it with a majority.





I've mentioned this before, but the last time a MAJORITY of Canadians voted for one party in a national general election was in 1958 when John Diefenbaker secured 53.8% of the popular vote for his Tories. No one, not Mike Pearson, not Trudeau, not Mulroney and not Chrétien, either, ever got within spitting distance of a majority. Low 40s and high 30s have been the normal percentages of the popular vote for Conservative and Liberal governments for 40 years. This is a silly argument from the Harper haters.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2011)

The Green's seem to have lost .4%, which is a pretty big sum considering they only had 3.8% to start with.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2011)

I remember the Rally for Canada events that protested the last crack at the coalition. I wonder what sort of response the coalition will get this time. I remember walking past the rally in London as it was ending and being very surprised to see people I knew who were non political at the rally and being very put out by the whole coalition thing.

I wonder if the disgust at the notion of a "coalition of the losers" and more specifically the notion that the BQ is going to hold the ROC to ransom in order to support the coalition won't ignite a TEA party type movement in Canada as well to loudly and openly protest the coalition and work for its downfall.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I remember the Rally for Canada events that protested the last crack at the coalition. I wonder what sort of response the coalition will get this time. I remember walking past the rally in London as it was ending and being very surprised to see people I knew who were non political at the rally and being very put out by the whole coalition thing.
> 
> I wonder if the disgust at the notion of a "coalition of the losers" and more specifically the notion that the BQ is going to hold the ROC to ransom in order to support the coalition won't ignite a TEA party type movement in Canada as well to loudly and openly protest the coalition and work for its downfall.




No. Look at the current voter preferences:

BQ (90% of whom are unreconstructed _statists_ of various sorts): 8.6%
Cons (only 50% of whom _might_ be Tea Party supporters): 38.7%
Greens (only a tiny handful of whom might be Tea Party sympathizers): 5.8%
Libs (85% of whom can be counted on as being anti-Tea Party): 28%
NDP (only a tiny handful of whom might be Tea Party sympathizers): 17.9%

Thus:

1. *Potentially* pro-Tea Party ≤25% - that probably errs on the side of Tea Party optimism; and

2. *Likely* anti-Tea Party ≥75%.

Now, I do not suggest that more than 25% of Americans are pro-Tea Party but my guess is that only 25% are (maybe just were) really anti-Tea Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

Not many changes in seats, in this _projection_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps things will look up, in seats, for Layton and the NDP, perhaps not.

The coming weekend will, I suspect see a little less and a little less _intense_ campaigning in honour of Easter and Passover. Next week the politicians must compete for public attention with the _Royal Wedding_. Who would you rather watch:






  or  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




If these sorts of number hold on 2 May 11 then Ignatieff will need guaranteed, *formal* BQ support if he wants to become prime minister – a dangerous proposition from a public perception point of view.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

The Tories continue to lead in regions west of the Ottawa River but NDP support has moved up in the wake of Layton's positive leadership scores. 

Although support for the Conservatives remains at 39.0%, the Liberals have trended down for the second night in succession and their support now stands at 26.7% nationally followed by the New Democrats at 22.1%, the BQ at 7.5% and the Green Party at 3.4%. 

Atlantic Canada, factoring the margin of error for the regional sample, is shaping up into a three way tie as the NDP has trended up over the past seven days. The Tories are at 36.3% followed by the Liberals at 33.1%, and the NDP at 28.3%. 

What is interesting in the NDP pick-up in support over the past few days is the spillover effect of positive impressions of Jack Layton in Quebec in areas of Canada where the NDP has done well in the past either federally or provincially - Atlantic Canada (think of the NDP government in Nova Scotia), the Prairies and British Columbia. 

In our long term tracking the greater the focus on the New Democrats, the greater the likelihood for their support to increase. However, in the past, the challenge has been sustaining those increases in support over time. 

The BQ continues to lead in the province of Quebec but their numbers continue to fall. Current tracking shows the BQ at 32.0% with the NDP at 23.4%, the Liberals at 20.8% and the Tories at 17.5%. At 32% it would be the worst ever showing for the BQ in a federal election. Their previous worst showing was in 1997 where they won 37.9% of the vote in Quebec. 

The Conservatives lead in Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia but there has been movement in the support of both the Liberals and New Democrats in BC. The Tories stand at 43.5% in BC, while the New Democrats are at 29.6%, the Liberals at 22.7% and the Greens at 4.0% 

Canadians continue to identify party platform at their key vote driver 53.2% while party leader registered at the top driver among 20.7% of Canadians. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 19th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1,018). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200). 

Canada (n=1,015 committed voters) 
Conservative 39.0% (-0.1) 
Liberal 26.7% (-1.7) 
NDP 22.1% (+2.3) 
Bloc Quebecois 7.5% (-0.2) 
Green 3.4% (-0.5) 

*Undecided 15.4% (+0.2) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 19th (n=1,200). 

Party Policies 53.2% (+1.0) 
Party Leader 20.7% (-1.0) 
Local Candidate 13.6% (-0.9) 
Traditionally Vote for Party 7.8% (-0.2) 
Unsure 4.8% (+1.1) 


Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "CTV News/Globe/Nanos Poll".


----------



## GR66 (21 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I've mentioned this before, but the last time a MAJORITY of Canadians voted for one party in a national general election was in 1958 when John Diefenbaker secured 53.8% of the popular vote for his Tories. No one, not Mike Pearson, not Trudeau, not Mulroney and not Chrétien, either, ever got within spitting distance of a majority. Low 40s and high 30s have been the normal percentages of the popular vote for Conservative and Liberal governments for 40 years. This is a silly argument from the Harper haters.



In our first past the post system you're absolutely right that it's exceedingly rare for even a large majority government to get the majority of the popular vote.  What we're facing now however is a situation where not only would whomever forms the government not have the majority of the popular vote they also wouldn't have the majority of the representation in the House of Commons.  That fact, to my mind, should at least be enough for the prospective PM to accept the fact that their mandate from the electorate is not an expression of unconditional support for their policies.

That being said, the losing parties must be even more concious that THEIR policies have received even LESS support than the winning party and must greatly temper their opposition to the government in deference to the will of the electorate.  Ignatieff I _think_ has opened the door a slight crack in this area with his latest comments that he would not automatically defeat any Conservative budget so long as there is some sign of the Conservatives showing some bending as well in light of their (presumed at this point) failure to secure a majority in the House.  

I'm certainly no constitutional expert but I'm wondering if a Conservative budget were to be defeated the GG could look at the relative numbers in the House (along with the fact that any Liberal government would require the tacit support of the seperatists) and pull the leaders together in private and tell them to come up with some kind of compromise solution that would avoid a legal (but I think highly questionable) situation of a Liberal minority government beholden to seperatists for support, or putting the Canadian public through another unwanted election which may not resolve the existing deadlock.  If any one of the parties then refused to help resolve the situation the GG could disolve the House and call an election...and publicly state that the reason was that "such and such a Party was unwilling to compromise in order to find a solution to the deadlock".  This could pose enough damage to the offending party that the outcome of a new election might actually produce a different result.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> If any one of the parties then refused to help resolve the situation the GG could disolve the House and call an election...and publicly state that the reason was that "such and such a Party was unwilling to compromise in order to find a solution to the deadlock".  This could pose enough damage to the offending party that the outcome of a new election might actually produce a different result.



The GG doesn't play politics.  I don't see it as likely that he would find it necessary to explain himself.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Apr 2011)

The Liberals are essentailly flatlining; the real story is the Bloc' loss of 1/ of their support, most of which, at first glace, appears to be headed for the NDP.

This is a signficant change, and it will be itneresting to see over the next 2-3 electoral cycles whether this is a one-time abberation or the beginning of a long term shift in Quebec.


----------



## GR66 (21 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The GG doesn't play politics.  I don't see it as likely that he would find it necessary to explain himself.



I don't personally see any problem with the GG explaining his decisions.  Our government is of and for the people and the electorate has as much right to know why decisions are being made as the constitutional experts.  

The "playing politics" part is of course much tricker and a potentially dangerous first step down a slippery slope.  You're correct that having him come out and blame a specific leader or party would be an overtly political act and should not be taken.  I take back that suggestion.    (but wouldn't it be nice just once for someone to call a spade a spade and make the political leaders face the music for their actions?)

However I don't see any problem with him simply addressing the nation and explaining the choices that were before him (approaching the Liberals to form a government with the tacit support of the seperatists OR calling for a new election), what steps he took to try and resolve the issue (approaching the party leaders directly and seeing if an alternative solution or compromise could be reached to avoid either of those undesireable alternatives), and letting the public know that the party leaders were unable to come up with a solution thereby giving the GG no choice but to call for a new election.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2011)

Interesting scenario 

How Ignatieff fell into a Tory trap
ADAM RADWANSKI  Globe and Mail Wednesday, Apr. 20, 2011 
Article Link

He won’t rule out making a play for the Prime Minister’s Office, even if he doesn’t win the most seats on May 2. But he won’t fully embrace that possibility, won’t make the case for why it might be in the country’s best interests.

And so, a week and a half before election day, Michael Ignatieff is smack in the middle of no man’s land. 

It’s the last place the Liberal Leader should want to be, because it’s exactly where Stephen Harper wants him.

The Conservative Leader’s pitch for a majority government revolves around the premise that giving him only another minority would open the door to an unwieldy coalition of Liberals alongside socialists and separatists. In the early stages of this spring’s campaign, that argument seemed to be falling flat. But now Mr. Ignatieff has breathed life into it.

In recent days, he has been drawn into discussions about what it would look like if the opposition parties quickly combined to bring down another Conservative minority. It went far enough to allow a pair of Harper-friendly premiers – Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall and Alberta’s Ed Stelmach – to attack him for it on Wednesday. But Mr. Ignatieff has not himself put any positive spin on what opposition co-operation would look like, leaving the fear-mongering to stand.

If the two men were being graded by civics teachers, Mr. Ignatieff would indeed be winning. His explanation of how another Conservative minority would work – the need for Mr. Harper to gain the confidence of Parliament, the possibility that a failure to do so will lead the Governor-General to turn to Mr. Ignatieff instead – is grounded in parliamentary conventions. Mr. Harper’s insistence that only the party with the most seats can govern, and anyone else attempting to do so is usurping the will of the people, is an open defiance of those conventions.

But the leaders are not being judged by civics teachers; they’re being judged by an electorate looking for a reasonably concise explanation of what its options are. Mr. Harper is providing that, however misleadingly. Mr. Ignatieff is not. 

When the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge pressed him for answers on post-election scenarios, during a nationally televised interview on Tuesday, Mr. Ignatieff spent five minutes talking in circles. None of what he said was factually incorrect. But he came off exasperated that he had to keep explaining his openness to work with other parties, and evasive on the matter of what that co-operation might lead to.

On Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff seemed a little less defensive. In one of those breaks from script that Mr. Harper would never attempt, he spoke of how another Conservative minority would mean “a new world after May 2” – one in which the Prime Minister could no longer say “it’s my way or the highway.” Later in the day, he insisted that he would not lead a government with cabinet ministers from other parties. But there remains much confusion about what kind of government the country would be left with, if not a Conservative one.

Mr. Harper, naturally, is only too happy to provide the answer. The same day, he painted a nightmare scenario of “higher spending and tax hikes,” of “renewed fighting over referendums, constitutions and national unity,” of economic decline and job losses.

In the absence of any other picture being painted by Mr. Ignatieff, that’s the only version of an opposition-backed Liberal government that Canadians are hearing about. And that’s a problem, because Mr. Ignatieff is increasingly leaving the impression that Mr. Harper won’t remain long in power unless we give the Conservative Leader a majority.

Mr. Harper has been setting this trap ever since Stéphane Dion’s ill-fated attempt to take power 2 1/2 years ago. Now, Mr. Ignatieff has wandered straight into it. He has 11 days to find his way out. 
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I don't personally see any problem with the GG explaining his decisions.  Our government is of and for the people and the electorate has as much right to know why decisions are being made as the constitutional experts.
> ...




Until and unless we act, through our parliament, to clarify the crown power's and methods - as the Brits have done - then I think the GG is best advised to say nothing to anyone. (S)he has access to much expert constitutional and political advice - but, ultimately, (s)he must make a decision (drop the writs for another general election or ask the second party to try to form a government) based on a fairly simple set of rules and precedents. The most important "rule" is that the country must have a government - even one that hasn't met parliament, yet, or is embroiled in a general election. 

But he can send some signals: for example, assuming we end up with Cons=150+/-, Libs+NDP=115+/- and the Cons are defeated, early on, then I would expect to "see" (publicly, on TV) Duceppe, Layton and Ignatieff enter Rideau Hall, one after the other - Ignatieff twice or more often - so that when Ignatieff announces that he is now the PM we will all know that Duceppe agreed to put him there.

But: I suspect -

1. Harper wins, with 150+/- seats, etc;

2. Harper meets parliament in early Jun and delivers an innocuous Throne Speech - which passes, thanks to a few of BQ, Liberal and NDP _strategic absences_ - because no one, including a lot of Liberals, really wants _Prince Michael_ to be PM;

3. Harper adjourns the house for the traditional summer recess; the House returns in mid-Sep 11;

4. Ignatieff does not do well at the Jun 11 Liberal convention and resigns;

5. Flaherty presents a financial statement - not a budget - and Supplementary estimates, which pass;

6. The various 'scandals' are all resolved by the new Speaker without any more contempt motions before the House adjourns again, in late Nov for a winter break that lasts until mid Jan 12;

7. Flaherty brings down a budget in Feb 12 - by late Feb the government is defeated on the budget, *if it is going to be defeated at all in 2012*, and we have another general election because the _window_ for asking the opposition to form a government is long past; or

8. The Cons' budget passes - _strategic absences_ again - and they continue to govern until 2013/14 while several parties get new leaders.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Back on topic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Signs of 1993 all over again, with 'Reform' and 'Progressive Conservative' being replaced by 'Liberal' and 'NDP' who get 54 seats between the two of them due to the split?


----------



## GR66 (21 Apr 2011)

This would probably be my prefered outcome in the case of another Conservative minority.  I just hope it doesn't go off the rails by having a provocative as opposed to innocuous Throne Speech.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Until and unless we act, through our parliament, to clarify the crown power's and methods - as the Brits have done - then I think the GG is best advised to say nothing to anyone.



It's true that we as a nation still have some unfinished business in terms of clearly defining our form of government.  Unfortunately I don't see much hope of addressing these issues so long as the Quebec issue continues to scare everyone away from discussing the Constitution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

One of the better bits of political "analysis" this campaign: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/canadas-political-big-wheels/article1992491/?from=1992449


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

Now here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a very different take on election _projections_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-on-track-to-win-60-seats-poll-projects/article1994856/ 


> NDP on track to win 60 seats, poll projects
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




BQ =        32
Cons =  134
Libs =      82
NDP =      60

Hmmmm, interesting.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2011)

Where is this poll getting its numbers? There's no way the Liberals are going to gain 5 seats with the Conservatives polling steady and the NDP gaining. Libs and BQ are gonna give up a few seats to the NDP, with maybe a couple more from Atlantic Canada going to the Tories.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2011)

Countering the EKOS data, this from the National Post:
(reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/21/tories-19-points-up-ndp-top-liberals-for-second-poll/



> Tories 19 points up, NDP tops Liberals for second: Poll
> 
> Postmedia News  Apr 21, 2011 – 5:30 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011 5:27 PM ET
> 
> ...



With regard to the EKOS data, I just don't see the NDP rising to 60 seats and the Conservatives falling to 134. The national polling trends have the Conservatives comfortably ahead in most areas. What I find interesting is the convergence of the NDP and Liberal support. If you look at the threehundredeight.com graphics of the regional polls, you can see that in BC, the Prairies, and Atlantic regions, the NDP and Liberals are very close indeed. This may predict a vote split on election day that sees the Torries pick up a few unexpected gains. I don't discount the NDP support in Quebec, but perhaps that's skewing the national number as it's very hard indeed to unseat a Bloc MP. There are still 8 or 9 days of polling left, before the required pre-vote break, so we'll have to see how the numbers develop.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4rlLgtBwLfw/TbCGp9_k1SI/AAAAAAAAE3Y/qaTBGRH1S0E/s1600/Region+Polls.PNG

There are a couple of other key considerations:

1. the Globe is hard left Liberal;
2. the Post is center right, Torrie friendly; and
3. the only poll that counts is on election day.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Apr 2011)

I was about to post that article.  You beat me to it.

Polls are polls, but they are but an indicator of general perceptions.  What was the polling like just prior to the debacle of 1993 when the PCs were swept from power?  Could the Liberals be on their way out in such numbers?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2011)

> The poll also has significant findings about which of the leaders Canadians trust the most.
> 
> When it comes to choosing one of the leaders who is best described as someone they can trust, 40 per cent (up by seven points from two weeks ago) chose Layton.
> 
> ...



There, I think, is the real number of interest.  Iggy has demonstrated that he is not just "intelligent" but that he is also "clever".  And clever is not an admirable trait.

He knows how to play the rules as opposed to playing the game.  Now those people that were wavering about Liberal or NDP can come to understand that a vote for one is a vote for both.  In which case do they go with the clever johnny come lately or the Jack, that for all his faults is the man he always was.

The same thing applies to Harper, even those that don't like him trust him to be himself.  And more importantly his vote isn't going anywhere.  The worst that can happen to him is that his vote doesn't turn out.  And Iggy has just ensured that isn't going to happen.

Given that:  undecided lefties go to Jack, undecided Liberals go to Steven or stay home, the Liberals secure their rump vote in spite of their "clever" leader.  And with Quebecers taking a liking to Jack's working class French and him having a shot at a coalition and the Bloc supporting the coalition and Jack - what's not to like?


"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)


----------



## Dissident (21 Apr 2011)

I just saw three attack adds by the NDP aimed at Iggy. Is the coalition falling apart?!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Apr 2011)

What is apparent is that the scary Conservatives with the hidden agenda are not near as scary to the voters as the Liberals.  The Conservatives have been the government for 5 years and don't scare anyone other than Liberals.  The dreaded Conservatives with the hidden agenda didn't work the last two elections so who in the Liberal crew decided to use it again.   The look of desperation is all over the Liberal campaign.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The look of desperation is all over the Liberal campaign.


I agree, and if I were a Liberal Campaign person, I'd be advocating right now to go after the NDP, not a 5 year old platform of fear mongering.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2011)

*Tory rift appears over Scarborough candidate *

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/978644--tory-rift-appears-over-scarborough-candidate?bn=1

Apparently, the Conservative candidate in Scarborough has described Tamil Tigers as heroes.  



> When presented with the video, Environment Minister Peter Kent told The Globe and Mail that Paranchothy’s words were “unacceptable” and that the party had “obviously dropped the ball” when conducting background checks on candidates.



EDIT to add: Globe and Mail article at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/minister-revokes-support-for-tory-candidate-who-praised-terrorists/article1994736/


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

The _projection_ has finally changed, big time, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In gross terms, the Conservatives gains (seven "wins" over dissolution) are, mainly, at the expense of the BQ: it's not so simple, of course, the Cons are leading in the 11 seats they already held. Conservative gains are coming, mainly, in ON, and they are taking seats from Independents (Guergis), Liberals and the NDP.

The _coalition_ bogeyman appears to work *for* the Conservatives. Given Ignatieff's low "leadership" scores, that's probably understandable. Canadians neither like nor trust him: why would they want him to become PM? They don't like Harper, either, but they do "trust" him to manage the country.

Life appears to be serving Ignatieff's Liberals lemons, but they are not making lemonade.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2011)

I find it deliciously ironic that the Liberals have spent the last 6 years trying to cast Mr Harper as untrustworthy, only to see his trust index rise while Mr Ignatieff's falls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_: is an interesting graph showing the popular support trends (from aggregations of polling data, which smooth out some of the _rogue_ polls that show e.g. the Cons at 43% and the NDP leading the BQ in QC):







Please note the undecided vote - the hard to see grey line - a lot of the undecideds decided in the first week of the campaign, then they changed their minds in the third week; since then they've been stable at 15%. My guess is that is the share of the poll respondents who don't care and will not vote anyway.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2011)

My thinking on this, and excuse the bad pun which will appear later, is that if the NDP edges up another point or so, it will result in a fairly large shift in seats between them and the Liberals and perhaps the same with the Bloc. This may not give the Conservatives a majority, but if their seat count is in the 148-150 range, they will have more than twice as many seats as the next largest party. It may not be a real majority, but it will be a moral majority. The opposition would have to think long and hard before denying them confidence and attempting to govern in their place.

It probably would also result in the resignation of Messrs Ignatieff and Duceppe within a very few months, and that suggests that neither party is apt to stir the pot until the leaves fly - the ones on trees, not the ones in blue and white, and perhaps not for at least a year.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2011)

This news may cause havoc in the polls:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act 




> * Sync News*
> 
> *'Tweet-in' to flout Elections Canada blackout law
> *
> ...



How will the Democratic process be affected by tweets from Atlantic Canada affecting Ontario voters ballot marking, and tweets from Ontario affect votes further West, and finally all these tweets affect the ballots in BC?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Apr 2011)

If the numbers continue with the Liberals and NDP in a dead heat I would question the wisdom of any coalition to the long-term health of the Libs.  Whatever Ignatieff wants quickly becomes irrelevant.  Replacing him ASAP, preferably with someone 20 years younger would be a priority.  I think a lot of Libs will be no-shows for confidence votes until they regain their direction.  As a conservative, the demise of the Liberal Party gives me momentary glee but concern at the leftward shift in Canadian politics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> If the numbers continue with the Liberals and NDP in a dead heat I would question the wisdom of any coalition to the long-term health of the Libs.  Whatever Ignatieff wants quickly becomes irrelevant.  Replacing him ASAP, preferably with someone 20 years younger would be a priority.  I think a lot of Libs will be no-shows for confidence votes until they regain their direction.  As a conservative, the demise of the Liberal Party gives me momentary glee but concern at the leftward shift in Canadian politics.




I'm not a Liberal, but if I was I would advocate _for_ either Dominic LeBlanc - which preserves the _Anglo/Franco_ rotation, or Scott Brison.

Both are young and not from Toronto.

The problem is that I see yet another Liberal _civil war_ looming: the issue being that it is not an _Anglo/Franco_ rotation but, rather, a _Canada/Québec_ one. Both Denis Coderre (who I, as a staunch Conservative, really hope will lead the Liberals – to political oblivion) and Martin Cochon will fight for that position.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2011)

If anyone is thinking that the second place party automatically gets a chance to rule, consider the example of the Diefenbaker/Pearson dustup of 1958. Unexpectedly the PCs had come first in the 1957 general election and formed a minority government. In early 1958 the new Liberal leader, Lester Pearson, demanded that the PCs hand power back to them, as the Grits, with their long experience in government, were better able to govern Canada. Diefenbaker went to the Governor General and an election was called which returned the PCs with a massive 211 seats. While the PCs had not been defeated in the house, that was a possibility, especially as Pearson had made his demand in response to the speech from the throne. Food for thought?

An article on the matter is here:

http://www.histori.ca/prodev/article.do;jsessionid=D99996AE20A14582C63694133C59C7B6.tomcat1?id=15376


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> If the numbers continue with the Liberals and NDP in a dead heat I would question the wisdom of any coalition to the long-term health of the Libs.  Whatever Ignatieff wants quickly becomes irrelevant.  Replacing him ASAP, preferably with someone 20 years younger would be a priority.  I think a lot of Libs will be no-shows for confidence votes until they regain their direction.  As a conservative, the demise of the Liberal Party gives me momentary glee but concern at the leftward shift in Canadian politics.



I don't see a leftward shift in the politics.  I do see a realignment of the representation.  Perhaps a couple of election cycles of BC type polarization between Left and Right would be a good thing.  It could cause Canadians to appreciate the relative merits and demerits of both ends of the political spectrum and allow them to properly appreciate what it is they are voting for.

The Liberals, bridging the left and the right, obscured the consequences of both hard left and hard right policies by wobbling where ever they needed to go in order to retain power.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The problem is that I see yet another Liberal _civil war_ looming: the issue being that it is not an _Anglo/Franco_ rotation but, rather, a _Canada/Québec_ one. Both Denis Coderre (who I, as a staunch Conservative, really hope will lead the Liberals – to political oblivion) and Martin Cochon will fight for that position.



The difficulty here is that neither has a seat and Cauchon is in a tough fight for one. I suppose one could think of Marc Garneau, who has been not too unimpressive, while Trudeau the Younger is waaay too inexperienced. Cripes, maybe Dion will be their saviour, once again. Okay, that last bit is far-fetched, but an old Tory can dream. The Liberal cupboard is a little bare in Quebec, except for an excess of hyperactive egos.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

Another poll that I suspect is 'rogue,' reported upon in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Tories+headed+huge+majority+vaults+into+second+place/4659432/story.html 


> Tories headed for huge majority as NDP vaults into second place
> 
> Liberals decaying, Bloc obliterated in vast poll swing
> 
> ...




While I hope that a Conservative majority is, just, within reach, but Stephen Harper is neither John Diefenbaker or Brian Mulroney and 201 seats in a five party race would equal their feats in 1958 and 1984.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2011)

Argyle, agreed that Harper is not Diefenbaker or Mulroney.  He doesn't have the rhetorical skills that qualify him for the role of "man on the white horse".  But suppose he compensates for that deficiency by building a better organisation.  Ultimately that would create a greater impact on Canadian politics.   Diefenbaker and Mulroney, for all their personal abilities, were essentially one-hit wonders who did not build an edifice to outlast them.

Laurier built such an edifice and after a hundred years it is looking decidedly shaky.   Can Harper's 39% be converted into a Conservative 39% that will outlast him?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

It is the 43% number in that _Ipsos Reid_ poll that intrigues me.

A low to mid 40s number is what the Liberals had in '67, '74 and '80 (Trudeau) and again in '93 and 2000 (Chrétien) and what the Tories had in '88 (Mulroney, who got just, maybe, 50% in '84 (although that number is disputed by some.))

It is harder in a five part parliament but that is what the Conservatives need to get and maintain, year after year, decade after decade, to become the _'natural governing party.'_

To get there the Conservatives have to move to the centre and shove the Liberals father to the left.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2011)

I can see the "Twitter Threat" of younger voters who may be drinking from the koolaid of either the Liberals or fringe parties as causing some havoc in the Returns.   The Polls we are looking at now, may very well not reflect Results if "tweets" are used to influence voter decisions as the Returns are processed Westward.  

I was not too impressed with the images I witnessed of the youth at Carleton University in their little news clip a week ago in whatever the universities are conducting.  Being enfranchised, I would have hoped that they would have been more informed.  Instead I was witnessing ideologies being put to the forefront, some of which were far from realistic.

This could be one of the most interesting Elections in 'recent' history.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Apr 2011)

I am about as sick as hearing Iggy's whines as I am of seeing Obama every day flying about the US. Who is running the US?
The crap that Iggy says. Compare with the number of direct references by Harper to any of the opposition party leaders.

Anywho: http://smalldeadanimals.com/

*The First American Prime Minister: Quote Of The Week*

"Jack Layton wasn’t there on the firearms registry, just ask the victims of the Polytechnique." - Michael Ignatieff

Can you imagine how low this tool would be polling by now without 75% of media running interference on his behalf?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2011)

I'm curious as to how the twitter threat will effect the polls. Aren't polling stations on the East Coast not going to release their numbers until the West Coast is closed? Wouldn't that prevent numbers from hitting the west coast and cause voting shifts?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...
> Can you imagine how low this tool would be polling by now without 75% of media running interference on his behalf?




I'm not so sure the media is pro-Ignatieff or, even, pro-Liberal; I am pretty sure that much (but not all) of the media is anti-Harper, even some of the parts that are, normally, pro-Conservative. The guy who appears, to me, to be getting a "free ride" is Jack Layton - and I think that shows.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how the twitter threat will effect the polls. Aren't polling stations on the East Coast not going to release their numbers until the West Coast is closed? Wouldn't that prevent numbers from hitting the west coast and cause voting shifts?




That's how I understand it is _supposed_ to work.


Edit: formatting


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

See this, from Elections Canada:

----------
*128.* (1) The voting hours on polling day are

(a) from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., if the electoral district is in the Newfoundland, Atlantic or Central time zone;


(b) from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., if the electoral district is in the Eastern time zone;


(c) from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., if the electoral district is in the Mountain time zone; and


(d) from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., if the electoral district is in the Pacific time zone.


Exception – Saskatchewan

(2) Despite subsection (1), if polling day is during a time of the year when the rest of the country is observing daylight saving time, the voting hours in Saskatchewan are

(a) in the case of an electoral district in the Central time zone, from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and


(b) in the case of an electoral district in the Mountain time zone, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

----------


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how the twitter threat will effect the polls. Aren't polling stations on the East Coast not going to release their numbers until the West Coast is closed? Wouldn't that prevent numbers from hitting the west coast and cause voting shifts?



Also the further west, the earlier the polls close.  Also, anyone concerned enough to vote in BC is hardly going to vote based on what the Maritimes do.


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure the media is pro-Ignatieff or, even, pro-Liberal; I am pretty sure that much (but not all) of the media is anti-Harper, even some of the parts that are, normally, pro-Conservative. The guy who appears, to me, to be getting a "free ride" is Jack Layton - and I think that shows.



Apparently, As it Happens (CBC) ask for feedback as to how the MSM is doing in this election. A couple of days later they played back the taped messages.....boy did they get blasted!!  every one who phoned in told them they were nothing but propagandists for the Liberals and totally biased......nice to hear....


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how the twitter threat will effect the polls. Aren't polling stations on the East Coast not going to release their numbers until the West Coast is closed? Wouldn't that prevent numbers from hitting the west coast and cause voting shifts?



As you know, the televised event will be closed to points West, until near closing time for the Polls in that Time Zone.  There are still numbers being posted, and in the past, we have seen Satellite feeds being seen by people in areas/regions/Time Zones to the West that have had the possibility of influencing voting amongst some.  The addition of Twitter can also have a more profound affect, as some people just can't get off the air......they tweet that they are going to the bathroom for Christ sake........now they are going to tweet how they voted as well.


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2011)

Interesting numbers on taxes...
http://www.mapleleafparty.ca/2011/04/20/percentage-of-federal-income-tax-by-income-percentile/
Notes:

    * 2009 data
    * watch the reference tables – they duplicate some income brackets
    * The split is really Bottom 52% Top 48% and the others are pretty close

The income cut offs and number of returns (again approximate) are:

    * 746,000 Canadians paid $0 in taxes
    * 48% = <$35,000 (14,560,000 tax payers)
    * 52% = $35,000 (10,400,000 tax payers)
    * 38% = $80,000 (2,562,000 tax payers)
    * 28% = $100,000 (1,416,000 tax payers)
    * 17% = $150,000 (526,000 tax payers)
    * 11% = $250,000 (188,000 greedy rich bastards!)


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Apr 2011)

Did you see this in the Cdn media yesterday??

http://imarketnews.com/node/29810

Thursday, April 21, 2011 - 12:48

*Canada Federal Deficit Falls Over 11 Months of 2010/11*

By Courtney Tower

OTTAWA (MNI) Canada's federal finances are improving substantially, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper can and will note in the current national election campaign in which he claims superior economic management.

In its monthly Fiscal Monitor, the federal Finance Department on Thursday reported a budgetary deficit for the first 11 months of Canada's fiscal year, which ended March 31, of C*$28.3 billion* (US$29.7 billion).

The deficit was *C$40.5 billion *in the same 11 months of 2009-10. *The Finance Department said that more than C$14 billion of the C$28.3 billion deficit in the period was due to special economic stimulus actions taken following the 2008-09 recession globally and in Canada.*

By the latest count, Canada's national debt stands at more than C$563 billion, or about 34% of Gross Domestic Product.

The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, historically a supporter of Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government's economic policies, has of late criticized the federal financial management.

It said that the Harper government is not reining in government spending, and notes that the increase in the national debt stems from deficits over the last five years that have occurred following a string of 11 annual budget surpluses put in place by previous Liberal governments.

Harper and his Conservatives are campaigning for Canadians to re-elect them this time as a majority in Parliament, saying they are the prudent economic managers. Harper promises no tax increases and a continuation of planned corporate tax decreases built into previous legislation. Canada's business taxes are well below those of the United States, its largest trading and economic partner by far.

The election was created by the three opposition parties in the House of Commons defeating the minority Conservatives on their annual budget, which projected the annual deficits to end in 2015. It handed out small and targeted tax and grant supports to various distinct voting communities but made no grand change in economic direction of any kind.

The Fiscal Monitor, reporting the decline of the deficit, said federal revenues were up 6.6% in the 11 months, "primarily reflecting higher personal and corporate income tax revenues" and consumer tax revenues. Government spending, on the other hand, had decreased very marginally, down 0.2% to C$210.2 billion for the period.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2011)

This story, from todays Globe and Mail web site, which is posted under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, lays out some scenarios and options for left-leaning voters.


Anti-Harper voters may be reassessing leaders as campaign nears end 


Bruce Anderson 

Globe and Mail Blog 

Posted on Friday, April 22, 2011 11:35AM EDT


The most recent polls paint a clear picture of the size of the challenge facing the Liberals, but the actual nature of the challenge is subtle and complex. It lies below the surface of the horse race numbers. 

Roughly 60 per cent of Canadians don’t want to vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. When these folks think there is a chance to replace the Conservatives with another government, some of them will consider voting for a party that isn’t their first choice. This was, of course, the game plan of the Liberals in 2004, 2006, 2008 and lots of times in the last century, too.

However, if these voters conclude they are going to get a Conservative government regardless of how they vote, their thought process may change. 

They may become focused on who they want to lead the daily charge against the government, to keep the next Harper government honest.

If we assume for the sake of argument that this is in effect the new ballot question for these voters, it’s playing to Jack Layton’s advantage. If the next 10 days is like an audition for the role of Opposition Leader, he may or may not win the role, but his screen test is already going pretty well.

First, he’s the only one who’s been campaigning for this job, and he’s been at it for years. (He always says he’s running to be PM, but no one believes that even he believes it). Lots of voters might not want him to run anything, but like him as a champion of the little guy.

He comes across to voters as an articulate, energetic, and genuine fellow. He’s seen as a partisan, but also a nice guy. He can throw a hard punch, but he also smiles a lot. 

Many of the voters I’m talking about are left of centre on the spectrum. Certainly they are almost all to the left of Stephen Harper. They would probably like the policy ideas that are contained in the Liberal platform, but the Family Pack has been getting little air play. Without having to study his platform, these voters know intuitively by now where Mr. Layton’s values are. And again, they are not looking for a Layton government.

Gilles Duceppe doesn’t ask to be Opposition Leader. He campaigns solely to defend Quebec’s interests. But if Quebecers dislike Conservative governments, (and they lead the country in that category) voting BQ has proven completely futile at avoiding that outcome. It’s logical that many would wonder if its not time to re-engage and consider a pan-Canadian party at some point, and equally logical that they would look for one with social democratic DNA. 

Michael Ignatieff as Opposition Leader didn’t make much of an impact on voters. He’s campaigning better, but even he’s been wondering aloud why his campaign isn’t connecting with more voters. The risk for him is in that group of voters who prefer him to Stephen Harper as PM, but doubt he will win that race, and aren’t sure he’d be the most effective Opposition Leader.

Ten days ago, conventional wisdom had it that the campaign was all but over, and nothing different would come of it. Today, new scenarios are created every hour or two. The safest bet is that there may be a turn or two left as voters start to think more seriously about the choice they will make on May 2. Until then, the fluctuations in the polls are the sound of people thinking out loud, not deciding.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2011)

And Jeffery Simpson weighs in with an argument for the Liberals to have campaigned on raising taxes. His column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.


The Liberals' strategic error: going short 

JEFFREY SIMPSON | Columnist profile | E-mail 
From Friday's Globe and Mail 

Published Friday, Apr. 22, 2011 2:00AM EDT

Last updated Friday, Apr. 22, 2011 8:08AM EDT

The Liberals had a strategic policy choice: Go long or go short. They chose to go short, and it hasn’t worked, at least not yet.

Who knows if going long would have succeeded? That would have been much riskier politically. It would have meant, in policy terms, raising taxes beyond the modest rollback of Conservative corporate tax decreases and/or stringing out the return to a balanced budget, or both. In return, the Liberals would have had more revenue to propose more arresting social policy improvements.

Of course, the Conservatives, themselves big spenders, would have lashed the Liberals as “tax and spenders,” which is what’s happening anyway. Why not wear the moniker proudly, and pledge something dramatic to Canadians for additional taxes such as catastrophic coverage?

The answer: The Liberals feared running any campaign on raising personal or consumption taxes. And, apparently, they feared eliminating any of the targeted tax breaks beloved of the Conservatives that have pockmarked the system. Nor did they want to remove any of the spending programs that the Conservatives had so lavishly spread around the country and injected into base budgets, again fearing a negative reaction.

Going long, for example, would have been the Liberals canning the Conservatives’ ineffective family allowance cheques (called child benefits) and using the money for daycare, or raising the GST and using the money to cut personal income taxes and to spend on one or two high-profile social policy improvements. Given the party’s doldrums and Michael Ignatieff’s image problems (augmented by the Conservative attack ads), this would have been both exciting and risky.

As it is, the Liberals have a series of social promises, none really large enough to catch much attention politically. Take, for instance, the $1,000 to $1,500 yearly grant for students at university or college (a “learning passport”) – it’s one of those pledges that sound better than they’ll be in practice.

Most university students (community college ones are different) come from middle- to upper-income families. Giving them a grant makes no sense. Similarly, the sum won’t really tip the balance on whether students attend school. It would have been far better to augment existing student aid for those who really need help, rather than creating a new program where many already exist.

The “learning passport” is the Liberals’ most expensive promise, at $980-million. The other 28 are medium- to small-bore targeted programs, some very worthy but financed somewhat shakily by assumed savings from the corporate tax rollback, $500-million from a wireless spectrum auction and one of those amorphous promises to find $500-million through a review of government spending.

Wisely, the Liberal platform doesn’t project Ottawa’s fiscal situation five years ahead, as the other parties do, a projection that is more guesswork than anything. And the Liberals add a “prudence reserve” of $1.5-billion, rising to $3-billion, a fixture of the Chrétien-Martin years that the Harper government unwisely scrapped.

But no sooner had the Liberals unveiled their platform than they looked at the polls, saw health care at the top again, and pledged a 6-per-cent indexation for health-care transfers when the current agreement expires in 2014.

This promise gave everything to the provinces without asking for anything in return, but that didn’t stop Mr. Ignatieff from saying what he’d want the money used for. Having given away the shop, he’d be in no position to demand anything of anybody. He’d be scrounging to find the money for his new promise. Like the other party leaders, he talks much about health care without making much sense.

The Liberals, scarred by their carbon tax promise in the last election, are now recommending a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas emissions. But they don’t say how it would work. At least they haven’t invented $7-billion in revenue for the federal government from such a scheme, as the NDP does.

What the Liberals have done, however, is fallen into the pit of crass political opportunism by promising to fund a hockey arena in Quebec City, then saying a Liberal government would be open to similar follies elsewhere in Canada. Campaigns sometimes make otherwise sane people say the silliest things.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Apr 2011)

This line caught me about Mr. Layton:



> First, he’s the only one who’s been campaigning for this job, and he’s been at it for years. (He always says he’s running to be PM, but no one believes that even he believes it). Lots of voters might not want him to run anything, but *like him as a champion of the little guy.*
> He comes across to voters as an articulate, energetic, and genuine fellow. He’s seen as a partisan, but also a nice guy. He can throw a hard punch, but he also smiles a lot.



I couldn't agree more.  I like Jack, I like the fact that the NDP are in parliament  (in fact, I just suggested to a friend who lives in Ottawa that she should vote for her local NDP candidate).  Having said that, I don't like his policies and I think that if he were in charge, we'd all end up in economic ruin.  

To illustrate, remember when we had those surpluses and then-Finance Minister Paul Martin was starting to pay down the debt?  Mr. Layton was suggesting that the surplus go to social spending, to wit, tossing aside any gains we had made.

Anyway, I wonder if Mr. Layton will become the leader of HM's  Loyal Opposition?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, I wonder if Mr. Layton will become the leader of HM's  Loyal Opposition?



I think he would be the best person for the job. The Conservatives are more likely to work with Layton because he has a level head on his shoulders, and is not arrogant and power hungry. He's happy with whatever seats he gets in the House, and has already leveraged them to get some concessions in the previous Tory budget.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think he would be the best person for the job. The Conservatives are more likely to work with Layton because he has a level head on his shoulders, and is not arrogant and power hungry. He's happy with whatever seats he gets in the House, and has already leveraged them to get some concessions in the previous Tory budget.



Concur, PC.  

The fact that Jack Layton did get about half of his requests into the Conservatives' budget shows that he knows how to work with the Conservatives, end result of the budget vote notwithstanding.  He is far more eloquent about the wishes of his party and his target electorate than Ignatieff, that's for sure. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Concur, PC.
> 
> The fact that Jack Layton did get about half of his requests into the Conservatives' budget shows that he knows how to work with the Conservatives, end result of the budget vote notwithstanding.  He is far more eloquent about the wishes of his party and his target electorate than Ignatieff, that's for sure.
> 
> ...



The flip side, I think, is that Mr Harper can work with Mr Layton more easily than with Mr Ignatieff. I'm not so partisan to not admit that the NDP has some valid ideas. The challenge lies in paying for them.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The flip side, I think, is that Mr Harper can work with Mr Layton more easily than with Mr Ignatieff. I'm not so partisan to not admit that the NDP has some valid ideas. The challenge lies in paying for them.



I think that's why I like the current Tory policies. They realize Canada's strengths lay in our social safety net, but any further increases to that net needs to be done cautiously to prevent massive money-dump programs that get little in the way of costs. Fiscal responsibility mixed with a social conscience is perfect for our government right now, and the only party that represents that IMO is the Conservatives.


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2011)

What you are all forgetting is it is the Liberals that Harper found the easiest to work with....

Despite all the rhetoric, the Liberals govern in the same area as the Conservatives.....even provincial NDP parties govern right of centre (eg: Manitoba).....Jack's price is to high.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> What you are all forgetting is it is the Liberals that Harper found the easiest to work with....
> 
> Despite all the rhetoric, the Liberals govern in the same area as the Conservatives.....even provincial NDP parties govern right of centre (eg: Manitoba).....Jack's price is to high.




Agreed, that's why I said this.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> What you are all forgetting is it is the Liberals that Harper found the easiest to work with....



You wouldn't have guessed that with all the fearmongering churning out of the Liberal propoganda machine.


----------



## Saskboy (22 Apr 2011)

I find Layton's campaign ads attacking Ottawa backroom power brokers who attempt to sway policy behind the scenes rather comical. I think few people are as skilled at that very thing as Jack himself. I don't mean that as a slight against him either. He's generally pretty effective at leveraging his position to gain concessions which he finds desirable.  Much of that has to do with the size of his party relative to the size of government of course but he has a hand in it nonetheless. Frankly, the image of Michael Ignatieff on television makes my blood pressure elevate ever so slightly and causes my head to involuntarily shake. Jack, on the other hand, I find raises some valid points and as others have said, I find him much more likeable than Ignatieff or Duceppe. I think I could live with a House which saw the NDP, under the leadership of Jack Layton, form the Opposition.

The only thing I can bring myself to credit Duceppe with is having balls the size of melons. I was blown away by his attempt to extort $5 billion in the last budget. That takes guts.


----------



## ballz (22 Apr 2011)

Saskboy said:
			
		

> The only thing I can bring myself to credit Duceppe with is having balls the size of melons. I was blown away by his attempt to extort $5 billion in the last budget. That takes guts.



I attribute it more to his lack of a spine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2011)

An interesting bit of interactive trivia is at the _Globe and Mail_.

Let me see:

1953 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Drew). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1957 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1958 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1962 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1963 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Pearson). They, the Liberals, won;
1965 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1968 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Trudeau). They, the Liberals, won;
1972 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Trudeau). They, the Liberals, won;
1974 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Stanfield). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1979 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Clark). They, the Conservatives, won;
1980 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Clark). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1984 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Mulroney). They, the Conservatives, won;
1988 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Mulroney). They, the Conservatives, won;
1993 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Chrétien). They, the Liberals, won;
1997 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Charest). They, the Conservatives, lost;
2000 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Chrétien). They, the Liberals, won;
2004 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Liberals (Martin). They, the Liberals, won;
2006 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Harper). They, the Conservatives, won; and
2008 - the _Globe and Mail_ endorsed the Conservatives (Harper). They, the Conservatives, won.

Even more trivia; since 1953 the _Good Grey Globe_ has:

1. Endorsed the Conservatives 13 times (out of 19) - the Conservatives won eight of those 19 elections;

2. Endorsed the Liberals six times. The Liberals won 11 of 19 elections; and 

3. Backed the winner every single time it endorsed a Liberal.


----------



## Saskboy (23 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I attribute it more to his lack of a spine.



Also a likely culprit.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2011)

Take a look at this graphic, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_






Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r_7YdFXP6Sg/TbHEclrZ82I/AAAAAAAAE4w/wr6aMjB3ILU/s1600/Daily+Poll+Summary.PNG 

Three of four _national_ polls have the NDP leading or tied with the Liberals; the fourth has the _Dippers_ trailing by 2%. Given the degree of accuracy all four polls are really showing a statistical dead heat, but ...

In the regions the NDP leads the Liberals in BC, the prairies and Québec. They trail consistently in Ontario and are _roughly_ competitive in Alberta and Atlantic Canada.

This _may_ be a historic breakthrough for the NDP and _may_, also, spur some sort of national realignment, leading, eventually to the demise of both the Liberals and The New Democrats, as now constructed, and the creation of a New Liberal Party, which is firmly Centre-Left and Left of Centre, with periodic intrusions (when in government) into the centre, _per se_; a bigger, _broader_ Conservative Party, which straddles the Centre, Centre-Right and Right of Centre regions of the political spectrum; and a couple of new _fringe_ parties – one on the Right and Hard Right and the other on the Hard-Left and Left.


                <============================================================================>
Spectrum: Hard-Left   Left   Left of Centre   Centre-Left       Centre       Centre-Right   Right of Centre   Right   Hard Right


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Apr 2011)

Indeed it could be. The question may be how many voters will have second thoughts and move back to the Liberals over the next eight or nine days? Apparently the turnout at the Advanced Polls has been quite heavy in our riding in Eastern Ontario. If this is true across the country, then the figures Edward just posted may be quite important. I can't remember for sure, but it seems to me that at the last Federal election somewhere around 20 percent of the voters used the Advanced Polls in North Grenville.

I wonder how many Grits are harking back to the good old days with Stefan Dion at the helm?


----------



## Journeyman (23 Apr 2011)

I too hit the Advanced Polls yesterday, so all this electioneering is for naught.  


For my riding, the Advanced Polling Station was set up at Queen's -- I have to admit to a tremour of fear for our future after overhearing some of the vacuous discussions around me...._dude_.   :-\


----------



## GAP (23 Apr 2011)

The Advance polls may or may not be good news.....most of the students voting at the universities are NOT voting Conservative....


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The Advance polls may or may not be good news.....most of the students voting at the universities are NOT voting Conservative....


I'm sure that is the case. However, this also tends to concentrate their vote into a few, largely urban, ridings. I have no idea at all of their vote distribution, but suspect the NDP and Greens would benefit most. Despite the publicity given to the vote mobs movement, I suspect the student turnout would still be far below the national figure, like.


----------



## wannabe SF member (23 Apr 2011)

Not too much of a problem in my opinion. Student vote is sprinkled all across their home ridings therefore unlikely to have an effect in the place where they are studying.

Furthermore, right now is exam season and I suspect many of my peers will be too occupied with thir "hectic" revision schedule to find the time to care.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Apr 2011)

True, however if they vote at a special poll such as at Guelph, they will vote in the riding that houses the university. Your point re exams is moot. Thanks for that.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> Not too much of a problem in my opinion. Student vote is sprinkled all across their home ridings.....


The majority of the students in the line-ups had just registered, using their local (Kingston) Utilities bill, etc, as proof of residence. Their vote will be for this riding, rather than their family home.

As for the numbers, and excuses for not voting, it's anyone's guess.



Edit: Yes, what Old Sweat  (the faster typist) said.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> Furthermore, right now is exam season and I suspect many of my peers will be too occupied with thir "hectic" revision schedule to find the time to care.



[sarcasm]

Not trying to pigeon hole the student bodies, but given most of the press that comes out of our establishments of higher learning, I would've figured that with a long weekend, those that aren't travelling would be drunk off their asses and incapable of getting to the polling station.

How's that for a broad brush ;D

[/sarcasm]


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> [sarcasm]
> 
> Not trying to pigeon hole the student bodies, but given most of the press that comes out of our establishments of higher learning, I would've figured that with a long weekend, those that aren't travelling would be drunk off their asses and incapable of getting to the polling station.
> 
> ...



Love it... cynicism is an area weapon!


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the week four wrap up and the “ceiling” projections:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 2011*
> Week 4 Ceilings
> 
> This fourth week of the campaign has been, without a doubt, the most interesting. We've seen polls flail wildly but what has been unmistakable is that the NDP is making some gains - some huge gains.
> ...



There is a still a week and a day to go, and, as I keep saying, Harold Wilson was right:






 A week is a _loooooooong_ time in politics.
Harold Wilson, PM of the UK -
1964 to 1970 & 1974 to 1976


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Apr 2011)

Taking a look at the regional polling trends is also instructive. The topography of the polls seen in the graphic below, shows a convergence of the NDP and Liberal votes in BC, Prairies, and Maritime areas. This convergence likely bodes well for the Conservatives. Torries are less likely to switch their votes to Lib or NDP. The reverse is not entirely true. There are a good number of Liberals who might switch to Conservative rather than NDP. The closer the Libs/NDP are, the more likely they'll split the vote and the Torries will be the beneficiaries. If one looks closer at BC, it may illustrate disaffected Liberals moving towards the Torries more than toward the NDP.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bIuBqi35U-g/TbHM3zAGQVI/AAAAAAAAE5A/le6m7YKchJk/s1600/Region+Polls.PNG 
which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I too hit the Advanced Polls yesterday, so all this electioneering is for naught.
> ...




I, too, voted at the advance poll. Even though I am about 99.9% certain that my candidate will finish third, behind NDP incumbent (and _potential_ party leader) Paul Dewar and an unknown Liberal, every vote does matter as long as (too much) public funding for political parties remains the rule.





Paul Dewar, MP (Ottawa Centre)

So, even if you don't like your preferred party's candidate or, perhaps, leader, it is still important to cast your vote for your preferred party's fund.

Advance polls are open for a few more hours today and again on Mon. Election day is Mon, 2 May 11.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2011)

OMG, Jack Layton could become PM... 

A decade of darkness, part 2 will be opening in theaters everywhere after the Speech from the Throne.


----------



## wannabe SF member (23 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> OMG, Jack Layton could become PM...
> 
> A decade of darkness, part 2 will be opening in theaters everywhere after the Speech from the Throne.



When they downsized the forces last century. did it mean a bunch of Ocdts getting fired? Just asking.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> When they downsized the forces last century. did it mean a bunch of Ocdts getting fired? Just asking.



Not as far as I can recall, and I was a junior officer during the Sixties when most of the chopping occurred.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (24 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> When they downsized the forces last century. did it mean a bunch of Ocdts getting fired? Just asking.



I think they released a graduating class or two at RMC.  Consolation was a free education.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think they released a graduating class or two at RMC.  Consolation was a free education.



"I think".  I think that if you don't know then don't speculate or start rumours.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2011)

An interesting thing to do after the election will be to see how these poll numbers, which translate into popular support, translate into seats.  I believe the general trends of the polls are pointing us in the right direction, but "25%" could equal 90 seats or 9 seats, depending on where your numbers are.

If the numbers are in Harper's favour, the NDP gains on the Libs/BQ will definately count for some "up the middle" gains.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2011)

No graduating classes at RMC were ever released wholesale.  In the mid 90s, during FRP, there were limited numbers permitted to release (by choice) and regulations requring payback were waived.  However, it such releases were voluntary, not mandatory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

Some commentators, including those who are, broadly, pro-Conservative, are worried about the changes that are being have been made in campaigning, as evidenced by this article by John Ibbitson, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the  _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-a-master-of-delivery-but-whos-listening/article1996712/ 


> Ignatieff a master of delivery, but who’s listening?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Summerside, P.E.I.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




As someone old enough to remember John Diefenbaker's speeches and to have digested some of what St Laurent wrote and said, I, too, am sad to see politics reduced to carefully crafted 'sound bites' composed by unseen _communications_ specialists and tested on 'focus groups.' But I also recognize that most Canadians get most of their information, for now, anyway, from the TV – which created the “sound bite,” after all, and we _may_ be moving to a different, even more demanding media – social networking and _YouTube_ and the like.

It is too bad that more Canadians cannot see the remarkable and remarkably broad intelligence that Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and others possess, but PM Harper, at least, is just obeying the rules that we, the _consumers_ of political messages, have written by our choice of media.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

Here is another _projection_, this time from LISPOP at Wilfred Laurier University:

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/seatprojections.html


> Tsunami in Quebec
> 
> The following seat projection is based upon a blended and weighted sample of polls from Ekos, Forum research, Ipsos, Nanos and CROP (Quebec only) conducted between April 18-20. Approximately 8000 respondents are included in the aggregate figures. Quebec has marked what has been one of the most dramatic transformations of public opinion in memory, after a very static period covering the election's first three weeks. The Quebec NDP increase of 14% in a week and 20% since the last election, accompanied by a BQ decline of 10% since 2008 is historic, and suggests that the seat projection for the province is much more tenuous than usual. The model has applied the swing evenly throughout the province, and accordingly might understate NDP gains. If we were able to detect subregional patterns of NDP strength in the swing, the party might have been allocated more seats. The New Democrats also had some gains in the west, notably BC, but the Conservatives rebounded from recent slippage in Ontario.
> 
> ...



Readers can compare this projections with the 22 Apr 11 one from _ThreeHundredEight.com_:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


Edit: format


----------



## mad dog 2020 (24 Apr 2011)

If the NDP get official opposition, it could be a win-win for Retired members as National Defence will still be on track and some pressure for the clawback arguement.


Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt Juan de Fuca
randallgarrison.ndp.ca | Phone: 250 590-7160
Find Randall on twitter and facebook
or visit the office at 1006 Craigflower Rd.
Excerpt from 2011 NDP Platform
6.5 Fulfilling Commitments to Honour our Veterans (Page 21)
• We will respect Canada’s obligations to our military veterans by:
·· Ending the unfair reduction of pensions for retired and disabled Canadian
Forces and RCMP veterans;
·· Stopping the unjust cuts to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP)
for medically released members of the Canadian Forces and former RCMP
members. Ending these claw-backs will improve the lives of over 100,000
veterans in Canada;
·· Overhauling the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; appointing its members
from military, RCMP and medical personnel, and ensuring that veterans’ appeals
are fairly reviewed by their peers;
·· Introducing a “Helmets-to-Hardhats” program to help veterans transition to
construction and shipbuilding trades;
·· Responding to veterans’ organizations, spouses and widows, and others and
initiating a public inquiry into toxic chemical defoliation at CFB Gagetown.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Apr 2011)

Helmets to Hardhats eh? Sounds like a great idea, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the Conservative budget that the NDP voted against...


----------



## Journeyman (24 Apr 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> If the NDP get official opposition, it could be a win-win for Retired members....


While a nice theory, I suspect there'd be a _very_ long line of unionized sacred cows, with both hands into the dole trough, ahead of any DND/Veteran-related programmes.


----------



## Haletown (24 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While a nice theory, I suspect there'd be a _very_ long line of unionized sacred cows, with both hands into the dole trough, ahead of any DND/Veteran-related programmes.



For sure . . .   that sound you hear is all those unionized sacred cows practicing their entitlement lip-lock they hope to have on the public teat.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (24 Apr 2011)

Looking for the elusive full cup in theory.  I already voted in the advanced poll and you can just guess which way    However I keep getting this propaganda from ORGs (Old retired Guys{like me}),who get this carrot from their local NDP candidate.  We will see 2 May, I justpray it ain't Prince Iggy of Harvard as I too was in for the 20/40 plan and saw the decade of darkness.  
Wouldn't it be nice to bring back YTEP for an election point and youth employment.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2011)

I did my own little mathematical exercise yesterday using the vote ceilings. Here's my results. Accepting that there's no best case scenario data for the Bloc, I don't believe they'll loose 22 seats, but they could realistically lose half that number.


Conservatives:  151 (143)
Liberals:            67 (77)
NDP:                 54 (36)
Bloc:                 35 (47)
Independent:       1  (5 including vacancies)


In the end, I expect the NDP will gain 20 seats, at the expense of both the Liberals and Bloc. Likely 12 in Quebec, and 8 elsewhere. They might pick some up from the Torries, but that will probably be a 1 for 1 exchange somewhere else. I don't think the Independent will be Green, but Ms May could yet surprise us.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I did my own little mathematical exercise yesterday using the vote ceilings. Here's my results. Accepting that there's no best case scenario data for the Bloc, I don't believe they'll loose 22 seats, but they could realistically lose half that number.
> 
> 
> Conservatives:  151 (143)
> ...



There's already one Independent seating and that's a guy in Quebec who is so pro-Conservative the Conservatives are not even bothering to run a candidate against him. If he gets re-elected, there's your Independent.


----------



## wannabe SF member (24 Apr 2011)

If the conservatives were to get within 2 or three seats of a maority, could they possibly count on a few defections from red tories?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> If the conservatives were to get within 2 or three seats of a maority, could they possibly count on a few defections from *red tories*?


Do you mean *blue *  Liberals?


----------



## wannabe SF member (24 Apr 2011)

Yes, my mistake.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2011)

Although skirting on tinfoil hat territory, the list of groups who have attempted to influence the election is very interesting (lots of internal links, follow the main link to the post). AVAAZ in particular is not Canadian at all (being a project of Moveon.org and Res Publica), so I'm _sure_ that Margot Atwood and Maude Barlow will be protesting their involvement and meddling in Canadian affairs... 

http://burpnrun.blogspot.com/2011/04/real-co-conspirators-behind-2011-coup.html



> *The Real Co-Conspirators Behind The 2011 Coup*
> The following is my view, and my view alone, of this travesty to Canadian democracy.
> 
> The common cry from vested interests in this 2011 election is that "It's all about Democracy!". That may be true, but what they aren't telling you is that it isn't about YOUR democracy, or MY democracy. Rather, it's all about THEIR democracy. Specifically, the entitlement of the unions, special interest groups, and piglet-interests at the public teat. Protecting that teat for themselves. At all costs. Including subverting real democracy.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I did my own little mathematical exercise yesterday using the vote ceilings. Here's my results. Accepting that there's no best case scenario data for the Bloc, I don't believe they'll loose 22 seats, but they could realistically lose half that number.
> 
> 
> Conservatives:  151 (143)
> ...




OK, I'll play.

Here are my guesses in three colours: Hope, Expect and Fear

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




            *Others* 
159/152/122         54/65/100              55/41/31          39/49/53           1/1/2


Obviously, being a dyed in the wool Conservative I hope that, during the last week of the campaign, we (the Conservative Party) can convince our fellow Canadians that a majority is a good idea. I expect that we will come close - but that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I fear a Liberal resurgence and a win for Elizabeth May.

My fondest hope (verging on wet dream status) is that "Jack and the _Dippers_" will win even just one more seat than _Prince Michael_ and the Liberals - thus hastening the demise of the LPC, as we know it, by encouraging a small handful of elected Liberal MPs to quit the caucus and either: join the NDP, sit as independents and/or join the Tories.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2011)

Edward, I'm not surprised we're that close on our predictions. I agree with your "hope" scenario, and would dearly like to see it transpire.

Here's a piece from CTV that's worth watching:

Ignatieff booed at junior hockey game

Shades of things to come?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2011)

Actually, a scenario like that sounds plausible.  Cons are short of a majority and the NDP buries the Liberals.  Disaffected, some of the Libs leave their burning ship to cross the floor and give the Cons a slight majority.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Obviously, being a dyed in the wool Conservative I hope that, during the last week of the campaign, we (the Conservative Party) can convince our fellow Canadians that a majority is a good idea. I expect that we will come close - but that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I fear a Liberal resurgence and a win for Elizabeth May.



I'm actually starting to think that we may see a sea change - that not only will the Cons win a majority, but a big one.  It feels like the Liberal vote is about to collapse completely, although not quite as bad as the Kim Campbell Collapse.

I see this as a good thing - the Liberals need to be sent out into the wilderness to re-find their purpose again.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Apr 2011)

It will be interesting to see what the effect's of his televised shows tonight will do to the poll's.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'm actually starting to think that we may see a sea change - that not only will the Cons win a majority, but a big one.  It feels like the Liberal vote is about to collapse completely, although not quite as bad as the Kim Campbell Collapse.
> 
> I see this as a good thing - the Liberals need to be sent out into the wilderness to re-find their purpose again.



I think that is on the outside edge of possibility; _every_ special interest and the Legacy Media are scrambling to prop up the Liberals in order to maintain the public trough and the "narrative". Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).

Of course, increasing desperation might just do the trick for your scenario, as the Liberals, Special Interests and Legacy Media grasp for straws the chances of flailing into a disaster cannot be discounted. (For the Legacy Media note how Terry Milewski's rant was received at a CPC event, then check out how it was reported [@ 3:40 on the video])


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Indeed it could be. The question may be how many voters will have second thoughts and move back to the Liberals over the next eight or nine days? Apparently the turnout at the Advanced Polls has been quite heavy in our riding in Eastern Ontario. If this is true across the country, then the figures Edward just posted may be quite important. I can't remember for sure, but it seems to me that at the last Federal election somewhere around 20 percent of the voters used the Advanced Polls in North Grenville.
> 
> I wonder how many Grits are harking back to the good old days with Stefan Dion at the helm?



Further to this post, I ran into the DRO of the Advanced Poll in North Grenville after church this morning. He told me that there had been well over a thousand votes cast so far, which would seem to take nearly 20 % of the voters out of play before they could watch the Liberal infomercial. Certainly there was a steady stream when my wife and I voted Saturday afternoon. 

Speculation and fun with numbers is a bit of a mug's game, but if only 60% of the electorate votes overall and about 15% of these use the advance polls, he is able to potentially influence only about half the voters in the country at this late date. I wonder if the big heads in the various parties ever consider the effect of the advanced pollls and that maybe half of the remainder (or a bit more) are Liberal or NDP voters? Let's say that 60% of the electorate fall in that category and half of that (30%) plan to vote NDP. Can he swing a sufficiently large number of these to make a difference.

To try to make the above clearer, here is a hypothetical riding with 100,000 potential voters, with 60,000 actually casting a ballot. Say the CPC is polling at 40% and the others are evenly split between the other two parties. If 15% use the advanced poll, this would be 3600 Conservative and 2700 for each of the Liberals and NDP. This leaves about 51,000 to vote on 2 May. If about 20,400 will vote Conservative and the remainder is split 50/50 or 15,300 for each, the CPC wins with 24,000 votes to 18,000 for each of the others. In this case he needs to convince over a third of the NDP to come over to the Liberals to have a chance to take the seat. 

The task would be easier in ridings with a lower percentage for the CPC, but it still is formidable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .... Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).
> ...




It still hasn't made it to the _Globe and Mail_'s web site, nor the _National Post_'s - but it is Easter Sunday. Here is a CBC _twitter_ exchange between Laurie Graham and Kady O'Malley:



> That actually was as good an answer I can imagine a politician giving to a question he'd rather not have to be asked. #elxn41
> by kady via twitter at 2:56 PM
> 
> "They just wanted to watch hockey," Ignatieff notes. *He* would've booed himself if he were one of them. #elxn41
> ...



Here is the story on CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/24/cv-election-ignatieff-icedogs.html


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think that is on the outside edge of possibility; _every_ special interest and the Legacy Media are scrambling to prop up the Liberals in order to maintain the public trough and the "narrative". Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).



The booing incident was first reported on Small Dead Animals last night with the first reader comment at 10:57 pm and was picked up in the morning by Sun TV and then, much later, by CTV.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2011)

I think this is the first negative slanted article the CBC has written on the Libs. The first rat leaving the sinking ship?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

It, a CTV video, has made it to YouTube.

Those were pretty loud and substantial boos, too.


----------



## HavokFour (24 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It, a CTV video, has made it to YouTube.
> 
> Those were pretty loud and substantial boos, too.



My faith in Canadian voters has somewhat been rekindled after watching this.


----------



## Dissident (24 Apr 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> My faith in Canadian voters has somewhat been rekindled after watching this.


Not when they run from the Liberals straigh to the NDPs arms.


----------



## wannabe SF member (24 Apr 2011)

Why is the article's title so damn slanted? 

"Ignatieff finds few fans at hockey game"

Are you kidding me?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2011)

Re read. 

It does not say "Ignatieff finds a few fans at hockey game" (which would directly state there are some there) but simply "finds few" which has the implication there are not very many or none.

Share the YouTube clip with all your friends, though (especially the ones on Rabble.ca and here).


----------



## wannabe SF member (24 Apr 2011)

I'm sorry Mr T, you can ask me many things but interacting with the raving lunatics at Rabble.ca is really not something I'm particularly inclined towards. ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is what I find to be a pretty fair summary of Michael Ignatieff:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/embattled-ignatieff-offers-passionate-defence-of-liberal-vision/article1996901/ 


> Embattled Ignatieff offers passionate defence of Liberal vision
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> TORONTO— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



There it is, I think: Ignatieff is passionate, he has a *bold* _vision_ for Canada while Harper is pragmatic and prudent. But Canadians do not, perhaps cannot “see” Ignatieff the way he sees himself – and the way the _Good Grey Globe_'s editorial board appears to see him, too.

It is hard to blame him for being exasperated, but I suspect that his exasperation, with us, those of us who simply neither like nor trust him, makes us dislike and mistrust him even more.

On the _personality_ scale Layton is the clear winner, head and shoulders above Harper and Ignatieff. But even cold, secretive Harper comers across as being “honest” in his vision – however narrow it may be – for Canada and, for whatever reason, Ignatieff does not manage that.

Here, extracted from CTV's Election coverage are some relevant numbers:



> _On April 23 the total leadership scores for the major party leaders were: (Change from April 21 in brackets)_
> 
> *Stephen Harper: 93.9* (+5.8 )
> Jack Layton: 73.7 (+0.8 )
> ...



Clearly the people of Canada do not "see" what Ignatieff and the Toronto _elites_ "see."


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Apr 2011)

Seriously?  The liberals were the most regionally devisive government ever, screw the West, marginalize the East, pander to the centre was their mantra.  They maintained control by ensuring the west never got a voice.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Apr 2011)

The media are in full protection mode. No ethics, no professionalism. 

Too many examples. In line with the previous hockey posts:

A CBC reporter (a nobody) asks a ridiculous question at a Harper rally, is booed by some of the Conservatives attending, it’s national news.

Michael Ignatieff  (a leader running for PM) is booed by 4,000 fans  at a Mississauga hockey game, it’s not worth a mention.


----------



## Gimpy (25 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The media are in full protection mode. No ethics, no professionalism.
> 
> Too many examples. In line with the previous hockey posts:
> 
> ...



Pardon? The Michael Ignatieff story was mentioned on this very page. was posted on the CBC's website and I've seen it on the local and national news.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Pardon? The Michael Ignatieff story was mentioned on this very page. was posted on the CBC's website and I've seen it on the local and national news.



CBC was virtually the last news agency to post it. It first appeared on Sun News, then CTV, here etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Gimpy (25 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> CBC was virtually the last news agency to post it. It first appeared on Sun News, then CTV, here etc, etc, etc.



Well I suppose it's worth something that they posted it at all.


----------



## wannabe SF member (25 Apr 2011)

I'm starting to think that Sun news might actually force CBC to work for it's money and pay more than lip service to their so-called impartiality obligations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

A Conservative majority is within reach if, a Big *IF*, the Conservatives can hold on to *all* their current 150 leads and pick up six of the following 11 seats:

1. Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (BC) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 3.8% (according to ThreeHundredEight.com )

2. North Vancouver (BC) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 1.9%                                  (same source)

3. Elmwood-Transcona (MB) from the NDP, who currently lead by 3.7%                                        “     “

4. BramptonWest (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 0.7%                                          “      “

5. Eglington-Lawrence (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 3.0%                                   “     “

6. Guelph (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 3.5%                                                       “     “

7. Kingston and the Islands (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 1.4%                           “     “

8. London North Centre (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 4.7%                                 “     “

9. Mississauga South (ON) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 2.8%                                     “      “

10. Sault Ste. Marie (ON) from the NDP, who currently lead by 1.7%                                             “      “

11. Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe (NB) from the Liberals, who currently lead by 4.1%                       “     “


As you can see seven of those 11 close (less than 5% spread) ridings are in ON which may explain these headlines from today's _Globe and Mail_:

*Ignatieff to make last stand in Ontario*
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/ignatieff-to-make-last-stand-in-ontario/article1997225/  and

*Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach*
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

Further to this: *Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach*
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/ 

The _Globe and Mail_ story, which based on a _Nanos_ poll, goes on to say:



> For the NDP the story is much different in Ontario. “Improved NDP fortunes across Canada have not materialized in gains within battleground Ontario over the holiday weekend,” Mr. Nanos said. “Support for the NDP is comparable to the 2008 election, factoring in the margin of error”
> 
> The NDP is at 16.9 per cent support in Ontario compared to 47.8 per cent support for the Conservatives and 29.3 per cent for the Liberals. That’s Mr. Ignatieff’s lowest level of support in the province since the election began and Mr. Nanos said Mr. Harper has been the main beneficiary of the Grit slide. (The margin of error is plus or minus 5.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)
> 
> ...




It should be an interesting, indeed entertaining, week for political junkies.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> I'm starting to think that Sun news might actually force CBC to work for it's money and pay more than lip service to their so-called impartiality obligations.



The Sun came up, and it was dead boring

John Doyle 
From Monday's Globe and Mail 
Published Monday, Apr. 25, 2011 12:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Apr. 25, 2011 8:03AM EDT


After all of that – all the fuss, the hype and hysteria – what has Sun News Network amounted to? Cheap, cheesy, terrible television. I encourage you to watch it. You can learn a great deal about the utter banality of well-meant but bonehead TV.

Now, me, I was anxious to see it and savour it. The more news outlets, the better; the more channels we have to choose from, the better off we are. Stands to reason. And Sun News promised a great deal.

So the other day, just back from Ireland and admittedly a tad jet-lagged, I started watching. First thing I saw was the ego that is Ezra Levant waving around a giant cigar and making a speech about Cuba. Odd, I thought. Here we are at the crucial point in a federal election campaign and Levant is anxious to let us know his views on events in Cuba.

Boy oh boy, did he go on. Cuba this and Castro that, interminably. Then it dawned on me that Levant had written a long, densely written analysis of matters Cuban and was talking it at us. It transcended terrible television to achieve the level of abomination. I was reminded that there was a guy with a sock puppet named Ed, who went from community cable TV to the CITY-TV channel a few years ago. The guy with the sock had a better grasp of the basics of TV than Ezra Levant and his producers.

Being away, I had taped the opening hours of Sun News, so I looked at it. There, again, was Levant making  a speech. “We’re talking about truth and freedom,” he declared. “If you love freedom like I do, it’s a pretty happy day.” Well, sunshine, not if it’s like watching paint dry, it isn’t.

Levant is obviously meant to be the channel’s version of the outgoing Fox News personality Glenn Beck, but without Beck’s charisma. Mind you, just as Beck devoted a lot of time to promoting his radio show and books, Levant, on consecutive days, plugged his book about the oil industry. Beck wrote a hilariously entertaining paranoid thriller about do-gooders taking over the world. Levant wrote a windy book about the oil industry. Sorry – not the same thing.

Over the week the impressions mounted. Impressions of a shockingly amateurish channel with a giant media corporation, Quebecor, behind it. I noted that Sun News made a self-regarding fuss about some journalists mocking the dress style of the lady hosts and anchors. The word “skank” was bandied but then retracted, apparently. Well, now. There’s nothing lewd or lascivious about the frocks, skirts and tops being worn. It’s just that several of the women on air look like they dressed in the dark. Sun News has achieved a remarkable feat. It has made the comely and talented Krista Erickson, a noted spiffy dresser, look like a shoo-in for an appearance on What Not to Wear.

This Theo Caldwell character is another Sun News personality who goes on and on and on. Like he’d never heard of the word “brevity” or been advised that making speeches on air amounts to really bad television. Further, he cannot conduct an interview. He makes a speech he knows the interviewee will agree with and then listens, delightedly, when they concur.

Article continued at LINK


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The Sun came up, and it was dead boring
> 
> John Doyle
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Well, cue the plagues of frogs and locusts, the world is ending, 'cause I *agree* with Doyle. I find _Sun News_ boring, too. 

I share his views about the apparent aimlessness of the coverage during a tight election. I find some of the newsreaders second rate - stumbling over words and phrases and so on, and some of the commentators predictably banal.

I'm sure they'll get better - I recall being bored and mildly embarrassed by _CBC Newsworld_ (now CBC News Network, I think) and _CTV Newsnet_ (now CTV News Channel) when they started; I still am, come to that.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Apr 2011)

Not being from Toronto, I do know who Ezra Levant is, don't know John Boyle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ are new projections based on aggregations of polling data:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If, another Big *IF*, this is the start of a trend then it couldn't happen at a better time for Harper's Conservatives.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Apr 2011)

Best summation of the election, taken from the CTV news pages:



> Monday Night Game:Late in the third period of a 'nothing - nothing' game, and behind on shots on goal, Harper intercepts a left wing pass deep in his own end and streaks up the ice. Inexplicably, the opposing defencemen are both on the left side of the rink and seem more interested in jockeying for position and playing to the fans than watching the puck. As Harper crosses centre the media goes wild and howls in amazement as he bears down on the net.. With a feint to the left and a quick deke to the right Harper shifts to his backhand and HE SHOOTS! HE ...............


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2011)

A prediction about the NDP "Surge"

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-dawn-for-ndp.html



> *A new dawn for the NDP?*
> 
> This election has turned fascinating really quickly. The upsurge of the NDP especially in Quebec could be a new dawn for this old but untested federal party. We could be witnessing a reordering of Canada’s political parties as Bloc voters consider abandoning the socialistic nationalism of the BQ for the nationalistic socialism of the NDP.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2011)

I'm just speculating here and will admit, since voting Friday I really haven't paid much attention.

I have no views on this myself, but does anyone think the gains made by the NDP in Quebec, may be at a cost to their supporters elsewhere.

Meaning, will their non Quebec supporters shift because they see the NDP pandering to Quebec and not addressing their long standing support. Is it possible they will abandon the NDP because they are as tired of the constant whining from Quebec as the rest of the country and now see their boss courting them?

I don't know if this is even a serious rub. Just something that crossed my mind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm just speculating here and will admit, since voting Friday I really haven't paid much attention.
> 
> I have no views on this myself, but does anyone think the gains made by the NDP in Quebec, may be at a cost to their supporters elsewhere.
> 
> ...




It's a good point - Layton is appealing, directly, to the _QC nationalist_ sector and that may help explain why his popularity is growing in QC but is stagnant in ON.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a good point - Layton is appealing, directly, to the _QC nationalist_ sector and that may help explain why his popularity is growing in QC but is stagnant in ON.



Mind you, Ontario still remembers Rae days and other fun frolics from having an NDP government provincially; it will be another decade before that fades and the NDP can regain its footing, federally and provincially, in Ontario.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Apr 2011)

Well whatever he is doing in Quebec, bravo!  I am pleased as punch to see the BQ getting the shit kicked out of them.  I hope Jack breaks their backs so they can wither on the vine.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Apr 2011)

DAP:


> Mind you, Ontario still remembers Rae days and other fun frolics from having an NDP government provincially



David, does Ontario know what a Liberal provincial government is giving them right now?


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> DAP:
> David, does Ontario know what a Liberal provincial government is giving them right now?



The current Ontario provincial government, as flakey and FUBARish as it is, is a vast improvement of Bob Rae's administration which combined third world fiscal probity and administrative competence with second world political and economic philosophy and first world smugness.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Apr 2011)

OK, compared to the previous Conservative provincial government.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Apr 2011)

Found in today's TO Star: 

John Francis Bolan   |   Visit Guest Book 
BOLAN, John Francis - Passed away on Thursday, April 21, 2011 in his 79th year at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre with his family beside him. John, beloved husband of Bernice (nee Hannan) for 49 years. Dear father of Anne and her husband Duncan Bell, John and his wife Pamela, Mary and her husband Chris Bayley and his beloved Patrick. Grandfather of Matthew, Andrew, Brian, Christopher and Charlotte. The family will receive friends at the HUMPHREY FUNERAL HOME - A.W. MILES CHAPEL, 1403 Bayview Avenue (south of Davisville Avenue) on Sunday, April 24 from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Mass of Christian Burial will be conducted at ST. ANSELM'S CHURCH, 1 MacNaughton Road, Toronto on Monday, April 25 at 11:00 a.m. In lieu of flowers, please vote LIBERAL. If desired, donations to Sunnybrook Cardiac ICU, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5 would be appreciated by the family. Condolences and memories may be forwarded through www.humphreymiles.com


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2011)

My condolances on the loss of their loved one, but how absolutely crass can you get?


----------



## Dissident (25 Apr 2011)

Why do I feel like sending flowers with a card:"Sorry, I vote Conservative."


----------



## REDinstaller (25 Apr 2011)

Wow, How can you stoop that low to push politics with the death of a loved one.


----------



## Haletown (25 Apr 2011)

Probably foreshadowing for the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Why do I feel like sending flowers with a card:"Sorry, I vote Conservative."



I'd pitch in for this.


----------



## REDinstaller (25 Apr 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Probably foreshadowing for the Liberal Party of Canada.



Now wouldn't that be the kick in the butt that Iggy deserves.


----------



## 57Chevy (25 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a good point - Layton is appealing, directly, to the _QC nationalist_ sector and that may help explain why his popularity is growing in QC but is stagnant in ON.



Poll: NDP moves ahead of Liberals in 'astonishing shift'
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Poll+moves+ahead+Liberals+astonishing+shift/4672517/story.html#ixzz1KaBXIHd8

The NDP has steamrollered over the Liberal party to land in second place nationally behind the front-running Conservatives, results of a new poll suggest.

The EKOS-iPolitics.ca survey of more than 3,000 Canadians finds 28 per cent of decided voters now support the NDP, compared with 23.7 per cent who plan to vote Liberal. The Conservatives hold less than a six-point lead, sitting with 33.7 per cent support, with just one week to go before election day.

Pollster Frank Graves calls it an unprecedented turn and "astonishing shift" for the NDP, which has traditionally trailed the two other main federal parties. Leader Jack Layton's popularity is climbing most dramatically in Quebec, but building momentum in all regions of the country, according to the poll's results.

More at link...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2011)

For its own fiscal and governmental well-being, Canada needs the Liberals to be soundly beaten and the Conservatives to win a majority.  The pressing reason for a majority is to render the Bloc ineffectual and unimportant so that Quebeckers are encouraged to resume voting for candidates of truly national parties if they want a voice in Parliament; realistically at this time, that can only be a Conservative majority.  The pressing reason for a heavy defeat of the Liberals is so that they stop wasting time chasing a weak minority diluted by the NDP and focus on crafting a platform that will be worthy of their own majority when the Conservatives have had a fair run.

People enamoured of the "ABC" notion are, except for the separatists and sh!t-disturbers, shooting their own feet and reloading.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a good point - Layton is appealing, directly, to the _QC nationalist_ sector and that may help explain why his popularity is growing in QC but is stagnant in ON.



Good point.  Except for a couple of articles in the National Post, I don't think anyone else (media/CPC/Liberals) has commented on the possibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2011)

And speaking of unsupported assumptions as discussed in the Media Bias thread, see this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/terra-incognita-poll-projects-100-seats-for-surging-ndp/article1998361/ 


> *EKOS SURVEY*
> ‘Terra incognita’: Poll projects 100 seats for surging NDP
> 
> PATRICK BRETHOUR
> ...




Now, it's a big poll but it is not clear to me that it is not extrapolating QC support and a _general_ feeling of “love” for Jack Layton into number that cannot and will not materialize on 2 May 11.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Apr 2011)

Anyone who truly believes that the NDP will rise to 100 while the Bloc falls to 14 is on glue!


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Apr 2011)

Don't forget, Jack and his Olivia live on a million of tax payers dollars a year.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/25/terence-corcoran-just-a-smiling-jack-in-the-box/

*Just a smiling Jack-in-the-box*

Terence Corcoran - Apr 25, 2011 

What an election! Full of surprises. Two days ago the Tories were said to be heading for a majority. Now everyone’s going gaga over the “surge” in support for Jack Layton. Michael Ignatieff, as a result, has become the Liberal doormat in Mr. Layton’s entry into the halls of power in Ottawa.

The New Democrats’ spin machine, which can usually convince a flock of media types to jump into the wash cycle, has scrubbed up Mr. Layton as a smiling, fun-loving optimistic political good guy, a bright alternative to the deadwood in the other parties, possibly even prime-ministerial. The election, said NDP strategist Brian Topp, is “a choice between three angry, threatened men and a relaxed, smiling, positive national leader — in some ways, the only real national leader running in this election.”

Whatever that means, the Layton makeover as a solid policy optimist is temporarily one of the accepted realities in the election campaign — a notional reality that flies in direct contradiction of Mr. Layton’s actual role in Canadian politics as a policy Jack-in-the-box who has lent his support to a succession of questionable policy balloons.

The latest Layton jump-up is to throw the NDP behind some kind of constitutional fix for Quebec so as to improve Quebec’s standing within Confederation. Whatever that means, Mr. Layton appears to be trolling for separatist support, a leadership gambit that should come as no surprise to those of us who have tracked Mr. Layton over the years.

Exactly how many Canadians actually want to turn over a major power role in Ottawa to one of the most off-the-wall grandstanding left-wingnuts of our time — an opportunistic word machine who couldn’t get himself elected mayor of Toronto when he tried two decades ago?

Mr. Layton is said to be unswervingly positive and optimistic, which may a personal tic that is easy to pull off when your basic political approach is to endorse impractical and economically loopy policies as if they were perfectly logical and doable. Can credit-card interest rates be controlled at 5 percentage points above prime? Big smile: You bet. Can Ottawa rake in $7-billion in revenue from a carbon cap-and-trade scheme by 2014? Big smile: No problem.

Mr. Layton is said to have deep experience in municipal government, a technical statement that ignores Mr. Layton’s record. When he ran for mayor of Toronto in 1991, Mr. Layton famously produced 300 election promises with a price tag of $1-billion. His backers attempted to scale down his campaign excesses with claims that, at heart, Mr. Layton remained an all-round good fellow who would maintain racial harmony and uphold environmental standards. He lost.

As a Toronto city councillor, Mr. Layton tracked consistently to the NDP left. A good indicator of Mr. Layton’s political ethics shows up in his role as a creator of Toronto’s notorious Tent City protest. In 1998, Mr. Layton convinced a group of youths who were living in a derelict building in the city’s old port lands to move to a vacant lot next door that was slated for retail development by Home Depot. A few months later, Mr. Layton delivered some donated tents to the site, launching Tent City, a three-year occupation that grew to include hundreds of politically and emotionally distressed people — all to prevent a big-box retail development near Toronto’s waterfront.

Opposition to real estate development is one thing. Using and manipulating lost souls to achieve that objective suggests a dubious willingness to take advantage for political gain. Just flash a smile.

Mr. Layton, from his first days in politics in the 1980s, maintained a classic left-wing anti-corporate and ultra-green political stance and a sterling record as a promoter of the unworkable and impractical. Over the years he has proposed exports taxes on oil to the United States, price controls on gasoline in Canada, using the Canada Pension Plan to fund infrastructure, and pushed for new government spending on day care, drug care, tuition care, windmill care, house care — nothing is outside the scope of government expansion.

The NDP’s flimsy 25-page election platform contains at least 16 pictures of Mr. Layton in a grin bigger than Brian Mulroney’s chin. Few people have looked at the platform, a Laytonian laundry list of plans and schemes that would lock Ottawa into decades of expanding programs. The green initiatives alone number 17, including $50-million for something called “Local Food: From Farm to Market.” Total cost by 2014 is $6.2-billion per year for the green package alone, to be paid for with $7.4-billion in revenue from a fantasy federal cap-and-trade carbon control scheme.

Mr. Layton’s team now admits that there is no chance such a cap-and-trade plan will be brought in soon, for economic and constitutional reasons. Other revenue-grabbing plans — higher corporate taxes and something called a “Tax Haven Crackdown” are expected to be generating another $15-billion for Mr. Layton’s coffers by 2014. Unworkable? Not according to our smiling Jack-in-the-Box.


----------



## Kalatzi (26 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Don't forget, Jack and his Olivia live on a million of tax payers dollars a year.
> 
> I assume that you refer to the taxes reqwuired to pay their salaries?
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2011)

This story from today's National Post, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, notes differeent accounts by Mister Ignatieff of an incident he was involved in while in the Balkans. The differences may be in the telling, with the earlier account less favourable to the UN and the CF, but that is a matter for interpretation.

Ignatieff gives conflicting reports on time in Serbia

Sarah Boesveld Apr 25, 2011 – 6:11 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 25, 2011 10:01 PM ET


Michael Ignatieff has given conflicting accounts of an encounter with Serbian paramilitaries in the Balkans during the 1990s; the one recounted during a town-hall meeting on Sunday starkly different from the one in his 1994 book Blood and Belonging.

“I’m not sure I was ever in big deal danger, I don’t want to overdo this, but it is frightening to be shot at,” the former BBC war correspondent said at the Sunday event, before describing how a Canadian soldier bravely rescued him and his documentary film crew from drunk paramilitaries. “That peacekeeper from Moncton, N.B., who maybe saved my life, is my example of how Canada ought to be in the world,” he said.

The story also appears in Blood and Belonging, but with stark differences: The Canadian soldiers are “anxious adolescents” who were “breathing heavily” when they tried to stop one of the Serbians from hijacking Mr. Ignatieff’s car.

A Serbian militaryman arrested them all anyway and Mr. Ignatieff presumed a local Serbian warlord had bailed them out — not the Canadian peacekeepers.

“Mr. Ignatieff is telling the same story about how a Canadian soldier stopped a van from being driven off by Serbian paramilitaries. The retellings have a slightly different emphasis as they are seeking to make a different point,” said Liberal Party spokesman Marc Roy.

Mr. Ignatieff had a long and distinguished career as a journalist before accepting a job at Harvard University. He worked for the BBC as a war correspondent and later as a general broadcaster for the network, introducing human rights documentaries and other programs. His official biography says he witnessed the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide as a journalist, documented the “chaos” of the former Yugoslavia and “the shadow of tyranny” in Iran.

Mr. Ignatieff was also accused on the campaign trail of giving separate stories to different audiences earlier in his career. At a campaign stop in southeastern Ontario earlier this month, Mr. Ignatieff was asked to clarify whether he voted in the United States or in Britain, a question born from a 2004 quote from Mr. Ignatieff in which he said “I am an American Democrat. I will vote for [John] Kerry in November.” The quote was unearthed by the Conservatives in this election in their efforts to suggest his personal ambitions trump the interests of the country. Mr. Ignatieff insisted he voted in the British election as a Commonwealth citizen, noting that he cannot vote in the U.S.

Mr. Ignatieff’s account on the televised townhall:


I spent the 1990s mostly as a war correspondent working for the BBC and the CBC. I’m not sure I was ever in big deal danger, I don’t want to overdo this, but it is frightening to be shot at. I had one experience also of crossing a checkpoint and just after I came past the checkpoint, this was in the Balkans, a bunch of paramilitaries all liquored up and drunk as skunks grabbed me out of the van, grabbed my crew out of the van, they were going to take us away. And just as they were about to drag us out of the van, a Canadian soldier appeared out of nowhere, he had been at the checkpoint. He rushed up, put his hand through the window of the bus, pulled out the keys and said ‘We’re going to do this my way.’ I’ve never forgotten that and then he clicked his carbine so there’d be no mistake. Paramilitaries let, let us go. But that peacekeeper from Moncton, N.B., who maybe saved my life is my example of how Canada ought to be in the world. We oughta be out there on the front lines making sure people don’t kill each other. It’s a good thing for Canada to do. We’re respected, we’re trusted and we’re darned good soldiers. That’s the kind of vision I have for the country.
. 
Mr. Ignatieff’s account from his 1994 book Blood and Belonging:


The UN checkpoint was a sandbagged Portakabin manned by two Canadian infantrymen guarding a road barrier between the Croat-and-Serb-held sections of Pakrac, in central Croatia … the UN had just waved us through into Serb-held territory when fifteen armed Serbian paramilitaries surrounded our van. They had been drinking at a wedding in their village. The drunkest one, with dead eyes and glassy, beaded skin, forced the van door open and clambered in. “We watching you,” he said, making binocular gestures with his hands. “You talk to Ustashe,” and he pointed back at the Croatians hiding in the grass. Then he took the pistol out of his belt. “You fucking spies,” he said. He ordered the driver out at gunpoint, took the wheel, and began revving the engine … The Serb put the van into gear and it was moving off when one of the UN soldiers yanked open the door, grabbed the keys, and shut off the ignition. “We’ll do this my way,” the UN soldier said, breathing heavily, half pulling, half cajoling the Serb out of the driver’s seat. Another young Serb in combat gear pushed his way into the van and shook his head. “I am police. You are under arrest. Follow me.” This was the moment, in my journeys in search of the new nationalism, in which I began to understand what the new world order actually looks like: paramilitaries, drunk on plum brandy and ethnic paranoia, trading shots with each other across a wasteland; a checkpoint between them, placed there by something loftily called “the international community,” but actually manned by just two anxious adolescents; and a film crew wondering, for a second or two, whether they were going to get out alive … The paramilitaries took us to the police station in the village, where the chief spent an hour establishing to his satisfaction that because our translator’s grandfather had been born on the Croatian island of Krk, he must be a Croatian spy. But then a telephone call arrived, instructing the chief to release us. No one would say who had given the orders. It appeared to have been the local Serb warlord.
.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Rifleman62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Kalatzi,

Once more, you can't expect people to discuss your points, if they can't figure out what your question is.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Apr 2011)

This is a follow up to E.R. Campbell's post projecting 100 seats for the NDP. A scary prospect. 



> link
> 
> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is expected to heighten his attacks on NDP rival Jack Layton on the campaign Tuesday amid *polls suggesting Layton's party has surpassed the Liberals nationally with only six days to the election. *  Speaking at a town hall meeting in Vancouver Monday night, Ignatieff blasted the "fine print" in the NDP platform.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

Surprise, surprise!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/25/18063366.html?cid=rssnewspolitics



> *Are taxpayers footing bill to elect Liberals?*
> 
> By Mark Dunn, QMI Agency
> (QMI Agency)
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

A *big* shift is _projected_, today, in this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, and it's bad news for the Conservatives:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Holy shift, _Batman_; the _Dippers_ are doing a real number on the Conservatives – who, as I mentioned before – need to hold on to all the 150± seats in which they *had* a lead last week *and* take away another half dozen or so from the Liberals and NDP.

But: see Harold Wilson, again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There is almost a “long time” to go before campaigning ends late next Sunday night.
                                                Former UK Prime Minister
                                                Harold Wilson who said:
                                                _"A week is a long time
                                                in politics."_


----------



## Dissident (26 Apr 2011)

I don't get it though, something must be rotten. How can votes go straight from the Conservatives to the NDP?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And speaking of unsupported assumptions as discussed in the Media Bias thread, see this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/terra-incognita-poll-projects-100-seats-for-surging-ndp/article1998361/
> 
> Now, it's a big poll but it is not clear to me that it is not extrapolating QC support and a _general_ feeling of “love” for Jack Layton into number that cannot and will not materialize on 2 May 11.



Remember, that caveat at the end of the polls; "_*Right 19 out of 20 times*_." Its possible that we are now seeing one of those polls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

According to _ThreeHundredEight.com_ there are still 14 ridings in ON and QC where the 'spread' between the Tory and the nearest candidate is less than 5%, which, given the size of samples, is a statistical dead heat:

(Ridings are colour coded according to party that currently has the lead.
_Ontario_
Ajax-Pickering
Brampton-Springdale
Brampton West
Guelph
Kingston and the Islands
Kitchener Centre
Kitchener-Waterloo
Mississauga-Erindale
Oak Ridges-Markham
Sault Ste Marie
Vaughn
Welland
_Québec_
Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup
Pontiac

A majority is, however, now much harder: the Conservatives must hold today's 146 and gain all eight of those 14 close races in which they do not, already, lead and get one more close race - maybe Burnaby-Douglas or Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca in BC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I don't get it though, something must be rotten. How can votes go straight from the Conservatives to the NDP?




The Tories are, according to the article, equal opportunity losers: they lost seats to both the Liberals and NDP in BC, ON and QC. The NDP picked up seats from the Conservatives, Liberals and BQ.

But, as I mentioned above, there are still a lot of statistical ties out there - because the poll samples are too small at the individual riding level.


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I don't get it though, something must be rotten. How can votes go straight from the Conservatives to the NDP?


While that is not inconceivable, it is also not necessarily happening.  It is possible that the Conservatives lost support to the Liberals primarily in ridings where only the NDP was a strong contender.  It is conceivable that the Conservatives have been bleeding support into both the Liberals and the BQ while those parties have been bleeding even faster to the NDP and Greens.  It is also possible that some people previously saw the Conservatives as the only viable option for an anti-Ignatieff vote but are now seeing potential in something more in-line with their traditional leanings.  It is probably actually some combination of the above, and the impact of statistical variance.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2011)

I may be whistling past the graveyard, but seat prediction is a bit of a black art. There are often too many variables and too small a sample. This poll reminds me of a sudden sitrep reporting the enemy has broken through and is overrunning our forward positions. Let's take a wait and see attitude. This poll may be accurate and the NDP support certainly is rising, but let's see what happens as other polls, especially Nanos, appear over the next few days. Note that Nanos did not poll last night, so this poll lacks independent confirmation. Suddenly adding one set of results that suggest a sudden shift in opinion may skew results.

A great deal of this is based on a huge jump in support for the NDP in Quebec. Will this translates into a jump in seats?

Last, let's not forget the "Flora factor." In the convention that picked Joe Clark as the PC leader, Flora Macdonald thought she was in a very good position to make a run for the top job. Her supporters had canvassed delegates and believed she would do very well on the balloting. To her and their shock, the voting went very much against her, and she eventually crashed and burned. It was suggested that delegates either told her people what they wanted to her, while intending to vote against her, or they had second thoughts when voting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) 0of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, are two interesting opinion pieces from commentators with whom I fairly often agree:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/What+Harper+might+with+majority/4673933/story.html 


> Andrew Cohen: What Harper might do with a majority
> 
> By Andrew Cohen, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...



And:​
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/election+could+bring+changes/4673932/story.html 


> William Watson: A ho-hum election could bring big changes
> 
> By William Watson, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




Now, while I would not be so bold as to predict what Stephen Harper will do with a majority, I cannot fault Cohen's _projection_: 

_” ... appoint more conservative judges, deny funding to liberal-minded non-governmental organizations like Planned Parenthood, abolish the gun registry and get tough on crime ... shrink the size of government [by] slashing the public service, starving (or selling) the CBC, and privatizing government services ... lower taxes and explore ways to empower the individual ... reform the Senate ... offer the provinces new authority, including Ottawa's residual powers. While he is unlikely to initiate constitutional reform [thereby making] the national government to be less national ... Canada will continue to regard the United Nations suspiciously ... no return to peacekeeping ... or [to] a human security agenda. Military spending will rise while international assistance is reassessed. A foundering CIDA will be reorganized, even abolished ... pursue a new deal with the United States on border and security issues ... build on new free trade with Europe [and] Canada will remain Israel's best friend.”_


Like Watson, I think the NDP's shellacking of the BQ is a good thing. I also think it will be good for the _Dippers_ in a way they do not expect: it will force them to make some serious political and economic policy choices. They will remain a left of centre party, which does, as Watson says, “fit” with Québec, but they will have to manage Québec's never ending demands with the views in their Western base.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2011)

If Westmount - Ville-Marie goes NDP it's the beginning of a fascinating dynamic - the loss of the Montreal Anglo unwavering support to the Liberal Party.  The repercussions will be felt in subsequent elections - because suddenly there's a bunch of other ridings on the Island of Montreal that are in play for other parties; right now, the NDP and Conservatives make nice noises but don't make dedicated efforts for those ridings, as they're seen as too far gone.

I have to wonder - if we could bring back Nick Auf Der Maur into NDG this time like in 1984 (as a Tory, no less!) would Marlene Jennings be running scared?  (And try to imagine Nick as a Tory under Stephen Harper's somewhat directive communications approach).


(Edit: Typos)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Apr 2011)

DP, I hope you remembered that Nick has been dead 12 years now!


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> DP, I hope you remembered that Nick has been dead 12 years now!



His attendance would still be comparable to that of several other Honorable Members; it's certainly cut down on his smoking, and he's still more likely to make intelligent commentary than many other Honorable Members.


Perhaps we need a referral to the Supreme Court to address this obvious discrimination on the basis of vitality status - why not let the dead run for Parliament?


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2011)

At the very least, he can still vote Liberal.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> His attendance would still be comparable to that of several other Honorable Members; it's certainly cut down on his smoking, and he's still more likely to make intelligent commentary than many other Honorable Members.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need a referral to the Supreme Court to address this obvious discrimination on the basis of vitality status - why not let the dead run for Parliament?



Perhaps we call it The Zombie Party?


----------



## Dissident (26 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Perhaps we call it The Zombie Party?



Shirts already available:
http://www.zazzle.com/kids_zombie_party_tshirt-235074683583691944


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> While that is not inconceivable, it is also not necessarily happening.  It is possible that the Conservatives lost support to the Liberals primarily in ridings where only the NDP was a strong contender.  It is conceivable that the Conservatives have been bleeding support into both the Liberals and the BQ while those parties have been bleeding even faster to the NDP and Greens.  It is also possible that some people previously saw the Conservatives as the only viable option for an anti-Ignatieff vote but are now seeing potential in something more in-line with their traditional leanings.  It is probably actually some combination of the above, and the impact of statistical variance.



All these variables make the polls, as Old Sweat says, a black art.  I'm not convinced Harper is bleeding like the Libs/BQ are to the NDP.  It appears that everything here is a fragmentation of the left as the post-Chretien flirtation with leaving the center behind comes to a sputtering halt.  All the pieces seem to be slowly moving to Jack Layton as the most likely leader able to get anything done for that end of the political spectrum.

My scientific wild-ass guess is look for a lot of "up the middle" wins for the Cons, possibly enough to put them in majority territory.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Apr 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My scientific wild-*** guess is look for a lot of "up the middle" wins for the Cons, possibly enough to put them in majority territory.



 :nod:


----------



## GR66 (26 Apr 2011)

I still shake my head at the thought that the Conservatives are in a serious dog fight for a majority when their opposition consists of one of the least charismatic and least trusted party leaders in modern Canadian political history (leading a party that has no policies other than "we're not the Conservatives"), a socialist that can't even begin to answer the very obvious questions about where the money to pay for his promises will come from, and a seperatist party from a province that is a net benefactor of federal tax money!

This election has always been the PM's to lose and to my mind another minority government definitely counts as a loss.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2011)

I wouldn't sweat the 308 shift.  At the eleventh hour he revises his model...... At which point he needs to show both models: the old one carried forward withouth change and the new one reworked backwards to demonstrate the trend.  Otherwise he has just produced a "hide the decline" shift where a different reference is substituted at the end.

The problem is compounded by the inclusion of the Ekos poll which seems to be outside the norms detected by other pollsters.

Emphasising an outlier and adjusting your model does not good statistics make.


----------



## Redeye (26 Apr 2011)

I think it's more a commentary on the Prime Minister and his party than on the Liberals or NDP.  It seems he has failed to convince enough people that he deserves a majority government, and the fact that he can do so without any particularly credible opposition is quite a statement. 

"We're not the Conservatives" incidentally seemed to be a good enough policy statement to propel the Liberals into office for quite a few years under Chretien.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> I still shake my head at the thought that the Conservatives are in a serious dog fight for a majority when their opposition consists of one of the least charismatic and least trusted party leaders in modern Canadian political history (leading a party that has no policies other than "we're not the Conservatives"), a socialist that can't even begin to answer the very obvious questions about where the money to pay for his promises will come from, and a seperatist party from a province that is a net benefactor of federal tax money!
> 
> This election has always been the PM's to lose and to my mind another minority government definitely counts as a loss.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

And perhaps a bit of comfort for people contemplating Jack Layton as Prime Minister:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-dawn-for-ndp.html



> *A new dawn for the NDP?*
> 
> This election has turned fascinating really quickly. The upsurge of the NDP especially in Quebec could be a new dawn for this old but untested federal party. We could be witnessing a reordering of Canada’s political parties as Bloc voters consider abandoning the nationalistic socialism of the BQ for the  socialistic nationalism of the NDP.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I still shake my head at the thought that the Conservatives are in a serious dog fight for a majority when their opposition consists of one of the least charismatic and least trusted party leaders in modern Canadian political history (leading a party that has no policies other than "we're not the Conservatives"), a socialist that can't even begin to answer the very obvious questions about where the money to pay for his promises will come from, and a seperatist party from a province that is a net benefactor of federal tax money!
> 
> This election has always been the PM's to lose and to my mind another minority government definitely counts as a loss.



Although Mr. Harper does have presence, he comes off as a cold fish on TV. Most voters can't get past that, when you compare him with a more dynamic, engaging Jack Layton.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Although Mr. Harper does have presence, he comes off as a cold fish on TV. Most voters can't get past that, when you compare him with a more dynamic, engaging Jack Layton.


I don't believe that "most voters" have actually seen Harper speak on TV or in public, with most being too lazy to inform themselves of even the basic campaign issues and policies. 

For the masses of sheeple, from what I overheard while waiting in line at the Advance Poll and around town, "we're not the Conservatives" is as close to political thinking as many get.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Although Mr. Harper does have presence, he comes off as a cold fish on TV. Most voters can't get past that, when you compare him with a more dynamic, engaging Jack Layton.



Yes.  But would you seriously buy a car from Jack Layton?  I'd ask for a second opinion from another mechanic, if I was ever in that car lot.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

Yes, the almighty "image" problem.

I have had occasion to see both the Prime Minister and Young Dauphin in person, and believe me, their impressions in person are 3200 mils from what we are shown on TV....

If we could only get everyone in Canada to meet them in person, we would not have to worry about a CPC majority   ;D OR the political future of the Young Dauphin  > ...


----------



## Pencil Tech (26 Apr 2011)

I can't wait to hear what some of the Harper cheerleaders around here have to say when he scraps the PLD.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2011)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I can't wait to hear what some of the Harper cheerleaders around here have to say when he scraps the PLD.



PLD, as far as I know, is not controlled by the PM. Am I right or right out of it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2011)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I can't wait to hear what some of the Harper cheerleaders around here have to say when he scraps the PLD.



You mean when the Treasury Board, which seems to answer to no one, scraps it. Let's put the blame proper. Otherwise you risk sounding like one of those misinformed, too lazy to research, politically ignorant anti Harper screech monkeys.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

I hope the Conservative _tacticians_ are taking a close look at the 2004 general election.

In the 5th week the polls predicted a real cliff-hanger; it looked like a toss-up between a Conservative or Liberal minority. Then Paul Martin pulled the thing out of the fire in the last week - over the last week-end, actually. He made a frantic, almost mad dash across Canada - stumping five or six riding in two or three provinces each day. Harper relaxed. My assessment is that many, many Canadian voters saw that Martin really wanted the PM's job; he wanted Canadians' votes and Harper was taking them for granted.

On the day the 5th week polls were wrong: Martin beat Harper by over 800,000 votes and he got 135 seats to Harper's 99. I think that frenetic long weekend was a major factor in Martin's success.

In 2011 three long, hard days (this coming Fri, Sat, Sun) in NL, NB, QC, ON and BC - ending up, Sunday evening, in Calgary, might save the Conservatives from an embarrassing finish, _might_ even produce a slim majority.

I think Canadians want their potential leaders to work for the job - that includes Stephen Harper.


----------



## Dissident (26 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You mean when the Treasury Board, which seems to answer to no one, scraps it. Let's put the blame proper. Otherwise you risk sounding like one of those misinformed, too lazy to research, politically ignorant anti Harper screech monkeys.



What he said.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Most voters can't get past that, when you compare him with a more dynamic, engaging Jack Layton.



Used car saleman dynamic though, he'll promise everything under the sun because he won't have to account for it later.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You mean when the Treasury Board, which seems to answer to no one, scraps it. Let's put the blame proper. Otherwise you risk sounding like one of those misinformed, too lazy to research, politically ignorant anti Harper screech monkeys.




There will be a new President of the Treasury Board (the cabinet minister in change) after the election because the current incumbent, Stockwell Day, is retiring. His deputy, Secretary of the Treasury Board, Michelle d'Auray will be looking for direction to shrink the costs of government and _allowances_ will come under scrutiny. It is unlikely that the military's PLD will be treated in isolation. Cost of living allowances for public servants in isolated posts and overseas will also have to be examined.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2011)

Treasury Board is a statutory committee of cabinet.  Thus, the Prime Minister should be held accountable for the decisions of his subordinates who sit and make decisions when acting as Treasury Board.

However, any complaints about possible future actions by possible future sittings of TB are quite premature.


(It should be noted, though, that the largest groups in the public service recently agreed to 1.75%, 1.5% and 2% pay increases for the next three years, and surrendered future accumulation of severance pay to get those increases.  Inflation is currently running 3.3%, so if the public service is seeing reductions in real wages, the military should also prepare for some belt-tightening in the near term.)


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2011)

This is just brilliant:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.




> Layton willing to reopen Constitution, but not right away
> Tuesday, April 26, 2011 | 4:28 PM
> 
> 
> ...



Video on LINK 



Does Used Car Salesman come to mind ?


----------



## mariomike (26 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Although Mr. Harper does have presence, he comes off as a cold fish on TV. Most voters can't get past that, when you compare him with a more dynamic, engaging Jack Layton.



Through my employment, I met Councillor Layton from time to time going back 30 years. Makes me feel old seeing him on TV now.
This is not a political opinion. Just agreeing with your post, based on what I remember, before he went into federal politics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting analysis of the Liberals' dilemma:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-implores-canadians-to-return-to-the-centrist-fold/article1999515/ 


> Ignatieff implores Canadians to return to the centrist fold
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> VANCOUVER— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




First: Ignatieff is right – Canadians are, by and large, centrist and that accounts for King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Chrétien and Martin, decades of Liberal government.

Second: Ibbitson is wrong – the centre is not evaporating, it is still there but _Prince Michael_ and the Liberal Party of Toronto abandoned it and Harper and his legions from the small towns and suburbs and the West moved in.

Third: This is the crux of the matter – _”...   the Liberals are fighting to survive as the Official Opposition – a fight some polls say they are losing ... To fall into third place nationally would bring the very future of the Liberal Party into question.”_

Absent some (actually rather a lot of) divine intervention next week, Harper will be prime minister and it is unlikely that _Jack and Gilles_ will have much inclination to swap him for Ignatieff. That means Ignatieff will resign as Liberal Party leader and, most likely, we will see a pitched battle between Toronto and Montreal for the party's leadership.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _Wilfred Laurier University_'s LISPOP, is an analysis of the orange tsunami that I, personally, find a little more probable:

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog2011/?p=115#more-115 


> “Orange Surge” is no tsunami
> 
> April 25th, 2011
> 
> ...




This seems like a far more likely scenario: NDP with, say, 45 seats and the BQ with, say, 40. That leaves 223 seats for the Conservatives and Liberals to split. I agree with Geoffrey Stevens that the Liberals will not fall to their historic low (1984) of 40 seats, but I think (maybe I just hope) that they will fall a lot, to, say, just for the sake of argument, 68 (from 77 at dissolution). That leaves 155 for the Conservatives – the barest majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a new wrinkle: who are these guys and gals?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/jack-laytons-risky-potential-mps-in-quebec/article1999595/ 


> Jack Layton’s risky potential MPs in Quebec
> 
> ANDREW STEELE
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




We may have some real fun in 2011!


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Apr 2011)

I think we have to remember that today's numbers are a product of two low ball polls conducted for EKOS and Environics. Both have the Torries at 10 points lower than anyone else, thereby dragging the numbers down. Personally I think the "Orange Crush" is only inches deep. Not really a wave, more of a ripple.

Of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Apr 2011)

Further: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-candidate-takes-mid-campaign-vacation-in-vegas/article1999879/

Picture Caption: _NDP candidate Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who is running in the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinonge._

*NDP candidate takes mid-campaign vacation in Vegas*

OTTAWA — Globe and Mail Update - Bill Curry - Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:03PM EDT

Some NDP candidates in Quebec might be itching for a trip to Vegas given their sudden run of good luck in the polls.

One of them has already jumped the gun.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau is the party’s candidate in Berthier-Maskinongé, a riding north of the Saint Lawrence between Montreal and Trois-Rivières.

Until last week, she'd been working in Ottawa – about three hours away from the riding – as an assistant manager of Oliver's Pub, on the Carleton University campus.

And this week?

“She’s actually in Las Vegas,” says her boss, Rod Castro. When first asked about Ms. Brosseau’s candidacy, Mr. Castro told The Globe and Mail that there must be a mistake. But after looking her up online, he confirmed the candidate and his colleague are one and the same.

“This is all news to me,” he said, noting that she has never mentioned politics in the more than two years they have worked together as the bar’s only two full-time staff members.

Yet Ms. Brosseau and many other NDP candidates in Quebec may be in line for a ticket to the House of Commons next week, according to recent polls. An updated seat projection by EKOS predicts the NDP could win 51 of Quebec’s 75 seats.

That would mean victory for the party’s higher-profile candidates like former MP Françoise Boivin in Gatineau and actor Tyrone Benskin in Verdun, but it would also mean wins for candidates who are virtual unknowns and may not even live in the ridings they seek to represent.

NDP spokeswoman Kathleen Monk said Ms. Brosseau’s vacation was booked before the election was called.

“She couldn’t cancel her vacation at the last minute. She’s a single mother who booked an inexpensive fare,” Ms. Monk wrote in an e-mail, which did not address how much time the candidate has spent in the riding or why she was selected. “New Democrats try and encourage people to get involved in politics, and running in a riding where we are building for the future is an excellent way to get started.”

The vast majority of the party’s Quebec candidates don’t list any contact information with their profiles on the NDP sites. The slate of Quebec candidates includes union leaders, teachers and a Cree leader, Romeo Saganash.

Others are still in school.

Two candidates running for office are Charmaine Borg in Terrebonne-Blainville and Matthew Dubé in Chambly-Borduas. The two are co-presidents of the McGill NDP club. Mr. Dubé’s posts on Twitter are largely devoted to hockey, comic books and computer games, with the occasional forward of tweets by NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Another, Sana Hassainia, who is running for the NDP in Verchères-Les Patriotes, makes no mention on her Twitter page of her NDP connections, except when asked by others to confirm that she is in fact the NDP candidate.

The latest EKOS survey has the NDP polling at 38.2 per cent in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc Québécois at 24.4 per cent, the Conservatives at 19 per cent and the Liberals at 14.7 per cent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

The regional numbers are a subsection of a larger national survey of 2,532 Canadians conducted between April 23-25.

Mr. Graves, the EKOS pollster, said he does not think issues like on-the-ground organization or the quality of a local candidate will mater given the strength of support for the NDP in Quebec right now.

“I’m guessing that this is kind of pan-Quebec, it’s so strong,” he said. “The Bloc are going to lose a lot of seats.”

Mr. Layton has said his slate of Quebec candidates represents all parts of society and defended the fact that there are also some students representing the party. He noted that the party already has one of the youngest MP in the House of Commons: Niki Ashton, 29, of Manitoba.

“We need all sorts of people,” Mr. Layton told reporters in Montreal over the weekend. “I think that’s great for democracy.”

When asked Tuesday about the low number of NDP campaign offices in the province, Mr. Layton would only say they had several.

“We're using all the techniques to get out the votes. Sometimes we use offices, sometimes we use networks of volunteers,” he said.

This election is quite the change for habitual NDP candidates who have run and lost several times.

Philip Toone, a notary and teacher in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, has run and lost for the NDP in Quebec twice before. This time, he said, it is clearly different.

“It’s widespread and omnipresent,” he said of the NDP support in the riding. Mr. Toone is one of several NDP candidates who do not have a campaign office. There is no big machine to identify and get out the vote, but Mr. Toone doesn’t expect that will be a problem.

“As far as I can tell, I might very well have won it already,” he said.

For Mr. Castro, the NDP wave in Quebec could mean he’ll have to find a new assistant manager at Oliver’s – an election result he certainly wasn’t expecting.

“She’d requested vacation – which obviously we granted to her – and she said her plan was to go to Las Vegas,” he said of Ms. Brosseau, who could not be reached by The Globe. “That’s as much information as I knew.”


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2011)

The reason it is a dog fight is because the Bloc doesn't have to work too hard to take between one-half and two-thirds of the seats in Quebec (roughly one-eight to one-sixth of all seats in Canada, which is easily enough to make the difference between win/loss and majority/minority) out of play for the Big 3.  Customarily in a two-party system or even in our long-standing three-party tradition, a vote lost to one potential governing party usually means a vote gained for the other potential governing party (ie. a net two vote difference).  A vote for the Bloc is never a gain for a potential government party.  Too many people underestimate that subtle difference in arithmetic when criticizing the LPC and CPC, and particularly when criticizing Harper's "failure" to obtain a majority.  For those who think Chretien is a yardstick against which to measure Harper, what changed since Chretien was able to cruise to successive majorities on the backs of a split vote on the right is that the vote on the right became unsplit.  An appropriate comparison to Harper is Paul Martin, who didn't achieve very well against a reunified "right".  That is the reality faced by the CPC and the LPC until a majority government can consign the Bloc to irrelevancy for four or five years.

The Liberal seat count was not very high at dissolution - a  quarter of all the seats in Parliament for one of the Big 2; think about what that means - and is not predicted to increase, so there's the verdict on the state of the Liberal party and its leader.  People do think the Liberals currently stink; it's just harder to notice with the Bloc drawing a share of seats.

It is no statement at all that Harper finds it hard to convince people he deserves a majority.  First, there is the aforementioned reason: the bar for majority has been raised and was as far out of reach for someone with Martin's mythical reputation as a deficit-buster as it is for Harper.  Second, it is always harder to campaign with a record than to be able to offer sunshine and roses from the vacuous position of the opposition benches.  Third, many progressive voters and nearly all of the organized sh!t-disturbing left-of-centre partisans in Canada sometime between 1993 and 2006 failed to recognize that the splintering of the PC party was an unusual event and forgot that the natural and healthy state of two- or multi-party democracy is for different parties to hold a majority - as soon as the dust settled on the 2006 minority result they wanted back in the driver's seat, then and forever, and they have been yapping like toy dogs incessantly, wasting time, money, and the public's attention on mostly chickensh!t issues in the hopes of reconnecting themselves to the public teat.  The idea that we should no longer alternate between two if not three parties - more than any fiddling about by the CPC at the margins - is the single greatest threat to our democratic institutions.

Get rid of the Bloc.  Allow the CPC to govern with a majority for perhaps two terms out of five.  Those are the prescriptions for political and social health in Canada.  Anything else is ultimately a path to political fracture; there's no point remaining in a club which won't let you sit in the comfy chairs once in a while.


----------



## canada94 (27 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think we have to remember that today's numbers are a product of two low ball polls conducted for EKOS and Environics. Both have the Torries at 10 points lower than anyone else, thereby dragging the numbers down. Personally I think the "Orange Crush" is only inches deep. Not really a wave, more of a ripple.
> 
> Of course I could be wrong.



I agree I can't see the "NDP Rush" actually being anything serious. Especially in regards to becoming the Official opposition. 


ps. On a side note I wish other members (non- Conservatives) could speak their mind to! I would love to hear what they have to say.. which as far as my reading has gone I have not witnessed any.

Mike!


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

Thanks to _Gable_, in the _Globe and Mail_, for this:






Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-april-2011/article1966026/


----------



## Pencil Tech (27 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You mean when the Treasury Board, which seems to answer to no one, scraps it. Let's put the blame proper. Otherwise you risk sounding like one of those misinformed, too lazy to research, politically ignorant anti Harper screech monkeys.



That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Actually I do know something about it. TBS is answerable to cabinet and the chairman is a government minister and if Harper wants to find money somewhere, he will find it. Hope you don't live in Victoria or Toronto.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

Here is another site making predictions. Some happy making numbers....


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Apr 2011)

At the very least the Young Dauphin may well become the Young Pretender.

Nanos figures are just out, with the CPC at 38, the NDP at 28 and the Liberals at 23 or 24. I heard them on the radio, and will look for hard copies on line. Modified to add: I just found this story by Jane Taber which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:


Nanos Poll

Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch’ 


Jane Taber 

Globe and Mail Update 

Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:19AM EDT

Jack Layton’s NDP may simply switch places with Michael Ignatieff's Liberals in the House of Commons while the Stephen Harper’s Conservatives hold on to their minority government, according to the latest Nanos Research poll. 

Released Wednesday morning, the three-day rolling survey has the NDP firmly in second place with the Conservatives 10 points ahead – 37.8 per cent support for the Tories compared to 27.8 per cent for the NDP. The Liberals, meanwhile, are in uncharted waters, sliding downward night after night to 22.9 per cent support nationally. 

Nik Nanos, The Globe and Mail/CTV pollster, points to the record turnout at the advance polls as an indication voters are now lusting for change. 

“Canadians are getting off the political couch and going down the street to their local polling stations to try to shape the future in a little different way,” he says, noting this suggests a good turnout at the polls on May 2. 

“So what probably started off as a bit of a snoozer of an election turned out to be an election where the federal leaders engaged on health care. ... Jack Layton ran a relatively positive campaign and a good campaign and that was part of his differentiator.”

The NDP’s strength nationally is built on its unprecedented strength in Quebec, where the party has 36.5 per cent support compared to 24.2 per cent for the Bloc Québécois; the Liberals are 20.3 per cent and the Tories have 13.6 per cent support. The margin of error in the province is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 

“The Layton charisma caught on in the province of Quebec and it is starting to slowly spill over outside of Quebec,” says Mr. Nanos. 

And Mr. Nanos attributes a phenomenon he calls “old leader-itis” to the Bloc’s poor fortunes at present. He says the sovereigntist party’s support plummeted after Leader Gilles Duceppe campaigned earlier this week with former Parti Québécois premier Jacques Parizeau. 

Instead of bolstering his campaign it did the exact opposite. 

“Parading out Jacques Parizeau was probably the equivalent of bringing out one of the Four Horsemen of the separatist Apocalypse. It was a bit of a signal that maybe this was the beginning of the end for the Bloc.”

On Wednesday night, meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is campaigning in Toronto with former prime minister Jean Chrétien. 

“We’ll see what that effect that has,” Mr. Nanos says. “Bringing out past leaders might not necessarily be a way to bolster support. It might actually put a spotlight on a campaign to say, ‘This campaign is not going well.’”

Indeed, the campaign is not going well for the Liberals – especially in Ontario, where they have been trending downwards for the fourth night in a row. 

The Conservatives remain strong in the vote-rich province with 46.9 per cent support compared to 25.7 per cent for the Liberals, who had polled at 29.3 per cent only two days before. The NDP has 21 per cent support. The margin of error in Ontario is plus or minus 5.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 

“We have seen a bit of an uptick for the NDP in Ontario but still not the same kind of orange pick-up that we have seen in Quebec in other parts of the country,” Mr. Nanos says. But the NDP have surpassed the Liberals in the Prairies – although still far behind the Tories. 

Mr. Nanos says Canadians will not likely know for a couple of days whether these numbers will remain solid. After that, he says, it will be too late to stop these trends. 

The poll of 1,020 Canadians was conducted between April 23, 24 and 26. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

Please note that this three day tracking report is based on polling completed on April 23, 24 and 26. No calling was conducted by Nanos on Easter Monday and this track includes two days of calling from the holiday weekend plus calling on Tuesday. 

The Harper Conservatives maintain a 10 point lead but support for the NDP continues to trend up with the NDP in second, followed by the Liberals in third. 

Nationally, the Tories have 37.8% support, followed by the NDP at 27.8%, the Grits at 22.9%, the BQ at 5.8% and the Greens at 4.7%. 

Factoring the margin of error for the regional sub-samples, Atlantic Canada is a three-way tie. 

The NDP have a clear advantage over the BQ in Quebec. NDP support in Quebec stands at 36.5%, followed by the BQ at 24.2%, the Liberals at 20.3%, the Conservatives at 13.6% and the Greens at 2.0%. 

West of the Ottawa River the Tories continue to enjoy an advantage over the opposition parties. 

In Ontario, the Conservatives enjoy a comfortable lead over the Liberals and New Democrats (46.9%, 25.7% and 21.0% respectively) but Liberal support continues to trend down while NDP support moves up. 

Although the Tories have a 20 point advantage in the Prairies, the New Democrats have surpassed the Liberals in popular support in that region (CP 49.6%, NDP 28.2%, LP 17.7%, GP 3.8%). 

In British Columbia, the Tories are ahead with 40.9% support with the NDP and Liberals statistically tied (27.7% and 24.8% respectively). 

One of two Canadians continues to identify party platform as their top vote driver 49.2%, followed by party leaders at 24.0%. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 24th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1023). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200). 

Canada (n=1020 committed voters) 
Conservative 37.8% (-1.4) 
Liberal 22.9% (-2.7) 
NDP 27.8% (+4.2) 
Bloc Quebecois 5.8% (-0.7) 
Green 4.7% (+1.1) 

*Undecided 14.9% (+0.2) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 24th (n=1,200). 

Party Policies 49.2% (-0.9) 
Party Leader 24.0% (+0.7) 
Local Candidate 14.1% (-0.1) 
Traditionally Vote for Party 7.9% (-0.2) 
Unsure 4.7% (+0.4)


----------



## GR66 (27 Apr 2011)

It would be quite interesting if the election resulted in another minority Conservative government but with the NDP and Liberals switching positions and Jack Layton becoming the leader of the Official Opposition.

Would Ignatieff still support the idea that the leader of the opposition could form a government should the Conservatives be unable to maintain the confidence of the House?

I would suspect that the Liberals would seek to replace Ignatieff as quickly as possible and then give the Conservatives the chance to govern.  Being in 3rd place (or 4th depending on how the Bloc fares?) in opposition could actually be a big benefit to a Liberal party in the process of rebuilding.

They would have the freedom to oppose the Government whenever they choose leaving it up the the NDP and the Bloc to prop up the Conservative minority.  The NDP may not have much choice but to keep the Conservatives in power just like the Liberals did for the past few years.  They would risk losing their huge gains if they were seen as the reason that Canadians were forced to face another unwanted election so soon after this one.  

The Liberals would gain some intellectual maneuvering room by not being forced to vote in favour of policies which they publicly claim not to support.  They would also gain time to ease a new leader into his/her role and rebuild their finances.  The NDP on the other hand would now face much greater scrutiny and have to deal with the fact that they are claiming certain positions on one hand while voting in favour of the Conservatives on the other.  The NDP's only other alternative would be to force a new election and risk everything they've gained.   

The NDP resurgence could actually be a double-edged sword for the party.  Official opposition in a minority Conservative government could actually hurt them more than help them in the long term.  Probably better for them to be the official opposition to a Conservative majority so that they can retain some "idealogical purity" and try to consolidate the centre-left under their banner as the new alternative to the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ are the latest _projections_ and analysis:



> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is what the HoC would look like if this projections holds next Monday.
       PROJECTED CANADIAN PARLIAMENT


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hope the Conservative _tacticians_ are taking a close look at the 2004 general election.
> 
> In the 5th week the polls predicted a real cliff-hanger; it looked like a toss-up between a Conservative or Liberal minority. Then Paul Martin pulled the thing out of the fire in the last week - over the last week-end, actually. He made a frantic, almost mad dash across Canada - stumping five or six riding in two or three provinces each day. Harper relaxed. My assessment is that many, many Canadian voters saw that Martin really wanted the PM's job; he wanted Canadians' votes and Harper was taking them for granted.
> 
> ...




This graphic, from _threeHundredEight.com_ illustrates why Harper must make a late, almost frantic bid for votes.





Source: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JjB6YlLY2R8/TbcxY6O76MI/AAAAAAAAE8Y/wLFZ5o1n9-c/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG


The _trend_ on the graph, for the whole 2nd half of the campaign, is exactly what Stephen Harper does not want or need. Harper needs to reverse it, right now, by selling himself and his party and his policies, not by trashing Jack Layton (he can leave that to the Liberals and to a suddenly skeptical media).


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

Some election humour:

http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2011/04/you-just-keep-piling-it-up.html



> *Fire officials investigating foul stench downtown*
> 
> CP24 @ 11:30 a.m. - Tuesday April 26, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

I understand that in major media outlets a _specialist_, not the author, puts the headlines on stories. I wonder what the _Good Grey Globe_'s headline writer is thinking with these:

My *emphasis* added
Ignatieff *pleads* with Quebeckers, Rae and Dosanjh renounce NDP
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-pleads-with-quebeckers-rae-and-dosanjh-renounce-ndp/article2000418/ 

Ignatieff *implores* Canadians to return to the centrist fold
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-implores-canadians-to-return-to-the-centrist-fold/article1999515/ 

Ignatieff attack *backfires*, Layton numbers soar
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-audio/campaign-check-in-ignatieff-attack-backfires-layton-numbers-soar/article2000413/


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

I agree, only in part, with Senator (and former Vancouver mayor) Larry Campbell's assessment of the downstream impact of the NDP's rise, which he gives in the opinion piece, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/senator-says-it-might-be-time-for-liberal-ndp-merger/ 


> Senator says it might be time for Liberal-NDP merger
> 
> Postmedia News  Apr 26, 2011
> 
> ...




I know I'm repeating myself, but, I think this (a Liberal-NDP merger that, essentially creates two _national_ parties is Harper's aim and I believe it is a good idea – for Canada, not just for Conservatives.

I think such a merger is possible and will have this effect:

A hard left _rump_          A reinforced *Green Party*    A reduced _Bloc Québecois_,    A _New Liberal Party_ occupying the Left of Centre,   A reinvigorated *Conservative Party*  and a gaggle of _movements_ 
formed from the NDP  on the Left of Centre part    also on the Left of Centre   Centre Left and even parts of the Centre              reinforced, with displaced Liberals,            on the hard right
                                   of the political spectrum       part of the spectrum           of the spectrum                                                      on the Centre, Centre Right
                                                                                                                                                                                                         and Right of Centre area of the political spectrum


----------



## GR66 (27 Apr 2011)

I agree that an eventual merger of the Liberals and NDP into a single Centre/Left-of-Centre party which eliminates vote splitting and offers the possibility of alternating Centre-Right (Conservative) and Centre-Left (Liberal-Democrat) governments would be a good thing for Canada (as was the "Unite the Right" movement previously).

The results of this election though could have a major impact on if or when such a merger could happen.  If the Conservatives only manage a minority (or even a slim majority) I think that both the Liberals and NDP will see hope in the NEXT election and won't have any interest giving up the race.

If the NDP beats the Liberals (in either seats or popular vote) I don't think they'll have much interest in a merger since they'll be thinking that they will be able to simply replace the Liberals as the natural alternative to the Conservatives.

Until such time as the Conservatives can get enough support to form a firm majority government (with no obvious hope in sight of either the Liberals or New Democrats defeating them on their own) there won't be enough reason for the Red and Orange party faithful to throw in the towel.  They will have to see the writing on the wall of permanent opposition just as the PC's and Reformers did before they accept that a merger is the only logical solution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29 of the Copyright Act from Wilfred Laurier University's _LISPOP_ is their latest projection:

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/seatprojections.html





   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     147         60               69           32
     146            75                  43              43   _ThreeHundredEight.com_'s projections for comparison.

Most polls appear consistent on the slightly enhanced Conservative majority plurality. The questions are: how big is the NDP surge? can they displace the Liberals? and does Jack Layton move into Stornoway?

The big question is: what are the implications for the Conservatives? Will the opposition parties be able, much less willing, to join forces and defeat the Tories? My guess is no - and our next federal general election is in not before 2013.


Edit: I forgot to include the link and I corrected the error noted just below.  :-[  :-[


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2011)

Edward:  That's an increased plurality for the Conservatives, not a majority.


----------



## Dissident (27 Apr 2011)

Homer Simpson doing his best Jack Layton impression right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt0qeIrdRpk


----------



## observor 69 (27 Apr 2011)

You heard it here first ........  The Liberal Party will become the new Progressive Conservative Party.  :nod:


Or this:
   Akin: Liberal flop may reshape all parties   http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/26/liberal-disaster-may-reshape-all-parties


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Apr 2011)

Another poll, this time from The Hill Times, which shows a surging NDP. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. I find some of its predictions such as the one that the Bloc will be reduced to three seats dubious, but that may just be the cynic in me.


Grits set to lose long-held bastions in Montreal and Toronto to NDP, says dramatic new Forum Research poll
The Liberals are set to lose long-held bastions in Montreal and Toronto as the NDP closes in on becoming the official opposition with only four full days of campaigning, according to the results of a Forum Research poll conducted in collaboration with The Hill Times.

By Tim Naumetz

Published Apr 27, 2011 12:13 PM   
           
PARLIAMENT HILL—Liberals are set to lose long-held bastions in Montreal and Toronto as the NDP closes dramatically in on becoming the official opposition with only four full days of campaigning before the election on Monday, according to the results of a Forum Research poll conducted in collaboration with The Hill Times.

The survey conducted Tuesday night puts the NDP firmly in second place, barely behind the Conservative Party, as its support has continued to climb in regions across Canada following the stunning wave the party and its leader, Jack Layton, have generated in Quebec.

The poll of voting intentions of 3,150 Canadians gave the NDP 31 per cent support nationally, compared to 34 per cent for the Conservatives, who dropped by two percentage polls from the last Forum Research poll on April 21. Support for the Liberal Party, which may have hit rock bottom in the upheaval of the past two weeks, remained relatively unchanged, down to 22 per cent from 23 per cent on April 21.

With so little time left, and voter intentions firming up, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has urged voters to give him a stable majority government from the outset on March 26, will in the end have his minority government reduced by as many as 10 seats, to a possible 137, Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told The Hill Times.

Despite musing about the possibility of an NDP government, notably on the new Sun News Network, Mr. Bozinoff said though Mr. Layton and his NDP appear most likely to form the official opposition, they would need to convert seats in unlikely areas of the country to displace the governing party.

Mr. Bozinoff’s poll and analysis based on past results in key ridings would give the Conservatives 137 seats, the NDP 108 seats if an election were held today, 60 for the Liberals and only three seats for the Bloc Québécois. If these results hold, the seat projections would have a range of plus or minus 10 seats for each party, Mr. Bozinoff emphasized.

“Right now there’s a 30-seat difference, so the NDP would need 15 more seats to switch [with the Conservatives], and those seats are not going to be in Quebec, Quebec is done, I think pretty much,” he said. “So it’s 15 seats the NDP are going to be looking for in the rest of the country outside Quebec, I think that’s going to be tough for them to find those seats, because we’re really down to the hard core seats now.”

If the voting intentions hold, the Liberals stand to lose at least four of the party’s Montreal fortresses to the NDP, including Westmount-Ville Marie, where former astronaut Marc Garneau is battling for re-election; Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine, held by prominent Liberal Marlene Jennings since 1997; and perhaps even Papineau, another longtime Liberal seat where Justin Trudeau, son of Liberal icon Pierre Trudeau, who is struggling to keep a Commons seat. LaSalle-Émard, once held by former prime minister Paul Martin, is also set to fall to the NDP, Mr. Bozinoff told The Hill Times. Incumbent Liberal Lise Zarac is fighting to win the riding. 

Several Quebec Conservative seats and most Bloc Québécois seats are also set to be swamped by the surprising NDP wave in Quebec

An analysis based on the poll findings and voter intentions in key ridings across Canada show Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are set to lose three seats to the NDP in the Québec City region— Beauport-Limoilou, where Syvie Boucher, a prominent Tory, is fighting for re-election; Charlesbourg-Haute-Sainte-Charles, won by Daniel Petit, another Parliamentary secretary with the Harper government; and Pontiac, the West Quebec riding where one of Mr. Harper’s most high-profile MPs, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, is battling to win re-election. The Liberals are set to lose their long-held bastion of Hull-Aylmer across the Ottawa River from Parliament, held by Marcel Proulx, and Gatineau, where former Liberal MP Françoise Boisvin is set to oust Bloc Québécois incumbent Richard Nadeau.

In Ontario, although the NDP is set to win at least two Liberal seats in Toronto, Beaches-East York, held by Maria Minna, and Parkdale-High Park, where Liberal star Gerard Kenney is set to lose the riding back to New Democrat Peggy Nash, it is the Conservatives who are poised to gain from the Liberal implosion in the province. The poll results show the Conservatives are closing in on Eglinton-Lawrence, held by prominent Liberal Joe Volpe, a former leadership contender, since 1988, and at least four ridings from Liberals in the Greater Toronto Area.

In the Atlantic, Geoff Regan, the son of former Nova Scotia Liberal premier Gerald Regan, faces the prospect of losing his re-election bid in Halifax-West to the NDP. The NDP also stands to win South Shore-St. Margaret’s from Conservative Gerald Keddy and in Newfoundland and Labrador’s St. John’s-Mount Pearl, barely won by Liberal Siobhan Coady in 2008.

“With the NDP continuing to gain steam from coast to coast, and both the Liberal and Conservative parties’ support lagging, the key question now is whether the NDP have the ground troops to deliver their vote on election day,” Mr. Bozinoff said.

The results are based on an interactive voice response survey of 3,150 randomly-selected eligible voters across the country, on April 26, with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 per cent 19 times out of 20.

The poll found the Conservatives have lost ground to the NDP in the Atlantic region, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

Among voters aged 18 to 24, the NDP is most popular at 33 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 20 per cent and the Liberals at 18 per cent. It is possibly a crucial finding because of the dramatic rise in turnout for the advance polls conducted on the weekend, up 34 per cent from advance polls for the 2008 election. Support for the NDP is also highest among those aged 25 to 34, at 37 per cent. Conservative support peaks among voters aged 65 and over, at 45 per cent.

The poll found Mr. Layton’s leadership rating as a prospective Prime Minister has risen. Thirty-three per cent of the respondents said Mr. Layton would make the best Prime Minister, compared to 32 per cent for Mr. Harper and only 14 per cent for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.


----------



## Wookilar (27 Apr 2011)

That's great for the NDP, but like others have said, let's see what actually happens on election day.

How many 20 year-olds vote vs 60 year-olds?

Wook


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

I will be looking at the Weather network as well. A Conservative party activist who I know once told me the PC's and CPC pray for rain on election day, since NDP supporters typically stay home if the weather is bad. Maybe we could have fixed election dates in the middle of winter  >.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Apr 2011)

A story from the Canada Votes site that has Ignatieff talking about a NDP/Liberal merger is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright act. I'm not sure that a serious contender would say something like this, opposed, say, to a pathetic also ran who is looking for at the least a coalition or a serious agreement.

Ignatieff doesn’t shut door on possible NDP-Liberal merger

April 27, 2011. 1:41 pm • 

Posted by: 
Althia Raj

Michael Ignatieff leaves door open to merger

SAULT STE. MARIE, Ont. — Michael Ignatieff insists he is still in the race and believes Canadians will elect his party to form government Monday but if they don’t, he suggested Wednesday, he hasn’t shut the door on leading an effort to unite the country’s centre left.

“Once we have an election result, I’d deal with that eventuality when it arises,” he told reporters, after a townhall meeting with high school students in Sault Ste. Marie.

“But It’s very clear to me is that what is happening in the country is that two thirds of the country wants to get rid of Stephen Harper and so we will wait the result of the people,” the Liberal leader said.

Tuesday, Liberal Sen. Larry Campbell told Postmedia News if Harper was returned to power on May 2nd it could be time to discuss merging the NDP and the Liberals.

“I think this realization is coming along (to) a lots of parties,” he said in Vancouver.

“At the end of the day, I think if you take the Liberal and NDP and took a look at their major points, there is a lot of agreement there,” he said.

Ignatieff also told reporters he sees common sets of values between both parties.

“We have certain values that we have always shared and we’ve shared for 60 years,” Ignatieff said. “We share objectives with the NDP but for heaven’s sake contrast this,” he said holding his family-pack platform, “and what Mr. Layton is trying to offer to the Canadian people…(His) is not credible.”
 Ignatieff insisted he is still in the running and he criticized the national media for starting to write him out of the race after a poll after poll — from pollsters Angus Reid, Ekos, Nanos and Ipsos Reid — have all suggested the NDP is vaulting into second place.

“This thing is not over,” Ignatieff said. “You guys are walking around as if it (is). We are in the middle of the third period here. And I am absolutely convinced that Canadians are going to wake up on the 2nd of May and think, ‘Wow. We need a government here. We need people who can get the deficit out of control, who can make promises they can keep.’”

Ignatieff will get some start power help Wednesday evening when former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien will be at his side giving a speech at a rally in Liberal incumbent Ken Dryden’s York Centre riding.

“Jean Chretien will say, what we know he’ll say, which is I led three majority governments. I got the public finances of our country back in order. I dug us out of the Mulroney hole and Michael Ignatieff will dig us out of the Harper hole, that’s what he is going to say,” Ignatieff told reporters.

Chretien, however, was faced with a divided opposition, two parties on the right of the political spectrum, a small Progressive Conservative party and a popular Reform party then Canadian Alliance party, that split votes among right and right of centre supporters and allowed Chertien’s Liberals to hold on to power.

Now, it’s Harper that’s facing a divided opposition on the left.


----------



## Sythen (27 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ‘Wow. We need a government here. We need people who can get the deficit out of control, who can make promises they can keep.’



yea like we need a hole in the head. Freudian slip or misquote from journalist?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is PM Harper's response to the Layton surge:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laytons-surge-clarifies-the-choice-for-voters-harper-says/article2000718/ 


> Layton's surge ‘clarifies the choice’ for voters, Harper says
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> KITCHENER, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



I think what Harper is saying is the best strategy to get the Conservative base – and some undecideds – out to vote: “it doesn't matter if it's _Tweedledum_ or _Tweedledummer_ – do you really want us facing either or both of them without a majority?” He also needs to hammer that “Layton will raise your taxes even more” over and over again in Québec and Atlantic Canada.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

As the campaign race is coming to a close, the NDP is outpacing the Liberals as the second party in terms of support. Nationally, the Tories have 37.8% support, followed by the NDP at 27.8%, the Grits at 22.9%, the BQ at 5.8% and the Greens at 4.7%. 

Asked to share their most important national issue of concern, Canadians cited healthcare at 30.0% followed by jobs and the economy at 23.4%.

As you know, the Nanos Leadership Index caught the improved perceptions of Jack Layton in advance of the NDP climb in the polls. During the second half of the election Layton enjoyed an advantage over Ignatieff and the Layton numbers have climbed more in the past week. It will be important to monitor whether Layton sustains his very positive score yesterday in the face of increasing attacks from the other party leaders.

In terms of context, yesterday was the first day since the start of the Nanos Leadership Index back in February 2008 that any party leader has seriously challenged Harper in terms of leadership.

A look at the Nanos Leadership Index for Tuesday April 26 indicates that Layton has numerically surpassed Harper on the index but that it was still a very tight fight for first in terms of the personal brands for Layton and Harper. Layton scored a 86.2 on the index compared to an 82.7 for Harper and 40.1 for Ignatieff. Layton's numbers are primarily driven by perceptions that he is the most trustworthy leader with a 9 point advantage over Harper, while Layton and Harper are tied on vision for Canada. Harper is first on competence but his advantage somewhat dissipated yesterday. Ignatieff's scores remain flat in the close of the campaign.

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on www.nanosresearch.com where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

  Methodology
The research on national issue of concern is based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews conducted on April 23rd, April 24th and April 26th. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20.

The leadership index score is a summation of the three leadership indicators (trust, competence, vision). It is tracked daily with updated results from the previous night of polling. The margin of error for a survey of 400 Canadians is ±5.0%, 19 times out of 20. 


  Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking conducted between April 21st and April 24th (n=1,200). 

Healthcare 30.0% (-0.4)
Jobs/economy 23.4% (+1.0)
Education 7.5% (-0.2)
The environment 6.9% (+1.1)
High taxes 5.2% (-0.8) 
Unsure 8.6% (+0.3)


Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos Nightly Tracking completed on April 24th (n=400). 

Leadership Index Scores: 
Jack Layton 86.2 (+13.0) 
Stephen Harper 82.7 (-23.0) 
Michael Ignatieff 40.1 (-0.4) 
Elizabeth May 12.0 (+1.7) 
Gilles Duceppe 10.6 (+5.3) 


The Most Trustworthy Leader: 
Jack Layton 33.2% (+2.1) 
Stephen Harper 24.5% (-5.7) 
Michael Ignatieff 11.3% (+1.5) 
Elizabeth May 3.8% (-0.4) 
Gilles Duceppe 3.4% (+0.2) 
None of them 14.5% (+1.4)
Undecided 9.3% (+0.9)


The Most Competent Leader: 
Stephen Harper 30.7% (-10.3) 
Jack Layton 23.9% (+5.0) 
Michael Ignatieff 14.1% (-1.0) 
Gilles Duceppe 4.6% (+3.1) 
Elizabeth May 4.0% (+1.4) 
None of them 9.6% (+0.2)
Undecided 13.0% (+1.6) 


The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future: 
Jack Layton 29.1% (+5.2) 
Stephen Harper 27.5% (-7.0) 
Michael Ignatieff 14.7% (-0.9) 
Elizabeth May 4.2% (+0.7) 
Gilles Duceppe 2.6% (+2.0) 
None of them 6.8% (-3.5)
Undecided 15.0% (+2.7)


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

Layton is riding a wave. I suspect (but it may just be hope) that the wave has crested just a few days too soon. Despite the media's friendship towards Layton - and I think a pro-NDP bias is more evident in most of the working level journalists than is a pro-Liberal bias - they have to ask him the hard questions, and some of them are doing it right now.

What is shocking is how low Ignatieff has fallen: in _trust, competence_ and _vision_ he polls between 10% and 15% while Harper and Layton are in the 20% to 35% range (Harper winning on _competence_, Layton leading on _trust_ and _vision_. It's a shame, really, because he is not that bad ... but he has been unable to define himself and to convince Canadians that he is something more than an empty suit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2011)

The NDP surge is producing some interesting new speculation re: _coalitions_:

1. If Ignatieff wins big (i.e. 90+ seats) then he will want to defeat Harper ASAP and govern, with a purely Liberal cabinet, with NDP support based on an agreement to implement some NDP policies;

2. If Ignatieff and Layton are close - say 50 to 70 seats each - then a _coalition_, with a shared Liberal/NDP cabinet _might_ be negotiated;  

3. If Layton wins big (i.e. 80+ seats) and Ignatieff is down to, say, 50 then the Liberals will not want a coalition because to agree to support a Jack layton government, even if they have seats in the cabinet, would sign the party's death warrant.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

The markets are startig to wake up:

http://www.financialpost.com/news/features/surge+leaves+Street+leery/4680264/story.html



> *NDP surge leaves Bay Street leery*
> 
> Tim Shufelt, Financial Post · Apr. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 27, 2011 8:06 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Apr 2011)

The only thing I can think of is that come 03 May and the NDP don't have a bunch of new seats there are going to be a lot of red faces!


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2011)

I didn't realize Larry Campbell was so poorly informed.  A neo-conservative is essentially a welfare liberal who leans toward fiscally conservative (Paul Martin) and interventionist pro-liberty (eg. Responsibility to Protect - say hello again to Paul Martin) foreign policies - essentially, what Canada's LPC already is.  He think the CPC was formed by a merger of the old PCs with "neo-conservatives".  Wrong.  The merger he muses about - NDP + LPC - is a merger of the NDP with Canada's neo-cons.  Doubtless he thinks the term is a pejorative without realizing he speaks of himself.

I welcome such a merger, because I believe a NDP+LPC merger will produce a not particularly moderated NDP with a new name while losing a substantial defection of centrists looking for a new home - the CPC.  Eventually the immoderate rightmost fraction of the CPC will break off (again), leaving the NDP, a centrist party called the CPC formed of people who would have been recognizable stalwarts in the Liberals and Conservatives of the 70s and 80s, and another party on the right.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Apr 2011)

Time for the Conservatives to take a step back to the left if the NDP are gaining ground.


----------



## DCRabbit (28 Apr 2011)

I've been crunching the numbers at 308.com.. great site.. and if you average out all the 4 latest polls, it shows that Quebec is REALLY skewing the national numbers. 

 National with Quebec:

 CPC - 36.175
 LPC - 23.475
 NDP - 27.425

   -A little under 10 point lead for the CPC.

 National *without* Quebec:

 CPC - 46.101
 LPC - 22.556
 NDP - 25.12

  - A big difference for the CPC. But.. that also includes the prairies.. which, just like the NDP and Quebec.. artificially inflates the CPC numbers. So this makes me want to break it down further and concentrate on BC and Ont.. when there election will be won and lost simply because outside of Quebec, they are the only two provinces to have enuff seats to shape the outcome. So, those numbers are as follows:

 CPC - 41.29
 LPC - 26.35
 NDP - 25.375

  - This shows the CPCs in majority territory with the LPC and NDP in a heated race for 2nd. It doesn't bear out any scenario of the NDP gaining power or leading a coalition.. or gaining 50 seats.. or even a huge seismic shift in the political landscape. The only party to really gain from these numbers is the CPC with the LPC a few points down but not cratering... and the NDP up but not enuff to gain more than maybe 10 seats if the ridings break their way. It also backs up the CPCs end campaign strategy of just minimizing mistakes rather than going for the jugular... the numbers just look too good for them.

 - I also took note of Nano's leadership poll.. and I think Quebec is skewing that as well.


 But then.. I could have missed something and be totally wrong.. but it's interesting to talk about.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Time for the Conservatives to take a step back to the left if the NDP are gaining ground.


I'd rather a party stick to it's avowed policies than shift left and right with the prevailing wind of random polls. 

But that's just me.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'd rather a party stick to it's avowed policies than shift left and right with the prevailing wind of random polls.
> 
> But that's just me.



Moi aussi.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2011)

Political humour part 2: What do political parties do for us?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting bit of interactive trivia is at the _Globe and Mail_.
> 
> Let me see:
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is the _Globe_'s endorsement of Stephen Harper's Conservatives for the next Government of Canada:

My *emphasis* added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-globes-election-endorsement-facing-up-to-our-challenges/article2001610/ 


> *GLOBE EDITORIAL*
> The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



With a couple of minor grammatical quibbles (I would, for example, have said _”To whom should Canadians turn?”_) I think the _Good Grey Globe_ has it about right: Mr. Harper is not flawless but neither is a he a scary, doctrinaire _neo-con_ (and, by the way, I'm with Brad Sallows on the definition of neo-con). He is a steady, competent hand on the tiller – just what we need in rough economic waters.

Ignatieff and Layton are distinguished men in their own rights and they have demonstrated courage and determination in this campaign but neither is ready or fit to lead Canada. I remind readers that I am a card carrying Conservative and a significant financial contributor to that party so you will forgive me, I hope, for saying that: *The best choice, for most Canadians, is Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.*


Edit: added the 2010 endorsement to my earlier post


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an insightful article about the _perils of polling_:

My *emphasis* added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-polls-differ-pollsters-worry/article2001533/ 


> When polls differ, pollsters worry
> 
> STEVE LADURANTAYE
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree that the NDP is up and the Liberals are down, but, as DCRabbit pointed out, the Québec numbers may well be skewing the _national_ samples. I remain hopeful that the Conservative vote will turn out and that, over the last week-end of the campaign, voters will see that neither the Liberals nor the NDP is ready or able to govern Canada.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Apr 2011)

This story by Jane Taber from the Globe and Mail's site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. Note how the Quebec figures skew the national results and the differences from the national data for Ontario and BC.


Now within six points of Harper, Layton faces ‘trial by fire’ 


Jane TaBer 

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update 

Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:22AM EDT


Jack Layton’s unprecedented surge in Quebec is beginning to spill over into the rest of Canada as he and his New Democratic Party close in on Stephen Harper’s front-running Conservatives, according to the latest Nanos Research poll. 

Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, meanwhile, are being left in the dust. 

The three-day tracking survey conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV shows Conservative support at 36.6 per cent nationally with the NDP just six points behind at 30.4 per cent. The Liberals have 21.9 per cent support, the Bloc is at 6 per cent and the Greens are at 4.1 per cent support. 

And with such little time left before the May 2 vote the prospect of a majority government for the Mr. Harper’s Tories is quickly slipping away, pollster Nik Nanos says. “It would take a phenomenally efficient national Conservative campaign to generate a majority at 36.6 per cent.”

All of the momentum now is with Mr. Layton and his New Democrats, who now appear to be firmly in second place and poised to, at least, become the Official Opposition. 

This is fuelled by Mr. Layton’s growing strength in Quebec. The Nanos numbers show the NDP with 42.5 per cent support, up from 36.5 per cent the day before. This compares to the Bloc at 25.1 per cent. The Liberals have 15 per cent support and the Conservatives are at 13.5 per cent. The margin of error for the regional sample is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 

The poll also shows the NDP’s Quebec strength is starting to move the party’s numbers in vote-rich Ontario. 

“We’re in a phase now where we’re starting to see a spillover effect with the NDP starting to gain in Ontario,” Mr. Nanos says. “When parties start to gain in the two biggest provinces, Quebec and Ontario, you know the numbers are moving.”

Mr. Nanos points out that the Tories are still comfortably ahead in Ontario – 41.1 per cent support compared to the NDP at 26.1 per cent – but their support has been slipping. In one day, between April 26 and 27, the Tories have dropped nearly six points from 46.9 per cent. The NDP, meanwhile, has seen its support grow five points from 21 per cent. 

The Liberals are at 27.9 per cent in Ontario, up from 25.7 per cent the night before. The margin of error in the province is plus or minus 5.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 

In British Columbia the Tories are well ahead with 45.3 per cent support. The NDP and Liberals, meanwhile, are in a statistical tie with 26.9 per cent and 23.1 per cent respectively. The margin of error in B.C. is plus or minus 8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 

Another factor in Mr. Layton’s favour, Mr. Nanos notes, is that the question of “party leader” may be starting to become a factor in the way Canadians vote. Forty-nine per cent of respondents still say policy influences their vote but when asked about the party leader the numbers are moving slightly, from 24 per cent on April 26 to 26 per cent on April 27. 

Mr. Nanos says that is good for whoever is ahead right now – and that is Jack Layton. As a result the target is now clearly on Mr. Layton’s back; whether he can survive the onslaught will not be determined until ballots are cast Monday. 

“This will be trial by fire for Jack Layton and the New Democrats in the next three days because there will be a full assault on all sides,” Mr. Nanos says. “He has obviously done his damage on the Liberals in terms of their support and the Conservatives have to start looking over their shoulder.”

The poll of 1,012 Canadians was conducted between April 24, 26 and 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_ are the latest _projections_ which show a continuing, indeed accelerating Conservative decline:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For the first time, on _ThreeHundredEight.com_, the NDP is projected to displace the BQ as the third party.

I think there is still time – that frenetic, almost sleepless long weekend I have mentioned before – for Stephen Harper to show Canadians that he really wants their votes, but he has to work hard for them because the _trend_ is away from him.


Edit: typos


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

Look at _ThreeHundredEight.com_'s aggregated polling _trends_:





Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8sNL7YfF_D8/TbiI2UPh3xI/AAAAAAAAE94/Vjvq8Z6NpNs/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG


The Conservatives have been _trending_ down, gradually but steadily, for the past 17 days. The Liberal decline, now precipitous, started just a few days later. The NDP _surge_ began nearly three weeks ago and accelerated over the past ten days.

But, look at the undecided voters (grey line) - they have, once again, jumped from about 8.5% to 15% in two days - that's _potentially_ good news for everyone and anyone who can exploit that uncertainty.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Apr 2011)

I really think the Conservatives need to seize on what the market is doing because of the NDP surge. Hard facts about the TSX going down because business is scared of the NDP might bring in some of the undecided voters.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I didn't realize Larry Campbell was so poorly informed.  A neo-conservative is essentially a welfare liberal who leans toward fiscally conservative (Paul Martin) and interventionist pro-liberty (eg. Responsibility to Protect - say hello again to Paul Martin) foreign policies - essentially, what Canada's LPC already is.  He think the CPC was formed by a merger of the old PCs with "neo-conservatives".  Wrong.  The merger he muses about - NDP + LPC - is a merger of the NDP with Canada's neo-cons.  Doubtless he thinks the term is a pejorative without realizing he speaks of himself.



Among the progressive left, "neo-conservative" has become a derogatory name used to describe a bunch of right-wing rednecks, who are ruled by big oil/big corporations/big whatever and want to bring about a new world order or some other nonsense. Personally, when I hear the term, it makes me think of the old joke about, _*"What is the definition of a Conservative? ANS: A Liberal that got mugged. "*_  To me that is what a neo-con is: A bunch of liberals that realized that their party (originally the Democrats) had shifted to far left and needed to tack to the right if was going to be relevant.


----------



## GR66 (28 Apr 2011)

Well...what was looking to be a boring, achieve nothing election has turned pretty darned interesting all of a sudden!  I have held some pretty serious doubts about the NDP translating their growing popularity into actual seats but the continuing trends are starting to make me wonder.  After all I never would have predicted the extent of the total collapse of the PC's under Kim Campbell either.  

I've always considered myself to be on the (far) right wing of the Liberal party and have therefore never personally thought of the NDP as a potential alternative vote, but the distaste which many traditional Liberal supporters have for Steven Harper personally may actually lead many Liberals to jump to the left if they see the LPC collapsing.  They may however just decide to stay home and see how things unfold.

In some of the PM's most recent comments he's suggested that Jack Layton and the NDP aren't READY to lead the country.  I'm not sure that is a very effective argument for the CPC to make.  After all, didn't the Liberals say exactly the same thing about Steven Harper and the Conservatives before they were elected?

I also see Steven Harper's tightly controlled leadership style working against him in these dying days of the campaign.  While he may be seen as being the most competent party leader he is trailing Jack Layton in terms of trust and vision.  I'd argue that the latter two characteristics have much greater potential to swing undecided votes than the first which will work to Layton's advantage.  

So unfortunately Harper is in somewhat of a losing game vs. Layton on a personal level so that would suggest his best tactic would be then to fall back on the strength of the Conservative "team" and to fight the NDP on a policy level.  Oops...the tightly centralized control of Harper's PMO hasn't really allowed for the development of a strongly recognized and trusted Conservative team.  This is afterall the "Harper Government".  On a policy level it's also hard for a government to stand very firmly on it's record when they've had the misfortune of governing through a difficult recession (no fault of their own...just bad luck) and haven't helped themselves in the credibility department by having the largest deficit in history (doing basically the same things they say the NDP would do), had questionable spending practices in regard to the G8/G20, and not done a great job on defending some of their largest spending plans (F-35's anyone?).  

It will be VERY interesting to see what actually happens on election night!


----------



## GAP (28 Apr 2011)

I don't see why the Liberals are so scared of the NDP......

Heck, all they have to do is trot out Bob Rae and have him tell everybody why it sucked to have an NDP government......I'm sure Bob won't mind helping out, gee, even Jean Cretean (purposely mispelled) helped out Iggy.... :


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Apr 2011)

I wonder if the upswing in undecided voters represents Liberals who are now trying to decide which way to turn. It is those "former" Liberals that both Harper and Layton need to attract.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> In some of the PM's most recent comments he's suggested that Jack Layton and the NDP aren't READY to lead the country.  I'm not sure that is a very effective argument for the CPC to make.  After all, didn't the Liberals say exactly the same thing about Steven Harper and the Conservatives before they were elected?



Nope, I'm sure they said he'd abolish abortion, make everyone practice Christianity and he'd also put troops on the streets with guns.  :


----------



## GAP (28 Apr 2011)

Combative Ignatieff says Tories can 'go to hell'
Article Link
Published On Wed Apr 27 2011

Les Whittington and Richard J. Brennan Staff Reporters

A combative Michael Ignatieff has stepped up criticisms of his political rivals, saying Jack Layton is “getting a free ride” and telling Conservatives “they can go to hell.”

Ignatieff, whose party has fallen into third place in the polls, told the Toronto Star editorial board Wednesday that a lot of the Liberals’ woes can be traced to the relentless Conservative attack ads.

“I am not going to complain about it because it seems to give the other guys too much damn credit. I don’t give these guys damn credit for anything,” the Liberal leader said, slamming his fist on the table. “I am not going to let other people frame me up … they can go to hell is what I have thought basically for two and a half years.

“I have spent my whole life dealing with bullies. Some of them had guns,” he said in a reference to his days as a journalist working in foreign countries. “You think this stuff shuts me down? You got to be kidding.”

He spoke to the Star hours before a rally intended to shore up the Liberals’ Toronto base. Ignatieff joined dozens of GTA Liberal candidates and former prime minister Jean Chrétien for a noisy, enthusiastic rally in North York.

Despite the polls, which show the Liberals trailing the NDP and the front-running Conservatives, Ignatieff says the game isn’t over and he’s still got a chance to win.

It’s “wake-up time” with respect to the NDP surge, he said, adding that Canadians should take a close look at Layton’s election promises.

“They just don’t get fiscal discipline,” he said. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is some media _spin_ on some Conservative _spin_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/dont-believe-the-polling-hype-harpers-campaign-chief-tells-her-troops/article2001915/ 


> Don’t believe the polling hype, Harper’s campaign chief tells her troops
> 
> JANE TABER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Ms. Byrne's _spin_ is correct:  the election is not over. But, I hope her message is getting through to more than just the Conservative Party _faithful_ – the leader, Harper, and the candidates need to listen to her and they need to make a final push for votes.

Jane Taber's _spin_ is also correct: many Tories are, I suspect, whistling past a graveyard. There is reason to fear that the decline, which I noted above, is too deeply entrenched to be reversed. It has been my view that if, now a *Big IF*, the Conservatives are returned with a larger (than 143 seats) minority then it will be difficult for the opposition parties to unite, in the face of the voters' clearly expressed preference for the Conservatives over any of them, even over any two of them, to defeat the government and install a coalition. But, if the Conservatives come back with a smaller minority and if, still a *Big IF*, either the Liberal or the NDP make really big gains then Canadians might accept a “second place” government, supported, formally, by the other losers. Thus, Conservative have reasons to worry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> ... the distaste which many traditional Liberal supporters have for Steven Harper personally may actually lead many Liberals to jump to the left if they see the LPC collapsing.  They may however just decide to stay home and see how things unfold.
> ...





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wonder if the upswing in undecided voters represents Liberals who are now trying to decide which way to turn. It is those "former" Liberals that both Harper and Layton need to attract.




I think, or at least I hope think you are both on to something. My guess is that:

1. A *very few* Liberals will jump _right_ to help Harper fend off the _socialist hordes_;
2. Some Liberals, more than the ones above, will jump _left_ on to the Layton bandwagon; but
3. Even more Liberals are now deciding to sit this one out, again – having been let down by their leader twice in a row.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2011)

That's it, he's finally lost it. Iggy's spiral is now complete and can only get tighter and faster from this point on. His sprint to catch the front has left him out of breathe, battered and beat five days before the finish line. He's spent. He can't recover.

I prefer to listen to and watch the candidates. Their desperation (in some cases) or their calm and head down, one foot in front of the other demeanor is more telling than any poll. I find polls very suspect and don't put much stock in them. On the final day, polls have never been that accurate or mattered. Many times parties have shown meteoric rise, a la Layton, only to have that support completely evaporate at the voting booth. Voters are fickle and can't be depended on to do what the parties or the MSM want.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

CAUTION​
This web site will be a "news portal" on election night - rather like the TV networks. They, the TV networks and, for example, the newspaper web sites, are forbidden *by law* from broadcasting results until the polls close in BC. Those "news portals" that break the rules are subject to *criminal* charges and large fines.

I ask all members to help Mike Bobbitt by obeying the law on 2 May 11 and keeping election results _secret_ until the polls are closed in BC.

Thanks, in advance.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> *Combative* Ignatieff says Tories can 'go to hell'
> Published On Wed Apr 27 2011


I would say more scared than combative. Despite the Star's efforts to make their candidate look like some tough guy, the description comes across as one of sheer desperation.

As for "dealing with bullies his whole life".....I never realized the Harvard campus was that threatening  :


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would say more scared than combative. Despite the Star's efforts to make their candidate look like some tough guy, the description comes across as one of sheer desperation.
> 
> As for "dealing with bullies his whole life".....I never realized the Harvard campus was that threatening  :



Well, you know academics.  Waving those red pens in the air; making idle, incoherent chatter that masquerades as first-year courses; threatening to leave your publication off their reading lists... the atmosphere is pure poison.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2011)

A look at the Liberal implosion by a blogger (who is sadly supporting the Dippers):

http://skippy-posts.blogspot.com/2011/04/serenity-and-denial-michael-ignatieff.html



> *Serenity and denial: Michael Ignatieff and the fall of Berlin*
> 
> So I got a robocall yesterday evening from Micheal Ignatieff his own self, a first in this campaign. I live in one of the safest Liberal constituencies in all of the Dominion. If my MP loses, the Liberal Party of Canada will be well and truly annihilated. There will be, simply put, nothing left. All will be lost and there will be nothing to rebuild.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

For me, Joe Q Public, I would hope that my fellow Canadians would look to the TSX's nervousness about the NDP.  That has a direct threat/effect on my lower level of my Maslowian needs.  I mean, if corporation "A"'s shares bottom out, then my prices for my basic survival (food, heat, etc), go up.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For me, Joe Q Public, I would hope that my fellow Canadians would look to the TSX's nervousness about the NDP.  That has a direct threat/effect on my lower level of my Maslowian needs.  I mean, if corporation "A"'s shares bottom out, then my prices for my basic survival (food, heat, etc), go up.



Well that's just typical; what's in it for me?  Can't you see the bigger picture?  All the shiftless 3rd gen dole pineapples need to be taken care of too, ya know.  What about their right to sit on their arses watching their 62" plasma waiting for the cheque to roll in?  SOMEBODY has to pay for it, might as well be you.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Apr 2011)

The Cdn media had a big role in this possible mess. Relentlessly demonizing Harper at every opportunity, ignoring the NDP policies other than the occasional feel good pieces about Jack, pushing Iggy.

The lack of ethics, professionalism, and untruths. Well, now it is going to possibly come back and bit Canada on the ***. A bunch of nobodys.

*[size=14pt]Stupid[/size] people in my Condo don't like Harper's eyes!!!!!*


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2011)

Latest CPC ad based on Prime Minister Harper's "five year anniversary speech" is very stirring, an appeal to patriotism and what is the best in Canada. Imagine if that stirring imagery had been in play since the start of the election (or even before when they were preparing the battlespace)

The voiceover in the ad (the Prime Minister speaking) goes like this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/cpcpcc?blend=23&ob=5



> Canada is, and always has been, our country. And we want Canada to be a true north that is as strong and as free as it can be, in every way that matters, the best country in the world! That’s why we’re here. That’s why we strive. That’s why we serve.
> 
> Canada must reflect the true character of its people. Honourable in our dealings. Faithful to our commitments. Loyal to our friends. By turns a courageous warrior and a compassionate neighbour. That is the spirit of the Canada I know.
> 
> It is our purpose, that Canada must be great. It must be great for all Canadians. It must be a country of hope, and an example to the world. Only when it is these things, when Canada is all that it can be, only then can we say that our work is done!



Full speech is available here


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For me, Joe Q Public, I would hope that my fellow Canadians would look to the TSX's nervousness about the NDP.  That has a direct threat/effect on my lower level of my Maslowian needs.  I mean, if corporation "A"'s shares bottom out, then my prices for my basic survival (food, heat, etc), go up.



I hate to burst this bubble, Technoviking, but the TSX's nervousness has nothing to do with the Dippers rise. The Market knows the Liberal set back only means more chances of a stable majority Conservative government in the near future.

The nervousness is totally related to Bernake's press conference in the US yesterday.

Bernake basically confirmed that the Feds wont raise the rates in the US for a while. As a result, Canada can't either. But right now, the price and demand for commodities such as oil, gold and silver are sky high - and they are all important Canadian exports - so our dollar goes sky high also. Problem is, it then raises the relative prices of our manufactured products (still the main engine of modern economies, notwithstanding what some may say), which explains why our manufactured goods exports have dropped a lot in the last few months. With the US not moving on rates, the Bank of Canada is deprived of the leeway it would need to bring our dollar down regardless of commodities price pressure. That is what is causing the nervousness on the TSX, not the election.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2011)

It isn't necessary for the CPC to take a step to the left; the LPC and BQ already provide that service to the NDP.  It would be unwise for the CPC to take that step; it is a battleground of Layton's choosing and both Dion and Ignatieff were suckered into a prepared KZ.  All that remains is the pursuit.

Dion, especially, forgot two things: to never take what your enemy offers, and that the NDP is not the LPC's friend.  Ignatieff's latest remarks show a disinclination to surrender and a realization that the NDP is not a safe haven.  It would have been interesting to see Bob Rae in Ignatieff's position now.

The most useful likely outcome of this election will be to render the BQ impotent, or at least significantly weaker as a bargaining partner in Parliament.  If the LPC prolongs its foolishness, it will surrender to the NDP - that bridge has been prepared, and now some pundits are giving voice to the "opinion pieces" intended to provide the push.  If the LPC comes to its senses, it will temporarily become a vassal of the CPC in Parliament while rebuilding its centrist core and pruning the left-leaning branches.  The latter should include Bob Rae.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary for the CPC to take a step to the left; the LPC and BQ already provide that service to the NDP.  It would be unwise for the CPC to take that step; it is a battleground of Layton's choosing and both Dion and Ignatieff were suckered into a prepared KZ.  All that remains is the pursuit.
> 
> Dion, especially, forgot two things: to never take what your enemy offers, and that the NDP is not the LPC's friend.  Ignatieff's latest remarks show a disinclination to surrender and a realization that the NDP is not a safe haven.  It would have been interesting to see Bob Rae in Ignatieff's position now.
> 
> The most useful likely outcome of this election will be to render the BQ impotent, or at least significantly weaker as a bargaining partner in Parliament.  If the LPC prolongs its foolishness, it will surrender to the NDP - that bridge has been prepared, and now some pundits are giving voice to the "opinion pieces" intended to provide the push.  If the LPC comes to its senses, it will temporarily become a vassal of the CPC in Parliament while rebuilding its centrist core and pruning the left-leaning branches.  The latter should include Bob Rae.


 

:+1:

*Exactly!* The Conservatives now have a firm grip on the Centre-Right and Right of Centre and a fair share of the Centre, proper. They do not want or need to play in the Centre-Left - leave that to everyone else.

Let some Liberals come to the CPC, not vice versa.


----------



## GAP (28 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

Please note that this three day tracking report is based on polling completed on April 24, 26 and 27. No calling was conducted by Nanos on Easter Monday and this track includes one day of calling from the holiday weekend, plus calling on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Momentum in the federal election campaign continues to favour the NDP. Support for the Layton New Democrats continues to go up in Quebec and is now also on the increase in the province of Ontario. As a result, the Conservative advantage nationally has narrowed to six percentage points. Support for the New Democrats continues to move into uncharted territory. 

Conservative support nationally stands at 36.6% followed by the NDP at 30.4%, the Liberals at 21.9%, the BQ at 6.0% and the Greens at 4.1%. 

Atlantic Canada remains a statistical tie factoring the margin of error for the regional sub-samples. 

NDP support in Quebec has hit 42.5% followed by the BQ at 25.1%, the Liberals at 15.0%, the Conservatives at 13.5% and the Greens at 2.4%. 

West of the Ottawa River the Tories continue to enjoy an advantage over the opposition parties. 

In Ontario, the Conservatives enjoy a comfortable lead over the Liberals and New Democrats, but support for the Tories is trending down while the NDP is trending up. The Tories have 41.1% support, followed by the Liberals at 27.9%, the NDP at 26.1% and the Greens at 4.5%. 

The Tories continue to lead in the Prairies at 53.8%, followed by the NDP at 26.0%, the Liberals at 14.6% and the Greens at 4.9%. 

In British Columbia, the Tories are ahead with 45.3% support with the NDP and Liberals statistically tied (26.9% and 23.1% respectively). 

One of two Canadians continues to identify party platform as their top vote driver at 49.0%, followed by party leader at 26.0% which is trending up. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 26th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1020). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200). 

Canada (n=1012 committed voters) 
Conservative 36.6% (-1.2) 
NDP 30.4% (+2.6) 
Liberal 21.9% (-1.0) 
Bloc Quebecois 6.0% (+0.2) 
Green 4.1% (-0.6) 

*Undecided 15.8% (+0.9) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 26th (n=1,200). 

Party Policies 49.0% (-0.2) 
Party Leader 26.0% (+2.0) 
Local Candidate 13.0% (-1.1) 
Traditionally Vote for Party 7.7% (-0.2) 
Unsure 4.4% (-0.3)


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Apr 2011)

So, at least according to Nanos, the NDP's national numbers are still being buoyed by their Quebec effects. I *think* a Tory majority is still attainable as I'm not sure that the NDP support in Quebec will translate into enough seats. The other facet in support of that idea is the delta between Liberal, NDP and undecided voters. I maintain that outside of Quebec, there's sufficient Liberals jumping ship to allow the Torries to win some otherwise close seats. There's very few Tory/NDP contests, and where there are, those disaffected Liberals might slip right. Even rightward slippage in Lib/NDP contests can cause victory for a Tory. The other likely outcome is that the Parliament returns with the same left/right number of seats, with a different distribution on the left. For the Lib/NDP to have any credible option at government, they have to come up with 40 or more seats in order to exclude the Bloc from the party. I just don't see that happening.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary for the CPC to take a step to the left; the LPC and BQ already provide that service to the NDP.  It would be unwise for the CPC to take that step; it is a battleground of Layton's choosing and both Dion and Ignatieff were suckered into a prepared KZ.  All that remains is the pursuit.
> 
> Dion, especially, forgot two things: to never take what your enemy offers, and that the NDP is not the LPC's friend.  Ignatieff's latest remarks show a disinclination to surrender and a realization that the NDP is not a safe haven.  It would have been interesting to see Bob Rae in Ignatieff's position now.
> 
> The most useful likely outcome of this election will be to render the BQ impotent, or at least significantly weaker as a bargaining partner in Parliament.  If the LPC prolongs its foolishness, it will surrender to the NDP - that bridge has been prepared, and now some pundits are giving voice to the "opinion pieces" intended to provide the push.  If the LPC comes to its senses, it will temporarily become a vassal of the CPC in Parliament while rebuilding its centrist core and pruning the left-leaning branches.  The latter should include Bob Rae.



Anyone want to bet how long it is before Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh, both ex NDP Provincial Premiers, dust off their orange blazers and become the bridgework between the deceminated libs and the Opposition NDP?

_'C'mon guys, were all really socialist brothers fighting for the same thing, aren't we? Why can't everyone just get along and take out that evil Stephen Harper. We're sure we can come to some sort of merger arrangement condusive to both our parties. After all, Ujjal and I have always been firmly in both camps and can change stripes again if it will give us more power and influence'_

Or maybe something like that ;D

And while I have my tinfoil hat on, Bob Rae is connected to Power Corporation, Jack Layton is not. 8)


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

The following is from the CBC Website, and I think it illustrates how serious the NDP are as a party:



> Just as the NDP appears to be doing well in the national election campaign, two local candidates have yet to attend any all-candidates debates.
> The NDP candidate for Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Erin Peters, has been keeping a low profile, as has Martine Cenatus, of Ottawa Orleans.
> A spokesman for the party said the decision whether to campaign is left up to the individual candidate.
> Cenatus said *she hasn't been able to get any time off work to campaign, even though she works for the party itself as a fundraiser*.
> ...


But the NDP can point to both candidates and say "Look!  We have xxx women running for parliament!  _We care!  Ms. Cenatus is a "woman of colour", highlighting our concern for blah blah and Ms. Brosseau is conducting research for the party abroad_ 

If either of these women get a single vote, in spite of not campaigning, it's a slap in the face to democracy.  And "smiling Jack" Layton will happily point to their genders, and not their actions, as a clear demonstration of his party's progressive and equitable nature.


----------



## observor 69 (28 Apr 2011)

Let's have Rick Mercer cover the next election with ths kind of great writing.

Is Stephen Harper a hologram?
Rick Mercer on what he learned on the campaign trail with the party leaders

by Rick Mercer on Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:30am -

Grown men all over North America pay big money for the privilege of riding on a horse, sleeping on the ground and spending 12 hours a day driving cattle down a dusty trail with actual cowboys. For me, going out on the campaign trail, riding on the planes and following the leaders is pretty much the same thing. This wasn’t so much an assignment as it was a trip to a dude ranch. Some men want to strap on leather chaps and breathe in the aroma of cow dung; I want to slap on a press pass and breathe the same air as Harper, Iggy and Jack.

To get a seat on those planes is not an easy proposition. The Conservative party charges media organizations $50,000 for a seat. In return you get fed and watered—after that, all bets are off. There is no guarantee you get to ask a question, just the guarantee you won’t.

My week at the dude ranch started with the big gun: Team Harper. I met up with them in Rivière-du-Loup, Que., rode the bus to Edmundston, N.B., flew to Fredericton, crossed the pond to Conception Bay South, Nfld., back to Sydney, N.S., and then on to the Nation’s Capital.


In hindsight, I spent too much time with the front-runner. To get a feel for the Harper campaign you only need a few hours. The differences from one event to the other are minuscule. In English Canada they start each event by singing “O Canada,” and Stephen Harper tells the crowd he’s proud to lead a party that starts every event this way no matter where they are in the country. In Quebec they skip this part and they hide the Canadian flags in the plane. Barring this nationalism of convenience, if you have seen one Harper event you have seen them all. The Harper campaign is far and away the most disciplined, the most professional and the most scripted. Every word is on a teleprompter, it is delivered in exactly the same way, and the Prime Minister does something I have, in a lifetime of watching live performers onstage, never seen before: he actually stops and sips his water in the same spot every time. Nothing is left to chance. Either that or he is a hologram on a loop.

My first Harper campaign event in Quebec was held in a senior citizens’ home, what we in show businesses call a captive audience. No vote mobs here.

Politics is a dirty racket, and certainly all politicians on occasion must do things they find personally distasteful, but I would like to think that most of them would draw the line at scaring old ladies. No such luck on this tour.

Continued at link

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2011)

TV asserts that voting for certain candidates is an affront to democracy.

To the contrary:  Democracy means people make their choice.  Those choices can be well-informed or ill-informed.  People can vote for an individual to represent them; they can vote for the party they like best nationally; they can use a random number generator to determine which box to put an X in.

If they choose to vote for Bloggins, the incumbent who rarely shows up in the House, so be it.  If they vote for Jones, the challenger who's on a gambling binge in Atlantic City instead of campaigning, so be it.  If they vote for Smith, who moonlights as a bus driver for senior Bingo runs, so be it.


Democracy isn't pretty.  It's about letting people make choices - choices we may disagree with, for reasons we may disagree with, but respecting their right to make their own choice.


----------



## Scott (28 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CAUTION​
> This web site will be a "news portal" on election night - rather like the TV networks. They, the TV networks and, for example, the newspaper web sites, are forbidden *by law* from broadcasting results until the polls close in BC. Those "news portals" that break the rules are subject to *criminal* charges and large fines.
> 
> I ask all members to help Mike Bobbitt by obeying the law on 2 May 11 and keeping election results _secret_ until the polls are closed in BC.
> ...



You were listening to Q this morning as well, Edward?

Very frustrating to listen to, IMO. Anyway.

*All, please heed Edward's words and abide by the law. You'll be a great help to the Staff here if you report any posts that appear to contravene the rules as they stand. You can agree with them or you can call them draconian, either way we ask your cooperation

Thanks
The Staff*


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> TV asserts that voting for certain candidates is an affront to democracy.
> 
> To the contrary:  Democracy means people make their choice.  Those choices can be well-informed or ill-informed.  People can vote for an individual to represent them; they can vote for the party they like best nationally; they can use a random number generator to determine which box to put an X in.
> 
> ...


Choice.  It is indeed about choice.  Running an empty beer can as your candidate would get the same choice.  If a party puts in someone who couldn't even be bothered, just imagine how well that riding would be represented in Parliament.  *THAT * is an affront to democracy, and I stand by it.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Apr 2011)

When is the last poll released? Is it Saturday or Friday?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> When is the last poll released? Is it Saturday or Friday?



Monday night


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Monday night


You beat me to it

(And as a reminder, not to be shared on Army.Ca until the last polls close across the Country)


----------



## Infanteer (28 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Running an empty beer can as your candidate would get the same choice.



That would be something new, as the beer can has value due to the return deposit....


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That would be something new, as the beer can has value due to the return deposit....



:rofl:


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Apr 2011)

Had a dental this afternoon. My 20 something dental tech/hygienist and her friends are going to vote Green as Harper is going to privatize health care.

She is a sassy blonde, and I do live in BC.


----------



## Haletown (28 Apr 2011)

The question I have  is about the distribution of the Orange wave in Quebec.  I have a feeling it is highly skewed into the major urban areas and very under represented elsewhere - and elsewhere is where their are a lot of seats.

That plus the election day ground game being a very strong  Bloc strength and a very major NDP fault I think will result in a lot fewer NDP Quebec seats than a lot of media hype/headlines are predicting.

Just a gut feeling . . . .  I'm still hoping that the Left-Centre/NDP-Liberal vote split will yield enough  CPC up the middle victories to yield a Conservative majority  victory.


But ya never know when voting hysteria hits hard . . . I can remember Trudeaumania.

Monday will be an entertaining day.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Had a dental this afternoon. My 20 something dental tech/hygienist and her friends are going to vote Green as Harper is going to privatize health care.
> 
> She is a sassy blonde, and I do live in BC.



So the guns in the streets don't bother her?

I am not sure how Harper could privatize health care as the federal government doesn't actually have a health care program for other than employees and natives.  Provincial responsibility.

Why would the Conservatives stop health care?  They started it with the 1957 Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.  9 years later the Liberals added a free trip to the doctor for the sniffles and everyone thinks they invented it.

http://www.socialpolicy.ca/cush/m7/m7-t2.stm



> In 1957, federal legislation called the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed in which the federal government agreed to finance 50 per cent of the cost of provincial hospital care.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, you know academics.  Waving those red pens in the air; making idle, incoherent chatter that masquerades as first-year courses; threatening to leave your publication off their reading lists... the atmosphere is pure poison.




...I don't even need a smilie for this one... 



;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Apr 2011)

> She is a sassy blonde, and I do live in BC.



The quote above explains her thought process.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2011)

Shared in accordance with fair dealings from the Toronto Star:  www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/982133--layton-blames-harper-for-high-gas-prices

Layton blames Harper for high gas prices

YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.—Jack Layton says regulating gas prices could be a way to lower the price at the pumps if competition laws and other oversight measures fail to do the job.

“Our first step would be to establish the ombudsman and use the competition laws to go after collusion in the industry,” the New Democrat leader told reporters in Yellowknife on Thursday when asked directly if his government would regulate gas prices. “If that doesn’t work, then we’re clearly going to have to look at further measures.”

Layton was responding to criticism from Jack Mintz—the economist oft-quoted by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as justification for his tax policies—that the cap-and-trade system the NDP proposed to cover the cost of $3.5 billion worth of green initiatives in the first year would raise gasoline prices by 10 cents per litre.

The Conservative war room circulated the analysis to the media throughout the day and even Harper mentioned it Thursday while going after Layton—warning of destruction if he leads the country—at a small rally in Niagara Falls, Ont.

Layton responded by saying gas prices are already too high and said Harper is to blame for some of it because his government subsidized big oil companies and helped to bring the harmonized sales tax to Ontario, which increased the price of gasoline by eight per cent last summer.

“These gas companies are gouging Canadians right now,” said Layton. “I don’t accept this analysis that is being offered, that the big polluters should suddenly be justified to raise prices . . . If you look at their own books, they are already booking the cost of a cap-and-trade system and they’re dealing with it elsewhere.”

The Nova Scotia government began regulating gas prices in 2006 under pressure from the provincial NDP, when it was in opposition, and Layton said his party has discussed it before and remains open to the idea.

Layton said he will start with an ombudsman and see how that goes.

“I think with an ombudsman’s office exposing what is going on, raising those serious questions, perhaps suggesting regulatory or legislative changes through that ongoing scrutiny,” Layton said.

Layton dismissed the suggestion that an ombudsman would have a hard time controlling the oil companies.

“It can be a very powerful position,” Layton said. “It can expose where companies are working in collusion of one sort or another. It can raise public awareness and public pressure on these very companies. Remember: they’re out there trying to get customers and right now they seem to have carte blanche to raise the prices.

“On one corner it goes up, it goes up on the next corner, a competing company — just like that — as though they were talking to each other on the phone and I think a lot of people, rightly, suspect that there is something wrong in this process and they want a government that can stand up for them,” said Layton, saying Harper always leaves it up to the provinces. “He is abandoning any leadership on the issue.”


Jesus wept. There is so much wrong with this that it is hard to know where to even start. This man is a few steps from 24 Sussex Drive and this is his grasp of economics?  If he ever makes PM, Jack Layton will make Trudeau look like a Conservative.

Jack- let me ask you this- how are you going to compel the Oil companies to refine and sell product at a loss in Canada, when they can ship it to the US (or China or Japan or Europe or...) and sell it for a profit?  Are you prepared to nationalize the oil industry?

Ask PEI how they made out regulating gas prices a few years back.  That last a week before the oil companies stopped shipping to PEI.  Morons.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2011)

The Liberals are throwing everything out the door in a last push. (I keep seeing the staff conference in Downfall; the one that is constantly spoofed, in my mind)

I wanted to show my wife the "Canada is, and always has been, our country" ad, but was not at the computer. I borrowed her laptop and typed "Conservative Party of Canada" in the search bar of Google; it came up SECOND(?!) after the Liberal Party of Canada...

This is either Google bombing, manipulating page ranking or a big, fat cheque to place the LPC as the top choice. (I notice it didn't happen just now when I tried to replicate it, so I will put it down to some sort of manipulation like Google bombing).


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Apr 2011)

Jack knows what he says re gas price "controls' will resonate with the I'm alright Jack Canadians.

I will repeat two posts:



> The Cdn media had a big role in this possible mess. Relentlessly demonizing Harper at every opportunity, ignoring the NDP policies other than the occasional feel good pieces about Jack, pushing Iggy.
> 
> The lack of ethics, professionalism, and untruths. Well, now it is going to possibly come back and bite Canada on the ***. A bunch of nobodys.
> 
> *[size=14pt]Stupid [/size]people in my Condo don't like Harper's eyes!!!!!*



and



> Had a dental this afternoon. My 20 something dental tech/hygienist and her friends are going to vote Green as Harper is going to privatize health care.
> 
> She is a sassy blonde, and I do live in BC.



These people are voting!

It is like firing the owner (boss) of a successful business and replacing him/her with a union member who never ran anything.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Apr 2011)

Nobody ever said democracy was pretty... we may not like who get elected but Democracy is about choice and if the NDP and Jack Layton emerge as a significant force from this election than we shall live with the consequences... whether they are good or bad.

I have a feeling the numbers are incredibly inflated, and I have a feeling the NDP and the Liberals are going to end up splitting the vote in a lot of Ontario ridings allowing the Conservatives to sneak in


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2011)

The AARs  03 May for _every_ party will be very intense. 

(OK, maybe not the Rhino Party's)


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2011)

And a reminder, there are lots of parties running for office; you just didn't hear about them yet. Those damn Communists are vote splitting between the Communists and the Marxist-Leninists again, no wonder the CPC has a chance to go up the middle, gain seats and govern.... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada

Political parties currently represented in the House of Commons

    Bloc Québécois (founded in 1991) - Quebec sovereignty, social democratic
    Conservative Party of Canada (founded in 2003) - conservative
    Liberal Party of Canada (founded in 1867) - liberal
    New Democratic Party (founded in 1961) - social democratic

[edit] Other parties registered with Elections Canada

    Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (founded in 2005) - environmentalist, animal liberationist
    Canadian Action Party (founded in 1997) - populist, anti-globalization
    Christian Heritage Party of Canada (founded in 1987) - social conservative
    Communist Party of Canada (founded in 1921) - communist
    Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (founded in 1970) - communist/Marxist-Leninist influenced by Maoism and the ideas of Enver Hoxha
    First Peoples National Party of Canada (founded in 2005) - Aboriginal rights advocacy
    Green Party of Canada (founded 1983) - Green
    Libertarian Party of Canada (founded in 1975) - libertarian
    Marijuana Party of Canada (founded in 2000) - pro-marijuana legalization
    Rhinoceros Party (founded in 2006) - Satirical party
    Pirate Party of Canada (founded 2009) Copyright, Privacy, Network neutrality, Open government
    Progressive Canadian Party (founded in 2004) - progressive conservative, Red Tory
    United Party of Canada
    Western Block Party (founded 2005) - western separatist and paleoconservative/libertarian conservative

[edit] Parties that are eligible to be registered with Elections Canada

None at this time.
[edit] Unregistered parties that have been active in recent years

    Freedom Party of Canada (founded 2001, formerly Unparty)
    Nationalist Party of Canada (founded 1977)
    National-Socialist Party of Canada (founded 2006)
    Newfoundland and Labrador First Party (founded in 2007) - Newfoundland and Labrador advocacy
    People's Political Power of Canada (founded in 2006)- feminist, centrist, populist
    Sex Party (founded 2005) [1]
    Work Less Party (founded in 2007) - Labour rights
    Online Party of Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And a reminder, there are lots of parties running for office; you just didn't hear about them yet. Those damn Communists are vote splitting between the Communists and the Marxist-Leninists again, no wonder the CPC has a chance to go up the middle, gain seats and govern....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
> 
> ...



The NDP are Communist :

The voters just don't realize it because they don't see Communist in the name. Most voters are ignorant. They vote on how the politicians are dressed, their inflated, UNSUBSTANTIATED rhetoric, their looks and all the absolute bullshit that the MSM feeds the public. Politics has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with 'I'd like to have a beer with this guy'. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 25% of voters listen to the platform. It's about who looks good, sounds good, or who my Dad voted for.

We NEED the NDP to get elected, so we can go through a nationwide calamity like we did in Ontario and BC when the NDP was in charge. It is guaranteed that the NDP would cease to be a national party after taxpayers see the havoc and discord that party would sow, while they bankrupt the country both fiscally and morally. Remember Rae in Ontario and Dosanjh in BC how they trashed everything both provinces stood for. Now they are close to the levers of Federal power. Zebras don't change their stripes, but they do join coalitions to trash everything we've accomplished in the last five years. Never mind what they will do to the CF. If you didn't like Chretien calling you Boy Scouts, wait till Layton turns you into Girl Guides.


_edit for spelling and a bunch of other shit_


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2011)

I sometimes agree with Andrew Coyne, but not this time, not with this analysis, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _MacLeans_:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/a-price-must-be-paid-but-by-whom/ 


> A price must be paid—but by whom?
> *Andrew Coyne decides his ballot question, and who he will vote for*
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> ...



Actually, I agree with _most_ of what Cohen says, but I take issue – serious issue – with this part:

_”But the long train of offences against democratic and parliamentary principle—from proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach; to withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands; to intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy; to such breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates—are simply unforgivable.”_

*Proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach*
That is the main reason (albeit not the only one) prorogation is an integral part of our parliamentary system: to allow the government of the day to suck back and reload, so to speak. The fact that the opposition, the media and many, many Canadians don't like it does not make it any less acceptable.

*Withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands*
This, making documents available to members, is a _tradition_ in the making. I believe the Conservatives are fighting change at the behest of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is, I also believe, partially right – we need to establish some rules, as already exist in e.g. The UK and the USA, to “clear” MPs to receive and consider some, maybe even most, government documents.

*Intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy*
I do not believe that the Harper Conservatives are guilty of either. Some parliamentary officers disagree with the government and the government disagrees right back – that is *not* intimidation, that's debate. The politicization of the bureaucracy began under the Liberals and the worst thing that we can say about Harper's Conservatives is that they have not stopped it.

*Breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates*
Neither Emerson nor Fortier were, in any reasonable way, breaches of trust: floor crossings are an old and even honourable part of our parliamentary tradition as are appointments of senators to cabinet. Taxing income trusts was, indeed, a broken promise but we should celebrate, even commend a change of mind when it makes good policy sense. The fixed election date promise, now almost a _custom_, is, at best, a gimmick, but Coyne is correct, it is a broken promise.

I respect Coyne and I respect his right to choose the Liberals and to encourage you and me to do the same, but I reject some of his reasons, which I find to be flimsy, at best.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Apr 2011)

Part of the income trust saga was rapidly changing circumstance.  Chartered banks were considering de-incorporating and re-establishing as trusts.  Seriously, how happy would Iggy and Layton be if chartered banks paid no corporate income tax.


----------



## Haletown (29 Apr 2011)

Perhaps what Coyne left out, that Conservatives are more likely to kill off the $$$subsidy that keeps his magazine afloat, had something to do with his decision.

Once you get a liplock on a public teat, the sense that you are entitled to your entitlements overwhelms your common sense.

Have fun voting Andrew and don't feel guilty about cashing those big fat taxpayer cheques.


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2011)

Like many others on this site don't buy into the storyline of the NDP turning their poll numbers into a massive shift in support away from the Conservatives.  I _think_ that their support is highly concentrated in a number of urban areas which also have traditionally high(er) Liberal and Bloc support.  I personally believe that most of their gains will come at the expense of those parties rather than from the Conservatives.  

Vote splitting on the left _may_ allow the Conservatives to gain a few seats by coming up the middle but I don't see enough seats going that way to translate into a big Conservative win.  Voter turnout I feel will be the big factor on Monday.  In particular traditional Liberal voters.  If they choose to stay home in fairly large numbers then I think the Conservatives _may_ be able to pull off a majority.  

Another minority however isn't looking as bad as I originally feared at the start of the campaign.  The Bloc losing a significant number of seats (either to the NDP outright or to the Conservatives due to vote splitting) is a good thing to my mind.  The less influence they have in the House the better (even if they're being replaced by socialist members).  

A major shake-up between the Liberals and the NDP on the Centre-Left is also a good thing to my mind.  Putting the two parties closer to parity in support _may_ encourage them to merge in order to prevent vote-splitting from keeping the Conservatives in perpetual power.  In the long term this will give a clearer choice for voters between different visions for the country.

I also have hope that a badly shaken Liberal party (likely with a leadership change coming) will be in no mood to try to immediately defeat a Conservative minority and will rather put their efforts into rebuilding instead.  I doubt they'll be too eager to hand over the keys of power to Jack Layton (pride won't allow it!) and they won't have much legitimacy to try to take control themselves with their support greatly reduced.


----------



## Saskboy (29 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach
> That is the main reason (albeit not the only one) prorogation is an integral part of our parliamentary system: to allow the government of the day to suck back and reload, so to speak. The fact that the opposition, the media and many, many Canadians don't like it does not make it any less acceptable.



Very true. Further, to string the Conservatives up for proroguing is hypocritical on the part of the Liberals. How readily they seem to forget that Jean Chretien also prorogued parliament to avoid dealing a few issues that weren't likely to end favourably for him. Hell, some even applauded Chretien for his cleverness in doing so. Not only that, but he deliberately called a premature election three years into a majority term where the gov't wasn't in danger of losing confidence simply because it would benefit him to do so at that juncture. It's the PM's prerogative to ask the GG for one when he/she sees fit but that was just unnecessary.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach*
> That is the main reason (albeit not the only one) prorogation is an integral part of our parliamentary system: to allow the government of the day to suck back and reload, so to speak. The fact that the opposition, the media and many, many Canadians don't like it does not make it any less acceptable.



Mr. Campbell, I concur.  

Those who conduct due diligence prior to commenting responsibly on the issue are not those who would be surprised that in the Canadian public record, the politician with the worst record for proroguing government is....





....Bob Rae.


#1 - Dec 19, 1991  to  April 6, 1992
#2 - Dec 10, 1992  to  April 13, 1993
#3 - Dec 9, 1994    to  April 28, 1995 

...for a total of 375 days.  That makes Mr. Harper pale in comparison.



Those who attempt to paint PM Harper as a morally corrupt politician trying to detach the electorate from due process through excessive proroguement are on shaky moral ground.


Regards
G2G


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Like many others on this site don't buy into the storyline of the NDP turning their poll numbers into a massive shift in support away from the Conservatives.  I _think_ that their support is highly concentrated in a number of urban areas which also have traditionally high(er) Liberal and Bloc support.  I personally believe that most of their gains will come at the expense of those parties rather than from the Conservatives.


  

If you look at the riding projections here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JP4g-fooiuc/TblbW-vuZyI/AAAAAAAAE-g/VGlVx-daRr0/s1600/11-04-28+Ridings.PNG

The NDP is only leading in two seats outside of Quebec that they currently don't hold, and 8 inside Quebec. A net gain of 10 seats. 




> Vote splitting on the left _may_ allow the Conservatives to gain a few seats by coming up the middle but I don't see enough seats going that way to translate into a big Conservative win.  Voter turnout I feel will be the big factor on Monday.  In particular traditional Liberal voters.  If they choose to stay home in fairly large numbers then I think the Conservatives _may_ be able to pull off a majority.
> 
> Another minority however isn't looking as bad as I originally feared at the start of the campaign.  The Bloc losing a significant number of seats (either to the NDP outright or to the Conservatives due to vote splitting) is a good thing to my mind.  The less influence they have in the House the better (even if they're being replaced by socialist members).
> 
> ...



Agreed. If the Liberals give up the opposition in favour of the NDP, I don't see them joining a coalition. If Iggy can't sit in the big chair, he's likely not going to want to play.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2011)

"Harper: Not quite as bad as Bob Rae" is hardly a ringing endorsement.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The fixed election date promise, now almost a _custom_, is, at best, a gimmick, but Coyne is correct, it is a broken promise.



I beg to differ. The strength of that promise can only truly be tested by a majority government.


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2011)

You guys are going to see this a few times over the weekend and so I thank you all in advance for your patience.

*This web site will be a "news portal" on election night - rather like the TV networks. They, the TV networks and, for example, the newspaper web sites, are forbidden by law from broadcasting results until the polls close in BC. Those "news portals" that break the rules are subject to criminal charges and large fines.

Anyone who sees a post that appears to be in contravention of the law is asked to report the post immediately and then take no further action.

We thank you for your cooperation and patience.

At 2200 EST on Monday you may fire away.

The Staff*

Edit to update time to 2200 EST, per Elections Canada


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2011)

Because I enjoy _fun with numbers_ I worked up three scenarios for 3 May 11:

                                                 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Other
Scenario 1:                           33           150          70               55         -
Scenario 2:                           38           135          63               70         2
Scenario 3:                           35           120          65               85         3

*Coalition probabilities*

*Scenario 1*: Low – a coalition would require explicit BQ support and both the Liberals and NDP know that it will be seen, by most Canadians, as illegitimate – a coalition of both losers and separatists – and that the parties to it will be punished at the next election. The Conservatives will claim (Iand many Canadians will agree) that they “won” the right to govern, for at least a year, by increasing their majority.

*Scenario 2*: Medium – a coalition _might_ be formed without explicit BQ support, a lot depends on the two “Others” and on the Liberals' _death wish_. I think the Liberals will buy in if the _Dippers_ offer them a reasonable share of cabinet seats, even, maybe esepecially Finance Minister. Canadians would likely find it acceptable because many of them will have repudiated the Conservatives on 2 May 11.

*Scenario 3*: High, *in theory* – a coalition is very probable because it does not require BQ support and Canadians will have soundly, but not completely, repudiated the Conservatives; but
                    Low, *in practice* – the NDP is unlikely to offer the Liberals many, if any, seats at the cabinet table, and the Liberals know that they will, likely, be permanently displaced as a major, national party if they let
                    Jack Layton into 24 Sussex Drive because Layton will keep very, very few of his promises and will govern, largely, in a responsible manner at the behest of the bureaucracy and the provinces and big labour.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the latest projection:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First: the Conservatives have stopped their own version of _free-fall_; they appear to have started to rebound ... maybe.

Second, for the first time _ThreeHundredEight.com_ “demotes” the BQ to fourth party status.  :nod:  Here, if these numbers hold, is how the HoC would look when Parliament reconvenes:





Projected Canadian Parliament
Source:http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 

Here, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _WilfredLaurier University's LISPOP_, is their latest projection:






  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Other
    32           147         60              69          -


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Apr 2011)

Any coalition that becomes the government will purchase favor with Canadians using tax dollars. Bribes.

The consequences will not even be thought about. Attitude: That's in the future. Maybe things will straighten out. But everything is alright now. Gimme.

Same rational as recruiting armies. Attitude: Won't happen to me.

I think Quebec may possible screw the ROC again. They have realized that the Bloc will not get them into government. Electing the NDP gets them into government. Now Quebec is in the drivers seat and the NDP is beholding.

Quebec bled the Liberals and Conservatives dry. The formed their own party, bled it dry. Now it is the NDP's turn.

Canada is not bled dry yet, but Quebec is darn well trying.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Because I enjoy _fun with numbers_ I worked up three scenarios for 3 May 11:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I enjoy playing with political scenarios:

I like what you did, but you ignored an important possibility in your scenarios 2 and 3: A Conservative/dippers coalition government.

Politics is the art of the possible: Even in the UK, Brown as the incumbent Prime Minister was asked  to try and form a government of coalition first. 

Harper could garner three to five years of stable governing on the economics/defence/law and order agenda (yes, even with a possible free vote on the registry), while being able to claim limitations on his actions on the social side by his "partner". Meanwhile, with the gains made, the Dippers could use the opportunity to act responsibly in government and show the Canadians that they can actually govern.

In such a colaition, the Dippers could be offered posts like Environment, Heritage, Intergovernmental, Citizenship and Immigration, Veterans affairs, with junior portfolios in Health, arts and culture and international development, perhaps even in Human Resources. 

Well? Everything's possible in a weirdly split minority government.


----------



## Redeye (29 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Any coalition *party* that becomes the government will purchase favor with Canadians using tax dollars. Bribes.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And I enjoy playing with political scenarios:
> 
> I like what you did, but you ignored an important possibility in your scenarios 2 and 3: A Conservative/dippers coalition government.
> 
> ...




Good point OGBD but how about a Conservative-Liberal coalition with similar _sharing_ offers, maybe even offer the Liberals Foreign Affairs?


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good point OGBD but how about a Conservative-Liberal coalition with similar _sharing_ offers, maybe even offer the Liberals Foreign Affairs?



The Conservatives do not want to give the Liberals any opportunity to shine, nor credence as a potential government.  A Tory/Dipper coalition would reinforce the message that there are only two "real" political parties in Canada, one left, one right, and further marginalize the Liberals.

Harper is also playing a long game here; a strong NDP on the left with a strong Conservative party in the centre-right squeezes out the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> Harper is also playing a long game here; a strong NDP on the left with a strong Conservative party in the centre-right squeezes out the Liberals.




I agree with that. But I suspect Harper is willing to make concessions - including cabinet appointments - to _individual Liberals_ who are willing to jump ship and join his government.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Apr 2011)

I agree with Edward's assumption re plums for Liberals willing to jump ship. Now maybe there aren't enough cabinet jobs to attract enough Grits to reach a majority, but there may be enough "blue" Liberals who could not stomach the prospect of a Layton-led coalition. They might even be willing to sit as "Independent Liberals."


----------



## GAP (29 Apr 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

The national ballot remains relatively stable with a five point lead for the Conservatives over the NDP at this point in the campaign. NDP numbers continue to trend up in Ontario and also showed an increase in support in British Columbia. 

Conservative support nationally stands at 36.4% followed by the NDP at 31.2%, the Liberals at 22.0%, the BQ at 5.7% and the Greens at 4.0%. 

A review of the regional sub samples suggests that Atlantic Canada remains a statistical tie factoring the margin of error of the research. 

Support for the New Democrats remains steady at 41.4% in Quebec with the BQ at 23.6%, the Liberals at 16.1%, the Conservatives at 15.8% and the Greens at 1.9%. 

Conservative support is trending down in Ontario although still in the lead. In Ontario, the Tories are at 36.3%, followed by the Liberals at 29.8%, the NDP at 28.5% and the Green Party at 5.1%. 

Tory support has increased in the Prairies to 60.0%, while the NDP are in second at 22.8%, the Liberals are at 13.3% and the Greens are at 3.9%. 

Although the Tories maintain their support in British Columbia at 43.0%, the NDP registered a noticeable increase in support to 35.2%, followed by the Liberals at 18.2% and the Greens at 3.7%. 

Party platform remains the top vote driver at 48.7%. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

Retrouvez les tableaux détaillés ainsi que les notes méthodologiques sur notre site web en français où vous pouvez également vous inscrire afin de recevoir des mises à jours regulières sur nos sondages.


 Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 27th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1012). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200). 

Canada (n=1021 committed voters) 
Conservative 36.4% (-0.2) 
NDP 31.2% (+0.8 ) 
Liberal 22.0% (+0.1) 
Bloc Quebecois 5.7% (-0.3) 
Green 4.0% (-0.1) 

*Undecided 15.0% (-0.8 )     Probably pretty important

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 27th (n=1,200). 

Party Policies 48.7% (-0.3 ) 
Party Leader 25.2% (-0.8 ) 
Local Candidate 14.9% (+1.9 ) 
Traditionally Vote for Party 7.2% (-0.5 ) 
Unsure 3.9% (-0.5 )


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2011)

I personally don't see much likelyhood of a formal coalition involving the Conservatives and any other party.  Inviting the Liberals in would be too dangerous...giving your fallling enemy a hand and giving them the opportunity to shift back toward the right and compete with you for the largest chunk of votes in the political centre of the spectrum.

While working with the NDP might have the advantage of helping to kick the Liberals while they're down, it would certainly make the Conservatives look soft on their core ideals to their core Centre-Right supporters.  It would also give Jack Layton and the NDP the benefit of a responsible governing record to point toward in future elections.  Hard to say how horrible they'd be forming a future government when they've actually been part of your own government!

I definitely agree that the major push would be made to encourage the right wing of the Liberal party to defect to the Conservatives or at the very least tacitly keep the minority Conservative government in power for two years prior to a potential new election.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2011)

Interesting article in the Globe, at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/will-harper-regret-strategy-of-running-not-to-lose/article2003272/ , which asserts that Harper's campaign was intended to avoid losing - but was not geared to be a winning campaign.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

Did he run a conservative campaign? *GASP*


----------



## wannabe SF member (29 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Did he run a conservative campaign? *GASP*



I see what you did there!!

But in all seriousness, I do believe the best thing the tories could do is extend a hand to liberals willing to jump ship not once but twice. First right after the elections and again when summer recess ends and that Iggy has been replaced (hopefully). By then I believe the party's identity crisis will have gone deeper motivating more individuals to jump on both sides of the boat.

One thing is certain, both the tories and the dippers will benefit from a liberal collapse.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Apr 2011)

The TorStar is reporting that the campaign mgr for the Kenora, ON NDP candidate is also running in Toronto. She also does not campaign for herself as she is too busy in Kenora. This is the party that was bragging re the number of female running.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/29/kelly-mcparland-ndp-readies-for-experiment-in-government/#more-36743

*Scrutiny something new for the NDP*

Scott Stinson - Apr 29, 2011

All eyes will be on Jack as we head towards election day.

Jacob Larkin, the NDP candidate for Labrador, did not begin campaigning in earnest until this week. As the school principal explained in an interview with local CBC Radio, “having a full-time job brings its own responsibilities, which you can’t just drop and go out on the campaign trail. Things have to be seen through.”

Asked why he decided to carry the party banner — or, at least, carry it for the last week of the campaign — Mr. Larkin said, “I believe in social and fiscal responsibility. I think the NDP does as well.”

So, he’s batting .500 there. Could be worse.

Mr. Larkin’s late entry into the business of campaigning and his somewhat uncertain grasp of party ideals are similar to stories emerging about many of the NDP’s candidates. There’s a standard-bearer in Quebec who went on a Las Vegas vacation for a week because she didn’t want to lose her deposit. She also reportedly spoke French so poorly that a local radio station had to scotch an interview rather than air the exchange. Another candidate went to the Caribbean and one travelled to France. There’s a Toronto candidate who has not campaigned at all, can’t be reached, and, judging by a Toronto Star report, quite possibly is an apparition. There are all kinds of students who, presumably, did not have the pesky constraints of full-time work that weighed down Mr. Larkin.

None of these things are unusual — third-place parties usually have a fair bit of cannon fodder — but it is unusual for anyone to be asking about them. And that’s what’s happening to the NDP. People are asking about them, and about the party and its platform, far more than they were last month, or even early last week.

It’s what naturally happens when an also-ran finds itself suddenly very much in the running. The key question for the NDP is: Can it manage four days of impromptu scrutiny?

Scott Matthews, a political science professor with Queen’s University, has studied the effects of media coverage on Canadian elections.

“A surge for a party creates a positive tone,” he said in an interview. “But as a surge becomes a lead, or even close to a lead, there’s evidence that the tone becomes negative.

“I think it’s very obviously happening right now with the NDP, and they’re not even leading.”

On Thursday alone, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was calling on the public — and the media — to put the NDP “under the microscope.” (He even said it was “darn necessary,” cleaning up the potty mouth a little from a day earlier when he said the Conservatives could “go to hell.”)

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, is now decrying not the prospect of a Liberal-led “coalition of losers,” but one guided instead by the NDP. It would be, he said Thursday, “a ramshackle coalition … that will not last but will do a lot of destruction.” He noted that the party’s view on international trade, for example, has “not changed since the Cold War.”

Jack Layton himself is also now facing a different sort of question about his own policies from reporters travelling with him. He was asked on Thursday about how his platform, which calls for a price on carbon, would affect gasoline prices. One analysis says the NDP plan would add 10¢ a litre at the pumps. Mr. Layton insisted that an ombudsman would be able to keep oil companies from raising prices for consumers, but he disagreed that he was proposing to regulate gasoline prices. Reporters described the exchange, which included questions about the AWOL candidates, as “testy” and “heated,” which has been rare for the NDP leader thus far. And testy exchanges lead to stories about how a leader is “on the defensive” or “responding to critics.” Eventually they can become “embattled.” (In the case of Mr. Ignatieff, a report on Thursday referred to him as “beleaguered.”)

“Tone matters,” explains Prof. Matthews. “People do respond to the media. Not everyone, of course, not the partisans and not the people who aren’t paying any attention, but there are people who take their cues from the coverage.”

Meanwhile, a headline on the CBC website late Thursday afternoon: “Layton defends against ‘stop-gap’ candidates.”

Welcome to front-runner — or close to it — status.




* NDP readies for experiment in government*

Kelly McParland - Apr 29, 2011 

Here’s the prospect we’re looking at if the NDP surge survives the weekend (which would require that Canadians continue to profess support for the party while paying no attention whatever to its utopian platform).

A party with absolutely no experience in running a government, *fat with rookie MPs recruited from university campuses and NDP student groups*, finds itself suddenly catapulted to Canada’s biggest opposition party, able, with help from other opposition parties, to decide the fate of the latest minority government. Leader Jack Layton’s only related experience was as a major figure in the left-wing faction of Toronto city council. His most experienced colleague, Thomas Mulcair, served as a minister in the Quebec provincial government. He was a secondary  minister and resigned when he was offered something even lower.

Their position has any number of precedents.  Mario Dumont’s Action democratique du Quebec went from nowhere to 41 seats in the Quebec legislature, back to nowhere a year later when voters realized what a pack of bumbling amateurs they were. Brian Mulroney’s historic sweep in 1984 left him with 58 seats in Quebec, many of them neophytes Mulroney barely knew, who helped sink the party into a mire of scandal over the next several years. John Diefenbaker suffered a similar experience when his Progressive Conservatives, after more than 20 years out of power, suddenly found themselves running the show in 1958. The result in each case: big trouble. No matter what you might think about professional politicians, rank amateurs are no better. Ask Bob Rae, whose NDP famously found itself thrust into power in Ontario in 1990, and limped out five years later with the economy in tatters and the party (and province) in disarray.

Jack Layton isn’t likely to be prime minister, but he will hold the fate of the government in his hands.  Stephen Harper’s Conservatives will likely have to temper their budget plans if they hope to stay in power more than another month or so (goodbye corporate tax cut) and make other concessions to their weakened status (goodbye cancellation of party subsidies). But it’s hard to see the Tories agreeing to any of the pie-in-the-sky policies on which the NDP has staked its future. Mr. Layton — who has taken to avoiding questions now that people are actually starting to look closely at his many promises — maintains that he has been very responsible in his campaigning, and that many of the most extravagant pledges will take years to fulfill, and depend in some cases on factors beyond his control (i.e. approval from the provinces, which rarely agree on anything). Sorry Jack — one of the first lessons of power is that people don’t pay attention to nuance, or the caveats attached to campaign promises. Here’s the local report that followed his recent visit to Yellowknife:

    In anticipation of his shot at the seat currently held by Conservative leader Stephen Harper, Layton promised Canadian voters to fulfill his campaign pledges within 100 days of an NDP-led government if the party wins in the May 2 national election.
    Among the campaign promises that Layton made were to create jobs and help elderly Canadians out of poverty. Layton told students in Yellowknife on Thursday that his campaign pledges are not wild, but modest and reasonable.
    The list includes:

        Start training of doctors and nurses
        Provide incentives for Canadian physicians who have left the country to return home
        Double public pensions
        Reduce taxes for small businesses by 2 percent
        Make available a job creation tax credit
        Place a limit on credit card interest rates at 5 points above prime rate
        Remove the federal sales tax off home heating bills, and
        Unlock mobile phones.

Mr. Layton didn’t really promise to get all those things done in the first 100 days, just a few of the easiest. But you get the picture: people hear promises and expect fast action. Those  voters piling onto the NDP bandwagon think they’re going to have their pensions doubled, and fast, and they’re going to be angry when the NDP fails to come through, which it inevitably will.

Similarly, the many Quebecers switching to the NDP in anticipation Mr. Layton will keep his promise to help the province achieve most of the benefits of sovereignty, while the money continues to flow in from Ottawa, will have their illusions shattered. It’s not going to happen, if the rest of the country has any say.

For Mr. Layton and his caucus it will be a learning experience. Unfortunately, they’ll be performing  their experiment with the fortunes of the country. People shouldn’t vote when they don’t know what they’re voting for.  Hopeless idealists can cause a lot of damage before they begin to appreciate that life is more complicated than they thought.

National Post


----------



## ballz (29 Apr 2011)

If the Tories get a few seats short of a majority and Blue Grits start jumping ship to give them a majority, it might do the Tores more harm than good in the long run.

I sure don't look kindly on members that will jump ship like that and I know a lot of other people don't either...


----------



## Haletown (29 Apr 2011)

I love the Layton plan to spend $25m on training new doctors & nurses.

Wonderful, but what will they do when they graduate?  It is the Provinces who hire/pay for doctors & nurses and in my Province there isn't a nickel in the budget to hire new medical staff. I'll bet it is the same elsewhere . . no money to hire doctors and give them a billing number.

So in effect Layton would blow $25 million to train doctors and nurses so they can't find a job in Canada and will likely go to the USA for a career.

The Americans will, no doubt,  be very happy to receive such  NDP largesse.

Me & my money, not so much.


It is this kind of sounds good/feels good policy statement that is floating the NDP boat but doesn't get any scrutiny from the media.

The media's free pass on the NDP has certainly helped the Orange Tide rise.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

http://www.liberalsforharper.ca/


----------



## ballz (29 Apr 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> So in effect Layton would blow $25 million to train doctors and nurses so they can't find a job in Canada and will likely go to the USA for a career.



I don't know many doctors or nurses that can't find employment in Canada...

But you are correct about the problem of them going to the US. It's not that Canada isn't producing enough doctors/nurses, or that these prospective doctors/nurses can't afford to take student loans for fear of not being able to find a job. It's getting them to stay.

I think the answer is simply offering either huge signing bonuses for x numbers of years, or "x" years of tuition for "y" years of service in Canada. Failure to honour contract = all fees repaid at 5% annual interst. If you can lock a doctor down on a 10 year contract, they will likely be 35+ years old and have a family in Canada by the time they can leave without penalty. In the event that an American company is willing to pay the money to break their contract, at least the government gets some return on the money. I would think these kind of contracts would make a huge difference though.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Apr 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-cannon-versus-karate-kid-ndp-wave-threatens-tory-minister/article2004273/

*Lawrence Cannon versus Karate Kid: NDP wave threatens Tory minister*

Heather Scoffield - Wakefield, Que.— The Canadian Press - Friday, Apr. 29, 2011 

Mathieu Ravignat is a former communist, current karate instructor and the NDP candidate in Quebec's Pontiac riding.

The man he's trying to unseat is Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Conservative sources say Lawrence Cannon is in danger of going down to defeat in his riding across the Ottawa River and west of the capital. He has been placed on the “watch list” the Tory war room keeps of incumbents that are in political peril.

Mr. Ravignat, a social sciences researcher, was nominated two weeks ago at a low-key meeting few took note of after a better-known candidate backed out.

At about the same time, Mr. Cannon was in the Middle East conferring with representatives from the world's most powerful countries on the prosecution of the war in Libya.

See link.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> I love the Layton plan to spend $25m on training new doctors & nurses.
> 
> Wonderful, but what will they do when they graduate?  It is the Provinces who hire/pay for doctors & nurses and in my Province there isn't a nickel in the budget to hire new medical staff. I'll bet it is the same elsewhere . . no money to hire doctors and give them a billing number.
> 
> ...



First off, health care, which includes the hiring or doctors and nurses, is a provincial responsibility. The premiers are pretty protective of the feds sticking their noses in what they consider to be provincial affairs. The second thing is that $25 million is chicken feed. I don't think that $25m is going to hire very many. And if the plan was implemented how are the NDP going to allocate the new hires (e.g) Which province gets X numbers of doctors/nurses? 

Not very well thought out.


----------



## Redeye (29 Apr 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> First off, health care, which includes the hiring or doctors and nurses, is a provincial responsibility. The premiers are pretty protective of the feds sticking their noses in what they consider to be provincial affairs. The second thing is that $25 million is chicken feed. I don't think that $25m is going to hire very many. And if the plan was implemented how are the NDP going to allocate the new hires (e.g) Which province gets X numbers of doctors/nurses?
> 
> Not very well thought out.



It's a provincial responsibility funded by federal transfer payments, like universities.  If Layton's plan is to fund the training (or credential equivalence process for immigrating doctors) or to provide some sort of new transfer to provinces to fund hiring more doctors, then I don't see how he's trampling on anyone's territory.  If he tries to tell the provinces how to run their health care systems, that's a different story, but I think he's a little smarter than that.

As for allocations, some incentive mechanism to bring doctors and other practitioners to underserved (read: rural) areas would be ideal.


----------



## VinceW (29 Apr 2011)

The latest poll from EKOS

Conservatives - 34.5%/35.5% commited voters
NDP - 29.7%/30.6% commited voters
Liberals - 20%/19.9% commited voters
Greens - 6.9%/5.8% commited voters
Bloc - 6.3%/6.1% commited voters

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/FG-2011-04-29.pdf


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's a provincial responsibility funded by federal transfer payments, like universities.  If Layton's plan is to fund the training (or credential equivalence process for immigrating doctors) or to provide some sort of new transfer to provinces to fund hiring more doctors, then I don't see how he's trampling on anyone's territory.  If he tries to tell the provinces how to run their health care systems, that's a different story, but I think he's a little smarter than that.
> 
> As for allocations, some incentive mechanism to bring doctors and other practitioners to underserved (read: rural) areas would be ideal.



My understanding is that that once the provinces the health transfer payments they can spend it as they want. I agree with you that the feds and the provinces can come to some deal, but going back my statement above $25m is small change, especially when you try to spread it between 10 provinces and three territories.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2011)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act. Conservative blogger Steve Janke over at Angry in the Great White North has his take on why he thinks the polls reporting a NDP surge are out to lunch. 



> Conservatives clawing back?
> Friday, April 29, 2011 at 02:27 PM
> 
> EKOS was probably the first to detect the magnitude of the NDP surge, and now it looks like it is the first to detect the Conservatives clawing back:
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2011)

Link busted.


Link fixed.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

I am now predicting 175 seats for the Conservatives.


----------



## HavokFour (29 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I am now predicting 175 seats for the Conservatives.



Care to explain?  ???


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Apr 2011)

In my opinion, predicting seat count is a bit like climate science.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Link busted.
> 
> 
> Link fixed.



Thanks.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my opinion, predicting seat count is a bit like climate science.



Yup, migth as well read the entrails of a dead fish.

Call it a WAG, it is just a feeling. Based mostly on how I see the vote splitting (between the NDP/Libs) giving even a slight advantage to the Conservatives, helped with peoples fear of the NDPs economic policies driving the blue Liberals over to the Cons and how I keep hearing that the Conservative voter base is more secure.


----------



## VinceW (29 Apr 2011)

The latest Ipsos Reid poll

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5224

The good news is that most Conservative voters will vote Conservative on Election day ahead of Mr. Hopey Changies party of the North.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

O-M-G

SunTV is reporting Jack Layton being found in a rub and tug by the police in 1996.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/924574695001


----------



## VinceW (29 Apr 2011)

Olivia Chow denies that anything but a massage happened.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/29/layton-found-in-toronto-bawdy-house-former-cop


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2011)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Olivia Chow denies that anything but a massage happened.
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/29/layton-found-in-toronto-bawdy-house-former-cop



Yeah, I bet she did. I wonder if she will change her tune once she reads the police officers notebook.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2011)

Somehow I knew I'd like Sun News 8)

Now let's see if the rest of the media cover it


----------



## trigger324 (29 Apr 2011)

Two words: Julian Fantino


----------



## Dissident (30 Apr 2011)

Sooooooooooooooo, how does 175 seats sounds like now?


----------



## VinceW (30 Apr 2011)

The new Angus Reid poll

Conservatives - 37%
NDPeers - 33%
Liberals - 19%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43895/conservatives-and-ndp-gain-in-canada-as-liberals-fall-below-20-mark/


----------



## Gimpy (30 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Sooooooooooooooo, how does 175 seats sounds like now?



As unlikely as it did the first time you said it.


----------



## Dissident (30 Apr 2011)

From a PI who posted this on another forum I frequent:



> 1. Layton while a city counselor received police data from the PSB about the locations and enforcement of suspected Chinese prostitutes in 14/51/52 and 55 Division.
> 
> 2. The location had previously been raided and charges laid and during a following raid was shut down. In both the before and after people were charged.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an analysis of the decline of the Liberal Party:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ 


> Liberal soul-searching begins as decision day nears
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




In a way it is very sad to watch the decline of a great _national_ institution – one which gave us Laurier, King and St Laurent and, arguably, shaped the country we know today more than any other event or agency. In another way. I suppose, we might just be watching a _natural_ evolution of party politics in Canada: something akin to what we saw in the UK one hundred years ago – the replacement of the Liberals by Labour.  

The Chrétien-Martin infighting, which is, I agree, still going on and is derstructive, predates those two worthies. There was Chrétien-Turner infighting and Turner-Trudeau infighting and, before that Trudeau-Pearson infighting. (There was a _battle_, of sorts, between King and St Laurent, too, on the issue of foreign policy, but it was, essentially decided, in St Laurent's favour, as part of the “package” offered to entice him into federal politics. Once in office St Laurent, supported by almost all the cabinet, simply and completely displaced King on all of the foreign policy file.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Jack Layton demonstrates, once again, that you can fool most of the people almost all the time, in this article, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ 


> Gas prices could rise, but Canadians want polluters to pay: Layton
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> KAMLOOPS, B.C.— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




*Make the polluters pay* is the NDP mantra which is accepted uncritically by 95% of the media and nearly as big a slice of Canadians. The *principle* is fine; I do not disagree with it on principle but it is the method that Layton proposes, and which most Canadians support, that is rubbish. The poluters are not the gas stations or coal fired power plants or oil-sands producers; they are just _parts_ of the pollution supply chain. The polluters – the people who *must*, eventually, pay 100% of the cost of cleaning up the environment are the _ordinary Canadians_, you and me, who heat our homes, drive our cars, watch out big screen TVs and buy groceries. And the only way we will ever change our behaviour – which is 100% responsible for all the pollution - is by paying for the necessary changes each time we pay our home heating bill, fill up the care, pay out hydro bill or buy milk and eggs.

But Canadians don't want to hear that. I suspect that Jack Layton is, actually, a smart guy and knows that he's blowing smoke but he is happy to lie to us because it is a lie that most of us want to hear.

Cap and trade is a silly system that actually creates as many problems as it _might_ solve. If, *Big IF*, we need to pay more to clean up the environment then the only sane way is to apply a carbon tax – which _flows through_ the entire system, à la the GST/HST – until you and I end up paying all of it at the pumps, at the check out counter or when we pay our hydro bill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an analysis of the decline of the Liberal Party:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/
> 
> ...




More on this, again reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, this time from Jeffrey Simpson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/the-strange-death-of-liberal-canada/article2004564/


> The ‘strange death’ of Liberal Canada
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




One quibble: I think Trudeau began to "lose" the Liberal's QC base back in the late 1960s - when it became obvious that he did not share, possibly did not even understand, QC's _nationalist_ sentiments. (Trudeau had one big idea - he opposed _nationalism_ in most of its forms.)

But I think the Liberals must, now, stop and think:


Are they going to wither and die, like the English Liberals?

Are they going to merge with - and try to take over, from within - the NDP? or

Are they going to try to rid themselves of their current, _Trudeauist_, 'vision' which is, quite clearly, anathema to  most Canadians and rebuild themselves as a party of the centre.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Apr 2011)

The TorStar endorses the NDP.  http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/983376--toronto-star-endorses-the-ndp


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2011)

ERC - 



> (Trudeau had one big idea - he opposed nationalism in most of its forms.)



Given the boy, the man was produced ...... and the man was ever an _Ultramontagniste_.  The only debate was over who was on the other side of the mountain.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The TorStar endorses the NDP.  http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/983376--toronto-star-endorses-the-ndp




And the _Ottawa Citizen_ endorses the Conservatives, here

The case for a Tory majority 
The Ottawa Citizen April 30, 2011






Conservative leader Stephen Harper speaks during a campaign stop in Brampton, Ontario, Friday, April 29, 2011.
Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National Post


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2011)

Conservative leader Stephen Harper speaks during a campaign stop in Brampton, Ontario, Friday, April 29, 2011.
Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National Post



Slightly OT, but I watched a bit of that speech last night on CPAC.  Mr. Harper actually impressed me with his energy.  I also saw Mr. Ignatieff.  He also came across quite well.  The difference, for me, is that Mr. Harper was talking policies, where Mr. Ignatieff was just talking.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Apr 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Slightly OT, but I watched a bit of that speech last night on CPAC.  Mr. Harper actually impressed me with his energy.  I also saw Mr. Ignatieff.  He also came across quite well.  The difference, for me, is that Mr. Harper was talking policies, where Mr. Ignatieff was just talking.



Is part of the Liberal problem that Ignatieff says a lot of nasty things about the Conservatives while Harper has others say the nasty things about the Liberals.  To me, Ignatieff seems pretty bitter.  Right now he's just whistling past the graveyard on his way back to Harvard, the visiting professor, you know.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Some other mainstream media editorial endorsements:

Vancouver Sun: Conservatives
Edmonton Journal: Conservatives
Calgary Herald: Conservatives
Winnipeg Free Press: Conservatives
Hamilton Spectator: Conservatives – reluctantly
Montreal Gazette Conservative majority

Several other newspapers, from the Victoria Timers Colonist to the St. John's Telegram, are just encouraging people to get out and vote for the party of their choice.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Apr 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> O-M-G
> 
> SunTV is reporting Jack Layton being found in a rub and tug by the police in 1996.
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/924574695001



Most everyone in politics has skeletons. The Conservatives have many. But ususally people are classy enough to leave them alone. 1996? Intersting time to report on that "story".


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the penultimate _projection_ based on aggregated polls:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, based on the aggregation of the various polls, the NDP are eating the Liberals' lunch and dinner but the Conservatives remain headed for another, very slightly larger, minority.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Most everyone in politics has skeletons. The Conservatives have many.



Did Harper slip a $5 into the collection plate one Sunday instead of $50?  No dirt on my upstanding Baptist MP and if there was I would have heard it.  Really small town.


----------



## Haletown (30 Apr 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Most everyone in politics has skeletons. The Conservatives have many. But ususally people are classy enough to leave them alone. 1996? Intersting time to report on that "story".



Some skeleton.  

1:30 in the morning is a strange time to have "massage therapy'

Being naked while getting "massage therapy" is also very strange.

Getting "massage therapy" from an unlicensed but fully employed sex trade worker is also a strange way to get your "massage therapy"

Most of go to licensed offices in regular business hours and maybe get asked to change into gym shorts.


But Jack is a Progressive so he's smarter than us peons so of course he is being honest with Canadians.

Because we demand our politicians be honest and of good moral character.

That's our good little socialist Jack . . .


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Apr 2011)

If nothing else, the Layton massage story has the punster persuasion rising to the occasion. One example found at www.smalldeadanimals.com has someone calling Mr Layton the Jackulator.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

Well, it has been interesting to watch this one and I think we'll have our most interesting results since 1993.

My prediction at the last push is that we'll see the Cons with a small majority, with the Libs and the NDP sitting in a dead heat for official opposition.  My believe on the NDPs numbers is that it is catastrophic for the left of center vote.

First, I believe the NDP rise will have an effect on the less-than-stalewart members of other parties.  Yes, the left side of the Liberal and BQ will bleed to the NDP.  The core supports will stay on their sinking ships.  The blue Liberals and some softer Quebec nationalists I can see moving to the Conservatives, as their interests are probably better served there than with their own burning hulks or the NDP crow about to feast on them.  In sum, I'll argue that any losses the Cons had to the other parties for whatever reason they'll probably make up from those parties in being the only attractive choice to the hard left policies of Layton.

Secondly, the Conservative numbers have remained relatively stable at the 35-40% - people who vote Conservative are still going to vote Conservative.

This hasn't been enough to get the Cons the majority in the past, but look how the Opposition parties got their seats - 47 through a concentration in Quebec, 77 through a concentration in the cities and the NDP who picks up a scattershot of seats as their support is generally diffuse.  Now we see support going to the NDP (which is real) that takes support from those two "concentrations" for a good chunk of the 161 seats the opposition held and puts it in a second party, meaning "opposition" seats in concentrated areas are now being fought over by the NDP and the Lib/BQ.

For a perfect example of what this will do, look at 1993 where the Reform held 19%, the Progressive Conservative Party held 16%, and the BQ (recently having left the PC fold) held 14%; add the 7% of the NDP and you get a 56% opposition popular support - the key is this is fairly evenly spread with Reform/PC competitions in the West and PC/BQ competitions in Quebec, leading to first-past-the-post wins for the Liberals.  The data Edward just put up shows, 24%, 25%, 7% and 6% for the Greens, another left vote, giving 62% opposition popular support - again, the spread will give enough first-past-the-post winds for the Conservatives.  Despite all the political excitement around the rise of the NDP and the immolation of the Libs/BQ, diffusing the vote on either side of the spectrum cannot be viewed as a good thing for the parties occupying it.

This should translate into about:

Cons:  155-160
Libs:  55-60
NDP:  55-60
BQ:  25-30

So there you have it - Infanteer's 2011 election predictions.  Let's see if I should get in the crystal ball business.


----------



## VinceW (30 Apr 2011)

Todays Nanos poll

Conservatives - 38.0% (+1.6)
NDP - 29.6% (-1.6)
Liberals - 23.3% (+1.3)
Bloc - 5.2% (-0.5)
Greens - 3.1% (-0.9)

http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp


----------



## GAP (30 Apr 2011)

Here's the email version sent to me

Nik on the Numbers 

The Conservative advantage over the NDP stands at eight percentage points as the campaign enters its final weekend. 

Conservative support nationally is 38.0% followed by the NDP at 29.6%, the Liberals at 23.3%, the BQ at 5.2% and the Greens at 3.1%. 

The Liberals and the Conservatives are statistically tied for the lead in Atlantic Canada at 37.8% and 34.5% respectively followed by the NDP at 23.0% and the Greens at 2.0%. 

In Quebec, the NDP lead the pack with the support of 39.0% of decided voters, followed by the Bloc at 22.2%, the Liberals at 19.1%, the Tories at 16.3% and the Greens at 1.9%. 

In Ontario, the Tories are at 35.3%, followed by the Liberals at 31.7%, the NDP at 28.5%, and the Green Party at 3.8%. 

Tory support continues to increase in the Prairies and has now hit a high of 65.1%, with the NDP a very distant second at 19.4%, the Liberals at 13.3% and the Greens at 2.2%. 

Support for the parties in BC is relatively unchanged with the Tories at 43.5%, the NDP at 34.7%, followed by the Liberals at 16.2% and the Greens at 5.5%. 

Party platform remains the top vote driver at 49.3% of Canadians. 

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders. 

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 28th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1021). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200). 

Canada (n=1048 committed voters) 
Conservative 38.0% (+1.6) 
NDP 29.6% (-1.6) 
Liberal 23.3% (+1.3) 
Bloc Quebecois 5.2% (-0.5) 
Green 3.1% (-0.9) 

*Undecided 12.7% (-2.3) 

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 28th (n=1,200). 

Party Policies 49.3% (+0.6) 
Party Leader 24.6% (-0.6) 
Local Candidate 15.0% (+0.1) 
Traditionally Vote for Party 6.9% (-0.3) 
Unsure 4.2% (+0.3)


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

To give a little more into why I feel 25-30% for the NDP does not equal 35-40% for the Cons (or 25-30% for the Libs, for that matter), here is how some previous popular support translated into seats, using the last election and the 1993, which I feel this one will have the same dynamic as:

1993:
Lib - 41% = 177/295
BQ - 14% = 54/295
Reform -  19% = 52/295
NDP - 7% = 9/295
PC - 16% - 2/295

Note the disparity between the BQ and the PC with very similar popular votes.

2008:
Con - 38% = 143/308
Lib - 26% = 77/308
BQ - 10% = 49/308
NDP - 18% = 37/308
Green - 7% = 0/308

Note some differences, like what Green 7% in 2008 and NDP 7% in 1993 came out to or how a 3% difference meant good majority vice strong minority.

Again, popular support is only half the equation - it has to go through the first-past-the-post, seat count grinder first and, as my previous post highlighted, I think that grinder will be on the Conservative side this general election.


----------



## ballz (30 Apr 2011)

Some interesting statistics on the historical budget performances of the parties (federal and provincial)

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/29/fiscal-record-of-canadian-political-parties/


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

I don't know what kind of political crack you're smoking to find that interesting.

First, the NDP has never formed a Federal government with the responsibilities entailed in federal level budgeting, so no comparison can be drawn between their provincial successes and the Grit/Tory governments that have handled the federal budgets for the last 144 years.

Second, comparing budgets between NDP and the rest straight across means little, as governments are largely creatures of the time and circumstances of their mandate.  That's great if the NDP could balance a budget in Manitoba during a good economy, but it says nothing of what an NDP government would have done in Nova Scotia during an economic downturn.


----------



## VinceW (30 Apr 2011)

They should have a graph showing how much economic growth happens under high taxed NDP governments many had to come to Alberta to find work,hell when Eskimo and Roughriders play in Edmonton the billboards advertising for RR fans are everywhere.


----------



## ballz (30 Apr 2011)

I find it hard to believe that "no comparison" can be made from provincial to federal budgeting. Different yes, incomparable, no.

I find it interesting because despite some of the awful things I've heard about provinces having an NDP government and having it crush their economy, the figures somewhat show different.

However, I realize that generally whoever is in government is either dealing with or benefitting from whatever was done by the last government, as the effects of mistakes / keen decisions don't unfold for years later. EDIT: Perhaps they should show a graphs of what the budgets looked like 5 years after a party loses power as well. It would be stupid to suggest that a present government doesn't have an effect on the budgets of a future government. [/EDIT]

None the less, I think it's naive or biased to say that historical facts/figures aren't interesting/relevant. No crack required ;D


----------



## Jed (30 Apr 2011)

ballz: The comparison would be apples vs oranges or lollipops.  I guess you just have to live under about 3 decades of NDP dominance to truly appreciate the damage that results from communistic policy. As the point was made, Rider fans are everywhere. For years Saskatchewan's best export to the rest of Canada was people. We had to leave this province to make a living and we didn't even have the excuse that all the Cod fish were gone. The only hard core Dipper types left in this province are the ones on the government teat, mostly in Regina or intellectual types who can blithely ignore reality when it slaps you in the face.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2011)

I suspect this 'counter-endorsement', reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is far closer to the prevailing view of the _Globe_'s journalists than was the official endorsement published Wednesday. The _Globe_'s official endorsement is, without much doubt, the view of the publisher and, probably, a fairly small minority of the editorial board.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anyone-but-harper-a-dissenting-endorsement/article2005395/ 


> Anyone but Harper: A dissenting endorsement
> 
> MATTHEW HAYS
> MONTREAL— Special to Globe and Mail
> ...




I will not bother explaining where Hays is wrong on the issues – he is just regurgitating a mix of Liberal and NDP propaganda. It is just an opinion piece and opinions are like ________ – we all have 'em.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Apr 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know what kind of political crack you're smoking to find that interesting.
> 
> First, the NDP has never formed a Federal government with the responsibilities entailed in federal level budgeting, so no comparison can be drawn between their provincial successes and the Grit/Tory governments that have handled the federal budgets for the last 144 years.
> 
> Second, comparing budgets between NDP and the rest straight across means little, as governments are largely creatures of the time and circumstances of their mandate.  That's great if the NDP could balance a budget in Manitoba during a good economy, but it says nothing of what an NDP government would have done in Nova Scotia during an economic downturn.




Anyone who thinks the NDP in Manitoba are fiscal angels should come and live here. There's a reason we're one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in the country. Only NS, PEI and Quebec exceed Manitoba's tax burden.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Apr 2011)

ballz: *I find it hard to believe that "no comparison" can be made from provincial to federal budgeting. Different yes, incomparable, no.*

After Quebec, Manitoba gets the largest chunk of equalization payments and the NDP government spends every penny, plus. (Opps. It is now Ontario!)

If your the federal government you get more money to spend by raising taxes.

Six provinces to receive $14.7 billion in Equalization payments in 2011-12

P.E.I. 	N.S. 	      N.B. 	 Que. 	  Ont. 	 Man.
(millions of dollars)
329 	      1,167 	    1,483 	7,815 	2,200 	1,666


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Apr 2011)

I was just looking over the threehundredeight.com data and here's an interesting race to watch:

Laurier-Sainte-Maire: NDP=37.2 Bloc=37.8

This is Mr Duceppe's home riding. How big a blow will the Bloc take if he loses his seat?

NB: the other leader's seats look safe given the data provided, with the exception of Ms May of course.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Anyone who thinks the NDP in Manitoba are fiscal angels should come and live here. There's a reason we're one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in the country. Only NS, PEI and Quebec exceed Manitoba's tax burden.



I was just picking random provinces for the example.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This is Mr Duceppe's home riding. How big a blow will the Bloc take if he loses his seat?


MASSIVE blow, should it turn out to be the case come Monday Evening/Tuesday am.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Apr 2011)

shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Will NDP orange crush or crash in the May 2 vote?
By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia NewsApril 30, 2011
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/Will+orange+crush+crash+vote/4704453/story.html#ixzz1L307dAms

They're calling it the orange crush: The possibility that Jack Layton will emerge from this election with more momentum and moral authority than anyone could have imagined barely five short weeks ago.

The fourth party leader is now the man of the hour. Not quite a Trudeau or Obama, but a rock star, perhaps, who gets mobbed by camera-toting supporters begging for autographs during ever-growing rallies across the country.

It comes in the wake of unprecedented polling results that have the New Democratic Party just five points behind the Harper Conservatives nationally and in first place ahead of the Bloc in Quebec.

With expectations rising so sharply, what's at stake for Layton come May 2?

article continues


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Apr 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I was just picking random provinces for the example.



Sorry, I knew that. I was just responding to the contention that the NDP were good fiscal managers. We're taxed to the eyeballs here for social programmes most of us don't use.


----------



## mariomike (30 Apr 2011)

"Police probe leak behind report of Layton massage clinic visit:
TORONTO - Media reports that police found NDP Leader Jack Layton in a Toronto massage parlour in 1996 became the focus of a criminal investigation by Ontario Provincial Police on Saturday.":
http://www.canada.com/life/Police+probe+leak+behind+report+Layton+massage+clinic+visit/4704511/story.html


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

Funny, I'm just going through the latest MacLeans from last week and it compares Liberal and Conservative minorities and talks of a strong separatist showing.  As Edward states, a week sure is a long time in politics....


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Sorry, I knew that. I was just responding to the contention that the NDP were good fiscal managers. We're taxed to the eyeballs here for social programmes most of us don't use.



Yeah, I'm from BC, where the NDPs legacy is about as popular as leprosy, so I share your pain.


----------



## a78jumper (30 Apr 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Police probe leak behind report of Layton massage clinic visit:
> TORONTO - Media reports that police found NDP Leader Jack Layton in a Toronto massage parlour in 1996 became the focus of a criminal investigation by Ontario Provincial Police on Saturday.":
> http://www.canada.com/life/Police+probe+leak+behind+report+Layton+massage+clinic+visit/4704511/story.html



Get your facts straight-according to Layton that was a "Community Clinic".


----------



## mariomike (30 Apr 2011)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Get your facts straight-according to Layton that was a "Community Clinic".



It was a quote from The Canadian Press.


----------



## a78jumper (30 Apr 2011)

I am being facetious.....but honest that was Jack's description of the joint lol.

Sort of reminds me of MND Coates' visit to "Tiffanys" just outside the gates of Lahr mid 80s. Someone tried to describe it as a fine dining establishment during the spin that resulted prior to his being sacked.


----------



## Jed (30 Apr 2011)

Was that the infamous  'one man probe into prostitution'?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 May 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Was that the infamous  'one man probe into prostitution'?



About 30 years ago we had a long forgotten cabinet minister in Alberta that made that claim.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29} of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com[/url] are the fifth week 'ceilings,' which show the best possible outcome for each of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 



*SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 2011*
Week 5 Ceilings

The final week's ceilings are dramatic. So let me take this opportunity to calm everyone down - these are not actual projections of likely outcomes. These are best-case-scenario ceilings. I am not projecting any of these scenarios to actually take place.

The ceilings are established by taking the best regional results for each party from all of the polls released during the week, and running seat projections with those results. Of course, these calculations are greatly influenced by the smaller samples of regional polls. But we can still draw some useful information from these ceilings, as it is unlikely that the parties are capable of outpacing the best polls when you consider that the best polls are likely a few points higher than reality thanks to the MOE.

The Conservative ceiling is based on the party capturing about 44% of the national vote, split into the regions thusly: 45% in British Columbia, 74% in Alberta, 55% in the Prairies, 48% in Ontario, 18% in Quebec, and 48% in Atlantic Canada.

That would give the Tories 23 seats in British Columbia, 28 in Alberta, 23 in the Prairies, 66 in Ontario, eight in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 167. That is a majority government, and generally where they have been in the ceilings throughout the campaign.

The New Democrats, with 73 seats, form the Official Opposition. The Liberals win only 45 seats and the Bloc is reduced to 23.

This is not an outlandish scenario, as the results in British Columbia, the Prairies, and Quebec are well within the norm. Sweeping Alberta is also quite likely. But the Conservatives would need to capture historic levels of support in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, which seems less likely to occur.

For the Liberals, their ceiling is based on taking 28% support nationally: 26% in British Columbia, 17% in Alberta, 21% in the Prairies, 34% in Ontario, 22% in Quebec, and 38% in Atlantic Canada.

That would give the party 84 seats, with six coming from British Columbia, two from the Prairies, 42 from Ontario, 15 from Quebec, and 18 from Atlantic Canada. That allows them to retain their status as the Official Opposition, but is really only a growth of seven seats from their standings when the government fell - and I remind you that this is a ceiling.

The Conservatives would win 131 seats, the New Democrats 63, and the Bloc 30. With a combined 147 seats, we'd likely see the Liberals and NDP govern.

These levels of support are not unusual for the Liberals, but compared to their usual levels of support in the last week of polling even this is an unlikely outcome.







The New Democratic ceiling assumes the party takes 37% of the vote nationally: 39% in British Columbia, 21% in Alberta, 40% in the Prairies, 34% in Ontario, 45% in Quebec, and 46% in Atlantic Canada.

This would give the party 16 seats in British Columbia, two in Alberta, nine in the Prairies, 27 in Ontario, 56 in Quebec, and 15 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 126.

The Conservatives would still win 142 seats and get the first crack at forming government. The Liberals would be reduced to only 29 seats, but with the NDP could combine for a majority of 155. The Bloc would lose official party status with only 11 seats in the House of Commons. 






I do not believe this to be a likely outcome, especially considering the unnaturally high levels of support the NDP had in a few polls in the Prairies, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada. But if this campaign has taught us anything, it's that nothing is impossible.

I will have a projection update tomorrow afternoon. That will be my final post before the election takes place on Monday.
		
Click to expand...


Here are the previous ceilings:

Date:                                           26 Mar 11                    3 Apr 11                      10 Apr 11                    16Apr 11                 23 Apr 11                       30 Apr 11
Best Conservative outcome:    *160*/61/50/37             *160*/70/45/33             *167*/68/44/28            *178*/54/52/24        *170*/61/43/33                *167*/45/73/33    
Best Liberal outcome:              141/*87*/50/29              146/*86*/45/31             131/*117*/38/21          135/*101*/41/30      138/*91*/43/35                131/*84*/63/30
Best NDP outcome:                                                                                                                                                          145/50/*83*/30                 142/29/*126*/11
                                                 Read as Con/Lib/BQ/NDP until 16 Apr then as Con/Lib/NDP/BQ. Best for each party is in *bold*.)

While I would love to see the BQ reduced to 11 seats I doubt than even the (maybe) ongoing orange crush can produce 126 seats for the NDP. I would, equally, love to see 167 Conservative seats – a solid majority – but, at this stage of the game I would call it a miraculous majority.

Anyway: food for thought.   _


----------



## observor 69 (1 May 2011)

Queen Victoria

"My GG in the Dominion has broad authority to call upon whomever he thinks can hold the confidence of the House to form government."


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, heavens! Spare us, the puns, please.



Some form of punishment in mind ERC?


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2011)

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/4001/26

*THE HAND OF FATE*

Steyn on Canada and the Commonwealth
Sunday, 01 May 2011

Here's an unusual stroke of luck: On the eve of election day, all that stands between Canada and an historic political realignment is Jack Layton's "happy ending" in a Toronto massage parlour. It's not unusual in election campaigns for something to pop up at the last minute but I hadn't expected it to be the NDP leader's ...oh, never mind, you don't really need a professional for this, do you?

Before the revelations of Mr Layton's encounter with Toronto's vice squad, the Grits were on course to an unprecedented defeat. The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political party in the western world: It governed the nation for over two-thirds of the 20th century - a grip on power in a G7 nation unmatched by the US Democrats, the British Tories or anybody else. Its worst election result was the Dominion of Canada's very first, back in 1867, when its share of the vote was a smidgeonette under 23 per cent. It was all but certain to do worse than that tomorrow night. And for the first time in the nation's history the Liberals would be neither the Government nor the Official Opposition, but down in the also-rans vying with the Bloc Québécois for third place.

And then suddenly Happy Jack's happy hour at what he calls a "community clinic" came along and put a big question mark over the NDP's happy ending. When something unexpected breaks on the weekend before an election, it's not an accident, and it always happens to the party doing well: You put it out there, there's no time to poll, there's barely time to do all but the most perfunctory damage control. Andrew Coyne, Jonathan Kay and, of course, Catsmeat Kinsella are among the media types bragging that they knew all about this story two years ago but, unlike Mr Layton, decided to keep it buttoned up. Mr Kay says it was a "Liberal fixer" who told him, and certainly this last minute leak has the Grits' sticky fingers all over it. I mean, I'd like to think the Tory oppo-research hit team were nimble enough to plant this and frame the Liberals, but there's not a lot of evidence they're anywhere near that good. Whereas a party of such renowned "ass-kickers" as the Liberals would surely be savvy enough to figure out that if they broke this on Sun TV they might easily damage both their political opponents. Either way, poor old Jack never saw it comi ...oh, forget it.

In normal circumstances, the revelation that a party leader had been found naked during a police raid on a house of ill repute would surely put a dent in his chances of being either Prime Minister or Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But in this instance I'm not so sure Jacked Layton won't enjoy a sudden last-minute surge. The dominant narrative of this election campaign has been the shrinkage of the post-Chrétien Liberal Party, and Masturgate (or Wankerquiddick, according to taste) doesn't so much arrest it as confirm it. As I wrote six years ago:

Every week or so I get an e-mail along the following lines: “I was wondering if you could tell me what are the beliefs and philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada.” It’s usually from a student of politics in America, Britain, New Zealand, India or Denmark, raising his eyes from the local scene and momentarily stunned into fascination by the dominance, unmatched in the free world, of the deranged Dominion’s ruling party. But that’s looking at it the wrong way. In a one-party state, the one party in power attracts not those interested in the party, but those interested in power.

So, when the "natural governing party" finds itself in the unnatural state of not governing, it has a huge number of hacks, opportunists, careerists and other mediocrities frantic to get back to enjoying their perks. The more high-minded ones think the answer is a philosopher-king like Trudeau. But there are none to hand within the jurisdiction, so they import a philosopher-king across the water from Harvard and the BBC. Alas, seeking to find a message that resonates with the people, the philosopher-king, unlike Mr Layton's masseuse, can't quite put his finger on it. And so the less high-minded hacks and opportunists decide that, with the once powerful party machine rusting up before their eyes, they might as well take it out for a spin one last time.

I gather the NDP spokeslady pointed out that, apropos Mr Layton's Saturday night special, no charges were laid. Isn't that an old vaudeville routine? Because the evidence wouldn't stand up in court? Oh, well. "I went for a massage at a community clinic," Layton told reporters in Burnaby, BC. "The police advised it wasn't the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back."

Sure. Pity they didn't say the same thing about his appointment at CASMO. Either that, or this is the new Islamist massage parlour and the otherwise attractive hostess has a faint touch of five o'clock shadow as she presents Jack with a souvenir clock showing the time he promised the Taliban he'd pull out by.

When this whole sorry episode is over, Iggy will be telling pretty much the same story to US Immigration about his long vacation: "I went for a quickie in Canada. Shortly after 7pm on Monday night I was advised it wasn't the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back."

This is the way the Liberal world ends, not with a bang but a ...oh, to hell with it.


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2011)

Interesting that the media are happy to have this ending to the NDP narrative, but are unwilling to bring out other well-known facts.  Imagine the furor in some very conservative circles were a cabinet minister to be found in Ottawa and Toronto's gay bathhouses - yet not a peep in the mainstream media.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, heavens! Spare us, the puns, please.



In deference to your seniority I will not report that somebody on smalldeadanimals.com referred to the incident as Masturgate.


----------



## Jed (1 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/4001/26
> 
> *THE HAND OF FATE*
> 
> ...




 ;D What a great piece of writing. Definitely a spill the coffee moment for me!


----------



## vonGarvin (1 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting that the media are happy to have this ending to the NDP narrative, but are unwilling to bring out other well-known facts.  Imagine the furor in some very conservative circles were a cabinet minister to be found in Ottawa and Toronto's *gay bathhouses *  - yet not a peep in the mainstream media.


Ah, perhaps; however, the homosexual community in Canada is the _passion du jour_, so any attack on a member of their community would be labelled as a homophobic attack, and *nobody* wants that.  But it's still okay to criticise the _breeders_ for their desire for gratification.


----------



## Haletown (1 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting that the media are happy to have this ending to the NDP narrative, but are unwilling to bring out other well-known facts.  Imagine the furor in some very conservative circles were a cabinet minister to be found in Ottawa and Toronto's gay bathhouses - yet not a peep in the mainstream media.



He just looked like John Baird, wasn't actually him.


----------



## VinceW (1 May 2011)

Here's some highlights of some Marxist NDP candidates thinking,just the typical nonsense you'd expect and more.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/29/we-cant-let-these-ndp-jokers-have-the-keys-to-our-country


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_ is Éric Grenier's (of _ThreeHundredEight.com_) _projection_ of *likely* outcomes when the dusrt settles tomorrow night:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/majority-barely-an-option-official-opposition-up-for-grabs-as-final-polls-roll-in/article2005713/ 


> Majority barely an option, Official Opposition up for grabs as final polls roll in
> 
> ÉRIC GRENIER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Now here is my _guesstimate_ – from one week ago.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, I'll play.
> 
> Here are my guesses in three colours: Hope, Expect and Fear
> 
> ...



I am, roughly (BQ excepted), within Grenier's ranges and I will not bother to change my prediction, but if I was so inclined I would say:

Cons:  152
NDP:     64
Libs;     60
BQ:       32 – and may hat's off to Jack Layton for that result!


----------



## observor 69 (1 May 2011)

Very latest from ipolitics.ca


http://ipolitics.ca/2011/05/01/conservative-ndp-gap-narrows-to-three-points-in-dwindling-hours-of-campaign/


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _Wilfred Laurier University's LISPOP_, is their latest/final projection:

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/seatprojections.html






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  140            96            57            15
                                                                                        Hooray!


With these numbers a NDP led _coalition_ is *possible* IF the Liberals are content to be junior partners and with explicit BQ support. Many, many _Dippers_ will pressure Layton to organize that coalition, defeat a Conservative government on the Throne Speech and give the Liberals a few cabinet seats. My guess is that Layton will be tempted but the Liberals will not join. Layton will not be able to gain the confidence of parliament with just the BQ for support because too many Liberals will reject him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2011)

The LISPOP _projection_ gives Layton 49 seats in QC, it gives Duceppe 15 and divides the other 11 between the Liberals (seven) and the Conservatives (four).

Layton will look at that caucus with fear - only a handful of them were selected with the thought that they _might_ become MPs. He will look in their faces and see three, maybe five of those 49, who are cabinet material, and 35-40 who he would not, not in his wildest dreams, ever invite to the cabinet table. He will also remember Brian Mulroney's QC caucus that rejected his program, abandoned his party and formed the BQ 20 years ago and he will tremble ... If the LISPOP projection is correct.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 May 2011)

Personally I'll put up with the thought of Jack as the leader of the opposition just for the sheer fascination/enjoyment of seeing him beat the crap out of the Bloc Traitors and Iggy and crew as well as the "holy crap, i've killed it what do I do next" look that will be on his face too boot.   I expect the party lynch mobs won't be long in showing to tar, feather and ride out of town on a rail those two turkeys come Tuesday.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 May 2011)

My prediction:  The sun will still rise on Tuesday morning, I will still have to go to work and see an obscene amount of money that I worked for get handed over to "them", whichever version of "them" wins, and I will still have absolutely no influence over how it gets spent.  Repeat every four years till dead.


----------



## VinceW (1 May 2011)

These are the results from the last election most Conservative numbers were underestimated and the Lefts numbers were mostly overestimated.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> My prediction:  The sun will still rise on Tuesday morning, I will still have to go to work and see an obscene amount of money that I worked for get handed over to "them", whichever version of "them" wins, and I will still have absolutely no influence over how it gets spent.  Repeat every four years till dead.



Sounds like the same planet I'm stuck on.....


----------



## VinceW (1 May 2011)

The leak about Layton in the Bawdyhouse was from the Liberals not the Conservatives.

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/layton-massage-bust-was-commonly-known-within-media/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The LISPOP _projection_ gives Layton 49 seats in QC, it gives Duceppe 15 and divides the other 11 between the Liberals (seven) and the Conservatives (four).
> 
> Layton will look at that caucus with fear - only a handful of them were selected with the thought that they _might_ become MPs. He will look in their faces and see three, maybe five of those 49, who are cabinet material, and 35-40 who he would not, not in his wildest dreams, ever invite to the cabinet table. He will also remember Brian Mulroney's QC caucus that rejected his program, abandoned his party and formed the BQ 20 years ago and he will tremble ... If the LISPOP projection is correct.



It would be like that night in Ontario, when Bob Rae got that deer in the headlights look as he exclaimed " What do you mean we won. Shit. What do we do now? " Then proceeded to trash everything Ontario had stood for and built for the last 100 years. If Harris hadn't gotten realistic, tough and pulled our asses out, no matter how much it hurt, we'd be way worse off than McGuinty has put us back into.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 May 2011)

Whatever happens, it's going to be entertaining reading the CBC comments. Almost as much fun as it's been reading the reaction to the Globe's endorsement of the Conservatives.


----------



## Kalatzi (1 May 2011)

RE Layton and the massage parlour. 

Eack of the main Toronto Papers yesterday lead off with the Royal Wedding. 

Except the Sun, For them the main story was abaove. 

Seemed somewhat surreal. 

But they have to maintains their high journalistic standards and ideals. 

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth when I typed that.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The LISPOP _projection_ gives Layton 49 seats in QC, it gives Duceppe 15 and divides the other 11 between the Liberals (seven) and the Conservatives (four).
> 
> Layton will look at that caucus with fear - only a handful of them were selected with the thought that they _might_ become MPs. He will look in their faces and see three, maybe five of those 49, who are cabinet material, and 35-40 who he would not, not in his wildest dreams, ever invite to the cabinet table. He will also remember Brian Mulroney's QC caucus that rejected his program, abandoned his party and formed the BQ 20 years ago and he will tremble ... If the LISPOP projection is correct.



Layton isn't going to tie Westerners and Quebecois with a socialist thread for long.  Mulroney couldn't do it and the old Social Credit couldn't do it.  Maybe Quebecers just got sick of that sour look on Duceppe's face and went for the Layton smile.  It isn't permanent.

All the Bloc and liberals have to do is sit back, elect a younger generation of leader, spend several years building him up, and wait for the next election.  Perhaps the Liberals want to lose the look of desparation to rule and just project competence.  The biggest threat to the Liberals is the NDP so maybe they want to avoid being coup partners with them.  The enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy.


----------



## Saskboy (1 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Whatever happens, it's going to be entertaining reading the CBC comments. Almost as much fun as it's been reading the reaction to the Globe's endorsement of the Conservatives.




I wouldn't be surprised if the CBC pulled its own version of this stunt: http://tiny.cc/acdsj


----------



## VinceW (1 May 2011)

The Harris Decima poll

Conservatives - 36%
NDP - 30%
Liberals - 19%
Greens - 6%
Bloc - 6%

http://www.harrisdecima.ca/news/releases/201105/1163-conservatives-lead-six


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2011)

If we had a real media, perhaps some of this would have been reported on many weeks, months or even years ago:

http://conservativereporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/ndp-seems-to-have-a-hidden-agenda-read-on/



> *NDP seems to have a hidden agenda- read on -*
> Posted by: NB TORY GAL on: May 1, 2011
> 
> NB Tory Gal says : I am taking my lead from the Financial Post, having read it many times now. I feel it is worth bringing forth on this the last day of the election campaign.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> My prediction:  The sun will still rise on Tuesday morning, I will still have to go to work and see an obscene amount of money that I worked for get handed over to "them", whichever version of "them" wins, and I will still have absolutely no influence over how it gets spent.  Repeat every four years till dead.



Amen to that!


----------



## Kalatzi (1 May 2011)

I wonder to what extent what is happing in our souther neighbour isw playing a role in this 

I think that people may perceive Harper/Ignatieff to be two side of the same coin, in much the same way that Bush/Obama  are, at least in my opinion. 

Give a choice of - more of he same conserveral/libercons  and stalled bloc people may be opting for a genine change. 

Hopefully it wont be like friend O'Bama,  "Change" but only for the worse. Never thought I would type that


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _ThreeHundredEight.com_, is the final _projection_:

 http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ 


> *CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS*
> 
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LNUKO-AH9wQ/Tb4qWj_zlqI/AAAAAAAAFDk/BiFJsbJ9Ii4/s640/11-05-01.PNG[img]
> [color=yellow]May 1, 2011 Final Projection - Conservative Minority Government
> ...




Fascinating. For the Conservatives it _might_ turn out to be an unnecessary election: no change in the number of seats – but they lose a few and gain a few others. The big change is that the second party, the official opposition is now the NDP, but with just one more seat than the Liberals had six weeks ago (78 vs 77). The Liberals drop to third party status with 60 seats – a baker's dozen more than the BQ had a few weeks ago when it was the third party and (Hooray!) the Bloc is *projected* to drop to fourth party status with 27 seats – 11 fewer than the _Dippers_ had when they were the fourth party.

The NDP and Liberals, combined, will be close (at 138) to the Conservatives in total seat count but I'm not sure that a _coalition_, which *must* have BQ support to overthrow the Conservatives and then secure the confidence of the HoC, is in the cards. Both Harper and Layton  might want another election soon – say in early Nov 11 - each for the same reason: a majority government.

----------
Thanks to Mike Bobbitt for, temporarily, reopening this board so that I could post this final projection.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Now that the polls have closed we can look at what was _projected_ and what is happening, right now.

Here are two rather 'independent' (not by polling firms) _projections_ and the _emerging_ results:

Party:                              
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Others   Undecided
LISPOP                               144          98          51             15            --
ThreeHundredEight.com      143          78          60             27            --
         Emerging results:      *137      85      30           7         --            --**
        (Elected & leading)*


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2011)

2107

CBC has already declared the Conservatives the government. It remains to be seen what their total is. Early results are encouraging. With AB and BC yet to be added, there is still a numerical possibility of a majority.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

CBC is saying there are a hundred ridings where the vote is within 100 votes.


----------



## HavokFour (2 May 2011)

Hooooooooooooooly crap, Conservatives just might get a majority! ;D


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2011)

CTV is saying there's 10% chance of a Conservative majority.

The NDP numbers in Quebec are astounding, even if they "only" gain 23, instead of the forecast 46(!) increase in the province.


----------



## Haletown (2 May 2011)

Harper leading/elected in 136  . . .  and the West is just starting to be counted

Likely majority


----------



## Infanteer (2 May 2011)

Wow - didn't expect the Bloq and Libs to get smoked that bad.  Let's see what Western Canada gives to the Cons.  May be a majority.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow - didn't expect the Bloq and Libs to get smoked that bad.  Let's see what Western Canada gives to the Cons.  May be a majority.



Smoked? Blowed up real good......


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 May 2011)

138 for Harper now......


----------



## HavokFour (2 May 2011)

Never mind, my results are already old.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

The _Dippers_ are elected or leading, at 2215 Hrs, in 60+ of QC's 75 seats. That's HUGE but it means that some pretty strange and even scary people are coming to Ottawa.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2011)

CPC vote share on CBC is just under 40%.  What does that mean, given the provinces for which no/few results have been returned?


----------



## JMesh (2 May 2011)

CBC has just stated they are prepared to declare that for the first time in Canadian history we will have an NDP official opposition, but they still haven't made up their minds on majority or minority for the Conservative government.

Interesting to note that as of only a couple of minutes ago, the following were worldwide Twitter trending topics:

1st: #tweettheresults
6th: Rex Murphy
7th: Atlantic Canada

It's interesting to me that our election is being seen as so important even outside our country. It's a nice change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> CPC vote share on CBC is just under 40%.  What does that mean, given the provinces for which no/few results have been returned?




It means they are _close_ to a majority - the _Dippers_ have, primarily, drawn support away from the BQ and the Grits, leaving room "up the middle" for the Tories.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2011)

2117 update:

Duceppe - trailing

Ignatieff - trailing

May - no data


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2011)

They've been analysing for 15 minutes. No one can even hope to predict given the numbers coming in. Atlantic Canada still hasn't reported 100%.  Things won't firm up for at least another hour. Have a beer and take a breath.

I only wish for two things. A CPC majority, and less than twelve succesful candidates for the Bloc. OK, three wishes. That the Bloc loses party status and gets their ass kicked to the curb.


----------



## HavokFour (2 May 2011)

10 SEATS AWAY! GO HARPER GO!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 May 2011)

145 for Conservatives.......


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Dippers_ are elected or leading, at 2215 Hrs, in 60+ of QC's 75 seats. That's HUGE but it means that some pretty strange and even scary people are coming to Ottawa.



Remember the girl that went on holidays to Mexico - she's leading in her riding!


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Latest results:

Party:                                
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Others   Undecided

         Emerging results:      *150        91      31          4        --            --**
        (Elected & leading)*


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Dippers_ are elected or leading, at 2215 Hrs, in 60+ of QC's 75 seats. That's HUGE but it means that some pretty strange and even scary people are coming to Ottawa.



But which party are you talking about    No one party has a monopoly on strange, silly, stupid or scary...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 May 2011)

Intersting results in Newfoundland:

Labrador has gone conservative, both St. John's seats NDP, rest of island Liberal......

This might not be good for our provincial election this fall.....


----------



## Dissident (2 May 2011)

I was expecting the NDP to crash at the polls. Hmmmmm.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2011)

Does Craig Oliver hate Stephen Harper?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Does Craig Oliver hate Stephen Harper?



When I saw his name I switched to Global.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2011)

I guess Nova Scotia can just stick a knife in their neck. I don't see much coming down the pipe for them for the next four years :


----------



## SevenSixTwo (2 May 2011)

It makes me happy to see both the Liberal's demise AND Michael Ignatieff losing his OWN riding.


----------



## kratz (2 May 2011)

CTV is reporting if the BQ do not earn 12 seats, the party will not be recognized as an Opposition party.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2011)

Is a bear Catholic?  Does the Pope sh!t in the woods?


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2011)

Actually they are not recognized as a party, but Independents. They do not get the funding a party, ie the NDP as Official Opposition would get.

ER may be able to expand on this


----------



## larry Strong (2 May 2011)

Would they still get their taxpayer funding?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

CTV now has the Tories at 154 (Elected & leading) which is the barest possible MAJORITY, if the speaker is from another party.


----------



## Haletown (2 May 2011)

Gerrad Kennedy - defeated

Ruby Dallha - defeated

Sweetness.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2011)

CBC is giving the Torries 40.07% of the vote. Normally that's clear majority territory... if it holds.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Gerrad Kennedy - defeated
> 
> Ruby Dallha - defeated
> 
> Sweetness.



At least Ruby was cute. Who is the guy with the Red Tie on CTV sitting next to Count Lloyd? Does he hate Harper too?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Actually they are not recognized as a party, but Independents. They do not get the funding a party, ie the NDP as Official Opposition would get.
> 
> ER may be able to expand on this



I'm not ER, but I'll give it a whirl.

Official party status gives privledges like asking questions during question period, as well as cash for staff/research persons.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 May 2011)

Recognition in Parliament allows parties certain parliamentary privileges. Generally official party status is dependent on winning a minimum number of seats (that is, the number of Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly elected).

The federal parliament has two houses with different requirements. In the House of Commons, a party must have at least 12 seats to be recognized as an official party. Recognition means that the party will get time to ask questions during question period (proportional to the number of seats) and money for research and staff (also proportional to the number of seats).

In the Senate, a party must have five seats and must be registered by Elections Canada. Once the party has been recognized in the Senate, it retains its status even if it becomes deregistered, so long as it keeps at least five seats. This rule means that the rump Progressive Conservative Party caucus in the Senate does not qualify for official status in the senate.

Official party status is not to be confused with being a registered party. A political party (even if they have no parliamentary seats) may register with Elections Canada or a provincial chief electoral officer. Doing so allows the political party to run candidates for office during elections, issue tax receipts for donations, and spend money on advertising and campaigning during election campaigns. In return, the party must obey campaign spending and donation limits, disclose the source of large donations, and obey various election laws.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Former CDN Ambassador to Kabul, Chris Alexander, defeats (once) _potential_ Liberal leader Mark Holland.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Recognition in Parliament allows parties certain parliamentary privileges. Generally official party status is dependent on winning a minimum number of seats (that is, the number of Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly elected).
> 
> The federal parliament has two houses with different requirements. In the House of Commons, a party must have at least 12 seats to be recognized as an official party. Recognition means that the party will get time to ask questions during question period (proportional to the number of seats) and money for research and staff (also proportional to the number of seats).
> 
> ...




Correct: the BQ, like the Greens, will still get money for however many votes they received. But they will not get e.g. research budgets in Ottawa.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2011)

Looks like HRM and Esquimalt voted NDP - what does this say about the Navy?

 >


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2011)

2142

C 110/52
N 51/54
L 15/14
B 0/4
G 0/0


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2011)

"The Navy", for the most part, probably still votes at their home ridings.  What does this say about Navy wives?    >


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2011)

Latest results - *Conservative majority*:

Party:                                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Others   Undecided

         Emerging results:      *161       105      30          4        --            8**
        (Elected & leading)*


----------



## Dissident (2 May 2011)

The firearms community put some money and effort into getting rid of Mark Holland (t-shirts to come) and tonight is a clear victory for us.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former CDN Ambassador to Kabul, Chris Alexander, defeats (once) _potential_ Liberal leader Mark Holland.



I've met him a couple of times. Good man, well done.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2011)

CTV just called a Con majority


----------



## midget-boyd91 (2 May 2011)

Majority!! I think I am going to have a drink for this excellent day!


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2011)

I admit it: I'm shocked.

I was hopeful for a Conservative Majority, and I think they may get it (164 seats as I type this).  I am shocked at the NDP surge, but more importantly TOTALLY shocked, but also thrilled, that the BQ is relegated to FOUR seats (as I type this at 2345 02 May 2011)

UPDATE: CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Majority!! I think I am going to have a drink for this excellent day!


Ditto: crown royal for me!


----------



## Dissident (2 May 2011)

I'm hitting the Courvoisier XO again tonight!


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2011)

Best news of the night for me:

Susan Truppe (CPC) has taken London North Center: just reported on Sun TV


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2011)

And now there's a Green seat on the radar as well...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

Fantino gets Vaughn. Tight race here in Kingston.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 May 2011)

Didn't Infanteer call about 166 seats for the Conservatives a few days ago?


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> TOTALLY shocked, but also thrilled, that the BQ is relegated to FOUR seats (as I type this at 2345 02 May 2011)



They don't have them yet.


----------



## Sample2K7 (2 May 2011)

So happy for a conservative majority!


----------



## midget-boyd91 (2 May 2011)

And now I see that the Greens are on the board?!?! Oh well, i'm still going to have that drink even with that news.  ;D


----------



## Scott (2 May 2011)

CBC predicts majority

Drinks!

Infanteer did call 166. I, for one, thought he was drinking at the time.


----------



## VinceW (2 May 2011)

GOOD F$%^ING BYE LONG GUN REGISTRY!!  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (2 May 2011)

Looking like a Conservative Majority.  Finally, we can put the last few minorities behind us and get on with things.

Looks like I lowballed the Cons a few and totally underestimated the NDP surge in my previous prediction.  This will definately be one of Canada's historic elections.

Interesting stories to come:

1.  How many seats did the Cons take from Lib/NDP split.

2.  The death of the Libs

3.  The death of the BQ (yes!)

4.  The fact that the Majority was formed West of Ottawa while the NDP is largely a Quebec party.  What a dynamic; one that Edward has previously spoken to with Canadian power moving west.


----------



## Sample2K7 (2 May 2011)

VinceW said:
			
		

> GOOD F$%^ING BYE LONG GUN REGISTRY!!  ;D



Second that


----------



## kratz (2 May 2011)

Ruth Ellen Brousseau - NDP in QC won her seat while on vacation for most of the 37 day election campaing.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2011)

Started with Johnny Walker Green; may have to move to something more suitable for such a notable occasion.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (2 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ditto: crown royal for me!


Ditto: I'm even opening up the boxed bottle of Crown with the purple Hockey Nighy in Canada bag  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

We may be entering American territory with a two party political scene.


----------



## garb811 (2 May 2011)

While I am happy to see a Conservative majority in the making, it is tempered by the unsettled feeling being brought on by the decimation of the Liberal party.  If we thought we had bad politics in Ottawa before, I don't think we have seen anything yet.

Having said that, Party on!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2011)

Looks like Kingston stays Liberal, but not by much.


----------



## HavokFour (2 May 2011)

What is this little green dot on my screen? I have never seen it before.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former CDN Ambassador to Kabul, Chris Alexander, defeats (once) _potential_ Liberal leader Mark Holland.



As a gun owner, I couldn't wish for a better outcome for Skid Mark. The Lieberal pitbull on gun control.


----------



## Strike (3 May 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Looks like Kingston stays Liberal, but not by much.



So far there's only a 500 difference, with approx. 55 polls left to count.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 May 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> What is this little green dot on my screen? I have never seen it before.



May, leading with 3 of 245 polls reporting. She's enjoying being out in front while it lasts (with the Conservative candidate only 2% of vote share behind her).


----------



## Dissident (3 May 2011)

Well looks like I was not that far off with my 175. I did not expect the NDP to have such a strong show.


----------



## KJK (3 May 2011)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Majority!! I think I am going to have a drink for this excellent day!



12 year old Appleton Estates rum to toast PM Harper!

KJK


----------



## vonGarvin (3 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Looking like a Conservative Majority.  Finally, we can put the last few minorities behind us and get on with things.
> 
> Looks like I lowballed the Cons a few and totally underestimated the NDP surge in my previous prediction.  This will definately be one of Canada's historic elections.
> 
> ...


*ahem*
New Brunswick is mostly Conservative too ;D

(Good call by the way)

BTW: Elizabeth May is leading in her riding after ONE poll reporting in her riding.  But, still, I wish her luck.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Best news of the night for me:
> 
> Susan Truppe (CPC) has taken London North Center: just reported on Sun TV



Amen brother .... Pearson always turned me off.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

Interesting dynamic... Dion elected... Ignatieff defeated (or soon will be).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2011)

garb811 said:
			
		

> While I am happy to see a Conservative majority in the making, it is tempered by the unsettled feeling being brought on by the decimation of the Liberal party.  If we thought we had bad politics in Ottawa before, I don't think we have seen anything yet.
> 
> Having said that, Party on!



There is no doubt, we are and they are, going to go through a great deal of turmoil. The Liebrals need a good heavy rinse and a massive spin cycle. Their pomposity and sense of entitlement has worn thin on younger voters. I am personally tired of looking at them, staring down their nose, telling me what they think is good for me.

Burn them to the ground, and let them rise from the ashes. If they don't resonate with the populace, they will become a bookmark in history.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 May 2011)

The Bloc is down to leading in only two ridings.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

The Conservatives exceeded even my _hope_ of 159 seats, and I got the Liberals and NDP almost 180o out of phase.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2011)

Guergis out, wiped out by the CPC candidate.


----------



## GAP (3 May 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Guergis out, wiped out by the CPC candidate.



sweet!!


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2011)

Well, Jack Layton got a happy ending tonight, that's for sure.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 May 2011)

The official celebration of the NDP will now be Carnaval.


----------



## Dissident (3 May 2011)

I almost can't wait to see the gong show that will be the NDP with all of its newcomers now suddently in power.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I almost can't wait to see the gong show that will be the NDP with all of its newcomers now suddently in power.



Thankfully, it's a majority and they're not IN power.


----------



## HavokFour (3 May 2011)

Duceppe just lost his seat, and Iggy made a sad speech. All is well.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2011)

Liberals down 43 seats; BQ down 44.  (CTV, 23h20 EDT)  Those are remarkable shifts for an election where the incumbent government is re-elected.



Question: Did the Conservatives win, or did the Liberals and Bloc lose?  Discuss.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Destruction of the BQ is probably the best news of all this election. Getting rid of a National Socialist party is a result to be devoutly hoped for! 

Destruction of the LPC should be listed in the Coroner's report as a suicide, they are 100% responsible for the results.

Ignatieff is giving his concession speech as I write, he is at least big enough to congratulate Prime Minister Harper and Leader of the Opposition Jack Layton and to accept responsibility for the loss.


----------



## kratz (3 May 2011)

CTV is reporting Ignatieff is declared defeated as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2011)

Ignatieff has lost his seat. He's giving his conciliatory speech right now. They are showing the audience. The room is barely filled with people in the seats. He couldn't even fill the hall. Bob Rae? He wasn't even there, if he was they didn't show him. From  the applause, maybe a couple of hundred people.

He was dignified in defeat. God bless him, and God speed. His party suckered him, he believed in them, and they sewered him.

As much as I hate his politics, he did conduct his campaign like a Prince.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I almost can't wait to see the gong show that will be the NDP with all of its newcomers now suddently in power.


 I imagine there are a bunch of their Quebec candidates who are saying, *"OH MY FREAKING GOD!"*


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 May 2011)

A big slug of Jameson Irish.

Anybody watch CBC TV's last national election coverage?

Iggy has an out. He was defeated in his own riding.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

Well, that was a moving eulogy!


----------



## GAP (3 May 2011)

> Quote from: NinerSix on Today at 21:20:13
> 
> I almost can't wait to see the gong show that will be the NDP with all of its newcomers now suddently in power.
> 
> I imagine there are a bunch of their Quebec candidates who are saying, "OH MY FREAKING GOD!"



Even the one who went on holidays to Vegas got elected.....were any fire hydrants nominated?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Liberals down 43 seats; BQ down 44.  (CTV, 23h20 EDT)  Those are remarkable shifts for an election where the incumbent government is re-elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Did the Conservatives win, or did the Liberals and Bloc lose?  Discuss.



I think that the Conservatives won.  The majority of the NDP gains came in Quebec- a terribly volatile province, politically, that the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and now the Bloc have all learned the hard way.  The learning is about to begin for the NDP.

By the next election in 2015, there will be 18 more seats- all East of the Ottawa River.  The NDP did not do especially well in that direction.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Liberals down 43 seats; BQ down 44.  (CTV, 23h20 EDT)  Those are remarkable shifts for an election where the incumbent government is re-elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Did the Conservatives win, or did the Liberals and Bloc lose?  Discuss.



Good question. CBC was saying that the CPC picked up 19 seats in Ontario, but only gained 5 % of the votes. I suspect that * may be * a lot of the Liberal votes went to the NDP.

To add: CBC is saying that ALL 19 seats were gained in the GTA. Amazing.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'm actually starting to think that we may see a sea change - that not only will the Cons win a majority, but a big one.  It feels like the Liberal vote is about to collapse completely, although not quite as bad as the Kim Campbell Collapse.
> 
> I see this as a good thing - the Liberals need to be sent out into the wilderness to re-find their purpose again.



Okay, so I missed the magnitude of the NDP up-swing...

Nice to see a future Prime Minister win his first election - Chris Alexander.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 May 2011)

What a night...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Okay, so I missed the magnitude of the NDP up-swing...
> 
> Nice to see a future Prime Minister win his first election - Chris Alexander.



I like this.


----------



## Bass ackwards (3 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What a night...



Amen! 
I honestly did not expect this. 
The Captain Morgan spiced rum is flowing in celebration.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 May 2011)

The NDP's chief problem is not that many of its newly-elected MPs are inexperienced.  The NDP's chief problem is that it will be so beholden to Quebec.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2011)

With the solid CPC majority, there is no chance that the opposition parties can form a coalition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ray Sturgeon was a very, very well connected soldier, senior public servant connected and lobbyist – almost the ultimate Ottawa _insider_.
> 
> This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a bit of a hatchet job, focused almost exclusively on his third career as a lobbyist for CFN* and ignoring his many and varied career accomplishments:
> 
> ...




Looks like Ms. Hughes won for the NDP. So the Tories couldn't turn all the tides in ON.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2011)

Duceppe and his party is done like a dogs dinner


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> From the same Ottawa Citizen article quoted just above:
> 
> 
> Here they are, with links to their web sites:
> ...




LCol (Ret'd) Pierre Lemieux won his riding for the Tories.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2011)

Predictions for cabinet?  Cannon is out, will Alexander be dropped into Foreign Affairs, here the staff still know him?  Will Mackay stay in Defence, or will Harper do a significant shuffle?


And how will Jack control his caucus, where he's got both the strong federalists of Anglo Montreal with the sovereignists of other parts of Quebec?

Add to that the list of new MPs with little or no experience in the NDP caucus, and we're looking at a very interesting next few years.



On the plus side, if you're looking to move to Ottawa in the next few years, it looks like real estate prices will trend downwards...


----------



## Gimpy (3 May 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP's chief problem is not that many of its newly-elected MPs are inexperienced.  The NDP's chief problem is that it will be so beholden to Quebec.



I believe the first part of your statement might/will also apply to some of the new Conservative MPs. It obviously might not be as pronounced as the NDP MPs, but I expect there to be a massive learning curve for many new MPs from all parties which might lead to an interesting beginning of this sitting of parliament.


----------



## GR66 (3 May 2011)

While I'm certainly not a Harper fan I think that tonight's result holds great potential going forward.  The Conservatives are free to govern (hopefully more to their economic ideology now that there's no risk of the government falling).  The Bloc is wiped out and despite the probably low calibre of the NDP candidates elected in Quebec hopefully Quebecers will find that voting for a nationalist party won't cause the stars to fall from the sky.

Probably the best result is that the NDP and the Liberals will be free to finally sort out where the Centre-left will stand going forward.  My _hope_ is that there will be some sort of merger/take-over between the two parties so that we're not stuck with hung parliaments and split votes going forward.

The Greens winning a seat is an added bonus.  I'm not a fan of Elizabeth May either, but some fresh ideas and different approaches can't hurt in Ottawa.

While some _Party_ supporters might not be happy with tonights results, I think that _Canadians_ might be pretty well served by what has happened in the long run.

Cheers!


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 May 2011)

And Jacko is back living in subsidized public housing!


----------



## Gimpy (3 May 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> While I'm certainly not a Harper fan I think that tonight's result holds great potential going forward.  The Conservatives are free to govern (hopefully more to their economic ideology now that there's no risk of the government falling).  The Bloc is wiped out and despite the probably low calibre of the NDP candidates elected in Quebec hopefully Quebecers will find that voting for a nationalist party won't cause the stars to fall from the sky.
> 
> Probably the best result is that the NDP and the Liberals will be free to finally sort out where the Centre-left will stand going forward.  My _hope_ is that there will be some sort of merger/take-over between the two parties so that we're not stuck with hung parliaments and split votes going forward.
> 
> ...



I'm in a similar position. I'm not enthralled with Harper and the Conservatives, but I am still going to go into this session with some optimism with the possibilities of a stable government and hopefully one that is still willing to reach out to the majority of the Canadian population. (I say this because even though they won a majority of seats, they did not win a majority of the popular vote.) On the other hand I'm very happy with the progression of the NDP and hopefully this can lay the foundations for many more successful campaigns in the future.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

Looks like Elizabeth May has won her seat.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Sun TV made an interesting point; the NDP surge has actually diminished their influence in Parliament.

They can no longer influence legislation and votes. The Public Service Alliance support of the NDP in fear of public service cuts may have paved the way for a CPC majority government to make these cuts. The inexperienced caucus full of "traffic pylons" placed in ridings to get the $2.00/vote subsidy will take a long time to shake out, and there is no LPC to lean on either for mentoring or tips (as a coalition would have provided).

I prefer to end with a positive note, enjoy: Canada is, and always has been, our country


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 May 2011)

If Bob Rae is already making conciliatory noises about negotiations with the NDP, I think he will be shown the door by the LPC unless the LPC is preparing to dissolve itself and send its left-leaning members to the NDP and right-leaning members to the CPC.  The LPC has had its leader's head handed back to it twice by the NDP; it would be amusing if any truly centrist Liberal thought he could find the path back to power by bargaining with the NDP while the latter occupies the high ground.  With a CPC majority, there is ample time before the next election for the LPC to tell the heavily Quebec-owned NDP opposition to sod off while it rebuilds.


----------



## HavokFour (3 May 2011)

I kind of wish the Conservatives won downtown Ottawa. Darn Ottawa U.


----------



## Occam (3 May 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I kind of wish the Conservatives won downtown Ottawa. Darn Ottawa U.



Ah, it's not all their fault.  The trendy Glebe dwellers and their $500,000 one bedroom homes probably had a part in it too....    ;D


----------



## Haletown (3 May 2011)

two fingers of Balevene, one ice cube and a very satisfactory evening.


----------



## canada94 (3 May 2011)

My riding remains NDP  

Finally a Con majority..


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110502/vote-split-110502/20110503?s_name=election2011

The first on what will be many stories about the vote split.  Once all the dust is settled, I shall be interested how many NDP wins against Con/Lib splits and how many Con wins against NDP/Lib splits occured.

One would think that movement to merge the NDP/Lib would make quite an impact in the split ridings in the next election, which thankfully won't be for a while.

NDP win?  Sure; at face value.  But with a dodgy caucus and a party with a majority of seats in Quebec, Layton has a lot of work to do to convince Canada that he isn't a left-wing version of Preston Manning.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2011)

My, was yon no an exciting evening.  I'll have great pleasure in joining the rest of you in a dram.

Slainte mha Canada.  iper:


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

The Conservatives now clearly occupy the center. The NDP will move even further left with the combination of rookie MPs and the need to satisfy Quebec. I think the next election will be even more interesting than this one.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 May 2011)

Cabinet? - everyone from Quebec.  They have way too many from Alberta and need to massage Quebec a bit.  Mind you in the next election there will be at least 30, maybe 40, new seats in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2011)

Infanteer:

I know it is a constitutional issue - but Jack seems willing to open that can - but a great way to put the cat among the pigeons and flush out the REAL NDP would be to put THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PROPERTY on the table.......

In about 2 years I would say.


----------



## SteveB (3 May 2011)

First Bin Laden and now this, what a week and it's only Monday!


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I know it is a constitutional issue - but Jack seems willing to open that can - but a great way to put the cat among the pigeons and flush out the REAL NDP would be to put THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PROPERTY on the table.......



Absolutely; considering it is something most Canadians hold dear, I'd see that as a pretty cunning way to play politics.  If PM Harper wants to get some constitutional rejigging done WRT the Senate, he should wrap it up in some sort of property amendment and sell it on that.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Predictions for cabinet?  Cannon is out, will Alexander be dropped into Foreign Affairs, here the staff still know him?



More than a few ADMs and DGs in DFAIT who are probably fearing this possibility, especially given the manner in which they failed to appreciate the skill and dedication with which Mr. Alexander carried out his duties of Head of Mission in Afghanistan.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

Does the bureaucracy fear the upcoming government?


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

The destruction of the National Socialist BQ is probably the best of all possible results. Canadian politics have been frozen since the 1990s; demographic and economic power has been flowing west but the political establishment hasn't moved to match. Now things are free to move and the results will not be pretty for Quebec, or Toronto for that matter.

Mr Ignatieff led his party into an election with no other goal than to create a Liberal-NDP coalition, and got owned instead. Should the coroner report the death of the LPC to be suicide or death by misadventure?

Regardless of the number of seas the NDP received, they are in no way ready to assume their role as opposition. The "traffic pylons" placed in all those ridings to get the $2.00/vote subsidy will be mostly unsuitable as MPs, much less shadow cabinet ministers and there will be no mentoring such as a coalition would have offered.

The real danger is the CPC becomes arrogent and out of touch,.


----------



## Dissident (3 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real danger is the CPC becomes arrogent and out of touch,.



Unnavoidable if they stay in power for any lenght of time, just like the Liberals just did with JC. Which is why I have been hoping for a destruction (done) and rebirth (to be seen) of the Libreal party truer to the liberal ideal.


----------



## Kalatzi (3 May 2011)

I dont kno w if this will resonate with anyone

a Brother  and Family live in POS IGnatitefffs riiding

What I find unusual is that when I voted I had to produce the tag - Plus visual ID Plus Proof of address from a bill.

That I Just happened to have - not knowing it wsa a requirement?

PLUS - verbally state my address before getting a ballot

So Far so Good -  everyone's equall right?

After voting I hear, via radio  that that soon to be tarred and feathered head of the Libs voted in Etobicoke

Based on input from family members I know that he lives in anaother riding - Tony Yorkville. 

So Say's I perhaps I may hav emade a mistake, so lets cut tis furball/ er person some slack

So I phone elections canada and ask abot residency requirements

Produce proof of Citizenship and resideny is the short reply. 

Prove that you've moved and can validate and its all  good 

So, Say6s I He doesnt live in the riding, despite a promise to .....

Oh says The FRrontline Canada Elections worker - smething to the effect - 'While in his case" ... :

in ralated news I live in one of the most hoitly contested ridings - Parkdale high park

The incumbent Liberal MP _ Kennedy NEVER Posted on the signage at his office in the riding that He was a liberal. 

The only reason that I post the last is that a couple of people that I mentionned this too, after the apocalypse couldn't beleive that the libs would let this happen.

Addenda - Prior to the writ that is. 

Kudos to all


----------



## HavokFour (3 May 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> I dont kno w if this will resonate with anyone
> 
> a Brother  and Family live in POS IGnatitefffs riiding
> 
> ...



I can't make heads or tails of what you just wrote. Do a bit of celebrating tonight?

I'm sorry, but this entire post...  :rofl:


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I kind of wish the Conservatives won downtown Ottawa. Darn Ottawa U.




Given the size of Paul Dewar's plurality (26,900+ votes to a combined total of 25,000+/- for all his opponents) I doubt Ottawa U had much to do with it. Dewar is a good, solid constituency MP who 'tends' the riding well between elections. What was interesting was Conservative Dominic Konstantinakos' showing which surprised a lot of people. Just days before the election the local media were suggesting that the Liberal, Bradley might give Dewar a run for his money; Bradley finished third, behind Konstantinakos.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 May 2011)

I truly think we have a great set up now. A strong defence minded Con majority with a healthy social and family sided NDP opposition to help with checks and balances. Then we have sent the liberals back to sort out their business. While Que came through in spades, all but annihilating the BQ and reducing them to bellow official party status! 

I see a HoC that is set up nicely, to me, and I expect big things in the next four years! 

My only question is how was voter turnout? Have any numbers been released on how many Canadians actually voted?


----------



## Swingline1984 (3 May 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> My only question is how was voter turnout? Have any numbers been released on how many Canadians actually voted?



It was around 14 million, or roughly 61%.


----------



## GAP (3 May 2011)

I can forsee the continued strong drive to appease Quebec....all we did was change the Bloc for the NDP, and Jack is not shy about asking for a handout.

One nice thing I will be looking for in the next budget is the elimination of the $2.00/vote subsidy.....gone, gone, gone....


----------



## Old Sweat (3 May 2011)

I had worked in the CPC campaign office in North Grenville, which is part of the riding of Leeds-Grenville. Last night I stayed in the office with my laptop showing Sun TV and a radio tuned to CFRA. The latter came later, after Sun TV reported about 2140 that local stations could carry local results. It was then that the scope of what was happening became apparent. 

As various scrutineers reported in with poll results, it became apparent both from their figures and from Sun TV that something was happening that none of us, and certainly not the pundits and pollsters had sensed. In our area, our MP who had won in 2008 with about 55% of the vote was waaaay up. I suspect he took between two thirds and three quarters of the vote. I finally closed the shop and went home at 0015, and the last person I saw was the reporter from the local paper who had just returned from our candidate's headquarters in Brockville. He was heading off to file his story but we agreed to meet this morning to give him a local angle. What I am going to say is along the lines that we can now all put our party labels away for four years and get on with our lives.

Back to the office at 1000 to staret packing it up.

I thought Sun News did a credible job. There were still some rough edges, but the coverage was decent and timely.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> I can forsee the continued strong drive to appease Quebec....all we did was change the Bloc for the NDP, and Jack is not shy about asking for a handout.
> 
> One nice thing I will be looking for in the next budget is the elimination of the $2.00/vote subsidy.....gone, gone, gone....



I agree. The taxpayer should not be funding political parties with tax dollars!!

Now....how will the Conservative government treat the CF and VAC??


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

I followed _ThreeHundredEight.com_ closely, posting their _projections_ on an almost daily basis.

Here are graphs of their _aggregations_ of polls - which are only as inaccurate as the original polls themselves, and the seat _projections_ based on those aggregations.

The lessons:

1. Most polls misjudged the strengths of the parties but by, in aggregation, 3.5% (low) for the Tories. 3.3% (low) for the NDP  and 3.9& (high) for the Liberals; and

2. The _ThreeHundredEight.com_ seat projection model was too conservative. It failed to predict the vote splitting which, I am pretty certain, greatly benefited the Conservatives.

On the graphs Day 1 is 23 Mar 11, a few days before the election campaign, proper, began, and Day 42 is the final result.


----------



## observor 69 (3 May 2011)

I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.  She said she wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada someday.  Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the NDP Party!"


"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I told her.  I continued, "But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house, mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out. You can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I smiled and said, "Welcome to the Conservative Party."  Her parents still aren't speaking to me.


----------



## Haletown (3 May 2011)

Wonderful results and interesting outcomes.

The NDP is now a tail to be wagged by the Quebec dog.  Layton better have lots of poopy bags handy.
c
The Liberals will go through civil war.

The Bloc have been terminated with prejudice.

The Greens have a token member in parliament but had to devote their entire national effort to win and in doing so dropped 40% of their vote count - and taxpayer subsidy to do so.

The Harper conservatives can now begin to govern with gusto.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 May 2011)

Saturday, I talked to a lady from PEI who was visiting Alberta.  She wondered why there were so few signs and ads compared to back home.  The only ads that seemed annoyingly persistent were the NDP on Edmonton TV.  My riding usually goes about 80 % Conservative and I doubt the local Conservatives spent more than $5 - 10,000.  They obviously hammered the swing ridings elsewhere in Canada.

A few partisan things need to be done right off the bat.  The contempt of Parliament thing needs reversal.  The CBC needs gutting.  The long gun registry needs trashing.  Government grants to political parties need to go and the law needs to be changed to allow internal transfers of funds that caught the Conservatives but none of the other guilty parties.


----------



## Jed (3 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Wonderful results and interesting outcomes.
> 
> The NDP is now a tail to be wagged by the Quebec dog.  Layton better have lots of poopy bags handy.
> c
> ...



Ahhh. You just gotta love it when things come together.  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 May 2011)

*The First One Hundred Days*


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. The _ThreeHundredEight.com_ seat projection model was too conservative. It failed to predict the vote splitting which, I am pretty certain, greatly benefited the Conservatives.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Secondly, the Conservative numbers have remained relatively stable at the 35-40% - people who vote Conservative are still going to vote Conservative....
> 
> Despite all the political excitement around the rise of the NDP and the immolation of the Libs/BQ, diffusing the vote on either side of the spectrum cannot be viewed as a good thing for the parties occupying it.



I should get into the political blogging business.   ;D


----------



## Acer Syrup (3 May 2011)

> I followed ThreeHundredEight.com closely, posting their projections on an almost daily basis.
> 
> Here are graphs of their aggregations of polls - which are only as inaccurate as the original polls themselves, and the seat projections based on those aggregations.



As I went to sleep last night I told my girlfriend that "I learnt two things tonight. One: opinion polls are always wrong and two: only 20% of canadians post comments on the cbc.ca website and 95% of those are Liberals.

Honestly I slept better last night knowing that the CPC was at the helm with a majority government, especially since Saturday morning I report for work.




> asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.  She said she wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada someday.  Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
> She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
> Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the NDP Party!"
> 
> ...



Love it! Such a noble cause to talk about until it comes time to get it done. My girlfriend doesn't follow politics, but even she had to comment during Jacks speech "Is he actually saying anything?"


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

The culture war is over... the Liberals have lost.


I've had great fun this morning reading the comments on the CBC and Globe websites. The leftists are fit to be tied.


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2011)

Well, I may as well join in on the bandwagon......

My nomination for 'least likely to be missed' after being defeated -- Ujjal Dosanjh.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is Jeffrey Simpson's 'takeaway' from yesterday's election with my comments following each 'point:'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/an-abundance-of-teachable-moments/article2007587/ 


> An abundance of teachable moments
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



Valid points. I don't really like attack ads but I agree they are here to stay. I feared that the last minute, scurrilous, _sneak attack_ on Jack Layton would backfire and work *for* him – and it might have but it did not hurt the Tories as badly as it might have done.



> Second, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper that was in some respects more right-wing than any previous conservative government ultimately produced a more polarized electorate. To oppose the Harper government, non-Conservatives swung not to the traditionally more moderate Liberals, but to the untested and more left-wing New Democrats. Opposites do not attract, they repel, which explains in part the determination of those who did not like the Harper government to opt for the party least like the Conservatives.



It is not just the Canadian electorate that is so _polarized_; we have seen very similar things in America, Australia and Britain. We have all imported aspects of the US _culture wars_, which go back to the mid 1960s. It is silly to blame Stephen Harper for Johnson vs. Goldwater, but Simpson doesn't much like Harper, so ...



> Third, Mr. Harper got what he wanted almost as much as an overwhelming victory: an overwhelming Liberal defeat. Not just the defeat but the destruction of the Liberal Party was Mr. Harper’s political objective, because he believed the Liberals’ disappearance would pave the way to a long period of Conservative dominance.
> 
> Mr. Harper believes that Canada is fundamentally not a social democratic country but a conservative one. To put matters another way, in a straight-up fight between conservative and left-wing forces, conservatives will win most of the time. The big, sprawling Liberal Party got in the way of this right-left showdown (and a left-wing surge, until this campaign). The Liberals’ demise spells long-term good news for the Conservatives.



It is too soon to tell if the Grits are about to disappear, but I agree that is Harper's aim.



> Fourth, Quebec political nationalism remains consequential for Canadian federal politics. In the post-Trudeau era, the party that appeals most directly to Quebec nationalism has the best chance of winning in the province, as Brian Mulroney did in 1984 and 1988, the Bloc Québécois thereafter, and now the NDP, with its promise to reopen the Constitution, give more power to Quebec, and to allow Quebec’s language law to trump the Official Languages Act.



Québec nationalism is a snake, best not touched. I have often said that the Canadian _national_ political party that learns to win (and govern) without Québec – actually without many Québec members – but manages to serve Québec's best interest while serving the broader national interest (in other words governs  without Québec, not against Québec) will win. See, also, my oft repeated “new Canada/old Canada” arguments. In short: Layton is welcome to Québec, for now.  



> That the NDP was not the Harper Conservatives, centralist Liberals or has-been Bloc Québécois was a key factor in the party’s success in Quebec, as were its promises to spend more on social programs and do more for the environment. But the NDP’s blatant nationalist appeal was the key difference between this election for the NDP and the previous ones.



Agreed, and I expect they will pay a price for that – sooner, rather than later.



> Fifth, ordinary people seldom dislike parties and leaders as much as their political opponents do. The Liberals thought Canadians in the majority really disliked the Prime Minister. They therefore directed heavy fire against his controlling style: prorogation, contempt of Parliament, media control, lack of access, generalized sourness. These attacks counted for the core Harper-haters, but did little for Canadians who do not follow politics closely, or care much about government. Lessons: Canadians are so cynical about politics that many of them just expect that this is the way democracy works.



Valid observation, invalid conclusion. Canadians are not cynical about politics; they are simply bored with the procedural slight of hand practised by both parties. The big lesson here is for the media: Canadians do not care about the things that matter to the Ottawa press gallery. 



> Sixth, sunny ways are usually more appealing that dark ones. In a contest between a dour Prime Minister and an academic Leader of the Opposition, Jack Layton seemed like the guy people could relate to. He rose during the campaign in popular appeal, whereas Mr. Harper stalled and Mr. Ignatieff declined. Mind you, Mr. Layton presented himself in the same way against Mr. Harper and Stéphane Dion in 2008 and didn’t go very far. Lesson: Timing and circumstance are hugely important.



True enough; Layton ran a good campaign – trading, only a wee bit shamelessly, on his obvious fortitude. It is hard not to like him, as a person. Harper, too, ran a good campaign in the last three days – when it really counted. But, back to the top: it was those attack ads that slowed Ignatieff – he was stopped by a neatly timed question about attendance in the HoC from Jack Layton – and that allowed Layton to campaign so effectively against the Liberals. The big, Big, BIG story isn't the Conservative majority, it is the Liberal/NDP battle royal – which is far from over. 



> Seventh, the huge advantages of being in power for five years – massive spending on programs and advertising, almost complete policy freedom, manic message control, a sometimes weak opposition, vastly better fundraising, policies directed blatantly at narrow swaths of voters – did slightly increase the Conservatives’ share of the popular vote. They won many seats because the NDP took votes from the Liberals, thereby allowing the Conservatives to win three-way races.
> 
> That the Conservatives, despite these advantages, have not become a more dominant party, means Mr. Harper, with his style and tactics, turns off more Canadians than he attracts. But the collapse of the Liberals allowed his Conservatives to win their coveted majority.



The last but is just sour grapes.


----------



## Northalbertan (3 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.  She said she wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada someday.  Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
> She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
> Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the NDP Party!"
> 
> ...



Just an Awesome post!!!   :rofl:  I hope you don't mind if I use that.   ;D


----------



## Haletown (3 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, I may as well join in on the bandwagon......
> 
> My nomination for 'least likely to be missed' after being defeated -- Ujjal Dosanjh.   ;D



Marlene Jennings?
Gerard Kennedy?
Mark Holland?
Joe Volpe?

Stiff competition, but I'll go with Ujjal as well.  A particularly slimy piece of work.


----------



## Haletown (3 May 2011)

Best guess for the number of months before Quebecers turn on Jacko and his merry band of Socialists  . . . 

I thinking 12 - 16 max.


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2011)

I went with Dosanjh because it would be simply un-Canadian to say, during the Stanley Cup playoffs, that Ken Dryden (Liberal, York Centre: DEFEATED), went the same way as his former team-mates, the _Canadiens_    ;D


----------



## GAP (3 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Marlene Jennings?
> Gerard Kennedy?
> Mark Holland?
> Joe Volpe?
> ...



The next fun exercise is going to be finding out what the retirement payouts for all those defeated liberals is going to be.....


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 May 2011)

Ujjal Dosanjh. Very happy he is gone. You have to admit though he has a heck of a immigrant success story.

Can't wait to read the buyout and pension figures.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

The _Globe and Mail_ reports that Ignatieff has resigned as Liberal Party Leader saying, "The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser and I go out of politics with my head held high."


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ reports that Ignatieff has resigned as Liberal Party Leader saying, "The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser and I go out of politics with my head held high."



Inevitable.  In 2006 Ingatieff was first choice of 29% of Liberals.  Mind you Dion was the first choice of only 18%.  I think the big mistake was annointing Iggy instead of holding a leadership convention.  I always have perceived something off about Iggy and have accused him of being the child actor who played Eddie Munster.  He just doesn't seem to have widespread appeal.


----------



## Haletown (3 May 2011)

Thinking a bit more on the significance of this election . . .   it puts a stake through the cold, dead heart of Trudeaupia, never for it to rise again and corrupt our nation and politics.

That is a very, very good thing.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Best guess for the number of months before Quebecers turn on Jacko and his merry band of Socialists  . . .
> 
> I thinking 12 - 16 max.



Wasn't there a right-wing party being formed in Quebec? If they is any dissatisfaction with Jacko, may be we will see people drifting over to the right?


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> ... it puts a stake through the cold, dead heart of Trudeaupia, never for it to rise again


If a week is a long time in politics, "never" shouldn't even be considered.


----------



## GAP (3 May 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a right-wing party being formed in Quebec? If they is any dissatisfaction with Jacko, may be we will see people drifting over to the right?



ADQ lead by Mario Dumont....


----------



## Bin-Rat (3 May 2011)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> It was around 14 million, or roughly 61%.



As of January 1, 2011, Canada's population was estimated at 34,278,400, an increase of 40,400 (+0.1%) from October 1, 2010
as per http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110324/dq110324b-eng.htm

Now I am no math professor but 14 Mill out of 34 mill is NOT 60% cause 17 mill would be 50% But I dunno how they are doing there math


----------



## MJP (3 May 2011)

Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> As of January 1, 2011, Canada's population was estimated at 34,278,400, an increase of 40,400 (+0.1%) from October 1, 2010
> as per http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110324/dq110324b-eng.htm
> 
> Now I am no math professor but 14 Mill out of 34 mill is NOT 60% cause 17 mill would be 50% But I dunno how they are doing there math



The 34 million includes all ages, some of whom are ineligible to vote as they have not reached the age of majority.


----------



## kratz (3 May 2011)

News reports last night mentioned there were 24 million eleigable voters.

So 14 million votes for 61% does make more sense.


----------



## aesop081 (3 May 2011)

Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> Now I am no math professor but 14 Mill out of 34 mill is NOT 60% cause 17 mill would be 50% But I dunno how they are doing there math



Try reading here instead :

http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx



> Voter turnout: 14,720,580 of 23,971,740 registered electors (61.4%)



Pretty simple really.............


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The next fun exercise is going to be finding out what the federal retirement payouts for all those defeated liberals Bloquistes is going to be.....



There, fixed that for you


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I followed _ThreeHundredEight.com_ closely, posting their _projections_ on an almost daily basis.
> 
> Here are graphs of their _aggregations_ of polls - which are only as inaccurate as the original polls themselves, and the seat _projections_ based on those aggregations.
> 
> ...



Under the head of ...... no never mind.  I won't say I told you so.  ;D

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97490/post-1039859.html#msg1039859



> I wouldn't sweat the 308 shift.  At the eleventh hour he revises his model...... At which point he needs to show both models: the old one carried forward withouth change and the new one reworked backwards to demonstrate the trend.  Otherwise he has just produced a "hide the decline" shift where a different reference is substituted at the end.
> 
> The problem is compounded by the inclusion of the Ekos poll which seems to be outside the norms detected by other pollsters.
> 
> Emphasising an outlier and adjusting your model does not good statistics make.




308 made a classic mistake - they panicked and revised their model.  They would have been better to stick with plan A  and remember a favourite adage of mine "I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong."


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is not just the Canadian electorate that is so _polarized_; we have seen very similar things in America, Australia and Britain. We have all imported aspects of the US _culture wars_, which go back to the mid 1960s. It is silly to blame Stephen Harper for Johnson vs. Goldwater, but Simpson doesn't much like Harper, so ...



As usual ERC - mostly in agreement.  

Dissent on the above quote.  As you have come to understand by now I personally feel that the "Culture Wars" are of MUCH longer standing that Johnson-Goldwater and they embrace the Huguenot-Covenanters on one side and the Authoritarians (Both leaders and followers) on the other.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I wonder how much the NDP will call for Proportional Representation now that it would mean they need to give a few of their seats up to the Liberals?



Elizabeth May was whining about it too.


----------



## HavokFour (3 May 2011)

I keep hearing that 60% of voters voted against the Conservatives, when the results clearly show that they voted against the Bloc and Liberals.

Am I crazy?


----------



## Container (3 May 2011)

Its that stupid "only 40% of Canadians voted so 60% Hate HARPER!" ridiculousness.


----------



## wannabe SF member (3 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> ADQ lead by Mario Dumont....



I believe he is talking about that new libertarian network that was formed by Bernier, the ADQ is a dead force after the shellacking they received during the last provincial elections.

Here's a link to Bernier's blog: http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2010/10/reseau-liberte-quebec-redefinir-le-nationalisme/.

Mind you, I find it hard to see a right wing surge in Quebec any time soon, sad to say but my home-province feels really entitled to it's entitlements, living in the broken and leaking pipe that is their social-democrat dream. Quebec is a province that has so far been unable to get over the fact that their repudiation of conservative policies during the quiet revolution have so far worked against them. The current generation can still hold on to the excuse that this can all be solved by separation but for how long will that last?


----------



## aesop081 (3 May 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that 60% of voters voted against the Conservatives, when the results clearly show that they voted against the Bloc and Liberals.
> 
> Am I crazy?



Look here :

http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx



> Party Party standing %   Popular vote %
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative 167 54.2  5,832,401 39.6


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Its that stupid "only 40% of Canadians voted so 60% Hate HARPER!" ridiculousness.



They were strangely quiet when Chretien achieved the same end.


----------



## larry Strong (3 May 2011)

Are any of the remaining Liberals "blue' enough to cross the floor?


----------



## kratz (3 May 2011)

After the losses last night I suspect there are large numbe of blue Liberals.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that 60% of voters voted against the Conservatives, when the results clearly show that they voted against the Bloc and Liberals.
> 
> Am I crazy?




This is faulty logic. 60% of Canadians voted for the BQ, Greens, Liberals, NDP and a few others, but they were never given an option to vote against anyone or anything. We do not have an electoral system that allows you (or me) to vote *against* the prime minister or Joe Blow - only *for* the candidate you prefer in your riding. Those, like Ms. Elizabeth May, who are looking to deny Prime Minister Harper's legitimacy will trot out the "60% voted against" argument but it is, at best, dishonest and it betrays an abysmal ignorance of the Constitution. Anyone who actually believes that "60% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives' is, clearly, way too stupid to vote, much less to be an MP.


----------



## Container (3 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> They were strangely quiet when Chretien achieved the same end.



They seem quiet about the fact that we inched up the amount of Canadians voting this time round to just over 61% as well.....

The Chicken Little crying and sour grapes are at a fever pitch. 

You know the worst part was at the very beginning when Ignatieff first started talking I found him super reasonable- I had considered him. But once he was fully "in the party" he started making less and less moderate statements. The liberals would be better off, in my opinion, appealing to the moderates, like myself, rather than the nonvoting university kids.

They're too busy on the lead up to the election interupting conservative events to show up on election day and vote. "Only my democracy or no democracy at all!"


----------



## observor 69 (3 May 2011)

Ref large number of inexperienced elected members of NDP:

"Welcome to opposition class. Follow these steps. 1) Show up in question period. 2) Shout a lot. 3) Repeat."


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ref large number of inexperienced elected members of NDP


You can't be referring to esteemed members such as this, are you?

Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, won Berthier--Maskinongé...defeating even the Rhinoceros Party candidate -- the "official" joke candidate.

This LINK, from just before the results were in:


> She’s just back from Vegas, her French needs work and the party can’t confirm whether she’s even set foot in the riding, but a new poll shows NDP candidate Ruth Ellen Brosseau is within striking distance of winning a seat in Parliament.
> 
> The single mother who lives in Gatineau, Que., and works in Ottawa as an assistant manager of a Oliver’s pub at Carleton University in Ottawa is a classic parachute candidate.
> 
> ...


   :


----------



## jwtg (3 May 2011)

I'm so glad our tax dollars will be paying anyone willing to wear an orange tie/shirt/accessory!


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> I'm so glad our tax dollars will be paying anyone willing to wear an orange tie/shirt/accessory!



then you should be glad my Cat in the Hat Party was not elected......


----------



## Scott (3 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I am an extremist zealot when it comes to opposing "proportional representation".  It would mean an unworkable country, in which appealing to the lowest common denominator would make us a laughing stock of a democracy.
> 
> I find it interesting that opponents to our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system will utter such statements as "Only in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do we have FPTP!"  Yes.  Nice.  Use the four most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on the planet as a reason to NOT use that system which they use.  Our system offers fair representation, local representation and a functional (if not functioning) and somewhat stable government that allows us to get things done.  Things that really matter.
> 
> ...



It's called sour grapes. The only downside is having to listen to four years of this tripe.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> It's called sour grapes. The only downside is having to listen to four eight years of this tripe.



Fixed that for you!


----------



## DBA (3 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Again it is worth reminding people that the last PM to win a majority of the popular vote was John Diefenbaker in 1958.



You have a reference for this? The Parliament of Canada website shows Mulroney with a very slim majority (50.03%) of the popular vote in 1984.
Electoral Results by Party for 33rd General Election.


----------



## jwtg (3 May 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> You have a reference for this? The Parliament of Canada website shows Mulroney with a very slim majority (50.03%) of the popular vote in 1984.
> Electoral Results by Party for 33rd General Election.



The source I had referred to was  http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-2004.html , which rounds the % to a tenth of a percent, as opposed to a hundredth of a percent.  If you were to round to the 10th, it is 50.0% which would not be a majority.  The raw figure, however is  50.03455730667691153544652080479 %.

I guess I stand corrected- there indeed has been a more recent government by majority of the popular vote, however slim the margin.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Some thoughts from the United States:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/o-canada



> *BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL*
> POLITICS FROM THE NATION'S CAPITAL
> *O Canada!*
> TAGS: Bloc Quebecois Canada Conservative Party Liberal party Michael Ignatieff New Democrats Stephen Harper
> ...


----------



## GAP (4 May 2011)

Canada’s new electoral divide: It’s about the money
PATRICK BRETHOUR VANCOUVER— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, May. 03, 2011 
Article Link

The newly drawn electoral map is split, but the cleavage is not left versus right, nor is it Quebec versus the rest of Canada.

The true divide, the new reality of Canadian politics, is between the economic heartlands that the Conservatives now dominate throughout the country and the economic hinterlands won by the NDP.

The energy powerhouses of Alberta and the B.C. Interior are Conservative, while B.C.’s struggling north coast is solidly NDP. The suburbs and thriving technology centres of Ontario are deep blue territory, but the north of the province is orange. Quebec’s rural areas are largely held by New Democrats, but the entrepreneurial hub of the Beauce remains a Tory bastion.

With Canada still shaking off the effects of the recession, the Conservatives were clearly looking to herd economically worried voters into their column at the start of the campaign. The party was aiming not just at the haves, looking to safeguard their affluence, but at the just-hads, aching to reclaim their recently lost prosperity.

That message resonated strongly in Southern Ontario, where the manufacturing industries are still reeling and voters are no mood to take risks. “In Southwestern Ontario, they are not screwing around with the economy,” said Greg Lyle, managing director at Innovative Research Group. (Although the NDP also benefited in a more limited way from those same worries, maintaining its traditional strength in Windsor and Hamilton.)

Then came the unexpected surge of the NDP, and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s eleventh-hour appeal to Liberal voters with economically conservative leanings, often called blue Liberals. “Let me speak very clearly to traditional Liberal voters: I know many of you do not want NDP policies. That you do not want NDP tax hikes,” Mr. Harper said on Sunday.

The message: Only we can protect your prosperity.

The result is that the Conservatives were able to achieve in 2011 what eluded them in 2008, a coalition of economically conservative-minded voters who cast their ballots based on pocketbook issues rather than concerns over cultural issues, including the Tories’ supposed leanings toward social conservatism.

Those blue Liberals were the missing element in the Conservative coalition. In the 1990s, they were the foundation of the successive Liberal sweeps of Ontario. So long as they remained with the Liberals, Mr. Harper would be shut out of the urban heart of most big Canadian cities.

But the rise of the NDP, which siphoned off progressive-minded Liberals, clearly spooked a sizable number of blue Liberals, causing them to bolt to Mr. Harper in the last weekend of campaigning, said Nik Nanos, president and chief executive officer of Nanos Research.

It was clear at the start of the campaign that there were a large number of Liberals who would be prone to bolting: Nearly a quarter of committed Liberals (largely older men) ranked Mr. Harper, rather than Michael Ignatieff, as the most competent federal leader. Mr. Nanos said that figure is a clear proxy for the extent of the blue Liberal vote.
More on link


----------



## GAP (4 May 2011)

Ousted MPs will take home millions in severance
 By Carmen Chai, Postmedia News May 3, 2011
Article Link

They may not return to Parliament Hill to serve Canadians, but some 100 MPs who are leaving Ottawa will still receive millions in severance pay from taxpayers.

Within the next year, defeated or retiring MPs will collect $4.9 million in pension payments, according to calculations by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Tuesday.

Derek Fildebrandt, national research chair of the non-profit group, crunched the numbers to find that about 17 former MPs are slated to receive more than $100,000 a year in pension income.

They include Liberal Peter Milliken, former Speaker of the House, who walks away from politics with $147,000 a year, and former Veteran Affairs minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who lost in his Quebec riding but can turn to $106,000 a year to cheer him up.

"While many MPs went down to defeat last night, most are still big winners," Fildebrandt said. "Even though losing an election can be hard, MPs should find a nice soft landing with their 'golden parachute.'"

For example, former Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, who resigned after his party was obliterated by the NDP, leaves Ottawa with $141,000 a year, Fildebrandt estimated.

MPs are paid a base salary of $157,000 a year, while cabinet ministers get 50 per cent more for their additional duties. Defeated or retiring MPs are eligible to collect a full pension at age 55 if they have served at least six years in the House of Commons. For every $1 an MP contributes, taxpayers are required to pay $4 under the current federal pension plan, Fildebrandt explained.

Liberal MP Todd Russell was just a month shy of qualifying for his pension after he was elected in a May 2005 by election.

"By keeping (Russell) out of Parliament, the voters of Labrador saved Canadian taxpayers almost $600,000 in pension payouts," Fildebrandt noted.

Instead, such MPs as Russell who didn't make the six-year mark will walk away with a lump-sum payment of half of what they earned.

Michael Ignatieff, who stepped down as Liberal leader a day after the party hit a historic low, also didn't sit in Ottawa for six years; it's unclear what his next move will be but he'll have $116,624 to help him out. Ignatieff earned a leader salary on top of his MP pay, which is why he takes home a larger lump sum payment.

Fildebrandt said that once MPs leave their duties, they are returned the contributions they made.

He said that about two dozen former MPs will hit $3 million in pension payments by the time they turn 80, with former Transport Minister Chuck Strahl and longtime Liberal Keith Martin topping the list.
More on link


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

While I understand the need for an attractive pension/remuneration package for MPs to draw the best Canadians away from their private ventures, the gold-plated nature of it has me shaking my head.  Yes, you need to be conpensated for giving up your legal practice (which is always waiting for you if you don't opt for that big-time consulting job), but the fact that a few terms in the House gives you twice the pension of someone who's served 30+ years in the military smells funny.

As for the article on have/have-not breakdown, very interesting; I never looked at it that way.  I think this can be lumped in with Edward's Old/New Canada theory in explaining the political landscape of our country.


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> While I understand the need for an attractive pension/remuneration package for MPs to draw the best Canadians away from their private ventures, the gold-plated nature of it has me shaking my head.  Yes, you need to be conpensated for giving up your legal practice (which is always waiting for you if you don't opt for that big-time consulting job), but the fact that a few terms in the House gives you twice the pension of someone who's served 30+ years in the military smells funny.
> 
> As for the article on have/have-not breakdown, very interesting; I never looked at it that way.  I think this can be lumped in with Edward's Old/New Canada theory in explaining the political landscape of our country.



"Gold plated pensions" applies equally to the military - if you're under older terms of service, you can retire at age 37 with 40% of your best five years as a pension for life.  (If you join today, you'll be an old, old man of 42 and get 50% instead).  The government contributes roughly $2.25 for ever dollar a CF member contributes.

The other issue for MPs is that usually they are elected during key working years (late 30s-ealy 50s); taking that time out of any career and you impact your post-MP earnings, since you've been out of your field for that time.


And, for a little comparison, MP at $157K per year is the equivalent of a newly promoted BGen's pay.


----------



## jwtg (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And, for a little comparison, MP at $157K per year is the equivalent of a newly promoted BGen's pay.


I think a BGen has done a little more than this guy to earn it.

http://www.sherbrookerecord.com/content/view/619048/1/


EDIT: If you don't feel like checking the link, it's an article about the Sherbrooke MP who is 19 years old.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2011)

I disagree. This fellow, against all odds, stood up for a party and was elected. That's more than I have ever done and more than all but a small handful of generals have ever risked.

Politics is an honourable calling, even for those who are offered up by cynical party 'professionals' as sacrificial lambs. I am happy for all the winners - perhaps especially these youngsters and other assorted 'sacrificial lambs.' If we want more military people in politics all they need to do is join a party and offer themselves to their fellow party members as potential candidates. Some, a few, military folks do that; most do not.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree. This fellow, against all odds, stood up for a party and was elected. That's more than I have ever done and more than all but a small handful of generals have ever risked.



He put his name on a paper and won because people in the riding liked Jack Layton.  That being said, I agree with you that the new blood, whether they be karate instructors, IBM plant managers or university students are definately a refreshing turn from the blue-bloods we usually see around.  Don't know what impact they'll have aside from warming a seat though.

I'll draw a line between a "statesman" and a "politician".  I don't think being fortunate enough to run for the right party should guarantee him a pension of about $56,000 in 6 years that takes most hard-working Canadians an entire career to earn.  A respectable salary - yes?  The 77,000-ish in serverance is probably also justified for their services to the country.  But a remain skeptical that a large majority of the MPs and Senators who draw a very nice pension ever made the impact they should have to deserve it.


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> He put his name on a paper and won because people in the riding liked Jack Layton.  That being said, I agree with you that the new blood, whether they be karate instructors, IBM plant managers or university students are definately a refreshing turn from the blue-bloods we usually see around.  Don't know what impact they'll have aside from warming a seat though.



Well, if it's that easy you can do it yourself.  But if you're unwilling to take that risk, it's hardly fitting to denigrate those who do.



> I'll draw a line between a "statesman" and a "politician".  I don't think being fortunate enough to run for the right party should guarantee him a pension of about $56,000 in 6 years that takes most hard-working Canadians an entire career to earn.  A respectable salary - yes?  The 77,000-ish in serverance is probably also justified for their services to the country.  But a remain skeptical that a large majority of the MPs and Senators who draw a very nice pension ever made the impact they should have to deserve it.



And how do we measure "impact" for pension entitlements?  Do we expand that to other occupations such as the military?  Many MPs may get little face time in Parliament but provide their constituents with a link to government services, and smooth their interactions with the bureaucracy - how do we measure that?


----------



## jwtg (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, if it's that easy you can do it yourself.  But if you're unwilling to take that risk, it's hardly fitting to denigrate those who do.


It's hardly a risk to wear an orange shirt and put your name in the hat when your other career option at the time was a summer job at a golf course, as was the case for our new, youngest-ever MP!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 May 2011)

I agree with E.R.C.  Politics is an honourable calling and these young, inexperienced MP's have had the guts, in a time of great scepticism concerning politicians, to put their nome on a ballot, which is more than most of us ever dare do.

This said, the trick is not to get elected, its to get elected a second time, and a third, etc.  And here the learning curve is steep. They will be taught by more experienced hands but in the end, will only succeed if they put in the arduous (yes!) and often time tedious and demanding hours away from family and friends while busy at the great unseen tasks of an MP: constant attendance in the riding at tons of events whether they relate to your politics or not: from the burial of Joey's little dog, to the church annual pic-nic and on to the (seventh!) re-dedication of the local arena because it was repainted during the summer at a cost of $50,000 (for which the candidate supplied $2500 from some subsidy program he managed to help secure). etc. Then on top of your work in Ottawa, you have to attend at all the party functions, from policy conventions every three or four months, to all your regional fundraisers, to your local constituency party meetings, etc.

It is not an easy job.

If they work  hard, most time at the detriment of their personal and family life, they may, one day get to be the one whose idea is agreed on by most in Parliament to modify an upcoming or existing law and make it better for the citizens of this country, and will be able to say later in life: I did that, that was my idea, this one *little *change that made things *a bit *better for all. And they will think it a worthwhile life.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2011)

I support both ERC and Pusser. Our MP works very hard for all his constituents, regardless of their political leanings. In fact he went to bat for the gentleman who was his Liberal opponent in the 2004 and 2006 elections and was able to resolve some issues that preserved several jobs in the process. I believe he also did the same for one of his NDP challengers, or at least for the firm that employed him. Gord jokes that he would attend the opening of an envelope if invited, and he does do a lot of travelling in our riding, which is not small. For anyone with access to a map, or who knows Eastern Ontario geography, it stretches from Kemptville on the northeast corner west to Westport, then south to Gananoque and then east along the St Lawrence to Cardinal. On top of his constituency work, he sits on a couple of committees and chairs a caucus committee. It is a gruelling work load and his personal life has taken a couple of hits because of it.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

I cannot hide my contempt for these neophytes, and I think it's a disgrace to the democratic system that a party would even put a placeholder into a riding, all the while extolling their virtues.  We need leaders in our governments (at all levels), not some hippy university student who said "Yeah, sure, whatever, dude" between bong hits when the local commisar offered up his or her name.  Total and utter contempt.


Why haven't I run?  I am forbidden as a military member to run for office.  Why don't I get out and run?  Because I do my job for democracy by doing whatever it is I can to defend it.
[/rant]


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I cannot hide my contempt for these neophytes, and I think it's a disgrace to the democratic system that a party would even put a placeholder into a riding, all the while extolling their virtues.  We need leaders in our governments (at all levels), not some hippy university student who said "Yeah, sure, whatever, dude" between bong hits when the local commisar offered up his or her name.  Total and utter contempt.
> [/rant]



Remember that there is more to it for the party establishment than trying to get a neophyte elected, or offering up a sacrificial lamb. First, there is the talking point of running a candidate in every riding in the country. Second, and I am wearing my cynic Tshirt for this, there is the not inconsiderable matter of the roughly two bucks per vote annual payment to the party's coffers.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Remember that there is more to it for the party establishment than trying to get a neophyte elected, or offering up a sacrificial lamb. First, there is the talking point of running a candidate in every riding in the country.


That's my point, and I think I made it earlier.  In fact, Mr. Layton extolled the "vast experience" his crew had.  This was during his "victory" speech on Monday night (Yes, I think he had every reason to celebrate).  I also acknowledge that the NDP is not the only party to run pylons in elections.  But for them to stand up and say "look at us!  We ran in every riding!  We ran x% women!"  :


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Second, and I am wearing my cynic Tshirt for this, there is the not inconsiderable matter of the roughly two bucks per vote annual payment to the party's coffers.


That funding must end.  I hope that the incoming Government scraps that dollars for votes idea...


----------



## jwtg (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I cannot hide my contempt for these neophytes, and I think it's a disgrace to the democratic system that a party would even put a placeholder into a riding, all the while extolling their virtues.



I think it's a disgrace to our taxpayers that he gets $157,000 a year.  I'm not saying he won't have a stressful and/or difficult term in government full of meetings, functions, events and tasks that will more than fill up his calender, but I can't help but be stunned at his salary vs. that of a 1st year police officer, paramedic, firefighter, military member etc. that is also funded by taxes (although not all federally, obviously).  

I'm not complaining about the compensation that people who choose the aforementioned careers receive, I'm simply pointing out that I have a hard time reconciling the disparity between the tax funds devoted to Mr. 19-year-old-golf-club-employee-turned-MP and those devoted to emergency responders or employees of other tax-funded organizations that have a lot more experience, training and impact on the day to day lives of the people they serve.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 May 2011)

Off Topic Comment

DAP: 



> The government contributes roughly $2.25 for ever dollar a CF member contributes


.

On my reserve pension the government profited by $0.48  per dollar contributed!


----------



## mariomike (4 May 2011)

This was the first federal election that I voted as a pensioner. There are a lot of retired people in my neighbourhood. Almost all I spoke to said they would vote Conservative. So did I, even though I understand the political reality in my riding.: "The Conservatives were never a factor in this diverse downtown riding where the electoral dynamic was often described as a fight between the left and the “more left.” '
Globe and Mail May 03, 2011

The interesting contrast is with those still on the job. They tend to focus on issues that affect ( effect? ) the profession. 2008: "In keeping with the IAFF’s bipartisan philosophy, local affiliates were welcome to locally endorse candidates from any political party, as long as they were certain the candidate was committed to looking closely at the IAFF’s Canadian legislative agenda if elected and supporting IAFF issues in the House of Commons.":
http://www.iaff.org/canada/Updates/canada_2008_election.htm



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Gold plated pensions" applies equally to the military - if you're under older terms of service, you can retire at age 37 with 40% of your best five years as a pension for life.  (If you join today, you'll be an old, old man of 42 and get 50% instead).



The new pension benchmark is based on the best three years of employment, at a 2.33 per cent accrual rate for each year of credited service. This brings members up to 70 per cent of pre-retirement income in 30 years with an 80 Factor.*
*The member's age + service. 
This came as a result of Canada’s Income Tax Act regulations being rewritten in 2003.

Edit


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, if it's that easy you can do it yourself.  But if you're unwilling to take that risk, it's hardly fitting to denigrate those who do.


I've taken greater risks than those neophytes, and I'm not the only one of this group.  So I think it's actually rather fitting that I denigrate those who pay such lip service for an institution for which I, and many others, have risked life and limb.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, if it's that easy you can do it yourself.  But if you're unwilling to take that risk, it's hardly fitting to denigrate those who do.



Well, it sounds like I could of without much difficulty from Las Vegas, but as TV says, I'm serving in a different capacity.  Just because somebody made the effort to run for office does not put them, or their salary, beyond reproach.  Mine is the same, but I'll justify it with belonging to a profession, years of training and unlimited liability.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many MPs may get little face time in Parliament but provide their constituents with a link to government services, and smooth their interactions with the bureaucracy - how do we measure that?



A decent paycheck, which I stated above they were entitled to?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It is not an easy job.





			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It is a gruelling work load and his personal life has taken a couple of hits because of it.



...and being an MLA/MP is the only "gruelling" job out there?  I figured living in the dirt and bringing 40 Canadians back to their families was pretty gruelling to.

The point I'm making is not that public service as a Representative is not a dishonourable calling, nor that they not be entitled to decent compensation.  What I do oppose is a golden ticket - a respectable pension - so fast for something that, while potentially demanding much of someone (like so many other professions and trades), demands very little in the way of qualification and is more often than not tied to a small degree of demagoguery and simply picking the team with the right guy at the national debate.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 May 2011)

I worked 24.5 years for a pension and its nowhere near what an MP receives after just six.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2011)

Does an MPs 6 year pension get clawed back at age 65?


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Does an MPs 6 year pension get clawed back at age 65?



Yes.  MP pension plans include the CPP reduction at age 65.


----------



## jwtg (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes.  MP pension plans include the CPP reduction at age 65.


Justice is served!
[/sarcasm]


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes.  MP pension plans include the CPP reduction at age 65.



Good thing they didn't invest too much time into it then.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 May 2011)

Looks like some questions are being asked about one of Layton's star Quebec MP's. Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Fair Dealings section of the Copyright Act.



> May 4, 2011
> 
> Questions raised about rookie NDP MP's papers
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Haletown (4 May 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Looks like some questions are being asked about one of Layton's star Quebec MP's. Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Fair Dealings section of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Article Link



Well this could save her from having to go to French language school for six months and for us to have to pay for it.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

> Layton said his team will work with Brosseau to help her improve her French so that she is able to serve her constituents.




I rest my case.  Mr. Layton made a mockery of democracy by planting non-qualified pylons in these ridings.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2011)

How ironic that the party that championed extension of Bill 101 to federally regulated workplaces has a uni-lingual anglophone representing a french riding... that she doesn't even live in.


----------



## HavokFour (4 May 2011)

Next 4 years will be interesting.


----------



## Gimpy (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I rest my case.  Mr. Layton made a mockery of democracy by planting non-qualified pylons in these ridings.



These candidates were decided on long before the Orange Surge enveloped Quebec. How can you possibly fault Layton for putting pylons in ridings where before the election the thought of an NDP MP was unfathomable? Are you also going to say that Mr. Harper made a mockery out of democracy as well by putting pylons in Quebec?

On further thought, I believe this is just how it works. With the amount of parties and ridings it is inevitable that parties will have to place unqualified candidates in areas they believe to have no chance in. There just aren't enough qualified candidates for all parties to run in every riding.

In this case the NDP can hardly be blamed for these candidates and if anything the constituents who voted for said candidates should be held at fault, which I'm sure some of them might feel with these inexperienced and under-qualified MPs representing them.


----------



## MJP (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I rest my case.  Mr. Layton made a mockery of democracy by planting non-qualified pylons in these ridings.



Hardly a strong argument on the bringing down of democracy which seems to be the talking point of the year (against all parties) despite no one really breaching the core principles of democracy.  An attempt to gain the most of the per vote subsidy if status quo emerged from the election is more my bet than any attempt to subvert our democratic principles.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> These candidates were decided on long before the Orange Surge enveloped Quebec. How can you possibly fault Layton for putting pylons in ridings where before the election the thought of an NDP MP was unfathomable? Are you also going to say that Mr. Harper made a mockery out of democracy as well by putting pylons in Quebec?
> 
> On further thought, I believe this is just how it works. With the amount of parties and ridings it is inevitable that parties will have to place unqualified candidates in areas they believe to have no chance in. There just aren't enough qualified candidates for all parties to run in every riding.
> 
> In this case the NDP can hardly be blamed for these candidates and if anything the constituents who voted for said candidates should be held at fault, which I'm sure some of them might feel with these inexperienced and under-qualified MPs representing them.


To be fair, I don't blame just the NDP for this.  ANY party that does this is, IMHO, guilty of making a mockery of the system.  How on earth can anyone even fathom putting an unqualified person into a riding, and THEN, after the thought, try to teach them the bloody language of their bloody constituents?  

And those who voted so blindly, they also make a mockery of democracy.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

Well, not really a mockery of democracy - it is democracy!  Anyone can run and electors can vote for anyone.  Not the smartest application of representative democracy, but a valid one anyways.  Ancient Athens filled positions through random lots, so nobody can say it is undemocratic to allow the _vox populi_ to be heard.

Someone mentioned the idea of allow the improbable and the improbable will happen - takes me back to a "Starship Troopers" quote....


----------



## wannabe SF member (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And those who voted so blindly, they also make a mockery of democracy.



My thoughts exactly, I don't care for all that youth empowerment bull. Nobody will ever make me believe that a McGill university student is qualified as an MP. Quebeckers dropped the ball (again) and they'll get the representation that they deserve.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, not really a mockery of democracy - it is democracy!  Anyone can run and electors can vote for anyone.  Not the smartest application of representative democracy, but a valid one anyways.  Ancient Athens filled positions through random lots, so nobody can say it is undemocratic to allow the _vox populi_ to be heard.
> 
> Someone mentioned the idea of allow the improbable and the improbable will happen - takes me back to a "Starship Troopers" quote....


I disagree that it's valid.  This is not "vox populi", this is rather "vox idiots".  It reminds me of Star Wars "Who is more foolish?  The fool?  Or the one who (votes) for the fool?"

I believe that eliminating the 2$/per annum per vote would help eliminate this.  But I would expect that our major parties would have more morals than to run an anglophone in a francophone riding.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2011)

Oh, I don't think it will be very long before people start to see the NDP isn't wearing any clothes


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That's my point, and I think I made it earlier.  In fact, Mr. Layton extolled the "vast experience" his crew had.  This was during his "victory" speech on Monday night (Yes, I think he had every reason to celebrate).  I also acknowledge that the NDP is not the only party to run pylons in elections.  But for them to stand up and say "look at us!  We ran in every riding!  We ran x% women!"  :That funding must end.  I hope that the incoming Government scraps that dollars for votes idea...




Contrast this crop of NDP members with the man the Torries ran against Mr Ignatieff. If there was ever a reason to run a pylon candidate, it's against a party leader. The Torries appear to have a highly qualified, experienced, educated, and respected member in Mr Trottier who earned his seat through hard work campaigning in the riding in which he lives.

I wager dollars to donuts that the budget ends the vote subsidy.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> To be fair, I don't blame just the NDP for this.  ANY party that does this is, IMHO, guilty of making a mockery of the system.  How on earth can anyone even fathom putting an unqualified person into a riding, and THEN, after the thought, try to teach them the bloody language of their bloody constituents?
> 
> And those who voted so blindly, they also make a mockery of democracy.



I would have to agree with you. Were French speaking pro-NDP Quebecers so scarce that they couldn't find one to represent the riding? As part of the candidate vetting process you would think that a candidate that does not speak the language or has very little connection with his/her constituents would have sent off some alarm bells.  The fact that these people were nominated, I think says a lot about the NDP party as a whole, and Jack Layton in particular. 

You are also right about the constituents who voted for some of these candidates also leaves something to be desired. To vote for someone that does not speak the language and who has not canvassed the riding says a lot the locals. 



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Hardly a strong argument on the bringing down of democracy which seems to be the talking point of the year (against all parties) despite no one really breaching the core principles of democracy. _ *An attempt to gain the most of the per vote subsidy if status quo emerged from the election is more my bet than any attempt to subvert our democratic principles.* _



Another reason to abolish the subsidy.


----------



## Gimpy (4 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Contrast this crop of NDP members with the man the Torries ran against Mr Ignatieff. If there was ever a reason to run a pylon candidate, it's against a party leader. The Torries appear to have a highly qualified, experienced, educated, and respected member in Mr Trottier who earned his seat through hard work campaigning in the riding in which he lives.



It's interesting you say that because that is my riding and Trottier did not do much to earn his seat in my opinion. I never saw him in my area campaigning, never read about any events of his in the local newspaper, and furthermore he didn't even attend the local election debate. (Neither did Ignatieff, but at least he had an excuse with campaigning around the country as the Liberal leader). Trottier is the benefactor of intense distaste in this area with Ignatieff, nothing more. If you were to ask the heavy majority of people in this area anything about Mr. Trottier they couldn't tell you a thing about him. What they would tell you about is the invisible man and their dislike for him.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree that it's valid.  This is not "vox populi", this is rather "vox idiots".



You're assuming that those are two different things.... 

A big part of the problem is systemic; voting for regional representation has been fused with voting for the executive.  (Most) electors weren't voting for the 19 year old university student or the bartender in Las Vegas, they were voting for Jack Layton.  Likewise, my MP has been around for a loooong time and I only hear about his absences from Parliament.  I was voting for Stephen Harper to lead my country when I cast my vote.

I don't think we are ever going to get around this.


----------



## mariomike (4 May 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> It's interesting you say that because that is my riding and Trottier did not do much to earn his seat in my opinion. I never saw him in my area campaigning, never read about any events of his in the local newspaper, and furthermore he didn't even attend the local election debate. (Neither did Ignatieff, but at least he had an excuse with campaigning around the country as the Liberal leader). Trottier is the benefactor of intense distaste in this area with Ignatieff, nothing more. If you were to ask the heavy majority of people in this area anything about Mr. Trottier they couldn't tell you a thing about him. What they would tell you about is the invisible man and their dislike for him.



All I can say about either is that Mr. Ignatieff put on a good BBQ.


----------



## Gimpy (4 May 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> All I can say about either is that Mr. Ignatieff put on a good BBQ.



He did have events in the riding, but more often than not he was absent from the area (probably due to him not living here). Even his constituency office was closed more than it was open, not to mention the fact that before the election they moved from a storefront office to the 6th floor of an unlisted office complex. I'm going to keep an open mind with Trottier though and probably make a visit to his constituency office and see what his plans are for the riding before I make any judgments on how he'll do as an MP.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2011)

I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.

No matter how much I courted the media, posted on my web site, made public appearances and pressed the flesh, there were ALWAYS people who never heard of me, had no idea I was running or did not see/hear/touch/smell my campaign. In that sense I fully sympathize with candidates when people say they "never saw them" on the campaign trail. Even if it was somehow physically possible to herd everyone in the city into some central location, there are partisans for the other side who will dismiss you or refuse to listen, disinterested people who don't care, cynical people who say "why should I care", corrupt people who say "what's in it for me?" and one or two who are interested in the issues and are willing to listen and debate. 

I was an effective municipal candidate in some surprising ways. The message traffic on my web site and hits from various visitors showed people from as far away as Quebec and BC were seeing what I was about (thanks guys). I ran the most efficient campaign in history, spending $1000 and getting @1000 votes. Towards the end of the campaign, the two major candidates were starting to spend a lot more time talking about fiscal responsibility than they had at the start. Since this was what I would realistically be able to do (change the focus of what issues would be spoken about) I made this the focus and aim of the campaign, and to some extent succeeded.

For the record, the CPC candidate in my riding did a very effective campaign this time around, including phone calls, one personal visit and the GOTV call on election day. The incumbent did one GOTV call as well, the Green candidate left a brochure at the door and I never saw nor heard from the NDP candidate (Orange Wave indeed  )

That parties game and take advantage of the rules is hardly surprising; sports teams, Tim Hortons franchise owners and mothers seeking places at day care centers (among others) do exactly the same things. Voters also try to game the system (what do you think strategic voting is?). Candidates who are successful are entitled to the various perques of office, and if you don't agree with these perques, vote for the candidate who will eliminate them. Similarly while our Westminster style democracy is being bent out of shape by various trends that concentrate power in the hands of the executive, we do have the ability to agitate and vote for change. Sometimes this does not have to be loud or dramatic; I instructed my troops prior to election day on how the Westminster system actually worked (several were surprised to discover Steven Harper or Micheal Ignatieff would not be on _their_ ballot), so at least one platoon worth of voters scattered across SW Ontario had the chance to make an informed vote.

In the end, an election campaign is much like a military campaign. You use the ground to your advantage (in this case it is Human Terrain, so an election is a COIN/guerrilla  campaign). You have little time to actually move or change the terrain, so choose wisely, stake out the key terrain that you want and attract people to your ground and prevent people already on your ground from leaving. The CPC and NDP obviously chose economic ground while the LPC chose the swampy social policy low ground.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2011)

The NDP candidate in my riding left a card in my mailbox "Sorry I missed you". Not as sorry as I was ;

The Libs didn't even come into the neighbourhood, so far as I know.

My CPC candidate, who I know quite well from the military, garnered about 50% more votes than the last time, against a high profile incumbent NDP, in about the hardest union riding in the country. The people here treat Ken Lewenza and his views like a god. Even though both him and the NDP, here, were against all the money the CPC threw at Chrysler and GM to bail them out.

Maybe next time, once people get a good look at, and finally understand, the socialist (aka communist) agenda of the NDP things here will finally turn around.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.
> 
> No matter how much I courted the media, posted on my web site, made public appearances and pressed the flesh, there were ALWAYS people who never heard of me, had no idea I was running or did not see/hear/touch/smell my campaign. In that sense I fully sympathize with candidates when people say they "never saw them" on the campaign trail. Even if it was somehow physically possible to herd everyone in the city into some central location, there are partisans for the other side who will dismiss you or refuse to listen, disinterested people who don't care, cynical people who say "why should I care", corrupt people who say "what's in it for me?" and one or two who are interested in the issues and are willing to listen and debate.
> 
> ...



To your credit, some local but very left wing individuals (all lawyers) commented several times that in the debates you seemed  to take the time to properly consider a question and then provide an artculate answer validating your views and conclusions with facts.  And, you did this repeatedly and as the crowd appeared to agree the lawyers began to loathe.  This pattern of coherence, reason, logic, consistencey and lack of rhetoric was your ultimate downfall - in Toronto Danforth they would have stuck you in a stack of recycled, clean burning rubber tires.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.



I listened to someone once and ran for a Canadian Alliance nomination.  I was told that 300 votes should do but the campaign went ballistic and the winner eventually won with 2,000.  I thought, I know more than 300 people, how hard can it be.  I am sure the eventual winner spent at least $20,000 and he wasn't the biggest spender.  The winner was supported by all the conservative preachers in the constituency campaigning from the pulpit.  Canadian Alliance and hidden agenda - you betcha.


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2011)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> To your credit, some local but very left wing individuals (all lawyers) commented several times that in the debates you seemed  to take the time to properly consider a question and then provide an artculate answer validating your views and conclusions with facts.  And, you did this repeatedly and as the crowd appeared to agree the lawyers began to loathe.  This pattern of coherence, reason, logic, consistencey and lack of rhetoric was your ultimate downfall - in Toronto Danforth they would have stuck you in a stack of recycled, clean burning rubber tires.



Yeah, the real key seems to be able to present yourself as a HOAG on TV.... :


----------



## Old Sweat (6 May 2011)

This oped piece by Andrew Coyne from the Macleans website reiterates a point made a number of times in this thread. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

The West is in and Ontario has joined it


How the election led to an unprecedented realignment of Canadian politics

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, May 6, 2011 7:00am 


Democracy, great and terrible as the sea: unknowable, implacable, irresistible, destroyer of parties, deliverer of others, humbler of leaders, elector of bricklayers and assistant pub managers. Tremble before it, and stay out of its path when it moves.

Five parties were picked up, shaken out and tossed aside by the voters in this astonishing election, but of all the many implications one is fundamental: the Conservatives are now in a position to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party in Canada, as dominant, potentially, in the 21st century as the Liberals were in the 20th. This isn’t just a victory, the first Conservative majority in a generation. It is (at least under the terms of the current electoral system) a realignment. Simply put, the West is in—and Ontario has joined it.

The temptation, looking at the wreckage of the Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties and the meteoric rise of the NDP, is to compare this election to 1993, which shattered Brian Mulroney’s old Conservative coalition into its Bloc and Reform party fragments. But it’s much more consequential than that. In retrospect, 1993 changed very little. It handed power to the Liberals, but it did nothing to alter the long-term dynamic of Canadian politics: the remorseless shrinking of the Liberal base.


Once, under William Lyon Mackenzie King, Liberals governed with a majority in every region of the country. But they lost the West to the Conservatives in 1957, and never recovered. They lost Quebec in 1984, and have never really recovered there, either. The collapse of the Conservatives in 1993, and the splitting of the vote on the right that ensued, allowed Jean Chrétien to eke out three more majorities, largely on the strength of the Liberals’ near-total dominance of Ontario. But it did nothing to enlarge the Liberal base: neither the West nor Quebec rejoined the fold.

By contrast, this election looks a lot more like 1891, when Wilfrid Laurier established the Liberal dynasty in Quebec, the foundation stone of Liberal governments for nearly a century; or 1935, when King added Ontario to the Liberal column. Now Stephen Harper has at last recaptured Ontario for the Conservatives, and in so doing has created a new governing coalition, unlike any that has gone before: the West plus Ontario.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada (Laurier and King), or Quebec and Ontario (Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau) we’ve seen. Conservatives sometimes put together majorities out of Ontario and Atlantic Canada (W.B. Bennett) or Quebec and the West (Mulroney). But Ontario and the West? That’s new. They have voted together before, of course, but the combination has never previously been enough to produce a majority on its own. But as the population has shifted westward, so has the centre of gravity of Canadian politics.

It is likely to prove more durable than previous Conservative governments, if only because it has been so long in the making. This is not like the sudden sweeps of John Diefenbaker and Mulroney, born of the collapse of previous Liberal governments, only to collapse of their own internal contradictions. This is one that has been built slowly, election after election, through defeat and victory.

The Conservative dominance of the West is the single most established fact in Canadian politics, a dynasty now in its sixth decade. And it has only grown more pronounced over time. On Monday night, the Conservatives won 54 per cent of the vote in Manitoba, 56 per cent in Saskatchewan, 67 in Alberta, and 46 in B.C.: an astounding 55 per cent average across the West—nine points higher than they averaged in 2004.

But meanwhile the same growth has been occurring in Ontario. Conservative parties won two seats in Ontario in 2000, 24 in 2004, 40 in 2006, 51 in 2008, and now 73—the first time the Conservatives have carried Ontario since 1984. Not only did the Tories take most of the seats in rural Ontario, but they also took 30 seats in the Greater Toronto Area, propelled by rising support among immigrant groups. Overall the Tories took 44 per cent of the vote in Ontario—12 points higher than in 2004.

What does this mean? It means the West, having spent most of the last 54 years in opposition, is now firmly installed in power. And it now has Ontario as its partner. This is the new axis of Canadian politics. The West begins at the Ottawa River.

Ontario’s decision is more momentous when you think of what it has endured of late. For much of the campaign, Ontario was very much in play. It had been through a harsh recession, and had become for the first time a “have-not” province, dependent on federal equalization payments. There was a real question as to which way it would turn: to the parties promising an expanded role for government, or to the party promising to cut taxes and spending.

That it chose the latter suggests the greater durability of this coalition. The Diefenbaker sweep was based on cultish enthusiasm and the machinery of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec; Mulroney cobbled together two mutually antagonistic political movements, western populists and Quebec nationalists, united only in their loathing of Ottawa. By contrast, this is based on a real affinity of ideology and interests. For all the attention paid to the Tories’ inability to get over 40 per cent in the polls nationally, the greater truth is this: they have 50 per cent of the vote in two-thirds of the country. As it turns out, that’s enough.

And as the population continues to shift westward, it will be more than enough. At the next election, there will be 30-odd more seats in Ontario and the West, based on the redistribution bill the Tories introduced in the last Parliament; and in elections after that, more still. Add to that the coming abolition of party subsidies, as promised in their platform, and the Conservative grip on power looks secure.

And yet it all could have turned out much differently. The Tories ran a frankly miserable campaign, aimed entirely at holding on to their existing base, but with little obvious appeal to the uncommitted. Though their strategy was sound, and their platform contained some interesting proposals, their message was presented in an oddly sullen tone: paranoid of the media, spiteful of their opponents. Indeed, until the last weekend of the campaign they appeared to be losing support, not gaining it. They benefited enormously from the disarray on the left: first the collapse of the Liberals, then, at the end, by the shocking rise of the NDP.

To be fair, the Tories were in part responsible for both. It was Harper who successfully framed the election as a choice between the stability of a Conservative majority or another “reckless coalition” of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc—the enduring legacy of the December 2008 fiasco—putting the Liberals in a box from which they struggled the whole campaign to escape.

To voters frustrated with the political impasse of the last several years, Harper said: only the Tories could win a majority, while the Liberals, behind by a dozen points or more in the polls at the start of the campaign, could not. Voters who were comfortable with a Conservative minority, but wary of giving them a majority, were told that the former option was no longer available to them: a Conservative minority would surely be defeated in the House at the first opportunity. After all, was that not what had precipitated the election: the withdrawal of confidence by the other three parties?

As much as Michael Ignatieff tried to evade that logic, it proved ineluctible. If he wanted to govern, he had to leave open the possibility of doing so with the support of the NDP, at least. But in so doing, he allowed himself to be tied rather too closely to the other parties, at least for centrist voters’ taste: the more so in view of the Liberals’ disastrous decision to abandon the centre, in favour of a marked appeal to the left.

I’ll concede there was a certain logic to it: steal voters from the NDP, knock them out of contention early, and drive up Liberal numbers to within striking range of the Conservatives. Then appeal to voters to give Ignatieff a majority, rather than Harper. There was just one problem with it. It couldn’t possibly work.

The Liberal platform was just left enough to put off voters to their right, without persuading anyone to their left. It came off as what it was: a strategy, rather than a philosophy, feeding doubts about the sincerity and authenticity of the man promoting it, already planted by months of Tory attack ads. Add to that Jack Layton’s powerful personal appeal, and NDP voters had little reason to switch—the more so given all the talk of post-coalition alliances. After all, if the Conservatives could win the election and still be tossed from power, what reason had they to heed appeals to vote Liberal to “stop Harper”? Quite the contrary: better to give Jack a strong bargaining position in the negotiations.

All that the Liberals leftward deke accomplished, then, was to leave the Tories in absolute possession of the centre-right: the only party promising to cut taxes and spending, while four parties promised to raise them—the only party, indeed, that seemed particularly concerned with creating wealth, rather than redistributing it. Yet as much as the Liberals ceded the economy to the Tories, neither could they lay claim to any other issues in the public mind: the NDP owned health care and accountability, the Greens the environment. (As one pollster put it, about the only issue Ignatieff polled strongest on was foreign policy. Ouch.) And as the Liberal campaign began to stall, the opening was left for the NDP to make its move.

In a way, the NDP message was the flip side of the Conservatives’. Where Harper offered a majority as the solution to seven years of partisan bickering and brinksmanship, the NDP offered another: kick everybody in the shins: Conservatives, Liberals and, in Quebec, the Bloc.

And yet, as protest votes go, it was peculiarly sweet-tempered. The strategies of the other parties seemed aimed at forcing voters down one chute or another, with strident appeals to fear. You have to vote Conservative, Harper told them, to stop the coalition. You have to vote Liberal, Ignatieff told them, to stop Harper. You have to vote for us, BQ leader Gilles Duceppe told Quebecers, to defend Quebec from federal depredations. The faces of all three men scowled out at Canadians from campaign ads and the televised debates.

And along came Layton, with his courtly manners and perpetual smile, asking them, in effect, “Would you like to vote New Democrat?” That seems to have been all there was to it. There wasn’t much that was new in the NDP message—its policies remain the same frumpy mix of dirigisme and populist business-bashing they have always been—but neither was there the same negativity. To compound the oddity, here was a protest against “politics as usual” being led by a 25-year career politician. Yet in today’s sourpuss politics, Layton’s old-school vibe came off as positively radical. Imagine: a candidate who actually seemed to be enjoying himself, as if he liked people.

Voters in Quebec, weary of the Bloc and positively alarmed at the prospect of another referendum—for above all Quebecers prefer not to have to choose—were the first to respond, vaulting the party into first place in a province where it had only recently climbed above 10 per cent of the vote. That got the attention of left-of-centre voters in the rest of Canada, accustomed to being told they were “wasting their votes” if they opted for the NDP over the Liberals. Before you knew it, the NDP had doubled their vote nationwide.

There’s never been a surge to match it. Soon the Liberals found themselves whipsawed between the NDP and the Conservatives. As the NDP climbed in the polls, left-wing voters abandoned them in favour of the NDP, the better to “stop Harper.” Then, as the NDP started to draw within a few points of the Conservatives, right-wing Liberals decamped for the Conservatives, especially in Ontario, in order to stop the NDP. That late shift seemed to catch the pollsters unawares, but it was probably on the order of two to three percentage points, pushing the Tories over the top and cratering Liberal support.

The resulting carnage—the Liberals gravely wounded, the Bloc mortally so—leaves as much altered on the opposition side as on the government’s, but with much less sense of its durability. The kind of sudden ballooning in support the NDP enjoyed has been seen before, especially in Quebec: it rarely lasts, not least when so much of it is attached to the personality of the leader. Quebecers have been shifting their support about wildly in recent years, without evident regard for ideological consistency: it’s the left-wing NDP now but it was the centre-right Coalition pour L’Avenir du Québec earlier, and the further-right Action Démocratique du Québec before that. The best that can be said is that the Quebec vote is in play.

The NDP will now have to cope with the challenges of success. It has done the country the singular service of dispatching the Bloc. Now it must manage the expectations aroused by its own strident appeals to Quebec nationalism, without alienating either its new-found followers in Quebec or its traditional base elsewhere in the country. At the same time, as the second party in an emerging two-party system, it must adapt to the rules of a very different political game.

Does it sharpen the divisions between itself and the government, in hopes of forcing the remains of the anti-Conservative majority into its camp—but at risk of yielding the centre ground to the Tories? Or does it pitch its tent for the centre, and risk being dragged to the right as the Conservatives remake Canadian politics in their image?

But the Liberals’ dilemma is much more acute. Indeed, it is existential. The party needs time to debate its future direction—but in the meantime, the Conservatives and the NDP will be tearing into its support on the right and left. Should it, as some on the left of the party are urging, opt for a merger with the NDP—assuming the NDP has any interest in such an alliance—it will find itself deserted by many of its centre-right supporters. But if it tries to carry on, crippled, adrift, and deprived of a substantial part of its funding, it risks bleeding support, even some MPs, to the NDP.

If it is to survive, it will have to make the case for the continuing relevance of a centrist party in Canadian politics. If all that being a Liberal means is to be a little less conservative than the Conservatives, a little less progressive than the New Democrats, the party may find itself meeting the same fate as the British Liberal party. But if it is bold enough to redefine the middle—to outflank the Conservatives on some issues, and the New Democrats on others, while claiming ownership of issues like democratic reform, or the need for a strong national government, capable of defending the national interest against the provinces, it may yet hope to rise again. Look on it as an opportunity, Liberals: it’s not as if you’ve got anything to lose.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

And Preston Manning finally receives his due:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/06/rex-murphy-preston-mannings-great-achievement/



> *Rex Murphy: Preston Manning’s great achievement*
> 
> Rex Murphy  May 6, 2011 – 8:52 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2011)

Voters    Voters      Citizens	Citizens     Citizens
			                       For	  Opposed	For      Opposed Not Opposed
Citizens	23971740	100%					
Voters	           14720580	61%					
Conservative	  5832401	24%	40%	    60%	24%	  37%	        63%
NDP	             4508474	19%	31%	    69%	19%	  43%	        57%
Liberal	             2783175	12%	19%	    81%	12%	  50%	        50%
Bloc	               889788	4%	6%	    94%	4%	  58%	        42%
Others	               706742	3%	5%	    95%	3%	  58%	        42%
Did Not Vote	  9251160	39%	

More fun with numbers:

On the basis that all Citizens are eligible voters, and following the dictum that silence implies consent we end up with the above.


While the Conservatives only garnered the active support of 24% of the citizenry, equally only 37% of the citizenry actively opposed them.  63% of the citizenry did NOT oppose them.

Fautes de mieux, for the majority of the citizenry the Conservatives are the least worst solution for government.  All other options are worse as they attract an increasing number of active opponents and a decreasing number of active supporters.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the government of the day but equally not a credible rationale for changing the voting system.  

Most Canadians have decided this is a government they can live with.

QED  ;D	

Edit:  Can somebody offer advice on how to straighten out the above table?


----------



## Haletown (6 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I rest my case.  Mr. Layton made a mockery of democracy by planting non-qualified pylons in these ridings.



Well, as Jacko said to Iggy . . .  you have to show up for work if you expect to get a promotion.

Jacko's  goose is now related to his candidate's absent gander


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ are two articles that I think, at least I hope, reflect what happened earlier this week:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/remaking-stephen-harper-in-canadas-image/article2013255/ 


> Remaking Stephen Harper in Canada’s image
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Ottawa—From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/the-man-who-remade-canadas-political-landscape/article2013137/ 


> The man who remade Canada’s political landscape
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...



It is tempting to go on and on about these two articles, but, despite Jeffrey Simpson's snide little put-down of the _Sun_ media chain and his own evident disappointment with his own (and many other) newspaper's endorsement of Harper, I think Ibbition and Simpson are are on target. Harper is reshaping Canada and we, in the process, are reshaping the Conservative _movement_ into something akin to the Liberal Party of Canada _circa_ 1955.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

> Remaking Stephen Harper in Canada’s image



Is this really the only way that Messrs Ibbitson et al can come to terms with Stephen Harper's success?  Come to terms with their own failures?  Not that he better read the country mood than they.  Not that he managed to create a following.  Not that he has slowly, and in the face of continuous opposition, brought 40% of the voting populace to put their faith in him and his party..... But that "they" have changed "him".

On the subject of arrogance and self-delusion.....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 May 2011)

Agree.



> In the years ahead, Mr. Harper will expand the Conservative majority in the Senate by nominating more bagmen, defeated candidates and other partisans, thereby making that body even more compliant to his wishes. Very little, institutionally speaking, will stand in the way of the full sway of prime ministerial power.



Alberta has no Conservative bagmen as senators.  We elect our senators.  The rest of the country should stop whining and just do it.  We do have Liberal bagmen in the senate as Chretien would not appoint our elected senators.


----------



## mariomike (8 May 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> EDIT: If you don't feel like checking the link, it's an article about the Sherbrooke MP who is 19 years old.



"Recently-elected 19-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault is one win away from a $30,000 pension at the age of 25":
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110508/mps-new-pensions-110508/


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

Perhaps the reason the pundits were so spectacularly wrong was they were not reading the (human) terrain properly:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/05/tom-flanagan-is-wrong-about-the-nature-of-moderation-in-canada.html



> *Tom Flanagan is wrong about the nature of moderation in Canada*
> 
> In this analysis, Tom Flanagan - the former advisor to Stephen Harper (and also his former professor) - explains how the preponderance of moderate voters in the political middle ensures that the parties on the left and the right will converge ‘in the middle’ in a two party system. While some of his conclusions are not far off the mark, Flanagan’s analysis itself couldn’t be more wrong, mostly because he has made two serious errors: he completely misunderstands the nature of the moderate voter, and he has too much faith in the one-dimensional model of politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (10 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not that he has slowly, and in the face of continuous opposition, brought 40% of the voting populace to put their faith in him and his party..... But that "they" have changed "him".


Hey, I'm still coming to terms with the CBC "How-to-vote" gimmick that, no matter what options/preferences you typed in, said "You should vote Liberal !"

How could that have gone so horribly wrong?!


----------



## GAP (10 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm still coming to terms with the CBC "How-to-vote" gimmick that, no matter what options/preferences you typed in, said "You should vote Liberal !"
> 
> How could that have gone so horribly wrong?!



somebody snitched!!!


----------



## Saskboy (10 May 2011)

To be fair, I used that vote compass and I got Conservative. Of course, that was because I deliberately answered every question in line with Conservative ideals which probably forced it concede defeat or reveal itself as a complete sham. ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It figures; the one Conservative promise I described as being ”Nonsense” and monumentally stupid” is the one _Prince Michael_ Ignatieff likes, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/
> I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.


In related news from south of the border....


> The House is on the verge of voting to create a new diplomatic post charged with defending religious freedom overseas, following a string of attacks against religious minorities in the turbulent Middle East and beyond.
> 
> The envoy would be charged with monitoring discrimination in dozens of countries, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Libya, among others.
> 
> According to the legislation, the new diplomat -- to be appointed by the president -- would be tasked with monitoring discrimination and religious violence against minorities and working with foreign governments to deal with "inherently discriminatory" laws ....


Source:  Fox News, 28 Jul 11


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2011)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ might shed some light on the NDP's success:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Unions+spent+plus+federal+election/5524199/story.html


> Unions spent $400,000-plus on federal election ads
> 
> By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




While I support limiting direct donations to political parties, by individuals, corporations and trade unions, I oppose trying to limit the free speech of unions or corporations or even individuals. Those unions or corporations or individuals should not be restricted for advocating *for an issue* or *against a candidate* - but not for a specific candidate or a party because that is, _de facto_, the same as making a political contribution to a party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2011)

Six months later we are of about the same opinions, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/six-months-in-tories-peak-and-ndp-shows-staying-power-in-polls/article2222401/


> Six months in, Tories peak and NDP shows staying power in polls
> 
> ÉRIC GRENIER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




While a week is a long time in politics, six months is just a drop in the bucket for the _regeneration_ of the Liberals and the (eventual, I am certain) _decline_ (and fall?) of the NDP.

If Grenier is right the Conservatives would have a _minority_ (by one seat) in a 338 seat HoC if the polling data held true for a November 2011 election. I expect the Conservatives to work harder and harder in BC, AB and ON to *earn* at least 10 of those 30 new seats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2013)

Back in Decemeber 2011 the _Globe and Mail's_ John Ibbitson wrote an interesting column about the collapse of what he calls the _Laurentian Consensus_. A few weeks later he went to Toronto, one of the two focal points of that consensus, and explained his thesis to some folks who are probably deeply committed to it. His talk was saved by _TVO_ (one of the best public networks in Canada, head and shoulders better than the CBC) and you can see/hear it here. I think it's worth your time to consider his views on what changed between about 2000 and 2011 and to wonder if the _Laurentian Consensus_ can ever be rebuilt or if there is an irreparable divide, defined by the Ottawa River between "New Canada (oriented towards the Pacific)" and "Old Canada (still attached to European values)."


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2013)

Whle the column, the interview and the book "The Big Shift" all are good explaining_ what_ happened, I am pretty sure Preston Manning had actually anticipated this by many years in hs book "The New Canada", which also anticipated a Canada that could work without Quebec, but should be "attractive enough" to bring a "New Quebec" on board.

Manning spoke in terms of populist reform politics (with roots in the Maritimes and the Praries) rather than demographics and economics, but the end results are quite similar. Coupling populist politics to growing economic and demographic power is probably the "wining" formula for now and the forseeable future; most of us reading this will be long gone by the time Canada's demographic "bust" happens and creates an entirely new and different political, ecoomic and social landscape.


----------

