- Reaction score
- 6,513
- Points
- 1,260
I wonder how many of the 1,211 respondents were from Ontario to give Bob Rae such a lower rating than Taliban Jack.
Election 2011 - The Aftermath for the Leaders
- Thread starter ModlrMike
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,943
- Points
- 1,160
Why is Eliz May even on the list? She proved her leadership abilities by focusing on self to get on the gravy train.
It appears she will attempt to get her name in the media by opposing everything rational.
It appears she will attempt to get her name in the media by opposing everything rational.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
it's interesting that 25% of respondents name health care as their greatest concern, yet anyone who would ever try to change it would be treated as Satan himself
- Reaction score
- 6,513
- Points
- 1,260
Saying you're worried about it =/= saying what you think should happen. It would be an interesting question asking the latter, though.Bird_Gunner45 said:
- Reaction score
- 2,770
- Points
- 1,090
I find it interesting that two of the top three concerns (healthcare and eduction) can only be peripherally influenced by the federal government. These are provincially managed areas, notwithstanding the (ever diminishing) portion funded by Ottawa. I think it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in the the division of provincial/federal jurisdiction.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
The NDP's new (interim) leader comes with an interesting history. It seems the opaque internal process of the Party works against their own knowing what exactly is going on:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/03/pol-turmel-mp-reax.html?ref=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/03/pol-turmel-mp-reax.html?ref=rss
And Christie Blatchford adds some common sense in light of the NDP collective running around in circles. This column from the National Post is reprouduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:
Christie Blatchford: With Turmel, the simplest answer is probably the truth
Aug 3, 2011 – 5:16 PM ET
One aspect of the curious Nycole Turmel story is how it has cemented my longstanding suspicion that I am just not sophisticated enough to be a Quebecer, though in fact I am one born and raised, let alone a New Democrat.
Never having been a member of any political party, I suspect that if I had joined one, it would have been pretty much for life. I wouldn’t have had the required ability to change politics, let alone parties, the way other Canadians change underwear. And I certainly wouldn’t join a party purely to “support a friend,” as Ms. Turmel, the NDP’s interim leader, claims to have done on behalf of former Bloc Québécois MP Carole Lavallée.
Apparently, Ms. Lavallée was appropriately grateful; she once sang Ms. Turmel’s praises in the House, calling her “an extraordinary woman.”
I’ll say she’s extraordinary: I’d do many things for my women pals, and they for me, but none of us would dream of signing up as card-carrying members of a political party we already didn’t deeply believe in as a gesture of girlish solidarity.
Who does that?
It is merely the latest illustration of how those in the NDP expect voters to accept the most ridiculous and complicated explanations when more obvious ones are as plain as the beak on my face.
Everyone — including me — surely wishes the ailing Jack Layton strength and success in his renewed battle with cancer.
But his explanation a while back for his being found naked 15 years ago in a police raid at a Toronto rub-and-tug called the Velvet Touch (he said, invoking that grand old NDP touchstone, that he’d been merely visiting “a community clinic”) was preposterous, if hilarious.
So was his MP wife Olivia Chow’s: Why her hubby, she said, exercised regularly, was in a great shape, and simply had needed a massage, as though any of that went a centimetre toward explaining how this most urbane of men had mistaken a joint with a blaring red sign and a suggestive name for a proper studio.
That was just before Mr. Layton, Ms. Chow and their party vaulted to their best-ever finish in a federal election, winning status as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
And just after the election, there was deputy party leader Thomas Mulcair on the CBC, musing aloud that he didn’t believe the Americans actually had pictures of Osama bin Laden’s body and hinting darkly that there was “more going on” behind bin Laden’s assassination.
Mr. Muclair’s explanation the next day?
Aaaah, he’d been overcome with too much celebratory joy and was suffering post-election “fatigue.’’
Clearly, the NDP struggles with what’s called Occam’s Razor, or in Latin lex parisomoniae, the law of parsimony which holds that the simplest explanation is usually, though not always, the correct one.
As rocket scientist James Longuski wrote in his 2006 book, The Seven Secrets of How to Think Like a Rocket Scientist, “Suppose you hear noises in the middle of the night and the next morning, you discover a broken lamp in your living room.
“You can construct a number of hypotheses to explain the events. Alien beings, from a small planet in the Orion Nebula, have landed their flying saucer in your backyard, tiptoed into your living room, and just before they were to abduct you and perform invasive biological experiments on you, they tripped over the lamp and were frightened off.”
Or, you forgot to let out the cat and the dog chased it and the lamp was a casualty of the pursuit.
That’s the NDP part of the equation: You have to be a conspiracy theorist to buy in (say with the Layton massage tale, that the Toronto Police conspired with the Toronto Sun, the newspaper that broke the story, which in turn conspired with the federal Conservatives or Liberals, who were running scared and desperate to slow NDP momentum) or you have to pretend you don’t notice the inherent contradictions.
The Quebecer part goes like this: Not for Quebec the stark black-and-white world of the rest of Canada.
Quebecers are pragmatic. They can vote for the Bloc one election, and the Liberals the next, depending on which party has most recently annoyed them, or even for the NDP, which dances the dance, a federalist party catering dangerously to the “Quebec is a nation within Canada” gospel.
You see? Formal political allegiances don’t mean to Quebecers what they seem to mean elsewhere. Exhibit No. 1, Nycole Turmel.
So as the outgoing leader of the powerful Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union endorsed some candidates for the Bloc; so she joined the Bloc herself in 2006 and quit it only a month before she announced herself as the NDP candidate for Hull-Aylmer; so she still belongs (though she has promised to quit) to the left-wing, separatist-leaning provincial Quebec Solidaire party.
None of that means Ms. Turmel is a sovereignist, heaven’s no. It means she was supporting a friend, and thus loyal. It means she shared the Bloc’s social values, and is merely left-of-centre. She says she’s a federalist and always has been; people should take her at her word.
It means that us têtes-carrées in the ROC just don’t get it. Such nuance is beyond us.
Me, I’m with the rube Stephen Harper, who Wednesday said, “I think Canadians expect that any political
Christie Blatchford: With Turmel, the simplest answer is probably the truth
Aug 3, 2011 – 5:16 PM ET
One aspect of the curious Nycole Turmel story is how it has cemented my longstanding suspicion that I am just not sophisticated enough to be a Quebecer, though in fact I am one born and raised, let alone a New Democrat.
Never having been a member of any political party, I suspect that if I had joined one, it would have been pretty much for life. I wouldn’t have had the required ability to change politics, let alone parties, the way other Canadians change underwear. And I certainly wouldn’t join a party purely to “support a friend,” as Ms. Turmel, the NDP’s interim leader, claims to have done on behalf of former Bloc Québécois MP Carole Lavallée.
Apparently, Ms. Lavallée was appropriately grateful; she once sang Ms. Turmel’s praises in the House, calling her “an extraordinary woman.”
I’ll say she’s extraordinary: I’d do many things for my women pals, and they for me, but none of us would dream of signing up as card-carrying members of a political party we already didn’t deeply believe in as a gesture of girlish solidarity.
Who does that?
It is merely the latest illustration of how those in the NDP expect voters to accept the most ridiculous and complicated explanations when more obvious ones are as plain as the beak on my face.
Everyone — including me — surely wishes the ailing Jack Layton strength and success in his renewed battle with cancer.
But his explanation a while back for his being found naked 15 years ago in a police raid at a Toronto rub-and-tug called the Velvet Touch (he said, invoking that grand old NDP touchstone, that he’d been merely visiting “a community clinic”) was preposterous, if hilarious.
So was his MP wife Olivia Chow’s: Why her hubby, she said, exercised regularly, was in a great shape, and simply had needed a massage, as though any of that went a centimetre toward explaining how this most urbane of men had mistaken a joint with a blaring red sign and a suggestive name for a proper studio.
That was just before Mr. Layton, Ms. Chow and their party vaulted to their best-ever finish in a federal election, winning status as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
And just after the election, there was deputy party leader Thomas Mulcair on the CBC, musing aloud that he didn’t believe the Americans actually had pictures of Osama bin Laden’s body and hinting darkly that there was “more going on” behind bin Laden’s assassination.
Mr. Muclair’s explanation the next day?
Aaaah, he’d been overcome with too much celebratory joy and was suffering post-election “fatigue.’’
Clearly, the NDP struggles with what’s called Occam’s Razor, or in Latin lex parisomoniae, the law of parsimony which holds that the simplest explanation is usually, though not always, the correct one.
As rocket scientist James Longuski wrote in his 2006 book, The Seven Secrets of How to Think Like a Rocket Scientist, “Suppose you hear noises in the middle of the night and the next morning, you discover a broken lamp in your living room.
“You can construct a number of hypotheses to explain the events. Alien beings, from a small planet in the Orion Nebula, have landed their flying saucer in your backyard, tiptoed into your living room, and just before they were to abduct you and perform invasive biological experiments on you, they tripped over the lamp and were frightened off.”
Or, you forgot to let out the cat and the dog chased it and the lamp was a casualty of the pursuit.
That’s the NDP part of the equation: You have to be a conspiracy theorist to buy in (say with the Layton massage tale, that the Toronto Police conspired with the Toronto Sun, the newspaper that broke the story, which in turn conspired with the federal Conservatives or Liberals, who were running scared and desperate to slow NDP momentum) or you have to pretend you don’t notice the inherent contradictions.
The Quebecer part goes like this: Not for Quebec the stark black-and-white world of the rest of Canada.
Quebecers are pragmatic. They can vote for the Bloc one election, and the Liberals the next, depending on which party has most recently annoyed them, or even for the NDP, which dances the dance, a federalist party catering dangerously to the “Quebec is a nation within Canada” gospel.
You see? Formal political allegiances don’t mean to Quebecers what they seem to mean elsewhere. Exhibit No. 1, Nycole Turmel.
So as the outgoing leader of the powerful Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union endorsed some candidates for the Bloc; so she joined the Bloc herself in 2006 and quit it only a month before she announced herself as the NDP candidate for Hull-Aylmer; so she still belongs (though she has promised to quit) to the left-wing, separatist-leaning provincial Quebec Solidaire party.
None of that means Ms. Turmel is a sovereignist, heaven’s no. It means she was supporting a friend, and thus loyal. It means she shared the Bloc’s social values, and is merely left-of-centre. She says she’s a federalist and always has been; people should take her at her word.
It means that us têtes-carrées in the ROC just don’t get it. Such nuance is beyond us.
Me, I’m with the rube Stephen Harper, who Wednesday said, “I think Canadians expect that any political
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
The NDP is off to a shakey start with this. The real question should be "what does the Party expect to gain from this action?"
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/scott-stinson-nycole-turmel-and-the-ndps-lousy-vetting-process/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/scott-stinson-nycole-turmel-and-the-ndps-lousy-vetting-process/
- Reaction score
- 1,943
- Points
- 1,160
What I find just as interesting is that a separatist, in 2000, became the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the largest public sector union in Canada. Nycole Turmel held the position until 2006.
- Reaction score
- 6,243
- Points
- 1,260
Rifleman62 said:
Yes, it is disappointing; but, given the nature of the (largely public sector) labour movement in Canada, it is hardly surprising, is it?
- Reaction score
- 6,513
- Points
- 1,260
Some are questioning whether she should have even been a member of any political party as president....
Source: G&M, 8 Aug 11
Similar threads
