Eye on Outremont
September 27, 2009 - 12:56am
Just an Outremont thread
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Could we repurpose this into a bit broader of an NDP Quebec strategy thread, since the Outremont story seems to be done like dinner, but meanwhile there are a couple of other interesting developments going on, for example in Hochelaga and Sherbrooke?
From the Jurist yesterday: "events [in Hochelaga] are playing out about as well as the NDP could possibly have hoped".
And the other day: "why Sherbrooke indeed makes loads of sense as one of the NDP's Quebec targets".
Also, what are the implications for us if business executive Nathalie Le Prohon runs in Jeanne-Le Ber, not exactly the wealthiest riding on the Island? Did people who went to convention get the sense that Daniel Breton was prepared to run again there for us?
I heard that Breton does wnat to run again and he was at the convention as well. It makes it easier to have a Liberal candidate there who is such a patrician.
Incidentally, if you want to see really good analysis about what the Outremont fracas tells us about the Liberal Party, read this interesting article by L. Ian MacDonald in today's Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Liberal+follies/2038785/story.html
Cauchon's career path began in his native La Malbaie, where he worked as a butler on the household staff of Paul Desmarais. This is how he would have met Desmarais's son André and his wife France, whose father, Jean Chrétien, became Liberal leader in 1990, after years of constantly undermining the leadership of John Turner.
It's either overlooked or mostly forgotten that Cauchon was the Liberal candidate, its poteau, against Brian Mulroney in Charlevoix in the 1988 election. Cauchon later joked that Mulroney was "my MP." In 1993, when Chrétien's chief Quebec organizer, Pietro Rizutto, couldn't find a star candidate to run in Outremont, he appointed Cauchon with Chrétien's approval. Cauchon went on to become justice minister and Quebec lieutenant in Chrétien's last term, though his accomplishments in both roles are not of historic dimensions.
Little-known fact: In 1989, Cauchon was lawyering at the legal study of Me Emile COLAS, an Opus Dei operative and arch-foe of the feminist movement in Quebec. Indeed, I remember a press photo of Colas and Cauchon standing by batterer Jean-Guy Tremblay when he obtained an injunction in Quebec Superior Court to impede Chantale Daigle from obtaining an abortion, twenty years ago, in the late summer of 1989.
Yeah, yeah, I know all politics are local... but this should be sent back to the central canadian ghetto it came from. Posted in the wrong forum. Further in national news, cat stuck in a tree in Mississauga...
Little-known fact: In 1989, Cauchon was lawyering at the legal study of Me Emile COLAS, an Opus Dei operative and arch-foe of the feminist movement in Quebec. Indeed, I remember a press photo of Colas and Cauchon standing by batterer Jean-Guy Tremblay when he obtained an injunction in Quebec Superior Court to impede Chantale Daigle from obtaining an abortion, twenty years ago, in the late summer of 1989.
So what? when you're a lawyer you take any case and you try to do the best job you can. I know some very good people who work as criminal defence lawyers - who have defended pedophiles and biker gang members - i don't believe in guilt by association for any of them.
The plot thickens.
Ignatieff's office was completely unaware of Coderre's plans and said the Liberal leader had not been in contact with his lieutenant over the weekend. However, Ignatieff has left three voice mails on Coderre's cellphone and two emails this morning, all of which have gone unanswered.
Needless to say with Coderre quitting as Ignatieff's Quebec Lieutenant - the Liberals are now in total dissarray in Quebec. If you here any Liberals sqawking about how they want to bring down the government and force an election right now - you know they are lying through their teeth!
So what did say in the nws conference, and LOL.
Coderre said he no longer had the "moral autority" to act as Ignatieff's lieutanant. Aren't there some oxymorons in there? Try saying "moral" and "Ignatieff" in the same paragraph. See what I mean?
Anyway, I just hope all this adds up to good news for my MP.
Looks like the turkeys are preparing to vote in favour of Thanksgiving.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-prepare-confidence-motion-but-lose-quebec-lieutenant/article1303808
/
Hah! The fact Coderre made thinly veiled comments about Ignatieff being overly controlled by his Toronto advisors who know nothing about Quebec - is a total disaster for the Liberals. This will get saturation publicity in the Quebec press and will make Ignatieff fall like a lead balloon!
The media will now treat the Liberal non-confidence motion as a total joke - since its so obvious that the Liberals would be caught with their pants down in a fall election.
That Coderre news conference was nothing short of an atomic bomb launched directly at Iggy. Coderre strategically inflicted the most damage possible - he professed continued support for Ignatieff so he can't be dismissed or openly attacked, but he blasted the Toronto faction running the show in the OLO. That means Iggy can either a) do nothing and stick with his brain-dead TO advisors, and the Rae/Cauchon faction or b) make changes and be seen as caving in to pressure yet again. As Robert Fife said on CTV, the fact that Rae was allowed to openly challenge the initial decision by Iggy on Outremont with no consequences shows that Ignatieff has no moral authority on the party or caucus.
Meanwhile, Coderre is staying in caucus and can do another damaging media scrum at any time - did anybody hear if Coderre is planning to run again in Bourassa? I assume he is. Plus (saving the best for last), this coming weekend is the LPC's Quebec Section convention in Montreal!
Ignatieff will be there and give the keynote speech, but the room will be filled with Coderre allies and candidates that Coderre recruited who will be aiming daggers at Ignatieff the entire time.
There is open media speculation that Rae/Cauchon are preparing the next leadership race. This last month for the Libs is as bas as the worst of the Dion era, IMHO.
You got it WCL! Its pretty clear that the last thing the Liberals want now is a snap election! Imagine if the NDP suddenly announced that it was going to support the Liberal non-confidence motion after all? The Liberals would probably freak and have to vote against their own motion.
That being said, i don't think the NDP should play that game, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons why there been virtually no "blow back" at all to the NDP from its base over keeping the Tories going for a while longer - is the simple fact that its so patently obvious that the Liberals have a death wish and are totally unprepared for an election and that the NDP is actually saving the country from an election where only the Tories seem poised to gain any ground.
What's to stop Harper from calling an election?
His fixed-date election law?
Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.
It would fly in the face of all the Tory messaging over the past few weeks about how we need to avoid an early election at all cost.
Very little. However, unlike the blatent power grab in 2008 that resulted in Harper coming up short, the Harper government doesn't have the luxury of fooling the people twice without scrutiny. There would be no free ride from the media. The media a have no appetite (Money) to cover another election.
Regardless, the problem with Outremont is the problem that exists throughout the Liberal party. A battle of entitlement and priveledge. It is that Entitlement which brought IGGY to secure the nomination against the riding association and the democratic process. Undermining democracy in the Liberal party is part of being a Liberal elitist. Ignatieff was not punished for his elitism in his riding, but was rewarded instead. Liberals believe they are entitled to Outremont, and are battling over that entitlement rather then hold a contested nomination.
Denis Coderre has just announced that he was stepping down as Iggy's Quebec's "lieutenant", after the spat around Cauchon.
His fixed-date election law?
Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.
Absolutely! The Liberals seem to be in disarray and the NDP voted confidence in the government. Harper could damage both parties by calling an election. And I think he's just that kind of guy.
Harper is not stupid enough to directly call an election himself - his entire message box for the last 6 months has been about "staying on track" with the so-called economic action plan, and he just blasted the Lib non-confidence motion as triggering a needless election just as the economy is starting to recover. For Harper to drop the writ now would be to annihilate his entire strategy since the Jan 2009 budget where Iggy killed the coalition and supported the Conservative budget.
The more likely Cons strategy to trigger the election is the "poison pill" - some new measure on crime or taxes or something else that resonates with the Conservative base and is somewhat popular to centre-right voters, but anathema to Liberal, BQ and NDP core voters so that all 3 opposition parties will have to vote against it. It might come in the budget or possibly before. Either way, Harper will decide when the next election happens, but I think he'll do it in such a way that another party will be the one to formally trigger the campaign.
Now that the LPC have stumbled into selecting their Candidate. How much of this will effect the vote? Will Cauchon get the big numbers, now that he has proven he can win the battles within the Liberal Party and doing so by coming from the outside?
He got Coderre eliminated and Iggy backtracking from describing him like yesterdays man. Also many LPC appear to be touting him as the next one and already writing off Ignatieff.
So... does Outremont have something in the water that creates the illusion of the next leader of a political party resides there?
While I am certain Mulcair is enjoying the Liberal Chaos in message central. The fact remains this could be his toughest challenge and that the incompetence in Liberal circles is more reflective of Ignatieffs weaknesses rather then problems in the local Liberal Riding Association.
I just heard Jean Lapierre say that at least one person is running against Cauchon for the nomination in Outremont and that on top of that La Prohon may be changing her mind about running in Jeanne LeBer and may challenge Cauchon as well!
Harper is not stupid enough to directly call an election himself ... The more likely Cons strategy to trigger the election is the "poison pill" - some new measure on crime or taxes or something else that resonates with the Conservative base and is somewhat popular to centre-right voters, but anathema to Liberal, BQ and NDP core voters so that all 3 opposition parties will have to vote against it. It might come in the budget or possibly before. Either way, Harper will decide when the next election happens, but I think he'll do it in such a way that another party will be the one to formally trigger the campaign.
Agreed. And I think we'll see Harper forcing that pill down our throats sooner than later.
Well, enjoy this all you like, but it's bad news for me, personally.
I may have to confront the fact that Bob Rae has been working for the NDP all along, and have to take back all those nasty things I said about him.
"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed since my first encounter."
Bob Rae,
From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274
LOL@ tommy
Now that the LPC have stumbled into selecting their Candidate. How much of this will effect the vote? Will Cauchon get the big numbers, now that he has proven he can win the battles within the Liberal Party and doing so by coming from the outside?
He got Coderre eliminated and Iggy backtracking from describing him like yesterdays man. Also many LPC appear to be touting him as the next one and already writing off Ignatieff.
So... does Outremont have something in the water that creates the illusion of the next leader of a political party resides there?
While I am certain Mulcair is enjoying the Liberal Chaos in message central. The fact remains this could be his toughest challenge and that the incompetence in Liberal circles is more reflective of Ignatieffs weaknesses rather then problems in the local Liberal Riding Association.
I think Cauchon can beat Mulcair. He wouldn't be running if he didn't think he could. As Chantal Hebert said on the At Issue panel last week, Cauchon is a big name and will attract a lot of people.
LMAO...Herbert said last week on the At Issue panel that, the EDA in Outremont could fit into a phone booth.
^ it's even money in outremont. mulcair outperformed the ndp's quebec score by about 25 points and about 20 points about what the ndp pre-mulcair scored in outremont, that's about as serious as it gets. can cauchon win? sure. but noone who lives in outremont would assume he'd win. mulcair is almost a household name, it'll be hard to dislodge the guy.
Can anyone tell me whether Muclair's staff have been seen as extremely helpful to ALL that walk in the door. In many close ridings the MP's staff are the difference between a close loss and a close win. Satisfied citizens tell their friends and that kind of word of mouth is really effective campaigning especially since most people are fundamentally apolitical.
But, but, but, there will be no Harper majority. Right.
Mariage raté, divorce houleux http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/chroniqueurs/vincent-marissal/200909/28/01-906439-mariage-rate-divorce-houleux.php Coderre claque la porte http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200909/28/01-906378-coderre-claque-la-porte.php Un gâchis http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/editorialistes/andre-pratte/200909/29/01-906445-un-gachis.php Les conseillers torontois d'Ignatieff fustigés http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200909/29/01-906454-les-conseillers-torontois-dignatieff-fustiges.php Nathalie Le Prohon refuse de confirmer si elle sera candidate http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200909/29/01-906455-nathalie-le-prohon-refuse-de-confirmer-si-elle-sera-candidate.php
What that was supposed to prove isn't quite clear, NR.
There is no doubt that he thinks he can. But that's a whole lot different than saying that he can.
You got it WCL! Its pretty clear that the last thing the Liberals want now is a snap election! Imagine if the NDP suddenly announced that it was going to support the Liberal non-confidence motion after all? The Liberals would probably freak and have to vote against their own motion.
That being said, i don't think the NDP should play that game, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons why there been virtually no "blow back" at all to the NDP from its base over keeping the Tories going for a while longer - is the simple fact that its so patently obvious that the Liberals have a death wish and are totally unprepared for an election and that the NDP is actually saving the country from an election where only the Tories seem poised to gain any ground.
Um you don't think a pile of polls all agreeing that the NDP has nothing to gain in an election right now might also be part of it. The NDP may or may not have slipped but it sure has not gained since last fall. The party would have to concentrate resources on retaining seats.
also the NDP is looking at both Harper and Ignatief and both these leaders are unlikely to improve. The more time that goes by the more people will think we can have a change of government-- even tolerate an election. Ignatief does not need to be defeated-- can just let him do it to himself. He also is not making friends with the public. Harper is certain to present something objectionable sooner or later and he does not get likable with age.
Frankly, I don't see Harper wanting to bring in another budget in a minority mandate-- either the red ink or the cuts are going to offend. At some point an analysis of the stimulus funding will have to blow all the rhetorical cobwebs away and we'll see what really was done and the jobs actually created. It won't be pretty.
As well the recovery in the rest of the world is going to expose the fault line in the Canadian economy. The first thing to go up will be the cost of oil (already happening). This will push up the dollar choking any manufacturing recovery here. Our economy was taking shocks a year before the downturn due to the high dollar. A recovery just puts us right back in the same place minus the jobs we lost during the recession.
There is no purpose in an election unless there is a reasonable chance of changing the result and if it were to change right now it would not be for the better. And the prospects for the future look brighter-- next spring looks difficult for the government- it can't run its public relations on empty propaganda indefinitely.
The NDP would be nuts to bring down the government.
As well, the party appears to be recovering a bit in the polls -- I think due to its reluctance to force an election nobody wants. I heard on the CBC this morning they were saying many of the emails are in favour of the NDP saying nobody wants an election, that reporters might be angry with Layton for the flipflop but Canadians see it differently. I would prefer the party be more direct about its motives though-- there is nothing wrong with saying that there is no point in forcing an election that will not change the result right now.
I can't figure out what the hell the Liberal party is doing. The tiff breaks out because there was going to be an appointed Candidate as opposed to a democratic nomination selection. A deal is brokered because there was going to be a contested nomination and the Liberals back Le Prohon over Cauchon. Then they say Le Prohon will go elsewhere and Cauchon is in. Then Its not clear that Le Prohon has any interest in going elsewhere, let alone remain in politics. Then Cauchon finds himself in a CONTESTED nomination race facing a member of the riding association. Which makes me wonder, why Ignatieff got his sticky fingers involved in the first place.
Now with his tail between his legs he has fallen on his sword, got rid of Coderre and is cozing up to "the next one". The person he spoke of in the past tense. Meanwhile Coderre is not going out quietly.
The Liberals don't deserve this seat (IMHO), but that will be left to the electorate when/if the Liberals can get their act together.
His fixed-date election law?
Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.
I don't think Jean was bought and paid for. You may disagree with what she did-- some believe that the coalition would not have lasted long and the cons would have had a majority. She did not share her rationale-- it may be that she concludedit was not stable and an election would have been a disaster.
Suggesting that she did this as an extraordinary favour to the Cons is unfair-- to say she was paid something borders on the libelous.
Going in to a recession with an unstable and unpopular coalition would ahve been a gift to Harper. Letting him wear it another year in a minority does not seem like a gift to the Cons frankly. she may well have made the decision based on the fact that tehre was no credible prime minister. Canadians did not just reject the Liberals they did it largely historically as a rejection of Dion. Layton's party was not strong enough for him to be PM either. No, I think history may eventually record that she made the right call politically.
As far as cosntitutionally, I think she had little choice. We were too close to an election with little indication that the public mood had shifted agaisnt the government. The Harper governemtn had almost obtained a majority-- if it had been weaker, and the opposition had been stornger, if there had been a credible figure for leader of government, if the populaiton indicated enough support, if there had not been so much blowback about Duceppe's role (something that if it had played on further might have seen him as the only winner with greater division in the country).... if, if, if.
You can disagree but you can't say she did nto have reasons-- constitutionally, legally and politically. Sometimes you need to still respect those you do not agree with. Jean has been quiet as well-- no ringing endorsement of this PM either.
Remember the controversy when she became leader? Elevating the sovereigntists to balance of power in a coalition-- yeah that would have ended her. For waht? A con majority? To what end?
"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed since my first encounter."
Bob Rae,
From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274
Why have we not seen this in a commercial?
I don't know why Cauchon would want to run against Mulcair. He may have a shot at beating him but there is also a reasonable chance at being humiliated by him.
You know the NDP is going to pour resources from across the province into this contest. Mulcair does well in the media and makes few mistakes. Mulcair also works in both languages-- I don't mean bilingual-- I mean he can connect. he is a fresh face and remains so after a couple years.
Mulcair can be beaten that is for sure but if I have to bet-- I'd place my money on him.
Um you don't think a pile of polls all agreeing that the NDP has nothing to gain in an election right now might also be part of it. The NDP may or may not have slipped but it sure has not gained since last fall. The party would have to concentrate resources on retaining seats.
You're right, but typically the NDP base tends to think that we should be "principled" to the point of self-destructiveness. If the NDP was way down in the polls but the polls also said that the Liberals were poised to defeat Harper - I think there would be a huge backlash against the NDP if it was seen as standing in the way of an election where there was a good chance of defeating Harper and the expectation would that the NDP would commit hara-kiri for the "greater good". But, I think that the NDP is saved from that right now because its so patently obvious that the Liberals would lose an election and that NOTHING good could come from an early election.
"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed since my first encounter."
Bob Rae,
From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274
Why have we not seen this in a commercial?
Possibly because SCB4 is the only person who has read it?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
If that was the election result. Layton would only have to wait a week as Rae would be interim leader after the Liberal held their first caucus meeting.
"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed since my first encounter."
Bob Rae,
From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274
Why have we not seen this in a commercial?
Possibly because SCB4 is the only person who has read it?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Hah! Bob Rae also wrote a long mea culpa op ed piece about ten years ago where he basically renounced the NDP and just about everything anyone ever thought he ever believed in.
I don't think Jean was bought and paid for.
I was referring to her being paid, every single day, to do the dirty bidding of Mr. Harper - which she faithfully does - as evidenced by her shameless encouragement to Canadian soldiers to go get killed and murder others in Afghanistan. Either she is doing this of her own accord - in which case she disgusts me - or she is doing this on orders from Harper, in which case she disgusts me more. Governors-General are named by the government of the day, and it seems to me she loves her job and is prepared to descend to any required depths to keep it. That's my assessment, and you of course are free to disagree.
I don't care what she thought. Harper asked her to prorogue Parliament right before a confidence vote. She followed his dictate without hesitation - thus deliberately thwarting the free expression of the House. She could have waited a few days and then had her profound reflections about stability, etc., after having heard what the elected members had to say. Instead, she jumped up and down and said "Aye aye Sir!!!!", giving Harper a political advantage which led to a change in the Liberal leadership and the demise of the coalition.
Do you have a precedent in mind where a G-G accepted a PM's request to prorogue specifically to avoid a confidence vote?
As mentioned above, she is paid every single day to do what she is told. Is that "libelous"? I thought it was notoriously well known fact. I'll await the statement of claim.
I'm not suggesting she was given a bonus on this occasion. I'm suggesting it was a freebie. Is that "libelous"?
You're a little confused. She was not being asked to dissolve Parliament - only to prorogue it. She had every choice in the world, based both on law and on precedent. Had the House voted nonconfidence, she would have then had an entirely different decision to make. In the event, all she did was to throw Harper a lifeline. For free, apparently.
Not when she doesn't respect the obvious will of the House. Remember Charles I?
I'm not at all confused.
Constitutionally she had to know that if Harper lost confidence there would either be a choice of an election right away or the coalition with its instability-- she did not have a third option other than the one she took. Either one likely would have gone over the cliff with the result of a Con majority. The delay allowed a test to see if the Liberals could manage to stay with the coalition over Christmas or not.
I was in favour of the coalition. I was wrong. She was right. The test she placed was if the coalition could hold together for 6 weeks. The coalition failed because the Liebrals were the weak link. If the coalition had held firm then I could say I was right and she was wrong. You can't pretend that you could have had a stable arrangement with an agreement that could not even survive a holiday break without even having any power. If the coalition had come to power we would ahve had the Ignatieff-Rae-Dion fight running the country. when it finally ran its course there would have been an election and a Harper majority. At the time I did not agree with her decision. Hindsight says she was right. We were wrong. doing a coalition with the Liberals is likely not going to be a good idea in the future either. Stick to accords where you maintain the alternative of an NDP government. Fight for our party and eventually govern. Losing opposition status is only worthwhile if you gain the lead in government. In between, you simply do not exist. There is a German politican who could vouch for that this week as well. Being junior in a coalition is worse than being in opposition.
In retrospect, I do not think Dion was capable of leading a government-- not so much that he was not smart enough-- that was not the problem but he could not attract enough support and was incapable of communicating effectively to obtain it. the coaliton would have hurt the country far more had it taken power and it likely would ahve done serious long-term damage to the NDP.
The delay allowed a test to see if the Liberals could manage to stay with the coalition over Christmas or not.
Really.
A confidence vote was scheduled for Dec. 1, but the government cancelled opposition day and averted its downfall. The next vote was scheduled for Dec. 8.
What would have happened if the G-G said "no" to early prorogation, and the House had voted non-confidence on Dec. 8?
You think the Liberals would have said, "Whoops, time to dump Dion and get rid of this coalition fast!!??"
You think Jean was just a passive observer, while it is quite clear that she was Harper's instrument to silence and sideline the pro-Coalition faction within the Liberal party.
To repeat, all she had to do was wait till Dec. 8, and then make a decision based on having heard from Parliament - not based on having heard only from Harper and sending the MPs home.
Try to follow the thread of this discussion, Sean. This isn't about whether the coalition would have done well or badly. I said Michaelle Jean was the slavish toady of Stephen Harper, and you said she wasn't. Bring forth some evidence, please - I've brought forth two pieces so far.
I did you just are not paying attention. Jean may well have concluded that the Liberals did not have the unity or the committment to the coalition for it to succeed. Her job is to make sure Canada has a stable government.
I think the Liberals would have brought down the government on December 8, 2008. I am not at all convinced that they would have managed to stay together and provide government. I think in hindsight it would be fair to believe that Jean could have concluded Dion could not hold his caucus together never mind a two party coalition relying on a third to keep it in power. The result would ahve been an election at an inopportune time.
The day that she creeated a delay in the vote by closing parliament-- which was for 6 weeks over Christmas, people were already wondering if the Liberals could keep it together for 6 weeks. They didn't. Without an explanation from her it is reasonable to suppose this may have been her purpose.
You keep ignoring this question: if the Liberals cannot keep it together over Christmas what kind of government could they offer Canada? If they were fit to govern, they would ahve survived the 6 week breather and brought down the government then. Fact is they were too busy fighting themselves and their coalition partners to provide an alternative government. Given what has happened since, I can't argue with this assessment which was made by some at the time and certainly could have been the rationale for her decision. Since Jean is not Conservative, does not like Harper and has a major axe to grind with the Conservatives who viciously attacked her previously, I think there is a greater likelihood that she thought Dion and co were not fit to govern than her toadying up to Harper.
You are the one bringing the accusation to Jean and you have nothing to substantiate her motive and you are ignoring possible realistic motives that are more likely than the one you proposed. It is a serious, nasty allegation that someone is bought and I think you ahve to back that up. At this point it simply is not credible.
If she had refused Harper his request -- with him the head of an elected party-- recently elected-- the stand-off would have likely only been resolved with an election. An election then would have been a disaster for the country. she had every right to grant his request for reasons other than his. You don't need to agree with her decision but you have nothing to say that she granted his request out of support for him or his party. The suggestion that the motivating factor was inducement is one that ought never to be made without some clear support in fact. Instead it looks like you are doing it only because you did not like her decision.
We have no way of knowing what would have happened if Jean had refused to prorogue, the government had fallen and the coalition had taken power. What makes people so sure it would "fall apart"? There is nothing that contributes more to unity than being in power. I suspect that within one nano-second of occupying ministerial offices and being able to run departments and appoint people etc... both the Liberals and the NDP would have a gigantic vested interest in making it work.
Pundits have a habit of predicting that any minority arrangement "can't possibly last" and is too unstable etc... In 2005 in Germany, EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE said that there was NO WAY that a CDU/SPD grand coalition could possibly survive more than a few weeks, that the parties were too far apart etc... what lo and behold it lasted a full four years! I also remember how after haroer first won in 2006 the convention wisdom was that his government was totally unstable and would NEVER last a month since it had no obvious allies among the opposition parties etc... well what do you know, it lasted THREE YEARS and it might have lasted four years if Harper hadn't broken his own fixed election law.
Leadership.
Canada would have had the weakest PM in history.
My argument is not so much that we know what would have happened but that we cannot assume that Jean could not have done what she did for fear of this happening. You only need to acknowledge that she MAY have felt this way and she MIGHT have agreed for this reason to see that there is no way we can make an allegation that she was bought without some evidence.
Jean might have been wrong-- but there is no evidence that she was bought and that is why I got into this discussion.
I agree with you Sean. I think the GG acted in good (if misguided) faith and i don't believe that she was "bought off". But I also don't think that the coalition was necessarily "doomed". For all we know, it might have turned out to be a highly successful government.
Ironic that you bring up Dion. Apparantly Dion was one of 4 MPs that Coderre was targeting to be displaced by better Liberal Candidates in Strong Liberal Ridings.
Cauchon isn't taking the easy way by running in Outremont. I think thats with his eye on running for the Leadership.
I don't think Cauchon has any interest in just being an MP. If he bumps off Mulcair, he looks real good. If he was interested in making sure he wins A seat, he'd run elsewhere.
Try to follow the thread of this discussion, Sean. This isn't about whether the coalition would have done well or badly. I hate to be pedantic, but I thought the thread was about Outremont, or at the very least Quebec strategy, not the usual boys will be boys pissing match that seems to involve at least two of the usual suspects and just a proxy for the usual sneering, tedious spewing.
[deleted - forgot to push IGNORE button - must work on that]
Thanks for proving the point I was making in the Bye thread. And my point will be further proven when your attempts to shout down someone else is either ignored or treated with the barest slap on the wrist.
You keep ignoring this question: if the Liberals cannot keep it together over Christmas what kind of government could they offer Canada? If they were fit to govern, they would ahve survived the 6 week breather and brought down the government then.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Jean granted Harper's request as a test of the coalition's ability to survive the Xmas season. Honestly, that makes no sense. The coalition was what... 3 days old at the time? You give her credit not only for independence of action but for some pretty incredible analytical power and gambling spirit. I think the explanation is much simpler. She does Harper's bidding every day. If the Liberals took power, she would no doubt do their bidding every day too. I think she's a tool - in the literal sense - and that's what she's paid to do.
You saw something in her previous life that would predict her drooling over the Afghan mission? None of us here in Québec saw that coming. She is simply being a good employee and doing what she's told - what she's paid to do - just like reading the Throne Speech. I don't question her beliefs. What I question is that she doesn't act on her own beliefs.
just fiuckin lovely unionist, :rolleyes:
You're quite right, remind, I hadn't considered that angle. Thanks for your rejoinder.
Catching up on the comments to date is rather amusing.Sean from Ottawa states that Coalition would have been damaging.This is absolutely ridiculous.Either listen to too much right-wing corporate media or don't understand that the majority of Canadians would have been represented by Coalition (64%).When you look at the actions of the G-G it was obvious that she didn't take enough time to make informed decision.She could have told Harper I'll think about your request and get back to you.It was made on a Thurs.,she could have looked at her options and concluded that a Coalition would have been better for Democracy.How could this have hurt the NDP ? When we could have gotten important Legislation passed ; such as meaningful E.I. reform for workers,National child care,kelowna accord,enviromental targets,infra-structure programs and the needed support for health-care.It would have been great for the NDP and given Canadians a taste of what Fed. NDP Gov't. could accomplish while in power.
As already mentioned she has put her foot in her mouth several times in regards to support for the war in Afghanistan and as G-G totally partisan signalling her preference for the Neo-Cons..Why ? She was part of the right-wing corporate media was she not.Example : Mike Duffy and Sandy Wallin.Peter Mansbridge writes for Macleans which is about one step from " tabloid journalism".In the final analysis G-G has been an embarrassment to Canada and shown no great intelligence in not supporting proposed Coalition Gov't. last Dec./08.
We could have had strong Coaltion Gov't. which would have accomplished more for Canadians in this current economic recession not what we have now with Harper Neo-Cons..More announcements of infra-structure spending then has actually been done.Just like the last fiscal year when there was hundreds of miilions of dollars left-over but not put into shovel-ready projects before the recession in 2008.The Neo-Con. slush fund.
It will be great when Canada gets the Gov't. it deserves rather then the pork-barrel politics of the Neo-Liberals and the Neo-Cons..
boys pissing match that seems to involve at least two of the usual suspects and just a proxy for the usual sneering, tedious spewing.
I am trying to decide on whether to ignore this or point out that you are being more than pedantic-- a bit of an ass really.
So you feel the need to use italics and bold to launch an attack on a person suggesting they can't follow the thread.
Well, conversations don't stay where they start-- that's why you need to follow them. People respond to what is being said.
You want to get all personal about the original topic why not go after the person who brought in the allegation of corruption launched by another post?
As for your usual suspects crap then who do you think are the usual suspects-- yeah let's get a list of the people you don't like here since you are clearly not above sneering yourself.
The thread drift was a serious allegation followed by a defence of a reputation.
So you choose to go after the defence rather than the allegation and back up your sneering with bold and italics. I wasn't being personal with unionist-- we disagree significantly on this but I respect most of what Unionist has to say but feel this allegation suggesting corruption was uncalled for and should not be left unresponded to-- that was where the drifted conversation began.
And if you want to start policing responses to things as contributions to thread drift you are going to be very busy but expect some blowback when you arbitrarily single one person out for your own brand of hypocritical sneering.
As for this proxy shit I have nothing against Unionist nor any ongoing agenda against anyone here, except perhaps you now.
Sean, I was trying to quote without a big long thing. Sorry, some of us don't spend our every waking moment on babble and aren't always sure how the various functions work so I just used all the options to make it clear it was a quote. And if you want to be specific I was refering to the sidebar attack not the comments you made. It is always a sneering attack whether it against a babbler or a public figure and it is just goes on and on and it comes from all sides - just replace Jean with May, or the NDP with Green or what have you and the boys will be boys club starts duking it out. And then there is the sanctimonius lecturing of who and how someone is supposed to participate or in the follow up comments- now deleted- made not being on babble at all.
My point on the coalition remains that Jean could have been concerned about its stability-- this is but one reason other than corruption that could have lead to the decision -- you don't have to agree with this analysis-- to allow that it may have been a motivator for her.
Aside form that I think it is truly remarkable to see so many people here thinking that the Liberal party could have led a stable government (remember NDP less than 40 seats)-- that party has proved that they are not stable coalition partners, cannot be trusted and are incapable of avoiding tearing each other up to actually do anything else for any length of time. The suggestion that they could keep it together if only they had power is ridiculous-- back to the thread topic-- look how they managed to screw up on the same day as their no confidence motion by blowing up in Quebec. The quoted comments out of this will almost certainly show up in advertising in Quebec and will change the landscape there if not across the country as Ignatief is shown to be a loser-- so when a lot is at stake -- the internal bickering trumps unity.
I was in favour of the coalition in theory. I supported it as long as the Liberals looked like they were going to possibly function well enough as partners. Then I saw that the Liberals were not going to be able to manage and the coalition was doomed because of them. The two-faced bastards went back on the agreement almost when it was still wet. The NDP needs to keep touch with reality sometimes. This particular reality is that the Liberals -- at least for now-- are so busy destroying themselves that they cannot be coalition partners, cannot govern and the NDP should keep a distance.
The coaltion was a betrayal of an agreement by a party that in restrospect should not have been trusted in the first place. Where is this longing to work with these people-- and why is it coming from people who don't normally like or trust Liberals in the first place? the same who say they are no different from the Cons?
Interesting how the coalition experience which some argued was not relevant here actually says exactly the same things about the Liberal party that the Outremont thing does.
Also interesting that the fight would be over a seat not held by the Conservatives, the party the Liberals say they want to defeat but another opposition party.
After the Liberals spend all their energy fighting the NDP and their own party they have nothing but worn down claws and chipped off teeth and no real interest left for fighting the Cons.
It is funny-- I have been reading a lot of Chinese history. During the second world war the Allies-- United States in particular were supporting the Chinese with equipment to fight the Japanese. The nationalists accepted the money but instead of using it to fight the communists they ran away from them and used the resources to fight the communists. Over time the allies got to see this and realized they need to support the communists if they wanted the bullets they were sending to fight the Japanese instead of landing in the backs of other Chinese. In spite of being the most powerful force in the country, the Nationalists managed to lose the respect of the western allies as well as the Chinese people who saw the Communists alone fighting the enemy. Eventually, some within the Nationalist party participated in a kidnapping of their leader to persuade him to fight the Japanese-- of course the bickering did not help. In the end the Chinese people rallied around the Communists for fighting their common enemy-- the Allies supported the communists with equipment for the rest of the war and the Communists went on to reducing the Nationalists to a rump.
Now, I don't want to compare the NDP to the Communists since the parties are very different but the behaviour of the Liberals should look familiar in the above story and of course it will take an atom bomb to defeat the Conservatives or at least cooperation among those that are fighting against them or perhaps the elimination of the one who does not keep its word and fight the common enemy.
Since we are nearing October 1st, the 60th anniversary of how that all ended up I figure this story might be appropriate.
The drift to China might be forgiven as relevant here since I am really not talking about coalitions or China but the character of teh Liberal party even if it can be seen in a story about China.
One of the best things about the coalition is that the Liberals would have been in such disarray and so weak that the NDP would have provided the only real stability in government. The NDP could have called the shots. Ignatieff has no agenda and no ideas - I'm sure layton would be happy to tell him what to do...Iggy seems very open to suggestion from others!
Getting back to Quebec issues...! (There are other threads to discuss Iggy issues, aren't there?)
Does anyone think that (if there isn't an election soon) this internal squabbling by the Liberals will give the NDP an even bigger boost in the potential by-election in Hochelaga?
With Rocheleau being the first candidate nominated, plus having already run once there, it would appear that internal dissent by the Quebec Liberals would be a boost to the NDP campaign.
One reason I - and many others in this multi-national riding - voted for Mulcair in the 2007 byelection was his uncompromising stand on withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Which leads me back (sorry folks) to Michaëlle Jean:
Source.
I'm sure that's her own opinion and she never took any guidance from Harper on that.
Unionist I know I am on your ignore list, but if you happen to see this - I want to thank you for posting that article.
Getting back to Quebec issues...! (There are other threads to discuss Iggy issues, aren't there?)
Does anyone think that (if there isn't an election soon) this internal squabbling by the Liberals will give the NDP an even bigger boost in the potential by-election in Hochelaga?
With Rocheleau being the first candidate nominated, plus having already run once there, it would appear that internal dissent by the Quebec Liberals would be a boost to the NDP campaign.
I agree DY - the 2 Quebec by-elections will be a good test of Iggy's real popularity in Quebec and the supposedly revived Liberal machine in the province. The BQ is still strongly favoured to win both seats but the NDP should have a good showing in Hochelaga with Rocheleau. I also predict the Cons will do better than expected in Paul Crete's old federal riding - I believe they are going to run a former mayor of one of the municipalities within the riding boundaries.
hmmm....just think four byelections this fall and in all four of them, there is a good chance that the Liberals will finish 3rd or even 4th in all four of them.
You may be right, but I'm hoping for a repeat performance of their catastrophe in Rivière-des-Mille-Isles, where they also purchased themselves a very popular mayor (of St-Eustache, no less), but he went down hard to first-time BQ candidate Luc Desnoyers - who had just retired as the Québec Director of the CAW:
Rivière-des-Mille-Iles: Luc Desnoyers élu
Good point, Unionist. What's your sense of the engagement/motivation of BQ supporters and activists these days - given Marois' dismal performance as PQ leader and the PQ's return to the "beau risque" strategy that so divided the party in the mid-80s?
Quebeckers' ability to separate their federal and provincial voting intentions is the stuff of legend. The federal Liberals' collapse in the wake of the sponsorship scandal wasn't seen as Charest's downfall (notwithstanding his reduction to minority government for lots of other reasons). Nothing federally parallels the precipitous rise and fall of the ADQ. So, people I know (mostly urban voters, but not exclusively) don't think about Marois's plight when thinking federal. Duceppe has done nothing disastrous since playing so skillfully last year on Harper's ill-concealed ultra-right instincts. He and the Bloc are still seen, by a plurality anyway, as Québec's best (and vaguely social democratic) bargaining weapon in Ottawa. They lost support to Mulcair in my riding, but the NDP would have to really "stand up for Québec" (in ways that they have never done collectively) in order to make more serious inroads into BQ support. The Sherbrooke Declaration was a fine start, but they're obviously afraid that if they flaunt it, someone in ROC might find out...
In the regions, of course, the dynamic is quite different, but I see no signs of Bloc support leaching toward the Cons.
I'm not an electoral politics geek, so the above is purely impressionistic, and largely based on trade union sisters and brothers plus neighbours and friends. In the union movement, support for the Bloc is as strong as ever. I defer to other babblers for a more scientific (and likely more accurate) assessment.
From an electoral politics geek: don't know enough about the subtelties of inclinations in Quebes, but that sounds consistent with how the dynamics generally work.
Breton was at Convention and does intend to run again, for now at least. LeProhon will be an interesting match-up but keep in mind that the real competition is the Bloc who currently hold Jean-Le-Ber. LeProhon was a formidable adversary when she was the protege of the Quebec Lieutenant. Now that that is no longer the case she doesn't seem very strong to me.
My Liberal sources tell me that the official story about this Coderre/Cauchon dust up is BS. Apparently Cauchon was at the Liberal Convention six months ago talking about his intention to run in Outremont.
I think Cauchon is in for a rude awakening. Mulcair's consituency staff are excellent and his organization is well staffed and well run. Also, in the face of this challenge, many Quebec NDP operatives and volunteers that might have taken the riding for a lock will be going there to work next election, myself included.
The downside is the perceived need for support in Outremont will bleed workers, and to an extent money, from other races in Quebec.
Apparently there will be a contested nomination in Jeanne-Le Ber if Sébastien Dhavernas does go ahead and contest it.
I didn't know anything about him when he ran last time in Outremont, and still don't.
Interesting at any rate.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200910/02/01-908075-jeanne-le-ber-les-liberaux-lorgnent-sebastien-dhavernas.php
A television star would seem a better candidate for the riding than an economist. But if LeProhon doesn't get it by appointment I would rather expect she'll feel kicked around.
As far as the Outremont story goes, dinner has yet to be served. The latest shenanigans, from our favourite butler (as opposed to 'head waiter') in the LPC, is just an appetizer for the early arrivals, the main course, and the entertainment, is still being prepared . Now that it's been established that Martin Cauchon is the preferred candidate of the Quebec Establishment (et-tu Brute?), in, arguably, the most bourgeois, Federalist, francophone riding in la belle province, it's a foregone conclusion that the political winds have shifted. Poor Mulcair, he seems like a nice fellow, but let's face it, he's an anomaly in Outremont (he's an anomaly in the NDP, for that matter). If the Dippers hope to build on their 'breakthrough' in Quebec, they'd do best to look no further than the West Island, whose disgruntled Anglos still remember that their 'traditional' representation was dropped from Charest's Cabinet (je me souviens). All in all, isn't it comforting to know, in a world of anarchy and chaos, that some things never seem to change. Or in the immortal words of Don Cherry: "It's deja-vu all over again"....
You know, I agree with much of you've been posting lately, but are you perhaps thinking of another riding? Outremont is on the low scale of "bourgeois, Federalist, and francophone". No time for detailed references, but start with Wikipedia:
As for "federalist", I voted Bloc in the 2006 election, and my candidate came within 1000 votes of unseating a Liberal cabinet minister. When I voted Mulcair in the next two elections (byelection and general), I can assure you his win had nothing to do with his views about federalism.
ETA: Hey sister/brother, are you perhaps thinking of the city of Outremont as opposed to the riding??
Perhaps, dear Unionist...but I'd never vote for separatists. As for your demographic, Westmount riding included St. Henri, but always voted Liberal. Averages are decieving. Moreover, unionionists in Quebec, like yourself, are solidly Bloc supporters. I wouldn't expect that you'll be getting out the vote for Mulcair (I doubt that he'll be endorsed by the FTQ). Anyway, I apologise for upsetting your sensibilities, while I'm saddened that I failed, in your estimation, although I would guess that a good portion of your riding's demographic doesn't vote at all-- but the portion I was thinking about does, and in what I presume is a plurality that also contributes financially to their preferred candidate. Nonetheless, I promise to redouble my efforts and apply more rigor to any subsequent analysis. As for Charest, is he really a Liberal? Ask Mulcair.
Not sure I understood any sentence in that last post, AW, but I just thought I'd explain a little about my riding, which you seemed to have a wrong impression about - especially given that Outremont is the topic of this thread.
So, dear Unionist, will the FTQ endorse Mulcair?
No, we separatists will never endorse anything that looks good but which might divert us from our mission of destroying Canada. In fact, when they found out I had voted for Mulcair, my union organized a mob which is still staking out our apartment as we speak. Geez, that's a ptichfork - right through my keyboard - I'll hv t gt bck t u ltr...
Topic for next thread: "Unionist Forked in Outremont!"
I wonder if "autoworker" is someone who drives an "auto" to "work" at Liberal Party of Canada - Quebec Section HQ?
hey Unionist, your brother/sister sure doesn't talk "solidary forever"
hey Unionist, your brother/sister sure doesn't talk "solidary forever"
*&) &^%$ #(*$& cnt gt ths dmnd thng 2 work I'll - oh, WHEW, the keyboard has recovered!!
Yeah, I wouldn't want to draw any premature conclusions about autoworker, but it certainly would seem preferable to sit back and find out a little about Outremont and Québec before saying such odd things and making provocative comments - especially when they only have a few babble posts under their belt, though I think "finding out before speaking out and acting out" could well be a good guide to us all... Similar to, "look it up, don't make it up..."
Anyway, I have to get back to watching the stalkers outside my window...
yes unionist, be careful - they are coming to get you - ha ha, ha ha
I didn't think seniority counted in here. As for solidarity, I don't sympathize with separatism.
This being the default thread for Ignatieff's lack of a Quebec lieutenant, I thoght I would advise babblers who weren't just watching Newsworld of two things:
1. In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant? This man has more lives than a recycled cat.
2. Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.
I didn't think seniority counted in here. As for solidarity, I don't sympathize with separatism.
You don't have to sympathize with separatism, but if you make stuff up about things you obviously know nothing about, be prepared for others to helpfully set you straight.
Not sure why you mention seniority - are you concerned about getting laid off, or just bumped?
unbelievable Wilf - doesn't the lib leader read any press or his advisors tell him to tone down his "all about me.com" ego? LOL - Iggy is political stupid and lacks social intelligence!
1. In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant? This man has more lives than a recycled cat.
Right about what? What was the context for that remark?
2. Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.
Yeah, that sounds about right. A bread and circuses platform fits in well with Iggy's imperious style.
1. In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant?
And does this mean reversing gears on coalition? What was Stéphane "right" about?
No, but maybe it's time he checked out space.
Thanks for the update, Wilf.
ETA: Gee, I crossposted with SBC4, and we said pretty much the same stuff... Pass the Koolaid jug, please.
Who's making stuff up? Look at what's really going on in the riding that you know so much about, and I so little. Why Cauchon? Why Outremont? Why now? I envy you, dear Unionist, your riding is much more interesting than mine. By the way, how's Justin Trudeau doing accross the way? He did quite well, I'm told. Marlene Jennings is solid in N.D.G. How's the Bloc doing in T.M.R.? You're right, the facts speak for themselves.
What convention?
Now I'm more confused than ever. See how little it takes? I'm off to take a walk. I'll check in on Justin Trudeau (actually, make that the Métro...) and TMR (whoops, bus ride), and see if Marlene has kicked out that a-hole Del Negro yet, and... Hey, why do I have to do all this? We don't even have any auto workers left in Québec since they shuttered and then tore down the GM plant in Boisbriand...
Ignatieff spoke to about 1,000 Liberals today at a convention of his party's Quebec wing.
That's what he said Dion was right about -- green jobs, and so on, not very specific.
A new president of the Quebec wing of the LPC will also be appointed, it is Marc Lavigne, former chief organizer of Stéphane Dion during the leadership race of 2006.
Maybe Lavigne can work the same "magic" for Iggy that he worked for Dion! (we can only hope)
Not sure where you're from autoworker, but your knowledge of Quebec ridings is stretched. Westmount is in the federal riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie. St. Henri is in Jean-Le-Ber. Also lots of soft sovereigntists in Outremont who support Mulcair as better than a Liberal.
FYI St. Henri used to be in Westmount riding, where the demographic was similar to what now exists in Outremont. Also, many people get around by bus and Metro, so what? I take the bus to get around in my riding. As far a "soft soverigntists" are concerned, I suppose they don't mind the $8 BILLION in transfers that Quebec receives from the rest of Canada. Why do you have to do this, Unionist"? Because you're a pro-separatist that hopes to split the vote, in Federalist ridings, to the advantage of the Bloc-- or why else call yourself a unionist, if you don't subscribe to Quebec labour consensus? Query: why is it that the Canadian left is so chummy with agents who actively work to break up our country? What kind of nationalism is that? Perhaps patriotism is just corny and old-fashioned, at least to the self-anointed sophisticates in urban ridings.
Don't know what you're talking about. Personally, I'm as corny as Kansas in August. You're questioning my patriotism? I'm as high as the flag on the 4th of July. If you'll excuse the expression I use, I'm in love with a wonderful
GillesGuy!I wasn't speaking to your brand of patriotism, dear Unionist, although I'm sure that you identify quite strongly with it. Personally, I don't celebrate American Independance Day, but Canada is a free country, and you can do what you like.
I assume you're not from Quebec autoworker, because things are a little bit more nuanced than saying that everyone who votes Bloc or is a sovereigntist is an evil person.
First of all lots of Quebecers who don't want to seperate vote Bloc as a party that will stand up for Quebec's interests and advance a somewhat social democratic agenda. Secondly the history and rationale for sovereignty is complex and not easily dismissed. If you trace it to its roots the movement was based on forming a seperate country in order to enact a socialist platform impossible within Canada. It's only in recent years that it has become less ideologically driven and more propelled by its own inertia.
I don't agree with sovereignty and I feel it wouldn't change anything and is a pipe dream that would see Quebec swallowed up by the U.S., leading to functionally less autonomy than there is now. However I have a great deal of respect for Levesque and the original sovereigntists who wanted to create a better world. There's certainly an element of zenophobia within the movement which is unfortunate, but things like that don't come about in a vaccum and it's neccessary to look at the extreme racism displayed by anglos towards francophones in the past which fuelled the idea of a seperate identity.
Right now however sovereignty is deader than a doornail. Even the PQ don't mention it too much anymore and no one votes for the Bloc because they think it'll bring about sovereignty, they do it because they think it'll benefit Quebec.
My problem with the Bloc is a lack of principles. When Layton crafted the 4.6 B buddget deal with Martin the Bloc voted AGAINST it (despite everything in it being directly from their platform) because Duceppe wanted to gain a few seats in an election. I never supported the Bloc but I did consider them fellow travellers of a sort to the NDP, that episode lost most of the respect i had for them.
So don't slag on unionist for no reason, mkay?
Breton was at Convention and does intend to run again, for now at least. LeProhon will be an interesting match-up but keep in mind that the real competition is the Bloc who currently hold Jean-Le-Ber. LeProhon was a formidable adversary when she was the protege of the Quebec Lieutenant. Now that that is no longer the case she doesn't seem very strong to me.
My Liberal sources tell me that the official story about this Coderre/Cauchon dust up is BS. Apparently Cauchon was at the Liberal Convention six months ago talking about his intention to run in Outremont.
I think Cauchon is in for a rude awakening. Mulcair's consituency staff are excellent and his organization is well staffed and well run. Also, in the face of this challenge, many Quebec NDP operatives and volunteers that might have taken the riding for a lock will be going there to work next election, myself included.
The downside is the perceived need for support in Outremont will bleed workers, and to an extent money, from other races in Quebec.
Why would people have assumed the riding would be a lock?
@debater
For the same reason we were more focused on Westmount Ville Marie last election (and even had some of Mulcair's volunteers working there on e-day) and didn't worry too much about Outremont. Because it was a lock against that clown Dhavernas and if he were running again it would be a lock again. Something the Liberals obviously figured out.
Even with Cauchon, Tom will be quite difficult to unseat. Outremont includes the Plateau, Mile End and some of the area that returned Amir Khadir and almost elected Francoise David for QS. This area is also the bedrock of Projet Montreal, our progressive municipal party which is set to make sweeping gains in the election November 1st.
this area is very progressive, although in the case of Outremont also quite federalist. Lots of allophones and immigrants who might have voted Liberal in the past as the most progressive federalist option but are more than happy with Tom's progressive credentials and impressive riding work. I also think (although I haven't overlayed past results to see for sure) that a fair chunk of progressive Bloc voters are voting for Tom as they feel he'll represent the same social justice positions as the Bloc, in a riding the Bloc can't win.
Cauchon will give us a run for our money, but don't count on this riding going anywhere. Tom is almost a household name in the riding and extremely popular for his office's constituency work as much as his politics and community engagement.
Colour Outremont orange. Now let's see how we can do on Gatineau, Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie. The NDP more than doubled our vote in Quebec last time and placed a respectable second in quite a number of ridings. We've got some momentum in this province, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocheleau come close or even win if the right wing Bloc candidate falters badly in the Hochelaga by-election.
2. Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.
No way. Did Iggy actually say this?
One can just imagine future "and me" speeches.
It beggars belief.
I want to see Iggy with a red plastic nose.
If he fails to take power and inspire Grits, he can always head back to London and try the "...and me" bit about great Britons, hanging on the Queen's arm.
Let us now recognize world class, misunderstood Canadian Liberal leaders who never received what was rightfully theirs -- John Turner, Stephane Dion "and me".
I want to see Iggy with a red plastic nose.
If he fails to take power and inspire Grits, he can always head back to London and try the "...and me" bit about great Britons, hanging on the Queen's arm.
Mum, Prince Philip -- and me.
Now appearing as a West End farce.
Remembering great anti-capitalist films - Roger who is against me!
@debater
For the same reason we were more focused on Westmount Ville Marie last election (and even had some of Mulcair's volunteers working there on e-day) and didn't worry too much about Outremont. Because it was a lock against that clown Dhavernas and if he were running again it would be a lock again. Something the Liberals obviously figured out.
Even with Cauchon, Tom will be quite difficult to unseat. Outremont includes the Plateau, Mile End and some of the area that returned Amir Khadir and almost elected Francoise David for QS. This area is also the bedrock of Projet Montreal, our progressive municipal party which is set to make sweeping gains in the election November 1st.
this area is very progressive, although in the case of Outremont also quite federalist. Lots of allophones and immigrants who might have voted Liberal in the past as the most progressive federalist option but are more than happy with Tom's progressive credentials and impressive riding work. I also think (although I haven't overlayed past results to see for sure) that a fair chunk of progressive Bloc voters are voting for Tom as they feel he'll represent the same social justice positions as the Bloc, in a riding the Bloc can't win.
Cauchon will give us a run for our money, but don't count on this riding going anywhere. Tom is almost a household name in the riding and extremely popular for his office's constituency work as much as his politics and community engagement.
Colour Outremont orange. Now let's see how we can do on Gatineau, Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie. The NDP more than doubled our vote in Quebec last time and placed a respectable second in quite a number of ridings. We've got some momentum in this province, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocheleau come close or even win if the right wing Bloc candidate falters badly in the Hochelaga by-election.
Aren't you admitting in your first paragraph that the NDP displayed the same type of overconfidence in last year's federal election as the Liberals did in the by-election?
There was no reason to assume Outremont would be a lock - it is not a long-term NDP seat and it has been Liberal historically. Mulcair and the NDP should have realized that ANY Liberal could potentially be competitive. As it turned out, Dhavernas was far from a "clown" - he came within a couple thousand votes of Mulcair and it was a lot closer than people thought it would be. Considering that Mulcair had more political experience, more money and more organization, Dhavernas performed very well.
The reason Dhavernas has not been selected by the Liberals this time is not because he can't win - it's because a bigger name came along who is more important to the Liberals and who has more clout. Dhavernas was basically a temporary candidate.
Would you also agree that it is an exaggeration to say that Mulcair is "very popular"? He didn't even crack 40& of the vote in the last election. He has some popularity, but I think you need to get better than 39% to claim a candidate is "very" popular. Is that a fair assessment?
As for Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie - the NDP is not really on the radar in those ridings. In Gatineau, yes, that is a possibility for the NDP to win.
Then why if a "bigger name came along" is his presence being contested in said riding debator?
I'm not sure it is worth the NDP's energy, to even discuss the Liberals any more, as they appear to be tanking everywhere, and Harper is on his way to a majority unless Layton does something about it. How much more have the Liberals dropped in today's polls? Maybe that 50 seat forecast for Ignatieff was being optimistic.
@ Debater
I call Dhavernas a clown largely because he couldn't be bothered to get someone to proof-read the flyers he carpet bombed the riding with, which were equally full of atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes in both languages.I can't take someone seriously who spends that kind of money without having his stuff proof read. Pretty much amateur hour.
There is also a major difference between overconfidence before a campaign has started, and knowing where you stand on its last day after having run a fully funded, well organized campaign. Mulcair had far and away more volunteers than any other riding, as a result he let some of them go to W-V-M on E-day as it was the second highest priority campaign and he didn't neeed them all to get his vote out.
He won by 2400 votes. Not huge but not a squeaker either. And Dhavernas was at VERY least as well funded as Mulcair, I think he had more money tbh.The Liberals targeted that riding and thought Dhavernas would get it back for them. They certainly injected money and organization in an effort to prevent Mulcair from getting a foothold in a general election. Dhavernas was no place holder, he was in it to win and had the money and organization to support that goal.
As for the rest of the riddings I mentioned, I'm not saying we'll win them all, or maybe even any of then next election (although Boivin in Gatineau lost by ~1500 votes and has a great shot this time) but we more than doubled our vote share in all those places and registered the NDP as a serious party with a shot at winning. That fact alone helps to draw support from people frustrated with the Bloc or Liberals who would never vote for the NDP as long as we were getting 5%.
Outremont also follows the historical pattern of a lot of other seats for the NDP.
When the NDP breaks in somehwere there is no such thing as an easy shot. There are best shots in a place with 'potential'- but only potential. IF the NDP wins there, the first time it is narrow. Then there is the advantage of incumbency, and if on top of that, the now incumbent is a good constituency politician and does the work... the margin grows to being comfortable but not overwhelming. Yet.
Consider Stoffer in Sackville-Eastern Shore. Wins in an unlikley place by 37 votes. Next time, goes in nervous but having worked his butt off, wins by a couple thousand. Still not an overwelming lock. But goes in further elections from being comfortable to being a lock.
Define radar. A party getting over 10 percent of the votes will qualify for reimbursement from the Receiver General of 60 percent of actual election and personal expenses paid. That separates the token candidates flying below the radar from the visible ones.
Westmount—Ville-Marie 22.9%
Hull—Aylmer 19.8%
Jeanne-Le Ber 15.7%
Hochelaga 14.4%
and for that matter, close to a majority of NPD-Quebec candidates got over 10%, including, for just a few examples:
Repentigny (Réjean Bellemare) 15.1%; ran second to Bloc
Laurier-Sainte-Marie 17.1%, likely to run second to Duceppe today
Saint-Lambert (Richard Marois) 14.5%
Rivière-du-Nord 14.5% came second
Drummond (Annick Corriveau) 16.4%
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (Raymond Côté) 13.2%, ahead of the Liberal
@ Debater
I call Dhavernas a clown largely because he couldn't be bothered to get someone to proof-read the flyers he carpet bombed the riding with, which were equally full of atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes in both languages.I can't take someone seriously who spends that kind of money without having his stuff proof read. Pretty much amateur hour.
There is also a major difference between overconfidence before a campaign has started, and knowing where you stand on its last day after having run a fully funded, well organized campaign. Mulcair had far and away more volunteers than any other riding, as a result he let some of them go to W-V-M on E-day as it was the second highest priority campaign and he didn't neeed them all to get his vote out.
He won by 2400 votes. Not huge but not a squeaker either. And Dhavernas was at VERY least as well funded as Mulcair, I think he had more money tbh.The Liberals targeted that riding and thought Dhavernas would get it back for them. They certainly injected money and organization in an effort to prevent Mulcair from getting a foothold in a general election. Dhavernas was no place holder, he was in it to win and had the money and organization to support that goal.
As for the rest of the riddings I mentioned, I'm not saying we'll win them all, or maybe even any of then next election (although Boivin in Gatineau lost by ~1500 votes and has a great shot this time) but we more than doubled our vote share in all those places and registered the NDP as a serious party with a shot at winning. That fact alone helps to draw support from people frustrated with the Bloc or Liberals who would never vote for the NDP as long as we were getting 5%.
Dhavernas WAS a place holder - Martin Cauchon was the one the Liberals wanted to run last year, and when he said no, they didn't seriously expect to win back Outremont while Dion was leader and so not much money or effort was spent on the riding. If you check the campaign expenses, you will see that Mulcair spent much more than Dhavernas. The figures are at the Pundit's Guide I believe.
The fact that Mulcair only won by a couple thousand votes over a man he outspent by quite a lot and who he also beat in organization and in political experience, means he will have a lot more work to do to win against a much stronger candidate like Cauchon. Mulcair will need the Liberals to tank in Montreal in order to be assured of winning.
Continued here