How can the Liberals be taking votes from the NDP when their new leader is more right wing than their last one?

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red T-shirt

There are plenty of Liberal MPs who do not support same sex marriage, though at the moment I don't believe they are the majority. If there are any NDP MPs who don't strongly support same sex marriage, they would be in extreme minority, and I'm not aware of their stand.

I have never understood why lots of gay/lesbian folks vote Liberal when the NDP would represent & defend them so much better.

madmax

People are very happy with the direction that Ignatieff has taken the party. People are very unhappy with the direction that Jack Layton has taken the NDP. People are very very happy that Ignatieff walked away from a coalition or the threat of an immediate election. People are very very very very very very dissappointed that Jack Layton made a stand against the budget before even seeing it.  Many people think Jack Layton made a very poor choice in joining with Dion.

The NDP is still maintaining % within their traditional range, but at the end of the day, if there is nothing on the horizon, the NDP are going to lose ground come the next election.

The NDP leader needs to connect with the people, and outside of some NDP strongholds this isn't happening.  Infact, within NDP strongholds, Layton has to explain his actions.

The most recent decision of the NDP to suggest they are the "official" opposition shows how out of touch they are with the general electorate. People are fed up and have had enough. The most common discussion is that parties must work together. The NDP says that they are willing to work with anyone, but the reality is the NDP is now on the outside looking in. People have judged the NDPs ability to suggest that they are willing to work together, and they judge the NDPs decision on the budget. 

Walking away and prejudging before a piece of crap is offered, gives no leverage to describe to the public what a piece of crap the budget is. And yes the budget is a piece of shit.

The NDP was in very fine shape in the publics eyes immediately after the October election. People believed in the NDP. Even when the NDP helped the LPC find a spine, the public was supportive.

Everyone here should know quite clearly, where the NDP got on the wrong tracks with them going in one direction and the public in another.

It doesn't matter how "right wing" the new Liberal Leader is. It doesn't matter that he wasn't elected.  It doesn't matter that he supports the same policies as Stephen Harper.

What matters is that many people who moved to the NDP are willingly moving to the LPC.

The "Left"  NDP voter moving to a more rightwing LPC shouldn't surprise anyone.  Its no different then seeing a GPC lawn sign sharing a spot with a pesticides warning sign on their well manicured lawn. People are complicated beings.

Benjamin

Frustrated Mess wrote:
And why do you think an Ignasty government would be any different? Can you name a significant policy difference between Harper and Ignasty? They agree on everything. That's why Ignasty had no difficulty passing the budget and stimulus plan with no strings attached despite weilding the club of a coalition he dropped like a cheap hood with a heater when confronted by a cop.

There are many significant policy differences:

- support for safe injection sites in the downtown eastside

- income tax cuts vs. cuts to the GST

- funding of the arts

- funding of women's organizations

- funding of the court challenges program

- approach to foreign affairs

- employment insurance policy

I could go on...

And yes, there are significant policy similarities on fiscal conservatism, et cetera.

Benjamin

Red T-shirt wrote:

I have never understood why lots of gay/lesbian folks vote Liberal when the NDP would represent & defend them so much better.

because Trudeau --> Charter --> same-sex Charter challenges --> same-sex rights

because being gay does not automatically make you believe in a so-called progressive party

because sexual orientation does not define political preference

because many gay people have sufficient economic interests that are better served through the LPC

because the NDP currently is a party with a useless leader, and a stagnating approach/strategy

because a vote for the NDP actually does NOT do much of anything to advocate for gay/lesbian issues

Chester Drawers

T_B, I'm sorry that you feel that way.  The point I was making is that every little bit helps and a community should be willing to help out their own causes any way they can.   What is a red bainting asshole?  Never heard that one before.  It is so sad to see grown adults resort to name calling rather than provide constructive debate and ideas. 

As for banning me,  I have not belittled anyone or been obstinate, unlike many who post here.   I may disagree with you but I will never resort to juvenile name calling because you have a different opinion than me.

 

It's Me D

madmax wrote:
What matters is that many people who moved to the NDP are willingly moving to the LPC.

Yes it all rests on this... assumption? Has anyone actually any credible evidence that this is taking place? I asked Ken who started this thread long ago but I've yet to see any reason for all this talk... 

CD wrote:
What is a red bainting asshole?  Never heard that one before.  It is so sad to see grown adults resort to name calling rather than provide constructive debate and ideas. 

As for banning me,  I have not belittled anyone or been obstinate, unlike many who post here.   I may disagree with you but I will never resort to juvenile name calling because you have a different opinion than me.

lrn2Babble Policy... red baiting is a ban-worthy offence; if you don't know what it is then how can you claim you don't deserve to be banned? I'm not saying you do... I don't have an opinion on that atm. But thorin's comment made sense.

madmax

It's Me D: The assumption is made on the information provided by the pollsters (Nanos) who have identified the source growth in the LPC polling numbers. It is people who voted NDP in October who would vote LPC if an election were held today.  Two significant reasons behind this shift has been the change of  LPC leadership and just as importantly, the NDP position on the budget. Those numbers are very telling. It suggests that Jack Laytons principle reason for not supporting the budget "Harper can't be trusted"  before the budget was released, is not acceptable to voting public.  He took a position and the public are disagreeing with his stance by moving their vote.

After the polsters, all you have to do is walk around and ask people about Jack Layton and be prepared to duck.  This persona of Layton has been created by the media, just like Ignatieff is getting a free ride by that same media.   But a free ride from the media isn't enough. Mr Layton telegraphed his position on the budget. He could have handled it alot differently.

Perhaps the free lunch with Mr. Ignatief will have an expiry date. But for now, and likely for the next year, Only Ignatief will be able to trip himself up, and Mr. Layton will have to figure out if he wants to spend the future defending his past actions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Chester Drawers

If having an opinion that is different than the collective is considered "red-baiting" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.  To bad, I thought this was a progressive site where ideas and opinions can be expressed without fear of retribution and reprisals.  Apparently voters in the 2008 election where  8 of 13 prov. and territories voted twice as much for the other party as the collective party.   Where by more than 2 to 1 nationaly;  5,208,793 voters have a different opiniion than the 2,512,886 who voted for the collective.  I guess those 5 million plus voters and the 3,627,890 libral voters are red baiting assholes and their opnions do not count.  That is a truely sad narrow minded view of the voting public.  You may want to to belittle those that vote differently than you, but I will never belittle your opinion and your voteing choice.  That is your right and I will never question decision.  There are those on this site however who with vial words, venom and hatred, chastize the voters who vote against the collective position.  Apparently the close to 9 million voters who voted other than the collective are wrong and therefore do not count. 

Now that is most likely red baiting and to Michelle, OldGoat and the other moderators I appologize.  It was interesting while it lasted.

Let the verbal abuse start and the childish name calling commence, because that is all you have.  Facts are irrelevant.

 

 

PEI 3.7 – 1

Que 1.7 – 1

Ont. 2.15 – 1

Man. 2 -1

Sask. 2 – 1

Alta. 5 -1

B.C. 1.7 – 1

Yuk 3.6 - 1

 

Red T-shirt

Perhaps my view is simplistic, but if you belong to any, or several, minority groups (due to your sex, ethnicity, skin tone, sexual preference, religion, abilty vs. disability, race, etc.) you may be discriminated against. The Conservative party dislikes you and makes little effort to hide it. The Liberals talk big and tolerate you, but harbour many who equally dislike you & wish you ill. The NDP celebrates your individuality and fights for your total equality. Doesn't seem like a hard choice to me.

Stockholm

Madmax, you have made you point about a dozen times and always the same point. We get it. You think Ignatieff is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you hate the NDP, you think trying to form a coalition to oust Harper was a mistake and you think that there is nothing the NDP can ever do to make up for pissing off people who love Harper and hate the idea of an anti-Conservative coalition. The party is doomed and has always been doomed and now its doomed again.

Now let's get back to what will unfold over the next year and what the NDP strategy should be over the coming six to 12 months leading up to the next election.

Let's a CONstructive discussion rather than a DEstructive one.

It's Me D

I agree with Stockholm there! Surprised

madmax wrote:
After the polsters, all you have to do is walk around and ask people about Jack Layton and be prepared to duck. This persona of Layton has been created by the media, just like Ignatieff is getting a free ride by that same media. But a free ride from the media isn't enough. Mr Layton telegraphed his position on the budget. He could have handled it alot differently.

I know we aren't allowed to go after personal information but I'd really appreciate knowing what part of the country you're collecting this street level information in... its seriously at odds with the word on the street around here (rural NS), which is certainly 110% convinced by the media's portrayal of Layton, but who also couldn't give two shits about Iggy and see him as more of a condescending outsider than even Harper (who's not very popular round here either). I know I just basically said all the national party leaders are the objects of scorn by the people on the street around here but its true. Danny Williams on the other hand... Wink

 

ETA: It shouldn't be too hard to find my opinion on opinion polls around here but suffice to say I ignore them for a reason (and having worked in polling, its a good one). Plus the thread title is disingenuous if its just based on polls; no votes have been taken anywhere.

Stockholm

People often make the mistake of interpreting polling results as if they are actual election results - which they are not.

Chester Drawers

I agree with you Stockholme.  Polls are not election results.  They are an indicator of a measured responce within a specific time frame.  They are not an indicator of a broad view and time.   Elections provide that.

 

Cheers 

 

I'm still here?  Laughing phew

madmax

Benjamin wrote:

There are many significant policy differences:

- support for safe injection sites in the downtown eastside

The is no LPC policy for safe injection sites across Canada. There is individual support from some LPC MPs such as Dr. Bennet and Senator Larry Campbell.  But no, the LPC don't have a policy on safe injection sites. Would they keep downtown eastside going... yes. Unlike the CPC.

Quote:
- income tax cuts vs. cuts to the GST

Ah yes, tax breaks for the RICH, SFA and service reductions for the poor, vs Thousands of dollars off the next yaht purchase, and .02cents off a cup of coffee for the poor. Also with those needed Service Cutbacks.

Quote:
- funding of the arts

I thought Ignatieff just left the Coalition that supported Arts funding, you know the NDP? And the BQ supports funding for the arts. IIRC the LPC have just voted FOR a budget that doesn't fund the arts, where as the NDP and BQ actually voted against it?

Practice over Bullshit: CPC=LPC 

Quote:
- funding of women's organizations

While joining with the CPC to screw women in one of the greatest assaults on womens equality. PAY EQUITY.  No free lunch for the LPC.

CPC= LPC 

 

Quote:
- funding of the court challenges program

There is a problem with backing up the LPC statements with action? Talk is cheap. 

Quote:
- approach to foreign affairs

hahahahaahahahahahaha....

Afghanistan=  Have matched the CPC with each step. Even lead the way into a poorly thought combat mission, to which CF were not prepared to undertake, because of a lack of resources allocated.

CPC=LPC

Iraq= Ignatieff and Harper both wanted to invade.

LPC=CPC

Torture: Ignatieff to the RIGHT of Harper

Ignatief is on record openly softselling human rights abuses.  Yes, the LPC are handling foreign affairs differently. Of course speaking out of both sides of their mouths is a traditional LPC practice.  Bring Omar back, but you have the right to torture him while he is there. 

 

Quote:
- employment insurance policy

The LPC stolel $48 Billion dollars from the EI fund and gave it to their corporate pals. The CPC only took $8 Billion dollars with the same scheme finally bleeding EI dry. 

The LPC have undermined and destroyed the EI program as a social safety net. They should be proud. So far the CPC have done more to FIX EI since September then the LPC did during their 13 year reign while legally stealing/raiding from EI while denying those who needed it the most. Shame on the LPC. Their actions are disgraceful.  It is because of the LPC that EI recipients receive less in EI today then they did in 1996. You could collect more money per week in 1996 then you can in 2009.

FIX EI???? the LPC Should be kept  far away from EI!!! Keep the fox out of the henhouse.  Why should those who are suffering today, and are being blamed for losing their jobs,  trust the LPC with EI.

The LPC intent is the adopt the positions of the NDP and hope to high heaven, no one finds out they are the thieves who stole from EI. It is because of the LPC that few people qualify for benefits today.

EI: LPC=CPC = Disgrace.

Quote:
 

I could go on...

And yes, there are significant policy similarities on fiscal conservatism, et cetera.

A few minor points. The same "fiscal conservatism, the same support for destructive trade policies, the damage that the LPC can bring upon the people of Canada isn't all that different from the Damage that the CPC can bring.

Today we are reaping  the benefits  Neo Liberal Policies adopted by the LPC.

To haggle over an Income Tax cut or a GST cut.......Cry demonstrates to me how marginally thin the difference is between the CPC and the LPC.

Infact, each issue has to be looked at individually and gone over with a fine tooth comb to find the difference in many cases.

madmax

It's Me D wrote:
I agree with Stockholm there! Surprised

I know we aren't allowed to go after personal information but I'd really appreciate knowing what part of the country you're collecting this street level information in... its seriously at odds with the word on the street around here (rural NS),

You are not wrong to ask.  I am not surprised that the NDP will receive a little more slack in NS.  Unfortuneately in vote Rich Southern Ontario, where the NDP needs to connect with alot of ridings outside of Hamilton and Windsor, there is alot more skepticism and alot more NDP bashing. However, in that fall Election, even though the NDP lost ground in 2008 from their 2006 results in many ridings in SW Ontario, the impression of Mr Layton was very good, and yes, it was said many times both during and after the election that he looked the most Prime Ministerial.  Many people who may have held that opinion a few short months ago, do not as of today.

 

Quote:

ETA: It shouldn't be too hard to find my opinion on opinion polls around here but suffice to say I ignore them for a reason (and having worked in polling, its a good one). Plus the thread title is disingenuous if its just based on polls; no votes have been taken anywhere.

I will take your word for it  :)

 

Brian White

"its seriously at odds with the word on the street around here (rural NS), which is certainly 110% convinced by the media's portrayal of Layton, but who also couldn't give two shits about Iggy and see him as more of a condescending outsider)" 

My X, who voted liberal, conciders iggie to be a "fucken american" who should not be allowed to be pm becuse he is a blow in. I have spent about 2 Months outside canada in 10 years and only got a canadian pasport last year but she conciders me more canadian than iggie. Iggie "blew in" for the leadership thing a few years back and for some reason the media fawned about how great a speaker he was. (I thought he was shite and she did too). 

Iggie does not have a common touch, ordinary canadians see it miles away, and I hope the NDP can show it next election.  Prince charlie has more of a common touch that that arrogant asshole has.

"a coalition if necessary but not necessarly a coalition".   And he ends up supporting Harper cos he does not have the balls to be PM.

(Sorry, not ment to be sexist, just a comparison between harper and iggie) 

Like a  hostage negociator saying "I can't deal with conflict",

Well, dont apply for the job if you don't want it at a difficult time, you craven fucker. You know, Iggie, nobody remembers the good time PM's.

 They only recall those that did well or badly in difficult circumstances.  You will be forgotten real quick regardless cos you chickened out when it counted. 

 

 

madmax

Stockholm wrote:

Madmax, you have made you point about a dozen times and always the same point. We get it.

Now let's get back to what will unfold over the next year and what the NDP strategy should be over the coming six to 12 months leading up to the next election.

Let's a CONstructive discussion rather than a DEstructive one.

Its not that you shouldn't be considering NDP strategy. However, the thread  asks "how can the LPC be taking votes from the NDP with a Right wing Leader".

I am trying to address how and why this is happening.

Similar discussion are going on in Right Wing Forums where they are wondering why Ignatief is getting such a bump in the polls and they are finding slim pickings for policy differences.  So they are wondering why Ignatieff is getting off the hook for supporting the War in Iraq, for supporting positions on Pre Emptive War, for supporting the position on terrorism etc., well for supporting many of the policies of the Bush government.

What they fail to recognise is that Ignatieff supported these positions as an apologist or a compromiser.

This makes him a perfect Liberal. He can be for and against something at the same time.

This is attractive to not just NDP voters but many voters who can portray onto Ignatieff the issues they believe he will advocate on behalf of on the left.

Ignatief and the LPC strategists are going back to what used to work like a clock. The Chretian strategies of the 90s. Campaing with the Red Book and Govern with the Bluebook.

I don't have to like Ignatief to recognise he is rejuvenating the LPC. That a warm body is better than Dion. 

You wish for me to provide some strategy?

I believe  the NDP have painted themselves into a corner. I don't have a solution to the position that I see the NDP in. And perhaps there are those here who do not agree and see the situation completely different.

I am only giving you my opinon (12 times now 13)  Sealed

I am interested in hearing a plan for the upcoming year.

Innocent

 

 

Tommy_Paine

Brian White wrote:
I agree with Stockholm. 4 years of majority harper would be disaster for everyday canadians.

 

Yeah,  like Harper could steal from the E.I. fund, for example.  Or let the business world have it's wallow in crapulance, resulting in the loss of our manufacturing sector.  

Gee,  dodged a bullet there, didn't we.

Tommy_Paine

"Now let's get back to what will unfold over the next year and what the NDP strategy should be over the coming six to 12 months leading up to the next election."

It should be what it has been all along.  Keep the Liberals in power for now so we can leave the fight against the eventual Conservative majority for our kids.

 

 

 

 

melovesproles

Quote:
I believe the NDP have painted themselves into a corner. I don't have a solution to the position that I see the NDP in. And perhaps there are those here who do not agree and see the situation completely different.

I don't disagree that the public perception of the NDP is at a low ebb right now but I think its too soon to say the position is hopeless or even that bad in the long term. The party does have real opportunites when it comes to Ignatieff, (who is overhyped to an extent reminiscent of the now dead but only recently thought invincible "Harper is a strategic genius" meme that pundits of all stripes assured us was the gospel truth) whether they will be able to capitalize is to be seen. If they silently sit back while our political spectrum continues to shrink to the right then its going to be hard to stay relevant but there is room for a feisty, creative, principled party of the left in Canada. The NDP needs to get over itself a bit though and open up cooperative dialogues with the Bloc, Greens, and disillusioned left leaning Liberals to get progressive politics back on the radar in Canadian politics. Less overt partisanship will earn the party badly needed good will.

Stockholm

"The NDP needs to get over itself a bit though and open up cooperative dialogues with the Bloc, Greens, and disillusioned left leaning Liberals"

Wouldn't you say that trying to form a coalition government that involved all of the above was a major step in that direction?

melovesproles

Quote:

Wouldn't you say that trying to form a coalition government that involved all of the above was a major step in that direction?

I would.  I supported the coalition although I wished the NDP would have been clearer about its effect on their Afghanistan position and I started to get very worried when Iggy took command.  But yeah, the Federal NDP can't keep squealing its tires claiming its the only true path, it needs to build coalitions whether its for cabinet positions or to influence legislation.  The anti-Bloc sentiment needs to be confronted for Canadian progressives to make any headway, I thought Layton showed guts and I do hope the coalition was a step towards a more cooperative, collaborative progressive electoral politics.  

Stockholm

Yes but in order for the NDP to "build coalitions and influence legislation" it needs to have as large a number of seats as possible and like it or not - the only for that to happen is to come up with arguments that convince people thinking of voting Liberal, Green or BQ (as well as some errant Conservatives) that they should vote NDP instead.

I don't see an "anti-Bloc" sentiment among Canadian progressives - we were the ones we reached out to them and got them to play a role in the abortive coalition.

Cueball Cueball's picture

And then the coup in December/January. And where does that leave you? It leaves me thinking that they are never going to let you near it, if letting you near it means anything substantive.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Quote:
It should be what it has been all along.  Keep the Liberals in power for now so we can leave the fight against the eventual Conservative majority for our kids.

 

And fighting against a Conservative majority by CONCEDING a Conservative majority would have been a BETTER strategy?

You're assuming the workers and the poor would have ever forgiven the NDP for letting Harper have a landslide.  

The coalition idea was a real chance to end the Harper era early.   And it was NOT a surrender to the Liberals.

A coalition in which the Liberals needed the NDP's constant support to stay in power would have been infinitely preferable to a snap election that would have produced a Tory landslide.  

You can't honestly think that the powerless in Canada could have survived a Harper landslide(which would almost certainly have meant a two-term Tory majority based on the Mulroney example)or that the damage he'd have done could ever have been repaired, Tommy.   If nothing else, how could the NDP possibly have even survived if the party subsidies had been cut off?  You can't honestly say that losing THOSE would have been no big deal. 

Nobody was saying work for a Liberal majority.  The coalition itself would have been a stepping stone to building the NDP, since it would have let the public see NDP federal cabinet ministers in action and NDP policies being successfully carried out.  It would have been a way to fight the Tories and Toryism without the intolerable nightmare of Harper having longterm absolute dominance with no meaningful resistance.   And radical provincial governance would have been impossible as well under a Harper majority, since transfer payments would have been cut down to nothing.

Your strategy is plain old immiseration, Tommy, and making things worse so they can get better later has never built the left anywhere.

 

_____________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Nothing makes the potential that was the coalition look better than looking back on the last 4 months of government. I don't think it was a mistake to try to bring the country together by working with the other opposition parties at all.

I agree with Cueball. The actions of both the GG and Iggy were completely and entirely undemocratic. I don't think it out-of-line to say it was a coup. 

Slumberjack

The NDP should never have gotten itself involved with a coalition in the first place.  It's done far more damage to it's credibility than any perception that exists of it's policies.  There hasn't been a better time in living memory for social democratic ideals to make inroads into the minds of the public, because the concept of the role of government intervention has inadvertently been sown by the Cons through their bank and industry bailout schemes funded by massive deficits.  The NDP should be firing from all barrels at a time like this, pounding the lecterns at the riding level, with all the ridiculous Iggyisms and neo-liberal falsehoods emblazoned in bullet format as a backdrop.  The leadership and strategists who foisted this debacle onto the membership effectively tied the hands of the entire movement, when the opportunity for taking stock of the entire bankrupt apparatus of crony capitalism, and the receptiveness for alternative policies along those lines in the public has never been greater.  I don't see how the lost footing and opportunities can be regained with the current leadership.

Stockholm

"The NDP should never have gotten itself involved with a coalition in the first place."

Except that without the coalition, the November economic statement would have passed and the NDP along with the other opposition parties would be tied up in bankruptcy court trying to get protection from creditor and there would now be no staff and no money to do any of those things.

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is about the only sensible thing you have said in weeks. And don't think that this point was lost on Canadians.

Slumberjack

Stockholm wrote:
Except that without the coalition, the November economic statement would have passed and the NDP along with the other opposition parties would be tied up in bankruptcy court trying to get protection from creditor and there would now be no staff and no money to do any of those things.

Well, it's telling indeed that the NDP leadership entertained the notion of joining forces with the likes of Ignatieff to ensure it's own survival.  It merely speaks volumes that a price tag can be affixed to the ideals that were once at it's core, that the aspirations of it's supporters can be bartered away for a price.  That the ramifications emanating from the actions of the cons could play such a decisive role in triggering the reactionary sell off only compounds the irony.

Slumberjack

Cueball wrote:
That is about the only sensible thing you have said in weeks. And don't think that this point was lost on Canadians.

How gracious of you.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Probably the one single idea that soured Canadians to the coalition deal was the perception that it was done primarily to preserve the financial well being of the opposition parties. Now, of course this is unfair, but in my opinion, this fact was very much in peoples minds. Notwhistanding the justice of the position, many people are so instinctively distrustful of the motivations of the political parties because they are observant of their lackluster adherence to principle that many were certainly doubtful that the opposition would have taken the stand that they did, if the budget did not impact on the financial bottom line of the parties as it did.

Stockholm

First of all the coalition was negotiated with Dion, not Ignatieff and there was a program for government that was quite progressive and there was the prospect of NDP cabinet ministers with complete power to bring in whatever measures they wanted in the portfolios they occupied. And, if Ignatieff had been willing to adhere to that program - then i would have said good for him and good for Canada.

The point of being a political party is to try to get into some position of power so that you can exact some of the policies changes you want. I think that the NDP was right to get policy concessions from Liberal minority governments 1963-1968, 1972-1974 and 2005-2006. I think it was better to do that than to be totally obstructionsit and say that unless we can form and NDP majority government we refuse to work with anyone and we want no role in the governance of Canada.

I don't see what purpose it would have served to have all the opposition parties collective commit "hara-kiri" and cease to exist and have Canada become a one party state for the foreseeable future.

Cueball Cueball's picture

But it is a one party state. All parties are funded by the state. They exist as factions within the state structure.

Stockholm

"Probably the one single idea that soured Canadians to the coalition deal was the perception that it was done primarily to preserve the financial well being of the opposition parties."

I actually don't think that's true. The party funding stuff was taken off the table within days and polls showed that people thought Harper started thre whole crisis by trying to overplay his hand. People were "soured" on the coalition because of A. The notion of Dion becoming PM (compounded by his horrific video performance) B. Falling for the histrionics from Harper and most of the media that it was a "deal with separatists" (sic.) and C. the notion of coalition government is still a very novel concept in Canadian politics.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I know you don't think that's true. But you also seem to think that operating free of fundamental principles is attractive to voters, as can be shown by the success of the Liberals, or so you think, and whose success you hope to emulate through similar means.  

Quite wrong. The Conservative government we now see toady, was founded upon the Reform Parties stiff adherence to principle, and this, in and of itself made them attractive to voters and helped them found a powerful grass roots organization of people who thought they might at least be trustworthy in some fashion.

The money thing really stuck in peoples craw.

KenS

Stock is right: the public funding thing was definitely below the radar.

It mattered / matters to political junkies.

Stockholm

Tough, I'd rather have a few people think that be forced into bankruptcy and having to disband.

The Reform Party's "strict adherence to principle" lasted for about one year in the early 90s - then they abandoned every single solitary principle they ever had - and the more principles they banadoned the better they did in elections and their donors seemed even happier to give them money when they jettisoned everything. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

KenS wrote:

Stock is right: the public funding thing was definitely below the radar.

It mattered / matters to political junkies.

Nope. Soured the whole thing. It was the end point of many cynical wisecracks that I heard. Further, "political junkies" set the tone. They are the trend setters and the leaders of grass roots popular opinion. Political junkies are to politics what college radio programmers are to marketing new music products. That is word of mouth marketing, and how it works. You can spend a 10 million on advertising a movie, but every producer knows that after the first week it is the word of mouth that sells the film.

I've got new for you folks. People in this country just don't trust politicians.

Stockholm

What percentage of all Canadians have you personally spoken with that allows you to make your "ex cathedra" statement about what "soured" people?

I don't claim to have spoken to millions of people either - but my humble impression is that the funding issue fell of the radar screen pretty early and then the entire focus was on the "horror" of a government having the passive support of the dreaded separatists and of Dion becoming PM. Its true people don't trust politicians. They don't in Canada and they don't anywhere else and they never will. That is an immutable reality and that all parties have to work with.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The money thing set the tone. After that it was easy to insert whatever other negative spin that was necessary to snowball the bad vibe.

Besides they weren't going to let you have it anyway. They took no chances that you might be able to pull it off, and couped the government.

Stockholm

If you think they were that smart - why do you think they pulled the whole stunt in the first place - the net result has been drastically weaken Harper's authority.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Nothing predictive about it. Harper determined that he was going to bring the opposition to heal and so he engaged in some brinksmanship. Take it or leave it. Then some more, and then some more. Furthermore, its not about Harper, its about the agenda. The agenda won.

First Harper couped the government and then Iggy couped the opposition.

You really think that Harper thought you guys were going to swallow having your bankroll killed? Clear set up.

Benjamin

I think that it was brinkmanship that got out of control on Harper, but I don't think that the public's response was principally related to either funding or Dion.  I think that people bought the "this is illegitimate" argument from Harper because generally the Candian understanding of civics is rather poor.

Stockholm

Let me get this straight. You think Harper purposely tried to kill the funding knowing that the opposition would form a coalition, knowing that he would then prorogue (and that the GG would let him do it), knowing that this would create a chain reaction whereby Dion would quit and be replaced by Ignatieff on the spot - saving the Liberals vast amounts of time and money not having to have a leadership contest - knowing that Ignatieff would then decide to support the budget etc... I know some people try to play chess predicting five moves ahead - but that is ridiculously far fetched.

Think of how much more powerful a position Harper would be in right now if he had NOT tried to scrap the party funding plus a few other gratuitous poison pills that he inserted in the economic statement. It would have meant six more months of the Liberals hobbling along under Dion, broke and directionless and engaged in a fratricidal leadership race, Harper would have been even freer to do as he pleased than he is now and on top of all that, if he had simply waiting until early April about six months into his new mandate - he could THEN have tried to kill the party subsidies and there would have been no way for the opposition to stop him without sparking a snap election with Dion still leading the Liberals.

"First Harper couped the government and then Iggy couped the opposition."

Which leads us to the conclusion that Layton is now the only opposition to the Harper/Ignatieff regime.  

Cueball Cueball's picture

No. I think he purposely put the funding package in knowing that if the Liberals swallowed it he would be able to run the government as a majority government, not really considering the issue of coalition, thinking that such would be impossible. He thought rather that if the government fell quickly that everyone would be so mad that he would have a good shot at getting a majority, but that when the coalition appeared he then couped the government.

It was also clear that Dion's position was very unstable, and also that Ignatief was likely to be the next leader, and I am sure that he has some direct knowledge of what kind of game was afoot inside the Liberal Party. (I mean... how the fuck did they end up listening to that NDP conference call anyway?) He may even have talked it over with Iggy himself.

And, now that I think about it yes,  Harper had definite knowledge that the coalition might be in the game plan. They were aware of it right from the planning stages. So, yeah, Harper had definite knowledge about the Coalition. We do not that. That conference call, again.

We also know that the unswallowable amendments, obviously designed to agravate the opposition, were inserted at Harper's insistance right before the budget was to be finalized. That is interesting to.

And then it all comes down to one person. The GG, basically.

Coup.

Stockholm

That's pretty far-fetched. usually a "coup" has a purpose - I don't see what the events of last December do for Harper compared to if none of it had ever happened in the first place and the Liberals could stay in disarray for another six months. and the notion that Harper cooked it all in secret meetings with Iggy is even more far-fetched. Have you been looking at too many Spy vs. Spy cartoons from Mad Magazine??

"how the fuck did they end up listening to that NDP conference call anyway?"

The answer to that is quite simple. There are two Mps with the last name "Duncan" - one a New Democrat and one a Conservative. Someone from the NDP inadvertently sent the Tory Duncan the coordinates for the conference call and they called in and recorded the discussion. It was sleazy on the part of the Tories - but it was also negligence on the part of someone in the NDP - it wasn't about hidden bugs etc...

ocsi

So how damaging was the coalition attempt for Layton.  Apparently not much.

The latest Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey shows that 44% view Harper favourably, 45% view Ignatieff favourably and 42% view Layton favourably.

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is a stupid cover story. Even if it is true, the fact is that Harper could clearly see that part of the puzzle. I wonder, was anyone fired for this oversight? Seems like they should have been. Or was this just "persons unknown". The coalition was a known factor one way or the other. So its not about some kind of magical "prediction", its just one of a number of options.

Anyway, it doesn't matter one way or the other wether or not Harper predicted any of this because the illegal act designed to sieze power away from parliment was asking for the Parliment to be prorogued. How much forsight and planning and gambling went into it is irrelevant to that issue.

You really think that its all about Harper's personal power and that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is best for the corporations and other power brokers who run this country don't you?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Since this is at 149 posts now, I'll start a continuation thread.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Pages

Topic locked