Bryant resigns - St. Paul's by-election
Michael Bryant has quit McGuinty's cabinet to accept a job with the City of Toronto. Having been demoted after the last election from his position of Attorney-General there was clearly no love lost between Bryant and the Premier and it appears that Bryant, who was widely considered to be a possible successor to McGuinty, concluded that Dalton isn't going anywhere soon and decided that 10 years in the legislature was enough.
This sudden by-election must make John Tory go d'oh as he might have had a chance in St. Paul's - a riding once held by Isabel Bassett. The area had also been represented by Tory Larry Grossman until 1987. Indeed, John Tory is probably the only Tory who'd have a shot in St. Paul's these days. With him off the scene it'll almost certainly stay Liberal.
Who will be Bryant's successor. My guess is that the interminable headline hunter and self-promotor Josh Matlow, currently St. Paul's school trustee, will run for the nomination and will almost certainly get it unless McGuinty is thinking of trying to bolster his cabinet by using the relatively safe seat as an entry for a star candidate.
I grew up in St. Pauls. It used to be a Liberal/Tory tossup, but now it's one of the safest Liberal seats around at this point. I think the Tory brand has become toxic there among the high-income professional types. David Miller beat John Tory there in the 2003 municipal election by a wide margin. And the school funding issue didn't seem to help Tory there (arguably it hurt him) even with the large Jewish population in the riding.
I wonder how quickly McGuinty will call it.
Though the Tory vote did solidify last time in the more Jewish-y parts; but treaded water or cratered most everywhere else, as per usual. And even that might have been an illusion through Liberals being the big (and perhaps token) share losers in 2007 over 2003 (Bryant, at 47.5%, was down 7 points, while the PCs were up 2, NDP up 1, and Greens up 3--though with Bryant still the solid winner from the getgo, that was all academic anyway).
I suppose it's less a matter of simple Tory brand toxicity, than of said blue-leaning "high-income professional types" being a more limited and isolated demo than it once might have appeared--Forest Hill in and of itself is no longer capable of swinging the whole riding--and of Bryant and Carolyn Bennett having terrific cross-spectrum constituency appeal. But in a "Joyce Murray byelection" scenario, a Tory scare is possible. Still.
Then again, given the present state of party leadership, St. Paul's is the kind of seat where the second-place scare can conceivably come from the NDP...
Rob Newman didn't do that well against Michael Walker in 2006, but then, who would have?
He's the former Deputy Leader of the Ontario Greens from 2004 to 2006 who left the Green Party and is now a Liberal. Might he challenge Josh Matlow for the nomination?
Though the Tory vote did Then again, given the present state of party leadership, St. Paul's is the kind of seat where the second-place scare can conceivably come from the NDP...
Are there any significant areas of NDP strength in the riding? Any potential high profile candidates? What part of Toronto does this riding actually cover?
The riding covers roughly Bayview to Oakwood and the CPR tracks up to Eglinton. Much of it is very wealthy (esp. Forest Hill) but there are pockets of NDP support in the western half of the riding, the area represented by Joe Mihevc on City Council.
...and actually quite significant pockets of real and latent NDP support, going west of Bathurst and SW of Cedarvale ravine, i.e. with strong past histories of provincial NDP strength. Indeed, the "Wychwood Barns" orbit could just as well be painlessly annexed into Trinity-Spadina.
It's no accident that Jack Layton made a serious bid with Paul Summerville in 2006; though it probably would take a candidate of Mihevc's calibre to even cinch second place...
Who will be Bryant's successor. My guess is that the interminable headline hunter and self-promotor Josh Matlow, currently St. Paul's school trustee, will run for the nomination and will almost certainly get it unless McGuinty is thinking of trying to bolster his cabinet by using the relatively safe seat as an entry for a star candidate.
If McGuinty dislikes Bryant, he should absolutely loathe Matlow. Matlow is even more of a mediahound, and even less substantial - a perfect successor to 'Pitbull' Bryant, really.
Josh Matlow typifies everything I despise about the Liberals today - a preening pretendy and insincere weathervane of a lad, full of ambition and bullshit.
Idle curiousity question.
Given the recent turn of events- McGuinty hard pressuring the CAW to make ever more concessions- I rather doubt that Buzz Hargrove is hanging around Liberals these days.
But does anyone know whether Buzz hung out with Bryant, somewhat?
First test of Andrea Horwath's leadership anyone?
Michael Bryant was a spoiled brat who seemed to think he was entitled to whatever position he wanted. I'm glad he's gone.
And I agree with those above who say that John Tory probably wouldn't have had a strong chance in this seat anyway considering what happened to him the last time he ran in a Toronto seat and the fact that the Cons have no seats in the 416 federally or provincially.
Bump, I was reading something that former federal Winnipeg mayor turned Toronto resident Glen Murray might be a possibility, apparently he strongly considered running for the provincial Libs in Toronto-Danforth in 2007.
There is no chance for any kind of conservative candidate in St. Paul's, moderate or right-wing.
The probability is very high it will go to the Liberals.
The NDP will do well in the South and West of the riding, however to win the NDP has to take polls in the North West of the riding, which generally go Liberal.
A number of current and former Liberal MPs from other ridings live in Forest Hill, and just as people in Rosedale are happy to vote for Bob Rae, the Forest Hill people will go for whoever the Liberals tell them to.
Interesting thing I was wondering about John Tory: might he have won Don Valley West if it were an open seat? As in, plenty of DVW voters voted the way they did simply because they deemed Wynne not worth defeating, not even for the leader of the opposition. (Same logic that almost worked for Peggy Nash vs Gerrard Kennedy, or Vivian Barbot vs Justin Trudeau...)
He might of. The schools issue I'm sure hurt him there, but Kathleen Wynne certainly was personally popular. DVW is probably the most likely seat for a Tory pickup in Toronto and it's certainly more right-leaning than St. Paul's which has more "downtown intelligentsia" spillover.
Interesting thing I was wondering about John Tory: might he have won Don Valley West if it were an open seat? As in, plenty of DVW voters voted the way they did simply because they deemed Wynne not worth defeating, not even for the leader of the opposition. (Same logic that almost worked for Peggy Nash vs Gerrard Kennedy, or Vivian Barbot vs Justin Trudeau...)
What do you feel is the similarity between Peggy Nash and Vivian Barbot? That they both were popular incumbents? Both of them were defeated though, so in both cases the voters still decided to replace them when a bigger name came along in each riding.
That's where my "almost" kicks in. (And remember that in both cases, they faced 500 pound gorilla opponents who should have made a dog's breakfast out of them.)
All the analysts and parties said the races were expected to be close - as far as I know, no one was expected to win by a large margin.
In the end, Kennedy did win by several thousand votes - so he actually won by a decent margin. People were surprised at how decisively he beat Nash. As for Trudeau, the margin of victory was not as large (1200 votes) but the BQ had claimed they would be able to defeat him and they did not.
All the analysts and parties said the races were expected to be close - as far as I know, no one was expected to win by a large margin.
When it's a high-profile challenger versus an incumbent, it's good manner to speak in terms of "close". To take an extreme case, Alexa vs Mary Clancy was supposed to be "close" in 1997. And lest we forget, Kennedy blew his provincial opponents right out of the water in 1999 and 2003. It was assumed that he practically owned the provincial seat--why else were many New Democrats crying foul when he opted to run in the same seat federally? They knew, privately, that with Kennedy running, Nash was a likely goner--at least, without hard work and campaigning elbow grease.
Well, it was 43% to 36% for Kennedy, so it was still a technical "marginal". But the main reason people were surprised is because of home-stretch polls and apparent ground buzz suggesting that Peggy Nash was, indeed, winning--relative to what was assumed to be the so-called unsinkable Kennedy magic, that would have qualified as more of a surprise (though it fits the Wynne vs Tory pattern perfectly).
As I mentioned, both races were considered to be close by most people, and in the end, Kennedy won by a larger margin than anyone predicted. It was also an accomplishment to win a seat in an election in which his party's share of the vote dropped dramatically. When you pick up a riding in an election in which the party is going down, that's considered an accomplishment! His was the only Liberal pickup in Ontario.
Let's give credit where credit is due.
Since that time Kenedy has sunk without a trace and seems to have become the most low profile MP in Ottawa. i wonder if he'll even run again. By endorsing Rae the night before Rae dropped out and given the intense antipathy between Kennedy and Iggy, he has to know that if Iggy wins the next election, his chances of being appointed to anything are close to NIL.
Kennedy is on the back bench - it's true. I think Ignatieff, like most leaders, probably wants to restrain those who have supported his rivals or who he views as a leadership threat. I think Ignatieff probably views Trudeau as a rival of sorts too, although Ignatieff has taken Justin to certain events with him, and Justin was given a prominent role at the leadership convention last month so he doesn't seem to be as much of a target as Kennedy is.
I think Kennedy plans to run again though - I don't think he went to all this trouble to pack it in. He is young and will probably bide his time for a few years and plan to emerge when Ignatieff is gone.
Well, as per my point, he won by a larger margin than anyone predicted during the campaign and especially in the final days of the race, when it became clear that Peggy Nash was no mere pushover and, in fact, could be a giant-killer. And in general, he won by a larger margin than those within Babble, with its particular set of political biases, might have predicted. However, within the extra-Babble universe prior to the dropping of the writ, the margin which Kennedy won by was entirely predictable--maybe even narrower than expected.
And I'm not speaking as a Kennedyista, either. After all, that's a reason why New Democrats were crying foul, wondering why he didn't do "the proper thing" and retire Tonks out of York South-Weston or something...
I was a scrutineer in P-HP on election day and I heard two people outside the polling station saying how it was a shame that both couldn't be in parliament as they were both excellent candidates.
John Tory wouldn't have had a chance in St. Paul's. I don't think St. Paul's is winnable for the Tories anymore period, they have been averaging about 25 percent in recent elections. It is as safe a Liberal seat at this point as Mount Royal is. Don Valley West has seen them hit around 40 percent and I think is winnable in the right circumstances. Although both are affluent ridings, DVW is more suburban nouveau-riche and more "managerial class" while St. Paul's has Annex-y bits in the southwest and intelligentsia types, etc.
I was a scrutineer in P-HP on election day and I heard two people outside the polling station saying how it was a shame that both couldn't be in parliament as they were both excellent candidates.
Interesting. On the CTV Election Night coverage on Oct 14, that's exactly what Paula Todd said in her intro piece on Parkdale-High Park. She contrasted it with the other high-profile race they were covering in Papineau (Trudeau vs. Barbot) and said that unlike in that riding where the voters either love or hate the candidates, in P-HP it was a story of the voters loving 2 candidates and having to choose between them. Your comment validates exactly what Todd was saying!
Though I suspect the Papineau case is qualified by federalist vs separatist politics.
However imperfect, another case in this overall vein presently being discussed might be Jack Layton vs Dennis Mills in 2004...
And I'm not speaking as a Kennedyista, either. After all, that's a reason why New Democrats were crying foul, wondering why he didn't do "the proper thing" and retire Tonks out of York South-Weston or something...
Well Parkdale-High Park is the riding that Kennedy represented provincially, so it makes sense that he would run there federally. It's not as if he was running in a riding he had no connection too.
It is true that there are some people who would prefer not to lose strong women MP's like Nash, although I know those who feel the same about Marilyn Churley running against Maria Minna in Beaches-East York. Some Liberal women feel Churley should be running against one of the male Liberal MP's in the Toronto area (of which there are many) rather than trying to take out one of the only women MP's in Toronto.
These things are a judgment call though and a matter of opinion. I guess what's interesting though is that many of these races, whether it's a man vs. a woman or a woman vs. a woman, raise issues of gender and other subjects.
It is true that there are some people who would prefer not to lose strong women MP's like Nash, although I know those who feel the same about Marilyn Churley running against Maria Minna in Beaches-East York. Some Liberal women feel Churley should be running against one of the male Liberal MP's in the Toronto area (of which there are many) rather than trying to take out one of the only women MP's in Toronto.
That might have been an interesting point - if we ever heard a peep out of Maria Minna between elections.
Well I guess it's a moot point for the moment since Maria Minna has won twice over Marilyn Churley now, but Churley was asked some questions about why she was running against a woman MP instead of a male MP. Svend Robinson also got some criticism from the LGBT community when he ran against Hedy Fry in Vancouver Centre a few years ago because Hedy is a pro-gay pro-SSM MP and some people wanted him to run against an anti-gay MP instead.
Having said that, politics is politics - and everyone is ultimately allowed to run against whom they want, whether that person is a man or a woman or a gay man etc.
Though keep in mind that the gender issue didn't come to mind when I made my Kennedy vs Nash or Trudeau vs Barbot race judgment--just as in the end, despite murmurs here and there, neither gender nor sexual orientation had much bearing on the Tory vs Wynne race...
Not in the Tory vs Wynne race, I agree, but those issues were brought up by the media and party workers in the other races mentioned.
I really don't know if it was any more significant in the other races, in fact; if not the gender issue, part of me seems to recall the orientation issue rising re Tory vs Wynne. (Albeit not obviously centrally, more in the overzealously partisan dirty-trickster sense.)
And given how this is Babble, when it comes to "party workers", it may be more difficult to get a proper picture in a race where (as in DVW, as opposed to PHP) neither of the primary contenders are NDP.
In this example, as in the discussions above of Don Valley West and Beaches - East York, we see once again how brutal a winner-take-all system is, as well as undemocratic. In most democracies you have more than one representative accountable to an area. The obvious alternative, as most recently described in loving detail by Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer, is a regional mixed compensatory system (MMP to anglophones) with the voter able to choose which regional candidate to vote for (open list or flexible list -- both the Jenkins Commission and the Law Commission of Canada recommended flexible lists, which may matter now that the Jenkins Commission has found a new lease on life in the UK.)
In short, such star candidates as John Tory in DVW, Marilyn Churley in B-EY, and Peggy Nash in P-HP would have been at the top of, or risen to the top of, Toronto voters' preferences across the city. In the last Ontario election Toronto PC voters would have elected five regional MPPs, including John Tory, and the PC Party would not have been reduced to Wal-Mart's assistant manager from Fort Erie (not that I have anything against Fort Erie). And Kathleen Wynne would still have been the local MPP. She understands all this perfectly: she was a member of Ontario's Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Similarly, assuming the NDP got enough votes to elect a couple of additional regional MPs from Toronto, I expect Peggy Nash and Marilyn Churley would have been at, or risen to, the top of the list.
Is this yesterday's issue? But winner-take-all continues to give Canadians unworkable parliaments. As the former minister Marie Bountrogianni agreed this February, electoral reform is “unfinished business” in Ontario. And in Canada.
Is Marilyn Churley planning to run again in Beaches-East York? She has been unsuccessful twice now, so I am just curious.
I also find that she tends to attribute too much of her loss to strategic voting - in an interview after the last federal election I heard her say that she lost because of strategic voting, but I don't think that's really the case. The Conservatives aren't in contention in B-EY as it is a Liberal vs NDP riding. It appears to be that people just prefer to vote Liberal over NDP (or Minna over Churley) there.
Liberals and others promote "strategic voting" as if it is riding specific. Sometimes voters pay attention, sometimes they don't in any measurable way at all. When it does have an effect, the biggest way it manifests is for more people to vote Liberal, period. Which they do for example in SK seats where the Liberals are third, and the effect is to help the Cons. Let alone what happens in a 2 way Lib-NDP race like B-EY.
But we've argued about "strategic voting" ad nauseum here, and I doubt anyone wants to return to it. So how about we just take it as there is definitely not a view here that it is what you think it is. If Churley raised it, fine. Duly noted. Its still a massive red herring.
I guess the main point I was making about Churley wasn't strategic voting, but a tendency to blame others for her defeats in the previous 2 elections. I think if she is to be successful in the future she needs to move away from doing that and adopt a different strategy.
Losing sticks to a candidate. Being a poor sport after an election is forgotten in an eye blink [and isn't part of or associated with a strategy].
Being a poor sport is not always forgotten, and claiming strategic voting is responsible for the results in Beaches-East York has been central to Churley's campaigns. Rather than perhaps acknowledge that people prefer Minna to her or prefer voting Liberal to NDP, she insists she ran a "perfect campaign".
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081014/election200...
It is also insulting to the voters in Beaches-East York for Churley to always say that the reason they vote for Minna is because they have been told to do so strategically rather than failing to acknowledge that some people there may actually like their MP. I realize that Marilyn Churley is a friend of Jack Layton's who he has strongly wanted to get into Parliament with him, but this type of approach is not helpful.
I don't understand why Churley left the Provincial legislature. She was a good MPP there and I liked her, but her entry into federal politics has been plagued with errors so far.
One problem is that BEY is a more awkward fit for her than her provincial T-D bulwark: over there, they like a little more Prue-vian pragmatism in their New Democrats--barring that, they'll settle for Minna.
Also, I think a bit of a "sore loser" mark stuck onto Churley following the 2006 election, when she pointed blame at Mayor Miller for declining to specifically endorse her, and IIRC even threatened to run or at least campaign against him in that year's mayoral election...
"It is also insulting to the voters in Beaches-East York for Churley to always say that the reason they vote for Minna is because they have been told to do so strategically rather than failing to acknowledge that some people there may actually like their MP."
I for one refuse to acknowledge that there are more than a few people (ie: Minna immediate family a personal friends) who actually think anything of Maria Minna. She is an extremely low profile MP who has never accomplished a single thing in her political career. People just vote for her because she is the generic Liberal candidate.
I agree - Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through. I also think Marilyn Churley's "star candidate" appeal was exaggerated - she didn't do really much better than Peter Tabuns did in '04 even though it was widely believed - rightly or wrongly - that he ran a poor campaign. Demographic changes in the Beaches may have put the riding out of reach for the NDP.
Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through.
So if you have personal popularity, you win by a small margin? Doesn't seem logical. Personally popular candidates often win by large margins (eg. Maxime Bernier in Beauce).
What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.
I agree - Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through. I also think Marilyn Churley's "star candidate" appeal was exaggerated - she didn't do really much better than Peter Tabuns did in '04 even though it was widely believed - rightly or wrongly - that he ran a poor campaign. Demographic changes in the Beaches may have put the riding out of reach for the NDP.
If it were truly out of reach, Prue wouldn't hold it provincially. My feeling is that the NDP simply hasn't figured out how to translate that provincial electoral formula federally without being out-manouvred by the Liberals. And when it comes to Churley, along with other factors, I think there was a bit of the "shopworn" malaise that plagued Waddell, Nystrom etc.
And when it comes to 2008, there's two additional factors to consider: the May-led Greens (which factored in '06 too, of course--Jim Harris being the candidate--but in '08, they seemed to actually being outsigning Churley in certain neighbourhoods at a critical point in the campaign); and the Liberals' "Rae Democrat" urban-left strategy.
With that under consideration, it's worth noting that if you compare 04-06-08 polling results, Churley in '06 vastly improved on Tabuns in the "Beaches" half of the riding--what killed her is that she was flat or ceded some ground in Prue's East York beachhold. While in '08, she improved in East York--yet collapsed in the Beaches...
What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.
Toronto is a Liberal city and the vast majority of MPs win simply based on that fact.
With that under consideration, it's worth noting that if you compare 04-06-08 polling results, Churley in '06 vastly improved on Tabuns in the "Beaches" half of the riding--what killed her is that she was flat or ceded some ground in Prue's East York beachhold. While in '08, she improved in East York--yet collapsed in the Beaches...
More evidence of the "Rae Democrat urban-left strategy": in Trinity-Spadina the Libs improved their vote a bit in the Annex. I assume the carbon tax was popular among the "champagne socialist" crowd.
What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.
Toronto is a Liberal city and the vast majority of MPs win simply based on that fact.
I agree, but that doesn't mean that in some of the closer ridings between the Liberals and NDP like Beaches-East York that the popularity of the incumbent isn't relevant. Stockholm said above that he refuses to believe that Minna has any popularity of her own, but I don't think that's the case. I have seen voters who have said they like her because of things she has done for them or meetings they have had with her.
Maria Minna is also an immigrant woman and is popular with some of the immigrant communities in the riding where she has made contacts and had an impact.
Even an MP lazy with constituency work can claim lots of people who love you for that. The question is how much of that an MP has. And I rather doubt you have your ear sufficiently close to the ground in the area to make a useful assessment on that.
And even I was surprised by the amount of Innes signage in Jane Jacobs country--I guess a Margaret Atwood endorsement can get you a long way.
Somehow, my feeling is that the champagne socialists found Layton's running-for-Prime-Minister schtick a little too crass for comfort, even if it cinched the North and solidified his Hamilton/London seats. (I noticed that elsewhere, too, the NDP tended to hold their vote better in low-income zones, while the more Richard Floridian areas swung more Liberal/Greenward.)
And even I was surprised by the amount of Innes signage in Jane Jacobs country--I guess a Margaret Atwood endorsement can get you a long way.
I was surprised at how well Christine Innes did in Trinity-Spadina too, considering she took over the Liberal nomination at the last minute when Tony Ianno puled out. I was expecting Chow to win by a larger margin.
If the Liberals do better in Ontario in the next election and get their act together in that riding, they might actually contend for the seat next time around.
Olivia Chow won by the same margin as last time - 3500 votes. Both the NDP and Libs saw their vote percentages drop, as the race seemed less polarized as the Chow-Ianno matchups and people felt freer to vote Green or Tory. My feeling is quite a few "Martin Liberals" in the condos and in the Admiral Rd./"West Yorkville" pocket went Tory this time, while the Greens ate into the "creative class" NDP vote while Dion might have gotten some of the pro-carbon tax NDP vote as well.
Christine Innes was quite visible in T-S, while her provincial Liberal counterpart was almost invisible in 2007.
Olivia Chow won by the same margin as last time - 3500 votes. Both the NDP and Libs saw their vote percentages drop
But considering that the NDP vote went up in Ontario in the last federal election while the Liberal vote plummeted, the Liberal vote should have been lower than it was and the NDP vote higher in this riding. The fact that it wasn't indicates that the Liberals still have a lot of support in this riding and that the NDP will have to work hard to keep it next time if the Liberals go back up in Ontario.
But considering that the NDP vote went up in Ontario in the last federal election while the Liberal vote plummeted, the Liberal vote should have been lower than it was and the NDP vote higher in this riding.
Or, just possibly, it proves that your methodology of taking a national or provincial number and applying it evenly to every local riding is not very valid.
But considering that the NDP vote went up in Ontario in the last federal election while the Liberal vote plummeted, the Liberal vote should have been lower than it was and the NDP vote higher in this riding.
Or, just possibly, it proves that your methodology of taking a national or provincial number and applying it evenly to every local riding is not very valid.
Who says that is my methodology?
Of course there are variations from riding to riding, but when your party goes way up or way down in a province and your vote goes in the opposite direction, it sometimes says something about the candidate. The fact that Chow only won by that margin indicates that she is not the strongest candidate - she should have beaten the Liberals by a larger margin considering they dropped in most of the ridings in Ontario.
Actually the NDP vote fell in all inner-city Toronto ridings, which suggests it went beyond Olivia Chow in particular. And Dion wasn't any less popular than Martin it seems in those ridings.
Well, look at it this way--
(1) considering the size and diverse nature of Ontario, to paint it with a single polling-number brush oversimplifies things to an extreme; you might as well be judging by Canada-wide numbers, then.
(2) a lot of that increased NDP share was over-absorbed by such things as their Northern Ontario pickups and Hamilton/London holds. But in most of the rest of the province (with an assist by the eMay Greens), it was stagnant or down.
(3) T-S has been going through the kind of condo boom (Cityplace et al) that wouldn't ordinarily favour the NDP at all. (It's also the token explanation for why, provincially, Rosario Marchese held it in '07 with only 41% as well, versus a little-more-than-nominal Liberal candidate and campaign which came within 10 points, anyway. Lots of people were predicting he was headed for a 50%+ landslide.)
(4) Again, the Greens. Don't forget the eMay Greens. (Their share increased by almost as much as Chow's dropped. That wasn't an uncommon pattern, you know--and, like it or not, that *can* be viewed as a proxy for erstwhile NDP support.)
(4) And, again, however much they bombed elsewhere, the federal Grits had a very effective (and underrated) Toronto-compatible raid-the-urban-left strategy in place--of course, it didn't hurt that seven(!) of Dion's leadership-contender rivals represented or were running for seats in the 416. (And variations of that strategy also worked in Montreal--note Mulcair's close call, or or Marc Garneau's surprisingly un-close call--and Vancouver: think Byers vs Fry.)
Under such circumstances, it wasn't that Olivia Chow wasn't the strongest candidate; more that she was the strongest Fed NDP candidate possible in what would otherwise be an increasingly incompatible seat. If she stepped down prior to the 2008 election, I sincerely doubt any NDP candidate could have held Trinity-Spadina, given that election's (local) dynamics...
Oh, And to get more on-topic, remember that the NDP share fell significantly in St Paul's from '06 to '08, too. Though that's the result of a lesser-profile and somewhat perennialish candidate, coupled with a bit of a sympathy factor t/w the post-brake-line-slashing Carolyn Bennett...
Actually the NDP vote fell in all inner-city Toronto ridings, which suggests it went beyond Olivia Chow in particular. And Dion wasn't any less popular than Martin it seems in those ridings.
For the record, the closest facsimile to "inner-city Toronto ridings" where the NDP share increased were Don Valley West (due to David Sparrow's energetic campaign; but, that was working from an out-of-deposit-range electoral basement) and York South-Weston (probably in large part due to the provincial Paul Ferreira honeymoon, Alan Tonks' tired-old-hackness notwithstanding)
"Debater wrote:
But considering that the NDP vote went up in Ontario in the last federal election while the Liberal vote plummeted, the Liberal vote should have been lower than it was and the NDP vote higher in this riding."
That isn't even correct, the NDP popular vote % actually dropped very slightly in Ontario from 2006 to 2008, but the Liberal vote dropped a lot more and mostly went Tory.
Yes and no.
From 2006 to 2008 the Liberal vote in Ontario dropped by 516,783.
The Conservative vote went up 35,399.
I think the Liberals mostly stayed home.
Meanwhile the NDP vote dropped 162,445 and the Green vote went up 146,536.
We don't know that the Liberal vote stayed home - I suspect that the people who stayed home were former supporters of all the parties - there probably were a lot of Liberals who voted Tory and there were Tory voters from '06 who stayed home as well.
(4) And, again, however much they bombed elsewhere, the federal Grits had a very effective (and underrated) Toronto-compatible raid-the-urban-left strategy in place--of course, it didn't hurt that seven(!) of Dion's leadership-contender rivals represented or were running for seats in the 416. (And variations of that strategy also worked in Montreal--note Mulcair's close call, or or Marc Garneau's surprisingly un-close call--and Vancouver: think Byers vs Fry.)
Under such circumstances, it wasn't that Olivia Chow wasn't the strongest candidate; more that she was the strongest Fed NDP candidate possible in what would otherwise be an increasingly incompatible seat. If she stepped down prior to the 2008 election, I sincerely doubt any NDP candidate could have held Trinity-Spadina, given that election's (local) dynamics...
Excellent points. It seems the Greens have cut into a lot of the "anti-establishment" vote in Trinity-Spadina, plus some Annex types probably didn't like the "kitchen table"/anti-carbon tax campaign and may have actually liked Dion more than Martin. The "urban left" strategy may not be as successful with Ignatieff though. However it would be wrong to say T-S is in the bag, given how close the last race was.
"some Annex types probably didn't like the "kitchen table"/anti-carbon tax campaign"
That's probably true, but in Canada as a whole, I think that the "kitchen table"/anti-carbon tax campaign won over far more votes than it lost.
It almost certainly did...my point the carbon tax probably appeals more to "creative class" types than to just about any other demographic. I'm sure the Libs are far more concerned about winning back seats in the 905 belt and places like the Kitchener-Waterloo region than they are about swinging a few inner-city "creative class" ridings held by the NDP - what is there really besides central Ottawa, Trinity-Spadina and Outremont anyway?
Well, Halifax, parts of Winnipeg Centre, Edmonton-Strathcona, Victoria, parts of Van East maybe.
Oh god ... and of course St. John's ... but Greens not competitive there. Lots of artists though.
I'm sure the Libs are far more concerned about winning back seats in the 905 belt and places like the Kitchener-Waterloo region than they are about swinging a few inner-city "creative class" ridings held by the NDP - what is there really besides central Ottawa, Trinity-Spadina and Outremont anyway?
Well Ottawa Centre, Trinity-Spadina and Outremont are all ridings that were recently Liberal and are all ridings that the Liberals could re-take so it is normal for parties to target ridings which are within reach.
But it is true though that since the Liberals have lost so many ridings in other areas of Ontario and are so badly represented in those areas that they definitely need more representation in those places if they want to become a more national party.
"some Annex types probably didn't like the "kitchen table"/anti-carbon tax campaign"
That's probably true, but in Canada as a whole, I think that the "kitchen table"/anti-carbon tax campaign won over far more votes than it lost.
...though in doing so, it also swung the NDP in more of a blue-collar/frontier party direction. Thus, the seats it gained and vulnerable marginals it salvaged in Ontario. (And another overlooked tidbit: despite being less high-profile than Sid Ryan, Mike Shields increased the NDP share in Oshawa.)
Such "supertargeting" tactics aren't unlike British Liberal Democratic strategy over the past generation--especially in 1997, when the Lib Dems lost a share of the vote but (with an assist from the Conservative collapse) saw their seat total more than double...
...though in doing so, it also swung the NDP in more of a blue-collar/frontier party direction. Thus, the seats it gained and vulnerable marginals it salvaged in Ontario. (And another overlooked tidbit: despite being less high-profile than Sid Ryan, Mike Shields increased the NDP share in Oshawa.)
Mike Shields increased the NDP vote by 1% from 2006, but the problem was that the Conservative vote went up by a larger amount so that the Cons ended up winning the riding by a larger margin in 2008 than they did in 2006. It seems that a lot of the Liberal vote went to the Cons, and very little of it to the NDP.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/168/06results.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/168/06results.html
Yeah; well, duh, I know that. Maybe my point is more that if it were a 416/urban-left type of target seat, the NDP share would have dropped rather than risen (however slightly) under a "lesser" candidate than Sid Ryan. (Though of course, the rising spectre of the auto crisis might have helped Shields a touch...)
So what is next for Bryant -- run for mayor of toronto or run again as a lib but this time federally when carebear announces she is not running again?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/168/06results.html
Yeah; well, duh, I know that. Maybe my point is more that if it were a 416/urban-left type of target seat, the NDP share would have dropped rather than risen (however slightly) under a "lesser" candidate than Sid Ryan. (Though of course, the rising spectre of the auto crisis might have helped Shields a touch...)
I see. I guess my point was that when Sid Ryan was in the race in 04 and 06, it was closer between the Cons and the NDP. That may also have been because Liberal Louise Parkes was in the race in those 2 elections and took some votes away from the Cons. In this last election, the absence of a strong Liberal campaign in Oshawa meant that the Liberal vote dropped and the Con vote went up so the spread between the Cons and NDP was the greatest of the last 3 elections.
It seems that Oshawa is hard to dislodge the Conservatives from - federally or provincially. Even in the last provincial election when the Cons bombed under John Tory and lost ridings like Barrie, they managed to hang on in Oshawa.
Debater, don't you look at the turnout? It dropped in Oshawa from like 64% to 55% last time. Mostly all Liberals (or else, as Stockholm notes elsewhere, perhaps Libs switching Conservative and Conservatives staying home). The NDP raw vote mostly held, the Green vote was up a tidge, and the Conservative vote [wrong: increased] dropped a tidge.
Louise Parkes didn't take votes from the Conservatives. To the contrary, her raw vote declined too between 2004 and 2006, most of it going *to* the Conservatives.
When turnout changes so dramatically, you really have to look at the raw vote to figure out who went where.
From 2000 to 2008 the Liberal vote went from 16,428 --> 14,510 --> 12,831 --> 7,741
During the same time the Cons/CA/PC vote was 16,747 --> 15,815 --> 20,657 --> 19,951
And the NDP vote went from a low in 2000 of 3,979 --> 15,352 --> 17,905 --> 16,750
Turnout over that period of time went from 37,832 --> 47,905 (57%) --> 53,689 (64%) --> 48,422 (55%)
So, in 2006 both the NDP and the Conservatives grew based on folks who had previously stayed home, while the Liberal vote shrank. In 2008 the Liberal vote nearly collapsed to 16% of the vote, while the margin between Carrie and Shields increased only slightly from 5.1% to 6.6%, even as turnout declined.
Focussing only on vote share gives you an inaccurate picture of things, I'm afraid, which is the weakness of relying only on the CBC website.
Debater, don't you look at the turnout? It dropped in Oshawa from like 64% to 55% last time. Mostly all Liberals (or else, as Stockholm notes elsewhere, perhaps Libs switching Conservative and Conservatives staying home). The NDP raw vote mostly held, the Green vote was up a tidge, and the Conservative vote increased.
Louise Parkes didn't take votes from the Conservatives. To the contrary, her raw vote declined too between 2004 and 2006, most of it going *to* the Conservatives.
When turnout changes so dramatically, you really have to look at the raw vote to figure out who went where.
From 2000 to 2008 the Liberal vote went from 16,428 --> 14,510 --> 12,831 --> 7,741
During the same time the Cons/CA/PC vote was 16,747 --> 15,815 --> 20,657 --> 19,951
And the NDP vote went from a low in 2000 of 3,979 --> 15,352 --> 17,905 --> 16,750
Turnout over that period of time went from 37,832 --> 47,905 (57%) --> 53,689 (64%) --> 48,422 (55%)
So, in 2006 both the NDP and the Conservatives grew based on folks who had previously stayed home, while the Liberal vote shrank. In 2008 the Liberal vote nearly collapsed to 16% of the vote, while the margin between Carrie and Shields increased only slightly from 5.1% to 6.6%, even as turnout declined.
Focussing only on vote share gives you an inaccurate picture of things, I'm afraid, which is the weakness of relying only on the CBC website.
To be honest, I don't look at turnout very often - it is a factor, you are right, but ultimately what you are left with is the margins of victory between the candidates and the parties and those are the only hard numbers one has to deal with.
Turnout was down in most ridings across the country because turnout went down again in the last election as it has for several elections now, so that is something one is going to find across the board. It is speculated by various political scientists that Liberal turnout was way down in the last election and that they are a large bulk of those who didn't show up.
My main question about Oshawa is: how do left of centre voters win the riding and beat the Conservatives? What trends in the numbers from the past several elections can help them do this? Will next time be any different, or will it be out of reach again? I don't have a lot of hope for Oshawa based on what I'm seeing.
Btw, I happen to like the graphics and colours of the CBC riding statistics so that's why I like looking at them. They're my favourite.
Good, well if you don't look at turnout, I hope the Liberals put you in charge of the Oshawa campaign next time.
ETA: And I sincerely hope you didn't intend to include Liberals in the phrase "left of centre voters"...
ottawaobserver, your 2nd comment above is showing you taking shots at the Liberals again - try to keep your objectivity.
Most Liberals are considered left of centre voters, and it would be wise to remember that if you want us in your corner.
Btw, I don't know who I will be working for in the next election yet, but it certainly won't be in Oshawa. I don't think it's a winnable riding, and I like to work in winnable ridings!
"Most Liberals are considered left of centre voters by Liberals"
"and it would be wise to remember that if you want us in your corner." ...
Aha! "us" ... I *knew* it. No point denying it anymore. :-)
I am Liberal leaning yes, but I also vote NDP and am a Liberal-NDP swing supporter as I have said. I voted NDP during the Martin years as I have already said on previous threads and as also mentioned previously, I was a Broadbent supporter.
And another thing ... this meme that Liberals have been trying to invoke around the blogs and boards, namely that NDPers should be nice to Liberals or you won't do business with us, is just hogwash.
Liberals and NDPers will do business when it is in their mutual interest and in the public interest. And, apparently, not otherwise, given Paul Martin's rather famous quote to Layton "Jack, you don't have the votes" when we wanted to get some concessions on healthcare in return for supporting the government.
To think otherwise is deluded. At least this time around, Iggy will have gone through the indignity of his first election campaign and may be slightly less given to the insufferable arrogance and sense of entitlement he's carried around since January. Imagine if we'd been in a coalition with *that*. Yuck.
Well, probably not for the Liberals except under Chretien-era circumstances. Then again, if we were to extrapolate from the '04 three-way, had Martin's campaign not swooned into minority territory over the course of the campaign, Louise Parkes probably would have won.
And as far as "winnable" NDP ridings go: well, if you write off Oshawa, you might as well write off everything in Ontario the NDP doesn't presently hold.
Provincially, Oshawa's dilemma has probably been caught up in Howard Hampton's stubborn inability to gain a seat in anything other than a byelection (until Hamilton East-Stoney Creek last time). And as we've seen, Jack Layton doesn't have that problem. But the problem here is--face it--the federal Tories in Ontario are operating from a base of strength. They didn't lose any of their '04 pickups in either '06 or '08: Colin Carrie's advantage has been, by and large, one of being the incumbent for the winning party. But given the 3-way-supermarginality of the '04 race, it's plausible to imagine a reverse scenario where Parkes won, and Carrie was third--and under such a Hamiltonian scenario, Sid Ryan actually might have had a stronger chance of winning in '06, and holding in '08. But Carrie won; and that's been his automatic mealticket for two reelections thus far.
And, I'm sorry--don't pretend that the Liberals are so purely "left of centre"; or at least that their voting base has been. And that's not partisan sniping; even the Liberals themselves know they represent the centre. That's why they're a catchbasin for votes left and right; and likewise, why they can shed votes in both directions. The Carrie voters do include former Parkes voters; indeed, the stronger Carrie polls in 04-06 also tended to be the stronger Parkes polls...
Why in the hell would the NDP need the Liberals in their corner, debator? Moreover, they are too busy being in Harper's corner to be in anyone else's corner.
And as for the implied threat it contains, following the hyprocritical criticizing of someone taking shots at the Liberals, I must say you are piece of what is truly ugly about the Liberal Party!
And btw, what "Martin" years? He was never in power for a year, let alone"years".
~
OO, I simply do not get how Iggy can have a sense of entitlement, seeing as how he had to be appointed, as he could not get elected in a open Liberal election. So it must be a natural state of being. What it will bring him to do when he loses, again just like he did the leadership race is up for debate. I suspect he will run away pouting at the nerve of Canadians!
How about Trinity-Spadina?
When analyzing Oshawa votes from 2000 to 2008, you should keep in mind that a lot of new houses have been built in North Oshawa during that period. This is not a strong point for the NDP vote.
That's interesting ... would the folks who bought them have been affected by the difficulties in the auto industry, though? Generally new homebuyers would not be our base demographic, but if they were worried about their mortgage in this climate do you think that would make a difference?
Wilf hasn't had a chance to answer that question about the demographics of who moves into North Oshawa, and have not been there [presumably ugly as sin], but typically not many would be autoworkers. Autoworkers being older, and a great many new residents being commuters.
On that same theme, Ottawa Centre might be closer to home.
Why in the hell would the NDP need the Liberals in their corner, debator? Moreover, they are too busy being in Harper's corner to be in anyone else's corner.
And as for the implied threat it contains, following the hyprocritical criticizing of someone taking shots at the Liberals, I must say you are piece of what is truly ugly about the Liberal Party!
And btw, what "Martin" years? He was never in power for a year, let alone"years".
~
OO, I simply do not get how Iggy can have a sense of entitlement, seeing as how he had to be appointed, as he could not get elected in a open Liberal election. So it must be a natural state of being. What it will bring him to do when he loses, again just like he did the leadership race is up for debate. I suspect he will run away pouting at the nerve of Canadians!
1. The NDP needs Liberal voters in certain ridings to win seats and hold seats, that is my main point. Liberal-NDP swing voters need to work together to defeat the Conservatives in certain seats. That is the case in Edmonton-Strathcona for example. Linda Duncan's political future depends to a large extent on her ability to hold Liberal votes - she can't do it on NDP votes alone. What happened in E-S in the last election is that Liberal voters went NDP and helped her win - the Conservative vote did not actually go down much in E-S. That is why it is important the NDP doesn't alienate Liberal supporters.
2. There you go again with the Ignatieff was appointed because he couldn't get elected line. That is not true. He was the leading contender in both leadership races - he was the leader in 06 until the final ballot, and he was the leader again in 08 and was going to win. The other candidates dropped out to prevent drawing out a foregone conclusion and wasting money and to get a leader in place against Harper now rather than wasting. Ignatieff was then officially elected in May.
Big deal if some Liberal wants to act as if he is within reach of the NDP.
The NDP does need Liberal voters in its corner, but it doesn't need Liberals.
Nice try at spinning the coup d'état, but I don't buy it.
Never mind. They're stuck with Iggy now, thank heavens. And I, for one, am done with "Debating" one particular poster.
And as for the implied threat it contains, following the hyprocritical criticizing of someone taking shots at the Liberals, I must say you are piece of what is truly ugly about the Liberal Party!
And btw, what "Martin" years? He was never in power for a year, let alone"years".
~
OO, I simply do not get how Iggy can have a sense of entitlement, seeing as how he had to be appointed, as he could not get elected in a open Liberal election.
1. The NDP needs Liberal voters in certain ridings to win seats and hold seats, that is my main point. Liberal-NDP swing voters need to work together to defeat the Conservatives in certain seats. That is the case in Edmonton-Strathcona for example. Linda Duncan's political future depends to a large extent on her ability to hold Liberal votes - she can't do it on NDP votes alone. What happened in E-S in the last election is that Liberal voters went NDP and helped her win - the Conservative vote did not actually go down much in E-S. That is why it is important the NDP doesn't alienate Liberal supporters.
Ah, now this comment is telling, first of all you say the NDP needs "Liberal voters" and thus you take primary ownership of them, even though you recognize them as "swing voters" later. Swing voters are just that, they are owned by no one, and thus they are not "Liberal" by any stretch of the objective imagination. That they may have at one time supported the Liberals does not mean they are "Liberals". Moreover, the numbers in ES indicate that the riding has been trending NDP, over Liberal, since the 2000 election.
2008 Linda Duncan wins by a 31.5% margin over the Liberals, who shed 5000 votes.
2006 Linda Duncan wins by a 14.7% margin over the Liberals and the Liberals shed 5000 more votes in this election
2004 the NDP candidate falls short of the Liberal candidate for second place by only 5.2% and they doubled their vote share from the 2000 election. The Liberals shed 2500 votes in this election too.
2000 the NDP are 15.8% behind the Liberals.
So...from this we can see that indeed, if the votes belong to anyone in ES, they now belong to the NDP, as I would classify them as NDP supporters now, they left the Liberal Party who could not beat out Jaffer, and did not go back. Moreover, they have invested in Linda's being elected, and one doubts that they would throw their investment away because the Liberal Party believes they own their votes from 9 long years ago, when they could not even beat Jaffer.
It absolutely is true, the reality is he LOST in the final ballot, he did not win. The reality is there was NO election to see if he could win, he was appointed. Comments stating he was leading in '08 mean sfa, there was no leadership contest to see if this was actually the foregone conclusion case amongst the Liberal base who did not choose him in 06. He was appointed and nothing more, and as such he goes down as one who could not get elected and had to be appointed.
And BTW, why did you need a new leader in place supposedly "against" Harper, Iggy has done nothing different than Dion did. They both have been "for" Harper every step of the way, and Iggy has been even more so "for" Harper than Dion was.
h/t to Pundit's Guide for the numbers
2008 Linda Duncan wins by a 31.5% margin over the Liberals, who shed 5000 votes.
2006 Linda Duncan wins by a 14.7% margin over the Liberals and the Liberals shed 5000 more votes in this election
2004 the NDP candidate falls short of the Liberal candidate for second place by only 5.2% and they doubled their vote share from the 2000 election. The Liberals shed 2500 votes in this election too.
2000 the NDP are 15.8% behind the Liberals.
So...from this we can see that indeed, if the votes belong to anyone in ES, they now belong to the NDP, as I would classify them as NDP supporters now, they left the Liberal Party who could not beat out Jaffer, and did not go back. Moreover, they have invested in Linda's being elected, and one doubts that they would throw their investment away because the Liberal Party believes they own their votes from 9 long years ago, when they could not even beat Jaffer.
Though I'd qualify, or at least elaborate on, the swing to the NDP in certain regards. 2000, remember, was still Alexa-era NDP, and the McLellan/Kilgour-era federal Liberals were still viewed as the rightful/generic official-opposition choice in Redmonton. 2004 was Layton-era; however, the Liberal candidate was a "star" of sorts (MLA Debby Carlson), and the NDP's Malcolm Azania was tripped up by "Usenetgate"--that he still did as well as he did, though, (24%) could easily be viewed as a foretelling of future strength. A much more nominal Liberal candidate basically handed things over in the Linda Duncan direction in '06; and '08 completed that process.
So, the Liberals went from trying, to stopping trying; and the NDP went from bumbling to succeeding. And this is the Western Provinces, where voters are accustomed to dropping the Liberal party like a hot potato if the NDP's seen as a more than suitable "non-Tory" proxy.
But on the whole, I wouldn't overdwell upon the "Liberal voters" issue. Voter identity is fluid and unpredictable; and in another Edmonton case (David Kilgour's old seat), said voters were more likely to default Conservative. And ultimately, it isn't a simple matter of NDPers not alienating Liberal supporters; it's a matter of them not alienating the voting public--period. That's what builds electable credibility.
Yet for every Edmonton Strathcona, there's more than any number of cases where ill-placed "vote strategically, vote Liberal: the NDP can't win" tactics have handed seats over to the Tories.
This obsession with "uniting the left" eternally bugs me. In Canadian terms, I suppose the hysteria dates back to the 1988 "free trade" election, the business of more people voting against free trade than for, yet the split resulted in the "losing" side winning--yeah, as if the election was only about free trade, as if that were the only issue defining voting choices. Look, if you want something that clear-cut, do it through a straight referendum, not an election. Or if through an election, better that it be a preferential model a la Australia or a two-stage model a la France, which at least gives voters more incentive to vote for the lesser of two evils...
Edit: And given that this is an Ontario thread, keep in mind that under an Australian or French model, Mike Harris could have still won in '95 and '99.
And btw, what "Martin" years? He was never in power for a year, let alone"years".
I didn't notice this before, so I just wanted to comment on it briefly. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Martin was "never in power for a year, let alone 'years'".
Paul Martin's official dates as Prime Minister of Canada are from December 12, 2003 until February 6, 2006:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/primeministers/h4-3525-e.html
Now, for all intents and purposes, his time as Prime Minister basically ended in late 2005 when the government fell and the election began, but he was certainly not in power for less than a year as you stated above.
This is why I am trying to politely suggest that in the future you not get so emotional when you post about people you don't like. Don't allow your emotion to cloud your objectivity.
I never saw this before you noted it in another thread, so I will repost my response from there, over here too.
~
Semantics pehaps, but I do not call a collapsing scandal plagued minority government being "in power". So as far as I can see he was in power, for a little over 7 months, and amazingly did nothing with his 7 month majority even.
The only reason why Harper, is "in power" with his minority, is because the Liberals, have allowed him to be.
Well said.
This obsession with "uniting the left" eternally bugs me. In Canadian terms, I suppose the hysteria dates back to the 1988 "free trade" election, the business of more people voting against free trade than for, yet the split resulted in the "losing" side winning--yeah, as if the election was only about free trade, as if that were the only issue defining voting choices. Look, if you want something that clear-cut, do it through a straight referendum, not an election.
Interesting observations about the anti-Free Trade movement, having rammifications on the whole vote strategically Liberal meme of today. Especially given the Liberals went even further than Mulroney.
Well said.
Yes, Ignatieff has voted with Harper on a number of occasions and that is something he is going to have to explain to the Canadian people.
But as Andrew Coyne said last month on the At Issue end of session panel, if you don't vote with the government when you are in a minority Parliament, the government falls and you generate an election. As Coyne said, it's not easy being Official Opposition leader in that situation because you can't bring the government down when the country doesn't want an election and so you are stuck supporting the government. As Coyne said, Ignatieff has had a difficult job in that sense. That doesn't change the fact though that as you point out, he will have to answer the NDP's questions as to why he has supported Harper quite often.
As to the other question above, the Liberals needed a leader in place in case of another election. They didn't want to go into another election with Dion at the helm and so they wanted Ignatieff as leader in case of a possible election if the government fell over the budget vote in early 2009 or if the coalition went ahead.
Unadulterated Bullshit.
Under Dion, holding leadership of the coalition, there would have been no need for an election. And Dion had agreed to step aside within the Liberal Party for a democratic and proper leadership race six months down the road.
Once again you feel the need to try to justify the coup, and once again you fail.
LTJ, first of all, if you need to swear to make a point, that says something.
And secondly, I don't have to justify anything - I'm just explaining what happened and also discussing some of the political analysis that has been done on the subject by the At Issue panel and elsewhere.
Incidentally, Dion should not have entered into the coalition - it was not something his party was really behind and it was something that the majority of Canadians opposed. Dion was also supposed to resign and allow an interim leader to take over - not to hang on for 6 months when he wasn't wanted. But when Dion provoked the possibility of the coalition or an election on the January budget, it became necessary for a new leader to be put in place faster. No one wanted Dion at the helm of another election except the Conservatives.
He couldn't even properly deliver the coalition speech video.
"it became necessary for a new leader to be put in place faster."
Yep, the loser from the actual democratic leadership race, which says it all. If the Liberal Party controllers do not like the party's leadership choice, they will just remove said person and appoint whomever they want.
More Bullshit - and you can shove your little lectures on 'language', BTW.
If leading Liberal insiders had supported the leader that the rank and file elected, there would have been no issue. And if those same insiders had stood up on their hind legs to challenge the Harper disinformation campaign right from the beginning, it never would have taken hold in the public's mind. Instead, they sabotaged Dion at every opportunity.
BTW debater, who the fuck do you think you are, to dictate to the elected leader of the party?
"Incidentally, Dion should not have entered into the coalition - it was not something his party was really behind"
The only alternative to the coalition would have been for the Liberals to have voted in favour of the economic statement, including the end of subsidies to the parties - which in turn would have caused the Liberal party to immediately file for bankruptcy protection.
Never mind, Stockholm, they can always do that after the next election when Harper brings that proposal back again. Goofs.
"Incidentally, Dion should not have entered into the coalition - it was not something his party was really behind"
The only alternative to the coalition would have been for the Liberals to have voted in favour of the economic statement, including the end of subsidies to the parties - which in turn would have caused the Liberal party to immediately file for bankruptcy protection.
No it wasn't the only alternative - the 3 opposition parties could have just said they were going to vote against it without the need to rush into a coalition. Harper faced a lot of heat over provoking that crisis and he backed off and agreed to remove it from the economic statement and he was dropping in the polls.
As Andrew Coyne explained on the final At Issue panel at the end of June, what the opposition parties did by rushing into the coalition was to turn the heat on themselves and take it off the Conservatives.
The opposition parties were not prepared for the PR war, which we have to admit the Conservatives won. Canadians viewed the coalition as trying to overturn the results of the election because the opposition parties forgot that Canadians are not used to coalition governments like they are in Europe and the Conservatives exploited that.
Quebecers were on side which was good, but the rest of the country was not. You also have to remember that it would have caused an uproar in Western Canada and harmed national unity and would have damaged Liberal and NDP prospects in Western Canada for years to come. Doesn't that matter to some people here?
We have to be objective and look at both the positives and negatives of the coalition and I get the sense that some here viewed it as entirely positive and wanted to leap first and look later.
The Conservatives 'won' because they went unchallenged - and they went unchallenged because the coup was supported by the PTB within the Liberal Party. These same backroom powerbrokers had already decided that Dion was finished, and they were not going to allow him a chance to redeem himself.
And as we see now, in one of the latest polls on majority/minority govts and so on, voters have warmed up to a liberal/NDP coalition govt. That's 45% for and 42% against.
Harris Decima poll
Too bad the Brains in the liberal party didn't bother to fight for a coalition govt, instead of wanting the whole prize for themselves. Perhaps, they were too scared that the Canadian people would "really, really like this coalition" and realize that the liberals aren't the end all and the only alternative. To me, that was what it was really about - so they could continue to pretend they are on the left and the only alternative.
They knew by sharing power with the NDP that in the long run, their days would be numbered. Canadians lose.
So any bets on who the Libs and Cons are going to run?
Please continue in a new thread. Closing for length.