Federal Election: started March 21, 2015

466 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Annulation d'une activité de Blaney où une arme était à gagner

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Annulation d'une activité de Blaney où une arme était à gagner

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

This is so stupid from the Conservatives that I cannot help but wonder if the source of this article published on April 2nd is an April Fools joke.

This is hardly the type of initiative that could bring them back in contention in Québec.

sherpa-finn

And news that Shelly Glover will not be re-offering for St Boniface in the next election....  I guess that's what makes it "Good Friday".

sherpa-finn

And 30 minutes later, now its Christian Paradis announcing that he too will be checking out of the SS Harper. 

Give the rats some space on the way to the lifeboats ....

Debater

Federal cabinet ministers Paradis, Glover won't seek re-election

International Development Minister Christian Paradis and Heritage Minister Shelly Glover won't seek re-election, the senior federal Conservative members said today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christian-paradis-shelly-glover-federal-...

josh

sherpa-finn wrote:

And 30 minutes later, now its Christian Paradis announcing that he too will be checking out of the SS Harper. 

Give the rats some space on the way to the lifeboats ....

That riding will almost assuredly stay Con.

David Young

With two more cabinet ministers announcing that they won't be seeking re-election, Shelly Glover and Christian Paradis, it makes one wonder what all that internal polling done by the Conservatives has been showing them.

I always thought Glover was a potential leadership candidate once Harper goes.  Or perhaps she's taking a cue from Jim Prentice and is getting out before a Conservative defeat leaves a tainted smell, and planning a leadership bid from the sidelines.

More rats jumping from a sinking ship?

 

Debater

Although it's tempting to do so, we shouldn't assume this means the Conservatives are in big trouble.

However, it may be a sign of other issues concerning Harper's leadership (reports say that John Baird was getting tired of Harper's arrogance).

Paradis was not getting along well with Harper according to David Akin, and he had been demoted and surpassed by Steven Blaney.  But he probably still would have been re-elected in Mégantic-L'Érable.

As for Glover, she was more vulnerable.  With the Liberals in 2nd in Manitoba because of the NDP decline, a riding like Saint Boniface is more competitive again, and LPC is running a strong candidate with Dan Vandal.  David Akin & Eric Grénier have both predicted it will go Liberal.

So while Conservative support has recovered Nationally because of the terrorism bump, it has still remained well below the 39.8% the CPC got in May 2011.

NorthReport

This is serious stuff and the government needs to stop lying to us.

Leaked documents contradict CFIA claims, as Lilydale recall grows

http://calgaryherald.com/news/national/leaked-documents-contradict-cfia-...

NorthReport

Here is an excellent article on the state of politics in Canada and what could lie ahead

Cons - Pop Vote  

2004 - 29.6%

2006 - 36.3 %

2008 -  37.7%

2011 - 39.6%

 

Cons - Seats

2004 - 99 seats

2006 - 124 seats

2008 - 143 seats

2011 - 166 seats

 

NDP - Pop Vote

2004 - 15.7%

2006 - 17.5%

2008 - 18.2%

2011 - 30.6%

 

NDP - Seats

2004 - 19 seats

2006 - 29 seats

2008 - 37 seats

2011 - 103 seats

 

Numbers Win Elections, and Here Are the Key Ones

To start, Canada's 42nd general vote is only 200 days from today.

15.7 per cent (2004), 17.5 per cent (2006), 18.2 per cent (2008), and 30.6 per cent (2011):

If the Conservatives' incremental rise in vote-share over the last decade surprises, the upward trajectory of the New Democratic Party's popular vote -- nearly doubling from just under 16 per cent to almost 31 per cent between 2004 and 2011 -- is simply stunning.

The biggest gain, of course, took place four years ago in Quebec where the NDP soared to 42.9 per cent of valid votes (and 59 seats), up from 4.6 per cent (and no seats) in 2004.

That dramatic and historic performance overshadows the New Democrats' significant rise over the same period in Canada's most populous province, Ontario, where the party grew its vote-share from 18.1 per cent to 25.6 per cent -- and from seven to 22 seats.

So, consider this: the 2004 general election -- the first in which the late Jack Layton was party leader -- ended with just seven of the NDP's 19 seats coming from Ontario and Quebec. That was 36.8 per cent of his total caucus.

In 2011, however, Canada's two most-populous provinces contributed a whopping 81 MPs to Layton's 103-member caucus -- or 78.6 per cent of the total.

Clearly, the federal New Democrats over the last decade have established a formidable beachhead in central Canada.

And that raises a question as to the fundamental strategy Thomas Mulcair, who succeeded Layton as party leader in March 2012, will pursue over the next 200 days.

Do the NDP concentrate their campaign efforts -- and focus their election platform -- on Quebec and Ontario in an effort to consolidate the historic gains of 2011?

Or will the party widen its outlook in the hope of winning new seats in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Atlantic Canada, so as to form a majority government or a strong minority?

Such are the strategic challenges facing Mulcair's New Democrats as their party gears up to fight its first-ever election as Canada's official opposition.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/04/03/Key-Canadian-Election-Numbers/

--------

800

NorthReport

How refreshing to read such an interesting article without the mainstream press corporate agenda and their usual negativity towards the NDP crap.

Maybe the NDP can win a majority government after all, eh!  Smile

Quote:
On Feb. 22, 1980, voters went to the polls in Canada's 32nd general election -- just 275 days after voting (on May 22, 1979) in the country's 31st general tilt.

In the earlier contest, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives had won 136 of the House of Commons' 282 seats, six shy of the 142 needed for a majority.

The Tories subsequently (on Dec. 13, 1979) were defeated in a House budgetary vote and politicians quickly headed to the hustings. In the later contest, Pierre Trudeau's Liberals captured a bare parliamentary majority with 147 seats.

The 275-day period between the 1979-1980 general elections was the shortest in Canadian history. Next was the 294-day gap between tilts in 1957-1958 and 1962-1963.

So, in the event that no party is returned with a majority -- or even a strong minority -- on Oct. 19, it's likely that we'll be heading to the polls once again in another nine or 10 months.

A "do over" as it were, in July or August 2016. Is that really how Canadians want to spend their summer?

 

bekayne

Four years ago, Harper's Conservatives captured 166 seats -- sufficient then for an 11-seat advantage over the combined sum of all other parties, but four shy of the total now required for a majority in the expanded House of Commons.

Simply, the Tories in October must pick up a handful of additional seats merely to retain their majority.

Of the 30 new seats, 22 of them would have been won by the Conservatives

 

josh

Which raises the (ultimately fruitless) question, where would things stand were Layton alive today?

NorthReport

Perhaps the NDP can pick up John Duncan's seat, and a few others on Vancouver Island as well.

Conservatives vote out An Act to Defend the Pacific Northwest

http://www.thenorthernview.com/news/298394691.html

sherpa-finn

Bekayne posted: Simply, the Tories in October must pick up a handful of additional seats merely to retain their majority.

True enough, - but the arithmetic is just not there for them, - not yet, anyhow.

The CPC vote peaked in 2011 and while their seat count will certainly benefit from the added seats, they are still well short of anything resembling a majority in 2015.  They will lose seats in Atlantic Canada, Sask and Alberta. They may well pick up a handful in Quebec where their 2011 numbers were uncharacteristically low.

So the fight for a majority will take place in Ontario and BC.  And the way things are looking, the Harper Cons will be lucky to hold their seats there, never mind grow them, as they must. 

FWIW, the rest of us are just background noise.

NorthReport

The Cons have double the money of the Liberals, triple the $ of the NDP

Why have the Conservatives peaked?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
The Cons have double the money of the Liberals, triple the $ of the NDP Why have the Conservatives peaked?

Because eventually the same ads over and over stop being deal breakers and the weight of what people have seen from other sources takes over.

You cannot buy every election with ads. Other factors grow and eventually catch up. The longer you stay in power the more that is.

Harper was too arrogant to resign last summer or fall when he should have. He is bringing his party into an election where his removal will become the most significant issue of the campaign. He may win but the risk he is taking, chance of loss, is increased due to his tenure. He is now his party's biggest problem.

It is clear Harper cannot win a clean campaign. It is not clear that he can even get away with a dirty one. A win by Harper is defined as more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. This is the case due to his actions. He has put those two parties with a gun to their heads forcing them to govern if they are able to becuase their supporters hate Harper so much that they would destroy their own parties rather than accept a deal that would keep Harper in power if it can be avoided.

If Harper had resigned Trudeau could have allowed the next conservative leader a chance but if it is Harper, Trudeau would be inclined personally to defeat him even if his policies might not be different. Trudeau's supporters and even MPs would split badly if the Liberals picked Harper over the hated NDP. The NDP would not want to support a Trudeau government if the NDP came in third but they would be forced to just as the Liberals would be forced to accepting Mulcair as PM should the NDP get more seats than they and the combination exceed 170. there will not be enough time for the Conservatives to wipe the stain of Harper in the period between the election and the crafting of a government.

Harper did this to himself. There is a reason most PMs do not last this long. It is becuase their better judgement lets them know when to go rather than risk taking their party over a cliff with them. Harper is a special breed who in the end would prefer to risk devastating loss of his party rather than give up personal power. This may be because he does not see where he ends and his party begins. It is truly the Harper government not the Conservative government. By branding it as such he has also branded any of his MPs who would be his successor as a Harper Conservative.

Harper's party is now so toxic to any other party that a deal with him would be as devastating as a deal with the BQ would have been had it gone ahead. This is no longer about logic. This is gut emotion held firmly by the supporters of the Liberal party as well as the NDP.

NorthReport

That's a nice pipe dream but in the next few months before the writ is dropped the Cons will be spending big coin reinforcing the meme that Trudeau is not competent to govern and those ads combined with Trudeau's behaviour have already been paying off

And usually voters vote with their pocketbook and whoever they feel will give them the best opportunity to earn a living and pay their bills will get their vote

Right now Harper and the Cons are either in 1st place or not far from it and that's an excellent place to be after 9 years in power and six months from the next election

All the other stuff is just noise

NorthReport

Having to drag Paul Martin out to talk about the budget kinda smacks of Liberal desperation doncha think!

Hasn't Trudeau got any current MPs that can make economic comments?

NorthReport

How many families will be receiving $200 a month per child under 6 starting soon brought to you by a friendly Conservative government near you who believes that you the Canadian voter can decide for yourself better than the government how best to spend your money? And these cheques will continue if you re-elect us. That's 2 votes per household
Right there isn't it?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
That's a nice pipe dream but in the next few months before the writ is dropped the Cons will be spending big coin reinforcing the meme that Trudeau is not competent to govern and those ads combined with Trudeau's behaviour have already been paying off And usually voters vote with their pocketbook and whoever they feel will give them the best opportunity to earn a living and pay their bills will get their vote Right now Harper and the Cons are either in 1st place or not far from it and that's an excellent place to be after 9 years in power and six months from the next election All the other stuff is just noise

With respect you are missing the distinction between a plurality and a wroking majority with confidence in the House.

I do expect the Cons to sit in first place and a more even split between the NDP and the Liberals with them getting a total over 170 seats.

I would be delighted if the Liberals kept Harper in power in this circumstance as it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year but I do not hold out ope of that. Either way Harper is gone in less than a year or this year. The Liberals either work with the NDP or go over a cliff.

The only bad scenario would be either a Liberal or Conservative majority and there is little risk of either right now.

NorthReport

Every family who has children 18 years of age or less will receive a cheque from the Conservative government for $420 in July

What is the NDP going to give Canadians?

There is a good article about this on CBC website entitled
Harper reincarnates family allowance with universal child-care benefit

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do expect the Cons to sit in first place and a more even split between the NDP and the Liberals with them getting a total over 170 seats.

I would be delighted if the Liberals kept Harper in power in this circumstance as it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year but I do not hold out ope of that. Either way Harper is gone in less than a year or this year. The Liberals either work with the NDP or go over a cliff.

The only bad scenario would be either a Liberal or Conservative majority and there is little risk of either right now.

1.  The Liberals were written off after the 2011 Election (as the NDP once was), so I think we should refrain from making predictions like "it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year".  This is total supposition and is at odds with historical trends.

2.  Why would you be "delighted" if there was no more Liberal Party?  As has been explained many times, until the day when the NDP can win over centrist voters (blue liberals/red tories), the Liberals perform a valuable role that the NDP cannot.  The Conservatives know that the Liberals are a bigger threat than the NDP.  When the Liberal Party does badly, it helps the Conservatives.  As Gerry Nicholls says, Harper believes that if it's just the Conservatives vs. the NDP, the Conservatives will win nearly every time.

3.  There certainly isn't going to be a Liberal Majority.  I've never believed there would be.  But once again I would be cautious about ruling out the possibility of a Conservative Majority.  We saw what happened 4 years ago when people thought that couldn't happen.

4.  Once again, people cannot assume that Harper will be "gone in less than a year or this year".  Harper will go when he is ready - not before.  As the Paul Wells book The Longer I'm Prime Minister shows, Harper's goal is to stay in power for as long as possible.  He wants to establish conservatism as the natural governing ideology in this country.  It's risky for people to assume that he will leave if he wins a Minority.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:
Having to drag Paul Martin out to talk about the budget kinda smacks of Liberal desperation doncha think! Hasn't Trudeau got any current MPs that can make economic comments?

Current MPs would be revealing Liberal policy which isn't going to happen before the platform is released. Paul Martin wasn't sent by the Liberal party. He accepted an invitation to speak and does so in his own right as a former PM and well-respected FM. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
He has put those two parties with a gun to their heads forcing them to govern if they are able to becuase their supporters hate Harper so much that they would destroy their own parties rather than accept a deal that would keep Harper in power if it can be avoided.

If Harper had resigned Trudeau could have allowed the next conservative leader a chance but if it is Harper, Trudeau would be inclined personally to defeat him even if his policies might not be different. Trudeau's supporters and even MPs would split badly if the Liberals picked Harper over the hated NDP. The NDP would not want to support a Trudeau government if the NDP came in third but they would be forced to just as the Liberals would be forced to accepting Mulcair as PM should the NDP get more seats than they and the combination exceed 170.

.....

Harper's party is now so toxic to any other party that a deal with him would be as devastating as a deal with the BQ would have been had it gone ahead. This is no longer about logic. This is gut emotion held firmly by the supporters of the Liberal party as well as the NDP.

I disagree. Harper still has a very high approval rating, above that represented by people who would vote for him. I think Canadians would expect him to have a chance at governing, at least giving a throne speech and an opportunity to present a budget before bringing down the government.

I think Canadians would expect all representatives to consider legislation before them before deciding whether or not to vote for it. We do not live under a PR system. A minority government doesn't have to make deals to co-govern with other parties. They present legislation and the government falls if they lose the confidence of the house.

I think Canadians would consider a coalition led by either Mulcair or Trudeau if they had a specific reason to reject legislation. I don't think such a government would last long.

NorthReport

As I have said Harper gets the most number of seats and he will be there until another election
He did it before and he will do it again
The only possible way to stop Harper governing is for the NDP to get a majority government

NorthReport

-

Pierre C yr

Anyone hear about this?

 

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/blog/?p=1267

 

Harper may start drafting Canadian youth if re-elected

**STORY WAS REMOVED FROM CBC, ANYONE SEE THIS ON CBC??**

Did John Baird resign over proposed conscription bill?

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2015 1:34 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 3:16 PM ET

 

When former foreign affairs minister John Baird announced in February he would be resigning from cabinet, there was one secret he was keeping: his falling out with the Prime Minister over Harper’s plan to introduce a conscription bill shortly after the federal election.

 

In a February interview with CBC’s chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, Baird said he didn’t want to become one of the “lifers” in federal politics. He had made the decision to leave politics to pursue career opportunities in the private sector.

Pierre C yr
sherpa-finn
scott16

NorthReport wrote:
How many families will be receiving $200 a month per child under 6 starting soon brought to you by a friendly Conservative government near you who believes that you the Canadian voter can decide for yourself better than the government how best to spend your money? And these cheques will continue if you re-elect us. That's 2 votes per household Right there isn't it?

 

I was just letting you know the math for this whole situation. 200/month equals 2400. The cost of daycare for 1 kid in Toronto per month is 1676 according to the Toronto Star. For one year that adds up to 20112.

Harper is giving people $2400 to pay for something that costs $20112.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
A win by Harper is defined as more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. This is the case due to his actions. He has put those two parties with a gun to their heads forcing them to govern if they are able to becuase their supporters hate Harper so much that they would destroy their own parties rather than accept a deal that would keep Harper in power if it can be avoided.

If Harper had resigned Trudeau could have allowed the next conservative leader a chance but if it is Harper, Trudeau would be inclined personally to defeat him even if his policies might not be different. Trudeau's supporters and even MPs would split badly if the Liberals picked Harper over the hated NDP. The NDP would not want to support a Trudeau government if the NDP came in third but they would be forced to just as the Liberals would be forced to accepting Mulcair as PM should the NDP get more seats than they and the combination exceed 170. there will not be enough time for the Conservatives to wipe the stain of Harper in the period between the election and the crafting of a government.

I think this is a dangerously naieve assumption. Remember that when the Liberals were in minority in 2004, they turned to the Conservatives for support. They also pulled out of the 2008 coalition agreement which would have replaced the Conservatives, and Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP. There is a significant portion of the Liberal power elite that does not want to work with the NDP, and keeping Harper in power is an acceptable price to pay for these people. Also the Liberals lack the courage of their convictions. Even if the Liberals did prop up the Conservatives, I see no reason to believe this would be an unstable arrangement, particularly because the Liberals would certainly take a big hit in public opinion polling, and for that reason would be very reluctant to bring down the Conservatives until polling was more favourable, which of course it wouldn't be.

The only way to defeat Harper, I believe, would be to ensure that the Conservatives and the Liberals do not have a majority of seats between them after the next election.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Having to drag Paul Martin out to talk about the budget kinda smacks of Liberal desperation doncha think! Hasn't Trudeau got any current MPs that can make economic comments?

No kidding. Not only was Martin's reign of austerity cheered on by Harper at the time, but it was the arrogance and incompetence of Martin's leadership in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal that paved the way for Harper to be elected in the first place.

Pierre C yr

 

So the time stamp at the end means you can make up any number of urls? I didnt know that...

 

The rumor over this has gone through quite a few sites tho...

 

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.ca/2015/04/is-stephen-harper-planning-to-c...

 

 

There's a strange and disturbing story circulating quietly on the internet. It was forwarded to me by someone I trust.

And it seems to show that the CBC wrote a story claiming that Stephen Harper was thinking about conscripting young Canadians if he is re-elected.

Only to quickly delete it a few hours later.

Because here are some paragraphs from that story:

Harper may start drafting Canadian youth if re-elected Did John Baird resign over proposed conscription bill? 

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2015 1:34 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 3:16 PM ET 

When former foreign affairs minister John Baird announced in February he would be resigning from cabinet, there was one secret he was keeping: his falling out with the Prime Minister over Harper's plan to introduce a conscription bill shortly after the federal election. 

In a February interview with CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, Baird said he didn't want to become one of the "lifers" in federal politics. He had made the decision to leave politics to pursue career opportunities in the private sector.

But according to two reliable sources — both close friends of Baird — it was during a special closed-door meeting with Baird, Harper and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2014 — on the third day of Harper's four-day trip to Israel — that Harper discussed the possibility of a conscription bill for 18-year-old men and women, based on the Israeli model.

According to an official in the Department of National Defence, interviewed on condition of anonymity, the normal length of compulsory service for Canadians would only be one year for men and women. Should a conscript wish to serve a second or third year, or make the military a career, he or she could apply after completing the initial year of training.

An automatic postponement — not exemption — would be granted for any teen who had not graduated from secondary/high school.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Martin was the reason Harper got elected in the first place. Martin is a great ad for Harper.

sherpa-finn

Pierre: if you are on Twitter, you can trace this "story" / scam on Justin Ling's feed. 

Of course, it would be interesting to find out who initiated the scam press release ....  

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I think this is a dangerously naieve assumption. Remember that when the Liberals were in minority in 2004, they turned to the Conservatives for support. They also pulled out of the 2008 coalition agreement which would have replaced the Conservatives, and Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP. There is a significant portion of the Liberal power elite that does not want to work with the NDP, and keeping Harper in power is an acceptable price to pay for these people. Also the Liberals lack the courage of their convictions. Even if the Liberals did prop up the Conservatives, I see no reason to believe this would be an unstable arrangement, particularly because the Liberals would certainly take a big hit in public opinion polling, and for that reason would be very reluctant to bring down the Conservatives until polling was more favourable, which of course it wouldn't be.

The only way to defeat Harper, I believe, would be to ensure that the Conservatives and the Liberals do not have a majority of seats between them after the next election.

You're doing a little bit of re-writing there, Aristotle.

1.  "when the Liberals were in minority in 2004, they turned to the Conservatives for support"

You're forgetting that the Liberals turned to the NDP for support and that there was a Liberal budget crafted with the input & approval of the Layton NDP.

2. "They also pulled out of the 2008 coalition agreement which would have replaced the Conservatives"

It would be more precise to say that it was Michael Ignatieff who pulled out of the 2008 coalition agreement.  You're once again leaving out a key part of the story.  All the Liberal MP's at the time, (including Justin Trudeau!) signed onto the Dion-Layton agreement.  It may have fallen apart, but it's a 2nd consecutive example of the Liberals reaching out to the NDP.

3. "Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP."

You are yet again leaving out a major storyline of the past several years -- Tom Mulcair & the NDP (except for Nathan Cullen & his supporters) explictly ruled out working with the Liberals during the NDP Leadership race.  Why was this absent from your analysis?  Tom Mulcair has now backtracked from that and appears to be raising some sort of cooperation proposal with the Liberals, but why have you skipped over his own history on this subject and his own political opportunism?

NorthReport
Debater

A Conservative source wouldn’t rule out the possibility of more departures, pointing to the crop of MPs elected in 1997 or 2000 as those most likely to consider calling it quits.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/two-federal-cabinet-ministe...

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do expect the Cons to sit in first place and a more even split between the NDP and the Liberals with them getting a total over 170 seats.

I would be delighted if the Liberals kept Harper in power in this circumstance as it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year but I do not hold out ope of that. Either way Harper is gone in less than a year or this year. The Liberals either work with the NDP or go over a cliff.

The only bad scenario would be either a Liberal or Conservative majority and there is little risk of either right now.

1.  The Liberals were written off after the 2011 Election (as the NDP once was), so I think we should refrain from making predictions like "it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year".  This is total supposition and is at odds with historical trends.

2.  Why would you be "delighted" if there was no more Liberal Party?  As has been explained many times, until the day when the NDP can win over centrist voters (blue liberals/red tories), the Liberals perform a valuable role that the NDP cannot.  The Conservatives know that the Liberals are a bigger threat than the NDP.  When the Liberal Party does badly, it helps the Conservatives.  As Gerry Nicholls says, Harper believes that if it's just the Conservatives vs. the NDP, the Conservatives will win nearly every time.

3.  There certainly isn't going to be a Liberal Majority.  I've never believed there would be.  But once again I would be cautious about ruling out the possibility of a Conservative Majority.  We saw what happened 4 years ago when people thought that couldn't happen.

4.  Once again, people cannot assume that Harper will be "gone in less than a year or this year".  Harper will go when he is ready - not before.  As the Paul Wells book The Longer I'm Prime Minister shows, Harper's goal is to stay in power for as long as possible.  He wants to establish conservatism as the natural governing ideology in this country.  It's risky for people to assume that he will leave if he wins a Minority.

The point I am making is that the NDP on its own would be a greater threat than either the NDP or the Liberals are now when both exist.

The Liberals would not survive keeping Harper in power. The would split as there are MPs that simply would not stand for it. That would be the last straw -- but by all means go for it.This is why I have said I suspect the Liberal party if it had to make a choice would work with the NDP rather than commit political suicide.

I don't think that a Harper Trudeau coalition would last long and that coalition woudl damage both parties and give the NDP a major advance on the election.

So yes, I woudl write off Trudeau if he acted to keep Harper in power if it were clear he had the choice.

And yes I think the Liberal party is more of a negative than a good for Canada and I would be delighted if it were to blow apart. The result would be a polarized battle between the Conservatives and the NDP -- one I think the NDP would win.

NorthReport

+

NorthReport

'Very large scale' infrastructure announcements on the horizon: industry minister


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/very-large-scale-infrastructure-announcem...

NorthReport

This is one of the reasons Harper will probably be re-elected.

Stephen Harper reinvents the welfare state:

A third of the money for the child-care benefit goes to families who don’t use daycare, but the Conservatives didn’t dictate how the money had to be spent.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/01/stephen-harper-reinvents-t...

Jacob Two-Two

Debater wrote:

3. "Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP."

You are yet again leaving out a major storyline of the past several years -- Tom Mulcair & the NDP (except for Nathan Cullen & his supporters) explictly ruled out working with the Liberals during the NDP Leadership race.  Why was this absent from your analysis?  Tom Mulcair has now backtracked from that and appears to be raising some sort of cooperation proposal with the Liberals, but why have you skipped over his own history on this subject and his own political opportunism?

I don't want to speak for Aristotle, but I assume he "skipped over" it because it's made-up bullshit. The better question is why you would be peddling such obvious falsehoods.

Mulcair explicitly ruled out any pre-election agreement (such as proposed by his leadership rival Cullen), which is undemocratic and extremely ill-advised. He never ruled out a post-election coalition, nor has any NDP spokesperson. The NDP has always said they will make any parliament work. This has never changed. There is no backtrack or flip-flop or whatever other misleading terms you need to use to create a inaccurate depiction of this.

You do realise that the fact you have to rely on such easily-debunked nonsense only shows the lack of substance in your arguments? And the desperation of your position?

Sad, really. It would even be tragic if I gave a shit about your awful corrupt party of elitist scumbags. But as it is, it's just pathetic.

Debater

Jacob, what you state is totally false.

I am sick of arguing about it.

Mulcair totally ruled out both pre-election agreements and post-election coalitions.

It is your false statements which have been repeatedly debunked.

How many times are you going to keep ignorning all the articles that have been posted here showing Mulcair's flip-flopping?  The journalists have called him out on it many times.

Sean in Ottawa

 

Sorry I disagree with the direction both of you are taking.

In the heat of the leadership race Mulcair ruled out any deal with the Liberals -- definitely including post election because the example he gave was the coalition with Dion which was a post election parliamentary arrangement. I felt at the time that it was a mistake and Mulcair has had to walk it back. I think it is understandable why he would have said it -- to shoot down the pre-election ideas Cullen raised, but it was too categorical.

I think Mulcair should have been clearer that what he said was in the heat of the campaign but that he knows his party's supporters as well as those of the Liberals demand that the parties work together to remove Harper. He has been hearing this from his own supporters and has listened. Perhaps Mulcair did not mean to be as categorical as he came across. Perhaps he was thinking of specific types of arrangements. But he does know how it was understood at the time and did not correct it. Denial that Mulcair said he would not work with the Liberals is not productive. What he said was understandable but so too is his walking back from it.

All that said Liberals making a big deal of this should be aware that the scandal is sourced in the absolute and well founded mistrust the NDP has of the Liberal party’s word. It hardly is a badge of honour for them. Liberals should focus on getting their leader to see the light rather than criticizing the conversion of the NDP leader and the awkwardness of Mulcair’s handling of it.

Both leaders are being less than honest about this but the Liberal leader by continuing to deny that he would work with the NDP as we get within a few months of an election that most observers predict will be a minority, with a majority between the NDP and Liberal parties, is being the most dishonest. The Liberal position on this is not good ground to mount an assault on the NDP.

Jacob, I am sorry to say but really I think you owe Debater an apology becuase his statment is not a falsehood and is not BS. Biased perhaps, not positive for his own party perhaps, but not a lie.

Jacob Two-Two

No, that example was only to illustrate that making formal arrangements with the Liberals was an exercise in futility. It was (at the time) a recent event demonstrating how the Liberals make a deal and break a deal right away, and the impossibility of trying to deal in good faith with such people. It was a convenient example fresh in people's minds, so Mulcair used it to make a rhetorical point.

This does not in any way indicate that there is any scenario where Lib + NDP > Con and Mulcair would refuse to take office because he'd have to do it with the Liberals. He has never said this, and frankly the suggestion is ludicrous. As I said, the NDP has always, always maintained that they will make any parliament work for the people. Despite the example Mulcair used to make his point, his comments were made specifically in response to the notion of a pre-election arrangement which was a hot topic of discussion in the leadership race.

Jacob Two-Two

Here's one of those articles you mentioned, Debater.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/27/mulcair_softens_stance_on_...

Quote:

Reminded of his categorical rejection of a coalition two years ago, Mulcair said: “Yes, exactly.

So, nothing’s changed. They’re two different questions. What will we do after an election when an NDP government is formed? We’re going to work with others. And what will we do to get there? We’re going to run (a full slate of) 338 candidates.”

If, as Mulcair now insists, his 2012 comments were intended to reject only electoral co-operation during an election, it’s not clear why at the time he referenced the 2008 coalition agreement as proof that the Liberals can’t be trusted.

Actually, it's perfectly clear that he was referencing it precisely to demonstrate that the Liberals can't be trusted. Even though he was speaking of a different situation, this was something that just happened where the Liberals backed out of a deal. People were saying, "Let's do a deal to oust Harper", and Mulcair was saying, "We just had a deal, and look what happened then." This is not to say it was the same deal, but it was a good reason why the deal that Cullen and others were suggesting was a bad idea.

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry Jacob. I looked up the original interview and he was quite categorical. He may not have meant to be and he certainly should not have been but he was and that is how it was understood at the time. You can go back and read the threads here from that time. This is what everyone thought it meant.

I understand that he has had to modify his position and he has been more careful since but this was an interview not even a news article. You can see the full context.

I am sure he did not mean what he actually said but his words were clear. They were useful in the context of the leadership debate but clearly not sustainable when he became leader.

I firmly believe he was thinking of the types of arrangements Cullen was proposing but his words came out as very absolute.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Well, I remember the leadership race quite well and followed it closely, especially the controversy over Cullen's plan, which I was dead set against, so this in particular was an issue of interest to me. I remember Mulcair's comments and objections to them, but it was always clear to me what he meant. Clear as day. If people took them the wrong way they can only blame themselves.

The discussion was about pre-election co-operation and Mulcair said absolutely not. This was not a deviation from established NDP policy but a continuation of it. Cullen's plan was the deviation. Whereas ruling out any kind of post-election coalition once parliament had been formed would have been a stark deviation from established policy under Layton. If he had actually meant to suggest such a thing in a leadership race he would not have thrown it out so casually. He would have been clear that he was going in a new direction from the course that Layton pursued.

The only reason there is any confusion over this point is because people like Debater have a vested interest in sowing said confusion. Sadly, the media has a lot of people like Debater in it.

Pages

Topic locked