babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I haven't seen any drop in the polls by the NDP. They have been at 30% in every poll for the past three months and nothing has changed and that is way above what they got in the election./
I think if the choice was between an eletion now and an election a year from now over the next budget, the NDP will be in better position a year from now to fight an election.
The problem with waiting for the next opportunity is that it might give the PCs a chance to dump Hudak.
A one seat minority so soon after the last election will get a bit more leeway with the public. I think it's undeniable that the NDP was the party that made gains from the whole budget process. I don't know why people think this was a one time shot (squandered) to use those gains.
Next budget the NDP will be able to either extract more concessions than this one or force an election. I think the NDP could have fought an election just fine, if needed. I don't think the budget was passed because the NDP were afraid of an election--I think the budget was passed because the NDP is in a position to become govt-in-waiting.
The people who are saying now that Horwath and the NDP have lost their chance are the same people who said that the NDP would take a hit for dealing with McGuinty in the first place. And you were WRONG. The opposite happened. Horwath gained approval by extracting those concessions, weak as they were.
That said, rather than a mass abstention I would have preferred to see Horwath vote for it with the rest of the NDP MPs voting against. Although I suspect that might just not be how these kind of things are done.
Paying for a campaign would be more than a little difficult just now. It would be dumb to cause an election and then not be able to run much of a campaign.
McGuinty may have a majority by the end of this year if the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection goes his way.
No doubt there'll be plenty to gnaw on this BBQ season.
double post
I don't know what makes anyone think the Liberals can win the KW by election. Governments traditionally LOSE gound in by elections even when they are riding high across the province and right now Liberal support is at 26% across Ontario - that is down a ful TWELVE points from what they got in the last election. On top of that McGuinty is personally very unpopular. Both the PCs and the NDP will have a powerful argument to make that people should not give McGuinty a blank cheque by giving a majority by the back door.
I agree with Stock here and in fact I believe McGuinty's & Duncan's hissy fit about the budget and going to a snap election was all about that bi election. Firstly, the Libs in committee made about 200 amendments to the omnibus budget bill and not a peep about that but right near the end, they unload unto the NDP and try to paint Horwathe as the problem - remember it is Horwath's leadership numbers that are exceptional in comparison to both Hudak and McGuinty.
McGuinty appeared to try to paint this, as I need a majority or else this sort of unstable govt will con't. And his main competition is Horwath.
In bi elections, the focus becomes about the leader and to some extent about the chosen candidate. So a well known candidate with lots of good qualities and political gravis could really shine in a bi election. And it's true that in bi elections the govt often pays the price.
I'm thinking that the libs election game didn't work out well in how it was played.
Wow, tough crowd here. My perspective is that she achieved some pretty significant things. She got an agreement for fairer taxation -- specifically, a new surtax on the very wealthy (over $500,000). Bear in mind that even the membership of the federal NDP chose a leader (Mulcair) who felt this was too risky a proposition to discuss now, rather than either Topp or Cullen who did promote this. So it's a very significant thing, and she proved this can be a feasible and even popular move. Further, she altered the stance of the government on freezing social assistance, gaining an increase in rates (and even a small increase in anything, particularly for the poor, from an austerity minded gov't like the Libs is significant). Also some stuff was achieved in committee, as reported by Now Magazine. Now Magazine is often critical of the NDP, so the fact that they aren't in this case is telling.
Like Ignatieff did. Instead, like Layton, she negotiated some significant concessions from the government. She certainly did not merely sit on her hands, as some here have been portraying her as doing.
The idea of causing an unpopular election just nine-months after you've had one (where you made significant gains from the previous session) would be an incredibly stupid gamble, especially when you've successfully been able to influence policy, and especially when you're working on rebuilding your finances and building a bigger funding base. The Libs made 4X as much as the NDP, and the PCs made 5X as much as the NDP, during the period from Sept 7, 2011 TO Jan 06, 2012. Specifically, the NDP made 955,342.51, the Libs 3,983,414.00, and the Cons 5,007,110.66. link 1
Now that we have a had 100 posts can the successor thread have a less prophetic title?
To BB and all the others who think Horwath was cowardly by declining to force a new election, you absolutely do not get Ontario voters. Bob Rae became premier largely because David Peterson was seen by the voters as calling an unnecessary election out of political expediency. It would have been electoral suicide for the ONDP to force an election over this budget.
If McGuinty is strong enough to win that KW byelection then he wouldve been strong enough to get his majority back in a snap summer election and it would've been foolish for the NDP to call it.
More to tyhe point, if the Liberals really thjought they could win the KW byelection, thery would have called the byelection by now while the other parties were asleep at the switch - by waiting until the Fall its obvious that the Liberals have now grand plan, they have no star candidate and the PCs and NDP now have all the time in the world to prepare for the byelection.
I suspect it won't. If the PCs won it with the Liberals winning the election, they can certainly win it while they're ahead in the polls.
except, Doug, both the Libs and Cons got dirty "together" when a staunch PC Witmer took the buyout from Lib leader McGuinty all using taxpayer money. Both parties got tarnished so don't think that there is going to be loving feelings for PCs - at the trough.
Since the silly season is upon us: Martha Hall Findlay would make as good a star by-election candidate as any, and an interesting prospect for eventual leadership, when McGuinty decides to step down. She may find it a gambit worth considering.
Here's another straw man for you to attack.
Old conservative Ontario is a sticky wicket for sure.
She seems to still have her eyes on the federal leadership for some reason, getting herself in the media with that article about supply management.
Which Doug, I just have to add, what the hell is this urban want to be lib leader doing addressing agricultural issues - I'm sorry but she has just no credability - but yeah, so glad when the city folk come out and tell the country folk how to do agri business.
@Doug & Jan: I think the paper Findlay presented addressed the regime of supply management, in its current application, as a trade impediment for other agricultural products (such as beef and pork), and as a consumer issue where prices of food staples are distorted and impact low income consumers with their particularly high prices. As Canada becomes more urban, and with the new allocation of seats in the Commons to reflect that reality, I think we need new definitions of rural to include natural resources as well as agriculture (which, themselves, are often at odds with each other) in their constituent interests. Still, Jan, I get your point. Perhaps it makes more sense to see agriculture in terms of food policy, as we seem to be losing the ability to feed ourselves, as we continue to outsource food production. Doug, you're right that Findlay has, so far, only indicated an interest in the federal leadership. I was, admittedly, being somewhat mischevious about her prospective provincial ambitions, which I personally think would prove more realistic.
Closing