PD15 wrote: What about Harold Winch, Stanley Knowles, Bill Blaikie, Angus MacInnis, and Svend Robinson!
Thread Drift: OK, - so I had to google Harold Winch and so today learned a bit about the early days of the CCF in BC, Ernest and Harold Winch, etc.
I also happened to stumble across a reference to The Winch Institute. http://winchinstitute.com/ Now wondering if the Institute is actually a going concern or just a good idea going nowhere in particular. Anyone?
Also, anyone who wasn't under a rock in the 1990s knows all too well the Liberal record on austerity and privatization
Yes, 20 years ago, different times. The Liberals had public support for what they did and continued to win elections on it; they did what they believed was right at that time. We are in a different cycle.
You have never explained (well) why Trudeau would do better on these issues than the NDP. Will a legalized multi-million dollar marijuana industry fix poverty and inequality?
No but it would help. I can't see the NDP coming up with a better new revenue stream.
You said Trudeau would do more to fight poverty, and income inequality. Any politicians and/or political party that put a concerted effort into fixing these huge problems and got results would be a progressive in my books.
I don't expect a concerted effort. Any movement would be an improvement. I think the Liberals will go with a basic income program because it can save money not because it is progressive. I believe Trudeau will legalize marijuana because it is a revenue stream he can use, not because it's progressive.
I believe both Trudeau and Mulcair are men of good conscience and I don't see Mulcair as particularly more left leaning than Trudeau. As a Quebec federalist myself Trudeau's unabashed support is much appreciated. As someone strongly in favor of legalization of marijuana I am delighted a major politician finally stepped forward and agreed.
There has been suggestion that Marc Emery has ulterior motives for supporting Trudeau. The man sold seeds mailorder to the states and for that he was extradited which is a travesty of justice, and spent 5 years in a US prison for selling seeds. He doesn't need an ulterior motive for supporting Trudeau.
Plenty of posters on this site attempt to blacken the character of anyone to dares express support for Liberals. Personally I see that as lacking in character. I can totally see why some people would choose to support the NDP rather than the Liberals. You don't have to agree with my views to respect my reasoning even if you are convinced that it is wrong.
Also, anyone who wasn't under a rock in the 1990s knows all too well the Liberal record on austerity and privatizationYes, 20 years ago, different times. The Liberals had public support for what they did and continued to win elections on it; they did what they believed was right at that time. We are in a different cycle.
You're absolutely right, because the Liberals, by virtue of being "progressive," had political cover to implement cuts and austerity that no PC/Reform/Conservative government could have ever done politically. And our Conservative Prime Minister was actually speaking to far-right think tanks at the time cheering on the Liberals as they gutted the social safety net with a vengeance that Mulroney would never have dared. In Atlantic Canada, people were so angry about it that the Liberals elected 0 MPs from Nova Scotia in 1997.
I can't see the NDP coming up with a better new revenue stream.
Mulcair is a hypocrite for chastising Topp's commitment to raise personal income taxes on the basis of not knowing what the books are like, and then himself committing to not raise them. His proposed corporate tax increases are, for my view, too timid. However, he has proposed corporate tax increases of some sort, closing tax loopholes for corporations, and supported the implementation of a financial transaction tax. Not much, but in this environment, to even go against the grain of "we need lower taxes" is something in and of itself. What has Trudeau offered on these matters?
I think the Liberals will go with a basic income program because it can save money not because it is progressive.
The problem is, governments have known for a long time that investing in people (i.e. child care, affordable housing, preventative health care, social assistance, restorative justice) save money down the road, and yet in many places they still refuse to act. Why is it? Are they more concerned with the upfront costs? Or is there something about the structural injustice that benefits their friends, for example a high crime rate benefitting private prisons who have more people to lock up?
And you've accused us of blind partisanship, and much of what you've offered is blind faith in Trudeau rather than rely on public statements he has made. "I believe Trudeau will do this." "I trust Trudeau to do that."
As someone strongly in favor of legalization of marijuana I am delighted a major politician finally stepped forward and agreed.
Fair enough if marijuana legalization is that important to you. I just don't have the same faith that legalization of marijuana will in and of itself solve as many problems as you seem to think it will.
As a Quebec federalist myself Trudeau's unabashed support is much appreciated.
Whatever public support that may have existed for Pierre Trudueau-style federalism, it is certainly not the majority viewpoint within Canada. It has the most currency in pockets of southern Ontario that identify with a strong central government. There's pratcically no support for it in Western Canada. While Westerners are, for the most part, proud Canadians, Ottawa is some place far away that has nearly no relevance to our lives. Conversely, if we don't live directly in our provincial capitals, most of us can easily make a day trip to them, and we identify more with our provincial governments than we do with Ottawa. And that doesn't even take into account the vast differences in political culture that exist within Western Canada.
Plenty of posters on this site attempt to blacken the character of anyone to dares express support for Liberals.
Repeating lies and smears like "Mulcair is a closet separatist" as if it is a self-evident truth does not help your case.
Well said A24!
You're absolutely right, because the Liberals, by virtue of being "progressive," had political cover to implement cuts and austerity that no PC/Reform/Conservative government could have ever done politically.
That works in reverse too. The Liberals are also better able to sell a program like basic income or national childcare as fiscally responsible based on their reputation as good economic managers.
In Atlantic Canada, people were so angry about it that the Liberals elected 0 MPs from Nova Scotia in 1997.
Apparently they have gotten over it. Party loyalists put a lot more significance on history. I don't blame people for not trusting the Liberals based on their history but those of us who put more stress on a change of leadership and different times are also taking a reasonable point of view.
Mulcair is a hypocrite for chastising Topp's commitment to raise personal income taxes on the basis of not knowing what the books are like, and then himself committing to not raise them. His proposed corporate tax increases are, for my view, too timid. However, he has proposed corporate tax increases of some sort, closing tax loopholes for corporations, and supported the implementation of a financial transaction tax. Not much, but in this environment, to even go against the grain of "we need lower taxes" is something in and of itself.
Thank you for that, and Trudeau I think has muttered something about closing tax loopholes which is even less. I don't trust that Mulcair would do anything that significant in that regard because his focus will be to prove that the NDP can be fiscally responsible. The roll up the red carpet tour should have been used to explain and promote moderate realistic economic measures that can rebalance the economy. I don't even believe that Mulcair has the political savvy to guide the NDP to federal victory.
The problem is, governments have known for a long time that investing in people (i.e. child care, affordable housing, preventative health care, social assistance, restorative justice) save money down the road, and yet in many places they still refuse to act. Why is it? Are they more concerned with the upfront costs?
Yes. A party's primary function is to be elected and re-elected. Selling the long view to the public is difficult. I think it goes part way to explain the political cycles. People get resentful of taxes and go for conservative governments that portray taxes as robbery and government as corrupt and wasteful. There is truth to both so the public buys in and tax cutting ensues. Then infrastructure breaks down, and the mentally ill are homeless and roaming the streets, and schools are struggling, etc. and the public begins to turn and demand that the government do something.
And you've accused us of blind partisanship, and much of what you've offered is blind faith in Trudeau rather than rely on public statements he has made. "I believe Trudeau will do this." "I trust Trudeau to do that."
I have never said blind or mindless nor have I ever said I believe in or trust Trudeau without stating specifically why I think he will follow through and my reason is never faith or trust.
I did say cheerleader for the status quo which I will withdraw but with the explanation that it feels that way because despite your criticism of the NDP you are still incredulous that anyone could vote for the Liberals instead of the NDP.
What has Trudeau offered on these matters *(comment was in reference to corporate taxes)
I don't think the Liberals will suggest tax increases as part of their platform but once in power I agree with the Conservatives, they may raise taxes anyway, or not. This is why I believe there is a good chance that Trudeau will legalize marijuana. It's a new revenue stream that will allow him to spread some largess without raising taxes and burnishes his progressive credentials without upsetting the business community. Win win win.
Fair enough if marijuana legalization is that important to you. I just don't have the same faith that legalization of marijuana will in and of itself solve as many problems as you seem to think it will.
I think it will alleviate a lot of problems for some people and boost the economy which isn't the same thing as solving problems in an absolute sense. I think it will solve more problems than the NDP will solve.
Whatever public support that may have existed for Pierre Trudueau-style federalism, it is certainly not the majority viewpoint within Canada. It has the most currency in pockets of southern Ontario that identify with a strong central government. There's pratcically no support for it in Western Canada. While Westerners are, for the most part, proud Canadians, Ottawa is some place far away that has nearly no relevance to our lives.
I don't know what you mean by Pierre Trudeau style federalism. I strongly believe that Canada is greater than the sum of it's parts and that national programs make us stronger.
Repeating lies and smears like "Mulcair is a closet separatist" as if it is a self-evident truth does not help your case.
I have never said that and I know for sure because that is not what I think. I think Mulcair panders to separatists/nationalists for votes not that he is a separatist.
The Liberals are also better able to sell a program like basic income or national childcare as fiscally responsible based on their reputation as good economic managers.
I don't think so, actually. The Liberals have promised national child care for so many elections and then failed to deliver that I don't think people are going to believe them. Certainly the NDP isn't going to give the Liberals a pass on the issue. And between the 2 federal politicians, I've only ever heard Mulcair promote Quebec's child care system and say we can do this across the country, and he has the additional advantage that he can point to Manitoba's child care system and say, "look what we've done in Manitoba, we can do that nationally as well."
And the last time the Liberals tried to sell Canadians on a natioanl child care program, the Canadian public said, "sorry, no thanks."
I've also said repeatedly that those people who find child care important should instead of lamenting what the Conservatives have done to go after their provincial governments and push them to act, as education is a provincial issue. Having Harper in power did not stop Manitoba from expanding pension benefits to child care workers, I don't know what excuses the other non-Quebec-non-PEI provinces have for not acting on child care issues.
This is why I believe there is a good chance that Trudeau will legalize marijuana. It's a new revenue stream that will allow him to spread some largess without raising taxes and burnishes his progressive credentials without upsetting the business community. Win win win.
Problem is, the last thing the business community wants is a country that is prosperous for everybody, what the business community wants is the ability to make as much money as it can without pesky things like environmental protection and labour standards getting in the way. The business community may see some profit potential in legal weed and jump on it, and that can happen without disrupting the social relations by which the business community profits at the expense of the public good. It's by definition impossible to govern in the public interest without upsetting the business community in some fashion. Even here in Manitoba, where the NDP government has expanded some social programs that benefit the province as a whole while bending over backwards to prove its business-friendly credentials, there are still claims made that the NDP is anti-business.
Whatever public support that may have existed for Pierre Trudueau-style federalism, it is certainly not the majority viewpoint within Canada. It has the most currency in pockets of southern Ontario that identify with a strong central government. There's pratcically no support for it in Western Canada. While Westerners are, for the most part, proud Canadians, Ottawa is some place far away that has nearly no relevance to our lives.I don't know what you mean by Pierre Trudeau style federalism. I strongly believe that Canada is greater than the sum of it's parts and that national programs make us stronger.
I mean when Trudeau Senior presented the idea that a strong federal government benefits everyone and that you can have one-size-fits-all national programs dictated by Ottawa. The needs of the regions within Canada are very complex, and have to be taken into consideration. The main options we've had on this file is the "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to federal provincial relations as dictated by the Liberals, or the Conservatives basically telling the provinces to do their own thing without taking any leadership on the major issues. There needs to be a third option.
I did say cheerleader for the status quo which I will withdraw but with the explanation that it feels that way because despite your criticism of the NDP you are still incredulous that anyone could vote for the Liberals instead of the NDP.
I'm incredulous that people anywhere on the left end of the spectrum continue to vote for the Liberals even though the record clearly shows that when push comes to shove, the Liberals are a centre-right, pro-business party, as are the Conservatives. That pundits promote the idea that "the Liberals and the NDP are the same and should merge." This idea gets traction because of the well-known times that the Liberals and NDP co-operated, for example Douglas-Pearson from 1963-1968, Lewis-Trudeau from 1972-1974, Rae-Pearson in Ontario from 1985-1987, and the NDP budget of 2005. But there are less-known examples of NDP-Conservative co-operation, for example the CCF in Manitoba in the 1940s, Nova Scotia from 2003-2009, and Layton and Harper co-operating on the apology to First Nations and extending unemployment benefits. Nobody ever suggests that the Conservatives and the NDP merge on that basis. Even Conservative voters, while I disagree what the Conservative party stands for, if that's where your ideology is, then of course you are going to vote Conservative and I respect your honesty on that front. I can even in my better moments sympathize with why people vote for the Conservatives based on pocket-book issues, and how people swing back and forth between right and left parties. I can even understand that some people just want to live their own lives without concern for anyone else and will vote for whoever doesn't want to rock the boat. What really boggles my mind is this idea that the NDP is imperfect or has watered down its principles, so I'm going to vote for a party that has a demonstrably worse record on almost every single one rather than put in the hard work of advancing said issues.
The Liberals are also better able to sell a program like basic income or national childcare as fiscally responsible based on their reputation as good economic managers.I don't think so, actually. The Liberals have promised national child care for so many elections and then failed to deliver that I don't think people are going to believe them. Certainly the NDP isn't going to give the Liberals a pass on the issue. And between the 2 federal politicians, I've only ever heard Mulcair promote Quebec's child care system and say we can do this across the country, and he has the additional advantage that he can point to Manitoba's child care system and say, "look what we've done in Manitoba, we can do that nationally as well."
And the last time the Liberals tried to sell Canadians on a natioanl child care program, the Canadian public said, "sorry, no thanks."
I've also said repeatedly that those people who find child care important should instead of lamenting what the Conservatives have done to go after their provincial governments and push them to act, as education is a provincial issue. Having Harper in power did not stop Manitoba from expanding pension benefits to child care workers, I don't know what excuses the other non-Quebec-non-PEI provinces have for not acting on child care issues.
This is why I believe there is a good chance that Trudeau will legalize marijuana. It's a new revenue stream that will allow him to spread some largess without raising taxes and burnishes his progressive credentials without upsetting the business community. Win win win.Problem is, the last thing the business community wants is a country that is prosperous for everybody, what the business community wants is the ability to make as much money as it can without pesky things like environmental protection and labour standards getting in the way. The business community may see some profit potential in legal weed and jump on it, and that can happen without disrupting the social relations by which the business community profits at the expense of the public good. It's by definition impossible to govern in the public interest without upsetting the business community in some fashion. Even here in Manitoba, where the NDP government has expanded some social programs that benefit the province as a whole while bending over backwards to prove its business-friendly credentials, there are still claims made that the NDP is anti-business.
Whatever public support that may have existed for Pierre Trudueau-style federalism, it is certainly not the majority viewpoint within Canada. It has the most currency in pockets of southern Ontario that identify with a strong central government. There's pratcically no support for it in Western Canada. While Westerners are, for the most part, proud Canadians, Ottawa is some place far away that has nearly no relevance to our lives.I don't know what you mean by Pierre Trudeau style federalism. I strongly believe that Canada is greater than the sum of it's parts and that national programs make us stronger.
I mean when Trudeau Senior presented the idea that a strong federal government benefits everyone and that you can have one-size-fits-all national programs dictated by Ottawa. The needs of the regions within Canada are very complex, and have to be taken into consideration. The main options we've had on this file is the "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to federal provincial relations as dictated by the Liberals, or the Conservatives basically telling the provinces to do their own thing without taking any leadership on the major issues. There needs to be a third option.
I did say cheerleader for the status quo which I will withdraw but with the explanation that it feels that way because despite your criticism of the NDP you are still incredulous that anyone could vote for the Liberals instead of the NDP.I'm incredulous that people anywhere on the left end of the spectrum continue to vote for the Liberals even though the record clearly shows that when push comes to shove, the Liberals are a centre-right, pro-business party, as are the Conservatives. That pundits promote the idea that "the Liberals and the NDP are the same and should merge." This idea gets traction because of the well-known times that the Liberals and NDP co-operated, for example Douglas-Pearson from 1963-1968, Lewis-Trudeau from 1972-1974, Rae-Pearson in Ontario from 1985-1987, and the NDP budget of 2005. But there are less-known examples of NDP-Conservative co-operation, for example the CCF in Manitoba in the 1940s, Nova Scotia from 2003-2009, and Layton and Harper co-operating on the apology to First Nations and extending unemployment benefits. Nobody ever suggests that the Conservatives and the NDP merge on that basis. Even Conservative voters, while I disagree what the Conservative party stands for, if that's where your ideology is, then of course you are going to vote Conservative and I respect your honesty on that front. I can even in my better moments sympathize with why people vote for the Conservatives based on pocket-book issues, and how people swing back and forth between right and left parties. I can even understand that some people just want to live their own lives without concern for anyone else and will vote for whoever doesn't want to rock the boat. What really boggles my mind is this idea that the NDP is imperfect or has watered down its principles, so I'm going to vote for a party that has a demonstrably worse record on almost every single one rather than put in the hard work of advancing said issues.
There much more evidence of the Libs and Cons co-operating against the CCF NDP than anything else. Although the CCF-NDP have helped the Liberals (and occasionally the Conservatives)* in minority situations, the old parties have gone farther and teamed up electorally against the CCF-NDP. The most famous example is the "Free Enterprise Coalition" which started out as a formal Liberal-Conservative electoral and legislative alliance. After the rise of the SoCreds, the right supported that party and after it was destoyed by Gordon Wilson's revived moderate Liberal Party, it co-opted that organization.
The right in Saskatchewan has mostly been a coalition of federal Cons and Libs, represented by the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, then the PCs, and now the Sask Party. In Manitoba, the right tried to run an "anti-socialist" slate against Schreyer's NDP in the 1973 election and failed. Since then the PCs have mostly represented the right.
*NDP co-operation with provinical Conservative parties has occurred only when the PCs were to the left of the Liberals. Examples include the minority governments of Manitoba's Duff Roblin in 1958 and Ontario's Bill Davis in 1975.
"I have only been posting for about a year on and off and I am not referring to everyone on the board. I was referring particularly to yourself and Cramer"...I just saw this.
You are right, I do feel morally superior. I have NEVER belonged or supported a party that supported NFATA, FIPA, S7, voted against the interests of Volunteer Fire Fighters, had a Leader who bragged about cutting Social Spending to 1950 levels, stole from EI, got involved in wars of adventurism in Afghanistan.....etc,, etc,. etc,. Do I need to go on. Yep, I feel very comfortable feeling myself morally superior. The FACTS, support my position. Yep, I don't feel boathered at all.
Yep, I feel very comfortable feeling myself morally superior.
That aspect of your personality shines through so no need to confirm it. You can be quite sure everyone knows.
Aristotle you mentioned 'the third option'. 'The third option' has always meant doing nothing on Parliament Hill and in the civil service. It was a joke in the '60s and it was a joke in the '80s, and I bet it is still a joke now.
Marijuana seems to be the main thrust of a Liberal advance on this board, and compared to the issues we are facing internationally and nationally, it is trivial. Because of the Israel thing, the Liberals have shown themselves to be hard right. They have betrayed their colours. In the old Liberal days, Canada would try to broker peace and not be an Israeli lapdog. The statement from the Liberal Party would not have condemned Hamas, but would have expressed concern for the killings on both sides. It has been Canada's traditional policy to be as diplomatic as possible over the issue of Israel and Palestine.
If Glenn Beck, a bizarre US Tea Party spokesman, can admit the Bush II/bLiar Iraq war was wrong, perhaps Trudeau can have a change of heart as well. Trudeau doesn't have to go that far back in the history of the Liberal Party to see some defiance in international affairs. Chretien did not go into that war. Would he have? That is a much more important question than weed.
This is what Canadians want, and Trudeau is out of touch. What the Liberals do when they have to confront a Conservative minority is to vote with it. If the Liberals get the balance of power, they will prop up the Conservatives.
They don't have any domestic agenda except some musings from their leader. There is no transit policy. There is no housing policy. There is no independent diplomatic policy. There is no environmental policy. As I wait in my urban wasteland for way too long for a bus to take me to the No Frills, you are saying I can light a spliff? Get real. I can vote for the Marijuana Party if I want a 1-issue weed party. And "I trust Trudeau" is not a good enough reason for the rest.
I don't think so, actually. The Liberals have promised national child care for so many elections and then failed to deliver that I don't think people are going to believe them. Certainly the NDP isn't going to give the Liberals a pass on the issue.
The legislation was ready to go when the government fell and they lost the next election based on the sponsorship scandal which is now old news. If the NDP starts going on about old Liberal history again it will just turn people off as those are not the people running today.
Even here in Manitoba, where the NDP government has expanded some social programs that benefit the province as a whole while bending over backwards to prove its business-friendly credentials, there are still claims made that the NDP is anti-business.
Yes, all the parties have to bend over backwards to prove their business friendly credentials, including the Liberals.
It's by definition impossible to govern in the public interest without upsetting the business community in some fashion.
Yes, so when there is an easy way to promote health, social justice and economic well-being at the same time as not upsetting the business community it is idiotic not to do it.
I mean when Trudeau Senior presented the idea that a strong federal government benefits everyone and that you can have one-size-fits-all national programs dictated by Ottawa. The needs of the regions within Canada are very complex, and have to be taken into consideration.
I grant that the New West Partnership among the three western-most provinces is something closer to what a properly functioning economic union would look like, removing most impediments to the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour between them. But for pity’s sake, we are talking about a preferential trade agreement, inside of a single country……Self-respecting federations do not leave this sort of thing to inter-provincial negotiations, not only because it is unlikely to succeed, but because of what it implies. It suggests that the provinces and their people do not belong to any enterprise larger than themselves, nor have any interests in common, but must rather view each other as hostile parties; that open trade between them is not the norm,….
It isn’t only or even primarily a matter of economics. It is a matter of citizenship. So long as we leave this to the provinces to negotiate, or not — so long, that is, as it remains essentially voluntary, a matter for each province to decide — we are endorsing the idea that the people of Canada are not “citizens of the whole,” with a fundamental right to move about the country and to seek a livelihood as they choose, but must depend upon the grace and favour of whichever province they find themselves in.
Federations that take this right seriously do not make it an option. They make it mandatory, to be enforced by the only government answerable to “the whole,” to all of its people. Conversely, when we are unwilling to assign this authority to the federal government, what we are really saying is there is no such whole, that we are no more than the sum of our parts, and that we are not much closer to a common economic citizenship than we were in 1865. <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/11/andrew-coyne-canada-waiting-for-a-federal-government-serious-about-forcing-end-to-provincial-trade-barriers/>
He is right, and our medicare cards should be national not provincial too.
I can even in my better moments sympathize with why people vote for the Conservatives based on pocket-book issues, and how people swing back and forth between right and left parties.
I don't think swing voters think in terms of left and right when deciding who to vote for. It's more about the characters of the leaders/representatives and economic management credibility mixed with main platform direction.
That's why it matters who the Liberals are attracting as representatives for individual ridings. The NDP swept Quebec with no name reps based on Layton's appeal and Bloc fatigue. Mulcair has more appeal than Trudeau in Quebec. Trudeau will try to change that personally but if he can get strong local candidates it will impact his electoral chances so that is an important avenue for the Liberals in Quebec, indeed, right across Canada.
There has been suggestion that Marc Emery has ulterior motives for supporting Trudeau. The man sold seeds mailorder to the states and for that he was extradited which is a travesty of justice, and spent 5 years in a US prison for selling seeds. He doesn't need an ulterior motive for supporting Trudeau.
If he sold seeds, via mail, to the United States, then he was breaking American law on American soil. Since Canada has an extradition treaty with the US, his extradition was not a "travesty of justice," but justice served. He broke the law (as it stood then) and he suffered the consequences, full stop. That he (and I, for that matter) thought the laws should be different is inconsequential.
There are two ways we can work to change laws: one is to advocate their repeal or modification, abiding by it while it remains in force. The other is to wilfully disregard it in protest. Choosing the latter is perfectly legitimate and sometimes admirable, but then one must be willing to face the consequences. I have absolutely zero respect for someone who breaks the law in such a fashion but does not have courage enough in their convictions to face the conviction.
Looks like someone just lost their membership with Team Orange. I don't get it, she supported the federal NDP in the dark days of the 1990s, but jumps ship now? Trudeau must have offered her something good. Not that it matters, the Libs don't have much of a change in Kildonan-St. Paul even with them poaching a former New Democrat (who isn't from the area, btw).
It doesn't matter how progressive some of the Liberal candidates (assuming they get elected) are, because you can bet Trudeau will stike to his right-wing agenda and listen to his masters on Bay Street.
This is a thread to talk about Liberal candidates for 2015 and which ridings they are running in. Could we keep the thread on topic please and keep the anti-Trudeau bashing out of it? There are hundreds of other threads for you to engage in that.
The constant attempt here to portray Trudeau as right-wing and under the control of Bay Street are ridiculous. Harper is the enemy, not Trudeau. And as has been pointed out many times, you seem to be ignoring the fact that for the first time in its history, the NDP has a former Liberal for a leader. A leader who once served under a former Mulroney Tory. So it's a bit rich to act as if the current NDP leader is enormously progressive.
Getting back to the actual topic, obviously Kildonan-St.Paul isn't a riding that often goes Liberal, but it's not out of the question. Don't forget the results in Brandon-Souris last November. The Liberals under Trudeau have demonstrated that with strong candidates, they can be strong in Conservative ridings.
Debater wrote: The Liberals under Trudeau have demonstrated that with strong candidates, they can be strong in Conservative ridings.
And I think most of us can agree that this is probably a good thing. If the Liberals can take back 30 or so ridings that they have steadily lost to the Conservatives in Ontario over the past decade, that is all to the good. (In a few, increased Liberal votes might even make it possible for the nefarious NDP to "sneak up the middle", but I digress.)
But as we all know, that will only happen by the Liberal Party continuing to tack to the right on assorted social and economic issues. Just saying ....
If he sold seeds, via mail, to the United States, then he was breaking American law on American soil. Since Canada has an extradition treaty with the US, his extradition was not a "travesty of justice," but justice served. He broke the law (as it stood then) and he suffered the consequences, full stop. That he (and I, for that matter) thought the laws should be different is inconsequential.
Wrong. Mailing seeds was illegal in Canada so he should have been tried here not in the US. That is the norm. Extradition would only be needed if what he did wasn't a crime in Canada, and even then. We didn't extradite all the draft dodgers. Our extradition treaty with the US does not require us to extradite Canadians who never set foot on US soil.
There are two ways we can work to change laws: one is to advocate their repeal or modification, abiding by it while it remains in force. The other is to wilfully disregard it in protest. Choosing the latter is perfectly legitimate and sometimes admirable, but then one must be willing to face the consequences. I have absolutely zero respect for someone who breaks the law in such a fashion but does not have courage enough in their convictions to face the conviction.
He has done both (he turned himself in) and-plea bargained to spare his co-accused so they wouldn't have to go to prison too and he has donated huge amounts of money to the cause of legalization which is the real reason he was arrested. If he were supporting Mulcair you would be singing the man's praises but because he is supporting Trudeau you speak disparagingly of him.
I don't think so, actually. The Liberals have promised national child care for so many elections and then failed to deliver that I don't think people are going to believe them. Certainly the NDP isn't going to give the Liberals a pass on the issue.The legislation was ready to go when the government fell and they lost the next election based on the sponsorship scandal which is now old news. If the NDP starts going on about old Liberal history again it will just turn people off as those are not the people running today.
So why should people believe that the Liberals are serious about implementing a national day care program this time, when they spent so many of their years in government not acting on the issue?
It's by definition impossible to govern in the public interest without upsetting the business community in some fashion.Yes, so when there is an easy way to promote health, social justice and economic well-being at the same time as not upsetting the business community it is idiotic not to do it.
There isn't one. Even accepting the idea of legal mariujana, that still leaves opportunities for the business community to benefit from that decision at the expense of everyone else, for example if the marijuana compounds you mention are ever patented by the pharmaceutical companies.
If Ana Bailão runs in Davenport for the Liberals in 2015, Andrew Cash would be hard pressed to beat her.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/07/18/reports_of_little_portugals_d...
So why should people believe that the Liberals are serious about implementing a national day care program this time, when they spent so many of their years in government not acting on the issue?
EDIT: Didn't realize I hadn't answered this. The platform isn't out yet so this might not be part of it but if it is I will say what I have said all along. People don't expect ALL campaign promises to be kept particularly in a first term. It is a cliche so not something particular to the Liberals. The legislation was ready to go when the government was defeated. If they had not been defeated we would have national daycare today. Political parties are like sports teams. Some years they perform differently than others.
I am sure some people will agree with you and decide that since Liberals broke campaign promises in the past they should never get another chance but clearly a lot of people are familiar with Liberal history and consider it a lot more black and white than you do. For those people, people like myself, trotting out old Liberal sins has no impact.
The NDP is between a rock and a hard place. The Economic right has won the public. Although people are more and more uneasy with austerity they still see the alternative as worse. They have bought the argument that social programs create Greece not Iceland.
There isn't one. Even accepting the idea of legal mariujana, that still leaves opportunities for the business community to benefit from that decision at the expense of everyone else, for example if the marijuana compounds you mention are ever patented by the pharmaceutical companies.
Of course business will benefit. They would benefit if the NDP legalized it too. The NDP is not anti-capitalist or anti-business. Pharmaceutical companies will do their utmost to monetize any aspect they can. That isn't a reason to keep marijuana illegal.
For those people, people like myself, trotting out old Liberal sins has no impact.
For one thing, these sins aren't that old. In fact, they are the sins that the Liberals committed in their most recent stint in government, not even a full six years ago. They are simply the latest examples of misuse of resources and public trust that the Liberals perpetrated when they were in the position to misuse resources and public trust. There has been no period when they changed their behaviour. We're not talking about a whole different era. We're talking about the very last time they were in office, when they stole the public's money, told constant lies to the people, and waere exposed as being steeped in corruption. This is not ancient history. This is an unbroken pattern of current behaviour.
The NDP is between a rock and a hard place. The Economic right has won the public. Although people are more and more uneasy with austerity they still see the alternative as worse. They have bought the argument that social programs create Greece not Iceland.
Except that that's not true. Austerity creates Greece, while social programs create Iceland. You aren't incorrect that the public have bought this for a long time, but all indicators are that they are waking up and gradually seeing this lie for what it is. But you, strangely, don't even seem to care if it's true or not. The Liberals will lead us down an austerity road into a huge prosperity gap and all the social ills that come with it and you couldn't care less.
For one thing, these sins aren't that old. In fact, they are the sins that the Liberals committed in their most recent stint in government, not even a full six years ago.
Glad the time has passed so quickly for you. Harper has been ruling since February 2006, almost 9 years. Canadians elected him 3 times finally giving him a majority. There is no denying that Harper style economic policy still finds favor with Canadians. Both Trudeau and Mulcair fall over themselves to reassure everyone that their economic policy will remain conservative and at worst they will close loopholes, or maybe raise corporate taxes but only a teeny bit.
This is not ancient history. This is an unbroken pattern of current behaviour.
You may see it that way but it is obvious many people don't or Liberals wouldn't be doing so well in the polls. I don't know of anyone who considers the sponsorship scandal part of a pattern of behavior specific to the Liberals. People see it as a scandal that ended a decade ago when they were defeated by Harper. Since then the Liberals shrank to a shadow of themselves. I think people feel they were sufficiently punished.
Except that that's not true. Austerity creates Greece, while social programs create Iceland. You aren't incorrect that the public have bought this for a long time, but all indicators are that they are waking up and gradually seeing this lie for what it is.
Reaction to occupy was an indicator to me that the public is ready to be awakened, but they haven't been. People still believe the reverse of the truth. Things could get a lot worse here if we do not succeed in revealing it to people.
But you, strangely, don't even seem to care if it's true or not. The Liberals will lead us down an austerity road into a huge prosperity gap and all the social ills that come with it and you couldn't care less.
Not so, I just think the NDP will drive us down the same road. They may drive a little slower but they won't change anything. Electoral politics matters, but it is not the road to democratic "revolution" at this stage of the game. The public has to be won first; then pressure is brought to bear on all the political parties. They may be beholden to powerful people and to their own self-interests but votes still come from the public.
This is a thread to talk about Liberal candidates for 2015 and which ridings they are running in. Could we keep the thread on topic please and keep the anti-Trudeau bashing out of it? There are hundreds of other threads for you to engage in that.
Are you a mod now too Debater?
Yep, I feel very comfortable feeling myself morally superior.That aspect of your personality shines through so no need to confirm it. You can be quite sure everyone knows.
You are deflecting Pondering. You stil haven't explained why a guy who has voted overwhelmingly WITH HARPER, and surrounded himself with Nexen Lobbyists and Neo-Con economic advisors is going to be the new "Progressive Messiah". And how about we avoid the old "nobody expect so and so to do such and such", explanation, this time. Answer the question for once.
Your responses to me and to debater contradict each other.
You are deflecting Pondering. You stil haven't explained why a guy who has voted overwhelmingly WITH HARPER, and surrounded himself with Nexen Lobbyists and Neo-Con economic advisors is going to be the new "Progressive Messiah". And how about we avoid the old "nobody expect so and so to do such and such", explanation, this time. Answer the question for once.
A) Most of the time the Liberals voted with the Conservatives because to do otherwise would have caused the government to fall at times when the public was in no mood for another election.This has frequently been mentioned by pundits so it isn't something you are unaware of.
B) Trudeau is not a progressive messiah. I wouldn't even call him progressive. Same goes for Mulcair.
Neither man is the type of person I would normally call "a progressive" although both can have progressive policies they both hold unprogressive views as well.
I think it's better for you if the NDP is never elected because I am not certain you could survive the business as usual atmosphere that would follow.
The Liberals voted with the Tories to save the government? Really? That's your real answer? Oh, come on.Mulcair isn't a progressive. Granted, he has taken more stances with which I disagree, but he has solid leftist credntials as others have already identified, while Trudeau, who knows what he believes. So let me so if I have this straight, it doesn't matter if Trudeau is progressive now? Is that what you are really saying.
Seriously Pondering, try it again.
Yes, that is what I am saying. What matters is specific policies and the ability to make them happen which includes the ability to be elected PM. Those may not be parameters that you consider but that doesn't mean I shouldn't consider them. I have stated that I will vote NDP strategically if the Liberals don't have a chance in my riding.
I know that you won't vote for the Liberals even if they are the only party who could beat Harper in your riding. I consider that stupid, cutting off your nose to spite your face, but that doesn't make your decision invalid because you genuinely believe there is no difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. So, by your logic, voting Liberal would be a waste because you don't care if its a Liberal or Conservative that takes the riding.
The point I am making is that just because someone votes differently than you doesn't make them a bad person who has no conscience it just means that they see the situation differently than you do.
Your responses to me and to debater contradict each other.
You are deflecting Pondering. You stil haven't explained why a guy who has voted overwhelmingly WITH HARPER, and surrounded himself with Nexen Lobbyists and Neo-Con economic advisors is going to be the new "Progressive Messiah". And how about we avoid the old "nobody expect so and so to do such and such", explanation, this time. Answer the question for once.A) Most of the time the Liberals voted with the Conservatives because to do otherwise would have caused the government to fall at times when the public was in no mood for another election.This has frequently been mentioned by pundits so it isn't something you are unaware of.
B) Trudeau is not a progressive messiah. I wouldn't even call him progressive. Same goes for Mulcair.
Neither man is the type of person I would normally call "a progressive" although both can have progressive policies they both hold unprogressive views as well.
I think it's better for you if the NDP is never elected because I am not certain you could survive the business as usual atmosphere that would follow.
The Liberals voted with the Tories to save the government? Really? That's your real answer? Oh, come on.
Mulcair isn't a progressive. Granted, he has taken more stances with which I disagree, but he has solid leftist credntials as others have already identified, while Trudeau, who knows what he believes. So let me so if I have this straight, it doesn't matter if Trudeau is progressive now? Is that what you are really saying.
Seriously Pondering, try it again.
ETA: So, vote Trudeau...because, Harper?
Pondering, if you want to vote stategically, go right ahead.
Trudeau has surrounded himself with Nexen Lobbyists, and Martinites. So what that means is, more of the same. Here, really read this reference this time, http://rabble.ca/news/paul-martin-he-has-record. The Liberals believe in austerity. They are no different from the Tories. Martin is hailed by all in that party, including Trudeau, as some kind of economic genius and saviour of the Canadian economy. Sure, he saved the economy, as long as you are rich, and influential. Trudeau obviously will pick up where Martin left off; the net effect is that oridinary Canadians, lose. It doesn't matter if its Tories or Libs, they will both do the SAME thing.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face, using your words, is voting LPC hoping for a different result.
Its about principle Pondering; I am a Social-Democrat (well Marxist, really). The establishment will not get my vote. It isn't my fault if people re-elect Harper; whether you like it or not, its THEIR CHOICE to make. Elections should be about ideas and policy. That is the true definition of democracy. I will support the party that comes closest to my beliefs, that is the NDP. It isn't an establishment party, led by an effete 1%er; and before the usual suspects get upset with my use of that word, the defitnion of effete is:
"ef·fete adjective \e-ˈfēt, i-\
: lacking strength, courage, or spirit
: resembling a woman
CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago
Full Definition of EFFETE1: no longer fertile 2 a: having lost character, vitality, or strength <the effete monarchies … of feudal Europe — G. M. Trevelyan> b: marked by weakness or decadence <the effete East> c: soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence <peddled … trendy tweeds to effete Easterners — William Helmer> <effete tenderfeet>; also: characteristic of an effete person <a wool scarf … a bit effete on an outdoorsman — Nelson Bryant> 3: effeminate 1 <a good-humored, effete boy brought up by maiden aunts — Herman Wouk>
ef·fete adjective \e-ˈfēt, i-\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; }
: lacking strength, courage, or spirit
: resembling a woman
CloseStyle: MLA APA ChicagoFull Definition of EFFETE1: no longer fertile 2 a: having lost character, vitality, or strength <the effete monarchies … of feudal Europe — G. M. Trevelyan> b: marked by weakness or decadence <the effete East> c: soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence <peddled … trendy tweeds to effete Easterners — William Helmer> <effete tenderfeet>; also: characteristic of an effete person <a wool scarf … a bit effete on an outdoorsman — Nelson Bryant> 3: effeminate 1 <a good-humored, effete boy brought up by maiden aunts — Herman Wouk> ", http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effete.
The last time I used this word, I was accused of calling Trudeau effiminite, and was accused of being a homophone. please note that effete also includes the idea of weakness of character and decadence of nature. That is what I meant. Just so we're clear this time. I'd appreciate anyone wanting to make the same accusations to note what the word actually means. Stop twisting my words and accusing me of being something I am not simply I will not bow down and kiss the feet of the King in waiting.
Trudeau is a pampered, dandy, a man with no siginificant life experience, and of little personal depth, who needs to be carefully scripted. He's put his foot in it over and over. I say it again, to everyLPC partisan on this board, you all had better hope this electon focuses on personality and not susbtance. If it is the latter, 2015 will mark the return of Justin to the Rubber Chicken Circuit.
By the way Pondering, you still haven't explained why voting Liberal means change. Right now, it seems your answer is vote Liberal because Trudeau isn't Harper.
ETA: By the way, I don't do anything because of fear. I'm not going to vote Trudeau because I'm afraid of Harper. If that is all there is to our democracy, then its already dead.
ETA2: "The point I am making is that just because someone votes differently than you doesn't make them a bad person who has no conscience it just means that they see the situation differently than you do." If you think that is what motivates my posts, then you simply don't get what I am trying to say. My point is you are advocating for a non choice. If you post here on these threads, as I have discovered, be perpared to be challenged. You are STILL deflecting.
It isn't an establishment party, led by an effete 1%er; and before the usual suspects get upset with my use of that word, the defitnion of effete is:
"ef·fete adjective \e-ˈfēt, i-\
: lacking strength, courage, or spirit
: resembling a woman
What's wrong with resembling a woman?
Martin is hailed by all in that party, including Trudeau, as some kind of economic genius and saviour of the Canadian economy.
That is Martin's public reputation and there isn't a political party on earth that wouldn't embrace a positive view of their own history.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face, using your words, is voting LPC hoping for a different result.
I'm not hoping for a radically different result. I am expecting them to govern according to the times which do change.
1620s, from Latin effetus (usually in fem. effeta) "exhausted, unproductive, worn out (with bearing offspring), past bearing," literally "that has given birth," from a lost verb, *efferi, from ex- "out" (see ex-) + fetus "childbearing, offspring" (see fetus). Figurative use is earliest in English; literal use is rare. Sense of "exhausted" is 1660s; that of "intellectually or morally exhausted" (1790) led to "decadent" (19c.).
Pasted from <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=effete>
The term is never ever applied to women because now it means lacking strength, courage or spirit BECAUSE one resembles a woman.
By calling Trudeau effete you are insulting him and women at the same time by implying that being like a woman is negative. It is the equivalent of calling a man a sissy or saying he throws like a girl.
Trudeau is a pampered, dandy, a man with no siginificant life experience, and of little personal depth, who needs to be carefully scripted. He's put his foot in it over and over.
And you are a man that relies on personal insults rather than reasonable argument.
I say it again, to everyLPC partisan on this board, you all had better hope this electon focuses on personality and not susbtance. If it is the latter, 2015 will mark the return of Justin to the Rubber Chicken Circuit.
How convenient for your ego. If Trudeau wins it's because voters are vacuous. The NDP has lost support because of NDP actions or lack thereof. If they lose the election it will be their fault not everyone else's but I am sure all the usual excuses will be trotted out.
By the way Pondering, you still haven't explained why voting Liberal means change. Right now, it seems your answer is vote Liberal because Trudeau isn't Harper.
You are either being deliberately obtuse or you aren't capable of comprehending answers because I have stated many times why I am supporting Trudeau against Mulcair.
By the way, I don't do anything because of fear. I'm not going to vote Trudeau because I'm afraid of Harper. If that is all there is to our democracy, then its already dead
Me either. No one should. However, if you know for sure that you are definitely going to lose second choice is better than nothing. For you, there is no second choice but for others there is. Voting for second choice is not voting out of fear. It's being sensible for people who do see the differences between all of the parties.
"The point I am making is that just because someone votes differently than you doesn't make them a bad person who has no conscience it just means that they see the situation differently than you do." If you think that is what motivates my posts, then you simply don't get what I am trying to say. My point is you are advocating for a non choice. If you post here on these threads, as I have discovered, be perpared to be challenged. You are STILL deflecting.
There is being challenged and there is being browbeaten. I believe Trudeau will follow through on marijuana legalization, you don't and you don't think I should trust the Liberals to follow through because they have broken big campaign promises in the past. I think they will follow through because it will give them a new revenue stream. You think the NDP will make different economic decisions, I don't think they will be able to make major changes because at best they would have a minority government and I don't think they are even capable of that. I also don't appreciate Mulcair's stances on issues in Quebec. I see the NDP as the emperor with no clothes. That you don't think my reasons are valid doesn't mean they don't exist.
This particular thread is about Liberal recruits and how they will impact Trudeau's electoral chances.
Pondering
You wrote:
"The term is never ever applied to women because now it means lacking strength, courage or spirit BECAUSE one resembles a woman. By calling Trudeau effete you are insulting him and women at the same time by implying that being like a woman is negative. It is the equivalent of calling a man a sissy or saying he throws like a girl"
Pondering, your reply is a perfect example of stretching and twisting language to suit your purposes. Obviously, you don't care what the term means in all of its contexts, as DETAILED in the Dictionary; so I guess now LPC partisans can decide what words mean? Saying that I am insulting Trudeau because he looks like a women is just too much; STOP putting words in my mouth. You are choosing how I intended in my mind to use the word; how did you know that? What did you do, read my mind by long distance? Yeah, I am insulting the man, but because he is hypocritical opportunist, lacking courage, morality and character who can't give a straight answer when he is asked. That is ALL. I am the one who used the word, to describe what he is, a 1%er, a dandy who has done nothing meaningful in life and now feels because his ego is so huge, that it is his G-d given right to govern, because of who his daddy was.
I'll tell you what, stop insulting me. And regarding what the NDP will do, you don't know anything about what they are going to do other then what they have said they will do. I am commenting on Trudeau based solely on who he has surrounded himself with, and what he has said. In other words, I am passing judgement on what he has said, he has done and with whom he has surrounded himself with. If it walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, its a Duck, period. You may not like it, but those are the FACTS. I don't make things up. Address the argument and stop the personal attacks. I haven't gone after you in any way personally. You are still deflecting.
Pondering
You wrote:
"The term is never ever applied to women because now it means lacking strength, courage or spirit BECAUSE one resembles a woman. By calling Trudeau effete you are insulting him and women at the same time by implying that being like a woman is negative. It is the equivalent of calling a man a sissy or saying he throws like a girl"
Pondering, your reply is a perfect example of stretching and twisting language to suit your purposes. Obviously, you don't care what the term means in all of its contexts, as DETAILED in the Dictionary; so I guess now LPC partisans can decide what words mean? Saying that I am insulting Trudeau because he looks like a women is just too much; STOP putting words in my mouth. You are choosing how I intended in my mind to use the word; how did you know that? What did you do, read my mind by long distance? Yeah, I am insulting the man, but because he is hypocritical opportunist, lacking courage, morality and character who can't give a straight answer when he is asked. That is ALL. I am the one who used the word, to describe what he is, a 1%er, a dandy who has done nothing meaningful in life and now feels because his ego is so huge, that it is his G-d given right to govern, because of who his daddy was.
I'll tell you what, stop insulting me. And regarding what the NDP will do, you don't know anything about what they are going to do other then what they have said they will do. I am commenting on Trudeau based solely on who he has surrounded himself with, and what he has said. In other words, I am passing judgement on what he has said, he has done and with whom he has surrounded himself with. If it walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, its a Duck, period. You may not like it, but those are the FACTS. I don't make things up. Address the argument and stop the personal attacks. I haven't gone after you in any way personally. You are still deflecting.
Your motive for using the word doesn't change it's meaning. A woman is never called effete because it would be like calling her a sissy.Nobody says "you're so gay" to women. It doesn't even matter. Your intent in using the word and your general description of Trudeau is still repugnant and reeks of class bigotry.
I am not deflecting. I repeat my reasons over and over and over again and you just pretend I didn't say anything. It's bizarre. You can't prove which campaign promises will and won't be kept because the Liberals have not broken 100% of campaign promises. It isn't a situation that whatever they do they always do the exact opposite.
Apparently you have managed to convince yourself that you have an airtight argument for why anyone who doesn't vote NDP is wrong so anyone who won't admit it is "deflecting".
Your opinions may be based on facts but that doesn't make your opinions facts.
Pondering, I was talking about Trudeau, not about a woman. As to my defecting, OK, whatever. I give up.
It isn't an establishment party, led by an effete 1%er; and before the usual suspects get upset with my use of that word, the defitnion of effete is:
"ef·fete adjective \e-ˈfēt, i-\
: lacking strength, courage, or spirit
: resembling a woman
What's wrong with resembling a woman?
Indeed AC, this is unacceptable. If the standard definition combines weakness, being a woman, and is use in the perjorative, then it should not be used to describe anyone.
Getting back to the actual topic, obviously Kildonan-St.Paul isn't a riding that often goes Liberal, but it's not out of the question. Don't forget the results in Brandon-Souris last November. The Liberals under Trudeau have demonstrated that with strong candidates, they can be strong in Conservative ridings.
Mary-Ann Mihychuk, while undoubtedly imbued with a level of ambition far outstripping her abilities is not all that strong a candidate, as evidenced by her ill-fated mayoral run.
Even if Justin Trudeau succeeds in winning 200 seats nation-wide, Mihychuk will still place third behind the returning NDP candidate, Rachelle Devine.
I don't know about that, Winston. I actually see Manitoba could be a bright spot for the Liberals regardless of how they do elsewhere in the country, simply because the NDP government is tired, unpopular, people want change, and provincially the Liberals and NDP are close in popularity. Not to mention that in recent provincial by-elections (including Arthur-Virden, which the NDP came close to winning in 2003) the NDP was resoundingly thumped. As it stands now, there is no mechanism to force out an unpopular leader, as the mechanisms to express dissent within the Manitoba NDP have been closed off. Even if the Liberals fail to win, I think there is a good chance they will finish second in Kildonan, and I think the NDP will have a tough time even winning back Winnipeg North and Elmwood-Transcona.
What I think is a positive sign for the Liberals in Western Canada is that after many years of ignoring the region under prior leaders, the party finally has a leader & a team of advisors around him who are making an effort for the first time at connecting with Western Canadians and expanding the base. The current Liberal leadership realizes they can't just focus on the same old seats in Toronto & Montreal anymore and have to expand westward.
I have been pleasantly surprised at the way Justin Trudeau & Gerald Butts have so far been able to develop an approach over the past year which has led to Liberal growth in all the Western by-elections:
Brandon-Souris
Provencher
Fort McMurray-Athabasca
Macleod
The Liberals were dead in these ridings under Ignatieff three years ago, and now they have moved ahead of the NDP in all of them, and nearly won Brandon-Souris. If the NDP voters in B-S join with the Liberals, the combined vote could beat the Cons there. If only a small number of the 7% of the NDP vote in B-S had gone to Rolf Dinsdale last November, he would have won. Hopefully the anti-Con will coalesce there in the way it did in Edmonton-Strathcona behind Linda Duncan. The reason Duncan gets elected is because Liberals there joined with NDPers. If the same phenomenon happens in ridings like B-S, the same result can occur of defeating a Con MP.
What I think is a positive sign for the Liberals in Western Canada is that after many years of ignoring the region under prior leaders, the party finally has a leader & a team of advisors around him who are making an effort for the first time at connecting with Western Canadians and expanding the base. The current Liberal leadership realizes they can't just focus on the same old seats in Toronto & Montreal anymore and have to expand westward.I have been pleasantly surprised at the way Justin Trudeau & Gerald Butts have so far been able to develop an approach over the past year which has led to Liberal growth in all the Western by-elections:
Brandon-Souris
Provencher
Fort McMurray-Athabasca
Macleod
And that growth will probably prove itself irrelevant in the upcoming general election. It would have been one thing if the Liberals had actually won any of these ridings, because then they can make connections with the local community to ensure they stay elected and at the same time rasing the tide of their fellow party members in surrounding ridings. With one exception, they never came anywhere close. Sure the Liberals put a great deal of focus on these ridings in the by-elections, but that's because they had the advantage of being able to focus. That advantage will not persist in a general election, where the Liberals will have to use their resources on a more national campaign. If you think for one minute that the Liberals are going to burn resources in Alberta or in Manitoba's Bible Belt, you are very naieve. The best case scenario I see for the Liberals in Western Canada would be between the 2000 and the 2008 numbers of seats they had. They had also better hope that Ralph Goodale sticks around, because his vote is more a personal thing than for the Liberal Party, and should he step down that seat will most likely revert to an NDP-Conservative battle.
Aristotle, what do you base your conjecture on? There is no evidence so far that the NDP is resonating in Western Canada under Mulcair's leadership. He has performed badly in all the by-elections that have taken place out West since he has been leader, including nearly losing Victoria to the Greens. Trudeau has leapfrogged him in both Manitoba and Alberta now, and Trudeau has deeper connections in B.C. than Mulcair does.
That doesn't guarantee anything for 2015, but I'm not sure how you can assume that the NDP is going to do better in the West than the Liberals when the record over the past 2 years shows the opposite.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the Liberal campaign. I know more about the Liberal campaign than you do, since I am actually working on it. The Liberals are serious about making inroads in Western Canada, and they ARE going to be investing lots of resources there. This is not the same Liberal Party as the one under Ignatieff & Dion. Trudeau & Gerald Butts mean business out West. They have already attracted a couple of Liberal MLA's in Alberta to run for the Federal Liberals in Calgary, and even the Conservatives are admitting that the Liberals have a good shot at winning Calgary Centre.
And the Liberals also did very well in Fort McMurra. The newly-distributed Fort McMurray riding provides an even better chance for gains, and the same candidate has already been re-nominated.
My question to you is, considering how badly the NDP has done in Western Canada under Mulcair's leadership, why do you assume the NDP will do so well out West in 2015?
Debater, try reading my post above yours for comprehension. Where did I say anything about the NDP chances in Western Canada? For someone who claims that the rest of us are not "objective," you have a big problem with mathematics. The Conservatives generally win Western Canada by big margins, some of them as big as 60 or 70%. It takes a great deal of resources to overcome a barrier that big. The Liberals couldn't overcome those barriers in by-elections where they had the chance to focus resources on those constituencies. How do you expect them to be a force for contention in a general election where they have far more constituencies to worry about, when they have sitting MPs to defend and swing seats to challenge? True the Liberals may be doing well in fundraising, but even parties that raise the most funds have limits to their resources, and have to make strategic decisions as to where they can spend them. So, which sounds like a more strategic investment to you: pouring resources into ridings that your opponents generally win by huge margins even at their low points, or pouring resources into a swing riding that's much closer, that your party has won in the past, and that is often a bellweather as to if your party sits in government or opposition?
While I'm at it, where did I discount the possibility of Liberals making gains in Western Canada? I said that they could make gains at the 2000 level. They might win extra seats in Winnipeg, Edmonton, (Calgary if they're really lucky) and Vancouver, but the major breakthrough in Western Canada that you are predicting, where the Libreals win seats they never won before (or haven't since before WWII) is very unlikely.
The purpose of by-elections is to establish a narrative, build a foundation & try out a game-plan, amongst other things.
By emerging as a strong rivial to the Cons in the Western Canada ridings and beating the NDP in all of them, the Liberals have been trying to show that they can be the main alternative to the Conservatives there. Now that NDP voters in those ridings know that the Liberals can give the Conservatives a run for their money, they may coalesce behind the Liberals in 2015.
We know there are differences between by-elections and general elections, but they can also be significant in developing momentum. Remember when people laughed at the inroads Jack Layton was trying to make a decade ago, and didn't take him seriously when he worked on expanding the NDP base into new ridings? Well Trudeau & his team are doing the same thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking the party is run by the same type of clowns that worked for Ignatieff.
Justin Trudeau has already succeeded in attracting a couple of star candidates in Western Canada to run for the Liberals in certain ridings, including in Calgary. There are already at least 2 Calgary MLA's positioned to run. Has Mulcair been able to do that for the NDP yet?
By emerging as a strong rivial to the Cons in the Western Canada ridings and beating the NDP in all of them, the Liberals have been trying to show that they can be the main alternative to the Conservatives there. Now that NDP voters in those ridings know that the Liberals can give the Conservatives a run for their money, they may coalesce behind the Liberals in 2015.
So instead of the Liberals getting 15% in Steinbach and getting crushed by the Conservatives, they get 25% in Steinbach and get crushed by the Conservatives. Big difference there.
The battlegrounds will be Ontario and BC.
The battlegrounds will be Ontario and BC.
My point, M58, is that Debater seems to be suggesting that the Liberals are on the verge of a breakthrough in Western Canada based on by-election results in ridings where a successful campaign for a non-Conservative candidate means winning back their deposit.
So instead of the Liberals getting 15% in Steinbach and getting crushed by the Conservatives, they get 25% in Steinbach and get crushed by the Conservatives. Big difference there.
How much you lose by does matter if you are in it for the long haul. Once elected, Trudeau can build on that by showing that he is representing them too instead of being like Harper and punishing areas that didn't vote for him. It also means something to the rest of Canada to see a politician make some inroads in Alberta. I want a leader that will strive to serve all Canadians and foster unity not division.
There is already a leader working to build a united Canada; his name is Tom Mulcair. I have to wonder how committed Trudeau is to build an "undived" nation given the way he gloated and baited the NDP using Jack Layton's words (blessed be his memory) after McQuaig's loss to Freeland. I wouldn't call that "trying to build a united nation". Or, for that matter, his attacks on Quebeckers who have the termity not to vote Liberal. I'm just sayin'.
So instead of the Liberals getting 15% in Steinbach and getting crushed by the Conservatives, they get 25% in Steinbach and get crushed by the Conservatives. Big difference there.How much you lose by does matter if you are in it for the long haul. Once elected, Trudeau can build on that by showing that he is representing them too instead of being like Harper and punishing areas that didn't vote for him. It also means something to the rest of Canada to see a politician make some inroads in Alberta. I want a leader that will strive to serve all Canadians and foster unity not division.
First off, Steinbach is in Manitoba, not Alberta.
Secondly, my bone of contention was with Debater's suggesting that the Liberals were on the verge of a breakthrough in Western Canada, but you do have a point about long-term building in regions that don't typically vote for you. We are in more general agreement on this point than with Debater's idea of the chances of Liberal gains in Western Canada in 2015.
Aristotle, the signifance of the by-elections have been commented on by a number of people, including those in the Western press. It doesn't mean there is going to be a Liberal sweep in the West, but there's more going on than you are saying.
1. The Liberals almost won Brandon-Souris, a riding that has only gone Liberal once or twice since Confederation.
2. The Liberals placed a very strong 2nd in Fort McMurray, getting their highest percentage of the vote outside Calgary/Edmonton in about half a century.
3. The Liberals leapfrogged the NDP in all 4 ridings from where they had been in the last couple of elections. The Liberals became the main alternative to the Conservatives instead of the NDP. You haven't yet explained why the NDP has been doing so poorly under Mulcair in all these ridings. Why is Mulcair getting beaten by Trudeau in ridings that Layton used to beat the Liberals in?
4. 2 or 3 Liberal MLA's are now running for the federal Liberals in city ridings in Calgary, which further increases the chances of Liberal gains there, particularly in Calgary Centre. An article in the Alberta press recently said the Liberals may now be the favourites to win Calgary Centre next year.
No one is predicting the Liberals are going to start sweeping through the West, but there are demographic and political changes afoot in certain ridings, and the Liberals are capitalizing on Mulcair's weakness in the West so far.
The battlegrounds will be Ontario and BC.
And Québec. The Liberals are in position to take a number of NDP seats.
And even the Conservatives are making a comeback attempt in Québec City according to a recent report by Daniel LeBlanc.
The battlegrounds will be Ontario and BC.
And Québec. The Liberals are in position to take a number of NDP seats.
And even the Conservatives are making a comeback attempt in Québec City according to a recent report by Daniel LeBlanc.
OK, I will predcit right now, that the NDP will take, and with certainty, between 50 and 60 seats, AT LEAST, in Quebec, Debater.
AC, you always predict that the NDP will win.
You also predicted that Joe Cressy would beat Adam Vaughan on the By-elections thread back in April. You are not exactly objective.
You are not exactly objective.
Debater accusing someone of not being objective.
Oh the irony.
