As the NDP now has 20% support, what does the NDP have to do to move its support to 25%, Part 5

107 posts / 0 new
Last post

Very interesting, LTUAE.  Worth keeping an eye out for.


ottawaobserver wrote:
The Liberals have a chance at Haldimand-Norfolk with Bob Speller running against Diane Finley, if that independent who hates the FN blockades runs again, but on the other hand Finley's husband is the Conservatives' national campaign manager, and will get every assistance.  They have a chance at London West as well.  Not sure how they'll do in the rest of the Niagara escarpment (the two Niagara Falls ridings and St. Catharines), and I doubt anyone can touch the Conservatives in Oxford or Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

If K-W still counts as SW Ontario, the Liberals are probably still in the picture there, too--esp. if Redman and Telegdi are running again.

As for Niagara, isn't St Catharines one of the NDP's "HST targets" as well?  And technically, there's only one Niagara Falls riding which, through the reflected glory of Welland as well as a bolstered St Kitts effort (plus demographics and past history), ought to be no less targetable--the other "Niagara" seat, Niagara West-Glanbrook, is on the opposite side of Welland/St Kitts from NF and has "safe Tory" written all over it.  (Maybe.  But looks are deceptive; it's bookended by the respective reflected glories of Welland and the Hamilton seats, after all.  At the very least, it's possible for the NDP to overtake the Liberals for second in NW-G.)

Oh, and the Conservatives may appear untouchable in Oxford; but the NDP came shockingly close to "doing a Sarnia" and overtaking the Liberals for second in 2008.

George Victor

Perhaps if the NDP is successful in gathering support across Canada against the apparent attempt by the Conservatives to enlist the Liberals in a move to have Canada stay on in Afghanistan after 2011.

Just received a news item from Brad Lavigne to this effect, but I cannot open the apparent  source of this, a link to the Sun Times. 

Anyway, here's part of Lavigne's message, along with an invitation to pass it along:

"For two years, Stephen Harper has repeatedly promised Canadians that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011.

Canadians were counting on it. They thought they could take Stephen Harper at his word. They were wrong.

Today we learned that Stephen Harper wants a backroom deal with Ignatieff's Liberals to keep Canadian soldiers in the military mission past 2011.

The majority of Canadians have spoken. Parliament has spoken. We want the combat mission to end in 2011. Now I want you to help me get the word out about this backroom deal."

Life, the unive...
George Victor

Thanks mate, tht works great.

Sean in Ottawa

The notion of training missions is one that has always annoyed me.

First, the soldiers can be attacked all the same and cannot pro-actively address threats. They cannot be limited to behind the wire in a country that has no front lines and behind the lines- only relatively secure camps, from a military point of view it hardly makes sense.

Second from a moral point of view we are still involved in the war and supporting that and all that means.

Third from a security point of view the troops remain in harm's way (in fact their opposition will simply change how they engage them to more direct attacks on camps perhaps. From a security point of view for Canada, we are still involved and still a target for those who want us to receive a bit of our own medicine.

The purpose of the training mission may be to let things cool off here politically-- hope the Cons get a majority-- and then go back on the offensive. At least that is what it looks like.