Does this make any sense to any of you folks?
I hope this doesn't mean Canadians actually WANT the next government to be a change in name only.
Why would any Canadians want Canada's next PM to be a guy who was openly calling for a new imperialism earlier in this decade?
I would generously estimate that only about 2% of Canadians have the slightest idea of what Ignatieff does or doesn't stand for. All they know is that there is some guy with name they aren't sure how to pronounce who is NOT Stephane Dion leading the Liberals and - hey - he looks good in a suit - so that's enough to get people to park their votes with the familar Liberal brand - for now.Kepp in mind that it has been conservatively estimated that about 90% of the population thinks about politics for about 10 minutes per WEEK.
Its like if you asked 100 Canadians to name their favourite beer - 95% of them will automatically say Labatt's or Molson. Its only during an election campaign that they are forced to pay attention to Upper Canada and Sleeman's and be reminded that those brands actually taste a lot better than Labatt's or Molson.
Sleemans it is.
Well, people were looking for a place to not vote for Harper.
As I feared, the coalition attempt by Layton has ended up kick starting the Liberals-- when we could have let nature take it's course.
Fuck.
and how could we have "let nature take its course"?
well Stock, we certainly can't use the "Liberal, Tory = same old story" analogy anymore. We were clearly alright with a Liberal government, and said we'd back them. To turn around two months later and say differnt will be a very difficult sell. We said to swing voters "it's important enough to have the Tories out that having the Libs in is alright"
Many are going to say, alright - I'll just vote Lib then. In first past the post this is even more effective then hoping for a coalition to keep them out of power after the election.
Let the Liberals continue to twist in the wind, broke, with Dion as long as possible, with Jimmy "Never Met a Man I Couldn't Kick While He's Down" Flaherty illustrating to Canada just why the tories should be feared.
I don't know if that strategy would have lead to the ultimate demise of the Liberal Party.
I do know that now we'll never know.
"Its like if you asked 100 Canadians to name their favourite beer - 95% of them will automatically say Labatt's or Molson. Its only during an election campaign that they are forced to pay attention to Upper Canada and Sleeman's and be reminded that those brands actually taste a lot better than Labatt's or Molson."
Sleeman's? You flatter yourself ;)
Put simply, Iggy inspires confidence. Dion didn't. It's not a question of the ideology of the leader, it's about his/her capability to hold the reigns of power and the confidence they inspire. Those kinds of considerations trump ideological bona fides for those voters who aren't as concerned with ideology.
It's worth noting, as well, that swing voters are the least likely to be driven by ideology. Thus even though they leaned left under Dion, they're perfectly willing to lean back if there's a compelling reason.
Does this make any sense to any of you folks?
If you want an answer to the question, chalk it up to...
(a) left or right, he comes off as a "stronger" leader than the Liberals have had in a spell,
(b) "cosmopolitan gravitas", i.e. he appeals to the kind of people who might vote NDP if someone like Stephen Lewis were leader.
Remember: not all NDP voters are that firmly "NDPish", ideologically speaking....
well Stock, we certainly can't use the "Liberal, Tory = same old story" analogy anymore. We were clearly alright with a Liberal government, and said we'd back them. To turn around two months later and say differnt will be a very difficult sell. We said to swing voters "it's important enough to have the Tories out that having the Libs in is alright"
Nonsense. The Liberals' reneging on the coalition in order to resume their alliance with Harper actually proved the "Liberal, Tory = same old story" argument. The Liberals could have ousted Harper and they decided to support him.
Of course, Harper has been warned. He has to give... progress reports (ooh). It's almost like he's on probation (see the new Liberal website http://www.onprobation.ca/ for a few good laughs). 
it's about his/her capability to hold the reigns of power
Get a horse.
"Let the Liberals continue to twist in the wind, broke, with Dion as long as possible, with Jimmy "Never Met a Man I Couldn't Kick While He's Down" Flaherty illustrating to Canada just why the tories should be feared.
I don't know if that strategy would have lead to the ultimate demise of the Liberal Party.
I do know that now we'll never know."
So, Tommy in other words you're saying that the NDP should voted for Flaherty's so-called economic statement back in November. That is the only way the NDP could have done what you are suggesting above. And, let's just remind ourselves of what the NDP would have had to vote FOR: a radically rightwing economic statement that all economists dismissed as a joke, elimination of the subsidy for political parties which would have deprived the NDP of 57% of its operating budget and led to the party (along with the BQ, Greens and Liberals) having to file for bankruptcy protection, and on top of all that - the Tories put in a few choice other "poison pills" in the economic statement in November that absolutely makde it 100% impossible for the NDP to support it (ie: eliminating the right to strike for all public service employees and killing pay equity).
If the NDP had followed your advice and voted for all of that - we would REALLY be staring into and abyss right now.
well Stock, we certainly can't use the "Liberal, Tory = same old story" analogy anymore. We were clearly alright with a Liberal government, and said we'd back them. To turn around two months later and say differnt will be a very difficult sell. We said to swing voters "it's important enough to have the Tories out that having the Libs in is alright"
Many are going to say, alright - I'll just vote Lib then. In first past the post this is even more effective then hoping for a coalition to keep them out of power after the election.
Bang on. The Liberal voters who in the past few elections who parked their vote with the NDP will return home now. The Coalition whether dead or alive will always be remembered as the deal between the Liberals and NDP with the devil and as such progressive voters will say why vote NDP when I get the same thing with the Liberals. The same will be said for the soft NDP supporters, they too will migrate to the Liberals.
The real question will be, what happens in western Canada where the conservatives will see their seat count grow and return to opposition status with a Liberal minority government relying on the Bloc for support as the NDP will not have enough seats to push the Liberals over. The coalition deal has finished a number of Manitoba west liberal and ndp ridings.
This will only heighten western alienation and spawn western separation. The coalition threat had Wall and Stemach holding emergency meetings, B.C.'s Cambell was invited and even Man. NDP Doer demanded to be included. There was a plan in place. This coalition thing will not be forgotten, just like the NEP, it will haunt the Liberals and NDP. Unfortunately the NDP will wear this more than the Liberals, the Liberals are always power hungery, the NDP are now seen as power at any cost and it doen't matter how you get, just get it. Sad to see.
All parties are in it to be in power so they can implement their programs. Tell me something I don't know. I find it amusing that these western rednecks who start to scream "treason" at the thought of a federal government working with the BQ - then start sounding just a treacherous when they squawk about western separatism. Now that the price of oil has collapsed and Alberta is deep in red ink - its funny to see these arrogant Albertans begging Ottawa for money like dogs with their tails between their legs.
Be nice now 
no name calling. Never said anything about treason. Just that the long term political ramifications of this coalition was not very well thought out by the two "National" parties involved. All you had to do was look at the polling done out west to see that this was not a deal the west was willing to accept.
Of course every party is in it for power. The issue is whether power is earned through do process or through manipulation through the back door. If they ran on a coalition ticket then they would be justified to present that to the GG. I believe that they did try to to do as such, but internal polling showed that if this was a political platform the Cons would win a majority, so it was left on the back burner until after the election.
Oil is trading at $68.75 Cdn today. That makes it very profitable for the oil producing provinces. And I have not heard my neighboring province begging for hand outs yet.
As for western separation, it is real and it does cross all party lines. The difference is that no line will be drawn in the sand like Quebec does.
Stock - I think your comments about "rednecks" Albertans "like dogs with their tails..." are a bit over the top. The West (like the East) sees central Canada as over strong, and many feared that despite significant distain for the Carbon tax durring the election, we'd get it anyway.
As for all parties want to be in power - well yes, but not power at any price, and that IS the distinction here. I think this is a common perception of Layton, and I think the NDP has picked up some of the stain as well since the coalition talks.
It seemed rushed and desperate. I think if it had been handled well then there wouldn't have been the same outcry to begin with. The coalition was legal, and a gamble. And we lost.
cross posted with CD - woops
" The issue is whether power is earned through do process or through manipulation through the back door."
Not to refight old arguments, but the "due process" in Canada is that the government is elected by the MPs. There is nothing "backroom" about that. What is manipulative is a party that 62% of the population rejected trying to ram their extremist ideology down the country's throat as if they had a majority.
I don't really get what the fear of the BQ supporting a minority government is in the first place. Harper relied on their support for the first year he was in power and tried to bribe them by recognizing Quebec as a nation - and the dyed in the wool Tories is Alberta didn't mind at all - as long as its Harper playing footsie with "separatists" (sic.) suddenly its OK. But what do people actually think that having the BQ as a silent partner backing a minority gov't would do? Are they scared that they might wake up in the morning and find Gilles Vigneault songs on the radio 100% of the time? Are they affraid that French will become the only official language of Canada? Or is it simple francophobia. Hating so-called separatists is just a coded way of saying that you hate people who speak French.
While its true that Alberta would not have much representation in an anti-Tory coalition (at least at this point), but the NDP has 9 MPs in BC, 4 MPs in Manitoba and 1 in Alberta - so there would be plenty of western representation.
If the coalition seemed "rushed and desparate" its because it was and it had to be. Harper put the opposition into a position where they had no alternative at all to doing what they did since had they not formed the coalition, all the opposition parties would have been in bankruptcy court as we speak and Harper would be bringing in a rightwing reign of terror that would make the Common Sense Revolution look like a tea party. Desparate times call for desparate measures.
It's almost like he's on probation (see the new Liberal website http://www.onprobation.ca/ for a few good laughs).
Oh, and make sure you don't accidentally type http://onprobation.com/... cause that's a hardcore porn site (doesn't anybody check these things?).
Does this make any sense to any of you folks?
Yes, because just like with Harper, there is no critical examination or challenge of the shit that flows from his mouth. If you say "My shit smells sweet!" with authority and the national press reports it faithfully as though it were a meaningful statement you would find with each repetition more and more Canadians would agree that your shit smells sweet and that because of that you're a strong and popular leader.
In the meantime, Jack Layton could write a paper improving on Einstein's theory of relativity and not even get a mention by our so-called national broadcaster.
Ignatieff is a moral coward without a principle he hasn't bought or traded for another more convenient principle. But he is rising in the polls because not a single corporate media outlet will dare challenge him or more appropriately have a good laugh at his expense.
Meanwhile in the real world, I think that looking ahead the NDP is making a good start with this:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-launches-task-forces-on-middle-class-econ...
"New Democrat Leader Jack Layton today launched caucus task forces on the economic recovery in Canada and to investigate the effects of the economic crisis on the middle class.
“We are acting on two great challenges facing Canada: reducing the harmful impact of the economic crisis on the middle class and promoting a recovery that puts Canada at the forefront of the 21st century global economy,” said Layton in his address to the New Democrat Federal Council.
“And so today I am announcing the creation of two task forces to tackle this economic crisis – the Economy Recovery Task Force and the Middle Class and the Recession Task Force. Over nine weeks, the New Democrat caucus task forces will listen to and consult with Canadians across the country, investigate the effects of the recession on ordinary Canadians, and bring new ideas to Ottawa.”
The Task Force on the Economic Recovery will be chaired by New Democrat Members of Parliament Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley) and Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain), while deputy leader Tom Mulcair (Outremont) and Megan Leslie (Halifax) will chair the Task Force on the Middle Class and the Recession.
“Stephen Harper has ensured a slower recovery, and tougher times than necessary for middle class Canadians,” said Layton. “It’s time to re-tool our economy, let the middle class be heard and begin the recovery that paves the way for our future prosperity.”
If you say "My shit smells sweet!" with authority and the national press reports it faithfully as though it were a meaningful statement you would find with each repetition more and more Canadians would agree that your shit smells sweet and that because of that you're a strong and popular leader.
This just in: Canada First Country With Nutmeg Scented Executive Feces.
Stock - thanks for the press release. That is good to see. Now lets also see some big names on the taskforces. And then lay out some major and specific developments that would be persued immediatly on taking government. Big infastructure projects for every area with a goal to sustainability and job creation.
NL - a loan to the government to get the lower churchill of the ground.
A fast train from Mont to TO. (I know the liberals said it first - but who really cares?)
Manitoba and Sask - huge infrastructure investment in the grid to transport energy needs across the country. Also in Alberta major investments to reduce water use in farming, minning and oil.
BC and the rest- you tell me. These are just quick examples
I'm no task force, but I'd like Jack to show up in every part of the country and say "we need you to develop this. The country needs you to develop this, so no more waiting around. This happens as soon as we are in government, because it HAS to be done."
What you say about the Cdn parlimentary system is true? The honorable practice is though, the party with the most seats (whether majority or minority) forms government. When said party loses the confidence of the house, tradition dictates(counter to parlimemtary rules) the GG disolves the house and calls an election.
The fear out west is that a Bloc supported party with it's clear hatred of Alta. oil would have implemented the Green Shift, increased gun registry plus a whole bunch of other social items that we would not have any say in.
When the next election is called that is exactly what is going to happen any ways? The liberals will be down to 3 seats from 7, the NDP down to 7 from 14, so from the 92 total seats, the west will have 10 members in the Liberal led small minority government. There were many riding out west where the Liberals and NDP won by less that 3% of the vote, these can easily be switched.
2008 election - 48.8% of the cast votes in Man. 53.7% in Sask., 64.6% in Alta., 44.4% in B.C. were for the Cons in the last election. So a majority,53%, of the western voice doesn't count under the coalition. 10(13) of 14 seats in Sask. by clear majority, Alta. 25(27) of 28 by clear majority, B.C. 14(22) of 36 by clear majority and Man. 7(9) of 14 by clear majority.
Without representation the west has no voice. Will the western NDP mps in a coalition fight for the majority in the west. Will the western NDP mp's vote for the wishes of the west (abolish the long-gun registry as an example), not likely Will the Bloc give a damn about the Majority (anti Green shift) in the west, not. That is the fear and it is real, from the grass roots all the way to the halls of the legislatures. Another example the NDP candidate in my riding very nice person, worked with her on many committees, she lost by over 26% points to the Conservative, the reason was clearly that she could not deliver on what her constituants wanted, no carbon tax and get rid of the gun registry as just a couple of items. Her policies were diametrically opposed to what the majority wanted. So how is that in the best interest of what people here want when she can not deliver. Is the lone Liberal going to represent the 53.7% majority in my province, not a snow balls chance in hell will that happen.
I find your posting utterly incoherent. First of all the NDP and the BQ were both adamantly opposed to the so-called "green shift" and the coalition program made it crystal clear that the carbon tax was DEAD.
"The honorable practice is though, the party with the most seats (whether majority or minority) forms government. When said party loses the confidence of the house, tradition dictates(counter to parlimemtary rules) the GG disolves the house and calls an election."
If that is the case how was it that in 1985 in Ontario the Liberals formed a minority government with NDP support - even though the Tories had more seats (and btw: neither the Ontario Liberals nor the ONDP in that election ever campaigned on forming a coalition). If we want to talk about "honorable practices" - please tell us what is honourable about a MINORITY government trying to drive the opposition into bankruptcy and playing a game of Russian roulette making every single solitary vote a confidence vote???
"Without representation the west has no voice. Will the western NDP mps in a coalition fight for the majority in the west. Will the western NDP mp's vote for the wishes of the west (abolish the long-gun registry as an example), not likely Will the Bloc give a damn about the Majority (anti Green shift) in the west, not."
You seem to be confusing "the west" with rural southern Alberta. Vancouver is in the west and I don't se people there being up in arms about the gun registry - and people in Winnipeg obviously aren't either since they elected mostly Liberals and NDPers. Even Edmonton elected an NDP MP. and I really don't get our nonsense about the BQ and the "green shift" when the BQ was 100% opposed to the Green Shift. Remember? the BQ tends to regard Liberals as the enemy. The only reason that the BQ swallowed their pride and agreed to work with Dion and Layton was because Harper put all the opposition parties into such an impossible position. Well if Hitler could get Stalin to work with Churchill and Roosevelt - I guess Harper can take pride in having managed to cause lifelong enemies like Dion and Duceppe to form an alliance.
yes - and the West has a lot of seats. Their concerns are almost never ignored (NEP might leave a bad taste, but at least you got your way).
Come down to Newfoundland with 7 seats and see how you like being well outside the sphere of power - for real this time. This crying about representation is a little sad, and certainly no reason to deny a coalition, unless you think that the government should be determined based on what only one region thinks.
PS - the coalition was the only chance NL had of being heard in the current government, which is why I supported it even though I though it could be risky. That and seeing Jack (Harris) as a Minister.
As for your "fear" of what the coalition would have done to the west. Just let me say, I don't think it's half as bad as what Harper will do with the 1/2 million people on my island who he has decided he doesn't like, and who seem to have no defenders in the rest of the country. You'd think after all those year of wanting in you wouldn't turn around and push someone else out the second you actually got "in" yourself
Green Shift or carbon trading same thing, the Bloc would only hold their nose and work with the Liberals if there was something to benefit them directly, as the Bloc said many times in the house, Quebec would be a net recipient of a cap and trade system. Money would move from Alta. to Quebec.
The one riding in Edmonton was won by .9% and Jaffer was an idiot as he spent all his time in his fiancee's riding. There were quite a few ridings in Greater Vancouver 12 of 21 that went Con and they are not rural Alta. 4 of 8 Winnipeg ridings also are not rural Alta. Same with the Edmonton and Calgary seats as well. I guess those people in these metros must not agree witheir brotheran in rural Alta.
So how does one NDP mp in North Edmonton (who won by .9%) and one Liberal in Regina represent the interest of all those majority voters in a coalition government? How do they represent all those rural folk and city folk that voted for the other party? Those voters obviously agree with the majority of the Con policy platform so how are they served by a coalition government? Basically you are saying that all those voters and their opinions do not count.
Like you said the coalition was more about party financing than saving the country. "The only reason that the BQ swallowed their pride and agreed to work with Dion and Layton was because Harper put all the opposition parties into such an impossible position - Harper put the opposition into a position where they had no alternative at all to doing what they did since had they not formed the coalition, all the opposition parties would have been in bankruptcy court as we speak"
It was the Cons that got rid of the NEP. The west has never influenced or got our way with a progressive government. Danny Williams asked for the ABC and sadly he got his wish. The financial strain and unfairness of the accords would pit region/province against region/province. No premier out west did what he did, no one said anything but liberal. I'm from a province that paid back to the federal treasurery $1.09 to $1.18 for every $1 we got in equalization when we got it, this of course hurt the provincial treasurery. This happened for over 20 years and no government would change it, it wasn't until we got a Con government that it changed. When we became a have province our provincial govn't still felt that we deserved equalization, I disagree with that. Why should we get more in total per capita federal transfers than say NFDL or Quebec to maintain an equal bundle of services.
Exactly what has Harper done that has hurt NFDL, what policy or bill has he passed or going to pass that actually changed the lives of a NFDLer. On a side bar Martin never gave us an energy accord and under Harper we lost out on a $800 million winfall due to the unfair equalization formula and we still elected 13 mps as there are more important issues than just money.
What you say about the Cdn parlimentary system is true? The [i]honorable[/i] practice is though, the party with the most seats (whether majority or minority) forms government. When said party loses the confidence of the house, tradition dictates(counter to parlimemtary rules) the GG disolves the house and calls an election.
It's clear that even today, you lack an understanding of our Parliamentary system of democracy. And your grasp of the 'honorable' thing needs some work as well.
It's almost like he's on probation (see the new Liberal website http://www.onprobation.ca/ for a few good laughs).Oh, and make sure you don't accidentally type http://onprobation.com/... cause that's a hardcore porn site (doesn't anybody check these things?).
Could this mean another unpleasant trademark infringement lawsuit for the Liberals? Check out [url=http://thegreenshift.ca]thegreenshift.ca[/url] today for a sign of what may be to come
Green Shift™ and the Green Shift trademark are the property of Green Shift Inc.
In the summer of 2008 the Liberal Party of Canada used our trademark to brand their carbon tax program.
This resulted in a lawsuit and an out of court settlement.
To separate details pertaining to the events surrounding this matter from our official website, and to not have it clutter our mission, we have, for the time being, transferred some of the details about this here.
If you are looking for the real Green Shift™, please visit: www.GreenShift.ca
It's almost like he's on probation (see the new Liberal website http://www.onprobation.ca/ for a few good laughs).Oh, and make sure you don't accidentally type http://onprobation.com/... cause that's a hardcore porn site (doesn't anybody check these things?).
And if you do end up at "onprobation.com", remember this: "Our Chief Whip" means something somewhat different on THAT site.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
the long gun registry and carbon tax were created issues for rural dwellers. hammered on and on by Conservative media, party flyers, blahing on, making them issues.
the reality is that the NDP shouldn't really care about a long gun registry, let it go, and rural long gun owners need to be given something more substantial to hold onto.
the carbon tax is another mis-spun item. let it go. focus on the major substantial actual energy systems and accompanying jobs that Need to be set up; What would that look like in rural areas. We have a sun farm going in here. haven't looked at the P3 details of it, but there is absolutely no reason mega versions for Alta and elsewhere couldn't, indeed shouldn't be done Public. Everyone has major geothermal, and its easy to do in rural areas. get rid of half oil use right there. and the production and installation provide more jobs.
people in rural areas don't have oil running in their veins you know.
they just need politicians and media to stop talking about sh__, like ATM bank charges, when big and real alternatives need to put out there, clearly like, 'here's what's in it for you'.
And the last i saw, Nfld. had TONS of wind along the coasts. no reason why there couldn't be major production, installation, maintenance, etc.jobs. along with all the other alts, in diverse sectors, from food to tourism, etc.
Because Iggy can win when Dion could not.
Because we have a FPTP system not PR.
anyone can win if enough people vote for them. Dion could have won if he hadn't proposed the carbon taxnd if he had embarrassed himself with silly deals with the green party etc.. Right up until the writ was dropped polls showed the Liberals even with the Tories - it was there for Dion - he just didn't play his cards right.
I was answering the opening question Stockholm. Your first sentence is a truism.
also, i can't remember which thread it was on when i was reading babble last night, but someone put up a comment on the organizing abilities of Communists, and others seem to feel a personal need at rabble to uphold the good name of socialism, however they care to define it. a number of people at rabble are obviously very attached to these terms. if it is so very difficult to let these terms go, at the very least then proponents ought to do justice and come out publicly acknowledging the Holodomor as a crime against humanity. i believe the Communist Party of Ukraine did this last year, it might have been earlier.
The sooner that groupings in Canada which promote these terms put out press release clarifying their positions on this elephant of a crime, the sooner understandings can be built with the millions of rural dwellers who will never forget, but who can forgive. there can never be forgiveness and restitution though where there has not even been an attempt at apology. and yes i know this is a two-way street, but people have to take ownership for what is theirs.
talking with relatives near and far in the past months, i've heard comments reflecting a wall against 'Reds' (from one of the most sensitive and non-'red-neck' of the lot, but who lost too many relatives in the old country), to "'why is socialism supposed to be bad, anyway?". the point is there is opportunity and room for clarification, and i think as it's been mentioned before at babble, public statements by affiliates of these groups could post the statements of these groups/parties on the issue of the Holodomor, as a useful step.
Re. the opening post, yes, it makes sense to me that the Liberals can win & that soft NDP support could fall to them. The Liberals have a new leader (who is not Dion) that the media are fawning over. Yes, he's a jack-ass, but so long as the media relentlessly sells him to Canadians, he's golden. Meantime Jack gets no play and no respect from the media, as usual.
At least 2 years ago Jack rightly said we need to sit down and talk with the Taliban. He was absolutely right of course, but that didn't matter. He was jeared in the house and scoffed at by the media who labled him "Taliban Jack" and the NDP soft on terrorism. Now Harper says we can't win in Afghanistan (but we'll keep killing and being killed anyway) and the media trumpets Ignatieff for saying we should negotiate with the insurgents. Nobody in the MSM is calling either of these guys soft on terrorism, taliban sympathisers or anything of the sort.
Winning, or even making gains, under these circumstances is very difficult. The Liberals are also ripping off NDP ideas as fast as they can these days. Their talking about fixing EI, protecting pensions and helping those who will be hit hardest by the economic downturn. This is all stuff lifted directly from the NDP platforms of previous elections.
The real problem is simply one of perception. Most Canadians don't trust the NDP on economic matters. Our old buddy Bob Rae (now a Liberal) didn't help that any in vote rich Ontario. Reality has nothing to do with this. It's all about control of the media and the uniformed public's perception. The game is rigged!
If the NDP really want to win, they had better start influencing or buying up media outlets.
thanks: Thanks, but no thanks.
LTJ, please clarify.
Its funny how "Chester Drawers" keeps going on about the gun registry. Meanwhile, Harper has been PM for over three years and he has never bothered to keep his election promise to scrap the gun registry. It would have been a very easy thing for him to do. During that two year period when Dion made it clear that the Liberals would let ANYTHING pass for fear of an early election, all Harper had to do was bring in a bill specifically to scrap the gun registry and declare it a confidence vote and then watch the Liberals fold like and accordion and let it pass.
I wonder why the "peasants with pitchforks" in the rural west aren't burning Harper in effigy for keep the gun registry going and breaking his promise to them?
That is NOT how the public perceives it. They perceive it as the NDP opposed Dion then quickly supported Dion. Dion and the Green Shift are interchangeable in the publics mind. While you are factually correct, the public never understood the coalition, because the coalition pitchman was an idiot who couldn't get his shit together on prime time television in order to communicate the deal.First of all the NDP and the BQ were both adamantly opposed to the so-called "green shift" and the coalition program made it crystal clear that the carbon tax was DEAD.
Crystal clear my ass!!!
Well if Hitler could get Stalin to work with Churchill and Roosevelt - I guess Harper can take pride in having managed to cause lifelong enemies like Dion and Duceppe to form an alliance.
People don't follow Quebec politics. Few know about the long running battles between the LPC and the BQ. Peoples memories are short and there beliefs is that Dion and Duceppe and Layton are all pals.
Otherwise, I agree with your response regarding westerners etc.
That is NOT how the public perceives it. They perceive it as the NDP opposed Dion then quickly supported Dion. Dion and the Green Shift are interchangeable in the publics mind. While you are factually correct, the public never understood the coalition, because the coalition pitchman was an idiot who couldn't get his shit together on prime time television in order to communicate the deal.First of all the NDP and the BQ were both adamantly opposed to the so-called "green shift" and the coalition program made it crystal clear that the carbon tax was DEAD.
Crystal clear my ass!!!
Well if Hitler could get Stalin to work with Churchill and Roosevelt - I guess Harper can take pride in having managed to cause lifelong enemies like Dion and Duceppe to form an alliance.
People don't follow Quebec politics. Few know about the long running battles between the LPC and the BQ. Peoples memories are short and there beliefs is that Dion and Duceppe and Layton are all pals.
Otherwise, I agree with your response regarding westerners etc.
Stockholm, your quoted phrase in your last post sounds a little derogatory, but i'll let that pass. sort of.
regarding the jist of your question, it's because as i've noted in post #31 here, ultimately the registry isn't the most bottom line issue for rural people.
and i'm still waiting for a response from LTJ. he sounds like he considers himself a socialist or communist but isn't willing to take any steps towards any critical examination or restitution of issues within those communities as they relate to significant portions of the country's population.
Its funny how "Chester Drawers" keeps going on about the gun registry. Meanwhile, Harper has been PM for over three years and he has never bothered to keep his election promise to scrap the gun registry.
Why would he scrap it??? Its the gift that keeps on giving. As long as he has an excuse not to scrap it, someone to blame, and continues to allow it to be part of Private Members Bills, he will continue to campaign against the gun registery each and every election.
Its brilliant.
"Dion and Duceppe and Layton are all pals"
i did here feedback from relatives that the picture of the latter two together (-the one profiled towards the end of the campaign) was problematic as it reflected the 'won't look at the budget first' issue. obviously Harper couldn't be trusted, but that approach got mileage for corp media.
the bottom line is that Dion and Duceppe and Layton were right. the coalition was right. it was a good alternative to Harper.
All we can do is continue supporting beacons of light in the pro-democracy movement
Madmax, you're absolutely right about why it makes sense for Harper not to actually scrap the gun registry. I just wonder why all these gun-toting loud-mouths who vote Conservative because they are single-issue pro-gun nuts - aren't the least bit bothered by the fact that after three years in power - the gun registry is still there. If I was one of these pro-gun nuts who was singlemindedly obsessed with getting Harper elected because I wanted the gun registry scrapped so badly - I'd be hopping mad about Harper's broken promise and i'd be on the verge of recreating the Reform Party!
"Stockholm, your quoted phrase in your last post sounds a little derogatory"
Boo-hoo-hoo, I was derogatory towards Stephen Harper. I hope he doesn't read bable, it might hurt his feelings.
"So how does one NDP mp in North Edmonton (who won by .9%) and one Liberal in Regina represent the interest of all those majority voters in a coalition government? How do they represent all those rural folk and city folk that voted for the other party? Those voters obviously agree with the majority of the Con policy platform so how are they served by a coalition government? Basically you are saying that all those voters and their opinions do not count."
Why exactly are our hearts supposed to bleed over the possibility of a coalition government that has very little representation in Alberta and Saskatchewan? Right now we have a government that has ZERO representation in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Newfoundland and is almost non-existent in Quebec as well. Unfortunately, one of the worst side-effects of the first past the post system is that it grossly maginifies regional discrepancies - so we end up with Conservative government with no representation at all from major cities or from most of Quebec OR we end up with a non-Conservative government with little or no representation in the rural west. Choose your poison.
Stockholm, i'm not exactly clear with all your rhetoric. bleeding hearts? boohoo?
on the regional distortions, obviously we need fair vote.
and i wanted to add, for LTJ and others, that along with acknowledging the Holodomor as a crime against humanity, or genocide, socialist and communist parties/groups could also publicly denounce Trotskyite/Leninist support for terrorizing secret police and other forms of vicious repression which continued until not very long ago, all done in their name.
Ken I don't think I get your premise in the OP; how do you know the Liberals under Iggy are taking votes from the NDP? We haven't had an election since he became Liberal leader right? If you're wondering why pollsters and pundits would favor Iggy... thats a whole different question!
Thanks: I agree with LTJ, thanks but no thanks. Can we get some moderation on this thread drifting red baiter please? BTW you don't speak for all Ukrainian Canadians thanks. How about a petition against the crimes of the Tsars against the Ukrainian people? But that wouldn't help grind your axe would it... anyway, gtfo of this thread if you can't say something on the topic.
Will:
yes - and the West has a lot of seats. Their concerns are almost never ignored (NEP might leave a bad taste, but at least you got your way).Come down to Newfoundland with 7 seats and see how you like being well outside the sphere of power - for real this time. This crying about representation is a little sad, and certainly no reason to deny a coalition, unless you think that the government should be determined based on what only one region thinks.
PS - the coalition was the only chance NL had of being heard in the current government, which is why I supported it even though I though it could be risky. That and seeing Jack (Harris) as a Minister.
As for your "fear" of what the coalition would have done to the west. Just let me say, I don't think it's half as bad as what Harper will do with the 1/2 million people on my island who he has decided he doesn't like, and who seem to have no defenders in the rest of the country. You'd think after all those year of wanting in you wouldn't turn around and push someone else out the second you actually got "in" yourself.
Well said Will, I feel the same way whenever I hear the plaintive whines of those poor "alienated" Westerners, who run this country (into the ground)... And despite our asshat of a Premier most Nova Scotians support NFLD in this, so you're not alone.
