How To Prevent Majority Harper Regime II

Isn't there some irony in you telling people how to vote, in order to "save democracy"?

Yeah, I thought so.

Personally, I see a Con majority in 2011. Not because they are a strong party, or that people love them, but because folk are still pissed off at 12 years of Lieberal rule, and the partisan bickering that forced the last unnessecary election. The disenfranchised haven't forgotten yet, and will punish the opposition accordingly. Unless their election aims are to produce a record for the lowest voter turnout EVER, I think the opposition parties are destined to failure.

Actually I think Harper may be defeated this time.

Actually, it will hurt the Cons. Absolutely puts the lie to the "they are just opportunistic" theme. That will help all the opposition parties but perhaps the NDP more than the others.

I think this will be personally difficult for Layton but I don't expect that to hurt campaign results.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Layton+will+campaign+pain/4493653/...

The Cons engineered this election - because they know that this one will result in their majority.  They only need 11 seats

The Conservative incumbents that aren't running again are not in competitive ridings - but the Liberal/NDP incumbents not running again sure are.  During the last election the Cons were closer in more races than any other party.  More conservative-minded Liberal voters will move to the Cons thanks to the coalition 'scare' and due to dislike of Iggy, while with Dion and the green Shift gone more liberal-minded-but-not-truly-NDP floater voters will shimmy back to the Libs in just-enough numbers to squeak the Cons to the tiniest of majorities.

All they need to do is win three seats in BC, one in Alberta, five in Ontario and two out east.  Nevermind what happens in Québec.

This one is in the can.

@aristotleded24:

Even if no one else comments, I think you are bang on. It was a crucial moment for the NDP and the membership failed. We've been living with all of its effects since then. Davey Barrett got it; it is a shame we don't have someone like him in charge now.

Just a great comment and thanks for making it!

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Actually there are at least 3 seats in Ontario that I can think of, off the top of my head, that are conservative and the NDP is gunning for so, nay, you don't know what you don't know. Of course, when Libs campaign in say Sask., in a seat lost by a NDPer by less than a 100 votes, you than wonder about whether you really think the NDP should not consider those seats that are close and held by liberals who really completely agree with Harper policies mostly. If you want a progressive govt focus, one votes NDP, full stop.

KenS wrote:

Given the losses in Quebec that were virtually guaranteed even in a very good campaign for them, the issues dogging them means they will now be doing very well to recoup those losses in Quebec with gains elesewhere.

But are the Cons "guaranteed" to lose seats in Quebec?  They certainly could lose a few, but most commentators I'm hearing seem to think that if they do lose some in Quebec, it will only be 2 or 3.  They aren't at risk of losing all of them.

Lens Solution wrote:

But are the Cons "guaranteed" to lose seats in Quebec?  They certainly could lose a few, but most commentators I'm hearing seem to think that if they do lose some in Quebec, it will only be 2 or 3.  They aren't at risk of losing all of them.

Not all, but most are at risk. They'll be lucky to hold more than 2 or 3. The Harpercrits have lost double digits in the polls in Quebec - in some polls, they're trailing the NDP.

CTV: New Ipsos-Reid poll has Tories in majority territory at 43%.

I've been going back and forth between CBC and CTV - heard someone say Harper will probably step down if he gets another minority, because he hates being in a minority - even though he governs as if he had a majority.

Wouldn't that cause problems within the Conservative Party? If the Conservatives fail to win a majority even after 3 elections with him as leader (4 if you count 2004) and a clear tactical advantage, wouldn't that mean he failed to win for the Conservatives?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Not all, but most are at risk. They'll be lucky to hold more than 2 or 3. The Harpercrits have lost double digits in the polls in Quebec - in some polls, they're trailing the NDP.

And it's always about the name-calling with you lot, isn't it? I find it amusing that you have seen fit to lump me in with the "Harpercrites". For the record, I am socially Liberal, and fiscally Conservative. As such, the current government doens't exactly suit me, particularly with the latest round of big-brother-esque bills that have been tabled. Nonetheless, I know that if the Lieberals return to power, my rights will be further infringed upon and my pockets further stripped. 

Much more realistic than the dreamworld you live in, no?

- re: Jack Layton's health- he's survived and stronger. illness does that: puts you beyond petty games, and helps you focus on priorities.

- people in the West know about cooperation.  and differences within a federation. they also perhaps could be reminded that people in Quebec were on this land hundreds of years before they were, and First Nations people were here at least eleven to fourteen thousand years earlier, to have some respect. 'sovereignty' needs more clear definition- the term G. Duceppe repeated the other day on radio.  i'd have to read up on use of the term, maybe others could help. It seems to convey self-determination and perhaps it would be useful to outline areas that are of concern specifically- so far Duceppe has only been asking for what BC and Ontario already have (HST) , not necessarily 'separation' as in 'tearing the country apart' which is the rhetoric that Harper spouted last election.

- many in the west understand that languages of origin are important to different cultures, it seems that somehow legitimate concerns of Quebecers and others to retain their languages was manipulated to pit east against west.  westerners have always been included in surveys which show strong support for universal healthcare, and farmers have shown support for the wheat board, despite Harper's attempt to destroy it.  there is shared irritation with corporate/banking control of rail and with foreign ownership.. when the specifics are named in a coalition agreement, Harper cannot engage in fear-mongering about what coalition participants might or might not do.  Clear strong support is essential for workers in their transition from oilpatch jobs: vision and steps for the economy including employment in infrastructure and services, EI and training.

-re: 'dislike of Iggy'- again it would be helpful, and i'm thinking about coalition again (still looking for a good definition there), if it is clear what exactly different parties are agreeing to, and how decisions are made.  Why couldn't Jack Layton lead a coalition? Does it depend on number of existing seats in parliament?  more important though are the policy consensus items.  there was a list last time, which would be useful to review. 

- it would be helpful if pundits reminded the public that polls reflect the pollsters.

- "Many Conservative M.P.'s are terrified of him." This is a very sad state of democracy.

- Canadians don't necessarily think bombing of Libya is a good thing.  We're tired of hearing of more war and violence.  NATO is becoming more of a problem than the problems it pretends to 'solve.'  Instigating violence.  Gaddafi's 'bombs' were like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. non-existent.

-  a coalition agreement with clear parameters would provide more accountability in government, and certainly show more respect for parliament.

olivertwisto wrote:

And it's always about the name-calling with you lot, isn't it? I find it amusing that you have seen fit to lump me in with the "Harpercrites". For the record, I am socially Liberal, and fiscally Conservative. As such, the current government doens't exactly suit me, particularly with the latest round of big-brother-esque bills that have been tabled. Nonetheless, I know that if the Lieberals return to power, my rights will be further infringed upon and my pockets further stripped. 

Socially Liberal (so you talk left, walk right?) and fiscally Conservative (into huge deficits and tax cuts, but only for foreign corporations and the very filthiest of the rich)?

BTW, if you check back you'll find I did not label you a Harpercrit, but you've earned the title since with your hypocrisy about name-calling. "Lieberal"?

Is that the best you've got?

Could anyone provide a list of vulnerable Con-held ridings, and ridings Cons are close to winning?

Progressives should consider picking one of these ridings to volunteer for, even if they don't live and vote there. I once lived in a solidly Con riding, so I put my energies into volunteering for a strong opposition candidate in an adjacent riding.

Quote:

The Harper Conservative Top Guns can be defeated in the next election if anti-Harper voters in swing ridings can effectively use their votes. In some ridings that means defeating a Conservative. In other ridings it means trying to prevent a Con from succeeding. The key to Canadian elections is at the local level -- 308 separate election races where success or failure is sometimes decided by a relative handful of votes (e.g. 17 votes in Kitchener-Waterloo).

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gary-shaul/2011/03/election-all-hands-de...

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

What I wanted to highlight is that the Conservatives became a force nationally because they had a strong start in Western Canada and were able to branch out from there. Had the NDP not lost its populist ground to the Reform/Alliance in Western Canada, Reform would not have grown as strong as it is. That is the central point of Climenhaga's article.

Out here in the West the NDP has got to get back to its pre-1993 populist roots, especially now that the Conservatives are foregoing their Reform era populism. The NDP has never recovered out here in the West from Reform's success at taking over the NDP's position as the West's federal populist party. The NDP should read and learn from the Manning/Harper Reform playbook and start arguing for populist initiatives like voters rights and provincial equality. Manning won a lot of seats here in the West fighting for the little guy. Supporting policies like recall, initiative, provincial equality, and free votes in Parliament helped Reform go from zero to 60 (seats) within one election cycle. Manning's message that MP's should represent their constituents instead of their parties was a game changer out here in the West.

It also wouldn't hurt to remind voters where each party stood on the issues of the GST and the HST over the last 20 years, and how the party positions changed over time.

Although I did read somewhere on these boards that the Tory vote on the Prairies is starting to decline, so the NDP may already be there.

ilha formosa wrote:

Is getting out the vote, any vote, the key to preventing a Con majority?

I would say yes.  Unfortunately there seem to be about a 30% solid block of Conservative voters that always show up.  The voters for some of the other parties are less committed, particularly the Liberals in recent elections, and to some extent the NDP.  There was a poll a few weeks ago that showed the Cons have committed voters, whereas the Liberals and NDP have ones that are less committed.  Turn-out is very important.  The one smart thing Elizabeth May has said this year is that Harper is trying to turn people so off politics that only Conservative voters show up - thus giving him a majority.

If the opposite parties do not get their vote out, they will be in big trouble in this election.

Shurna Elson wrote:

Why now?

If we had a sane system we wouldn't need an election. Since the majority of the members of parliament don't have confidence in the Prime Minister, they should be able to select another member amongst themselves to replace him without having to have another election. Unfortunately, that's not how our antiquated two-party system works, when a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons more then 6 or so months after an election, an election has to be called.

By not cooperating with the majority of MP's and out and out lying to them and hiding facts from them, and sabotaging parliament, the majority of MP's had no choice but to hold Harper's government in contempt of Parliament and to vote non-confidence in his corrupt government.

Harper's government will go down as the first government in Canadian history, after 143 years, to be held in contempt of Parliament. It took 143 years for Canada to have such an awful government.

In a sane system MP's would now be choosing a new Prime Minister from amongst their members. A person who could work cooperatively with others and not bully others to maintain power at any costs.

Shurna Elson wrote:

I definitely do not want a coalition gov't which included Gills D. Ducette has made it very clear that he does not give a Damn about Canada, only The Nation of Quebec.

Clearly you have never taken the time to listen to Mr. Duceppe. He is one of the most impressive politicians in Ottawa.

Does he care about Quebec more than Canada? Certainly, but I prefer his attitude over that of Mr. Harper, who considers Canada not second in importance, but in his own words: "second-rate".

Harper's budget pours money into the nuclear  industry, which is carcinogenic at every level of mining, processing, transportation, storage, and use, not to speak of major accidents, as well as being unconscionably expensive. Indigenous peoples and local residents whose lands have been destroyed by uranium mining have long been opposed. Like residents in Ukraine, where Chernobyl was forced upon them, people have not been provided with good alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

Alternatives are available. In contrast to George Monbiot's apparent support for nukes, as reported on CBC radio, the CCPA Monitor of February carried an article by Jess Worth from the New Internationalist stating, in reference to the work of the Centre for Alternative Technology, "they have come up with a blueprint for how an industrialized nation  like Britain can reduce its net emissions to zero by 2030...The report demonstrates that a more efficient, less consumer-focussed economy can be powered entirely by renewables and sustainable biomass.  No need at all for fossil fuels, nuclear power, technofixes,or geo-engineering."

Opposition parties need to demonstrate substantial commitment to public clean energy, rather than the huge subsidies which Harper's budget gives oil, gas, and nuclear corporations. Harper has done only minor tinkering for public relations.  His Conservatives are not conservative of our energy resources nor ecosystem health.

thanks brings up the nuclear thing, again only the greens, if capable and did not have in Canada so many engineering-inclined pro-nuclearites among them, would go after this, maybe Eliz. will do so in SGI -- vs. Lunn at the heart of the Keen affair, and at the centre were emergency pumps, wasn't it, just like at the centre now in Japan...

Why did the Committee decide not to vote Bev Oda in contempt before today's vote of non-confidence?  This means she has escaped.

ilha formosa wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

lets prevent proverty and misery and hopelessness among Canadians instead because most canadians dont care about which leader is going to win or party politics..my 2 cents.

I can understand this sentiment, but there is a huge disconnect in the statement above. What is the root of the poverty, misery and hopelessness? Don't you think the state has a role to play in addressing these problems?

yes, but i dont see any reason why the job situation would improve with or without a harper majority. It would not make much differences, if at all..party politics is all very fun and dramatic and all for those interested in debating about political history and party history and have no immediate worries.

god helps us all if we have another election about how scary harper is, instead of how scary the world already is for most people who are already left out of the system and barely surviving. (and you dont have to be a really poor senior or physically disabled or a student or a newcomer to fall into that categories)

takeitslowly wrote:

god helps us all if we have another election about how scary harper is, instead of how scary the world already is for most people who are already left out of the system and barely surviving. (and you dont have to be a really poor senior or physically disabled or a student or a newcomer to fall into that categories)

True, and that's exactly what this election should be fought on.

takeitslowly wrote:

so far, all the parties including the NDP have said nothing about people who are underemployed or unemployed, I dont give a fuck about retirement or pension or guarantee low income supplements or second career or post secondary student tutions, I know the senior and baby boomer vote is crucial, but it seems thats the only thing the parties dont give a shit about is those who are 25 - 35 single poor people and childless. Thats why I WONT FUCKING VOTE unless i have a reason to. no more. Fuck the system.

I can well understand your feelings of rage and frustration, but not voting would be an error. It is exactly what Harper and the Cons are counting on, that the people who are being harmed most by their policies will not vote, while those who support them will vote. That should make you angry enough to vote against them, and for some other party that you think might do better if given the chance.