Federal Election Talk (6)

Let's take a look at the popular vote percentages between the NDP and the Liberals

Party / 00 GE / 04 GE / 06 GE / 08 GE / Change

Libs / 40.8% / 36.7% / 30.2% / 26.3% / Down 14.5%

NDP /  8.5% / 15.7% / 17.5% / 18.2% / Up 9.7%

The NDP started off in 2000 with 32.3% less support than the Libs and in the last election in 2008, the NDP had closed the gap with the Libs to 8.1%, for a change of 24.2% in the NDP's favour, in only 3 elections, so it seems that more and more Canadians are by-passing the Liberals and supporting the NDP. Will this be the election the NDP obtains a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Liberals? It seems everybody is out of step except Johnny.....er, polarbear.    

 A comment at the bottom said this:

 

Tories blocked it, deliberately, for sure. But NDP? Go back and read the transcript, Mr. Silver. I believe you have jumped to hasty and unfair conclusion.

Lib.s brought a motion to release the report early. Problem was a technical one - do motions need 48 hours notice. You correctly pointed out on Twitter that the Standing Orders for committees do not require any notice, but each Committee can make their own rules.

This Committee made a rule - 48 hours notice, unless the matter related to business under discussion at the time. Thus, since it was less than 48 hours notice, the issue became whether the motion to have the report disclosed early was "new" business or related to business already being dealt with. (See the info provided by the Committee Clerk)

An inane technical legality, but that's what you get with laws, rules, and regulations.

If you read Mr. Christopherson's comment, he seemed genuinely trying to follow the rule - and decide only on the basis of whether the motion to release the report was actually new business or not - instead of jumping at the chance to make partisan political hay. And that's what he did. His view was that it was new businees and so it needed 48 hours notice.

You have in my view done yourself and the NDP a considerable disservice by, in effect, punishing an MP for trying to follow parliamentary rules regardless of partisan interest and in doing so creating a story that does not actually exist.

Even common sense about institutions should tell people that it the Liberal Party will not change from an influx of anything- even if it was you in the hundreds.

Even their attraction to you is based straight up on their 'mass' and effect. Central to that is occupying the amorphous and mushy centre, irregardless of ephemeral personnel shifts.

[If it makes you feel any better, 'Blue Liberal' recruits suffer from the same delusions.]

That is exactly what happen. The stupid liberal who brought forward the main motion didn't follow the "rules of order" for this committee, and thus a "point of order" (a subsidary motion to the main motion) was evoked. The Chair ruled the motion was in order, so there was an appeal to the chair. The vote of appeal (on the chair's ruling) failed, as the notice of motion was about "new business".

 

Christpherson never voted against the main motion because it ended up getting "ruled out of order" of business essentially. Too bad the stupid liberal couldn't have got his/her act in order and made sure the motion was submitted 48hrs ahead of time.

 

Of course are playing all mover the Globe's webpage trying to say that the Dips were in bed with the Cons, so vote for us.

 

Libs are as dirty as the cons because principles of campaigns are about winning, no matter what.

 

knownothing wrote:

 A comment at the bottom said this:

 

Tories blocked it, deliberately, for sure. But NDP? Go back and read the transcript, Mr. Silver. I believe you have jumped to hasty and unfair conclusion.

Lib.s brought a motion to release the report early. Problem was a technical one - do motions need 48 hours notice. You correctly pointed out on Twitter that the Standing Orders for committees do not require any notice, but each Committee can make their own rules.

This Committee made a rule - 48 hours notice, unless the matter related to business under discussion at the time. Thus, since it was less than 48 hours notice, the issue became whether the motion to have the report disclosed early was "new" business or related to business already being dealt with. (See the info provided by the Committee Clerk)

An inane technical legality, but that's what you get with laws, rules, and regulations.

If you read Mr. Christopherson's comment, he seemed genuinely trying to follow the rule - and decide only on the basis of whether the motion to release the report was actually new business or not - instead of jumping at the chance to make partisan political hay. And that's what he did. His view was that it was new businees and so it needed 48 hours notice.

You have in my view done yourself and the NDP a considerable disservice by, in effect, punishing an MP for trying to follow parliamentary rules regardless of partisan interest and in doing so creating a story that does not actually exist.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

He asks asks a good question.

 

[quote]So the question to Canadians is: why not vote NDP, leave the Liberals in the wilderness, strike a blow against Quebec separatism and get the government you want? All that's stopping you is the belief that it can't happen

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/and-now-a-word-from-our-ndp-conscience/article1982035/[/quote]

NorthReport] <p><em>He asks asks a good question.</em></p> <p> </p> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>[quote]So the question to Canadians is: why not vote NDP, leave the Liberals in the wilderness, strike a blow against Quebec separatism and get the government you want? All that's stopping you is the belief that it can't happen</em></p> <p> </p> <p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/and-now-a-word-from-our-ndp-conscience/article1982035/[/quote">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/and-now-a-word-from-our-ndp-conscience/article1982035/[/quote</a> wrote:

A great article. And it is good to hear that this guy truced iggy, it shows iggy is not as invulnerable as some people paint him as. A lot of great points and some of the best anyasis yet, but I would like to add that we can't wait for polls, they are unreable and questionable. Jack has to make people believe he believea that he can win in in the debates. It is clear from the liberal stragegy that Iggy will attack the ndp can't win button and Gilles will attack it now as well.

Gilles has never really attacked the ndp before, he had no need. The massive change in tactics from focusing his big guns on the Liberals and cons to focusing on the NDP means Gilles is really worried. I know people say that all the time when an enemy targets them they must be worried, but it is just as likely that the enemy is simply ambititous or visous. In this case I really am certain that Gilles really is attacking because he is worried.

What percentage do you think the NDP will need to net in Quebec to net major seats in Quebec?

The NDP isn't a factor in my riding. It's always either the Libs or the Cons. I know who I'm voting for. Besides, the NDP candidate here wrote some really outlandish things on his Facebook page when he ran provincially a few months back. He has a credibility problem.

When did you stop beating your.....

Even though I have been a life-long NDP supporter, I am seriously considering either not voting or voting for the Pirate Party this election. I have never been much of a fan of Layton because he is the same as the other party leaders in terms of selling his soul (and selling out his party) in the quest for power. The party has moved too far away from the left and is no longer the party I became involved with in the 70s. What good is gaining more seats or more power if you have abandoned the principles that were core to the party?  Hopefully, this election will cause all the parties to look at their leadership, especially the NDP.  I would be quite content if the results led to Harper, Ignatieff, May and Layton all being gone.

Note: my vote will not make any difference in my riding, where the Con candidate gets ~60% of the vote.  If my vote would make a difference, I would consider holding my nose and voting NDP but since it won't, they do not deserve my vote.  Oh well, at least we will continue to get the "lovely" calendars our MP sends us each Christmas with pages and pages of pictures of the twit (who answered nearly every question at the local debates last election with "you will have to ask the senior party members" - truly an MP of which to be proud!)

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Anybody who is an NDPer, or just wants to support Layton in this election, has to try and put aside all the silly strategic voting distractions always coming from another certain party, and just vote for the party that comes closest to what you believe in. There can be a minor shifts, or major shifts, in an election campaign, and the NDP as we have seen over the last 3 elections has closed the gap with the Liberals from 32.3% in 2000 to only 8.1% in the last election. If this trend continues the NDP will overtake the Liberals in this very election. Anyone who wants to stop Harper from getting a majority should seriously consider giving their vote to Jack Layton's NDP.  

So if the Liberals got 15%, & the NDP 16%, you would be delighted?

 

Sometimes I get the impression that NR is a closet Tory.

Please wake up in the ROC and vote abc, because if the Conservatives get a majority, you will give us here in Quebec the best reason to go our own way: we do not recognize ourselves in the 'values' that the Conservatives stand for. If the ROC were to choose a majority Conservative government, it would be a slap in the face to most Quebecers (a lot of Quebecer anglos included, by the way), and show how 'distinct' our society here is indeed.  So if a Liberal has a better chance to beat a Conservative, please act accordingly; same for the NDP. Please get your act together!  Here in Quebec, we're doing our part with the Bloc!  

pierredecoubertin wrote:

Please wake up in the ROC and vote abc, because if the Conservatives get a majority, you will give us here in Quebec the best reason to go our own way: we do not recognize ourselves in the 'values' that the Conservatives stand for. If the ROC were to choose a majority Conservative government, it would be a slap in the face to most Quebecers (a lot of Quebecer anglos included, by the way), and show how 'distinct' our society here is indeed.  So if a Liberal has a better chance to beat a Conservative, please act accordingly; same for the NDP. Please get your act together!  Here in Quebec, we're doing our part with the Bloc!  

 

I strongly agree,Pierre.

There should be a united front to stop Harper at all costs.

I'm an anglo Quebecker,I'm voting for the Bloc.

If King Stephen is crowned emporer of New Randreagencheneyistan,I'd like a referendum within 12 months of May 3.

I am so tired of the constant spin...  Harper said he would clean up Government and now it looks like a bigger scam of tax dollars than ever.  When will people stop accepting corruption and start voting these guys out.  Really I see only one strategy which is to make sure Harper does not get a majority.

Harper won't care, I think he's already written off Quebec. He'll probably just repeat his bromides from tonight.

 

alan smithee wrote:

I didn't watch the whole debate tonight (I can't stand looking at Harper's face)

But Layton was pretty good..He even took a shot at Harper's Senate coup.

And Duceppe did a great job too.

I will be watching the French debate tomorrow..I have a feeling that Duceppe will mop the floor with Harper.

I agree about Gilles, with the exception when talking about multiculturalism where Gilles came off as to the right of Harper. Harper actual came off as very left wing with the exception of the corporate tax issues. Maybe too far left for his own good. Also Gilles attempted to trap Jack on the language issue fail, but Gilles tried very hard.

Did anyone else noticed Iggy's out burst at Jack when confronted on his own record. Best line of the night "when you don't go to work, you don't get promoted." plus Iggy's endorsement of Jack's leadership was funny, who compliments your oppenents leadership like that during a debate, especially when it is at odds with his posititon on coalititions.

I have more analyisis in the threads I started before I realized that the debate on the debates was going on here.

Soulforger wrote:

When will people stop accepting corruption and start voting these guys out.

Because people think all politicians are corrupt anyways, and they don't believe Layton when he says the NDP will do things differently. Harper said he would do things differently than the Liberals. Chretien said he'd do things differently than the PCs. Mulroney destoryed Turner over the issue of patronage appointments and then went on to be very corrupt himself. There really isn't much being offered to restore people's confidence in the political processes in this country.

He defended multiculturalism from Gilles, gabbed about all the projects his party was funding, he even defended funding universal heath care against the question about can we afford it in the future, he talked about supporting crime prevention, ect... Sure we know he is full crap, but to someone not as knoweldgable about his record Harper would seem shockingly left wing. The other leaders did fine on attacking him, although Gilles come off surprisingly weak, but the way he sold himself was very much to the left. To the point where the Jack had to make a reference to his previous positions on healthcare. It got to the point where Jack was like who the @uck am I talking to, where is Steven Harper? Parphasing but still, it was freaking the weirdest debate I've seen in a long time.

Iggy lost looking back. He got crunched by Stevens turn left and his calm on one side and Jack's points on Iggy's passed record. Btw word is it is not just me saying that the best line belonged to Jack vs. Iggy, according to Mansbridge word is most people agree.

alan smithee wrote:

Fair enough.

It's been the conservative game plan for 5 years.

Come across as moderate as possible..Always spin scandal to blame the opposition,if that doesn't work,prorogue government,keep your ministers muzzled,take over the Senate and the Supreme Court,lie so pathologically and often that it replaces fact,run on fear and myths,divide the populace as deeply as possible,memorize your lines,ressemble a human being and bide your time.

And then,when you earn the trust of the masses,take out your knives and gut them the moment they turn their backs on you.

Gullibility,misinformation and ignorance is the driving force behind the seemingly willfull murdering of Canada.

R.I.P. 1867-2011

It is way to early for RIP for Canada. There is alot of a election left and plenty of time to smack up the cons. Besides it was good for the cons in that Harper did embarrass himself, but he didn't hurt his oppentents and something that could still stick to them.

One good moment for Jack was calling Harper's bluff on pressuring Shiela into releasing her report during the election, that was a win for Jack vs. Harper one that may yet yield dividends in the future. Plus he may pay a price for his tactics amoung some of his far right and racist voters who may stay home.

Still the biggest loser is Iggy, that appears to be the media consenus including surpisingly on liberal the cbc and ctv, abiet stated more mildly. If Jack did well and Harper did well and Iggy did "disappointing" that spells bad news for Iggy. Gilles didn't do well either, but for him the French Debate is more important. Still I think Gilles may have screwed himself on Allophone support.

Stephen Harper is running the most racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Quebec campaign since Preston Manning. That this man has a good shot at forming a majority government is profoundly depressing.

I don't find CTV liberal in any sense of the word. This is the same network that allowed Duffy to spew his bile until he got his plum Senate seat.

edited

edmundoconnor wrote:

gyor wrote:

In this case I really am certain that Gilles really is attacking because he is worried.

What percentage do you think the NDP will need to net in Quebec to net major seats in Quebec?

Gilles is definitely worried. In the English-language debate he sounded distinctly rattled in his closing speech when he appealed, rather urgently, for Quebec voters to support him as their voice. He wouldn't have had to shout so loud if he was more confident.

Depends on what you mean by 'major'. If the polls are accurate-ish, and NDP gets almost one in four votes in QC, then Gatineau will likely fall. Hull-Aylmer might just drift our way on a good day. I'd be happy with that. If we get six seats, I'll be ecstatic. For that, we'll need to clock into the higher-20s and begin to chip away the softer Liberals and softer Bloc.

If the NDP gets one in four Quebec votes and only gets six seats if that then something is profoundly wrong with our democracy worse then I imagined.

New NDP "Greatest Moment" spots, this time taking on Ignatieff:

 

"Attendance" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv341bqNAOo

 

"Flip-flop" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBCUTAvrbag

!

 

Conservatives quit over Vaughan health-care money

Quote:

Two Conservatives have quit their own riding association in Vaughan north of Toronto, accusing incumbent candidate Julian Fantino and the Conservative government of handing $10 million in public funds to a private non-profit group involved in a major health-care development.

...

"The optics look really rather strange," said Lorello, "that the same people who helped Fantino are the same people [whose non-profit group is] receiving $10 million in government funds."

Developer Michael DeGasperis is chair and construction insurance man Sam Ciccolini is a director of the VHCC, which is a private, non-profit volunteer group that is involved in developing health-care facilities adjacent to a proposed new provincial hospital. The pair also served as fundraising co-chairs in Fantino's successful November 2010 byelection campaign.

"The VHCC is a private organization ... not for profit," Lorello told CBC. "I think that it's inappropriate that this money was given to a not-for-profit private organization which is primarily made up of prominent individuals who supported Fantino in his campaign."

...

Another Vaughan resident put in a complaint earlier this month to the auditor general to review why $10 million in taxpayers' money is going to an independent group.