Toronto Centre by-election

janfromthebruce wrote:

The riding is being redistributed and so Jennifer has a clear shot at the other new riding. It was an excellent race and McQuaig is an excellent candidate. One of her flyers sitting on the seats in the hall stated that 40 economists supported her candidacy. That speaks volumes to McQuaig's understanding of progressive economic and social politics. And also a deep knowledge of international/global economic politics.

She has been in the business of discussing income inequalities and finance for some time.  One would assume she has been in close quarters with progressive eocnomists in that role.  Would be similar to Hollett saying she got the support of 40 former Much VJs, IMO. 

Anyway, all the best to McQuaig.

Link posted in wrong thread, sorry

Personally, while Linda is a great candidate, I still think that Jennifer Hollett may have been a tad more electable. For instance, Linda includes this tidbit on her websiate:

Quote:

[Harper] has taken numerous steps to shut Canadians out of the key debate over the future of the tar sands by blocking citizens and groups wanting to voice objections at environmental regulatory hearings – including hearings into a proposal [u]that would allow highly hazardous tar sands oil to move through the northern part of Toronto[/u].

I assume that Linda is speaking in reference to the proposes east-west oil/bitumen pipelne, from Alberta to Quebec, which the NDP supports?

And this tidbit:

Quote:

High taxes, big government and big social programs are the key to creating a globally competitive and equal society. The high-tax, high-spending model works, McQuaig concluded, and it amounts to a political choice.

Now while I sympathize with that model, politically it can be dangerous, esp. when Linda needs former Lib voters to ensure her victory. And the other parties might even use those above quotes as a wedge issue against Linda unfortunately. Just my 2 cents.

janfromthebruce wrote:

McQuaig: delighted Liberals have finally discovered income equality; too bad they haven't yet acknowledged their role in creating it.

Pundit's guide tweeting thank you speech.

 I love that line.

Stockholm wrote:

toaster wrote:

 

She has been in the business of discussing income inequalities and finance for some time.  One would assume she has been in close quarters with progressive eocnomists in that role.  Would be similar to Hollett saying she got the support of 40 former Much VJs, IMO. 

With all due respect - when a person is running for parliament and wants to be a law maker who will help run the country - being backed by 40 economists would totally TRUMP being endorsed by 40 Much Music VJs - or are you trying to say that VJs are just as capable of making economic policy as progressive economists?

I'm trying to say that it is not such an impressive feet to say you got the support of 40 colleagues in your field of work, who you've worked with closely all your life.  Equally impressive would be if Hollett got the support of 40 cooleagues in her former field of work.  Basically I'm saying is that it isn't quite as remarkable given her history.  One would expect progressive economists to support her.

Surely, one can support the idea of having a pipeline AND also support doing it as safely as possible and giving local people an opportunity to take part in hearings etc... Can't people walk and chew gum at the same time?

Centrist wrote:

Personally, while Linda is a great candidate, I still think that Jennifer Hollett may have been a tad more electable. For instance, Linda includes this tidbit on her websiate:

Quote:

[Harper] has taken numerous steps to shut Canadians out of the key debate over the future of the tar sands by blocking citizens and groups wanting to voice objections at environmental regulatory hearings – including hearings into a proposal [u]that would allow highly hazardous tar sands oil to move through the northern part of Toronto[/u].

I assume that Linda is speaking in reference to the proposes east-west oil/bitumen pipelne, from Alberta to Quebec, which the NDP supports?

Well a lot of things have shifted since 2011, when the NDP was 11 points away. The Liberals have a more popular leader now (advantage) and a less prominent candidate than Rae (disadvantage). The NDP has a less popular leader now (disadvantage) and a more prominent candidate than 2011 (advantage). Throw in the by-election factor and how well they actually do on the campaign trail, and really anything is possible.

I don't think it's inconceivable that some of Rae's 2011 votes were "Rae voters" and not Liberals. Rae voters may not even all be impressed with Trudeau. There is still room to grow.

.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I loved Linda's tweet today:

Linda McQuaig ‏@LindaMcQuaig 3h

@cafreeland vows to “work really hard” to “come up with some great ideas” on income inequality. She has none yet? #cdnpoli #torcen #ndp

Linda McQuaig comes across as nasty and mean sometimes. She needs to be careful.

felixr wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I loved Linda's tweet today:

Linda McQuaig ‏@LindaMcQuaig 3h

@cafreeland vows to “work really hard” to “come up with some great ideas” on income inequality. She has none yet? #cdnpoli #torcen #ndp

Linda McQuaig comes across as nasty and mean sometimes. She needs to be careful.

Linda sounds perfectly logical to me.  If I have to choose between a) someone who has some great ideas or b) someone who is going to start coming up with some great ideas after she's elected, I choose "a".  Why is it mean to point out the obvious? 

Stockholm wrote:

On the other hand I have seen a few interviews with Freeland and as much as i try to be objective - i find her trite, vacuous and grating and ttally devoid of any substance.

I agree.

It may not be foremost in a lot of people's minds because candidates (and the media) do not focus on it.  So not focusing on it because it's not on people's minds just reinforces a vicious circle.

 Can you imagine what a wonderful cabinate minister Linda would make!

elfin wrote:

 Linda needs to get back to basics and start talking about the things that regular people care about, instead of expecting people to vote for her because she's an author.  The Liberals are way ahead of her in canvassing the riding as it is.     

Huh? I was under the impression that the whole Liberal campaign was centred on "you MUST vote for Freeland because she has written a big book and has been a guest on American talk shows - ergo she is IMPORTANT". I sure have not heard one single solitary substantive idea coming from her. in fact the Liberals are quite blunt about saying that from now until 2015 the only policies they will commit to are to legalize marijuana and to cheerlead for Nexen to be taken over by the Chinese.

I'm not so sure about the Conservatives putting in such a "minimal" effort in Toronto Centre. Their candidate seems very credible and seems to be "out and about"...they may make more of an effort than you think

who's the Con's candidate?

.

Brachina wrote:

http://www.punditsguide.ca/ this site will tell you who the Tory Candiate is.

 

Thanks :)

Stockholm wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 Has anyone heard how the Mulcair event with Linda at the pub went last night?

Its was PACKED with people and so in retrospect the venue was probably too small. Lost of enthusiasm and Linda had a particularly good line in her speech when she said that Freeland sees things from from within the world of the super-rich and that along with drinking their champagne, she is drinking their Kool-Aid! Tom gave a rousing speech as well and Hollet and gapka were there too - it was more or less a "love-in"...it was mainly a social event with lots of people having drinks etc...

 Thanks, I'm glad it went well. Were the media there?

 @Summer your welcome 

felixr wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I loved Linda's tweet today:

Linda McQuaig ‏@LindaMcQuaig 3h

@cafreeland vows to “work really hard” to “come up with some great ideas” on income inequality. She has none yet? #cdnpoli #torcen #ndp

Linda McQuaig comes across as nasty and mean sometimes. She needs to be careful.

I agree with this.  It isn't always about portraying the opposition as vile creatures at all costs.  The majority, although not all, of politicians on all sides are not vile or nasty people.  They may happen to differ from McQuaig on policy, but it does not mean they are inhenrently evil.  Just as she believes that her ideas will help make Canada a better place, so do the opposition.  Hollett, for me, appeared to be more aware of this notion.

Thank you for the welcome janfromthebruce!  I am very interested in this race!  I think a lot of issues/ideas that will play out here will play out in the next general election.  

I think we can all agree that Freeland has no substance whereas Linda does, but I'm worried that this won't be enough to win.  I take Stockholm's point, that clearly the electorate is capable of pulling themselves away from the Liberals from time to time, but now that Justin Trudeau is in place the Liberals are able to portray this image of young/cool politics.  It's worth noting that the media reported how much older and whiter the NDP nomination meeting was compared to the Liberals.  This should be raising alarm bells for the NDP. If they are going to win in Toronto Centre and in the next election, they must fight the Liberals where the Liberals are strong, not just hope that voters will see through their barely existent policies.  

.