Winnipeg North recount

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well spoke Stock!

adma

Though there's ambiguity in both directions--for instance, for all their federal gesturing, I'm not so certain whether the Ujjals and Bob Raes and Chris Axworthys out there have explicitly glued their provincial allegiances to the BC Liberal/Sask Party end.  Maybe because they know they'd be keelhauled for it; so, it pays to be provincially ambiguous.

Indeed, there are so many ambiguities in so many directions, it's why I insist that the NDP should also work on the Conservative vote, rather than leave it all up to the supposedly "truer" alterna-Tory party...

Aristotleded24

outwest wrote:
If you'd ever spoken at length with those of us who work for strategic voting as a temporary measure until PR is enacted (and then all bets are off), you would realize that our groups include members in equal numbers from BOTH the Liberal and ND parties, as well as a representative number of Greens and independents, etc., and that we are all united in our opposition to right wing policies and legislation.

[url=http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/05/strategic-failure/]That strategy failed, and that failure was anticipated[/url]

Stockholm wrote:
One other thing I would LOVE someone in the strategic voting movement to explain to me is why there was no quality control of any kind on who they "endorsed". Supposedly the point of these sites is to avoid splitting the so-called "progressive vote". So in the riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton, they were telling people to vote for Liberal incumbent Gurbax Malhi. Malhi is a reactionary extreme social conservative in the Liberal caucus with a 100% homophobic voting record who also opposes abortion right. All the SV sites recommended that people vote for this hateful bigot. Well guess what? He came in THIRD and the NDP candidate who is extremely progressive lost narrowly to the Tory by 400 votes.

At the very least, the people behind catch-22 and project democracy owe us all an explanation and an apology for having endorses homophobic anti-choice freaks and having the false impression that these people were progressive.

Winnipeg South Centre is another example. Joyce Bateman was known as a Liberal supporter and was thought by many to be a successor to Liberal Anita Neville. That turned out to be the case and Bateman took the seat...for the Conservatives. Many people thought about voting for Anita to stop the Conservatives, but apparenlty would have been okay to vote for Bateman had she run under her original party's banner. Why is Bateman an acceptable representative as a Liberal but not as a Conservative?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@Ari:

Once again, you nailed it!

Man you and Stock are just on your "A game" today. Wow!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ignore this.

Lord Palmerston

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Winnipeg South Centre is another example. Joyce Bateman was known as a Liberal supporter and was thought by many to be a successor to Liberal Anita Neville. That turned out to be the case and Bateman took the seat...for the Conservatives. Many people thought about voting for Anita to stop the Conservatives, but apparenlty would have been okay to vote for Bateman had she run under her original party's banner. Why is Bateman an acceptable representative as a Liberal but not as a Conservative?

Ask Alice Klein.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
Read the editorial in the Calgary Herald from a week ago. They are telling their rightwing audience that the Liberal Party MUST rise again because god forbid that the federal Tories get unpopular and the NDP comes to power and ACTUALLY starts to change things. According to the Calgary Herald - the oil patch and the business elites NEED the Liberal party to be strong - after all when people get sick of being governed by black cats - we need them to turn to the white cats NEVER to the mice.

Do you have a link?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Again, if it is a Lib, they can do whatever they want. All this proves again, is the Libs are first and foremost is about the capture and exercise of power. That is all they care about.

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
Read the editorial in the Calgary Herald from a week ago. They are telling their rightwing audience that the Liberal Party MUST rise again because god forbid that the federal Tories get unpopular and the NDP comes to power and ACTUALLY starts to change things. According to the Calgary Herald - the oil patch and the business elites NEED the Liberal party to be strong - after all when people get sick of being governed by black cats - we need them to turn to the white cats NEVER to the mice.

Do you have a link?

 

Voila

The federal Liberal Party may be unpopular with a large number of Albertans, but cheering over the devastation voters wrought on the Liberals Monday should be muted. That's because there's a crucial reason to see the Liberals regroup and undergo a resurgence.

That reason is Jack Layton's NDP.

The federal Conservatives will hold the reins of power for at least the next four years, but reality forces us to admit that eventually, they will be replaced as the governing party, whether Albertans vote for them or not. It's simply the nature of the beast that the political pendulum inevitably swings back. And when it does, it needs to swing to a strong and newly vibrant Liberal Party, not to the NDP. It's a foregone conclusion that an NDP government in Ottawa, with its leftist spendthrift policies and anti-oilsands zeitgeist, would be an unmitigated disaster for Alberta -and therefore the entire country. The government in waiting needs to be the Liberals, not the NDP.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/decision-canada/should+care+about+federal+Liberals/4737143/story.html#ixzz1N3QOmQxK

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

outwest wrote:

Arthur, I'm sorry to dispel your illusions but the 2 strategic voting organizations I have been involved with -- federal and provincial -- are definitely NOT front shill groups for Liberals; they are pragmatic, multi-partisan groups trying to stop the Liberals/Greens/NDPers from splitting the vote in certain ridings. (I don't know how many times those of us working in these groups have to defend this fact!)

I agree that not all supporters of so-called "strategic" voting were Liberal shills.  Some of them were mind-numbingly stupid political dilletantes who knew absolutely nothing about politics and even less about arithmetic.

I believe the Leninist phrase would be "useful idiots."

Lord Palmerston

adma wrote:

Though there's ambiguity in both directions--for instance, for all their federal gesturing, I'm not so certain whether the Ujjals and Bob Raes and Chris Axworthys out there have explicitly glued their provincial allegiances to the BC Liberal/Sask Party end.  Maybe because they know they'd be keelhauled for it; so, it pays to be provincially ambiguous.

Indeed, there are so many ambiguities in so many directions, it's why I insist that the NDP should also work on the Conservative vote, rather than leave it all up to the supposedly "truer" alterna-Tory party...

For the NDP to grow further and approach forming a government, the Conservative vote definitely needs to go down - the reason they won a majority is because they got a hell of a lot more votes than everyone else.  Certainly there's some Western populist vote that the NDP can appeal to, and I think they can pry away some Conservative votes in SW Ontario ridings like Kitchener, St. Catharines, Essex, etc.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Liberals seem to have gone down enough in terms of the province-wide popular vote.  But in Ontario and Atlantic Canada especially, the NDP really needs to get more of the Liberal vote (perhaps around 40-50% of it).

It seems there are no safe Liberal seats anymore - just personal feifdoms like those of Goodale and Brison etc. and a few other ridings that managed to survive the tide (York West, Scarborough-Guildwood, etc.) 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Great comment Malcom. You expressed that a lot better then I did. Though, despite outwest's assertion, I find it really, really hard to believe that real New Dems would work with Libs like that.

I really don't think that the Libs or Cons really have any idea what is the emotional makeup of a New Dem supporter. They think that we approach politics with the same kind of mind-numbing "pragmatism" that they do. That probably explains why Libs can't understand why we New Dems are comfortable telling them that there is no difference between them and the Tories, other then the  urgency with which they act on their desires to implement legislative change.

As I said, Libs are really nothing more then Tories in less of a hurry.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I find it really, really hard to believe that real New Dems would work with Libs like that.

 

Even New Democrats are not immune from stupid.

janfromthebruce

I agree with what Malcolm said!

jas

Maybe someone's mentioned it already, but one thing to keep in mind from the loss of this riding to Lamoureux is that, although he undoubtedly must feel relieved, his victory must nevertheless be rather bittersweet. He moved from runt pup of a runt provincial party (2 seats) in the Manitoba legislature that, I believe, could only speak by leave (which was always granted) to what he thought would be a party forming the federal government or at least the official opposition. He goes to Ottawa as the lone member of the Manitoba Liberal caucus and as a backbencher of, what is for him again, the third party. That's gotta hurt.

Stockholm

Federal MPs make about $50k more than do provincial MLAs so I doubt if he minds...also Lamoureux's provincial riding was being eliminated through redistribution - so he was out of options.

jas

Yes, and he's always been a constituency guy, anyway, so I think you're right. He's very much an small 'o' opposition MP/MLA. Nevertheless, it seems to be his fate to always be in the obscured party.

SwineFlewBy SwineFlewBy's picture

adma wrote:

Or, come to think of it--let's all concentrate on reducing the Conservative vote.  Which the Liberals and the NDP can do, from their separate spheres.  (Yes, I'm lenient.  I'd rather allow the Liberals to "prove themselves" than to blithely relegate them to the trash heap.  Though they won't do that w/Debater's sour persimmons, cousin.)

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for that one recount seat remaining: Etobicoke Centre...

in case anyone didn't hear, they announced yesterday that the Cons retained their victory over the Libs in Etobicoke Centre by 26 votes (instead of 25) after a 20 day recount of thrilling, white-knuckle, edge-of-(backbench)-seat suspense!

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=may2311&dir=pr...

in fact, i heard they held fireworks in both Toronto and Ottawa last night in celebration

Debater

robbie_dee wrote:

I assume you're not a fan of Justin Trudeau either, Debater?

Trudeau lives in his riding, and actually has a connection to it.  That's why he's been elected twice now.

Debater

janfromthebruce wrote:

Debater is "entitled" to his opinion for what it's worth - which is about 18% of the popular opinion of Canadians! Kiss

So Jan are you saying that the NDP wasn't important when it was only at 18% support?  Because until a month ago, it had never gotten the level of support it has now.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Debater, many of us would have far more respect for you and for your opinions had you simply been honest.  Your pretence that you were other than a Liberal Party apologist and campaigner was quite off-putting because it was so manifestly false.

Doubtless you are feeling quite bitter these days.  It appears that voters throughout the country have decided you party is well past it's Best Before Date and the empty shell of the principle-free, ethically-challenged Liberal Party appears to be crumbling to dust.

If I might be so bold as to suggest, p*$$y bitterness might not be the most effective communications strategy if you really want to turn the trend around.

robbie_dee

Debater wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

I assume you're not a fan of Justin Trudeau either, Debater?

Trudeau lives in his riding, and actually has a connection to it.  That's why he's been elected twice now.

Rebecca Blaikie worked for a social services organization based in Winnipeg North.  Prior to his first bid for election in Papineau, Justin's only connection to Papineau was that [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0846011/]he played the riding's namesake in a TV movie.[/url] Previously he was teaching in British Columbia.

Stockholm

Maybe "debater" would like to tell us all about Ignatieff's "connection" or lack thereof to Etobicoke-Lakeshore. After living in the US for 30 years he moved back to Canada bought a luxury condo on Yorkville and "slummed it" by being given the nomination in Lakeshore and then hardly ever deigning to set foot in the riding.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Debater is just another bitter Liberal flack who is convinced that being obnoxious is the secret to rebuilding his principle-free party.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Regarding Lamoureau, maybe Debater can explain why it was ok for Lamoureau to run against Pat Martin, when Lamoureau, DIDN'T live in Martin's riding.

And regarding Lamoureau, I am tired of hearing about what a great "constituency guy" he is. So what! He meets people at MacDonalds for Coffee on Saturdays. Big deal! Why don't you ask Judy WL about looking after her constituents. She was MP for 13 years, and preseumably, she must have been a "consitituency guy" as well, or she wouldn't have been re-elected. The difference is, she didn't do it and then say, hey look at me!

And this gem, in the election just past. In the last week of the election, Lamoureau distributed a non glossy flyer where he implied that Dave Chomiak, a member of the NDP provincial government, had endorsed his candidacy over Rebecca Blakie. Yep, there is a principaled guy. Of course Chomiak issued a Press Release that was never published in the papers refuting any assertion that he supported anyone other then Rebecca Blakie. When Kevin Chief's campaign implied Axworthy had endorsed him in the  November By-election, cry-baby Lamoureau and his campaign were all over Chief with the help of the Free Press demanding Chief refute his assertions. But when Lamoureau resorted to what were obviously intentionally dirty tricks, not a peep.

How about that Debater? What's your explanation and justification for that? Oh, wait a sec, you're a Lib, you don't think you need one. Silly me.

janfromthebruce

I think that Debater is upset that the Liberal's "too late smear" against Layton backfired really badly & actually boosted the NDP - had to love the reverse outcome - looked so good on them and their principle-free party!

Debater

Many of the comments here are getting off track - the question is does the NDP approve of parachute candidates, and is it going to denounce the practice?

More to the point, why did so many candidates go on vacation, not even campaign or not even visit their ridings?  This situation was worst of all in Quebec, and as Gilles Duceppe said, he has never seen anything like it before.

Layton, true to form, refused to accept any responsibility for it and blamed a lot of it on Stephen Harper.  Harper is responsible for a lot of things, but it's not his fault that NDP candidates were on vacation when they should have been campaigning.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@debater:

Ok, now we switch focus; now it isnt' who can beat the Tories, its "parachute candiates". Look, you can't simply try and change the topic because you don't like where the discussion is going. When you get refuted debater, where will you go next?

You want to talk about "parachute candidates", I ask again, if I wanted to engage in this dicussion, what about when Lamoureau ran against Pat Martin? You still haven't answered that question of mine. You won't answer it because you don't want to admit that this shows you have no leg to stand on. "Whats sauce for the Lamoureau is sauce for the Brosseau".

That is just pathetic.

nicky

May I suggest that we all just ignore Debater? He is just pulling our chain and it is getting tedious. Few if any of his points are worth a response so let's just not bother.

pegasus

Debater wrote:

Many of the comments here are getting off track - the question is does the NDP approve of parachute candidates, and is it going to denounce the practice?

More to the point, why did so many candidates go on vacation, not even campaign or not even visit their ridings?  This situation was worst of all in Quebec, and as Gilles Duceppe said, he has never seen anything like it before.

Layton, true to form, refused to accept any responsibility for it and blamed a lot of it on Stephen Harper.  Harper is responsible for a lot of things, but it's not his fault that NDP candidates were on vacation when they should have been campaigning.

I can see where you are coming from, debater, especially when you had candidates from the Green party who were by far, superior than those chosen by the NDP to run in certain ridings.

http://greenparty.ca/campaign/24053

However, if you are going for youth and female, how about:

http://greenparty.ca/campaign/24008

Even though Mme. Matteau was not from Berthier-Maskinonge, she sure did know alot about the riding. In the second paragraph she lists all the three main objectives she had to help develop this riding.And I'll bet my last dollar that she also spent time there during the campaign.

And the Green Party did this with alot less resources at their disposal.

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Debater wrote:
Layton, true to form, refused to accept any responsibility for it and blamed a lot of it on Stephen Harper.  Harper is responsible for a lot of things, but it's not his fault that NDP candidates were on vacation when they should have been campaigning.

I have some serious issues with the NDP as you would undoubtedly know if you read some of my contributions here. However, it's pretty amusing to see the NDP kick the asses of the Big Business political parties (and the Bloc) and then read such whining. lol.

Layton ran a very successful campaign premised, at least in part, on this stupid practice of focussing on the leader instead of policy. The Conservatives and Liberals benefited by this stupidity and dumbing down of the electorate for many years.These candidates that won were the beneficiaries of campaigning on Layton rather than exclusively policy or the local candidate.

So, yes, Harper does bear responsibility for such things when his party, his odious mentor Brian Mulroney, and so on, benefited by such practices in the past and Harper did nothing about it once he became leader.

Given the MSM penchance towards urinating on the NDP for anything and everything, I'm not surprise to notice such foul odours here on babble. lol. Maybe start a thread on great "Liberal" helmsmen of the past and wallow a little in some nostalgia?

Fidel

N.Beltov wrote:
Layton ran a very successful campaign premised, at least in part, on this stupid practice of focussing on the leader instead of policy. The Conservatives and Liberals benefited by this stupidity and dumbing down of the electorate for many years.These candidates that won were the beneficiaries of campaigning on Layton rather than exclusively policy or the local candidate.

First-Past-the-Worst just doesn't reward third parties catering to narrow bases of support. The NDP tried it for decades and voter support rarely increased beyond the inch-wide mile deep crowd. The NDP is still saying our electoral system is broken and needs modernizing. Lefties should be talking about a united front on the left, and a modern, more democratic voting system would make this all the more possible.

And it's really too bad about that redundant conservative party now relegated to third place. I guess Jack's debate comment that Iggy was Harper's best friend in Ottawa hit home for Canadians who used to vote strategically for the Liberals. 

Lord Palmerston

Fidel wrote:
I guess Jack's debate comment that Iggy was Harper's best friend in Ottawa hit home for Canadians who used to vote strategically for the Liberals.

Very true, Fidel.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Debater, no Liberal has any right to criticize parachute candidates or pylon candidates.  Most of the Liberal candidates in Saskatchewan were both.

ottawaobserver

Yes, and wait till we see their next slate: the kind they'll have to fill as a tiny regionally-based third party with hardly two nickels to rub together. We can save up Debater's quotes for them, and see if he's as committed to them then.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

SwineFlewBy wrote:

in case anyone didn't hear, they announced yesterday that the Cons retained their victory over the Libs in Etobicoke Centre by 26 votes (instead of 25) after a 20 day recount of thrilling, white-knuckle, edge-of-(backbench)-seat suspense!

Actually, the margin of 26 was the same margin as announced on election night (at least according to the CBC). The recount results were interesting:

The victorious Conservative dropped by 17 votes

The Liberal dropped by 17 votes (thus the margin remained the same)

The NDP went up 4 votes

The Green went down 77 votes

The Marxists-Leninists remained at 149 votes

Clearly, a lot of ballots were rejected by the judicial recount.

SwineFlewBy SwineFlewBy's picture

Pages