Election Talk (6)

Brian Topp praising Layton?  Who could ever have predicted that?

Hahah.  I have to admit I liked it better when the Globe and Mail's concession to balance was having genuinely leftwing voices like Rick Salutin provide a counterpoint to their Conservative corporate agenda instead of unabashed spin from an NDP insider.  To be honest the sports and arts sections are the only things I read much in that paper anymore,

Thank goodness Jack Layton has more class, and political sense, than some of his followers.

The media seems intent on asking the opposition parties repeatedly if they are prepared to form another coalition after the next election. Isn't the simple answer to this thorny question:

At all times our party is willing to work cooperatively with anyone and any party in order to help bring about a better Canada. On the other hand, Mr. Harper is unable to work cooperatively with others. A Prime Minister that can't work with others is not suitable to be prime minister.

---------

This kind of argument for democracy and against Harper's dictatorial government would likely be enhanced if a party could indicate what specific policies their party has in their platform to support democracy/giving power to the people and away from the PM, eg. free votes, abolish prorogation, recall, etc....

NorthReport wrote:

My answer would be "Ask Harper as that is exactly what he tried to do when he was in opposition in 2004 with the Bloc and the NDP and here's the letter to prove it". Sometimes we need to go on offense insteed of constantly playing defence. This is such hypocritical nonsense.

Jack & Gilles are going to be happy to talk about 2004. Hopefully in the debate for maximum impact.

I hope Harper is exposed as a hypocrite on the coalition issue.  I hope Layton and Duceppe keep reminding people that Harper was interested in an arrangement with them.

That way he won't get away with demonising them as evil coalition-mongers the way he has tried to do in the past.

Actually could go further and say Canada has been governed for some time by a form of coalition -- informal so far. A more formal coalition is better for accountability

All I can say is whatever happens this election, one thing is certain, it is going to be bitter, messy, and nasty. Disgraceful!

20 ridings to watch http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/23/20-ridings-to-watch-in-the-next-...

There is no assumption the Cons will be the new government.

** A majority was never likely. It has become extremely unlikely. For them to have got a majority- looking from a couple months ago- everything would have to have gone right. That has not happened. And it has become too late at this point for them to get all that back. So at this point, a majority would take a miracle.

** If they get a plrality, they wont necessarily be government. When they starter steaming towards an election, I thought most likely they would keep government without a majority. Now that they have been blown off course- and partially off course is all it takes- that is up in the air.

** And even if they do get to continue as minority government, they cant get a reduction of the subsidies passed. End of story. Period.

Stop being so afraid.

BTW, if they got a majority, the Cons would also kill the spending limit.... which would allow them to blow everybody out of the water. There are more possible fears than you can shake a stick at.

For what its worth, the Cons are also trying to kill the spending limit via the courts. But I think that is unlikely to be successful- requires the kind of total legal vctory that is rare in court cases.

And- should the subsidies be ended, it will take digesting, but the NDP will come out OK. And the Bloc. It is the Liberals that are at risk.

And if we're going to be talking 'seats to watch', there's an interesting race shaping up in Saskatoon — Humboldt. Brad Trost is being attacked on the right by the bigoted/batshit/racist Jim Pankiw who could act as a spoiler candidate for Trost, with the NDP poised to steam through the middle. I'm going to help out Denise Kouri on my 'vacation' in Saskatoon, and harangue my in-laws to take big signs.

Anonymouse wrote:

. So after the next federal budget (assuming the Tories form government again), the NDP stands to lose $5 million per year. How are they going to fully finance a federal campaign without that money?

It is the Liberals and Greens that are more dependant on the funding, the NDP is not bad at fundraising.  Also a Tory minority government can put forward whatever bills they want, they still need votes from the other parties to pass them. 

Delta-Richmond East:Newly chosen Conservative candidate has a history of financial problems

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Newly+chosen+Conservative+candidate+history+financial+problems/4493505/story.html

KenS wrote:

** A majority was never likely. It has become extremely unlikely. For them to have got a majority- looking from a couple months ago- everything would have to have gone right. That has not happened. And it has become too late at this point for them to get all that back. So at this point, a majority would take a miracle.

Could you explain a little more what the reasons are that you feel so confident the Conservatives won't get a majority?  I don't feel so confident.  They aren't that many seats away from it at this point, so I think it's a possibility if they have a good campaign and so I think it's risky to assume it won't happen.

Evan Solomon is reporting the new Ipsos-Reid poll showing the Cons at 43%.  No one mentioned the pro-Conservative bias of Ipsos-Reid.  I get tired of journalists not bothering to do their job or telling viewers about the bias of certain pollsters.  Does anyone know his e-mail address who could send him a line?

bekayne wrote:

Pankiw got 20% as an independent 6 years ago, but he was the sitting MP then.

I'm not betting on him having that kind of pulling power, but getting around 10-12% of the vote would make things extremely interesting, as Pankiw would pull voters almost entirely from the Trost column. Him pulling any serious numbers is good news for the NDP. S—H moved up in the NDP's priority list when Pankiw announced.

For those who doubt Pankiw's out-thereness, he ran for mayor of Saskatoon against a man who, as a city councillor, seriously proposed putting a glass dome over downtown Saskatoon. The dome guy appeared to be the voice of reason, and won. No dome yet, though. They're concentrating on getting Circle Drive finished, first.

NorthReport wrote:

Ignatieff is making a mistake here and it shows him on the defensive. What's his problem? Everyone knows he will be probably be in a coalition if Harper does not get a majority. He needs to couterattack Harper on this issue - WTF was Harper trying to do in 2004,  and saying in 1997 - check Mcleans today for the answers.

 

Ignatieff still evasive on coalition question

 

Asked if he will join up with other parties, Liberal leader says voters can choose the 'blue door' or 'red door'

 

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Ignatieff+still+evasive+coalition+questio...

 

The reason Iggy will never embrace the idea of a coalition is simple. It would destroy his election stragegy completely.

You see from what I read in an article Iggy's plan is to create a double bind and a presumpation(misspelled this). Vote liberal or you get harper, with the liberals hoping to drive ndp voters to the libs. Look double binds up on the net. Very maniplative for someone who knows what they are doing.

The beauty of this is also in the presupposion because if anyone buys into this double bind, even if it is to vote tory, it excepts the presupposion that there is only two choices leaving the ndp out of it.

This has been moderately effective in the past to contain the ndp vote.

The Flaw is this. Dion destroyed this double bind when he attempted to form a coalition. Now the idea of a coalition has been inserted and accepted into the minds of both the common population and as importantly the media. A third door has appeared and refuses to be shut.

This eliminates the realistic possiblity of imposing an effective double bind for voters and with it the presupposion that goes with it, because it hinged on the idea of two binding choices, when a third has been proven in perception if not in action to be viable and this was done by the liberals own hand.

Add to that the ndps growth in Quebec numberous second and third places and the lack of popularity of thier leader compared to ours and trying to recreate the double bind is no longer viable stragegy.

Because the double bind no longer works and that the liberals no longer look likely to get a majority it means the second facet of thier stragegy, pretending to be progressive while steal the ndps platform in parts, is no longer a funtional stragegy as the tempation that provided to based on the double bind making the libs a suppior choice for those in favour of these policies over the originators.

This leaves the liberals with ethics, the cloud of which adscam is still not completely clear.

This is why when journalists broached the topic of coalition again and ignored his messaging of a horse race he grew upset and confrontational.

Another side effect of the Dion coalition attempt is that the idea of an ndp government is no longer a subject ridacule in the media as the coalition lowered the bar for ndp percitation in executive goverance of the country. Ironically this seems to make the idea of Jack running for pm be taken more seriously as evidenced by the question regarding how as pm he would governed in his current health.

This question might seem unfortune at first glance until one looks at the presuppostion one must accept to in order to answer or ask the question. That Jack Layton could run and win the election, becoming pm, because that is the only way the question makes sense.

So in closing the early collaspe of the liberal stragegy (not that the libs realize it yet), coupled with the ndp being taken more seriously and possably recieving more attention in this election as well as well a popular leader is a real disaster for the libs.

The cons own scandals and hypocracy will make it hard for them to exploit this weakness, but thier attempts feed into the prepropasions that the ndp wants people to buy into.

Sorry for the spelling errors I'm typing this on my cell.

It is no biggie for most NDP voters and non-aligned votersl.   But for the Blue Liberals that switch back and forth between the Cons and Libs (or could) it could be a deal breaker.   In many ways it is political kryptonite for the Liberals.  Not saying it should be that way - but it is.

Maybe we should start calling a spade a spade and not be afraid to tell people that Harper is purposely lying to Canadians when he says that it's undemocratic for a 2nd place party to lead a coalition government because as the leader of a second place party he wanted to do just that. Since Harper has no problem getting into the gutter, his lies and cunning dishonesty should be met with very strong language.  Since he is purposely lying to Canadians, he should be called what he is, a liar.

NorthReport wrote:

gyor,

Thanks for your good analytical post.

I hear what you are saying but Harper tried to do the same thing in 2004 with the NDP and the Bloc so why not just be above board about it. Obviously one cannot discuss details because at this point no one knows what each party will get in terms of seats until election nite. The Cons are foaming at the mouth about the coalition but they have tried in the past to do the same thing themselves.

For a very good reason. Leverage. If the NDP is already commited to joining a coalition it loses a lot of its negotation power. If on the other hand he flirts with other possiblities, yet keeps the coalition option alive only now Jack can use the other choices as Leverage to gain a better deal for the ndp and for Canadians in said coalition Jack Has experience forging alliances from his municple days and he knows how this sort of thing works. Plus uncertainty keeps the reporters curious and curiousity keeps the attention on the ndp. Strategically unproven rumours could increase this effect.

added benifit it screws with iggy head;)

Actually, the constant coalition meme from the HarperCons legitimizes the prospect of a coalition. 

Harper is framing the ballot question as "It's either the Conservatives or the Coalition."

So, what happens if, on election night, the number of Liberals and New Democrats is greater than the number of Conservatives?  What if the Liberal NDP numbers together (say Liberals 77, NDP 78 just for shits and giggles) would create a working majority?

Clearly the voters will have spoken - preferring the Coalition to the Conservatives.

I think it is red meat for their base, but it will constrain growth.   People see Harper as some great tactician, yet the record shows they can't grow out of thier basic base.  That's no tactician.