As I sat back and look over the political landscape that has been born from this election I have to ask myself if history will repeat itself once again.
If political leaders have learnt anything within Canada’s political history it’s simply that balancing the needs of Quebec and the needs of Canada are normally something that results in the destruction of your political legacy.
While pointing at Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives are the easy example, they put themselves in the position to destroy themselves by wading into the Constitution, something the NDP as the official opposition will have little opportunity to do.
However as I look at Jack Layton and his caucus of 44 non-Quebec MP’s and then I watch Thomas Mulcair soak up airtime like he needs to live promoting the 59 MP Quebec caucus, I can’t help but make the comparison…
Is Jack Layton simply the 21st century version of R.N. Thompson, and Mulcair simply his Réal Caouette?
While it’s easy to bask in the success of the NDP’s victories on May 2nd, it also results in us ignoring a few interesting facts,
The NDP caucus was made up of 35 non Quebec MP’s when the election writ was dropped, and on the day of the election the NDP found itself with a non Quebec caucus of 44 an increase of 9 MP’s.
Six of whom all came from Toronto.
What this means is that when we back out Quebec and the 416 we have a three seat increase across the balance of Canada.
Quebec delivered the overwhelming majority of growth at the expense of largely the BQ but the Liberals and Conservatives as well.
However the NDP was largely ineffective against the Conservatives across the country where they need to grow if they want to govern.
The Quebec NDP delivered, the rest of Canada did not.
Much as was the case during the 1963 election.
The Social Credit Party was lead by RN Thompson whose seat was in Red Deer, they found themselves winning 24 seats with 20 of them elected in Quebec.
Within Six Months the Ralliement Créditiste was born and Thompson was left to watch over a handful of Social Credit MP’s while Real Caouette led the balance.
I have to wonder how long Quebec NDP MP’s will take their marching orders from a leader in Toronto.
The Quebec caucus of the NDP could break away from the New Democrats and still be the official opposition expect would not need to compromise in order to placate the balance of NDP MP’s scattered across the country.
If the Bloc finds itself with officially party status, how long before a piece of legislation is tabled that divides the NDP?
It’s going to be an interesting few years.
Showing posts with label Jack Layton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Layton. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Canada needs its own “Bob Rae”
As I watch the support of Jack Layton and the NDP rise in Ontario I am reminded that kids born in 1993 are now of voting age, I had a conversation about Bob Rae with a 22 year old the other day and he simply scratched his head and said “Isn’t he the Liberal guy”.
I can’t blame him; he never experienced Rae Day’s or the “Social Contract” he was six years old when Rae was voted out of power and the NDP Provincially became essentially a fringe party for nearly the next two decades.
As I watch the Liberals and the Conservative’s attack Layton for his policies and his platform in the midst of the rising wave and I am reminded about 1990.
Bob Rae is a good politician; I have no issue conceding that.
The problem in 1990 was that the NDP platform was an opposition platform, it appeared that David Peterson may find himself in a minority government, and much like 1985 the NDP prepared itself to prop up a Liberal government while shaking the Liberals down for a few treats for its supporters.
It was not a platform meant for governance; nor were an overwhelming amount of NDP candidates who ran in ridings the NDP never won prior and never won since expecting to become MPP’s.
We found ourselves in a situation with a leader who was never expecting to be Premier of Ontario, and a caucus full of people who were simply not expecting to be MPP’s on September 7th.
As I watch Jack Layton rise in the polls I am not as fearful as many of the other Tories or even Liberals or Bloc supporters.
If ever there was an election to be won by the NDP it’s this one.
The platform is 28 pages, many of those pages contain pictures of Jack Layton, and we have already started seeing them acknowledge that some of the promises they made that they may actually be expected to keep were not realistic.
An NDP victory is bad for Canada today; but good for Canada moving forward.
A prepared NDP with a charismatic leader like Jack Layton could fortify the left in a way in which we have never seen in this nation. However we are about to send 40+ NDP candidates from Quebec to Ottawa who didn’t think they had a snowballs chance of winning when this writ was dropped and that is ultimately where the downfall will be, just as it was with Rae.
The Conservative’s biggest folly by miles was continuing to attack Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals when it was clear they were toast.
The last week of this election should have been about a choice;
Bob Rae’s Ontario Vs. Stephen Harper’s Canada.
A man unprepared to govern Vs. that of one who has.
The devil you don’t know Vs. the one you do.
However instead we sit back and watch the NDP creep up in Ontario as a decades worth of voters have no memory of the NDP’s record in Ontario,
We watch history repeat.
I think Jack Layton in the context of a minority government leader is a good thing;
I think a Toronto politician on the national stage harms the left far more then it helps it.
David Miller salted the earth for Joe Pantalone
Bob Rae salted the earth for Howard Hampton
Now perhaps its time for Jack Layton to do the same.
I want Canada to have leader that I can point to for the next 20 years like I have been able to with Rae in Ontario.
Jack Layton appears to be granting me that wish.
I can’t blame him; he never experienced Rae Day’s or the “Social Contract” he was six years old when Rae was voted out of power and the NDP Provincially became essentially a fringe party for nearly the next two decades.
As I watch the Liberals and the Conservative’s attack Layton for his policies and his platform in the midst of the rising wave and I am reminded about 1990.
Bob Rae is a good politician; I have no issue conceding that.
The problem in 1990 was that the NDP platform was an opposition platform, it appeared that David Peterson may find himself in a minority government, and much like 1985 the NDP prepared itself to prop up a Liberal government while shaking the Liberals down for a few treats for its supporters.
It was not a platform meant for governance; nor were an overwhelming amount of NDP candidates who ran in ridings the NDP never won prior and never won since expecting to become MPP’s.
We found ourselves in a situation with a leader who was never expecting to be Premier of Ontario, and a caucus full of people who were simply not expecting to be MPP’s on September 7th.
As I watch Jack Layton rise in the polls I am not as fearful as many of the other Tories or even Liberals or Bloc supporters.
If ever there was an election to be won by the NDP it’s this one.
The platform is 28 pages, many of those pages contain pictures of Jack Layton, and we have already started seeing them acknowledge that some of the promises they made that they may actually be expected to keep were not realistic.
An NDP victory is bad for Canada today; but good for Canada moving forward.
A prepared NDP with a charismatic leader like Jack Layton could fortify the left in a way in which we have never seen in this nation. However we are about to send 40+ NDP candidates from Quebec to Ottawa who didn’t think they had a snowballs chance of winning when this writ was dropped and that is ultimately where the downfall will be, just as it was with Rae.
The Conservative’s biggest folly by miles was continuing to attack Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals when it was clear they were toast.
The last week of this election should have been about a choice;
Bob Rae’s Ontario Vs. Stephen Harper’s Canada.
A man unprepared to govern Vs. that of one who has.
The devil you don’t know Vs. the one you do.
However instead we sit back and watch the NDP creep up in Ontario as a decades worth of voters have no memory of the NDP’s record in Ontario,
We watch history repeat.
I think Jack Layton in the context of a minority government leader is a good thing;
I think a Toronto politician on the national stage harms the left far more then it helps it.
David Miller salted the earth for Joe Pantalone
Bob Rae salted the earth for Howard Hampton
Now perhaps its time for Jack Layton to do the same.
I want Canada to have leader that I can point to for the next 20 years like I have been able to with Rae in Ontario.
Jack Layton appears to be granting me that wish.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sorry Jack, The Trap Wasn’t Meant For You…
Within this very blog I have praised Jack Layton for his leadership of the NDP since 2003. While I may not agree with his policies or stances more often then not I can respect someone who has been so successful within the political arena.
Only the Conservatives and the NDP have seen consistent growth in terms of seats and popular vote since the 2004 election.
The NDP in 2004 was a party of cities, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Vancouver with a few sprinkles of rural and suburban ridings mixed into the equation. They were a party of 19 seats.
As of the 2008 election the NDP was a party of 37 seats. (36 currently due to the current vacant state of Winnipeg North) Where has this growth come from?
We often hear about the great growth in Ontario and the nearly legendary tale of Thomas Mulcair winning an honest to goodness seat for the NDP in the 514. What we don’t seem to hear about is Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Northern British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northern Canada.
These are the areas that have vaulted in NDP from a party of 19 seats to one of 37.
Early this week an Ipsos poll was released that showed NDP support had fallen to 12% nationally. I am of the mindset that one poll can be wrong, or that one pollster can have a method of data collection that at some times can show either unrealistic drops or gains to particular parties so I didn’t think much of it.
However today’s EKO’s poll shows there may very well be some reality in that 12% as they have shown the NDP support to be @ 13.5%.
What I find off however is how this is being reported, an implication that the drop in support is due to Jack Layton allowing a free vote among his MP’s as it pertained to the long gun registry and how that somehow alienated urban voters?
I hate to say it;
But when it comes to the long gun registry urban voters don’t really give a poop. I mean they do, any issue where you can stick it to Harper is painted as a life and death struggle to snatch away power from the evil right wing overlord currently running the country…
However, the importance of that struggle only lasts a newscycle.
The Liberals threw a party to celebrate that Micheal Ignatieff was able to whip his MP’s into voting party lines and for once the entire party actually listened, heck they should have thrown a parade.
Yet no one in Urban Canada cares anymore, the vote is over, the registry is saved, and now they can fake outrage over the next “evil” Conservative plot.
However, in rural Canada where this issue actually affects the day to day lives of those Canadians they have had it.
The Conservatives had promised to do something about this long gun registry since 2003, and when they finally got into power in 2006 it only took them about 3 and a half years but FINALLY the time had come to get rid of this utterly useless long gun registry once and for all.
The NDP’s growth in Rural Canada came from a very simple principal from the old CCF, and that is respect your constituents wishes and represent them when you take your seat in Ottawa.
When a series of rural NDP MP’s opted to change their vote as it pertained to getting rid of the long gun registry all it did was reinforce a mentality that the NDP is run by the 416 for the 416.
I don’t envy Jack Layton,
The Conservative’s baited a trap for the Liberals, and sadly it was the NDP that got caught within it.
Should be interesting to see how Mr. Layton will attempt to get out of this one.
Only the Conservatives and the NDP have seen consistent growth in terms of seats and popular vote since the 2004 election.
The NDP in 2004 was a party of cities, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Vancouver with a few sprinkles of rural and suburban ridings mixed into the equation. They were a party of 19 seats.
As of the 2008 election the NDP was a party of 37 seats. (36 currently due to the current vacant state of Winnipeg North) Where has this growth come from?
We often hear about the great growth in Ontario and the nearly legendary tale of Thomas Mulcair winning an honest to goodness seat for the NDP in the 514. What we don’t seem to hear about is Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Northern British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northern Canada.
These are the areas that have vaulted in NDP from a party of 19 seats to one of 37.
Early this week an Ipsos poll was released that showed NDP support had fallen to 12% nationally. I am of the mindset that one poll can be wrong, or that one pollster can have a method of data collection that at some times can show either unrealistic drops or gains to particular parties so I didn’t think much of it.
However today’s EKO’s poll shows there may very well be some reality in that 12% as they have shown the NDP support to be @ 13.5%.
What I find off however is how this is being reported, an implication that the drop in support is due to Jack Layton allowing a free vote among his MP’s as it pertained to the long gun registry and how that somehow alienated urban voters?
I hate to say it;
But when it comes to the long gun registry urban voters don’t really give a poop. I mean they do, any issue where you can stick it to Harper is painted as a life and death struggle to snatch away power from the evil right wing overlord currently running the country…
However, the importance of that struggle only lasts a newscycle.
The Liberals threw a party to celebrate that Micheal Ignatieff was able to whip his MP’s into voting party lines and for once the entire party actually listened, heck they should have thrown a parade.
Yet no one in Urban Canada cares anymore, the vote is over, the registry is saved, and now they can fake outrage over the next “evil” Conservative plot.
However, in rural Canada where this issue actually affects the day to day lives of those Canadians they have had it.
The Conservatives had promised to do something about this long gun registry since 2003, and when they finally got into power in 2006 it only took them about 3 and a half years but FINALLY the time had come to get rid of this utterly useless long gun registry once and for all.
The NDP’s growth in Rural Canada came from a very simple principal from the old CCF, and that is respect your constituents wishes and represent them when you take your seat in Ottawa.
When a series of rural NDP MP’s opted to change their vote as it pertained to getting rid of the long gun registry all it did was reinforce a mentality that the NDP is run by the 416 for the 416.
I don’t envy Jack Layton,
The Conservative’s baited a trap for the Liberals, and sadly it was the NDP that got caught within it.
Should be interesting to see how Mr. Layton will attempt to get out of this one.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Forget Your Damn Principals, Iggy Wants to Form a Government.
“Ignatieff said the Liberals share the objectives of the Greens and the NDP on the environment but insisted that voting for those parties meant Canadians will get "four more years of Stephen Harper."”
Source:
The above is something that I have seen implied, danced around, and other wise discussed but not discussed by Liberal supporters since 2006.
When a political party basically comes out and implies that you need to sell out your principals and go with us because we are the lesser evil you have reached a point where you as a party are simply out of ideas.
As I have mentioned on this blog, the NDP has seen growth in terms of seats and popular support in every election from 2004 onward, the Liberals on the other hand have seen retraction in both seats and popular vote in every election from 2004 onward.
I find it a little pompous, arrogant, and generally silly that the party that has “abstained” the Conservatives into a defacto majority government since late 2007 can imply that they are the party that can “stand up” to the Conservatives.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, I liked Paul Martin (pre-minority government) I thought he was a good leader who had clear ideas and the 2003 Liberals under Paul Martin was the last time I as a voter had any idea what the Liberal Party of Canada stood for.
Michael Ignatieff has been on a tour all summer long, meeting voters, talking policy, and trying to get Canadians to vote Liberals.
Yet here we are at the tail end of summer and I still have no idea what the Liberals stand for in terms of Economic Policy, Social Spending, Health Care, Afghanistan, Arctic Sovereignty, or Taxation.
All I know after a summer long bus tour is:
Conservatives = Bad
Liberals = Good
NDP + Green = Conservatives = Bad
This isn’t an election for student council president in high school, yet the simplicity of the message leads me to believe that the Liberals either have no policy or that they think I as a voter am far to stupid to actually understand whatever policy they may have.
What’s worse is that all summer I have watched Liberal MP after Liberal MP imply that Harper is a bully, yet here we are leading into the fall session of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Party is basically attempting to bully loyal Green/NDP supporters into voting Liberal because they are the “only way to stop Harper”.
That coupled with forcing rural MP’s to vote party lines rather then constituents desires on Bill C-391 which appears that it will pass even without any support from the Liberals is just playing out the same image that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Ignatieff was appointed leader.
We are the party that knows better then you.
Considering they have had zero influence on policy over the last four years, and the country is still standing maybe Canada can exist without the Liberals?
Perhaps its time the Liberals realized that and starting asking Canadians for supporter rather then bullying them into it.
Just a thought.
Source:
The above is something that I have seen implied, danced around, and other wise discussed but not discussed by Liberal supporters since 2006.
When a political party basically comes out and implies that you need to sell out your principals and go with us because we are the lesser evil you have reached a point where you as a party are simply out of ideas.
As I have mentioned on this blog, the NDP has seen growth in terms of seats and popular support in every election from 2004 onward, the Liberals on the other hand have seen retraction in both seats and popular vote in every election from 2004 onward.
I find it a little pompous, arrogant, and generally silly that the party that has “abstained” the Conservatives into a defacto majority government since late 2007 can imply that they are the party that can “stand up” to the Conservatives.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, I liked Paul Martin (pre-minority government) I thought he was a good leader who had clear ideas and the 2003 Liberals under Paul Martin was the last time I as a voter had any idea what the Liberal Party of Canada stood for.
Michael Ignatieff has been on a tour all summer long, meeting voters, talking policy, and trying to get Canadians to vote Liberals.
Yet here we are at the tail end of summer and I still have no idea what the Liberals stand for in terms of Economic Policy, Social Spending, Health Care, Afghanistan, Arctic Sovereignty, or Taxation.
All I know after a summer long bus tour is:
Conservatives = Bad
Liberals = Good
NDP + Green = Conservatives = Bad
This isn’t an election for student council president in high school, yet the simplicity of the message leads me to believe that the Liberals either have no policy or that they think I as a voter am far to stupid to actually understand whatever policy they may have.
What’s worse is that all summer I have watched Liberal MP after Liberal MP imply that Harper is a bully, yet here we are leading into the fall session of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Party is basically attempting to bully loyal Green/NDP supporters into voting Liberal because they are the “only way to stop Harper”.
That coupled with forcing rural MP’s to vote party lines rather then constituents desires on Bill C-391 which appears that it will pass even without any support from the Liberals is just playing out the same image that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Ignatieff was appointed leader.
We are the party that knows better then you.
Considering they have had zero influence on policy over the last four years, and the country is still standing maybe Canada can exist without the Liberals?
Perhaps its time the Liberals realized that and starting asking Canadians for supporter rather then bullying them into it.
Just a thought.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Why Card Carrying Liberals Hate Me
I am a mercenary politically;
This idea of blind faith towards the actions of a party simply because you have their logo on a card laminated within your wallet is utterly silly to me.
I think Harper is doing the best job out of those who could potentially have the job, and I think that Tim Hudak may get me to vote Liberal in Ontario for the first time.
It’s all about policy to me,
I already know I am a bad Canadian because I approach every party’s platform with the approach of “what is best for my family” rather then “what is best for Canada”.
Talks of a merger between the NDP/Liberals is one subject I wasn’t going to comment on, simply because I am sure thousands of people who voted Martin in 2004 are making the same sorts of comments I would.
Unless all of a sudden the NDP moved hard center and dumped half their policy and caucus I would find it hard to see a situation where I would support them within the context of an election.
Layton has done perhaps the best job of any of the opposition leaders in their role as opposition to be vocal and against legislation tabled by the Government.
As the leader of the 3rd Opposition Party he has served his role well.
However, as a Minister of Finance or Foreign Affairs in the context of a merged Liberal/NDP party…
Scary stuff.
The NDP with power is something that we cannot afford as a nation, I look at Greece and the mess they are in because of a social safety net so expensive it collapsed their nation and I envision what could happen to Canada if we opted to move forward with even 20% of the NDP’s platform.
However I read an interesting article on CBC’s website which simply left me stunned
“He said Apps told him the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader; and having senior party "saints" such as former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and past Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow promote the merger.”
Source
Maybe I am missing something here,
Perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada has some sort of dirt on the senior folks at the NDP but after reading that my first thought was:
“Are the Liberals delusional?”
Let’s have a look at the support of both parties over the last four elections:
NDP Support:
2000: 13 Seats, 8.51% Popular Vote
2004: 19 Seats, 11% Popular Vote
2006: 29 Seats, 17.48% Popular Vote
2008: 37 Seats, 18.18% Popular Vote
Liberal Support:
2000: 172 Seats, 41% Popular Vote
2004: 135 Seats, 36.73% Popular Vote
2006: 103 Seats, 30.23% Popular Vote
2008: 77 Seats, 26.26% Popular Vote
Do you see that pattern?
The Liberals had about 32% more support then the NDP in 2000,
Now it’s an 8.08% difference between both parties as of 2008.
Some polls show the NDP just outside the Margin of Error of the Liberals in terms of national support.
Maybe I am naïve here, but shouldn’t the NDP be dictating the terms of this agreement to the Liberals?
Because I hate to say it, the Liberals need the NDP a lot more then the NDP needs the Liberals.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that the terms of a merger are basically along the lines of the NDP having to give up everything that makes it the NDP has some appeal to me, whenever you eliminate a left of center party you reduce the likelihood of left of center policy.
I just don’t see the reasoning behind this for the New Democrats.
An NDP/Green merger makes more logical sense.
That combine force based on the “second choice” polling could potentially leapfrog the Liberals.
Based on the Globe and Mail Article breaking down the Numbers the NDP/Liberal Party could potentially lead to a Conservative Majority.
Source
Which is all fine and good, but I really would like someone from the NDP to discuss this in the same manner in which “insiders” of the Liberal Party have been.
There is no love loss between me and the NDP, and the idea of them dissolving themselves into Liberals is interesting,
But where is the pros for the New Democrats?
This idea of blind faith towards the actions of a party simply because you have their logo on a card laminated within your wallet is utterly silly to me.
I think Harper is doing the best job out of those who could potentially have the job, and I think that Tim Hudak may get me to vote Liberal in Ontario for the first time.
It’s all about policy to me,
I already know I am a bad Canadian because I approach every party’s platform with the approach of “what is best for my family” rather then “what is best for Canada”.
Talks of a merger between the NDP/Liberals is one subject I wasn’t going to comment on, simply because I am sure thousands of people who voted Martin in 2004 are making the same sorts of comments I would.
Unless all of a sudden the NDP moved hard center and dumped half their policy and caucus I would find it hard to see a situation where I would support them within the context of an election.
Layton has done perhaps the best job of any of the opposition leaders in their role as opposition to be vocal and against legislation tabled by the Government.
As the leader of the 3rd Opposition Party he has served his role well.
However, as a Minister of Finance or Foreign Affairs in the context of a merged Liberal/NDP party…
Scary stuff.
The NDP with power is something that we cannot afford as a nation, I look at Greece and the mess they are in because of a social safety net so expensive it collapsed their nation and I envision what could happen to Canada if we opted to move forward with even 20% of the NDP’s platform.
However I read an interesting article on CBC’s website which simply left me stunned
“He said Apps told him the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader; and having senior party "saints" such as former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and past Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow promote the merger.”
Source
Maybe I am missing something here,
Perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada has some sort of dirt on the senior folks at the NDP but after reading that my first thought was:
“Are the Liberals delusional?”
Let’s have a look at the support of both parties over the last four elections:
NDP Support:
2000: 13 Seats, 8.51% Popular Vote
2004: 19 Seats, 11% Popular Vote
2006: 29 Seats, 17.48% Popular Vote
2008: 37 Seats, 18.18% Popular Vote
Liberal Support:
2000: 172 Seats, 41% Popular Vote
2004: 135 Seats, 36.73% Popular Vote
2006: 103 Seats, 30.23% Popular Vote
2008: 77 Seats, 26.26% Popular Vote
Do you see that pattern?
The Liberals had about 32% more support then the NDP in 2000,
Now it’s an 8.08% difference between both parties as of 2008.
Some polls show the NDP just outside the Margin of Error of the Liberals in terms of national support.
Maybe I am naïve here, but shouldn’t the NDP be dictating the terms of this agreement to the Liberals?
Because I hate to say it, the Liberals need the NDP a lot more then the NDP needs the Liberals.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that the terms of a merger are basically along the lines of the NDP having to give up everything that makes it the NDP has some appeal to me, whenever you eliminate a left of center party you reduce the likelihood of left of center policy.
I just don’t see the reasoning behind this for the New Democrats.
An NDP/Green merger makes more logical sense.
That combine force based on the “second choice” polling could potentially leapfrog the Liberals.
Based on the Globe and Mail Article breaking down the Numbers the NDP/Liberal Party could potentially lead to a Conservative Majority.
Source
Which is all fine and good, but I really would like someone from the NDP to discuss this in the same manner in which “insiders” of the Liberal Party have been.
There is no love loss between me and the NDP, and the idea of them dissolving themselves into Liberals is interesting,
But where is the pros for the New Democrats?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
