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.
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Don’t you love the smell of an election in the morning?
Its budget day;
I find myself clicking refresh on any number of different news and political websites hoping to get some new information that will let us know if we will be heading to the polls in May or not.
People keep asking if I think there will be an election, and had you asked me last week I would have chuckled and said not unless the opposition wants to give the Conservatives a majority.
Today I still feel that even at 38% or so, if the double digit lead the Conservatives hold over the Liberals in Ontario is correct that will be enough to generate the seats required for the Tories to pull a 1997 and find themselves with a thin majority.
The question is why would the opposition want to allow this?
The answer I think is pretty simple;
If you are the BQ, there is a very real possibility that your leader who is the only real face of the party will be moving to Provincial pastures within the next 12-18 months and you are better off contesting an election with him, then having a bitter leadership race which may very well result in a leader Quebeckers are generally apathetic to.
Duceppe is a known commodity good for a 45 seat pop.
The balance of the Commons is when it becomes a bit more hazy.
For the Liberals, as I have said for the last two years this is a party that needs four years in opposition to rebuild themselves. They don’t have the leader, support, will, or money to be in this constant state of election campaigning that a minority government provides.
This is a party that’s has problems that do not simply span from who the leader is, but simply a party that lacks direction or any identity. If you took the logos off the 2004, 2006, and 2008 Liberal Platforms someone with no knowledge of Canadian politics would be hard-pressed to assume they came from the same party.
They need direction and they need an end to infighting.
This is something that will not get done in the context of a minority government.
However I think there is just too much pride at stake for that to ever happen.
Yet we find ourselves with the Liberals polling somewhere between 23-27% nationally and a fairly consistent double digit gap between them and the Conservatives in Ontario.
Voting down this budget, or taking down the government on whatever ethical grounds they feel they may be going to the polls over seems more a leap of pride then of any real political strategy.
The Liberals needs to make fairly substantial gains to be anywhere near a position to consider forming a government.
The idea of walking into an election hoping that Canadians will value correct use of letterhead over the recovery of the economy is a stretch, yet its why we seem to find ourselves potentially at the polls.
I think the Liberals have just gone too far this time, its gone past the point of “Mr. Harper your time is up” and the Liberals almost have to go to the polls because abstaining from this budget will kill what’s left of their creditability.
Now we come to the NDP.
A party that wanted four very low cost concessions for their potential support.
A far cry from the billions of dollars they demanded from Paul Martin’s Liberals in 2005.
The Conservatives have countered with agreeing to two of the least left of center and low cost requests.
I have no idea how to even begin to gauge NDP support.
Polling has them at a support level that may cost them 15-20 seats then the next poll has them adding a couple.
However can the NDP really pass a budget with Corporate Tax Cuts?
I just don’t see it.
What I find all the more puzzling is that it appears that Thomas Mulcair seems to be the one rattling the saber to go to an election (at least by some online reports which we can very well take with a grain of salt)
Mulcair is perhaps the second most known commodity within the party,
And while he may very well be doing wonders within the party, I find it highly unlikely that he will be able to retain Outremont with Martin Cauchon running for the Liberals.
It’s not a slight at Mulcair, it’s simply a political reality of Quebec.
Outremont is a Liberal Stronghold, Mulcair was a Liberal Cabinet Minister in the Provincial Liberal Government, however he has hardly beat anyone of note in either election he has won, and now he faces a real honest to goodness and very personally popular Liberal.
I can see why the NDP may vote down the budget, but I just don’t see why many of them would be smiling while they do.
I guess we will find out shortly.
I find myself clicking refresh on any number of different news and political websites hoping to get some new information that will let us know if we will be heading to the polls in May or not.
People keep asking if I think there will be an election, and had you asked me last week I would have chuckled and said not unless the opposition wants to give the Conservatives a majority.
Today I still feel that even at 38% or so, if the double digit lead the Conservatives hold over the Liberals in Ontario is correct that will be enough to generate the seats required for the Tories to pull a 1997 and find themselves with a thin majority.
The question is why would the opposition want to allow this?
The answer I think is pretty simple;
If you are the BQ, there is a very real possibility that your leader who is the only real face of the party will be moving to Provincial pastures within the next 12-18 months and you are better off contesting an election with him, then having a bitter leadership race which may very well result in a leader Quebeckers are generally apathetic to.
Duceppe is a known commodity good for a 45 seat pop.
The balance of the Commons is when it becomes a bit more hazy.
For the Liberals, as I have said for the last two years this is a party that needs four years in opposition to rebuild themselves. They don’t have the leader, support, will, or money to be in this constant state of election campaigning that a minority government provides.
This is a party that’s has problems that do not simply span from who the leader is, but simply a party that lacks direction or any identity. If you took the logos off the 2004, 2006, and 2008 Liberal Platforms someone with no knowledge of Canadian politics would be hard-pressed to assume they came from the same party.
They need direction and they need an end to infighting.
This is something that will not get done in the context of a minority government.
However I think there is just too much pride at stake for that to ever happen.
Yet we find ourselves with the Liberals polling somewhere between 23-27% nationally and a fairly consistent double digit gap between them and the Conservatives in Ontario.
Voting down this budget, or taking down the government on whatever ethical grounds they feel they may be going to the polls over seems more a leap of pride then of any real political strategy.
The Liberals needs to make fairly substantial gains to be anywhere near a position to consider forming a government.
The idea of walking into an election hoping that Canadians will value correct use of letterhead over the recovery of the economy is a stretch, yet its why we seem to find ourselves potentially at the polls.
I think the Liberals have just gone too far this time, its gone past the point of “Mr. Harper your time is up” and the Liberals almost have to go to the polls because abstaining from this budget will kill what’s left of their creditability.
Now we come to the NDP.
A party that wanted four very low cost concessions for their potential support.
A far cry from the billions of dollars they demanded from Paul Martin’s Liberals in 2005.
The Conservatives have countered with agreeing to two of the least left of center and low cost requests.
I have no idea how to even begin to gauge NDP support.
Polling has them at a support level that may cost them 15-20 seats then the next poll has them adding a couple.
However can the NDP really pass a budget with Corporate Tax Cuts?
I just don’t see it.
What I find all the more puzzling is that it appears that Thomas Mulcair seems to be the one rattling the saber to go to an election (at least by some online reports which we can very well take with a grain of salt)
Mulcair is perhaps the second most known commodity within the party,
And while he may very well be doing wonders within the party, I find it highly unlikely that he will be able to retain Outremont with Martin Cauchon running for the Liberals.
It’s not a slight at Mulcair, it’s simply a political reality of Quebec.
Outremont is a Liberal Stronghold, Mulcair was a Liberal Cabinet Minister in the Provincial Liberal Government, however he has hardly beat anyone of note in either election he has won, and now he faces a real honest to goodness and very personally popular Liberal.
I can see why the NDP may vote down the budget, but I just don’t see why many of them would be smiling while they do.
I guess we will find out shortly.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
A By-Election Reality Check
As I watched what appeared to be a panicked Stephen LeDrew on CP24 ask anyone who would accept a microphone in their face if they considered a potential Fantino victory in Vaughan to be a “Fantino Victory” or a “Conservative Victory” I knew that the spin was going to be in full effect on Tuesday regardless of the result.
I like Stephen LeDrew, however when it comes to him reporting on politics it’s hard for me to forget for a moment that he was President of the Liberal Party of Canada for many years, and his coverage of the Vaughan By-Election was just another reminder.
Perhaps I am naïve, but any victory regardless of whom the victory is attributed to that adds another seat to the government side of the aisle is a Conservative Victory.
I found it very confusing and odd that Liberal strategist spent the better part of Tuesday mocking the small margin of victory that Fantino enjoyed in Vaughan, and that left me scratching my head.
Vaughan was pretty well the safest non-416 or 514 riding the Liberals have, it was a riding that the leader of the party could stop into once on his way to a battleground riding knowing that it was in the bag, the sort of ridings that parties that hope to govern need.
It has been won by the Liberals with 50-60% of the popular vote since the merger of the two Conservative Parties. Perhaps once again I am naïve but when you win a riding that is considered to be a Liberal Stronghold by even a single vote that is considered a huge victory, especially considering that Vaughan wouldn’t have normally entered the discussion for the potential top 50 ridings the CPC would be targeting in the context of an election.
What is also interesting is that in what is about as close to a head to head Liberal and Conservative battle (as the NDP was a non-factor) the Liberals still lost, and that really does take away much of the creditability associated with the argument that the NDP is stealing the Liberals votes.
In a head to head battle between the Tories and the Liberals,
New Democrats stay home.
On October 15th 2008 the Conservative Party of Canada was 12 seats away from a majority government; since that time they have added 3 Conservative MP’s at the expense of the opposition side of the floor in by-elections
I think most Conservative supporters could easily list off the 9 or 10 ridings needed for a majority which could very easily go blue in the next election; I would be interested to see if Liberal supporters can list off the 70+ seats they need.
Now of course as is always the case after by-elections we hear every analysis defending their party of choice with the words “Voter Turnout”.
Well my friends let be very clear,
Voter Turnout excuses are the mating call of the loser.
Where was the discussion of voter turnout when the Liberals retained a pair of ridings with less then 30% voter turnout in 2008?
Wasn’t a factor, because the Liberals won.
Willowdale was retained in by-election by the Liberals with 24.4% voter turnout, and they had no issue retaining the seat in an election later that year.
As a matter of fact, every single riding that has been won in a by-election since 2004 by a party has retained that riding in the next general election.
The Liberals winning Winnipeg North may have changed the story, but it doesn’t change the political reality the Liberals are facing.
They had an easy and safe riding in the 905 belt;
They lost it because the Conservatives were able to run the right candidate. The Conservatives are also +3 (having won 4 of 7) in By-Elections whereas the Bloc is -1, the NDP is -1, and the Liberals are sitting at neutral.
If the Liberals cannot pull out a victory in a riding that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion where able to retain by simply flying over it on the way to other ridings during General Elections in a by-election where all they needed to do was focus on three ridings,
What’s going to happen under this leader when the Liberals who are 1/7 under Iggy have to contest 308 ridings at once?
I like Stephen LeDrew, however when it comes to him reporting on politics it’s hard for me to forget for a moment that he was President of the Liberal Party of Canada for many years, and his coverage of the Vaughan By-Election was just another reminder.
Perhaps I am naïve, but any victory regardless of whom the victory is attributed to that adds another seat to the government side of the aisle is a Conservative Victory.
I found it very confusing and odd that Liberal strategist spent the better part of Tuesday mocking the small margin of victory that Fantino enjoyed in Vaughan, and that left me scratching my head.
Vaughan was pretty well the safest non-416 or 514 riding the Liberals have, it was a riding that the leader of the party could stop into once on his way to a battleground riding knowing that it was in the bag, the sort of ridings that parties that hope to govern need.
It has been won by the Liberals with 50-60% of the popular vote since the merger of the two Conservative Parties. Perhaps once again I am naïve but when you win a riding that is considered to be a Liberal Stronghold by even a single vote that is considered a huge victory, especially considering that Vaughan wouldn’t have normally entered the discussion for the potential top 50 ridings the CPC would be targeting in the context of an election.
What is also interesting is that in what is about as close to a head to head Liberal and Conservative battle (as the NDP was a non-factor) the Liberals still lost, and that really does take away much of the creditability associated with the argument that the NDP is stealing the Liberals votes.
In a head to head battle between the Tories and the Liberals,
New Democrats stay home.
On October 15th 2008 the Conservative Party of Canada was 12 seats away from a majority government; since that time they have added 3 Conservative MP’s at the expense of the opposition side of the floor in by-elections
I think most Conservative supporters could easily list off the 9 or 10 ridings needed for a majority which could very easily go blue in the next election; I would be interested to see if Liberal supporters can list off the 70+ seats they need.
Now of course as is always the case after by-elections we hear every analysis defending their party of choice with the words “Voter Turnout”.
Well my friends let be very clear,
Voter Turnout excuses are the mating call of the loser.
Where was the discussion of voter turnout when the Liberals retained a pair of ridings with less then 30% voter turnout in 2008?
Wasn’t a factor, because the Liberals won.
Willowdale was retained in by-election by the Liberals with 24.4% voter turnout, and they had no issue retaining the seat in an election later that year.
As a matter of fact, every single riding that has been won in a by-election since 2004 by a party has retained that riding in the next general election.
The Liberals winning Winnipeg North may have changed the story, but it doesn’t change the political reality the Liberals are facing.
They had an easy and safe riding in the 905 belt;
They lost it because the Conservatives were able to run the right candidate. The Conservatives are also +3 (having won 4 of 7) in By-Elections whereas the Bloc is -1, the NDP is -1, and the Liberals are sitting at neutral.
If the Liberals cannot pull out a victory in a riding that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion where able to retain by simply flying over it on the way to other ridings during General Elections in a by-election where all they needed to do was focus on three ridings,
What’s going to happen under this leader when the Liberals who are 1/7 under Iggy have to contest 308 ridings at once?
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.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Why is the Left Afraid of Free Speech?
I recall in University a professor made a comment that has stuck in my head for years,
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
It was clearly a joke and he was simply making a commentary on the dynamic of the University classroom, however it’s a line that has stuck in my mind for a long time and always seems to spring to mind during certainly times.
I read that Margaret Atwood has signed a petition to stop Sun TV News, or as every media outlet has dubbed it “Fox News North” even though it is not affiliated with the Fox News Channel.
The term “Fear Monger” was perhaps most used during the reign of George W. Bush in reference to him and the Republicans, however I find that those on the left have done a very effective job of using fear for their own agenda’s as well, I would argue that they have done a better job of it then the Republicans or the self proclaimed “right” has done over the last year.
There has been an outcry to not allow for Sun TV news to be given a license to broadcast in Canada because of its potential “right wing slant”.
Perhaps I am the last realist left, but the days of a creditable down the middle newsman reading the news of the day directly into a camera are dead and buried. News like any other TV program now is a product, and a product that is worth countless dollars to the company that is broadcasting it.
I find Fox News no different then MSNBC except for the fact that their brand of zealotry is for different ends of the political spectrum, yet I hear more cries about the bias and general evil as it pertains to Fox News then I do MSNBC.
Bias exists within news, this occurred the second that Social Commentators were given two hour long programs on news channels under the illusion that they were reporting news.
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBC Newsworld, CTV News, and everything in between have all found themselves in this same situation. The only difference as it pertains to someone’s opinion of how either Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann report the days events on their program has solely to do with the viewers own political bias. If you hate Beck and love Olbermann chances are you have an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on your Prius, and if you hate Olbermann and love Beck chances are that you have a Bush/Cheney 2004 sticker on the gun rack in the back of your pick-up.
(Please take note of the above sarcasm)
Both represent what “News” has degraded to over the course of the last decade, and neither offer a down the middle view of any issue, and neither is worse then the other.
However I assure you that someone will attempt to sway me one way or another, but based on my opinion of the situation they are both zealots for their own cause and someone you agree with is easier not to dislike then someone you disagree with.
The issue I have with various Canadian media outlets and “personalities” in attempting to censor Sun News TV is that regardless of how they frame the argument the fact is that they are attempting to censor news, and determine what should be reported on and what should not.
I recall a time where I could tune into the news and get the story, most of the story from both sides.
Now I need to watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, and CTV as well as read online to get all angles of a particular story before I can draw my own conclusion.
Reality has become nothing more then CSI: News.
The viewer needs to spend a long period of time in order to get enough information so that they can have the entire story and then piece together all of that information to figure out just what the actual whole story is.
The Toronto Star, love it, hate it, or otherwise be indifferent to it, is not a balanced down the middle newspaper, nor is the Toronto Sun.
If the Toronto Star opted for an all news channel would we see the same degree of outcry against it?
I think we all know that we would not.
I fail to understand why people like Margaret Atwood who has enjoyed the benefits of living in a nation where the opinions of all can be stated freely are now in favor of censorship?
Because her political alignment is not in agreement with that of the Sun News TV folks?
I think I would have a lot more respect for the argument if someone was simply honest about their reasoning behind it.
The reality is that to make such bold conclusions about a form of media no one has even seen yet seems to be nothing short of using fear as a means of forwarding your own politics,
But what do I know?
I am of the mindset that the market should be allowed to decide for itself.
Let the folks at Sun News TV spend the millions of dollars needed in order to set up this station and broadcast it,
If there is no such market for their branding of news in Canada then they will crash and burn and the market would have silenced that particular slant.
Attempting to stop it before it has even broadcast news story one leads me to believe that there is a fear that there may actually be a market for news told from a different angle, and if that is the case there is no argument against this sort of station other then:
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
I don’t feel that Canadians need to be told what is within their best interests, I have faith that Canadians have the sense and the intelligence to make those choices on their own.
The outcry against Sun TV News seems to be made up of propaganda and opinions, and I find it hard to take such criticism seriously when the network is yet to broadcast a single news story or even announce the bulk of its staff or content.
There appears to be a lot of fear mongering occurring against something we haven’t even seen yet, and I tend to be against any form of filtering information that is provided to the public so they can make their own choices,
Yet once again we see a vocal minority trying to play father knows best with the majority of the population.
Tragic, but true.
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
It was clearly a joke and he was simply making a commentary on the dynamic of the University classroom, however it’s a line that has stuck in my mind for a long time and always seems to spring to mind during certainly times.
I read that Margaret Atwood has signed a petition to stop Sun TV News, or as every media outlet has dubbed it “Fox News North” even though it is not affiliated with the Fox News Channel.
The term “Fear Monger” was perhaps most used during the reign of George W. Bush in reference to him and the Republicans, however I find that those on the left have done a very effective job of using fear for their own agenda’s as well, I would argue that they have done a better job of it then the Republicans or the self proclaimed “right” has done over the last year.
There has been an outcry to not allow for Sun TV news to be given a license to broadcast in Canada because of its potential “right wing slant”.
Perhaps I am the last realist left, but the days of a creditable down the middle newsman reading the news of the day directly into a camera are dead and buried. News like any other TV program now is a product, and a product that is worth countless dollars to the company that is broadcasting it.
I find Fox News no different then MSNBC except for the fact that their brand of zealotry is for different ends of the political spectrum, yet I hear more cries about the bias and general evil as it pertains to Fox News then I do MSNBC.
Bias exists within news, this occurred the second that Social Commentators were given two hour long programs on news channels under the illusion that they were reporting news.
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBC Newsworld, CTV News, and everything in between have all found themselves in this same situation. The only difference as it pertains to someone’s opinion of how either Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann report the days events on their program has solely to do with the viewers own political bias. If you hate Beck and love Olbermann chances are you have an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on your Prius, and if you hate Olbermann and love Beck chances are that you have a Bush/Cheney 2004 sticker on the gun rack in the back of your pick-up.
(Please take note of the above sarcasm)
Both represent what “News” has degraded to over the course of the last decade, and neither offer a down the middle view of any issue, and neither is worse then the other.
However I assure you that someone will attempt to sway me one way or another, but based on my opinion of the situation they are both zealots for their own cause and someone you agree with is easier not to dislike then someone you disagree with.
The issue I have with various Canadian media outlets and “personalities” in attempting to censor Sun News TV is that regardless of how they frame the argument the fact is that they are attempting to censor news, and determine what should be reported on and what should not.
I recall a time where I could tune into the news and get the story, most of the story from both sides.
Now I need to watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, and CTV as well as read online to get all angles of a particular story before I can draw my own conclusion.
Reality has become nothing more then CSI: News.
The viewer needs to spend a long period of time in order to get enough information so that they can have the entire story and then piece together all of that information to figure out just what the actual whole story is.
The Toronto Star, love it, hate it, or otherwise be indifferent to it, is not a balanced down the middle newspaper, nor is the Toronto Sun.
If the Toronto Star opted for an all news channel would we see the same degree of outcry against it?
I think we all know that we would not.
I fail to understand why people like Margaret Atwood who has enjoyed the benefits of living in a nation where the opinions of all can be stated freely are now in favor of censorship?
Because her political alignment is not in agreement with that of the Sun News TV folks?
I think I would have a lot more respect for the argument if someone was simply honest about their reasoning behind it.
The reality is that to make such bold conclusions about a form of media no one has even seen yet seems to be nothing short of using fear as a means of forwarding your own politics,
But what do I know?
I am of the mindset that the market should be allowed to decide for itself.
Let the folks at Sun News TV spend the millions of dollars needed in order to set up this station and broadcast it,
If there is no such market for their branding of news in Canada then they will crash and burn and the market would have silenced that particular slant.
Attempting to stop it before it has even broadcast news story one leads me to believe that there is a fear that there may actually be a market for news told from a different angle, and if that is the case there is no argument against this sort of station other then:
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
I don’t feel that Canadians need to be told what is within their best interests, I have faith that Canadians have the sense and the intelligence to make those choices on their own.
The outcry against Sun TV News seems to be made up of propaganda and opinions, and I find it hard to take such criticism seriously when the network is yet to broadcast a single news story or even announce the bulk of its staff or content.
There appears to be a lot of fear mongering occurring against something we haven’t even seen yet, and I tend to be against any form of filtering information that is provided to the public so they can make their own choices,
Yet once again we see a vocal minority trying to play father knows best with the majority of the population.
Tragic, but true.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
