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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
If the Liberals Cry Wolf and Everyone is Around; Does Anyone Hear it?
If I hear the world “Militarization” one more time this week I may very well scream, there is a difference between a build up of equipment and a replacement of material that is so old it belongs in a museum.
Canada has decided to order 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft for around 8.5 Billion dollars total, these aircraft will largely replace and compliment the fleet of the 100 or so Hornet CF-18’s that were originally purchased starting 1982.
In a nutshell multirole aircraft which was purchased nearly 30 years ago is starting to be replaced.
This isn’t even a discussion about if you are pro or con whatever mission our Canadian Forces are currently engaged in. It’s a reality that our Forces have been on the ground somewhere in the world every day for the last few decades. They are there, and if you agree, disagree, don’t care or otherwise it doesn’t change the fact that they are in harms way currently, and based on the track record of either political party they will be in harms way again.
If we are asking our forces to do a mission, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to provide them with the material in order to do so.
Our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in 2001 in equipment that was procured when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, you with think there would be some shame held by the political party who was in power in 2001 who sent our troops to Afghanistan in combat equipment that is nearly the same age as our current Prime Minister.
You would however be wrong.
When Canada opted to replace our archaic armoured vehicles in 2007 we saw the same “outrage” we are seeing today.
The question was raised in 2007 as to why Canada needed these new armoured vehicles, the Liberal supporters seemed to almost imply some sort of “hidden” agenda.
When the answer was very simple;
Q: Why did Canada need new Armoured Vehicles?
A: Because the Liberals under a majority government in 2001 sent our troops into a combat zone in material that was not designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs an IED’s.
There isn’t much that really pisses me off more then when politicians of any stripe politicize our men and women in uniform.
Our Hornet CF-18’s in nearly 30 years old; they were purchased to replace the CF-104 Starfighter and CF-101 Voodoo aircraft which were 20 years old. I don’t think that it can be argued that we as a nation have got our money’s worth out of the Hornets.
I also have very little issue with opting for the Lockheed Martin F-35’s for a few reasons
1) They were jointly developed by Canada
2) Lockheed Martin uses a lot of Canadian subcontractors
3) The US Military is buying 2000 of them, so getting parts shouldn’t be that difficult.
I am not an overly complicated man, but I do feel that if we are asking our troops to do a job with a maple leaf patch on their shoulders at a minimum we shouldn’t be sending them into battle in Sea King Helicopters that were purchased in 1964, which are FINALLY being replaced with Sikorsky CH 148’s as of 2007, but should have been phased out in the early 1990’s till of course the Liberals once again opted to play politics with our armed forces by canceling the contract to replace them in 1993 slashing the DND budget;
Then of course sending our troops to Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia for their troubles, within four years of axing the purchase of needed equipment.
I don’t care if you are in favor of the mission in Afghanistan or not, taking out your “politics” on our Forces by clamoring about the replacement of 30 year old jets is nothing short of villainous, especially when anyone with any common sense knows that the jets are WAY overdue for a replacement.
Using the safety of our troops as pawns in an attempt to garner support for party X or Y is nothing short of hitting bottom.
But based on the last few polls, I think the Liberals already know that.
Canada has decided to order 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft for around 8.5 Billion dollars total, these aircraft will largely replace and compliment the fleet of the 100 or so Hornet CF-18’s that were originally purchased starting 1982.
In a nutshell multirole aircraft which was purchased nearly 30 years ago is starting to be replaced.
This isn’t even a discussion about if you are pro or con whatever mission our Canadian Forces are currently engaged in. It’s a reality that our Forces have been on the ground somewhere in the world every day for the last few decades. They are there, and if you agree, disagree, don’t care or otherwise it doesn’t change the fact that they are in harms way currently, and based on the track record of either political party they will be in harms way again.
If we are asking our forces to do a mission, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to provide them with the material in order to do so.
Our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in 2001 in equipment that was procured when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, you with think there would be some shame held by the political party who was in power in 2001 who sent our troops to Afghanistan in combat equipment that is nearly the same age as our current Prime Minister.
You would however be wrong.
When Canada opted to replace our archaic armoured vehicles in 2007 we saw the same “outrage” we are seeing today.
The question was raised in 2007 as to why Canada needed these new armoured vehicles, the Liberal supporters seemed to almost imply some sort of “hidden” agenda.
When the answer was very simple;
Q: Why did Canada need new Armoured Vehicles?
A: Because the Liberals under a majority government in 2001 sent our troops into a combat zone in material that was not designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs an IED’s.
There isn’t much that really pisses me off more then when politicians of any stripe politicize our men and women in uniform.
Our Hornet CF-18’s in nearly 30 years old; they were purchased to replace the CF-104 Starfighter and CF-101 Voodoo aircraft which were 20 years old. I don’t think that it can be argued that we as a nation have got our money’s worth out of the Hornets.
I also have very little issue with opting for the Lockheed Martin F-35’s for a few reasons
1) They were jointly developed by Canada
2) Lockheed Martin uses a lot of Canadian subcontractors
3) The US Military is buying 2000 of them, so getting parts shouldn’t be that difficult.
I am not an overly complicated man, but I do feel that if we are asking our troops to do a job with a maple leaf patch on their shoulders at a minimum we shouldn’t be sending them into battle in Sea King Helicopters that were purchased in 1964, which are FINALLY being replaced with Sikorsky CH 148’s as of 2007, but should have been phased out in the early 1990’s till of course the Liberals once again opted to play politics with our armed forces by canceling the contract to replace them in 1993 slashing the DND budget;
Then of course sending our troops to Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia for their troubles, within four years of axing the purchase of needed equipment.
I don’t care if you are in favor of the mission in Afghanistan or not, taking out your “politics” on our Forces by clamoring about the replacement of 30 year old jets is nothing short of villainous, especially when anyone with any common sense knows that the jets are WAY overdue for a replacement.
Using the safety of our troops as pawns in an attempt to garner support for party X or Y is nothing short of hitting bottom.
But based on the last few polls, I think the Liberals already know that.
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)
