babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » NDP strategy in the House are they attacking the Liberals or the Conservatives?....

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: NDP strategy in the House are they attacking the Liberals or the Conservatives?....
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 26 June 2006 01:00 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...during June. This is more of a compilation than anything else. I was really curious as to whether or not the NDP really is attacking the Liberals more than the Conservatives as some would claim. So I decided to analyze all of their questions during QP for the month of June, so far, in the House. This is the list. I've tried to judge where an attack was made either directed towards the government (CP - Conservative Party) or the previous government (LP - Liberal Party), as well as whether or not there was a main attack present. My definition of Main attack refers to the fact that there may have been, a direct attack regarding government policy in NDP member's question, or the government in co-ordination with a third party. I've also tried to note specific instances of challenges to the government, or the Liberals, and whether or not any other glaring things were present in the questions. I’ve also tried to note whether or not the attack was a major attack, or a minor one. This is more subjective, nonetheless a passing mention of the previous government’s failures, or the present government’s failures fixing the previous government’s failures doesn’t warrant the same value of attack strength as a call for the resignation of a government minister. In this analysis I've tried to use a consistent framework for judging and analysing this issue. I didn't want to post this to the thread re: whether or not the NDP thinks it could displace the Liberals as I think it'll take up too much page space.

Oral Questions Analysis:

June 1st: 1st NDP question: Layton's:
1st part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack was on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Angus's question:
1st part main attack was on the CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack was on the CP.

3rd question: T Martin:
1st part main attack was on the LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack was on the CP.

4th question: Masse:
1st part major attack on CP minor attack on LP. (Attack on LP was dig at CP to as it was re: Emerson.)

5th question: Davies:
Challenge to CP - included praise of a LP member.

June 2nd: 1st question: Siksay:
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Mathyssen:
1st part main attacks on CP and LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attacks on CP and LP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Dewar:
1st part challenge to CP.
2nd part challenge to CP.

4th question: Angus:
1st part challenge to CP - main attack on LP.

June 5th. 1st NDP question: Layton's question:
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Dewar.
1st part major attack on CP - minor attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Cullen.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

4th question: Crowder.
1st part challenge to CP.

June 6th. 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Julian.
1st part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: McDonough.
1st part main attack on provincial NS PC's - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 7th: 1st Question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Chow:
1st part main attack on all previous governments - challenge to CP.
2nd part challenge to CP.

3rd question: Priddy:
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 8th: 1st Question: Layton.
1st part challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Wasylycia-Leis:
1st part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part challenge to CP - positive comments to CP member.

3rd question: Angus:
1st part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.

June 9th: 1st question: Christopherson.
1st part main attack on CP.
2nd part major attack on CP minor attack on LP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: P Martin.
1st part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Bevington.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP - (note chastized gov't for its failures and attempts to blame previous gov't)

June 12th: 1st Question: Davies.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: P Martin.
1st part major attack on CP minor attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attacks on CP and LP - challenge to LP and CP.


3rd question: Bell.
1st part main attack on CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

4th question: Nash.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 13th: 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - minor attack on previous CP (PC) gov't.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Julian.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Cullen.
1st part main attack on CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

4th question: Godin.
1st part main challenge to CP.

June 14th: 1st question: Davies.
1st part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Godin.
1st part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP.

3rd question: Priddy.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part major attack on CP minor attack on LP - challenge to CP.

June 15th: 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Cullen.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP and LP and Bloc - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Masse.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 16th: 1st question: Julian.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.


2nd question: Crowder.
1st part challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Nash.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.

4th question: Atamenko.
1st part challenge to CP.

June 19th: 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Masse.
1st part challenge to CP.

3rd question: Angus.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

4th question: Wasylyscia-Leis.
1st part main attack on LP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 20th: 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP. (Chastizes gov't inaction for blaming previous gov't)

2nd question: Cullen.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part major attack on CP minor attack on LP - challenge to CP.

3rd question. Mathyssen.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

4th question (Point of Order). P. Martin.
1st part challenge to LP member.
2nd part neither attack or challenge.

June 21st: 1st question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: McDonough.
1st part challenge to CP.

3rd question: Black.
1st part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.


4th question: Chow.
1st part challenge to CP.

5th question: Stoffer.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

June 22nd. 1st Question: Layton.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.
2nd part main attack on CP and LP - challenge to CP.

2nd question: Godin.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

3rd question: Priddy.
1st part main attack on CP - challenge to CP.

There were 27 NDP QP references to the Liberals, directly or to the previous government and its perceived failures. There were at least 167 NDP QP references to the Conservatives, or the current government and its perceived failures.

Source
-Hansard Oral Questions

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 26 June 2006 05:01 AM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The job of the opposition is to criticise the government. Could you research a similar month of the Liberal minority parliament and come up with a ratio of attacks on the Liberals to attacks on the Conservatives?
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 June 2006 05:16 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I was really curious as to whether or not the NDP really is attacking the Liberals more than the Conservatives as some would claim.

Who would have made such an odd claim in relation to Question Period?

Anyway, thanks for doing all this work. Does this mean an NDP-Lib alliance is in the offing?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 June 2006 06:25 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile in the past week or two the Liberals have been spending all their time in the house attacking the NDp instead of attacking the government.

Funny no one ever criticizes the Liberals for that!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 June 2006 06:29 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Meanwhile in the past week or two the Liberals have been spending all their time in the house attacking the NDp instead of attacking the government.

Funny no one ever criticizes the Liberals for that!


Why should the Libs sit back and take the attacks from the NDP without shooting back?

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 26 June 2006 06:30 AM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
The job of the opposition is to criticise the government. Could you research a similar month of the Liberal minority parliament and come up with a ratio of attacks on the Liberals to attacks on the Conservatives?

Or Liberal attacks on the NDP? Or NDP on the BQ?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 June 2006 06:34 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP, BQ, and Libs should be attacking the government, not each other. By doing so, they're in danger of letting Harper govern as though he has a majority - and Harper knows it. The Cons love it when the Opposition parties attack each other.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 June 2006 06:36 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The NDP, BQ, and Libs should be attacking the government, not each other. By doing so, they're in danger of letting Harper govern as though he has a majority - and Harper knows it. The Cons love it when the Opposition parties attack each other.

Et voilà! Truer words were never spoken.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 26 June 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Question Period is not a good measure of public persona, as it measures those who follow parliament on a regular basis which is like, 1% of the population. Check on the outside the house campaigns .
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 26 June 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who would have made such an odd claim in relation to Question Period?

Actually, almost all of the "NDP-Liberal squabbling lets Conservatives off the hook" media/blogosphere frenzy in recent weeks has focused specifically on Question Period. QP is generally the only time that MPs frontally attack each other's parties on the House floor.

In addition to VK's excellent statistical analysis, the 2 other responses to this baseless claim are a)the attacks on the Liberals also help destroy the Harper claim that he represents change, i.e. "the Liberals did nothing on climate change for 13 years and now the Conservatives are just as bad," which is key to ending the "honeymoon" Harper is currently enjoying with voters and the media and b) attacking the Libs is critical to avoiding a repeat of the 1993 electoral disaster where Canadians vote out an openly neo-con government and get an even worse stealth neo-con government.

The only other claim I've read about the NDP joining forces with Conservatives in the House is on the Federal Accountability Act (FAA). Since the FAA is basically a verbatim copy of about 1/2 of Ed Broadbent's ethics package, it is no surprise that the NDP strongly supports it and worked to improve it in committee, with success on a few points. Why wouldn't we support ending corporate donations, cracking down on lobbyists, and more transparency in government finances? It's not perfect but it's a definite improvement over the status quo. The Liberals are once again adopting a disastrous political strategy in taking a largely negative approach to the FAA, and then adopting the cowardly approach of passing it on division so that Canadians will never know which MPs supported it and which did not. What a disgrace the Grits are in opposition, never mind in government!

Finally, on QP vs the rest of House of Commons business, as a new dad who has been staying at home with my baby son since late May, I've had a lot of time to watch CPAC during his naps, and it's fascinating. The non-QP discussion on legislation, motions, committee work, etc is much more collegial and mature, with MPs working across party lines in many cases. Ed Broadbent always said that MPs from all parties agree on 80% of the issues they vote on..but it's the 20% that goes to the heart of our values as a country and a society.

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 26 June 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
The job of the opposition is to criticise the government. Could you research a similar month of the Liberal minority parliament and come up with a ratio of attacks on the Liberals to attacks on the Conservatives?

Yes that's the opposition's job. Some people were disputing that claim vis a vis the NDP and whether or not they were attacking the Conservatives in a significant way. I felt it best to get to the bottom of that, as even though I disagreed with the assessment, some of those people had strong arguments. As such, at least in QP that isn't the case. In any case, I'm not researching anything else. I'm not doing anymore term papers for at least four or five months.

quote:
Originally posted by Unionist: Who would have made such an odd claim in relation to Question Period?

You did when you were arguing with SGM on another one of these threads. You didn't have to say the word Question Period, but you were essentially claiming that the NDP was lobbing a bunch of softball's at the Conservatives and spending too much of their political capital attacking the Liberals. As you well know the argument then evolved to the point of analysing specific questions in QP so as to determine whether or not that's true. I do admire your tenacity and trying to obfuscate though, but I would think it would be embarrassing for you to make such a claim as I've quoted, when you just had an argument about this very thing yesterday.

In all this fun, I almost forgot, but WCG - congrats on the baby!

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 27 June 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
Question Period is not a good measure of public persona, as it measures those who follow parliament on a regular basis which is like, 1% of the population. Check on the outside the house campaigns .

You mean Liberal scuttlebutt or our pals in the media? If were going to have this discussion we should at least stick with some tangeable parameters, which Vansterdam and SGM did an excellent job of demonstrating.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hosea
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13079

posted 21 August 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Hosea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The issue is not how many times the NDP mentioned the Tories vs. the Libs. The issue is that in ethical debate accusations and slanders should be followed by an opportunity to refute and defend by the accused.
Its called fair play when we instruct our children
The NDP make slandersous statements about the Libs knowing full well that the Libs had no opportunity to reply or defend against these accusations; in fact only the Tories had an opportunity to reply. The Tories frequently joined the slander as a prelude to their answer, another accusation that the Libs have no ability to defend!
A truly non-partisan observer would be interested in knowing how frequently the NDP slandered or negatively attacked the Tories as a prelude to their question period questions in the last Liberal government.
How many times has the NDP criticized the BQ as a prelude to questions in any of the past 15 years or so?
I think you would find that they never attacked the seperatists as a prelude to any questions posed to the government of the day during question period at any time since the Mulroney government morphed into the BQ.
It is pretty sleazy to make slanderous accusations in a forum in which you know the accused will have no ability to defend, yet this is exactly what Jack Layton seems intent on doing.
Apparently the NDP's and Jack Layton's commitment to ethical fair play wouldn't pass the school ground sniff test never mind stand as an example of ethical debate that should be the hallmark of Parliamentary discourse.
Quelle surprise? Jack is the same Toronto councilor who lived with his councilor wife in rent supported low income housing while collecting more than $100,000 a year in combined salary - that is until the media got a whiff of it and then Jack & Olivia were forced to move on out of the publicly subsidized housing.

From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2006 10:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hosea:
Jack is the same Toronto councilor who lived with his councilor wife in rent supported low income housing while collecting more than $100,000 a year in combined salary - that is until the media got a whiff of it and then Jack & Olivia were forced to move on out of the publicly subsidized housing.

Um, yeah, okay, no you bloody well don't.

Find some other forum for the co-op housing smear, because you're not doing it here. Do it again and your stay will be short.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 August 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am no big fan of Jack, but this last thing is complete bullshit.

I will explain. The principle upon which the co-op housing project wich he and his wife Olivia lived in was based, was that well off people paid higher rent as a means of subsidizing the low income people in the building. In fact, by living in the Co-op project Jack was fullfilling his principles by paying higher rent than the other people living there, and helping cover the costs for the whole project.

In fact they were directly sunsidizing the project with their own money by living there. That is the truth of that.

Not only was it legal, and part of the system upon which the project was built but Jack and Olivia living there was an example of their being committed to their principles.

Sorry to be a spolier.

But I will admit it is amazing how this partisan rumour, that is completely baseless continues to float around, despite the fact that it has been explained and refuted time and time again. It really just goes to show that most people have no idea what they are talking about, and more often and not shoot their mouths off without even the faintest idea of an investigation or evidence.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 August 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Meanwhile in the past week or two the Liberals have been spending all their time in the house attacking the NDp instead of attacking the government.

Funny no one ever criticizes the Liberals for that!


Beause they are essentially the same old line party made to appear as two separate and distinct political entities representing one plutocracy - The Libranotives. Or is it the Conservibrals ?. ReformaLibranos?. Black cats, white cats, black and white cats - they're the same shapeshifting pack of liars, I mean lawyers who are offered corporate board appointments and golden handshake retirement packages in a non-elected Senate once they've served their purpose in Ottawa or Queen's Park.

They should just unite the right once and for all and quit conning people into believing there is such a thing as a Liberal party in Canada.

[ 21 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 21 August 2006 01:15 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The job of the opposition is to criticise the government

Horse puckie!

A majority of the posts in this thread seem to support the above premise but prefer the word attack over criticize. They then go on the attack themselves with all kinds of accusations, claims and invectives against one party or another.

Yet attacking the party in power was never the mandate of opposition parties and the fact that so posters seem to think it is graphically illustrates the abysmal state of understanding so many Canadians have of their governmental process.

quote:
Question Period is the embodiment and practice of the principles of responsible government: namely, during Question Period the Prime Minister and Cabinet are accountable to the elected representatives of the people, the Members of Parliament (MPs), who represent the interests of their constituents from coast-to-coast in the House of Commons.
link

In fact, much of the "attacking" that goes on in the legislature is nothing more than theatre for the benefit of the cameras and to present the public with the image that the opposition party is supposedly still relevant. I have seen children act far more mature and responsible in their actions and dialogue than most of what occurs in our legislatures.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 21 August 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Why should the Libs sit back and take the attacks from the NDP without shooting back?


Jeez BB, it's like you didn't even read the conclusion of the first post before hitting the 'reply' button.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 21 August 2006 04:41 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

Jeez BB, it's like you didn't even read the conclusion of the first post before hitting the 'reply' button.


But the Libs responded to NDP attacks. Why the hell shouldn't they? Why bring this up again?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca