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   » Harper New Conservative Leader

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Harper New Conservative Leader
ottawa_guy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5155

posted 20 March 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for ottawa_guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good or bad? You decide.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 March 2004 07:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good for the other parties.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 20 March 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good: CONservatives, NDP
Bad: Lieberals

From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 20 March 2004 07:44 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah well, I guess the CPC didn't want any seats in Quebec and the Maritimes, anyway.
Good news for the NDP.

From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 March 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So basically, it's the Reform Party.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 20 March 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bad news for the NDP in ridings where we were hoping the Conservatives would have strong enough campaigns to make a dent in the Liberals, allowing us to creep up the middle.

Good news for those wishing to discredit the Conservatives.

Bad news for all that is good and holy.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
weakling willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3260

posted 20 March 2004 07:55 PM      Profile for weakling willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What was the turn-out?
From: Home of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 20 March 2004 08:05 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
The Tories dodged a bullet with Stronach's surprising strength in the Atlantic and Quebec. Had Harper not done as well as he did in Ontario, sheesh, the Tories would have had a unilingual neophyte as leader. I guess money really can buy success at least in ridings where the Tories don't have a strong base.

Harper should not be underestimated even though his political views are diametrically opposed to my own. He's experienced, intelligent,personable, articulate, and fluently bilingual.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 March 2004 08:14 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting riding by riding results.
In Ontario, Tony carried three Brampton ridings, Vaughan, and Markham—Unionville. Belinda carried her own Newmarket—Aurora, next-door Richmond Hill, Bramalea—Gore—Malton (is that where the Magna plant is?), York West, Timmins - James Bay, and Nickel Belt (really?)

Remarkably, not a single Conservative voted in Heward Grafftey's old riding, Brome - Mississquoi. Just as well he didn't run. Same in Gatineau. Unless they lost the ballot box, as must have happened in Toronto - Danforth.
Unless they're still counting the huge turnout as they are in some Alberta ridings.

Looks like 18 people voted in Nunavut.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 March 2004 09:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is really shocking to me as that an absurd, sda xase like Belinda Stronach coulsd ever have won 35%. Her candidacy was nothing short of ajn insult to the intelligence of every Canadian. If she could get 35%, it suggests to me that a remotely credible PC candidate coyuld have beaten Harper!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 March 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is your keyboard malfunctioning, Stockholm, or are you dipping into the sauce a bit?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 March 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The amazing disappearing party trick. Amazing! Put the Reform Party and Conservative Party in a bag, shake it up, and out comes the Reform Party! HOW do they do it????

Peter Mackay, signing over his house to his long-lost cousin. It's OK, Peter. You can live in the basement for free.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 20 March 2004 10:01 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Remarkably, not a single Conservative voted in Heward Grafftey's old riding, Brome - Mississquoi. Just as well he didn't run. Same in Gatineau. Unless they lost the ballot box, as must have happened in Toronto - Danforth.
Unless they're still counting the huge turnout as they are in some Alberta ridings.

I would assume that the numbers from the riding haven't been processed by the party yet.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 March 2004 10:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What was the turn-out?

CBC Radio just said about 37% of the 250,000 eligible to vote did so, which would put it at around 93,000.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 20 March 2004 10:33 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Based on the riding-by-riding results linked above, here's the regional breakdown:
code:
  
Clement Harper Stronach
Atlan. 9.7% 36.4% 54.0%
Quebec 6.2% 33.0% 60.8%
Ontario 15.9% 56.7% 27.4%
West 4.7% 80.6% 14.7%
North 10.4% 47.4% 42.2%

As it turns out, the Compas poll had it fairly close.

From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 20 March 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Looks like 18 people voted in Nunavut.
Is this just based on the riding results? It could be any multiple of 18!

From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 March 2004 10:39 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Hutchinson:
It could be any multiple of 18!

Yes, it could. But I bet it isn't.

It will be interesting to see if they release the actual riding votes. I suspect quite a few ridings in Quebec have embarrassingly low totals. And maybe Labrador and Nunavut.

And then there's Belinda's huge victory in Timmins - James Bay, on a turnout of 125, 250, 375, 500, 625, or whatever. I'm betting on 125.

[ 20 March 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 20 March 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And for that very reason I suspect these are the only results that will be officially released.

It looks like the turnout was quite low, too - especially after the bragging by a few Conservatives about how they were going to show the Liberals how democracy is done (contrasting the 60% turnout in the last federal election to the turnout they were expecting today).


From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 March 2004 11:04 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe they quit counting as soon as Tony and Belinda moved to make it unanimous. "Sorry, final totals are unavailable."
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 20 March 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post
Damn! And I was hoping Belinda would win. I am sick and tired of Harper calling me a "have-not" just because I am from Quebec. Now we have to listen to that idiot for what could be many. many years...
From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 20 March 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it had been as democratic as the NDP's election of Jack Layton (which had an exact percent calculation of elitist domination rather than riding by riding gerrymandering), Stephen Harper would have won easily.

What is scary is why is thing still growing? Since the election cutoff, there have been another 25,000 memberships sold.

Who are these people?


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 20 March 2004 11:50 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My prediction:

Now we will watch the Conservatives start to fall in the polls everywhere east of Manitoba, and see the full reincarnation of the Reform Party. The CPC will end up being about as succesful as the Reform/Alliance has been in the past in the next election, and Harper will not stay on as leader for too long after that. Certainly not for the next election after that...he will go on to be nothing but a small footnote in Canadian history.

I'm really hoping this will happen obviously, but I honestly think this is the most likely scenario.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 March 2004 02:55 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And yet he took Ontario.
We should perhaps not write off the Conservatives in Ontario. Much depends on whether the Mulroneys and the Harrises take their marbles and go home now that Harper's won or if they stick around. But even without the backroom boys, with the Liberals so scandal-dogged they could rake in a decent protest vote in Ont this time around.
Which might not be a bad thing, actually, as long as it doesn't go too far.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 21 March 2004 08:26 AM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
Cannot help but wonder about a couple of if's here!

If the Alliance is successful at fooling enough Canadians into voting for them and they do get elected I cannot help but wonder if they will then change the name of the party back to Reform or Alliance!

37% TURN OUT WITH 55.5% OF THE VOTE FOR HARPER!

And Harper actually thinks he won big time!

After the last election the right wing types were ranting about that turn out. They do seem rather quiet now eh?


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 21 March 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone see Mike Harris' face as he saw the results come in? Verge. Of. Tears!
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 21 March 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Conservative Party of Canada has chosen the Cowardly Lion (Harper: Witness the way he lambasts Stronach for not debating and then runs away from Jack Layton...) over the Scarecrow (Belind@...If she only had a brain, or anything of substance for that metter...) or the Tin Man (No amount of CPC oil will fix the corrosion of Clement's integrity during his years in the Harris-Eves cabinet...The tin man can also be Paul Martin if you want to tailor this to be pro-NDP...Clement's irrelevant enough anyway, and Martin certainly lacks integrity and a heart).
Together, they want to lead Canadorthy down the yellow brick road (symbolising their cowardice in dealing with the US) to the Emerald City (surrendering more sovereignty to the US so that they can fatten the pockets of their big business buddies with green), where they hope that the Blunderful Rigger of Tex (George W. Bush) will help them to deal with their deficiencies.

Trying to stop them is the Good Witch of the West (the NDP, who will win almost all of their seats West of Ottawa) and the Good Witch of the East (the Bloc Québécois, who will win all of their seats East of Ottawa).

Unfortunately, Brinda, the Wicked Witch of the North (Brian Mulroney...lol...He's from Northern Quebec, and the name works well...) will help them home to Ottawa whenever its time to misgovern.

I need a Wicked Witch of the South though..hahaha


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 03:23 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
37% TURN OUT WITH 55.5% OF THE VOTE FOR HARPER!

And Harper actually thinks he won big time!


Let's get some things straight here. The turnout for the NDP's leadership race was about 40% if I remember correctly.

But your members could vote online. (By mail too if I recall, don't remember).

The whole voting system for this race was so stupid and idiotic. Some members had to drive 2 hours to vote. I know I had to drive about 50 minutes in bad weather. 37% is a very high turnout for the system used.

We should've used mail a mail in STB. But we didn't.

Stephen Harper won big in every part of the country, and the party will unite behind him to defeat Paul Martin in the next election.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
So basically, it's the Reform Party.

If this was the Reform party again, Stephen Harper wouldn't have gotten such tremendous support from former PCs.

I was a member of the Progressive Conservative party, and yesterday I proudly cast my ballot for Stephen Harper.

Mr. Harper has a history in both parties, as a member of the Progressive Conservatives in the '80s and again from '97-'98. He almost ran for the leadership of the PC party in '98.

By saying this is the "Reform" party, you are suggesting that the thousands and thousands of progressive Conservatives have suddenly abandoned the party.

This is false. Senator John Lynch-Staunton said it best yesterday when he said that there is no takeover, the party is only reunified.

Finally in the next election, Canadians will have a real choice. And I have no doubt that Canadians coast to coast, from BC to Newfoundland and Labrador, will elect Conservative MPs in the next election.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Shane ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 March 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shane:

Let's get some things straight here. The turnout for the NDP's leadership race was about 40% if I remember correctly.


Source? Actually I think the turnout was around 50%.

quote:

Stephen Harper won big in every part of the country, and the party will unite behind him to defeat Paul Martin in the next election.

Too bad the Tories aren't releasing the raw numbers so we'd know exactly how many people voted in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region. From what I can tell it looks like the new CPC remains a western Canadian party with virtually no support east of Ottawa. I wouldn't be surprised if Peter MacKay and his fellow Atlantic MPs lose their seats.

I expect the 2004 election will be the first time Conservatives are completely shut out of Quebec. Even Joe Clark's Tories got one Quebec seat in 1980 and Stanfield's Tories won a handful as well.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 21 March 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stephen Harper won big in every part of the country, and the party will unite behind him to defeat Paul Martin in the next election.

Well christ look at his competition! It was simply pathetic, I think Harper should be embarrased that at least 35% of voters preferred Belinda Stronach to him! Clearly Harper didn't exactly get a ringing endorsement yesterday.

And Harper didn't win big in every area of the country if these regional results that Tim posted earlier are accurate:

code:
 Clement	Harper	Stronach
Atlan. 9.7% 36.4% 54.0%
Quebec 6.2% 33.0% 60.8%

Ontario 15.9% 56.7% 27.4%
West 4.7% 80.6% 14.7%
North 10.4% 47.4% 42.2%

Harper, who speaks French pretty fluently lost fairly big to the uniliangual Belinda Stronach in Quebec pretty badly. That must make you optimistic for the parties chances in Quebec eh?

He also lost in Atlantic Canada, but considering some one the comments he has made he did better than he should have.

I have no doubt in my mind, that no matter what new lable they try and mask this new party with, the religious-right agenda of the Reform Party will prevail. With their ever present obvious dishonesty they will try and hide it, but it will always be there. And most Canadians will be able to see right through it.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 March 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By saying this is the "Reform" party, you are suggesting that the thousands and thousands of progressive Conservatives have suddenly abandoned the party...
Finally in the next election, Canadians will have a real choice. And I have no doubt that Canadians coast to coast, from BC to Newfoundland and Labrador, will elect Conservative MPs in the next election.
Firstly, from my own limited circles, about 50% of former self-identified PCs have abandoned the party.

Secondly, we are familiar with your predictions:

quote:
My prediction:

PC - 57
Lib - 38
NDP - 8

The people of Ontario want change, but really, who is the alternative? Dalton "Norman Bates" McGuinty? Howard "shove another sandwich in my fat face" Hampton?

I don't think so. It's a sad situation we've got in Ontario, when Ernie Eves is the most competent leader.



From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Mr. tunderin' jesus,

Your own "limited circles" can tell you whatever they want. However, I know in my riding, 23 former Alliance/PC members did not renew their membership into the new party this year.

Our membership has skyrocketed from 400 with the PCs and 500 with the Alliance to over 3000.

I don't think it's accurate to suggest 50% of progressive Conservatives don't want anything to do with the party.

We have fiscal conservatives, Red Tories, and Democratic Reformers running for this party in the next election.

As for my prediction from the fall...

I made that prediction on Sept. 3, the day the election was called. At that time, the polls had Eves/McGuinty in a dead heat.

If you looked at my later prediction from just a week before the election, I predicted a Liberal victory.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 21 March 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
RE::Finally in the next election, Canadians will have a real choice. And I have no doubt that Canadians coast to coast, from BC to Newfoundland and Labrador, will elect Conservative MPs in the next election.

Gee isn't that the dream you had when Stockwell Day became leader!

So you think the third name change should do it eh?


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 21 March 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, if these are really the final results, then there were fully 17 ridings where nobody voted.

Tobique—Mactaquac 0 0 0
Brome—Missisquoi 0 0 0
Gatineau 0 0 0
Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge 0 0 0
Etobicoke Centre 0 0 0
Niagara Falls 0 0 0
Oakville 0 0 0
Scarborough—Guildwood 0 0 0
Scarborough Southwest 0 0 0
Toronto—Danforth 0 0 0
Saint Boniface 0 0 0
Calgary West 0 0 0
Edmonton—St. Albert 0 0 0
Edmonton—Spruce Grove 0 0 0
Edmonton—Strathcona 0 0 0
Macleod 0 0 0
New Westminster—Coquitlam 0 0 0

However, that doesn't seem very likely, as some of these ridings are in Alberta and B.C. There had to be votes cast there. I wonder what gives?

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 05:49 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those are ridings where the results were not released before Harper was proclaimed leader. Clement and Stronach requested the decision be unanimous and so the results to these ridings were not released.

...or so that's what I've been told.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Shane ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brutus:
RE::Finally in the next election, Canadians will have a real choice. And I have no doubt that Canadians coast to coast, from BC to Newfoundland and Labrador, will elect Conservative MPs in the next election.

Gee isn't that the dream you had when Stockwell Day became leader!

So you think the third name change should do it eh?


...I was a PC so Stock Day was never my party leader and this isn't the third name change, we've merged this time.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Shane ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 21 March 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Clement and Stronach requested the decision be unanimous and so the results to these ridings were not released.

If I was a CPC member who had voted in one of those ridings, I'd be pretty upset. Talk about a wasted vote! If I took the time to vote, the least the party could do is take the time to count it.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 21 March 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah I find it to be a very odd thing to do, but then, I guess that's the way democracy works in the Conservative Party...
From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 March 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shane:

I made that prediction on Sept. 3, the day the election was called. At that time, the polls had Eves/McGuinty in a dead heat.

If you looked at my later prediction from just a week before the election, I predicted a Liberal victory.


You call that excuse? Gee Shane, that means that your predictions at the beginning of an election campaign (or before an election is callled) are completely useless as you lack the forsight to see how a campaign might unfold. Why don't you save your prediction this time until a day before the vote since your predictions obviously aren't worth much when given any additional lead time


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 March 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FWIW I think the likeliest outcome is a reduced Liberal majority or perhaps a Liberal minority which will be able to rule with NDP support. A CPC minority is ruled out and, frankly, I'd be surprised if the Tories win more than 80 seats. They will lose seats in BC and Atlantic Canada, be shut out in Quebec and win no more than a dozen seats in Ontario.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:

You call that excuse? Gee Shane, that means that your predictions at the beginning of an election campaign (or before an election is callled) are completely useless as you lack the forsight to see how a campaign might unfold. Why don't you save your prediction this time until a day before the vote since your predictions obviously aren't worth much when given any additional lead time


My prediction was better than some NDP favourable predictions. I believe Stockholm predicted 35 seats for the NDP.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 21 March 2004 06:33 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

If I was a CPC member who had voted in one of those ridings, I'd be pretty upset. Talk about a wasted vote! If I took the time to vote, the least the party could do is take the time to count it.


I would be upset too. But I can't confirm if it's true or not, just what I've been told by a sometimes less than reliable source.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Holy Holy Holy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3711

posted 21 March 2004 07:03 PM      Profile for Holy Holy Holy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Interesting riding by riding results.
In Ontario, Tony carried three Brampton ridings, Vaughan, and Markham—Unionville. Belinda carried her own Newmarket—Aurora, next-door Richmond Hill, Bramalea—Gore—Malton (is that where the Magna plant is?), York West, Timmins - James Bay, and Nickel Belt (really?)

Belinda won in ridings where there is no party grassroots. Big surprise. If you had a million dollars would you invest it convincing thousands of unpredictable members in conservative strongholds to vote for you? Or would you invest it in the party wasteland where (under the CPC's rotten borrough system) five members can show up and have as much say?

People are seriously underestimating Harper on this board. He could easily deliver most of the twenty-some seats the Conservatives hold provincially without breaking a sweat. And could do much more. He's percieved as honest, innoffensive and competent - that's a pretty good counterpoint to Martin and the Liberals who are considered not so honest, arrogant, and corrupt.

Rightly or wrongly this is not percieved as a Reform party takeover - at least not yet. Harper explicitly made overtures to Red Tories and claimed he would not "leave the vulnerable behind". The Libs will try and tag him as a dinosaur but I think people are getting tired of their crap.

Ironically, I really hope the NDP resists the temptation to target Harper. We should wait until Martin is completely finito first, IMHO.


From: Holy | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 March 2004 07:18 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So we should give the in-a-hurry and anti-democratic corporatist a pass so that he can take down the more slow and subtle corporatist?

I pray you have no influence whatsoever in NDP party policy.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 21 March 2004 07:24 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rightly or wrongly this is not percieved as a Reform party takeover - at least not yet. Harper explicitly made overtures to Red Tories and claimed he would not "leave the vulnerable behind". The Libs will try and tag him as a dinosaur but I think people are getting tired of their crap.

Yes many people are getting tired of the Liberal Party crap, but are you implying that Harper isn't a dinosaur???

I mean it's gotten to the point where it's so obvious I don't feel the need to elaborate on my argument!

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 21 March 2004 07:30 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

If I was a CPC member who had voted in one of those ridings, I'd be pretty upset. Talk about a wasted vote! If I took the time to vote, the least the party could do is take the time to count it.


I don't know, I think if you were a CPC member you would probably value the ethics of bald power and totalizing authority. After all, only peons vote. Power and legitimacy are taken, not given!

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Holy Holy Holy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3711

posted 21 March 2004 07:53 PM      Profile for Holy Holy Holy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
So we should give the in-a-hurry and anti-democratic corporatist a pass so that he can take down the more slow and subtle corporatist?I pray you have no influence whatsoever in NDP party policy.
Sigh.

I have none. I hope that's some consolation to you.

I know it makes us all feel good about ourselves to go after "big bad" Stephen Harper but here's a few facts:

1 - Harper is still ten to twenty points behind Martin in the polls. If an election were held today Martin would win. Not Harper.

2 - Most of the people who we want to vote NDP are planning to or are likely to vote for Martin. Not Harper.

3 - The Liberal strategy, unless armageddon begins, will be to demonize Harper as the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day.

4 - If the people we want to vote NDP (the people I mentioned in point 2) are actually convinced that Stephen Harper is the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day they will not vote NDP. They will vote for Paul Martin. Paul Martin, they will reason, may be a crook but at least he's not the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day.

5 - If we run around like a bunch of idiots screaming, "Run! Lock up your house! Stephen Harper is come! He's the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day!" while the Liberals do the same people will believe that Stephen Harper is the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day. And they will vote for Paul Martin. See 4.

6 - Stephen Harper is not the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day. He is not any more of an in-a-hurry and anti-democratic corporatist then Martin. In fact, given the need to hold onto the old PC base in Atlantic Canada, he might even be LESS of one.

7 - An aside: a lot of New Democrats obsess over the rise of the neo-cons and rant against their popular appeal without ever thinking about it. The fact that more working people vote for the party of business should make us think about what we're doing wrong - not what's wrong with working people. The full frontal assault on neo-cons like Mike Harris was better at convincing working people that Lefties were weirdos then at convincing them that Harris was evil.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Holy Holy Holy ]


From: Holy | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 21 March 2004 08:04 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well HHH, alot of what you said makes sense, and I agree with it, however I have to quibble with this...

quote:
6 - Stephen Harper is not the single greatest threat to Canadian values since Stockwell Day. He is not any more of an in-a-hurry and anti-democratic corporatist then Martin. In fact, given the need to hold onto the old PC base in Atlantic Canada, he might even be LESS of one.

Economically, there is nearly no difference between Martin and Harper, that I agree with. But on social issues, although Martin hums and haws, and avoids answering questions on them, he doesn't lead a party that is trying to lead us back to the stone age on equity issues, and issues of social justice. Harper is, so don't try and characterize Harper as a moderate right-winger because he isn't. In any way shape or form.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 21 March 2004 08:37 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with HHH, not Jesse. While Harper made a point of welcoming social conservatives along with Red Tories and democratic reformers into the Conservative tent yesterday, Harper himself is most at home in the economic/fiscal conservative tent.

Vigorously challenging Harper on his policies like Layton recently did is good, painting him as a mortal threat to Canadian values only helps the Liberals.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 21 March 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not neccesarily saying we should be painting him "as a threat to canadian moral values, but I for one I am not buying that Stephen Harper has suddenly become a moderate or anything of the sort. I think that now that he is faced with the prospect of possibly becoming Prime Minster, he is making an attempt (a fairly weak one IMHO), to look like a moderate. Well, I don't know about you but it's going to take a lot more than Harper saying he welcomes all Red Tories and disenchanted Liberals into the party, to make me forget for example about his conspricay theory concerning gays.

quote:

Stephen Harper -- the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's Official Opposition -- trotted out a conspiracy theory this week so loopy he risks never being taken seriously again.

He started with the federal government's proposal to make same-sex couples eligible for civil marriage. He said the government didn't want to be seen to push that amendment, so Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his crew systematically stacked the courts so that, when the time came, the courts would insist on gay marriage and the government could pretend it had no choice but to follow.

"They wanted to introduce this same-sex marriage through back channels," he told reporters on Thursday. "They didn't want to come to Parliament. They didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest that this is what they wanted. They had the courts do it for them, put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."


I mean it's just homophobic BS, and this is just one of many examples I could use.

No matter how hard he tries to hide it, I still think Harper will always be most comfterable with the social conservative tent of the CPC.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Holy Holy Holy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3711

posted 21 March 2004 09:36 PM      Profile for Holy Holy Holy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a number of issues that will destroy the NDP if they're top-of-mind when Canadians go to the polls. Off the top of my head I'd list:

- Same-sex marriage
- Abortion
- National Unity

These are issues the Liberals can take on to make them seem progressive while not hurting Bay Street one bit. In 1997 the NDP suffered serious setbacks when "National Unity" became top-of-mind and drove job creation the back. Similarly the Liberals used the abortion issue very effectively in 2000 to make Stockwell Day look crazy and extreme.

If Harper is smart he'll shut up about same sex marriage and just let it happen. That's what Mike Harris did - to his success - with same-sex benefits.

[ 21 March 2004: Message edited by: Holy Holy Holy ]


From: Holy | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Holy Holy Holy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3711

posted 21 March 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for Holy Holy Holy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:
I'm not neccesarily saying we should be painting him "as a threat to canadian moral values, but I for one I am not buying that Stephen Harper has suddenly become a moderate or anything of the sort. I think that now that he is faced with the prospect of possibly becoming Prime Minster, he is making an attempt (a fairly weak one IMHO), to look like a moderate. Well, I don't know about you but it's going to take a lot more than Harper saying he welcomes all Red Tories and disenchanted Liberals into the party, to make me forget for example about his conspricay theory concerning gays.
The Globe (like me) is on the other side of this issue, so they're having some fun. This is a pretty traditional rant against judicial "activism" (ie. interpreting the Charter accurately) and the cowardly way that that the Liberals, in particular, let the courts make the tough policy choices that Liberals want to avoid.

From: Holy | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 23 March 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Update: the complete results are now available. Strangely, they've rounded everything off to whole numbers.
From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 23 March 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
HHH makes some good points but I would argue that the application of #2 to BC would be invalid.
Many of the people that vote Reform in BC do so as a protest , grass roots kind of vote. Largely working class constituents that need to feel that their vote is sending a message to Ottawa - these people do not see the new reformers as right wing . When speaking to a woman that was going to vote for the previous reform party I pointed out their platform of 2 tier medicine and their anti-female policies and the woman truly didn't know she was voting for those things , she thought the party would 'stand up' for BC.
This protest vote could easily be converted to NDP votes.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 23 March 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I pointed out their platform of 2 tier medicine and their anti-female policies...

Where can I find this platform?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 March 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Try here (CPC interim partial policy statement)

"Interim partial" Tee-hee.

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 23 March 2004 04:56 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Try here (CPC interim partial policy statement)

Actually, I was wondering if you had an idea where I could find the Reform policy or Canadian Alliance policy on these issues. Unfortuately, I'm afraid these documents may not be available online anymore.

Anyway, I may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I don't see any inference to a second tier of Health Care in the link provided.

quote:
Healthcare

The Conservative Party of Canada believes all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes spending decisions and setting
priorities within the health care funding envelope should be left with the
provinces.

A Conservative government will provide a stable level of federal funding for health care and will work with the provinces in a co-operative and constructive manner.

Health Care Innovation

A Conservative government will support health care research and development of new health care technologies.

A Conservative government will be open to innovations which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care, and ensure better coordination and information sharing in the delivery of health. A Conservative government will not be afraid to implement new advances so that all Canadians can benefit from a modern effective health system tailored to meet their needs.


All in all, pretty vague. I would expect a more detailed policy platform once the election is called. However, I don't see anything particularly threatening in this policy.

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: Kanada Dry ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 23 March 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have always found the Alliance dishonest, but particularly on the subject of health care. You really have to read between the lines to find what they actually mean.

For example:

"The Conservative Party of Canada believes all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay."

Key word, reasonable. Define reasonable? They can pretty much stretch that to mean whatever they want.

"Health Care Innovation

A Conservative government will support health care research and development of new health care technologies.

A Conservative government will be open to innovations which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care, and ensure better coordination and information sharing in the delivery of health. A Conservative government will not be afraid to implement new advances so that all Canadians can benefit from a modern effective health system tailored to meet their needs."

When they talk about "innovation", is there anyone who actually believes that they don't mean Two Tier private health care? Because I sure do. I think that is pretty clear, but they are afraid to actually come out and say that they are in favour of private health care, because they fear a public backlash. I have no doubt that they favour an American style health care system, and that private health care is on their agenda.

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 March 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Holy Holy:
Belinda won in ridings where there is no party grassroots. Big surprise. If you had a million dollars would you invest it convincing thousands of unpredictable members in conservative strongholds to vote for you? Or would you invest it in the party wasteland where (under the CPC's rotten borrough system) five members can show up and have as much say?

People are seriously underestimating Harper on this board. He could easily deliver most of the twenty-some seats the Conservatives hold provincially without breaking a sweat. And could do much more. He's percieved as honest, innoffensive and competent - that's a pretty good counterpoint to Martin and the Liberals who are considered not so honest, arrogant, and corrupt.

Rightly or wrongly this is not percieved as a Reform party takeover - at least not yet. Harper explicitly made overtures to Red Tories and claimed he would not "leave the vulnerable behind". The Libs will try and tag him as a dinosaur but I think people are getting tired of their crap.

Ironically, I really hope the NDP resists the temptation to target Harper. We should wait until Martin is completely finito first, IMHO.



I assume, and correct me if I have it wrong, that you believe that attacking Harper and the No Longer Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, will hand the election to the Liberals if we are succesful.

Well, that may well be, but while not a wonderful outcome, would still be infinitly better than taking the chance that the NLPCPC could take power.

There are actually two ways of looking at this problem . . . the first way, the way I believe you are suggesting, is that we let the NLPCPC and Liberals split the right wing vote and the NDP comes up the middle with the left wing vote.

OK, that's a fine strategy in theory, but one that never seems to work in actuality. More often than not, it simply scares potential NDP voters into voting Liberal so as to prevent any possibility of the NLPCPC from gaining power.

This strategy also puts the faith of the NDP in other peoples hands.

Instead, the NDP should clobber Harper and the NLPCPC fast and hard. Leave no doubt in any potential NDP voters mind that it is now safe to vote NDP . . . even if the Liberals are still a sure thing, at least we don't want to lose votes to the Liberals because of fear of the NLPCPC.

Harper and the NLPCPC are as vulnerable as they've ever been . . . Harper has lots of baggage . . . it may not be "famous" baggage, but that's only because he's the new kid on the scene . . . there will be no problem showing the Canadian voter that Harper is a Danger to everything Canadians hold dear . . . he's been attempting to destroy these Canadian icons from the backrooms for decades. We simply have to open the doors on Harper, and let his history speak for itself.

Harper can make all the obtuse weasly promises he wants, but we have to demand from him that he makes specific exactly worded committments such as "no private healtcare", "respect for equality rights when it comes to gay marriages", "committment to civil and human rights of suspected terrorists", "clear committment to respect international law and U.N. sanctions before committing Canadian military to foriegn commitments", etc.

And it should be no biggie showing that the NLPCPC is just a made over un-reformed Reform party.

Kick-em while their down!! KIck=em where it hurts! That's what I say! This is politics, not some civilized endevour.

Additionally, if both the Libs and NDP are going after the NLPCPC, then there is little likelihood that the Liberals will see the NDP as a threat.

Realistically, there is no chance the NDP will win the election, but if there is no NLPCPC support, then the NDP support doesn't get drained through fear of a Canadian Republican party in power.

Once the NDP show that they can actually raise to the position of opposition (or even number three behind the BQ) that should make it even better for the next time.

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 23 March 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The N.D.s are in between a rock and a not-so-soft place.

Attack the Conservatives and run this risk of polarizing the election into Lieberal vs. Conservative. This would definitely be Martin's preferred choice, not Stephen Harpers. Could be a terrible outcome for the NDP if leftist voters flock to the Lieberals to avoid the Conservative Booger Man.

Attack the Lieberals and gain seats for the New Democrats, but run the risk of havng the Conservatives win government, Probably not a very likely scenario. A majority Conservative government is extremely unlikely. A minority would probably not be able to last very long as there would be no one to partner with. A minority Lieberal government would be a definite possibility, with Layton and friends holding sway.

If I were Jack, I know where my attacks would be focused.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 23 March 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
During a discussion on this site with Heywood Floyd about healthcare ( he said healhcare was important and that the alliance would strengthen it ) I used the old alliance platform which was online at the time to rebut his argument . The platform clearly stated that the reform/alliance supported 2-tier healthcare.
The platform went on to attack multiculturalism, non-government organisations, and public broadcasting, among other things (at least this is how I read it ) . It was a blueprint for privatisation of a great deal of Canadian institutions and that which wasn't able to be sold into privatisation would just disappear.
I will be very surprised if the new Conservative party outlaws 2 tier healthcare - whether through P-3 or allowing privatisation of some services I believe it will be on the agenda of the 'new' party just like it was on the written platform of the old party.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 March 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Attack the Conservatives and run this risk of polarizing the election into Lieberal vs. Conservative.

Explain. I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

I agree with No Yards: either we take Harper & rebranded party out of the equation fast and hard, or we risk the very polarization that you fear, with our votes going to the Liberals to block the CPC.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 23 March 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You guys actually prefer the Liberals with all their corruption to Harper and co? Fascinating.

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 March 2004 08:27 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals may be a bunch of theives, allowing themselves and their buddies to help themselves the taxpayers money through dubious schemes, but at least the "stolen" money goes to CANADIAN theives . . the No-Longer-Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on the other hand would use dubious schemes to funnel taxpayers money to their American masters.

So YEAH, given those choices, I definitly do prefer the Liberal corruption to the N-L-P.C.P.C corruption.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 23 March 2004 08:40 PM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
RE:: ...I was a PC so Stock Day was never my party leader and this isn't the third name change, we've merged this time.

There were three name changes one name they dropped when someone informed them in a shortened version it was C.R.A.P.! Canadian Reform Alliance Party! So then it was changed from Reform Party to the Alliance Party.

Now this same bunch is called the CON servative Party!

This is no merger my friend.Harper was the leader of the Alliance Party he is now the leader of who?

You need to pay closer attention to what is happening right under your nose!


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Holy Holy Holy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3711

posted 23 March 2004 08:46 PM      Profile for Holy Holy Holy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry but this is farcical and stupid.

I could make a lot of the same old arguments about strategic voting being stupid. I could point to it's track record of failure. I could point you all to the story of Mouseland. But there will always be people, like No Yards, who insist that we have to stick with the gang of crooked thieves that we have now because another gang is just around the corner.

Does this sort of fearmongering play into the hands of the Liberals? O yes. Does this sort of fearmongering make building a real political alternative ten times harder? O yes. Does this sort of rabid knee-jerk attack on far-right parties actually increase their popularity sometimes? O yes. But people, nominally on the left, will still claim that the Most Important Thing is to drive voters to the Liberal party.

I have accepted that this is inevitable.


From: Holy | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 23 March 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Explain. I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

I agree with No Yards: either we take Harper & rebranded party out of the equation fast and hard, or we risk the very polarization that you fear, with our votes going to the Liberals to block the CPC.


You believe the Conservatives can be taken out altogether. I don’t.

As leader, the scary Alberta preacher was able to garner 25% of the vote for his party. I think that 25% would be the floor for the more moderate Stephen Harper. I find it hard to imagine that the Conservatives would get less than this. It would be extremely risky to run an election campaign on the premise that the Conservatives can be and I doubt that NDP will.

What I could see happening if Layton and Martin jointly attack the Conservatives as some extreme right wing party that needs to be feared is that the election turns into a good vs. evil campaign, the left versus Harp Vader.

As I said, I personally think the number on the right will hold, so soft New Democrats may turn to the Lieberals to ensure that this extreme right wing party doesn’t take over.

If Layton attacks the Lieberals on their record, the election campaign would turn into one revolving around the issue of corruption. Then the question can be put to the voter…

…who has more integrity, Layton, Martin, or the team of Harper and MacKay.

The Conservatives would be attacking from the right, the NDP from the left. Both would benefit. The end result could be a minority government with the NDP as the kingmaker.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 23 March 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
…who has more integrity, Layton, Martin, or the team of Harper and MacKay.

I still can't help but laugh when integrity and Peter Mackay are mentioned in the same sentance.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 23 March 2004 09:28 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

I still can't help but laugh when integrity and Peter Mackay are mentioned in the same sentance.


I thought some of you would like that.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Radioactive Westerner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4432

posted 23 March 2004 09:55 PM      Profile for Radioactive Westerner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Integrity.... Isn't Layton the guy who on one hand is calling Martin a crook and on the other hand is preparing to jump into bed with him and try to form a minority government?

Ay least Mackay allowed his party to vote on their merger, you guys are letting Layton do it to you for free.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 March 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Holy Holy:
Sorry but this is farcical and stupid.

I could make a lot of the same old arguments about strategic voting being stupid. I could point to it's track record of failure. I could point you all to the story of Mouseland. But there will always be people, like No Yards, who insist that we have to stick with the gang of crooked thieves that we have now because another gang is just around the corner.

Does this sort of fearmongering play into the hands of the Liberals? O yes. Does this sort of fearmongering make building a real political alternative ten times harder? O yes. Does this sort of rabid knee-jerk attack on far-right parties actually increase their popularity sometimes? O yes. But people, nominally on the left, will still claim that the Most Important Thing is to drive voters to the Liberal party.

I have accepted that this is inevitable.



OK, let's stick with the tried and true "NDP up the middle" strategy . . . Lord knows that always works so well.

And trying to balance the support for each party so the NDP can hold the balance of power is just as stupid a strategy as strategic voting.

Look, if this were a case of the traditional Liberal and PC battles, where there were actually half a chance that there would be a minority government, then by all means that would be a viable plan . . . but come on, do you really think that the same old alliance party is going to get any more votes than their base support? How many times have the Cons risen from the ashes, all poised to takeover the country, only to aim their guns directly at thier foot and proceed to pull the trigger, reload, aim carefully and shoot again.

Anyone that believes the Cons are going to get more than their traditional 25-27% does not have a very good grasp on reality . . . for God sakes man, this is the same party that was at less than 20% going in to the whole farse of a takeover, they still don't have the as much support as their combined support in the previous election, and it's only going down hill.

And then there's this little bit of short sighted logic that I can't seem to get my head around . . . fearmongering the Cons will play into the hands of the Liberals, make being an alternative 10 time harder, and may actually increase the Cons popularity . . . BUT, fearmongering the Liberals will not play into the Cons hands, will make being an alternative easier, and will NOT risk increasing the Liberals popularity??

Farcical and stupid . . . meet fantasy and Dumb.

If I have to risk driving voters to the Liberals, or the Cons, then that's a no-brainer!!

Oh, and as for the "sticking with the current theives" comment . . . strawman . . . and anyway, what's so nobel about choosing a new set of theives over sticking with the old ones . . . assuming that was what I actually implied?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Radioactive Westerner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4432

posted 23 March 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Radioactive Westerner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
what's so nobel about choosing a new set of theives ???

New thieves are not nearly as productive as journeyman long time thieves. The new one has to spend quite a bit of time figuring out the system while the old thief is carting it out by the wheelbarrow loads


From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 March 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

I still can't help but laugh when integrity and Peter Mackay are mentioned in the same sentance.


Exactly!

I don't think HHH and a few others here are getting it. Even if we are stupid enough to give Harpie a pass, the Liberals will not. The plan to concentrate the attack only on the Liberals is a plan for failure - a guarantee of vote-splitting, because the Liberals sure as hell are going to be pulling out every boneheaded neocon statement Harper's ever made. And there's a ton of them, because this jerk was the President of the NCC, fer chrissakes! If the Liberals can make people believe they are the only hope of defeating the rising right, we'll be left out in the cold - again.

I'm not (and I haven't seen anyone here) saying 'Give Martin a pass'. He's as big and bloated a target as Harper - and more importantly, he's already wounded. Play it right, and we can limit the CPC to their Alberta rump for the most part, and present the NDP as the clear and clean alternative to the corrupt parties who would sell us out. And we can point out examples of cancerous corruption by each.

Let's go for the Gusto here. Play to win. If a minority government is in the cards, let's not have it said we manipulated for it to gain a balance of power that we knew we couldn't earn honestly.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 March 2004 10:18 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What we have to do is make sure those people who actually do fear the Cons, understand that they are in no danger of having their vote for the NDP be a vote for the Cons . . . this is not about reducing the Cons votes to lower than their normal base core vote . . . it's about reasuring Canadians that there is no chance they will get beyond that base core vote!

I've had to vote for the Liberals because of that fear (unfounded as it turned out to be.) But that was one vote that shold have went to the NDP . . . I would everyone who ever considered voting NDP to feel assured that there is no danger of forfieting Canada to the Neo-Cons by doing so . . . Attacking the Liberals does not accomplish this!!

[ 23 March 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DoctorMud
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5262

posted 24 March 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for DoctorMud     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
What is really shocking to me as that an absurd, sda xase like Belinda Stronach coulsd ever have won 35%. Her candidacy was nothing short of ajn insult to the intelligence of every Canadian. If she could get 35%, it suggests to me that a remotely credible PC candidate coyuld have beaten Harper!

To quote my father "She's never been elected dog catcher!" How thin is your party leadership when you must reach down that far? Of course, some of the strength in Atlantic Canada and Quebec may have been as much anti-Harper as pro-Stronach.


From: Fredericton, New Brunswick | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 24 March 2004 05:29 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Check this chart, Canada number 5 in corruption.

http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2000_0918_01.htm
Then this one, check the dates, Canada number 11,
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.10.07.cpi.en.html
Banana republic, indeed.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 24 March 2004 07:39 AM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
RE:: Check this chart, Canada number 5 in corruption.

Number 5 in one and number 11 in the other a contradiction don't you think?

Are you bored out there in SASK.? Do you spend a lot of time hunting for stuff like this on the internet?

What I don't understand is if it is so bad here why do people like you stay here?

I could never understand why a guy would stand in shit to his knees and keep on complaining about the smell instead of doing something about it and moving away from the stench!


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5073

posted 24 March 2004 07:43 AM      Profile for Brutus        Edit/Delete Post
RE:: To quote my father "She's never been elected dog catcher!"

What has happened to the common sense in this country?

Everybody wants someone who is 25 years old with 40 years experience at the job!


From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 24 March 2004 09:00 AM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good news. When Harper implodes the protest vote will move to the NDP.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 March 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a good letter to the editor:

quote:
Republican takeover of Tories enough to vote NDP

With all the chatter about the alleged Canadian Alliance appropriation of the venerable Progressive Conservative party, it is surprising how few have spoken of the real takeover -- that of genuine Canadian conservatism by Republicans in the United States.

Sir John A. Macdonald is surely twisting in his tomb.

It is now clear a new gang is in charge.

Steven Harper, Tony Clement, Belinda Stronach and Mike Harris are now ready to see who can best jump into George W. Bush's back pocket. The leaders of Her Majesty's not-so-loyal Opposition are all set to challenge the government of Paul Martin in a race to the right.

Shed a tear for Flora Macdonald. She must be suffering from terminal acid reflux disease. The shades of John Diefenbaker and our beloved conservative philosopher, George Grant, are surely suffering as they witness this tragic spectacle from beyond the grave.

It's enough to make you want to vote NDP.

HOWARD A. DOUGHTY
RICHMOND HILL


Howard A. Doughty taught in the School of Liberal Studies at Seneca College and was Editor of The College Quarterly. Don't know if he's retired.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 27 March 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
Check this chart, Canada number 5 in corruption.

http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2000_0918_01.htm
Then this one, check the dates, Canada number 11,
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.10.07.cpi.en.html
Banana republic, indeed.


I don't see your point??

Your "perfect country" the USA does a lot worst than Canada . . . If Canada at 5th and 11th is considered a banana republic, then what is the USA considered when it's at 14th and 18th?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 03 April 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Point is we're going downhill, from 5th to 11th.
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 03 April 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since there have been varying numbers of countries included in the CPI, the best way to keep track is by comparing the actual CPI ratings over the years rather than any ranking:

1995: 8.87
1996: 8.96
1997: 9.1
1998: 9.2
1999: 8.1
2000: 9.2
2001: 8.9
2002: 9.0
2003: 8.7

Looks to me like we're not doing as bad as you make it out to be.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  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