03.30.2011 11:17 AM

Huge Liberal score

…and forget about what Harper feels about it.

Jack Layton must be spitting nails!

44 Comments

  1. Wow.

    This campaign is going to be (strike that) *is already* far more interesting than the last one.

  2. fritz says:

    I don’t think this will make any difference in the final outcome – a Tory win.
    The NDP will replace the candidate by next week and ‘the Harpster’ will say it’s proof of the coalition. It’s a good publicity get for the Liberals but I doubt it has any effect past tomorrow.

  3. Cat says:

    It also says that the Libs. can’t do it alone either Warren. Playing right into the coalition narrative hands – again.
    Does this mean you’ve changed your mind about getting off of the coalition choo-choo?

    • Warren says:

      Harper did it with MacKay in 2004. Worked for them. It’ll work for us, too.

      • Tiger says:

        A formal merger would work, whatever happens in this particular campaign.

        Centre-left vs. centre-right in each election? It’d be good for Canadian democracy.

        • The Doctor says:

          . . . seems to work wonderfully for the Yanks.

          Just stirring the pot . . .

        • JStanton says:

          Only someone who had never worked with the NDP could believe a merger is on the table, unless, of course, the NDP could dominate.

          No, a merger is not realistic. A coalition government, or a parliamentary accord would work just fine though.

          I suspect the latter is in the cards.

          .

      • 2003.

        MacKay elected leader May 31 2003.
        Harper-MacKay negotiate in secret.
        Announcement October 16 2003.
        Ratification December 16 2003.

        • Dave Roberts says:

          A merger or coalition ticket to be legit should take place well before a campaign period so voters make an informed choice as to exactly who and what they are voting for.

          • JStanton says:

            … right, make up Consitutional rules to suit your bias.
            It doesnt work that way yet.

            .

          • Jason Hickman says:

            In nearly every example of coalition governments across the pond and historically the political parties have NOT announced before the election that they are planning on forming a coalition.

            In two of the places where coalition governments are the norm – NZ and Australia – the trend seems to be for the parties to announce in advance who they’re prepared to “coalition” with. In Aus, the Liberals and the Nationals have been in a formal coalition for years. In NZ, before the last election, ACT announced in advance that they’d support the now-governing National Party, and (IIRC) the Greens announced before e-day that they’d back the then-governing Labour Party.

            As for “across the pond”, I wouldn’t be surprised if just as many “Will you form a coalation & with who” questions are asked in the UK during their next election, as are being asked here. I suspect that the Tory/LibDem coalition has changed the rules *in a political sense* (not in a constitutional sense), just as the coalition formed in ’08 did here. Voters in the UK will be asking for more clarity as to who’s prepared to go into a coaltion with who, having actually gone through the experience.

          • Jason Hickman says:

            Sorry, forgot one more (possible) example: Germany, another place where coalition governments are the norm. Even if we leave aside the long-standing coalition between the CDU and the CSU, which in fairness is almost a merger, before the last election in ’09, Angela Merkel ” stated goal to win a majority for CDU/CSU and FDP (the CDU/CSU’s traditional coalition partner)”, according to the Wikipedia article about the election (I know, I know, Wikipedia – that’s why I called it a “possible” example, but I haven’t seen it contradicted anywhere).

        • JStanton says:

          MacKay benched 2004 – 2011

          .

        • What is your point Gord? The Lib-NDP accord signed by *Dion* and Layton did come about during an election and it was never consummated thus there is no accord, there was never a coalition, and there is no coalition today. Anyone with eyes open today can see the Liberals and NDP are engaged in a death match as they have been in every election – particularly so since Paul Martin started to implode.

          My point in listing the dates of MacKay’s treachery was merely to point out that it occurred in 2003 not 2004 as Warren had indicated above. 2004 was the time frame for the first leadership race for the CPC. Not ironically, the very foundation of the future CPC would be built upon a lie from Peter MacKay. You might recall or not know that in 2003 MacKay campaigned with the line “I am not the merger candidate” and then promptly after being elected on that promise, secretly entered into merger discussions with Harper.

        • oops… the word “not” some how didn’t get typed by my fingers, as in “did not come about during an election”.

          Let’s get real. All three of the established national parties are in a fight for their lives. There’ll never be nor should we expect there to be talk about a coalition before or during an election. The only reason electoral cooperation was discussed in election 08 was because Dion was weak and was overly focussed on the environmental plank and what limited cooperation there was with Elizabeth May worked against him in the end anyway. Look how well that election turned out for the Libs.

          Neither Layton or Ignatieff are going to give any ground to the other in this fight, just like Joe Clark and Preston Manning / Stockwell day were in a death-battle during federal elections in the late 90’s early 2000’s.

          Depending on what happens to Harper in this election I figure Layton and his party probably reached their high water mark in election 08 and won’t see a repeat performance any time soon. They may have hoped Ignatieff’s general unpopularity before the campaign would allow them to deliver a coup de gras to the Liberal party but that isn’t going to happen – Iggy is not Dion. Whether the Iggy (and his advisers) can do better than just hold ground is another matter but there won’t be an extinction of the party which is really Layton’s dream so he’ll go into retirement soon with that unachieved. Maybe at that point the centre / centre left might be willing to talk about something more useful electorally than the potential of a post-election coalition and instead talk about merger of interests as the CA/PC did.

  4. Tomas says:

    Splitting nails — oh, Kinsella, replace “pl” with “h” and then you would have a visual for the ages.

  5. JenS says:

    I remain ever hopeful the delay in naming an NDP candidate in Durham is part of the same movement. Let Grant Humes go head-to-head with Bev Oda and let’s see what happens!

  6. H Holmes says:

    Sounds like they are going to refill the nomination.

    Likely to strip off a couple thousand votes and bad press about the big C.

    He should have waited until after nominations were closed that way it would have been much more beneficial.

    He might be the first of many though.

  7. Northern PoV says:

    Last election I worked for the Liberals in Vancouver center. I watched the NDP waste resources against a progressive Liberal, while next door in Vancouver East Liberals wasted their time and money working against the admirable Libby Davis.
    I am fed up. I joined the Catch22Campaign. You should too.
    Yes to strategic voting. No to vote splitting.
    check out: http://catch22campaign.ca/

    • fritz says:

      Thanks for the interesting link.
      Harper says he is not opposed to including May in the debates. He can’t be happy about this story as it brings up something he wants to forget; that he was caught cheating in one of the 2008 debates by bringing illegal crib notes on stage.
      This would play well into the opposition story that Harper plays by his own rules and can’t be trusted.
      Harper also says, I think, that he is not opposed to a one on one debate with Ignatieff. This can easily be arranged outside ‘the consortium’ so I hope it takes place as it could be a game changer. In the end I think the Tories will bail as it is much more a risk for them than the Liberals.

      • Cat says:

        it also raise the question around whether Iggy can be trusted with his word on this – with all signs pointing to – nope!

  8. Bill says:

    Yes, a bit of a score but isn’t it early enough that the NDP can appoint a candidate? If so, I am sure they will.

  9. martin cooke says:

    Fantastic- this will hit home with the squishy left-liberals across the country. This is turning out to be a fascinating campaign already.

  10. Michael Reintjes says:

    That candidate is a bit of a loose cannon who is at odds with his own leadership about a merge with the Liberals.This is not a big surprise in this riding. The Dippers have already announced he will be replaced within 48 hours.

  11. Rob says:

    How about the rumblings about Harper v. Ignatieff one on one? That’s got to be a good indication that this contest is really about the only 2 parties that can form government.

    What do you think Warren? Will Ignatieff “win” a mano-a-mano contest?

  12. Will P says:

    Geez, Warren.

    You do know that there are many, many people out here (and I am one) who would easily consider voting Liberal if it were the same party it was in the days of Pearson and Laurier: a centrist, free-market home of individuality; socially progressive perhaps, but fiscally conservative. Any party that would consider merging with the NDP isn’t on my radar. We need a John Kennedy — a fellow who can utter “Ask not what my country can do for me..” and pull it off, politically.

    Are those days (and my very first political party of choice) gone forever?

    • Warren says:

      Look, everyone, it’s a concern troll!

      • Will P says:

        Hmm. I don’t think I’ve ever been called a troll before. What, by the way, is a “concern troll”?

        It is, however, interesting that you discount my sincere views so easily. I was serious: I would consider voting Liberal if the part reflected the views it did 40 years ago — not the poliices, mind you, just the guiding principles of what truly being Liberal means.

        OK, I get it. You think I’m just some moron tring to bait you “real” Liberals. Fine. Press on with your merger with the NDP. Fill yer boots, but frankly, I had hoped you were more astute than the naive souls who think 28 plus 19 equals 47 anywhere beyond the world of math, when the equation is the sum of personal opinions.

        I abandoned the Liberals because of their free-spending ways. (More their election platforms than their actions, mind you. For instance, I never voted for Chretien for instance, although he ended up being my kind of PM in many ways.)

        But, no matter. Have fun.

  13. Aidan Hayes says:

    The Tories’ coalition argument just got stronger. The Liberal’s tactical voting argument just got stronger. The NDP…well, they look like 2008 didn’t teach them the importance of vetting candidates. Harper wins, Iggy wins, Layton loses.

    • DJ says:

      The Liberals have always tried to poach NDP votes and steer people away from the NDP to stop the Conservatives. Nothing new. No coalition argument here.

  14. NameRequired says:

    Wikipedia search pulls up Élise Daoust as the candidate, and she’s on the Bloq’s website as such.

  15. DJ says:

    I think it actually shows that the Liberals and NDP are just as competitive with each other as they are with the Tories. I don’t see this being spun effectively as proof of a coalition.

  16. Dan says:

    Wouldn’t the NDP just elect another candidate?

    Iggy surely is going after that progressive vote after the Pension announcement today, which doesn’t bode well for old Jack.

    In other news…
    Harper gaffe http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/965625–harper-challenges-ignatieff-to-one-on-one-debate?bn=1
    Yes it does seem in the article he was being more sarcastic in the comment, but the Headline is what people will read.

    • Harvey Mushman says:

      “Wouldn’t the NDP just elect another candidate?”

      Yep.

      Jack says they’ll “hav-r-done” in 48 hours…and their original riding candidate will probably not even make a footnote in this election.

  17. reformatory says:

    WHO LET THE DOGS OUT…… ooh yah

    that’s what I’m talkin about— Let’s ROLL everybody– we got a country to take back!!!!!

  18. JWN says:

    The issue isn’t the legitimacy of coalition governments in general, it is whether Canadians want a Liberal/NDP/Bloq coalition governing the country under their present leadership.

    The Liberals and NDP, while maintaining independent parties and policy platforms, should consider a strategic arrangement whereby they don’t run candidates in ridings currently held by the other party and/or in which the other party came within 10% of taking the seat in the previous election.

    If this course were pursued the Liberals and New Democrats could form a stable coalition government without the assistance of the Bloq and such co-operation could be the first step towards the successful formation of a single centre-left option for Canadian voters.

    In the interim, hope you all enjoy PM Stephen Harper.

    The Liberals, who benefitted by a divided right throughout the Chretien years, don’t seem to realize (or care) that they, the NDP, and Greens, are gifting elections to ineffective Harper-led conservative governments in the same way Manning gifted Chretien his large majorities.

    WK get the right folks together on this, enough is enough.

  19. Namesake says:

    “troika”?! what, you’re channeling ‘Observant,’ now? Whack-jobs of a feather….

  20. Dave Roberts says:

    The NDP has until April 12 to nominate or appoint a candidate in this riding. This changes very little.

  21. Harvey Mushman says:

    You guys are making too much of this. It really amounts to a hill of beans.

    In another day or two the NDP will have announced another candidate for the riding and the “support” the original candidate threw to the Liberals will be as productive as tits on a bull.

  22. The Dude says:

    Aren’t the Libs delaying naming a candidate in Edmonton-Strathcona? I just saw a 1997 interview where Harper said that coalitions will happen in teh future and there was talk of forming some sort of coalition with the BQ. The Harpocrisy amazes me.

  23. Derek K Richards says:

    I believe the numbers wouldn’t add up for the coalition in Elgin-middlesex-london.

    Cons=48%

    libs= 24%

    NDP= 19%

    Of course not all votes would go the coalition, just might put the Cons over 50% in the riding.

    Not Good

  24. Cat says:

    “On Kady O’Malley’s blog, she points out this is the same thing as the NDP candidate Dolby quitting the race in London; and disproves a hidden coalition.
    Except Genco wasn’t even nominated this time by the Liberals.

    Anyway Kady’s blog also says NDP will replace Dolby within 48 hours. It appears like Dolby misread the playbook; he was supposed to just tank it in favour of the Liberals, not quit all together.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*