04.18.2011 06:40 AM

KCCCC Day 24: Things get weird


69 Comments

  1. MontrealElite says:

    Comical to see all the CPC talking heads y’day saying the LPC are going negative when Harpee raises seperatism (an issue NOBODY is talking about in Quebec) and how only he can fight it.

    “Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.”
    – Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.

    Yeah, that’s the guy you want fighting for your country…………………………………………….NOT (h/t Bev Oda)

    • Dr.J says:

      No wonder your Libs are where they are……quotes from 94!!!!!! Don’t look behind you the NDP is now beside you!! I know it is easier to always give a shot but dam, why not talk about your platform..you know the “Liberal Game Changer”! However, from where I sit I say “carry on” and thank you very much

      • MontrealElite says:

        Quotes from 94 you say.

        Tell me, who was that last week bringing up Trudeau from the 1970’s?

        Just more double drivel from Dr. J

        • nic coivert says:

          So we can add Fake Federalist to the Harper Fake List.

          Right up there with Fake Lake and Fake Budget.

          And don’t forget -Fake Populist, just ask Preston Manning about that.
          How Harper betrayed him and the grass roots of Reform in favour of a top down power grab.

          • Patrick Hamilton says:

            No sympathy for Mr. Manning……he’s responsible(along with machivellian professor Tom Flanagan) for creating “Dear Leader”……

    • MontrealElite says:

      Sorry Goofus, I live here.

      Put 2 or more pequistes in a room and you’d think separatism is an issue.

      It’s NOWHERE.

      • MontrealElite says:

        You couldn’t be more wrong Gordo.

        Marois won’t even commit to holding a referendum in her 1st term because she knows she wouldn’t get elected.

        The weekend congress had to re-vote down a motion that would have banned any language other than French….it was Marois herself who headed the re-vote because she didn’t want to be seen as too radical.

        But keep talking about things you knowm nothing about….you sure you ain’t Flaherty?

  2. WDM says:

    Better ad. Highlights the themes of the campaign rather than focusing on the health care narrative. Don’t get me wrong, health care is an important issue, and one the Liberals have strength on, but an ad speculating on what Harper would do doesn’t have the same strength as attacking issue and priorities he’s already acted on.

  3. Paul says:

    I’m not surprised that the NDP are dramatically up. The attack ad sounds NDP and fits into their message – many do not see the Libs as credible on health care due to the transfer cuts under Martin as finance minister.

    The Layton shot at Iggy that you need to show up for work is a big factor for most of the soft vote I know. I’m wonder why it didn’t get airtime after the debate.

    • Paul says:

      I don’t agree. Iggy’s campaign is giving life to Layton. He comes across as Harper 2 and the attack ad looks like NDP 2. People will gravitate toward 1 or the other.

  4. Intrep says:

    “…….(an issue NOBODY is talking about in Quebec)”….REALLY?? You may want to consider this from the weekend’s PQ meeting:

    The PQ program adopted on the weekend calls for scrapping the previous commitment in the party’s 2005 program to call a referendum on sovereignty soon after coming to power. Now, the program says a referendum would be “held at the moment judged appropriate by the government.”

    Before a referendum, a PQ government would adopt:

    –A Quebec constitution, including a modified rights charter, enshrining the predominance of French, equality of women and men and the secular nature of public institutions;

    –A charter of Quebec secu-larism, making the government neutral toward believers and non-believers and banning ostentatious religious signs in the public sector;

    –Quebec citizenship, with details to be decided “after consultation.”

    As well, a PQ administration would act like a “sovereignist government, seeking always to gain more power and means for Quebec and Quebecers.”

    Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Marois+turns+attention+supporting+Bloc+campaign/4632371/story.html#ixzz1JsSbB1Y7

    And you’re sure you want Iggy to be the one to deal with this with his de-dramatization initiative? Good luck with that. Add the PQ in power to the Bloc holding veto in a Coalition situation and the news isn’t great for the ROC.

  5. W.B. says:

    Here’s a line for Ignatieff:

    Harper keeps talking about stability. Listen I represent the Liberal Party of Canada, We’ve been around since George Brown a father of confederation. We’ve had Laurier, King, Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. We’re as stable as it gets. We don’t have to take any lectures on stable responsible government from anybody . . etc. etc . . .

    • W.B. says:

      Pretty cheap shot. These are normal historical events. Do you want me to talk about the Pacific Scandal? John Diefenbaker? Walkerton???? Dudley George??? Don’t be so silly.

    • AmandaM says:

      Correlation, not causation on the economic stuff. Levesque was going to get a referendum whether we wanted one or not, and Chretien hired the best of the best to settle the question once and for all.

      And, the reason the LPC was in power for all of those things? Because the LPC is, indeed, the natural governing party. (I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself sometimes!)

      SH can’t make Canadians move the continuum to the right on sheer will. We are centrists at heart, and if he wants a majority, he is going to have to take off his LPC/NDP/BQ-hate blinders and start appealing to centrists and red tories.

    • Pete says:

      Did Mulroney not help create the Bloc by bringing a known separatist named Bouchard into his party only to see him do the dirty.

  6. Smith says:

    This election is turning on two things i) a SH majority (with 37% as Chretien got) and ii) the economy, stupid (or pocket book issues).

    It should end – ‘stop the SH majority from ruining Canada’s finances’ – vote ….

    Free advise to the LPC war room.

  7. Pat Heron says:

    Is this going negative? Hmmm, seems rational and fair to me. Now, I’m waiting for the ad featuring a bus with many little Cons being tossed underneath: Helena and the little Hill staffers, et al. Oh yeah, and another ad with a huge platter bearing the heads of Linda Keen, et al, and copies of the long form census.

  8. Dr.J says:

    Who has been acting more like a PM in waiting as of late…Iggy or Jacko? Iggy appears to be going in every direction without a compass while looks Jack is calm and steady

    • nic coivert says:

      The NDP is in danger of becoming Harper’s cudgel.

      • AmandaM says:

        Layton’s problem is that he thinks he has a shot at being PM. Delusions of grandeur.

        What he SHOULD be concerned about, if he were holding true to his principles (although as a city councilor living in social housing, he doesn’t appear to have any), is how can SH be knocked out of power and working with the person who is going to seriously consider some of his more palatable-to-Canadians priorities.

        • The Doctor says:

          Yes, Layton’s proper job is to help Michael Ignatieff become Prime Minister. I’m sure that’s set out somewhere in Jack’s employment contract.

      • smelter rat says:

        Dr. J and Tulk…a mutual masturbation society if I ever saw one.

      • AmandaM says:

        The Doctor, I don’t disagree with you that Layton should run his own campaign, but he needs to pick his devil given that he won’t be PM. Does he want Stephen Harper to be PM or not? If he does, then he should continue what he’s doing. If he wants to get some of his priorities on the agenda, he shouldn’t be slamming Ignatieff.

        You can’t deny that splitting the centrist/left vote put SH in power again. We’ve seen it before with split votes, and I’m sure we’ll see it again. It’s a shame that Layton has delusions of grandeur that result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and the progressive agenda gets marginalized, even though 65% of Canadians are progressive. Another Harper minority = the tyranny of same.

  9. Cow says:

    Would love to see Ignatieff start to hammer about the G20/AG stuff: http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/g8report-04-18-2011 Even without citing the AG report, the 416/905 have a lot of unease about that whole thing. And it’s a great example of the control / etc that turns people off from the idea of a Harper majority.

    Talking about gas prices is a good idea (especially for the NDP; they can put it alongside their ATM fee motions). To be fair, I’m probably a bit more snide than most since my main interaction with fuel prices is walking past a Petro-Canada on my way to work. Sure must suck to be one of those people driving alone in their cars every morning, stuck in traffic as I walk past them, though.

    (Of course, high fuel prices affect everyone–cost of food, cost of everything. Wouldn’t mind hearing some discussion on that, too, and what we’re going to do in a post-peak-oil world…)

  10. DL says:

    The Liberals will be a in real fix now. They can’t attack the NDP on policy because they already plagiarized the NDP platform and have left themselves with no real policy differences on paper. They can’t attack them for economic mismanagement because that leads us back to Liberal second in command Bob Rae. They also can’t attack the NDP on leadership because everyone knows that Layton is VASTLY more popular than Ignatieff. The ONLY argument the Liberals have had against the NDP in this slection has been something along the lines of “we can win and they can’t”. Now the Liberals are losing that argument as well…so what will the Liberals do?

    • W.B. says:

      I guess you need a riding by riding analysis to know whether this NDP growth will result in the usual splitting the left vote and letting the Conservatives slip in, or whether strategic voting on the left could result in a lot of NDP wins, which along with Liberal wins would stop Harper.
      Which is it?

  11. Kasey says:

    I know Im old but it amazes me that politicos such as you Warren believe these angus-Ipsos polls when they tell such a different story…in other words most of them are in the CLOUDS. Nanos does not have Ndp leading the Liberals just the Greenx….I believe the cons stack the online polls especially to the ndp to make it look like the liberals are losing ground…they did the same 2008.

  12. Cam says:

    Good Day:

    Take a look at the Nanos leadership index yesterday. A drop of 13 points for Harper, a drop of 10 points for Layton, and an increase of 2.4 for Ignatieff from Friday to Saturday. Nic Nanos suggested the drop for Harper resulted from the Liberal negative ads. I would suggest the drop for Harper relates more to the Guergis issue, and the Conservative worker interfering with the special poll in Guelph. (BTW the issue about the Conservatives interfering with the voting in Guelph on Thursday was still making the 6 and11 pm local news broadcast in Kitchener-Waterloo Sunday evening.)

    Last night I had a chance to view a part of the CBC interview between Peter Mansbridge and Jack Layton. Mansbridge asked Layton what was the difference between the Liberals and the NDP. Layton gave a feeble answer essentially suggesting the difference was the Liberals don’t keep their promises. Apparently the interview will be broadcast tonight. Me thinks the shine on the Layton bus is dulling.

    Again, I say give this puppy some time, although admittedly time is running out.

  13. Michael Behiels says:

    Your round-up missed a big issue: national unity. Again, Ignatieff flubbed his response and his clarification was whishy-washy.

    Harper came out swinging after the strong confirmation of Pauline Marois as leader of the PQ and the further radicalization of the PQ Platform on language and other issues.

    Harper trumpeted that secession was once again a real threat and that only a Harper majority government would be able to beat back the Quebec secessionists. Harper has now publicly gone back to his original hard-line position on the Quebec secession threat.

    Recall how Harper jumped on the asymmetric, binational Quebec/Canada Belgian model in the lead up to 2006 election when his Quebec team, separate from his Flanagan team, told him that he would win big time. It got Harper a mere 10 seats for selling out his principles. He then pushed and passed his Quebec as a distinct society Resolution when he was convinced it would bring even more seats.

    When these overtures failed to produced promised gains in the 2008 election and when Duceppe almost brought down his government after the 20-08 election by supporting the coalition of Libs and Dippers, Harper turned his back on Quebec because he despised the secessionists and Duceppe. He still does.

    Harper has now returned to his hard-line position on Quebec. Its my way or the doorway. He has wrapped himself in the Canadian flag big time.

    Few Francophone Quebecers understood this shift back to his hard-line position. They do so now after Harper’s decision yesterday, in the aftermath of Pauline Marois renewed leadership of PQ and the radicalization of the PQ platform, to raise the secessionist threat and plead for a majority so he can really go to war against the secessionists.

    Ironically, Harper’s overtly aggressive approach will produce something worse that the hapless Belgian model. It will fuel outright secession and a majority vote in the next referendum if and when Marois becomes Premier in 2012.

    Why is this? Because Harper is considered to be a real outsider in Quebec, a foreign carpetbagger who can’t be trusted on any policy, economic, social, cultural, or political. In short, Harper is not and will never be one of them. He will then become Prime Minister of the Rest of Canada. That is, if the rest of Canada hangs together. It may just blow apart and the pieces will be absorbed into the United States, starting with Cascadia in Western Canada.

    While many Francophones disliked Trudeau’s hard-line position on the secessionists issue they respected him greatly because he made them proud of who they were and are. Harper cannot play the role that Trudeau did for almost 20 years. This is why the secessionists in Quebec now believe that a Harper majority government will help their cause.

    The Clarity Act, which Harper backed but wanted to make even stronger, will do very little to restrain the National Assembly from voting for a UDI if the PQ wins the referendum by 5-% plus 1 vote.

    In short, the Quebec question is now back on the national agenda big time.

    Ignatieff had better get up to speed on this issue or he is going to be creamed both from the right and from the left. Perhaps we are watching the imminent demise of the once dominant Liberal Party. And if so it is ironic that it is happening because the Liberals were outmanoevered by Harper on the national unity issue, an issue they have monopolized since Wilfrid Laurier, another great French-Canadian Prime Minister.

    • James says:

      Woah there, cowboy, a lot of your predictions are pretty far out, and your logic false.

      I would argue that it is our minority government situation that is fragile for national unity. And Iggy just doesn’t seem to have the backbone to deal with the national unity file.

      Quebec actually “needs” Canada more than Canada “needs” Quebec in order to prosper and survive. Quebec is no longer the center of the Canadian universe and is not where the country is growing economically and demographically. Just look at how “dead” and moribund the City of Montreal has become. Where are all the new office towers, luxury hotels, and high-rise condominiums being built? Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver. The “ROC” now has the upper hand on all levels and thankfully we have a strong leader in Harper who will proudly defend the country.

  14. James says:

    Warren, you’ve been very prescient about this election and you will be vindicated in the end. You had strong reservations about the Liberals forcing an election long before the campaign officially began and now it’s all playing out.

    Iggy and the Liberals have focussed too much on attacking the Conservatives while the NDP has crept up from behind like a bogeyman and brought about the most damage for the Grits.

    The leadership optics for Iggy this past weekend weren’t particularly great. Seeing him with the avuncular Paul Martin standing behind him in Vancouver (“There, there, my boy, you can do it”) along with MP Ujjal Dosanjh didn’t convey an image of strength. And Iggy’s raspy and repetitive “RISE UP!” incantation to supporters reminded me of Vermont Governor Howard Dean’s famous “scream” during the Democratic nomination race of 2007-08. What was that all about??

    And Iggy is strangely silent on the issue of national unity. PQ leader Pauline Marois just had a leadership endorsement of 93% over the weekend and Gilles Duceppe was in utter glee at the prospect of the PQ regaining power in the province next year.

  15. MontrealElite says:

    GM IPO was at $33

    GM now at $30

    How much has that cost us Harpee?

  16. Nastyboy says:

    A vote for Ignatieff is a vote for Harper.

  17. C.W. says:

    On a related note: the Ottawa Citizen doesn’t help Liberal candidate Ryan Keon’s facial recognition:

    http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.com/2011/04/ottawa-citizens-election-profile.html

  18. Curt says:

    Fair comment Gord.
    I might add that the Liberal party is really hurting at the riding level. A diectional change is great but it is at the riding level where the policy is made to happen. This is why the NDP have crept up on the Liberals. The NDP at the riding level are committed.
    Have a great day.

  19. Mulletaur says:

    I think the negative ads are very good, but they should have been out earlier in the campaign. To bring Liberals back to the party and get them out to vote, the campaign should have gone positive by this point. Negative first and early to prepare the ground, then positive in the later parts of the campaign to show that voters have a positive alternative. It’s not too late.

  20. james curran says:

    Warren, perhaps you can tell us all why Mr. Richardson isn’t running commercials over and over and over and over again with Mr. Harper telling Canadians there would be no deficit, no structural deficit and no recession.

    • Swervin' Merv says:

      Amen, James.

      • George says:

        likely because Canadians aren’t stupid. They know, like you know that the opposition screamed blue murder to coax the gov’t to provide short-term stimulus to see the country through the recession. It’s in Hansard – look it up. While you’re at it look up how Ignatieff and his team voted in favour of that short-term stimulus.
        Or did he? Was he in the house that day?

  21. http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

    I’ve voted for every party at least once in my lifetime (well not the bloc), lived under NDP gov’t in two provinces (not fun), sworn at the Liberals for stupid things (sponsorship), contributed to the Greens.

    Harper just plain scares the you know what out of me, given a majority he will ruin this country forever. A majority of Canadians will NOT (guess which riding I am in) vote Conservative. Think about your future and your kids/grandkids future and make your vote count.

  22. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Great ad!……Hammer them, Mr. Richardson, Hammer them!

  23. C.W. says:

    I see Conservatives want one of the health care ads pulled, saying Harper is misquoted:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/18/cv-election-lib-ad.html

    Maybe the Liberals should demand the same for the Conservative ads that claim Ignatieff supports a $75 ipod tax:

    http://catch22campaign.ca/profiles/blogs/the-latest-tory-lie?xg_source=activity

  24. Ottlib says:

    I get a kick out of people who cherry pick one poll to “prove” their pet theory about how things are going politically, while ignoring other polls that call that theory into question.

    It should be obvious by the conflicting estimates of these polls that they are useless except to provide news organizations with content.

    The true picture of what is happening out their can best be seen by what the various players are doing.

    Stephen Harper is still trying to convince Canadians that he deserves a majority which tells us that he believes he does not have it. Not once during any of Jean Chretien’s elections did he ever mention he needed a majority because he knew he already had it. The same can be said for Dalton McGuinty during the last election and Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney during their re-election bids.

    Michael Ignatieff is campaigning normally instead of going into Liberal strongholds which tells us that he believes he can still win this election. Further he is not acting like a man who sees his left flank being threatened by the fact he is still focused on Stephen Harper and he is ignoring Jack Layton. Odd behaviour if the Liberals are in real danger of being overtaken by the NDP.

    Jack Layton is attacking the Liberals as much as the Conservatives, which is how it has always been. The biggest threat to the NDP is the Liberals, which is particularly true this time considering the current Liberal platform. They know that their support is the softest of the three federalist parties and they know that if an ABC sentiment grows within the electorate they will be the ones that suffer. In other words Mr. Layton is operating from an underlying position of weakness not strength. Of course, that does not stop some media pundits from claiming the opposite, which is why I stopped reading or listening to those bozos a long time ago.

    I do not see Gilles Duceppe suddenly attacking the NDP despite the fact the NDP seem to be rising in that province to the detriment of the Bloc. Perhaps because Mr. Duceppe realizes that such an increase for the NDP is just a mirage.

    The final outcome of this election is still very much in doubt so trying to come up with predictions on how it will turn out based on the latest series of polls, or on just one poll, is downright silly.

  25. jack says:

    Most people know the coalition stuff is pure bunk. And even if some people believe it, there is a high probability they fear losing their health care to private insurance. And they should be. Private insurance is brutal. I doubt Harper has a clue on what it entails and how awful and inefficient it is….he likes the sound of private. It adds tons of costs to businesses they all have to negotiate their own health care plans and administer them. I negotiated, ran and administered one for years in the US. People will be shocked at the expense and admin. Businesses will be shocked at the rates, the negotiation required and the time needed to administer.

    So the question is, will Harper explain his many comments? Will he be honest? Its clear where he sits on the matter. If Harer refuses to talk (which has been the case to now) will people value the Canada health care model or the “stability” of a majority and the high likelihood of losing that model.

    Many Cons say he won’t do it but what proof is there other than the many many quotes about him wanting private health insurance? This should be THE issue of the campaign. Lets hope Harper has the courage to state his beliefs publicly and let voters decide.

    • The Doctor says:

      Jack, your post is a classic example of a false dichotomy logical fallacy. It assumes that the only possible two options for our health care system are (1) the current Canadian status quo, or (2) the US system. Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, there are in fact lots of other health care and insurance systems out there, particularly in Europe and Scandinavia, that work quite well (they’re generally rated higher than Canada in surveys), deliver universal access, and yet involve a mix of private and public insurance. Switzerland is one example. Switzerland is hardly some neo-con laissez-faire dystopia, yet in Switzerland people are permitted to purchase private health insurance. This is not permitted under the Canada Health Act, and this prohibition is highly questionable in policy terms, when you consider the many alternatives that are available.

      Suggesting, as you do, that the only two choices are what we have or what the Americans have merely infantalizes the discussion.

      • The Doctor says:

        You’re confusing the difference between insured an non-insured services under the Canada Health Act:

        “The [provincial] health insurance plans must be “administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority, responsible to the provincial/territorial governments and subject to audits of their accounts and financial transactions.” (Section 8). This condition is the most frequently misunderstood; it does not deal with delivery, but with insurance. However, it does reduce the scope for private insurers to cover insured services (although they are still able to cover non-insured services, and/or non-insured persons).”

        It’s that latter prohibition to which I was referring. You can’t buy private insurance to cover insured services; there’s no market there. Other OECD countries, including ones with very social democratic principles and systems, allow people to purchase health insurance from private insurance providers for basic care and coverage. We do not. And that’s one of the reasons we sometimes have people heading south for care, plus we have all this nudge, nudge, wink wink stuff that goes on with clinics that charge you thousands to “rent the facility” etc. (all meant to get around the CHA prohibitions).

        All I’m really saying though, is that there are more than two ways to design a health care system. We could learn things from the Europeans and the Scandinavians, etc. Are you actually disagreeing with that?

        • Namesake says:

          no, I’m not “confusing” anything there: I was calling on you to clarify or correct your false or misleading assertion that private health insurance is not permitted under the Canada Health Act.

          And word to the wise, “Doctor,” if you’re going to quote something, give the source (an important matter of scholarship that shouldn’t have escaped your notice today, of all days); in this case, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

          And, given that is it a complicated issue which you yourself oversimplified and so had to spell out in more detail, don’t accuse someone who clearly has had more experience than most in this area who expressed some honest concerns about the model he quite rightly assumed most CPC members are gravitating to… of “infantalizing” (sic) the issue, because it’s both an inappropriate and an insulting characterization of what he did.

          I only bully the bullies and the hecklers, not the sincere people expressing their honest concerns.

        • The Doctor says:

          “an important matter of scholarship”?

          This is the comment board on a political blog, not the Harvard Medical Review. Get real.

      • jack says:

        Ok. Say what you want. But what are harpers views? Many cons I talk to don’t want the system changed. what choices does he see and want. Perhaps you have some ideas but harper has yet to explain all his quotes. I’m fine with hearing any options, but harper will not state his position. So, is your view his view? The people deserve to know what harper thinks, articulated clearly as you explained your view. You cannot trust anything or say anything if he stays silent.

        • The Doctor says:

          I don’t have a effing clue what Harper’s view is, really. I can’t read his mind or see into his soul (assuming he has one; many posters on this board would argue he doesn’t). If I had to guess, I would say that Harper’s own, personal view is that the best system would be some more flexible mix of public and private delivery than is currently permitted under a strict reading of the CHA. But what’s happened in Canada is that the CHA has become this sacred cow in some circles, and I am one of those people who think that the CHA, while very well-intentioned, is actually becoming an impediment to our being able to reform the system in the face of spiralling costs and the demographic double-whammy time bomb that we’re sitting on (aging population = more seniors, more demand for health care and fewer working-age Canadians paying taxes to pay for it).

          As evidenced by the LPC commercial, all you have to do in some circles is point out that you might not agree with 100% of what’s in the CHA, and you’re branded an Enemy of Health Care. To me, that’s infantile. But I’m not a big believer in sacred cows. I consider myself a pragmatist.

  26. Pete says:

    WK, SPEAKING OF RELIGIOUS INSULTS.

    THE REFORMATORT candidate in Oakville has been going door to door and telling the angry white co supporters that his opponent is a “muslim you know” with further indications that he doesn’t belong in the riding. Some time back the same tory MP told people when the lib was nominated that he should have run in Scarborough.

    He is one classy guy who, it happens made fewer speeches in the HOC than everyone but 20 of his peers most of whom were in their last term.

  27. Iris Mclean says:

    It was a big mistake for Ignatieff to drag Paul Martin Jr. into the campaign. As a soft Liberal supporter, I have zero respect for Harper, and even less for Martin.
    I understand that the filthy-rich “shipping magnate” is once again concerned with the plight of the poor, now that he’s no longer in government.
    There is slime, and there is slime.

Leave a Reply

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


*