09.23.2011 11:51 AM

Best analysis of Northern Debate by the media


  1. bigcitylib says:

    Apparently, Wind Concerns will tell you that individuals have bought the billboards, so its OK.

  2. steve says:

    It makes you wonder, CTV talking heads continually become vocal in your face Conservatives , Global, Quebecor, Sun all seem to have a viewpoint, but the Huffingtonpost Canada? Shock I tell you shock. For the past two days its been like a Conservative Campaign commercial. Wind Concerns has had the leading blogspot, but he has some praise for NDP so I guess its not partisan. I have posted several comment calling him out, never made the page.

    • Scott Tribe says:

      That’s not entirely true regarding the NDP. I asked John Laforet – the group’s president – on Twitter, why they were associating themselves exclusively with the Conservatives and not for example calling on folks to vote NDP in ridings where they could possibly beat the Liberals. His reply was basically that the NDP position mirrored the Liberals on wind turbines, so there was no reason to.

      If I need to dig up the transcript of the convo up, I’ll do so, if John wants me to be accurate.. but thats my recollection.

    • Jan says:

      I wonder if it has anything to do with the influence of Danielle Crittenson (David Frum’s wife). She very recently became something like the blog’s editor.

  3. steve says:

    If you read the blog he says the NDP position is better than the Lib

    • Scott Tribe says:

      The fact is though, he has not called on his membership or people who possibly sympathize with “Wind Concerns” to vote anyone-but -Liberal. They are calling on folks to vote Conservative only. Their twitter accounts routinely Re-Tweet Conservative candidates and MP talking points. They are definitely not non-partisan.

  4. Donald says:

    What is bizarre about the NDP strategy is that their original costing document contains none of their subsequent tacked-on platforms. They released a bare-bones platform early on, but then they released a number of additional platform components: an environmental platform, a rural platform, a northern platform, an education platform and an antipoverty platform. But there was no talk in the original platform of these subsequent platforms, and they are mostly unfunded commitments.

    The entire premise of the original plan was to offer a tight, costed set of priorities, but each week has added a new range of commitments that should have been in the first platform. This got things entirely backwards: If you want to release a complex multi-stage platform, the costing document comes last and is complete and (hopefully) verified by an independent set of eyes. I had assumed that the platform was complete when it was first released and was dismayed by the lack of traditional left priorities, which has partially been reversed over the course of the campaign. But it isn’t a professional way to do things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.