02.20.2015 08:24 AM

Whither goest thou, Justin, in thy shiny car in the night?

It’s a Kerouac line, adapted for the circumstances. Fits.

Lately, I have been peering at this snapshot taken by Eric Grenier, like someone does when they are lost, and they are squinting at a map at the side of the road. Night falling, apprehension rising.

No single poll is reliable anymore. They get it wrong, a lot. This graph is probably different, however, because it is a rendering of a lot of polls, aggregated. It’s therefore harder to dismiss. Thus, I gaze at it, trying to unlock its mysteries.

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 7.54.22 AM

You can divine its meaning as well as I can. You don’t have to be an expert. Among other things, it tells us:

  • Trudeau has dropped, but not dramatically;
  • Harper has risen, and inexorably; and
  • Mulcair isn’t Jack Layton.

That’s pretty simplistic, but so is politics.  Harper’s wiggly line is good, Mulcair’s is bad, and Trudeau’s is so-so.  Ipso facto, the campaign matters.

That’s a cliché, but it’s also true.  That’s why Liberals – increasingly nervous about assorted things – have lately taken to repeating the mantra that the campaign matters, and the pre-season doesn’t.  (Maybe.)

To illustrate their point, they cite 1993.  Kim Campbell was the most popular Prime Minister in the history of polling, and Jean Chretien was being measured for a political pine box.  The campaign came, and everything changed.  (True.)

There’s a debate raging about this over on my Facebook page this morning.  In response to one commenter making the 1993-2015 comparison, an edited response from another commenter:

  • Kim Campbell was untested, Stephen Harper is not;
  • Jean Chretien had John Rae et al., Justin Trudeau has the folks who cooked up both Eve Adams and Sudbury;
  • The issues mix favours Harper (security/economy) in a way it never favoured Campbell (jobs/change);
  • The aggregate polling trend is presently slow and steady CPC upward growth, and slow and steady LPC erosion;
  • Trudeau is decidedly not Chretien.

And that last one is the big one, as we attempt to divine the meaning of Grenier’s squiggles on a computer screen: if you were writing a book, a la Kerouac, and you were looking for someone to play Jean Chretien (Kerouac and Chretien were distantly related, by the way), who would you pick?

Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper?


  1. Malcolm Jolley says:

    This 1993 analogy is ridiculous. Trudeau’s performance of late has worried most reasonable Liberals, and he’s in trouble unless he adopts a measure of discipline and writes a red book of clear, middle class focused policies.

    On the other hand, he does well when he’s underestimated, and most Canadians aren’t paying attention. It may be just as well if he enters the election with expectations lowered.

    And, if his brain trust is bringing up 1993, then at least they’re hitting the history books, which I would take as a good sign.

  2. Bill MacLeod says:

    Stephen Harper.

    It was once said of Robert Stanfield that he was the best prime minister Canada never had. I don’t know about that, but I do know that Jean Chretien was the best prime minister that I never voted for. In fact, in retrospect, he was the best PM in my 60-year life and perchance in Canadian history. And I’m speaking as a fellow who voted for my local Reform or Canadian Alliance candidate through that period.

    I wonder how many of you fellows, who fashion yourselves “progressives” feel the same way? That says something. Something important.

    Me, I’m a fiscal conservative to be sure, but my soft libertarian views on most other matters make me essentially a liberal. I just cannot see myself supporting the Liberals under the current regime, no matter how disillusioned I am with the CPC record on fiscal matters.



    • jeff316 says:

      It is not a surprise that you’d like a Liberal who governed like a conservative. Why would that be special or noteworthy?

    • doconnor says:

      As a fiscal conservative I understand how you could see it that way. He slashed the deficit with very little regard for the consequences and then followed up with a generous tax cut for corporations.

      As a progressive (more like socialists) I would have to go with Trudeau (the first). The Charter of Rights, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”, economic interventions to try to improve the lives of Canadians.

  3. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Another interesting, and entirely relevant poll…



    As someone noted, when people are hiding behind a counter and bullets are flying over their heads, they don’t give a damn about the definition of terrorism.

    Nor, I would suggest, do many of those watching all too much of it happen on TV.

  4. cgh says:

    Fascinating stuff. You can add a few things to it.

    1. Jack Layton wasn’t really Jack Layton either. He was simply there to cash in on the spectacular collapse of both the Liberals and the Bloq. Particularly the latter. Remember that Layton’s last election saw the near-complete wipeout of NDP support in much of western Canada. And he went nowhere in most of Ontario.

    2. There has been a general long term malaise in Liberal support. Each Parliament since Jean Chretien has seen fewer Liberal seats and lower public vote support. It’s been temporarily bolstered by the leadership of Justin Trudeau. But is there anything behind that support beyond the name and superficial appearance? Have the Liberals put forward any policy positions that have drawn Canadians strongly? Has the party gone through any great grassroots organizational renewal?

    I’m reminded of David Peterson’s re-election bid in Ontario in 1990 where it was said that his support going into the election was a mile wide and an inch deep. And sure enough it evaporated.

    3. The trend lines are going in all the wrong directions for both opposition parties. And as correctly noted, the current issue mix does not particularly favour the opposition right now. In 1993, the Tories were saddled with defending a massively unpopular GST (regardless of whether or not it was the right thing to do). Not so today.

  5. James Smith says:

    All good points, the Grit Game needs to be improved.
    – However; let’s don’t forget that Mr Chretien at the start of 1993 wasn’t the Mr Chretien of 2003, he was seen as rusty old and tiered and was rumoured to have serious health issues. There were many rumbles of “oh no, we choose the wrong guy! what are we going to do?” by so-called Senior Liberals. This was when Mr Chretien made his “Nervous Nellies” comments to his caucus.
    – Mr H. of 2015 is not Mr H of 2011 against Mr i.
    – As you point out, Mr M is not Mr L.
    – As Malcolm points our Mr T is often better when he is underestimated

    • cgh says:

      James, all of that could have been survived. What could not be survived was:
      1. Reunification of the right under the CPC;
      2. The irrevocable split in the LPC between Chretien and Martin;
      3. Adscam.

      Darren may be right; the parallels between Campbell in 93 and Trudeau today are rather strong. But the capacity of Liberals to deceive themselves is enormous. Just read wsam’s 10:17 post for an example.

      • James Smith says:

        I don’t buy the Campbell Trudeau metric, but, as you point out, as a Sophomoric Partizan(TM) I may have an unlimited capacity for self deception. As for your points:
        1- Yes & no. Say what you will about Ms Adams (to 95% of CDNs it’s inside Baseball BTW) it represents shifting sand under the structure Mr H has built as has his years of his leadership style. How much? Time will tell, but it is a factor. In the past municipal campaign I spoke to more than a few PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES who are uneasy of the direction of both the Ontario PC’s & the CPC.
        2 – These tensions have ALWAYS been there & will so always be so. Eye on the prize will keep the majority of this tension locked up, jilted candidates notwithstanding.
        3- Really? How about the NEP? French on Corn Flakes? The FLAG? Closure on The Pipeline Debate? Conscription? BTW the past years of CPC (AKA Harper Government) ad buys make this seem like small beer.

        • cgh says:

          James, regarding 2, yes indeed there are always tensions among various factions within any political party. And the bigger the Big Tent the party is, the more such tensions there will be. But there’s a major difference between tensions and open civil warfare which is what the Chreitien-Martin feud became, to the ruination of all concerned. Regarding 3, you must certainly know the difference between use of party funding and abuse of public funding.

          • James Smith says:

            -As one who’s seen some of Civil War first hand I can’t say all is forgiven, but time has healed some wounds, and working together on some winning efforts, such as Ontario 2014, has also helped. I have seen it in this and other ridings. The root of the problem was people of ability with too high an opinion of themselves with too thin skin, not working for the best interest of the Country, and the party. The LPC suffered, and speaking as a Sophomoric Partizan(TM) IMHO is so has the country. My perception interacting with those with strong connections to both camps is there is a greater sense of “Let’s don’t Eff this up this time!” I saw this at a funeral early in the new year, a number of fences, if not mended, being propped up. Not to go all Dogan on you, but this time of year is a good time for those in leadership & with influential roles in the LPC to reflect upon what’s better; their ego & hurt feelings, or the good of the country.
            – Adscam guys who broke the law were punished; a decade ago. Like LP Hartley said “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there”

  6. wsam says:

    The Liberals need to start practicing political judo. Harper is a terrible leader and his ideas are bad for Canada.

    Keep hammering Harper’s ‘wedge politics’. Not a leader, a bully. Highlight how the Conservatives are copying the Parti Quebecois’ failed strategy of attacking religious minorities, i.e. Muslims. Liberals stick up for the weak. Stephen Harper singles the weak out if it will help him at the ballot box. He is only a leader for hard-core Conservatives, not all Canadians.

    Canada faces no bigger threat than Putin. Harper’s incompetence has made Canada irrelevant. As Conservatives loved to point out when Chretien was PM, Canada’s global influence is a direct reflection of our position in Washington (this isn’t exactly true — but this resonates with Canadians). No relationship is more important to Canada than our relationship with the United States. And Stephen Harper is the most anti-American Prime Minister Canada has ever had. When it comes to Obama and his administration Stephen Harper literally shit the bed. He is person non-grata in Washington. Canada has never been less influential. We have less influence in Washington than Latvia or Poland.

    Forcefully attack Harper’s perceived strengths. Knock him onto his back feet. Force Stephen Harper to explain how in fact he has advanced Canada’s interests and Canadian values. Force neo-conservative Stephen Harper to explain the wisdom of Obama’s present policy vis-à-vis Iraq and fighting ISIL, for example. Obama is in the process of handing Iraq to Iran and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are trumpeting our involvement.

    Is the best way to fight homegrown terrorism really letting Stephen Harper read Canada’s browser history every night before he goes to bed.

    • Scotian says:


      I’ve seen a LOT of advice given for what Trudeau and the Libs need to be doing, and I mean a lot from both those that favour and those that do not. This is possibly the best I’ve seen anywhere. It goes to the heart of the primary problems with Harper, the heart of where the damage for Canada has been, and why Harper for all his much self touted expertise is primarily an expert is making Canada worse. Since it is actually based in reality, especially the wedge politics (we never had wedge politics like Harper’s before, the old regional factionalism was mild stuff compared to what Harper has brought us, and the latest dog-whistle politics on the niqab is particularly painful to be hearing from a sitting PM) aspect, having a messenger that attacks that well while having a positive vision of the nation, that is something that could well work.

      The thing Trudeau and the Libs need to be careful of is that they do not try to run too positive a campaign, yet not too negative a campaign. It will not be an easy balance to maintain, especially with both CPC and NDP doing all they can to knock Trudeau and the Libs off balance, but if they can manage it, and they follow your basic strategic advice, I think they have a real chance this time out. For at the moment as Kinsella is noting they are flagging. Now, at least part of that is the relentless security messaging from Harper combined with real world events over the last four months, and we know the economy is not so good at that will eventually return to prominence as an issue as well, but only a fool would think that currently things are rosy for Trudeau and the Libs. Although an even greater fool would think they are looking good for the Mulcair NDP, yet we see those around too, but then politics is a magnet for those that dream and are fools, whatever their flavour of political thought.

      Seriously, really good advice there.

    • wsam says:

      Prove I am wrong.

      • Lance says:

        Naw. You make a contention, you prove that YOU are right. Thats the way it works. So do it, prove your assertion. You don’t get to try and make other people do YOUR homework.

    • Scotian says:

      In practical terms though he is not wrong. The relationship between Harper and Obama has gotten increasingly toxic, especially once Harper decided to try and interfere with Obama’s re-election in 2012. At this point Canada’s sway in Washington, and especially at the WH is all but nonexistent. It is as unhealthy and disconnected a relationship as it has been in many decades. So his characterization is hardly the whackjobbery you seem to want to call it.

      • Pedro says:

        Probably a good thing for Canada not to be tied to what goes for a foreign policy at the White House. Yikes, the US State Department is putting out an Elmer the Safety Elephant type program to help thwart homegrown radical terrorists! Actually, I thought PM Chretien was wise to use “strategic patience” during Bush’s administration but the same strategy for the US now, a major world power is laughable if it weren’t so dangerous!

    • Ray says:

      “Canada has never been less influential”


      Cover of Time Magazine, May 26, 2003: “Would anyone notice if Canada disappeared?”

      Your tune is getting old, Wsam…like the above-mentioned article.

  7. Darren says:

    The 1993 comparison works better if you put Justin Trudeau in the Kim Campbell role with Harper as Jean Chretien.

    Trudeau/Campbell: Poor choice for leader, but young, fresh and pretty

    Trudeau/Campbell: Prone to saying stupid stuff — I actually admire China; Elections are not a time for serious discussions

    Trudeau/Campbell: Hapless campaign staff with poor political judgement yet vast self regard — Team Trudeau; John Tory

    Harper/Chretien: Very smart political operators who play to win

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      No, no, it’s apples and oranges — Chrétien was untested in the top job in 1993. People voted for change and he was it. As opposed to nine years in office and the Harper accumulated baggage.

      Not nearly the same playing field.

  8. wsam says:

    Duffy on trail.
    Harper on the stand.
    Economic disaster in Conservative Alberta.
    Tory times are tough times.
    Overreach by Security Services.

    • Lance says:

      Alphonse Galliano, David Dingwall, and others, too……so what?
      Chretien was on the stand, too….again, so what?
      Economic disaster in decade long Liberal-run Ontario
      Tory times are tough times because the rationale for people doing so was/is they believe(d) Tories are better at handling those tough times (economy, security)
      Canadians are supporting increased security; no ovverreach and in fact, the contrary

      • wsam says:

        By the time Chretien was put on the stand the Conservatives were running against Paul Martin. In some ways the Conservatives still ran against Chretien but the Prime Minister they ran against was Paul Martin.

        The Tories ran a change campaign.

        Liberals need to make the case that our economic problems are the result of failed Tory ideas. The Liberals under Chretien and Paul Martin put Canada back on its feet. Canada gained respect as global problem solver and a responsible international citizen. Stephen Harper squandered our surplus in wasteful tax cuts. He thumbed his nose at the UN.

        Stephen Harper’s big idea was to label Canada an energy superpower, forgetting Saudi Arabia sets the global oil price, not Canada. Stephen Harper’s ideal future is for Canada to be Alberta, a boom and bust economy which refuses to save for the future, where the big decisions are made in Houston or Washington DC.

        • Lance says:

          When we remember that Paul Martin was touted as an undeniable (and enviable) lynch-pin to those years of unprecedented Liberal success, it can be concluded that they were running against one and both; he AND Chretien – the Liberal record, for good and/or ill.

          The Tories did indeed run a “change campaign; that was 2006, ancient history. However, the Tories will running a “stay the course campaign”. They can win with that. Only someone willfully blind says they cannot possibly do so.

          What “global problems” did they “solve”? Rwanda? “Squandered our surplus?” The NDP and the Liberals wanted to spend MORE on stimulus than the Tories already had. If what Harper did was “squander”, what would THAT have been?

          The Liberals need to do more than “make a case” that merely lays blame for what they contend. They need to say what they are going to do and why it will work. Have we heard of any? Ideas or policies I mean? And if by “putting us back on our feet” you mean raiding EI and massive downloading on the provinces, well then, I guess you have a winner, LOL

  9. wsam says:

    Trudeau’s team has positioned him as the anti-Harper. Why? Ex-Obama advisor Axelrod. According to him, (and he’s won a few elections and lost some as well), elections are about change. Voters gravitate to the candidate who most personifies that change, who least resembles the leader of the status quo (helps if the incumbent is stepping down).

    Harper’s problem against Paul Martin was that Stephen Harper had spent years honing a Paul Martin-esque public image. Stephen Harper’s media persona was crafted to run against Chrétien. He provided a clear contrast to Chrétien. Paul Martin not so much.

    The election to think about is one that never happened. 2006. Chrétien versus Harper.

    Trudeau’s team have to convince Canadians that change is needed and necessary. Failed Leadership. Failed Ideas. Public Corruption.

    Harper has to either convince Canadians that everything is fine. Or that change is too dangerous. The status quo is preferable.

  10. Billy Boy says:

    You’re right. Mulcair is no Layton. Layton was polling at around 15% going into 2011 campaign. Mulcair may well be 10 points higher than that going into next campaign.

    • James Smith says:

      5% higher than today?!!
      I maybe a Sophomoric Partizan(TM) who’s looking at all things GRIT through Rose coloured glasses but I don’t think that comment is anywhere near rational.
      Sorry but Mr M is headed for Audrey McLaughlin land

      • Billy Boy says:

        Technically 4 points higher than today, but the point is the NDP will be going into the next campaign in far better shape than it went into the 2011 campaign.

        I liked and admired Jack Layton, but it would be a mistake to see the breakthrough in QC as solely the result of Layton magic. It was years in the making; it was strategic, it was the fruit of a lot of hard work on the ground, and likely began with Mulcair’s victory itself.

        I like and admire Tom Mulcair. I like the direction he’s taking the party (unlike the ONDP for instance). The NDP (and perhaps the GPC) is only truly progressive voting option. Period.

  11. wsam says:


    Thanks. I agree though that this will not be easy.

    It is in fact dangerous.

    I cannot help but think of the Ignatieff campaign. Toward the end of his campaign, Ignetieff seized on ‘Rise Up Canada’ (if I remember correctly) as the best theme to beat Stephen Harper. According to Paul Wells, the slogan/ theme came up spontaneously in a speech and Ignatieff went with it. It appealed to Liberals like me who were/ are appalled at the terrible governance the Conservatives were providing Canada. The Conservatives are still giving us terrible government. They are a Canadian version of the Bush Administration. They share the same set of ideas that animated the neo-conservative, neo-Liberals who clustered around that dim-bulb’s failed government.

    I admit that I still think that if only Canadians would realize this they would turn against the Conservatives.

    But. I also remember what happened in the last election. Biggest loss ever. Fools and dreamers.

    • Elisabeth Lindsay says:

      wsam……I thought “oh no, he didn`t just say that” when Ignatief did the “Rise Up” thing. It was just SO corny and copying the hopey changey thing of Obama.

      It just re-enforced the theme that Canadians are really un-sophisticated dolts that will buy this stuff.

      Ignatief seemed to think that he would be freeing us, ala MLK for pete`s sake.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        No politician is all good or all bad. Those of us who supported Michael saw in the man more qualities than defects. We expected voters to be far more receptive. But frankly, actual voters were more comfortable with and liked Stephen better — much to my amazement.

        That was one hell of a surprise so we crashed and burned.

  12. Robin says:

    “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ― Benjamin Franklin.

  13. davie says:

    Just yesterday chatting federal election with a few other people here in Van Isle Land. Most he conversation was on assorted issues, but then we came to strategic voting and our first past the post system. We talked about our system as a kind USA style primary that elects the votes that will sustain a pmo that will run the country.
    We mostly liked a couple of local Green candidates because of issues like climate, ocean integrity, economics, calling bs on the terrorist shrillness…we somewhat liked local NDP for similar reasons, and outside possibility of replacing the Conservatives, or getting in a minority…we did not care for local Liberals, except as a possibility of replacing the present clutch in power.
    Then polls came into the conversation, and I mulled over how much polls, whether true or false, accurate or not, had become a big issue in our voting in this country.

    Almost a couple of dozen years ago, during a provincial election campaign here in British Columbia, a tv news outlet that covered the province, headlined its main evening news with some poll numbers. It was just a day or so before the election. Most people figure that the poll story affected voting patterns in the election.
    Days after the election, the news came out that the poll was faulty. It didn’t matter by then. People had been fooled. That poll result just might have been the issue that most affected the election outcome.

  14. Malcolm Jolley says:

    If I was going to pick an analogous election, it would be 1972 with Harper borrowing PET’s line about “The Nation Is Strong” and a very close result in the end, and with Ontario (instead of Quebec for PET) giving the CPC a slight plurality of seats.

  15. Niall says:

    Hey WK,

    I think that you are right when you say ‘Campaigns Matter’.
    It will be then that the vast risk that the Lieberal Party of Laurentia took with J-Tru will either (heh) pay-off big time or collapse in utter ignominy.

    While I hope and pray for the latter, I’m also struck by the situation that the LPL finds themselves in, about which is best summed up by the German word ‘fremdschamen’ (which is the shame you feel for another who is unable to feel, or is unaware of the appropriateness of feeling shame themselves in a given circumstance). cf.: Justine True-Dope, and his “Wise Men” for the sad desperate neediness of their situation.

    What I believe will happen is that Justine, a deeply unserious individual, who has not even been tested in any real matter of import, least of all in a national political fight against some really hard and serious CPC people, will fold under the heretofore never experienced pressure of the campaign warfare. There are few people that I would put less trust in to know what is the ‘right thing to do’ in the heat of battle than the former Trustfundie, Dilettante, Katimavik councilor, Snowboarder, and High-School substitute drama teacher that is our Prime Minister in waiting.

    I have known some very substantial men in my life and sorry, JT isn’t (and may never be) one. It may be genetics, or it may just be that the parent’s talent skips over the child, or even that (as the Chinese say) poverty to poverty in four (?) generations) but whatever the cause I think that Lieberals will find to their eternal regret that Justine was the worst of all possible choices that they could have made:

    “Stir not the bitterness in the cup that I mixed for myself,’ said Denethor, Steward of Gondor. ‘Have I not tasted it now many nights upon my tongue, foreboding that worse lay in the dregs?”


    Yours very truly,

    Niall Andrew Mackintosh
    Philosophy 2015
    University of Winnipeg

    • Tony S says:

      Dear Mr. Kinsella,
      I am at least as far to the right as you are to the left, probably a lot further.
      Nonetheless, your site is my first stop every morning because I can look forward to thoughtful debate.
      However, when I read posts which include silly names for any of the leaders, or derogatory comments about other posters’ intelligence, I believe that it diminishes the quality of this website.
      I would appeal to the participants better judgement to keep this a site worth visiting.

  16. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Wrong, again!


    I would hazard that about 8 in 10 (but probably more) Canadians rolled their eyes in utter disbelief (yet again) when a judge ruled that one does not have to show their face at the very moment of swearing allegiance to their new country.

    Telling 8 in 10 Canadians that they’re wrong…again…is pretty risky, if not downright foolish, politics.

  17. Robin says:

    “It is preferable to be exposed to the dangers attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” – Thomas Jefferson

  18. MississaugaPeter says:

    All I see is that the LIB + NDP = no HARPER.

    And if HARPER goes up to 7%, he hits the 39% mark he got in 2011, and it is all over. With less than 4 in 10 actual voters, another solid majority.

    What is Trudeau’s response when Muclair asks him about proportional representation at the debates?

  19. Peter says:

    I’ve been staring at that graph for several hours trying to figure out what it means, and I think I’ve finally got it. Climate change is a fact!

    • Africon says:

      LOL Peter, methinks you need a good cup of Venezuelan coffee.

      Warren in your back of the envelope prognostications by you and 3 other political geniuses a few days ago, two sets of votes did not total the 335 seats being guessed at, not even close.
      You, to your credit was the only one who did.
      The others lack of basic mathematical skills should seek other employment.

  20. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    FACT: 9 years of Stephen Harper, since January 23, 2006.

    Are you ready for 4 to 5 more years?

  21. Mike Bluth says:

    It seems to me that the 2000 is a better analogy than 1993.

    A PM that was loved by some, respected by some and had some people who ‘held their nose’ and voted for them. That coalition served Chretien well. There was some appetite for change but it wasn’t an overwhelming sense.

    Along came a telegenic, younger leader to challenge the old war horse. At first it was all sunshine and roses for the new guy. Easy enough without the glare of an election. Then the upstart arrived on a jet ski for a presser and everything went downhill from there….

  22. graham watt says:

    Reflection time:

    Darn, I even wish we had progressive conservatives again instead of these paranoid, fear-mongering jackasses from (politically speaking) another planet.

    A place where you fear everyone you don’t know, hate everyone who is different in appearance, custom and spirit. Where the idea of the world is of a place of danger, which must be crushed by power,
    and state survival is only possible by restricting the inhabitants so that any differences may be erased. The power that accomplishes these conditions requires energy, and this energy is simply fear,
    a psychological mineral that can be mined from every individual who is easily distracted, so that fear may creep into weird reality and become belief.


  23. Kelly says:

    The NDP will win a minority government. Nobody knows Mulcair yet. They will during an election campaign. He is the strongest debater. He’s middle of the road on policy and has experience as a cabinet minister. But more important, the NDP will rally aboriginals to finally come out and vote in large numbers and they will stick it to the Conservatives. The NDP will ask why the housewives of Vancouver will get more from income splitting than single mom’s from the West side of Saskatoon. They will ask why a so called economist is presiding over an economy that is still fragile after nine years in power when our neighbour to the south is growing again. The NDP will ask why Harper bet the farm on oil with no plan B and gutted our economy through Dutch disease. Southern Ontario manufacturing is not recovering. Mulcair will call for a made in Canada defence policy not a made in Washington offense policy. He will call out the chicken hawks who send troops to war with dangerous equipment while cutting support for vets.

    But mostly the NDP will get 2 million low income Canadians — including Aboriginals — to actually come out and vote for the first time and it will rock this country.

    • James Smith says:

      If wishes were fishes our nets would be full.
      Election day 2011 i was pulling the vote. I know many IDENTIFIED LPC VOTERS actually voted CPC, not just by their body language, but because some were acquaintances of mine who later fessed-up they were terrified of an NDP government. Ontario will not vote NDP again for at least a generation.
      If what your hoping for were remotely true, the NDP would not have lost an MP to the provincial Liberals in Sudbury, Olivia Chow would be Toronto’s Mayor (or at least have stayed on as an MP), Ontario would now have an NDP government, and Manitoba would not have had several prominent cabinet ministers who quit in disgust.
      Sorry, but Angry Tom is taking the NDP to Audrey McLaughlin Land.

    • terence quinn says:

      I ama afraid you are forgetting that Mulcair is already a voice in the wilderness who cannot and probably will not gat nay more traction in the run up to Eday. The fight has already been framed as Trudeau vs Harper with a sideshow to see who can inflict the most damage on dippers in Quebec.

    • Kelly says:

      There are things happening below the surface of which many people are unaware. Nobody knew about Idle No More and then WHAM. Nobody new about occupy and then BANG. They will be shocked on election night to find that several million people who have never bothered to vote, who make less than $30,000 a year, were activated. There is awareness among people now that to make change you have to win government and that means voting. Information about poverty is ignored and suppressed. It’s everywhere and it’s real. Conservatives try to suppress that vote. It won’t work this time. In a country with an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba’s — yes, really — change is coming. The housewives of Vancouver won’t know what hit them.

      • davie says:

        NDP federal government in Canada would draw a lot of attention from Washington via their Endowment for Democracy.
        (Of course, that might take pressure off Venezuela, and other of their targets.)

  24. Bill Templeman says:

    At the risk of being dismissed as being hopelessly whimsical and completely out-of-touch, does anyone here think there is a remote chance of some sort of collaboration between the Liberals, NDP and Greens either before or after the election? Or are we non-Conservative voters condemned to march with backs straight and chin-up straight ahead and over the cliff of another Harper victory, albeit a minority gov’t? Throw me a lifeline please….

  25. mike says:

    A 4th bullet should read:

    – The Green Party should close shop and pick a side.

Leave a Reply

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