- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
recceguy said:
Well I live in the GTA and Harper and his henchmen have quit clearly spent an abnormal amount of time and program spending on the large immigrant population in my area.
Kettle black.
Election 2010?
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
Well I live in the GTA and Harper and his henchmen have quit clearly spent an abnormal amount of time and program spending on the large immigrant population in my area.
Kettle black.
- Reaction score
- 3,949
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
It appears, according to Don Martin’s latest column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, that a 2010 election may be a bit more likely because the Tories may find fighting an election against <i><s>Iggy</s> <s>Iffy</s> Icarus</i> and a fractured Liberal Party too tempting to resist:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/07/liberal-woes-begin-to-add-up/
The Tories may well want to strike before the Liberals can find a way to replace <i>Prince Michael</i>.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/07/liberal-woes-begin-to-add-up/
The Tories may well want to strike before the Liberals can find a way to replace <i>Prince Michael</i>.
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
CARP (the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, affiliated with the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons)) does some rolling polls on voter intentions for their age group. It bears remembering that the CARP people are the most reliable voters – report after report shows that older people (>40) vote and younger people (<40) don’t and “old” people (55 – 75) vote most.
This data, from an ongoing poll about pensions is interesting:
If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party’s candidate would you support?
Conservative: 831 Votes 40.5 %
Liberal: 540 Votes 26.3 %
NDP: 181 Votes 8.8 %
Green Party: 81 Votes 3.9 %
Bloc Quebecois: 5 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 14 Votes 0.7 %
UNDECIDED: 401 Votes 19.5 %
Total : 2053 Votes
If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Michael Ignatieff faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?
Conservative: 936 Votes 45.6 %
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green: 710 Votes 34.6 %
Bloc Quebecois: 4 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 49 Votes 2.4 %
UNDECIDED: 354 Votes 17.2 %
Total : 2053 Votes
If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Jack Layton faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?
Conservative: 938 Votes 45.7 %
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green: 657 Votes 32.0 %
Bloc Quebecois : 5 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 77 Votes 3.8 %
UNDECIDED: 376 Votes 18.3 %
Total : 2053 Votes
Notwithstanding the poor grammar (the questions should have read ” … for which party’s candidate would you vote?”) it appears that older does equal wiser and if only CARP members could vote Harper’s Conservatives would have a solid majority despite anything and everything the opposition parties might do.
Caution: these polls, being voluntary, are not as accurate as random samples. Just look at the BQ vote; CARP members are, overwhelmingly, Anglo and, therefore, the results really reflect Canada (-).
This data, from an ongoing poll about pensions is interesting:
If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party’s candidate would you support?
Conservative: 831 Votes 40.5 %
Liberal: 540 Votes 26.3 %
NDP: 181 Votes 8.8 %
Green Party: 81 Votes 3.9 %
Bloc Quebecois: 5 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 14 Votes 0.7 %
UNDECIDED: 401 Votes 19.5 %
Total : 2053 Votes
If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Michael Ignatieff faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?
Conservative: 936 Votes 45.6 %
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green: 710 Votes 34.6 %
Bloc Quebecois: 4 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 49 Votes 2.4 %
UNDECIDED: 354 Votes 17.2 %
Total : 2053 Votes
If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Jack Layton faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?
Conservative: 938 Votes 45.7 %
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green: 657 Votes 32.0 %
Bloc Quebecois : 5 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 77 Votes 3.8 %
UNDECIDED: 376 Votes 18.3 %
Total : 2053 Votes
Notwithstanding the poor grammar (the questions should have read ” … for which party’s candidate would you vote?”) it appears that older does equal wiser and if only CARP members could vote Harper’s Conservatives would have a solid majority despite anything and everything the opposition parties might do.
Caution: these polls, being voluntary, are not as accurate as random samples. Just look at the BQ vote; CARP members are, overwhelmingly, Anglo and, therefore, the results really reflect Canada (-).
Jeffrey Simpson, in today's Globe and Mail, apparently is attempting to take some of the heat off the Liberals by creating a threat to Stephen Harper's leadership. The opinion piece is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.
"The media, as is customary, have developed a one-dimensional narrative about Canadian politics around the travails of the Liberal Party, up to and including asking breathlessly if the party can be saved.
Everything is wrong in the Liberal world, especially its leader Michael Ignatieff, about whom barely a good word can be spoken. Internal disarray, policy incoherence, fundraising difficulties, Bob Rae envy. It’s so bad for the Liberals that the absurdity of a merger with the NDP has been raised.
Assume for the sake of argument that this description is valid, that the Liberal Party is in complete chaos. Would it not logically follow, then, that if the Liberals are so down, the Conservatives should be so up? A parallel narrative, then, with the Official Opposition in terrible shape, should have Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives safely in majority government territory.
Instead, the Conservatives are going nowhere. Just as the Liberals seem to be stuck at 27- to 30-per-cent in the polls (for whatever they are worth between elections, especially the unhelpful weekly polls the media seem to love), the Conservatives are caught between 31- and 35-per-cent, well shy of a majority.
The NDP, by the way, is in its usual 15- to 18-per-cent range. Should we not be wondering, if the Liberals are so weak, why the NDP is going nowhere either? The 13- to 18-per-cent range, after all, is where the NDP has been in almost every election since the party’s founding in 1961. Between elections, the NDP sometimes goes above 18 per cent – as in May, 1987, when the party hit an astounding 39 per cent in one poll, only to tumble in the election the next year.
But back to the Conservatives. Under Mr. Harper, this Conservative Party is less popular than the previous iterations of the party during the past four decades. Joe Clark, for example, won the 1979 election with 36 per cent of the vote. Robert Stanfield usually had the Conservatives in the mid- to upper-30s. Brian Mulroney won 50 per cent of the vote in 1984 and was re-elected handsomely four years later.
The only time conservative forces were weaker than today came with the arrival in the 1993 election of the Reform Party (including Mr. Harper), a development that shattered the political right for more than a decade. Today, therefore, the Harper Conservatives are the weakest united right-wing government or party the country has seen in our lifetime.
The Bloc Québécois, of course, skews everything, taking about a 10-per-cent share of the national vote away from federalist parties. The Conservatives tried everything to woo Quebec, but their affections went unrequited to such an extent that the party has now all but given up on improving its standing there.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the Conservatives do: They cannot win or get into majority government territory. They have spent money, before and since the recession, as no self-respecting right-wing party would ever have dared. They have tried to buy political favour (remember the GST cut, the tax credits for itsy-bitsy things, the “fiscal imbalance”), and backed that spending with enormous public advertising.
They have raised tens of millions of dollars to demonize their opponents and praise their own accomplishments. They jettisoned their own law on fixed election dates and called a premature election, thinking a majority government beckoned. They have controlled messages and gagged dissidents as no previous government has done. In short, they have enjoyed all the advantages of incumbency, avoided scandals (the Guergis/Jaffer business is more a joke than a scandal), yet have fallen short in three elections of a majority – and appear unable to win one the next time.
Which leads to another narrative about leadership: How many times will the Conservatives allow Stephen Harper to fail to win a majority government? If he only wins a minority next time, that would make four “victories” that could also be interpreted as failures – especially, as we keep hearing daily – against a hopeless, dispirited Liberal opposition.
Should we therefore not develop a parallel narrative to the Ignatieff death watch: the Harper death watch? Yes, he is secure for the moment, but his caucus fears, rather than loves him. It would not take more than a fourth failure to win a majority for him, or the party, to say this isn’t working."
"The media, as is customary, have developed a one-dimensional narrative about Canadian politics around the travails of the Liberal Party, up to and including asking breathlessly if the party can be saved.
Everything is wrong in the Liberal world, especially its leader Michael Ignatieff, about whom barely a good word can be spoken. Internal disarray, policy incoherence, fundraising difficulties, Bob Rae envy. It’s so bad for the Liberals that the absurdity of a merger with the NDP has been raised.
Assume for the sake of argument that this description is valid, that the Liberal Party is in complete chaos. Would it not logically follow, then, that if the Liberals are so down, the Conservatives should be so up? A parallel narrative, then, with the Official Opposition in terrible shape, should have Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives safely in majority government territory.
Instead, the Conservatives are going nowhere. Just as the Liberals seem to be stuck at 27- to 30-per-cent in the polls (for whatever they are worth between elections, especially the unhelpful weekly polls the media seem to love), the Conservatives are caught between 31- and 35-per-cent, well shy of a majority.
The NDP, by the way, is in its usual 15- to 18-per-cent range. Should we not be wondering, if the Liberals are so weak, why the NDP is going nowhere either? The 13- to 18-per-cent range, after all, is where the NDP has been in almost every election since the party’s founding in 1961. Between elections, the NDP sometimes goes above 18 per cent – as in May, 1987, when the party hit an astounding 39 per cent in one poll, only to tumble in the election the next year.
But back to the Conservatives. Under Mr. Harper, this Conservative Party is less popular than the previous iterations of the party during the past four decades. Joe Clark, for example, won the 1979 election with 36 per cent of the vote. Robert Stanfield usually had the Conservatives in the mid- to upper-30s. Brian Mulroney won 50 per cent of the vote in 1984 and was re-elected handsomely four years later.
The only time conservative forces were weaker than today came with the arrival in the 1993 election of the Reform Party (including Mr. Harper), a development that shattered the political right for more than a decade. Today, therefore, the Harper Conservatives are the weakest united right-wing government or party the country has seen in our lifetime.
The Bloc Québécois, of course, skews everything, taking about a 10-per-cent share of the national vote away from federalist parties. The Conservatives tried everything to woo Quebec, but their affections went unrequited to such an extent that the party has now all but given up on improving its standing there.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the Conservatives do: They cannot win or get into majority government territory. They have spent money, before and since the recession, as no self-respecting right-wing party would ever have dared. They have tried to buy political favour (remember the GST cut, the tax credits for itsy-bitsy things, the “fiscal imbalance”), and backed that spending with enormous public advertising.
They have raised tens of millions of dollars to demonize their opponents and praise their own accomplishments. They jettisoned their own law on fixed election dates and called a premature election, thinking a majority government beckoned. They have controlled messages and gagged dissidents as no previous government has done. In short, they have enjoyed all the advantages of incumbency, avoided scandals (the Guergis/Jaffer business is more a joke than a scandal), yet have fallen short in three elections of a majority – and appear unable to win one the next time.
Which leads to another narrative about leadership: How many times will the Conservatives allow Stephen Harper to fail to win a majority government? If he only wins a minority next time, that would make four “victories” that could also be interpreted as failures – especially, as we keep hearing daily – against a hopeless, dispirited Liberal opposition.
Should we therefore not develop a parallel narrative to the Ignatieff death watch: the Harper death watch? Yes, he is secure for the moment, but his caucus fears, rather than loves him. It would not take more than a fourth failure to win a majority for him, or the party, to say this isn’t working."
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
It is, generally, custom, including in the Liberal Party of Toronto, to allow a leader to fight one election before he is toppled; I expect that courtesy to be extended to Iggy Iffy Icarus, too.
The Conservatives must not write off Prince Michael as a total ineffective; I recall that the Ontario PCs dined out on Dalton McWhimpy for quite some time but, last time I checked, Dalton McGuinty was still premier of Canada's largest province and the Tories are still out in the cold. Despite the fact that McGuinty has offered up bad policy after bad policy - the HST is good policy so it is the exception that proves the rule - he is out politicking the PCs.
I cannot imagine that there are not two or three potential revolts in the Conservative caucus, right now. Harper needs to win a majority or accept the fact that he, himself, is the problem and make way for someone who can win.
The Conservatives must not write off Prince Michael as a total ineffective; I recall that the Ontario PCs dined out on Dalton McWhimpy for quite some time but, last time I checked, Dalton McGuinty was still premier of Canada's largest province and the Tories are still out in the cold. Despite the fact that McGuinty has offered up bad policy after bad policy - the HST is good policy so it is the exception that proves the rule - he is out politicking the PCs.
I cannot imagine that there are not two or three potential revolts in the Conservative caucus, right now. Harper needs to win a majority or accept the fact that he, himself, is the problem and make way for someone who can win.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
This might put paid to any notions of an election this year. The one thing that swept the Liberals out of office was ADSCAM, and the mess that it left behind will continue to plague the Liberals for years to come:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-lays-out-first-allegations-of-bribery-in-liberal-sponsorship-scandal/article1605650/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-lays-out-first-allegations-of-bribery-in-liberal-sponsorship-scandal/article1605650/
- Reaction score
- 3,949
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 26,429
- Points
- 1,090
The Liberal's main problem, to my eyes, is that they have done nothing to explain why their technocratic, emotionless academic leader would be better that the Conservative's technocratic, emotionless academic leader - and Canadians, being of a pragmatic bent, are more inclined to stick with what they know.
That being said, I suspect the current PM has peaked in terms of popularity and ability to enlarge his hold on the House of Commons; he may have the promised land in sight, but I do not think he will ever inhabit it.
Another hung Parliament could lead to the interesting spectacle of both major parties deposing their leaders more-or-less simultaneously... which, for those of us for who Parliament is a spectator sport, promisees to be every bit as exciting the World Cup.
That being said, I suspect the current PM has peaked in terms of popularity and ability to enlarge his hold on the House of Commons; he may have the promised land in sight, but I do not think he will ever inhabit it.
Another hung Parliament could lead to the interesting spectacle of both major parties deposing their leaders more-or-less simultaneously... which, for those of us for who Parliament is a spectator sport, promisees to be every bit as exciting the World Cup.
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
Readers will know that I usually have little good to say about the Good Grey Globe's Lawrence Martin's prognostications, but, now and again, he gets its right – especially when he stays in his lane, as he does in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-in-this-corner-the-great-grit-slayer/article1662057/
There is no doubt that the Liberals have suffered, badly, in the political realm while Harper has led the Conservatives; equally there is no doubt that Harper has, as Abba Eban famously said of the Palestinians, “never missed an opportunity to miss and opportunity” when the choice was between “good,” “constructive” (for the Conservative) policies and “destructive” (for both the Liberals and Conservatives) ones. Whether there is a correlation is an open question, but it makes some sense.
Perhaps Harper is laying the foundation for subsequent Conservative PMs to lead “Canada's natural governing party.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-in-this-corner-the-great-grit-slayer/article1662057/
There is no doubt that the Liberals have suffered, badly, in the political realm while Harper has led the Conservatives; equally there is no doubt that Harper has, as Abba Eban famously said of the Palestinians, “never missed an opportunity to miss and opportunity” when the choice was between “good,” “constructive” (for the Conservative) policies and “destructive” (for both the Liberals and Conservatives) ones. Whether there is a correlation is an open question, but it makes some sense.
Perhaps Harper is laying the foundation for subsequent Conservative PMs to lead “Canada's natural governing party.”
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
I think he may be putting too much weight on the census scandal and todays polling numbers. Both of these are occurring during the dog days of summer. If anyone is actually paying attention, I doubt that they will even allow either to be a consideration when the parties return and we start, in earnest, to seriously consider an election.
As far as 'Michael Ignatieff showing signs of life on his grand national bus tour', goes, I call that a crock. I can't find any indication that anyone, the media included, has the slightest inclination to pay this jaunt any attention whatsoever.
As for Martin himself, he never misses an opportunity to roger the incompetents within his party, providing he can somehow make it Harper's fault.
As far as 'Michael Ignatieff showing signs of life on his grand national bus tour', goes, I call that a crock. I can't find any indication that anyone, the media included, has the slightest inclination to pay this jaunt any attention whatsoever.
As for Martin himself, he never misses an opportunity to roger the incompetents within his party, providing he can somehow make it Harper's fault.
Tories rebound after mid-summer slump, hold six-point lead: poll
By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press 10/08/2010
Article Link
OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's Conservatives have rebounded from a brief mid-summer slump, taking a six-point lead over the Liberals, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey puts Tory support at 34 per cent, with the Liberals at 28, the NDP at 15, and the Greens at 12.
Recent polls suggested the Tories had slipped below 30 per cent support and into a statistical tie with the Liberals.
Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg said the latest recovery is in keeping with the pattern over the past few years, with the Tories quickly recovering from periodic setbacks.
"What you see is an ongoing resilience in the Conservative support base," he said. "If they get a little period of relative quiet, their vote comes back quite quickly whereas the Liberals have a very, very hard time getting any sustained traction."
The poll also suggests some modest improvement for the Liberals, who had been hovering around 25 per cent earlier in the summer. Gregg said they've picked themselves up off the mat in British Columbia and are more competitive in vote-rich Ontario.
Gregg said the latest numbers give no inducement to either the Conservatives or Liberals to force an election any time soon.
The poll suggests an election today would produce a third consecutive Conservative minority government, albeit a weaker one with the Tories wiped out in Quebec and likely losing some seats in Ontario as well.
Gregg said the poll suggests there's been little change in overall voting behaviour since 2005.
"Neither of these major political parties have given Canadians sufficient reason to either vote for them or, quite frankly, to vote against them," he said.
"There's continuing pockets of resistance to the two major parties that they just can't seem to break through."
The poll put the Bloc Quebecois comfortably ahead in Quebec at 39 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25 per cent. The Tories trailed far behind at 14 per cent, just ahead of the NDP at 12 and the Greens at seven.
The Tories and Liberals were neck and neck in Ontario, with 35 and 34 per cent support respectively. The NDP were at 16 per cent and the Greens at 12.
The Liberals held a slight lead in Atlantic Canada, with 38 per cent to the Tories' 34, the NDP's 20 and the Greens' seven per cent.
As usual, the Tories dominated western Canada. In B.C., they were 15 points ahead with 37 per cent, compared to the Liberals' 22. The NDP and Greens were tied at 20 per cent.
In Manitoba-Saskatchewan, the Tories stood at 49 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at 11.
In Prime Minister Harper's Alberta stronghold, the Tories stood at 61 per cent — almost double the support of all the other parties combined. The Greens were at 14 per cent, the Liberals at 13 and the NDP at eight.
By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press 10/08/2010
Article Link
OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's Conservatives have rebounded from a brief mid-summer slump, taking a six-point lead over the Liberals, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey puts Tory support at 34 per cent, with the Liberals at 28, the NDP at 15, and the Greens at 12.
Recent polls suggested the Tories had slipped below 30 per cent support and into a statistical tie with the Liberals.
Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg said the latest recovery is in keeping with the pattern over the past few years, with the Tories quickly recovering from periodic setbacks.
"What you see is an ongoing resilience in the Conservative support base," he said. "If they get a little period of relative quiet, their vote comes back quite quickly whereas the Liberals have a very, very hard time getting any sustained traction."
The poll also suggests some modest improvement for the Liberals, who had been hovering around 25 per cent earlier in the summer. Gregg said they've picked themselves up off the mat in British Columbia and are more competitive in vote-rich Ontario.
Gregg said the latest numbers give no inducement to either the Conservatives or Liberals to force an election any time soon.
The poll suggests an election today would produce a third consecutive Conservative minority government, albeit a weaker one with the Tories wiped out in Quebec and likely losing some seats in Ontario as well.
Gregg said the poll suggests there's been little change in overall voting behaviour since 2005.
"Neither of these major political parties have given Canadians sufficient reason to either vote for them or, quite frankly, to vote against them," he said.
"There's continuing pockets of resistance to the two major parties that they just can't seem to break through."
The poll put the Bloc Quebecois comfortably ahead in Quebec at 39 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25 per cent. The Tories trailed far behind at 14 per cent, just ahead of the NDP at 12 and the Greens at seven.
The Tories and Liberals were neck and neck in Ontario, with 35 and 34 per cent support respectively. The NDP were at 16 per cent and the Greens at 12.
The Liberals held a slight lead in Atlantic Canada, with 38 per cent to the Tories' 34, the NDP's 20 and the Greens' seven per cent.
As usual, the Tories dominated western Canada. In B.C., they were 15 points ahead with 37 per cent, compared to the Liberals' 22. The NDP and Greens were tied at 20 per cent.
In Manitoba-Saskatchewan, the Tories stood at 49 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at 11.
In Prime Minister Harper's Alberta stronghold, the Tories stood at 61 per cent — almost double the support of all the other parties combined. The Greens were at 14 per cent, the Liberals at 13 and the NDP at eight.
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
So, NDP 16% (Windsor, St Thomas & Bramelea) Liberals 34 & Greens 12 (GTA) CPC 35 (the rest of Ontario) 8)
j/k Don't get cranky :blotto:
- Reaction score
- 3,949
- Points
- 1,260
....via the Toronto Star - highlights mine:
So that's who he seems to think is the electorate's other choice in the coming campaign, whenever it comes.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Regardless of what Jack, Giles or Iggy say or do, they have left that impression deep in the minds of the Canadian public (and this includes the severely normal, who are generally uninterested in politics), so they really only have themselves to blame.
Some real game changers would include a "coalition of the winners", where Blue Liberals cross the ailse and caucus with the CPC, or the demographic shift of 2014, where there will finally be enough seats outside of Quebec to allow a majority government (of ay sort) to be formed without reference to Quebec. A NDP/Liberal merger where the Orange Liberals go over to Jack Layton is a lesser possibility, unless the caucus is tired of having empty suits as leaders. This is more natural perhaps than the "coalition of the winners", since the Liberal party has been shifting ever farther Left since Paul Martin became PM, and many high ranking Liberals have come over from the NDP in the past. Maybe Bob Rae's real goal is the bring the Left wing of the liberal party home with him...
Some real game changers would include a "coalition of the winners", where Blue Liberals cross the ailse and caucus with the CPC, or the demographic shift of 2014, where there will finally be enough seats outside of Quebec to allow a majority government (of ay sort) to be formed without reference to Quebec. A NDP/Liberal merger where the Orange Liberals go over to Jack Layton is a lesser possibility, unless the caucus is tired of having empty suits as leaders. This is more natural perhaps than the "coalition of the winners", since the Liberal party has been shifting ever farther Left since Paul Martin became PM, and many high ranking Liberals have come over from the NDP in the past. Maybe Bob Rae's real goal is the bring the Left wing of the liberal party home with him...
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
Although I regard Tom Kent as one of the principle architects of the decline (and at least stumble of not, yet, fall) of Canada (see: Kingston Conference, 1960) I agree with what he says in this piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/paying-for-politics-and-putting-power-where-it-should-be/article1685363/
First: I agree with Kent that a 2011 election is more likely than one in 2010.
Second: I am not unalterably opposed to ALL public financing of political parties but the formula for whatever funding is to be provided should be much, much less generous than today. (Today parties get $1.75 per vote; I think $0.05 per vote, multiplied by the number of provinces and territories in which the party gets, say, 7.5% of the vote, which would produce a maximum of $0.65 per vote, would be more than generous and would, as any public financing scheme should, actively penalize e.g. the Bloc Québecois for being a provincial party in a national legislature.) ($0.65 per vote would have netted the Liberals about $2.3 Million; $0.05 would have netted the BQ nearly $69,000 rather than the $2.4 Million they actually got.)
Third: I think $2,500.00± is a fair personal donation limit – offset by a sliding scale of tax deductibility: something generous like 85% of the first $750.00, 70% of the next $750 and 50% of the remaining $1,000.00 - aiming to reward the small donor. I would favour an absolute prohibition on any donations of money or services from any other entity like a corporation, firm, union, church or any other group; individual donations by individual Canadian citizens only should be the rule.
Finally: Prime Minister Harper should make election financing reform a major platform plank; it will appeal to many (most?) Canadians and it is the right thing to do.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/paying-for-politics-and-putting-power-where-it-should-be/article1685363/
First: I agree with Kent that a 2011 election is more likely than one in 2010.
Second: I am not unalterably opposed to ALL public financing of political parties but the formula for whatever funding is to be provided should be much, much less generous than today. (Today parties get $1.75 per vote; I think $0.05 per vote, multiplied by the number of provinces and territories in which the party gets, say, 7.5% of the vote, which would produce a maximum of $0.65 per vote, would be more than generous and would, as any public financing scheme should, actively penalize e.g. the Bloc Québecois for being a provincial party in a national legislature.) ($0.65 per vote would have netted the Liberals about $2.3 Million; $0.05 would have netted the BQ nearly $69,000 rather than the $2.4 Million they actually got.)
Third: I think $2,500.00± is a fair personal donation limit – offset by a sliding scale of tax deductibility: something generous like 85% of the first $750.00, 70% of the next $750 and 50% of the remaining $1,000.00 - aiming to reward the small donor. I would favour an absolute prohibition on any donations of money or services from any other entity like a corporation, firm, union, church or any other group; individual donations by individual Canadian citizens only should be the rule.
Finally: Prime Minister Harper should make election financing reform a major platform plank; it will appeal to many (most?) Canadians and it is the right thing to do.
- Reaction score
- 1,271
- Points
- 1,160
My position is no public financing, but your proposal would be acceptable. Of course, Quebec will be upset, but not as upset as the addition of 30 new seats in parliament will be. Too bad those seats will more than likely be after the next election.
- Reaction score
- 1,271
- Points
- 1,160
In West Kelowna, I picked up a summer special of home delivery of the G & M @ $30 per month.
It seems the papers direction is to constantly take any and all shots at the PM and the government. Even the Health Editor (or whatever she is called) the other day.
The following is a column on tonight's TV, the program "So You Think You Can Dance Canada". What does this to do with an election? Read on.
These people who write for the G & M need to get out more.
In the Official Canada, being nimble is being naughty. So You Think You Can Dance Canada shows us the flipside
John Doyle
Globe and Mail Update
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010 12:00AM EDT
I come back with news – there are only two Canada’s. Coming to grips with this crazy place has nothing to do with multiple regions and this coast or that coast. There’s the Official Canada and the Real Canada. That’s it. Stick with me here.
First, this: Barack Obama is all over TV tonight. A Presidential Address at 8 p.m. on multiple U.S. channels, about Iraq, Afghanistan and what happens next. You can say a lot about Obma, and people do, but you can never say he’s hiding. Guy shows up, speaks directly to the camera and gets on with it. Can’t imagine him on TV, posturing on an ice floe, pretending to be on-guard for the free world and stuff. Not like some people.
Last week, watching TV at home as a civilian, was vastly entertaining. On occasion, without a drop of drink taken, I was in stitches. It seemed that every time I turned on the darn machine, there was Our Glorious Leader, up North. OGL waved at the people of the North. He made speeches for the TV cameras, and carefully positioned himself to ensure that there was a navy ship behind him and some military plane above him. The alleged charisma of OGL, a grey-haired, bespectacled, potbellied, middle-aged career economist, was meant to be enhanced by the setting and the props. And fair enough. Military boats, planes and waving at the people for the TV cameras. It’s a Glorious Leader thing, wherever the grass grows.
Next thing I knew, there was real news out of this stunt. OGL got jiggy with the locals. Or, at least, he was seen on TV waving his arms slightly and suggesting a faint movement of the hips, while others danced around him. And that’s not all – later he got into an ATV, strapped on a helmet and took the vehicle for a spin along the airport tarmac. Unscheduled moment, people. Thus he moved and he danced, sort of. While the sound of an amazed and admiring country gasping in disbelief echoed across the land, I tuned in to So You Think You Can Dance Canada.
Around about then, it struck me – there are currently two Canada’s existing side-by-side. Official Canada and Real Canada. You can see both on TV most nights of the week.
In the Official Canada, obviously embodied in Our Glorious Leader, one gets the impression that fun is rare, frowned upon, free movement of the body practically gets you arrested and being nimble is being naughty. Bounding and romping is pretty much banned and grinding your hips could land you in the hoosegow. The best things in life are discipline and routine. And going to Tim’s for a double-double. There’s no time for the art and pleasure of dance in this Canada.
In a country that considers it a newsworthy revelation that the Leader might occasionally loosen up and be having a little fun, it is downright bizarre to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada (CTV, 8:30 P.M.). On the show, dancing and movement are life itself. Oh sure, it’s camp and occasionally outrageous, but it embodies joy and it’s dead sexy. Some of the routines would make you blush, such is the unrestrained celebration of sensuality and the beauty of movement – all those sensations and emotions that cannot be expressed in words, but only in movement. That’s the Real Canada, I think. The Canada not so concerned with words and slogans and talking points.
Ironically, mind you, the joy and beauty of dance only arrive after rigorous discipline and routine. Hard work – the events not seen on TV – is what makes it look glorious. And that includes the sexy tango and the salsa routines.
We’re in a sad state when the sight of the Leader loosening up a little is major news. The leader needs to visit So You Think You Can Dance Canada and then the two Canada’s can meet, as they must. On TV. Don’t count on it though.
It seems the papers direction is to constantly take any and all shots at the PM and the government. Even the Health Editor (or whatever she is called) the other day.
The following is a column on tonight's TV, the program "So You Think You Can Dance Canada". What does this to do with an election? Read on.
These people who write for the G & M need to get out more.
In the Official Canada, being nimble is being naughty. So You Think You Can Dance Canada shows us the flipside
John Doyle
Globe and Mail Update
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010 12:00AM EDT
I come back with news – there are only two Canada’s. Coming to grips with this crazy place has nothing to do with multiple regions and this coast or that coast. There’s the Official Canada and the Real Canada. That’s it. Stick with me here.
First, this: Barack Obama is all over TV tonight. A Presidential Address at 8 p.m. on multiple U.S. channels, about Iraq, Afghanistan and what happens next. You can say a lot about Obma, and people do, but you can never say he’s hiding. Guy shows up, speaks directly to the camera and gets on with it. Can’t imagine him on TV, posturing on an ice floe, pretending to be on-guard for the free world and stuff. Not like some people.
Last week, watching TV at home as a civilian, was vastly entertaining. On occasion, without a drop of drink taken, I was in stitches. It seemed that every time I turned on the darn machine, there was Our Glorious Leader, up North. OGL waved at the people of the North. He made speeches for the TV cameras, and carefully positioned himself to ensure that there was a navy ship behind him and some military plane above him. The alleged charisma of OGL, a grey-haired, bespectacled, potbellied, middle-aged career economist, was meant to be enhanced by the setting and the props. And fair enough. Military boats, planes and waving at the people for the TV cameras. It’s a Glorious Leader thing, wherever the grass grows.
Next thing I knew, there was real news out of this stunt. OGL got jiggy with the locals. Or, at least, he was seen on TV waving his arms slightly and suggesting a faint movement of the hips, while others danced around him. And that’s not all – later he got into an ATV, strapped on a helmet and took the vehicle for a spin along the airport tarmac. Unscheduled moment, people. Thus he moved and he danced, sort of. While the sound of an amazed and admiring country gasping in disbelief echoed across the land, I tuned in to So You Think You Can Dance Canada.
Around about then, it struck me – there are currently two Canada’s existing side-by-side. Official Canada and Real Canada. You can see both on TV most nights of the week.
In the Official Canada, obviously embodied in Our Glorious Leader, one gets the impression that fun is rare, frowned upon, free movement of the body practically gets you arrested and being nimble is being naughty. Bounding and romping is pretty much banned and grinding your hips could land you in the hoosegow. The best things in life are discipline and routine. And going to Tim’s for a double-double. There’s no time for the art and pleasure of dance in this Canada.
In a country that considers it a newsworthy revelation that the Leader might occasionally loosen up and be having a little fun, it is downright bizarre to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada (CTV, 8:30 P.M.). On the show, dancing and movement are life itself. Oh sure, it’s camp and occasionally outrageous, but it embodies joy and it’s dead sexy. Some of the routines would make you blush, such is the unrestrained celebration of sensuality and the beauty of movement – all those sensations and emotions that cannot be expressed in words, but only in movement. That’s the Real Canada, I think. The Canada not so concerned with words and slogans and talking points.
Ironically, mind you, the joy and beauty of dance only arrive after rigorous discipline and routine. Hard work – the events not seen on TV – is what makes it look glorious. And that includes the sexy tango and the salsa routines.
We’re in a sad state when the sight of the Leader loosening up a little is major news. The leader needs to visit So You Think You Can Dance Canada and then the two Canada’s can meet, as they must. On TV. Don’t count on it though.
