Election 2011

[vonGarvin]

If the conservatives were to get within 2 or three seats of a maority, could they possibly count on a few defections from red tories?

Do you mean blue Liberals?

 

[wannabe SF member]

Yes, my mistake.

 

[a_majoor]

Although skirting on tinfoil hat territory, the list of groups who have attempted to influence the election is very interesting (lots of internal links, follow the main link to the post). AVAAZ in particular is not Canadian at all (being a project of Moveon.org and Res Publica), so I'm sure that Margot Atwood and Maude Barlow will be protesting their involvement and meddling in Canadian affairs...

http://burpnrun.blogspot.com/2011/04/real-co-conspirators-behind-2011-coup.html

The Real Co-Conspirators Behind The 2011 Coup
The following is my view, and my view alone, of this travesty to Canadian democracy.

The common cry from vested interests in this 2011 election is that "It's all about Democracy!". That may be true, but what they aren't telling you is that it isn't about YOUR democracy, or MY democracy. Rather, it's all about THEIR democracy. Specifically, the entitlement of the unions, special interest groups, and piglet-interests at the public teat. Protecting that teat for themselves. At all costs. Including subverting real democracy.

This election's coup has its origins in the 2006 election, if not before, when Paul Martin's Liberals were facing defeat at the hands of the Conservatives. All sorts of special interest groups sprang up, easily typified by the Think Twice Coalition; clink on the link to get an understanding of the breadth of their supporters at that time (it's grown much more since then), and note that it was a part of or sponsored by the "Council of Canadians".

Note the membership of the Canadian Auto Workers, Elizabeth May (then head of Sierra Club Canada, the environmental lobby group), Council of Canadians (Maude Barlow) and others. There were other self-interest lobby groups pumping out their self-serving "messages" during that election. But this will give you an idea of the extent to which special-interest groups were concerned that their access to the public teat might be curtailed if the Harper Conservatives were elected.

But all this "support" for Paul Martin, including his wearing of a CAW leather jacket presented by Buzz Hargrove, was not enough to prevent the Conservatives from being elected. Not to worry; his supporters never went away. They just went underground, schemed some more, and grew their membership.

Along came the 2008 election. Once more they became active, particularly the CAW who targeted 40 + 26 ridings, principally recommending Liberal candidates, but also NDP, Green and "ABC" candidates. The "ABC" in their table means any candidate, including communist if it comes to that, who can defeat the Conservatives. Well, we all know how that worked out, and how the Liberals, NDP and Bloc tried to seize power in a coup in December 2008, using the infamous Coalition of the Three Stooges. This accord does not expire until June 30, 2011, BTW.

It is my personal belief that one or more elements of these "Public Trough Supporters", aided by one or more political parties (Lib, NDP, Bloc), morphed their strategy after the 2006 election into a "coup strategy", i.e., bring down a duly-elected Conservative government under any circumstances, and replace it with a Coalition, to achieve their pubic-teat objectives. I further believe that Jack Layton himself (at a minimum) was on the frontline of this scheming. I base this view on the audio recording/transcript of a NDP caucus teleconference that embarrassingly came to light about the same time as the 2008 Coalition slithered out from beneath its rock. The audio link is at the top of the page on that link. Listen, and find out how long this had been going on, and who their co-conspirators were/are.

If it were not for the inclusion of Gilles Duceppe in the mug shot photo of the Three Stooges Coalition, the release of this highly-damaging audio tape of the conference call, and (modest) outcry of the electorate, this treacherous coalition would have succeeded. I really hope you will listen to the audio recording of Jack telling the NDP caucus all the setup work he had done beforehand to enable this coalition, or at least read the transcript. Both record an extensive list of the coalition's friends including, this time in the open, the "Aboriginals" who were still looking to make up the $5 billion of taxpayer (yours and mine) money that Paul Martin had promised them via a "Kelowna Accord" promise in the 2006 election!

So they nearly pulled it off. But, like the good plotters that they are, I believe that they merely submerged again, regrouped and cast another strategy -- grander and more inclusive. First, it was necessary for them to put some space/time from that dreaded "Coalition" word. Secondly, it would be necessary to co-opt all elements of the media, and other like-minded unions that they could. And, third, they needed to pull the plug and initiate execution of their Grand Plan on their timing and issue, not the Conservatives'. And that timing was now, and the phony issue was "Contempt of Parliament". Kind of ironic, eh?

Giving some sense of urgency to their efforts were the beginnings of anti-union actions taking place in, for example, Wisconsin in the USA. That battle, the poster-child for all "save our entitlements" union actions, reflected a growing anger amongst ordinary Americans that pubic service unions (teachers, civil servants, firefighters, police, politicians, etc.) had vastly larger salaries, pensions and benefits than the average Joe/Jill taxpayer. And that these entitlements are essentially at the root of bankrupting many municipalities and states, many more to come in the next few years. Unfunded liabilities of these entitlements amount into trillions of dollars. Not only the US federal government is bankrupt, folks.

Another sign I see of this hijacking of the political will of the people is the announcement of a major Teachers' Union in Ontario that they are setting up a $3 million fund for "education" purposes in the upcoming Ontario election in October. Their friends the Dalton McGuinty Liberals (moneybags) are going to be facing a revolt of Ontarians, and obviously these voters might require some "education". Third-party lobbying is forbidden, of course, thus the "education" effort.

I believe that the harbingers of push-back by taxpayers in the USA intensified the zeal of Public Trough Supporters in Canada to replace the Conservative government as quickly as possible, and replace it with more union friendly (loving) political parties. The Liberals, being the official opposition in parliament, were the most obvious target of their affections. But it's possible that there has been some form of "kiss and make-up" with the NDP too and, of course, the cooperation of the Bloc was essential if it was going to bring its 50 seat bludgeon of seats to the fray. So now we had arraigned against the Conservatives:

    the full range of opposition parties, including the Greens, and not necessarily for their power aspirations alone;

    a "progressive" friendly media led, as always, by the CBC and the Toronto Star;

    new "progressive" friendly media elements typified by the Globe & Mail (rabidly pro-Liberal this time), CTV NewsNet, and the Canadian Press (owned by G&M, TorStar and LaPresse); I wonder if Bell Canada's hand is in this, still smarting at the Conservatives' elimination of Income Trusts, which Bell was about to convert to immediately after the 2006 election;

    Canadian Auto Workers (has website devoted to targeting 50 ridings against the Conservatives); note that the CAW's list includes Liberal, NDP, BLOC and Green candidates this time; shades of an upcoming coup, eh?);

    Public Service Alliance (underground campaign so far, but running an "Anything But Harper" campaign in select ridings);

    United Food and Commercial Workers (I expect the Food Inspectors in Ottawa to push out a follow-up fluff piece any day now about the "inadequacy of the Harper Government to protect Canadians" --- they always do. Their slogan is: "Goodbye Steve";

    Canadian Health Coalition (and provincial offspring);

    Council of Canadians: Maude Barlow of Think Twice fame is still at it; is Margaret Atwood still with them?

    Catch 22: a very interesting vested interest site; see their co-conspirators/plotters;

    And so on ... Dogwood, For the Public Good (theirs, not ours), "Project Democracy" (theirs, not ours), Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and others. All these were friends of, or funded previously by, the previous Liberal government (i., you and me, the taxpayer).

An excellent starting point in your research to check all this out, of course, is Election Canada's List of Registered Third Parties for this election. All you have to do is follow up the names with a Google search, and add the word "campaign" and a filter of "within the past month". It works wonders.

Which brings us to this election. I wrote one post on it, Anatomy of a Coup, earlier this week. It fills in some of the details of the coalition. And a Coalition it is, a.k.a. a planned and concerted hijacking of democracy. A cabal of traitors, in other words, conspiring to influence the result of an election and, if that fails, to negate the choice of voters at the first opportunity afterwards.

I don't think for a moment that all of the Traitorous Cabal's effort lies with the Liberals. They would be quite satisfied, perhaps more so, to see a NDP-led Coalition flaunt the will of the people. It's just that their first choice is the Liberals, and I expect they would be quite satisfied with either the NDP, Bloc, Greens or Communist party ... if that could occur. Or a coalition of any or all of them.

Folks, fellow Canadians. It's our country that these selfish, traitorous, and self-serving piglets are trying to hijack. If you want to let them do that to protect their special "entitlements" and agenda, fine. But if you are like me, and scared at how easy it has been for these hidden cowards to take over Canada, assisted by a highly-concentrated media, then we have to do something about it. Especially the sleazy and hidden agenda of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc ... the Coalition.

Get the word out folks, though comments to articles in the media, through the remaining free media (e.g., National Post, SunTV, radio stations), blogs, word of mouth, your friends, newsletters, etc. And ask yourself a simple question: if it is so easy for me to dredge up these links via Google, why have the mainstream media completely ignored this treachery?

We can't let our democracy be hijacked again. If we don't stop them now, they WILL be successful this time at subverting OUR democracy. Be careful who you vote for. It might be the Coalition and their seedy co-conspirators!

And remember. Don't be gladdened or saddened by any one member of the coalition gaining or losing a seat in polls, or on May 2nd. All they are is shifting seats amongst themselves. One of them goes up, the other goes down. Total seat count remains the same.

Reference: Here's a list of links that I have referenced in this post by simple Google search, perhaps some more:

    The whole transcript of the NDP caucus conference call is here, with the actual audio link at the top of the page; read/listen to it for yourself.
    My post on The Anatomy of a Coup
    2008 Coalition Accord; note its expiry date of June 30, 2011.
    Third Party Registrants @ Elections Canada
    Semi-official rationale for "Buzz Hargrove gives Paul Martin a CAW leather jacket" 2006
    The infamous Think Twice Coalition (2006), including co-conspirator membership.
    The Catch 22 Horde (look at "target ridings" and "latest activity" ... very enlightening!)
    Canadian Auto Workers Union (many of the other co-conspirators and plotters listed there)
    Canadian Auto Workers Union (their 2008 riding "hit list")
    Canadian Auto Workers (2011 50 ridings targeted)
    Dogwood Initiative (environmentalists, just another symptom of the problem)
    Project Democracy (pretty neat name, except it is THEIR version of democracy, not OURS ... just another ABC "Anything But Conservative" lobby group)
    Public Service Alliance (friendly federal civil servants! Says it all: "ABC")
    Council of Canadians (their view of "Canadians"; Maude Barlow of 2006 Think Twice fame, still; also (??), Margaret Atwood, fine democratic (vicious) objector of another viewpoint, SUNTV, starting up)
    Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (fine folks, again)
    For the Public Good (actually, anything but for the public good, but ...)
    UFCW Canada (United Food and Commercial Workers ... "Goodbye Steve" is their slogan!)
    Canadian HealthCare Coalition (and you thought the "healthcare issues" raised by the Libs and NDP were "spontaneous concerns"?)
    AVAAZ - (I haven't figured them out, but they seem connected to / mentioned by any ABC group out there)

Feel free to add your own culprits to the list via comments.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I did my own little mathematical exercise yesterday using the vote ceilings. Here's my results. Accepting that there's no best case scenario data for the Bloc, I don't believe they'll loose 22 seats, but they could realistically lose half that number.


Conservatives:  151 (143)
Liberals:            67 (77)
NDP:                54 (36)
Bloc:                35 (47)
Independent:      1  (5 including vacancies)


In the end, I expect the NDP will gain 20 seats, at the expense of both the Liberals and Bloc. Likely 12 in Quebec, and 8 elsewhere. They might pick some up from the Torries, but that will probably be a 1 for 1 exchange somewhere else. I don't think the Independent will be Green, but Ms May could yet surprise us.

OK, I'll play.

Here are my guesses in three colours: Hope, Expect and Fear

   

                     

                     

               

            Others
159/152/122        54/65/100              55/41/31          39/49/53         1/1/2


Obviously, being a dyed in the wool Conservative I hope that, during the last week of the campaign, we (the Conservative Party) can convince our fellow Canadians that a majority is a good idea. I expect that we will come close - but that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I fear a Liberal resurgence and a win for Elizabeth May.

My fondest hope (verging on wet dream status) is that "Jack and the Dippers" will win even just one more seat than Prince Michael and the Liberals - thus hastening the demise of the LPC, as we know it, by encouraging a small handful of elected Liberal MPs to quit the caucus and either: join the NDP, sit as independents and/or join the Tories.

 

[ModlrMike]

Edward, I'm not surprised we're that close on our predictions. I agree with your "hope" scenario, and would dearly like to see it transpire.

Here's a piece from CTV that's worth watching:

Ignatieff booed at junior hockey game

Shades of things to come?

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, a scenario like that sounds plausible.  Cons are short of a majority and the NDP buries the Liberals.  Disaffected, some of the Libs leave their burning ship to cross the floor and give the Cons a slight majority.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Obviously, being a dyed in the wool Conservative I hope that, during the last week of the campaign, we (the Conservative Party) can convince our fellow Canadians that a majority is a good idea. I expect that we will come close - but that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I fear a Liberal resurgence and a win for Elizabeth May.

I'm actually starting to think that we may see a sea change - that not only will the Cons win a majority, but a big one.  It feels like the Liberal vote is about to collapse completely, although not quite as bad as the Kim Campbell Collapse.

I see this as a good thing - the Liberals need to be sent out into the wilderness to re-find their purpose again.

 

[larry Strong]

It will be interesting to see what the effect's of his televised shows tonight will do to the poll's.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm actually starting to think that we may see a sea change - that not only will the Cons win a majority, but a big one.  It feels like the Liberal vote is about to collapse completely, although not quite as bad as the Kim Campbell Collapse.

I see this as a good thing - the Liberals need to be sent out into the wilderness to re-find their purpose again.

I think that is on the outside edge of possibility; every special interest and the Legacy Media are scrambling to prop up the Liberals in order to maintain the public trough and the "narrative". Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).

Of course, increasing desperation might just do the trick for your scenario, as the Liberals, Special Interests and Legacy Media grasp for straws the chances of flailing into a disaster cannot be discounted. (For the Legacy Media note how Terry Milewski's rant was received at a CPC event, then check out how it was reported [@ 3:40 on the video])

 

[Old Sweat]

Indeed it could be. The question may be how many voters will have second thoughts and move back to the Liberals over the next eight or nine days? Apparently the turnout at the Advanced Polls has been quite heavy in our riding in Eastern Ontario. If this is true across the country, then the figures Edward just posted may be quite important. I can't remember for sure, but it seems to me that at the last Federal election somewhere around 20 percent of the voters used the Advanced Polls in North Grenville.

I wonder how many Grits are harking back to the good old days with Stefan Dion at the helm?

Further to this post, I ran into the DRO of the Advanced Poll in North Grenville after church this morning. He told me that there had been well over a thousand votes cast so far, which would seem to take nearly 20 % of the voters out of play before they could watch the Liberal infomercial. Certainly there was a steady stream when my wife and I voted Saturday afternoon.

Speculation and fun with numbers is a bit of a mug's game, but if only 60% of the electorate votes overall and about 15% of these use the advance polls, he is able to potentially influence only about half the voters in the country at this late date. I wonder if the big heads in the various parties ever consider the effect of the advanced pollls and that maybe half of the remainder (or a bit more) are Liberal or NDP voters? Let's say that 60% of the electorate fall in that category and half of that (30%) plan to vote NDP. Can he swing a sufficiently large number of these to make a difference.

To try to make the above clearer, here is a hypothetical riding with 100,000 potential voters, with 60,000 actually casting a ballot. Say the CPC is polling at 40% and the others are evenly split between the other two parties. If 15% use the advanced poll, this would be 3600 Conservative and 2700 for each of the Liberals and NDP. This leaves about 51,000 to vote on 2 May. If about 20,400 will vote Conservative and the remainder is split 50/50 or 15,300 for each, the CPC wins with 24,000 votes to 18,000 for each of the others. In this case he needs to convince over a third of the NDP to come over to the Liberals to have a chance to take the seat.

The task would be easier in ridings with a lower percentage for the CPC, but it still is formidable.

 

[Edward Campbell]

.... Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).
...

It still hasn't made it to the Globe and Mail's web site, nor the National Post's - but it is Easter Sunday. Here is a CBC twitter exchange between Laurie Graham and Kady O'Malley:

That actually was as good an answer I can imagine a politician giving to a question he'd rather not have to be asked. #elxn41
by kady via twitter at 2:56 PM

"They just wanted to watch hockey," Ignatieff notes. *He* would've booed himself if he were one of them. #elxn41
by kady via twitter at 2:55 PM

#ignatieff says he'd boo himself in the third period of a close game too. #cv11 #elnx41
by lauriegrahamcbc via twitter at 2:55 PM

Finally, @rogersmithctv asks abt The Boo.Ig notes that it was the 3rd period of tense game, and there was his face on the Jumbotron. #elxn41
by kady via twitter at 2:55 PM

Here is the story on CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/24/cv-election-ignatieff-icedogs.html

 

[Old Sweat]

I think that is on the outside edge of possibility; every special interest and the Legacy Media are scrambling to prop up the Liberals in order to maintain the public trough and the "narrative". Only a fatal misstep by Micheal Ignatieff going viral on YouTube would really trigger a collapse (the story of Mr Ignatieff being booed only reached CTV after Sun TV scooped them, otherwise it may never have been reported).

The booing incident was first reported on Small Dead Animals last night with the first reader comment at 10:57 pm and was picked up in the morning by Sun TV and then, much later, by CTV.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think this is the first negative slanted article the CBC has written on the Libs. The first rat leaving the sinking ship?

 

[Edward Campbell]

It, a CTV video, has made it to YouTube.

Those were pretty loud and substantial boos, too.

 

[HavokFour]

It, a CTV video, has made it to YouTube.

Those were pretty loud and substantial boos, too.

My faith in Canadian voters has somewhat been rekindled after watching this. 

 

[Dissident]

My faith in Canadian voters has somewhat been rekindled after watching this. 

Not when they run from the Liberals straigh to the NDPs arms.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Why is the article's title so damn slanted?

"Ignatieff finds few fans at hockey game"

Are you kidding me?

 

[a_majoor]

Re read.

It does not say "Ignatieff finds a few fans at hockey game" (which would directly state there are some there) but simply "finds few" which has the implication there are not very many or none.

Share the YouTube clip with all your friends, though (especially the ones on Rabble.ca and here).

 

[wannabe SF member]

I'm sorry Mr T, you can ask me many things but interacting with the raving lunatics at Rabble.ca is really not something I'm particularly inclined towards. ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is what I find to be a pretty fair summary of Michael Ignatieff:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/embattled-ignatieff-offers-passionate-defence-of-liberal-vision/article1996901/

Embattled Ignatieff offers passionate defence of Liberal vision

JOHN IBBITSON
TORONTO— Globe and Mail Update

Published Sunday, Apr. 24, 2011

Languishing in the polls, challenged on his right by the dominating Conservatives and on his left by a resurgent NDP, Michael Ignatieff says he entered the final week of this federal election campaign in a mood of “serene optimism.”

But it was exasperation that appeared to come through more often in his meeting Sunday afternoon with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board: Exasperation that his commitment to Canada could still be questioned six years after his return from abroad.

And exasperation that his Liberal vision of a federal government - uniting Canadians behind a new generation of national programs targeting workers, caregivers and students - is being ignored by Canadians who may prefer the managerial competence of Stephen Harper or the full-throated restructuring proposed by Jack Layton.

Over the past four weeks of the election campaign Mr. Ignatieff has seen “an energized party, full rooms, people understanding how important the election is to them.”

He brushed off questions about why so many voters were drifting toward the NDP, which currently rivals the Liberals in the polls in a race for second place.

“Sixty per cent of the population doesn’t want to go on with the Harper government,” he said. “Now they’re figuring out who can get us there. That’s what happening.”

But “it’s choosing time,” he added. “We have to remind Canadians that we have the experience of government.”

And he continued to emphasize his party’s proposal to subsidize college tuition, enhance child care and fund home care when family members fall ill.

Mr. Ignatieff entered this election at a disadvantage, his public profile damaged by relentless Conservative attack ads questioning his commitment to Canada after he spent 35 years outside the country.

He bristled when asked why he had come back to take up federal politics.

“It’s my country,” he replied, then paused. “It’s my country. (Pause.) It’s my home.”

He had been raised in a home dedicated to public service. (His father, George Ignatieff, was a prominent diplomat.) “Public service is not an abstraction to me.”

“… And I’ve had two and a half years of people questioning that. And you can imagine how deeply I feel about this question.”

Mr. Ignatieff was at his most passionate when it was pointed out that “passionate” is a word he uses frequently. Is the choice, he was asked, between his dream of a possible Canada and a hard-headed calculation of how best to apportion federal revenues?

“The Canada you dream of - dammit, this is the country I grew up in!” and he pounded the table.

Canadians, he said, have always understood the importance of equality of opportunity between region, races, classes - the Liberal nation-building exercise stretching from King through Trudeau.

“This is what worked,” he insisted. “This is what made us so successful. This is what we have to rediscover and re-dedicate ourselves to.”

“You’ll hear reason from Harper. That’s not the issue. What you will not hear is a vision of the country. You will not hear that from him. He doesn’t have it. It’s not there.”

Between passion and pragmatism; vision and prudence; Ignatieff and Harper.

Or perhaps, some Canadians are pondering, someone else entirely.

There it is, I think: Ignatieff is passionate, he has a bold vision for Canada while Harper is pragmatic and prudent. But Canadians do not, perhaps cannot “see” Ignatieff the way he sees himself – and the way the Good Grey Globe's editorial board appears to see him, too.

It is hard to blame him for being exasperated, but I suspect that his exasperation, with us, those of us who simply neither like nor trust him, makes us dislike and mistrust him even more.

On the personality scale Layton is the clear winner, head and shoulders above Harper and Ignatieff. But even cold, secretive Harper comers across as being “honest” in his vision – however narrow it may be – for Canada and, for whatever reason, Ignatieff does not manage that.

Here, extracted from CTV's Election coverage are some relevant numbers:

On April 23 the total leadership scores for the major party leaders were: (Change from April 21 in brackets)

Stephen Harper: 93.9 (+5.8 )
Jack Layton: 73.7 (+0.8 )
Michael Ignatieff: 38.4 (-6)
Elizabeth May: 11.2 (+3.4)
Gilles Duceppe: 10.8 (-0.4)

The Leadership Index combines rankings for each candidate on trustworthiness, competence and their vision for Canada. Harper scores high on competence and vision, the same categories where Ignatieff lags, while Layton placed highest for trust.

On the issue of trust the leaders' scores on April 23 were: (Change from April 21 in brackets.)

Stephen Harper: 25% (-1.8 )
Jack Layton: 28.3% (-1)
Michael Ignatieff: 12.5% (+1.4)
Elizabeth May: 4.6% (+0.9)
Gilles Duceppe: 3.5% (-0.4)

On the issue of competence the leaders' scores on April 23 were: (Change from April 21 in brackets.)

Stephen Harper: 38.7% (+6)
Jack Layton: 22.3% (+2.7)
Michael Ignatieff: 11.2% (-5)
Elizabeth May: 2.4% (-0.5)
Gilles Duceppe: 4.6% (-0.9)

On the issue of their vision for Canada the leaders' scores on April 23 were: (Change from April 21 in brackets.)

Stephen Harper: 30.2% (+1.6)
Jack Layton: 23.1% (-0.9)
Michael Ignatieff: 14.7% (-2.4)
Elizabeth May: 4.2% (+2)
Gilles Duceppe: 2.7% (+0.9)

Clearly the people of Canada do not "see" what Ignatieff and the Toronto elites "see."