Politics in 2016

[Remius]

Remius, I don't believe the articles were quoted for validation.  In my mind they were merely quoted because of the opinion.  I agree that Vilma's opinion doesn't matter. Just as mine doesn't. I can still agree with her opinion.

I find it funny that the CBC is publishing stories from other sources about the Prime Minister.  Wouldn't it be novel if they published their own editorials criticizing him?  Now I can understand them publsihing a story about Amnetsy International (no shock there) but then finding an obscure editorial? And then loosely linking them together somehow?

You'd figure with the influx of money they just received they could do a better job of it. 

 

[PuckChaser]

They'd never do that unless they want that $675M of hush money turned off.

 

[Kirkhill]

I find it funny that the CBC is publishing stories from other sources about the Prime Minister.  Wouldn't it be novel if they published their own editorials criticizing him?  Now I can understand them publsihing a story about Amnetsy International (no shock there) but then finding an obscure editorial? And then loosely linking them together somehow?

You'd figure with the influx of money they just received they could do a better job of it.

The CBC gets itself into trouble when it develops its own opinions.  I don't believe that a government funded organization should have anything whatsoever to do with opinion.  It is on safer ground when it reports the opinions of others.  But even that can be risky.  Not mention the minefields of opinions masquerading as facts.

 

[ModlrMike]

The CBC gets itself into trouble when it develops its own opinions.  I don't believe that a government funded organization should have anything whatsoever to do with opinion.  It is on safer ground when it reports the opinions of others.  But even that can be risky.  Not mention the minefields of opinions masquerading as facts.

That's why I get a great deal of my news from the BBC. They seem to me to be pretty neutral.

 

[Kirkhill]

Mike:

BBC is only neutral if you're not a Brit.  As far as the Brits are concerned the Beeb is as neutral as the CBC.  Opinions and stacking the deck on panels and selecting facts.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mike:

BBC is only neutral if you're not a Brit.  As far as the Brits are concerned the Beeb is as neutral as the CBC.  Opinions and stacking the deck on panels and selecting facts.

At least the BBC 1)  has comedy shows poking politicians, 2) that poke equally at politicians from all parties, no matter who's in government.

 

[Altair]

It's been nice to see the federal NDP destroy any chance of ever electing MPs in Alberta federally with this leap manifesto nonsense, but also completely torpedo the alberta NDP in the process by talking about keeping alberta oil in the ground while in Alberta.

Pierre Trudeau would be proud.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's been nice to see the federal NDP destroy any chance of ever electing MPs in Alberta federally with this leap manifesto nonsense, but also completely torpedo the alberta NDP in the process by talking about keeping alberta oil in the ground while in Alberta.

Pierre Trudeau would be proud.

Notley is desperately trying to backpedal from her federal counterparts. Its funny to watch.

 

[Altair]

If I were Notley,  I would seriously consider rebranding the party after this. The Democratic party or something.

After this is done to the ndp brand, never all that strong to begin in akberta with, is going to be toxic.

Don't know what pros come from being branded with the federal NDP at the best of times, but they cannot possibly out weight the cons at this point.

 

[PuckChaser]

Absolutely, but the national support for fundraising might be an issue, she'd also split the NDP vote between her, and the new provincial NDP that will get set up right after.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.

The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.

 

[cavalryman]

Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.

The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.

Considering the LEAP manifesto, I think tone deafness is par for the course when you're a socialist.

 

[Altair]

Absolutely, but the national support for fundraising might be an issue, she'd also split the NDP vote between her, and the new provincial NDP that will get set up right after.

a merger with the liberals then. Strengthen the left, and move away from the federal NDP.

The liberal democratic party.

Because when the Wildrose and PCs start to run with this charlie foxtrot,  the provincial ndp are going to be massacred

 

[jollyjacktar]

Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.

The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.

Wouldn't that be a "red" on "red" as "blue" is for conservatives...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wouldn't that be a "red" on "red" as "blue" is for conservatives...

Nope, new one. Orange on Orange.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nope, new one. Orange on Orange.

I suppose that's so.  I was just thinking of them being Commie-lite, therefore, Reds.

 

[Ostrozac]

The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.

You're absolutely correct on that one.

The NDP had three really good options -- hold the convention in Quebec and ask "how can we get those seats back?", hold the convention in Hamilton and try to symbolically connect with blue-collar Ontario voters, or hold the convention in BC and connect with the environmentalist/pacifist/hippie wing of the party. All three are politically good options.

Instead, they chose this specific time to try to revitalize their prairie populist roots. The NDP has three MP's in the Prairies! Three! That's as many MP's as the NDP has in Metro Halifax, and the Maritimes are not known as a bastion of the NDP. Having that convention in Edmonton is a bad, bad decision.

 

[a_majoor]

Tone Deaf?

The NDP is holding their convention where there has never been an NDP government in living memory before, but also close to the roots of the CCF and Prairie Populism.

The fact that they were outfoxed by Gerald Butts and his team on one hand, and don't resonate with a lot of Canadians on the other (outside of the Jack Layton era) on the other are issues that probably should be looked at, but designing an imaginary society around the Leap Manifesto is more fun for Party insiders.

 

[Good2Golf]

Dare I foresee a cheering Elizabeth May thumb her nose at the remaining Dippers on the next go as the Greens get more seats than the NDP?  ;D

The NDP appear to be heading towards a disastrous [for them] political spectrum nexus shift... :trainwreck:

 

[Edward Campbell]

The political left has a problem: the LEAP manifesto is really good, solid, left wing stuff and, making a WAG (wild assed guess) I suspect that as many as 3.5 million Canadians (10% of us all) actually believe it is good public policy ... of course 1 million of that number will grow up, get married, need jobs and want to hang onto something in excess of ⅓ of what they earn after income taxes, HST, etc.

But, the 2+ million who count (who can vote) and the 1.5 million who actually did vote in 2015 are sorely divided between the:

  BQ:        my guess is that 500,000 of the Bloc's supporters are also LEAP supporters, but Quebec nationalism is more important;

  Greens:  I would guess that 400,000 of the 600,000 Green voters believe in LEAP but will stay Green because they don't trust Mulcair's Dippers to "keep the faith;"

  Liberals: I think that 100,000 true lefties (who support LEAP) voted Liberal for a variety of reasons;

  NDP:      I also guess that 500,000 of the NDP's supports are LEAP fans.

I don't see the Bloc and Green voters shifting and I don't think enough Dippers believe in LEAP to make a real difference.

Remember the Waffle (late 1960s and early '70s)?