quote:

---

Originally posted by johnbon:
Should be interesting. Four major parties (Liberal, Green, Conservative and NDP) all with their own distinct vision. Let's hope that they spend more time promoting their vision and less time attacking each other.

That should engage Canadians to get involved/interested in the campaign.

---

Correction, it's 5 (Liberal, Green, Conservative, Bloc and NDP)

Unfort I think that the weak libs who will lose seats across Canada coupled with a divided left and a stronger NDP will lead to a slim majority by the Cons.

Only Jack and the NDP can stop this blue wave.
Dion is useless, Duceppe is stuck in the past. Only Jack can help save Canada

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I can guarantee you all of one thing: this election will be about nothing that matters. Climate change, energy, the economy, health care ... all of these things will be held to marginal roles while the media focuses like a laser beam on the trivial and the entirely intangible and Dion's poor English skills. And people will vote, once more, to cut off their noses to spite their face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I have a suggestion to save money in the future. Can the Governor General (the office not the individual) Today has proven once and for all that no one can force a government to obey the laws it creates. The GG office is irrelevant, lets can it and stand on our own.

---

I agree with Agrarian - cut the fake colonial ties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnbon:
Should be interesting. Four major parties (Liberal, Green, Conservative and NDP) all with their own distinct vision. Let's hope that they spend more time promoting their vision and less time attacking each other.

That should engage Canadians to get involved/interested in the campaign.

---

I agree it should be interesting, however, I must disagree with a couple of other points. And note the inherent propaganda in others.

There are indeed 4 major parties, the Green Party is just not one of them. And trying to build a conceptual framework that they are, is without a foundation of actuality. Having Blair Wilson adopt Green colours does make them a major party. They have yet to elect even a single MP. I am not saying that maybe someday they won't be, though I doubt it, I am saying that, today, this not the case.

Moreover, the Libs and the GP, do not have separate visions, they have the same vision. Soul_scanner even told us so, in another thread, if we already did not know that.

As for your attacking comment, I have found it is usually said by those who are going to attack, but yet do not want others to. Note, I am not saying that you mean this, just pointing out that that is what most often happens.

I would ask, actually, what you mean when you use the word "attack"? What do/would you see as an attack, as opposed to a discrediting of where a party/person says they are, and what they are doing, when they actually are not there, and not doing?

Moreover, I think Harper and the CPC need to be attacked for what they have done to Canadians, and our government. As well, as the Liberals for not conducting themselves as a real Opposition, allowing these things to been done to Canadians, for selfish self-centered, partisan reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Climate change, energy, the economy, health care ... all of these things will be held to marginal roles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
There are indeed 4 major parties, the Green Party is just not one of them.

---

Thank you, remind. Yes, an adopted MP does not a major party make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

Thank you, remind. Yes, an adopted MP does not a major party make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I would ask, actually, what you mean when you use the word "attack"? What do/would you see as an attack, as opposed to a discrediting of where a party/person says they are, and what they are doing, when they actually are not there, and not doing?

---

Perhaps attack was too strong a word. There is nothing wrong with being critical or pointing out the shortcomings in your opponents' platform. However, when it's nothing but criticism, the voters get turned off. They want to also know what a party stands for. And they want specifics - not just generalizations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soul_scanner:

The Bloc is what could prevent a Tory majority. Harper is going after their vote in rural Quebec, campaigning on a "Strong Quebec" (unusual for a federal party). Never thought I'd consider voting for them, but my local candidate is very strong on environmental issues. Talk about the lesser of two evils.

---

However. There are many many more Quebecers who are concerned about keeping out the Bloc than there are who are concerned about keeping out the CPC. And Quebec has a long history of heavy negative tactical voting. Now, with the liberals evidently continuing their prolonged demise, and with the 'tories' (and in some cases even the 'dippers') having clearly established themselves as the second party in most parts of Quebec, the anti-Bloc vote is now going to quite quickly coalesce behind the con candidates (or the ndp candidates in a handful of ridings). So we will see a rapid lock-step realignment en bloc of our ongoing stalemate. The only people who will be happy are the ndp candidates (who are actually serious players in as many as five ridings), who in addition to benefiting from the anti-bloc vote and the anti-con vote will also gain from the always strong anti-liberal vote. (So far at least there is no such thing as an anti-ndp vote or an anti-green vote in Quebec ... that will probably take another couple of frustrated election campaigns to develop.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by nussy:
Who is running for the Liberals in Outremont against Mulcair?

---

It's a carefully managed assist to the Buzz Hargrove et al "vote strategic" thing.

By contrast, the CTV story was much more in line with what should be in such a story. As a social democrat it pains me to say it, but the privately owned CTV, at least on this day and on this story, was doing a better and more responsible job that the Crown owned (Liberal operated?) CBC.

As I said in another thread, here in Vancouver we had a particulalry egregious case of this kind of BS in the 2006 election. One of their radio reporters, Vic Adopia, claimed to have found a woman named Roslyn Hart in the Burnaby Douglas riding. The official story line was that Roslyn came from a family with "great lefty credentials", and that she herself had worked on oh so many Svend Robinson campaigns. But alas, ... Roslyn has been thinking mighty hard these past couple of years, and now she's come to her conclusion. She must go with the Liberals to stop Harper! She's just being realistic, don't you know!

Of course, no one from the Burnaby Douglas NDP was ever spoken to and asked if they knew any such person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by V. Jara:
CBC might smell like Fiberals, especially Rick Mercer and Don Newman , but Radio Canada has the most glowing biography of Layton up on their site right now and the NDP is fielding CBC candidates right and left- so keep your eyes on the prize MCBC!

---

Fair enough. But memories of truly rotten episodes do die hard, and I emphasize that the Adopia/Hart episode in 2006 was from CBC Radio. Also, I was referring to their main online story today:

Vote set for Oct. 14: Harper expects tight, tough election

It's not near as bad as the 2006 episode, but it sill gives Jack Layton less play than either Dion or even Elizabeth May.

As for great headlines, ... try the CNN take on Harper's gambit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
It's not near as bad as the 2006 episode, but it sill gives Jack Layton less play than either Dion or even Elizabeth May.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I wonder if they are going to ask EMay and Dion, what they think about their giving less time to an actual major party, the NDP, and thereby impacting democracy unfairly?

---

I agree it is frustrating that the NDP (and the BQ) get less coverage than the two major parties that actually are in contention to govern this country. The Greens get coverage and they don't even have an MP elected to their party. One of the pundits this morning (I forget who it was, there were so many of them but I think it was Craig Oliver) tried to hide a smirk when another pundit talked about Layton wanting to be Prime Minister.

ETA: actually, I think he was trying to hide a guffaw, not a smirk.

[ 07 September 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I agree it is frustrating that the NDP (and the BQ) get less coverage

---

quote:

---

than the two major parties that actually are in contention to govern this country.

---

It is like a comfortable worn out pair of shoes, that are doing your feet no damn good, and causing you other problems, but you continue to wear them, out of habit and "comfort' like a safety blanket, though you are indeed ijuring yourself.

quote:

---

The Greens get coverage and they don't even have an MP elected to their party.

---

It seems to me that some Liberal Green supporters here want the GP in the debate so they can tag team, the other candidates, thereby giving themselves another unfair advantage, as the anti-democratic corporate mouths they are.

quote:

---

One of the pundits this morning... tried to hide a smirk when another pundit talked about Layton wanting to be Prime Minister.

---

The Liberals and their media pawns smirked when the "Reform", was making, and remaking, parties, after the Progressive Conservatives turned to dust, because of corruption, greed, and blatent self interest. They smirked at Harper for wanting to be PM.

Apparently thinking they, themselves, were above said misfortune, and that they would be the natural governing party forever, in Canada, the Liberal Party, kept on smirking and started to venture down the same path, as the PC's had. Learning nothing, and not caring about Canadians, but still smirking.

And look who is governing now, "Reform".

As far as I can tell there won't be much difference between this parliament and the next, and I don't think the governance of Canada would change substantially in the short-term if the Conservatives went from 124 to 134 seats (or even 114), or something of that sort.

I think the key impact of this election will be how it positions the following election. The two big fundamental changes I see taking place are in the Quebec political arena, and in the status of the Green and Liberal parties. The bloc has been on a one way ticket to oblivion, steadily and consistently except for the 2004 blip, since 1993 (declines in 1997, 2000, 2006, and probably in 2008). Right now Quebec has 75 of Canada's 308 seats which is the balance of power in the current configuration. The Bloc Quebecois has some 40 seats and the other 35 seats are not in play due to opposition to the bloc. The most important change I see happening this time is the withering away of the bloc to maybe 15-20 seats, following which they're close to disbanding and nearly all of the 75 seats, perhaps 60, will go into play. How the parties do in this election will determine their position of strength in the next election. As evidence for this, I note that Canadians will be voting on October 14th. This will be just before Julie Couillard publishes her tell-all memoire of her former relationship with ex-conservative superstar Industry Minister Maxime Bernier. I think Harper is calling this election to go from 10 to 25 seats in Quebec, in order to go for a sweep next time around.

What I think would be "nice" is that the Bloc has proven, in my view, an obstacle to positive change in Canada, restricting the number of seats in play and giving a "free" base to the governing parties.

The other change which I think will take place is some incremental progress for the Green Party. I predict almost no transfer of seats in English Canada, but where the nibbling takes place will have some influence.
1) The Green party will either remain a protest vote or move into the mainstream.
2) The NDP may position itself to replace the Liberals as the dominant alternative to the CPC, which seems inevitable in light of Dion's weaknesses.

I think how the outcome of the Green party will be the other important event to Canadian political history and how Canada develops in the next 30-40 years. The Green party's growth could come at the expense of the conservatives, due to the history of protest voting in the west and the more pressing environmental concerns there, as well as the unpopularity of the Liberals and the NDP from which the conservatives now get a default vote. Alternatively, if Canadians don't bother to read the platforms, Green party growth could come at the expense of the NDP due to the Green party's misnomer of a name, which I think may be why the Liberal party backs them. I think the definition of the Green party will be very important here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
You speak of this proudly, and give it a smirk of your own, as if it was something special, and not an ugly example of media persons pandering to the corporations destroying this country and indeed the world, boom boom.

The Liberals and their media pawns smirked when the "Reform", was making, and remaking, parties, after the Progressive Conservatives turned to dust, because of corruption, greed, and blatent self interest. They smirked at Harper for wanting to be PM.

Apparently thinking they, themselves, were above said misfortune, and that they would be the natural governing party forever, in Canada, the Liberal Party, kept on smirking and started to venture down the same path, as the PC's had. Learning nothing, and not caring about Canadians, but still smirking.

And look who is governing now, "Reform".

In fact, almost the same Reform people that the Liberals and their hacks used to smirk at. And now we see that they have still not learned, and still do not care, by their continued smirks, and perhaps never will learn, until it is too late, that Canadians can, will and have, stopped voting for a founding party, in fact actually, thee founding party.

---

I agree.

Liberals used to brag that 52% of Ontario progressive conservative supporters would rather vote Liberal than Reform, it was the most famous Canadian political poll of the 1990s.

When the CPC merger was announce it was hovering around 23-24% in the polls, and the liberals were way higher. I think there was one poll where Paul Martin was winning a hypothetical matchup with Mike Harris, 50-28, and people were using that to galvanize support for Harris.

Peggy Nash already hitting the ground running with signage; a few Kennedys.

Next, headed east, a few Minnas along Kingston Rd; one for Tom Wappel's replacement in Scarborough SW; quite a few along Warden for 2006 Tory retread Roxanne James in Scarborough Centre (and a mere corner cluster for John Cannis); a few Tory signs in Etobicoke North, no Liberal; both Tory and Liberal in Etobicoke Centre; a few Iggys + Patrick Boyer putting up/adjusting his own sign in Etobicoke Lakeshore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I agree it is frustrating that the NDP (and the BQ) get less coverage than the two major parties that actually are in contention to govern this country. The Greens get coverage and they don't even have an MP elected to their party.

---

If they want to give the NDP less coverage than the Grits and Tories, that's rational. Giving them less coverage than the Bloc is hard to justify, given the NDP 17% national popular vote and the Bloc's less than 10%. Giving the NDP less than the Greens is outside the acceptable range of blarney and BS. It's an obvious scam, and intentional misdirection of the voters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
The initial CBC online story was a disappointing lapse into the old CBC habit of trying to do whatever they can to help the Liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

I agree it is frustrating that the NDP (and the BQ) get less coverage than the two major parties that actually are in contention to govern this country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

The panel on Sunday Morning included a representative of the Liberal Party - and only the Liberal Party - along with two unaligned academics.

---

Do you mean the AM radio panel? Yes, I kind of half heard that out of one ear, and I had the impression that the lineup was as you've described.

We have even larger problems in BC with many academic and quasi academics in the environmental movement (READ: well-financed ENGOs that pay salaries comparable to business) who are supporting the Liberals' carbon policies, both Premier Gordon M. Campbell's and Stephane Dion's. They claim to be totally impartial, yet at least one of them, Prof Marc Jaccard of SFU, has written op-ed piece for the CanWest Vancovuer Sun labelling NDP Leader Carole James as "dishonest" (Yes, that exact word) for opposing the provincial carbon tax.

Even after that article Jaccard maintains he's being non-partisan, just speaking his mind. His company, M K Jaccard and Assoc has a $120,000 contract with Premier Campbell's "climate change action team". David Suzuki makes the same "I am completely non-political" whenever he finishes denouncing Layton and/or James.

The carbon tax movement even extends to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and their Vancouver economist Marc Lee. You can check out Marc's denunciations of the NDP on the "Progressive Economics Forum", where you will also find posts from Buzz Hargrove's economist, Jim Stanford. Coincidence? Why not!

The Progressive Economics Forum

[ 07 September 2008: Message edited by: MCunningBC ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nussy:
Who is running for the Liberals in Outremont against Mulcair?

---

According to this morning's Le Journal de Montreal, the Liberals have finally found someone to run against Thomas Mulcair in Outremont. The comedian Sebastien Dhavernas has been selected/appointed? as the candidate here.

In the interview in Le Journal de Montreal Mr Dhavernas is quoted as saying that the 'censorship of cinema' was the final straw leading him to enter the political arena.

Mr. Dhavernas also said with respect to Mr Mulcair that one should not divide the vote as that might lead to a majority Conservative government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:
...Mr. Dhavernas also said with respect to Mr Mulcair that one should not divide the vote as that might lead to a majority Conservative government.

(The CPC ran a distant fourth in the last three elections in this riding).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Yes, I believe we are going to see a lot of that "splitting vote" nonsense on the part of the Lib Greens. That they are even going to do it in ridings where no such thing is possible is hilarious, and can be easily rebutted or even ridiculed for the nonsensical ploy it is.

What makes it even funnier is that they are saying such, while conjoining with the Green Party, thereby indicating the GP is firmly theirs, and are the actual vote splitters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:

According to this morning's Le Journal de Montreal, the Liberals have finally found someone to run against Thomas Mulcair in Outremont. The comedian Sebastien Dhavernas has been selected/appointed? as the candidate here.

In the interview in Le Journal de Montreal Mr Dhavernas is quoted as saying that the 'censorship of cinema' was the final straw leading him to enter the political arena.

Mr. Dhavernas also said with respect to Mr Mulcair that one should not divide the vote as that might lead to a majority Conservative government.

(The CPC ran a distant fourth in the last three elections in this riding).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:

Your observation about the green liberal conjunction is quite thought-provoking.
Team Dion clearly must believe that Green Party support is NOT coming primarily from the liberals.

---

Harper dangerous even with another minority government: Williams

excerpt:

"A majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history," Williams warned.

"Even without a majority, he has cut funding for minorities, cut funding for literacy, cut funding to students, volunteers, museums and arts and culture groups right across the country [and] his government cut funding to women's groups and … actually went so far as to remove the federal mandate to advance equality for women," Williams told an audience at a St. John's Board of Trade luncheon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:

According to this morning's Le Journal de Montreal, the Liberals have finally found someone to run against Thomas Mulcair in Outremont. The comedian Sebastien Dhavernas has been selected/appointed? as the candidate here.

In the interview in Le Journal de Montreal Mr Dhavernas is quoted as saying that the 'censorship of cinema' was the final straw leading him to enter the political arena.

Mr. Dhavernas also said with respect to Mr Mulcair that one should not divide the vote as that might lead to a majority Conservative government.

(The CPC ran a distant fourth in the last three elections in this riding).

---