babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Cause for Celebration-New CTV Poll-Liberals 30/CPC-28/NDP-21

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Cause for Celebration-New CTV Poll-Liberals 30/CPC-28/NDP-21
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 28 April 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The CPC lead is gone, gone, gone!!!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114739209893_35/?hub=TopStories

I'll worry about NDP seat totals later but this is great news. If Mr. Harper wants an election, bring it on. He might just get crushed!

And 21% for the NDP! This is fanatastic.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Rob8305 ]

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Rob8305 ]


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 28 April 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regional Breakdown

Ontario-Liberals-38%/Conservatives-30%-NDP-23%
Quebec-BQ-55%/Liberals-16%

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Rob8305 ]


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 28 April 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nationally, the numbers indicate Conservative support has weakened in the past two weeks, after a surge during the worst of the sponsorship inquiry revelations.

"In two weeks, as the news agenda shifts away from corruption to now election timing, they are now on the wrong side issue, and their support falls," Gregg said.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 April 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suspect that until the actual election, these polls will continue to go up and down. More revelations from Gomery will hurt the Liberals. The BQ is tightening their grip on Quebec. The good news I guess is that this Lib/NDP 'agreement in principle' is turning people around - the prospect of actually getting Parliament working again is having a good impact. As Harper and his Gestapo get more and more frustrated and angry they'll say more stupid things - shades of June 2004!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 April 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what's with the Green Party at 10% nationally and at 12% in Quebec - ahead of the Conservatives and the NDP???

Let's get real, if there is one party that has been 100% invisible over the last few months its the federal Green Party - esp. in Quebec. I suspect that when you offer Green as an option - esp. in Quebec where there seems to be such a vacuum right now, saying "green/Vert" is just another way of saying "undecided" or "I won't vote"

I think the Greens actually benefit from getting no publicity and having no profile. As long as no one knows who their leader is and and they have no profile at all, people can project what they want on to them. It will be amusing if the Greens try to get included in the leaders debate - their support might actually be higher if they stay out and no one has to see that they don't live up to people's fantasy!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 April 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I call BS on the little window poll % charts, the one shows the NDP @ 18% nationally, but the body says the NDP are at 21%. I would bet that the 10% Green in PQ is incorrect as well.

Where is the original poll figures I wonder.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 28 April 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
It's just a "rogue poll", right, Leuca? Springbob? Heywood? Anyone?

Heh, heh, heh.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 28 April 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is another poll which shows even bigger CPC decline.

canada news
Thursday, Apr 28, 2005
Liberals, Tories in virtual tie after PM's TV speech: poll


full image
Prime Minister Paul Martin is shown during his national TV address. (CP)
OTTAWA (CP) - A Conservative lead in popular support seems to have evaporated this week, suggests a poll conducted after Paul Martin's national TV address and while the Liberal-NDP budget pact was being worked out.

The survey by GPC Research had the two parties in a virtual dead heat: 27 per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal and 25 per cent said they would opt for the Conservatives if an election were held. Those numbers would represent a break with every other poll done since a spring election became a distinct possibility in the wake of the unfolding sponsorship inquiry.
More:
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1910093


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 28 April 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I suspect that until the actual election, these polls will continue to go up and down.

Is the prognosis on Darrel Stinson and David Chatters also tied to the polls? Chances are their condition was somewhat downgraded when this one was released.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 28 April 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's by the Strategic Council (Allan Gregg's unit) - I wonder why CTV are no longer using Ipsos-Reid?
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 29 April 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
It's by the Strategic Council (Allan Gregg's unit) - I wonder why CTV are no longer using Ipsos-Reid?

Have you not noticed that Ipsos-Reid has a new media patron?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 29 April 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The text of the CTV web story has the NDP at 21, but the graphic says 18. The CTV news story said 18. So who knows? Little mention of the bizarre upswing ( ) in Green party support.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard that the Globe and Mail and CTV fired Ipsos-Reid and decided to have Allan Gregg's comnpany as their new pollster. Ipsos then went to Global on bended knee desparate to stay in the public eye.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreedomOfChoice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8196

posted 29 April 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for FreedomOfChoice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A liberal win would send a strong message to Quebec and the West.
It would just about guarantee a separatist win and confirm to the West it's time to take control of there own destiny.

With a Conservative win,Quebec will still go but more likely to negotiate on better terms.

How do we avoid a Quebec Separation,send in the troops maybe.


From: BC | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
newdog#1
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9011

posted 29 April 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for newdog#1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is something you lib lovers can be proud of
What happened to our tsunami aid?
by Garth Pritchard, Canadafreepress.com
Monday, April 26, 2005

Given the lack of interest in a federal election over the revelations from Judge Gomery's inquiry, one wonders how Canadians will react when they learn that Ottawa is sitting on more than $400 million in tsunami relief.

The outpouring of compassion following the Dec. 26, 2004 disaster was unprecedented in Canadian history. This is a compassionate country, and Canadians gave from their pockets, piggy banks, and bank accounts. The Canadian media told them not to send blankets or food--send money. And they did.

On Jan. 3, Prime Minister Paul Martin committed his government to 'double up,' or match the $40 million collected up to that point. He also acknowledged that a reconnaissance team had recommended sending in the 200 soldier-strong Canadian military Disaster Assistance Relief Team, or DART.

I accompanied the Canadian DART to Kalumnai, Sri Lanka. The tragedy staggered us all. But when we witnessed the resilience and human spirit of the surviving Sri Lankans, we were absolutely committed to these beautiful and gentle people. The devastation was total. Parents lost children. Children lost parents. Three hundred metres of a city gone, 13,000 dead in Kalumnai's Ampara district alone.

The Canadians went to work immediately, producing drinking water, sending out their medical teams, doctors, nurses, medaids. They brought boats knowing that a huge bridge in their area had been knocked out.

But even before DART was deployed, its soldiers knew full well they were being set up by the bureaucrats in Ottawa to fail. The Minister of External Affairs claimed they were the "wrong people, the wrong place." Otta-wa's Canadian Press joined the attack immediately. "Paper tiger" said Terry Pedwell's story. "Antiquated" wrote Stephen Thorne. These are two senior CP reporters.

Back in Ottawa, the press conferences undermined the DART efforts. One in particular. held at the Ottawa Press Club, turned everyone's stomachs in Sri Lanka. The president of CARE Canada showed journalists a bucket, an eyedropper and chemicals. "I can produce clean water for 27 cents a litre." He called the Canadians in Sri Lanka "amateurs," a cheap shot dutifully parroted by the Ottawa Citizen.

Unlike Canada, there is very little infrastructure in cities like Kalumnai. Drinking water comes from groundwater wells, which at that time were choked with debris, garbage, sand, salt water and dead bodies. Chemical purification couldn't begin to purify the water in the quantities the residents of Kalumnai so desperately needed. The job fell to DART's industrial reverse-osmosis purifiers and the experts who knew how to keep them running. They produced 3.5 million litres of pure water. Canadian doctors saw 7,500 patients. One platoon, known affectionately to the Sri Lankans as the "boat people," ferried 70,000 Sri Lankans to and from markets.

But from the day they arrived, the Canadian DART members were stymied in their simplest requests for basic items such as tents, water pumps, parts for boat engines, and fibreglass to repair the Sri Lankan boats.

I was approached by angry and frustrated young Canadian soldiers asking me if I would donate some money, along with theirs, so they could buy parts for the 1960s motors they were working on.

They also asked me if I would take pictures of them giving their groundsheets to the people in a displaced persons' camp. I refused. I know from experience what would happen to their careers when the bureaucrats in Ottawa found out.

All 200 of us realized very quickly that the money promised on Jan. 3 by the Prime Minister of Canada was not going to arrive, even though the interest alone on the original $80 million would have accomplished miracles.

What we received instead were arrogant and nasty members of the non-governmental organization community, led by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The NGOs made it very clear that they did not like working with the military. This was not going to be a joint effort.

The DART asked CIDA for spark plugs, points, condensers, alternators and distributors to get the Sri Lankan fishermen back on the water. The answer from the CIDA representative: "I've sent a request to Ottawa."

Three and a half weeks into the Canadian mandate, a meagre $50,000 was released with great pomp. It probably represented two days' interest on the amount of money CIDA is sitting on.

Average Canadians donated their money to get tsunami victims immediate help, not years later. The Sri Lankans have been told by their own media that Canadians have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to help them. Four months later the bureaucrats in Hull are playing God, not just with taxpayers' dollars, but with donated money that came with no strings attached--windfall for CIDA and its contractors.

Where is the $425 million? The NGOs and CIDA have an automatic response: "We're here for the long term." In other words, don't ask, because it's none of your business.

Meanwhile, the people of Sri Lanka are in exactly the same condition they were in one week after their lives were shattered by a wave 32 feet high travelling at 500 miles an hour. If you were among the millions of Canadians who donated to tsunami relief, aren't you curious about what happened to your money?


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 29 April 2005 12:22 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The poll is a great news.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 29 April 2005 12:24 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:

Have you not noticed that Ipsos-Reid has a new media patron?


Right - Canwest-Global. I wonder what the inside scoop on that is?


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 29 April 2005 12:29 AM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
No comment on the Tsunami relief issue?
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 29 April 2005 12:30 AM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
I know who posted it might be a troll, but it is still a legitimate issue.
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 29 April 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
And I also think that whole article may have been posted in. If so it is a copyright violation.
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 29 April 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what precisely does it have to do with this poll? If it is that important, it can have its own thread.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I heard that the Globe and Mail and CTV fired Ipsos-Reid and decided to have Allan Gregg's comnpany as their new pollster. Ipsos then went to Global on bended knee desparate to stay in the public eye.

Now that's interesting ... I watched CTV's Canada AM a couple of days ago, and guess who they introduced as their latest Canada AM discussion panel political pundit ... Yeah, that's correct, Allan Gregg.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 29 April 2005 12:49 AM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, I was just thinking that the CPC support now is back to where it was on Election Night 2004 so Liberal support has fallen but CPC support really hasn't gone up. An election right now just doesn't make sense (except for the BQ, of course)

I'd be interested in hearing the board thoughts on whether these two polls are enough to stop the election bandwagon, though? I have my doubts. I think Stevie has his mind made up and nothing will really deter him now.

However, even if Harper still wants an election, it is by no means guaranteed. CBC's Keith Boag was on the early edition of Politics today and he said that the parliamentary manuevers for the non confidence motion will be the likes of which haven't been seen since the senate tried to block the GST in 1990 plus Harper needs the 3 independents just as much as Martin needs them to win the vote so......interesting times lie ahead.


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 29 April 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I expect the Conservative strategists are telling Harper that he needs to tell his two ailing MP's that they have to be too sick to attend the vote.

Regardless, I congratulate Jack on changing the context of the situation. Even if we have an election now, it will not be solely about throwing the Liberals out of office. And with the focus where it benefits us the most -- on the "NDP Budget", I believe that we would elect more MP's. I only worry about how the party would fund an election held so soon.

Still, I do not want an election because I don't think it would be good for Canada to have 60+ BLOC MP's and that appears to be hard to avoid. On the other hand, I think the danger of the Conservatives winning a majority has passed.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 29 April 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Now that's interesting ... I watched CTV's Canada AM a couple of days ago, and guess who they introduced as their latest Canada AM discussion panel political pundit ... Yeah, that's correct, Allan Gregg.


Another interesting facet to this is why the CBC lost Allan Gregg. He was a prominent face during their election night coverage in 2004 and appeared often on the National's "At Issue" panel. He is a loss to the CBC even though he was an old conservative hand. He doesn't show any bias at all and his analysis is fantastic.


From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve_Shutt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2922

posted 29 April 2005 01:10 AM      Profile for Steve_Shutt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Garth, couldn't agree more. Jack's manouver was a first rate winner - that said, I am moderately disapointed that the poll numbers don't better reflect that. Still, I am looking forward to seeing the polling numbers taken entirely after the "NDP Budget" was released. Chantal Hebert, who has been very critical of Layton in the past, was effusive in her praise of him on the National's "At Issue" panel tonight calling it his week.
From: coming in off the left wing | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 29 April 2005 01:16 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MonkeyIslanderPolical23:
I know who posted it might be a troll, but it is still a legitimate issue.

It's an issue for Liberals. We have NDPers, general radicals, and some Conservatives hereabouts, but basically no Liberals--maybe Boom Boom. He evidently mistook this for a different forum, you can tell by the way he started his post with "you lib lovers".


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 29 April 2005 01:34 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
The text of the CTV web story has the NDP at 21, but the graphic says 18. The CTV news story said 18. So who knows? Little mention of the bizarre upswing ( ) in Green party support.

Not that bizarre, if you think about it. I'm sure there's a lot of "a pox on all their houses" sentiment going around and the Greens stand to benefit from that.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 29 April 2005 03:30 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I take all polls with a grain of salt. Bah.
Election day is all that matters to me.

From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 29 April 2005 04:46 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing that any Canadian political analyst needs to point out is that the Liberal Party is kind of like the "super party" of Canadian politics. It is a fact as I learned in my Politics class, that if you add up the years the parties have been in power since 1867 that the Liberals have been in power for most of those by a large margin. It is the most successful political party in Canadian history, and one of the most successful in the World. Some parties could only dream that their bottom-level of support would be 25% and that even after being in power for several terms with a huge scandal on their hands that they could still have those types of numbers. Pardoxically we are seeing the strength of the Liberal party right now and the weakness of the Conservative party. And if the Conservative party can only do this well under these circumcstances, that shows you something. All political analysts - whether they like the Liberal party or not have to acknowledge that it is much more successful than the Conservatives and that to go up against it the Conservatives can't be just as good as it, but needs to be better.

In any event, I don't want a Conservative government even if the Liberal government is screwed up. I want an increase in NDP seats but I want the Libs in power and not the Cons so I would prefer it stay like this rather than the numbers we saw a couple weeks ago.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 09:41 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like there might be a reason for some BQ members to find themselves too sick to show up for a vote as well.

quote:
On Wednesday, a Leger Marketing poll pegged support for sovereignty at 54 per cent, the highest level in years.

But yesterday, CROP produced different numbers, pegging sovereignty at 47 per cent, the average level it has been at for the past few years.

From the perspective of someone who had a front-row seat at the 1990 Meech Lake crisis, the pulse of sovereignty does not feel like it is beating remotely as strongly as it did back then.


Source (Toronto Star, CHANTAL HÉBERT)

Of course, from the sounds of it on you-know-where.org (formally know as you-know-where.ca,) this just fuels the seperatist feeling in that province we've all come to know as "the West".


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 29 April 2005 09:48 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...that province we've all come to know as "the West".

You mean Alburda™?

™© Dr. Conway


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The title of this thread is wrong.

The NDP is at 18 per cent. Exactly where we were when Jack first announced his plan to prop up the Liberals.

The Liberals have done great. The NDP haven't. The CPC has done worse.

Obviously, and predictably, Quebeckers have reacted negatively to Jack's decision to "climb into bed" with Martin.

Obviously, and predictably, by helping Martin change the subject away from Gomery, the NDP has hurt the CPC - whose only campaign topic will be scandal-scandal-scandal - and helped the Liberals - whose campaign topic will be anything-but-scandal.

The Ontario numbers are the only positive note here for New Democrats - and that should be taken with a grain of salt given that the massive swing from the NDP to the Liberals last spring took place mainly in Ontario. Those are the voters that are most susceptible to "strategic voting" arguments - and we can expect those shortly.

Given that most "New Democrats" on this board view a gain for the Liberals as a great victory, I'd imagine those arguments will work quite well.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 09:59 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think most of us see a loss for the Cons as a victory ... Country before party is where I come from.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 10:03 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I hope you enjoy your majority Liberal government. Country before party's where I'm from too - and if you think setting Martin up for a majority government is good for Canada then you are on crack.

I'd rather see a viable NDP then a left-wing rump of the Liberal party. I think that's good for Canada.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 29 April 2005 10:05 AM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I'm pleased with the results because usually when there is a threat the Conservatives will win power, our vote declines. An election with the theme of getting rid of the Liberals would not be good for us. We need an election where the electorate is not spooked by the chance of the Conservatives winning a majority and will listen to policies. Lastly, this is the first time in a long time that we have had an NDP style budget. We have lots to be thankful for.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 April 2005 10:27 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hard to know what to make of this, with only 1,000 nationally. The Ontario sample isn't too big, and they don't say what part of the other Ontario 9% is Greens or other. Either way, the Conservatives are down from last June in Ontario, parking a few votes with the Greens, apparently.

The UBC Forecaster says this swing means the Liberals lose only 16 seats in Ontario, 11 to the NDP, 5 to the Conservatives, so the result is
Lib 59
Con 29
NDP 18

That's without the NDP picking up Davenport, Beaches--East York, Sudbury, or Thunder Bay--Superior North, all of which it would get if the Conservatives took some votes from the Liberals. But at least the NDP picks up Trinity--Spadina, Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, Nickel Belt, Parkdale--High Park, Hamilton Mountain, Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing, Kenora, Oshawa, London--Fanshawe, Thunder Bay--Rainy River, and Welland.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 29 April 2005 10:28 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am amazed at how decisive everyone here is. I feel terribly conflicted about what the right thing is.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 10:29 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
Well I hope you enjoy you majority Liberal government. Country before party's where I'm from too. I'd rather see a Harper minority than a Martin majority.

So what have you seen so far that the NDP has gained that is bad for the country?

Are you suggesting that the NDP stop trying to move forward their agenda and put all their effort into exclusively bringing down the Liberals?

And if they do concentrate on bringing down the Linerals, what makes you think that this is something that is good for the NDP, or good for Canada?

What good does a CPC minority do for Canada? Is there some kind of positive difference between a Liberal minority and a CPC minority?

I really fail to see your strategy here. Can you attempt to explain it?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As has already been pointed out, the NDP has gained nothing for anyone. The budget won't pass as is. Even if it does Martin has already indicated that he's willing to knife Layton in the back to bring back corporate tax cuts. Not to mention the fact that this is just getting the Liberals to implement their own platform - which New Democrats campaigned against as inadequate. Put simply, the improvements are not that profound and they are not going to last.

As long as the Liberal party exists they will undermine genuine social change by co-opting our message, then watering down, slowing stopping or reversing reform. We all know this. If you like the way Canada is now then vote Liberal. If you want to change it, really change it, you have to get rid of the Liberals.

So, yes, ridding Canada of the Liberal Party is good for the country. It used to be one of the prime goals of the NDP. In every other country with a viable Socialist party, the middle-of-the-road "liberal" party was chased out years ago. The reason we form majority governments in Saskatchewan, BC and Manitoba is because the CCF or NDP succeeded in doing this.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690

posted 29 April 2005 11:22 AM      Profile for Lukewarm        Edit/Delete Post
Yay! The liberals might just get in and continue their (how many year?) streak of lying stealing and what not!

I don't care who wins as long as it's not the liberals, whether it be NDP or even the Green party (which won't happen)

Are you going to let them get away with this? Are we all pushovers?

Absolute power corrupts, they've been in power for long enough, time to move on.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]


From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals are NOT about to disappear. Apart from this trivial accounting scandal that pales in comparison to what Conservative governments have done in Canada - Canadians are simply not that upset with the POLICY direction of the current government. Why would they be? We have high growth, high dollar, high surplus, low unemployment etc... and typically people will overlook scandals that don't involve killing people - they are satisfied with the overall policy direction of the government.

The NDP can talk turkey with the Liberals. In a Conservative minority, there is nothing to discuss - the NDP and Tory policies are so ridiculously far apart there there is no chance of any cooperation on any issues at all.

If the Liberals can hold off the Conservatives in Ontario and if the NDP can gain some Conservative seats out west, plus Oshawa, then we could get a nice stable Liberal-NDP minority government that might last several years and where the NDP could get some real leverage.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 11:32 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
Obviously, and predictably, Quebeckers have reacted negatively to Jack's decision to "climb into bed" with Martin.

Obviously and predictably, it doesn't matter a tinker's dam how Quebecers react to Jack, since the NDP has no chance of coming anywhere close to winning a single seat there.

It's the height of vanity to even pretend Quebecers are paying attention to the NDP, let alone reacting to it.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
I am amazed at how decisive everyone here is. I feel terribly conflicted about what the right thing is.

Well you're (I believe) a Liberal who'se conflicted, but you're used to your party being in power.

Most of us are NDPers who know the NDP will not win the election, so have different expectations. And most of us hate everything the Conservative Party stands for, while only hating about 70% of what the Liberal Party stands for.

For most of us, the most desired outcome of an election is a Liberal minority with the NDP having the power to prop them up (or not), while the Conservatives twist in the wind. A Liberal majority means no check on the 70% of Liberal policy we hate, a Conservative minority is unworkable and a Conservative majority is horrifying.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, nobody died in the Watergate break-in.

People in the NDP universe aren't mad about the fact that millions of dollars in public money has been stolen because we keep telling them not to be. We've gone out of our way to change the topic.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
It's the height of vanity to even pretend Quebecers are paying attention to the NDP, let alone reacting to it.

Right. I don't know why I would have thought differently.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 12:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
People in the NDP universe aren't mad about the fact that millions of dollars in public money has been stolen because we keep telling them not to be. We've gone out of our way to change the topic.

For the simple reason that if the only issue in the election is that the Liberals are criminals - there will be no reason for people not to vote Conservative. The NDP would get swamped in a stampede to vote Conservative.

The NDP exists as a party to propose and advance progressive social and economic policies - not to do nothing but scandal monger.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 12:32 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here I thought a goal of the NDP was to win power. How silly of me.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP's goal is to win power in the long term, but if you seriously think that all Layton has to do is flap his arms like a chicken and squawk about the sponsorship scandal and BOOM, the NDP will overtake the Liberals in the polls and form a majority government - then I want to know what drugs you've been smoking.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:

Right. I don't know why I would have thought differently.


I wasn't aware you thought at all.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's the question I want answered ... how does a platform of calling the Liberals corrupt do anything to forward the NDP agenda? An agenda which by the way I believe is good for Canada.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The UBC Forecaster says this swing means the Liberals lose only 16 seats in Ontario, 11 to the NDP, 5 to the Conservatives, so the result is
Lib 59
Con 29
NDP 18

That's without the NDP picking up Davenport, Beaches--East York, Sudbury, or Thunder Bay--Superior North, all of which it would get if the Conservatives took some votes from the Liberals. But at least the NDP picks up Trinity--Spadina, Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, Nickel Belt, Parkdale--High Park, Hamilton Mountain, Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing, Kenora, Oshawa, London--Fanshawe, Thunder Bay--Rainy River, and Welland.


Wilf, you have to be careful about a lot of those seats in Northern Ontario. If you assume a uniform Liberal-NDP swing across Ontario then Yes, the NDP does start scooping up a ton of seats up North. But in reality Northern Ontario seems much more wedded to personalities of candidates and is much less likely to swing along with the province-wide trend.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
People in the NDP universe aren't mad about the fact that millions of dollars in public money has been stolen because we keep telling them not to be. We've gone out of our way to change the topic.

Horsefeathers. Layton has been very forceful in his condemnation of the Sponsorship shenanigans. He has also put it in the proper perspective - it has already damaged federalism in Quebec, must it also cost us the Atlantic accord and daycare and Kyoto and affordable housing?

Realistically, the best outcome to the scandal is to close the remaining loopholes to campaign finance that Chretien left open so it can never happen again. Steven Harper sure as hell ain't going to close those - he's dying to belly up to that trough - but an NDP govt. sure would, either with their own majority or in a Lib/NDP minority coalition.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690

posted 29 April 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Lukewarm        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lib 59
Con 29
NDP 18

LOL! When hell freezes!

From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 29 April 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like the Cons empty rhetoric of "Liberal Corruption: All corruption, All the time" failed to impress Canadians. All talk and void of ideas. Tax cuts for rich corporations Like I said cons are bankrupt and void. Cons are even worse than the gLibs and that's saying alot.

The gLibs need to be taught a lesson in all this. The ideal situation would be an NDP minority government with broad support from the Bloc and Liberal progressive wing to put through progressive programs that would move Canada forward and keep it competitive and healthy.
I would like to see more money released for healthcare because the current situation is ridiculous considering we have a HUGE surplus. That is unacceptable and immoral.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 April 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Northern Ontario seems much more wedded to personalities of candidates and is much less likely to swing along with the province-wide trend.

True, but the same is true of Welland, London, Hamilton, and even Beaches - East York to some extent. With good local circumstances the NDP could win Peterborough (Peter Adams retiring), and ridings like Brant, Guelph, Cambridge, and many others. And with poor local circumstances the NDP could fail to win some of the Northern seats as you say. But on average, the province-wide trend has to mean something.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 29 April 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The NDP's goal is to win power in the long term, but if you seriously think that all Layton has to do is flap his arms like a chicken and squawk about the sponsorship scandal and BOOM, the NDP will overtake the Liberals in the polls and form a majority government - then I want to know what drugs you've been smoking.

Fair enough with respect to the sentiment of your post, but you seem to misunderstand the problem. Burns (correctly) points out that many people on here (let's call them New Democrats by convenience) would PREFER the NDP to do poorly if it meant that the big, bad Conservatives were kept out of office. So the question is this: just how does this type of thinking promote the 'long term' interests of the NDP? You (and a host of others around here) ridicule Burns because he does not advocate your anti-Conservative first agenda, but he IS on the mark with respect to the prospects for the NDP as a viable political party. To be sure, the kind of 'supporters' we seem to have (if rabble is any evidence) would make people who have fought tooth-and-nail for the cause of the New Democratic Party and the Co-Operative Commenwealth Federation despair.


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
The gnashing of teeth over on the DarkSide over this poll is truly hilarious!

One has calmly reacted thusly:

quote:
Read it and puke.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114739209893_35/?hub=TopStories

I think I'm going to avoid the rush!

Where the hell can I buy a separatist party membership right f****** now!

I want the west out of this country of morons and pinheads!!!

I've had it!!!

I'm outta here!


Poor widdle Springbob! Maybe you should have spent the last couple of years LISTENING instead of pontificating. Fix your disgusting, slimy, bigoted hate-filled party and Canadians would be GLAD to dump the Liberals. Stop blaming Canadians for the fact that your party is too disgusting to contemplate putting into power. It's your own bloody fault and no one else's!


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 April 2005 01:42 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Crikey. I hate to disparage anyone, but whoever wrote that post you quoted is a turd. The dark site is Canada's lunatic fringe, no other way to describe them.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 29 April 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Burns (correctly) points out that many people on here (let's call them New Democrats by convenience) would PREFER the NDP to do poorly if it meant that the big, bad Conservatives were kept out of office. So the question is this: just how does this type of thinking promote the 'long term' interests of the NDP? You (and a host of others around here) ridicule Burns because he does not advocate your anti-Conservative first agenda, but he IS on the mark with respect to the prospects for the NDP as a viable political party. To be sure, the kind of 'supporters' we seem to have (if rabble is any evidence) would make people who have fought tooth-and-nail for the cause of the New Democratic Party and the Co-Operative Commenwealth Federation despair.

This has been said a few times before. I hate to have to bring it up again, but you leave me little choice. RABBLE IS NOT AN NDP BOARD!

There are NDP supporters on this board. There are also "anti-Conservatives" who swing back and forth depending on who has the best chance of beating the party they hate. There may be some Liberals. There are definitely some people who align to the left of the NDP and may in fact see the NDP as irreconcilable compromisers. There are also a few actual Conservatives, many of them trolls, a few others who are more respectful people that like the challenge of debating rationally with those who disagree with them. The point is, you can't take anything you read here to be representative of some kind of 'NDPer consensus' because there is no NDPer consensus here. We aren't all NDPers. Many people here don't give a rats ass about the "long-term interests of the NDP" and if you expect them to, you'll be quite disappointed.

I am an NDP supporter. I was a card-carrying member of the Party until I left the country. I would very much like to see the Party do well. I think the key to success is probably for the Party to draw a fair number of soft-liberal supporters in, as well as a few "protest voters" who may have previously been with the Reform/ Alliance/ Conservatives. I also believe the way to do this is not to run the Conservatives' campaign for them!

The Conservatives benefit most from an "all-corruption, all-the-time" election campaign because it lets them avoid talking about their policies. Conservative policies are not popular with more than about 30% of Canadians, tops. If the election is about "corruption," the Conservatives have the best chance of winning. If the election is about policies, the Conservatives will lose. We will split votes with the Liberals over corporate tax cuts, other policy differences within a broad left-liberal milleu, and whether the Liberals presumed "managerial competence" in implementing those policies makes up for the taint of corruption, or whether voters are finally ready to give the other perceived left-leaning party a turn.

Jack threw the hammer down last week, clearly articulated a set of NDP policies, and demanded that the Liberals comply with them or get booted. The Liberals are the party who blinked. The NDP is the party that put its policies front and center. We won. Either we will have (1) shifted the ballot question in an election that will happen shortly, or (2) got our issues passed, in a way we can take credit for, in an election that will happen six months or so in the future.

The most recent CTV poll reflects this. The NDP has climbed from 18% to 21% in popular support. These are great numbers for a party that was under 10% just a few years ago. The Liberals and Tories are sitting at about 30% each. I think that in order to be successful, the NDP does not need to "destroy" the Liberals. I don't think we can no matter how hard we tried. The Liberals have been the "natural governing party" in Canada since Sir John A. died. That's a huge historical advantage that may weaken with scandal, but isn't going to go away absent some massive demographic shift.

What we need to do is create a competitive three-way race and try to come up the middle. We are a lot closer to that now than we have been for a long time.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
I wasn't aware you thought at all.
Right. Apologies for not sharing profound insights like these:
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites here last November:
...it's definitely in the NDP's interest to get a larger share of the popular vote in Quebec than the Conservatives, which I believe has never happened up to now.
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites hours ago:
it doesn't matter a tinker's dam how Quebecers react to Jack.
Conviction. Consistency. Vision.

Well done son.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Booting out Liberals who steal taxpayer money and give it to their friends has EVERYTHING to do with making life better for average Canadians.

Every dollar wasted by Liberal corruption is a dollar less for health care, education and protecting the environment.

That's a message the NDP could have driven in the next federal election.

Now, it's going to be much tougher for the NDP to claim that higher ground because, rightly or wrong, Layton is now seen as being in bed with Paul Martin.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Full quote:

Still, every post-election poll has shown the NDP up in Quebec and the Conservatives down.

Neither party is going to win a single seat in Quebec in the next election, but it's definitely in the NDP's interest to get a larger share of the popular vote in Quebec than the Conservatives, which I believe has never happened up to now. And every vote is $1.75 a year.


My goodness but you're slimy, Burns!


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
The most recent CTV poll reflects this. The NDP has climbed from 18% to 21% in popular support.
No they haven't!!!

Jesus. Look at the fucking poll. We're still at 18.

Whoever started this thread just pulled the 21 number out of their ass.

Jack's message is driving votes to the Liberals not us.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
My goodness but you're slimy, Burns!
If I was slimy why would I have posted the link to your original comments?

Forget it. I apologize. This is so inside the beltway that I'm sure only you and I are reading these posts.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought you tore up your membership card.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look folks - the numbers speak for themselves.

The Liberal-NDP budget move has driven voters scurrying back to the Liberals. The shift back is especially pronounced in Ontario.

NDP numbers, meanwhile, are stalled.

And for people who think it's all worth it because Jack won a great victory for ordinary families -- it's time you realized:

Paul Martin wants his budget to go down.

I repeat - Paul Martin wants his budget to go down.

Why? So the campaign becomes about Conservatives conspiring with separatists to vote down a budget that's good for people. And there's no denying that thanks to Layton's intervention, the budget that will never pass is now good for people.

By the looks of things now, it will be another winning Liberal campaign.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Booker2 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 29 April 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Whoever started this thread just pulled the 21 number out of their ass.

As of last night, the text of the CTV article read 21%. As I checked again this morning, that has been changed to 18%.

18% is still twice as much as the 9% we got in 2000 and better than the 15% we got last year. It also still means that Jack isn't "driving" votes anywhere. The NDP was at 18% before Paul Martin spoke on TV. The speech and the "deal" brought blue liberal swingers back to the liberals, but that still leaves NDP support unchanged. Falling CP support also helps avoid "spooking" our voters into backing the Liberals. The Liberals will not be able to "take credit" for the budget because it is clear we forced them into it. At the very least, we are solidifying our existing support. We've also gone up to 23% support in Ontario, which could mean about 18 seats there.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 29 April 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
The UBC Forecaster says this swing means the Liberals lose only 16 seats in Ontario, 11 to the NDP, 5 to the Conservatives, so the result is
Lib 59
Con 29
NDP 18


While I am interested in what the "Forecasters" and "Seat Projection Models" say too, I have to also say that last year some of them were inaccurate. I remember that Wilfred Laurier University guy whose seat projections of way more Conservative than Liberal seats were plastered all over the newspapers prior to election night and they turned out to be way off.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 29 April 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
...if you seriously think that all Layton has to do is flap his arms like a chicken...

Chickens have arms?!

quote:
Originally posted by Robert James:
... many people on here (let's call them New Democrats by convenience) would PREFER the NDP to do poorly if it meant that the big, bad Conservatives were kept out of office...

With all due respect, Robert, there's a couple of points maybe *you* misunderstand.

I'll preface this by saying that I have never, *ever* found myself in a situation where I had to vote Liberal (thank goodness!) I have voted NDP in every election but two; once I voted Green, and once I refused my ballot when *all* the choices sucked. That being said...

First of all, some of the most strident anti-Reformatory people on this site (at least, the ones who have stated in no uncertain terms that we would rather see the NDP lose a few seats than see the Reformatories get in) are gays and/or lesbians. I'll leave it to you to puzzle out just why that might be...

Above and beyond that, many of us remember all too well the damage wrought by the Mulrooney Conservatives— and these guys are worse, far worse. They aren't even Conservatives. They are Reform Party members who have murdered and skinned the old PC Party and are hoping to slink into power wearing its skin. These people are worse than Mike Harris at his most ambitiously skullduggerous. (Wow, I don't get to use *that* word every day!)

Those of us who are vehemently, unalterably opposed to these Reformatory bigots (if I may presume to speak for more than just myself) take that stance not only out of personal self-interest, but also because of what we see as the national interest. No, the Liberals are *not* a great alternative, but as long as this bastardized Frankenstein version of the Conservative Party stalks the land, a Liberal-NDP mix (or even — yuck! — a Liberal majority) IS preferable.

Let the Reformatories either purge the reactionary bigots from their ranks and become Conservatives again, or fracture into two again. I don't care which, as long as they never gain power. From a socially progressive point of view that is responsive to citizens (as opposed to just banks and transnational corporations), and from an environmentally friendly and Canadian sovereigntist (as opposed to Yankee lapdog) point of view the Reformatories would be the worst possible thing to happen this country. The dismantling of this country that Lyin' Brian began would go on at an absolutely frenzied pace under Stephen Harper, and I'm not willing to even consider it. At all.

If that pisses off Burns and a few other "howly screamy" types who seem to be able to do nothing but rant and rave about "corrupt Liberals" to the exclusion of all else... too gawd damn bad.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 April 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let the Reformatories either purge the reactionary bigots from their ranks

There's little else there. Remove the bigots and you're left with a handful of PCs who lacked the integrity to bide their time until the Reform party died the ignoble death it was hurtling towards.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 April 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aric H:
"Forecasters" and "Seat Projection Models" . . . turned out to be way off.

Indeed, the UBC Forecaster uses only provincial trends. Some regions will be different, and more importantly, local races will be different. And the smaller the province, the smaller the sample size in the poll, and the less accurate the resulting forecast. Their value is only in demonstrating how a provincial trend would translate into seats, all other factors being equal.

They are useful in showing how the federalist vote fragmenting in Quebec would, if voters followed provincial trends, hand the Bloc an extra 13 MPs without the Bloc getting one extra vote. This of course takes no account of the possibility that federalists in Gatineau would swing locally behind the Conservative, or in Hull-Aylmer behind the NDP, but the forecast shows clearly would would happen if they didn't.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 29 April 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
There's little else there. Remove the bigots and you're left with a handful of PCs who lacked the integrity to bide their time until the Reform party died the ignoble death it was hurtling towards.

True, but that's not *our* fault, is it? Let them fix up their own mess, or burn it to the ground and start over.

After reading Heywood's disgusting admission on the Khalsa thread, I have no respect (or sympathy) for any of them. That entire party is filth.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 29 April 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

With all due respect, Robert, there's a couple of points maybe *you* misunderstand.

I'll preface this by saying that I have never, *ever* found myself in a situation where I had to vote Liberal (thank goodness!) I have voted NDP in every election but two; once I voted Green, and once I refused my ballot when *all* the choices sucked. That being said...

First of all, some of the most strident anti-Reformatory people on this site (at least, the ones who have stated in no uncertain terms that we would rather see the NDP lose a few seats than see the Reformatories get in) are gays and/or lesbians. I'll leave it to you to puzzle out just why that might be...

Above and beyond that, many of us remember all too well the damage wrought by the Mulrooney Conservatives— and these guys are worse, far worse. They aren't even Conservatives. They are Reform Party members who have murdered and skinned the old PC Party and are hoping to slink into power wearing its skin. These people are worse than Mike Harris at his most ambitiously skullduggerous. (Wow, I don't get to use *that* word every day!)

Those of us who are vehemently, unalterably opposed to these Reformatory bigots (if I may presume to speak for more than just myself) take that stance not only out of personal self-interest, but also because of what we see as the national interest. No, the Liberals are *not* a great alternative, but as long as this bastardized Frankenstein version of the Conservative Party stalks the land, a Liberal-NDP mix (or even — yuck! — a Liberal majority) IS preferable.

Let the Reformatories either purge the reactionary bigots from their ranks and become Conservatives again, or fracture into two again. I don't care which, as long as they never gain power. From a socially progressive point of view that is responsive to citizens (as opposed to just banks and transnational corporations), and from an environmentally friendly and Canadian sovereigntist (as opposed to Yankee lapdog) point of view the Reformatories would be the worst possible thing to happen this country. The dismantling of this country that Lyin' Brian began would go on at an absolutely frenzied pace under Stephen Harper, and I'm not willing to even consider it. At all.

If that pisses off Burns and a few other "howly screamy" types who seem to be able to do nothing but rant and rave about "corrupt Liberals" to the exclusion of all else... too gawd damn bad.


I appreciate your response, and, believe me, I am well aware of the fact gay and lesbian people are concerned about the prospects of a Conservative government. (Now, I could get into a long engagement with you about whether or not gays and lesbians ought to find their home in the New Democratic Party, but that discussion has been pursued many times and in many places before, largely to no avail.)

So, no, I have not misunderstood anything actually. And, I think robbie dee or someone has demonstrated yet again why I made the original post. I have no problem with people not being New Democrats - that is not what upsets me. What upsets me - as a lifelong partisan of the NDP - is when THESE people (read: the people who don't want to be classified as committed, partisan New Democrats) presume to tell people like ME or other NDPers who work tirelessly for the cause of the party that the best *strategy* for the NDP is to promote the agenda and the advancement of the LIBERAL party. Now, I don't care WHY they articulate this kind of message; I simply find it ridiculous that people such as myself are questioned for our 'commitment to the cause' of the NDP - namely its progressive agenda - by these kinds of people.

I have always fought for the NDP, even when it looked (and turned out to be) a lost cause. I am not trying to sound high-and-mighty however. I am simply trying to make the point that, as someone who has always been an unwavering New Democrat and hit the pavement to convince others of the benefit of aligning with the NDP, I find it disconcerting when told by people who admittedly are not *fully* behind the NDP (read: ready and willing to vote Liberal) that the NDP should sacrifice itself to slay the Conservative dragon. I think I am being reasonably clear: fair enough if you are NOT a committed NDP partisan, just don't presume to tell people who fight and sweat for the NDP and the promotion of its agenda what the party needs to do to establish itself as a force in Canadian politics when you tend to offer advice that amounts to the NDP shooting itself in the foot so the Liberals can make it to the finish line.

(edited for spelling)

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Robert James ]


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(Now, I could get into a long engagement with you about whether or not gays and lesbians ought to find their home in the New Democratic Party, but that discussion has been pursued many times and in many places before, largely to no avail.)

Yes, they ought to and for the most part they do! I'll bet that a higher % of gays and lesbians in Canada vote NDP than the % among heterosexuals.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 29 April 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well I hope you enjoy you majority Liberal government. Country before party's where I'm from too. I'd rather see a Harper minority than a Martin majority.
What kind of hallucinogens are causing Burns to conjure a Liberal majority out of numbers that fall short of those that produced the previous minority?

From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Burns is watching the same thing all Canadians are watching on their television.

Paul-D-P.

Martin and his lieutenants are barnstorming the country, doling out cash for NDP priorities like child care and affordable housing.

But with one catch.

Vote Liberal - or the money vanishes.

Martin has used Layton's credibility to turn this election on its head. He's framed an incredibly powerful ballot question that threatens to smoke the NDP.

That's what Burns is looking at.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Booker2 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 29 April 2005 06:23 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The mistake wasn't the deal. It was not then hammering Martin when he said he was going to make a side deal with Harper on coporate tax cuts. If the money was there before, why wasn't it spent. If it's not it's fiscally irresponsible to spend money on needed social spending and on tax cuts for the largest corporations. Tax cuts cost money. It's basic fiscal planning, something Mike Harris forgot. Time to say, we tried, but they just can't get by their natural desire to suck up to Tom D'Aquino.
From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 April 2005 06:29 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
10% from the stratigic counsel for the Greens

Now lets adjust the GPC poll to eliminate the 13% of undecided voters...

33% CPC
31% LIB
13.5% NDP
13.5% BQ
10% GRN

One rouge poll? maybe, 2? Not likely. I'd peg the Greens between 8 and 10 percent at this moment.

Okay, I want to say this poll is good news, but I may be killed by all of the NDPers in here. Ummm...


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 06:32 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aw, Booker2, you're the only one who really understands me.

I know everyone like plugging the poll numbers into their web simulators and playing make-believe but the only poll that matters is the one on election day. The NDP was leading in the polls in 1987. We were still the third party when the 88 results came in.

The polling doesn't matter. The positioning does. The Liberals will aggressively target NDP-Liberal switch voters in the name of protecting Canada from Harper and, as we've seen here, many "New Democrats" will happily heed the call. The Conservatives will aggressively target Tory-NDP switch voters in the name of protecting Canada from crooked Liberals. Does anybody want to give odds on a Lorne Nystrom comeback in 2005? The Bloc won't have to target anyone because they own Quebec now and the only party gaining is the Greens.

We were at 18 a few weeks before the last election. We didn't finish there. The Liberals have been tied with Harper before. They pulled it out of the fire.

When the strategic voting drums start to bang you'll see the same swing we saw last year.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 April 2005 06:43 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want to see the worst in strategic voting, just have the election campaign close with a flurry of polls showing the Conservative set to win the election. Then everyone will freak out and voyte Liberal.

If we want to avoid strategic voting that damages the NDP, the best thing is if the Liberals build up a bit of a lead and people start to assume that the Liberals will still be the biggest party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 06:54 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Politics is not hockey. I don't pull for the home team just because they are the home team. If I get "good hockey", then the team name doesn't matter to me.

If the nazi party were to deliver the policies that I though were good for Canada, then I would be voting for the nazi party member in my riding ... if the NDP were advocating the policies of the CPC, I would vote for the party that had the best chance of keeping them out of power if it came to a choice of voting for my party and not getting any power of voting for a lesser party and keeping an evil party out of power.

The fact that the Liberals are running around the country implementing policies and programs that I want is a good thing ... hell, the CPC just announced they would honour the new child care deal if they were elected ... I know they are only doing so for their own foul purposes, but in this specific instance, that too is a good thing (still not going to vote for the CPC, but it certainly brings the reality of child care a closer.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If we want to avoid strategic voting that damages the NDP, the best thing is if the Liberals build up a bit of a lead and people start to assume that the Liberals will still be the biggest party.

So ... Layton should drive NDP voters to the Liberals before the election so they don't abandon the NDP during the election.

That's brilliant.

Also ... the post just before this one shows really poor taste. Please edit.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Booker2 ]

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Booker2 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm glad that the central tenet of Stockholm's strategy for the NDP is: never ever ever try and pass the Liberals.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 April 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Double postage]

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 April 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now, UBC forecaster time!

Quebec:
Party, Percent, (Seats), [Safe, Marginal]
BLOC..55% (70) [65, 5]
LIB.....16% (5) [1, 4]
OTH.....12%
CPC.....9%
NDP.....8%

The federal vote is so spread out that the best chance the CPC, NDP or Greens have at a seat is the in Westmount-Ville-Marie (26 LIB, 24 BQ, 22 GRN).

Canada (with quebec above included)
LIB.....30% (96) [52, 44]
CPC.....28% (108) [65, 43]
NDP.....18% (33) [13, 20]
BLOC..13% (70) [65, 5]
GRN.....10% (0) (23% in Sannich-Gulf Islands, 9% behind )
(Cadman retains seat, two independent-liberal seats counted as liberal votes)

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 April 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish you could have seen Jack on 'Politics' this morning - he said basically that the numbers come second to doing the job the NDP were elected to do. That is true statesmanship, in my opinion. My opinion of Layton has gone into the stratosphere in the past week.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Booker2:

Also ... the post just before this one shows really poor taste. Please edit.


Put in an offical complaint if you think you have an case.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 April 2005 07:09 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On 'Politics' tonight one of the press gallery pundits (don't remember which one) suggested that when Harper and his caucus and strategists meet in Ottawa next Monday night, they will decide to go ahead with trying to force an election, because this is the best shot they have - and if an election is called for sometime in June, they have the Gomery inquiry on TV almost every day of the campaign upsetting people and driving them in anger away from the liberals. The idea is - it can only get better for the Conservatives with Gomery playing in the background of an election. We already know the BQ will support an election call.

The 'au contraire' pundits pointed out that if the election runs into the summer, those who are outside flipping burgers on the barbeque will say "piss off" to any call - from any of the parties - to get out and help with the campaigns.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 April 2005 07:15 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Susan Delacourt on 'Politics' tonight said there will be an important new poll released tomorrow in a major metropolitan newspaper. Any idea which newspaper?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 07:42 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I wish you could have seen Jack on 'Politics' this morning - he said basically that the numbers come second to doing the job the NDP were elected to do. That is true statesmanship, in my opinion. My opinion of Layton has gone into the stratosphere in the past week.

Yes, I saw it, and so can anyone else with an internet connection ... go to the politics home page and click on the link for Friday Morning to get a realplayer video of the show.

He is making the point that he is doing this for what he feels is the good of Canada, not himself, or the party ... if helping Canada helps the party or himself, then bonus.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 29 April 2005 07:46 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Put in an offical complaint if you think you have an case.


Perhaps the person posting the statement that your post was in bad taste would prefer a retraction by you over censorship from above. Certainly, I think that would be preferable for you, the board and for those who care about the principle.

I think your needless nazi reference insults this country, minimizes the horror of that regime, has the potential to hurt some people and makes you look like an ignorant baffoon. Are you really trying to say that you would vote for a party who would perform genocide if you thought that it would help your country? Clearly that was what voters in Germany did think when they elected Hitler. In the cold light of history are you saying you agree with them?

If you prefer to leave your very unfortunate remark there, I think you may lose some respect. Perhaps it is your choice really though.... Why don't you reconsider?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

Perhaps the person posting the statement that your post was in bad taste would prefer a retraction by you over censorship from above. Certainly, I think that would be preferable for you, the board and for those who care about the principle.

I think your needless nazi reference insults this country, minimizes the horror of that regime, has the potential to hurt some people and makes you look like an ignorant baffoon. Are you really trying to say that you would vote for a party who would perform genocide if you thought that it would help your country? Clearly that was what voters in Germany did think when they elected Hitler. In the cold light of history are you saying you agree with them?

If you prefer to leave your very unfortunate remark there, I think you may lose some respect. Perhaps it is your choice really though.... Why don't you reconsider?


Well said. Thank you.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve_Shutt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2922

posted 29 April 2005 08:08 PM      Profile for Steve_Shutt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boom Boom,

That would be the Toronto Star (the largest paper in the country) - she was being a little coy as it is her employer.

On the thread proper, what are we to make of the Green Party showing in Quebec and nationally. Abberation, parking lot or is this a real demonstration of support?


From: coming in off the left wing | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 April 2005 08:24 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Sean in Ottawa, I am not going to retract something that I did not say ... I never said I would support a party that committed atrocities, I said I don't base my support of a party simply because of its name or past history.

If I were accusing someone or some organization of being nazis, or comparing them to nazis then I certainly would apologize, but using the word nazi is not a criminal, moral, or a board offence.

That's all I have to say on the matter to prevent thread drift ... once again if you have a problem report it.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rob8305
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6298

posted 29 April 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for Rob8305     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Based on the election simulator thing, I would say that if we have an election this spring, we'll be going back to the polls this fall. There's no way anyone can run the Commons with 108 seats for very long.
From: Montrose | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Booker2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8989

posted 29 April 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for Booker2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Green vote = disgusted Liberals.

It's the classic protest vote - angry Liberals who can't bring themselves to vote for the other established parties they already hate.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 29 April 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read this as parking, but pointed parking. It sends a pretty strong message - particularly to the NDP and the CPC.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 29 April 2005 08:34 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I find interesting is that the left wing parties: the Greens, The NDP and the Bloc together have over 42% of the vote - greater than the two traditional parties.

The left wing vote if it were coordinated could defeat the Liberals or Conservative with ease.


s


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CanadianOrangeRevolution
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8974

posted 29 April 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for CanadianOrangeRevolution     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boinker:
What I find interesting is that the left wing parties: the Greens, The NDP and the Bloc together have over 42% of the vote - greater than the two traditional parties.
s

I thought the Greens were right wing now; am I mistaken?


From: Fredericton | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 29 April 2005 08:45 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the greens is not a left party..
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 29 April 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oh sad! This thread is too long!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca