Needed: Badguy flashcards for politicians
Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson pictured with Ripudaman Singh Malik
Related: Dosanjh files complaint over publicly funded school’s boost to rival
Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson pictured with Ripudaman Singh Malik
Related: Dosanjh files complaint over publicly funded school’s boost to rival
For spectators of the political Olympics, we’re now in the final sprint, the last leg, indeed the gold medal round of the competition to shape the 41st Parliament.
We’ve seen some surprises, some upsets and some tears among the competitors.
Jack Layton, the scrappy underdog, is on his way to a personal best and new team record if his current momentum holds. His main competition released a barrage of hits against him this weekend calling him an unprincipled career politician. The Liberals have been billing themselves as good sports but they’ve been throwing a few low blows of late. Word is, the old coach of the Grits, one Jean Chrétien, a 40 year career hall-of-famer in his own right, will be on the bench and will be wrapping his gloves around the neck of any oncomer that comes to challenge rookie Iggy “the Professor” Ignatieff.
The relative inexperience of the Liberal challenger has been evident in round-robin competition up to now.
Meanwhile, later this week, gameplay will be interrupted by the British Royal wedding. Look for competitors to regroup in Quebec where fans of both Brits and marriage are in relative short supply. Indeed, while English Canada is tuning into the nuptials of Wills and Kate, Quebecers will be getting a better look at Gilles, Jaques and Stephen. Layton will continue to bill himself as the hometown hero in Montreal as the Habs continue their playoff run. Duceppe will focus his fire on the new challenger to the socialist crown in the nation. Of late, the sovereignist slugger has been flailing as his gameplan has come up short. La crie finale of the Bloc will appeal to Quebecers and their identity instead of their issues.
Stephen Harper will continue to skate easy as team Grit and team Dip battle it out for the silver. To help firm up the NDP vote where it counts for the Conservatives against the Liberals, watch for additional polarizing plays by the Conservatives against the New Democrats. A strong frontal attack against Layton will rally the orange jerseys and prevent them from switching teams in the last round. Harper, the champion of the last round and favourite to win this match, owes much of his success to years of disciplined training, a strong record, and trash-talking of the Liberal challenger in the off-season. Facing a much weakened Liberal team in the final round, look for Harper to square-off against the Liberals, Dippers and Bloc as a tag-team coalition, and a desperate, reckless and unstable one at that.
While keeping an eye on gameplay on the field, watch for fans to boo the officiators of this Canadian political grudge match as election referees focus attention on rule breakers in the stands threatening the peace with their tweets and wall posts. A wave of civil disobedience will start among the spectators as they pass on the score to spectators suffering under blackout conditions.
As we wrap up competition in the games of the 41st political Olympiad the biggest question will remained unanswered until the last minute of competition as we finish tallying the score: will we hold the next political Olympics in four years?
They’ve been popping organic champagne corks in the NDP war room this week as poll after poll is showing that party ahead of the Liberals in a race for second place.
The surge of the NDP seems to be most pronounced in Quebec where there are certainly more than a few former NDP staffers, thinking they were taking one for the team, who may yet find themselves with seats in the House of Commons come May 3rd.
The larger effect of all of this is of course the psychological block experienced by many on the left regarding cheating on their idealism to act pragmatic. For those that have traditionally held their nose voting Liberal to “stop Harper”, this week has been a game changer for the NDP.
What happened? Jack Layton gave phenomenal back-to-back performances in the debates. Walking into this campaign, with the visible assistance of a cane, reporters had asked him how his health would fare during a grueling 35 days while leaders crisscross the country on an intense schedule. Instead, we’ve learned that Layton may toss his cane aside by election day.
Indeed, Layton now appears to be dancing circles around the Liberal campaign led by a leader many in the press expected to do better given lower expectations set by 2 years of negative advertising against him. Instead, the Harvard professor was schooled by Layton in the moment of the English language leaders debate that was the closest thing we saw to a “knock-out blow” in those two nights. Called out for his poor attendance record, Layton asked rhetorically how Michael Ignatieff could speak convincingly on democracy if he didn’t show up for votes in the Commons.
Many leftwing voters are now asking how Ignatieff can represent their views if he’s not present for votes. And as we’re seeing in the polls, many wonder if Ignatieff can do much to stop a majority Conservative government.
The other fatal blunder for Ignatieff this week came during an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge when the Liberal leader admitted that regarding a coalition, Mr. Harper could try to form government yet if he could not command the confidence of the House, Mr. Ignatieff would try to form a government with the support of the other parties, including the Bloc Quebecois. Yet most Canadians are more grounded than Ignatieff appeared to be during that interview. It is widely understood that such cooperation would come with concessions to any partner that would support the second-place Liberals in the formation of a new government. And while Mr. Ignatieff is willfully ignorant that such concessions would relate to cabinet, Canadians remember the last time the Liberals negotiated a scenario for taking power without the support of the majority or plurality of the electorate.
Canadians are going into the Easter weekend tomorrow with a few truths to consider. First and foremost, Stephen Harper will be the next Prime Minister. Second, if Michael Ignatieff cannot be counted on to stop Stephen Harper from forming a majority, left-leaning Canadians will look to the much more likable and ideological Jack Layton to oppose Mr. Harper in the 41st parliament. Third, Canadians will consider a coalition government to be explicitly on the table as Layton may be in an increased position of strength to negotiate its outcome.
I am deeply troubled by Mr. Ignatieff’s assertion that he may choose to overturn the democratic result of the federal election.
While I understand that the scenario spelled out by Mr. Ignatieff is within the conventions of our Parliamentary tradition, the last thing our country and our still fragile economic recovery need right now is a period of instability caused by a constitutional dispute over who should be the government.
Morever, Canada is poised to solidify its position as an economic leader in a world that needs the food security and the energy security we can provide. How can we take full advantage of this reality if we are distracted by interminable national political machinations and constitutional wrangling?
The party that wins the most seats on May 2 should be recognized as the government, period. If that were to be the Liberals, I would join with other Canadians in accepting this result and recognizing Mr. Ignatieff as our next Prime Minister. However, if the Conservatives win the most seats but come up short of a majority, I would expect Mr. Ignatieff and his party to accept that result.
The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians. Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.
Ironically, this election was caused by a confidence vote over “contempt for Parliament.” I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election.
If greed is universal, we can break down our approach in two distinct categories.
On the left, we look at relative prosperity, see the glass as too full, and take from others.
On the right, we look at our own prosperity, see the glass as half full, and make for others.
On the left we have the redistribution of wealth as we look to others and covet.
On the right we have the production of wealth as we look to others to please.
If helping is universal, we can break down our approach in two distinct categories.
On the left, socialism is charity without consent.
On the right, philanthropy is charity without coercion.
I heard this morning that Alberta Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith was endorsing Stephen Harper so I wanted to confirm.
Confirmed the old-fashioned way… via SMS!
This is an interesting move for Smith. How does the political capital equation add up for this move?
Simple…
There aren’t many (if any) federal Liberals/NDPers in her camp and if there are, the trade-off is bigger. Stelmach is conflicted as Premier and his office won’t endorse a candidate because the Premier must work with the Feds no matter who is elected. But many Albertans are ardent federal Conservative supporters and view their current provincial government as a wishy-washy version of an ideal. Smith is suggesting to her fellow Albertans indirectly by her endorsement that the real conservative alternative is her as Premier and her party as government.
The Conservatives put out a new ad yesterday called “Our Country”. The Liberals rapid-response desk in their war-room put together this video to suggest common elements between the ad and one by GOP 2012 nomination hopeful Tim Pawlenty. Here’s their video comparing the two:
But the Liberals have done it too with their recent advertising. Take a look at this ad from Barack Obama. The Liberal Party ad which is similar follows after it in the video:
What follows is the most humourous derivate effort of any of these ads. And, while it’s a bit of a funny remix of the Conservative Party ad, it’s not that far off message!
I’m arching and furrowing my blow at this in a way that would make Ignatieff envious…
“The politics of hope will beat the politics of fear everytime” Iggy. #elxn41 (sorta obamaesque)
Ig doing some obama fist-bumping with supporters; seventh rally. Hasn’t been to NB or PEI yet – and we’re off to QC tomorrow
What do you do when hope is ambition and change comes with a Bloc veto?
More context for the Apps quote: “When Tories say we’re increasing taxes, damn right we are. We’re putting corporate taxes back up to where they were a year and a half ago, that’s it. [that's all]”
This is from yesterday’s Power & Politics on CBC News Channel.
Jack Layton was in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia yesterday touting a plan to help veterans. NDP MP Peter Stoffer is an NDPer in Nova Scotia running for re-election who is often touted as the NDP’s pro-military MP. Here is a list of his votes and absences that neglected the interests of military personnel and their families.
Here is the list from 2009. I’m looking to add new information to this list if you have more send me an email.
November 28th 2006 – Supplementary Estimates (A) for year ending March 31, 2007 – Was agreed to on division
November 28th 2005 – Supplementary Estimates (A) for year ending March 31, 2006 – House has lost confidence in the government
UNABLE TO FIND VOTE – Supplementary Estimates (B) for year ending March 31, 2005
December 9th 2004 Peter Supplementary Estimates (A) for year ending March 31, 2005 – Was agreed to on division
UNABLE TO FIND VOTE – Supplementary Estimates (B) for year ending March 31, 2004
On October 28th 2003 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
(Supplementary Estimates (A) year ending March 31, 2004)
On March 25th 2003 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
(Supplementary Estimates (B) year ending March 31, 2003)
On December 4th 2001 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
(Supplementary Estimates (A) year ending March 31, 2002)
On March 20th 2001 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
(Supplementary Estimates (A) year ending March 31, 2001)
On March 22nd 2000 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
Supplementary Estimates (B) year ending March 31, 2000
On March 16th 1999 Peter Stoffer was absent for the vote on Supplementary Estimates (C) year ending March 31, 1999
On December 1st 1998 Peter Stoffer voted against:
(Supplementary Estimates (B) for year ending March 31, 1999)
UNABLE TO FIND VOTE – Supplementary Estimates (A) for year ending March 31, 1999
On March 17th 1998 Peter Stoffer voted against: MND also voted against
(Supplementary Estimates (B) year ending March 31, 1998)