Canadian Election: It's On

[RedFred]

Originally posted by Flinx
I thought the Greens got 12% of the provincial vote, that is more than a seat or two...

Good question, but you never did get a good reply.

Firstly the options now being considered are likely to exclude pure proportional representation in favor of a hybrid system of first past the post plus a few extra MLAs from parties that got screwed under the first past the post system.

Secondly the unusually high Green vote last election was partially due to defecting NDPers.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by RedFred
Firstly the options now being considered are likely to exclude pure proportional representation in favor of a hybrid system of first past the post plus a few extra MLAs from parties that got screwed under the first past the post system.

Good idea, or bad?

[Flinx]

Why I consider the Sun article to be bull****:

We are told: A reliable source with direct knowledge of the arrangement affecting Clark's riding and the Liberal national campaign said "very, very few people knew of this -- like fewer than the fingers on my one hand." Assuming no deformities or lost digits, that is fewer than 5 i.e. 4 or less. The senior officials involved in the deal deliberately told neither Clark nor McLellan anything about it, and Koopermans says he knew nothing of any backroom deal, so none of the candidates are included in the 4 or less people involved in the backroom conspiracy.

We are told that: With the Liberals and Tories splitting much the same vote in 2000, all the national PC organization had to do to help McLellan was nothing. This is quite true. We are also told that the PCs actually did do nothing in Edmonton West: [Koopermans] admit[s] he got no financial or organizational help from the national party, and not even an encouraging phone call from the Tory leadership. The Sun article implies that this proves the PCs involvement in the backroom conspiracy. However, in the absence of the alleged deal would the PCs have done anything differently? In 1997 they received 2919 votes or 7.1%. There was no reason to think they could do any better in 2000, and Koopermans admitted that he had "absolutely no chance" of winning; he received 3009 votes or 6.1%. Why would the PCs who were still in debt from the 1993 election, and were having trouble fundraising nationally, put any money or effort into this riding? In Edmonton West, just like in over 250 other ridings across Canada where the PCs had no chance in hell of winning, the PCs did nothing.

Over in Calgary Centre, Joe Clark is trailing badly in the polls when a group called "Liberals for Clark" suddenly popped up from nowhere to back him. Even the Liberal candidate says she knew little of the mysterious group of "Liberals" who came to the Tory leader's rescue the Sun points out; note that it is the Sun who call the group mysterious not Ms. Levy. The Sun also calls the campaign in Calgary Centre bizarre and implies that Joe Clark won because of some fix arranged by the 4 or less people involved in the backroom conspiracy. The 1997 results were - Reform: 19,936/40.1%, Liberal: 16,231/32.6%, PC: 9,230/18.6%, NDP: 3,011/1.8%. The 2000 results were - PC: 26,358/46.0%, Alliance: 22 054/38.5%, Liberal: 5,630/9.8%, NDP: 1,604/2.8%. The Sun article is saying that the group of 4 or less people involved in the backroom conspiracy, secretly cause the formation of "Liberals for Clark" which then manipulated over 10,000 Liberals to unwittingly vote for Joe Clark. The Sun would like us to believe that had it not been for the clandestine actions of this group of 4 or less people, and their series of similar deals the outcome of the election would have been very different.

Greg Weston and the Sun have let off a cheap smoke bomb and are running down the street yelling fire.

Please, if you are going to spin a tale, at least make it slightly believable.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You obviously haven't been reading Odin's posts if you had to ask that question. You would also do well to remember what state Paul Wellstone was from...

[Odin]

What are the differences between the Libs and the LDP?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flinx
Why I consider the Sun article to be bull****:

We are told: A reliable source with direct knowledge of the arrangement affecting Clark's riding and the Liberal national campaign said "very, very few people knew of this -- like fewer than the fingers on my one hand." Assuming no deformities or lost digits, that is fewer than 5 i.e. 4 or less. The senior officials involved in the deal deliberately told neither Clark nor McLellan anything about it, and Koopermans says he knew nothing of any backroom deal, so none of the candidates are included in the 4 or less people involved in the backroom conspiracy.

I think you're basing a lot on what could very well have been a bit of hyperbole on the part of one quoted source.

I can tell you one thing. The Liberals were very concerned about McLellan's chances. At the time she was very important for their plans for revival in the West. Also, I was struck at that time by the complete absence of any Tory campaign (I live here). They did campaign in other areas of the city.

Was there a deal? I believe it. Did it go much beyond these two ridings? Maybe, but nothing in the article backs that up.

It would be very interesting if this story develops some legs. The references to the campaign being over by the end of the first week are somewhat intriguing.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Odin
What are the differences between the Libs and the LDP?

I'm guessing you mean NDP...

The Liberals are like the US Democrats (or other liberal, business-oriented parties), the NDP are a social-democratic party (like Labour in Britain or the SPD in Germany).

[cinch]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have to remember that the people to beat in those ridings were CA candidates.

Aye, that's the key, ain't it?

So... have to say, this 'scandal', if it even happened, doesn't bother me too much.

[cinch]

Old Squinty Layton panders for Franco-Votes:

*******************************************

NDP's Layton would repeal federal Clarity Act
CTV.ca News Staff

NDP leader Jack Layton reopened the unity debate Friday by promising to repeal the federal Clarity Act and recognize a declaration of Quebec independence if sovereigntists win a referendum.

"I believe it has not been helpful in the promotion of Canadian unity." he told supporters in New Mantane, Quebec. "It was like bringing the constitution here without Quebec's support."

Quebec never signed the Constitution deal in 1982. Two subsequent rounds of constitutional reform -- Meech Lake in 1987-1990 and Charlottetown in 1991-92 -- both failed.

In 1995, the separatists came within 50,000 votes of winning a sovereignty referendum on a question that many saw as confusing.

The NDP party is hoping the olive branch will boost the NDP's popularity in Quebec. The last time the NDP won a byelection in the province was 1990. In the 2000 federal election, the NDP captured only 1.8 per cent of the vote.

The Clarity Act stipulates that any future Quebec sovereignty referendum must be based on a clear question, and that a vote for sovereignty requires a clear majority. It also gives Ottawa a decisive say on whether both conditions are met.

The NDP's stance is a change. When the Clarity Act was passed in 2000, the NDP stood behind the law. NDP House Leader Bill Blaikie praised it as one of former prime minister Jean Chretien's main legislative achievements.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said the NDP's position needs some clarification, and accused Layton of playing with left-leaning separatists in the province. "They have to get it straight," Duceppe told CTV News. "They say one thing in Quebec, and another in Toronto."

To rebuke the idea that Layton was courting the separatist vote, Layton said all NDP candidates signed a declaration supporting the party platform, including the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1085796601634_33/?hub=SpecialEvent7

**********************************

Yeah, I sure don't agree with this.

My vote is leaning ever more towards McLellan (not that I was ever that close to voting for... whoever the NDP candidate is in my riding).

[joncha]

Good for Layton.

[cinch]

Originally posted by cinch


To rebuke the idea that Layton was courting the separatist vote, Layton said all NDP candidates signed a declaration supporting the party platform, including the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada.

What Layton needs to realise is this: one can recognise Quebec's position as a nation within confederation while still believing in the idea that a referendum must present a clear and precise question to the voters.

Says I.

[notyoueither]

Why, Jon?

[cinch]

Bring back Bill Blaikie!

He's:

-chubby and loveable

-reasonable (for the Clarity Act)

-religious (to court the... fringe... vote)

Down with the Cult of Jack!

[joncha]

Layton's just returning to the party platform (decided on democratically by the membership) that the more conservative members like Blaikie abandoned when they voted for the Clarity Act.

The idea is that it is Quebec's choice whether to stay in Canada or not, and that English Canada should not dictate terms to them. Part of that means they get to write their own referendum question.

The overriding reason why the NDP has been so low in the polls historically in Quebec is the perception that they are quick to line up with Anglo-chauvinism. As a result, the labour movement in Quebec - probably the strongest in Canada - lines up the Quebec Nationalists instead of with the labour party.

If this expresses a genuine sentiment by Layton and not some cheap, one-off comment while campaigning in Quebec, it could mean a big turn around for NDP support in the province... maybe even in this election.

[notyoueither]

The NDP believes that the seperatists should be able to hold a misleading campaign and then seperate after hood-winking a significant number of voters? Curious.