| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/19/2008 10:07:34 AM | | | | | | Tories rule Ontario
Only Toronto remains a wasteland for federal Conservatives
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, Ottawa Sun, Thu, December 18, 2008
Today I will do my part for national unity by convincing Western Canadians that no, actually, Ontario is not full of left-leaning, lily-livered, limousine-loving, Liberal voters who are always screwing up the country. I can tell from my e-mail these days that this is the false impression many good folks out West have because a disproportionate amount of their political news and analysis comes from the Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal corridor, courtesy of the Eastern Canadian Media Mafia Establishment (ECMME). Western concerns also get short shrift on Parliament Hill because one of the two parties capable of forming a national government -- the Liberals -- has a mere seven of 92 seats west of the Ontario border and thus doesn't think all that much about the West, unless it's to screech about the oilsands.
The reason many Westerners have this false impression about Ontario being Liberal La-La Land is that the ECMME thinks of Toronto as shorthand for Ontario -- or, more accurately, as shorthand for the only part of Ontario that counts. And when you use that ... uh ... logic, it's true. Toronto's 22 federal ridings have long been a wasteland for Conservatives, who, in Western Canada on Oct. 14, elected Tories in 71 out of a total of 92 ridings in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. But in reality, Toronto doesn't represent all of Ontario, which has 84 other ridings, for a total of 106. When you factor those in, the Conservatives are clearly the party of growth in Ontario and the Liberals the party in decline.
To support my argument I will now use something the ECMME seldom employ whilst drinking their own bathwater ... facts. In the four federal elections since Nov. 27, 2000, Conservative support has steadily grown in Ontario from two seats out of 103 (two Canadian Alliance seats, zero Progressive Conservative seats) to, following the reunification of the right under Stephen Harper, 24 out of 106 seats in 2004, 40 in 2006 and 51 in 2008. By contrast, during the same period, Liberal seats fell from 100 out of 103 in 2000 to 75 of 106 in 2004, 54 in 2006 and 38 this year.
Similarly the popular vote following the reunification of the right has been steadily rising for Conservatives in Ontario, steadily falling for the Liberals. In this year's election, the Conservative vote was 39.2%, comfortably ahead of the Liberals at 33.8% and even slightly ahead of the national average for Conservatives of 37.6%. Finally in both the 2008 and 2006 elections -- and Conservative minority governments that resulted -- the Ontario Conservative caucus of MPs (51 today, 40 in 2006) emerged as the largest single provincial caucus of government MPs.
To review, then, the Conservatives today hold 51 of Ontario's 106 seats -- the largest single block -- and captured 39.2% of the vote in this year's election, compared to only 38 seats and 33.8% of the vote for the Liberals. That's a huge turnaround considering that just eight years ago, the Liberals captured 100 of Ontario's then 103 seats and 51.5% of the vote, compared to two seats and 23.6% for the former Canadian Alliance party and zero seats and 14.4% for the former Progressive Conservative party. Thus, many Westerners can rest assured the next time the CBC discusses federal politics, they won't be the only ones throwing their shoes at the television. |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/19/2008 10:08:57 AM | | | | | | A Quebecer pleads: 'Don't abandon us'
National Post Published: Thursday, December 18, 2008
Re: Let's Settle This Quebec Issue, letter to the editor, Dec. 16.
I am 43 years old and have been fighting the Quebec separatist movement since I was young. It is true that "Many Quebecois are very much in favour" of separatism, but they aren't the majority. The separatist movement is championed by Baby Boomers, and they are beginning to die.
There is hope.
Many Parti Quebecois members and former ministers have left the party and have said that the movement has no future. Even the Bloc Quebecois is now a shadow of what it was. The Quebec Y generation is speaking English. The children of the X generation will be speaking English. They will be able to judge the garbage that the media, unions and government are feeding us.
Please don't abandon us.
Patrick Begin, Quebec City |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/19/2008 10:09:52 AM | | | | | | The man just can't win
DOUG SANDULAC, Letter to the Editor, Globe and Mail, December 18, 2008
Salmon Arm, B.C. -- Why can't the media make up their mind (Harper's Pessimistic Talk Making A Bad Situation Worse, Critics Say - Dec. 17)?
First, a confident Stephen Harper is accused of ignoring the economic crisis. Now a worried Mr. Harper is accused of spreading fear. Which is |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/19/2008 10:22:28 AM | | | | | | The next coalition? Why not Harper and Ignatieff?
Ignatieff needs to dissuade Harper from calling an election until the Liberals recover
Written by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:00 - Macleans.ca -
If I were a supporter of Bob Rae, I’d be inclined to feel I’d been had. Rae was eased out of the race to succeed Stéphane Dion as Liberal leader, you’ll recall, by the onrushing prospect of an election. The Harper government was sure to fall over the Jan. 27 budget, it was said. This was no time for a leisurely, five-month leadership race. We need a permanent leader, this instant. Hence Michael Ignatieff.
Well now, it’s been a week since Ignatieff’s—what should we call it? Appointment? Installation? Inevitability?—and what message has he been sending ever since? That he will do everything in his power to ensure the budget is not defeated, the government does not fall, and above all that there is no election.
The Prime Minister’s post-prorogation overtures, to the effect that the “big national parties” ought to work together “to fix the economy,” have been met, not with the furious accusations of bad faith they might have occasioned not so long ago, but with an audible sigh of relief. First Ignatieff met with Harper. Then his top finance critics were dispatched to meet with the finance minister, emerging afterwards to declare themselves filled with hope at what they had heard.
Not that it will be any comfort to Rae, but I think Ignatieff has it exactly right. Coming off their worst defeat since Confederation, without much in the way of policies or organization, and with all of their well-advertised fundraising difficulties, the Liberals are in no condition to fight an election and he knows it.
Moreover, the tripartite coalition that was supposed to be the alternative is clearly dormant, if not expired. Ignatieff hardly bothers even to mention it anymore. He can read the polls, showing upwards of 60 per cent of the public hostile to the coalition taking power—assuming the Governor General were even disposed to call upon it, of which there is some doubt.
The problem, from Ignatieff’s perspective, is that his coalition partners seem unwilling to give him up. The more he pulls away, the more they seek to clutch him to their ghastly bosom. “Of course,” they wink, “of course, he has to say that, but . . .” And then they remind everyone that his signature, along with that of every member of his caucus, is on that letter to the Governor General committing the Liberals to form a coalition government, in partnership with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.
So even as the coalition fades to practical insignificance, Ignatieff must be concerned that the public will continue to associate him and his party with it all the same. And if his erstwhile partners don’t do their best to remind people, the Conservatives surely will.
At the same time, for all of Ignatieff’s anxiety to avoid an election, he can have little assurance that Stephen Harper feels likewise. Whatever responsibility Harper should bear for igniting the crisis of recent weeks, he emerges from it in measurably stronger shape, with a lead in some polls of 20 percentage points or more. That may not hold—one poll shows the Grits closing the gap since Ignatieff’s, um, assumption—and the economy is obviously a wild card. But if he’s in anything like the same position six weeks from now, he’ll find some way to bring about his government’s defeat.
So Ignatieff has two challenges: to break with the coalition once and for all, in a way that leaves no room for doubt in the public mind; and to somehow dissuade Harper from forcing an election. I think the answer to the first is to pick a fight with the NDP—to force them to break from him. And the way to do that, achieving the second objective in the bargain, is to form a coalition with the Conservatives.
Well, not a coalition. Just an understanding, an entente, if you will, that the Liberals will not defeat the government—and that Harper will not dissolve Parliament—for some specified period, nine months, a year, whatever time Ignatieff thinks it takes to get his party back in fighting trim. Only by firmly ruling out an election well in advance can he avoid enduring the humiliating series of climbdowns that doomed his predecessor.
This would be a service, not only to his party, but the country. At the root of this Parliament’s instability is one thing: the present enfeebled state of the Liberal party. It was Liberal weakness that Harper sought to exploit, as everyone knows, in the fall statement; but the NDP and the Bloc were exploiting that same weakness when they rolled Dion into joining the coalition. That each side overreached does not mean either will not be tempted to do the same thing again, unless and until the Liberals can be rebuilt into a party that has no fear of an election.
It’s not entirely clear to me what Ignatieff can bring to such an agreement. But it may suit Harper to take him up on it—to rehabilitate his image as a practical, consensus-seeking politician; to share the blame for any economic hardship that may be coming; to govern. And Ignatieff has one trump card: the Senate, where the Liberals retain a majority—for now. True, Harper can stack it with Tories, and go on doing so until the balance tips in his favour, sometime in 2010. But he has to stay in power to do that, and in the process does serious harm to his reformist credentials. What if Ignatieff were instead to commit his party to pass Conservative legislation requiring senators to be elected?
However he goes about it, it’s clear that Ignatieff needs Harper to help him solve the two riddles I have described. The only question is whether Harper needs him. |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/20/2008 2:07:55 PM | | | | | | Kelly McParland: Flaherty puts faith in astoundingly accomplished group of uberachievers
Posted: December 18, 2008, 1:45 PM by Kelly McParland - National Post
Jimmy Pattison will join Flaherty's council of advisers, and isn't even the richest guy
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty today announced the formation of a “council of economic advisers” to provide advice and input to the Jan. 27 federal budget.
There are 11 members on the council (see the full list below), who will hold their first meeting before Christmas. The members are working for a salary of $1 plus expenses.
“In this time of unprecedented economic turmoil, I am bringing some of Canada’s best minds together to find solutions and help launch a timely recovery,” Mr. Flaherty told reporters in Saskatoon, where he is meeting with provincial finance ministers.
It’s the latest effort by Ottawa to signal the seriousness of the economic situation (as if any more signals are needed) and reassure Canadians that the government is taking it seriously. Mr. Flaherty took a beating after releasing his much-maligned economic update last month and needs to regain some lost credibility. Surrounding himself with 11 brains of this calibre should go some distance in achieving that.
It’s possible the opposition will claim Mr. Flaherty is stealing one of its ideas. The Liberal/NDP coalition, in trying to win a little street cred of its own, was reported to have set up a similar council. Three of the four “appointees” claimed no knowledge of the scheme, however, and coalition insiders started claiming no such body had ever been discussed. In any case, both the Tories and the opposition are borrowing the idea from Barack Obama, so none of them can legitimately claim credit.
It’s worth comparing the make-up of the Flaherty council with the putative members of the coalition council. First the coalition council:
• Paul Martin
• Roy Romanow
• John Manley
• Frank McKenna
Now the Flaherty council:
• Carole Taylor (chair)
• Geoff Beattie
• Paul Desmarais, Jr.
• George Gosbee
• Isabelle Hudon
• James D. Irving
• Mike Lazaridis
• Jack Mintz
• James A. Pattison
• Ajit Someshwar
• Annette Verschuren
Notice the difference?
All the members of the coalition council are superannuated politicians and presumed friends of the Liberals or NDP. Two are former Liberal MPs, McKenna is a former Liberal premier and Romanow is a former NDP premier. No outsiders or dissenting voices needed, thanks.
The Flaherty council is far more distinguished, includes just one politician, and is spread across party and geographic lines. Here are brief bios:
Carole Taylor is the former B.C. finance minister, Vancouver alderman, and chairman of CBC/Radio-Canada, the Vancouver Board of Trade, Vancouver Port Corporation, and Canada Ports Corporation.
Geoff Beattie is deputy chairman of Thomson Reuters and president of Woodbridge Co. the Thomson family’s private investment holding company.
Paul Desmarais Jr. is chairman and co-chief executive officer of Power Corporation of Canada. Power Corp. has close ties to former Liberal prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, not to mention a boggling array of other political heavy-hitters of every stripe.
George Gosbee is CEO of Tristone Capital Inc., the world’s largest independent oil and gas property acquisition business.
Isabelle Hudon is CEO of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal and chairman of the board of the Université du Québec à Montréal.
James D. Irving is resident of J.D. Irving Ltd., the privately-owned company of the Irving family empire based in in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Mike Lazaridis is founder and co-CEO of Research In Motion (RIM), creator and manufacturer of the BlackBerry, and chancellor of the University of Waterloo.
Jack Mintz is former president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute and perhaps the country’s best-known fiscal and tax policy specialist.
James A. Pattison is chairman, president, CEO, and sole owner of the Jim Pattison Group, the third largest privately held company in Canada.
Ajit Someshwar is founder and chief executive of CSI Consulting, a Toronto-based information technology and risk management company with more than 400 consultants based in the United States, Canada, India and Europe.
Annette Verschuren is president of The Home Depot Canada and Asia, vice chair of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and chancellor of Cape Breton University.
It would be hard to imagine a more powerful collection of money, brains and clout. Between them, the Thomsons, the Desmarais family, the Irvings and Mr. Pattison could probably rummage through their pockets and find enough spare cash to offset Mr. Flahert's upcoming deficit. The more you contemplate that list of uberachievers, the more you wonder why Mr. Flaherty doesn’t just let these folks run the economy. You’d have to figure they’d have done a better job than the folks who are in charge now.
National Post |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck | 12/23/2008 10:15:05 AM | | | | | | To All My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the
religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but
not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Canada great (not to imply that Canada is necessarily greater than any other country). Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Conservative Friends:
A Very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to all of you! |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Threshold who wrote (12946) | 12/24/2008 7:42:01 AM | | From: Ichy Smith | | | | | no one else does why should he? I saw that idiot hargrove pontificating about the bail out, and how we should have put our bid on it before the US. |
| | Canadian Political Free-for-All | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
