Count Iggula takes the fight to New Democrats

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Winston
Count Iggula takes the fight to New Democrats

No wonder it seems the Conservatives are headed for a majority; the Liberals are too busy taking on the NDP to worry about Harper:

Help Ignatieff find Tories

 

Ignatieff's itininerary for the first three days of the campaign:

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

Day 2: Outremont (NDP), Ahuntsic (BQ)

Day 3: Trinity-Spadina (NDP)

 

Jack's Itinerary:

Day 1: Edmonton Centre (CON)

Day 2: Surrey North (CON)

Day 3: Palliser (CON), Regina-Qu'Appelle (CON)

 

If I hear another Liberal admonish the NDP for "helping Harper" I think I will lose it!

Issues Pages: 
Winston

As far as I can tell, Ignatieff has yet to visit a SOLE Tory-held riding.  Please someone....correct me if I'm wrong.  I always knew the Liberals were treacherous bastards, but this is ridiculous.  They're fighting the wrong people, and giving Harper a free ride.

WyldRage

It makes sense: ideologically, he is closer to the conservatives than to the NDP and the Bloc. In fact, I believe he is actually closer to the old progressive-conservative party than to the Liberals.

Winston

@WyldRage:

We re agreed about Iggy's ideological tendencies, but that doesn't explain why he isn't taking the fight to the Harperites at all.  Are you suggesting that he is intentionally trying to help the Tories.  The only thing I can figure is that the Liberals reckon that a Harper majority is a foregone conclusion and that they are playing scorched-earth politics to ensure that they and not the NDP are the Official Opposition.

It still stinks, as far as I'm concerned.

WyldRage

Well, that or he realizes that he can't win over conservative voters, and is calling on the NDP and Green leaning voters to "vote strategic".

But where's the evil and convoluted megalomaniacal Liberal plot in that? Wink

gyor

Winston wrote:

@WyldRage:

We re agreed about Iggy's ideological tendencies, but that doesn't explain why he isn't taking the fight to the Harperites at all.  Are you suggesting that he is intentionally trying to help the Tories.  The only thing I can figure is that the Liberals reckon that a Harper majority is a foregone conclusion and that they are playing scorched-earth politics to ensure that they and not the NDP are the Official Opposition.

It still stinks, as far as I'm concerned.

Isn't it interesting how no one asks in the media why iggy is attacking harper in NDP held ridings where harper isn't in play. People say politications are the problem, it is the journalists that are the problem. You don't blame the players when game is broken you blame the referee. I'm watching ctv and no one asked why Olvia Chow. I just compared the coverage of Jack with Iggy and there was definate shilling for iggy going on there. Was it me or did anyone else see this?

bekayne

Winston wrote:

 

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

That's where Parliament is

gyor

WyldRage wrote:

Well, that or he realizes that he can't win over conservative voters, and is calling on the NDP and Green leaning voters to "vote strategic".

But where's the evil and convoluted megalomaniacal Liberal plot in that? Wink

In ndp ridings where the cons are not a factor. I said it before I'll say it again, iggy is a coward, be a man and stand up to Harper in a conservative riding.

Life, the unive...

gyor wrote:

Isn't it interesting how no one asks in the media why iggy is attacking harper in NDP held ridings where harper isn't in play. People say politications are the problem, it is the journalists that are the problem. You don't blame the players when game is broken you blame the referee. I'm watching ctv and no one asked why Olvia Chow. I just compared the coverage of Jack with Iggy and there was definate shilling for iggy going on there. Was it me or did anyone else see this?

 

No you are right.  On CBC the reporter critiqued the NDP campaign, and just gave Iggy the mic.  Most of the NDP piece was the reporter talking, the Liberal one was not.   I know we are supposed to support the CBC and all, but they really do make it hard. 

Life, the unive...

bekayne wrote:

Winston wrote:

 

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

That's where Parliament is

Nice dodge - Outramont and Tritiny Spadina?  What's your excuse for that.

bekayne

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Winston wrote:

 

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

That's where Parliament is

Nice dodge - Outramont and Tritiny Spadina?  What's your excuse for that.

No excuse-he was also in Papineau while in Montreal. It's what every Party does-go where the seats are. That's the point-win as many seats as you can. 3 seats lost by under 6%. Are you telling me Jack Layton will be seen nowhere near Peggy Nash, Robert Chisholm & Ryan Cleary this election?

Winston

@Bekayne:

Ryan Cleary is not running this time - I think the illustrious Siobhan Coady will be left alone.

Winston

The fact of the matter is that if the Liberals aren't trying to unseat at least a FEW Tories, then they have no hope in hell of forming a government whether or not they succeed in weakening the NDP.  Last I checked 77+36 is still less than 143.  Besides that the "Vote Liberal" strategic voting argument is ridiculous, since most polls are showing the Liberals and NDP statistically tied (within the MOE) at the moment.

As much as I'd like to believe it is different, it his highly improbable that the Liberals will overcome a 15-20 point gap with the most unpopular leader in the country leading them.  A scenario with any party other than the Tories having the most seats is pretty much out of the question.  In other words, the only way to unseat Harper is with a coalition.  But Ignatieff has already ruled that out.

But the Liberal braintrust must know all this.  The Liberals know they've lost the election, but just want to try to stick it to the NDP.  If the NDP is weak, they will have 4 years to rebuild unchallenged on the Left and wait until Canadians come to our senses and reward the Liberal Party with the majority they are obviously entitled to by virtue of being the Liberal Party.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, I suspect their plan will fail miserably.  Unfortunately for Canadians, if the Liberals are too cowardly or treacherous to fight the Tories on their own turf, a Harper majority is more likely.

ghoris

See, that's what I thought, but apparently he's changed his mind and is seeking the nomination again: story here.

Winston

Thanks, Ghoris.

It appears that Cleary can't seem to make up his mind.  Well, Bekayne, I suppose we can consider this one payback for the Liberals having subjected my poor city to that whackjob, Kevin Lamoureux!  Wink

As for Parkdale-High Park, the world might be a slightly better place with Gerard Kennedy's abundant ego kept in check, and Peggy Nash was and will be an excellent MP.

 

Vansterdam Kid

Winston wrote:

The fact of the matter is that if the Liberals aren't trying to unseat at least a FEW Tories, then they have no hope in hell of forming a government whether or not they succeed in weakening the NDP.  Last I checked 77+36 is still less than 143.  Besides that the "Vote Liberal" strategic voting argument is ridiculous, since most polls are showing the Liberals and NDP statistically tied (within the MOE) at the moment.

As much as I'd like to believe it is different, it his highly improbable that the Liberals will overcome a 15-20 point gap with the most unpopular leader in the country leading them.  A scenario with any party other than the Tories having the most seats is pretty much out of the question.  In other words, the only way to unseat Harper is with a coalition.  But Ignatieff has already ruled that out.

But the Liberal braintrust must know all this.  The Liberals know they've lost the election, but just want to try to stick it to the NDP.  If the NDP is weak, they will have 4 years to rebuild unchallenged on the Left and wait until Canadians come to our senses and reward the Liberal Party with the majority they are obviously entitled to by virtue of being the Liberal Party.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, I suspect their plan will fail miserably.  Unfortunately for Canadians, if the Liberals are too cowardly or treacherous to fight the Tories on their own turf, a Harper majority is more likely.

True, and considering that Liberal majorities were built on two things: almost uniform support from Quebec up till 1984, and a vote split on the right which led to almost uniform support from Ontario between 1993 and 2004, the days of Liberal majorities are probably over until the political environment in Canada re-aligns and they're able to find a way to become a national party again. They don't seem to understand this, but they'll be damned if they let the NDP pass them.

Lens Solution

bekayne wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Winston wrote:

 

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

That's where Parliament is

Nice dodge - Outramont and Tritiny Spadina?  What's your excuse for that.

No excuse-he was also in Papineau while in Montreal. It's what every Party does-go where the seats are. That's the point-win as many seats as you can. 3 seats lost by under 6%. Are you telling me Jack Layton will be seen nowhere near Peggy Nash, Robert Chisholm & Ryan Cleary this election?

You're right - there's nothing wrong with the Liberals trying to pick up close NDP ridings, after all the NDP is doing the same thing in reverse, so it's only fair.  It makes sense that a political party is going to try to win as many seats as it can.  I don't have a problem with Ignatieff going to some NDP ridings.  I just hope we see the Liberals focusing on as many Conservative seats.  I notice Ignatieff went to Toronto today and seems to be doing a bit to take on the Cons there in the GTA fight, and I did hear him mention taking back Vaughan earlier today, so hopefully they will focus on Conservative ridings.

Winston

I just don't see what's wrong with working together on a coalition...but the Liberals and Tories just can't seem to play nice with the other kids in the schoolyard (although they seemed to get along FAMOUSLY with each other through most of the last Parliament - if voting record is any indication).

Having majority governments with 35-40% popular support is not just unfair and disenfranchising, it's also improbable (at least for the Liberals).  The days when Left voters (including my family and I) plugged their noses and voted Liberal are over.  We did it all through the 90s and got not much for our efforts besides an increase in child poverty, the erosion of the social safety net by the elimination of the Canada Assistance Program, and $100 Billion in capital gains tax cuts (do you know anyone who pays those?...I don't). 

The NDP is here to stay.  For that matter, so are the Greens, and the BQ will be around at least until Duceppe leaves.  That means only the Tories have achance of forming a majority (and even those odds are slim).  Minority Parliaments are the new norm, as is the case in almost all other modern democracies.  The only way Minority Parliaments work effectively is with Coalition Governments FULL STOP. 

The Liberals may one day be in power again, but only if they can learn to adapt to this new paradigm.  If they cannot, they will be supplanted by the NDP (or some other political vehicle yet to emerge).  If their only goal this election is to pick off NDP seats and let the Tories win a majority so they can lick their wounds and wait for the return of the Good Ol' Glory Days, then they deserve to be supplanted now.

Lens Solution

Winston wrote:

I just don't see what's wrong with working together on a coalition...

The problem is that it's still considered too new and scary to many Canadians, and the Cons and the media are attacking it all the time.  Unfortunately there really isn't enough time within an election to discuss its constitutional, historical and intellectual merit.  It may take several more years to get Canadians more open to the idea.  The only place where a majority of people seem to be in favour of it is Quebec.  With the rest of Canada it may take a while longer to fight the propaganda.

adma

Yeah, like a coalition is totally Wackyland

KenS

Lens Solution wrote:

The problem is that [coalition] is still considered too new and scary to many Canadians, and the Cons and the media are attacking it all the time. 

This is continuously overstated.

First of all, opinions have definitely shifted enough that it is reasonable to expect that for all the caterwauling now, when and if a Coalition happens.... all except the Conservative base will quickly settle into wait and see, judge it on its merits.

That of course does not obviate its danger to perceived proponents of a Coalition during an election, but it is material to the practical question. Even those who answer polling questions saying they do not want a coalition, are not strongly opposed. They predominately see a host of much bigger issues out there.

Iggy's complete squashing of the Coalition possibility is only partly for the purposes of trying to put the issue to bed. That unequivocal position taken is also totally congruent with their long game about the NDP and about Harper. They dont expect to depose Harper this time. It would be nice if it happened, but they are putting their primary attention on the long game. So if they come out of this with 95 seats, still 45 behind the Conservatives, but the NDP has dropped a dozen seats- mission accomplished.

KenS

Len Solution, you and others think that the Liberals are just doing the same as the NDP: going after the seats that are available.... and in both cases that will often be seats held by one of the others.

Which of course does happen, more than a little. And here is a long Globe piece today talking about more detail in that.

But that does not warrant the title of the article: Liberals, NDP take aim at Harper but are gunning for each other. Let alone the worse pieces of tripe we have seen over the last few weeks claiming that the NDP's strategy is to grow on seats the Liberals hold. Partly that is the stupidity and laziness of the media, but it is also a demonstration of thinking that you see so commonly around here: NDP gains are ipso facto Liberal losses. The 'common sense' is flat out incorrect. But that doesn't stop people making inferences on it- even fantasy strategies attributed to the NDP.

Now in that story in particular, Gloria Galloway is probably not responsible for the headline. And the content just takes the more limited and solid empirical point that the NDP goes after seats the Liberals have, or are in the hunt for,  just as much as the Liberals do the vice versa.

But all of that misses the point being made: it is not just a matter of which particular seats are gone after- it is the national strategy being pursued, which is not just an aggregation of riding campaigns.

Both the Liberals and the NDP have far more seats in which they are contenders with the Conservatives, than they do where each other is the main contender.

Look at Layton's campaign stops and you will see 'Liberal ridings' [held by Liberals or where they are the primary contender] sprinkled among far more seats where the Conservatives are the main contender. That is definitely not true of Iggy's visits. Iggy is doing exactly what Gloria Galloway suggests: talking about how bad Harper is while he visits ridings where the NDP is the contender, 'red door /blue door' etc.

 

If it was really just all about the most seats to be gained/defended for the Liberals, then Iggy would be spending 75% of his time in Ontario. Because Ontario holds at least that percentage of Liberal close races.

Jack Layton's national tour does and will closely reflect where the number of close races are- sprinkled with some longer term development choices [seats unlikely to be won this time].

You won't see Iggy's time reflect anywhere near as closely their close races. Because they are actually taking the passive approach in contesting the Conservatives on the issues that matter most to Lib/Cons swing voters. And they are playing the long game of getting back to their rightful inheritance of being the Natural Governing Party: which means the NDP must be pushed back into distant third place of national parties. Keeping the furniture together is all they are aiming for in the actual 2 way battles with the Conservatives. Once the NDP is out of the way again- as it was in the Nineties- then go after the Conservatives. Next time.

Thats the plan. Leaving aside how much that is counter to what people are here want to see, it is also questionable whether it is realistic.

Warren Kinsella- who has few scruples- came to the conclusion that this attempt to go back to the future is doomed. Months back he spent a while trying to push giving up on that strategy and coming to some kind of cooperation with the NDP. It's unclear what he had in mind- you can't read Kinsella entirely from what he says... so there is no point parsing that. My hunch is that he didn't really know- that he had his own ideas, but first things first: it is time for a different strategy. He isnt saying that any more, because what opening for that there might have been in the LPC, it is gone. And while he has no problem taking potshots at Iggy and the strategic choices made by the inner bubble, hes's still a Liberal and isnt going to poke during an election at the higher level strategy of focusing on pushing aside the NDP.

 

 

takeitslowly

the liberals are bad, nothing new about it. Just take alook at the Ontario Liberals and how they handle the G20 and the HST, they are almost as bad as the Harper government..I mean they are virtually the same party, only except on social issues, one pretends to be accepting of diversity, the conservative dont even try at all, they are full out nutjobs. *hudak and harper et al*

 

 the way i see it is that both parties need to be defeated, depending on which one is currently in power.. harper must go now.

gadar

takeitslowly wrote:

 the way i see it is that both parties need to be defeated, depending on which one is currently in power.. harper must go now.

gyor

Lens Solution wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Winston wrote:

 

Day 1: Ottawa Centre (NDP)

That's where Parliament is

Nice dodge - Outramont and Tritiny Spadina?  What's your excuse for that.

No excuse-he was also in Papineau while in Montreal. It's what every Party does-go where the seats are. That's the point-win as many seats as you can. 3 seats lost by under 6%. Are you telling me Jack Layton will be seen nowhere near Peggy Nash, Robert Chisholm & Ryan Cleary this election?

You're right - there's nothing wrong with the Liberals trying to pick up close NDP ridings, after all the NDP is doing the same thing in reverse, so it's only fair.  It makes sense that a political party is going to try to win as many seats as it can.  I don't have a problem with Ignatieff going to some NDP ridings.  I just hope we see the Liberals focusing on as many Conservative seats.  I notice Ignatieff went to Toronto today and seems to be doing a bit to take on the Cons there in the GTA fight, and I did hear him mention taking back Vaughan earlier today, so hopefully they will focus on Conservative ridings.

It not that they went after an NDP riding, it is that iggy went after almost exclusively NDP seats with one bloc seat, while ignoring Harper. Iggy needs to stop hiding from Stephen. Jack is trying to earn the top job iggy has already waved the white flag. Also think about this.If iggy keeps on focusing on NDP ridings then Jack maybe forced to stop targeting cons ridings and defend his turf, who wins in this scenario? Steven Harper.

bekayne

Here's where Jack Layton is today;

Brant: C 42.0%, L 33.1%, NDP 17.2%

Kitchener-Centre: C 36.7%, L 35.9%, NDP 18.1%

Kitchener-Waterloo: C 36.1%, L 36.0%, NDP 14.7%

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

What did you expect?  For  the NDP to roll over like a puppy dog. Forget it - just not gonna happen.

He's got every right to go there-and vice versa

NorthReport

What did you expect?  For the NDP to roll over like a puppy dog. Forget it - just not gonna happen.  And with the fighting that is going on between the Libs and the Cons hopefully the people in those ridings will push the NDP right up the middle.

NorthReport

Of course they do, but for people here to suggest the Liberals are not the enemy of the NDP is absurd. 

KenS

For what its worth, leftie notions are just wishful thinking that either the Liberals or the NDP would lay off any seat because the other party had a better chance of beating Harper. It just does not happen.

What is being argued is that the Liberals have a larger strategy that has the primary strategic goal of beating back the NDP, on top of the always existing goal of targetting the seats where you have the best chance.

Trading ad hoc looks of where the leaders are today isnt going to demonstrate anything. A systematic look at seats visited, and proportions of Lib/NDP versus Cons-contest seats might tell you something. But then the campaign would be over, and so what.

It occurs to me that the NDP on the hunt for growth in Ontario, this is an excellent time given that both the Liberal air war and their ground campaign are taking no initiative in the province. The way the Liberals are playing the game they will at best fluke into one or two gains on the Cons in the town / small city/ exurb / suburb ridings.... in the context of overall losses. [Unless of course the Cons campaign is a disaster- then anything in any direction is possible.]

Side benefit of the NDP trolling through those ridings is that if they do enough of it, it may deterr the Libs from the Trinity-Spadinas- but that wouldnt be the goal.

 

Fidel

Sounds like the Liberals realize they have to go back to campaigning on the left again if they want to govern on the right. Come to think of it, I've never heard of them promising right wing neoliberal ideology in Canada. 

Oh well, maybe we should look at some travel brochures for Bavaria and get away from it all.

Sean in Ottawa

Let's admit that the NDP long term strategy has always been to knock the Liberals out of the game.

I have no trouble with the NDP and Liberals going at each other-- I just have trouble with those that would deny it or have NDP supporters tie their hands behind their backs.

The best way to beat the Cons is to clobber the Liberals such that they are out of the way. In the end there really is not a choice.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I agree Sean.  I think the Leaders tour is a window into campaign strategy.  Clearly the NDP is hoping for their campaign to catch fire and are aggressively targeting ridings at the edge.  Liberals appear to have a more conservative style.  More interesting will be how they react as the campaign proceeds.

no1important

Iggy is just scared to take on Harper head to head.  The Libs are just another conservative party now albeit not as extreme as the Con/Reform/Republican Party of Harpers.

 

Gawd how at times like this I miss the good ole days when the liberals were actually left and ceterish....I also miss PET, man he would easily make Harper look like the lying fool he is...

Fidel

Even PET was on the neoliberal bandwagon by 1984. That ideology actually got underway in Canada by 1975 when an appointed governor of the Bank of Canada decided that the Bank of Canada should step aside and let private banksters finance rising national debt. It marked the beginning of the end of social democracy in this country.

Lens Solution

bekayne wrote:

Here's where Jack Layton is today;

Brant: C 42.0%, L 33.1%, NDP 17.2%

Kitchener-Centre: C 36.7%, L 35.9%, NDP 18.1%

Kitchener-Waterloo: C 36.1%, L 36.0%, NDP 14.7%

True.  These are seats the Liberals are more likely to win than the NDP.  Whether we like to admit it or not, the Liberals are best-positioned to beat the Cons there. 

There are many other seats though where the NDP is best-positioned to beat the Cons that should be targeted.  But neither campaign liks to admit this.

Life, the unive...

You clearly don't know a single thing about Brant.   The NDP candidate is the best positioned there to defeat the Conservatives.  He has been working that riding very hard for a year and half and is constantly in the media there.   The Liberals are hapless.  Incidently the same thing is happening in my riding of Huron-Bruce.  Things are changing on the ground in Southwestern Ontario, helped no doubt by the Dalton gang.  Look to the ground, not Liberal talking points.

Pogo Pogo's picture

When you say neither campaign what two campaigns are you talking about.  Obviously it isn't Jack Layton as he was trumpeting that the NDP was the anti-Harper vote in Saskatchewan.

Lens Solution

Pogo wrote:

When you say neither campaign what two campaigns are you talking about.  Obviously it isn't Jack Layton as he was trumpeting that the NDP was the anti-Harper vote in Saskatchewan.

I'm sayng that neither of the opposition parties is going to admit that neither of them is the best-positioned to beat the Cons in every riding.  Each party claims it is the best opponent against the Cons, when in reality it depends on the riding.

I think the Liberals are the best opponent to defeat the Cons in Kitchener based on the 2008 results, but I agree with the above comment that the Liberals were farther behind in Brant and so the NDP may be the strongest opponent there to the Cons.

Yes, apart from Wascana, I would agree that the NDP is the strongest anti-Harper vote in Saskatchewan.  I am rooting for Nettie Wiebe in Rosetown-Biggar and for Noah Evanchuck as well.

bekayne

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

You clearly don't know a single thing about Brant.   The NDP candidate is the best positioned there to defeat the Conservatives.  He has been working that riding very hard for a year and half and is constantly in the media there.  

So he's better known than the former M.P.?

Life, the unive...

Did I say the Liberal was not known?  No - I said the Liberals are hapless.  Their job tour gaffe alone is evidence of that. 

Farmpunk

There was, as of this afternoon, no Liberal candidate in Oxford.  The NDP has has no presence there.

That's Dave McKenzie's seat.  He is not what I'd consider a constituency MP.  So I think he's vulernable to a good campaign... one that starts before an election is called.  

I live right next to the riding and pay attention to the local scene.  There has not been a whisper out of the NDP and Libs since election night of 2008.

There will be no competition.     

Lens Solution

That's unfortunate about Oxford, but that was usually a Conservative seat historically.  It really only went Liberal during the Chretien years because of vote-splitting on the right.  It's very unlikely the Liberals will win it back unless they were to win a massive majority.  The NDP will have a rough time too.

I think the demographics of the riding would have to change a lot to break into the Conservative hold there.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, and I apologize in advance if it so appears. I am getting the feeling that are some on this blog who want us to vote strategically. Okay, you are entitled to your opinion. But, bottom line, Libs are Libs and New Dems are New Dems. If you want Corporatist political policies, vote Lib. If you are really a left winger and a progressive, vote New Dem.

And by the way, I don't know if I am the only one using it, but I hate the word progressive. It was inserted into the political volcabualry by the Libs to confuse people. Do I read it right that some are afraid to call themselves left wingers? For me, the New Dems are lefties; if you are a progressive, you are really a Liberal.

And one other thing, I am sick and tired of all this fear over Harper. That just becomes an excuse for not voting New Dem and electing Libs. Stop being afraid, work, get out the vote and win.

Okay, I'll put away my soap box.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

gyor

acramer wrote:

This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, and I apologize in advance if it so appears. I am getting the feeling that are some on this blog who want us to vote strategically. Okay, you are entitled to your opinion. But, bottom line, Libs are Libs and New Dems are New Dems. If you want Corporatist political policies, vote Lib. If you are really a left winger and a progressive, vote New Dem.

And by the way, I don't know if I am the only one using it, but I hate the word progressive. It was inserted into the political volcabualry by the Libs to confuse people. Do I read it right that some are afraid to call themselves left wingers? For me, the New Dems are lefties; if you are a progressive, you are really a Liberal.

And one other thing, I am sick and tired of all this fear over Harper. That just becomes an excuse for not voting New Dem and electing Libs. Stop being afraid, work, get out the vote and win.

Okay, I'll put away my soap box.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

I agree on the strategically voting liberal just maintains the problem, it does not address it. I concider myself left winger and a progressive because I believe in policies which help the country progress to a better state of being. I don't call myself center left although some people on these forums might, because I don't believe there is a centre because that would require left and right to be static universal positions and they are not.

Maybe some day I will post what my idealogy is, but not tonight (A little hint I am a socialist but not of the usual kinds.)

adma

Interesting to consider w/Oxford that the NDP there was *really* close (i.e. within a couple of points) behind the Liberals in 2008--maybe an auto-workers effect...

Farmpunk

wrong spot

duncan cameron

I see where Ignatieff continues his national tour in Winnipeg North Centre, where a Lib won a by-election in an NDP seat, that will go NDP on May 2 electing Rebecca Blaikie to the House.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I have seen Iggy twice the last couple of days on CPAC and I was impressed with his ease at deflecting Con talking points.  He is learning to talk like a left liberal and he may eat the NDP's lunch in Ontario.  A revived Liberal party on the other hand could help the NDP not only hold their seats in BC but pick up a couple more. 

As always if the NDP cannot make a significant breakthrough in Ontario they cannot supplant the Liberals as opposition let alone win the most seats.

Aristotleded24

The one thing he has going against him in Ontario is the unpopularity of the sitting Liberal government. Both the Conservatives and the NDP are treating this campaign as a dress rehearsal for the Fall.

janfromthebruce

Yeah, but Iggy has a voting record, as well as his support of Bush in torture. I burst out laughing when I heard a radio ad with Iggy pitching for health, education and national childcare - litterly burst out laughing - everybody knows it's bullshit - he's a blue as blue can be!

Pages