Columnist Jeffrey Simpson is so predictable. There is a guy who professes himself a non-voter (”pundits don’t vote”), yet he never hides his true Liberal colours – and they shine in bright and overly partisan shades.

He recently wrote yet another anti-NDP column, which was so disrespectful of NDP leader Jack Layton that it caught the attention of the Progressive Economics Forum.

My comment to the Forum was this:

There used to be a time when I believed in that dichotomy of right v. left. But then I realized there is really only right v. wrong, or reasonable/commonsensical v. unreasonable/foolish. Tony Blair, for example, put it in similar terms when he addressed a Calgary audience last year (and yours truly was fortunate enough to be included in that number). Simpson may still think in these old terms, e.g., when he suggests that the NDP move to the centre.

Well, here’s the way I see it, comparing current Liberals and NDP:

The NDP has an infinitely more reasonable/commonsensical/practical, etc. platform than the Liberals. What is more, the NDP has a leader who knows what people want and need and who knows how to connect with people — something the Liberals can only dream of.

In other news — this arrived in my inbox earlier this evening:

I would like to invite you to join our Debate Night in Calgary at the Pinoy Village Restaurant & Lounge this Thursday, October 2,  Candidates, volunteers, and staff will be watching the English Debates starting at 6:30pm to 9pm. This promises to be a relaxing evening to socialize with fellow NDPers and cheer on Jack as he takes on Stephen Harper.

Looking for volunteers to join me in organizing a media event on the NDP’s plan to ensure a head start for kids by investing in a Canada wide Child Care and Early learning plan, develop a Children’s Nutrition initiative to support and expand provincial and local programs that provide healthy meals to school children, as well as phase in a new child benefit system for families.

Volunteers are needed to help with identifying a location for the media event, identify people willing to speak in support of the NDP’s plan, as well as identify families willing to join us in support of the plan. Your help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated and make this event a great sucess.
Please join our Facebook group to show your support to end child poverty once and for all by voting for a new direction with Jack Layton as Prime Minister.

You can join our group Calgary New Democrat Supporters to end Child Poverty in Canada
www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27231914356

Here’s the proper address of the restaurant: 3132-26 St. NE

Je trouve que la formule à 5 autour d’une table nous a démontré les limites de ce que peut apporter un débat avec 5 participants. On le comprend, les intervenants doivent être plus disciplinés et ça donne lieu à une discussion de salon. On aurait pu donner à chacun des chefs une bière tellement c’était lent et pénible.

Évidemment, tous les chefs se sont rués contre Stephen Harper. Ce dernier a été sur le défensive toute la soirée et n’a jamais vraiment fait de gros efforts pour attaquer ses adversaires, il est resté calme et s’est montré capable d’esquiver les questions trop compromettantes. Par exemple, pour justifier les baisses de taxes aux grandes pétrolières qui exploitent les sables bitumineux albertains, il s’en défenda en justifiant qu’il avait baissé les taxes pour TOUTES les entreprises. C’est sûr. De ce point de vue là c’est vrai que c’est juste pour tout le monde. Dans les faits, ça ne l’est peut-être pas, mais il a bien réussi à esquiver cette attaque.

Mme May avait tout à gagner avec ce débat. Elle s’est battue pour y être et pour avoir son mot à dire. Le résultat est un échec sur toute la ligne. Elle n’a dévoilé aucun élément de sa plate-forme, s’est fait doubler à plusieurs reprises par Stéphane Dion au sujet de l’environnement qui avait des arguments mieux ficelés et elle n’a fait qu’attaquer Stephen Harper, de manière assez maladroite. Il faut dire que son français était vraiment déficient et honnêtement, on s’en foutait de ce qu’elle avait à dire, c’était trop pénible à écouter. On n’avait que le goût qu’elle se taise. Je crois que pour les électeurs anglophones, dans le débat de demain, Stéphane Dion aura à combattre le même effet puisqu’il est probablement celui qui maîtrise le moins bien l’anglais.

Stéphane Dion est probablement le chef qui avait le plus à gagner dans ce débat. Il n’arrive tout simplement pas à enflammer des passions et à gagner la confiance des québécois. Je crois que des débatteurs ce soir, lui et M. Duceppe furent les mieux préparés. Stéphane Dion, d’ordinaire un peu trop cérébral et cartésien a réussi à mettre un peu d’émotion, et laisser une impression un peu plus favorable qu’à l’ordinaire. On sent qu’il connaît ses dossiers et qu’il amène des solutions crédibles. Le hic, c’est qu’il a dévoilé sa plate-forme plus tôt cette semaine, et on cette dernière les avait fait passer pour des pères-noël. Est-ce que les solutions proposées sont réalisables? Disons que M. Dion a peut-être réussi à faire changer l’impression générale qu’il est trop académique et sans leadership.

M. Duceppe a toujours le beau jeu dans ces débats, il peut dire ce qu’il veut, il ne prendra jamais le pouvoir. Ça lui permet d’être constamment sur l’offensive et d’attaquer ses adversaires. Au passage il a bien sûr revendiqué des droits au Québec. Moi ça ne m’interpelle pas, mais les souverainistes ont sûrement trouvé qu’il avait gagné le débat.

M. Layton c’est le grand-papa gâteau. Il vit sur un nuage et voit tout en rose. Il a bien donné quelques coups à Stephen Harper et Stéphane Dion, mais on l’imagine mal premier-ministre. Trop gentil. J’ai cependant bien aimé son jab à Stéphane Dion qu’il a accusé d’avoir appuyé les conservateurs lors d’un vote en chambre. Harper aussi a utilisé cet argument contre Duceppe.

Évidemment, un chef qui vote pour le gouvernement mais qui est contre les politiques pour lesquelles il a voté pour, c’est assez peu crédible. En ce sens, le NPD est le seul parti qui s’est tenu debout face aux conservateurs.

M. Layton aurait gagné a plus attaquer  M. Dion car je ne crois pas qu’il avait un quelconque vote à gagner des électeurs de M. Harper. La gauche est divisée entre les 4 partis de l’opposition. Il me semble que pour se démarquer des 3 autres, M. Layton aurait gagné à démontrer ce qui fait que le NPD serait plus apte à mener le pays que les Libéraux. M. Layton aura réussi à démontrer à ses électeurs qu’il n’aime pas M. Harper, mais ça, on le savait déjà. Il n’a donc marqué aucun point au Québec, j’en ai bien peur.

Dans l’ensemble, un débat drabe où on n’aura rien appris, à part peut-être quels sont les personalités de chacuns des chefs.

brem

Cet article est aussi publié sur mon blogue personel: martinbreton.com

It was a different seat for Stephen Harper this time around, being the incumbent PM and having to defend his policies instead of attacking others. How good a job did he do?

The beginning topic, the Economy, found Harper in general denial that Canada’s economy is anything but strong. As the subject of taxes on gasoline came up, Dion seemed to be intent on telling us how the demand from other countries would keep prices high, while Layton spoke about the need to help industries that are dependant on petroleum products to survive. Harper told us that he had done well by cutting the consumer taxes (GST), and Elizabeth May said this has done “nothing” for the consumer. My comment: “Yes, right, saving 2% on every litre of gas really deals with the incredible increase in the price per litre!”

There was a question about the listeriosis issue and food inspection. The high point in this part of the debate was when Gilles Duceppe asked Harper why the standards for exported foods were different (less frequent) for foods destined for distribution in Canada…

On the Environment issue, a questioner asked about having an independent agency created to deal with it. The overwhelming response from the others was about “leadership”, afterwhich May, Dion, Duceppe and Layton all complained about how Canada’s “leadership” on the issue is suspect among almost all other world leaders.

On Ethics in Politics and the House: This was the most fun part of the debate, that each one at the table look to the left and say something positive about the other potential leader sitting beside them and their experience with trying to work together. Poor Elizabeth May had Harper and had a difficult time trying to find something positive to say. The moderater had to cut her off, not because she was trying to be mean, but because she just came up empty. It was also entertaining to witness Steven Harper telling Jack that they had indeed found “some common ground”.

On Crime, the question was from a teacher from Dawson College, about gun control. While Harper, after fending off Layton on the issue, quickly changed the focus of the question towards his new crime bill, it set off another heated debate about the Conservative approach. Dion wanted to know HOW provinces would find the money to put more youth offenders in prisons, when there is already an issue over the number of prisons in each province lacking enough space and funding. May finished up by saying that it is funny that Harper wants to be tough on youth breaking laws, but he (Harper) only obeys the ones he agrees with. (She mentioned Kyoto and his own Fixed Election Law as examples).

On Healthcare: The debate became quickly about the fact that many Canadians do not have a family doctor. I guess this is the way to reduce hospital and emergency rooms problems. So all parties then focussed on the training and incentive issues for Canada to get more doctors. Elizabeth May brought up the issue of banning all chemicals which harm our health. Harper said he is on top of all of these issues. No one mentioned the issue for many immigrants to this country. How to make sure that qualified immigrants can efficiently cut through the present red tape to practice their professions when they arrive in Canada. This was a letdown for me….

Afghanistan: I do not think any leader said anything that has not been already heard a thousand times on this issue already.

Who won? Well I think it is sad that if you are a francophone in Québec, that if three out of five leaders are speaking in their second language, that some voters will pick the top two because of language. This language issue is what keeps dividing Canada, but it is also what makes us different than the United States, where debates happen in one language only. I love our bilingual and bicultural Canada! I love also, being a citizen of the World!

I’ve now read the postings of several pundits both within and without DemocraticSpace about the format of tonight’s leaders debate. Specifically, most people preferred the fact that the leaders were sitting about an elliptical table rather than standing at podia.

I thought there may be some of you out there who would like to hear a candidate’s perspective on the issue. I’ve attended quite a number of debates as a federal election candidate. I estimate that about one-fifth of those debates had me standing at a podium for the entire time. The rest had us standing for opening and closing remarks and sitting for the rest of the time.

Now, I’m not the most fit physical specimen but neither am I the sort of person who prefers to sit for long periods of time. I’m the sort who likes to sit for a while and then stand. As a consequence, I found the debates where we had to stand at a podium for two to three hours at a time to be very tiring. I’d get a sore back. Some of the podia have a little bar on the podium to place my foot; such a thing would provide me some relief but it would still be painful and tiring by the time we were done.

I’ve been told that Ms May has recently had a hip replacement and that she’s still convalescing from that. If that’s the case, I think it incredibly fortunate for her that the debate format was changed to allow the candidates to be seated.

Aside from the general consensus that the round table format allowed better interaction among the various players, I’m sure it made for a more relaxed and spontaneous interchange.

Of course, this is just one candidate’s impression. Your mileage may vary…

Harper: Defended well but his posture and awkward facial expression didn’t suit sitting at the table format.

May: Too aggressive. Performed well in French but where was the substance of her platform?

Dion: Clearer, more concise than usual. He attacked Harper enough but kept time enough for substance.

Layton: Too aggressive in his exchanges with Harper. Again, where was the substance?

Duceppe: Very comfortable in substance and style, strong performance.

My Rankings:
1- Duceppe
2- Dion
3- Harper
4- May
5- Layton

I decided to look at the NDP Candidate for my riding.

“Sania Khan”

On her page on the Site it says :

• An entrepreneur and the owner of a food label called Companions Choice
• Actively involved in community affairs
• A member of the Peel Poverty Action Group and several community organizations including the Faith of Life
• Network
• Involved in Women in Business and other women’s groups

Let me frank about her, she’s extremely young. She has no experience, her credentials are questionable, and nothing that is listed on the site has anything to do with government. I tried to contact her about what her ideas were, and what she would do if elected?

No response.

So I am surmising that she isn’t really going to be able to do constituency work. I don’t really see her making a name for herself in the House, and I really don’t see any way she is qualified to be the MP of my area.

What should be I taking from this? The NDP doesn’t care about my riding? The NDP doesn’t think they have any chance of getting my riding so they will just put whoever is around and  hope that their party name carries through?

I am actually a little offended by this.

On any given day, I’m left to wonder precisely who will show up to lead the Conservatives. One day, Conservative supporters will tell us that Harper is an economist with stellar credentials who is our only hope against an economic ill wind. The next day, these same pundits tell us that Canada’s economic challenges are entirely external and that Harper, as much as anyone else, is entirely powerless to help us in any way.

In an effort to decipher for myself the reality of the day, I sat down to watch an entire hour of coverage on CPAC showing Harper, in his own words. Sure, there was a lot of spit and polish on the man but, in the end, I was left with the abiding impression that Harper was possessed by the spirit of Bobby McFerrin. As he spoke, I could swear I could hear strains of Don’t Worry, Be Happy playing in the background.

I was virtually stunned into silence to hear Harper criticise the opposition leaders for having the temerity to mention that we might be suffering economic challenges ahead while, all the while, it’s an open secret that Harper called the election when he did because he was worried about a worsening economy.

I’m being non-partisan on this blog but, I hope, being non-partisan does not preclude me from expressing the fact that I’m dumbfounded by Harper’s seemingly incomprehensible behaviour…

I have to say I very much like the new format for the debate. Having all the leaders sitting down at a circular table is much more conducive to debate and discussion, rather than having them each at a podium, facing an audience.

Their seating arrangement seemed to influence the patterns of their interaction, May and Layton seated next to Harper seemed to be turning to attack him most of the time, whereas Dion and Duceppe seemed to be off on their own to some extent.

On several occasions we saw Dion, Duceppe, Layton and May all seemed to gang up on Harper at times. If we do see a Conservative minority again (I doubt we’ll see a majority at this point), I do hope this is indicative of a potentially cooperative opposition. Or perhaps that’s just my own wishful-thinking.

Elizabeth May seemed to fit right in from what I could tell–though that’s not necessarily saying much. The bottom line, I think, is that she was there, and she did take part in the debate. She did manage to bring a number of issues back to the environment, especially when it came to Harper’s environmental policies and record.

Although Gilles Duceppe did display far more patience during the debate, and consequently did not get as many words in edgewise, when he did speak he managed to make it count.

As for Harper, he was put on the defensive most of the time, but he did maintain his awkward smirking (which I interpret to indicate a certain level of comfort on his part) throughout the event. His goal seemed to be to remain calm and and not get himself riled up in any way, and I must say he did achieve it.

Jack Layton did seem to get in a number of good points, especially when it came to Canadian artists and the need to support them, as well as issues on the economy. He also was able to interact more with the other party leaders compared to the last election’s leaders’ debates.

I think the accusations of plagiarism with respect to Harper’s 2003 speech regarding Iraq has helped to remind people how closely Harper’s policies align with that of the Bush government. That, I think, has the greatest potential to harm the Conservatives, and Layton did help bring that to light.

Overall, there were no clear winners, as usual. Here’s hoping the US Vice-Presidential debate doesn’t draw too much viewership away from the English debate tomorrow night.

Stephen Harper looked uncomfortable. He was slouched and did not know what facial expression to have when he was being berated by the others. His little smirk was probably the worst thing to do. I was expecting him to a be a bit more confident than this. Did he bomb? No, but I don’t think we’ll see the Conservative vote in Quebec go up because of this.

Elizabeth May spent the evening directing traffic and sounding a lot like a fifth grader telling her French class what she did over the summer. I’m not sure if anyone really learned anything about the Green Party in this debate. And, simply put, May did not add anything different. Maybe the English-language debate will be different, but in this one, the Green Party was just like the other parties – except they lack elected MPs.

Stéphane Dion was energetic and a little pissed, and I think it worked. But no matter how well he did, all he was really doing was fighting to keep his seats in Montreal and Gatineau. In other words, this debate was about four or five seats for him. Tomorrow’s debate will be about 20 or 30.

Gilles Duceppe was, unsurprisingly, the best at the debate. He was loose, he was on message, he had facts and figures, and his interruptions were less misplaced than those of the others. Unlike the others, he spoke to everyone at the table, rather than a TV screen or a camera or only to Harper. He also spoke with the most ‘common sense’. Layton and Dion were trying to sell their programmes and Harper was defending himself. Out of the five, Duceppe spoke most like a regular informed person rather than a political salesman.

Jack Layton left me unmoved. He didn’t do great and he didn’t do badly. Actually, he was pretty quiet. I doubt he gained any votes for Mulcair, Boivin, or Ducasse. And he was the only one not to wear his party’s colour. Probably because orange is horrid.

Dion and Duceppe had the undeniable benefit of being able to express themselves completely. Compared to Harper, Layton, and especially May, their ability to actually speak French made them appear much, much smarter. Undecided voters who tend not to pay attention to politics will be most impressed by them.

Grading their ability to communicate in French (which encompasses more than just linguistic comprehension), I’d put Duceppe on the top, Dion second, Layton third, Harper fourth, and May fifth.

Dion was the first to get mad, and he was lucky that the camera captured the exasperation of the entire table to what Harper had said.

It really was 4 on 1 during the debate, and while I think Harper will be able to handle it during the English-language debate, he was a little overwhelmed in this case. Dion was lucky that neither Layton or Duceppe really went after him, it helped him appear like the only real alternative. Layton made a mistake not to go after Dion more, because Layton is the alternative choice of the left. Going after Harper alone doesn’t give him many votes because the centre-right is not going to switch allegiance to the NDP. Layton’s only hope is to go after the centre-left, who are Dion’s supporters.

Duceppe’s demanding why Harper did not support the territorial approach was a pretty good moment for the Bloc. Nationalists who care about the environment, or who are proud of Quebec’s achievements, will think twice about Harper’s commitment to “asymmetrical” federalism.

The question about the qualities of the leader to the left of them was very clever. A few of them couldn’t resist making a jab in the midst of their praise, but it was nice to have a quasi-positive moment. May had the most difficult job in finding positiveness in Harper, and I almost felt bad for him, the poor guy. The night’s not going well for him. He’s not able to hit back because of his linguistic limitations, and the other four are ganging up on him. But it doesn’t create real sympathy, because the criticisms are rather spot-on.

Of note to sovereigntists who are considering voting for the Greens, May gave a very Trudeau-esque pan-Canadian response to the question concerning the Quebec nation.

Debate rankings: Gilles Duceppe, Stéphane Dion, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May.

My favourite moment? Layton asked Duceppe whether he was going to defend the public health system. Duceppe responded that it was up to Quebec to decide the system it wanted, though personally he opposed privatisation. He clearly stated that it was not up to Ottawa to decide how Quebec would run its health system. Then, over Dion’s time to speak, Layton accused Duceppe of never being able to defend the public health system because the Bloc will never form government. After a beat of hesitation, Duceppe responded “you neither”. Tee hee!

Cross-posted at Sovereignty en Anglais.

The candidates got together Tuesday evening (30 Sep) for their most important debate of the campaign. The North Bay and District Chamber of Commerce debate typically attracts about 300 people, and last night was no exception. In addition, the debate is carried live on local television and radio. This year, for the first time, it was also available on streaming audio on the internet. The local cable station tends to replay it, in its entirety, every three or four days, as well, so this is make or break time for candidates.

Instead of trying to recount the minutiae of the proceedings, I’ll try to summarise the main thrusts and parries of each candidate.

The New Democratic Party candidate in this riding is Dianna Allen. Allen turned in a solid performance, appearing well briefed on the issues. She managed to score a major point when the Liberal candidate went on at some length about a private member’s bill he had introduced. Allen managed to cut in and pointed out that the bill was actually copied from an earlier bill introduced by New Democrat Tony Martin. Allen scored well with the crowd when she attacked the government, especially with her comments about the secretive nature of the Conservatives and their refusal to allow for public scrutiny of the negotiations around the North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Craig Bridges represented the Green Party in the debate. The youngest face on the slate, Bridges nevertheless appeared more than competent in handling the various questions asked of the candidates. His passion for the environment shone through as he asked the crowd, again and again, not to be deceived by the government’s admonition that the false choice is a strong economy or a healthy environment. Bridges also scored solid hits against theLiberals by pointing out that, despite their attractive rhetoric, they failed to get the job done when they had the chance.

Dr Andrew Moulden is a physician who has returned to North Bay to represent the Canadian Action Party. Although Moulden left no doubt about his passion and his commitment to the electorate, his major challenge appeared to be the somewhat unitary focus of his campaign. At the end of the night, it appeared that every question elicited a similar response that was clearly meant to demonise big Pharma. The candidate went on at length about vaccines and his view that they are “killing our children”. Moulden succeeded in scoring a few points with the crowd when he waxed eloquent about the Conservative government’s Bill C-51 which, in his words, will “kill thousands of people by denying them the natural medicines they need to cure disease”. The crowd also appeared mildly receptive to his criticisms of the international banking “conspiracy”, reviving, for the elders and historians in the crowd, many of the old Social Credit positions on debt and debt financing.

The Liberal candidate is the incumbent Anthony Rota. Rota’s been the MP for the riding since its inception in 2004. His experience and preparation showed and he was definitely the most polished candidate on the podium. Interestingly, although he did defend the Green Shift, he did so while barely even mentioning the name of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. Rota was running on Rota’s record and, if the overtly partisan crowd was any indication, he was well positioned to do so. Rota managed to score a big point against Conservative Joe Sinicrope when he said that one “catches more bees with honey than with vinegar” and not by bullying people like another person who “I won’t name but who is well known to” Sinicrope. At one point, the largely Liberal crowd became nearly giddy when Rota waved a document he claimed to have just received through an access to information request that clearly put the lie to Sinicrope’s constant denials that the Conservatives had cut any money from the FedNor regional economic development budget.

Joe Sinicrope, the Conservative candidate, was clearly loaded for bear and his sights were set squarely on the Liberals. In sum, he really provided nothing new; every one of his comments stuck very closely to the tried and true Conservative talking points that we hear in the nightly news. Sinicrope elicited some sparks from the crowd when he gave a solemn promise to see that the local 3000 metre airport runway would be repaved by the feds, a commitment the Conservative Finance Minister refused to give when he passed through the riding just days ago. Sinicrope also was the brunt of a few hostile jeers when he was asked what his position was on therapeutic abortion; he failed to directly answer the question, choosing instead to tell the crowd what Harper had said at some time in the past. Outside of the debate venue, the riding is rife with rumours about internal strife within the Conservative riding association. A person close to the campaign suggested that “the old guard are staying home this time”.

The absolutely unacceptable moderating job turned in by the Chamber 1st Vice-President Derek Shogren was a major distraction for those who came out to hear the various candidates although, for the committed Liberal or Conservative supporters in the crowd, it may not have been quite as overt. On several occasions, Shogren said “I’m going to ask Mr Rota and Mr Sinicrope to answer this and then we have to move along.” After the debate, two of the candidates mentioned to me that they felt they’d been passed over and had been short-changed in the time to respond, sentiments which appeared to me to be justified.

In summary, no single candidate scored the knockout punch they may have been looking for. Rota, as the incumbent and front runner, emerged relatively unscathed which is probably what his campaign had hoped for. In my last post, I indicated that I feel this riding is Rota’s to lose. Nothing I saw on Tuesday evening changed that opinion. Unless Rota makes a serious gaffe, he’ll walk to victory on the 14th.

I don’t know if we’re the greatest of bellwethers for the whole election, but if Dion wants to show he has traction, T-S would be a nice pick-up, and if Layton wants to usurp the Liberals in Canadian politics, then he’d better hold it.

As someone whose interests and research intersects politics and space, I must admit that I am a sucker for maps. Especially pretty ones! So I thought I would highlight this one that the Toronto Star recently published showing how every single polling station voted last time in the Greater Toronto Area. Click on it to download the full size version (but be warned: it is 5.3mb).

A few basic things to note:

1. The Liberal red in the map is virtually synonymous with the urbanized parts of the GTA (i.e. the Conservative blue areas on the urban fringe are primarily undeveloped areas, not yet consumed by the GTA’s onward expansion).

2. The most heavily urbanized areas at the core of Toronto vote NDP (except for the downtown Toronto Centre riding, which votes Liberal). The only other area where the NDP does well is in Oshawa, but since the Oshawa riding takes in a good chunk of the urban fringe, it typically goes Conservative.

3. The Conservatives do have a stronghold in the affluent areas in the Don Valley West riding (indeed this is the only seat they have a chance of winning). Otherwise, there are only isolated pockets of Conservative support in Etobicoke and North York.

Last night, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) was sponsoring a debate between the candidates in Gatineau.  The candidates had all accepted to attend with the exception of the Conservative candidate, Denis Tassé.  The Conservatives were claiming, credibly I think, that the PSAC is bias and that it would be an unfair forum.

But just as the debate was about the begin Denis Tassé came in and announced he would indeed be participating.  He still said the union’s leaders were bias and he accused them of actively campaigning against him by urging members to vote for anybody but the Conservatives.  He declared that he said “yes” to government workers but “no”to the Alliance (I’m sure that brings a tear to your eyes ).

I’m not really sure what to think about this.  On one end, I’m sure there’s no love lost between the PSAC leadership and the Conservative, but on the other end why would the guy change his mind about this sort of thing five minutes before the debate started?

Personally, I still think it’s not the job of a union to tell its members for whom to vote.

An explosive account in a major column today reveals that the federal NDP back in Ed Broadbent’s time, rejected the Liberal government’s offer to change our voting system to proportional representation.

Why?

Because “the MPs were afraid of losing their seats.”

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

This is a lengthy column, with lots of info, and likely to get substantial attention.

This whole “plagiarism” non-issue is still being talked about – by bloggers and the media, but not by ordinary Canadians who are more interested in the issues, such as the economy and how to get taxes down in this country.

The media, and certain bloggers, are wasting their time dissecting Harper’s “Howard speech“, just as they are wasting their time chasing after speeches that Dion lifted from David Suzuki (it was much worse when Dion stole a company’s name to use for his Green Shift plan).

The only blogger – a Liberal no less – who had anything smart to say about this nonsense was Red Tory (as I wrote yesterday)

[I]t really is a measure of the Liberals’ desperation. Is this actually the best the LPC can come up with… “a debate about a five year-old speech that was delivered three Parliaments ago, two elections ago, when the prime minister was the leader of a party that no longer exists”? Quite pathetic really.

So, get on with it, talk about the excessive tax burden in this country, the economy, education and health care, but don’t waste voters’ time with such utter nonsense.

Déclaration du Ministre du Travail aux femmes qui manifestaient devant ses bureaux dans Jonquière – Alma, pour avoir la garantie qu’un gouvernement Conservateur n’ouvrira pas le dossier de l’avortment.

“Je vais mettre mon siège en jeu si un gouvernement Conservateur revenait là-dessus”, a-t-il dit aussi. (Un vrai petit Trudeau!) “Relaxez, sur cette affaire là”!

La soupe doit être vraiment chaude. C’est la deuxième fois que les regroupements de femmes se pointent chez lui, depuis quelques semaines. C’est la première qu’il consent à les rencontrer.

Il semble que quelqu’un se soit enfin réveillé hier parmi les stratèges de l’équipe conservatrice. En effet, en fin de journée hier, Owen Lippert, un ancien collaborateur de Stephen Harper, s’est désigné comme bouc émissaire dans l’affaire du « discours plagié ». Rappelons que le discours que M. Harper avait adressé au Parlement en mars 2003, dans le but de convaincre les députés d’envoyer des troupes canadiennes combattre en Irak, était calqué en grande partie sur celui qu’avait prononcé le premier ministre australien, John Howard, deux jours plus tôt. Ce n’est qu’après avoir tenté de minimiser l’impact de la nouvelle dans un premier temps que les conservateurs ont finalement fait parvenir un communiqué à la presse annonçant la démission de M. Lippert.

« On m’a demandé de rédiger un discours pour le chef de l’opposition de l’époque », a admis M. Lippert qui avoue du même souffle avoir fait un excès de zèle en copiant des extraits de discours du premier ministre australien.

Or, si ce matin, l’affaire semble avoir été balayée sous le tapis avec la plus grande efficacité, on ne peut s’empêcher de se demander où étaient les mêmes stratèges conservateurs lors de la dérape sur les coupures de 45 millions $ dans le domaine de la culture ou de celle sur l’alourdissement des peines contre les adolescents.

Julie Couillard, l’autobiographie

Chose certaine, c’est à espérer pour M. Harper que le responsable de la gestion du « discours plagié » soit le même à qui l’on va confier l’épineux problème que sera l’autobiographie de Julie Couillard. Ce livre, qui paraîtra le 6 octobre prochain, n’est rien de moins qu’une épée de Damoclès suspendue au-dessus de la tête des conservateurs, si l’on en croit les extraits qui circulent déjà sur le Net.

Dans son livre, l’ex-compagne de Maxime Bernier décrit notamment celui-ci comme un grand benêt narcissique et coureur de jupons qui, en privé, affiche un certain mépris pour Stephen Harper ainsi que ses électeurs beaucerons. Julie Couillard affirme également que le ministre fédéral, soutenait que l’indépendance du Québec était une chose inévitable et que, par conséquent, il s’y préparait. « La souveraineté, ça ne me fait pas peur du tout, c’est vers ça qu’on s’en va c’est évident. Et moi je n’ai pas de problèmes avec ça. Je suis prêt. J’attends ça», aurait-il déclaré en avril dernier devant des clients estomaqués d’un café de Montréal.

Quelle que soit l’esquive sur laquelle travaillent les stratèges conservateurs, la situation aurait pu être davantage maîtrisée si Stephen Harper avait mis Maxime Bernier à la porte le printemps dernier. Difficile de comprendre en quoi Bernier est indispensable dans une circonscription (Beauce) qui a voté conservateur à 67% en 2006 et qui recueille encore en ce moment de 56 à 58% des voix selon les dernières projections de DemocraticSpace. S’il semble à peu près certain que l’homme va garder sa circonscription, il pourrait en même temps devenir le talon d’Achille de sa formation.

On aura peut-être des réponses lors de la sortie du livre de Julie Couillard… ou lors du passage tant attendu de celle-ci à l’émission « Tout le monde en parle » ce dimanche.

(pour la partie 1, allez voir sur mon blogue au http://electionsfed2008vaudreuil.blogspot.com/)

Certains me diront qu’on ne frappe pas sur une personne déjà « couchée ». J’en conviens, ce n’est pas très « sports ». Mais qu’est-ce qu’être « fairplay » en politique ? Est-ce que c’est être bon joueur que de polluer l’environnement autant du côté visuel que du côté de l’air avec des panneaux publicitaire mobile géant qui véhicule un slogan démagogique et simpliste envers le Bloc et la démocratie?

J’use donc du même stratagème car il semble que ce soit de bonne guerre en politique. Je vous incite donc, si vous avez un peu de temps pour lire, à vous précipiter sur les liens suivants pour vous informer un peu plus sur le personnage politique nébuleux que peut être Michael Fortier.

1. Apparence de conflit d’intérêt dans la poursuite contre Groupaction sur le scandale des commandite (Fortier poursuit, son beau-frère défend Groupaction… Hummm)
http://www.canott.blogspot.com/

2. Fortier n’étant pas élu et étant sénateur, il n’est pas redevable au gouvernement. Veuillez prendre connaissance de comment il semble avoir traité les dons faramineux fait au parti Conservateur.
LINK

3. Fortier, en bon bailleur de fond, défend le choix pour la dépense exagérée pour la clôture anti manifestant posée à l’occasion du Sommet du G8 à Montebello en Outaouais. Savoureux.
LINK

4. Par ailleurs, un de ses conseillers dans la région à démissionné au début 2008 de l’équipe Fortier. Matthew Brett du Hudson Gazette rapporte ceci :

Hired to open Fortier’s Coteau-du-Lac riding office in 2007, Roch Gamache moved to the cabinet level as special assistant dedicated to Montreal affairs before leaving early this year. “I was not happy with what was going on, the way things were dealt with,” Gamache said Monday. “Each time I brought something up, I was silenced.” Gamache claimed he was kept away from certain files, but would not specify which. He blamed his departure on a clash with Fortier’s former chief of staff, Claude Alain. According to Gamache, Alain felt that he spent too much time on issues dealing with the riding. “This direction that I was moving was obviously not in conformity with their direction,” Gamache said. He would not give specifics.

Sans dire que monsieur Gamache est sans reproche, la bisbille semble facile au sein du bureau de monsieur Fortier ; est-ce l’attrait du pouvoir qui crée ces batailles de basse-cour ?

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (SRB) is the best chance for a pick-up by the New Democrats in Saskatchewan.

The incumbent, Carol Skelton, who enjoyed a good deal of personal popularity (and was at pains to associate herself with the Conservative brand in any of her communications) is not running again. In her place, the Conservatives nominated Kelly Block, one of the higher-ups of the ruling Saskatchewan Party (i.e. Conservative Party), former rural town mayor, and a member of several health boards. She was nominated this past summer by the party.

Nettie Wiebe was re-nominated in January 2007 to represent the New Democratic Party for a second time, she ran and lost to Skelton in 2006. A farmer, professor, and activist, Nettie has been hard at work in the riding for the past 3.5 years building both the NDP brand and her name. In particular, her and her team gave much focus to the rural portion of the riding over the past 1.5 years leading up to the election.

Roy Bluehorn was the last minute nominee for the Liberal Party and is a young aboriginal policy analyst with ties to the urban portion of the riding. There are also candidates running under the Green, Christian Hertiage Party (vote against immorality!), and the Libertarian Party.

The battle in this election will be between Nettie Wiebe and Kelly Block, with both camps running high resource campaigns. The lack of an incumbent this time around would seem to give the name recognition to Nettie Wiebe over Kelly Block.

A quick look at the 2006 results broken down between the urban and rural portion of the riding gives an idea of where the main contenders stand heading towards October 14th:

	Rural	Saskatoon
Total Voters	11446	36752
Vote Total	7961	21392
Turnout	69.6	58.2
	-
	Total Votes
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	153	585
C.H.	41	217
Lib	528	3048
Con	5140	8191
NDP	2125	9287
	-
	% Vote
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	1.9	2.7
C.H.	0.5	1.0
Lib	6.6	14.2
Con	64.6	38.3
NDP	26.7	43.4

(more…)

As part of Radio One’s coverage of the federal election, candidates from Surrey North were invited to a live discussion/debate this morning. Candidates from the Greens, Grits and NDP were in attendance; Tory candidate Dona Cadman was not.

For those unfamiliar, Cadman is the widow of Chuck Cadman. Chuck led a grassroots movement here in BC to update the Young Offender’s Act after their son was murdered by another youth. When the Reform Party was gathering steam out West, Chuck was one of a number of locally respected activists who were recruited for their hard work. And populist appeal.

Chuck served in Parliament from 1993 until his death from cancer in 2005. Over those 12 years he was a Reform, Alliance, and ultimately independent MP. When the right merged into the current Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Cadman lost the CPC nomination–but easily won as an independent. Many outside BC first became aware of him when he voted with the Martin Liberals to prevent an election a few months before his death.

Dona Cadman endorsed her friend Penny Priddy for the NDP in the last election and Priddy won easily; Dona’s support no doubt helped, but Priddy has been a powerful and popular figure for years.

Dona has also alleged the Harper Tories tried to “buy” Chuck’s support in Parliament, offering inducements such as a life insurance policy. I’ve no idea about these allegations’ credibility. But I do know this: Dona is now the candidate for the very party she accused of being unethical. Bizarre. Priddy has declined to run for re-election as well, making Surrey North all the more interesting.

Dona’s either been Harped into a muzzle or has decided to avoid reporters. She did do an all-candidates meeting last night though. But her communication skills and lack of a populist bent are almost anathema to her husband. Or….she went for the nomination to sabotage Harper. Haven’t seen any polls yet, but the buzz is, the Tories are out of this one already.

Will the NDP hold the seat? Will it be a Liberal pick-up? Or will vote splitting between the 2 hand it to the Invisible Womanâ„¢? Oooooh…..exciting!