The Liberals will not hold onto Winnipeg North. Parties do not win a seat by 40 points in one general election and fail to win it in the next general election. The NDP will take Winnipeg North in the next election.
Still, winning Winnipeg North was quite an accomplishment and Liberals should pat themselves on the back. For the first time in the post Martin era they did something right. That is the good news.
On the flip side is that if the Winnipeg North victory is if this is evidence of an down turn in the NDP fortunes, the Liberals are in big trouble. An NDP collapse in the next election all but guarantees a Conservative majority. Igantieff should be careful what he wishes for. If that NDP collapse, British Columbia Southern Interior, Nanaimo Cowichan, New Westmister Coquitlam, Sault Ste Marie, Skeena Bulkley Valley and Esquimalt Juan de Fuca will all go blue next election. People in these ridings do not shift from right to left and back again. They shift from one populist party or candidate to another. A weakened NDP will also mean that most of the following will also go blue: Burnaby Douglas, Victoria, Edmonton Strathcona, Elmwood Trascona, Western Artic, Welland.
Just as bad, the Liberals won Winnipeg North by playing the crime card. This may have work in few ridings were crime is major issue and NDP are strong and Conservatives weak, but it is bound to fail in virtually every other instance. The Conservatives own crime as an issue and rather than come up with an effective response the Liberals have chosen to tow the Conservative line yet again.
Of course not only did the Conservatives get confirmation that their get tough on crime stance is a political winner in Manitoba they also made major inroads in Ontario. Liberals can spin it however they want. The Conservatives are slowly reducing the Liberals to rump around Toronto Center. Toronto is looking more and more like the Dunkirk pocket everyday. With any luck Obama will send a flotilla to evacuate the besieged. The notion that the Liberals secured a moral victory by limiting Fantino to just under 50% of the vote is absurd. The so called pundits who thought that Fantino would magically win by more simply do not know their craft. The magnitude of the Conservatives victory, while not as impressive as what the Liberals were able to do in Winnipeg North, can not be understated. The Conservatives took 35% of the vote in 2008 and 50% this time around. Even more impressive is that virtually the same number of people cast the votes in favour of the Conservatives this time around as last.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Are you trying to get thrown off the bus?
I did not know K.L. ran with the law and order agenda of the CPC.
thanks for the insight.
I must disagree with you on the crime issue. The problems plaguing Winnipeg North are not solved with get tough on crime legislation. To be politically incorrect, it's basically aboriginals committing crimes against aboriginals. The main reason Lamoureux won is name recognition. He is very well known in Manitoba so that helped him enormously. Chief has never held any office so everything he got was either because of his party affiliation or hard work on his part. The crime in North Winnipeg is really only a few square miles and it's mainly in housing projects. I agree with you that it wil be tough for Lamoureux to win the next federal election because Winnipeg North always votes NDP.
"The problems plaguing Winnipeg North are not solved with get tough on crime legislation."
I agree, but that does not change the fact that the Conservatives's dumb ass and expensive policies are popular with a woefully ignorant public.
As for Lamoureux, name recogniztion is one thing, but that kind of drop in support speaks to Lamoureux having tapped into something. Just how much is crime and how much is discount with the Provincial government remains to be seen.
Koby . . . To call Canadians "ignorant" speaks volumes about your Liberal Entitlement attitude. Unfortunately for you, the majority of Canadians support more jails and getting tough on criminals. Your "hug a thug" attitude is yesterday's news. Just check in Manitoba how the NDP is agreeing with everything the Conservatives are doing on the crime file. So you are in the minority. The NDP have seen the light. Maybe the Liberals should do the same.
"Koby . . . To call Canadians "ignorant" speaks volumes about your Liberal Entitlement attitude."
David Dingwall made the Mint, well, a mint and was cleared of all wrong doing. Of course that did not stop Harper from making baseless accusations or Paul Martin from throwing him under the bus because of Dingwall's choice of words.
As for Canadians being ignorant about crime, do you honestly think it is otherwise? Your average couple with two kids mortgage and dog is not coming home after a hard day at work and reading criminology journals. This is no moral failing on their part. They neither have the time nor the interest. They might watch the news, but this makes thing worse not better. The media maximum that if it bleeds it leads has led most Canadians to believe that crime up and they more vunerable than ever when crime is down and more concentrated among the criminal underclass.
The media is not the only ones letting Canadians down. Rather than trying to educate Canadians, the Conservatives like no party before them have chosen to exploit populations fears about crime and pander their prejudges.
"Unfortunately for you, the majority of Canadians support more jails and getting tough on criminals. Your "hug a thug" attitude is yesterday's news."
No unfortunately for us. Spending on corrections is growing at over 10% a year and has no impact on the crime rate whatsoever.
Anyway, given the fact you have chosen slogans over reasoned argument, it is safe to count you as being one of the woefully ignorant. Canada has historically had on of the highest incarceration rates in the Western world. It is only when matched up against the US that Canada looks timid. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the US has by far the highest violent crime rate in Western world well all the while imprisoning far more people than the rest of the Western world combined. The US prison population represents 23% of those imprisoned world wide.
You have your facts mixed up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/whoswho.html#dingwall
1997: Defeated in the general election.
2003: Appointed president and CEO of the Royal Canadian Mint.
Sept. 28, 2005: Agreed to resign his position as head of the Royal Canadian Mint, because of the media frenzy sparked by unproven allegations that he and his office made improper and excessive expense claims.
October 2005: An independent audit by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers found the expenses fell within the Crown corporation's guidelines.
Paul Martin's Liberal government said it would pay Dingwall compensation legally owed to him, but a dispute arose over the amount. An independent arbitrator was asked to decide whether Dingwall resigned voluntarily and what compensation he should receive.
Jan. 19, 2006: Arbitrator George Adams' report ruled in favour of Dingwall, finding that his departure was involuntary.
Federal government was required to pay Dingwall $417,780 in compensation and $42,010 annually.
"You have your facts mixed up"
I do not. I said the Conservatives allegations were baseless and they were and I said Martin threw him under the bus and they did. The Liberals fired him for no good reason.
as the two reports made clear, the Conservative allegations were baseless.
Can you link the report of baseless accusation from the Conservatives.
The file is not top of mind can you provide background how the opposition acted irresponsibly. How is the leader of the opposition responsible for the PM stating Dingwall resigned when he was fired?
Prairie Kid is right about Lamoureux and name recognition. Lamoureux was the MLA for the riding of Inkster which encompasses much of the same real estate as Winnipeg North and he has held that riding off and on since 1988.
Incidently, Judy Wasylycia-Leis
was the MLA for the riding of St Johns prior to switching to federal politics. That riding also shares some of the same real estate. In comparison and as pointed out already, Kevin Chief was not yet elected to public office and therefore was a political nobody.
At the end of the day, the fact that the Liberals won in Winnipeg North is far less significant than the Liberals losing in Vaughn. Besides, Winnipeg North has pretty much always voted Liberal or NDP.
CS CS CS
This how the Conservatives operate.
Step 1) Smear
Step 2) When smear is proven to be baseless admit to nothing, retrench or move the goal posts and take one last equally baseless parting shot.
Take the case of David Dingwall.
They accused him of among other things of spending $5800 on a dinner for two
Of course, there never was any such dinner, but hey that is no reason for having to apologize and not taking one last equally baseless parting shot. No Sir.
Conservative idea of contrition: "The Conservatives are hardly expressing sympathy for Dingwall. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Wednesday that the audit's findings are no surprise, given that Dingwall himself wrote the guidelines.
'I don't think the public is going to say that these expenses, in their eyes, are legitimate. Mr. Dingwall ... went out there and used no political judgment in his exercise in the use of public money, and I think that's what the public is angry about.'"
Reality having a liberal bias: "A separate audit into the process of reviewing the mint president's expenses found that crown corporation ,goes well beyond what one could expect to find in most private sector corporations.'.
According to the review by Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP -- a firm specializing in corporate law -- the mint has a stricter process for monitoring the spending of its chief executives than most private sector corporations."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20051026/dingwall_audit_051025/
Another example:
1) The smear: "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?"
2) equally baseless parting shot after journalists ask him what the fuck.
Asked about the 'taste' of the headline, Harper said: "What's in bad taste is the Liberal Party's record on child pornography.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20040619/elxn_campaign_040618/
Brett: I understand the importance of name recognition and no doubt it played a role this time. But there was something more afoot. The Liberals went from 9% to to 46%!
Koby,
Can you identify the "smear" in the article you linked, I have read it. The best I can come up with is this.
"I don't think the public is going to say that these expenses, in their eyes, are legitimate. Mr. Dingwall ... went out there and used no political judgment in his exercise in the use of public money, and I think that's what the public is angry about." (Is that the money quote?)
I will get back to you on PM Paul Martin.
Thanks Koby for reminding about this smear.
"Conservative Party would like to recall the message, "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?," the party said.
It then sent the initial accusatory release out again at 4:49 p.m., and recalled it again a few seconds later.
A press release with an offensive title is the basis of your suggestion the CPC are doing nothing but smears?
Were the Conservative campaigning on changing the laws on the books regarding and the Liberals were not cooperating?
I would agree with the title is hyperbolic and unnecessary.
I will not defend the "title" of the Press Release.
Do you know specifically what the Bills or laws they wanted changed?
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper didn't like the headline, but he isn't backing down from the substance of a party news release attacking Paul Martin and the Liberals on child pornography.
It appears the nerdy kids in charge of the war room went over the top with the headline.
They retracted it, but Harper was upset for the policies or lack of changes by the Liberals regarding child pornography.
Are we both on the same wavelength?
The Paul Martin supports child porn talking point was trotted out repeatedly by Harper prior to the 2004 election. The notion that it was the invention of some low level "nerdy" kid in the war room is ridiculous. For example, Harper said back in June 2003 that the Liberals have allowed child porn to remain legal and that furthermore that they failed to address the issue in throne speech that year. "This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family (all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda." http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html
This was hardly some off the cuff remark; this was prepared speech that was subsequently turned into a policy paper.
As for Conservatives so called retraction, the above is in no sense a retraction. When you retract something you disavow the substance of what is said. The only thing that annoyed Harper was that the headline garnered bad press.
As for the heart of the matter, the Liberals did not ban books such as Nabokov's Lolita and so the moron minority was pissed and Harper felt their anger. That does not mean that the Liberals support child porn. Banning such books would have made us an international laughing stock. By the way, given that Harper has not yet banned Lolita Harper too is guilty of supporting child porn.
"As for his name being dragged through the mud in recent weeks, Dingwall said those allegations -- including spending $5,800 on a dinner and $15,000 on a golf membership -- have now been proven groundless."
Just who do you think "dragged" his name through the mud and made those allegations?
Harper and Conservatives have a well deserved reputation of mau mauing anyone that stands in their way and for continually making outlandish accusations.
The following are two of my favorites.
Stephen Harper: “We are putting in place a new selection system so we do not have what we had before – like the member for Westmount-Ville-Marie (Robillard) appointing her former husband as a member of the board”
Toronto Star: The problem is that “Robillard's ex-husband, Jacques Lasalle, was appointed to the board in 1990 when Brian Mulroney was prime minister.”
“he [Harper] repeated the allegation in French, accusing [Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings, too, of making the appointment.” The problem with the latter is that “Jennings' husband, Luciano del Negro, joined the board in 1996, before his wife was first elected to the Commons in 1997.”
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187460
I did not suggest it was the fault of a nerd or off the cuff remark.
From the article it appears Harper was not happy with the title but was going after the soft on crime Liberals. The title of the press release was controversial and turned off a great deal of people.
The other stuff you pointed to make it evident mistakes with dates, facts were made.
I accept politicians are human and make mistakes and should retract incorrect statements when new or corrected information is brought to their attention.
Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has an army of fact checkers and underlings at his disposal. Either Harper has hired some real dumb ass people, or he was lying. The latter seems a lot more probable. Christ he told not one but two mistruths in the same breath. Of course he is not the only Conservative trotting out painfully obvious mistruths.
Again the Toronto Star: "Liberals are also angry that Conservatives seem to be getting bolder about publicly stating mistruths about them. In the Fredericton Gleaner yesterday, Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, was quoted as saying: "The former Liberal government never reimbursed Canadian taxpayers when they used the Challenger (government jet) for non-government business."
In fact, Liberals produced reams of cancelled cheques and receipts yesterday from former prime minister Paul Martin, reimbursing the federal treasury."
As for the all the child porn uproar, given your ludicrous Libeals are soft on crime remark, some back ground is obviously needed. In 2001 the Supreme Court found section 163.1 of the criminal code, introduced under Mulroney, forbidding written depictions of adults engaged in sexual acts with imaginary children is constitutional, but that such depictions are allowed if the depictions have "artist merit" and the author does not council others to perform such acts. Artist merit has nothing to do with the quality of the art by the way. Chief Justice McLachlin: “A person who produces art of any kind is protected, however crude or immature the result of the effort is in the eyes of the objective beholder.… I conclude that ‘artistic merit’ should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution.”
The Liberals decided they needed to strengthen the law such that crude by likes of Robert Sharpe would be made illegal, but works such as Plato's Symposium, Nabokov's Loita and Duras the Lover would remain legal. They proposed that 163.1 be strengthened and that the "artist merit" exception be eliminated and in its place a "public good" exception be made available. Such changes would have made Canada's already tough child pornography laws even tougher. In other Western countries, the US for example, written depictions of adults engaged in sex acts with imaginary children are legal period. No artist or public good exception is needed. After quickly moving through the house the bill died in Senate when the 2004 election was called.
For his efforts Paul Martin was chided by Harper for not banning child pornography. Harper was unhappy with the public good exception. He did not like that the word "art" was included in the clarification of the "public good". “pursuit of science, education, medicine or art”. In other words, he was playing to the crowd and not offering anything approaching a workable law. As I stated above not making exceptions for art would have paved the way for aforementioned books being banned. We would have been an international laughing stock.
Paul Martin reintroduced the same bill in the next parliament and it passed into law. It should be noted that given past Supreme Court decisions, especially in light of the Sharpe decision, the law is vulnerable to being struck down.
Post a Comment