ดูผลบอลสด_เว็บไซต์การพนันแห่งประเทศไทย_คาสิโนออนไลน์ แจกเครดิตฟรี

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
adma

I wonder if a different sort of "bright spot" might be the political future for a lot of Quebec NDP MPs--especially the younger ones (like,?it may certainly not be the political end for the defeated McGill 3-out-of-4).? A little like how for some of the?flukier Rae-government one-termers, their term in provincial office served as a launch point for future successes--federally speaking, Irene Mathyssen stands out? (But unfortunately, for every Mathyssen, there's a Mammoliti.)

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The NDP does need renewal but not as a worker's party. It needs to be of the people and for the people, the majority of people, the 99%, not just people who are traditionally left.

Hmm.? So the NDP needs to become a populist party like the Reform Party was.? Perhaps promise a referendum on everything.

Populism?is a?doctrine?that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new?collective consciousness?push against the prevailing?status quointerests of any predominant political sector. Populism is commonly defined as: "the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite."[1]?Since the 1980s, populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in?First World?democracies such as?Canada,?Italy, theNetherlands, the?United Kingdom, and the?Nordic countries.

Political parties and politicians often use the terms?populist?and?populism?as?pejoratives?against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or "unrealistic" proposals) in order to increase appeal across the?political spectrum?(cf.?demagogy).[2]

You are using it sneeringly, as a pejorative, I am using it sincerely. There is no party in North America that I know of that seeks to represent the best interests of the 99%.?

I wish the NDP would but it doesn't look like they are willing.?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

You are using it sneeringly, as a pejorative, I am using it sincerely. There is no party in North America that I know of that seeks to represent the best interests of the 99%.?

I wish the NDP would but it doesn't look like they are willing.?

Do you wish the Liberals were willing?? Might be best to focus on them now since they're in power.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You are using it sneeringly, as a pejorative, I am using it sincerely. There is no party in North America that I know of that seeks to represent the best interests of the 99%.?

I wish the NDP would but it doesn't look like they are willing.?

Do you wish the Liberals were willing?? Might be best to focus on them now since they're in power.

I think they think they already do represent the interests of the 99%. Realistically the NDP won't do it either.?

It's too bad that Occupy went off track and started focusing on the most downtrodden instead of the wealthiest. It was the 99% versus the 1% (really the .001$) that caught people's support.?

Posters here were focused on the dollar impact of taxing the 1% a bit more to tax the middle class a bit less but you missed the real significance of it. Trudeau was sticking it to the 1%, while Mulcair was echoing the right wing "if you tax the wealthy, like doctors, they will move away". Mulcair doubled down on not increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Trudeau spoke to the 99%. He said, I won't give money to millionaires so I can give more to those who need it.

I know very well that this is a drop in the ocean of income inequality, my point is that he addressed the interests of the 99%, just like Occupy.

As establishment status quo parties go the Liberal party is centre to centre-left. They believe that they are doing what's best for the 99%. They are not a rock the boat party and people don't want them to be. People want stabiity. It's why Harper lasted so long.?

Unlike the Liberals, the NDP does have a progressive wing. I'm not sure they get it either. The Leap manifesto is a good working document but it isn't focused on addressing the interests of the 99% first either.?

Wilf Day

Bright spots:

  1. 16 New NDP MPs, nine women:

Georgina Jolibois?(Dene) - Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, Saskatchewan

Karine Trudel, Jonquière

Brigitte Sansoucy, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot

Tracey Ramsey, Essex

Cheryl Hardcastle, Windsor—Tecumseh

Sheri Benson, Saskatoon West

Jenny Kwan, Vancouver East

Sheila Malcolmson, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Rachel Blaney, North Island—Powell River

Daniel Blaikie, Elmwood—Transcona

Erin Weir, Regina—Lewvan

Scott Duvall, Hamilton Mountain

Wayne Stetski, Kootenay-Columbia

Richard Cannings, South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Alistair MacGregor, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

2. ?Vancouver Island: six New Democrats, one Green, no one else, even though Liberal voters cast 21% of the votes while NDP voters cast 33% of the ballots.

3. All of BC, where strategic voting actually worked for both parties. NDP voters deserved, by vote share, to elect 11 BC MPs, and elected 14. Liberal voters deserved to elect 15 BC MPs, and elected 17. Three of those five bonus MPs came from the Conservatives, the other two came from disregarded Green votes.

4. Southwestern Ontario’s 11 ridings, where NDP voters elected four MPs with 27% of the vote, yet the 33% who voted Liberal elected only two MPs.

5. The Liberal sweep of Atlantic Canada and Toronto will make it a little harder for Liberals to say, with a straight face, that a ranked (preferential) ballot will help elect anyone other than Liberals, east of the Rockies.

?

bekayne

Wilf Day wrote:

5. The Liberal sweep of Atlantic Canada and Toronto will make it a little harder for Liberals to say, with a straight face, that a ranked (preferential) ballot will help elect anyone other than Liberals, east of the Rockies.

In Quebec it would have helped the NDP and hurt the BQ. The Bloc would have won 2 seats at best with a ranked ballot. And their second choice votes would have pushed some NDP candidates over the top.

KarlL

I expect that there will be a strong element of ranked ballots in anything on electoral reform put forward by the Liberal Party. ?And they will be on good gound in regard to neediing consistuency-based representatives.

I think the big question will be how much PR in addition in order to give direct voice to all?voters' first choices? ?

Presuming that the Liberals don't want to gut the existing riding boundaries, thereby creating problems for MPs they have just elected, then we are likely looking at a significantly larger House fo Commons so as to accommodate new PR seats.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

KarlL wrote:

I think the big question will be how much PR in addition in order to give direct voice to all?voters' first choices? ?

My prediction is that there will be no element of PR in whatever electoral system the Liberals decide on.

KarlL

Michael Moriarity wrote:

KarlL wrote:

I think the big question will be how much PR in addition in order to give direct voice to all?voters' first choices? ?

My prediction is that there will be no element of PR in whatever electoral system the Liberals decide on.

I dunno about that. ?The Liberals' primary enemy on electoral reform is the Conservatives, who under the current system have spent all their efforts targeting little more than 10 per cent of the electorate to make the difference between their 30% core and the 40% they need for a majority. ?They would need to entirely revisit their approach under either MMP or PR or a combination of the two, as they would need second choice votes as well in order to have any prospect or winning government, let alone a majority.

The Cons will go crazy about electoral reform and will be out to the oil patch and the investment bankers and the Koch brothers to oppose any change via a whole lot of nasty advertising. It will be an easy pitch for them to their funders: one final chance to stop centre-left dominance of Canadian politics and if that doesn't do it for you, think about the inevitable reinvention of the Conservatives as a "wet" PC party.

I am sure that the Liberal Party would prefer it to be all ranked ballots but getting the NDP, Greens and BQ on board (even grudgingly) with some reasonable amount of PR and playing the recent Conservative electoral sleaze really hard between now and when the Senate balance tips in 2016 would certainly make the Liberals' job easier.

Would the NDP and Greens (and Bloc) oppose a combined MMP/PR outcome that could give them quite a few more seats even under 2015 results? ?There would be a good number of additional BC, SK and AB seats and a few in ON and East QC won by the NDP under MMP and twice the proportion of seats won under PR as under FPTP.

?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Well, Karl, the Liberals don't have any need to get the NDP or the Greens to agree with them, as they have a solid majority. While anything is possible, I predict that there will be no offer of anything even partially proportional. That would be the thin edge of the wedge, and would inevitably expand to full proportionality within a few elections.

mark_alfred

Yeah, I would be very surprised too.? If the committee to analyse the best electoral reforms was a citizen committee with some experts, then maybe.? But I think it's to be an all-party committee, so mostly Liberal.? I doubt they would go with anything proportional.? However, I may be surprised.? Regardless, it's important to take this opportunity and put as much pressure and advocacy on getting proportional representation as possible.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, Karl, the Liberals don't have any need to get the NDP or the Greens to agree with them, as they have a solid majority. While anything is possible, I predict that there will be no offer of anything even partially proportional.

I seem to recall, in discussions prior to the election, a lot of folk suggesting that the government should just go ahead and institute a new electoral model, without "sabotaging" anything by actually asking the electorate what they want, and that if Canadians are unhappy with the results they can just go ahead and vote in a new government -- using the electoral model they dislike, presumably -- and let them undo it.? Screw the consultations, just go ahead and make it happen.

Of course all of this was in the context of Mulcair winning, and instituting MMP immediately and by fiat.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Trudeau institutes IRV by fiat the new song will be "where were our CONSULTATIONS?" and "Why were we denied the right to vote on this??" and "how dare they just go ahead and make it happen!?"

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Trudeau institutes IRV by fiat the new song will be "where were our CONSULTATIONS?" and "Why were we denied the right to vote on this??" and "how dare they just go ahead and make it happen!?"

You might hear that from some people, Magoo, but not me. I believe that it is perfectly proper for the Trudeau government to enact whatever electoral reforms they want, provided that they are easily reversible by a later government, as both PR and IRV would be.

By the way, it is one of your favourite, and most annoying rhetorical ploys to put foolish sounding words in the mouths of your opponents. I wish you would do less of that.

Northern PoV

AV and PR are not mutually exclusive and put-together might be best of all.

Based on the Libs platform promise (commission to study & recommend alternatives) and discussion, (Libs prefer AV)

We should:
* implement AV immediately. Locked in for the next election. ??

* Study and put PR to a referendum during this mandate or simply hold a referendum coincident with the next election.

* At least we get AV and just maybe PR ?(if it actualy gets properly conceived and promoted this time... prov campaigns sucked)

See... everybody should like that!!

Northern PoV

Unionist wrote:

I personally will not miss Peter, Paul, or Pat. Do those count as bright spots?

Certainly Pat will not be missed and will now get to enjoy his pension while (not?) living "on Salt Spring Island, where Mr. Martin does not live,” while the good people who abide back in Winnipeg have the pleasure to be represented by Robert-Falcon Ouellette who is quoted above and gets the last laugh.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/winnipeg-libe...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
By the way, it is one of your favourite, and most annoying rhetorical ploys to put foolish sounding words in the mouths of your opponents. I wish you would do less of that.

On the bright side, the joke's on me if nobody actually ends up saying anything like what I imagine.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

If marijuana is decriminalized on the federal level,I'd call that a huge bright spot.

In the meantime,I was happy that Trudeau invited May,Mulcair and whoever the interim leader of the Cons to the Climate Summit in Paris. That is something Harper would never have done. He seems willing to work with the Opposition.

And now community mail boxes have been suspended. I'd call this a bright spot.

When life serves up lemons, make lemonade,no?

I remain skeptical about the Liberals but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's see what happens from November 4 til the next election.

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I seem to recall, in discussions prior to the election, a lot of folk suggesting that the government should just go ahead and institute a new electoral model, without "sabotaging" anything by actually asking the electorate what they want, and that if Canadians are unhappy with the results they can just go ahead and vote in a new government -- using the electoral model they dislike, presumably -- and let them undo it.? Screw the consultations, just go ahead and make it happen.

Of course all of this was in the context of Mulcair winning, and instituting MMP immediately and by fiat.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Trudeau institutes IRV by fiat the new song will be "where were our CONSULTATIONS?" and "Why were we denied the right to vote on this??" and "how dare they just go ahead and make it happen!?"

All this was in the context of the NDP promising to institute MMP, and the Liberals promising to have cross country consultations on what people wanted to do. ?So if people do react as you expect it is likely as much about the candidates actual promises as it is blind partisanship.

KarlL

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Well, Karl, the Liberals don't have any need to get the NDP or the Greens to agree with them, as they have a solid majority. While anything is possible, I predict that there will be no offer of anything even partially proportional. That would be the thin edge of the wedge, and would inevitably expand to full proportionality within a few elections.

I agree that the Liberals don't need?the support of the NDP and Greens to pass something through the House of Commons but they would be a whole lot better positioned with all parties onside save the Cons. ?The Cons are vulnerable in the near future because of their own extensive manipulations: misuse of public advertising $,?Fair Elections Act, robocalls, overspending, cancelling the voter subsidy, prorogation, in-and-out scandal, expatriate votes, 3-month campaign, etc. ?If they can be isolated as the defenders of a system that they themselves abused it becomes far easier to put through an electoral reform package than if it is a go-it-alone approach from the Liberals.

Also, bear in mind that it would have to go through the Senate and that this is precisely the kind of legislation that the Senate would?feel empowered to weigh in on. ?Having kicked the Liberal Senators out of Caucus and needing to appoint 22 new ones and still having to wait until 2016 for the balance to change, the Liberals will want to convince the Senate to pass the package.??Multi-party support even if not unanimity would be more persuasive to Senators than would unilateralism. The Liberals could wait longer to appoint more Senators of course but that would make the Conservatives own electoral malfeasance increasingly remote time-wise.

Debater

Bright Spot:

NDP candidate Tracey Ramsey beating arrogant jerk CPC MP Jeff Watson, in Essex.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ramsey-defeats-watson-in-essex-as...

brookmere

adma wrote:

I'm not talking about voters, so much as actual elected officials and the like.

NDP membership is at both the provincial and federal level (except in Quebec where there's no provincial party) and supporting a rival party at either level is express grounds for expulsion.

You might recall Buzz Hargrove had his membership suspended for endorsing the Liberals (he subsequently quit).

?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
All this was in the context of the NDP promising to institute MMP

OK.? Was that a rebuttal to my claim:

Quote:
this was in the context of Mulcair winning, and instituting MMP immediately and by fiat.

.. because I'm not seeing a big difference there, between what I said and you said.

Quote:
So if people do react as you expect it is likely as much about the candidates actual promises as it is blind partisanship.

There are no "candidates" any more.? There are MPs and not-MPs.

My thinking is that it would be more about "do I endorse this system that's being imposed by fiat".? But as Michael Moriarity pointed out, maybe nobody will complain at all, and I'll be left sipping tea with straw men.

?

JKR

KarlL wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

KarlL wrote:

I think the big question will be how much PR in addition in order to give direct voice to all?voters' first choices? ?

My prediction is that there will be no element of PR in whatever electoral system the Liberals decide on.

I dunno about that. ?The Liberals' primary enemy on electoral reform is the Conservatives, who under the current system have spent all their efforts targeting little more than 10 per cent of the electorate to make the difference between their 30% core and the 40% they need for a majority. ?They would need to entirely revisit their approach under either MMP or PR or a combination of the two, as they would need second choice votes as well in order to have any prospect or winning government, let alone a majority.

The Cons will go crazy about electoral reform and will be out to the oil patch and the investment bankers and the Koch brothers to oppose any change via a whole lot of nasty advertising. It will be an easy pitch for them to their funders: one final chance to stop centre-left dominance of Canadian politics and if that doesn't do it for you, think about the inevitable reinvention of the Conservatives as a "wet" PC party.

I am sure that the Liberal Party would prefer it to be all ranked ballots but getting the NDP, Greens and BQ on board (even grudgingly) with some reasonable amount of PR and playing the recent Conservative electoral sleaze really hard between now and when the Senate balance tips in 2016 would certainly make the Liberals' job easier.

Would the NDP and Greens (and Bloc) oppose a combined MMP/PR outcome that could give them quite a few more seats even under 2015 results? ?There would be a good number of additional BC, SK and AB seats and a few in ON and East QC won by the NDP under MMP and twice the proportion of seats won under PR as under FPTP.

?

I think the Liberals will end up supporting legislation that's also supported by the NDP and Greens and probably also the BQ. I think the Liberals will be open to p.r. because as a centrist party they would likely participate in governments established using a pr system.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think the Liberals will end up supporting legislation that's also supported by the NDP and Greens and probably also the BQ. I think the Liberals will be open to p.r. because as a centrist party they would likely participate in governments established using a pr system.

I sincerely hope that you and Karl are right about this and I am wrong, because PR is my fondest political wish. However, I would be happy to give 3 to 1 on any amounts you might feel comfortable losing that there will be no element of proportionality in whatever electoral reform the Trudeau government puts forward.

?

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think the Liberals will end up supporting legislation that's also supported by the NDP and Greens and probably also the BQ. I think the Liberals will be open to p.r. because as a centrist party they would likely participate in governments established using a pr system.

I sincerely hope that you and Karl are right about this and I am wrong, because PR is my fondest political wish. However, I would be happy to give 3 to 1 on any amounts you might feel comfortable losing that there will be no element of proportionality in whatever electoral reform the Trudeau government puts forward.

?

I think the Liberals would be courting a backlash against them if they completely opposed proportional representation. That's why I think they will support a system with moderate proportionality. So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats. That would be a big improvement over what we have now as that kind of system would usually provide adequate proportionality.

Ciabatta2

They will do a study that recommends ranked ballots - a system that enshrines their advantage but gives a modicum sheen of PRness - and then send it to a referendum.

brookmere

JKR wrote:
So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats.

Adding some number of proportional seats would entail either increasing the size of the HoC, or decreasing the number of ridings, or some combination thereof.

I think decreasing the number of ridings would be a non-starter, and I think further increasing the size of the HoC (which has just been increased by 10%) would be unpopular with a lot of people. Not to mention party leaders appointing MPs, when appointing members to the other House has become discredited.

So I don't see why the Liberals would have much motivation to include any degree of PR, given that virtually everyone who voted for them would be content with a ranked ballot.

?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Don't expect big changes. Not because the Liberals are liars but because of the majority Conservative senate.

bekayne

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats.

Adding some number of proportional seats would entail either increasing the size of the HoC, or decreasing the number of ridings, or some combination thereof.

I think decreasing the number of ridings would be a non-starter, and I think further increasing the size of the HoC (which has just been increased by 10%) would be unpopular with a lot of people. Not to mention party leaders appointing MPs, when appointing members to the other House has become discredited.

How about electing the Senate by PR?

wage zombie

bekayne wrote:

How about electing the Senate by PR?

It's not really relevant. ?In the senate, Atlantic Canada is over-represented and Western Canada is under-represented. ?I suppose if senate reform were to bring inan elected senate, then seats could be allocatated propoortionally by province. ?However there's no reason to think this would match proportional support for the parties across Canada.

Changing the regional balance of the senate is probably much more difficult than changing the electoral system of the HoC.

Additionally, since senators serve until they are 75, maybe it's not the best place to introduce PR, and give people seats as party top-ups. ?Granted, senate reform could well see term lengths.

Debater

Speaking of age 75, Harper's bagman in the Senate, Irving Gerstein, hits 75 in just a few months (February, I think).

So it will be good to see another Harper Con depart the Senate.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I suppose if senate reform were to bring inan elected senate, then seats could be allocatated propoortionally by province.

If the Senate were elected, then wouldn't they just be the HOC, Jr.?

Or else what would make them somehow different and relevant?? They're the HOC that we expect to vote against things, rather than for them?? They're some kind of HOC "do-over"?

I'm not saying this in some kind of sworn support of the Senate.? I'm just not clear why any state would need two different governments that aren't really that much different.? And yes, I *do* wonder why the United States seems to have just such a thing.

Pondering

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats.

Adding some number of proportional seats would entail either increasing the size of the HoC, or decreasing the number of ridings, or some combination thereof.

I think decreasing the number of ridings would be a non-starter, and I think further increasing the size of the HoC (which has just been increased by 10%) would be unpopular with a lot of people. Not to mention party leaders appointing MPs, when appointing members to the other House has become discredited.

So I don't see why the Liberals would have much motivation to include any degree of PR, given that virtually everyone who voted for them would be content with a ranked ballot.

And not just people who voted for them. So far there is no indication that a majority of Canadians support moving to a PR system much less MMP.

brookmere

wage zombie wrote:

Changing the regional balance of the senate is probably much more difficult than changing the electoral system of the HoC.

Certainly, not probably. It would require a constitutional amendment and Quebec has already made its position clear that it will not entertain Senate reform without dealing with other issues.

Changing the way MPs are elected does not require constitutional change. There have been plenty of changes since 1867.

?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats.

Adding some number of proportional seats would entail either increasing the size of the HoC, or decreasing the number of ridings, or some combination thereof.

I think decreasing the number of ridings would be a non-starter, and I think further increasing the size of the HoC (which has just been increased by 10%) would be unpopular with a lot of people. Not to mention party leaders appointing MPs, when appointing members to the other House has become discredited.

So I don't see why the Liberals would have much motivation to include any degree of PR, given that virtually everyone who voted for them would be content with a ranked ballot.

And not just people who voted for them. So far there is no indication that a majority of Canadians support moving to a PR system much less MMP.

Other than the fact that 2/3rds of the voters voted for parties that promised to get rid of FPTP plurality voting in time for the next election in 2019.

KarlL

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
So my guess is they will support a system that has approximately 1/5 of the seats allotted to top-ups seats.

And not just people who voted for them. So far there is no indication that a majority of Canadians support moving to a PR system much less MMP.

Other than the fact that 2/3rds of the voters voted for parties that promised to get rid of FPTP plurality voting in time for the next election in 2019.

I don't have the sense that many people voted on that basis but that isn't the point. ?It was a commitment of the Liberals, NDP and Greens (I can't recall what the BQ said) to end FPTP and they should all be held to that commitment.

KarlL

I should note that I am not all that hung up on the precise nature of the replacement. ?I think that AV improves significantly on FPTP. ?Additiional PR seats on top of AV help allocate weight to voters' first choices and to my mind, too much PR starts to divorce members from local constituencies or makes them unmanageably large.

For me, the main benefit is to force the Conservatives in toward the centre in search of some second choice votes and/or potential partners in a minority. ?I can't say that I was entirely happy living in Bill Davis' Ontario or John Buchanan's Nova Scotia but they were light years away from what we just experienced under Harper or would have done under Hudak.

brookmere

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

And not just people who voted for them. So far there is no indication that a majority of Canadians support moving to a PR system much less MMP.

Other than the fact that 2/3rds of the voters voted for parties that promised to get rid of FPTP plurality voting in time for the next election in 2019.

Come on off it, the Liberals promised to end FPTP not simply to bring in PR. It was the NDP that promised PR and the NDP that was the biggest loser in the election. The Greens also support PR and their vote also declined.

?

Wilf Day

Bright spots: 16 New NDP MPs, nine women:

Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East), 48, born in Hong Kong, to Canada at age 9, B.A. in Criminology. At 26 she became the youngest-ever member of Vancouver City Council for the left-wing civic party COPE. At 29 elected as NDP MLA for Vancouver Mount Pleasant. At 30 became Minister of Municipal Affairs. Re-elected in 2001, one of two survivors of NDP defeat who carried out guerilla warfare in the two-woman official opposition for four years, re-elected in 2005, 2009 and 2013. Divorced, has a daughter and son.

Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot), 50, has been a municipal councillor of the city of Saint-Hyacinthe since 2009. She became a vice-president of the federal NDP in 2008, re-elected in 2011 and 2013. She had run in the 2007 by-elections that first elected Tom Mulcair to the House of Commons, coming ahead of the Liberal, and in 2008. She has worked in community and social development in the region for 25 years, most recently as Deputy Regional Director at the Ministry of Agriculture for Montérégie-est. She holds a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Masters in Public Administration. She lives in a country house with her spouse and is a mother of four.

Erin Weir (Regina—Lewvan), 32, United Steelworkers Economist, President Progressive Economic Forum, CCPA Research Associate, Former Saskatchewan NDP Government Assistant, B.A? Economics, History and Political Science, M.A-History, MPA, 2004 Wascana Nominee (against Ralph Goodale), 2013 Saskatchewan NDP Leadership Candidate (Withdrew before the Convention and endorsed Dr. Ryan Meili).?

Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith), 49, elected four times to the Islands Trust Council, ending as Chair. With a degree in Environmental and Resource Studies from Trent University in 1985, she was previously an energy policy analyst for a number of non-governmental organizations, and an advisor for the Saskatchewan Electrical Energy Options Panel and the Queen’s University Environmental Policy Centre. Her grandfather was John Osler, one of the founding partners of David Lewis’ law firm Jolliffe, Lewis and Osler.

Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona), 31. His father Bill Blaikie was this riding’s MP for 29 years. Electrician, an active member of his union (IBEW 2085) and sits on the executive of the Winnipeg Labour Council. Was Ministerial Assistant to Former M.L.A Theresa Oswald, Former Party Organizer, B.A (Hons)-History and Philosophy, M.A-Philosophy. ?Lives with his wife Janelle and young son Robert.?His sister Rebecca Blaikie is federal NDP President.

Georgina Jolibois (Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River), 48, a proud Dene who was born and raised in La Loche. She was successful in obtaining a 4-year University degree in Political Studies & Native Studies from the University of Saskatchewan. Georgina has served four terms as Mayor of La Loche,?and chaired New North, an advocacy group of 35 communities in northern Saskatchewan. She had tried to win the NDP nomination in 2006, but lost by four votes.

Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West), 50. ?Career at United Way for over 20 years, CEO since 2009. Bachelor of Social Work. ?She was the inaugural Justice of the Peace for Saskatchewan’s?Victims of Domestic Violence Act. A proud mother and grandmother.

Tracey Ramsey (Essex), 43. As a Unifor National Discussion leader, she has taught courses on human rights, women’s issues, conflict resolution, modern communications, and other themes. Unifor Local 200’s delegate to the Windsor District Labour Council. Worked for Ford Motor Company for the past 19 years. After being laid off, she graduated in Practical Nursing at St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology. Tracey, a first-time candidate, lives with her husband and their two sons.

Karine Trudel (Jonquière), 38, letter carrier since 1999, president of the CUPW local in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for eight years. She is a college graduate in human sciences with courses in business administration, single mother of two boys aged 8 and 10. “The trigger that made me sure I want to be a candidate was when Peter MacKay said there were few women on the Supreme Court because they felt guilty of abandoning their children at home.”

Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh), 53, Tecumseh’s Deputy Mayor (2011-2014). Before entering politics, Cheryl worked for almost 20 years as a reporter and editor of the former?Tecumseh Tribune. A founding member of the?Tecumseh Area Historical Society — and spearheaded the successful campaign to have the Great Native Confederacy Leader Tecumseh commemorated on an official stamp. Proud mother of four adult children.

Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River), 41, Executive Director Multicultural and Immigrant Services of North Vancouver Island, previously ?employment officer for the Homalco First Nation, B.A-First Nations and Women's Studies. Rachel’s husband is a former Chief and current Council member of the Homalco First Nation. Together, they are the proud parents of three children.

Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain), 58, three-term city councillor, Steelworkers Union Local President, United Way Director. Scott and his wife Sherry are proud parents of three daughters and grandparents of two.

Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni), 45, Tofino Town Councilor 2008-2011, Executive Director Tofino-Long Beach Chamber of Commerce since 2010, Former C.E.O EcoEverything (Clothing and environmental related products retailer), Former Art Gallery Owner, proud father of three children.

Richard Cannings (South Okanagan-West Kootenay), 61, Program Biologist and Author of a dozen award-winning books on the natural history of British Columbia, Bird Studies Canada Bird Population Count Consultant, B.Sc (Hons)-Zoology, M.Sc-Animal Biology, 2013 Provincial NDP candidate in Penticton (South Okanagan). ?Like his father, he was born in Penticton. Former U.B.C Zoology Museum Curator for 15 years, Richard, his wife and children moved back to the Okanagan Valley in 1995.

Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan-Malahat-Langford), 35, Former M.P. Jean Crowder’s Constituency Assistant for eight years. Has a B.A-Political Science, and was a Tree Plant Supervisor while getting his M.A. in Professional Communications. Alistair and his wife are proud parents to young twin daughters.

Wayne Stetski (Kootenay-Columbia), 61, former Mayor of Cranbrook, was Regional Manager B.C Ministry of Environment and then Manager of the East Kootenay Conservation Program, Chair of Cranbrook and Kimberley United Way, Cranbrook Minor Hockey Manager, B.Sc. in Ecology, Minor in Economics. Has 3 adult children and 1 granddaughter.

?

JKR

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

And not just people who voted for them. So far there is no indication that a majority of Canadians support moving to a PR system much less MMP.

Other than the fact that 2/3rds of the voters voted for parties that promised to get rid of FPTP plurality voting in time for the next election in 2019.

Come on off it, the Liberals promised to end FPTP not simply to bring in PR. It was the NDP that promised PR and the NDP that was the biggest loser in the election. The Greens also support PR and their vote also declined.

?

I agree that the 2/3rds of the voters voted for parties who promised to get rid of FPTP plurality voting and that this does not translate directly into support for p.r. I think it is also important to remember that MMP itself can vary from being very proportional to not very proportional. I think some kind of compromise will be attained that will satisfy a clear majority of people. I think that would be some kind of semi-proportional mixed system that is a hybrid of different systems. Such a system would also be able to be re-calibrated in the future. Experts on electoral system should be allowed to lead the way in establishing a system that will gain as wide acceptance as possible. This kind of process would also go along with the Liberals recent professed support for evidence based policy making.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Interesting to see Ben Chin wound up in BC after his unsuccessful foray into Ontario Liberal politics. Considering the success in Ontario of the Liberals both provincially and federally it is strange that this former TV broadcaster in Toronto would have to go so far to find Liberal employment. Sometimes you flip off the wrong person, I suppose...

KarlL

montrealer58 wrote:

Interesting to see Ben Chin wound up in BC after his unsuccessful foray into Ontario Liberal politics. Considering the success in Ontario of the Liberals both provincially and federally it is strange that this former TV broadcaster in Toronto would have to go so far to find Liberal employment. Sometimes you flip off the wrong person, I suppose...

I think it is that Ben Chin was part of the McGuinty Premier's Office. ?There's not any crossover at senior levels between McGuinty's and Wynne's people. ?

That plus Laura Miller is the Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party, was a big player in Christy Clark's last campaign and was close to Ben Chin when they were both at Queen's Park.

adma

I don't know how "bright spot" this is in the end, but the fact that Anne Lagace Dowson still managed nearly 26% of the vote in Papineau deserves note--better than several of Montreal's defeated incumbents or "incumbent seats" (and *everything* in Laval).? Which suggests that had Mulcair maintained his mid-election "landslide advantage" in Quebec, the notion of Justin being upset in his own riding *wasn't* all that implausible--despite the fatal media brouhaha about it being a "NDP-sponsored poll", etc etc.

Debater

Come on, adma.

I agree with your analysis on most other ridings, but I think you're stretching it here. Wink

Trudeau beat Anne L-D by a 2 to 1 margin (& by 13,000 votes!), the biggest margin of victory seen in Papineau since 2000.

The NDP poll was clearly bogus and was not backed up by any other evidence.

And in the end, the BQ vote in Papineau shifted to Trudeau, not the NDP.? Another irony.

Trudeau picked up 10,000 votes in Papineau (26,000 votes in 2015 vs. 16,000 in 2011).? That means he didn't just win the multicutural neighbourhoods in Parc-Extension & St. Michel -- he picked up Francophone votes from within Villeray.

Jacob Two-Two

We all know that there was a big shift to the Liberals at the end. We can't know how big that shift was in Papineau. Crop's reputation is impeccable and the math adds up with the NDP and Bloc votes far outweighing Justin's total from last election. If most of those Bloc voters were leaning to the NDP, but swung to the Liberals in the last week, then it all makes sense. People look like fools decrying a poll from Quebec's most reliable pollster just because it didn't match the eventual outcome, when we already know that the eventual outcome was the result of a large late shift in votes. The rational scenario is the one I outline. The poll was accurate, but then support changed. In the absence of real evidence, other scenarios are propagandist nonsense.

KarlL

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

We all know that there was a big shift to the Liberals at the end. We can't know how big that shift was in Papineau. Crop's reputation is impeccable and the math adds up with the NDP and Bloc votes far outweighing Justin's total from last election. If most of those Bloc voters were leaning to the NDP, but swung to the Liberals in the last week, then it all makes sense. People look like fools decrying a poll from Quebec's most reliable pollster just because it didn't match the eventual outcome, when we already know that the eventual outcome was the result of a large late shift in votes. The rational scenario is the one I outline. The poll was accurate, but then support changed. In the absence of real evidence, other scenarios are propagandist nonsense.

Yes. Let us not look at the outcome or even speculate on the result had Trudeau done a bit less well but whose profile was inevitably going to be heightened over the remaining weeks of the campaign. Let's instead side with CROP's unimpeachable reputation and also ignore concerns expressed by other pollsters about the sample. Let's imagine that voting day was weeks earlier than Novermber 19. To do otherwise would be propagandist nonsense, as opposed to say, a debatable proposition.

KarlL

dp

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Let's imagine that voting day was weeks earlier than Novermber 19.

I'm imagining it was four weeks earlier.

"What IF??"

KarlL

It could have been pretty interesting. The Cons had already begun their niqab play but I don't know how deeply it had bitten in QC at that point.

Nanos numbers for September 22 were 31.3% CON, 30.3% LIB and 29.4% NDP but with only 13.9% BQ in Quebec. It was around this point that the NDP numbers started their big decline but it had already begun in BC and MB and long since in ON and Atlantic.

I suppose the answer is that some of the plays would have been run earlier (maybe) and the debates would have been timed differently so a game by different rules would have taken place. Maybe the NDP would have spent some money on Ads in August.

Alternative universes are enjoyable but fruitless.

Debater

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

We all know that there was a big shift to the Liberals at the end. We can't know how big that shift was in Papineau. Crop's reputation is impeccable and the math adds up with the NDP and Bloc votes far outweighing Justin's total from last election. If most of those Bloc voters were leaning to the NDP, but swung to the Liberals in the last week, then it all makes sense. People look like fools decrying a poll from Quebec's most reliable pollster just because it didn't match the eventual outcome, when we already know that the eventual outcome was the result of a large late shift in votes. The rational scenario is the one I outline. The poll was accurate, but then support changed. In the absence of real evidence, other scenarios are propagandist nonsense.

First of all, it was not really a CROP poll.? It was an NDP poll, using CROP to give it the appearance of respectability.

Second, CROP's reputation is not unimpeachable.? In fact, did you notice that CROP stopped polling after the Papineau poll debacle?? It was only Léger doing polling for Québec in the final month of the election.

Third, the NDP-CROP poll was contradicted by the independent Mainstreet poll which came out the following day.

Fourth, the numbers don't take into account the GROUND GAME that Trudeau has in Papineau.? He already had an existing organizational structure in Papineau from his previous 2 election wins.? Lagacé-Dowson & the NDP did not.

Fifth, as leader of the Liberals this time, Trudeau was always likely to increase his advantage further from what it had been in the previous 2 elections.? Unlike when he had to labour under the weak Dion & Ignatieff, this time it was Trudeau as leader that could control the party appartus and bring in an even larger number of Liberal workers into Papineau than he had when he was an ordinary MP.

None of these factors seem to have been taken into account by the defenders of the debunked Papineau poll.

Pages