Posted by Scott Tribe on July 3, 2009, at 5:07 pm |
There’s a bit of speculation as to why she’s suddenly done this. Is there a brewing scandal? Is it a break from politics? Is she trying to concentrate on trying to get herself nominated as the Republican Presidential candidate in 2012?
Regardless, it seems appropriate to re-post this video:
UPDATE @ 7:53pm: A rather incoherent resignation speech, wouldn’t you say? On another point (slightly off-topic), for some reason, the lead singer of the above video reminds me a bit of Saskboy, who’s my webmaster at Progressive Bloggers and also runs his own blog.
Posted by Scott Tribe on July 3, 2009, at 1:02 pm |
There was a nice little piece recently in Macleans on Bob Rae, calling him a “Foreign Minister-in-waiting“. I’d go further and say that if the Liberals win the next election, and if given the opportunity, I think my question that I asked in my blogpost would be answered in the positive; I think Mr. Rae has the potential to be a very good minister of foreign affairs (I consider Mike Pearson to be one of the best, since it was he who won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to defuse the Suez Crisis).
In that vein, I’d ask Joseph over at his blog to be a bit patient with Bob; it’s rather tough to talk about everything out there that could be talked about in his role as Opposition critic. They are all legitimate foreign issues, and I’m sure Bob will have an interest in most if not all of them. You sometimes have to pick and choose what to talk about that will get picked up in the news cycle when you’re the opposition critic.
(As you might suspect, if the Liberals win the next election, I certainly hope this is the Ministerial position that Ignatieff would offer Rae).
Posted by Scott Tribe on July 2, 2009, at 3:18 pm |
I’m not sure how I missed this site before today, but thanks to Steve for mentioning it over at his blog and alerting me to it.
Basically, the site does popular vote percentage and seat projections for the Canadian political parties based on the most recent 5 polls it enters into their database, but it also will do seat projections based on specific polls, such as the Ekos poll that was released today. In that specific example, their site projects these results:
This poll would result in the following seat totals:
There have been some shifts here and there in regional areas (The Conservatives seem to have slumped back in Ontario and Quebec), but as the pollster says, nothing much is happening for any party:
Overall, however, the most striking pattern may be one of gridlock, in which neither major party can break through to become an obvious election favourite, much less a contender for a majority government. “One peculiar feature of the gridlock is that the Liberals and Conservatives seem to be competing for the same voters: upper middle class white men, for the most part,” Graves said. “If you leave aside regional patterns, which of course remain dramatic, the demographic profiles of a Liberal and Conservative voter are remarkably similar.”
That last line is interesting for the NDP politicos out there; they’ve claimed for awhile now (years, actually) that the Liberals and Conservatives are essentially the same party – which I and other Liberals will dispute – but in at least one voter demographic, if you believe Ekos, a fair # of Conservative and Liberal voters are essentially ideologically the same.
Posted by Scott Tribe on July 1, 2009, at 5:56 pm |
This is a pretty cool blogpost that has a couple of pretty cool pictures there with the Doctor and the recently returned home Abousfian Abdelrazik (who can thank the Federal Court for his return home, and not to our disgrace of a government, who wouldnt even allow him to fly to Montreal from Toronto once he got home).
The only thing I’d ask Dawg is if he noticed any dark cars outside his house and/or any folks in dark suits with binoculars. Actually, I’ll ask another question; any indication that Abousfian is going to be suing the government a la Maher Arar for his mistreatment? He certainly has a good case if he chose to.
Posted by Scott Tribe on July 1, 2009, at 12:11 pm |
I’d say my banner picture at the top of this blog fits in nicely with the spirit of the day, don’t you?
I unfortunately will have to miss Prime Minister Harper’s speech at Ottawa on this fine day. Why should I let something spoil the holiday when I have a choice, eh?
Posted by Scott Tribe on June 30, 2009, at 12:43 pm |
It’s a little quiet out there today so far, so let me say I’m also going to place my money on the Guelph riding as being the riding where Green Party leader Elizabeth May will run for Parliament in the next election. There are several factors why this riding would be her best shot at winning;
- Mark Taylor has a list of reasons at his blog (he’s a Green Party supporter).
- Dan Arnold (known better by his CalgaryGrit blog and handle) also put out a list of ridings where Guelph ranked #1 in criteria (though interestingly, Dan figured she’d rather run in the Saanich-Gulf Islands Islands riding – ranked #2 in his list – against Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn).
- One of Dan’s commentators (who has a blog here) put out an equally compelling 3rd list of reasons why Guelph would or should rank #1 on May’s list of ridings to go in.
My own thoughts on the matter would be this: Green Party candidate Mike Nagy did very well there in 2008 – well enough that there was a big worry that enough votes would be drained off by Nagy from the Liberals and Frank Valeriote that the Conservatives under Gloria Kovach would sneak up the middle (which would have been a very depressing result, as Kovach would have been one of the best parroters of Harper rhetoric in the Commons if she’d made it in, but I digress). With an established base of volunteers, a pretty environmentally conscious riding containing a university that is known to be a bit lefty in its political orientation of its students, plus the fact May has shown that she can increase Green votes and turnout substantially in ridings she runs in, Guelph looks to be a good bet for her and the Greens to choose.
Some have made the point (like Dan) about May allying herself with the Liberal Party under Dion, so why would she run against a Liberal incumbent? Her allying with the Liberal Party, however, came under Dion’s leadership, and I’ve gotten the impression May hasn’t exactly been enamored with Ignatieff. I’m basing that on the belief she didn’t like Iggy’s decision not to go forth with the coalition option last January, or more likely Iggy’s seemingly softening Liberal views towards the tarsands. Regardless, if the number 1 goal of the Greens is to now get May elected, then from her strategists point of view, it shouldn’t matter who is the incumbent in whatever riding they choose, if that riding has the most favourable criteria for her to have a shot at winning.
It won’t surprise me at all if that riding chosen is Guelph. In fact, it might surprise me if she doesn’t pick it.
UPDATE @ 5:00 pm: Impolitical opines here – not a bad assessment/argument about why May should try the Gulf-Saanich Islands rather then Guelph.
Posted by Scott Tribe on June 29, 2009, at 2:51 pm |
What do I base my title’s premise on? Check out one of the MP’s that Harper decided to appoint to the “Blue Ribbon” panel on Employment Insurance reform this fall – none other then his parliamentary secretary and worst smear-artist hack in the House of Commons, Pierre Poilievre.
I would think the panel will probably be behind closed doors, so Pierre may not pull as many histrionics due to the fact he can’t get them covered in the media as well as he might like, but in my opinion, with this appointment, Harper has no intention of putting forth anything concrete on the EI reform front. You don’t put a partisan hack like Pierre on a panel if you’re truly serious about getting anything substantial done.
With Pierre Poilievre on this EI Panel, that should be a red light to Liberals (and more importantly the Liberal advisers/strategists). It appears the Conservatives view this panel as not as a vehicle for substantial EI reform, but as a vehicle for more partisan games and positioning from the Conservatives.
UPDATE: Jeff tries to be more positive then me, thinking that perhaps because a senior civil servant got picked to the panel on Harper’s team, that perhaps he might be a good pick, but colour me skeptical that Harper picked anyone that might show even a tinge of independence from the official Conservative Party government position.
Posted by Scott Tribe on June 29, 2009, at 9:59 am |
A funny story in the Star today (if true) about Jim Flaherty’s reaction to his wife Christine Elliott placing 3rd in the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership race, won by Tim Hudak:
While Elliott coped well with defeat, her husband, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, appeared bitter during the crowded celebration at a downtown pub, astonishing Tories with his demeanour. Three sources told the Star that Flaherty told Tory MPP Ernie Hardeman (Oxford) to “f— off” because he hadn’t supported Elliott.
I’m no fan of Ernie’s, but Flaherty doesn’t know Ernie’s political ideology very well if he thought that Hardeman was going to support a “Red Tory” (or at least a more moderate Tory) in this leadership race. This incident highlight’s Mr. Flaherty’s temper he apparently has, which is not surprising if you’ve noticed how many times he goes red in the face with fury every time someone takes a poke at him in Question Period. It appears Flaherty has some anger issues, and is a bit of a sore loser to boot.
If this is his reaction to his wife finishing a distant 3rd, I won’t want to be be near him when his party loses power, or he, Heaven forbid, loses his seat (actually, scratch that, I wouldn’t mind being in the same room, just to see his reaction. I just wouldn’t want him to know I was cheering against him, to spare me hearing some nasty expletives coming my way).
Posted by Scott Tribe on June 27, 2009, at 9:18 am |
Here’s a new poll released by Nanos Research for folks to pore over today.
The gist of it is that in comparing this poll to the Nanos one taken in May, the Liberals dropped slightly and the Conservatives gained marginally, but the Liberals still lead nationally (Liberal 36.3%, Conservative 32.2%). Check out the regional breakdowns though; some very interesting shifts from region to region for all the parties.
Also, despite the attack ads launched by the Conservatives, Canadians still have a more positive view of Michael Ignatieff then negative. Not so for Harper; those Canadians with a negative view of him far outdistances those who view him positively.
Recent Comments