Liberal attack page


the liberals have goten the anti-NDP gears out and rumbling at full speed ahead. I think most people are shocked at this, since the Conservative Party would be their biggest percieved threat...




or is it?



it looks like the NDP is starting to make waves. I mean, how else do the Liberals explain the fact that they are taking actual effort to attack Layton when he doesn't even have a seat in parliment yet!


seems to me that the Liberals are out for blood, and the only reason they would be out for blood is if they thought hte NDP had a chance of taking a lot of key ridings.

I think the upcoming spring election (date not set yet, nor official) will be very interesting to watch.

btw: NDP response is Here!

I agree the election will be interesting, but I don't think anyone is unsure of the actual result. The truly interesting federal election will be the next one. The combination of voter fatigue (Canadians tend to vote out governments that have sat for more than 12 years for no other reason than a desire for change*) and an established, single-voiced Conservative Party (assuming that ever actually happens) could possibly put the 2009-2010 election genuinely up for grabs. I think having real alternatives again will be good for Canada.

*Alberta excepted. They seem quite content to remain Conservative forever.

And another thing...

Any thoughts on the Liberals (perhaps) pushing Sheila Copps out and her threat to join the NDP?

I've always found her shrill, but running the Transport Minister against her, in a riding she's held for nearly 20 years, seems more than a little disloyal. Payback for the party leadership race, I guess. I understand not giving her a cabinet position, but making a play for her seat seems a bit much.

If she does go to the NDP, we have to give some credit to Jack Layton for his success as a recruiter of high-profile candidates. Copps and Ed Broadbent may be yesterday's news, but they have name recognition. Can you name two other prospective NDP candidates? I can't (admittedly, that's not saying much).

I'd be personally disappointed if Layton allowed Copps to run as a New Democrat. She add little of substance to any political party. She is but a loud mouth, without any real positive attributes. Why would anyone want someone like her in their party?

Name recognition, an effort to raise the party's profile, another seat in Parliament. I realize this would involve Layton selling out some of his principles, but the status quo isn't getting his agenda implemented. He may determine a sip of bad medicine may improve the overall health of the NDP. Let's see what happens.

I would say, in terms of bringing in Layton's campaign to tout the NDP as the "national Alternative" that having someone like Copps defect would be HUGE on a public profile level, even if it would more centralize the party's overall outlook, although Copps is pretty leftist, so I am not sure that she would have any difficulties fitting in

That's pretty much how I see it. How does everyone feel about the possible centralization of the NDP?

It's worked well in Manitoba at the provincial level. I'm all for it.

I'd say that any party needs to be flexible (not to say they will become populist, but flexibility wins votes from a lot more people than rigid beliefs) and the addition of more left and centre rather than full out leftists is a must to round out the party to appeal more widely

I think there's a fine line between being flexible and selling out your principles to get elected. When the parties start crowding the middle, we end up getting three shades of gray, which I don't think benfits Canada as a whole. Democracy is at its best when real choices are provided for voters. I understand why the opposition parties want to move in from the fringes, I just wish it wasn't necessary. I guess with the Liberals ripping off the best ideas of the left and right and making them their own for, what, 80 years or so, it can get discouraging to formulate new approaches. But their ideas, even through the Liberal filter, have benefitted Canada. I hope the parties don't give up real and new ideas in exchange for improved electoral success.

Note: I am aware of how naive that just sounded.

In order to avoid the Crowding middle phenomenon, our electoral system will have to change.

The Current First Past the Post system discourages variety. If you are too much on the fringe, you may get 10% of the vote, but only wind up with 1% of the seats, whereas a party can get 40% ofthe vote and 60% of the seats.

If you had proportional representation, the risk of being more extremist wouldn't be so great - a party like the Greens, who are currently polling at 5% nationally, would get 15 Seats under PR, but likely get 0 seats under FPP.

So long as we maintain the FPP system, we'd better get used to a crowded middle.

That's pretty much how I see it. How does everyone feel about the possible centralization of the NDP?


That's the only way the NDP can form any sort of effective opposition, if they don't, then they will simply be thos " crazy leftists" that occasionally ppl vote for but don't really like.