Coyne v. Wells on Layton’s chances in Quebec - Macleans.ca
 

Coyne v. Wells on Layton’s chances in Quebec

A weekly chat on all things political with columnists Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells


 


 
Filed under:

Coyne v. Wells on Layton’s chances in Quebec

  1. This comment was deleted.

  2. Layton = modest optimism. Spot on.

    American parties look for happy warriors, someone who has power of convictions and has genial personality. I think Layton is terrific leader, would vote for him if he wasn't a raving socialist, and he would be next PM if he was leader of Cons or Libs. Layton wins contest of who you want to drink beer with, I reckon.

    Look forward to your thoughts on Layton in Quebec, Wells. I have been wondering what's going on there and only analysis I find is Hebert (she's great I am not complaining) but I want more. NDP doing well in Quebec is big freakin deal if true, Libs last bastion, only have Toronto left.

    And I think I made same face as Wells does when Coyne starts conversation with his factoid about anglos in Quebec.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Which of his policies will bankrupt the country (especially more so than Harper's)?

      • Great idea Claudia, I agree with you about Layton. He'd be a disaster for Canada as federal leader, but in Quebec he could do some good by stealing the keys to power away from Marois. Charest is on his last legs, but Layton could really invigorate a federalist party in the Quebec elections. I wonder if Layton has ever thought about this, being from Hudson. I think he prefers TO these days but who knows, maybe he'd like to have the chance to actually win an election for once.

  3. Most enjoyable exchange between Wells and Coyne. One of the better ones I've seen.

  4. An interesting question is, if the NDP numbers hold up in Quebec, how might this affect the way that other Canadians perceive the NDP as a party worth voting for?

    • What about the huge yawning chasm between the Conservatives and the NDP? If the liberals go away, then either the Tories move left or the NDP move right to claim the middle. Whichever party is more successful will also tend to blow up eventually. The NDP's left might splinter off to the Greens, and the Wildrose might be nipping at the Tories' right.

      Whichever party wins in the short run from a Liberal demise will likely lose in the long run.

      • I doubt the Liberals would disappear totally. They would probably stick around with at least as much power as the current NDP, even if the NDP did manage to replace them as the major party on the left.

    • This comment was deleted.

  5. The three easiest things politically (requiring no real leadership) is increasing spending, cutting taxes and promising to do something in the future during an election campaign.

    Conversely, cutting spending (and/or raising taxes) to meet pseudo(conditional) promised boutique tax cuts (or income splitting) requires the most leadership.

    Methinks the chicks are being counted too early or wishfully by Harper "fiscally resposible" cheerleaders.

  6. I am sticking to my crystal pepsi analogy about Ignatieff, HE IS NOT ELECTABLE never was, never wil,l and a substantial majority for Harper.

    • Whatever your opinion about the electability of Iggy, Harper will not get a majority.

  7. This comment was deleted.

    • http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/10/coyne-v-wells-

      In my answers there I explain my analogy, I am in Corporate PR and advertising and that's why I have always seen the leaders as product (not fair but I have in the last 15 -16 years been right!) and Ignatieff was a very hard product to sell to begin with and then the lack of smart, constant strategy and then the not so good platform, he is done, so I have always predicted a fall for the Liberals KC 93 style and I still do, right now no matter what he says or does will appeal canadians (but his faithful core) this is an election for Harper to lose and unless something really bad happens or comes to light from here till election day Ignatieff is gone.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • He forced an election we didn't need.
          Too bad Jumpin Jack is not being tarred with the same brush, as he is also responsible for this waste of time and money.

        • Sorry about the late reply, crazy day!

          Oh it is more than appearances, and he is ok there.

          Like Dave Novak (pepsi guy said) it was a good idea just badly executed and they didn't listen, is the same with Michael Ignatieff, on paper he sounded great, a new Pierre Trudeau he did have a compelling story to tell, a good reputation which are great qualities, but those were only known to a very few canadians, most didn't know who he was until he came back to Canada to become MP, lack of credibility which is crucial the way it was handled by the party was a mess so it hurt his chances, his lack of expertise made that credibility even harder to capture the voter attention and create the awareness needed, he wasn't engaged in the Canadian community for so many years and didn't interact on time, for example instead of writing "True Patriot Love" , I would have done the Liberal Bus tour first, he has a tough personality he seems arrogant so it was very important for him to drop that attitude to be able to have that likability and persuasiveness, seems a little bit at ease now but is too late he has no credibility with the people he needs to get him elected.

  8. This comment was deleted.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Well, now I feel bad about my broken italics link that it's too late to fix. But it's good to make mistakes sometimes — keeps me slightly humble. :P

        • Agreed : )

    • Harper had to be that way out of the necessity of gathering the disparate, disorganized, and discordant (centre right) herds of sheep under one big tents.

      Somebody is eventually going to have to do that on the centre left.

      • It's so cruel how liberals keep forcing Stephen Harper to lie and be manipulative about everything, even the things he doesn't need to lie or be manipulative about. He must cry himself to sleep, poor fella. Just a down-home gent tryin' to do his best for Canada, gettin' kicked around by these sophisticated eastern city slickers.

        Maybe someday they'll let him be the Prime Minister and he'll have some influence over how things are done in this country.

  9. This comment was deleted.

    • A lot of Good things to think about if things play out as you have described

  10. This comment was deleted.

    • Do I EVER hate separatists, of all types!

      Keep bleeting your propaganda, sheep, or do some actual research on the federal equilization formula and federal election trends:

      – Everyone pays into the equalization pot. How it works (or so I think) is that there is a basic federal tax formula that applies to ALL Canadians, but because richer citizens pay more taxes, the provinces that have a higher average income (like booming Alberta) ultimately pay more in proportion to their population than the poorer ones. An amount of the federal tax collected is then set aside for the equalization program and is distributed on the basis of the income disparity and quality of social services in each province. Québec gets the largest share because it is under the average and has a large population.

      – Nova Scotia is actually hotly contested ground in this election, and the Cons seem to be doing better in New Brunswick as well. Ontario is turning blue as well, so much for the Western Separatist "Central-Canadian Empire" conspiracy.

    • How do you think Alberta would go alone? Unless you want to carry Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC with you (which by your logic would merely be 'leeching' off of Albertan oil wealth) the country would be landlocked, have an economy based almost entirely on agricultural and petroleum products, and would have a population of under 4 million. How do you expect to have any weight on the international stage? How much would it cost to have an independent Albertan military and foreign service? The whole proposition is ridiculous, and, before you state the obvious separatist accusations, I am a Westerner, but I am a Canadian first and foremost!

  11. Wells, I loved your tweet: "Nervous: consensus media hasn't decided what we think about NDP. Hey guys, meeting tonight? Jason Moscovitz Park? I'll bring the Kool-Aid."

  12. Can I ask why the video?

    It's just Coyne and Wells talking. They don't use graphics or visual ads or a chalkboard or anything. If people like the video, great, but a podcast that I can listen to on my smartphone is way more appealing.

    • Gives us something to dream about.

  13. You guys have a great thing going here- two smart very respected guys talking stuff out. A lot of great points, particularly how the entire coalition scenario helps Layton as much as Harper- anyone who is afraid of a coalition goes to Harper, anyone who isn't afraid goes to Jack because they've been told over and over that Harper's going to get a minority, so an NDP vote may be better (and more honest to one's opinion) than Liberal. If it becomes likely Harper will get a majority, it will be too late as the old Liberal argument will then apply to the NDP: support the leftist frontrunner to the death.
    Its incredible what a bad play the coalition has turned into for the Liberals. I never liked it (because of the specifics, not because of the concept) but I never expected it to damage the Liberals permanently, perhaps fatally.
    Wow.
    Combine that with the fact that Ignatieff really is so personally unpopular and you have yourself a situation.