Canada votes! Well, parts of it

Paul Wells on by-elections, expectations and ballot-box mojo


Is it Monday yet? Please, for the love of God, can it be Tuesday instead? Then we’d know who won the by-elections in Brandon-Souris, Provencher, Bourassa and Toronto-Centre, and we could maybe skip one last day of everybody in every party talking smack about everyone else. It’s been exhausting, guys.

The most fun, if by “fun” you mean “things that make you want to stick a fork in your eyes,” has been had in Toronto Centre, which became a longstanding Liberal fortress after more than a decade of High Red Toryism under, mostly, David Crombie in the ’80s. There, the Liberals are running a journalist, Chrystia Freeland, to replace Bob Rae. The NDP is running a journalist, Linda McQuaig. The narcissism of small differences between the two parties has been awesome to watch. On the whole, Freeland has not managed to dispel the feeling that she talks about income disparity without having a super-firm grasp on its Canadian causes or solutions. McQuaig has not skated seriously enough offside the determinedly moderate-ish stances of Today’s Tom Mulcair New Democrats to cause an embarrassing rift in the party. (“But she shook Chavez’s hand!” shouts Random Liberal A. “She nationalized the means of production and smashed the kulaks!” shouts another. Pipe down, I say.) The upshot is that Freeland may yet become the first Liberal to lose Toronto Centre in 20 years. Personally I doubt it. Anyway, fun race.

In Provencher, it’d take a lot for the Conservative to lose, probably even more than the thing where he wondered whether a gay high-school kid had staged his own bullying. It’d take more than that to lose Vic Toews’s riding. Probably.

In Brandon-Souris, it’s all too weird for words. The Conservative nomination fight was a comedy of errors, the Liberal wears a bowler hat and has other eccentricities, and the iconography of the Liberal campaign has probably led a good two-thirds of the electorate to assume Justin Trudeau is the party’s candidate. Much of the Conservative campaign has focussed on pot. A Liberal victory here, where the Liberals scored so badly in 2011 that the party’s candidate actually owed the riding votes, would be a surprise. Every other party’s body language suggests they fear a Liberal victory.

Bourassa was Denis Coderre’s old Montreal federal riding. He’s the mayor of Montreal now, has made a good start of things — I will be sure, and indeed almost comically eager, to let you know if that changes — and leaves behind a fair bit of goodwill in his wake. Here I’d be surprised if the Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg, lost. If he does win, he can look forward to debating marijuana policy with his party leader.

And now the expectations game. If the Conservatives lost Provencher it would be a big problem. Losing Brandon-Souris, less so, but it will be noticed that the PM pushed as hard in that riding as he could. If the Liberals win three of four ridings, Justin Trudeau will have demonstrated some ballot-box mojo. If not, not. The NDP holds none of these ridings and will be pleased to win any.

By-elections are not terribly significant, but they’re not quite meaningless. Parties are able to ship disproportionate resources to the affected ridings. Party leaders practically move in; it really would have been nice of Tom Mulcair to let McQuaig talk in her own campaign-closing video. All of this distorts the result. But sometimes a by-election carries some broader symbolism. A third-place Canadian Alliance showing in Perth-Middlesex in 2003 marked the end of Stephen Harper’s attempts to make the Canadian Alliance thrive as a party independent of the Progressive Conservatives. In the current set of four cases, a Conservative loss in Brandon-Souris would suggest Harper’s turmoil in the headlines was translating into weakness in the kind of place that returned Merv Tweed for nearly a decade.

But let’s not borrow trouble. Best of luck to all in Monday night’s contests, and please, let this just be over.


Canada votes! Well, parts of it

  1. The NDP removed a reference to socialism from its Constitution and then turned around a named Linda McQuaig a candidate. How stupid was that?

    • Why, not stupid at all. If all your questions are that easy, I can help enlighten you about any other confusions you may have about the world.

  2. From a partisan point of view, I havnt seen so much liberal bashing from Toronto Star, Sun News, Macleans and other MSM since iggy in 2011 election. it seems McQuaig has powerful friends in the media circles. they all seem to want her to win.

    • Hardly. After Freeland destroyed the Reuters LOB she was assigned to, pretty sure media folks would rather see her in Parliament than potentially have to deal with her resume showing up in HR.

      • Um.. I have issues with the original poster declaring anti-Liberal bias in the publications not named Sun News (and I support the Liberals) but that charge of her “destroying Reuters” was denied by Freeland’s ex-bosses, as I recall.

        • So you believe Freeland’s ex bosses.

          Do you also believe others when they speak up?

          Does Harper stand a chance of being treated in the same manner as you’ve treated Freeland’s ex bosses??

          Just sayin’

          • Er, no! He hasn’t earned it.

          • Oh look! Francien is using her folksy “just sayin’ phrase again! It’s like we’re gathered around the pickle barrel in the general store and a quiet, deep thinker is stepping into the fray, interjecting one of those simple truths that gives everyone something to ponder.
            Isn’t it great when she gets off her soapbox and mixes with the common folks? Wouldn’t you like to have a beer with her?

          • No, I’d rather lock her, head-down, into the pickle barrel until no more noise escapes from it. Haha, “just sayin.”

          • This is how progressive, tolerant people deal with other people with whom they disagree politically. They publicly muse about killing them.

          • And this is how disgruntled conservatives deal with a silly harmless jokey comment — pretend outrage and try to make it a moralistic lesson on the foibles of non-conservatives. Maybe non-conservatives around here have become weary of tolerating the idiocy you seek to uphold. The only thing I regret in my scenario is that the pickle barrel would have no means of escape.

          • So you openly muse about the joys of killing another poster, I call you on it for being a bit offside, and I’m the bad guy. Got it. I guess that’s your progressive value system on full display.

          • Learned it from Robbie Ford, I believe…

          • Francien, I am happy to believe Harper’s version of what happened, which version would you suggest?

      • Had nothing to do with that at all. The MSM just had it out for Freeland and Trudeau from the day the writ dropped(the dippers never let up on attacks)(and nothing but lies at that). If the MSM keep going after political candidates the way they did in this by election, the public may end up turning off, and next thing you know, all the media outlets will be laying off anyway. I think the media shouldn’t be out soliciting their favorite candidates, they should learn to report news about the election not cheer on their favorites on from the sidelines.

        • You say the NDP never let up on attacks? I haven’t seen it unless you call talking about the differences between your opponent and yourself as an attack. Maybe you’re a bit too sensitive. Here is a quote from a CTV article from today by Freeland, who manages to be a hypocrite, ‘She says she believes Canadians are ready for Trudeau’s “positive message” that politics is about public service and doesn’t have to be “some kind of nasty gladiator mud-wrestling.”

    • What??? The Star is so appallingly pro-Liberal it’s disgusting. Just look at the most recent photo of Christia and Linda: Christia looks warm and intelligent, Linda looks like a quarrelsome wheezebag. I used to think the Star was basically neutral, but their capital “L” bias has gotten too hard to ignore. It’s not just with some columnists like Hepburn, but in the supposedly objective news stories.

      • Okay, two things:

        -McQuaig is a quarrelsome wheezebag, so I’d chalk that up to accurate reporting
        -The Toronto Star has it as explicitly part of its mandate to present a ‘progressive’ voice. Not to say they are incapable of professional, objective reporting, but they are explicitly biased.

        • Meanwhile the post pretends it isn’t biased, or is that the GM? It’s all so confusing.

  3. http://danspeerin.tumblr.com/post/67902666929/running-on-empty-how-we-all-moved-forward-by-not

    Is this guy always this good? He sure hit a nerve with me. It’s long been a fact the right in N.America would rather be in the ditch hanging out with the deeply stupid than not; but i finally concede much of the progressive left is either there with them,or in the case of the centrist liberals, are scared out of their wits to the point they daren’t express anything remotely new or radical in terms of policy, and spend much of their time wallowing in the same empty vacuous miasma the marketers have conspired put in the political nest, like some monstrous cuckoo.

    Who has the guts to say what they really think or lead in politics anymore? It’s all tactics and strategy. All hat and no cattle.
    So far JT promises much and delivers little. But God help us if the CPC and ndp ever kill them off and we get left with nothing but tps…or so i thought! Maybe the liberals got nothing to offer themselves; so what does it matter if they stick around?

    • The Harper Conservative certainly seem to believe that Trudeau’s policy announcements on marijuana and rethinking mandatory minimum sentences are new and radical. Most of all Harper Conservatives would be horrified at Paul Well’s suggestion that the future MP for Bourassa would dare to debate policy with the leader of the party. It certainly will never happen in the Harper Conservative party where every MP reads from talking points written in the PMO. .

      • The point I didn’t covey well in my rant was that the liberals aren’t even trying to flesh out the few things they have put in the window that might reasonably be considered radical. They just say: legalization[ to be fair they have put some effort into this one. But that is problematic in that it hi-lights the paucity of their other policies] or no, or less MMs or help the middle class in particular, as if that was all that is needed.
        Once you’ve laid out the premise of an argument or policy choice surely you have to say this is how and why it’s going to work?
        It’s as if everyone is following the new Harper paradigm… just get it out there is some catchy form like a new flavour of ice cream, and start chanting it like a mantra. I expect much more from the LPC in particular.
        There is of course one explanation for this mushiness – there simply are no major policy levers left to pull, beyond juggling with equality of opportunity or the Cons preferred micro targeting, and tax breaks for specific voting constituencies. This is something the progressive parties need to steer clear of imo, seeking instead a more broadly egalitarian benefit through something like income tax cuts or help with or deferring student debt.

  4. One thing is certain – unless the Liberals win 100% of the vote in every single riding, the CPC will say he has failed terribly and the death of the LPC is nigh.

    • Secondly, usually it’s the mercy candidates in unwinnable ridings that say embarrassing stuff and cause the party grief. In Provencher, it’s the front-runner.

      • In fairness Conservative voters are just happy it isn’t Toews.

        • As are babysitters.

          • ouch.

          • No, now Toews has more time to dedicate to the babysitters ;)

  5. As far as significant by-elections go, don’t forget the one in Quebec that opened the door the NDP…
    Tonight the Liberals might open the door to Sasklbertitoba.

  6. If Trudeau does not hold the two Liberal fortresses in Montreal and Toronto it will not be the fault of the Huff Post.

    It has a photo gallery of 111 poses by Trudeau Junior!

    For anyone who saw the film “Zoolander”: this is an ominous warning!

    Tom Mulcair is brilliantly skewering Harper every Question Period and will – I trust – continue to do so until we citizens find out the truth.

    Justin – still on training wheels – has difficulty reading his scripted questions and when “unplugged” makes foolish statements about the Chinese communist dictatorship where trying to form a free trade union lands you in a forced labour camp!

    • Can you please tell me what about Mulcair’s performance in the House makes him a good PM? When did asking pointed questions mean you are the best person to run a country?

      • Indeed. That’s one of Wells’ Laws…he who auditions for Opposition Leader usually wins, or something like that.

        We all know having fabulous hair is obviously much more important.

        • The only people who talk about Trudeau’s looks are those opposing him. The original poster appears to find Mulcait’s skills as a lawyer translate into ability to run the country. Please point to one single Trudeau supporter who claims his looks translate into leadership skills.

          Though, sadly, I am not surprised conservatives rely on sexist propaganda to deride their opponents.

          • Really?

            You want to accuse conservatives of sexist propaganda, when a Liberal Senator just won the Victoria Cross in the War on Women?


          • Yes. I will help you.

            A single senator is accused of misbehaving. He is now out of the liberal caucus. The entire conservative party paid for an advertising campaign that suggests Trudeau is only about good looks and has no substance. Internet trolls have been pushing that line on message boards like these for months.

            Or to break it down further, I don’t support that liberal senator, nor defend him. You have just posted something that suggests that as a woman, I am too simple minded to look beyond Trudeau’s good looks.

            It is not that hard. But nice try at the deflection. I am still waiting for you to answer the question.

          • I checked out your first link, and I cannot find the part where she says his good looks mean he will be a good PM.

            I won’t check the second link, because that blogger is, well, not particularly rational. He is one of your fellow paranoid conspiracy theorists. You are going to have to come up with a better source than a Blogging Tory.

          • The senator was accused of “misbehaving”, Gayle??? Really???? Hahaha! That is painting alleged sexual assault up real pretty isn’t it? Not to mention the so called “lost email” to JT? When the PMO colludes to cover up their senators corruption and Harper doesn’t know anything, it is outrage. When JT’s office does it, it is “Oops, filing error” and everyone swallows the bs story without batting an eye.
            Now Gayle, exactly how many Con senators have misbehaved and how many Liberals have misbehaved. As well, is JT’s unable to run his office or did his office obstruct justice?

          • Do you see the irony in freaking out over the term “misbehaving” in the same post you outright accuse Trudeau of being engaged in a cover up?

            See, unlike you, I am not prepared to convict someone based on, well, really not one shred of evidence. Hence the term “misbehave”.

            But I will cut you some slack because I have noted by the shrillness of your posts today that you must be taking Harper’s poor showing last night very personally.

          • “Not one shred of evidence.” Hmmm. Okay.

      • If one watches Tom Mulcair on a regular basis one cannot help but being impressed at how clearly he articulates his views and is able to pierce to the heart of an issue.

        Despite all of Harper’s dissembling, Tom remains on point.

        Such intellectual capacity is important in a new PM who will have to clean up decades of Liberal and Conservative corruption and self-serving and lead us into an era of a triple bottom-line society in which economic productivity and innovation, social justice, and advanced environmental initiatives are understood and supported by increasing numbers of Canadians — as they are by people in the advanced Nordic social democracies.

        In contrast, the 111 poses of Justin in the photo gallery of Huff Post pale in comparison – unless one is a Liberal.

        • First, you are guilty of the same sexism as John. Shame on you.

          Second, you have set out your reasons for supporting Mulcair. I respect that, even though I disagree. You haven’t really explained how a good cross examination translates into leadership though. I know plenty of courtroom lawyers who are smart, quick on their feet and effective at cross examination. Doesn’t mean I’d vote for them.

          • Please carefully read my comments for I: made no sexist comment, and gave a cluster of skills and abilities that will stand PM Mulcair in good stead after 2015.

            You devalue the term “sexism” when real such actions are allegedly carried out by a Liberal Senator and then not immediately followed up by Justin.

          • You suggest that liberal supporters like myself (ie women) support Trudeau for his looks. Aside from the fact that is simply without merit, and devalues your entire point, it also suggests people like me lack the intellectual capacity to look beyond his appearance in order to judge his qualities.

            I get that the NDP is only, once again, parroting the CPC, but it still makes you look bad.

            You did set out your opinion of Mulcair, none of which have anything to do with QP, which was my point.

          • And trading on looks is not sexist?LOL

            If Justin starts to make substantial policy statements about substantial issues then a serious discussion might be possible

            Until then, one has to rely on the very able NDP leader to lead in Parliament and in the country regarding issues of importance to Canadians,

          • Mr Mulcair is doing a terrific job as a litigation lawyer in the HoC, I agree with that. However, what “substantial policy statements” has he made? That he would abolish the Senate — smart people know that’s easier said than done, so such a policy is more lip service than substantial. That he would allow Quebec to separate based on 50 percent plus 1 of a referendum? That seems just plain wrong. What have I missed that you are so enamoured about?

          • 50% plus one is what the Conservative-Liberal coalition gov’t of the mother of parliaments in the UK requires regarding the Scots’ independence referendum. Is that plain wrong?
            Have you missed his announcements on corporate taxes, or a national environmental bill defeated by the Senate, or his commitment to work with aboriginal people to deal respectfully and substantially with their legitimate, much-needed initiatives including vastly increased education funding?

          • Hmmm…..what “substantive policy statements” has Mr. Trudeau made?

          • He does not trade on his looks. That is just NDP/CPC propaganda.

            He has made policy statements, and, again, you do not strengthen your point by making stuff up.

            What I like about Trudeau is that he has promised evidence based policy instead of ideologically based policy. I look forward to a PM who makes decisions based on what the experts agree is good for us.

            In any event, we are off topic. I think we can conclude cross examination does not prepare one to lead the country.

          • Hahaha! Gayle, you Libs picked him over a rocket scientist, Mark Garneau and you are trying to say it wasn’t his looks and family name but his promise to use “evidence-based” policy.
            Meanwhile, he is claiming legalizing pot will keep away from under age kids.

          • Actually, what I said was that I like that position. Other people may have had different reasons to support him.

            The only people who say it was his looks and fame are the people who don’t support him. I know it suits your partisan conservative position to say that, but you are just being a good soldier, touting the party line.

            So, as you seem to be saying it WAS his looks and fame, I ask you to point to the evidence that he won the leadership contest because people wanted a handsome man in charge.

            Hint: Sun Media and or Conservative opinions is not evidence.

            Good luck!

          • Oh I am sorry, it was patchouli who liked him better than the rocket scientist and she met them both.
            I am just asking Gayle, if it wasn’t his looks and his father’s name, what was it that people liked? Why would the liberals pick him over a rocket scientist? It can’t have been for his brain or his speaking…..we know that now. As for star power, Mark Garneau had plenty of name recognition and he IS A ROCKET SCIENTIST!!!! Was it the hair?

          • Heh. So I take it by the way you are trying to turn this around, that you agree you have no proof at all that his looks got him elected.

            Here is the thing, mature intelligent people do not proclaim something to be true, and then demand others prove it is not.

        • If we’re using the Nordic countries as a model, does the NDP also support high consumption taxes (ie HST) and low corporate income taxes?

          • The NDP as a social democratic party in Canada offers a made-in-Canada approach to developing the socio-economic and environmental justice results of the advance Nordic nations, namely: moderate personal, consumption and corporate taxation.

            Tom Mulcair’s critique – underscored by OECD data – is that our corporate tax rates need to be restored to the 2006 level whereby we gain substantial revenue for needed program initiatives such as a national housing strategy, Pharmacare, job creation, and meaningful collaboration with aboriginal peoples for an education-driven approach to their improved conditions

            Such a proposal puts our corporate rates below those of the U.S. and in the middle of OECD rates and gains multi-billions for desperately needed programs.

          • Comparing Canadian CIT to statutory US rates is meaningless. There are so many exemptions, credits, etc. in the US that just about no corp actually pays the statutory rate.

            Again, if we’re aspiring to mimic the Nordic countries (I’m not opposed), we need to be real about taxation. That means efficient taxes like high consumption taxes, and low inefficient taxes such as CIT. Capital is highly mobile, and if you tax it it will flee.

          • What is the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. compared to that of Canada – higher or lower?
            Comparative advantages such as the Canadian healthcare system as compared to the U.S., and our livable cities must also be factored into competitiveness.
            Capital in a knowledge-based economy will also flee nations with under-skilled workforces etc.

          • The NDP is for moderate personal, consumption and corporate taxes.As Canada’s social democratic party, it has a made-in-Canada approach that recognizes Canadian realities but aspires to the economic/social/environmental justice of the advanced Nordic social democracies.

            Canada’s corporate taxes – if restored to the 2006 level – would place us in the middle of the OECD nations – while gaining revenue for much needed socio-economic programs.

          • Are you aware of what the current VAT levels are in those Scandinavian countries that you purport to emulate? They’re very far from “moderate”. Last time I was in Denmark, their VAT (the equivalent of our GST) was 26%. So what is the NDP’s proposal for our GST? Do they propose to raise it? If not, then they clearly are not proposing anything remotely resembling any Scandinavian tax system.

          • The NDP is proposing a made-in-Canada approach to taxation with moderate taxation of all sorts.
            the Liberals started cutting corporate taxes and supported the tories until even the Grits found it foolish!
            No one suggest a Scandinavian viatax system here – sorry!

          • Well, all I can say is, sorry bud, if you want Nordic outcomes, you need something approaching Nordic levels of taxation. In the Nordic countries, their tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are all at the very top of the OECD pile (approaching 50% or more). Canada is in the middle (at around 35% last time I checked). To get those Nordic outcomes that you claim to crave, you are going to have to jack up taxes very significantly — and without touching consumption taxes, you will not get there. Period. Any tax expert with any brains and credibility will tell you that. If the NDP is purporting to be able to deliver “Nordic” style programs etc. without touching consumption taxes, they are lying. End of story.

          • The NDP policy as I understand it is to create a fairer tax system by raising the corporate tax rate to previous levels and making it a much fairer system – an incremental strategy that makes sense.

            Did the 2006 level cause companies to flee Canada? LOL

          • Fine. But all I’m saying is raising corporate tax rates will not get Canada anywhere near to anything resembling the Nordic country situation. So people like you should quit holding those countries up as some sort of model that the NDP is realistically trying to emulate. In my opinion, the NDP simply holds out evil corporations (and especially those uber-evil “big banks”) as these supposed magic milch cows which will solve all our taxation and revenue problems, and it’s a bunch of unrealistic populist BS.
            If the NDP really wanted to bring in something reasonably approaching European-style social democracy, they’d actually grow a pair, and propose raising the GST. But they have no guts and no principles on this count, so they go the cheap, easy populist route and propose corporate witch-burnings instead. It’s cowardly.

          • Whoa Nelly. Take your meds.

            Why this over-the -top rhetoric?

            The NDP is a social democratic party that believes in the gradual, pragmatic development of a triple bottom line knowledge-based economy and society. The Nordic nations are probably at least a generation ahead of us in terms of this worthy objective.

            The Nordic countries are a model to which many of us aspire:humane, just and progressive – with lifelong learning at their heart.

            Or we can continue to alternate between the White cats and the Black cats of “Mouseland” as Tommy Douglas so aptly warned.

          • Well, if you aspire to the Nordic model, then you ought to aspire to their tax system which funds it. I don’t see you doing that on this thread. And I sure don’t see the NDP doing it — if they were, they would be proposing hiking the GST, and quite significantly at that. So I guess what the NDP really stands for is aspiring to the Nordic model without proposing any viable way to possibly pay for it.

      • Can you tell me what of ANYTHING Trudeau’s done that would make him a good PM?

        • About the equivalent of what Harper did before he became PM.

          • Gayle, you have admitted before that Mulclair shines in the house. He is powerful debater. Justin is not. According to Chantal Hebert, Justin doesn’t do well scripted either. She says he is making many mistakes and needs lots of work. Chantal Hebert is neither biased nor lacking in intelligence. She is a very astute journalist.

          • Ummm, so? What does that have to do with being a good PM?

            Campaigning is not the same as leading the country.

      • Well, Mulcair’s performance in the HoC shows him able to think in a logical manner, press a point home, and just be all round effective in QP. Not sufficient for being a PM, perhaps not even necessary, but certainly useful and welcome characteristics.

        So, if Trudeau’s QP performance can’t match Mulcair’s, then Trudeau needs to make up for it in other ways. Can you say in what ways that would matter to a voter (not to the LPC), Trudeau is clearly superior to Mulcair?

        • Evidence based policy
          No more gutter politics (that is turning people off)
          Focus on the middle class

          Not that most of that should be his top concern right now. What he needs to do now is rebuild the LPC and reconnect with voters. Current opinion polls and fundraising improvement would suggest he is doing what needs to be done.

          • I imagine the NDP would claim that they own middle class focus (“ordinary Canadians”).

            And as much as I appreciate evidence based policy and rational arguments rather than gutter politics, it’s not obvious to me that Trudeau beats Mulcair here.

            I realize that Trudeau has hung his hat on middle class focus and evidence based policy, but there needs to be more than just talking about how important they are if the idea is to truly own these issues.

          • Well he has two years to sort that out. I am not worried.

        • And in terms specific to Mulcair, Trudeau is trying to be inclusive and reach out to the western provinces, not alienate them like Mulcair. Trudeau is being straight with us about the need for constitutional reform to change the Senate – a fact Mulcair tends to ignore when discussing abolishing it. Trudeau is not beholden to separatists in Quebec, who make up part of Mulcair’s base.

          • “Trudeau is trying to be inclusive and reach out to the western provinces”
            Yeah, like when he suggested that Albertans have no business having a hand in running the country. That was real inclusive-like.

          • No, like when he came here several times while campaigning for the leadership, and several times since. Like when he spoke up in favour of the Keystone pipeline.

            I am surprised you missed all that. I guess that is what happens when you obsess over comments made a long time ago.

            Hey, did you know Harper thinks the Maritimes have a culture of defeat? And that Alberta should have a firewall?

  7. I have to think that the support from prominent business leaders and economists like Mike Moffatt blows Mr. Wells negative narrative about Mrs. Freeland out of the water.

    Also, one of the side stories about these bi-elections that i find intriguing is how the NDP have taken pages right out of the Conservatives play book and will use them to their full extent. Enough of the false-equivalency, let each stand on their own and wear what they have said and done.

    • Holy Lord. If you think “not a super-firm grasp on solutions” and “I doubt she’ll lose” constitute a negative narrative, you cannot have read me when I really don’t like someone.

      Also: there/their/they’re. It’s never too late.

      • No, I found the ‘Canadian solutions’ narrative negative.

        Also, thank you for pointing out my typo, I’ll make sure to correct it!

      • Now their, PW, be charitable with the semi-literate. Your built of better stuff.

      • Paul, You were being kind about Chrystia’s grasp of solutions: she wrote a whole book of a desriptive nature and posed no solutions addressed by the title of her book!
        And her bafflegab during the by-election debates have added little to no clarity despite Linda’s attempt to tease out some – any – positive policy initiatives.
        Good luck to Justin and his economic policy advisors – which Chrystia is one!

        • The New Democratic Party of Canada thanks you for your posts.

  8. I had hoped that the NDP would replace a Liberal party as the permanent Opposition after the 2015 election but unfortunately we we will Trudeau as the Leader of the Opposition for the next 20 years.

  9. Ha ha ha….Good ole Macloser’s.

    This is devastating for Jughead. The Libs had a name candidate that Justine herself was campaigning for…the Tories had a nasty nomination battle there where many Conservatives planned to stay home. This is a military riding too, so all those allegedly angry PTSD’d soldiers were going to lash out at the government….not to mention the media driven senate ‘scandal’.

    All of it added up to nothing…and in Manitoba too..which isn’t the west at all.

Sign in to comment.