I have been saying for awhile that the NDP numbers are inflated, perhaps artificially. Commenter Alison over at “What Do I Know Grit”, has expressed the theory about that NDP surge . I thought about something similar, actually. I’ll turn it over to Alison.
The NDP surge which was fed by the media and rather bizarre polls rather than any close reading of NDP policies or scrutiny of their leader.
I usually think people who are conspiracy theorists are nuts, but here’s a thought that has been running through my head. The NDP came to an agreement with the Cons about not releasing the G8 report, and, in return, the Cons got their shills in the media to start planting the NDP surge misinformation. All the talk of the surge started before there was any clear indication in the polls.
As Craig Oliver on Question Period put it yesterday, Stevie Harper was the one who polarized the country with his hyperpartisanship. Remember, Gerry Nicholls warned us that the elimination of the Centrist Liberals was very much a means to achieve Steve’s Neo-con Canada.
His theory, as explained to me, was that conservatism would be better served in this country if Canada had a two-party system, one that pitted right against left, free enterprise against socialism, Conservatives against New Democrats.
He believed that, in such a polarized political environment, a conservative-oriented party would have a huge advantage over its left-wing rival. When given a clear choice, voters will usually pick conservatism over socialism.
And it’s working! With the polls showing the Liberals (and the Bloc, for that matter) going down as both Steve and Jack wanted, many blue grits or business liberals are voting Harpercon as they fear an NDP economy.
Some Progressives, like this one, decided to vote ‘her conscience’, despite the fact that Catch 22, Swing 33 and Project Democracy’s candidate endorsements and updates and number crunching did not reflect the NDP surge. In fact, quite the opposite, they fear vote splitting and rightfully so.
The more I think about it, the more I think this was in the bag. All of Stevie Spiteful’s ‘panicking’ was nothing short of an act, and a very bad one. I’m betting that somewhere in Calgary, Stevie is doing his happy dance–without the hair!
Looks like Lord Connie Black may also get his wish. As for you Jack Layton, Stevie will be owing you a steak dinner for his fortuneMake sure you collect. That is why I’m scrapping my lower ceiling projections and projecting a Harpercon majority.
If you don’t believe the demise of the Liberals is likely to keep Con majorities in place for a very long time, perhaps it would be a good idea to take a brief history lesson from Britain, who, until now, tend to have more generous social safety net than we ever did.
In contrast to this electoral struggle, the Conservatives, previously the party of the aristocracy, were able to rapidly gain share with the middle class, and become the dominant party in Britain. They won several successive majority governments, critical to sustaining conservative reforms and making them unassailable to quick reversal by Labour. Under Thatcher, Major and Cameron, Conservatives have prized austerity and fundamentally altered British society.
New Democrats rejoicing in their new poll standings should consider the implications of their success. If Britain is any guide, the result will be more Conservative majorities, not less. And for anyone who has progressive values, that’s a bad thing.
![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Is that Allison of Creekside? I have a lot of time for what she thinks.
But. . .
If the Dippers did do a deal with the devil, they’d be dead if it got out. And it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t come out, Dippers being Dippers and all.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Not Allison of Creekside. Another one who also comments as Alison S. She is a Montrealer
Anything is possible in an infinite universe, but the reason that Christopherson didn’t allow the G8 report were stated publicly. It had to do with some important rules about who parliamentary officers report to, … which is Parliament. Playing fast-and-lose with such protocols is a very dangerous thing.
Secondly, you are trying to suggest that every single polling firm in Canada, and every single newspaper and other mainstream media outlet is in cahoots with a harper-led conspiracy to destroy the Liberal Party and prop-up the NDP as the new contender?
Doesn’t it seem far more likely that Ignatieff has been injured by a non-stop advertising campaign against him, his own lacklustre performance for most of the period after his coronation, the Liberal Party’s craven cowardice in facing up to their job as official opposition party (punctuated by bizarre, out of nowhere threats to force an election), their whole rightward tilt since 1993 that has only been reversed with this campaign’s policy platform (which only brings to mind memories of “screw the red-book” in my mind)?
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:22 PM
lacklustre performance? Iggy actually ran a very good campaign; so-so performance at English Debates not withstanding. Fundraising was at an all time high. He was very well received at all of his events; all of which had very good turn-outs.
ave you checked the margins of error in many of those polls? Including Nanos the most reliable one? With Nanos, some regions have margins of error as high as 10%.
And Lorne Gunter, as wretched as he is, may well have a point when he says that many of the samples taken where folks already vote NDP. You may not like the Libertarian columnist, but it would explain the high margins of error.
The point is, Thwap, you and your friends have always chided the Liberals for voting with the Harpercons in order to avoid an election every other day given stevie’s propensity for turning everything into a confidence motion. However, turn their attack ads away from the Harpercons, and toward Iggy, nearly exclusively, doesn’t that sound alarm bells?
I think NDP-Harpercon history is indeed repeating itself: Read this from 2006. http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.05-politics-jack-layton-ndp-fake-left-go-right Very pertinent today.
Plus there’s Andrew Steel’s article I linked to and quoted from at the bottom of the post–the lack of a viable center party in Britain has kept their Tories far more often in power. Britain, is farther to the left than we are when we speak of taxes and welfare states (taxes are higher there and welfare state over there, well, we can only wish…until Cameron will gut everything that is).
Be pragmatic. CAnada isn’t a socialist country. Folks here whine when their taxes are raised by one red penny. The word ‘socialism’ here is as dirty, if not dirtier, than in the US.
thwap Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:36 PM
I said his lacklustre performance for much of the period after his coronation. I’ve said on my blog that on this campaign he began to look poised and professional. He was very stiff and very unsure of himself in the early going.
NDP chiding of the Liberals 70+ times when they propped-up the harpercons really doesn’t have anything to do with their anti-Ignatieff ads. As a socialist, I’ve always had a hard time wondering who i hated more, the thuggish conservatives or the cynical, betraying Liberals. I suspect with the NDP leadership it’s the same thing.
And “fake left, go right” sounds a lot like the Liberal playbook as well.
Again, rather than assert without any real evidence, that the entire mainstream media and all of the polling firms have engineered this with harper, use Occam’s razor to see what the more likely causes are.
It’s not like the Liberal Party of Canada are a collection of powerless little lambs at the mercy of the corporate elite.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:46 PM
“And ‘Fake Left, go right” sounds like a Liberal Playbook as well”.
Uh have you even bothered to read it? Probably not. You wouldn’t leap to that conclusion if you read all 6 pages of it. It’s by James Laxer who is no friend of the Liberals neither. I suggest you read it before you call it a Liberal playbook.
Socialist? You’re of a small minority in a sea of capitalists. It’s a reality I had to come to years ago. You would do well to come to it too.
NDP hardly in a position to chide the Liberals when they help Harper remain in office since 2006. Do you really want to get rid of Harper? I sure see evidence more and more that shows your party doesn’t.
As for that G8 report the NDP voted against being released to the public because it went against parliamentary rules? Jean Lapierre (on Andrew Carter morning show) and others felt that report should’ve been released to the public as it was unfair to voters for them not to know; to not have all the facts
It seems like you have been drinking the LPC wine at the alter of days past! I know there is a chance the polls are wrong, but to think that all of them are out to lunch except the odd one that shows the CPC close to a majority is a stretch.
The LPC can only blame themselves when they are wiped out in Quebec, even Trudeau may lose. They have not done well in the west, continue to put up spirited fights in ridings where only the NDP can beat the Harper conservatives.
I’m fed up with Liberals telling me that only they can stop Harper. Its like they own the right to seats. Following the logic of the LPC, I would never ever do what you did today, ie vote my conscience. Its especially galling to be told to vote strategically and you do, and the LPC doesn’t do it.
In downtown TO by the way its safe to vote LPC or NDP. Today I voted NDP and hope it helps my party do what I want it to do. Become the govt of Canada.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:33 PM
“even Trudeau might lose”? ? Papineau is one riding where the NDP ‘surge’ may actually help him against Vivian Barbot of the Bloc. Jean Lapierre, as well as Election Prediction Project and 308.com project him to keep his seat.
“Own the right to seats”?? Just being pragmatic. No center party means most will flock to the Harpercons and hold their noses doing it. An NDP ‘surge’ panic is already happening; Blue grits seeing those polls are flocking to the Harpercons.
And yes, I would vote strategically if I was in a riding that was held by a Harpercon or vulnerable to a Harpercon win.
The NDP cannot stop Harper and furthermore, I don’t think they even want to. That has been my point; they don’t want to stop Harper.
Go look what’s happened in Britain where there the Liberals (now merged Lib-Dems) over the years. As Andrew Steel in the Globe wrote, Since that party’s demise, Tory majorities happen far more often than Labour ones do.
So when you use terms like “Liberals and their entitlements”, remember this when Harper comes in with a healthy majority this fine evening.
CK, while I don’t necessarily buy into your conspiracy theory, I will say this. That “progressive” blogger you mention is either a liar, or ignorant. Not to mention a self righteous blowhard who doesn’t back up her claims. I’ve been waiting two years for definitive proof Iggy supports torture, as per her claim. Still nothing.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Christian, it’s not the same Alison as I’ve mentioned in another comment. If you clicked the link at her name on Jim Curran’s blog, you would see it won’t link to Creekside.
And I wouldn’t put it past the NDP working with Harper in some shape or form to destroy the Liberal party.
Like the “Velvet Touch” massage parlour story, I see they’re all coming out in the staunchest of defense of their party. A little too defensive, if you ask me.
Let’s remember that coalition letter of 2004 that they all threw in Harper’s face? It cuts both ways.
Christian Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 5:29 PM
No, I was referring to wmtc from this passage: “Some Progressives, like this one”. Hope that clears things up.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:42 PM
I’m sorry Christian.
delusional to the bitter end.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:39 PM
And Jan, when Harper gets his majority, you will get a big fat “I told you so!” Get real. Go read the Andrew Steel article; see how getting rid of a center party affected Britain. They have had more Tory majorities than Labour.
Okay ck, have it your way. The Liberals are saintly innocents and they’re being crushed by “the man” (which includes the NDP I suppose). Everything is everybody else’s fault.
The only way we’ll know for sure is if they score over 30% of the vote despite what the polls were saying.
Never said the Liberals were ‘innocent’. Just saying your NDP isn’t any better and if true, that they really helped Harper, then they’re worse. The NDP can’t prevent a Harpercon majority alone. The Liberals and the Bloc were also needed.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:41 PM
if the dippers score over 30% tonight, it will be absolutely meaningless when the Harpercons get their majority. Any party in official opposition to that will be rendered useless. No more than window dressing who take up seats in the house of commons.
CK, You have stated many times in the past that you would vote for whatever candidate had the best chance to beat Harper’s, NDP, Lib or bloc. That was the sanest thing any of us could do, against this man. Neither NDP or Lib party membered bloggers seemed to object until the Orange wave hit, then all we heard was that the strategic voting was a Lib plot.
I don’t think there was a pack between Harper & Layton. I do think that the NDP got carried away with their surprising popularity and that their attack on strategic voting was foolish. The Cons realized what was happening and adapted quickly by closing ranks and drawing further back from the lime light. They could let the NDP surge do the damage to the Libs.
The campaign was what it was and we do not yet know what the result will be. There are a lot of smart, angry voters out there
If Harper doesn’t get his majority, I’ll happily turn my site Orange and join in the celebration with every dipper I can find.
On the flip side, and Harper gets a majority I will curse every dipper that attacked strategic voting and god help them if they call it victory.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Yes, and I was realistic when in some parts of Northern and Western Canada the dippers did have the best odds of beating the Harpercons. I’ve never disputed that and yes, if one is in such a riding who is so inclined to be rid of STevie Spiteful, then of course vote for the best candidate to oust Harpercons.
However, I have questions as that commenter over at Jim Curran’s did. I’m allowed to ask it. I’ve been very suspicious since the NDP surge which began shortly after the PQ convention. Also, after the debates, the only NDP ads I saw on TV were those attacking Iggy, not Harper.
As for the Harpercons reacting quickly–all an act; theatrics–and not very good at it. You really believe that some anonymous senior Tory was allowed to whine to the Toronto Star about fears of not getting a majority?? Not with Steve the king of the MEP. All staged.
I know for a fact many blue Grits who will be holding their noses to vote Harpercon because of the NDP surge.
If Harper gets his majority, Dippers will be getting a big fat “I told you so!”
The only way to have been the Harpercons was with the NDP, the Liberals and yes, the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Without the Liberals or the Bloc, Jack can’t do it.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Oh, I’m not the only one who has questions about Harpercon helpers boosting NDP numbers. Go over to Jymn’s: http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-sun-media-boost-jack-layton-in.html
First, I voted Liberal, even though it almost killed me. Second the Liberal Party needn’t die. If they get behind electoral reform, they can easily survive and even thrive. The party’s enemy is FPTP, more than the NDP.
ck Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 8:43 PM
It’s all moot if the Harpercons get their majority.
Google: Harper delivers his plan on, Global Governance for Canada. Everyone present, were shocked by his speech. Harper went on to say, Global Governance has been worked on, since WW11.
Harper gave banks, mines, large corporations, gas and oil company’s billions of our tax dollars. I saw that motion pass, on the House of Commons TV channel. He also gave them huge tax reductions. He just gave them ANOTHER tax reduction, which will come off Canadians paychecks. Why is Harper thieving our tax dollars, to give the the wealthiest outfits in the world?
Harper and Conservatives are in contempt of Parliament. Conservatives stormed Guelph University, to stop students from voting. They even tried to seize the ballot boxes. So far, this is still Canada, Herr Harper, we don’t like dictatorship regimes.
Harper has Canada in two wars. The cost so far is over $36 billion. The cost goes up, Harper extended our troops time in Afghanistan, for billion more dollars. The Jets, with engines, will be $40 billion. Prisons will also be in the billions. Canada has been a peacekeeping nation, since WW11. We did not bomb innocent civilians, until Harper. Canada assisted people in the war torn nations, we didn’t kill them.
Harper will be cutting the budget by $11 billion. Health care is said to take the hardest hit. Harper wants to privatize health care. We will lose other services, that we pay taxes through our noses for.
Harper is giving the billions to, giant corporations, and spending billions on wars, jets and prisons. If Harper wins, be prepared to kiss Canada good-bye.
to Neil H… I said the same.Like ck I do not have that option…I fault both the NDP and the Liberals for not early enough or as often detailing the dangers of a Conservative majority. It was not as if the evidence was not there. Now we settle down for the polarized politics of the UDA.
I know this is late, but I will add I suspect more convergence of interests than outright collusion, but the end result is the same. The NDP leadership knows that Harper wants to crush the Libs, and they want to crush the Libs, and Layton has already proven that killing off the Libs is more important to him than stopping Harper from even a majority, and last night we saw that proven out. Given the lack of critical media examination of the NDP platform once they started surging I can understand your suspicion of conspiracy, and you are right that not all conspiracies are theory only, but I tend to subscribe to convergence of interest more easily, but I will admit I cannot entirely rule out the possibility you raise either given the behaviour of all those involved. Still though until more evidence comes out to support it I will have to leave it in the low order possibility level myself.
I’m sorry you put “conscience” in quotes like it’s a strange or ironic concept. But if the Liberals want my vote, ever, they have to earn it. The Ignatieff Liberals made my sick, and a neoliberal government is not much different from a Conservative majority with a spineless (Ignatieff) opposition. This conscience thing wasn’t some theoretical construct. I couldn’t vote for the Liberals any more than I could vote for the Conservatives.
ck Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:18 PM
And congratulations! The Harpercons got a majority. Canada lost.
Jack Layton was up to his old tricks when he sucked up to Harper in the English language leaders’ debates. Then every attack ad I saw from him was attacking Iggy; he left Harper alone. Same as in 2006 and 2008. So he got more seats and far less power for his trouble. Yay! The Harpercon cheerleaders in the media certainly ain’t rewarding him in these days. The Liberals and the Bloc at least, knew who the real enemy was.
And anyone who can’t tell the difference between Harpercons and the Liberals, frankly, need to go back and read everything Harper has ever said. That so-called hidden agenda isn’t hidden if anyone bothered to look–it’s all out in the open. Hell, Lawrence Martin interviewed Con staffers and MPs for “Harperland”. Read that book, it’s an eye opener. Harper is pathological and obsessive.
Earn it– I think the time for idealism has come and gone. Harper the first pm cited for contempt of parliament in history. Scandals that now make ADSCAM look like a frat boy prank. And they were rewarded with a majority.
Now Harper could well go down in history as the PM who broke Canada apart. We may well get a Parti-Quebecois majority next provincial election and if Harper goes too socon, and I really believe, he will, we will likely secede. Harper’s values are not ours’.
That “progressive” blogger you mention is either a liar, or ignorant. Not to mention a self righteous blowhard who doesn’t back up her claims. I’ve been waiting two years for definitive proof Iggy supports torture, as per her claim. Still nothing.
I and others have posted them repeatedly. Not sure why you say “still nothing”. I can point you to them anytime, or you can look them up yourself. I read Ignatieff’s features in the NY Times, which rationalized and condoned the use of torture, before I ever knew he was Canadian and before I ever dreamed I’d move to Canada.