The following appears to be a hoax email. See update below
Four years ago, Jack Layton was elected with an agenda for change and new energy. He had great momentum, and we believed he can take us all the way to government. But sadly, his performance was below expectations. We now find ourselves in an uncomfortable position, with a spiritless leader and a rudderless party machine.
The party needs new energy, again. Dion’s recent election cemented the fact that leadership races ignite and inspire the public. That’s just the fix we can do with right now. And it’s time for new campaigns and issues. Something to electrify the membership once more.
There are many reasons for Jack to go right now:
Loss of credibility. Issues like the environment, child care and Afghanistan have all been supplanted by other party leaders or abandoned by Jack. There is now no issue where Jack Layton leads, and no emerging policy has resonated with the public from him, either.
Scripted Leadership. Unfortunately, Jack Layton has chosen a prepared, reviewed and impersonal style of speaking when addressing the public and the membership. His Leader’s Debate performance came off as flat and bland, though full of rhetoric.
No Lasting Campaigns. The recent Afghanistan campaign conducted by Jack Layton has largely been abandoned, as it has by the rest of the media. Jack Layton has not spoken publicly about Afghanistan in over a month.
Issue-less Elections. Fearing a bad response from the public, Jack Layton chose not to advance any issue in particular in the 2006 election. Aside from the strong argument that the NDP managed to get from the Liberals 1.6 billion in social spending, the general tone against Liberal corruption, a promise on child care, and some vague rhetoric employing the words “health care” and “environment” and who knows what other terms his pollsters approved of, the party stood for nothing.
Ineffective Opposition. Question Period is a time when great attention is paid to the words of the party leader, yet somehow, Layton has not managed to get on top of enough issues to make the evening newscasts and the morning papers. It is unfortunate, but the responsibility lies on Layton’s shoulders.
Uninvolved Membership. It is rare when the membership is asked to help the party, aside from donating to it or campaigning for its elections. A new leader may bring in a de-centralized structure, where movements and party activists can intertwine and campaigns built from the ground up.
New Leaders Emerging. Credible people like Stephen Lewis, Joe Comartin and Libby Davies stand in the wings Layton, and are in a position to mobilize the party. All three are passionate speakers and have what it takes to win the votes and the hearts of the public and beat the Conservatives and the Liberals in the next election.
Dion. The new election of Dion has pushed the Liberals greatly ahead of the Conservatives. At this point, both the Conservatives and the NDP want to wait until better times before they dissolve parliament. This means that we’ll have about a 5 months to elect a new leader, not an impossible timeframe. We don’t have time to wait another 4 years in the hopes that Jack will change. He’s had his chance and now it’s somebody else’s turn.
Centralized Management. The Jack Party spends far too much on unneeded expenses. According to the financial statement filed with Elections Canada, the party administration raised 5.2 million dollars from the party membership last year, but spent 10.09 million dollars on expenses like fundraising (telemarketing companies), as well as “polling” and “professional services” (other privatized, contracted-out work), and of course salaries, office expenses, and travel & hospitality. Under Jack, the party increased its debt by 5.4 million dollars in 2005 despite it not being an election year. From http://www.elections.ca/fin/rep/2005/ndp_2005.pdf
We are the party of Tommy Douglas and JS Woodworth, of unabashed determination and irreconcilable ideals, not of fleeting notions and abandoned goals. Jack, thank you for your work over these four years – but it’s time to move on. Please step down and support a new leadership contest. To write to Jack Layton, email laytoj@parl.gc.ca
To have new energy, we must have new leadership.
Jennifer Bernier, President
Abitibi-Témiscamingue NDP
jnrbernier@yahoo.ca
Critics often accuse me of offering only the viewpoints of conservatives in the Canadian political debate. I trust that this goes at least partway towards a new commitment at SDA to provide balance.
More from Greg Staples– “is [there] another reason why the NDP does not want anything to do with the Blogging Dippers. What could it be? Hmmm, what could it be?”
Plus – “I phone dead people”
UPDATE – Well, I’ve learned my lesson. I try to provide balance, and this is the thanks I get… – Commentors have advised that this email was a hoax. I’m so used to being misled by NDP governments, I’ve lost the ability to tell the real lies from the fake ones.
The election of Elizabeth May as Green leader guarantees that the party will not be perceived as “fiscally conservative” for much longer. Former leader Jim Harris was a former Tory with some interesting ideas. May, despite having worked for the Mulroney government and some supposedly “conservative” views on abortion, is a socialist through and through.
The ‘Green Party’ is the political equivalent of the Pet Rock. And Gayle is the poster boy of everything wrong.
Gayle, to label any of our political parties “extremist” is very silly, and betrays a lack of understanding of ideology and the political spectrum – not very useful when determining preferences.
All of the Canadian political parties, even the Greens, occupy the middle of the spectrum, when compared to political parties worldwide. Back in the late 80s, when I studied politics in university, the only significant voting “cleavage” was religion, which likely isn’t even the case today. No reasonable person would argue that most or all members of trade unions, for example, vote NDP, or that women vote for this or that party. Both of their voting patterns match overall preferences. There is some regionality to voting, but this is fluid and can change dramatically between elections.
The NDP,Liberals and Bloc are social democrats (slightly left of centre), while the Conservatives are Classical Liberal/Libertarian (centre or slightly right of centre). The NDP is influenced by Union elites, while the influence of business elites is stronger with the LPC and CPC. The Bloc is the closest thing we have to an ethnic/tribal approach, but is more of a regional party, as was the original Reform party.
All our parties are pluralistic, don’t engage in race or class politics (despite the rhetoric from some NDPers). Of course, there are “extremist” elements (off the mainstream of political thought) in each of our main parties. I don’t know enough about the Greens to make this conclusion, but it is likely true also.
One of these days, maybe, we will stop labelling each other and take a reasoned look at policy differences. The debate in Canada is how much of a role should government take in our society.
Besides, the linear left/right political spectrum isn’t very useful anymore. Many Canadians (most?) are fiscally “conservative” and socially “liberal.” If I have no problem with gay marriage, but believe government that governs the least governs the best, does that make me extreme? We tend to judge others’ ideas through the prism of whether or not we agree with them.
johnboy, you chucklehead, robbins sce research? roflmao!!!
Wow Jeff. Great argument. I don’t think anyone can argue with your logical thinking on that one. I can only assume that you were a member of your high school socialist debating club.
“Many Canadians are fiscally “conservative” and socially “liberal.”
I think most Canadians think of themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Whether they actually are is another story all together. Balancing the budget does not necessarily make you a fiscal conservative. Supporting the idea of a state-run monopoly on childcare (as many Canadians do) almost certainly excludes one from being a fiscal conservative. With Ontario now in the post-Harris years, Alberta gushing cash, and the federal deficit under control, fiscal conservatism seems have gone out of fashion. Not even Conservatives are champions of conservatism anymore.
Shamrock
I agree to a point – and thank you for a well thought out and reasoned response. It is much more convincing than simply stating something as truth and mocking anyone who questions it (and that applies to people who fall in all aspects of the political spectrum). If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I was not calling the CPC extreme, I was simply posing the possibility that the reason ET and johnboy believe the CPC is in the centre is because of their own extreme right wing beliefs. You have already acknowledged that individuals do hold extreme beliefs. As for the Green party, I believe that one of their policies is to get rid of income tax altogether. To me. that is extreme.
While you are correct that in comparison to world politics, Canadian parties are in the middle, ET was not comparing the conservatives to the rest of the world, he was comparing Canadian political parties.
We can go around and around in circles on this one, but I simply do not agree that the CPC are in the middle of the Canadian political spectrum. That is because fiscally, socially and politically, they support right wing policies.
And, quite frankly, who cares if they do? That is what they stand for and they have never said otherwise. I do not believe they are holding themselves out as some middle of the spectrum party.
Now, I have yet to hear from anyone WHY they believe the conservatives have moved to the left to take over the middle of the spectrum from the liberals. Perhaps I can be convinced, but so far I have read nothing but assertions this is so, without any evidence to support that.
“high school socialist debating club.”
Where they only debate against each other and everybody loses.
Shamrock:
Good assessment. I’ve long been annoyed at the way the political spectrum is abused these days.
An interesting modern development is how many progressive liberals have abandoned
classic liberalism, and how many modern conservatives have adopted it. Thus many
conservatives are more liberal than the liberals!
A 2D political spectrum test is available at
I test as “lower central”, half way between Friedman and Ghandi. I don’t know whether to be complemented or not.
Gayle.
Conservatives have moved towards the middle of the political spectrum in order to pick up votes from moderate Canadians that may not be in favour of some of the more “conservative” policies of the old reform/Alliance party. Westerners TEND to be more independently minded and in favour of smaller government than people of say Quebec or Toronto. (I know I’m generalizing). This worked well for the smaller and accountable government policies of the reform and is a reason why they held so many seats in Western Canada.
The Conservatives of today have moved to the center to pick up votes from mainly disgruntled Liberals and Bloc voters knowing that they would not lose a significant amount of right wing voters as there is nobody else on that side of the politiical spectrum to lose votes to.
The Liberals feeling this squeeze are moving more and more left trying to steal NDP votes.
Just my opinion.
Incidentally, Robbins research has a sound polling scientific method and is not influenced by any of the MSM outlets or political parties by having contracts with them. If anyone would care to point out to me how their polling methods are not sound I would like to hear them.
left, right, middle…a load of bs….it comes down to 2 groups…those that support themselves, and those that require the state to do it for them….the teat sucking and trough wallowing that goes on in this country is mind-boggling..and if you dare demand a say in how your own money is spent, they label you a fascist…MOONBAT IDIOTS!!!!i am atheist, pro-abortion, pro legalization of marijuana, so how can i be a neo-con?????but i’ll be damned if i would ever think of voting anything but conservative!
Kingstonlad.
I agree that arguing about who is left or right is largely irrelavant when talking about specific policies. I would rather people decide to look after themselves than have the Jack Laytons and Stephane Dions of the world wipe their ass for them at my expense. If that makes me extremely right wing–so be it.
An interesting Freudian slip in the purported e-mail (even if it proves to be a hoax).
Check the third reason for getting rid of Layton. It says “No Lasting Campaigns. The recent Afghanistan campaign conducted by Jack Layton has largely been abandoned, as it has by the rest of the media….”
The “rest” of the media? In addition to what – the NDP? Or just Jack?
Freudian it may be, but it does seem to reinforce the idea of a natural (if informal) alliance among the anyone-other-than-the-Conservatives crowd.
JWP:
I so agree with your comments about parties “morphing to the left” and thus, if your political position remains the same, then over time, you must change your party allegiance.
What was considered a “liberal” concept in the past usually becomes “conservative” as time goes on because conservatives do generally like to keep things as they are. And if, “as they are” means “the way things have been for the past 50 years”, then that means it’s yesterday’s “liberal” idea. Take, for example, Free Trade.
Liberals and NDPers positively freak out when you say that the CPC is the “new center”…but it really is…mostly because, over the past 13 years, the Liberals moved the goal posts so far to the left that people have a hard time figuring out what is center anymore.
I have made this point several times…but I will make it again:
The CPC has the same position of social issues (abortion, gun control, and SSM) as the Socialist Part of France. Only in Canada can this be called “extreme” or “far right-wing”.
The truth is that no one on Earth (except Canadian leftists) would describe the CPC as right wing.
Seems to me that it is the Libs and Dippers who are stuck in the past – about 50 years ago.
Kingstonlad:
Dead-on.
A perfect example of this is the CWB. Look at how the Dippers and Libs are prepared to fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo monopoly power of the marketing of wheat and barley in Western Canada.
How they can look grain farmers in Western Canada straight in the eye and say “we know what is best for you and how it has to be done” even though it is the individual farmer who takes the financial risk is absolutely beyond comprehension.
It speaks volumes for what they think of the Western Canadian food producer, the lions share of which I would suggest have untapped marketing savvy and the willingness to express it to improve their enterprise’s bottom line.
Please, oh please, give Robert McClelland an actual position in the official NDP organization, then sit back and watch the self-immolation begin!!
Johnboy – I understand why you believe conservatives have moved to the left, and that may be true, but as you know, I do not think they are in the “middle” (though, as many people pointed out here, what does that mean anyway). I must disagree with one of your points though. The only reason why we have the current incarnation of the conservatives (born from the inception of the Reform party) is that Albertans grew disillusioned with the federal conservatives under Mulroney. Do not make the mistake of believing there is no competition from the right – the whole reason why the liberals were able to dominate politically during the 90’s is because that competition on the right between the conservatives and the reform. This is why I suggested ET come to Alberta and tell voters here that the conservatives have moved to the middle.
One of Harper’s biggest obstacles is keeping the party base happy, while wooing voters from Ontario and Quebec. This is why, in my opinion, he is not being more specific on Senate reform. To placate Albertans he will have to advocate for a Triple E Senate – something that is not likely to fly in Ontario and Quebec.
So far he has performed this task brilliantly – but at some point things are going to come to a head. Either that, or ALbertans will see the light and move to the left along with the rest of the country.
Just my thoughts.
Now I must retire for the season. To you, and everyone else here I wish you all a very Merry Christmas. See you in the New Year!
Kingstonlad. While I agree that left and right labels are irrelevant, extreme terms like extreme are my annoyance. Like I said, for some, if you agree with something, then it is progressive, if not then it’s extreme. I think we must debate issues, unless we want to go back to the dolittle era of Chretien. Canadians are susceptible to language like “mean-spirited” and, for some reason, “neo-conservative.” The CPC is a moderate political party by a reasonable standard, unless all things markedly diffent, for example your view on the efficacy of government, can be labelled progressive or extreme. So, it’s important so we cannot let the “left” get with away with this labelling, or be drawn in .
I know most Canadians are disengaged, but the best results happen on the margin anyway, for instance, in large Canadian cities. Good debate is good, muckraking is uselss, unless one has nothing else to work with.
“When I was young, I was a fire breathing new democrat, was even called a commie by EB Osler himself.”
Posted by: jwp at December 20, 2006 12:07 PM
I thought most everyone had forgotten about old “EB”. What a unique and wonderful old character he was. When did he call you a commie?
“When did he call you a commie?”
In 1972 at a high school meet the candidate thing at John Taylor in Winnipeg. I asked my question, which I think was “how does it feel to campaign knowing you are going to lose to some one like Dan McKenzie” (who was a PC, but remember I was a dipper) For some weird reason he called me a communist. Could never understand that one!
Funny you got the fake email too. And posted under the guise of the non.partisan ‘coverage’. The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper. And for good reason.
“The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper. And for good reason.”
What’s to fear, gassy Jack and peppy lepew? Too funny.
Stevie Wonder could see through these two, but apparently some Canadians can’t.
The fact that the Libs are polling ahead of Harper really has to make me question the validity of these polling companies. Harper is the best thing to happen to Canada since hockey, beer, and beaver.( I mean beavers)
eRuoy:
Knowing Harper, the Conservatives already have their election policies, strategies, and war chest ready to go. They dropped in the polls during the Liberal convention, but most of that was temporary. Harper has also proven to be a damn good campaigner.
The Liberals don’t have their policies and strategies in place due to their recent change in leadership. Dion desparately needs time to organize and assert himself.
The NDP are currently in a tailspin, and would likely get slaughtered in an election right now. They need time to do, well, something.
The Greens and Bloc don’t look to be in bad shape for an election, although the Greens do have a new leader.
Sorry, but your conclusion doesn’t make much sense.
Both the libranos and dippers are in dire financial straits and it is doubtful that they can mount a credible campaign. Canadians are tired of Layton’s meaningless jibberish. Furthermore, Canada is only allowed one Prime Minister that cannot speak comrehensibly per Century, and fortunately Chretien used up both centuries so that lets out stephane (meet my dog Kyoto) Dion. For all intents and purposes Harper is running a majority government, albeit one that requires some stick handling.
Another strike against the libs and new moonbat party is that the public is beginning to wise up to the left spinning MSM and are not only showing antipathy to the MSM but are beginning to think they are on par with Liberals and lawyers for ethics, (particularly the CBC and more and more CTV)
I would really like to see the public start to get up in arms about scuttling the CBC altogether.
Layton resign? Wishful thinking. I don’t think he’ll go any easier than other recent egomaniacs.
Duceppe was expected to go too after the last election and his poor results.
IFFFF Layton did resign; would there have be a party vote or could he name his replacement? (ie: Olivia)
“The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper.”
If that’s true why aren’t we already in an election? The opposition can force one at any time. The Liberals are probably terrified of an election because at this point Dion can only disappoint. You can rest assured Dion won’t have it easy like he did in the Liberal leadership race where no one paid any attention to him.
Just a few thoughts, triggered by the many insightful comments:
The CPC is indeed moving toward the political centre. Barring major error(s) by LPC (another big scandal would do), this is necessary to gain seats in Ontario. The reason that they CAN do so, is that the LPC has partially ceeded the centre by moving left. This has invaded weak NDP base support that likely strategically votes liberal to shut out CPC candidates in the close ridings. It is reasonably safe for the CPC to move towards the centre, since their base is unlikely to vote for anyone else. The only alternative party for “right-wing” voters is the CHP (who only captured 0.2% of the vote in 2006, down from a high of 0.8% in 1988).
We are in a situation similar to what the British found themselves in about a decade ago, but we are more politically placid than they, so corresponding change will take longer. Dion MAY have a hope of leading a minority government, but the longer he waits, the less likely it will become.
Should be interesting…
Tenebris, I agree with most of what you say. I don’t think Dion has a snowball’s chance in hell of taking on Harper though. The more I see of these two the more impressive is Harper and the more laughable is Dion. Harper would eat Dion for lunch in a debate and could probably even get him to cry and/or wet himself in true French tradition.
eruoy,
The difference between a conservative and a Lefty is that principals are more important than winning. If the PM decides to go down on the Afghanistan issue or the CWB issue at least he will fall because he stood for something. The Liberals will say anything and do anything to get elected and corruption is theri modus operandi.
A conservative writer once said that the difference between a Liberal and a conservative is the fact that:
A Liberal will identify with the perpetrator of a crime and try to find a way for him not take a responsibility for it.
A conservative will identify with the victim of the crime and assist in finding the culprit and assist in that persons recovery.
Liberals of late tend to have principals made of mush and are proud of it.
“Erouy lla seztup”, or actually:
“Youre all putzes”
You must be typing while looking in a mirror…it explains your blogging name and your message nicely. You’ve got everything backwards…Dion and Layton are the ones who should be worried.
They’ve got nothing but empty rhetoric to sell…just more hot air…no substance. And they’re going up against a man of substance.
By the way, Eruoy, there’s no “e” in “your”…uoy tiwt.
To be fair
“you’re” sl. contraction for “you are” in a sentence, “You’re never going to believe the BS that Dion is laying down about the wheat board!”
“your”.. belonging to, as in “your house” or “your health” in a sentence “Shall we drink to your health or mine?”
“Critics often accuse me of offering only the viewpoints of conservatives in the Canadian political debate.”
That’s kind of like calling the pope catholic.
“I trust that this goes at least partway towards a new commitment at SDA to provide balance.”
I’m not going to defend Layton because I don’t paticularly like him but so long as you go out of your way to only show what you percieve to be “the other side” in the most negative light possible (terrorist enabling traitors anyone?). If you’re going to serve up politicaly partisan red meat (and let’s face it, that’s what people read SDA for) don’t bother with the pretenses.
Yb hsog, er’uoy thgir, sesoM! I ezigolopa eruoy. Er’uoy llits a tiwt, hguoht.
Sorry Kate, that’s enough from me.
The differance between a Conservative and Liberal is a Conservative tells you what they think and a Liberal tells you what they think you want to hear.
I’m surprised to discover that Taliban Jack hasn’t sat down to negotiate with his various opponents. That’s supposed to work, isn’t it Jack? Come on Jack, show us how it’s done, show us how effectively you can negotiate a peaceful end to this little conflict.
Loss of credibility. Issues like the environment, child care and Afghanistan have all been supplanted by other party leaders or abandoned by Jack.
Poor Jack. Out-commied by the Conservatives.
The question is, unless you’re a Conservative politician, party hack, lobbyist or government contractor with the right connections, why would this be any reason to celebrate?
On the environment, the fraudulent hysteria over CO2 was ignored in favor of a fraudulent hysteria over “really toxic” chemicals. Government will still expand, but different lobbyists and bagmen will be able to bring home the bacon depending on whose hype the public falls for.
Jack’s child-care platform – boot camps for tax slaves – was supplanted by government cheques mailed directly to those who are entitled to their entitlements. While I prefer families and grandmothers to get the money over unionized professional nannies, I can smell pork sizzling as well as anybody.
Afghanistan is harder to figure out. As far as I can tell, the major political parties all have the same goal – to expand the Trudeaupian welfare state into central Asia using billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers’ money. The only difference is that the NDP want to negotiate with the people over there who don’t want this to happen, whereas the Conservatives want to kill them. But this disagreement would be understandable if it turned out that the NDP receive a lot of financial and political backing from the welfare industry, and the Conservatives have a special relationship with the defense industry. Because as you all know, you people who are constantly carping about boondoggles like the NEP, CWB, the Gun Registry, etc. it’s never “the people” who benefit from Big Government. It’s “the people with connections”.
IMO the Conservatives ARE in the centre. It’s just that compared with the ComDips, they seem right wing…it’s all relative I guess.
PaulStuff hit the mark!
Joe Molnar:
Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom Federally subsidized apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000.
This is a lie. They do not live in a subsidized apartment. They live in a co-op and pay market rate rent. People who pay market-rate rent in co-ops help subsidize those who pay the lower subsidized rates. This is a blatant, outright lie.
new democraps are in serious pathological denial.
really pasted in the byelection here in the biggest hick town on the continent despite much showing of dipper faces.
at the very VERY best, socialism is a means to an end, a way of prompting some fine tuning and minor adjustments in social policy and government priorities. gawd help anyone who gives them full reign, just look at other socialist countries and our own ndp induced fever with the duplicious bob rae.
you simply cannot continue to draw blood from rock; there has to be extremely long term underpinning of the economy based on wealth generation and entrepreneurialship. government owned enterprises are DESIGNED to lose money regardless if there are privately held competitors.
new democraps dont go below 12% or above 16% in the polls which is an indication of their hard line support plus a rough proportion of the perpetually undecided.
lieberals are even worse.
Slab- yes, you’re right, it’s not a subsidized apartment. But, the intent of the housing development was to provide low-cost housing for people making considerably less than $120,000/year. By taking up residence and paying “market rate”, they are still taking up a space that was intended for someone of less means. Layton’s, and your, position is a dodge. It ignores the concept of consequences. It’s no different than the way other limousine socialists like Bono operate. Jet-set around the world haranguing the middle class to pay more taxes for their pet socialist projects, while successfully avoiding paying any taxes themselves. Here’s my suggestion-Tell the Bono’s (and Jack Layton’s) of the world- when you are donating so much of your hard earned money to good causes that you are living off of the same net-net income (after tax, after gas, after groceries, after mortgage) as the avrage middle class Canadian family, I’ll start to pay attention. Until then, go pee up a rope.
THICKSLAB –
Look it up in Wikipedia!
Under jack Layton.
“I asked my question, which I think was “how does it feel to campaign knowing you are going to lose to some one like Dan McKenzie” (who was a PC, but remember I was a dipper) For some weird reason he called me a communist. Could never understand that one!
Posted by: jwp at December 20, 2006 04:18 PM”
You probably said something particularly nasty about the guy EB was about to lose to. Dan Mackenzie did have a reputation among the Winnipeg lefties for being about as extreme a public Conservative as could be found in Winnipeg at that time.
Brings back old memories. And you were right about your prediction. I would not have considered EB a Trudeaupian, but he was a one term wonder (1968 to 1972) swept in partly because of “Trudeau-mania”; then went on to be an amateur historian. The other guy in the election was the Rev. Harvey Moats, an early head of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
Canadian federal election, 1972
Party Candidate Votes Winnipeg South Centre
Progressive Conservative Dan McKenzie 25,550
Liberal E.B. Osler 20,516
New Democrat Harvey H. Moats 10,460
Joe Molnar,
You are still a liar. Co-ops function because they mixed-income tenants, some paying market rent and others paying rent geared to income. Layton and Chow were paying market rent.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Bill Greenwood
Look – it’s not a dodge. Co-ops are *intended* to have a mix of incomes, and Layton was not taking a space intended for someone of low income. A certain number of units are set aside for people with low income, and a certain number for people to pay market rent. People who live in market rent units don’t take units away from those of lesser income.
You obviously have no clue how mixed-income co-op buildings work.
Market rents in Toronto by all accounts for three bedrooms were at least three to five hundred hundred dollars more per month than Layton & Chow were paying to live in a government subsidized co-op housing project.
Those were the facts. Not lies.
The history of the situation cannot be revised by co-op housing rationalization or name calling.
An email was a hoax? *gasp* that must like never barely ever happen?
Joe Molnar: It’s not rationalization, it’s the way co-op housing works – and you are a liar.
Most of us have bashed the french at least once, but they do have one good policy re elections. If no candidate gets 50%+1 of the vote, the losers are dropped off the ballot, (like a leadership vote) and a runoff election is held the following week with the two top candidates on the ballot. Sure would work in Canada when some ridings have 7-8 candidates running. Either that, or a take off on the US primary system. Each riding votes on a party to enter a candidate. Top three can run. I am tired of a house full of MPs that are only there because more people voted against them than for them, then try to tell us the majority of cdns voted for them. Maybe that would increase voter turnout. Another choice would be 2 ballots, one for PM and one for your MP. Imagine taliban jack as PM, with nothing but non ndp mps. As for the coward dion, how long was he environment minister, and what did he do, and he is praised. How long has Rona been the minister, and why is she vilified. At least Credits are being talked about now, and dion could not explain how they work or what they would cost, or how they would be paid for. When will the truth re the Green party be told, that it is one party with headquarters in europe and branches in many countries. Policy is set in Europe. Remember, Greens lied (DDT) and millions died.