admin – Page 104 – David Akin’s On The Hill

What will the NDP do? Election this year or next?

Over the next week or so, Jack Layton's NDP are essentially going to be called upon to give Stephen Harper's government another year in office. My bet is: They will. That makes me part of “Team 2012”, those who believe the next federal election will be in 2012 and not this spring. I was actually on the Team 2012 bus for a long time but I must confess the Speaker's contempt rulings and the Carson affair was enough to get me to signal that I ought to get off the 2012 bus at the next stop. Then we learned late today about some of things the Conservatives will put in their budget Tuesday including:

A boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement of $600 a year for single seniors and $840 a year for couples.
The extension of the EcoEnergy tax credit to give homeowners an incentive to make homes more energy efficient.
Forgiveness of student loans of new doctors and nurses if they work in rural and remote areas.
$4 million to a Thunder Bay, Ont. research institute — and both Thunder Bay MPs happen to be NDP MPs
A new initiative to help veterans find jobs in the construction industry — an initiative Jack Layton lobbied Flaherty for personally.

So I was asked tonight by a friend of mine a question I've been asked lots frequently in one form or another: What is your sense of the NDP willingness to have an election?

And here's my answer:

My sense is that there are election hawks in all parties. But at the end of the day, this is the call the leaders have to make. It's my information that Harper, for example, doesn't want an election though many of his closest advisors want one.

Because this is the leader's call, I've focused my attention closely on NDP Leader Jack Layton over the last few months. Some in Layton's party, including some MPs, seem to be itching for a fight. But at the end of the day, it is Layton who has to make the final call and convince his caucus that his final call is the right move.

I think Layton will be able to say — with a great degree of truth — to his caucus and to his supporters that the NDP's frequent budget “asks” resulted in an EcoEnergy tax credit, a GIS bump, some money for new doctors and so on. Because they were the ones who asked for this stuff, the NDP can — again, with quite a bit of truth — turn to their supporters and say, “See? That's why you elect NDP MPs. Even though we are the smallest caucus in the Commons, we can deliver for our supporters. What did the Liberals get for their supporters? Nothing. And we voted against those corporate tax cuts before they could take root. The Liberals didn't even show up. And now, when we have a chance to do something for the environment and to do something for seniors, well, we think that's pretty good for a party with fewer than 40 MPs.”

My friend asked, of course, about “willingness” to have an election and what I just wrote is the answer to a different question. So let me answer what I was asked: I think the NDP are quite willing to go to the polls. In meetings with NDP operatives, they've laid out a credible plan to win more seats than they have now, even if they don't increase their popular vote that much. My hunch is that if they can boost their popular vote on e-day to anything above 20 per cent, they stand a very real chance of becoming the official opposition in a scenario where the Tories win a majority and the Liberal vote collapses. So they're willing. But will they go this week? I don't think so.

How about you? What's your sense?

NDP MP tries to build support for bill to limit CEO salaries

Jim Maloway, the NDP MP for the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood-Transcona, has an ad (reproduced below) in this morning's Winnipeg Sun in which he's trying to build support for “The Canadian Shareholders Act”, which, the ad says, he is introducing to Parliament. Don't see it on the list of private member's bills or on his Web site yet, though … Any links?

Maloway

The privilege drama continues: Liberals accuse Tories of screwing around…

When we last left this drama, you'll recall, the Speaker of the House of Commons had ruled that there was a prima facie case that the Harper Government™ and one of its cabinet ministers, Bev Oda, were in contempt of Parliament. But, as per House of Commons rules, Speaker Peter Milliken may not actually make a finding of contempt. Only the House of Commons as a whole can find someone or something in contempt of it. But before the House of Commons debates and votes on this prima facie case, “the normal practice”, as Speaker Milliken put it, is to have these matters referred to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons to hash it out ahead of time; hear from some witnesses; and see if there is any horse trading to be done that might resolve the issue.

The group charged with this weighty work is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, often a bit of a sleeper when it comes to committees. Its permanent meeting room is 112-N, a tiny albeit cozy committee room buried in the basement of the Centre Block at the back of the building. But tomorrow — as it begins three full days of testimony and debate into these matters of privilege, it has relocated to Centre Block's main floor and to one of the Parliamentary precinct's more majesterial committee rooms – 253-D, a room watched over by the Fathers of Confederation and capable of accommodating the great number of journalists and other visitors who will, no doubt, want to sit through every minute of these proceedings. The room is also wired for television which means you'll be able to watch it wherever you are in Canada.

The procedure and house affairs committee (or PROC for short and pronounced to rhyme with crock) is seized with these matters stemming from the Speaker's rulings because the House of Commons itself directed it to be seized with this matter, specifically with this motion from Liberal MP Scott Brison:

That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to fully provide the documents as ordered by the House, the matter be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report back its findings and recommendations no later than March 21, 2011.

and with this motion from Liberal MP John McKay:

That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee report back no later than March 25, 2011.

“The matter” that McKay refers to is all about Oda, the minister for international development. Speaker Milliken summed up the issue at hand in his ruling on March 9:

On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development was presented to the House. It is a short report which focuses primarily on testimony by the minister [Oda] and her officials on December 9, 2010, in relation to the process that led to the rejection of a funding application by KAIROS …

… In particular, much attention is given to determining how the word “not” made its way into the assessment of the KAIROS funding application submitted to the minister for approval. The last part of the report links this testimony with “other information before the House” and draws “attention to what appears to be a possible breach of privilege”.

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River [McKay] told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

[As a result] .. the Chair is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case.

So now it is up to PROC to consider the Speaker's rulings and, as per those two motions, report back to the House on Monday on the Brison motion and on Thursday, March 25 on the McKay motion. (In between we will be treated to a federal budget on Tuesday, March 22).

At 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Conservative MP and PROC chairman Joe Preston (left) will bring down his gavel in 253-D and the committee will begin considering the Brison motion. The witnesses off the top will include some procedural and legal scene setting from Rob Walsh, the law clerk and Parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons. Then Suzanne Legault, Parliament's information commissioner will make a presentation followed by a break for lunch.

Then, after lunch, beginning at 1:30 p.m., the government is offering two ministers: Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. This makes sense because the government is accused of contempt in failing to provide another committee of the House of Commons with detailed costing estimates of its “law-and-order” legislative package.

But Toews and Nicholson are slotted in only for an hour — and they will be accompanied by no less than 10 senior bureaucrats to assist them.

“The Conservatives have been saying that they would cooperate. But at tomorrow’s committee, they’re jamming 2 ministers and 10 officials in a single hour,” Brison complained Tuesday evening. “Looks like they’re still playing games to avoid giving Parliament and Canadians straight answer, as well they still refuse to provide Parliament and Canadian taxpayers with the real cost of their U.S. style prison agenda.”

Political daybook chock full as MPs dispatched everywhere to spread the gospel of their government

The communications masterminds in the Harper government are taking advantage of the fact that MPs are back in their ridings this week to co-ordinate vast “messaging campaigns” — the goal being to win a headline, photo or other notice in local or regional media in which the local MP gets to sing the praises of a government program. Today's theme is the Knowledge Infrastructure Program or KIP. KIP was a $2 billion fund — one of a few infrastructure funds – set up at the beginning of the recession as part of the government's so-called Economic Action Plan.

While there is some reasonable evidence that other infrastructure programs, particularly the Recreational Infrastructure Fund (RiNC) were used to funnel money to ridings held by Conservatives, the KIP program seems to have been the reverse of that: Money from that program went disproportionately to ridings held by the Liberals and the NDP. That would seem to make sense on that face of it: RiNC was for hockey arenas and ball fields. Conservatives tend to hold geographically large ridings in rural and small-town Canada — and every town in those large ridings probably found park or arena that needed fixing. KIP money, though, is reserved for new projects by colleges and universities which tend to be clustered in urban areas where you tend to find the country's Liberal and, to a degree, NDP MPs.

But I digress: What I really want to do was show you how thick the calendar is. And these are only the events the Parliamentary Press Gallery was told about. There are likely many other events put on by a local MP who didn't bother to alert the national press about it. All times here have been converted from local time to Ottawa time:

08:00 – 08:30 | Minister KEITH ASHFIELD – KIP announcement (Fredericton, NB)
08:30 – 09:30 | Minister TED MENZIES KIP announcement (Halifax, NS)
09:00 – 10:00 | MP Bernard Genereux – Possible KIP announcement (La Pocatiere, QC)
09:00 – 09:30 | Minister CHRISTIAN PARADIS – KIP Announcement (Thetford Mines, QC)
09:30 – 10:30 | SEN Fabian Manning – KIP announcement (Conception Bay South, NF)
09:50 – 10:15 | LPC MICHAEL IGNATIEFF and MP Denis Coderre- Photo op (Montreal, QC)
10:00 – 11:00 | MP Terence Young – KIP announcement (Oakville, ON)
10:00 – 11:00 | Minister GARY GOODYEAR and MP Gary Schellenberger – Small biz announcement (Stratford, ON)
10:00 – 11:00 | Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives – Alternative Budget (130-S)
10:00 – 11:00 | MP Bruce Stanton – KIP announcement (Orillia, ON)
10:00 – 11:00 | Minister JAMES MOORE – Language announcement (Saint Hyacinthe, QC)
11:00 – 12:00 | Minister DIANE FINLEY – Social housing announcement (London, ON)
11:00 – 12:00 | Minister JULIAN FANTINO – Social housing announcement (Scarborough, ON)
11:00 – 12:00 | Minister STEVEN FLETCHER – KIP announcement
11:15 – 11:45 | MIN ROB MOORE – KIP announcement (Moncton, NB)
11:30 – 12:30 | Minister VIC TOEWS – Safety announcement (Regina, SK)
11:30 – 12:00 | LPC MICHAEL IGNATIEFF – Media Avail (Montreal, QC)
12:00 – 13:00 | Minister GAIL SHEA – KIP Announcement (Charlottetown, PE)
12:00 – 13:00 | Minister RONA AMBROSE – KIP announcement (Edmonton, AB)
12:00 – 12:30 | MP Laurie Hawn – KIP announcement (Edmonton, AB)
12:00 – 13:00 | MP Shelly Glover – Agri-Health Research
12:00 – 13:00 | MP Merv Tweed – Small biz announcement (Souris, MB)
12:00 – 13:00 | Minister LYNNE YELICH – KIP announcement (Saskatoon, SK)
12:15 – 13:15 | MP Alice Wong KIP announcement (Richmond, BC)
12:30 – 13:30 | Minister JAMES MOORE and MP Jacques Gourde – KIP announcement (Drummondville, QC)
12:45 – 13:45 | MIN PETER VAN LOAN – Speech on Africa (Toronto, ON)
13:00 – 14:00 | Minister GARY GOODYEAR – KIP announcement (Waterloo, ON)
13:00 – 13:30 | PM HARPER, MIN STOCKWELL DAY, MP Nina Grewal, and MP Dona Cadman – photo opp (Surrey, BC)
13:00 – 14:00 | Minister CHRISTIAN PARADIS – Snowmobile cash (Saint-Sebastian, QC)
13:00 – 14:00 | Minister KEITH ASHFIELD – Funding announcement (Edmundston, NB)
13:45 – 14:45 | MIN GARY LUNN – KIP announcement (Victoria, BC)
14:00 – 15:00 | Minister JOHN BAIRD – KIP announcement (Ottawa, ON)
14:00 – 15:00 | Minister DIANE FINLEY and MP Ed Holder – KIP Announcement (London, ON)
14:00 – 15:00 | Minister DENIS LEBEL – KIP announcement (Trois-Rivieres, QC)
14:30 – 15:30 | PM HARPER, MIN STOCKWELL DAY – announcement (Vancouver, BC)
15:00 – 15:30 | MP Ed Fast – Agriculture announcement (Abbotsford, BC)
15:30 – 16:30 | MP Laurie Hawn – Funding announcement – YMCA (Edmonton, AB)
16:00 – 17:00 | Minister DIANE ABLONCZY – KIP announcement (Calgary, AB)
16:00 – 17:00 | Minister ROB MERRIFIELD – Infrastructure announcement (Yellowknife, NT)

Andrew Coyne's most excellent jeremiad – rebuilt from Twitter

So tonight we reported: “The federal government handed out yet another cheque Monday to a Quebec snowmobiling club, the latest in more than $6 million of federal funding announcements that have gone to snowmobile clubs in that province since the last federal election.”

That set off Maclean's national editor Andrew Coyne but it set him off on Twitter which means that unless you were there in real-time it might have been a bit difficult to see his jeremiad being written in real-time. I must say I agree with much of his complaint. So: I've copied and pasted and, voila, Mr. Coyne as he appeared, in full throat, beginning at about 9 pm this evening:

Q: Will any federal party protest at the distribution of $6 million of federal money to Quebec snowmobile clubs? A: Not on your life.
They didn't object to rest of the “stimulus” porkapalooza. Only complaint was 1 it wasn't enough & 2 more should've gone to Grit ridings. 34 minutes ago
We have a govt that doesn't care the first thing for the taxpayer, has no clue of the proper role of govt or any intent of living within it. 32 minutes ago
And we have four parties to the left of them. 32 minutes ago
Nothing has changed by substituting the Tories for the Liberals. And nothing would change by substituting the Liberals for the Tories. 31 minutes ago
Opportunism, expedience, power for its own sake, ever-expanding & ever-more-politicized government: that is the common theme of all. 30 minutes ago
Mulroney came to power vowing to clean up the mess left by Trudeau; Chretien was going to clean up after Mulroney & Martin after Chretien… 28 minutes ago
And Harper was going to clean up after all of them. Each, faced with the skepticism left by their predecessor's broken promises, went to … 28 minutes ago
… ever more extravagant lengths to stress that this time they meant it, this time would be different. And each discarded their promises… 27 minutes ago
… just as soon as they had outlived their usefulness, ie the day after they were elected. 26 minutes ago
And yet… each has *legions* of faithful partisans to sing its praises. Not professionals, who might rationalize their compromises in the.. 23 minutes ago
… usual way – I have a family to support, this is what I do, it's the life I've chosen – but people who do it for free. 23 minutes ago
And the BEST part? The mandate that entitles them to spend billions of $ on pork & 10s of millions on partisan govt ads & millions more on.. 16 minutes ago
… attack ads, as all of them do, was won with, oh, 37, 38% of the vote. 14 minutes ago
So: tell just enough lies to sucker 3 in 8 voters – or about a *fifth* of eligible voters, turnout being what it is – to vote for you… 12 minutes ago
… generally in the hope that you will steer other Cdns' money in their direction. Then spend what's left on a propaganda barrage… 9 minutes ago
… in hopes of repeating the exercise. 9 minutes ago

Former Tory MP says his party is anti-democratic

Robert Sopuck was elected the member of Parliament for the Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette in a by-election last fall after long-time MP Inky Mark decided to resign his sieat and run (unsuccessfully) for the job of mayor in Dauphin.

Mark (left), though, appears to be enjoying his freedom from the communications straightjacket he was forced to wear while he was an MP. The following letter, which Mark sent to several Manitoba newspapers, is the latest example of this former MP speaking his mind:

March 13th, 2011

Dear Editor:

Re: No Democracy in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette

The Conservative Party nomination process again is a sham. There was no real open nomination to elect a real representative for the membership in the riding. For the second time Bob Sopuck has avoided an open and fair nomination process. Bob Sopuck has been appointed again by Stephen Harper Party and Don Plett [Plett is the former party president, a Manitoban, and was recently appointed to the Senate by Harper – Akin] to represent the party in the next general election. Brian Chita, current president of the riding is only a rubber stamp for the party . When will the 700 members of the Conservative Party in the riding get to choose their own representative? One must ask the question: What value is there having a membership in a party that doesn’t respects it’s membership? This lack of democracy at the local level is wrong. It has taken western society 700 years to take the power away from the crown and put it in the hands of the commoner. Today we have a system where the MP is appointed by the leader of the party, not the members of the party. Our young men and women are sacrificing their lives in the name of democracy around the world. Stephen Harper and Don Plett, in stead of paying lip service to democracy, it s time to give the membership in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette the right to an open and fair nomination.

Yours sincerely,

Inky Mark, MP(ret.)

Strahl, Cummins to retire as Reform's Class of '93 fades away

A few hours after we learned that Stockwell Day will not run in the general election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells us (below) that Chuck Strahl (left), the Transport and Infrastructure Minister, and Vancouver-area MP John Cummins have also decided not to seek re-election. All of these announcements come as Parliament Hill is at about DefCon 1 so far as a spring election is concerned. The practical effect of the resignations of Day, Strahl, and Cummins is that the ridings associations in those areas have about two weeks to find a candidate — just in case.

Should we be surprised that any of these men are resigning? No. They have all three had long careers in Ottawa. Day is 60. Cummins turns 69 today. Strahl is 54 and living with an incurable and rare form of lung cancer that has been — thank heavens — largely dormant since its initial discovery in 2005.

Cummins and Strahl are also party of the infamous/famous “Class of 93”, the term used to describe that first wave of Reform MPs that washed up on Parliament's shore after Deb Grey had established them all a beachhead. It's now been more than 17 years since that 1993 election and many from that group have already bid adieu. Jay Hill said so long last fall. Jim Abbott, another BC MP from the class of 1993 still in the House, had already indicated he won't run. Rick Casson of Lethbridge is also serving out his final months before retiring. Liberal MP Keith Martin first came to Parliament as a Reformer in 1993 but then switched sides. Martin is also retiring at the end of this Parliament. Monte Solberg, one of Strahl's best friends, was the big name among several Class of 1993 alumni who packed it in before the 1993 election.

There are still a few MPs, though, in the Conservative caucus to carry that torch that Reformers first rode into town with. They include Harper himself (though he would resign during his first term as MP and not come back to the Commons until 2002), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Diane Ablonczy, Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan (he lost in the 2006 election but came back in 2008), and MPs Leon Benoit, Garry Breitkreuz, and Dick Harris,.

For the Conservative Party of Canada and its supporters, the departure of Strahl, Cummins, et al are part of a significant generational change as those MPs who fought those early battles as Reformers, Canadian Alliance MPs and then through the mergers of the parties of the right into government move on and those early battles fade back into history. Here's the PM statement:

“I would like to thank Ministers Chuck Strahl and Stockwell Day, as well as Member of Parliament, John Cummins for their extraordinary dedication to public service throughout the years. I look forward to working with them in the best interest of Canada until the end of their mandate.

“They have served Canadians and their constituents with distinction.

“Stockwell has an outstanding record of achievement throughout his time in Parliament. Since his debut in public service in 1986, as a Member in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Stockwell’s leadership has inspired all of us. From his role as Leader of the Official Opposition in 2000, to his success in several ministerial positions, Stockwell is respected and admired by all of his colleagues, his constituents and Canadians across the country.

“Since first elected to Parliament in 1993, Chuck has tackled each of his roles with passion and enthusiasm, and with tremendous achievement. Throughout his various ministerial positions, Chuck has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Canadians.

“John has been a dedicated member of Parliament since 1993. Throughout this time, he has made an important contribution to Parliament, to our party and, in the last five years, our Government. He has earned enormous respect for his work on behalf of his constituents and all Canadians.

“I am both honoured and grateful to have worked with Stockwell, Chuck and John.

“Laureen joins me in expressing our gratitude, and wishing them and their families the very best in their future endeavours.”

Correction: An earlier version of this post said Edmonton's Peter Goldring was not running. That is incorrect. He is running in the next general election. My apologies to Mr. Goldring.

After 25 years, Stockwell Day takes his name off the ballot

Stockwell Day

Stockwell Day, (left) former leader of the Canadian Alliance, current president of the Treasury Board, and member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla, issued the following statement today:

West Kelowna, BC

March 12, 2011

It will be exactly 25 years ago on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, that I was honoured with my first nomination to public office.

Now, after 14 years in provincial government and almost eleven years at the federal level it is time to move on. I hereby announce that I will not be seeking re-election at the end of this mandate.

Though there would be exciting and satisfying days ahead in public office, after prayerful consideration, Valorie and I feel at peace with our decision.

Along with memories which I will forever cherish, I will also forever carry a debt of unrepayable gratitude to so many people;

To my wife, who more than any person on earth is responsible for each and every success I have been allowed to experience. Her unlimited inner strength, unfailing love and untold reserves of grace have seen us through the most incredible challenges and the most wonderful breakthroughs.

To our dear family members, who have been arm in arm with us every step of the way, we would have been lost without them;

To so many supporters, workers and colleagues through the years who gave so unselfishly in too many ways to mention;

To constituents in the cities and towns from two of 's most beautiful provinces, for their input, guidance and trust in electing me on 9 separate occasions to represent them;

And to Prime Minister Harper for allowing me the privilege to serve under his outstanding leadership. That leadership has led our nation through the most troubling economic times in over half a century.

His belief (and insistence within his caucus) that every MP must be allowed equal ground to speak up vigorously for their constituents is the foundation of decision making upon which we develop the policies for our nation.

I wish the Prime Minister full success in the days ahead in the efforts on behalf of all Canadians in maintaining a Canada that stands strong and free.

And I pledge my ongoing, whole hearted support in that shared pursuit.

“They desired a better country.”

Stockwell Day, M.P.

To stop Harper, vote Liberal or NDP? Part 2

Following up on this post, in which I asked “progressive” voters whose main motivation is unseating Prime Minister Stephen Harper if they will line up behind “Michael or Jack” (Ignatieff or Layton), let me muddy the waters for those weighing that choice a bit more.

Comparing the results of the 2000 general election to the 2008 general election we might note that:

– The Liberal Party of Canada won 172 seats in 2000 mostly because the party got 5.25 millionvotes. Eight years later, the party won just 77 seats and only 3.6 million Canadians voted Liberal.

– The NDP in 2000 won just 13 seats because only 1.093 million Canadians voted NDP. In 2008, 2.515 million Canadians voted NDP and 37 NDP MPs took their seats in Parliament.

Net-net? In the last decade, the Liberals have lost nearly 100 seats in Parliament and half of those who once voted Liberal — more than 1.5 million people — are no longer voting for the red team.

By contrast, the NDP has more than doubled its seat total in the decade, adding 24, and has more than doubled the number of Canadians who are signing up for the orange team. There are 1.5 million more NDP voters now than there were in 2000.

1.5 million more NDP voters in a decade versus 1.5 million fewer Liberal voters. Hmm.

So I ask again: If you want to get rid of Stephen Harper, who do you vote for in the next general election?

A question for the country's "progressive" voters: MIchael or Jack?

Quebec

There are many on the left, centre-left, etc. who think Stephen Harper must be stopped. Usually, that phrase is sent to me as “Stephen Harper MUST BE STOPPED!” to emphasize the urgency with which my correspondent is seized on this issue. The picture accompanying this post shows some individuals who were working hard in the 2008 election to make sure Harper was not elected. I snapped this pic while covering Harper during the 2008 election campaign during a stop in Victoriaville, Que., in the riding of Richmond-Arthabaska, where these folks who wanted Harper “stopped” failed to do so by helping to elect an MP, André Bellavance, who will never be in government because he is a member of the Bloc Québecois.

I take the yearning to up-end Harper seriously. Just as the yearning in much of Alberta to defeat the Chretien/Martin Liberals of the 1990s was a serious politicial force, the yearning in some parts to defeat Harper is not to be underestimated. And yet, as I just posted on the wall of a Facebook friend from the Lower Mainland in B.C., it's one thing to yell and scream “Stephen Harper must be stopped!” – or, in the case of the voter in the picture “Vote for Harper and you Vote for the War!” – and quite another thing to actually do it. Here's what I posted on that wall:

If unseating Harper is the motivation for you at the ballot box: Do you vote Liberal or NDP? It seems unlikely — though I am happy to be convinced otherwise — that an NDP MP from Surrey or Delta will be sitting on the government benches in the House of Commons. It seems more likely that a Liberal MP from Surrey or Delta will sit on a government bench. Indeed, the combined vote of Liberals and the NDP easily surpasses the vote totals of the Conservatives in the last three elections. So, to unseat Harper, who will progressives line up behind? Jack or Michael?

As a Professional Political Reporter ^(TM), I'm very interested to hear any thoughts on this issue, either in the comments below or directly to me at david.akin@sunmedia.ca.