waldo Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 an election that's still a ways off... about that incumbent advantage! Currently, the tally of Harper Conservative MPs who won’t run in the 2015 election has reached 18! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 an election that's still a ways off... about that incumbent advantage! Currently, the tally of Harper Conservative MPs who won’t run in the 2015 election has reached 18! Flaherty aside, the majority of said MPs, will be 65 or older next year..... Quote
waldo Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 Flaherty isn't in that described mix... his death will involve a byelection. The reference was to, as of today, 18 existing Harper Conservative MPs have announced they will not be running in the next election... I read this to be unprecedented... and the election is some time away yet. As I said, being a recognized incumbent is a significant advantage in any riding; accordingly, to some degree that advantage has lessened for Harper Conservatives. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 The reference was to, as of today, 18 existing Harper Conservative MPs have announced they will not be running in the next election... I read this to be unprecedented... and the election is some time away yet. As I said, being a recognized incumbent is a significant advantage in any riding; accordingly, to some degree that advantage has lessened for Harper Conservatives. Yes and as I said, the majority of said retiring Tories, will be 65 or older next year.........I fail to see the issue, internally, it allows the Tories time to field replacement candidates well ahead of the next election. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 You'd better hope that's not the case or Duffy will easily beat the rap. Everything in Wright's personal and business background leads reasonable people to believe his stated motive - that he was only trying to force Duffy to do the right thing - and pay the money back! The RCMP obviously came to the same conclusion - regardless of how much you would like to slander Wright with your charges of corruption - a man who refused to accept any compensation for his role as Chief of Staff. Wright is a well credentialed and experienced lawyer. As such I'm sure he was well aware that stroking that check was illegal. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 Wright is a well credentialed and experienced lawyer. As such I'm sure he was well aware that stroking that check was illegal. I know you are hoping that something sticks to Wright - and by extension, Harper.....but how could you possibly come to that conclusion based on the evidence at hand? As I said previously, by all accounts, his entire business and personal background is one of impeccable integrity. Couple that with his legal knowledge and you can bet that it was legal - which has been supported by the fact that in spite of a detailed investigation by the RCMP, they found no evidence to lay charges. As Wright said: "My intention was to secure the repayment of taxpayer funds. I believed that my actions were always in the public interest and lawful," said Wright, who also provided myriad documents to the Mounties for their investigation. "The outcome of the RCMP's detailed and thorough investigation has now upheld my position." Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted August 24, 2014 Report Posted August 24, 2014 I know you are hoping that something sticks to Wright - and by extension, Harper.....but how could you possibly come to that conclusion based on the evidence at hand? As I said previously, by all accounts, his entire business and personal background is one of impeccable integrity. Couple that with his legal knowledge and you can bet that it was legal - which has been supported by the fact that in spite of a detailed investigation by the RCMP, they found no evidence to lay charges. As Wright said: This was not just a friend helping out a friend. Under the circumstances writing that check is illegal because it could have contributed to influencing a sitting senator when an investigation was under way. Wrights intention is beside the point. From an RCMP point of view they could well be witholding charges abainst him so he can be compelled to testify. He can be charged after if need be. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 They better release more attack ads. At this rate we're cruising towards a large Liberal majority government. I agree! Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Keepitsimple Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 This was not just a friend helping out a friend. Under the circumstances writing that check is illegal because it could have contributed to influencing a sitting senator when an investigation was under way. Wrights intention is beside the point. From an RCMP point of view they could well be witholding charges abainst him so he can be compelled to testify. He can be charged after if need be. If he is not charged after the fact, you'll readily admit that you were wrong, right? Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 If he is not charged after the fact, you'll readily admit that you were wrong, right? I stand firm on my comments about the law. You can't hold me responsible for what the RCMP chooses to do or not to do. In any case before you attempt to get ahead of the game, you should just await the trial. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 I stand firm on my comments about the law. You can't hold me responsible for what the RCMP chooses to do or not to do. In any case before you attempt to get ahead of the game, you should just await the trial. Doesn't seem to matter to you. You've just admitted that you won't be changing your mind regardless of the findings at the trial, isn't that right? Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 Yes and as I said, the majority of said retiring Tories, will be 65 or older next year.........I fail to see the issue, internally, it allows the Tories time to field replacement candidates well ahead of the next election. the 'issue', as you say, is that incumbents hold name recognition with an electorate and, again, the number announcing is unprecedented... hence why it's got some mainstream media attention. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 the 'issue', as you say, is that incumbents hold name recognition with an electorate and, again, the number announcing is unprecedented... hence why it's got some mainstream media attention. How many of the 18 are leaving safe Tory seats or hail from a riding that will redistricted? Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 How many of the 18 are leaving safe Tory seats or hail from a riding that will redistricted? make sure you let us know when you have those numbers... thanks in advance. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 Doesn't seem to matter to you. You've just admitted that you won't be changing your mind regardless of the findings at the trial, isn't that right? Nope, not right, which is why I suggested waiting for the trial. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 make sure you let us know when you have those numbers... thanks in advance. Why would I do that? I've already stated this quirk of retirements as insignificant. Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 Why would I do that? I've already stated this quirk of retirements as insignificant. then why follow-up with another question... other than your incessant need to always "have the last word/post"! If you thought it "insignificant", why drop another quote that is nothing more than you saying "go fetch" me an answer cause I don't have the wherewithal to do my own research!!! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) Nope, not right, which is why I suggested waiting for the trial. Good - glad you were clear on that. That's all anyone can ask - wait for the facts and accept the judgement. Edited August 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Derek 2.0 Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 then why follow-up with another question... other than your incessant need to always "have the last word/post"! If you thought it "insignificant", why drop another quote that is nothing more than you saying "go fetch" me an answer cause I don't have the wherewithal to do my own research!!! You brought up the apparent incumbent advantage………..it would seem, due to redistricting, the apparent “incumbent advantage” would be negated in most races. Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 You brought up the apparent incumbent advantage………..it would seem, due to redistricting, the apparent “incumbent advantage” would be negated in most races. even before an electorate gets a snif, open party nominations deal with existing MPs and name recognition. Since you appear/profess to be in the know, of the 30 new seats being created, how many existing MPs are "bounced out completely", with no riding to attach themselves to... that reflects upon their past riding attachment? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 even before an electorate gets a snif, open party nominations deal with existing MPs and name recognition. Since you appear/profess to be in the know, of the 30 new seats being created, how many existing MPs are "bounced out completely", with no riding to attach themselves to... that reflects upon their past riding attachment? Of existing Tory MPs, that are not retiring, off the top of my head, I can only think of two members bounced (Eve Adams & Rob Anders)........with that, I believe Anders plans to run in a different, new/vacated riding..... Quote
waldo Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 Of existing Tory MPs, that are not retiring, off the top of my head, I can only think of two members bounced (Eve Adams & Rob Anders)........with that, I believe Anders plans to run in a different, new/vacated riding..... no! Not "bounced out" as in lost their nomination... "bounced out" as in lost a riding attachment with the redistribution. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 25, 2014 Report Posted August 25, 2014 no! Not "bounced out" as in lost their nomination... "bounced out" as in lost a riding attachment with the redistribution. I wouldn’t know how to answer that specifically, each new riding will include a given portion of the previous riding, and in some case, including portions of a different riding……. I would assume if you were so inclined, you could compare current and future riding boundaries. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Not sure if this has been mentioned in another thread, but Waldo and I did speak about party platforms..... Tom Mulcair intends to start this fall nailing down some key planks in the NDP’s election platform — a full year before the next scheduled federal vote. The NDP leader says he’ll be unveiling “some very concrete” proposals on child care, infrastructure investment, health care funding and re-instituting a federal minimum wage, among other issues. Will this pressure Harper and Trudeau to do the same? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.