the recent ndp surge in popularity
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
the recent ndp surge in popularity could be just premature eJACKuLAYTON.:lol:
I think you are probably right, but timing means a lot and Jack has it timed pretty close. To his advantage is the widespread distrust of the old line parties. The burning question is would he be able to run the country any better? My answer would be YES............for awhile. On the negative side, a lot of his support is due more to emotion than reason and emotion wears off pretty fast. He has about 36 seats right now, on Monday night he'll have about 50.
Cock Bloc'd
2 Bloc Members Support NDP
Open letter states they are still sovereigntists, but NDP is best choice on May 2
Two members of the Bloc Québécois are openly calling on sovereigntists to vote for the NDP on Election Day.
Maxime Bellerose, the former president of the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve riding association, and Benoît Dumuy, a one-time political adviser to former Bloc MP Réal Ménard, have drafted a letter in which they write that the Bloc has reached its limits in Ottawa and that it's time to move on to another option.
In the letter, Bellerose and Dumuy write that they are still convinced sovereignty is the right path for Quebec, but that the struggle needs to happen in Quebec, not in Ottawa.
"While waiting for a winning referendum, voting NDP today is the solution to break the cycle of minority Conservative governments," the letter reads.
It goes on to say that for the first time, social democracy is knocking on the doors of Parliament, and that it would be a shame for Quebecers not to take the opportunity to send MPs to Ottawa who champion the values of mutual help and justice held dearly in Quebec.
The letter is signed by the two men, who label themselves as "engaged citizens."
In an interview with CBC News, Dumuy said he and Bellerose are not the only bloquistes who will be voting NDP.
"I'm not a black sheep, I'm not an anecdote," Dumuy said.
He said the vast majority of his entourage supports the Bloc, and at least three quarters of his friends and colleagues will be putting an X beside the name of the NDP candidate in their ridings on Monday.
Duceppe responds
Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he was not concerned about the letter Monday morning. At a press conference in Gatineau, Duceppe admitted the race is tight, but said his party is behind him.
"I think the vast majority of sovereigntists are with us," Duceppe said.
2 Bloc Members Support NDP
Open letter states they are still sovereigntists, but NDP is best choice on May 2
Two members of the Bloc Québécois are openly calling on sovereigntists to vote for the NDP on Election Day.
Maxime Bellerose, the former president of the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve riding association, and Benoît Dumuy, a one-time political adviser to former Bloc MP Réal Ménard, have drafted a letter in which they write that the Bloc has reached its limits in Ottawa and that it's time to move on to another option.
In the letter, Bellerose and Dumuy write that they are still convinced sovereignty is the right path for Quebec, but that the struggle needs to happen in Quebec, not in Ottawa.
"While waiting for a winning referendum, voting NDP today is the solution to break the cycle of minority Conservative governments," the letter reads.
It goes on to say that for the first time, social democracy is knocking on the doors of Parliament, and that it would be a shame for Quebecers not to take the opportunity to send MPs to Ottawa who champion the values of mutual help and justice held dearly in Quebec.
The letter is signed by the two men, who label themselves as "engaged citizens."
In an interview with CBC News, Dumuy said he and Bellerose are not the only bloquistes who will be voting NDP.
"I'm not a black sheep, I'm not an anecdote," Dumuy said.
He said the vast majority of his entourage supports the Bloc, and at least three quarters of his friends and colleagues will be putting an X beside the name of the NDP candidate in their ridings on Monday.
Duceppe responds
Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he was not concerned about the letter Monday morning. At a press conference in Gatineau, Duceppe admitted the race is tight, but said his party is behind him.
"I think the vast majority of sovereigntists are with us," Duceppe said.
I think the surge is due to mistrust and like ability and Jack is coming to the top of the list.
People don't fully trust Harper and they don't like Iggy who is left? Jack Layton. Jack has
spent his time talking about issues and has avoided the real nasty ads. Now it looks like
the Liberals are begging for votes, and their main focus is look at how bad the NDP is
while, the New Democrats talk about how they might solve a problem.
The Conservatives have chosen to take the be very afraid route and don't vote for the NDP
When you do that, people who are making a decision for change and the emotion is one
of anger at the old parties it just makes them more determined to vote in that direction.
The only one who might have some measure of impact is the Bloc. They no longer openly
attack the NDP they just say the majority of sovereigntists are with us and are not defecting
even if it isn't true its not insulting to voters of their constituency.
The Liberals look desperate and the Conservatives look mean spirited and Jack looks pleasant
and like someone you would want to have a beer with. This election has actually come down to
that. People will watching the wedding in Britain and hockey, their mind is made up and the
orange wave continues. Party strategists are pushing hard knowing its uphill for most, but they
admit, the wave will continue through Sunday its too late to stem that tide and that comes from
various party insiders in all camps, they are hoping the surge started too late to actually give
Jack a government, that is the realists are taking that position.
People don't fully trust Harper and they don't like Iggy who is left? Jack Layton. Jack has
spent his time talking about issues and has avoided the real nasty ads. Now it looks like
the Liberals are begging for votes, and their main focus is look at how bad the NDP is
while, the New Democrats talk about how they might solve a problem.
The Conservatives have chosen to take the be very afraid route and don't vote for the NDP
When you do that, people who are making a decision for change and the emotion is one
of anger at the old parties it just makes them more determined to vote in that direction.
The only one who might have some measure of impact is the Bloc. They no longer openly
attack the NDP they just say the majority of sovereigntists are with us and are not defecting
even if it isn't true its not insulting to voters of their constituency.
The Liberals look desperate and the Conservatives look mean spirited and Jack looks pleasant
and like someone you would want to have a beer with. This election has actually come down to
that. People will watching the wedding in Britain and hockey, their mind is made up and the
orange wave continues. Party strategists are pushing hard knowing its uphill for most, but they
admit, the wave will continue through Sunday its too late to stem that tide and that comes from
various party insiders in all camps, they are hoping the surge started too late to actually give
Jack a government, that is the realists are taking that position.
Jack and his wife lived in government subsidized housing while they were making $ 125,000 per year. This meant others making less could not get a place to live and had to live in the streets..
Attta way to go Jack, keep those low income bums on the streets and keep the government subsidized housing places for us types making over $100k per yr.
Your my man Jack,,,,,, keep up the good work Jack !!!!
AM 770: News. Talk. Sports. - Local News
Attta way to go Jack, keep those low income bums on the streets and keep the government subsidized housing places for us types making over $100k per yr.
Your my man Jack,,,,,, keep up the good work Jack !!!!
AM 770: News. Talk. Sports. - Local News
Hmm.. that's interesting.. That's a pretty old scandal for them to have no blood on their hands until now, no? Also, AM Talk Radio is like reading the enquirer..
Oh.. wait.. wikipedia says:
Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing co-operative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[20] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[21] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing,[22] and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time.[23] Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.[24]
..
Oh.. wait.. wikipedia says:
Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing co-operative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[20] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[21] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing,[22] and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time.[23] Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.[24]
..
Obviously, the Conservatives are digging through history, running scared.
Standard Operating Procedure.
Standard Operating Procedure.
Just go to show you something about a do-gooder???? At least that is what he tells us???
Lots!! Why do you think he lived there ???
Ok, I'm for NDs now. I like his crooked style !!
We need more corruption in gov, how else is a guy supposed to get ahead !!
So if I understand you Durry, Jack and his wife should have moved out of their home as they became more successful, rather than ending the subsidies. That sounds like a pain. What happens if their income went down? Should they go on a waiting list to move back into their old home back? Once you move out of subsidized housing, it isn't so easy to move back in?
I think you are holding Jack to a higher standard than everyone else in the subsidized housing and probably yourself.
I wonder if you would measure up to the same standard you expect of Jack. Would you keep the $325 per month subsidy or voluntarily give it back like Jack Layton? I suspect most people would keep the money.
I think you are holding Jack to a higher standard than everyone else in the subsidized housing and probably yourself.
I wonder if you would measure up to the same standard you expect of Jack. Would you keep the $325 per month subsidy or voluntarily give it back like Jack Layton? I suspect most people would keep the money.
Yea, this has been refuted a bunch of times apparently..
CO–OP HOUSING SMEAR HAS NO MERIT
LAYTON’S OPPONENTS SINK LOW WITH REPEATED ERRORS
June 17 — 23, 2004
For nearly 15 years, Jack Layton’s political opponents have being trying to smear him on the basis that he and his family once lived in a housing co–op. Every time they do, the false allegation that he was somehow cheating the system by doing so is thoroughly refuted. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop the same falsehoods from being brought up again and again.
A recent Toronto Life profile noted that, “Having enjoyed the comforts of the Eggleton era, the city’s right wing feared a Layton win and hauled out its heavy weaponry, calling him a leftist loony and painting his choice to live in co–op housing on Jarvis Street as a sneaky way to pay subsidized rents. Though the charges were false, he and Chow had to cope with staged protests outside their building. ‘There was a lot of red–baiting,’ says Layton’s former ward mate, Pam McConnell.” Layton himself has called the attacks a “brilliantly executed smear attempt.”
Now that Mr. Layton is increasing his visibility and popularity on the national stage and becoming a real threat to the political status quo, his opponents are again working overtime trying to smear him. How pathetic that this is all they have (or think they have) on him. The co–op smear was recently posted on Liberal MP Dennis Mills’ website (disguised as a constituent comment) and has reportedly been repeated by Liberal campaigners on doorsteps in at least three ridings.
Other recent sightings have included:
— On February 17th, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis responded to an NDP question about the sponsorship scandal by saying, “I am wondering if the honourable member would like to go down the path of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow living in co–op housing. Did we forget that? No.”
— Later in February, a letter writer to the CBC program The House repeated the allegation. My letter was read on air, and described as “one of many” that the show had received which refuted the charge. — In March, CBC.ca columnist Larry Zolf (who apparently doesn’t listen to The House) charged that “the couple [Layton and Chow] lived in a co–operative housing unit when their joint income was far above their fellow tenants.” The comment was subsequently removed from the article and a correction posted. — On May 31st, Toronto Sun columnist John Downing charged that “Layton and Chow blossomed in the incubator of leftist downtown Toronto politics. They’re used to living off the public purse of fat expenses and perks. Who can forget when they…tried to brazen out living in a subsidized co–op apartment?”
— On June 4th, Gillian Cosgrove of The National Post wrote that “[Jack Layton and Olivia Chow] once lived in a taxpayer subsidized co–op apartment…. It took some audacity, then, for Mr. Layton last week to accuse Paul Martin of being responsible for the deaths of countless homeless Canadians.”
One of the truly impressive and innovative aspects of co–op housing is that it is DESIGNED to be a mixed–income community. Ghettoizing low–income people has never worked; co–ops do. It seems that his political opponents cannot understand why someone who could afford to live in more luxurious accommodations would instead choose to live in a modest apartment in a community that features a wide diversity of incomes and backgrounds. But Jack Layton did and, frankly, I think that it’s something of which he can be justifiably proud.
As a recent Toronto Life profile noted, “these choices were all born of a belief that politics is less a job than a lifestyle.” Jack Layton paid full market rent when he lived in the co–op, and received no government subsidy. His co–op membership did not deny housing to a single low–income person. When he first moved in, Olivia Chow was already living there with her mother. The two households were later combined into one. By all accounts, they participated in their co–op community like any other member.
The reality of co–op housing is that, if market payers don’t fill the market units, those units are left vacant and the co–op can’t pay its bills. The mortgage doesn’t get paid, the roof doesn’t get fixed, and everybody in the co–op is at risk of losing their home.
When confronted, some critics argue that the $800 per month rent paid in 1989 was a bargain, and point to a CMHC mortgage subsidy paid to the co–op. But, this mortgage subsidy is necessary to operate a housing co– op during its initial years of operation (or, put another way, it’s the financial gap that prevents the private sector from building affordable housing). Layton and Chow made special arrangements to repay their portion of that subsidy to CMHC.
This is not a scandal, and never was a scandal. The only scandal relating to co–op housing that we should be discussing during this election campaign is the fact that Paul Martin’s 1995 budget pulled federal government money out of co–op housing building programs.
CO–OP HOUSING SMEAR HAS NO MERIT | Echo Weekly Online Edition
CO–OP HOUSING SMEAR HAS NO MERIT
LAYTON’S OPPONENTS SINK LOW WITH REPEATED ERRORS
June 17 — 23, 2004
For nearly 15 years, Jack Layton’s political opponents have being trying to smear him on the basis that he and his family once lived in a housing co–op. Every time they do, the false allegation that he was somehow cheating the system by doing so is thoroughly refuted. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop the same falsehoods from being brought up again and again.
A recent Toronto Life profile noted that, “Having enjoyed the comforts of the Eggleton era, the city’s right wing feared a Layton win and hauled out its heavy weaponry, calling him a leftist loony and painting his choice to live in co–op housing on Jarvis Street as a sneaky way to pay subsidized rents. Though the charges were false, he and Chow had to cope with staged protests outside their building. ‘There was a lot of red–baiting,’ says Layton’s former ward mate, Pam McConnell.” Layton himself has called the attacks a “brilliantly executed smear attempt.”
Now that Mr. Layton is increasing his visibility and popularity on the national stage and becoming a real threat to the political status quo, his opponents are again working overtime trying to smear him. How pathetic that this is all they have (or think they have) on him. The co–op smear was recently posted on Liberal MP Dennis Mills’ website (disguised as a constituent comment) and has reportedly been repeated by Liberal campaigners on doorsteps in at least three ridings.
Other recent sightings have included:
— On February 17th, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis responded to an NDP question about the sponsorship scandal by saying, “I am wondering if the honourable member would like to go down the path of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow living in co–op housing. Did we forget that? No.”
— Later in February, a letter writer to the CBC program The House repeated the allegation. My letter was read on air, and described as “one of many” that the show had received which refuted the charge. — In March, CBC.ca columnist Larry Zolf (who apparently doesn’t listen to The House) charged that “the couple [Layton and Chow] lived in a co–operative housing unit when their joint income was far above their fellow tenants.” The comment was subsequently removed from the article and a correction posted. — On May 31st, Toronto Sun columnist John Downing charged that “Layton and Chow blossomed in the incubator of leftist downtown Toronto politics. They’re used to living off the public purse of fat expenses and perks. Who can forget when they…tried to brazen out living in a subsidized co–op apartment?”
— On June 4th, Gillian Cosgrove of The National Post wrote that “[Jack Layton and Olivia Chow] once lived in a taxpayer subsidized co–op apartment…. It took some audacity, then, for Mr. Layton last week to accuse Paul Martin of being responsible for the deaths of countless homeless Canadians.”
One of the truly impressive and innovative aspects of co–op housing is that it is DESIGNED to be a mixed–income community. Ghettoizing low–income people has never worked; co–ops do. It seems that his political opponents cannot understand why someone who could afford to live in more luxurious accommodations would instead choose to live in a modest apartment in a community that features a wide diversity of incomes and backgrounds. But Jack Layton did and, frankly, I think that it’s something of which he can be justifiably proud.
As a recent Toronto Life profile noted, “these choices were all born of a belief that politics is less a job than a lifestyle.” Jack Layton paid full market rent when he lived in the co–op, and received no government subsidy. His co–op membership did not deny housing to a single low–income person. When he first moved in, Olivia Chow was already living there with her mother. The two households were later combined into one. By all accounts, they participated in their co–op community like any other member.
The reality of co–op housing is that, if market payers don’t fill the market units, those units are left vacant and the co–op can’t pay its bills. The mortgage doesn’t get paid, the roof doesn’t get fixed, and everybody in the co–op is at risk of losing their home.
When confronted, some critics argue that the $800 per month rent paid in 1989 was a bargain, and point to a CMHC mortgage subsidy paid to the co–op. But, this mortgage subsidy is necessary to operate a housing co– op during its initial years of operation (or, put another way, it’s the financial gap that prevents the private sector from building affordable housing). Layton and Chow made special arrangements to repay their portion of that subsidy to CMHC.
This is not a scandal, and never was a scandal. The only scandal relating to co–op housing that we should be discussing during this election campaign is the fact that Paul Martin’s 1995 budget pulled federal government money out of co–op housing building programs.
CO–OP HOUSING SMEAR HAS NO MERIT | Echo Weekly Online Edition
Last edited:
I think you might be a little out Durry. Layton's salary as an MP and as the leader of the party and leader of the opposition
is about $233, 247. and he probably earns it.