# Campaign Thoughts



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I wrote my thoughts on the state of the campaign thus far in my blog. I thought some of you might be interested in reading.

http://www.flyingmonkeys.org/~mcsimpson/archives/2004/05/28/elections_2004.php

Feel free to comment, here or there.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I can relate to your thoughts Posterboy, and appreciate you sharing them, but I cannot possibly vote Liberal. Mr. Martin is a rhetoric machine in my eyes, a seasoned politician who spurts out the appropriate statement at the appropriate moment. Perhaps he is sincere at times, but I have to question how sincere.

I have some fear of Steven Harper as well, and as a result will vote NDP. I find Jack as being intelligent and thoughtful, although he is definitely not fully prepared for this election battle. Still, he is the least "hard to swallow" candidate for me.

I was going to write (at length) about the "tainted blood scandal" of the eighties, and how it touched my family. But I'll spare everyone, except to say that it definitely sways my vote.

-Howie


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thoughts, Howie.  

And I can appreciate your feelings. I also support your intention to NOT vote Liberal this time around. Even though I am not likely to vote NDP myself.

Each of us should look very deep within ourselves and decide which way we want to cast our ballot in this upcoming election. It's going to be an historic moment for Canada, no doubt.

June 28th will be a pivotal moment for this country. It could very well determine how...or even IF...Canada remains a soverign state.

Want more of the same? Want something a bit different? Want something RADICALLY different?

Now's your chance to make your voice heard.

They won't be asking us again until sometime in 2009 or so. Between now and then, they'll be doing just exactly what they want, with absolutely NO input from us mere Canadians, after all.

Here's your chance to express yourselves. Unlike some other real democracies, we Canadians only get one single day of true democracy every four or five years.

This will be your one shot at the big time, for quite a while.

Make it count.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

It's still early, but my gut feeling is that the Conservatives have some real momentum building and the Liberals are headed for a well-deserved defeat. 

Things are about to get really interesting in Canada.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

If the Conservatives can hide Steven Harper until June 28th, then they've a real chance.....

Posterboy, I'm in general agreement. I think Martin has acted decisively (as judging by the Gagliano suing him, etc!). Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? The Conservatives seem genetically incapable of offering an alternative. Their platform is dependent on pointing out Liberal weaknesses, not their own strengths/ideas.

The election is important and I hope the turnout is good.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suspect that the turnout will be a record-breaker. Probably the highest in more than a decade.

And I agree with ((PG))...I also have a gut feeling that the Liberals have no momentum (except downward). They will be dumped in a big way, come election day.

Of course, I've been predicting this for more than two years here at ehmac. And suffering from insults and derision all the way.  

I watched CTV "Question Period" today, and pretty much all of the pundits seemed to feel the same way. They think that Paul Martin is heading downwards fast...while the Conservatives are still rising. Especially in Ontario. The Liberals are dying in Quebec. Big time.

They crunched the numbers from all of the polls so far...and declared that it was more than likely that the Liberals wouldn't have enough seats to even form a minority government, no matter who helped them out, once the vote was held.

Scary canary. (at least for long time Liberal supporters)

As for JWoodget's thoughts about "keeping Stephen Harper out of sight"....

Nothing could be further from the truth. Or less necessary, in order to win this vote.

Stephen Harper is coming across in his many public appearances as cool, calm, collected, and driven toward a better future for all of Canada...while Paul Martin is stuttering and stammering and looking blotchy. And Old. Really OLD.

Layton is like a silly happy face balloon floating over the crowd and promising everthing to everyone. He knows that he can't possibly win, and will never have to deliver on ANY of it.

Put Stephen Harper out front and compare him to either the wasted old millionaire with tax blood on his hands, or the happy face balloon that is the current head of the NDP....and you will have a clear winner.

The two old faces of the past...both making huge promises that they have NO intention of ever keeping....compared to the new face of the future.

It's NO contest.

Watch and see.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Until the Conservatives tell us whaat they plan to do, why should we believe they are any better than the liberals?

The Conservatives have been historically (though usually just through insinuation) in favour of privatizing health care, when will they give us a clear stance on what they plan to do there?

I heard they are promising tax cuts, how do they plan to pay for said tax cuts (they won't pay for themselves)?

These are questions that need answering. Until then I'm still leaning liberal. Voting in any party based on the perceived weaknesses of another party rather than the strengths of your own I believe will be a mistake. 

The whole point of campaigning is to have a bloody campaign.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The point I was making is that the general momentum is a sinking Liberal Party and a rising Conservative party. This is the situation in the first week of the campaign. 

As for the "privatisation of Medicare"...

The ONLY perrson who has said anything about "privatising" any part of the failing Canadian Health care System is Pierre Pettigrew. He is currently the Minister of Health in Paul Martin's Liberal Government.

He was reigned in rather abruptly and totally reversed his statements a day later, BTW.

Private delivery of publicly-funded and publicly-managed Health Care is a reality in all but three countries on this planet. 

They are: Canada, Cuba, North Korea.

All three systems will soon collapse. If we are lucky, and reform ours the way so very many other countries have done...then we may be able to preserve ours.

North Korea and Cuba will soon lose THEIR National Health care Systems. This is a dead nuts certainty. 

Paul Martin has already planned on how much private involvement will be needed to salvage our system. But he's NOT going to tell anyone about it till after the election.

He's already on a big enough slide into oblivion. No sense in greasing the skids.
















BTW..this nect election...just like so very many in Canadian history...will NOT be about "electing a Party to lead us". It will be all about "tossing out the old bums because we HATE them so much".

Watch and see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for your agist comments Mcnutt. I didn't really expect anything different. The ironic thing is that Harper has "old" policies that have been previously rejected. I look forward to hearing him in debate..... (look for the tight leash around his neck).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Park the political correctness for a few moments...and open your mind to new ideas, Jim. Then watch the debates and concentrate on what Harper has to say. And how he says it. Look very closely with an objective and unbiased eye. Decide for yourself if Stephen Harper looks cool and collected.

While you are doing this, try to wrap your mind around the idea that the man you are watching so very closely will be the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Probably for the next decade or more, unless he brings in term limits.  

Just the way it is.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

I'm not too sure if I'll get a chance to see the debates, but it would have been nice if the Green Party would have been allowed to participate. Although they don't have any seats nor Official Party status, they are running in all 308 ridings this election.

I find it amusing that the Bloc are able to be in national debates even though they only run in Quebec. From what I remember, there are 9 other provinces and 3 territories, too!

James


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Kids, they're all liars. It doesn't matter who you put in there.

Apathectically Yours,

Macaholic


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Heh heh. The Marijuana Party today announced their candidate to run in Martin's riding against him. Wouldn't it be funny if...



> Kids, they're all liars. It doesn't matter who you put in there.


Macaholic, *I agree 100%*.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I have listened to Harper as well as Layton and Martin. Harper has not impressed me in the slightest. We are a similar age, both married with children, yet I find I have nothing in common with the man, his opinions or his perspectives. But he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with his positions either. He is focussing on pointing out the failures of the Liberals without stating his own party line. To be honest, if I was him, I'd do the same, since it is far easier to run on someone elses mistakes than to put out your own, untested ideologies.

What he has told us so far is that he'll expand our standing military. Why? To protect our sovereignty or to play war games with other peoples lives? Is he really talking about defense? Who are the only credible threats to us?

I still hope the Canadian population will think very carefully about electing someone whose values they barely know. As I've said before, cutting off our noses to spite our faces is hardly an intelligent or practical solution. I believe that of the party platforms we have to vote on, the Liberals best represent the core values of most Canadians.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Please do vote for the Liberals, Jim. We wouldn't want it to be a total wipeout in your area, after all. The latest pollsters are now saying that it is quite concievable that the Liberals will lose ALL of their Ontario seats, given the mood of the voters.

But I think that you and the other four people who are still planning to vote Liberal should stick to your guns. 

Like I said...we wouldn't want it to be a _TOTAL_ wipeout for them.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macnutt - I haven't heard those pollsters. However the Liberals could in theory lose all those seats if people had an alternative that stood on their feet better. The Conservative party still feels like it is reeling from it's unfortunate blowups and infighting. The NDP don't seem to have the clout, and the Liberals are too accustomed to wasting money.

It's a bleak picture, but I really doubt that the areas that the money has largely been spent (Ontario and Quebec) are going to revolt against the Liberals without a truly viable alternative.

I think that the Conservatives will increase their amount of seats, but they won't take the government. People want a change, but not any of the current alternatives.

I will toast to the ousting of the Liberal government, but to whom goes the crown? Personally I'd like to see a Liberal minority, so that the Conservatives can actually prove their worth in the next 5 years and earn the trust of Canadians.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Most of this latest data is rather fresh. Today, in fact.

CTV Newsnet has an Election Watch program with long time political reporter Mike Duffy as moderator. Today at five pacific time I watched him quiz a noted pollster (didn't catch the name) who he had in studio for an up close look at the latest numbers. This pollster was unequivocal....support for the Federal Liberals in Ontario is in total collapse. With three and a half weeks to go, the Conservatives are in a dead heat with the Liberals. And the Liberals momentum is straight DOWN. The Conservatives are gaining fast and the NDP is flat or falling slightly.

In Quebec the Liberals are set to lose BIG, as well. All the numbers from all the different polling organisations are pointing in the very same direction. Plus...more than seventy per cent of Canadians have clearly stated that "it's time for a change in government" in the latest Ipsos-Reid poll. 

Three more weeks till election day as well. Once the outcome seems like a sure win for the Conservatives, then most of Atlantic Canada will probably switch over....just so they have some sort of representation in the party in power. (transfer payments and equity programs will be threatened, if they have nobody sitting on the dominant side of the house)>

The attitude toward the Federal Liberals in BC and Alberta is fiercely bad. Has been for a very long time now. The recent scandals, and Paul Martin's ill-advised and dictatorial installation of his hand picked candidates into certain key ridings....over the objections and against the votes of the majority of the Liberals in those ridings, have made it worse. Much worse. Out here, the name "Liberal" is almost a cuss word these days.

Bottom line? It's going to be a total wipeout.

No doubt you will hear all about this rapid change of fortunes for the "Natural Ruling Party of Canada" very soon. Even down there in KC.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

This morning's headling:

34 - 30, Liberals - Conservatives.

If the liberals are still ahead, how does this equal a total wipeout?

Also, are the Conservatives on an upswing or are the Liberals on a downswing?

As I have indicated before, voting for one party to oust another is a mistake. 

The only thing worse than not voting is voting without knowing which party jives with your beliefs best.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

If people actually believe there's a chance Harper could be PM, there will be a backlash. It's already started in Toronto where the Conservatives have never had a chance but the NDP was going to pick up votes and seats from the Liberals. However, the thought of Harper running a government is giving many disaffected Liberals pause for thought. The NDP may suffer because of this.

The Liberals will be depending on Hogtown yet again!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, add to this a possible Bloc Q being able to dictate certain Conservative policies for their support in a minority gov't vote. Politics DOES indeed make for "strange bedfellows". We shall see.............


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I post this at the risk of appearing to be in agreement with Macnutt's rather enthusiastic assessment of the polls...or worse...to just add fuel to his fire







. But I trust my instincts when it comes to politics, and right now I think there's a reasonably good chance that the Conservatives could form not just a minority but a majority government. 

Conventional wisdom has it that no party in this election can win a majority without Quebec. That may have been true prior to redistribution, but that's simply not the case any more (see the riding numbers below). 

I’ve been a student of politics long enough to know that nothing is ever certain during an election...people can change their minds in a heartbeat. So here’s a scenario (not a prediction...just a scenario) for your consideration about how the Conservatives could win that majority without winning a single seat in Quebec. 

Have a look at the numbers and you’ll see that it’s entirely possible. The key, of course, is Ontario, where I think a few things are bound to happen unless something dramatic occurs soon: 

(1) enough undecided voters look at the popularity of the BQ in Quebec and conclude that a minority government is too risky because it would mean giving into the separatists (opening the proverbial gates to hell); 
(2) rather than responding by parking their vote with the Liberals, enough decide their anger against the ruling party is too great and opt for the Conservatives instead; 
(3) the left vote splits in a manner similar to what has been happening on the right for the last ten years—the NDP and the Greens shave off enough from the Liberals to give the Conservatives a landslide win in the province. 


A Conservative win scenario: 
Province Ridings Cons. seat wins
B.C.--------36--------25 
Alta--------28--------28
Sask --------14--------7
Man--------14--------7
On--------106--------106
Que--------75--------0
NB--------10--------2
NS--------11--------4
PEI --------4--------1
NFD--------7--------5
NWT--------1--------0
NUN--------1--------0
YUK--------1--------0

Total Conservative seats: 185...a 31-seat majority 

Don't hold me to these numbers just yet...the campaign still has a way to go. But at this point I just think it's important that people realize how possible it is that Harper is poised to win big.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm no student of ridings but you think it plausible that the Conservatives would win *all* 106 Ontario seats? If so, then Harper would be a shoo-in. They currently hold a couple. Stranger things have happened..... 

Ontario slam dunked the Conservatives out of provincial office last Fall. Bitter memories are not that short.....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Ontario slam dunked the Conservatives out of provincial office last Fall. Bitter memories are not that short.....*

Have not the people Ontario just been handed tax increases by a Provincial Liberal leader that promised there would be no such increases?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> you think it plausible that the Conservatives would win *all* 106 Ontario seats?


Just as plausible as what happened in the 1990s with the federal Liberals almost sweeping the province thanks to voters who were voting Tory provincially. There's a long history here of that kind of swing-vote behaviour. 

As I said earlier: I'm not predicting a sweep (yet), but is it plausible? Absolutely.

The trouble with Canada's first-past-the-post system of distributing seats is that it tricks a lot of people into thinking that a sitting government with a sizeable majority is nearly impossible to beat. But popular vote tells a different story. 

Consider this: 
- in 1997 the combined Reform/PC vote was 38.2%, less than one percent shy of the Liberals' 38.5%;
- in 2000, that combined vote was 37.7% versus 40.8% for the Liberals. 

Even in the best of circumstances, I really don't see the Liberals pulling back up above 35-38% and they'll have the NDP and the Greens shaving off from their support from the left. Looking back at 1993, 1997 and 2000, the small-c conservative vote has demonstrated it can pull in about the same sum when everything is working against them (i.e., a wacky leader, an aggressive Liberal campaign team).

[ June 02, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: (( p g )) ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The pollsters are all saying that it is _quite PLAUSIBLE_ at this point that the Liberals could lose almost every seat in Ontario...given the upward momentum of the Conservatives and the rapid downward momentum of the Federal Liberals.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen, come june 28th...but the mood of the whole country is in flux these days and it sure don't look good for Martin and Co. right now.

I doubt if this is big news to anyone here. But there IS a very large "undecided" component to all of these polls. And we could see a whole bunch of the people who normally sit out the elections actually step up and vote this time around.

If that happens...and they all decide it's "time for a change" (and many pollsters have said that THIS is what they're hearing)...then it's going to be a sad day for the Liberals on June 29th.

Especially if a whole bunch of the people who DO choose to vote regularly, decide to switch sides. 

Either way...it's going to be one of the most interesting Canadian elections in more than a decade.  

Sort of like this years Stanley Cup playoffs. And almost as exciting.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I would say it's possible but not plausible.

Liberals swept the province in the past three elections in part because the vote was split between the Conservatives and the Alliance or Reform. 

Despite the hopes and ambitions of both the NDP and the Greens, they are unlikely to do the damage to the Grits that the Reform/Alliance and Conservatives were able to do to each other.

My recollection is that a unified Reform/Alliance/Conservative party would have won about 20 seats in the Great Wipeout of 1994 and somewhat more in 1997 and 2000.

Also if you look at percentage of popular vote in Ontario, rather than Canada, you'll see the Grits hovered at 50 per cent in each of the past three elections, while the combined Reform/Alliance/Conservative vote hovered just under 40 per cent.

The current polls supposedly have the Liberals and Conservatives neck and neck in Ontario. I think the Globe had it as Grits 35 per cent and Conservatives 30 per cent.

So for the Liberals to be wiped out, the Conservatives will have to climb to about 50 per cent and the Liberals fall to below 20 per cent or the level of the separate Reform/Alliance or Conservatives in the last three elections.

Possible but not plausible.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...I should like to remind everyone who is reading this of one simple fact:

Canadian elections...both Federal and Provincial...have historically been more about _DEFEATING_ an unpopular government than they have been about _ELECTING_ a new one.  

Three years ago BC voters tossed a hated NDP government out on their collective ear, after almost a decade in power. The former ruling party was reduced to only two seats...and lost official Party status, for the very first time since the NDP was formed.

From ruling party for a decade, to total oblivion...in one single vote.  

Scary stuff.

Even scarier was the fact that most of us out here weren't actualy voting FOR the Provincial Liberals. We were voting AGAINST the NDP.

We got our collective wish. The NDP was GONE! And "door number two" was suddenly catapaulted to power.

This has often been the case here in Canada. It is historical fact.

At this point...with about three weeks to go until the next Federal Election...it's shaping up as yet another "toss the bums OUT" type of vote, here in the Great White North. And, unless something very bizarre happens in the next 26 days...that's exactly what we'll all choose to do.

Prepare yourselves. We appear to be on the cusp of a big change.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Brainstrained...

If the numbers I have seen are any indication, then the Conservatives are likely to continue their upward momentum and the Liberals are likely to continue to sink in popularity. Most polls show them to be in a dead heat, given the margin of error...and there is still three weeks to go. This is a massive change from two weeks ago, when the Liberals were expected to get another (slightly smaller) majority.

One thing to consider here:

At the point during an election when one party is an obvious slam dunk win....many people will switch over and decide to elect a local politician in their riding who is FROM that Party. Just so's they have some real representation in the ruling Party.

A whole lot of others don't consider this. They just vote to dump the Party that they see as "bad".

Keep this in mind when you watch how this election is going during the next three weeks.

Right now, Paul Martin has some serious work ahead of him. Personally, I don't think he'll be able to turn it around in time.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

macnutt, if the NDP were so bad, how come still ended up with 21.56% of the popular vote? All I see is another example of the problem with the first-past-the-post voting method used in Canada.

Also, using your logic, the only reason why someone would vote for the Conservative party is because they want to vote against the Liberals. If the Conservatives were such a good party, then I would think that people would want to vote for them based on the soundness of their platform and the quality of the candidates in the election.

James


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Yes, this is a substantial swing, but even if it continues at the current pace or even accelerates, both unlikely, neither the Liberals, nor the Conservatives will reach less than 20 per cent or 50 per cent respectively.

Consider that Ipsos Reid, which does polling for the Globe, hasn't had the Liberals above 40 per cent since early January, or the Conservatives below 25 per cent since early Feb.

What really makes the swing significant is our first past the post electoral system. In the past three elections, it has worked against the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, particularly in Ontario, giving them far less representative than their popular vote. (Incidently the same could be said for the Grits in Alta.) This time it appears the Liberals will be under represented in Ontario, though not wiped out.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Stick a fork in the Liberals. They're just about done.* 
And from another topic 
*These guys are done. Pure and simple. Watch and see. 
* 
I don't see how any of this is a slam-dunk for anyone. The vagaries of FPTP voting systems can mean anything can happen. And given that the polls are made with sample sizes of 1000 people or even as little as 600, meaning provincial sample sizes may be as low as a couple of dozen individuals, indicates to me that any kind of certainty must be based more on some kind of amazing psychic ability to predict the future than on any kind of real evidence. Or maybe just the fervent hopes of a true believer.

All of the "experts" that I hear in the media are still very cautiously predicting a Liberal minority with lots of caveats. Me, I hope that's what occurs, but I wouldn't pretend to any special knowledge about exactly how the excrement will be hitting the fan. I don't see anybody else in this forum, except Mr. MacNutt, claiming to know how it will all go down, either.

Three different polling companies yesterday came up with three different results. One had Libs at 34, Cons at 30 and NDP at 16, another had 35-30-17 and another had 37-29-19. Which was right? None of the polling can give any kind of accurate idea of how those possibly error-prone numbers will translate into seat totals and there is no way they could because the sample sizes would be way too small.

So, Mr. MacNutt, if the Liberals somehow miraculously manage to avoid oblivion and win either a majority or minority government, (unlikely as it seems, but just humour me) will you be offering retractions or any other entertaining acts of contrition?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Actually, the "first past the post" system will almost certainly spell political doom for the ruling Liberals. 

They only have to lose each riding by a few votes, after all. Every indication is that this will be the case on june 28th. [...] All indicators show the Canadian Electorate to be in a volatile and vindictive mood right now. They (we) are severely pi**ed off at the crooks who have mismanaged and stolen their (OUR) tax dollars. And lied to them/us repeatedly over the past decade, when election time came around. Solemn election promises have been broken en masse, once these guys got themselves safely into power. Every SINGLE time! 

Even at the Provincial level.*

It's funny though, how you seem to hate the Liberals at the Federal level but love them so much at the Provincial level. Or, is it more hate of the BC NDP rather than love of the BC Liberals?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The BC Liberal Party was hastily lashed together from the wreckage of the old Social Credit Party of BC after their massive defeat in the early nineties. It has precious little to do with either the policies or the political philosophy of the Federal Liberals.

And, as I may have explained to you (about a dozen times) recently....

Here in politically polarised BC there must always be a "name-game" played with the electrorate. Any right wing party that wants to succeed MUST have a leftish sounding name in order to fool the leftoids into voting for them.

Hence _SOCIAL _ Credit, and BC _LIBERAL_ Party.  

The pragmatic right will vote for the most fiscally responsible and practical political party that is available. The left, on the other hand, sets a lot of stock in names. They just love to label things.

The right wing in BC would vote for the New Communist Party of BC if Ralph Klein were it's posterboy. The left would NEVER vote for anything labelled "Conservative". Not NEVER.

So we play the name game in BC. And in return, we all get together to elect a right wing party that actively pursues right wing policies...while carrying a leftish name.

(shhhh...don't tell any of the lefties. It's a big secret. Besides....we wouldn't want to disturb their naptime.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

50 out of 50 political experts in the US said Truman would be defeated.

Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, all surprises.

Bob Rae didn't expect to wake up premiere of Ontario one morning.....neither did the pol pundits.

Then there's the small problem of the world's largest democracy....another total surprise...but then MacNutt sort of missed that event totally.

It ain't over til the fat lady sings....and it's very early yet.
All we know for sure....it will be an interesting election day.

I wouldn't put away the crow marinade just yet MacNutt. It just might be needed. Must be one of them "ethnic dishes" popular in SSI


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Gratuitous Applesauce...

The polls show the Liberals and the Conservatives in a dead heat right now. This is true.

Now ask yourself what all of the pollsters are saying about which party has upward momentum and which one is tanking badly. With only three weeks to go. 









Yes...if the Liberals manage to squeak out a minority government I will stand before all of you and admit that I was wrong. Big time. count on it.

In return, if the Conservatives win a minority or a majority government (I think it will be a clear majority, BTW) ...then YOU have to buy me a beer at the Fulford Inn, old chum.

Fair enough?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes Macdoc....the world's largest democracy shocked us all by voting for an Italian-born woman who happens (by marriage) to carry the famous name of Ghandi. A name that is associated with a socialist system that kept that vast land crippled with bureacracy and mired in yesterdays ideas...until the last of them was assasinated.

Then they reformed their system from state sponsored socialism into an Indian version of a market driven economy, and the whole place began to blossom overnight. The Indian economy is now growing at a fierce 8% per year. That's as fast as Japan grew while they transformed themselves from a bombed out ruin into the world's second most powerful economy.

And the Sikh finance Minister who masterminded that incredible transformation is NOW the guy who is in charge of all of India. Mrs. Ghandi has stepped down. It happened a couple of days after the election.

Guess you missed that little wrinkle, eh? Not to worry macdoc, I'll keep you up to date on current affairs. Just like always.   

Back to the subject of this thread:

Polls notwithstanding, the Liberals seem to be getting very desperate in the last two days or so. Paul Martin is making a solemn campaign promise to resign his post if he breaks any solemn campaign promises (which is just too laughable for words, when you think about it for a moment)...

And sitting Liberal Cabinet Ministers are hitting the streets to heckle Stephen Harper during his public speeches. They showed a clip of one such encounter this afternoon....and it was a pathetic display, indeed.

The camera even caught several shocked citizens in the crowd as the Liberal Cabinet Ministers tried to make a hasty exit after the heckling turned out to be unsuccessful. The comments from the crowd were directed at the rapidly departing Liberals. They were somewhat loud and rather hateful, to say the least.

And THIS was in _ONTARIO_ no less!
















WoooHOO!!

The Martin Liberals are on a high-speed express elevator to total oblivion! No doubt about it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strange, the subject the of the thread is Campaign Thoughts and I simply outlined some situations where there were surprises. I wouldn't call that off topic at all. That certain results didn't agree with your pet theory is entirely coincidental.

Reading too much into polls right now may end you with a mouth full of feathers instead of beer.

So it's okay for Harper's handlers to keep him muzzled but not okay for Liberals to challenge him openly.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I believe you were deriding me for not knowing what was happenning in the world's largest democracy...were you not?

I fail to see what that has to do with this Canadian election. And I think you might just want to check out recent events in that country before you go off on such a tangent again. They do NOT favour the left, at all.

Also...

Stephen Harper is not being muzzled. He is announcing major policy positions every single day and is speaking in public all over the country (to cheering crowds in Ontario today).

But it IS totally out of the ordinary for sitting Liberal Cabinet Ministers to show up at an opponents public appearance and heckle him loudly. Especially when they should be on their OWN campain trail right now. 

Mike Duffy, who is one of Canada's most experienced political reporters was shaking his head and muttering about it being "an unprecedented moment in Canadian politics". He didn't seem to think that this was something that a confident group of leaders would do, either.

More like a frightened bunch of desperate losers. Ones who have given up knocking on doors and speaking to crowds while campaigning for re-election. Probably because those particular activities can be very demoralising for a Liberal these days, what with all the shouting and insults and doorslamming etc..

No kidding.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> Now ask yourself what all of the pollsters are saying about which party has upward momentum and which one is tanking badly. With only three weeks to go.


I don't know what "all" the pollsters are saying, but I heard one on the radio yesterday, saying that there is always an early shift in polling away from the incumbent that then swings back as the election gets closer. I didn't put much stock in that particular bit of voodoo, either. Because, as I said earlier, it's pretty much all voodoo, when the combatants are this close in the polling. And that is only amplified by FPTP.

The June 1st SES Research poll showed Lib-Con-NDP at 37-29-19 and on May 28 showed 34-34-18, then on May 29, 34-31-19. If you saw my link ( here ) you can see polls from several firms for over 6 months. I don't see momentum, just a lot of jostling in the same general area. The media has a big desire to create momentum, though. It's what sells papers and boosts ratings.

So I won't be buying any beers for anyone, because I ain't standing around making predictions. Harper could win. Just enough Canadians might buy the butt-ugly pig in a poke, in which case I'll need all my beer money to keep myself drunk and senseless for a few years, so I wouldn't have to watch while the Northern Republicans attempt to do to Canada what the Bush junta has done to our neighbours in the south.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well you're batting 1000........ in missteps.

India voted left.....period full stop. Reality check.

BUT.....a foreign born member of India's premiere family felt it would be unsafe and unwise for her to be PM.
So as a smart politician and well aware of her party's historical lean to the left, made what looks to be a brilliant choice of leader.

Offering the Sikhs a much overdue nod of respect, keeping the architect of the opening of India in a position of power thus allaying the world business community fears and *centering* her party's positioning both at home and world wide.



> “India needs a strong private sector and a strong public sector,” Singh told reporters,


This from the guy that started the privatization and who is now reaching for a balance of public and private interests.

As stated many times in the past - the center is where the power lies. It's where Harper is trying to get to.

Bottom line - the hard right got dumped - contrary to your pet theory.....again.

•••••••

Canada has a wide variety of conflicting pressures at play - little is based on policy, much is based on anger and justifiable wariness of a party too long in power.
Martin has tried to distance himself from the Chretien era to assuage that trend.

We'll see as the underlying policies emerge. About the only common theme is many Canadians would not mind a minority government.

And ask the reporters about Harper's accessiblity. "Watching Paint Dry" was the header from one columnist about Harper's campaign.

I certainly agree that's the right route - let the Libs self destruct but it may not playout over time.

Debate will come, policies will be examined. The we'll see if Harper can shrug off the Neo-con agenda and center the party.
A few more trip ups like the abortion comments and Mulroney consultations and Ontario cold swing just as quickly the other way.
Neither Mulroney or the last mess by Eves is far from anyone's mind here.

Anyone claiming a lock on a result right now is indeed foolish......and ripe for a feather breakfast.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, the "first past the post" system will almost certainly spell political doom for the ruling Liberals. 

They only have to lose each riding by a few votes, after all. Every indication is that this will be the case on june 28th.

As for the contention that "this momentum is unlikely to continue"...

I'm not entirely sure what you are basing this on. All indicators show the Canadian Electorate to be in a volatile and vindictive mood right now. They (we) are severely pi**ed off at the crooks who have mismanaged and stolen their (OUR) tax dollars. And lied to them/us repeatedly over the past decade, when election time came around. Solemn election promises have been broken en masse, once these guys got themselves safely into power. Every SINGLE time! 

Even at the Provincial level.  

And they will HAVE to suffer the consequences of all of this on election day. It's quite a pile of nasty baggage, after all.

Like I said previously....Paul Martin will have quite a job on his hands to turn this juggernaut around and salvage something for his doomed Party.

I just don't think he's up to it. I also don't think there's enough time to do it. The bad memories are way too fresh and the wounds are too deep. Everybody seems to have a serious hate-on for his party these days.

Stick a fork in the Liberals. They're just about done.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Another bad sign for HMS Martin Liberals*. Long-time Liberal strategist and blackbelt master of hardball politics, Warren Kinsella has thrown his support behind his local Conservative candidate. On his website (see the first post on June 3), he explains that his decision was prompted by the evident dislike of the Liberal incumbent, Andrew Telegdi. 

Somehow I suspect there are personal reasons as well. Warren, like so many other Liberals, has an axe to grind with Martin's Earnscliffe cronies...the same bright bulbs who concocted the embarrassing and undignified ploy of having cabinet ministers heckle Stephen Harper earlier this week. 

*A Canada Steamship Lines company? Surely not.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Kinsella was Chretien's righthand man behind the scenes. Martin rightly told him to take a jump. The saying, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't often ring true. May as well have JC running for the Tories


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Kinsella was Chretien's pitbull and responsible in good measure for the savaging that Stockwell Day took last time.

I'm not sure that his endorsement means as much as the fact that he's given and will likely to give a few nips to the Grits' backside.


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

Well even though I am no fan of neo con Stephen Harper (and as a dyed in the wool Liberal) I would like to see the Conservatives make a major gain in this election, as it could be a first step towards re-establishing a strong two party system in this country and hopefully, Harper a transitional presence in the process. Hope against hope I would also like to see the Bloc obliterated but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

By the time June 28 arrives, my guess is that enough people will go to the polls, hold their nose and vote Liberal. I still believe that Martin could be a very strong Prime Minister but his, on the ground, political judgement to date has been dreadful. From one who advocated reversing the "democratic deficit" in parliament his managing of democratic process within his own party has been marked by authoritarian highhandedness. His rush to judgement by firing of heads of crown corporations was political opportunism of the worst kind. The Martin camp's continuing vendetta against anything to do with the Chretien years and Liberal politicians during that period has become pathological as well as politically self destructive. For a guy who has been a federal politician for well over 15 years, he is behaving like a political neophyte who thinks that he can operate like an authoritarian CEO in a political role. he has grossly underestimated the intelligence of the Canadian electorate and their ability to connect the dots.

With all that said, unless you would like to see the federal government in the hands of an untested neo con Prime Minister, I think for many the Liberals will become the only choice on election day.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

If only Martin had saved his vitriol and bile for his political opponents on the other side of the House of Commons rather than engaging in a petty settling of scores with fellow Liberals...perhaps he'd have had a reasonably good shot at holding on to 24 Sussex.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Without cleaning house the critics would have a field day even more so and I quite honestly think that it was high on the agenda - HE got the report moving quickly - now perhaps he did not forsee the fallout on his own position.

I think the battle lines are forming up. 
( I was in a hurry hence the typos that are now cleaned up by perhaps "foaming" up is not a bad variation either....as in "foaming at the mouth"







)

[ June 04, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Maybe so Macdoc, but the way it was handled has angered and upset a lot of Liberals.

Personally, I think he and his martinites threw a lot of wood on the fire that now threatens to burn down the Liberal house.

I wonder if he's done an Al Gore, so desperate to distance himself from an administration he was a part of for a decade, that he has all but rejected it and can't take credit for the good things it did.

That attitude may have cost Gore a very close election, it might do the same to Martin.


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

I agree that he had to act quickly, but he didn't need to lose his head. His emotional response and his accusatory witchhunt (without any respect for due process i.e. "it's called being fair to those involved") and the "off with their heads" firings followed by his "mad as hell" western tour poured incalculable fuel on the fire. Then the continuing snubbing or isolating of almost any Liberal politician from the Chretien years was incredibly unwarranted and destructive of the party's fabric. (hey guys the leadership campaign was over 6 months ago) His handling of the candidate selection process ( i.e in Hamilton and in BC) after his "democratic deficit" stance leaves you wondering is this guy believeable. His behaviour and that of his crew started a preciptious slide of credibility not only for him but also his party the likes we of which we haven't seen in a long time.

With all that said I hope they pull it out. Liberal Voter Electoral Guidance - "Hold nose, drop ballot."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not an apologist for the guy and agree with the comments in general about his missteps but my guess is there were simply no smooth and subtle methods of handling the number of issues from factional infighting to scandal to parachuting in candidates that were a problem.

Personally, and I think many Canadians agree, getting all these attended to WITHOUT calling an election and showing a year of governing, world stage etc might have served the Liberal fortunes better.

Listening to Harper and Layton - both newbies - in parliament for a year would allow a far better and honed response and would have got the house cleaning out of the way internally while still holding a strong majority to make his vision real. 
I thought he had a good throne speech and had he tackled that head on without the election call could have had some traction while the Chretien era dimmed away a bit, the internal stuff sorted out and the appropriate punishments meted out to those found at fault.

The current election call is a big gamble and the dice may not fall as anticipated.


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

I agree that his big strategic error was calling the election now instead of next year. he knew last year that Sheila's "Oh My Goodness" Report was coming and he knew that they were auditing the Sponsorship piece and he knew it was going to be a bomb. He also by giving himself a year would have had a chance to establish some track record to stand on. My guess is that the Martin advisor group are a fairly desperate and greedy bunch and they chose the short term political opportunism approach of a going after a newly formed Conservative party that did not have it's act together as the way to go. Unfortunately their desperation is showing - witness the recent McCallum/Sgro one day foray into Harper heckling and the comedy was that Herle and all denied that it was orchestrated by them "that it just happened". How incredulous do they think people are. 

At certain levels Martin's advisory group are really stupid. Unfortunately it reflects really poorly on Martin.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And looming large in the background is the ghost of Jean Chretien.   

It's the hoary image of that nasty old crook that many people see when they look at Paul Martin. Chretien and Martin were, after all, the two guys who were totally in charge of the country when all of the masive waste (and outright theft) of tax dollars took place. Their names are inextricably linked in the minds of the public.

That fact alone will probably be enough to guarantee a Liberal defeat in this upcoming election.

BTW...has anyone got any comments on the latest poll results? As I speculated previously, the Liberal slide continues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gee, even the Liberals think they're toast:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086646213258&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Cheers


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

This just in, courtesy of my good friend Pierre Bourque at Newswatch. 

An SES poll released today has the Conservatives at 37 % and the Liberals accelerating their downward slide to 33%. I'm told that the numbers in Ontario are worse, pegging Conservative support around 40%. 

The Globe and Mail scribe Roy Macgregor wrote a column the other day that, I think, hits the nail on the head about what's going on out there in the towns and cities of this fair land. People are angry as hell and want to hurt someone, anyone--and at this point the main target seems to be the Liberals.

[ June 09, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: (( p g )) ]


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

Voters apparently have a very short  memory....whipped into a media hyped frenzy over wastage and patronage are Ontarians now prepared to elect the national equivalent of Harris' Neo-
Con Tories!!! 
Are people that deaf, numb and blind as to be hoodwinked by a change in name? God let us hope not. Unless, that is those casting their vote for Harper and the re-wardrobed Reform Party, seriously embrace the idea of dismantling much of the state, widening the income gap and kissing American arse full time!! 
These guys are Canadian Republicans and if their policies - the ones that they are suddenly not talking about anymore - are followed to their logical conclusion over time, the outcome will be further irrevocable integration with the U.S.

Non, Merci!!


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The SES polls have been all over the place, their samples are much too small to be objective. It's CPAC were talking about, not a big budget opperation.

The major pollsters haven't had anything in a while.

I have talked to some conservatives, and they are scared ****less... of forming a minority government, that they approximate could fall as early as Nov. and no later than Feb. And this individual, an ex-tory is concerned that if they form a government, every crack-pot (and there are alot of them) will be introducing insane private members bills on everything from abortion, to capital punishment, to immigration, to abolishing bi-lingualism and when their minority is defeated because they won't be able to pass a budget, the liberals will sweep back to power on a "told you so" platform.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaking of ghosts there's always Mulroooooooooooooney

and shadows










It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

Volatile is the word right now.  

Stuff like this....and on both sides

former Tories back Anne McClellan in Edmonton 

That's 4 former Alberta ministers backing a Liberal in Kleinland.


> The 12 Progressive Conservatives supporting Anne McLellan:
> 
> Dennis Anderson: Former Alberta culture minister, former national Tory vice-president.
> 
> ...


Interesting times indeed.









[ June 09, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> That's 4 former Alberta ministers backing a Liberal in Kleinland.


From the story:

"Conservative Alberta MP Monte Solberg dismissed the announcements as a late-campaign attempt by Ms. McLellan to "reverse sagging fortunes" in her battle with Tory candidate Laurie Hawn.

"This is not going to swing the race for her," Mr. Solberg told globeandmail.com."

And you know what? He's right!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I didn't know you were a gravity challenged drag queen Sinc


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> I have talked to some conservatives, and they are scared ****less... of forming a minority government


Hmm...I'm unconvinced. There can be little doubt that the Conservatives are licking their chops at the opportunity--any opportunity--to form a government, since the mere thought of doing so seemed laughable only months ago. True, there is much worry of whether a minority government could even govern, given the kinds of realistic coalitions that would avail themselves, but that applies as much to the Liberals as it does to the Conservatives. 

So are the Conservatives are scared? Hardly. Surprised is more like it. The sense of panic is at LPC HQ. 

A word about polls: I'm not one to confuse mood with choice, but these numbers have been consistently poor for the Liberals for quite sometime. Many have speculated that Liberal fortunes would turn around in Weeks 2-3 of the campaign in response to the evident Conservative momentum. That has happened yet. And with the PM out of the country this week, they really have to hope for an exceedingly convincing performance during the debates next week to turn things around,


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

A conservative minority government would be a disaster for the conservatives because they wouldn't be able to do much of anything except wait for the government to fall when they couldn't pass a budget.

They have no one to dance with,


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I don't think a Conservative minority is much to fear, even though I'd prefer one of the Liberal persuasion.

We've just gone through a decade of the Liberals stealing Reform/Alliance policies and governing on the right. And doing a better job of it than Mulroney did!

And Harper will need to reach some sort of an accommodation, at least on an ad hoc basis, with at least one (maybe two depending on the size of the minority) of the other three parties, all of whom are definitely to the left of the Conservatives.

So even doing something as simple as dismantling the gun registry, which will not require any legislation, becomes a question mark as all three of the other parties support a registry. 

And then there's getting legislation through the senate . . .


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A Conservative minority might be a problem...good thing they are headed for a clear majority on june 28th instead.  

From what I can tell....Martin's freaked out Liberals are looking to BC for a breakthrough in the upcoming election. They are desperately hoping that they can salvage enough from their falling forunes to score big out here. The 36 seats in BC are an irresistible plum for them, now that Quebec and Ontario are all but lost.

That's why Paul Martin overrode the normal electoral process in several key BC ridings and installed his own "Dream Team" candidates. He REALLY needs to win _SOMEWHERE_ in Canada on june 28th.

I suspect he's going to be in for a bit of a reality check, though. The Federal Liberals are wildly unpopular out here....and have been for dogs years. If anything, it's gotten worse lately.

The local news ran a piece about it the other night. BCTV NewsHour noted that BC seemed to be in a nearly equal three way race according to the polls....but couldn't seem to find anyone on the street who weren't planning to vote Conservative. Most had some truly choice words for Martin and his tired band of thieves.

Totally unscientific, I know...but I'm hearing the very same thing. I've been to Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo (three of BC's biggest cities) several times in the past few weeks...and it's nothing but grief for the Liberals out here. From everybody.

A Conservative majority is coming. With the Bloc and what's left of the Liberals fighting to see who ends up being the Loyal Opposition.

Personally, I think the Liberals are going to have a tough fight just to retain Official Party Status.

But then...that's just me, speaking from the heart. Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The Latest Leger opinion poll.

Liberals: 33%, down 2% 
Conservatives: 30%, unchanged - flatlined
New Democrats: 19%, up 2% 
Bloc: 12%, unchanged - flatlined

As the election goes on, it will have to be seen how many NDP voters are scared red, that will mostly depend on how many conservatives shoot their mouths off.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

With the number of Bloc seats (likely) on their way to Ottawa, a minority government will be bad news, no matter which national party holds the biggest share of seats. A couple of ugly truths about minority governments: they are short-lived (if memory serves, the longest was 3 years); and they rule by concession (which is a polite way of saying they spend like drunken sailors). 

As for the Leger poll, it's certainly interesting to see how much variation there is among polling firms right now. I'm going to stick to my assessment: the Liberals are on a slide for now. That said, there's still time for a big shift...I'm eager to see what the numbers look like next week after the bad week that the Conservatives have had.

Here's a link with all polls to date...it's an interesting read.

P.S. According to the Library of Parliament, the average duration of a minority government in Canada is one year, eight months and 20 days...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Y'know aside from all the scandals Martin is admired worldwide for his guidance of the economy to a surplus and incredibly good economic ratios. Canada is the envy of and the best of, the G8.
That record is undeniable.

Yet here's a guy with a party measured in weeks old who unveils this



> Conservative Leader Stephen Harper unveiled his party's *$57.8-billion* platform Saturday, vowing the Tories will win the election and bring in a government with a new vision of major democratic reform, lower taxes and improved health care.


Whatever the Liberals foibles, and you can bet they are a chastened party, how can anyone in their right mind buy into the PC scenario above without KNOWING that just as in the US, HUGE deficits would have to occur in order to get both taxes down and that amount of spending realized.

Last time I checked conservative values were purportedly smaller governments and no deficit.
It ain't true anymore down south and sure ain't true in Harperland.

Do people really forget that the PCs in Ontario promised similar lower taxes, improved services and left the place in a mess with an enormous deficit.

Harper is going to reduce middle income taxes by $2200 AND improve health care AND spend on the military. Yeah right  

No wonder the Globe and Mail is sounds like the Star these days.
It's simply a fantasy scenario.

Had Harper simply campaigned on cleaner government and left the tax cuts alone he might have been believable.

Combine this unreality and the ghosts of Alliances past which seem to be erupting from their coffins all over the place and it's real hard to see middle Canada buying into Harper.

No question they sure don't like the Liberals but if they examine the alternatives it might even be the NDP they vote for. 
Layton at least has some clear policies, he intends to spend money, run a cleaner gov and NOT cut taxes and have a balanced budget. At least it's realistic.









•••

Will people out east and even in central Canada forget these statements by Harper???



> On Atlantic Canada:
> 
> "There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism," (CBC News, May 30, 2002)
> 
> ...


There is lots more to read here. This is the same guy.  

Stephen Harper in his own words. 


Canadians may be angry but will they really choose Harper's version of Canada.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The momentum is clear.*

Yup. They've been neck in neck for just over a week now. Hovering around 30% support for both parties, varying up and down by a point or two.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Some further thoughts on the campaign:

http://www.flyingmonkeys.org/~posterboy/archives/2004/06/09/2004_campaign_trail.php


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This thread has been edu-taining.

I hate picking which poison pill to swallow so I shall not comment on my own views. I will be on Salt Spring to vote come voting day, mind you.

I see no evidence the Conservatives will win a majority government and even a minority one will be surprising to me. However, hope springs eternal Macnutt.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

They never stop . . . Here's the latest Ipsos-Reid in today's Globe and Mail. 

Liberals and Tories neck and neck again, with the Liberals starting to pull ahead in Ontario, while sliding in the Atlantic provinces.

Projection: Slim Conservative minority.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I can't believe how short people's memory's of the last Tory majority government, Mulroney gave up much that was Canada to the US and I see allot of that again in Harper. Also Harper's latest tirade against the global environment Kyoto accord and his stand on scrapping it say's allot about his or lack of enviromental priorities. The Conservative view of getting closer to the US also reminds me of the Mulroney era where the US would tell us to jump and we would ask "how high?". These are but a few of the reasons why I won't vote Conservative now I just have to figure out wich of the other party's to vote for.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You might consider the Star a Liberal paper but the Globe is not historically. It's editorial staff have been posing very pointed questions about the "magic platform" of Harper with his assumptions on spending and taxcuts being viewed by them as unrealistic.



> *The Tories' $90-billion question*
> 
> Can Harper find enough Liberal 'padding' to make platform work, asks HEATHER SCOFFIELD
> 
> ...


and from the same issue










I'd say a bit of reality is surfacing in Ontario.

•••••

What is interesting is the sudden re-emergence of some distinct regionalism. 

Bloc in Quebec
PC in Alberta
Liberal in Ontario

It simplistic of course as not all regions are monolithic and Alberta has not the seats of the two heavy weights.

Now Eastern Canada, BC, and Manitoba/Sask have huge leverage in determining which way any minority might be skewed.
With up to 50% of voters in many areas unsure of who they will vote for this looks ot be a very exciting election day.

The post election backroom bargaining also should be wild and wooly.

One thing for sure, there appears to be a re-emergent Quebec issue and Harper may fuel the flames of that in pushing his provincial power agenda.

I'm sure his "Alberta firewall" concept did not go unnoticed in Quebec by separatists.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think it will be a minority government at all. Watching Mike Duffy interviewing several top political pundits today was almost like watching an autopsy of an already dead Liberal Party. They were, in essence, dissecting the fetid corpse to see which of the many mortal blows (or long-term diseases) had actually killed it.  

The Conservatives are still climbing, and are headed for a big win. The NDP is flatlined. The Liberals are dying on the vine. The momentum is clear. The whole country wants a change at the top.

Nineteen days to go....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

K_OS said: *I can't believe how short people's memory's of the last Tory majority government,* ... 

Me neither, I find it hard to believe that people are so dumb to believe that *any* government that they elect will be free of scandal. Every single one eventually gets tainted with something. I guarantee that if Harpers Northern Republicans get in, and manage to stay in for any length of time, we will see lots of scandals, ministers resigning, etc. Trust me on this ... oops, sorry I think that phrase is copyrighted.  

So the real point should be, which party should I vote for based on their likely policies once they are elected. Harper has made it his strategy to appear to be an inclusive centrist during the election campaign. It's a neat trick he learned from Dubya, remember "Compassionate Conservatism". Now there's an oxymoron.

Also Gordon Campbell, here in BC, used the same trick and then surprised us with an onslaught of privatisation and idealogically driven legislation. Expect that from Harper, if he manages to gain a majority.

Martin is also trying to appear more lefty than he really is, but I expect that if he manages to retain his government then he will move back to his real position, which is just about where Harper claims to be right now.

The Globe and Mail cartoon that MacDoc posted sums it up perfectly. It you vote for Harper based on the BS that he's spouting now, expect to be surprised, when the gags come off of all that party's knuckle-draggers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Even the Fiberals themselves can see the writing on the wall.

"Liberals Admit They're Desparate" 

And they obviously don't realize that their attack ads will only worsen their already shaky position.

Will Paul Martin suffer the same fate of another unelected PM the people rejected? What WAS her name anyway?

Cheers,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc attack ads cut both ways and I've said all along running on anger against the Liberals ain't gonna cut it and that's starting to show.

Now that the "policies" are in play Harper looks far less appealing - shows in the Ontario numbers.
Harper should never take credit or comfort for that Ontario blip as it was anger directed at the Liberal health premium which economists are praising as responsible governing.

As fast as it swings one way it can swing the other and there's far more depth of funds in Martin's campaign war chest.

Harper has little defense to rest on that the words spoken over the last while don't represent his current thnking and that will NOT play well.
Some time as the head of a united party and in a parliamentary setting will tell if it's a regional party still or could become a national party once again representing centrist policies.

The Quebec situation is a lucky accident otherwise this discussion would not be occuring.
Nothing Harper himself has done to date has swung huge numbers of voters in any direction.

He's the recipient currently of a "vote against" situation and a renewed Quebec Bloc support as a result of the Liberals internal situation.

That does NOT make Harper a positive force - only a fortunate recipient of events for the moment.
Hence the "shut up do nothing approach".

That is ending - policies are being defended. Then we'll see which policies get by the general anger at politicians as a breed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

In my opinion, there is enough anger nation wide, that the Fiberals cannot possibly form a majority government. 

That, and the fact that so many Canadians are just plain tired of them is why attack ads are doomed to fail.

When you have a burr under the saddle, the rider (attack ads in this case) never mounts the horse. It only aggravates the situation.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *Canadians are just plain tired of them is why attack ads are doomed to fail.
* "

Yes exactly Sinc. Show me a PC ad that hasn't been an attack ad on the Liberals foibles.

Why is questioning Harper's " *policies "* considered attack anyway.

Harper attacks the Liberals all the time, not on policies, but on scandals that are being dealt with and originated with the previous cabinet and PM..
He does not say what he ( Harper ) will do and how it will benefit all Canadians - he simply keeps feeding the anger at the liberals without providing acceptable alternatives.

Now he has created some policy statements and he is being questioned on those policies in light of his record and even the staunch Globe think little of his financial acumen.

He clearly on camera today told the Canadians the courts should stay out of rights issues  That the legislature is the ruling body and the courts a "secondary body".

He appears not to understand checks and balance structure at all. The courts and the Charter are a check on the powers of legislature and he dismisses both.

Those questions the Liberals are asking in their ads are on policy.
I don't see the Liberals dragging in the the many Tory scandals into play yet Harper has little to comment on other than the sins of the previous Liberal government.

You think the political cartoons are without basis - that he's not effectively muzzled by his campaign managers!!!!!????.  

You crow when the Liberals are trashed and you and others parade immature "slogans" without a shread of underlying realistic policy that explains how the PCs have a better plan for this country. Your phrase isn't even applicable to the Federal Liberals - it was based on the Ontario Liberals breaking a campaign promise after discovering the Tory lies about a balanced Ontario budget. Cute phrase......from a six year old.

You know I have yet to hear what I would consider a thoughtful explanation by a PC supporter. I could do it, I've heard an NDP lay it out, I have yet to hear a PC supporter make a reasoned case for Harpers policy structure.

Rant, rave, foam at the mouth about Liberal sins, duck and dodge actual policy. Talk radio, talk trash.

Yet you get upset when darling Stephen is grilled about real policies - gay rights for instance - and call it " attack ads".

The Liberals have indeed much clean up to do but don't compare the Liberal taking Harper to task on policy positions versus the "foam at the mouth approach" the PCs have evinced.

Harper clearly has a neo-con agenda despite his best attempts to try and cloak it as a centrist positioning. Hell he released his platform on a Saturday afternoon!!! 
Now he's getting called to task on those policies which you indeed, along with many Albertan's support, but not here in central Canada where values are far far different.

Harper is trying to create a fog of platitudes covering his rather radical beliefs to convince voters here that he is no threat to their centrist values. He tries to focus attention away from his policies and their implications and on Liberal missteps.

The fog is clearing. 

It will be interesting in the debate, I suspect Layton will make mincemeat of Harper.........and Martin. 

[ June 10, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> He clearly on camera today told the Canadians the courts should stay out of rights issues That the legislature is the ruling body and the courts a "secondary body".


And he is right. Judges were not appointed to make laws. Their role is to judge those who break laws. Parliament is the proper place to make laws.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The courts are there to make sure the laws are constitutional, they don't draft the laws they are a check on the laws drafted by Parliament.

The fact that Harper would consider using the not withstanding clause says it all. 
Courts are an equal institution to the parliament not secondary to parliament.....'cept perhaps in Harper land.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In HarperLand the Bushes grow,
between the crosses row on row.
Take up the torch, the torch of Liberty,
and set aflame the Charter of Rights.
"For those who do not learn from history,
are forever doomed to repeat this history."

Paix


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

*Judges were not appointed to make laws. Their role is to judge those who break laws. Parliament is the proper place to make laws.* 

That might have been true in the dark ages, but for 100 years judges have also been appointed to judge the administration of laws -- jurisdiction and fairness, and for the last 20 years in Canada (longer in the U.S.) their validity as set against accepted principles.

The supremacy of parliament was a central point in the debate over the "repatriation" of the "constitution" in the early 1980s and the introduction of the Charter of Rights.

Many opposed to those moves argued that Parliament was and should be supreme, and that the Charter would not only take precedence over Parliament but would place the Supreme Court's interpretation of any law with regard to the charter over Parliament. ie. allow judges to make laws by deciding Parliament's laws to be unconstitutional.

Trudeau softened their criticism by inserting the notstanding clause, which gave parliament and the provincial legislatures the opportunity to reassert their supremacy in making laws. 

Over the past 20 years the clause, however, has been seldom used, leaving judges to be de facto lawmakers particularly when parliament finds an issue too hot to handle -- abortion, gay marriage.

They don't so much as make laws as create legal voids that the supposed lawmakers in parliament fail to fill. That's something Conservatives as well as Liberals are guilty of.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I'll be one of those holding my nose, and voting Liberal as I've done for the past few elections. But it doesn't matter, really - no matter what party gets in, it'll just be another bunch of snouts at the trough in the end. And by this time next year people will be carping about broken promises, lies, and bla bla _blaaaah_.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I believe the restraint on Parliament is critical as the PMOs office and the whip/caucus system really does result in too much power...aka "dictatorship" for the party in power.

Without a really functional Senate the judiciary as is the case in the US tho slightly differently than here....is critical to keep a semblance of consistency.

Major shifts in direction is really destructive in todays interlinked and complex society. ie a private members bill rammed through quickly on abortion with Harper turning a blind eye would have enormous consequences.
The court is there to slow that kind of sudden shift.

It would take time, then the government would have to exercise the not withstanding clause - then all hell would break loose.

So the Charter and the courts act as checks and balances.
The US with it's odd year elections and very different party voting structure has a different set of dynamics but are aslo checked and balanced by judiciary and the constitution.

Relegating the judiciary below parliament would be an exceedingly dangerous move.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The latest polls show the Conservatives in the lead and the Liberals still sliding down the slope. The momentum is clear. Especially in Ontario.

One of the reasons that I've been so confident of a Conservative majority is because of the momentum that the Conservative party seems to have. It is pretty clear to all but those who still have their ideological blinders on.

This country is ready for a change. And change IS coming.

Once the Conservatives hit the inevitable majority numbers in the polls...and with the Liberals still sinking fast...then an awful LOT of voters will suddenly decide that it would be in their best interest to elect a local representative to the party in power. Rather than elect a member of the Loyal Opposition, and have their area languish in obscurity for the next half decade.

THAT is the "tip-over" point. THAT is what will make this upcoming election into a landslide win for the Conservatives.

And will spell an end to the Federal Liberals as a party.

Watch and see.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The latest polls show the Conservatives in the lead and the Liberals still sliding down the slope. The momentum is clear.*

Every poll I've seen shows them essentially neck in neck at ~30% each, varying up and down buy a percent or two almost daily. 

Can you supply a link to your latest polls?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The evening news noted that the Conservatives are now at 34% and the Liberals have dropped to 30%. This is just outside the error factor and shows continuity in the momentum. It's a logical progression of the established direction that both parties have been headed in since the early days of this election. It should come as no surprise to anyone.

As I recall, it was an Ipsos-Reid poll.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Ahem, according to the latest Ipsos-Reid poll as reported in today's Globe and Mail: 

*VANCOUVER -- The Conservatives are dominating in British Columbia, but would lose urban ridings to both the Liberals and NDP if an election were held today.* 

Macnutt is quoting an EKOS-Toronto Star poll - Liberals 30, Conservative 33.8 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I think Canadians, if they didn't blink, got a glimpse this week of the problems a Conservative minority government will have.

Harper proudly proclaimed the death of the Kyoto Accord, a key platform policy for him in Alberta and one that will be very difficult for him to stall. 

But almost under radar of the English language media Duceppe responded that the Bloc not only supported Kyoto, but would oppose any party that didn't implement it. 

Further, one of the events and policies that Reform/Alliance supporters frequently pointed to explain their frustration with Liberals and the former Mulroney government was their support of the aerospace industry in Montreal (Bombardier, Air Canada, CF-18 maintenance, etc...) often at the expense of the west.

Yesterday, Duceppe warned that any government supported by the Bloc would have to support Quebec's aerospace industry.

So Duceppe seems to be telling Harper and the Conservatives what the price of Bloc support will be. 

Since these divisions and others between Western Conservatives and Quebec nationalists tore the former Progressive Conservative party apart, how well will a "New" Conservative minority fare


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oops - a few cracks showing now the "platform" is open to view despite best neo-Con effort to reveal it on a sleepy warm Saturday afternoon..



> *Ex-Alliance director quits 'vacuous' Tories*
> 
> OTTAWA - Stephen Harper tried to reach out to all Canadians today even as a former top Canadian Alliance official urged people to think twice before voting Conservative.
> 
> ...


more

and



> On Tuesday, Tamara Kronis resigned as president of the party's Trinity-Spadina riding association.
> 
> She cited Harper's willingness to allow free votes on private member's bills on abortion and capital punishment. She also said she was troubled by his refusal to rule out using the notwithstanding clause to outlaw gay marriage should it be legalized by the Supreme Court of Canada.


This is a wildly erratic electorate right now and we'll see how anger plays out against policies.

Good for the Globe and Mail to state editorially it was going to strive to be a neutral voice to help voters decide....and for including the Greens. 
The Editor in Chief Edward Greespan actually had an academic survey undertaken



> Covering election's shifting tides
> 
> Ten days into the campaign, the McGill team looked at the question of media bias. It found the Liberals "are getting beaten up everywhere, but especially in the National Post." The Vancouver Sun was the kindest. The Conservatives, at that point, were receiving better press everywhere, but most markedly in the Post and Calgary Herald. The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun and La Presse were measured as the most neutral.
> 
> ...


and from todays paper, part of the "revealing look".



> A conservative wolf in sheep's cothing
> 
> On economic policy, the "new" Conservatives most resemble the Brian Mulroney Conservatives who promised the moon in the 1984 campaign and lived to regret it in office. That 1984 Conservative platform was a concoction of bromides, platitudes, vague directions and numbers that didn't make sense -- but none of that mattered for electoral purposes because the country wanted change from the corrupt Liberals.
> 
> ...


Two weeks to go, debates, campaigning door to door and one of Canada's premiere and purposefully actively balanced media voices calling Harper to task. The fat lady ain't even tuned up yet.  
•••••••

What if they had an election and nobody came...... would they ALL have to go home?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

No one's mentioned that the Conservative party's near non-existent status in Quebec, may cost it a majority government.

One reason Mulroney did so well is that he captured the dissatisfied Liberal vote in Quebec as well as the nationalist vote. That gave his 58 seats in Quebec in 1984 and 63 in 1968.

While Mulroney would have held on to his majority in 1984 without any seats in Quebec (the PCs earned more than 50 per cent of the popular vote), he would have had a minority government in 1988 without any seats in Quebec (they still had 43 per cent of the vote).

It used to be axiomatic that no party could form a majority government without representation in Quebec. I suspect Harper and his Conservatives are going to learn that axiom is still true, more often than not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Interesting coverage tonight on Pearson.
I did not realize that his were minority governments.

Medicare, the Flag, the Autopact, Expo 67, the Canadian Pension Plan.
He was also responsible for the introduction of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada.
He brought the ten provincial premieres to Ottawa for a historic "summit" in 1968 and coaxed them into a long-run commitment to linguistic, cultural and educational equality for eight million French-speaking Canadians."

All under a minority mandate  

Those were indeed "interesting times".........we may be in for more.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

As a point of interest, I know a few people who are constantly pointing out that some of the most important legislation handed down (Health Care, for example) was handed down by minority Liberal governments with the NDP holding the swing vote.

Of course, there wasn't a Bloc party taking up a chunk of the seats back then, either, so things may play out differently if a similar situation occurs this time around.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Watching the debate I'm quite comfortable that both the Bloc AND the NDP will hold either of the other party's toes to the fire.

Both the Bloc and the NDP look far better to me than Cons or Liberals on their own.

My preference at this point would be a minority Liberal govt OVER a majority liberal gov't.

That lets Martin continue to manage the economy with a far more progressive set of values represented by the Bloc and NDP.
It also gives Harper time to build an alternative and lets Canadians see it in action.
A Con minority would not last long given their huge differences with the Bloc and the NDP.

My take so far.
Layton and Duceppe - winners = Canadians are winners.
Layton winner overall, he did his party proud.

Neither Martin or Harper scored much on this debate.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Here's what I've heard during the debate:

Duceppe: Quebec, Quebec, blah blah, Quebec, Quebec, blah blah Quebec, why Oshawa and not Quebec?, blah blah Quebec, Quebec, Quebec, Quebec, money for Quebec, Quebec is a Nation, Quebec, Sovereign Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

Martin: Same old, same old, same old, same old, same old, same old, same old, woman's choice, same old, same old, same old, woman's choice, get to the bottom of it, get to the bottom of it, same old same old, same old.

Harper: Tax cuts, military spending, tax cuts, military spending, child pornography, BOGEYMAN, BOOO! liberals this liberals that, liberals this liberals that, tax cuts, child pornography, BOOO!, liberals this liberals that, tax cuts, liberals this, liberals that, tax cuts.

Layton: We got the plan, we got the plan, we got the plan for the common man! Liberals this, Conservatives that, Liberals this, Conservatives that. We got the plan!

OK, there was more to it , but that's what the Noise/Signal filter heard.










While Harper and Martin slugged through "a woman's choice", it was good to hear the word "abortion" from the press. It's good to have someone translate from time to time.


Flipping through channels for commentary afterwards:

Conservative pal of Harper's - "... Stephen... Stephen is a hockey dad who thought through his issues..."

Gee... I'm so glad! That's so reassuring! 

Hockey, Dad, Issues... Important Canadian stuff, eh?

iG/<


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Pretty dismal debate overall. Reasonable questions but too much posturing and no one hit the sweet spot. Martin was attacked from all sides and, ironically, this likely evoked something of a sympathy vote for him.

The questioners/referees did a poor job of containing the cacophony. Not much new or inspiring. I have to vote early as I'll be out of the country on election day but I don't think much will change over the next few days..... Will be glad when its over.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What I find remarkable is that the end result may be policies /programs further LEFT of centre as the Bloc and NDP will inevitably pull policy decisions that direction. Strange result.








Who'da thunk it. 

I'm voting Friday.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Harper reminded me of Gore. (in regard to character and poise). Makes me almost want to vote for him (but then I remember what the last set of tories did to our country...thanks Mulroney. Martin looked and acted like the weasel he is. The NDP'er didn't do much for me....looked like he couldn't handle the job on those little shoulders. And the Frenchie...well he was token, no?


I think I'll vote Green. lol.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Martin was attacked from all sides and, ironically, this likely evoked something of a sympathy vote for him.


I suppose that is why this morning's papers are predicting 59% of Canadians will vote for a change in government is it?

Bye bye Fiberals.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean Albertan morning papers .....why am I not surpised. : 

'Course 1/3 of that 59% could be Quebeckers and another 1/3 NDP voters with a surprising number of Greens in for "flavour".
Libs or Cons they'll be ignoring the left at their immediate peril.

If wishes were horses...........


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

What about the Communist Party of Canada, maybe there included in the 59% lol? There is also the pot party, the Lennin/Marxist party and a few others that could sneak in the picture. I thought that was bad last night. I realy dont feel all that positive about voting for someone that bases there whole debate on attacking another party. If that is the only way you can win then you are not a very admirable person (which is clearly the case with most politicians)


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Gee, if 59 per cent are voting for a change in government, that means 41 per cent are voting for the same government, or possibly abstaining.

That's the best polling news for the Liberals in more than a month.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Very good - thinking outside the box we like that. Ain't statistics fun.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

*MacDoc wrote:*


> Good tracking here
> 
> http://www.globeandmail.com/special/federalelection/Decision2004.html#poll


I was looking at the ISSUES section of that site. When you try to click to the Liberal's REFORM objectives it takes you back to the main page. That must be a mistake, right? Are they not promising any reforms?
I agree with the Liberal ideals but I'm concerned about all these points -
that they had surpluses every year and yet the military and health situations are still embarassing 
that they called an election before the political persons are fingered in the sponsorship scandal - looks guilty

The NDP's promises sound great, although I don't trust their credibility on either the legal front or the financial front. And Layton was a prick in that debate.

Harper is cool - I respect him. He hasn't quelled any of my fears about the right's protection of rights though, and his focus on the US and the military makes me worried he'll run a deficit like Bush.

Maybe I'll move to Quebec and become a separatist. Quebec is awesome.

This quote seen on theinquirer.net:
_No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up - Lily Tomlin _











[ June 16, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: elmer ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Apparently the Canadian Press thinks Martin is toast too:

OTTAWA (CP) - With the podium thumping over and no clear winner after two nights of debate, the federal election campaign appears very much like it did before the party leaders began their political showdowns - a toss-up between the Liberals and the Conservatives. 
Polls suggest Stephen Harper and his surging Tories have the momentum in the sprint to the June 28 vote, while Liberal Leader Paul Martin is running out of time to reverse his flagging electoral fortunes. 

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc,

You can find whatever opinion you want in todays papers. Doesn't mean a lot except that the only thing that matters is the actual vote.

Harper has been on tippy-toes for the past two months. Hope his in-steps are holding up.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The questioners/referees did a poor job of containing the cacophony


You got that right UTB jwoodget! The moderators should have been a little more aggressive and let the candidates have their say. Jack and Gilles were excessively vocal. I actually felt bad for poor Paul, they wouldn't let the man speak in his defense. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

We need the ex-host of "The Weakest Link" to be the moderator. She'd tongue lash and humiliate our fearless leaders into shape.  









I think Harper scored some comportment points. He was the coolest cucumber there.

Not that it matters in my book, given what he says, but it'd help a bit if the other fellows behaved with more decorum.

These debates are actually fairly scary for new voters.

"We gotta vote for THESE guys?"

I always tell people to watch CPAC in order to acculturate themselves to the Canadian political style, so that they don't freak out, come election time.

iG/<

[ June 16, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Here is what I saw. Disclaimer being I do have my own pre-dispositions about the parties and leaders. 

Duceppe: This is not a matter of being a dictatorship, this is a democracy, and les Québecois recognize that. We in the Canadian system can make change not because we won, but because we choose to represent our ideals and beliefs. Harper's "things change only when you win" thing is way out of line, and is the opposite of what Canadian democracy, means. I believe that Duceppe successfully represented the interests of the Quebec people. Well Done.

Layton: I live in his riding, and have been exposed to much of what he was saying for a long time. I think many people were taken back by his enthusiasm and perhaps passing it off as empty rhetoric. Fair enough. But I have to say that after living my whole life with Jack as our councillor, he means it all and follows through with his stuff.

Martin: Clearly shook off his game after fielding all the criticism from other candidates. However, was able to receive the criticism and move on. Example: Layton's complaint of Martin's "only two parties can form a government". But his strategy to turn this into an election about "waiting times", is way off. There are plenty of important issues. And I don't think waiting times are catching on.

Harper: I have to say that he was calm, cool, and collected. This is successfully grabbing votes off of the mainstream Canadians, as he planned. But I can't sit still and credit him with that without saying that what he stands for in his policy is really extreme... Do not be fooled!. I will not assume to play dumb because I know you know I'm an NDP man by now. But put my opinions aside. HARPER WILL CUT MOST OF THE FUNDING TO THE CBC!!! An institution to which we owe so much of our knowledge of this election. They are the only corporation that doesn't have to deal with evil corporate biases... which is godsend now a days. and that's just one example.

just 2 points to finish up:

1) Voting against a party out of spite is dangerous maybe not for you, but we are all in this country together, and we gotta look out for each other. KNOW WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR WELL.

2) Remember that the government is not there to cater to an individual, but the entire country. Try your best to think about what's beneficial to everyone. Capitalism should stay where it belongs... in the malls. democracy is about what's good for the people, and not every one is like you!

Thanks for taking a second to hear my $0.02!

-Ravi


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

One thing I would like to know.

How, exactly, do Conservatives think that big increases in spending are going to pay for decreases in taxes? I know the theory, but I've never heard of it actually working.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I think their theory is that tax cuts stimulate the economy, resulting in increased tax revenues that allow for more spending.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

aka Reagonomics, Thatcherism, Common Sense Revolution, trickle down etc.

All those brilliant economic theories that like Keynesian "deficits are good" that don't work as advertised. Some assembly required.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I think the problem is that for Keynesian econonomics to work correctly you're supposed to cut taxes and increase spending when the economy is down, which many governments do, but you are also supposed to cut spending and increase taxes when the economy is up again, which I've not really seen a government do. 

It's about a balance between the two which theoretically creates a slow but steady increase in GDP over time, a balance that's never been achieved by any once government to the best of my knowledge.

You can't apply half the theory and expect the full result. That's just silly.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

That describes the Conservative policy fairly well too.









Anyways came across this story this a.m.:

When is a Conservative plurality of seats not a Conservative minority government?

Answer- when the Liberals with fewer seats than the Conservatives decide they want a chance to govern.

Seems Martin is the Prime Minister until he resigns and if the Liberals want to hold onto power, anticipating the support of the NDP or Bloc, they can.

Martin must resign only if the Conservatives get a majority of seats.

The story is in today's Sun newspapers. 

Interesting possibilities.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Debate poll results also in today's Sun:


Score One For Harper. 

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it just shows how blinkered Con supporters are.
Only 17% were NOT already Cons.
That meant 83% non Cons didn't think Harper won.

Some score. It's the SUN.....= foam at mouth.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Seems Martin is the Prime Minister until he resigns and if the Liberals want to hold onto power, anticipating the support of the NDP or Bloc, they can.
*

As I understand it, if Liberals + one (or more) other party = more seats than Conservative, then Liberals + one other party can form a coalition government and the leader of the party in the coalition who has the most seats becomes prime minister.

Or something like that, anyway.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Some score. It's the SUN


It makes no difference whether a poll is conducted by the Sun, Globe, Post or Star.

They all do the same thing, and that is ask ordinary Canadians about their views.

It is NOT the view of the paper. It IS the view of the voter.

Boy are some guys here going to be twisted if the Fiberals fail!

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I got a giggle from this "Election Venting" column in today's Edmonton Journal directed to deputy PM Annie "Get Your Gun" McLellan:

• Memo to Anne McLellan: The Nova Scotia government is trying to persuade former residents to return home. There are regular flights every day that depart Edmonton for Halifax.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's a "The Sun Media poll of 895"







sorry Sinc - the SUN don't cut it.

I'm actually looking forward to this parliament as I think some things will get done. I find it very amusing that it's likely to be further left.









The numbers form the Leger poll of the total population
26% felt Harper won
20% felt martin won
34% didn't know or refused to answer.

only 38% of Canadians watched.

BUT how do you interpret this???

Harper won the debate according to 26% of Canadians *among which 17% are NOT Conservative Supporters.* 

So if I read that correctly 26% thought Harper won in a sampling where 83% of the respondents were Cons.

*Con indeed* 
No wonder it was sponsored by the Sun Media Group.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Macdoc said:

Harper won the debate according to 26% of Canadians among which 17% are NOT Conservative Supporters. So if I read that correctly 26% thought Harper won in a sampling where 83% of the respondents were Cons.*

_The article reads:

The Leger Marketing national survey of 895 Canadians, conducted immediately after the Tuesday leaders debate, shows 26% of Canadians who watched declared Harper the winner. Of that number, 17% said they didn't consider themselves past Tory supporters._

What it says:

895 people were surveyed
26% of those surveyed --about 233 people-- thought that Harper won the debate
Of those 233, 17% -- about 40 people-- didn't support the Conservatives prior to the debate.

This is of course, assuming they all watched, which they didn't. But it illustrates the point.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Here's a brand-spanking new poll for everyone to chomp on, courtesy of Newswatch :

Pollara: Con 36 % Lib 31 % Ndp 16 % Bq 12 %

The Liberal slide continues. And compared to some earlier numbers, apparently so does NDP support. Interesting, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"The article reads:

The Leger Marketing national survey of 895 Canadians, conducted immediately after the Tuesday leaders debate, shows 26% of Canadians who watched declared Harper the winner. Of that number, 17% said they didn't consider themselves past Tory supporters."

That is NOT exactly what the poll reads - here's the pdf link

http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/040617Eng.pdf

It says in the PDF document

"Harper won the debate according to 26% of Canadians among which 17% are NOT Conservative Supporters"

That certainly means to me that *83% of those that considered him a winner already supported the Cons.[B/]

So the ultimate conclusion was that some 17% who weren't already Cons thought Harper won the debate.
Some of that 17% might translate into votes.
All it really means is that they favoured him as the debate winner over the other participants and they were not Cons to begin with.
Very marginal to hang a headline on.








*


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Perhaps the more relevant part of that survey (as reported in the Sun news) was that very few people bothered to tune into this sad little piece of political theatre. 

Paul Wells (scroll down to the June 15 entry) was all over this thing the other day...."what a bunch of braying jackasses." indeed.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

"what a bunch of braying jackasses." 

My mother *begged* me to turn off the TV after 20 minutes into the *debacle*.
When I told her that I intended to watch the full 2 hours, she gave me a venomous look ( _you will *PAY* for this!_ ) and went outside.

I'm now indeed paying for wanting to know who is going to be voted off our <del>tropical</del> Canadian islan... Uh... Wrong show...

Although it could HAVE been *Canadian Survivor*. As unreal as it gets. };¬)

iG/<

[ June 17, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

The PDF? It's not that clear on anything. There is at least one typo, (on question 2 where it says "n-356", I'm pretty sure that should be "n=356") and the sentences are constructed poorly.

Also, under question 2, it says that 26% of respondents thought Harper won and 62% of Conservative respondents said that Harper won.

What's confusing is that the 17% figure only really shows up in the statement "Stephen Harper Win the Debate According to 26% of Canadians among which 17% are not Conservative supporters." The number only shows up again under question 3, where 17% of respondents did not know who they'd vote for.

So, the way the article words it, of the 26% of respondents who said Harper won the debate, 17% were not Conservative supporters previously.

The way the PDF words it, it's not really clear what they mean as there is a portion of the data that is MIA. But, I still read the heading for question 2 as "Among the 26% of respondents who thought Harper won, 17% are/were not Conservative supporters". In actual fact, though, since there is info missing, I am not sure I really trust the PDF, and subsequently I am not sure I trust the article either.

The third question seems to be in order, though. Of decided voters, Liberals have 34% support while Conservatives have 35% and NDP has 16%. This puts the Liberals easily in position to form a new Government with the NDP as their support.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"The Liberal slide continues"....

I keep hearing this all over the newspapers and on practically every TV news report. (except on the CBC, of course...which is to be expected, after all).

Pretty much all of the pollsters seem to be saying that Paul Martin has no chance of a majority at all...and only a very slim shot at a minority government. (Which might actually happen if all the planets suddenly align and Madonna spontaneously regrows her hymen and the Pope starts doing vigorous public gymnastics while proclaiming that he is "descended from wandering Greys who were based in the oort cloud".)

I suppose it COULD actually happen....all of it....but I sure wouldn't count on it, if I were you.

Nope. Far more likely that the Conservatives will win a clear majority on june 28th. Stephen Harper will be the next Prime Minister of Canada, and the shattered Liberal Party will implode in on itself shortly thereafter....which will guarantee that we will have a Conservative government in the _NEXT_ Federal election as well. Perhaps the one after THAT, too.

Every indicator is pointing in this direction right now. Has been since day one of the campaign, if you care to look.

And I've been saying that this would be the eventual outcome of the very next Federal election in Canada for....ohhh...about two and a half years now here at ehmac. Check and see.

I'm looking forward to some rather heated debate on this subject with all of my friends here. When I can spare some time, that is....perhaps tomorrow night. (water business is going ballistic because of the hot weather around here. No time for my usual rants in the past week or so.)

See you then!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see you really understand the parliamentary system.
Libs and Cons are neck and neck, the Libs actually up a bit today.

Without Quebec neither party can win a majority.

Even if Harper got more seats Martin remains PM until defeated by the NDP or Bloc in a confidence vote.

The Bloc has said no coalition with anyone. Only case by case voting. They are far closer to the Libs than the Cons.

NDP and Libs could form a coalition but the numbers don't dictate that at the present.

Projecting the Cons getting 155 seats out of 240 ( the Bloc WILL get 60 or smore ) means the Libs and NDP COMBINED would get 90 - that's ludicrous in a virtual dead heat election.

No majority then the Cons would have to make a deal with the Bloc - not possible according to Duceppe or the NDP - that would be hilarious - or the Liberals - possible but unlikely.

On top of that they would have to be in a position first where Martin must dissolve the government through a non confidence vote.

If Martin were to focus on delivering the National Childcare, the enhanced medical funding and the Support for cities plans then Duceppe and Layton would likely go along tho Layton is not needed. He would have no choice but to bring these along. The nice result it gets things moving after his "too cautious" initial few months.

10 days to go - tight race, Quebec settled already. They're the big winner.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

No doubt about it that Martin has led a poor campaign. He should be trouncing the Conservatives based on their policies. The fact is that if Harper does get in in any shape or form, we will not know what he actually will do or what he actually stands for. There has been nary a peep out of his second tier. It will be a total crap shoot and we'll get the crap.

Macnutt, if you want a list of the things you've said that have been diammetrically opposed to the actual outcome, let me know. Don't even have to mention the mess in Iraq. Ontario has increased its electricity supply 10% (2.5 Mega or Giga Watts, can't remember which) in the past year...... to 27.5.

For the sake of human rights, personal freedoms, healthcare, social well being and a whole bunch of other reasons, I seriously hope that Harper stays in Opposition.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

> Here's a brand-spanking new poll for everyone to chomp on, courtesy of Newswatch :
> 
> Pollara: Con 36 % Lib 31 % Ndp 16 % Bq 12 %
> 
> The Liberal slide continues. And compared to some earlier numbers, apparently so does NDP support. Interesting, eh?


Now, if that were broken down by riding, it might mean something.

Elect Martin now, impeach him later if necessary. Ignore shifty-eyed Reform Party promises of fiscal responsibility.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

It is possible to form a majority government without representation in Quebec.

Only just, though with each seat redistribution it becomes more and more possible because the average seat size is based on Quebec's population divided by 75. As a result of slower population growth there, the proportion of Quebec seats in Parliament has been on a slow decline.

Mulroney could have formed a majority government in 1984 without his 58 seats in Quebec, and Chretien could have formed a majority government in 1993 without his 19 seats in Quebec.

In both elections, there was a broad-based disgust with the current government and attractive "new" leaders in opposition.

Similar to the conditions that exist today, though I personally don't find Harper attractive (but then I didn't find Mulroney attractive either).

Really, the sole difference might be what the polls tell us (if you trust polls). Mulroney and Chretien lead the polls by significant numbers almost from start to finish. That's not the case in the current election.

Still I think Macdoc is right. Harper can't win a majority without seats from Quebec. After a month of near error-free campaigning, the Conservatives are still only in the mid-30s, about the range the Alliance and Progressive Conservatives combined had a year ago.

I think a lot of previous Liberal voters outside of Quebec have shuffle over to the NDP, the Greens, or the undecided column. Yes, some have gone Conservative, but I suspect that's a wash with Red Tories coming over to the Grits.

The question is whether those disenchanted Liberal voters will return by June 28.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'm REALLY interested to see the next major Ipsos poll.







I have a strong hunch Conservative momemtum is over and wouldn't be surprised to see a little dip. I think Liberals and Conservatives will be neck and neck... with even more support for the Block.

Does anyone know the date of the next poll release?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> Without Quebec neither party can win a majority.


I disagree. Locking up Alberta, doing reasonably well in BC, Man and Sask and eeking out some modest gains in the Martimes could give Harper enough to form a small majority. What's left to determine is how well they're going to do in Ontario. 

I still maintain that the Conservatives are poised to win big here. Not based on polling numbers (but it's worth noting that they're leading in all but two ridings here in the Ottawa area), but because of vote splitting. Riding by riding, all you need is a slim margin of left-leaning angry voters to vote NDP or Green and the Liberal candidates will tank and Conservatives win by coming up the middle. 

That said, let's not forget that there are a lot of undecided voters out there who are sitting on their choice until the 28th. 

Not sure if this link has been shared yet in this thread, but it's an interesting read: electionprediction.org


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

To form a majority, Harper's going to need to pick up at least 70 seats in Ontario, probably more.

Mulroney in his best election, 1984, won 67 seats but the Conservatives pulled almost 48 per cent of the popular vote in the province. At that time Ontario had just under 100 seats.

Four years later when his popular vote in Ontario was down to 38 per cent, higher than the Conservative are now, they won 46 seats. By the way, the NDP polled 20 per cent of the vote and won 10 seats. It was the best federal election ever for the NDP. The Liberals polled 36 per cent of the vote and won 43 seats.

The Conservatives are going to need a more pronounced shift in Ontario to win a majority. I don't think it's there.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

The Mayor asked:


> Does anyone know the date of the next poll release?


Newswatch is featuring new polls this afternoon: 

SES: Lib 34 % Con 29 % Ndp 22 % Bloc 10 % Green 5 % ...
Compas: Lib 35 % Con 34 % Ndp 17 % Bloc 11 % ...

That Compas one gives me pause since I know the founder rather well (he was one of my key profs in my university days, long ago). Compas tends to have a rather conservative audience/clientelle. They're also very thorough, so if they show a Liberal surge, I'm inclined to take notice and say "hmmmmmmmm." 

Looks like it's going to be a long night for many of us next Monday...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Am voting tomorrow as I'm out of the country on election day (but will be checking the internet.....).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I voted today and let my designate know. 
Took 10 minutes no waiting.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Two new polls today for the poll watchers underline that it's still any party's election, though the Conservatives have the edge.

Ipsos-Reid in The Globe says Conservatives 32, Liberals 29.

And EKOS in The Star says Conservatives 31.4 and Liberals 29.

While they are almost identical on the two major parties, they differ on the smaller parties. Ipsos says NDP 16, Bloc, 12 and Green 7, and EKOS says NDP 20.5, Bloc 14.4, Green 4.3.

I can't remember which story says it but it does say that despite a perception of a Conservative groundswell, that groundswell doesn't exist.

A week to go and we'll find out about that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know I'm really fried at Canadians - they just don't know when they've got it good.

They can see the mess down south. The mess Harris left and they open the door to the same assinine policies again.
Didn't anyone else notice that Harper in the debate almost never looked at the camera or the person he was speaking to???
He's counting on knee jerk reactions to Liberal "too long in power/scandals" to slip in a neoCon agenda that Canadians would never even remotely consider as representing their vision of Canada in the world or as a nation if they took the time to get by the anger and look at the consequences.

Even Americans are shocked at this possibility.



> *Rush to Harper shocks American*
> 
> As an American citizen living in Canada, my belief that Canadians are more sensible than Americans has been shattered by their rush to vote for Stephen Harper. He is a George W. Bush clone, different only in his ability to form complete sentences. Even his facial expressions are reminiscent of Bush: shifty eyes and an artificial smile, which strongly suggest a person who is lying. It is puzzling that a large majority of Canadians see through Bush, but are blind to the similarities both in their style and philosophy. Harper either dodges questions or lies freely about his true agenda, which is well documented in the recent past. Despite this, people seem willing to damn the consequences and vote for him in a state of unfocused anger. I hope voters figure out that what they see and hear from him is not what they will get. If they don't realize it, they will live to regret it — just like Americans.


The Editor of the Star expressed hs own anger today.



> Jun. 19, 2004. 01:00 AM
> 
> *Harper's agenda weakens Canada*
> 
> ...












   
Seriously steamed.
Do we need a more efficient and cleaner government yes.

Do we need the pile of horse dung that Harper represents NO!.

Canada is the envy of the world. Tossing out that hard won success for the sake of change is just plain stupid. :lord: 

Get out and vote but consider very carefully the nature of the Canada that will result.
Even Duceppe with the threat of separatism has a better vision of Canada than Harpers.

Some 84% of Canadians supported staying out of Iraq......yet they want the one party that wanted to go into that horrible situation to remake Canada.......in the image of the US.
Give me a break.  

Doesn't it give you pause when members, even provincial cabinet ministers of the same right wing group and a former Prime Minister of the PCs warn against the Harper agenda????!!!!!! 

[ June 19, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

There's still time. 

If Harper wins... I just might move to Quebec and hope they seperate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There's a thought *jeMac* you already got the hat right .  

I'll encourage Hazel to secede from the entire country and perform a coup on Toronto first, then hold Queen's Park hostage.
$6 billion in taxes and 1/4 of the GDP - sounds like a good bargaining position to me.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Harper has been robotic during the campaign. His words are scripted and his focus has been on the "We're not the Liberals" campaign. He's hardly spoken of his actual plans and we have no clue of the sort of people he'd put into office. 

But lately, his handlers seem to be making mistakes. Accusing Layton and Martin of supporting child pornography was plain dumb and allowing Ralphie to prematurely release his tirade against the Canadian Health Accord was a mistake (funny how Ralph claims nt to have spoken to Harper in 6 months.....).

Martin has faced a succession of mistakes and errors too (McGuinty has done him no favours, his communications have been ineffective). However, the latest Liberal adverts actually run on his record (canning the deficit, etc) and next to the low brow Conservative trash compactor, look a darm sight more professional and intelligent.

The Conservatives have run this campaign by pointing at the tomatoes being thrown at the Liberals. They were hoping to be elected by default. It's time the Conservatives showed their true colours.

[ June 19, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: used to be jwoodget ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *Conservatives showed their true colours"*









and Canadians recognized those colours for what they portend


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I like a man, who doesn't mince his words:

A visibly livid Jack Layton didn't mince words as he slammed reports that his party would prop Stephen Harper's Conservatives to form a minority government.

"We've got to put an end to this bull**** right now," the NDP leader said to reporters in an uncharacteristic display of anger.

"The idea that we have said in any way that we are going to prop up Conservatives (is) something that was never said. I very strongly disagree with almost everything I see Mr. Harper claiming. "

[snip]

"We are saying very simply Conservatives do not deserve to be forming a government here. We are working to defeat Conservatives from one end of this country to the other."


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Relax, the Conservatives are nowhere near a majority government, and even if they can scrap together a minority government it would collapse when it couldn't pass a budget.

And with the policy convention comming up, it will be hard for Harper to maintain a moderate image for the party. The policy conventions bring out every last crackpot in the country.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *Relax, the Conservatives are nowhere near a majority government* "

The problem is that the "relax" part is exactly what the Cons want.
They don't want focus on them being IN power they want the electorate focused on the Libs OUT.

Many Liberal voters are used to having the vote split being Alliance and Tory and the the situation is reversed in too many areas now with a single Con candidate and vote splitting between NDP and Libs and even drawing some Greens.
Ontario is getting close to a full 3 way split and Cons up the middle are a threat just as the Libs were previously.

Anti Con voters need to get motivated and go hard after votes for the most likely candidate in their riding to defeat the Cons - riding by riding.
If Libs exercise a protest vote there is some danger of too many ridings being split and losing to a Con plurality  

If you don't want a Con parliament then look hard at the situation in your riding and vote for the one most likely to win against the Con.
NDP and Lib policies are far closer to each other.
Layton wants nothing to do with the Cons........nor do I. 
Vote smart.  

•••••

Even our much loved Mayor McCallum, a Tory supporter is concerned.



> Now, Canada's mayors are finding themselves compelled to speak. Leading the charge is Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, who describes the growing prospect of a Tory triumph as "barbarians at the gate." He says if the Conservatives win, everything cities have worked for over the last 20 years "is going to be put on hold while they pursue their right-wing agenda. We don't play a role in their vision. We're not in it."
> 
> Toronto Mayor David Miller cites "very serious concern" about the Conservative platform. *And even Mississauga's Mayor Hazel McCallion, often sympathetic to the Conservative cause, has warned that cities would suffer with a Tory victory.*
> 
> *Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said Harper fails to realize that the tax-cut agenda in Ontario led to years of service cuts, and citizens have turned their backs on that. Harper's agenda is not the cities' agenda, the venerable mayor said *


 [ June 20, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

There was an interesting article in the Star yesterday (I think it was the Star, I was at my father in Law's house). Michael Moore urging people not to vote for the Conservatives. He mentioned that Bush would have a party if the Conservatives won and that it would be bad for Canada We would be sending people to Iraq and lining the ritch peoples pockets. We would also be going the way America is trying to get out of. My problem is I dont like any of the parties since I am a social democratic (socialist) and there is not really any party that are consitent with my views. I think it would be bad for Canada if he gets in though and would have to agree with Moore. On the other hand I dont like the Liberals and there is many obvious reasons, they have droped the ball too many times. My wifes Uncle and cousins are all Liberals and actuly work for them and help support them. Her dad is a conservative and a member of the party. This is a tough one and who ever gets in will not represent what my ideology of Canada is.







I prefer the German, Dutch social democratic system that takes care of the people who need help.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Michael Moore urging people not to vote for the Conservatives.


Well that pretty much seals it for the "CONS", as you folks like to call them.

With an award winning "wing nut" making a statement like that, It practically assures a Harper victory!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most Canadians are against the war in Iraq.

Most Canadians detest Bush.

Michael Moore confirmed both those stances quite effectively if a bit luridly and was rewarded not once but twice with world level honours.

You crow and caper and may end up with feather pie for lunch.

The "nut case" is residing in the White House for the moment and if Moore helps unseat him then he should get one more award.
The Medal of Freedom









for service above and beyond to the world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Most Canadians are against the war in Iraq.
> 
> Most Canadians detest Bush.


And your source for these definitive statement would be?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You must be kidding Sinc, even you can't be THAT isolated.

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2004/April29-bush_canada.pdf

*Eight Ten Canadians (82% )
Bush no friend of Canada, doesn't really know Canadian issues.*
Ipsos Reid Apr 29th

••••••••••



> Only One-Third of Canadians Approve of Iraq War, Canadian Participation Without UN Sanction
> 
> At this time, only 36 percent of Canadians approve of the US-led military intervention in Iraq and 34 percent would approve of
> 
> ...


Now that latter vocal minority would be Harper and Co.
In touch with Canada??....NOT  

Course you are behind the Alberta firewall....news of the rest of Canada and the anger around the world at the idiocy of American foriegn policy, hell the anger in the US by senior diplomats, seems to take some time to trickle in and even longer to sink in.

"Course King Klein wanted to wade in, maybe that was BEFORE the US cut off the beef sales tho.



> *Klein speaks out in favor of Iraq war *
> Last Updated Sat, 22 Mar 2003 5:30:16
> 
> EDMONTON - Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has inserted himself in the Iraq War debate by writing a letter of support to U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.
> ...


Another one in touch with the rest of Canada.


















Con indeed.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The thing that annoys me the most about the Liberals is that they engage in the most reprehensible of activities and policies while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground. In the past year, we have witnessed:

-A party that claims to be the saviour of our healthcare system... after three terms of cutting the transfer payments to the provinces that pay for it.
-A party that threw millions to friends in Quebec (and corruptly siphoned some of it back) and miscalculated by 1000% the cost of the gun registry... but then runs on a record of fiscal responsibility.
-A party that claims to defend Canadian sovereignty... but has only just realized that a well equipped military might play a role in this.
-A party who attacks the Conservative policies on abortion or same sex marriage... but does nothing about its own members who hold identical or more radical views.
-A party leader who preaches he will attack the "democratic deficit"... and starts by parachuting Liberal candidates into various ridings across the country, against the wishes of the local members.
-A party leader who is proud of Canada and our social safety net... but whose shipping company pays its taxes to Barbados and flies its flag.

Macdoc... this isn't about voting out a good party in a fit of anger. This is about voting out a corrupt and morally bankrupt party that has lost its legitimacy and the right to govern.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

It has got to the point that you just vote for the party who you think will do the least amount of damage







It seems it will either be the Conservatives or the Liberals. Unless the other parties by some magical way win and it still would not solve the problem as personaly I dislike them all equally. Voting Liberal is almost like saying, it is okay that you are incompetent, we would still like you to run the country though. Or voting for the Conservatives who know one really knows what will happen.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Fink-nottle - the frustration is palpable but this is exactly the tactic that Harper has been using - point out the faults oft he Liberals while glossing over the glaring holes in the Conservative platform. Despite mismanagement, the Liberals have done an excellent job on the economy, the country is thriving and we have not blundered into the biggest mistake of the 21st Century. Martin has a lot to prove but at least he is "proven" and has spent the past month communicating his policies. I simply do not trust Harper and am mighty pissed at the Liberals for handing the guy a chance as the PM. I do trust Martin as I think he has been seriously humbled by the past 6 months and will make a better PM for it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Macdoc... this isn't about voting out a good party in a fit of anger. This is about voting out a corrupt and morally bankrupt party that has lost its legitimacy and the right to govern.


Fink-Nottle

Bingo! You're right on the money. 

Since the line between the NDP and the Fibs is so thin these days, if all Canadians were just angry at the Fibs but truly supported their left leaning policies, Jack Layton would be our next Prime Minister. Obviously there is more to the Conservative popularity than anger at the Fibs.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> -A party that threw millions to friends in Quebec (and corruptly siphoned some of it back) and miscalculated by 1000% the cost of the gun registry... but then runs on a record of fiscal responsibility.


excuse me I'm not old enough to remember all the facts but I do recall that the PC government under Brian Mulroney had similar charges against it when they where in power. (see Bree-X scam and Airbus scandal) also a promise not to raise taxs in Canada but along came the GST.



> -A party that claims to defend Canadian sovereignty... but has only just realized that a well equipped military might play a role in this.


yes a party that told the US *NO* to there imperialistic ambitions to take over a country through lies and deceit. Yes a well equiped miltiary would be nice but big army's are not needed in today's day and age what is needed is today are fast emergency response forces and helicopter carriers are not the answer to the problem.



> -A party who attacks the Conservative policies on abortion or same sex marriage... but does nothing about its own members who hold identical or more radical views.


I'm sorry but I haven't heard Mr. Harper sanction his own party members that have expressed there views against the party platform also along with the rest of the country I still haven't heard an answer to Mr. Martin's question "would you use the not withstanding clause on same sex marriage or abortion?" all we got was Mr. Harper changing the subject.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The thing that annoys me the most about the Liberals is that they engage in the most reprehensible of activities and policies while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground. In the past year, we have witnessed:
> 
> -A party that claims to be the saviour of our healthcare system... after three terms of cutting the transfer payments to the provinces that pay for it.


* You conveniently forget that Canada was close to bankruptcy, legacy of Mulroney and previous government excess. All along it was clear that in order to continue the programs a decade of cuts and sacrfices at all levels was mandatory to reduce the payments in interest and get GDP to debt ratios in order.
It was clear all along that until that happened there was not funds to repair the health and infrastructure.
Now Harper wants to go back to deficits just like the idiots down south and Harris did here in Ontario.
Without repairing the macro finances there would be no surplus to argue about *



> -A party that threw millions to friends in Quebec (and corruptly siphoned some of it back) and miscalculated by 1000% the cost of the gun registry... but then runs on a record of fiscal responsibility.


* No question governments in power reward friends. Mulroney, did it, Eves did it, Chretien did it - one reason Canadians hate politicians en masse. Patronage and influence is an ongoing issue for all governments yet Canada ranks very high by world standards in that area.
Fundamental fiscal responsbility is creating a balanced budget with some head room for emergencies. We see NOTHING of that in the 50 billion black hole Harper proposes.
Was part of the "balance" done on the backs of the municipalities and provinces - of course and with the economic conditions, excellent trade blance, an economy the envy of the western world, low interest rates there is no question funds can be applied to redress someof those issues.
The cities in particular, child care and infrastructure.

Have the Liberals done no wrong, of course not, any group in power will have it;s share of greed and trough pigs.
Did Martin do something about it...yes.

That does not make HIS government irresponsible. Who called for the auditors report in the first place?? Who has put controllers in each major agency and fired a few heads of Public companies.

Mistakes are inevitable, doing something about it without losing the vision of the goals is just good government. Bringing programs to paly as and when they can be afforded is important.
Throwing out the goals and vision for a US style Harperworld, especially one going down the same disproven road of we can do everything AND cut taxes........now that's true fiscal irreponsibility.*



> -A party that claims to defend Canadian sovereignty... but has only just realized that a well equipped military might play a role in this.


* Sovereignity is defended with respect in the world, multilateral actions, open arms to other cultures, trade and aid, not StarWars and tanks. 
Harper would have had Canadian troops in Iraq, that alone should tell Canadians how out of touch he is with their goals.*



> -A party who attacks the Conservative policies on abortion or same sex marriage... but does nothing about its own members who hold identical or more radical views.


* Oh so you think a party should "do something" about disagreement - sounds about right - like lets just demolish the independence of the courts and the Charter and put Harpers yesmen in place. Defending the Charter and the independence of the courts while allowing for individuals to disagree IS what it's all about. Disabling those safeguards as Harper would do is catastropic in a modern democracy.*



> -A party leader who preaches he will attack the "democratic deficit"... and starts by parachuting Liberal candidates into various ridings across the country, against the wishes of the local members.


* I'll give you that and there is no question this shows a different team in place than the slick Chretien machine. Chretien was a politician first and foremost. Marginal as a leader of the nation. Martin has vision but in the down and dirty political arena gets hurt by moves like that. It does show arrogance and it's one reason the party fortunes are hurting.*




> -A party leader who is proud of Canada and our social safety net... but whose shipping company pays its taxes to Barbados and flies its flag.


* Martin doesn't need the job, he has a strong family history of public service. The international shipping business is horrendously complex with liability, taxes, labour laws and costs all interwoven. Avoiding taxes and evading taxes are very different. It's a difficult playing field and Canadian companies play as equals on it.
Do you think his pittance as PM in compares to being the owner of Canada Steamships??!!









Martin has already shown the ability to achieve goals by erasing the deficit. 
Cleaner government started the day he took over when he appointed the auditor and later when he put controlers in key areas.
If anything he needs prodding to get on with introducing the programs talked about for so long. He does act too cautiously at time. The 5¢ gas tax could be in place now for cities but I also know there is a complexity behind seemingly simple programs like that. 

Bottom line tho the economy is terrific, Canada highly respected world wide for it's economy AND it's multilateral approach to world affairs.

Had there been a "Progressive" in the Con, and no tax cuts that even the business community is saying is reckless, then perhaps the current Cons might be an alternative.
Shared vision with "some" differences in approach.

Harper is a recycled radical - much further right than the current party would have voters believe. 
I don't think for a second Canadians want a current US style vision or government.

They're mad at the Libs for some good cause due to mistakes and those errors deserve attention and correction. 
Losing sight of what IS right in the vision and the nation right now is just plain dangerous and short sighted.

Just the fact that NONE of the other three parties support Harper's vision of Canada as a society or in the world shows just how wrong headed the Con policies are.

Bring back the Progressive aspect......then maybe some sense is made for moderate alternatives.
Not a few former PCs have jumped shipped for that very reason.

What truly IS morally bankrupt is a would be leader trying soothe an electorate into believing that the radical and unpopular policies he supported publicly before are not still in the agenda.*


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Bre-X had nothing to do with government policy, and there was a criminal investigation, with a "justice was served" outcome.

Airbus? Funny, but after all the stink, it turned out that the PC government was not involved, the Prime Minister was not involved, but strangely, it seems to have been a a witch hunt sparked by the Liberals.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

-A party that threw millions to friends in Quebec (and corruptly siphoned some of it back) and miscalculated by 1000% the cost of the gun registry... but then runs on a record of fiscal responsibility.
excuse me I'm not old enough to remember all the facts but I do recall that the PC government under Brian Mulroney had similar charges against it when they where in power. (see Bree-X scam and Airbus scandal) also a promise not to raise taxs in Canada but along came the GST.


_Shall we do a little fact checking? The GST, which you labled a tax raise, was in fact a replacement for the 13% MST which was a cascading tax. Please do correct my math, but I was under the impression that 7% was smaller than 13%. Also, the GST is not a cascading tax (that is, you do not pay tax on the tax)_


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc, Jwoodget,

Great rebuttals... I enjoy this debate. 

Macdoc, as any economist will tell you, the country was NOT CLOSE to going bankrupt. It did require some fiscal changes and the Liberals made them... largely by cutting off the transfer payments. Our economic success since then is largely in line with other western countries.

Saying all governments engage in patronage is a pretty poor defence of the Liberals. If you believe that, wouldn't the best policy be to turf out governments on a regular basis? As the saying goes, politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reason. And Paul Martin has done nothing more than he was forced to do... and then relunctantly.

Sovereignty is about ensuring the survival and integrity of your country and its institutions. Respect, multilaterism, aid & trade... all good things to be sure but not really relevant to sovereignty. Poland had our respect in 1939, later Kuwait and East Timor and others... but they would have rather had some tanks and guns and other unpleasant but necessary things.

Should a party do something about internal disagreement on a social issue (such as abortion or same sex marriage)... not necessarily. But Martin attacked the Conservatives for having a hidden agenda propelled by their bankbenchers when he has exactly the same problem... people like Dennis Mills, Tom Wappell and others oppose his position. Here's a press release concerning Same Sex Marriage that says there are over 40 such Liberals in Ontario alone.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/el100604.htm

I know Martin doesn't need the job... but does that mean we should all be grateful he has COMPLETELY divested himself of his company (by giving it to his sons...) and deigned to run again?

I agree that this is an important election and I'm fairly pleased at our choices. I can't think why you would want the Conservatives to rediscover progressivism... I'd say the Liberals are now the Red Tories as confirmed by the failure of the old PC party and the way some of them have jumped ship. I am also pleased to see the Green party emerging. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy I don't even mind Paul Martin and he probably wouldn't do a bad job as PM... except that on his coattails would ride a decadent and corrupt party which we are best rid of.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *And your source for these definitive statement would be?*


?????????? Like, just about 80% of the public you would want to ask, I think. 
P.S. I thought I should try to back up my claim with some support. I found this summed it up


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

> quote:
> You conveniently forget that Canada was close to bankruptcy, legacy of Mulroney and previous government excess. All along it was clear that in order to continue the programs a decade of cuts and sacrfices at all levels was mandatory to reduce the payments in interest and get GDP to debt ratios in order.
> It was clear all along that until that happened there was not funds to repair the health and infrastructure.
> Now Harper wants to go back to deficits just like the idiots down south and Harris did here in Ontario.
> Without repairing the macro finances there would be no surplus to argue about


Confusing facts by looking through Liberal Red tinted glasses? How large was the deficit when Mulroney took power? How large was the deficit when he left? How much health care did Mulrony cut? Lets get some things perfectly straight, Mulrony LOWERED the deficit by 60%+, and did it without starving the provinces or squeezing health care. Mulroney reduced the size of government, and reduced the spending of the federal govenment.

Martin chose to reduce the deficit, but downloading the cost to the provinces, The very downloading you have been complaining the Ontario Tories did to the cities. Rather that attack the spending habits of his buddies, Martin deliberately chose to squeeze health care.




> quote:
> No question governments in power reward friends. ...
> Have the Liberals done no wrong?? of course not, any group in power will have it;s share of greed and trough pigs.
> Did Martin do something about it...yes.
> ...


A little fact checking may be in order. Who was the minister responsible for money when the theft of taxpayers money was underway? Martin. Who knew what was going on in Quebec? Martin. Who did not raise a fuss? Martin. 

And guess who played God with lives, playing politics rather than showing compassion when it came to giving $$ for the tainted blood scandle? Martin.

Sorry, but in my books Martin is an untrustworthy thief, who will likely take what he wants from Canada before retiring (after setting his family up no doubt)



> quote:
> Bringing programs to play as and when they can be afforded is important. Throwing out the goals and vision for a US style Harperworld, especially one going down the same disproven road of we can do everything AND cut taxes........now that's true fiscal irreponsibility.


You are not going to get an arguement from me on this point. Harper is being a jackass, if he really thinks he can cut taxes, increase health care and military spending and not run a deficit. But I have the feeling that Harper knows this already, and is just prostituting himself to the right wing.




> quote:
> Martin has already shown the ability to achieve goals by erasing the deficit. Cleaner government started the day he took over when he appointed the auditor and later when he put controlers in key areas. If anything he needs prodding to get on with introducing the programs talked about for so long. He does act too cautiously at time. The 5¢ gas tax could be in place now for cities but I also know there is a complexity behind seemingly simple programs like that.
> 
> Bottom line tho the economy is terrific, Canada highly respected world wide for it's economy AND it's multilateral approach to world affairs.


Lets get one thing very straight. Martin did not erase the deficit. Martin inherited a system put in place by the previous PC Government that lead to deficit reductions. Then Martin sped up the process by screwing Canada over on healthcare. And refusing to keep the military suppied with the bare necessities. As for Martin "appointing auditors" etc, I'm having a hard time typing, I'm laughing so hard. Martin has done SFA when it comes to corruption, except to cover his own ass. I do not see anyone dangling by their testies from the nearest tree.

While we are at it, where is the push to wipe out child poverty that the Liberals have been promising for more than a decade? 

If the economy is good, thank the previous PC govenment for the FTA and pushing NAFTA. Which reminds me, didn't the Liberal government campaign to crush the FTA?

As for your assertion that Canada is "widely respected", I would suggest to you that Canada is widely patronized, just like the cute little girl that sings at some family event. 




> quote:
> Harper is a recycled radical - much further right than the current party would have voters believe. I don't think for a second Canadians want a current US style vision or government.
> 
> They're mad at the Libs for some good cause due to mistakes and those errors deserve attention and correction.
> ...


I don't think of Harper as a recycled anything. He is what he is, a guy that wants to grab power and fundamentally shift how politics works in this country. Personally, I don't share his vision.

Hello Greens


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> He is what he is, a guy that wants to grab power and fundamentally shift how politics works in this country.


Yeah Hitler wanted to grab power as well and look what happened.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

> Here's a press release concerning Same Sex Marriage that says there are over 40 such Liberals in Ontario alone.
> 
> http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/el100604.htm


I looked there, and the Liberals and Conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage across the country are about even at around 70.
However, the number in favour of same-sex marriage:
</font>
Liberals: 100</font>
Conservatives: 1</font>
Add to that the fact that it's the Conservatives who want to have a vote, not the Liberals. Martin said he will not use the not-withstanding clause. And the Star editor quoted by MacDoc links this up nicely to the Bush-like trend, how the Conservatives would make this a precedent for removing other civil liberties.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'll be glad when the rest of Canada has voted,
I'm sick of all the "They did this" and "He did that"
Makes me want to tell them all to... Go here. 
(Caution this link may be offensive to some)

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

road to bankruptcy??
Strange this Con also seemed to think so



> Preston Manning:  A Genuine Canadian
> 
> I was drawn to Canadian federal politics for a number of reasons. *Our country was running enormous debts and we were on the road to bankruptcy.* The politicians in Ottawa stopped listening to Western Canada and built enormous bureaucracies that catered to Quebec's outrageous blackmailing demands. However, my main reason for entering politics was Preston Manning's vision of Canadian democracy.


http://www.philipmayfieldmp.com/columns/prestonmanning-mar30-01.htm

The government itself was concerned about the ratios and I recall reading many articles about the potential damage that continued deficit spending would inflict.



> Things must be looked at in the proper perspective: Canada was not "bankrupt" in the early 1990s, but it was starting down a very slippery slope. Like many other countries, we were the ones that had got ourselves in trouble, and we were the ones that had to get ourselves out of it. We have been able to regain our discipline and capitalize on the enviable assets our union gives us.
> 
> We have been lacking in budgetary discipline in our recent history, and we have paid the price. We have had to undergo a difficult process of putting our financial house in order. While it is still too early to proclaim victory, the progress we have made so far is impressive.
> 
> ...


Zero Deficit" Our common objective 

Canada has continued to have exceptionally strong growth and this document certainly makes clear that the cuts were at Provincial and Federal to get the situation turned around. There was no hiding the procedure.

If there is criticism that I would agree with it would be perhaps being too slow in returning health care to full funding.

Nursing the government through this difficult transition was no easy task especially with the likes of Chretien at the helm. 

This is worth a read completely as it's a good economist's view of the state of finances and goals looking forward.
Looking back two governments later, rasing the spectre of secession and deficit together shuld scare the bejessus out of Canadians...just when the rewards of a unified effort by a unified country are coming available.



> Political uncertainty is undeniably harmful for the economy. Throughout the world, the very prospect of secession entails a host of uncertainties, a political and social upheaval. No sociological law can protect us against this universal rule.


We've just seen Ontario's rating be affected by the steep deficit left by the PCs.

Do we deserve and need better, cleaner government...indeed.

Do we need or want to return to unworkable schemes and schisms from the past....NO!


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Fink-Nottle wrote:

*Poland had our respect in 1939, {...} but they would have rather had some tanks and guns and other unpleasant but necessary things.*

Comparing Poland versus Hitler's Germany in 1939 to Canada (vs. which nebulous bogeyman?) today is really stretching it.

*In fact*, Poland spent enormous amounts of money on army and equipment well before the war. There were special taxes and citizen's subscription bonds for financig all sorts of ordnance.

Poland lost against the Germans not so much because of the admittedly obsolete and lacking equipment, but because of antiquated strategy, widespread corruption*, and disastrous foreign policy.

Poland was ready to fight another WW I, they were not prepared to fight WW II. 

Which *no one* was then prepared to fight, other than the *Germans*.

The French had equipment much superior to that of Poles and they still lost. They were fighting WW I too.

One of the largest mistakes the Poles made was to trust their allies. Namely France and England. Sure thing, both countries declared war on the Germans and then sat (Sitzkrieg) and did diddly squat (OK, they tried to _negotiate_ with the Reich. That approach was _ever_ so succesful in the prior case of Austria & Czehoslovakia) while Hitler and Stalin took Poland apart.

The foreign policy error was to forge alliances with fairly remote countries who never had any real common goals with Poland, while at the same time alienating Poland's closest natural allies. Such as the Czechs.

So this was really not about spendinding money on the military. You can draft every citizen in the country and spend your entire budget on the army, it's not going to solve problems for anyone other than military contractors.

BTW, Polish and French partisans did more damage to the Germans than their respective regular armies ever managed. 

The war against terrorism will never be won by bombers, "smart" bombs, tanks and aircraft carriers.

Using all this junk will just breed a new, more vicious generation of terrorism.

You think 9/11 was bad?


Canada is in an almost unique postion to get out of the militarism game. Do we need a strong Coast Guard? Yes. Do we need small, highly mobile crisis response forces? Yes.

Do we need tanks, non-defensive missiles, aircraft carriers, *submarines*** and any other large scale equipment? I don't think so.

If Canada insists on following the US into their custom made disasters, and mucking with other people's sovereignty, we will reap the fruit of these bad decision seeds. Same as Spain.

iG/<

* - Poland was at the time not in the clutches of a Liberal Government, but in the hands of the kind of Conservatives who would welcome Mr. Harper as one of their own.

** - http://www.cae.com/en/newsroom/2002/shtml/marine_01092002_ref072.shtml 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1974702.stm 

Hmmm... 275 Canadian hospitals closed in a decade, but we can "afford" to buy some leaky subs for 3/4 of a billion dollars, and then spend additional millions fixing them.

Glug, glug...

"the sonar broke and another faulty piece of equipment had to be unjammed with a hockey stick. "

Let's spend several million dollars towards buying hockey sticks for the Canadian military, 'cuz you never know when they will need them. 

[ June 21, 2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What Poland didn't have and what Canada has is isolation from land attack other than from the US where the situation is indefensible.

Britain would have fallen right after France without the Channel and almost did anyways.

Late 19th European thinking. Bout right for Cons. Regressive fits just fine.  

Here's a very interesting read about the dangers of being too closely associated with American Empire.......any empire for that matter.



> Every country in Europe has at one time or another reached for the imperial purple. Portugal and Spain discovered and conquered vast jungles, swamps and pampas...and built empires of them. For Spain, the conquests were extremely profitable – after they found huge quantities of gold and silver. But nothing ruins a nation faster than easy money. The money supply grew larger with every ship's return from the New World. People felt rich, but prices soon soared. Worse, the easy money from the new territories undermined honest industry. In the bubble economy of the early 16th century, Spain developed a trade deficit similar to that of the U.S. today. People took their money and bought goods from abroad. By the time the New World mines petered out, the Spanish were bankrupt. The Spanish government defaulted on its loans in 1557, 1575, 1607, 1627. and 1647. The damage was not only severe, it was long-lasting. The Iberian peninsula became the 'sick man of Europe' and remained on bed-rest until the 1980s.


The entire article is a very interesting and cautionary read
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/bonner6.html

Let the US squander it's wealth and youth on weapons and hegemony.
Let even 1/2 of the 400 billion defence budget on their schools and poor.....then they'll get some respect.

Canada's long term strength will be in NOT being seduced to US adventurism and policies regarding both their place in the world and the treatment of their citizens.
Canada HAS done it differently, is the envy of the world and earns the admiration of many in the US who would see OUR policies and approach one they would have the US emulate.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It's all smoke and mirrors. Pretty much every other country in NATO looks at Canada as some sort of US protectorate. A weak kneed batch of unrepentant socialists who have been sheilded from the true reality by the Americans....and who are desperately in need of a few "readjustments".

The same sort that have been necessary in countries like Sweden, Britain, The Netherlands, et al, that used to have a serious socialist bent to their internal politics. The same sort of readjustments that are ongoing in pretty much every other European country right now. Germany is going through the early stages of this painful transition as we speak. And the citizens don't like it much.

Nobody EVER does.

But Canada WILL go through this very same process too, just as all the rest have. We will adjust our social programs and tax rates to make the whole system truly sustainable in the long term. We will strengthen our military up to the very minimum to retain soverignty over this vast land.

We will begin this long and painful process not too long after the next election.

Watch and see.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

WHOA! Hold the coronation of a Conservative government!

Sat down at the computer to read the news while the java was brewing and nearly fell off my chair when I saw this:

LIBERALS TAKE SIX-POINT LEAD OVER CONSERVATIVES in today's Globe. 

It goes on to say the Grits have climbed back to 42 per cent support in Ontario.

So, what do you all think? Is it true or is it one of those rogue polls that occasionally pop up? That one out of 20 that needs to be tossed?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc,

I do wish that having a decent armed forces was a 19th century anachronism... but that's an assumption that can only be proved wrong, never right. Canada spends about $250 per person per year on its military... well behind such armed superpowers as Denmark ($458), Sweden ($495) and Greece. ($573) We don't need nor want to match the US ($953) but having a flexible, respectable force costs more money than we have been spending... even the Liberals finally get this. It is also necessary if we want to extricate ourselves from the "American empire" (as you put it); right now we mock how much they spend but are quite content to reap the benefits through NATO, NORAD etc.

iGeek, my only point is mentioning those countries was to reinforce the point that sovereignty is not really about respect and aid etc... it's about power.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

It is as I foretold.  

Seriously, I'm really excited about the numbers... I think this is a critical point in Canadian history and I'm confident Canadians will not choose the US style goverment that Harper will inflict on us. 

One week to go!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If you are an intermediate nation with natural barriers and one elephant on the doorstep the ONLY defence is respect and multilateral support.

Those countries you mention are all European with tangible ground based issues even with each other.
We spend just over 1% of GDP while Europe collectively in 2002 spent 1.9% and the US 3.4%. Taking a per capita number without looking at national income levels is hardly a good reference.
IN the UK defence spending was 5.2% of the GDP in 1985 now it's 2.4% and falling.
Here's the relatively current spending

DEFENCE BUDGETS - NATO COMPARISON 


The nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), spent some US$508 billion on defence during 2002. Of this total the European members of NATO spent US$149.92 billion. For ease of conversions from national currencies, amounts are shown in US$.

Country
2002 Budget

United States
$350.7 billion

Canada
$7.6 billion

Czech Republic
$1.16 billion

Denmark
$2.4 billion

France
$29.5 billion

Germany
$24.9 billion

Greece
$3.5 billion

Hungary
$1.08 billion

Iceland
No defence budget

Italy
$19.4 billion

Luxembourg
$180 million

Netherlands
$6.6 billion

Norway
$3.8 billion

Poland
$3.5 billion

Portugal
$1.3 billion

Spain
$8.4 billion

Turkey
$5.8 billion

United Kingdom
$38.4 billion

Holland has about the same population as Canada and spends less despite having "neighbors".
Spain has 30% more population, spends slightly more.

Each nation must adjust to it's actual geopolitical position. We are isolated so spending on SAR, coast patrol, long range communication, rapid disaster response, fire fighting, emergency police services and medical response at a distance are all worthy goals in keeping with Canada's role as peace negotiator, peace keeper.

This is very different than traditional military spending and reflects our reality. It's a matter of priorities and affordability over time.

Submarines, missile frigates, tanks should be low or non existent on the priority list.
Long range patrol and rescue craft, emergency/disaster SAR etc all should be in first place and done when affordable. Resources that can be used 24/7 for both domestic and international support/rescue/relief should be far and away the top priority for Canadians.

Rather an effective support role in multilateral efforts for other nations that still need tradtional military.
When a Canadian flag appears on a piece of equipment it should be welcome as providing support, reassurance and rescue in any theatre.

If the US is the world cop we can be the paramedic. Doctors without Borders should be a role model for Canadian Services.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

I think the comparison by capita is pretty valid... all countries are different but I chose a collection of western, first world nations. Here's the link by the way:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap 

I think a couple of your assumptions are wrong. Firstly, I don't think the Europeans are that frightened of each other... rather they accept that having a credible military appropriate to their size is important. Secondly, I think you could argue that Canada as a larger country should spend more on defence than the European nations. I certainly agree (as I think everyone does) that the force should be flexible and able to respond to natural disasters etc.

You also said:
"If the US is the world cop we can be the paramedic."
I think that is a central failing of your argument. If Iraq has proved anything it is that the US does not have the capability to be the world cop. They have made several terrible strategic blunders and the cost of the effort in money and lives is far outweighing anything they are gaining as a nation. It is also looking to be both financially and militarily unsustainable for them. After they leave Iraq, I suspect we will see the US return to their traditional isolationist policy. That will leave us with two choices. We can seek a closer alliance with the US and they will probably include us in their plans. Or we can establish a credible armed forces ourselves so we don't need their help... and can perhaps contribute ourselves to the defence of the continent.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Fink-Nottle & MacDoc,
what threats are we supposed to be defending against, and what specific military equipment or expenditures do you think is needed for this defence?
Personally I think we need better intelligence and communications systems. We need to make sure no terrorists can use our country as a base, defend against illegal fishers and drug/people traffickers, and we need to be able to respond to the next virus outbreak or natural disaster. And if there are any big purchases we need to lock in the funds so they don't get cancelled/re-directed by every other change of government.
Why are we buying submarines? I am curious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Elmer - that's my position all along - "what military threats"??

I agree entirely, our priorities in spending should in SAR, communication, fire fighting, medical response - not traditional military.
There is a good thread elsewhere on this

Canada and ABM


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Elmer,

Macdoc and I have discussed this previously... here is a post I made last week when Macdoc asked "Against Who"?
http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002249;p=3

--

Macdoc,

Let me rebut:

"against who!!!!!!"

Firstly, even if there was no obvious enemy, that's a terrible reason to close up the armed forces. I can't see any fires burning from my office window either but I still want to fund the fire department.

Secondly, there are many potential enemies and just as importantly, rivals. Enemies include terrorist groups and countries who sympathize. They are not likely to invade us but they might attempt an action which would require a military response. For example, if airplanes are hijacked again do we have fighter jets close enough to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or any other major city to defend the buildings there on short notice? By rivals, I'm talking about countries who for example, might want to illegally fish in our waters but would think twice if we had a gunboat or two roaming around them. Sadly our status has 'responsible contributing world citizen' hasn't deterred them so far.

Thirdly, by "defending" our shores I'm including all manner of situations in which the military could be used. An invasion is pretty unlikely but as mentioned above, there may be a situation (major terrorist attack etc) where the military would be needed to restore order. They are also there to assist in natural disasters (as they did in the floods or in the ice storm) or sometimes just to keep a city working... remember Mel Lastman asking them to get rid of the snow! 

Finally, we admirably are often eager to send our troops on peacekeeping missions. I'd like them to be well equipped... unlike the poor soldiers who had to drive around Afghanistan in a light SUV.

--

With regard to the military specifics, our general needs are pretty obvious. We need an armed forces consisting of professional troops with up to date equipment and modern vehicles, sufficient to both patrol and protect our own country and contribute to international ventures when needed, without relying on other countries for help (ie. transportation) as we do now. It should also be flexible enough to deal with non military threats - natural disasters etc.

There are many reports which look more deeply into the specific and that is an area in which I'm not really qualified to comment... but you can see several strategic reports on this site.

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/intro_e.asp


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You've got the priorities backwards.
We need Canadian services with some miitary elements.
That's where we disagree big time.

Coast Guard has military aspects but that's not the primary function.
Peacekeeping and policing have military aspects but different training.

As to US cop in Iraq - they should not have been there the way they are and with the light compliment they have a serious issue down the road in recruitment.
I suspect you are right they will go isolationist.

Towns used to have militia - they don't. Expressions of power change, a guy a in tent defeated one super power 

Deal with the real issues of Coast Guard coverage, SAR

Then discuss support for a mulitlateral armed forces. My preference would be to provide the same SAR, transport, communication, fire fighting, police and peacekeeping in that role.

Because we are so closely associated physically with the US I think it most prudent to disassociate with the cop aspect, instead be viewed as non combatant but supporting multilateral activity.

We can be the alternate view emanating from North America.
We WILL grow, we are the second largest nation physically. How we set our course now when we are small in population may have enormous consequences 50 years out.

Switzerland has maintained it's own course in the midst of chaos in Europe - still does.
We can too.....Think Different, act different, be a different more world oriented nation than the US.
We are already, we can be better.

When a Canadian flag shows on the horizon it should be a welcome sight everywhere in the world. Not feared but welcomed, offering relief, trade, aid and support.
That should be our goal and where we spend our resources.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I don't know about this, but do we want a PM that doesn't even remember the date of the election?

Nice to see Paul Martin is still human.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

A slip of the tongue is hardly something newsworthy.
You don't seriously think that Martin believes the election is in October?

Gawd, I can't believe I'm speaking up for the PM.
The Liberals must have gotten to me.  

iG/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaking of the Military and from the heart of Harperland



> *Gritty truths
> 
> Harper's stance almost makes one grateful for an undersized military*
> By Bill Kaufmann -- Calgary Sun
> ...


Owwwwww that's gotta hurt from hometown


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...anyone who is realy happy about this latest Globe announced poll should temper their enthusiasm for a moment and read the REST of the article. It goes on to state that the Conservatives are STILL projected to win more seats than the Liberals.   

One component of pretty much all of the polls that hasn't gotten much airplay is the fact that a majority of Canadians have clearly stated that "it's time for a change". Every poll has recorded numbers in the sixty or seventy per cent range on this question.

Interesting, no?

Any way you look at it, we are going to see some pretty big changes after june 28th. The Liberals haven't got a ghost of a chance of getting another majority. Even if they do manage to squeak back in by buddying up with some other party, it won't last a year. Probably less.

Best to avoid all that pain and upset and elect a Conservative MP for your area. Especially in Ontario.

The rest of the country will be doing exactly that.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Not so Mcnutt.

The original story states:

*"A seat projection based on the poll results puts the Liberals and Conservatives essentially neck and neck at about 110 seats each, with the Bloc dominating Quebec and the NDP winning about 20 seats."* 

The current update makes no reference as to how the seats will split.

So while Martin's majority is gone, something acknowledged some time ago, so is Harper's imaginary one.

You are right that a majority of Canadians have indicated they want a change. Not surprising considering the Grits' popularity is in the low 30s.

But they don't want a change to the right (ie. Conservatives) as conservative columnist Andrew Coyne finally figured out.

*"Interestingly, if you add the three left-wing parties (NDP-Bloc-Green) together, you get another third of the vote -- 35%, actually -- half again as much as they got between them last time. So it's a three-way split between the right, the centre, and the left. More of the Liberal vote has bled left than right. Indeed, Harper has not been able to match the combined vote of the Alliance and Progressive Conservatives in the last election, though the Conservatives have ran well to the left of the Alliance."* 

Translation; The Liberals have done the damage to themselves and the Conservatives have no appeal to anyone other than themselves.

[ June 22, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And, like I've been saying since the first day of this election, It's gonna be an interesting race.  

I've also been saying, for quite some time, that the deeply split Liberal Party will implode in on itself after the election...unless they get a majority.

Which they WON'T.

The Federal Liberals are fighting among themselves right now and this will reach a fever pitch once they've lost a whole bunch of seats. Fingers will be pointed and blame assigned.

THAT is when we may just find that some minor player has been keeping detailed records about some of the dirty dealings....and now wants to go public.

Stick a fork in them. They're done. No matter who wins.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thats what I find hilarious














, no matter what the upcoming federal programs are swinging left.

National daycare coming up
More health care coming up
5 cents for cities coming up
First Nation programs coming up
Kyoto coming up

Martin actually forced to act on his program promises. 

A right wing Liberal party + a righter wing Con = left wing parliament


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I doubt the Liberals will implode, though Martin would be wise to make significant changes to his team.

Martin still controls the party apparatus, at the local, provincial and national levels. There will be complaints and criticism but there's no grassroots organization for any challenger to take over.

Nor is there a challenger. Certainly not within any of those Liberals likely to get elected. And as for going outside to bring back a "retired" Grit - Tobin, Manley and Copps are beyond "retired," firmly esconced in "has-been."

This election will result in a minority government, whether Liberal or Conservative is yet to be decided but another election will likely be held within two years or less. That campaign begins June 29. No time to draw and quarter a 
leader.

Finally, as trite as it sounds, Liberals keep public bloodletting to a minimum, a la Chretien and Turner, and Martin and Chretien.

Not like the Conservatives.

One wonders how firmly rests the Crown on Harper's head when he blows his "majority" government, can't make one plus one (Alliance supporters and Conservative supporters) equal two and alienates his Alliance base by moving the party far to the "left" in a failed attempt to gain power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's really too bad that far right anchor is there.
When are the curmudgeon's going to wake up and realize this is a different Canada that they are out of touch with.

There is room for a conservative view.
There is no appeal for the tired policies they are putting forward.

The FIRST thing is fiscal responsiblity and it's nowhere in sight.
The single biggest error Harper made was in trying to put that tax cut in the platform.

Had he simply stuck to "better government" message with modest small c conservative approach, kill the pork barrels, the gun registry, deliver a decent health care program he would still be ahead in the polls.

Trouble is - that's not him - it's not the current Cons.

Til they wake up and see what 70% of Canada wants ( all the left plus the Libs ) to see from a government the won't get the chance to govern.

Harper should sit down with Hazel McCallum and LISTEN  

HER vision is exactly where a renewed conservative constituency should position itself.
The current Cons are not even close.

The opportunity will come around to correct it but it will take some convincing that the right wing gorilla in the shadows is tamed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

"Make sure you vote. Think seriously about what it means. Vote policy not anger. What kind of Canada do YOU really want??!!"

One without the corrupt Liberal party, thanks.

And yes, I will vote for change.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So will I.  

So will a vast majority of Canadian voters. Watch and see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macdoc wrote:


> Vote policy not anger.


*One without the corrupt Liberal party, thanks.
And yes, I will vote for change.* 

Kind of makes you picture someone plugging his ears and saying, "La La La La."










----

*In a speech in May 2003, Harper said: "The time has come to recognize the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and the advance of free democratic order still depend significantly on the ... use of military might."*

That pretty much sums Harper up to me.  

I beginning to look as a vote for Harper as a character flaw. If you're going to base your vote simply because you're pi**ed at Martin, throw your vote to the NDP, the Green Party or anyone but Harper. 

When he loses, he'll probably write the Wall Street Journal and bad mouth Canada some more.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc until the Cons get their policies in line with central Canada your voice won't be heard.

Do we need cleaner government yep and you can bet Libs toes will held to the fire this next parliament.

There's few Liberals other than those that perhaps benefitted from the "largesse", that are happy with their party's dirty laundry.
But the PCs have their share as well and managed to piss off Canadians to the extend that party no longer exists.

Playing holier than thou with very suspect budget numbers and an inexperienced crew isn't sitting well as the support numbers are showing.
Listen to moderate voices in the conservative movement, chase the fringe dwellers to their caves and we can have a diversity of view and government that still falls within the majority desires.

Con views don't right now. Temper the foam at the mouth attitude and archaic catch phrases and policies.
With an aging Canada small c conservative values SHOULD be becoming more in vogue.

They aren't because to mid Canada in the style presented they represent regressive even repressive thinking. 
Sinc, you've been a "one liner" voice - get rid of the Liberals" ad nauseum
Without offering a viable alternative the fits Canadian expectations. That's been the problem all along.

Albertans seem to far too often sound like whiners - sitting on a fortune of natural resources, no provincial sales tax, a huge heritage fund they should be vital participants.....they aren't.

No question Quebec issues dominated and the east played bully with both the west and the Maritimes.
Now is the time for MORE cohesion in Canada not less.

Stop looking south, it's a disaster down there - look to grow a better Canada. There IS common ground.
It's up to both sides to find it.
Sulking and whining, clinging to outmoded policies, pointing fingers and crying "corruption" isn't going to achieve progress in creating a fair and fairly governed nation.
 

Creating consensus, NOT divisions will.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Poor Sinc, both barrels at once


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

A radio commentator made an interesting statement today. He said that based on current polls, practically every liberal seat will come from Southern Ontario with very few seats from the rest of the country or the rest of Ontario for that matter. Would make for an interesting election map.
You folks in the west must hate it when Ontario forces you to have a government you despise time and time again?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep but who is to blame for that? 

There is a strong small c trend in Ontario. Has been forever.
Many moderate Conservaitve governments are remembered fondly. Bill Davis, Leslie Frost and John Robarts.

Ontario tends to contra vote against the Federal stance and would have and is to some degree this time if the offering had been more viable and moderate.

Hating it is one thing....they've been great at that.

Now do something about it. I'm all ears. 

I suspect John Tory may be the next Ontario premier as an offset to David Miller.
We like the centre here.

Quebec has it's own methods too. Take notes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just think how terribly popular the already unpopular southern Ontario area might be with the rest of this land if we are, once again, forced to live under a small regional government that was placed into power by a tiny wedge of this vast land.   

Luckily, that won't happen.

The Conservatives will win the most seats in the upcoming elections. Even the most Liberal-friendly polls are showing this. And a solid sixty per cent of Canadians are saying...rather loudly...that they want CHANGE! They are saying this in every single poll. Every single time they are asked.

Why not elect a Conservative from your area of southern Ontario, instead of getting hornswaggled into voting for the same old crooks?

That way...at least you'll have some sort of representation in the dominant party in Parliament. The Liberals are finished, one way or the other. (Some of them may even end up in jail once all of the many investigations are completed.)

Or...would you prefer to be isolated and forgotten while the rest of us move forward?

Your choice.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

On one level, I am seeing some positive things that could come from a short lived conservative minority government.

For example, if the Liberals are defeated, the ammendments to the Toronto Port Agreement will die on the vine. This means that at Midnight on July 1st the Toronto Port Authority would resume construction of the Toronto Island Bridge. 

And Miller couldn't do a thing to stop it, and the Conservative position is they basically don't care, and that will be the least of their worries at that point. 

The Port Authority just needs a few weeks of political anarchy, and they can get their job done.

And the only thing sweeter than finally getting that stupid bridge built, will be rubbing it in to the idiots who voted for the NDP. 

How does the "Harper Airport Bridge" sound?

And when they couldn't pass a budget, the Conservatives will fall, we get the bridge and the Liberals back before the Conservatives could do any real damage. It's a win-win situation.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Just think how terribly popular the already unpopular southern Ontario area might be with the rest of this land if we are, once again, forced to live under a small regional government that was placed into power by a tiny wedge of this vast land.


That was my thinking too. If geographically tiny Southern Ontario forces a Liberal Government on the rest of this vast Country yet again, could this be the last straw that fuels the flames of a western independence movement? Can't say I'd blame you. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*The Conservatives will win the most seats in the upcoming elections.* 

Don't think so. 

*Why not elect a Conservative from your area of southern Ontario, instead of getting hornswaggled into voting for the same old crooks?* 

For all the reasons that have been discussed over and over. Look, I was ready to vote conservative this election. I've voted PC in the past. I'm not voting for a conservative in my riding, because I don't want to vote for an ultra-right wing Alliance party in a fake moderate conservative disguise. I'm *EXTREMELY* upset about the ad scandal, and the failed gun registry, but I'm not willing to throw away my Canadian values to a US style government in Stephen Harper's gag-ordered Alliance party. 

And because the conservative in my riding can't put together a complete sentence. (At least without putting both feet in his mouth. )

It says a lot about how much anger there was at the Liberals and how little support the conservatives have. And how many former PC candidates have jumped ship to the Liberals. A lot of the votes the conservatives are going to get are people who will simply vote on emotion and anger and not on party policies. 

As Duceppe said in the debate, "It's not my fault that what you propose doesn't correspond to the interests of Quebecers." Likewise, it's not my fault that I can't stomach the thought of Harper running our country. I can't vote for a new party that hasn't even had a single convention on their own policies. (Which seem to differ from conservative candidate to candidate.)

*Or...would you prefer to be isolated and forgotten while the rest of us move forward?* 

How arrogant.  Isolated? We're not the ones who want a firewall around our province. 

Voting for Harper moving forward?? More like stepping back a half a century.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There's a reason Southern Ontario has a lot of seats Macnutt. We have 12 million people living here. I'm sorry that we don't just shut up and bend over for Mr. Harper and his team. 

But oddly most Ontarians just don't like what he stands for - which is saying a lot given that those same voters aren't exactly falling over Paul Martin.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> quote:
> Just think how terribly popular the already unpopular southern Ontario area might be with the rest of this land if we are, once again, forced to live under a small regional government that was placed into power by a tiny wedge of this vast land.
> 
> That was my thinking too. If geographically tiny Southern Ontario forces a Liberal Government on the rest of this vast Country yet again, could this be the last straw that fuels the flames of a western independence movement? Can't say I'd blame you.


Typical "blessed be the ties that bind" talk from conservative supporters.  Naming a _bridge_ after Harper... that'd be the day. Somehow I think it would be a new freeway directly into the US. 

Looking forward to the day the old alliance / neo-conservative policies and ideologies fade away into the night.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> And a solid sixty per cent of Canadians are saying...rather loudly...that they want CHANGE!


What a load of horse pucks!

The day after the election of a Conservative minority, sixty to seventy per cent of Canadians will say rather loudly they want to CHANGE again!

The Conservatives are stuck at about 30 per cent, the Liberal are at about 30 per cent, the other "left" parties combined are at about 30 per cent.

That is the reality of federal politics in Canada, the major party that best hold and represents the interests of a broad base in the middle of the spectrum will win.

It naturally works to the advantage of the Liberals and the disadvantage of others.

If you don't like that, vote NDP. They're the only party pushing for a form of proportional representation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perfect MacNutt keep it up - you're exactly why the numbers are changing in Ontario...and not in the Cons favour.

50% of the GDP - small slice indeed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thing you don't have access to any of the data from the past two years for Ontario. This would be the two years when the electrical infrastructure problems began to put the brakes on all new commercial developments, when the Conservatives were defeated and the provincial Liberals took power...and administerd all sorts of new economically dampening tax increases (after loudly prosmising that they would NOT do so without a public referendum).

It would also be the two years since the Canadian Loonie began to rise and the American car factories began to shift production south. And fear of SARS killed off the vast majority of tourist travel to the area. Not to mention the movie industry. 

Yep...it's been an interesting two years for the whole southern Ontario region. A pretty scary two years by all accounts.

But you guys aint seen NOTHIN yet! The very best (worst?) is yet to come.

Watch and see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macnutt... your post is akin to me cheering for forest fires out west. For which Ontaro *gladly* flew over and help fight. Your post makes no sense... like your cheering for the SARS outbreak, the electrical problem in August that was not Ontario's fault, and a weaker Canadian dollar that effects Ontario's economy. 

Ontario's GDP in 2003 had nothing to do with the Liberals being in power. 

Ontario's GDP in 2003 was lower due to the former events:

"The rapid rise in the Canadian dollar from 64 cents US at the start of the year to a high of over 77 cents US in December presents a challenge for Ontario's export and tourism industries. The electricity blackout on August 14 shut down power in most of Ontario for one business day and forced key industries to operate at reduced capacity during the following week. For the year as a whole, Ontario's real GDP growth slowed to an estimated 1.7 per cent, down from 3.6 per cent in 2002, in large part reflecting the negative impact of these events.

*The outlook for the years ahead is brighter.* While the global economy continues to face a variety of risks, recent data indicate that growth is strengthening worldwide. As the impact of temporary shocks diminishes, *Ontario's economy is expected to regain momentum. Private-sector forecasters, on average, expect Ontario real gross domestic product (GDP) to grow by 3.1 per cent in 2004, 3.6 per cent in 2005 and 3.3 per cent in 2006.*"

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your rants? 

Ontario's economy to outpace national average. 

The Ontario economy has moved back into higher gear after slipping into near-recession last year and growth for the province is expected to outpace the national rate over the next half decade, said a report released today by Bank of Montreal.
"The Ontario economy is poised to resume its above national average growth," said Tim O'Neill, Bank of Montreal's Chief Economist. "While some of the growth in this year and next will simply reflect a rebound from last year's downturn, we still see Ontario as a major growth leader in 2004 through 2006."

--

Nice divisive statements your making.  I know I felt really bad for all farmers out west who suffered as a result to mad cow disease. I couldn't imagine trying to rub that in someones face and saying, "Ha ha.. .that really sucked for your economy." Nor would I be so stupid as to try to tie that into your choice for provincial government.

I wish all of Canada well as a nation. Your divisive statements are so typical of many divisive conservative supporters.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry to ruffle your feathers chief. I was just stating what is terribly obvious to pretty much everyone who lives outside of the smog filled area of southern Ontario that usually chooses our Federal Government for all the rest of us.

I wasn't cheering on all your multitude of problems. Simply warning you that bringing back a corrupt bunch of thieves as a national government...when ALL the rest of the country is voting strongly against them...is simply going to add to your many current troubles.

And OURS.

Think about it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Ontario's GDP in 2003 was lower due to the former events:
> 
> "The rapid rise in the Canadian dollar from 64 cents US at the start of the year to a high of over 77 cents US in December presents a challenge for Ontario's export and tourism industries. The electricity blackout on August 14 shut down power in most of Ontario for one business day and forced key industries to operate at reduced capacity during the following week. For the year as a whole, Ontario's real GDP growth slowed to an estimated 1.7 per cent, down from 3.6 per cent in 2002, in large part reflecting the negative impact of these events.
> 
> ...


All very true ehmax. 

But next time a Liberal stands up and tells you about the horrid deficit they inherited from the Provincial Conservative government trying to convince you to vote Liberal in this election, be sure to remind them of the economic catastrophe we faced in the last year of Conservative power. Would any party in Ontario have come out of the SARs crisis, power failures and skyrocketing CDN dollar with balanced books? I think not.

Also now that the economy is booming I'd imagine the Ontario Liberals will return us to a balanced budget by next year? We shall see.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gee Macnutt, the Conservatives must be praying that your water business gets even better or that there's a power outage on SSI until election day. Keep up at this rate and we'll have a majority Liberal government.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

> Good thing you don't have access to any of the data from the past two years for Ontario.


Hello,

Yes, I'm so lazy. Ironically enough, figures from the past year are usually easier to get than historical figures.

<table border=1 cellspacing=1><tr><td>Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>Ontario</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>1,255,700</td><td>493,416</td><td>42.40%</td></tr></table>

Sorry, I didn't see Ontario's most recent quarter. I guess I could always just make up some number or idea and claim that it is fact, but that would be extremely irresponsible and ignorant.

You can find some recent information about Ontario, here. 

James


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Would any party in Ontario have come out of the SARs crisis, power failures and skyrocketing CDN dollar with balanced books? I think not.* 

I actually think Paul Martin's Liberal party would. Part of their fiscal platform includes: "A balanced budget while maintaining a $3 billion Contingency Reserve to protect against the unforeseen. If the annual reserve is not needed, it will go to reduce debt and future interest payments, thus freeing up new resources to finance the priorities of Canadians."

Source 

Something he said he would do and has done.

[ June 23, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: ehMax ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SARS: inflamed by the Tories cutbacks to public health (gee, I guess Walkerton wasn't enough of a wake-up call)

Power outages: inlamed/created by the incredibly poorly conceived Tory energy price cap coupled to the blinkered desperation to off-load Hydro onto Bay Street supporters.

Not much anyone could do about a high exchange rate, except that exports of cars to the US were cheaper and this represents a whack of Ontario business so it wasn't all bad news.

Ontario has a remarkably resilient and diversified economy and workforce. It remains a powerhouse for the entire country - one that even the Liberals have taken for granted.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...50% of Canadian GDP....and _DROPPING. FAST!_









The whole southern Ontario area is about to go through a major change in fortunes. Partially as a result of this Federal election. Partially as a result of the last Provincial one. Partially as a result of the majority of the people in the area having their collective heads buried firmly in the sand while the rest of the world passes them by. Totally oblivious to everything around them.

Good luck people. You're gonna NEED it!

Meanwhile...the fastest growing and most dynamc part of this country will continue to out-perform the shaky old east. And continue to add new residents at a furious pace. And continue to attract massive wealth from the rest of the country.

Every single day of the week. Every single week of the year.

Once the chronic electrical shortages in Ontario begin to cause rolling blackouts every day...and once the Unions begin to chase away the last of the manufacturing...and once the provincial Liberals begin to heavily tax the remaining corporations in order to pay for their failed adgenda...once the roads and bridges begin to decay so bad that they can no longer be used for commercial and private traffic...once the air and water become so filthy that no thinking human would ever choose to live there...

Then we will see a mass exodus from the former heartland of Canada. Just as there has been in our immediate neghbor to the south. It's inevitable. It's cruel reality, come home to roost.

Check for yourself. The evidence is there....if you care to look.

OR...you could just keep on breathing smog, keep on drinking pollouted water, keep on pretending that there is some magic solution to your manifold problems. One that doesn't require massive new tax increases or the total shutdown of all of your cherished social programs in order to cover the costs.

And keep on voting Liberal!
















Surely THEY will solve all of this, eh? They certainly claim that they can!

And they wouldn't actually _LIE_ when they are making important promises like this?

Would they?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*"not much anyone could do about a high exchange rate"* 

High because the Canadian economy was strong and even despite the the high dollar our balance of trade has continued to be very strong.

Macnutt you represent the ill informed very well. Keep it up - the undecided need your rhetoric and posturing


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I'm not a big fan of the government having a contingency fund. A $3 billion contingency fund means the government has decided to hold onto $100 of my money, and $100 of your money, and $100 of every Canadian's money... just in case something happens. If nothing happens, they then throw it at the most popular vote-winning option and pat themselves on the back for being fiscally prudent. Perhaps I could take my $100 back and I'll pay it to the gov't in taxes if and when they actually need it...


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

I find it amazing how people just like to make stuff up.



> Yeah...50% of Canadian GDP....and DROPPING. FAST!


Here's some figures I got from Statistics Canada's Table 384-0002 - Gross Domestic Product (GDP), expenditure-based, Provincial Economic Accounts, annual (Dollars x 1,000,000). Note: all values are in terms of nominal GDP rather than real GDP.

<table border=1 cellspacing=1><tr><td>Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>Ontario</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>1981</td><td>360,471</td><td>131,064</td><td>36.36%</td></tr><tr><td>1982</td><td>379,859</td><td>138,741</td><td>36.52%</td></tr><tr><td>1983</td><td>411,386</td><td>154,682</td><td>37.60%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1984	</td><td>449,582</td><td>172,842</td><td>	38.45%</td></tr><tr><td>1985</td><td>	485,714</td><td>189,125</td><td>38.94%</td></tr><tr><td>	1986	</td><td>512,541	</td><td>208,460	</td><td>	40.67%	</td></tr><tr><td>1987</td><td>558,949	</td><td>	230,778	</td><td>	41.29%</td></tr><tr><td>	1988	</td><td>613,094	</td><td>256,441	</td><td>	41.83%	</td></tr><tr><td>1989	</td><td>	657,728	</td><td>278,791	</td><td>42.39%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1990	</td><td>	679,921	</td><td>	282,834	</td><td>41.60%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1991	</td><td>	685,367	</td><td>283,094	</td><td>	41.31%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1992	</td><td>	700,480	</td><td>	286,493	</td><td>	40.90%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1993	</td><td>	727,184	</td><td>293,405	</td><td>	40.35%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1994	</td><td>	770,873	</td><td>	311,096	</td><td>	40.36%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1995	</td><td>810,426	</td><td>	329,317	</td><td>	40.64%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1996	</td><td>	836,864	</td><td>338,173	</td><td>	40.41%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1997	</td><td>	882,733	</td><td>	359,353	</td><td>	40.71%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1998	</td><td>	914,973	</td><td>	377,897	</td><td>	41.30%	</td></tr><tr><td>	1999	</td><td>	980,524	</td><td>	409,099	</td><td>41.72%	</td></tr><tr><td>	2000	</td><td>1,064,995</td><td>433,446	</td><td>	40.70%	</td></tr><tr><td>2001	</td><td>	1,092,246	</td><td>443,852	</td><td>40.64%	</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>1,142,123</td><td>470,567	</td><td>41.20%	</td></tr></table>

So, it looks like Ontario has accounted for roughly 40% of Canada's GDP over the last 15 years or so. We do see a slight increase in the early 1980s. Again, I'm sorry I don't have more recent or older data, but I do have other work to do.

James


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Fink-nottle $3 billion amounts to less than two per cent of the total budget, a not unreasonable amount considering the costs that unforeseeable disasters -- SARS, forest fires, floods, Mad Cow -- can impose.

How much of your income do you set aside as a savings/contingency fund?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> SARS: inflamed by the Tories cutbacks to public health


Hmmm! Wasn't it Mr. Martin that cut healthcare transfers to the provinces to get his balanced budget that forced provincial governments to tighten their belts? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Hmmm! Wasn't it Mr. Martin that cut healthcare transfers to the provinces to get his balanced budget that forced provincial governments to tighten their belts?


Yep. People who vote Liberal conveniently forget that though.

Cheers


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

We should follow the States and be able to oust people if they dont keep their promises. I think Canada is going downhill in a hurry.


----------



## oatmeal (Apr 20, 2004)

Jack Layton and the NDP ... That's where my vote is going. Some reasons for my decision i will not post here ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No we don't forget the transfer payments were cut. Lots of things were cut to get rid of the deficit noose.
Getting the deficit under control came first. Now we are able to spend again.

Did Martin redress the health care soon enough ....no.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

> Hmmm! Wasn't it Mr. Martin that cut healthcare transfers to the provinces to get his balanced budget that forced provincial governments to tighten their belts?


Hello,

Wasn't it Mr. Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives who made the large deficits that Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin had to control?

James


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Don't keep us in suspense Oatmeal! How did Jack and team win you over?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Rob McKenzie in The National Post yesterday revealed Harper and the Conservative Party's Hidden Agenda:  



> - Young Offenders Act "updated" and given new name: The Law of Stoning.
> 
> - Commercial court replaced with debtors prison (on bright side, this leads to a revival of interest in Dickens).
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You can go back further - deficit financing was in vogue with Keynes ruling the roost as "THE" economist to follow.

It was felt that running deficits would grow the economy - every $1 in government spending would = $6 in economic growth.

Many governments around the world took it to heart, a bit too much to heart. The results were as in Canada ambitious programs that often cost far more than anticipated.

No question at times ( say the New Deal in the US ) it is very necessary for governments to undertake major infrastructure and public works projects as a "stimulus".
Wars do that very well









But time comes the public finances need repair and the tendency is to cut taxes instead of holding the surplus in boom times for lean times stimulus.

Short sighted, short lived political cycles are not good for the longer term infrastructure and economic cycle control ( one reason why Greenspan offers a consistent hand for what - 5 terms now ).

Boom times lead politicians and voters to think it'll last forever so there is a real tendency to overspend.
Martin to his credit has been cautious, but perhaps too cautious in doling out the rewards of the belt tightening.
Once the deficit was under control and surpluses appeared, he did one round of tax cuts that were significant.
As a result tho, program funding was not accelerated and then a minor dip and SARs and all of a sudden it was razor thin to see a surplus.

The economy recovered quickly, well beyond expectations so the surplus jumped and cautious spending to rebuild infrastructure and programs is in order.

As long as spending levels are ties to the economy within reason it can work, and Martin managed that reasonably well - keeping emergency funds while instituting a number of recoveries - the CPP for one.
There is always more demands than funds so he had to choose and it was not his choice always - does anyone know who the gun registry initiative came from - which minister??.

Wasting money on scandal and gun registries and HDRC tarnish an otherwise "admired by the world" run as Finance Minister.

That said his relationship to Chretien was never easy and the secrecy in the PMO was legendary.
Also the Finance Minister is NOT a comptroller.
The PM would be responsible to initiate tighter controls in those areas, something Chretien was unlikely to proceed with and the first thing Martin did as PM.

Chretien was an old style political animal, backrooms, slush funds, patronage.
Sometimes those less than admirable "deals" are needed.
Think the Turkish missle back channel deal that ended the Cuban Missile crisis.
Roosevelt's Lend Lease - a thin disguise to keep out of the war but still support Britain.
Politics and "good open management" do not always, do not often go hand in hand.

Martin's not a politician and he's cleaning out nests of built up relationships, sometimes for the good ( Auditor General ) sometimes for the bad ( Copps ) that hurts the party fortunes.

Canadians, many other countries tend not to give long mandates tho Germany was a notable exception. ( think Roosevelt with 4 terms and what he accomplished for America - a true leader and visionary)
I find that regretable as the large projects such as enrgy infrastructure, medical staff programs etc are far longer term than any one political cycle.
Look at how much got done with Pearson under a minotiry government because no one party could "dictate" - it had to be concensus.

Martin automatically faced that "no fourth term" problem and the fact that Ontario votes contra historically.

Instead of pointing fingers look at where we are and learn not to go back into deficit by asking for or folowing pols who offer tax cuts BEFORE all the rest of the problems are addressed.

We have a good sound economy upon which it cautiously build or rebuild and equitable society.
Personally I DETEST the inequalities in the US.
We are different, I like Canada's appraoch to sharing within it's borders and without.That can ony be possible with careful management.

As the Globe Editor said..First do no harm.

Get rid of the deadwood and slop but don't lose sight of the vision and the excellent progress made to date.

One thing about this process is questioning how much power political Ministers should really have.
Inexperience and greed can come into play and damage programs.
Would it not be better to have real long term senior Managers for large institutions with the Minister in an oversight role. A variation of the Auditor Generals role.
Something like a triumvirate of Comptroller, Manager, Minister with the frst two being career positions and the later political or perhaps the the first reporting independently to a Government Oversight body. That might even be a reasonable role for the Senate.
So you have, experience and continuity, economic oversight and political oversight on an equal basis in each large department.


What I find odd is so many voices moderate voices in Ontario and elsewhere with the same message, fix the programs, particularly health care and tax cuts be damned.
Yet politcians don't listen even when someone who should be their role model, Hazel McCallum tells them what to do.   

Hazel's a case in point for the long term management view without heavy political interference. 

[ June 23, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Mcguiver,

The SARS crisis was a public health problem and its effects were exacerbated by a weakened provincial system. This is not paid for as far as I know by the Ministry of Health. The McGuinty government announced last week the injection of funds into the program to bolster surveillance. The cut of Federal transfer payments did affect health delivery but that envelope was not related to public health. SARS hit the hospitals hard but that was a consequence of the failure of the PHS.

Which brings us to the question of who pays for public health? This is a huge cost that covers things like food safety, water purity, housing inspections, restaurant inspections, etc. I simply cannot see this being transferred to a private entity. Who would pay? Mike Harris decided to cut it back and it cost us enormously.

As an aside, the Feds have promised to roll out a federal public health laboratory program along the lines of the CDC. This is long overdue and will be sited in Winnipeg next to the National Microbiology Labs. All of the parties have expressed their support for its existence so its likely to be realized. It's success, however, will depend largely on the Provincial programs.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *A $3 billion contingency fund means the government has decided to hold onto $100 of my money, and $100 of your money, and $100 of every Canadian's money.*


Not to nitpck, but that's not exactly an accurate statement. Taxes are generated through numerous ways, not just personal income tax, so costs of running the government and any related surpluses are neither the responsibility nor the direct assets of only the populace. Taxes paid by business (for profits and purchases), by tourists and othere areas of the economy contibute a large portion of the total revenues. So, the 3 billion dollars is neither paid solely by the general population, nor does it have right to claim it is solely out of their pocket.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We also need a strong environmental and "wellness" initiatives to strike at the heart of health issues over the long term.
One such program is and continues to be the fight against cigarettes, another the ban on pesticides.
More needs doing especially as water quality and resources deteriorate.

Individuals need to use the system cautiously as well, not running to the public purse for a headcold.

I'd be interested to hear what people in the system think about "frivolous" use levels.

Stupid things like underfunding schools then they go to Coke for "deals" for equipment = poor nutrition.
There are many choke points, early learning, early child support and nutrition that have immense payoffs down the road.

It takes all parties involved ( not political parties - all citizens and the institutions ) to decide priorities and I for one do not see traditonal military spending as high priority when there are other critical issues for a healthy prosperous population on the table.

There were some quotes earlier about the desirable "quality of life" keeping some Americans here.
It's not all about tax breaks and market systems. It's about community and shared values.

More and more I see Macspectrums point that governments are NOT businesses.
There are different criteria and dynamics at play.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> More and more I see Macspectrums point that governments are NOT businesses. There are different criteria and dynamics at play.


And THAT is where people who agree with that kind of philosophy are dead wrong. They obviously have never tried to comprehend business on the level of a federal government. A business it is, and it should be run like one. To think otherwise is to admit ignorance of accepted business practice as applied to government.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No one said that "Accepted business practices" should not apply to government processes but the goals and dynamics are different than those that drive the marketplace.
A business can in general ignore the "common weal" and focus solely on it's own internally set goals.

Government cannot and also cannot leave those behind less able to compete. Government is buffer and referee in part.

Neither is government a charity.

Applying market rules to governments is wrong headed.
Expecting responsibility for handling tax dollars effectively is not.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm just sitting back here listening to a guy who is rather bright...but who's ideas and ideals are wayyyy beyond the "best before date".

By about four decades!

Time to grow up and leave all of that silly childhood nonsense behind, David. In case you hadn't noticed...the world has moved on while you were flailing around in that wonderful little fantasyland that was left over from your youthful days..

Play time is over. Socialism is dead. So is Communism.

The Soviet Union is long gone. Sweden is privatising everything...including national medical care and all of the city buses, among other things. Communist China looks like downtown Chicago and even Viet Nam has a car club for locals who own Ferraris. And who are worth a million bucks or so.

The Federal Liberal Party of Canada is in total disgrace. Jean Chretien will either stand trial for his criminal activities... or he will flee the country. Paul Martin and what's left of the Liberal party are the subject of no less than eighteen seperate investigations into fraud and theft and corruption. Paul Martin himself is currently under investigation for tax evasion and other crimes.

And the Federal Liberals are about to be soundly rejected by a vast majority of the Canadian voters. En masse!

The NDP is no longer a viable alternative for anyone. They are a walking dead party that hasn't quite fallen over yet.

So...yeah. ONE of us is "ill-informed". No doubt about it. One of us is completely out of touch with what has been happening, all over the world, for the past three decades. Pretty much EVERYWHERE.

I'm standing here just waiting to hear what you have to say after june 28th.







 

Should be rather illuminating. For everyone.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

David, I can't let you suffer these slings and arrows alone, compadre. What MacNutt considers to be 'four decades behind the times' is more accurately described as 'ideas whose time has most definitely come!'

The belief that government = a business and must / should play by those rules is not only uninformed, it is dangerous. A business has one thing as its objective: profit. A government with profit as a motivator will quickly find its shareholders dying off.

There are times - many, many times - when the economically-correct course of action will have detrimental effects upon the population. Businesses cannot (will not?) fit "the social good" into their strategy. Take, for instance, NAFTA - a piece of legislation which goes a long way toward forcing the Canadian government to abide by the rules of business. That agreement allows U.S. corporations to sue the Canadian government for "unfair trading practices' if the Canadian government attempts to regulate the sale of dangerous materials, such as gasoline additives, or put in place "barriers to trade" such as enforcing higher environmental standards than "the market" is willing to abide.

The privatization of health care is a perfect example. The report released just two weeks ago, a years-long, deep-analysis examination of the issue, shows what might happen should Canada give in to the corporate dogs who want to make the system "a business" rather than a social service. Higher costs, and higher risks to patients were the conclusions.

Was building the Canadian National Railway a logical business venture? Not in the short run. A government needed to have the vision and the willingness to implement a program that was, at the time, enormously expensive but with a greater goal than simply profit.

A government founded on business principles might be more inclined to, oh - I don't know - perhaps invade a country halfway 'round the world in the interests of securing access to oil.... does that make good sense for Canadian society?

There are definitely two perspectives here... those who think the bottom line is all that matters, and those who see the bottom line as important, but superceded by the interests of the citizens in other aspects.

M.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, how many times have you been called on your groundless accusations of criminal intent by Jean Chretien, his hourding of millions, his collusion with a variety of senior Liberal ministers? How many times have you provided *any* evidence to support your outrageous claims?

As many posters have noted, the Liberal party has its flaws but there are a significant number of voters who believe that the Liberal party best represents the Canada most Canadians want to live in. With the exception of Quebec, there isn't a rout. In Ontario support is over 40%. And Quebec is also a disaster area for the Conservatives.

This election has brought a number of issues to the table and left all of the parties wanting. But the view from here seems remarkably different from your part of the world. The Liberals do appear to be heading for significant losses but perhaps you should be asking yourself exactly why isn't Stephen Harper making hay like the Bloc?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks Mark.

Why the centrists are strong in many populaces is due to the combination of conservative fiscal policies that dictate providing what is affordable along with "common weal" vision to provide what's "fair".

Reducing discrepancies and unfair practices, providing an affordable safety net and preventing the oppression of minorities and the exploitation of weaker segments of society are all government roles.

Drafting laws to create a level playing field and prevent other nations from exploiting national resources ( anti dumping laws , environmental safe guards) all fall within the government's desmaine.

Governments may draw from good business practice in terms of financial controls but has many other priorites to balance than a corporation or even an NGO for that matter.

A private air carrier may indeed buy the lowest cost/best value over time jets but a government must balance off providing local employment in the picture so either building government aircraft in Canada or enticing Boeing to build plant comes into their equation.

The newly hatched ( again ) Canada 3000 has no such considerations.

That said even prudent multinationals take into account the impact of their business practices on a region and work across the table with local, provincial and federal governments to get to an equitable solution taking into account the larger picture of employment and common weal.

It's a complex global society and national society. Nostrums and simplistic views on either end of the political spectrum simply don't work....they never did.  

Buinesses have mission statements.
I'd be interested in those on the right end of the spectrum crafting one for Canada.

Mine can be found here.

Canadian Mission Statement


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Used to be ........with the Green support in SSI - MacNutt's "part of the world" is exceedingly small.  

I've even seen some very encouraging sober second thoughts out of Alberta.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here are the options forming up - interesting times indeed.



> *Tight race creates dilemma for Clarkson*
> 
> Governor-General could decide outcome, and she's being advised to opt for stability
> 
> ...


Won't that frost a few people, serving at the pleasure of Her Honour the Governor General - Adrienne Clarkson.

The irony, irony..........cue Apocalyse Now music.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If Clarkson chose the Liberals over a Conservative Party with more seats, there could be riots in the streets.

That would really pee off Canadians, and is a prime example of why the monarchy needs to be abolished!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc it's called checks and balances.

If Harper couldn't govern with a minority she would have little choice other than to offer it to Martin or call an election.

If THIS election was too early what do you think of the prospects of another one within a month.????!!!!!

BTW MacNutt this is exactly WHY in parliaments like ours have to have non fixed election dates as it's configured.

If proportional representation comes into play then minority governments under coalitions may become the norm not the exception as Canada's three party system becomes embedded in their views with Quebec holding the balance of power.

Ironically you then have a regional voice for everyone and the power of the PMO is reduced.

Yet it actually gives many parties a functional say as it mandates compromise and deal making.

I agree with MacNutt that the current whip system, block voting with a powerful PMO is tantamount to a short term oligarchy and relies on the members of that party to reign in excesses.

I'm not sure the Senate is the answer tho as working out a representational Senate and limits on it's powers would complicate matters even further...however it may be viable.
Here's what Australia does



> The Senate is the States House with the people from each state electing 12 Senators and the two territories, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, each electing two. the number in the Lower House must be twice that elected in the Senate. The discrepency in the numbers comes from the two territories each electing two Lower House and Two Upper House representatives only. The Lower House is elected every one and a half to three years. The Senate has half their members elected every three years.


Other methods of getting a majority in place involve dual elections with a run off to harden party support but that's likely not viable in Canada and is under question in France.

There are a ton of ideas here

http://www.electionworld.org/parliaments.htm

There are some 232 Parliaments of some sort on the planet - some bi-cameral and 15 or so international "parliaments" - think UN, Europe.

It a fine line between locking up decisions and ability to govern and endowing a ruling party with too much ability to initiate change within it's mandate.

The Charter or a Constitution along with an independent judiciary are one constraint.
A second house can be another.
Recall provisions can also be in place ( Venezuala )

Time frames, scales and complexity of today's First World nations and the consequences of mistakes does not allow for "simplistic solutions".

Each nation works it's way through decision processes. This parliament like Pearsons may be seminal.

In about 72 hours we'll see what Gods of Chaos mint for us.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

> The belief that government = a business and must / should play by those rules is not only uninformed, it is dangerous. A business has one thing as its objective: profit. A government with profit as a motivator will quickly find its shareholders dying off.


What's wrong with running a country with a surplus instead of a deficit?

No debt. Wow. Makes sense to me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A government may have many causes to go into deficit on a year by year basis as businesses do as well.

Some large scale projects, a war, a severe recession, an epidemic all could cause a deficit.

Some can be by choice - a large scale infrastructure -say as Canadians we decided to go ahead and turn Hudson's Bay into a fresh water lake looking 50 years out and seeing the value of that.

It MIGHT cause many years of deficits and in return might wipe out the national debt in one stroke ( I'm being silly but there are elements of truth in it ).

Simple nostrums don't work. It's complex.
Government is to a degree like insurance for all of society and a vehicle to undertake social goals.

Sometimes needs and funding don't synch up ( War, recession, epidemic ).
It's careful management and an eye to the future.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just how far right is Mr. Harper.???
Here's a glimpse from today's Globe.



> For a real ideologue, you have to turn to Stephen Harper. He doesn't spew ideas, he takes a few and muses on how he got them, honed them, stuck to them. ("I have always used the term conservative to describe my political philosophy..... I employ the term as modern conservatives describe themselves.") These ideas are clearly a deep part of his sense of self. Or should I say, this idea. The sign of ideology is the conviction that one idea, or a tight, related set, can be successfully applied to any topic or situation. Everything follows reasonably, except the monomaniacal premise it starts from. In a Globe and Mail article in 1997, *Mr. Harper compared this paper's version of conservatism to "a patrician socialist seeking common cause with the lumpen proletariat." *From now on, my definition of ideologue will be anyone who can read The Globe and Mail and find socialist propaganda.


*"lumpen proletariat."*  

Scratch a Harper find a rabid elitist.........who thinks the GLOBE is a socialist rag.!!!!!!

and given Harper "roots" perhaps Canadians should think just who they are voting for  

"*Mr. Harper comes to his current post after leading the National Citizens Coalition, a group ideological enough to reduce baseball standings to a fight between the free individual and big government. It led the battles against bilingualism and the metric system. It once compared Ed Broadbent to Ayatollah Khomeini.* Jack Layton, by contrast, recently headed the squishy Federation of Canadian Municipalities. *To find a left equivalent of the NCC, you need to leapfrog the NDP to maybe the Marxist-Leninist Party.*  

"Lumpen"   ...so the Canadians the Globe reachs out to are "lumpen proletariat" in Harper's eyes. 

Since the Globe is considered by most Canadians a moderate Conservative voice that would "lump" about 80% of Canadians in Harpers "proletariat".

I can think exactly of where some "lumpen" should be applied. Elitist asshole.....grrrr.

Here give him what he deserves a few well placed "lumpen"

http://www.whackthepm.ca/whack.html

While you're at it you can take out your frustrations on any other you care to pummel. You must take a shot a Chretien on your way but......well you'll see - Teflon man to the end.

Pretty clear from his own statements Harper is as far right as they come and waaaaaay outside mainstream Canadian values. Calling the Globe a "patrician socialist' newspaper shows just how fanatical.









I notice *Farenhheit 9/11* opens today.
A combination of a very pissed of Globe and an "expose" movie on Bush might make a few more Canadians decline Harpers Trojan horse approach..........."ooooh I'm not a radical, not really, no those things I wrote and said weren't really little ol me"

.....SEE ABOVE


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Pretty clear from his own statements Harper is as far right as they come and waaaaaay outside mainstream Canadian values.


Nearly every poll shows that as many Canadians support Harper as do Martin. How do you figure that puts Harper "waaaaaay outside mainstream Canadian values?" 

That statement is nonsense based on an election most think is too close to call a clear winner.

Cheers


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

The Globe "moderate conservative"? Hardly! I've always considered them fairly centrist. A moderate conservative publication would be 'The Economist'... a conservative publication would be 'The National Post' or the 'The Telegraph'. Of course, it's all relative, depending on where you stand.

I'm also not sure why Harper's comments cause you to label him elitist. All I can see is him criticizing the Globe for not being conservative enough... which shouldn't be that unexpected. How do you go from there to the assertion that he blieves 80% of Canadians belong to the 'lumpen proletariat'. As I understand the term, these are poor workers who (at least in Marx's time) dressed in rags (lumpen - German for rags).

Certainly too, Paul Martin is a far more established member of 'the elite' (for want of a better term) than Harper will ever be.

The Globe's latest poll suggests Harper will win more seats but not a majority...
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040625.wxelecmain25/BNStory/specialDecision2004/


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Nadar appeals to Canadians not to vote conservative. 

"Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have plans for crippling the commonwealth and security of the Canadian standard of living, known worldwide as just about the finest among sizable nations," Nader said in an open letter to Canadians dated Friday and obtained by CTV.ca.

---

Not that I really could care less for Ralph Nadar's opinion on Canadian politics, but yet another voice warning Canadians about a Harper government. A letter like this being published on all major Cdn news outlets the weekend before the election is bound to have some effect as well. 

(Que the foam at the mouthers)









[Fixed link]

[ June 25, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: ehMax ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm the Globe "fairly centrist" I would say would be a good thing, representing moderate conservative and moderate liberal views. The Globe has actively sought that position much to their credit.

For Harper to put the socialist label on the Globe as he did - where does that position him?? Yet he continues the soothing noises about being moderate....HE'S NOT.
He's a radical Neo-Con and many moderate conservatives recognize that and recognize the dangers and have come out publicly and said so.

As to the Economist - they've been railing against Bush's spending, tax cuts and military spending and huge deficits.
Here's their take on Harper



> But *Mr Harper's biggest weakness may be his unconvincing economic arithmetic. Perhaps he thinks so too: he released his party's programme at lunchtime on Saturday June 5th, which ensured it got little immediate attention.* It calls for big rises in military spending, and even more generous transfers to the provinces for health care than the Liberals offer. In all, Mr Harper would spend an extra C$58 billion ($42 billion) over five years, against the Liberal's promised C$27 billion. Yet Mr Harper says he would also cut taxes. His programme assumes federal fiscal surpluses of double the amount calculated by Mr Martin, a prudent finance minister who promises not to allow Canada to slip back into deficit financing.
> 
> *This platform may not stand up to close scrutiny.*


Indeed it does not.

••••

You don't think the Republicans are elitists????? 
Harpers entire platform let alone his underlying backround reeks of it. Just his choice of words which drip vitriol shws his extreme right positioning.

There's nothing wrong with supporting a radical neoCon Harper - you're welcome to him, there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum.

There IS something wrong if voters think he's a moderate conservative. He's not.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> His programme assumes federal fiscal surpluses of double the amount calculated by Mr Martin, a prudent finance minister who promises not to allow Canada to slip back into deficit financing.


WOW it assumes the federal surplus to be doubled the numbers of Mr. Martin, hasn't anybody ever told Harper that when you assume something it only makes an *ASS* out of *U* and *ME*, in this case it would make an ass out of him because he would be the Prime Minister and out of U and Me the Canadian Tax Payer when he has to run a deficit to offset the tax cuts that he just implemented.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, in opinion polls over the past few weeks, Stephen Harper has consistently scored much lower (10-15%) than Paul Martin in terms of rating for Prime Minister. The parties may be running close but Stephen Harper is nowhere near as popular as his party.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Actually are the combined right wingers above the popular vote totals for the 2000 elections?? I think not.

PCs got 12%
Alliance 25% = 37%

They are down









Isn't that interesting.
Quebec is the entire key to this election.

It's the swing of 100+ votes Bloc/Liberal that is making the change NOT a surging right at all.

The right is 4 points lower. Indeed the moderate conservatives ARE being wise. Congrats to all of you who we seem not hear enough from.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There was an excellent interview on CBC today with 3 commentators and the host. All were fairly balanced tho the Con started to wind up the "party line" and got dumped on by the others and finally settled into a rational discussion - seems a hard thing to get Cons to do.

The Con agreed Harper's talk about majority and transition was devastating to him as was loose talk by party members about "not withstanding etc".
The Liberal condemned Martin for similar "hubris" for parachuting in candidates and dealing high handedly with party stalwarts like Copps when he was "king of the hill" early on. Still he was in a bind as he HAD to distance himself from Chretien cronies......bit of a no win that scenario...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

One of the other commentators mentioned that every poll has shown Canadians WANT a minority.
Collective wisdom that each party needs to demonstrate it's ability before the electorate is willing to give a mandate in the election following.....and maybe not then. Germany has functioned for 53 years without a single case of majority by one party.

Her interesting note was that ALL the parties should at this point be demonstrate and talk about their willingness to accept that there will be a minority, that's what the people of Canada want and show their willingness to abide by that decision and still as a parliament continue on with the governance of the country.

In other words SHOW clearly that disparate voices will be heard, that compromise can be reached and that ideology will take a back seat to governing the country prudently and in an ongoing manner.

She felt any party standing on principle to bring down the government in the near term would be dealt with severely by the voters in the next round.
That making deals on the things that are agreed on should have top priority.

All parties need to show that governing Canada comes first, not their ideologies and that programs for a clean and open style of governing are put in place and working, that health care gets priority and a few other common ground issues - like get the damn helicopters NOW!
Get the cities some funds NOW!
Perhaps even discuss proportional seats of some sort.

It's really what Martin SHOULD have done for the 18 months he had. That's poor judgement and he's paying for it.

Now we have all the parties under scrutiny as to how well they can govern Canada from the middle.
That means give and take on all sides.

There is no question there is common ground, enough to govern for a couple of years and perhaps enough to see great things happen as did in the Pearson minority.

Here's hoping.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, said yesterday that the count could be so close as to require a day or more to confirm. Sounds eerily familiar? The hawk. The incumbant party distancing itself from the previous leader. Where's the blue dress?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The only poll that really counts is two days away, but EKOS has one today commissioned by La Presse and The Star that narrowly gives the election to the Liberals.

The results are still a statistical deadheat but because of the size of the poll, more than 5,000 voters, they're willing to go out on the limb and predict a Liberal victory by eight seats.

And of course, the poll was taken before Conservative Randy White shot off his mouth wounding Stephen Harper in the foot.

About a week ago one pundit, I can't remember who, compared this election to the one in 1988 over free trade. Polls showed Mulroney, who had been trailing, pulled even and took a slight lead with less than three weeks left in the campaign. He pull his majority together in the last two weeks before the election.

Back then election campaigns were two weeks longer than they are today. I bet Martin wishes he had two more weeks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think a summary of Mr. White's remarks might be in order.
He was a " senior Conservative caucus member and former justice critic"







 



> A transcript of Mr. White's frank remarks, made in a documentary interview just before the election was called, came to light Thursday.
> 
> "To heck with the courts, eh?" he told the interviewer. "I think most people are getting sick and tired of judges writing the laws to suit themselves."
> 
> ...


Anyone wonder why moderates in Ontario are concerned????










••••

That poll was a huge one, twice the normal size and by the company that called the 2000 election accurately. Still even they admit it's very volatile for the remaining uncommitted voters.

Duceppe of course is listening and coming out saying he will be responsible in making sure government can function.

It's interesting as if the poll is correct then a Lib/NDP seat count would be just 7 seats short of being able to pass legislation. What a heart break ffor Layton that would be.

I think it would be very cool if BC stepped up to the plate here. 

[ June 26, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"Advisor on the non-medical use of drugs"? Is this a euphamism for "Stephen Harpers recreational drug dealer"?









Yes, it would be nice if those 7 seats materialized for the Libs/NDP. Would be precarious but I can't see the Bloc holding the balance of power without significant Quebec-specific concessions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think you are wrong on the Quebec issue.
Duceppe is not going to be dumb enough to look irreponsible. He got handed an opportunity here and will run with it.
Support for independence in Quebec has not moved.
It might if Harper had a majority but it hasn't now.

He has an opportunity to work out generally admired legislation, health care, day care, pharma care, anti- ABM - all of which are not Quebec specific.
That could take 2 years or more.

Only once that has run it's course could he then perhaps work with Harper on strengthening provincial roles, something the Libs are likely to fight.

He may be setting the stage for a government more like Germany's with on going deal making the norm.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

We'll see. It's amazing what power does to people and he has Jacques at his back. Gilles is a very bright guy and could contribute not only to Quebec but to the country as a whole. We'll see if he sees the bigger picture and whether he is able to stand up to the separatist agenda.

I know its a sensitive issue, but as an immigrant, I've never understood how a separate Quebec would be stronger (or practical) than a Quebec in a united Canada. Of course there are tensions but each of the provinces has significant independent power and we tend to share similar values. I think all Canadians also respect minority rights including cultural and religious rights. This country is too good a place to slice and dice it. The Bloc can have it both ways if they hold the balance. I just hope they don't push it (by alienating the rest of the country or regions of the country).

Hmmm... just saw this editorial piece in today's Globe and Mail.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Good discussion.

It's definitely a "lesser of four evils" for me. I'm not happy with the liberals, but I'm less happy with the conservatives. Harper would have had us in Iraq (he's still gung-ho on that), and if for no other reason I can't vote for him, and I can't see why anybody would. IRAQ? Not even a majority of Americans support that nonsense anymore, yet Harper would still have us there? Madness.

I live in a riding that will go conservative, so I'll probably vote Green (doesn't much matter what I vote, and I like the Green platform).

For all of you considering conservative, please remember the conservatives last record: GST, a huge deficit, and then think of the future: Iraq. The liberals need to be reminded who they work for, but the conservates are really dangerous based on past history and current stated intentions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent summary and nice to hear a thoughtful voice from Alberta.

The $1.75 contribution per vote to the party of choice does make it feel like each vote counts for something even if in a particular riding it won't elect an MP.

It shows some direct effect on the national campaigns.  

••••••

Now that it is down to the short strokes how about everyone letting us know 

a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific

b) the likely( not wishful thinking ) party elected in your riding and the close second.

c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.

d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race

It'll be neat to see on election day how many of our "best guesses turned out.

I voted Liberal in Mississauga. 

They are likely to win as she's a strong incumbent but the PCs could sneak in.

My views are well known and with no NDP candidate it was an anti-Harper vote.

I'm hoping for a liberal minority with ALL THREE other parties holding a balance vote 

[ June 26, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific*
Eglinton-Lawrence

*b)the likely( not wishful thinking ) party elected in your riding and the close second.*
The Liberal candidate is Joe Volpe he's a great community leader and will probably win the riding with no problems.

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.*
I'll vote for the Liberals just because most of there policy's are more in line with my personal views than the NEO-CON's, if the NDP had chosen a proven community leader and someone with experience in the political circles I might of voted for them but as it stands now the Liberal incumbant will get my vote on Monday.

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race*
my personal preference would be a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power just to make sure that the Liberals don't forget about there social resposiblity's to the people of this great nation.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Oops, double post.

[ June 26, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

*a) where the riding is -* 
Nipissing-Temiskaming in northeastern Ontario.

*b) the likely (not wishful thinking) party elected in your riding and the close second.* 
In the 20 or more elections since 1917, this riding has voted Conservative only once. Monday, I expect, will make it twice.

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.* 
I was pretty torn over whom to support. Party-wise I have significant doubts about the Conservatives' intentions though I am also rather fed up with broken Liberal promises as they tried to appeal to the right. Leader-wise Martin did have a considerable edge over Harper, but he frittered it away with inconsistencies since actually becoming PM. Candidate-wise, there was no contest. The Conservative stands heads and shoulders above the local Liberal in community involvement and awareness. I consider him a red tory - socially progressive, fiscally prudent. So having repeatedly bashed Harper and the Conservatives, I'm a bit embarassed to say I voted for the Conservative candidate.    

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race?* 
From the beginning I was hoping for a Liberal minority, and if the EKOS prediction is accurate, though I'm rather skeptical of it, I'll get what I want. I'm not overly concerned about a Conservative minority, which I think is more likely, because it's likely to be short-lived and its neo-con nature will be severely restricted by having to rely on the Bloc to survive.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific*
Edmonton-St. Albert

*b) the likely (not wishful thinking) party elected in your riding and the close second.* 
The Conservative candidate John Williams, chair of the Adscam committee will walk away with it.

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.* 
I'll vote for the Conservatives because I believe John Williams is a good and honest man.

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race*
A minority government with either main party holding power will get the country moving in the right direction and put an end to scandal and dishonesty.

Cheers


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

* a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific*
Ottawa Centre. 

* b) the likely (not wishful thinking) party elected in your riding and the close second. *
NDP is going to win this riding with Ed Broadbent...despite this riding having gone Liberal for ages. The Libs will place a distant second with Richard Mahoney...former Executive Assistant to...wait for it...Paul Martin. The Ed! signs in our riding outnumber the grit signs about 8-to-1.









* c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why. *
This is the first time I am ever voting for the NDP in a federal election...and Paul Martin can thank himself and his evil entourage for that. All they care about is power and not what they will do with it. Paul demands a level of loyalty that he was never willing to give the former leader...and doesn't demonstrate integrity (nevermind all the other scandals). 

* d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race*
I would like to see a Liberal minority. It will force the power-hungry Paul Martin and his crew out of town and the grits will finally be able to get some real leadership in there. The Conservatives (who are no longer "Progressive" in any way) scare the hell out of me. I am a conservative at heart...but not on social policy. 

Let's all talk again after the chips fall where they may...so to speak.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why Sinc I'm impressed a thoughtful reply of more than one line  

VGG - I'd vote NDP if Broadbent was in our riding in a heartbeat. I hope he gets in. He's an excellent parliamentarian and an inspiring orator. Just the thing for a minority situation.

BrS - boy are you the classic Ontarian right now. Good analysis

K_Os - I couldn't be more on side with you

More please....good stuff people 

[ June 26, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific* 
Peterborough

*b) the likely( not wishful thinking ) party elected in your riding and the close second.* 
I honestly don't know. Peter Adams, the Liberal candidate, has been there for two terms and is highly regarded by the community, but this is normally a conservative riding. Also I the signs for the NDP candidate, Linda Slavin, are the highest I have ever seen for NDP here, so we could see the conservative sneak in with a lot of left-of-center vote splitting.

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.* 
I haven't voted yet. I'm leaning towards voting Liberal again, but if our NDP candidate has a chance, I would vote for her. Problem is that I haven't heard anything by way of a poll to get an idea how the vote might go. So I'm going to have to fly blind.

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race* 
Liberal minority with NDP (not the Bloc!) holding the balance of power. Unfortunately, it looks like the Bloc will hold that balance.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific. *
Don Valley East

*b) the likely( not wishful thinking ) party elected in your riding and the close second. *. Very difficult call since we have no incumbent (previous MP was David Collinette - glad he's gone). I think it'll be between Liberal (Yasmin Ratansi) and Conservative (David Johnson - who was a very creepy member of the Harris government)

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why. * 
Voted Liberal by advanced poll. Do not trust Stephen Harper. Do not agree with significant elements of Conservative platform. Am hoping the Liberals get as many seats as possible.

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race *
Liberal minority with NDP or Bloc.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

From the Canmore Leader: "To keep things in perspective, Thompson polled more votes than any other candidate -- urban or rural -- in Alberta in 2000. His margin of victory, nearly 33,000 votes when the conservative vote was split between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives, was the highest in Canada."

That's the Wild Rose riding, kind of a strip west of Calgary. Not a lot of anything but conservative in this riding obviously...

I'll vote Green (thanks for the info on the $1.75 per vote Macdoc, I didn't know that, I'll pass that along). The greens aren't just hippies--there are some ex-conservatives in there along with the hippies, etc. They are fiscally prudent, and willing to think long-term, which no other party is.

I'd like to see a liberal minority govt with NDP collusion, then Bloc (all it would take to end the Bloc's separtist plans is to get some national power, grin) Greens would be even better, but no chance.

Even if I liked our local conservative candidate I still wouldn't vote conservative, because that's voting for Harper as potential PM, and, well, I can picture nothing worse for Canada (except maybe just joining the US).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Him Harper's radical right position in the political spectrum gets revealed in ongoing ways. Also his inability to understandf moderate Canadians.
He called Martin the "the most "leftist" Liberal leader in decades" 







"........hunh.

Umm here's a Liberal that is Blue to the gills, far right of the traditional Liberal centre, so far right the biz guys love him, the bankers love him, he's accused of "stealing" conservative platform ideas and Harper makes that statement.

Well it does peg Harper way way on the radical right if he thinks Martin and the Globe and Mail are leftist - seems to be a common distortion with radical neoCon - since there is nobody further right even the centre looks left.

Harper a moderate.........NOT


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

Actually I think Harper said that Martin was running a leftist campaign... not that he was a leftist leader. (I heard the report on CBC so I can't link to it.)

Anyway...

*a) where my riding is*
Toronto Danforth

*b) the likely winner*
Jack Layton - in a race with Liberal Dennis Mills

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why*
I'm an ideological small 'l' liberal which is closest to the Conservative party... but they are nowhere in this riding so my vote wouldn't be much more than a token gesture. Our Conservative candidate is a lawyer and quite progressive... he favours same sex marriage for example. Our Liberal, Mills, is quite conservative... he's a Catholic and opposes same sex marriage. I find Layton rather lightweight and annoying and I know people who have had dealings with him and haven't been impressed. The Green party leader is also running in this riding. 
Here is how I might vote and why:
-Conservative: The local candidate seem sound and I generally support their policies.
-Liberal: It would be mischievous to try to deny Layton his seat. I can't imagine him staying on if he loses... unless the party does really well elsewhere. And Mills is a fairly good local rep.
-Green: I general support their policies too... economicly conservative, socially progressive and believe in reforming the tax system with a view toward environmental sustainability. I think they may have a role to play later.
I'll make up my mind tomorrow...

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race* 
I think a Conservative minority would be the best result... although I'm not keen on them relying on the Bloc. 

I have two major concerns that prevent me from advocating a majority for them. 

1. The party has not yet had a chance to formulate offical policy. I credit them with quickly throwing together what they have for the election, but it was a rushed, 'seat of the pants' type of effort and it shows. Their fiscal plans, for example, do not look particularly sound to me. Other policies are amorphous enough that individual candidates are interpreting them themselves with different conclusions. I think this is the main reason that some people see a hidden agenda... the truth is that the agenda on which they are running is far from complete. 

2. Their advocacy of free votes on issues is fine... but it then behoves each prospective MP to take their stand on the issue and state it before the election, along with why. If you want to vote freely according to your conscience, then I think you should share your views with the people whose support you want. Harper has been clear on 'same sex marriage' but not on abortion or the death penalty, for example.

That said, I very much hope we defeat the Liberals tomorrow. They have tried to conceal their corruption and hypocrisy behind a populist platform... I hope people see through that. Canada deserves better.


----------



## Dessert Whip (Jun 19, 2004)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific* 
West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast

*b) the likely (not wishful thinking) party elected in your riding and the close second.*
John Reynolds, Stephen Harper puppeteer and incumbent is almost guaranteed his seat again, second... less obvious... but likely Liberal Blair Wilson with NDP Nicholas Simons and Green candidate Andrea Goldsmith not far behind.
*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.*
Although Reynolds has done some good for his riding, the bigger (beyond homophobic mandates and sending our kids off to war) picture is what troubles me. I see the Conservative Party as er un-Canadian as er American Gladiators. I fear (oh that feeling) a 'merican ass kissing government built on corporate greed mentality. I fear a Harper/Bush partnership ala Mulroney/Reagan. You know, "yes, dear" and "hey world, we're buddies, and bullies don't hang with nice guys unless they're reformed, right." Bush is praying (to that same God that told him to attack Iraq) for Harper to be elected. Not that it'll really make much difference, but if worked into the big republican marketing plan... we end up looking really stupid. But then again, maybe we are. My vote is yet not definate, but leaning heavy toward NDP Simons. I see what a negative impact a "right" mentality can have on a province (BC's faux Liberals) and fear the same for Canada under Conservative power.
*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race*
I feel our country needs a Liberal minority, with the other parties scattered equally. What we really need is to fine tune our political system so we are all represented fairly, and all parties are forced to work together so they are all acountable for each others actions. Leave the back doors for the yanks to use. And have someone PM us with the balls to tell the 'mericans where its at. And we lived happily ever after.
I wish I didn't have to worry about how southern politics affect us, but wow, I have the worst bitter taste in my mouth...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macdoc


> Why Sinc I'm impressed a thoughtful reply of more than one line


Never have been one to waste words. 

Where is my 40 MB firewire drive by the way?

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*a) where there riding is - doesn't need to be specific*

Saanich - Gulf Islands. Includes the Southern Gulf Islands, the largest of which is the famous Salt Spring with the bulk of the riding's population being on the Saanich Peninsula, just north of Victoria.

*b) the likely( not wishful thinking ) party elected in your riding and the close second.*

It's most likely, unfortunately, that the Conservative incumbent, Gary Lunn, will win. I'll have to fire off more letters to him only to receive more zombie rhetoric answers in return. Either Andrew Lewis of the Green Party or the NDP's candidate will come in second. The Liberal candidate will probably be fourth.

*c) which you voted for if you feel like it and a short why.*

I'm voting Green. Andrew Lewis has been all over the media of late, with the excitement of our riding possibly electing the first Green MP. It _could_ happen if the NDP and Libs don't split the vote. Lunn won with 40% last time, so it's possible that there could be enough Green momentum to take the bulk of the remaining 60%. The Greens have the most lawn signs on my island, by 2 to 1 over the Cons, with the NDP coming in a distant third. The key is in Saanich which has 2/3 of the ridings population, but there's been a lot of talk of much Green support there amongst the non-Cons.

*d) what parliament makeup would most suit you that COULD occur given the tight race.* 

Anybody but Harper and the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. They are the Bush Republicans of Canada.

I would like to see a Liberal minority, with the NDP holding a balance of power to keep the right-wing Martinites in check and honest as well as delivering on their lefty election promises. Layton has said that he will make a referendum on proportional representation a condition of his support and I think that would be the best thing for our democracy.

Unfortunately, if the Libs deliver on their popular election promises, because of the NDP holding the gun to their heads, they will get the credit. And as soon as their polling heads upward, they'll call another election to make sure they win another majority. I hope we have the makings of proportional representation by then, which is the last thing the Liberals would want.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I live in the same riding as Gratuitous Applesauce (on the largest and most famous of the southern Gulf Islands).

I think he's right. The Conservative (Gary Lunn) will win re-election. This will be his third win. Once as a Reform candidate. Once as Reform/Alliance...and once as a Conservative.

I will be doing my civic duty tomorrow to further that end. So will pretty much everyone else I know around here. Get up in morning, elect a far-right wing MP, then back to tending my organic garden (I might even hug a tree or two on the way back from the voting booth).  

I think the only real question about tomorrow is "How many seats will the Liberals LOSE" and "How many seats will the Conservatives GAIN?" 

(and will the Liberal Party of Canada actually survive this massive loss of majority power? How BAD will the bickering actually BE inside that already divided party, once the horrible truth actually sinks in?)

We are being told that BC is going to be pivotal in actually deciding who governs Canada this time around. This seems to be supported by the fact that Paul Martin and Jack Layton both finished up their campaigns in this area. Both have spent more time out here on the coast than in any previous election. BC may actually hold the sway, after all.

Which means it's curtains for the Martin Liberals. They are running a poor third place right now...and are actually behind the NDP here in BC. Have been for the last few polls, as well.

In BC...after a decade of provincial NDP mismanagement and the resulting near economic ruin....saying that anything is "slightly less popular than the NDP" means it's only _SLIGHTLY_ more popular than herpes.

By bye Paul. It's been a slice. 
















[ June 28, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Liberals are losing seats in Quebec which has nothing to do with the Conservatives.

Better to wonder why the Cons are polling lower numbers than last election.

There is NO Con progress. There will be a few gains due to avoiding vote splitting but it's marginal.
Liberals have lost in Quebec for Quebec specific reasons.

Atlantic Canada and BC have a chance to have a say for once in the make up of parliament with Quebec holding the balance of power.
This is a good thing. Minority is what Canadians wanted. 
Let's see who can work together successfully. 

[ June 28, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------

