# Canadians Don't Want Iggy: Poll



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Seems that Iggy supporters are sucking air:

But it also said a majority of respondents, 55 per cent, did not agree the Liberals are ready to govern again.

Nor did 72 per cent of those polled want the official opposition party to defeat the government and trigger an election as soon as possible.*



> Grits lead Tories, but Harper tops Ignatieff: Poll
> 
> Canadians prefer Harper to Ignatieff by a wide margin on issues of vision, trust and ability to lead during tough economic times, said the poll of 1,001 adults conducted Wednesday and Thursday for Canwest News Service and Global National.
> 
> ...


Grits lead Tories, but Harper tops Ignatieff: Poll


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Grits lead Tories...*


Yep...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> *Grits lead Tories...*
> 
> 
> Yep...


*Yeah, right:

Meanwhile, 46 per cent said they see Harper as the best manager for tough economic times, up two points since December, compared to 32 per cent for Ignatieff and 17 per cent for Layton, who was down two points.
*


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

*harper >> iggy*


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)




----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Said it before but that election ballot really needs a "None of the above" box. Surely Igg, Harpo, & Layiton cannot be the best Canada has to offer.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> *Yeah, right:
> 
> Meanwhile, 46 per cent said they see Harper as the best manager for tough economic times, up two points since December, compared to 32 per cent for Ignatieff and 17 per cent for Layton, who was down two points.
> *


Hey, Ovechkin won the hart trophy, but the Penguins still won the cup. :heybaby:

Harper could have an 80% approval rating, if that makes you happy, but if the Conservatives are trailing...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread should be renamed "The Giant Font Thread"...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

As all Canadians watch this epic battle play itself out in this gripping thread, the breathless anticipation builds to an excruciating crescendo.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hell, Canadians don't want ANY of them...

One day perhaps a real leader will emerge in this country, until then, we choose...fragmentarily.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Such is the nature of coalition politics... fragile, shifting associations, partial commitments, fractional allegiances. Imperfect choices.

We would need one remarkable leader to draw us away from this multiparty mire we find ourselves in.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Such is the nature of coalition politics... fragile, shifting associations, partial commitments, fractional allegiances. Imperfect choices.
> 
> We would need one remarkable leader to draw us away from this multiparty mire we find ourselves in.


I think it's going to get worse, much like some European parliaments with 20+ parties. So far in Canada the marginal parties don't get enough votes to elect members, but that may change.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm in agreement with you that we will likely see more parties and greater political fragmentation along regional lines and demarcations such as rural vs. urban, etc. It's an awfully big country, after all. We're scattered across it. Who can be expected to lead us effectively now? Our population is made up of people who have come from all over the world. There are so many separate streams of thought regarding good governance, and public morality, it's mind-boggling.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That' why we need a change to something like the Swiss Canton system and devolve power away from Ottawa who are effectively an expensive white elephant getting way too much of the tax income. 

The provinces have some leaders...with vision - 

Sask wants to take the isotope business.

Quebec has some champions and hydro

Danny Williams is a leader as is the BC Premier...

Even McGuinty is stick handling a difficult situation....

Ottawa .....useless tits....getting in the way of all of them......

and I don't see much affecting change short of a tax revolt....

Maybe just the 3 big cities without Cons would do it...._.no taxation without representation_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But the canton system in Canada essentially means giving the money to the cities and virtually forgetting about the unique challenges of keeping a huge country with a small population together. Not that I believe money isn't being pissed away at every level, you understand...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> As all Canadians watch this epic battle play itself out in this gripping thread, the breathless anticipation builds to an excruciating crescendo.


What, an even BIGGER font for this thread? beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Even McGuinty is stick handling a difficult situation....


McGuilty is to stick handling difficult situations as Dave Semenko was to scoring lots of goals for the Oilers in the old days. The only thing McGuilty is good at is lying - and in that he is an expert, though I don't think we should go gung-ho on Cantons just because his administration is such an abomination.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Even McGuinty is stick handling a difficult situation....


McGuilty is to stick handling difficult situations as Dave Semenko was to scoring lots of goals for the Oilers in the old days. The only thing McGuilty is good at is lying - and in that he is an expert, though I don't think we should go gung-ho on Cantons just because his administration is such an abomination.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*Talk about sad.*

Hello all:

I've worked political campaigns for a number of years and I must say, this is the saddest bunch of electees I have ever seen.

Doesn't anyone groom anyone anymore. The Liberals are completely bankrupt when it comes to leadership development....and not just at the Federal level.

I really would like to see that back door on the election terms nailed shut, let a PM run for a full term [ I would like to see 4 years as a fixed term ] despite a minority/ majority/ or any other combination. These games are only costing us hundreds of millions that could be spent elsewhere.

This will be the 5th election in less than eight years by the time it is forced, to much "politicking"!


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

Hey. I want IGGy, but thats because he's liberal and harper is not.

BRING BACK CHRETIEN! HES THE BESTEST!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> The poll suggested 43 per cent of Canadians believe Harper would make the best prime minister, compared to 33 per cent for Ignatieff and 23 per cent for NDP Leader Jack Layton. Those numbers were unchanged since December.
> 
> Meanwhile, 46 per cent said they see Harper as the best manager for tough economic times, up two points since December, compared to 32 per cent for Ignatieff and 17 per cent for Layton, who was down two points


So what I read from your bold-faced highlights is that each of the leaders mentioned has the support of less than half the population. I wouldn't exactly call that a ringing endorsement for your man Harper any more than the other candidates. The poll suggests that none of them enjoys widespread support.

Hoisted by your own petards, SINC!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bump to see if it moves fjnmusic's post to make it visible.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think the thread is best titled...

SINC DON"T WANT IGGY. AND MAD THAT THE POLLS DISAGREE WID 'IM.


Sorry SINC. But I think in the not so distant future, we'll find out, how many people don't want Iggy. That'll be the real poll...

(cue sabre rattlin' boys... "oh YEA!! Bring it on!!! YEEEEHAWWWW!!!)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> Doesn't anyone groom anyone anymore.


It's all about who can score the Party the most cash - no grooming required.



> The Liberals are completely bankrupt when it comes to leadership development....and not just at the Federal level.


Not only leadership, they feature some of the most morally bankrupt personalities possible, and have done so since they shoved King out of office. Not that the Conservatives are much better...



> I really would like to see that back door on the election terms nailed shut


We do not have fixed terms - and attempting to do so is a farce until there are systematic and fundamental changes - something that simply will not happen because such changes will not benefit the Parties.



> These games are only costing us hundreds of millions that could be spent elsewhere.


Better to fritter a few hundred million on frequent elections than to waste billions on some corrupt white elephant projects of a Majority.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mr.Tickles said:


> BRING BACK CHRETIEN! HES THE BESTEST!


 :yikes: ....... :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> But I think in the not so distant future, we'll find out, how many people don't want Iggy. That'll be the real poll...
> 
> (cue sabre rattlin' boys... "oh YEA!! Bring it on!!! YEEEEHAWWWW!!!)


You already did....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Bump to see if it moves fjnmusic's post to make it visible.


_*Visible. you say? You mean it wasn't

large enough for you?? *_


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You already did....


No Macfury. All I said was, we may not have to wait too long before the real poll, an election will tell us if Canadians don't want Iggy. It would seem rather obvious to anyone that's going to happen sooner than we might hope. I have said more than once Iggy would be foolish to pull the plug too soon.

Not too sure why you'd see that as sabre rattling there macfury...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Got home today to my lovely Mississauga apartment and guess what I found in my mail slot?

I think MacDoc has been moonlighting and dropping off these leaflets...:lmao:

and who the hell is Ben Lobb?
\
Page 1








*
*
Page 2


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

As I see it:

a. Canadians are absolutely sick to the back teeth of federal elections that don't really change anything. If the leaders in Ottawa are smart, they'll keep things right where they are for at least another year.

b. Ignatieff may or may not be any better than Harper, because he's fairly new at leading a party at all, so it's kinda hard to tell. Being a Canadian politician, he's not likely to be particularly bold, so he'll need a year or two (at least) as Opposition Leader before the average voter is sure he can do the PM job or not.

c. All Harper has to do to stay in power is not screw up. This should be reasonably easy, even as tone-deaf as he can sometimes be.

d. The flyer shown above is pretty offensive in its sheer ridiculousness. It might as well say "Michael Ignatieff wants to kill your children." If the flyer were equally ridiculous regarding Harper, there would be great uproar from his party (and probably a lawsuit for libel). Among people of any intelligence, such personal attacks (questioning his patriotism with the "just visiting" line, etc), exaggerated hyperbole and other such mud-slinging tactics have exactly the OPPOSITE effect than the one intended. I hope Canadians are not as prone to obvious scare-mongering as the "dumb belt" in the middle and southern US ... and I hope that political parties who rely on such tactics (over, say, superior policies that obviously work well) lose support.

Lastly, the point was made earlier that _none_ of the leaders have majority support. This, I think, is the biggest problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Among people of any intelligence, such personal attacks (questioning his patriotism with the "just visiting" line, etc), exaggerated hyperbole and other such mud-slinging tactics have exactly the OPPOSITE effect than the one intended.


Actually the line is very appropriate given his absence from Canada for decades. And I might add it won't have the opposite effect at all. Some days the truth hurts, especially when his motives for returning are either in question, or solely to attempt to grab the PM's chair.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Actually the line is very appropriate given his absence from Canada for decades. And I might add it won't have the opposite effect at all. Some days the truth hurts, especially when his motives for returning are either in question, or solely to attempt to grab the PM's chair.


you just keep repeating it SINC. You can say it 10 more times, it doesn't make it any more so. We know you think it's appropriate. And likely, many real Harper supporters do too.

But the ads didn't do what they hoped. But it's what they know. I'm curious to see if they can pull something else besides "corrupt liberal!", and "so and so ain't a leader", you know, like keeping a few of their promises... and appearing somewhat competent.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I agree with SINC re Iggy's motives. As much as I don't care for Harper, I care even less for Ignatieff, far less for Layton and May just isn't even on my radar screen. Sad, sad state of affairs for Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's funny to anyone mulling over whether one cares more for Canada than the other.

There's one born every minute...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> There's one born every minute...


Yeah, and they usually vote Liberal.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Really now, I wonder who the suckers are --those that believe Ignatieff is the saviour or those who think he's an egotistical opportunist.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Actually the line is very appropriate given his absence from Canada for decades.


I wanted to address this particularly since it's one of the more ridiculous points:

1. My wife left Canada when she was three years old and lived in Florida until a year and a half ago. This has not affected in any way her citizenship, her love of the country, or her ability to be elected PM.

2. Being in other countries for a long period of time does not seem to have done either Barack Obama or Bill Clinton any harm. 



> his motives for returning are either in question, or solely to attempt to grab the PM's chair.


Maybe you should read his book and find out.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kps said:


> Got home today to my lovely Mississauga apartment and guess what I found in my mail slot?
> 
> I think MacDoc has been moonlighting and dropping off these leaflets...:lmao:
> 
> ...


An interesting ballot, since these four candidates are not from the same riding and therefore could never appear on the same ballot together. And I thought Stephen Harper claimed Canadians didn't want another election. Actions speak louder than words!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, and they usually vote Liberal.


Yes SINC. We get it. You're all Harper. If you want to believe they're so much better and keep their promises, all the power to ya.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> An interesting ballot, since these four candidates are not from the same riding and therefore could never appear on the same ballot together. And I thought Stephen Harper claimed Canadians didn't want another election. Actions speak louder than words!


Material like this is sent out by all parties to ridings held by MPs outside their own party. For example, I live in Quebec and I get them from Jack Layton. 

The mailing has to be sponsored and paid for by some MP, it doesn't really matter which one sponsors it from a communications stand point as it isn't the MPs message it is really the party's. It is just a technical necessity to get it paid for that it has to go out under some MPs name. 

These are what are referred to as 10%er's. All 10%ers must be 1 single piece of paper. An MP may send out an unlimited number (within the reasonable constraints of the MOB (Members Operating Budget)) of 10%er's (based on 10% of the number of households in their riding). The key is that a given 10%er must be 50% different in content from any other 10% that you are sending out in order to qualify as a separate 10%er. So for example if you wanted to blanket a riding with 50,000 households with a 10%er like the one you received an MP (the Party) would have to produce 10 versions that were each at least 50% different from each other in order to to have 10 x 5,000 (10% of the households) to cover the entire riding. 

Such material doesn't mean you want an election, it is just being a good Boy Scout; "always be prepared". Especially in a Minority Parliament where the Opposition has as much control over when an election will take place as the Government.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It seems to me the sensible solution for those that can not stand the constant threat of an election is for the parties in the House of Commons to find common ground for support of a stable government.

At present Harper and Ignatieff read Conservative Party and Liberal Party are too power hungry to work with others and are constantly positioning themselves to have the hammer and smack down all other views and positions. It just an other round of IN’s and Out’s.

The voters of Canada repeatedly have stated election after election they don’t want anyone to have the hammer to bang down on anybody. It is time for all the representatives to represent, do the correct thing and govern for us all. Not just the power elite. 

Even if it is in the form of the much dreaded dare I say it, Coalition Government.

Now release the mad dog partisans. Let the games begin.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> "Michael Ignatieff wants to kill your children."


That is just sick, but then again, is is pretty much the same old Liberal policy as usual...



> If the flyer were equally ridiculous regarding Harper, there would be great uproar from his party (and probably a lawsuit for libel).


Except that Harper didn't jack taxes up, didn't want the silly Green Shaft plan, and he is a Canadian citizen. But then, Ignatieff at least is a citizen - unlike his predecessor, so that's an improvement.

So, which children does Ignatieff want to kill? If it's the bad kids across the street that are on drugs, ride skateboards, and are into graffiti vandalism - then I might actually vote for that! beejacon



> over, say, superior policies that obviously work well


That kind of government has been absent ever since Thompson keeled over in London. Canada is all about inferior policies that lead to needing many remedies and increases in the civil service, that lead to even more inferior policies, many of which are entirely brain damaged.



> Lastly, the point was made earlier that _none_ of the leaders have majority support. This, I think, is the biggest problem.


I'm surprised any of these turkeys even have minority support - it's harder to pick from these rejects than it was to pick between Mulroney-Turner-Broadbent, though maybe not was bad as picking between Chretien-Campbell-Bouchard-Manning-MacLaughlin-Doug Henning. Henning is the obvious winner, since 2000 yogic flyers would achieve much more than say, 25,000 civil servants.

Of course, if the Liberals ha put Bob Rae in, everything would be different because that would eliminate the Liberals for good...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> It seems to me the sensible solution for those that can not stand the constant threat of an election is for the parties in the House of Commons to find common ground for support of a stable government.
> 
> At present Harper and Ignatieff read Conservative Party and Liberal Party are too power hungry to work with others and are constantly positioning themselves to have the hammer and smack down all other views and positions. It just an other round of IN’s and Out’s.
> 
> ...


If we can dispense with the my daddy is bigger'n yer daddy politic, bring it on.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kps said:


> I agree with SINC re Iggy's motives. As much as I don't care for Harper, I care even less for Ignatieff, far less for Layton and May just isn't even on my radar screen. Sad, sad state of affairs for Canada.


The Liberal Party is filled with such motives, and they have been carrying them around for years. It only got bad when Martin mounted his successful coup d'etat, and shoved Chretien out of power. He flopped because he started shoving all of his enemies out of the party, and rigged everything so his candidates were installed, rather than the candidates that were the choice of the electors. Then he gave up because of the results of the election he did not loose, handing it over to Harper because of one big temper tantrum. Then the bad picks continues, with the selection of Dion who not only wasn't a true Canadian citizen, but he basically refused to give up his alien citizenship, and then tried to consolidate his power over the Party through his Economic Salvation deal with Layton.

Now they have Ignatieff, who at least has the support of the Caucus (unlike Martin and Dion who didn't), but just seems to operate with some other agenda in mind. Plus, I think the real boogeyman is having Bob Rae around, because if the Liberals "get in", everyone knows what kind of dillholing will be administered by this spank monkey.

Layton is good at glad handling, but when it comes down to it, his platform is a myriad of anti-worker policies that simply will not score votes. May would have done better not to have shoved the proper leader of the Green Party, Jim Harris, out - at least without even having her own seat in Government, or some hard core Green policy that people could identify with.

It's sad for Canada because we simply do not have a system that can put into power those that could use the power for the greater good, someone with a vision and a can do attitude. Maybe they should dig up Sir. John A. and send some of that DNA to Korea, and have that Korean doctor come up with a clone that we could then elect, and get on with the business of building a country, rather than this endless looting that goes on these days...


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

SINC said:


> *Yeah, right:
> 
> Meanwhile, 46 per cent said they see Harper as the best manager for tough economic times, up two points since December, compared to 32 per cent for Ignatieff and 17 per cent for Layton, who was down two points.
> *


It's a good thing the country doesn't elect the Prime Minister but the representatives who formulate the parties...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mneub said:


> It's a good thing the country doesn't elect the Prime Minister but the representatives who formulate the parties...


And why is that?


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> And why is that?



Because it's fun to see when people are wrong.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mneub said:


> Because it's fun to see when people are wrong.


I don't see how continual lies put into play to score cheap votes can be "fun", well, except for the kleptocrats that get in and make a big mess of things...

As far as the polls go - I am pretty sure you will not find many that would think Layton would be God's gift to the economy in hard times. He is kind of the one that, sure, when times are good, it's all about getting "the Government" to do stuff, because he really does embrace it. However, when things go bad, who knows how much damage he would be capable of inflicting, or how many jobs would simply disappear as businesses seek the much safer and more stable environment of places like Honduras.

Ignatieff doesn't have much on the table, though obviously creating lots of distance between Dion's Economic Salvation and Green Shaft plans give him a boost. The Liberals have a pretty bad track record when it comes to the economy. Not only have they been proven to be incompetent in the best of times, they have the singular ability to turn the mediocre times into some pretty bad times. Ignatieff is stiffed with fifty or so years of such bad economic ideals, even if he was not part of them.

Next to some union agitators, I think most Canadians entirely saw the fact that it was the role of Government to hang back andsee how things develop before shovelling out the money. I think it was a big waste of money to "salvage" GM. That company is entirely dysfunctional, has nothing to offer, and should have been folded, with the assets given to successful companies that have a future. But at least Harper waited until thje Americans got their act into gear. People understand that you can't have Economic Salvation and crazy bail outs while one President is spending the final month of his term glad handling, while the President-Elect is trying to figure out where the bathrooms are in the White House.

Ignatieff's biggest problem is not of his own doing, but of the wear and tear inflicted upon anything Liberal by the McGuilty Regime, and all of the scandals that have been brewing at Queens Park. If the Liberals can't win in Ontario, they are done. Plus, I don't think the Liberals have any chance this side of Hogtown, too many no names or tainted candidates...


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

I don't care about what you are saying because you have diverged from my point. The hilarity ensues when ehmax presents a factually accurate deduction from information presented by sinc. Sinc then proceeds to exclaim " yeah right" even though it is logically inaccurate based on the information he provides in addition to the reality of our voting system. I think it's hilarious and takes away from any point he tried to make, since he fails to recognize his own data. I'm sorry you needed the explanation.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mneub said:


> I don't care about what you are saying because you have diverged from my point. The hilarity ensues when ehmax presents a factually accurate deduction from information presented by sinc. Sinc then proceeds to exclaim " yeah right" even though it is logically inaccurate based on the information he provides in addition to the reality of our voting system. I think it's hilarious and takes away from any point he tried to make, since he fails to recognize his own data. I'm sorry you needed the explanation.


While you're technically right, some voters still vote for the local candidate based solely on who the leader of their party is.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> While you're technically right, some voters still vote for the local candidate based solely on who the leader of their party is.


Indeed, this is the factor that makes Canadian politics so interesting to me.

In the US, voters ignore the leader of the party (for everything but the presidency obviously, since the nominee is the de facto leader until he or she loses) and often (but not always) vote more on how much they like the candidate personally rather than their position on issues (since the two sides are pretty well-defined and for the most part they line up with their party on most things).

This is why you see so many "odd" or "obviously on the take" politicians in the US (and wonder how in the heck they could have gotten elected in the first place) -- on a personal level they are often quite friendly and personable, so people feel a bond with them even if they aren't particularly good at their job. How the heck else would a creep with a name like Blagoevitch (and that HAIR!) ever get into a position of power? Or that crazy Palin woman?

Example: Mark Sanford of South Carolina, the guy who just got caught with the Argentinean piece of tail. In most other places, he would either have had to resign or be swiftly impeached, but because his replacement (the Lt. Gov) is such a weird and disliked guy, South Carolinians are actually hesitant to throw Sanford out -- it's a case of the "devil you know," for those of you familiar with that saying. Sanford will be gone next year in any event -- he's term-limited.


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> While you're technically right, some voters still vote for the local candidate based solely on who the leader of their party is.


If your statement was the decisive factor in poll data, then the statement ehmax quoted would not exist.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mneub said:


> I don't care about what you are saying because you have diverged from my point. The hilarity ensues when ehmax presents a factually accurate deduction from information presented by sinc. Sinc then proceeds to exclaim " yeah right" even though it is logically inaccurate based on the information he provides in addition to the reality of our voting system. I think it's hilarious and takes away from any point he tried to make, since he fails to recognize his own data. I'm sorry you needed the explanation.


I completely missed the point - probably because I am stunned by the giant fonts this thread resorted to.

All I know is that the Liberals performed some rather greivous acts against the citizens of this nation, and that these acts are not of recent vintage, but rather, date back to the corrupted regime of Saint Laurent, when any pretense of democracy was tossed out the door with the profane action of Closure during the Pipeline debate, and any thoughts of justice and liberty were later subverted to curry favour with the Nixonians on that day in Cairo. Ever since then, the Liberals have saw fit to rip off citizens of this nation in order to purchase votes, and to bring in unequal laws and a perverted Constitution that allows Jim Crow to fester, and that allows victims to be punished for the crimes of being victims.

Even though the actions of the Liberals may be distasteful, they vote Liberal out of fear of what would happen if, say, we had an elected and effective Senate, or if Jim Crow in Quebec came to an end. But then again, there are no parties existant in this nation that have as the central plank of their platform a notion of justice or equality for all citizens, but rather, a number of parties that play a sad charade, pretending that they are something other than power grubbing Fiberals in disguise. 

I think that people vote blindly, voting for the best promises made or the rosiest picture painted, rather than voting for that party or person that has the most favourable balance between their virtues and vices. A great number of Liberals are in fact, cling-ons that only get in because people vote for their leader, and once in, do little or nothing except to accept payola and graft in exchange for a stop at the public trough. This is a big differential, since the NDP, for instance, is composed of many people that are not dependent upon Layton, and who regularly speak up to defend their electorate. The Conservatives, similarly have a number of members who really go to bat rather than be dragged along by the coattails of their leader.

As for the polls, it is not surprising, since Layton promises the world by looting the middle class; and Ignatieff has no real track record of running anything and is only there because the Lieberals lack any real leadership while Ontario lives in fear of Rae getting in. Given the choices, there is not much to pick from, and this is born out by the polls that show that almost 60% of Canadians are suspect of all parties, and over 85% of Canadians think that Politicians are the biggest liars possible (competing with used car salesmen, real estate swindlers and computer consultants)...


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

SINC said:


> Actually the line is very appropriate given his absence from Canada for decades. And I might add it won't have the opposite effect at all. Some days the truth hurts, especially when his motives for returning are either in question, or solely to attempt to grab the PM's chair.


Maybe you should start a movement to revoke his citizenship if you feel so strongly that he is not Canadian enough.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mneub said:


> Maybe you should start a movement to revoke his citizenship if you feel so strongly that he is not Canadian enough.


Apparently you've missed the entire point of the thread:



> *Canadians prefer Harper to Ignatieff by a wide margin on issues of vision, trust and ability to lead during tough economic times,* said the poll of 1,001 adults conducted Wednesday and Thursday for Canwest News Service and Global National.


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

ehMax said:


> *Grits lead Tories...*
> 
> 
> Yep...





SINC said:


> *Yeah, right:
> 
> Meanwhile, 46 per cent said they see Harper as the best manager for tough economic times, up two points since December, compared to 32 per cent for Ignatieff and 17 per cent for Layton, who was down two points.
> *



I don't think there is much of a point to the thread anymore. You disregarded the information you provided.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mneub said:


> I don't think there is much of a point to the thread anymore. You disregarded the information you provided.


No, you can't seem to accept the information I provided. I accept the Grit lead the polls, but you can't seem to grasp that the majority of Canadians don't want Iggy as their leader.

When people mark their ballots in secret with the dislike of Iggy, that will filter through and eliminate the lead the Libs seem to have.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Harper seems to have such an overwhelming vote of confidence at the ballot box himself hasn't he.

Liberals had the worst showing at the polls in history, he still failed at having enough Canadians show enough confidence in a majority.

So now sour grapes fighting in a thread about a few points in some poll.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Harper seems to have such an overwhelming vote of confidence at the ballot box himself hasn't he.
> 
> Liberals had the worst showing at the polls in history, he still failed at having enough Canadians show enough confidence in a majority.
> 
> So now sour grapes fighting in a thread about a few points in some poll.


The only way Harper could get a majority would be to clean house at the top of his communications team and for there to be a change in the Party leadership. 

They had a majority in the bag going into the last election and then blew it in Quebec with ill fated and thought out communications regarding the arts and young offenders. Once they did that the wheels fell off the wagon in Quebec.

Pandering to the converted in the west lost them the east. A further example of how partisan blinders and failing to appeal to the centre will lead to political suicide every time (at least in this country). 

Politically, the best thing that could happen for the long term prospects of the Conservatives would be for Harper to lose the next election, which will lead to his resignation and hopefully a shake up in the Party leadership, specifically the departure of Doug Finley along with his cronies and lapdogs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and this is really gonna help......

Tory ad suggests Bloc protecting child traffickers rather than children


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> The only way Harper could get a majority would be to clean house at the top of his communications team and for there to be a change in the Party leadership.
> 
> They had a majority in the bag going into the last election and then blew it in Quebec with ill fated and thought out communications regarding the arts and young offenders. Once they did that the wheels fell off the wagon in Quebec.
> 
> ...


I can't disagree with any of your post.

I think there are those on the right who can't seem to fathom that Canada isn't totally conservative, Harper even tried to assert that. But that seems to be their downfall.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> and this is really gonna help......
> 
> Tory ad suggests Bloc protecting child traffickers rather than children


wow. They just never learn do they...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> and this is really gonna help......
> 
> Tory ad suggests Bloc protecting child traffickers rather than children


The CBC is incorrect in referring to it as an "ad". It is a 10%er, a communications/political vehicle that all Parties use to communicate with voters and to also identify Party support either in their own riding or ridings held outside their Party.

A 10%er like this one however, is not really intended as a communications vehicle. Scott Reid MP is correct when he indicates the Conservatives are using the latest 10%er to identify potential supporters in Quebec. All political parties make use of a system called Constituency Information Management System (CIMS). Each party varies as to what information is collected and kept in the database. 

So when a 10%er like this is it returned (as all the 10%ers allow for a postage free return; anything that is sent to an MP can be done so postage free) with a positive response, they would be added to the Conservatives' CIMS as potential supporters. If they receive a negative response then they would be added as not supporting the Party.

I do agree however that there is likely to be backlash due again to poor communications tactics from a team that simply doesn't "get" Quebec.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's no surprise to me, considering the Bloc supports all kinds of discriminatory policies. Does the Bloc support the traffic of all children, or just the Anglos?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's no surprise to me, considering the Bloc supports all kinds of discriminatory policies. Does the Bloc support the traffic of all children, or just the Anglos?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> The only way Harper could get a majority would be to clean house at the top of his communications team and for there to be a change in the Party leadership.
> 
> They had a majority in the bag going into the last election and then blew it in Quebec with ill fated and thought out communications regarding the arts and young offenders. Once they did that the wheels fell off the wagon in Quebec.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

This is good (or not much but it's a start):



> Tories climbing rapidly to top of the polls
> 
> Daniel Leblanc
> 
> ...


Tories climb to top of the polls - The Globe and Mail


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Too bad Layton couldn't find some advantage, and steal votes on the left. Nothing would be better than to see the Liberals entirely squeezed out of the scene...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This about sums it up nicely.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

:clap:

Good one! I also like the fact that the footprints are moving to the right.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC News - Politics - Liberal support down significantly: poll


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## macdoodle (Jul 12, 2009)

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> 
> Good one! I also like the fact that the footprints are moving to the right.
> 
> Cheers


Is this the thread that isn't showing any response? I just see nov 26 2009 too.... bryanc


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see SINC's graphs now. As SINC will also point out, even though bryanc's comment is now ancient, almost all action in newspaper photos or illustrations shows characters or vehicles moving to the right, in the direction the reader is "traveling" while flipping forward through the pages.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yaaawwn.

surely ya'll have run out of the bubbly by -now-...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: This poor poll showing must be the result of Iggy's cross-Canada bus tour where he meets his rank-and-file supporters. Probably telling them that if he can't count on their vote, he will be forced to go back to his home in the U.S. I have a sneaking suspicion Chretien will be back soon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: Iggy was a complete bust here in Alberta. Worse showing than Dion. And that takes some doing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

liberals not doing well in Alberta?

Break out the bubbly!!!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Man, I don't think we'll see a majority government for a looooong time. Might be a good thing. the NDP and Green seem to be gaining ground. 

When was the last time the Libs got a seat in Alberta?

Say what you guys want, I like Iggy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Man, I don't think we'll see a majority government for a looooong time. Might be a good thing. the NDP and Green seem to be gaining ground.
> 
> When was the last time the Libs got a seat in Alberta?
> 
> Say what you guys want, I like Iggy.


I don't mind Iggy as a writer and as a broadcaster, however he isn't cut out to be a politician, let alone PM, which I think he has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming.

I agree we are in for minority governments for quite a while to come but I don't think that it is a good thing. It has proved itself in the current political climate to generate nothing but extreme partisanship and perpetual political posturing as all the parties are in continual "election" mode. It is tiresome.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, even Google can't find the last federal Liberal elected in Alberta. My neighbour thinks it was in the early 1920s though.


----------



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

I foresee the Liberals going with Bob Rae and the NDP going with Jack Harris, my MP here in St.John's East, after the next election, which I think will be another minority Conservative government. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I foresee the Liberals going with Bob Rae and the NDP going with Jack Harris, my MP here in St.John's East, after the next election, which I think will be another minority Conservative government. We shall see.


If the Liberals go with Bob Rae, then all of Ontario, except for Toronto, will lock out the Libs. Rae still has a lot to answer for in Ontario.


----------



## chuckster (Nov 30, 2003)

I never held any animosity towards Bob Rae. Just the contrary. He was handed a pile of s**t from the previous government. He made s**t sandwiches. Nobody wanted to eat them.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> If the Liberals go with Bob Rae, then all of Ontario, except for Toronto, will lock out the Libs. Rae still has a lot to answer for in Ontario.


He will be the interim leader until they have someone willing to step forward and chance being an unknown to the country. The Liberals need to start standing for something once again. I don't see anyone waiting in the wings that wants to take on the leadership, other than Rae, just now. We shall see. As for Leyton, I think that if the NDP does not make significant gains, he will use his health as the issue to step aside gracefully. We shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chuckster said:


> I never held any animosity towards Bob Rae. Just the contrary. He was handed a pile of s**t from the previous government. He made s**t sandwiches. Nobody wanted to eat them.


LOL... Always blame your failings on the previous government... If you didn't mind Rae you are in the minority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chuckster said:


> I never held any animosity towards Bob Rae. Just the contrary. He was handed a pile of s**t from the previous government. He made s**t sandwiches. Nobody wanted to eat them.



Bob took a ham sandwich and turned it into a s**t sandwich. Never met someone willing to admit they voted for him.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Bob took a ham sandwich and turned it into a s**t sandwich. Never met someone willing to admit they voted for him.


Well they could have only voted for him if they lived in his riding... so that diminishes your chances greatly. The NDP did win a decisive majority, so while they may not have voted for Rae, plenty voted for the NDP. Mind you many of the riding victories were very slim.


> The popular vote was very close, with the NDP out polling the Liberals 37% to 34%.
> Wikipedia


Such is the nature of first past the post.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, even Google can't find the last federal Liberal elected in Alberta. My neighbour thinks it was in the early 1920s though.


Certainly none since 1980.


----------



## antic (Dec 17, 2008)

Bob Rae *can't* be the next Liberal party leader, he's an Anglophobe and the next one has to be a Francophone, that's a pattern they have adhered to for long as I can remember. So why not Justin Trudeau? 

Seriously, Canadian politics (and modern politics in general) are frustrating. None of the mainstream parties speaks for the people. The current parties are all pretty much right and righter. I remember reading all the party platforms off their various websites last federal election and the only one who's vision of Canada was one I'd want to live in was the Green Party. 

They are unlikely to ever form a government so we will have to make do with what we have......I guess.......sigh!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

antic said:


> Bob Rae *can't* be the next Liberal party leader, he's an Anglophobe and the next one has to be a Francophone, that's a pattern they have adhered to for long as I can remember. So why not Justin Trudeau?


Justin? Too young. Too inexperienced.

I'm sure they are grooming him for the role, but it'll be a few years yet before he can be a serious contender.


----------



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

Sonal said:


> Justin? Too young. Too inexperienced.
> 
> I'm sure they are grooming him for the role, but it'll be a few years yet before he can be a serious contender.


That is my thinking as well, Sonal. I like Justin T., but he is a bit young. I thought that Bob Rae was learning French.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

antic said:


> The current parties are all pretty much right and righter. I remember reading all the party platforms off their various websites last federal election and the only one who's vision of Canada was one I'd want to live in was the Green Party.


The frustrating thing is that if you merged the support for the Greens and the NDP, who overlap extensively on many issues (and where they don't, I think the Greens have better ideas), they'd be bigger than the Liberals already. Furthermore, I think a lot of support for the Liberals would defect to an environmentally active party with liberal social values and centrist economic policies.

The NDP has been lost in the hinterland of Canadian politics since Ed Broadbent. All of their best ideas are equally well-represented by the Greens. They should just fold the tent and take their support to the Greens.

Like the merger of the Reform party and the still-twitching remains of the PCs, a merged Green/NDP party would be a formidable power in Ottawa.

Cheers


----------



## antic (Dec 17, 2008)

bryanc said:


> a merged Green/NDP party would be a formidable power in Ottawa.


I *like* your thinking!
:clap:


----------



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

"The NDP has been lost in the hinterland of Canadian politics since Ed Broadbent. " I agree, bryanc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would love to see the Greens and NDP join forces so they could isolate the kook-fringe votes in one party. It would save the Conservatives a lot of money attacking them on two fronts.

Broadbent was a the dirty soul of the NDP party, I agree. An authoritarian socialist who I am glad to see gone, 

That said, if any party offers to increase personal freedom, eliminate corporate welfare and lower taxes, I don't much care which toilet they choose to flush tax money down--I would probably vote for them.




bryanc said:


> The frustrating thing is that if you merged the support for the Greens and the NDP, who overlap extensively on many issues (and where they don't, I think the Greens have better ideas), they'd be bigger than the Liberals already. Furthermore, I think a lot of support for the Liberals would defect to an environmentally active party with liberal social values and centrist economic policies.
> 
> The NDP has been lost in the hinterland of Canadian politics since Ed Broadbent. All of their best ideas are equally well-represented by the Greens. They should just fold the tent and take their support to the Greens.
> 
> ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> if any party offers to increase personal freedom, eliminate corporate welfare and lower taxes, I don't much care which toilet they choose to flush tax money down--I would probably vote for them.





Green Party Policy Summary said:


> no more grey-industry bail-outs
> income-splitting for families
> lower payroll and income taxes
> ...


Look at that, you're a Green too!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Look at that, you're a Green too!


The Greens are not willing to increase personal freedom in environmental choices.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Greens are not willing to increase personal freedom in environmental choices.


I doubt they'd encroach on your freedom to be an irresponsible hooligan, but they might tax it.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Bob took a ham sandwich and turned it into a s**t sandwich. Never met someone willing to admit they voted for him.


I lived in Bob Rae's riding. I couldn't stand the SOB and never voted for him, that's for sure. 

I remember that election. He campaigned on a "make the rich pay" platform which went over well in a lower middle class neighbourhood full of welfare mamas. What he failed to ever mention was HIS definition of rich. Soon found out it basically was anyone with a job. Folks have poor memories. Rae darn near broke those of us struggling to keep a roof overhead. Taxes were raised 30%. 

I nearly puked when I saw that man in the Liberal party. The thought of him becoming PM frightens me. I guarantee he will tax and spend this country into oblivion. Greece will look good in comparison.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Interesting that his new riding is my riding--Toronto-Centre. It includes Rosedale, Regent Park, and the Gaybourhood.

All over the freakin' map here.



adagio said:


> I lived in Bob Rae's riding. I couldn't stand the SOB and never voted for him, that's for sure.
> 
> I remember that election. He campaigned on a "make the rich pay" platform which went over well in a lower middle class neighbourhood full of welfare mamas. What he failed to ever mention was HIS definition of rich. Soon found out it basically was anyone with a job. Folks have poor memories. Rae darn near broke those of us struggling to keep a roof overhead. Taxes were raised 30%.
> 
> I nearly puked when I saw that man in the Liberal party. The thought of him becoming PM frightens me. I guarantee he will tax and spend this country into oblivion. Greece will look good in comparison.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Justin? Too young. Too inexperienced.
> 
> I'm sure they are grooming him for the role, but it'll be a few years yet before he can be a serious contender.


I whole heartedly agree... But a few years...? 

If he sticks with it out (who knows) try a decade or 15 years at least. His Dad may be famous, but see how far that gets you in the "real world" (think Ben Mulroney  ).

Peter MacKay is a very charismatic and relatively good looking politician who came from a well respected political heritage and while he was leader of the Progressive Conservative Party for a relatively short period of time (with full intentions of, while being leader, killing that particular party to morph it into something else) he is still not leader of *his* new party 13 years after his first election into Parliament and he has a while to go yet before he will be leader again (and I believe he will be at some point). 

Justin has a loooonnnnnng time to go,* if *he has the stomach for it and the determination to stick it out. He is by no means his Dad, with no indication that he has half the charisma or intellect, despite his good looks.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not meaning to derail the thread, but it doesn't matter who leads what if we don't have parties running who represent the whole nation. If I were the PM I would pass a law that all parties would have to run candidates in each province and new parties would have 1 election grace period to setup national campaigns. Further, until we have an elected Senate, all parties will be run by people who do not want to run too far from popular public opinion, and if you think I'm wrong on this look at the legislative history of the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc [ who might get a pass on this ] you can hardly tell one party from the other when it comes to actual enacted policy ... electioneering doesn't count. As for the Green's they'll be toast unless they can get their coffers up and for that they need elected members. They are too fragmented, and in this regard, yes I agree they are more akin to the NDP than any other party.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

antic said:


> ... Seriously, Canadian politics (and modern politics in general) are frustrating. None of the mainstream parties speaks for the people. The current parties are all pretty much right and righter. I remember reading all the party platforms off their various websites last federal election and the only one who's vision of Canada was one I'd want to live in was the Green Party.
> 
> They are unlikely to ever form a government so we will have to make do with what we have......I guess.......sigh!


Are you younger than say... 30 or 35 by any chance?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I whole heartedly agree... But a few years...?
> 
> If he sticks with it out (who knows) try a decade or 15 years at least. His Dad may be famous, but see how far that gets you in the "real world" (think Ben Mulroney  ).


Please, I'd rather not think about Ben Mulroney. 

I have a hunch that they will try to push Justin in charge sooner rather than later. He may not be ready in a few years, but I think they will try him in about 5 years or so. 

I agree that it will probably be too soon, but unless the Liberals can come up with a decent leader by then, I have a feeling they are going grasping for any semblance of a decent chance they can find.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I agree that it will probably be too soon, but unless the Liberals can come up with a decent leader by then, I have a feeling they are going grasping for any semblance of a decent chance they can find.


What the liberals need even more desperately than an electable leader is a policy that distinguishes them from the conservatives. Currently the liberals are just conservatives with even less spine.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Not meaning to derail the thread, but* it doesn't matter who leads what if we don't have parties running who represent the whole nation.* If I were the PM I would pass a law that all parties would have to run candidates in each province and new parties would have 1 election grace period to setup national campaigns....


There is NO such thing as a national party in this country, there never was, nor will there ever be. Canada is a country of regions, that is why we are a Federation. There will always be regional differences and there is no escaping that.

To suggest that a party could be a"national" party is to suggest that these differences could some how magically disappear and a "Canadian Identity" be found and defined and then that "Identity" then be transferred to electoral votes.

We are NOT a homogeneous society so how could any one party represent the whole nation? It is a Utopian ideal to think any party ever could.

Sorry Rps, I respect you greatly, but that just will never happen nor it reasonable to assume that from a political standpoint it is necessary or even desirable.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> What the liberals need even more desperately than an electable leader is a policy that distinguishes them from the conservatives. Currently the liberals are just conservatives with even less spine.


I said it once, I'll say it again.

Canadian politics these days is basically a battle of the boring nerds....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Please, I'd rather not think about Ben Mulroney.
> 
> *I have a hunch that they* will try to push Justin in charge sooner rather than later. He may not be ready in a few years, but I think they will try him in about 5 years or so.
> 
> I agree that it will probably be too soon, but unless the Liberals can come up with a decent leader by then, I have a feeling they are going grasping for any semblance of a decent chance they can find.


But there is no one collective* they* in the Liberal party and there hasn't been since Chretien and even then there were the "Matinites". I can't see Justin as being a unifying factor within the Party for a long time.... he doesn't have the connections, the experience, the intellect or the clout and he won't have for a long time, if ever IMO.


----------



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

bryanc said:


> What the liberals need even more desperately than an electable leader is a policy that distinguishes them from the conservatives. Currently the liberals are just conservatives with even less spine.


Sadly, this is somewhat true, bryanc. The Liberals need to return to their roots and stand for liberal social policies that will help the people of this country.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature said:


> To suggest that a party could be a"national" party is to suggest that these differences could some how magically disappear and a "Canadian Identity" be found and defined and then that "Identity" then be transferred to electoral votes.


Point being? Isn't that what our elected members should be striving for. With out that we will always have this conflict of East - West, French - English, Toronto - Everyone else.

Utopian, maybe, but our political structure will be the breakup of us. We may be a federation, but many of our constituent states consider themselves "nations". Unless we either have a Canadian Identity, or all parties running at a National level we will be in trouble. The quickest fix is an equal and elected Senate, if we get that then we stand a chance, and it really would matter who is elected PM.


----------



## antic (Dec 17, 2008)

screature said:


> Are you younger than say... 30 or 35 by any chance?


No, older than 50 actually. Why do you ask?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Point being?


Point made. 



Rps said:


> *Isn't that what our elected members should be striving for.* With out that we will always have this conflict of East - West, French - English, Toronto - Everyone else.
> 
> Utopian, maybe, but our political structure will be the breakup of us. We may be a federation, but *many* of our constituent states consider themselves "nations". *Unless we either have a Canadian Identity, or all parties running at a National level we will be in trouble.* The quickest fix is an equal and elected Senate, if we get that then we stand a chance, and it really would matter who is elected PM.


No actually they aren't. They are elected to by the constituents of their riding and represent* them*. Like it or not that is the system we have and the way it is by definition... just sayin'... that is the way it is. 


"Many?" Two that I know of officially (maybe three if splitting hairs) and only one that has any serious following.

_"Unless we either have a Canadian Identity, or all parties running at a National level we will be in trouble."_ Trouble is a relative term, trouble of what? The country splinting? Only one province posses any real threat of that, and that is IMO remote, the threat is always there, but that is part of our *regional*/cultural/political differences. Quebec is a prime example as to why there can never be a truly "National" Party as many of the interests of Quebec are in conflict with those of other parts of Canada. As is the case with Alberta, Newfoundland, B.C. etc., etc.

Canada is a democracy and a "mosaic" (officially). We don't even have elected representatives that represent all of a municipality, how could we possibly expect it nationally. 

I know where you are coming from philosophically, but philosophy and politics, unfortunately, most often are like oil and water.... they just don't mix. 

An elected Senate, if, a Senate yes I agree and with reasonable terms of service before re-election.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

antic said:


> No, older than 50 actually. Why do you ask?


Oh.... just because you sounded like me when I young.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> But there is no one collective* they* in the Liberal party and there hasn't been since Chretien and even then there were the "Matinites". I can't see Justin as being a unifying factor within the Party for a long time.... he doesn't have the connections, the experience, the intellect or the clout and he won't have for a long time, if ever IMO.


I just think he will be put up after the exhaust every other seemingly electable candidate... and they are running out of seemingly electable candidates.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I just think he will be put up after the exhaust every other seemingly electable candidate... and they are running out of seemingly electable candidates.


As Dr. G. has *ohhh so often*  (and correctly ) said, "we shall see...".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> As Dr. G. has *ohhh so often*  (and correctly ) said, "we shall see...".


I hope so. I've seen Justin speak, and while he's quite likeable, I don't think he's near ready. 

Hopefully, he's smart enough to know that he needs to put in a lot more time before he can seriously be considered and will keep out of the leadership race.... his father didn't have a long history in politics before becoming PM, but he'd done more.

As I said, if they can get a decent candidate in there by then, Justin's off the hook.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I doubt they'd encroach on your freedom to be an irresponsible hooligan, but they might tax it.


Well, that tax part is a deal breaker.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A friend was a software expert at the time. Told me that he had a contract with the NDP not to help them balance the books, but just to keep track of all of their spending. He said they were so self-admittedly profligate that they literally had no idea how deep they'd run the province into the ground. 

I was near to vomiting when that asshat Rae came, cap in hand, to say that he was ready to be PM because he had learned from his mistakes in Ontario. Nice when you can turn a prosperous province into your own kiddie chemistry lab.



adagio said:


> I remember that election. He campaigned on a "make the rich pay" platform which went over well in a lower middle class neighbourhood full of welfare mamas. What he failed to ever mention was HIS definition of rich. Soon found out it basically was anyone with a job. Folks have poor memories. Rae darn near broke those of us struggling to keep a roof overhead. Taxes were raised 30%.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The only thing I don't like about Harper really is his agenda of mixing in right handed religion with politics and his foreign policy. Get rid of the former and improve the latter and he may actually get the votes required to form a majority government.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> The only thing I don't like about Harper really is his agenda of mixing in right handed religion with politics and his foreign policy. Get rid of the former and improve the latter and he may actually get the votes required to form a majority government.


What specific policies are you referring to?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Well in general, the do as the Americans do policy. This is embarrassing, are we not a sovereign country?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Well in general, the do as the Americans do policy. This is embarrassing, are we not a sovereign country?


Specifically? 

They don't just do as the Americans do, there are certain similarities of course as they are our most important trading partner and a certain amount of "harmonization" is required for us to be good neighbours and often times it is absolutely in our best interest. When it isn't they don't. This is nothing new or unique to Harper or even Conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

seems Canadians don't want Harper either.

The Census...Aka Harper's Doom....



> Snap election would leave Harper
> with razor-thin minority, pollster says
> 
> Jane Taber
> ...


Snap election would leave Harper with razor-thin minority, pollster says - The Globe and Mail

Interesting comment...



> 8/5/2010 11:09:31 AM
> I wonder if people are waking up........like I did...as a past Tory supporter I have to say how unhappy I am with this Government.........the census was the last straw........but it was the de-funding of 19 women's groups JUST BEFORE that g8/G20 meeting for a BILLION dollars that started it.........Bring it on!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> seems Canadians don't want Harper either....


Is that the wind I hear....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Give it until next week, it will revert and the Liberals will fall. :yawn:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Give it until next week, it will revert and the Liberals will fall. :yawn:


I thought MacDoc said it would be the prorogue that would kill Harper. Or was it Afghanistan? Global warming? Stimulus spending? The GST reduction? Steer roping at the Calgary Stampede? Just add the census to the list.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The problem with federal election polling in Canada is that there is no national election, there are 300+ separate small elections. The fact that the Cons drop a few points now or the Libs did a few weeks back is difficult to extrapolate into potential seat totals, even with a large national sample of 3400. That then becomes only a few hundred per province and even if the sample was fairly distributed across all ridings, which it probably isn't, is only a dozen or so people per riding. And many of these polls go with far smaller samples than 3400.

Yet the newspapers and partisans don't mind talking about these polls as if they can say specific things about how many seats a party will win in a particular area or even if in this case, that a national voting intention poll can predict that Elizabeth May will win or not in a single riding. This is voodoo, not news.

The only way a national poll in Canada could be considered an accurate measure of whether a government will fall or not would be if the sample size were massive, many times the size of even the larger samples. If the poll swing is sudden and massive, it's likely nobody would need a poll to tell that a party or leader is in serious political trouble. There'll be an obvious scandal or other event to point to.

So for partisans to post one poll that says Iggy will go down to defeat, yet yawn when another poll shows their fave leader slipping is just disingenuous. Let's be honest, we'll only have some good info if and when the writ is dropped and the polling and mood-watching gets really focused and intense. Even then what might look like a good lead the day before voting can easily evaporate overnight.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

All I can say is that I am satisfied that Harper's lead in the polls has recently eroded, thanks to their decree re the census. The looming hell of a majority Harpiste rule has subsided... for now.


----------



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

GA, all valid points re federal election polling in Canada. Personally, I don't follow polls, just the platforms the various parties put forth, and the candidate running in my riding. I have voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party due to the candidate running in St.John's East and the platforms of their party. We shall see what happens in the next election, poll predictions or not. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I love Iggy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ lol.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> The looming hell of a majority Harpiste rule has subsided... for now.


Yes, for now. Maybe.

So Harper partisans are Harpatistas?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't know _what_ they should be properly called, Grats... but whatever their inclinations, they can have 'em.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Day...the horror, the horror...
Stockwell Day's prisonyard of dreams - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Day...the horror, the horror...
> Stockwell Day's prisonyard of dreams - The Globe and Mail


Just what are you saying MacDoc? That article was a word salad.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Ah, yes, the good ole' Grope & Flail...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

is that similar to the national poop?

just so's I understands eh.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Ah, yes, the good ole' Grope & Flail...


:clap: yeah, canadian news is about as good as canadian politics...should be on the same channel as just for laughs...

national post isn't any better


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I read that Globe article yesterday and wondered, for the umpteenth time, how the Globe pics its columnists. It's weak and has the consistency of quicksand.

On the other hand, Stockwell Day continues to be a very public buffoon. This guy is doing his gubbmint absolutely zero favours.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> On the other hand, Stockwell Day continues to be a very public buffoon. This guy is doing his gubbmint absolutely zero favours.


I understand that Harper plans to slash our deficit within a few years, yet here we have Day out there talking about building more prisons at the cost of multiple billions, based on his notions about a massive "alarming" rise in "unreported" crime. Even Stats Canada can't find that unreported crime. I guess that's why we don't need Stats Canada since the Harpatistas feels free to make up their own numbers. See the Stephen Colbert doctrine of "truthiness".

On top of the new prison billions (9 billion, 13 billion?) we have the plan to make sure prisoners serve longer sentences (est. 5 billion) and the creation of even more criminals with new powers to arrest and give long term sentences to small time pot growers or poker players.

I guess it's become clear Harper ain't a _fiscal_ conservative, so what kind of conservative is he? And with his plans to slash the deficit, what parts of the government does he plan to cleave off to meet that target, given this recent focus on untold billions to be spent on crime and punishment?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Harper ain't a fiscal conservative?

I think we've seen plenty the last few years, this government LOVES to spend, spend, and spend more. 

There'll be excuses forthcoming though how, it's ok because, apparently someone else did it too or something.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You're right again gt. 

Iggy and Layton demanded it. Remember that now after the last election? When they decided the government had to spend or fall to save the economy? Remember? Under Iggy and Layton's threat to bring down the government? Remember that gt?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> You're right again gt.
> 
> Iggy and Layton demanded it. Remember?


Iggy threatened to pull the plug on the government and spend twice as much unless the Conservatives spent more on the "stimulus" program. That's a matter of record.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You're right again gt.
> 
> Iggy and Layton demanded it. Remember that now after the last election? When they decided the government had to spend or fall to save the economy? Remember? Under Iggy and Layton's threat to bring down the government? Remember that gt?


there we have it.

Once again, more posts confirming, that this government are a bunch of incompetent fools running under the skirts of someone else, since apparently they are incapable of making any proper decisions themselves, or take any kind of stand on their own two feet.

Thanks for confirming that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I confirmed nothing gt. I merely reminded you of what "your boys" did.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

None of them, are "my boys". But, lets humour you.

"my boys", if that were even true...

aren't in government. "your boys", are. Apparently, you haven't figured this out yet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh, I know what's happening all right. I'm just trying to refresh your memory as to what you obviously forget so easily.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How soon they forget:

Canada?s Ignatieff Says Harper Wrong to Leave Out Stimulus Plan - Bloomberg



> *Canada’s Ignatieff Says Harper Wrong to Leave Out Stimulus Plan*
> By Greg Quinn and Alexandre Deslongchamps - November 29, 2008 11:39 EST
> Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian legislator running to become leader of the opposition Liberal Party, said Prime Minister Stephen Harper was wrong not to include a stimulus package in his Nov. 27 fiscal update.
> 
> “The package was a piece of political gerrymandering,” Ignatieff said in an interview in Halifax, Nova Scotia, today. “Above all, the absence of stimulus” was wrong.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just like Lemmings.

I can understand why you both desperately need this to be someone else's fault. But the sad truth is, your favourite party, is IN POWER, and made the final decision. Period.

It's called, accountability. I know conservatives aren't sure of this word, and haven't learned that being in government, means taking responsibility for the action you take.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Apparently you cannot accept the fact it was not Harper who dictated the spending. It was Iggy and his big stick with Layton's support that forced the issue with the threat of bringing down the government. Try denying that happened gt. Bottom line is you can't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, let me get this straight. If Harper thinks he might, lose, he'll do someone who isn't in government's, bidding?

Sure Sinc. Sure. I guess then Harper has no principles when itcomes to holding onto power then eh?

Harper is the prime minister. And if he can't accept responsibility for his actions and decisions, then he should step aside. 

I realize, this is something hard to comprehend apparently.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I realize, this is something hard to comprehend apparently.


Like I said, the only one with an apparent comprehension problem is you. 

The spending was forced by Iggy and Layton under threat of dissolving the house. Your memory failing or what?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I understand Sinc. Taking responsibility for a decision, isn't Harper and his followers strong suit.

It's always someone else's fault.

Some say "the devil made me do it"

I guess for you, it's "the liberals made me do it"...

LOL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I understand Sinc. Taking responsibility for a decision, isn't Harper and his followers strong suit.
> 
> It's always someone else's fault.
> 
> ...


.



SINC said:


> Like I said, the only one with an apparent comprehension problem is you.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Curious, if Harper were so sure that the stimulus money was the wrong thing to do, then why didn't he take it to the people? How is it that the Opposition MADE Harper do anything? 

If he thought that not spending a penny on economic stimulus was correct and right, why didn't he dare the Opposition to go to the polls on it, as he has done with so many other things. 

And even curiouser, if the Cons thought that stimulus spending was such a dreadful idea, why did they make sure they printed the Conservative Party of Canada logo bright blue and large on all their giant photo-op cheques? (In defience of government ethics and practice.) You'd think that if they only spent because the bad ol' Opposition "forced" them too, they would have printed the Liberal Party logo on them.










This is just weasily and whiny attempts at justification. 

The current massive deficit is not all due to the stimulus spending and the Cons economic spending spree and economic stupidity has been in evidence since day one. The truth is that they'll bankrupt the country if they thought it would create the conditions for their majority. Currently, they believe following a GOP US-style fear of crime agenda will do the job. Tomorrow it will be some other lame-brained idea. And when we have no money left for things Canadians really want, such as health care, I'm sure Harper and his apologists will blame the Opposition for that too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the devil made them do it.

But seriously, these conservatives just don't have the ability to take responsibility. Period. As evidenced by Sinc never ending 'they made us do it' posts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> t's called, accountability. I know conservatives aren't sure of this word, and haven't learned that being in government, means taking responsibility for the action you take.


They did take responsibility... by cutting Iggy and his larger stimulus program out of the game. I was quite pleased with that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah the master of merry go rounds.

And here I thought it was all the liberals fault. Well at least a small glimmer of owning the coming bankrupting of Canada. Harper did indeed, 'cut Iggy out of the game'.

nicely done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ah the master of merry go rounds.
> 
> And here I thought it was all the liberals fault. Well at least a small glimmer of owning the coming bankrupting of Canada. Harper did indeed, 'cut Iggy out of the game'.
> 
> nicely done.


groove, the best part of your posts in this thread is that you only "lol"ed once. Congrats!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well macfury, as you've pointed out numerous times in regards to wreckless government spending, it's no laughing matter!


oops.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> well macfury, as you've pointed out numerous times in regards to wreckless government spending, it's no laughing matter!
> 
> 
> oops.


The inventing of a new word in your post however, is hilarious! Oops indeed! Turned our spell checker off did we? :lmao:

It kinda reminds me of when I used to use a "rench" to undo a bolt. beejacon


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you always gotta chuckle, when that's all they got, and it took them almost 2 days to get there.

Print yerself off a certificate of I GIT 'EM GOOD!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Michael Ignatieff local Liberals’ biggest challenge*

Seems 'bout right:



> Sooner or later, we’re going to have another federal election, and the prospects in Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo riding aren’t overly appetizing.
> 
> Talk about a shallow gene pool. We’ll have to choose between a sitting Conservative MP nobody had heard of before the last election, a Green Party candidate nobody has heard of yet and never will, a New Democrat who has already lost two elections, and maybe a Liberal if anyone can be talked into it.
> 
> ...


Michael Ignatieff local Liberals’ biggest challenge | Kamloops Daily News


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Seems 'bout right


Maybe in Kamloops. But it seems to me that the biggest problems the Liberals have is a legacy of mediocre governing ornamented with some petty corruption, and an obvious lack of policy other than "whatever-way-the-wind-blows." What they've got going for them includes an incumbent Conservative party that, even in minority, is far to the right of what most Canadians want, and which shows signs of slavering at the opportunity a majority would give them to be even more extremist, combined with a constitutionally inept NDP and an a regional party that could probably run the table if they'd run candidates outside of Quebec.

I still think an NDP-Green merger (one that shakes off the cruft of labour unions and environmental extremism) could flourish in the current political climate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I still think an NDP-Green merger (one that shakes off the cruft of labour unions and environmental extremism) could flourish in the current political climate.


This is like Dean Martin without the Martini, right?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This is like Dean Martin without the Martini, right?


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Maybe in Kamloops.


And likely in most any other Canadian city you choose to select.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macfury made a funny. who knew?

And, whyyyy are we talking about Kamloops?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> And, whyyyy are we talking about Kamloops?


I guess you missed the thread title did you gt? Iggy's gonna be there. And Canadians there don't want him either.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

let me rephrase that then.

WHY are we talking about Kamloops?????


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> let me rephrase that then.
> 
> WHY are we talking about Kamloops?????


Geez, I just told you. Iggy is going to visit there and the Liberals are, well . . . read the story and you won't have to ask again.

And if you can't grasp it from there, ask for help.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Geez, I just told you. Iggy is going to visit there and the Liberals are, well . . . read the story and you won't have to ask again.
> 
> And if you can't grasp it from there, ask for help.


I think he just means in the larger sense...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh never mind...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tory lead over Liberals grows: poll*



> The federal Conservatives have opened up a 12½-point lead over the opposition Liberals — their largest lead since October 2009 — a new EKOS survey suggests.
> 
> The latest results from EKOS, released exclusively to CBC News, found 37.3 per cent of respondents said they would vote for Stephen Harper's Conservatives if an election were held now, compared with 24.8 per cent who said they'd vote for Michael Ignatieff's Liberals.
> 
> Jack Layton's New Democrats received the support of 14.2 per cent of respondents, while the Green Party received 10.7 per cent and 9.9. per cent backed the Bloc Québécois.


CBC News - Politics - Tory lead over Liberals grows: poll


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> *Tory lead over Liberals grows: poll*
> 
> 
> 
> CBC News - Politics - Tory lead over Liberals grows: poll


If it makes you happy to be happy...Be Happy


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What does happiness have to do with reality? It just is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> If it makes you happy to be happy...Be Happy


It was not an expression of happiness, it was merely confirmation of a fact that I originally made in this thread and that is, voters are not warming up to Iggy. He is a boon to the Conservatives and a burden to the Liberals, but they just don't seem to grasp that they will never form a government with Iggy as leader.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> It was not an expression of happiness, it was merely confirmation of a fact that I originally made in this thread and that is, voters are not warming up to Iggy. He is a boon to the Conservatives and a burden to the Liberals, but they just don't seem to grasp that they will never form a government with Iggy as leader.


While I tend to agree with you SINC, one should never say never without knocking on wood as you never can tell what shocks the future may hold...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> While I tend to agree with you SINC, one should never say never without knocking on wood as you never can tell what shocks the future may hold...


Yeah screature, I weighed the risk before I made the post, but given I stared this thread way back on June 19 of 2009, I'm pretty sure Iggy's rejection is permanent.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I seem to recall a time, quite a long time in fact, that the same was said about Harper.

What's interesting to note however, is that despite the fact that Iggy seems to be lagging in the polls, and the liberals really, in general have been dead in the water for the most part for years now, Harper has never so far, been able to get past where he is now.

Seems to me to be a bit of a rejection to some degree of both leaders.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> While I tend to agree with you SINC, one should never say never without knocking on wood as you never can tell what shocks the future may hold...


Exactly. Never is a long time. If inexperienced Obama could be raised to falter as the leader of the Free World, even Iggy could be lofted to Sussex by another ill wind. 

Even that wanker, Dion, almost made it!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Sinc, for my two cents, I live in a Conservative riding, both Provincially and Federally. On the Fed side we have Ms. Oda as our member. On the Prov side we have John O'Toole. I would say that no one here is interested in Iggy. In fact, I have friends in Liberal ridings [ yes there are some ] who aren't interested in Iggy either. The sense I'm getting is that he has Dionism....probably not a bad guy but people won't take the time to warm up to him .... if indeed that is possible. We have many here who would like a change federally, but we tend to vote [ federally ] based on the leader ..... and many do not see Iggy as "the guy"....they didn't see Dion as "the guy" either.

Unless Harper makes an unspeakable error ..... and these things have been known to happen .... I think he is in again. By how much will determine if the party will let him stay.

We also have a Provincial election in the works ..... would be a great time to force a Federal election if I was a bagman for the Libs and NDP.... as I think Dalton would probably win again, and we all know how voters confuse Federal and Provincial issues...... the calling of the Federal election will be interesting to watch.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I wouldn't say Dalton would be a shoo in at all. He's a doofus and people know it. But the bad taste left by the Harris govt will likely prevent a con majority provincially as well.

I think people in general are just tired of the liars on both sides. It really is a plug your nose and vote kinda thing. Then you have the minority that act as though their choice is trustworthy enough for absolute control when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Majorities suck, regardless of which gets in. I say save the money on a useless election, and get these whiney liars to stop grandstanding and work together as they've been bloody well mandated to...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

GT, couldn't agree more .... what we need is:

1- fixed terms [ 4 year term, election 1st week of November in 4th year ]
2- fixed mandate [ no collapse in minority government ]
3- term limits for all members [ 8 years is good enough for me ]
4- equal and elected senates federally and ..... the creation and election of a provincial senates

Might have to increase the term to 6 years only to match the municipal elections if we choose to elect our senate in between the house and the senate, we're voting for municipal officers anyway way not dump the senate vote in there to save money


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

agreed on all counts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> GT, couldn't agree more .... what we need is:
> 
> 1- fixed terms [ 4 year term, election 1st week of November in 4th year ]
> 2- fixed mandate [ no collapse in minority government ]
> ...


I don't agree with #3.... If the constituents of a given riding are happy with the representation of their MP I see no reason to limit that representation to 2 terms....

There are many, many examples on both side of the political fence where this is/has been the case... if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

I also don't agree with #4 if Senators are elected there is no need to limit the number of seats of a given party in the upper chamber.

Plus why do we need Provincial Senators? I see no value added for the cost.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2011

Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister? 

Iggy Scores 13.6%



> *In a recent poll by Nanos, when Canadians were asked who would make the best Prime Minister, Iggy scored a miserable 13.6%. Stephane Dion was popular by comparison.* All that money spent on those country tours, all that crying wolf over faux controversies, and what has that delivered for the Liberal leader? Not much. In fact, it seems to have hurt. Better to keep Ignatieff indoors, away from ordinary Canadians and TV cameras, because he has been doing himself more harm than good.
> 
> Nanos has the Tories at nearly 40%.


The Iceman: Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister? Iggy Scores 13.6%


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ah, the iceman, one of the biggest fools in the tory blogosphere.

gnip gnop. up, then their down.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Ah, the iceman, one of the biggest fools in the tory blogosphere.
> 
> gnip gnop. up, then their down.


The Iceman is merely the bearer of the bad news for Iggy-lovin' Liberals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Ah, the iceman, one of the biggest fools in the tory blogosphere.
> 
> gnip gnop. up, then their down.


Better read it again, it not an Iceman poll, it's a Nanos poll.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature said:


> I don't agree with #3.... If the constituents of a given riding are happy with the representation of their MP I see no reason to limit that representation to 2 terms....
> 
> There are many, many examples on both side of the political fence where this is/has been the case... if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
> 
> ...


Hi Screature, this is just a case of ideology ... I don't think being a member should be a career [ indexed pension and all ] I also think we have a civil service that should take more ownership of its tasks, thus buffering the need for a continuous member.

If we have an equal and elected Senate it puts the power base in a more equitable position in this country. We seem to have regional fights over the representation, if we elected a Senate, put the final power in this chamber, and have equal representation , such as the two from each state in the U.S., I think in today`s environment two would be good enough for us as well.

As for Provincial Senate, to me this is where the greatest complaint lies in riding representation ... thus the vote on representational vs firs past the post, this would also even out policy swings provincially. I can see your point on this one, but I bet the cost for a mid term election for a provincial senate would actually put more value in the cost of provincial legislation.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> The Iceman is merely the bearer of the bad news for Iggy-lovin' Liberals.


MacFury, I agree on this one that Iggy is in trouble and will be gone after this next election ... which would probably be best to call in May, else we will have the Fed-Prov crossover in policy understanding.

I do take exception with the article, first the term `recent` is curious, how recent is recent. Also the phrase that there is no way she could be held in contempt .... I think this one is a slamdunk, she was and is. Whether the question will be called is the better one to ask. This will be a backpage issue.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The theory behind a regional Senate is that it compensates for the current system which allows the two or three provinces with big populations to control legislation. Gives a voice to the Maritimes and the Prairies which are 70% of the provinces but have little say in how the country is run.

Sadly the fact is that the entire gang does not in any way represent their constituents but rather represents the view of the party leaders or more accurately the leaders' corporate masters to their constituents. This is the real issue that needs to be addressed both here in Canada and even more so south of the border.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Better read it again, it not an Iceman poll, it's a Nanos poll.


oh I have read this fool's blog. And yes sinc, I'm well aware of this poll, and probably all the other polls, having shown the liberals, the torys, on top, on the bottom, neck and neck, and number 5 with a bullet.

He's still a fool. The same fool, who insinuates that Iggy wants to force an election just so he can be invited to the royal wedding.

Oh yes, a must read for sure.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ...insinuates that Iggy wants to force an election just so he can be invited to the royal wedding


I have heard this as well. He probably has promised the invitation to his wife already.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Tory lead falls back: EKOS poll - Canada - CBC News


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Back, but never behind as long a Iggy's in charge.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Back, but never behind as long a Iggy's in charge.


Apparently it is not just the "Iggy factor." More Canadians *don't* like your boy. The quote below suggests a pattern in the fortunes of Hapless' Consevatives.

Many Canadians just do not trust him and his controlling style. Even when running over the likes of Mr. Dithers, Dion or Iggy, for how many years is it now, Harper can get no real traction.



CBCNews said:


> Frank Graves, president of EKOS Research, said on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomonthat the dip in Conservative fortunes seen in the latest results follows a familiar pattern.
> 
> "Every time the Conservatives either knock on the door or enter majority territory over the last five years, we have seen a recoil effect in very specific parts of the electorate, where people who say 'Yeah, I liked you but maybe not that much now that you're in majority territory' recoil and move off-side and bring the rates back to a narrower point than what we've seen."
> 
> Graves noted that the four polls were consistent both in the size of the gap — nearly 13 points — and in terms of where the voting shift occurred, with women voters and swing voters in Ontario.


Tory lead falls back: EKOS polls - Canada - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Apparently it is not just the "Iggy factor." More Canadians *don't* like your boy. The quote below suggests a pattern in the fortunes of Hapless' Consevatives.
> 
> Many Canadians just do not trust him and his controlling style. Even when running over the likes of Mr. Dithers, Dion or Iggy, for how many years is it now, Harper can get no real traction.
> 
> Tory lead falls back: EKOS polls - Canada - CBC News


Yep there is a reason they do not include "None of the Above" in any of those polls. Seeing "NoA" hit 60 or 70% is not what the polls sponsors would want to see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Many Canadians just do not trust him and his controlling style. Even when running over the likes of Mr. Dithers, Dion or Iggy, for how many years is it now, Harper can get no real traction.


He'll just have to settle for being Prime Minister.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> He'll just have to settle for being Prime Minister.


Yes! Well! Until the palace revolt, lot of that in the air these days.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

You know it's not just the Liberals who are in trouble here ... lately the Federal parties have not be grooming candidates. I think the Libs should dump Iggy and actively canvass Gilles Duceppe, they would win in a landslide.......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

man, the cons are just -hammering- those ads, you'd think there was a goddamn election! So desparate, to get that majority, but so elusive.

hey, remember when Harper mouthed off in parliament about doing something about gas prices when in opposition? well... Gas prices jump across Canada amid Libya unrest - CTV News

Recall he did nothing about it the last time. Perhaps he's finding out it's not as easy when in power...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> man, the cons are just -hammering- those ads, you'd think there was a goddamn election! So desparate, to get that majority, but so elusive.
> 
> hey, remember when Harper mouthed off in parliament about doing something about gas prices when in opposition? well... Gas prices jump across Canada amid Libya unrest - CTV News
> 
> Recall he did nothing about it the last time. Perhaps he's finding out it's not as easy when in power...


Nope has more to do with who's pulling the strings. Since Harpo is financed by Big Oil he will no more cross them, than Iggy would fail to deliver massive subsidies to Bombardier.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not sure what Bombardier had to do with the current sudden gas price spike, but, ok.


----------



## sateach (Dec 20, 2009)

Forty years ago I chose to move to this country - a more civilized, a more compassionate, a more peaceful and a more considerate country than its neighbour to the south.

I'm neither a Conservative nor a Liberal, but the negative ads by the Conservatives on Ignatieff are deplorable.

Today, in the United States, each political ad culminates with the candidate endorsing that particular ad. I'd like to see Harper do that at the end of his mudslinging "campaign".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

sateach said:


> I'd like to see Harper do that at the end of his mudslinging "campaign".


Those ads are not run by Harper or the government of Canada, rather they are produced and paid for by the Conservative party. Since Harper does not control the party, nor it's executive, your accusations are groundless. Harper has nothing to do with the ads.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

am I the only one here doing a double take?

Last time I checked, the conservative party, has formed the government of Canada currently.

Unless this is a clever way of shirking responsibility.

I have to agree. this would be a good thing, liberals included too! Time for the leaders to own their ads.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> am I the only one here doing a double take?


Probably.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that has to be the most incredible excuse for Harper posted yet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> that has to be the most incredible excuse for Harper posted yet.


And that has to be the most ignorant post yet. 

Do you honestly have no idea how the party system works and its independence from an elected leader? (It's the very same with the Liberals BTW)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think it's ignorant to think a party's leader should be somewhat, responsible for the ads it puts out.

And I don't think it should be any different for any party.


----------



## sateach (Dec 20, 2009)

SINC said:


> Those ads are not run by Harper or the government of Canada, rather they are produced and paid for by the Conservative party. Since Harper does not control the party, nor it's executive, your accusations are groundless. Harper has nothing to do with the ads.


Harper is the leader of the Federal Conservative Party! I've made no accusations! Only observations and suggestions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

LOL! Those ads may be negative, but they have Iggy pegged down to a tee. If the libs want to have a chance at a decent showing in the next election, they need to pack Iggy up in a crate and find a better leader.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed. Negative ads are very effective when they accurately point out the negative traits in a politician. The party who uses such an ad need not apologize for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what you think Harper is "here for Canada"? Really? That gullible?

Now that we've all had your con love in slash goose stepping, let's step back to reality land. The truth is, Canadians don't like either leader at all. I know this is likely too hard to swallow, given Harper is, well, a "dear leader" and all, but let's face it. After 13 years of power, the liberals came to a crumbling, dying, fiery end. Stick a fork in them, they were done. And I mean, DONE. Scandals, tired, Canadians mad at them, done.

So you would think, as is the usual, the 'other' guys would landslide in. Now why do you think that never happened? Twice! Because Canadians, don't like Harper a whole hell of a lot more than the Iggymiester.

Take that and put it in your pipes. 

As far as the negative ads, personally, I'd rather they didn't happen. But will happen, is the liberals will end up -having- to run them to counter the childish crap from Harper, and there's plenty history from Harper to draw from as there is Iggy, starting with firewalling Alberta, and lots of stuff from the national coalition days. Oh the conservative supporters will cry. It's not fair! That was Harper years ago! He's changed now! There is one fact you cannot escape, and that's the minute people breathe 'majority-Harper", his polling numbers tank. People are uncomfortable with Harper, even to this day! All Iggy has to do, if he's smart, is effectively remind Canadians why they should be distrustful. Now I don't know if the liberals are smart enough to pull that off, but I wouldn't for a second count on that they aren't. They're crafty [***]ds.

great thing those negative ads, it brings so much to the table I agree macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The negative ads have worked to keep Canada from the hands of the Liberals for several elections in a row. The recent incarnations of the Liberals has complained that this government does not spend enough. so I say--keep up the negative ads!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The liberals say we don't spend enough?

The conservatives have grown both the government, and the deficit beyond anything seen in Canadian history. So I'm afraid you're simply making excuses for an out of control government. Unless, you are actually admitting this government is so ineffectual, that it is doing the bidding of the liberals.

Hard to tell which you are subscribing to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sateach said:


> Harper is the leader of the Federal Conservative Party! I've made no accusations! Only observations and suggestions.


Yes you did.. You said: I'd like to see *Harper* do that at the end of* his *mudslinging "campaign".

SINC is correct these ads are produced and paid for by the CPC Party, they are not Harper's ads and it is not his campaign.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> The liberals say we don't spend enough?


Yes. They want to spend more, but on different things--that's what they believe makes them golden.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> And that has to be the most ignorant post yet.
> 
> Do you honestly have no idea how the party system works and its independence from an elected leader? (It's the very same with the Liberals BTW)


I wouldn't think a single party ad goes out without the leader of that party putting some eyeballs on it first. Certainly if Steve Jobs was head of the party. 

-----

I think the anti-Iggy ads are very, very effective. When they start bringing up all these quotes that Iggy has said, which I assume are real quotes, it is very damaging to the perception of him and by association, the Liberal party. 

I really hope we don't have an election soon, again. 

You know, I kind of don't mind this Conservative minority government. Some more fiscal responsibility during these economic times, while not allowing the Conservatives to go to gung-ho on certain social issues.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

brought t you, by the "it isn't our fault" party of Canada.

LOL


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I wouldn't think a single party ad goes out without the leader of that party putting some eyeballs on it first. Certainly if Steve Jobs was head of the party.


No doubt Harper would have seen them, but it is the party executive that dreams them up, and gets them produced. 

Harper is not like Steve Jobs at the party level. The president of the CPC John Walsh is more equivalent to Steve Jobs at the party level. One must remember that every MP must still win their nomination at the local EDA level to even be able to run for the Party. If Harper's EDA was unhappy with him they could oust him if they wanted by not giving him the nomination. 

Now of course this isn't going to happen, but the party does have a lot of power.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

A couple of things, if I may:

1- The Party does run ads, but you would have to be smoking some pretty heavy stuff not to think that the Preem isn't aware of what's going on. I like what they do in the U.S. ... "This mudslinging ad was developed by my incestuous bagmen and I approve it's politically charged and many times myopic content. 

2- Harper doesn't take a breath without considering the political implications.

3- It may be an illusion that the Conservatives are the only holders of fiscal responsibility ...sometimes the timing of the party in power is the real cause.

4- Although I do not want another Harper lead minority government, an election is coming. Harper needs this to stay as the PM, the conservative mandate is to eat their young after an election, he may have a hard time proving that he can close the deal this time.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> ...*the conservative mandate is to eat their young after an election,* he may have a hard time proving that he can close the deal this time.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Hi Screature, the leadership review ..... if you look at the history of the Conservatives [ including the PCs ] they like a closer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Hi Screature, the leadership review ..... if you look at the history of the Conservatives [ including the PCs ] they like a closer.


Ok I see what you mean, yes well so do the Libs, the NDP less so because they don't really expect to form government. With the NDP it is more about seat count and having made progress that will/can determine a review. However, that being said anytime their is a National convention a leadership review is automatic.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ehMax said:


> You know, I kind of don't mind this Conservative minority government. Some more fiscal responsibility during these economic times, while not allowing the Conservatives to go to gung-ho on certain social issues.


Fiscal responsibility???? This is the Harper government we're talking about here, right? 

• $56 billion deficit, worst in Canadian history, 

plus misguided spending priorities 

• $21 billion in untendered jet fighters, 
• $10 - $13 for expanded prisons due to unneeded crime legislation, 
• $6 billion in extra corporate tax breaks, 
• $1 billion wasted on the G20 photo-op security debacle. 

As well, general handing out of lavish goodies in ridings across the country in the fervent hope that his golden majority will be attained.

It's a mystery to me how he has managed to retain this supposed cloak of fiscal responsibility when the truth is he spends like a drunken sailor in pursuit of his dream.

Even the oh-so-left-leaning National Post has noted that Harper has been on a spending spree, even well before the recession. It's all about buying majority power by any means necessary.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Fiscal responsibility???? This is the Harper government we're talking about here, right?
> 
> • $56 billion deficit, worst in Canadian history,
> 
> ...


Do you mean to tell me you fall for that "biggest debt in Canadian history " crap... 

It is a fraction of what it could/would have been with either a Lib or NDP Government... Do you forget that the Opposition have continued to cry for further spending all the while bitching about "the biggest deficit" in Canadian history... Talk about duplicity...

But that is politics.. Just surprised you would actually buy into it...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was about to say something about it being the liberals fault, or how the liberals would have spent more, but it appears there's no need.

All you have to do, is invoke the liberals as some kind of veiled excuse, ooooooh, the liberals. baaaaaad. There. All better.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Do you mean to tell me you fall for that "biggest debt in Canadian history " crap...
> 
> It is a fraction of what it could/would have been with either a Lib or NDP Government... Do you forget that the Opposition have continued to cry for further spending all the while bitching about "the biggest deficit" in Canadian history... Talk about duplicity...
> 
> But that is politics.. Just surprised you would actually buy into it...


And I'm surprised you would have anyone believe that conservative or Conservative governments are incapable of fiscal irresponsibility. "The Lib or NDP would be worse", why? Because Conservatives are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, the party of fiscal responsibility, that's why, despite the record. This un-examined myth seems to have stuck since Reagan, one of the biggest deficit creators that ever lived.

But the reasons for this deficit-making by conservative governments is strategic. If you run a record deficit, often by reducing taxes for the rich and corporations, and spending on bleed/lead faux issues like the "explosion in crime" then you have your excuse for slashing government services. "Sorry health care or other services are too expensive, but our friends in the insurance industry or other private sector industries are here to help with some attractive coverage options."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And I'm surprised you would have anyone believe that conservative or Conservative governments are incapable of fiscal irresponsibility. "The Lib or NDP would be worse", why? Because Conservatives are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, the party of fiscal responsibility, that's why, despite the record.


Nonsense. It's because, in this case, the NDP and Liberals have said they w0uld have spent more.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This un-examined myth seems to have stuck since Reagan, one of the biggest deficit creators that ever lived.


You have the nerve to say this around Obama? Give the man credit.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what is nonsense to me, is the coulda woulda stuff I hear. Hearing that the conservatives only spent, a fraction, of what the liberals 'woulda' spent, is ridiculous. 

Ever since Harper took office 5 years ago, we've heard nothing but how it's someone else's fault, or that the other guy would be worse. Really. Well there is no, other guy in office. Harper is the prime minister, and there's no speculation as to what he 'woulda' done, he is doing it. This deflection to what the other guy woulda done is pure nonsense. 

What I see here, is a conservative government who took over with the country's finances in a good place, budgetary surpluses, and at the time, a good economy. You, 'woulda' thought this would have prompted them to reduce spending, reduce the size of government, and put us in an even better position, but no, they ramped UP spending, and grew government. And continued to do so, spending huge sums of money on promoting themselves and their, action plan, the G20, spending like druken sailors everywhere. Somehow, even though we hear endlessly about how ineffectual the opposition is, how Harper is ruling as if he had a majority, it's someone else's fault. 

So what is this crap about someone else woulda, spent more? pfffft.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The Liberal budgetary balances/surpluses were of the smoke and mirror variety, attained through raiding both Social Insurance funds and UI funds. 

With a down turn in the economy the funds that should have been available to pay increased UI claims were not. Also some seniors elected to take early Social Insurance increasing pressure on that side as well.

The Cons continue to raid both sources even though the repercussions are now painfully obvious.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> what is nonsense to me, is the coulda woulda stuff I hear.
> 
> What I see here, is a conservative government who took over with the country's finances in a good place, budgetary surpluses, and at the time, a good economy. You, 'woulda' thought this would have prompted them to reduce spending, reduce the size of government, and put us in an even better position, but no, they ramped UP spending
> 
> So what is this crap about someone else woulda, spent more? pfffft.


Sigh, I guess the truth is so far off the scale you cannot grasp it.

Iggy and Layton threatened to overthrow the government unless they spent to the dictated requirements of the Liberals and NDP to defeat the deficit.

What part of that can you not understand? It is well documented fact and your continued denial only illustrates your ignorance of the matter.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sigh, I guess the truth is so far off the scale you cannot grasp it.
> 
> Iggy and Layton threatened to overthrow the government unless they spent to the dictated requirements of the Liberals and NDP to defeat the deficit.
> 
> What part of that can you not understand. It is well documented fact.


if this is what you choose to believe, then so be it.

The cons will do, whatever it takes, to stay in power. But to think all their excessive spending is someone else's fault, is pure nonsense.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> if this is what you choose to believe, then so be it.
> 
> The cons will do, whatever it takes, to stay in power. But to think all their excessive spending is someone else's fault, is pure nonsense.


The only nonsense here is your outright refusal to accept fact.

For goodness sakes go look it up.

The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself look silly at best and perhaps worse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what fact sinc. No amount of declaring I look silly changes the fact that the liberals did not force the cons to overspend ridiculously, on promoting the action plan, the billion bucks on the G20, the list goes on and on. The cons have shown clearly they can overspend with our money just as well as the liberals have, and I find the notion that Harper and co are not responsible for their overspending outrageous!

I understand you wish to hang on to this idea that it's all the liberals fault, however, I didn't appreciate the liberals mismanaging our money, and nor do I like what the cons are doing at all either. I don't excuse them for it or give them some kind of free pass to do it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sigh, I guess the truth is so far off the scale you cannot grasp it.
> 
> Iggy and Layton threatened to overthrow the government unless they spent to the dictated requirements of the Liberals and NDP to defeat the deficit.
> 
> What part of that can you not understand? It is well documented fact and your continued denial only illustrates your ignorance of the matter.


This is always a very telling argument whenever someone brings it up. 

First, the infrastructure spending was not the sole reason for the deficit or even the largest share of it. The decrease in tax revenue as the economy shrank and consumer spending decreased, exacerbated by his tax cuts to the wealthy and corps were the main reason for reduced government funds. But as the Conservative-friendly National Post points out in my link above, Harper started on his spending spree well before the recession started and continues today. He was already rolling into deficit before the economic woes befell all of us. He was and is attempting to buy votes by spreading the bucks where the polls tell him it will work and recklessly blowing dough on what he thinks are crafty wedge issues like the supposed "crime wave".

Secondly it clearly shows how Stephen Harper values retaining power over the mythical but oft-stated conservative value of fiscal restraint equalling good government. The Opposition "forced" him to do nothing whatsoever. Harper could have said "No, this spending is dead wrong" if he really believed this was the best course for the nation and gone to the people on his program of no infrastructure spending to offset the recession. He could have chosen to not support major industries and loan money to automakers and others.

But Harper chose of his own free will to keep his grip on power and agree to the Opposition program to a degree. He or his supporters can not claim that he doesn't completely own the infrastructure spending, because he did it, nobody else. This, is the documented fact.

Oh yes and thirdly, if the Cons don't own the infrastructure spending why did they go to such an effort to publicize their spending, even going to the point in several cases of printing the Conservative Party logo on their giant prop cheques (clearly abusing government regulations) for the photo ops? Buying votes is why.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Nonsense. It's because, in this case, the NDP and Liberals have said they w0uld have spent more.


Sez you, Karnack.



Macfury said:


> You have the nerve to say this around Obama? Give the man credit.


Obama's got nothing on Reagan. Reagan's the conservative grandpa of shrinking government through bankrupting it, based on the famous neo-con goal of reducing it to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. No fiscal con he, but his ultimate goal should be dear to your heart.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Opposition "forced" him to do nothing whatsoever. Harper could have said "No, this spending is dead wrong" if he really believed this was the best course for the nation and gone to the people on his program of no infrastructure spending to offset the recession.


Sorry GA, but as we like to say on the prairies, yer butt is suckin' slough water:



> The budget will lead to $64 billion in deficits over the next two years and includes massive stimulus spending of $40 billion, *a make or break condition the opposition Liberals were demanding to see.*


Sure, right:



> "We are putting this government on probation," he said. After describing the budget as a “flawed document,” and criticizing its lack of expanded eligibility for EI, broken transfer payment promises and tying strings to infrastructure spending, Ignatieff added that the budget also had important concessions in affordable housing, skills development, and stimulus spending. *“These measures are only in this budget because of us,”* he said.


Canada has a Parliament Again For Now


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sez you, Karnack.
> 
> Obama's got nothing on Reagan. Reagan's the conservative grandpa of shrinking government through bankrupting it, based on the famous neo-con goal of reducing it to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. No fiscal con he, but his ultimate goal should be dear to your heart.


The Democrats were in control of Congress during the increase in the deficit. All spending bills come from Congress.

Meanwhile, Obama has already increased the federal debt by more than $2.5 trillion--more than the cumulative total of the national debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You gotta love the Con Supporter's message track. 

"Harper is fiscally conservative and it's all the Liberals and NDP's fault."

"If you don't agree you must be somehow mentally defective." 

Nearly as convincing as the Harper government's message track. 

Good do-bees.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sorry GA, but as we like to say on the prairies, yer butt is suckin' slough water:
> 
> Sure, right:
> 
> Canada has a Parliament Again For Now


Despite your opinions about what my butt might be suckin' you dodged my point. I never denied that the Opposition wanted infrastructure spending. But once again, if the Prime Minister didn't like the idea of the spending he could have said "OK, let's see what the people want" and let the Opposition force an election. If he was so right then he would have received his long-yearned-for majority.

But he chose to accept the conditions because he wanted to stay in power. Quite simple really.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> if the Prime Minister didn't like the idea of the spending he could have said "OK, let's see what the people want"
> 
> Quite simple really.


And the point you missed is that the Conservatives knew very well that what the people did NOT want, was another election so soon. That left him making the decision he did in favour of public opinion and implementing the opposition spending demands.

Quite simple really, is right.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Despite your opinions about what my butt might be suckin' you dodged my point. I never denied that the Opposition wanted infrastructure spending. But once again, if the Prime Minister didn't like the idea of the spending he could have said "OK, let's see what the people want" and let the Opposition force an election. If he was so right then he would have received his long-yearned-for majority.
> 
> But he chose to accept the conditions because he wanted to stay in power. Quite simple really.


you see GA, no matter what. your butt is still suckin' water. :lmao:


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

"Stephen Harper: Man of the People"

Has a ring to it...

::rollseyes::


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is always a very telling argument whenever someone brings it up.
> 
> First, the infrastructure spending was not the sole reason for the deficit or even the largest share of it. The decrease in tax revenue as the economy shrank and consumer spending decreased, *exacerbated by his tax cuts to the wealthy and corps were the main reason for reduced government funds*. But as the Conservative-friendly National Post points out in my link above, Harper started on his spending spree well before the recession started and continues today. He was already rolling into deficit before the economic woes befell all of us. *He was and is attempting to buy votes *by spreading the bucks where the polls tell him it will work and recklessly blowing dough on what he thinks are crafty wedge issues like the supposed "crime wave".
> 
> ...


Wrong.


> *However, corporate tax revenue climbed 20.7%*, which Finance attributed to stronger year-end settlement payments, and GST receipts gained 13.1% on the month.



Growth of Canada's deficit slows

What politicians don't buy votes...  nothing comes for free.... 

Politics IS about holding power... do you get your political perspective from reading fairy tales? At least by accepting the "terms" set by the Opposition he retained control of how that deficit spending would be managed. You don't seem to be much of a pragmatist, but then again pragmatism is not the strong suite of the left where idealism reigns supreme.

Infrastructure spending is one of the most desirable forms of stimulus spending. It creates jobs, provides much need maintenance and is non-structural spending in terms of a deficit. The Libs and NDP advocate expenditures which are structural and would continue to generate spending long after the recession is over.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And I'm surprised you would have anyone believe that conservative or Conservative governments are incapable of fiscal irresponsibility. "The Lib or NDP would be worse", why? Because Conservatives are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, the party of fiscal responsibility, that's why, despite the record. This un-examined myth seems to have stuck since Reagan, one of the biggest deficit creators that ever lived.
> *
> But the reasons for this deficit-making by conservative governments is strategic.* If you run a record deficit, often by reducing taxes for the rich and corporations, and spending on bleed/lead faux issues like the "explosion in crime" then you have your excuse for slashing government services. "Sorry health care or other services are too expensive, but our friends in the insurance industry or other private sector industries are here to help with some attractive coverage options."


Yep you're right the CPCs planned for there to be a worldwide recession... You conspiracy theorists make me laugh... :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Yep you're right the CPCs planned for there to be a worldwide recession... You conspiracy theorists make me laugh... :lmao:


Nope that was the Banksters. Having sold a whack of mortgages as derivatives 10 or 100 times over they had to force most of them into foreclosure in the hopes of covering their tracks and staying out of jail.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> And the point you missed is that the Conservatives knew very well that what the people did NOT want, was another election so soon. That left him making the decision he did in favour of public opinion and implementing the opposition spending demands.
> 
> Quite simple really, is right.


Again with the excuses, I suppose now it was the voters that made Harper do it. I didn't miss your point SINC, I just don't believe that the infrastructure spending can be "blamed" on anyone but the government that decided to do it. And I wasn't even saying that the infrastructure spending was a bad thing.

Even though some Conservative supporters seem to be confused about the decision because they like to believe Harper was forced but to do this non-conservative thing of investing in infrastructure during a downturn, Harper didn't seem to be confused about it when he made sure that his party spent a good chunk of it advertising their spending and even putting the party logo on some of the prop cheques. I guess the Opposition forced them to do that also?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Politics IS about holding power... do you get your political perspective from reading fairy tales?


 I hope you're not planning on lecturing anyone about the tone of their posts on ehMac anytime soon.



screature said:


> Wrong.
> 
> What politicians don't buy votes...  nothing comes for free....
> 
> ...


Hmmmm …. so spending to buy votes is all right because everyone else supposedly does it? And power should be held at any cost, even if it violates one's beliefs? No ideals, only playing the game? Yes, this does sound like Harper's Conservatives to me. I guess this includes lying and breaking promises as well.



screature said:


> Yep you're right the CPCs planned for there to be a worldwide recession... You conspiracy theorists make me laugh... :lmao:


Nice straw man argument there. I never said Conservatives or conservatives caused the worldwide recession or that it was a plan. I'd say a major factor was greed and stupidity by conservative lawmakers mostly in the US colluding with Wall Street to destroy necessary banking regulations. But it was an intended consequence of their greed and stupidity.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it all you have to do is look at the record of conservative governments everywhere. Although they wear the costume of fiscal conservatism, their records are of leaving massive deficits and debt. The one thing these governments all do very reliably is to slash taxes for the wealthiest while giving only token breaks to the middle and at the same time privatizing services and increasing user fees so the result to the middle class is a wash at best. But they still manage to sell this slashing using the bogus theory of trickle-down economics. The deficits are the result of the decrease in revenue, not so much things like infrastructure spending. These deficits and debts are used as the reasoning for further erosion and cuts to services.

They all subscribe to the same philosophy first brought to us by the early neo-conservatives during the Reagan-Thatcher years. Harper is on record stating a similar viewpoint when he headed the NCC and as a Reform politician, although today he pretends that he had never spoke of these things. This philosophy is summed up by Dubya-backer Grover Norquist's famous quip: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Nice straw man argument there. I never said Conservatives or conservatives caused the worldwide recession or that it was a plan. I'd say a major factor was greed and stupidity by conservative lawmakers mostly in the US colluding with Wall Street to destroy necessary banking regulations.


Conservative Democrats?After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the bank reform Act into law and praised it for the good things it would do for the economy. And can we forget the Democrats love for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government money-laundering scheme that washed those derivatives white as snow?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hope you're not planning on lecturing anyone about the tone of their posts on ehMac anytime soon.
> 
> Hmmmm …. so spending to buy votes is all right because everyone else supposedly does it? And power should be held at any cost, even if it violates one's beliefs? No ideals, only playing the game? Yes, this does sound like Harper's Conservatives to me. I guess this includes lying and breaking promises as well.
> 
> ...


Tone... what tone... oh the little little joke... sorry I didn't realize you were so thin skinned. It certainly wasn't my impression based on the "tone" of many of your posts. Sorry you took offence but your post to me read like it came form someone who has never actually been involved with real world politics (seen the reports from Libya lately... things could be a LOT worse here in Canada. I mean REALLY!!)

Your post reads like the theoretical ramblings of Marx and Engels... that worked out real well didn't it... 

However, where is the alternative budget for either the NDP or Libs... Hmmm... what are the numbers.

It is all too easy to complain, because that is the job of the Opposition... until I see an accounting of an alternative budget (which will never happen especially form the NDP because ideology rules over real world pragmatism) your "ideals" have no cost and thus no real world or even theoretical value. But keep trying...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

apparently, exposing the conservative sham of, "fiscal conservatism", automatically makes you a marxist.

Forums are funny, funny places.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> apparently, exposing the conservative sham of, "fiscal conservatism", automatically makes you a marxist.
> 
> Forums are funny, funny places.


Why not? Some comments automatically identify one as a drummer.

Smiley: 

^^^^^^
A joke.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's an insult! SMILEY...

I saw this on twitter. Made me laugh. May not be funny to all though.



> BREAKING! @pmharper reduces spending next year by $1B by not having another G8/G20; humbly congratulates himself for fiscal brilliance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If they offered "None of the above" on the next ballot, we could save a crapload of cash.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

very true.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> If they offered "None of the above" on the next ballot, we could save a crapload of cash.


I always felt "None of the Above" should be on a ballot and should be counted... maybe then we could get a "real" perspective on where the electorate truly stands.


----------



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

screature said:


> I always felt "None of the Above" should be on a ballot and should be counted... maybe then we could get a "real" perspective on where the electorate truly stands.


Me too ........... but then what happens if "None" wins? Does he or she take a seat in the House?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Me too ........... but then what happens if "None" wins? Does he or she take a seat in the House?


Well I think realistically the 2nd place "person" would take a seat in the House but it would send a message at least...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Tone... what tone... oh the little little joke... sorry I didn't realize you were so thin skinned. It certainly wasn't my impression based on the "tone" of many of your posts. Sorry you took offence but your post to me read like it came form someone who has never actually been involved with real world politics (seen the reports from Libya lately... things could be a LOT worse here in Canada. I mean REALLY!!)
> 
> Your post reads like the theoretical ramblings of Marx and Engels... that worked out real well didn't it...
> 
> ...


No I didn't take offence screature, just noting how you conduct your arguments. This one's a bit, shall we say, content-challenged.

So now I'm a Marxist because I criticize Harper and some conservatives? 

On the Left-Right/Authoritarian-Libertarian scale wouldn't the opposite number of the communists be fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. Not that I think that of you or anyone else here, but isn't there an equivalent internet discussion forum law to Godwin's Law in play here? ""As an online discussion with conservatives grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Communism or Marx approaches 1."

Yes it's all too easy to complain. The job of spinning the Harper mantra must be thankless. I guess I'm wrong to complain about the government though. I know that you advise writing letters as a waste of time, and I guess blowing off steam on discussion forums is wrong too. I should just wait until our Prime Minister decides it is time to vote and cast my 20 second protest at the local school gymnasium. Thanks for setting us straight on that.


----------



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

screature said:


> Well I think realistically the 2nd place "person" would take a seat in the House but it would send a message at least...


No, the seat should sit empty. Of course, if the "none of the above" gains a majority, they they are the governing party ........... with an invisible PM. Talk about "Power to the People"!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No I didn't take offence screature, just noting how you conduct your arguments. This one's a bit, shall we say, content-challenged.
> 
> So now I'm a Marxist because I criticize Harper and some conservatives?
> 
> ...


it's somewhat funny to read the bit about tone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No I didn't take offence screature, just noting how you conduct your arguments. This one's a bit, shall we say, content-challenged.
> 
> *So now I'm a Marxist because I criticize Harper and some conservatives? *
> 
> ...


I didn't say that but your post had little substance in terms of numbers... just like Marx and Engels... just ideology and ideals... perhaps it was too strong... I apologize...

I never said this... check the record. What I said was that if you want a prompt response you are better off sending an e-mail as opposed to a physical letter writing campaign... Let alone the environmental concerns, which I would think you would be sensitive to....

Debate is good and I am glad for your passion, at least you are engaged. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with your opinion, especially when you present no facts/empirical data to back up that opinion.

You previously defined yourself (correct me if I am wrong as you changed your "title") something like a "Rabid Leftist" or something along those lines so I am "jammin" relative to that.

I don't spin "Harper's Mantra" at all... It is my opinion. This government is FAR from perfect... but it also far from being the devil incarnate which you and other posters seem willing to spin them as.

I see no viable alternative from the Libs or the NDP in terms of policy and so yes I do support the current government. That being said when it comes to a federal election because of where I live (Quebec), I will vote Lib even though I HATE the bastard who runs here... but he is at least a federalist and I DO NOT want a BQ member in my riding... this is the pragmatic compromise I have made more than once now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> No, the seat should sit empty. Of course, if the "none of the above" gains a majority, they they are the governing party ........... with an invisible PM. Talk about "Power to the People"!


An interesting take...  I hadn't thought of that. It would lead to a bi-election in short order though.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I always felt "None of the Above" should be on a ballot and should be counted... maybe then we could get a "real" perspective on where the electorate truly stands.


It is. It's called a spoiled ballot.


----------



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

screature said:


> An interesting take...  I hadn't thought of that. It would lead to a bi-election in short order though.


Why a bi-election. The seat has not been vacated due to resignation or illness or death ............ it just has been filled by "none of the above".


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

screature said:


> ... a bi-election ...


I know what a by-election is, but what's a bi-election? Actually, I can think of a couple of possibilities...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Why a bi-election. The seat has not been vacated due to resignation or illness or death ............ it just has been filled by "none of the above".


The seats have to be filled one way or the other... It is the way of our electoral system. People deserve representation in the House.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> It is. It's called a spoiled ballot.


Spoiled ballots are not counted and do not represent a choice of "None of the Above". Spoiled ballots can simply be "unclear" as to the intention of the voter... i.e. the X overlapped two candidates etc.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

klokeid said:


> I know what a by-election is, but what's a bi-election? Actually, I can think of a couple of possibilities...


My bad...bY-election, not bI-election... and yes there are a couple of other interpretations.


----------



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

screature said:


> The seats have to be filled on way or the other... It is the way of our electoral system. People deserve representation in the House.


I agree, but the people have made their voices heard by voting "none of the above". The other parties will just have to put up more acceptable candidates for the next election.


----------



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

Of course, one would have to get enough signatures from voters in a riding to get the "none of the above" on the ballot. This would have to be done in each riding, just as any newly-formed party or group of people would have to do here in Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sounds like a great idea to me. It's too bad our system doesn't allow for a direct "none of the above" to both Harper and Iggy. A proven liar, and a liar in the making


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Spoiled ballots are not counted and do not represent a choice of "None of the Above". Spoiled ballots can simply be "unclear" as to the intention of the voter... i.e. the X overlapped two candidates etc.


Have to differ as spoiled ballots are counted as spoiled ballots. Agreed that intentions are unclear, but if enough people spoiled their ballots, we would have a royal commission on bettering the electoral system.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Of course, one would have to get enough signatures from voters in a riding to get the "none of the above" on the ballot. This would have to be done in each riding, just as any newly-formed party or group of people would have to do here in Canada.


Perhaps a better idea than the rhino party, for the disenchanted cynical citizens. Better to have no one represent their discontent, than someone to criticize.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> Perhaps a better idea than the rhino party, for the disenchanted cynical citizens. Better to have no one represent their discontent, than someone to criticize.


True. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

My own observations would indicate that MPs do not represent their constituents. Rather their job is to represent their party to the constituents.

With the possible exceptions of MF and GT very few of us buy into even 50% of what any one party claims to represent.

For example I am far more fiscally conservative than the Cons but firmly believe that the Canadian Healthcare System is indeed the way to go. Nor am I in favour of extending our commitment in Afghanistan.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> M*y own observations would indicate that MPs do not represent their constituents. Rather their job is to represent their party to the constituents.*
> 
> With the possible exceptions of MF and GT very few of us by into even 50% of what any one party claims to represent.
> 
> For example I am far more fiscally conservative than the Cons but firmly believe that the Canadian Healthcare System is indeed the way to go. Nor am I in favour of extending our commitment in Afghanistan.


This can indeed be the case but I know for a fact that there are plenty of MPs who do represent their constituents. They bring their constituents' position to Caucus, they write letters to Minister's on their behalf and even have one on one meetings with Ministers, effectively lobbying for their constituents' position. It doesn't mean that they are successful in swaying Caucus or Ministers but they DO make representations on behalf of their constituents.

It all depends on the individual MP and the riding. Many MPs are voted in because of their individual merits, sometimes despite their Party affiliation and not because of it. There are also MPs who are die hard Party partisans and will get elected in a given riding simply because they are from a given party... in these kind of ridings you could run a talking monkey and they would get elected so long as the party affiliation was correct.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> My own observations would indicate that MPs do not represent their constituents. Rather their job is to represent their party to the constituents.
> 
> With the possible exceptions of MF and GT very few of us by into even 50% of what any one party claims to represent.
> 
> For example I am far more fiscally conservative than the Cons but firmly believe that the Canadian Healthcare System is indeed the way to go. Nor am I in favour of extending our commitment in Afghanistan.


How do you figure, I bUy into more than 50% of what one of those parties claim to represent?

Was "It's too bad our system doesn't allow for a direct "none of the above" to both Harper and Iggy. A proven liar, and a liar in the making" not clear?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GT; I said "possible" exception. The fact that you don't like Ignats (Please do not insult Jarome by calling the Fiberal Leader Iggy) does not indicate one way or the other how completely you buy into the party platform. Hence the "possible" qualifier.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> GT; I said "possible" exception. The fact that you don't like Ignats (Please do not insult Jarome by calling the Fiberal Leader Iggy) does not indicate one way or the other how completely you buy into the party platform. Hence the "possible" qualifier.


I'd say with that qualifier, you'd have a lot more individuals here who clearly buy into one of the party's platforms...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> I didn't say that but your post had little substance in terms of numbers... just like Marx and Engels... just ideology and ideals... perhaps it was too strong... I apologize...


Thank you for that. For the record I am not, nor have never been a communist and I tend to agree with the kinds of policies practiced by governments in Europe that might be termed "democratic socialist". I also have a strong streak of left libertarianism and have agreed in several areas with our prominent right-wing libertarian, Macfury.



screature said:


> I never said this... check the record. What I said was that if you want a prompt response you are better off sending an e-mail as opposed to a physical letter writing campaign... Let alone the environmental concerns, which I would think you would be sensitive to....


Please excuse me if I misrepresented your view on that.



screature said:


> Debate is good and I am glad for your passion, at least you are engaged. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with your opinion, especially when you present no facts/empirical data to back up that opinion.


I wouldn't expect you to agree. And I did make an argument not backed up with links, but opinion. Your answer seemed to me like dismissal and name-calling, not debate.



screature said:


> You previously defined yourself (correct me if I am wrong as you changed your "title") something like a "Rabid Leftist" or something along those lines so I am "jammin" relative to that.


Yes I think it said something like that. I put that there as an attempt at humour directed towards myself, but removed it when I realized people might not understand I was joking. Sorry for the confusion.



screature said:


> I don't spin "Harper's Mantra" at all... It is my opinion. This government is FAR from perfect... but it also far from being the devil incarnate which you and other posters seem willing to spin them as.


My writing was ambiguous, but I meant that as "Don't complain about the Conservatives who are busy spinning Harper's mantra, not to mean that you personally were always defending Harper in every case.



screature said:


> I see no viable alternative from the Libs or the NDP in terms of policy and so yes I do support the current government. That being said when it comes to a federal election because of where I live (Quebec), I will vote Lib even though I HATE the bastard who runs here... but he is at least a federalist and I DO NOT want a BQ member in my riding... this is the pragmatic compromise I have made more than once now.


Although of the current parties the NDP would more closely reflect my POV, I am suspicious of party politics and how parties are held hostage by the professional power-mongers. The NDP certainly has their share of these, especially in BC where they have attained government. This is why I believe proportional representation is one possible remedy because it often forces parties to work with each other and often represents a broader range of viewpoints. I'm not naive enough or arrogant enough to think everyone will or should think like I do politically. My range of views might be held by maybe 20% of Canadians. I'd be thrilled if the views held by the most powerful and wealthy who may also only reflect 20% on the opposite end weren't always considered the default by governments. If ideas from my 20% could get addressed on occasion in the context of democratic decision making I'd be fine with that.

I voted Liberal for the first time federally in my riding as a strategic vote and because the person running here was probably closer to being a Green than a Liberal. She almost defeated the Gary Lunn. Next election Elizabeth May is gunning for him and I will probably vote for her, but I'm resigned to the fact that he'll still win.

I'm actually modest and reasonable in real life and get along quite well with people who have a broad range of views. I do have a weird and sarcastic sense of humor. No Stalinist dogma for me.  I don't think any subject is beyond being discussed with civility.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...
> I voted Liberal for the first time federally in my riding ... because the person running here was probably closer to being a Green than a Liberal. She almost defeated the Gary Lunn. Next election Elizabeth May is gunning for him and I will probably vote for her, but I'm resigned to the fact that he'll still win....


Wow, that was quite the personal confession. Excuse me if I set it aside.
The part I quote is what caught my attention.

Do you not think that Elizabeth May, Green Party leader and candidate in your riding, could attract votes from the Liberal Party/NDP camps that have split their votes and lost election after election to the Gary Lunn, loyal minion of Adolf Harper? Enough votes to win the riding, and finally consign said G.L. to the scrap heap of history?

Woud those Liberals and NDPers prefer to wallow in defeat, even though G.L. barely gets , what, a third of the votes?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm actually modest and reasonable in real life and get along quite well with people who have a broad range of views. I do have a weird and sarcastic sense of humor. No Stalinist dogma for me.  I don't think any subject is beyond being discussed with civility.


Da, komrad! Confession good for soul, no?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Thank you for that....


It's all good. Thanks for all you said. 

I never thought you were a communist, although for a very brief period of time when hanging out with a bunch of lefty friends in my first year of University I thought I might be one.  But then the mushrooms wore off (joke) and I just went back to being a member of the NDP youth wing. That was the one and only time I belonged to a political party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It's all good. Thanks for all you said.
> 
> I never thought you were a communist, although for a very brief period of time when hanging out with a bunch of lefty friends in my first year of University I thought I might be one.  But then the mushrooms wore off (joke) and I just went back to being a member of the NDP youth wing. That was the one and only time I belonged to a political party.


When the concept of the NDP party was explained to me as a tender youth, I almost heaved. When I was a teen I asked my father how he could possibly stomach being part of a union. I've always shared my juice and cookies on a personal level, but have never experienced this nascent dalliance with the left.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> When the concept of the NDP party was explained to me as a tender youth, I almost heaved. When I was a teen I asked my father how he could possibly stomach being part of a union. I've always shared my juice and cookies on a personal level, but have never experienced this nascent dalliance with the left.


It was my sister's fault. She was a big lefty, still is, (we don't talk about politics much so as to keep the peace) and was already attending the university (she is 5 years older in grad studies) I was going to and introduced me to all her friends... so I drank the Flavour Aid. 

It was only when I dropped out of that University went to work for a few years and then went back to a different University that the effects had finally fully worn off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It was my sister's fault. She was a big lefty, still is, (we don't talk about politics much so as to keep the peace) and was already attending the university (she is 5 years older in grad studies) I was going to and introduced me to all her friends... so I drank the Flavour Aid.
> 
> It was only when I dropped out of that University went to work for a few years and then went back to a different University that the effects had finally fully worn off.


Thank heaven you were saved!


----------



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

Interesting. Might we be seeing the rise of a new party? Or, maybe the rise of a new country??? We shall see.

"First it was the "Government of Canada." Then it was "Canada's New Government." Now it's the "Harper Government."

Public servants from four different departments have confirmed to The Canadian Press that they received a directive late last year that the words "Government of Canada" in federal communications be replaced with "Harper Government."

The "Harper Government" moniker rose to prominence in 2009 when its use was noted in light of a controversy over Conservative MPs posing with giant, mock government cheques bearing the party logo and MPs' signatures. The practice was stopped for a time.

Public servants have been told to replace 'Government of Canada' with 'Harper Government' on federal communications, as shown on this press release March 3. Since December, the "Harper Government" has been showing up again in government communications."

PMO directive rebrands 'Harper Government' - Politics - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If only the Chretien Government were here to stop this!


----------



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

Macfury said:


> If only the Chretien Government were here to stop this!


Amen, Brother Macfury. Or, better still, Ed Broadbent. I always wanted to see him be PM to see what he could do for Canada. Such is Life. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Opposition, as does the media, refers to the Government as the "Harper Government" all the time the only difference is they use the term derisively. It is disingenuous of them to complain about this, it a matter of common practice, it was the Chretien Government, the Mulroney Government, etc. in common parlance all the time. This is much ado about nothing.


----------



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

However, now it is being printed on official news releases. What if Harper steps down as PM? What then? Does he take the brand with him, or could the government still be called The Harper Government???


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

There is indeed a real distinct difference. 

nothing to see here!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Or, better still, Ed Broadbent. I always wanted to see him be PM to see what he could do for Canada.


I had a bad dream about this once. When I woke up, I had to look out the window to assure myself that the economy was still there.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> I had a bad dream about this once. When I woke up, I had to look out the window to assure myself that the economy was still there.


Well, he never had the chance, so you can't say what Canada might have been like had he been PM. Such is Life.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> However, now it is being printed on official news releases. What if Harper steps down as PM? What then? Does he take the brand with him, or could the government still be called The Harper Government???


Well I doubt he will ever step down.and with digital technology the changing of a letter head is quick as can be. I think clearly it is a marketing tool as Harper is more popular as PM than the Cons are as the government. 

I still think it is much ado about nothing. Cripes we are spoiled in this country if these are the kinds of things that get people all riled up.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Well I doubt he will ever step down.and with digital technology the changing of a letter head is quick as can be. I think clearly it is a marketing tool as Harper is more popular as PM than the Cons are as the government.
> 
> I still think it is much ado about nothing. Cripes we are spoiled in this country if these are the kinds of things that get people all riled up.


It seems to me Harper believes he now has proprietary rights to govern and his actions are not subject to rules or laws.

The in and out fraud, Oda and Jason Kenney are other examples.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> It seems to me Harper believes he now has proprietary rights to govern and his actions are not subject to rules or laws.
> 
> The in and out fraud, Oda and Jason Kenney are other examples.


Good point, BigDL.

However, if you or I ran for the Conservatives in the next federal election, do we run under the Conservative Party banner, or the Harper Government banner? Also, what happens to our party if Harper should not get reelected in his Calgary riding???


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> It seems to me Harper believes he now has proprietary rights to govern and his actions are not subject to rules or laws.
> 
> The in and out fraud, Oda and Jason Kenney are other examples.


not to mention Ms. Ouimet, who walked away with almost half a million bucks and a promise to keep her mouth shut.

I guess she wanted her entitlements.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

klokeid said:


> Wow, that was quite the personal confession. Excuse me if I set it aside.
> The part I quote is what caught my attention.
> 
> Do you not think that Elizabeth May, Green Party leader and candidate in your riding, could attract votes from the Liberal Party/NDP camps that have split their votes and lost election after election to the Gary Lunn, loyal minion of Adolf Harper? Enough votes to win the riding, and finally consign said G.L. to the scrap heap of history?
> ...


Our riding, Saanich-Gulf Islands, is a weird riding (in more ways than one).

If the riding was restricted to only the Gulf Islands (which doesn't have a large enough population to constitute a federal riding), the vote would probably elect the Green Party in a 4-way split. But we are attached to Saanich which is probably the most conservative area on Vancouver Island. This pushes the votes in favour of Lunn, who also benefits from the 4-way split. He has won elections here with less than a third of the vote.

The last election was quite unusual. The Liberal candidate, Salt Spring Islander Briony Penn, was a surprise to many since she had much more in common with the Greens and NDP. It's assumed that she saw running for the Liberals as a possible way to win with voters primarily in Saanich who would never vote for those parties. This cause was helped by the resignation of the NDP candidate hours before the deadline for running, leaving the NDP with no candidate in the race. She came very close but Lunn pulled away in the end. This was partially helped by the NDP still getting 7,000 votes for their dropped-out candidate whose name was on the ballot because he resigned too late.

There was a very dirty trick that was played just prior to the vote where a robo-call went out to the whole riding supposedly on behalf of the non-existent NDP candidate. An Elections Canada investigation was dropped and said they could find no evidence about who was responsible for this. One of the Elections Canada complaints was mine and I furnished them with a tape of the fraudulent robo-call. The only candidate to have use automated telephone dialling during the campaign was Lunn, but he and all the other candidates claimed they had nothing to do with it. I certainly find it hard to believe that Elections Canada could dig up nothing on who did this and the investigator I spoke with sounded like he really wasn't interested because he couldn't "prove" that it would affect anyone's vote. It's possible that some of the 7,000 NDP voters were party loyalists, but it's also possible that this swung enough votes away from Penn to allow Lunn to take it. I personally spoke with 2 people, who admittedly don't follow political issues and voted for the NDP candidate not knowing he had dropped out and didn't realize the robo-call was bogus.

Regarding EMay, while she has national name recognition and has been very busy campaigning in the riding for over a year, I don't think she'll break the 3-way split in the non-Lunn vote. The NDP will have a candidate this time and the Libs will go back to a more traditional Liberal-style centre-ish candidate. I'd say that she might even come in second, but I predict she'll won't come as close as Penn did to unseating Lunn. Yes the Libs and NDP will prefer to wallow in defeat rather than backing another party to remove Lunn.

Also Lunn spent a record amount of money last election and was the only MP candidate to have 4 shadowy third-party advertising groups registered to spend additional money on behalf of his campaign, all registered through his friend and lawyer Bruce Hallsor. Lunn was also the only MP to have had an Elections Canada investigation for third-party advertising that contributed an extra $15K to his already at-the-spending-limit campaign. I expect that May won't have anywhere near the resources available during the next election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Da, komrad! Confession good for soul, no?


In Soviet Russia, soul not exist.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> When the concept of the NDP party was explained to me as a tender youth, I almost heaved.


NDP party? Is that a New Democratic Party party?

Funny, I haven't developed an immunity to almost heaving every time I've heard some conservative for the last 3 decades trying to promote trickle-down economics. "No really if we keep cutting taxes for the rich, they'll spend all that money in our economy and we'll all be richer ... honest!" [cue sound of heaving]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "First it was the "Government of Canada." Then it was "Canada's New Government." Now it's the "Harper Government."


I can't believe they're hoping that Harper's personal charisma is going to be the ticket. Are they buying him another blue sweater? I noticed they allowed his hair to appear slightly tousled in a recent photo op. Maybe their new commercials will feature Steve tenderly bleating out Lennon's "Imagine". Political cartoonists and satirists are quite happy.

I guess they figure if they can slag Iggy enough, Stevey will appear radiant in comparison.


----------



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

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> NDP party? Is that a New Democratic Party party?
> 
> Funny, I haven't developed an immunity to almost heaving every time I've heard some conservative for the last 3 decades trying to promote trickle-down economics. "No really if we keep cutting taxes for the rich, they'll spend all that money in our economy and we'll all be richer ... honest!" [cue sound of heaving]


It's true. Trickle down economics worked during the Reagan presidency. The rich, in fact, did get richer, and the poor .............. wait, that the trickle up theory of economics. Never mind ...........


----------



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

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I can't believe they're hoping that Harper's personal charisma is going to be the ticket. Are they buying him another blue sweater? I noticed they allowed his hair to appear slightly tousled in a recent photo op. Maybe their new commercials will feature Steve tenderly bleating out Lennon's "Imagine". Political cartoonists and satirists are quite happy.
> 
> I guess they figure if they can slag Iggy enough, Stevey will appear radiant in comparison.


Hey, it worked for Nixon in 1968. He was the "new Nixon". 

In this strategy, all the problems in the past that can't be blamed on the prior Liberal governments, can be blamed on the past five years of the Conservative minority governments, which are NOT to be mistaken with the new Harper government. 

If all else fails, he could blame the voters who did not vote for him, even doing it in a bilingual manner -- "Why did we not get a majority of seats in the House of Commons? We were denied this majority by "l'argent puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement", and by stupid people who wasted their votes."

The new slogan for the Harper government might be, "One Majority, One Nation, One Harper" ............. and, if they wanted to be truly Canadian, they could end it with "Please". 

We shall see.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Harper is Canada, Canada is Harper. A vote against Haper is a vote against Canada.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Harper is Canada, Canada is Harper. A vote against Haper is a vote against Canada.


Silly, silly boy... :lmao:


----------



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

Ottawaman said:


> Harper is Canada, Canada is Harper. A vote against Haper is a vote against Canada.


Makes sense to me. Throw in "The business of Canada is business" and you have a winning ticket. Paix, mon ami.


----------



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

screature said:


> Silly, silly boy... :lmao:


I thought that was "Silly, rabbit, Trix are for kids."


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I realize that the Conservative bench is pretty thin, but I have to wonder which backroom wonder thought that "Dear Leader's" cult of personality would be a good branding opportunity.


----------



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

Ottawaman said:


> I realize that the Conservative bench is pretty thin, but I have to wonder which backroom wonder thought that "Dear Leader's" cult of personality would be a good branding opportunity.


Don't question the rational or the motive .......... just accept it .......... and vote for the Harper government in your riding.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

They put the Con logo on the cheques, now it's the Harper government, what's next? Steve on the five?


----------



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

Ottawaman said:


> They put the Con logo on the cheques, now it's the Harper government, what's next? Steve on the five?


That would be interesting, O-man. Of course, then we would have to build him a monument, just like Lincoln, who is on the US five dollar bill. There might even be some more room on Mount Rushmore?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

A fun post Dr G. Perhaps you might photoshop a trial rendition?


----------



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

Ottawaman said:


> A fun post Dr G. Perhaps you might photoshop a trial rendition?


Sorry, it is against the law to create a rendition of our fearless leader upon any bill, coin, stamp or monument. This way, he shall remain "forever young".

Of course, I recall many years ago when Jason Jinglestars of the Canadian Taxpayers Association had his likeness put on a Canadian stamp. He was never heard from against after that fateful day. :-(


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Haaaaaaa lol. That caught me off guard. 
Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> That would be interesting, O-man. Of course, then we would have to build him a monument, just like Lincoln, who is on the US five dollar bill. There might even be some more room on Mount Rushmore?


Harper's likeness could be carved on the right side of the Narrows at the entrance of St. John's Harbour or into Signal Hill.

Money should not be of any concern when it come to immortalizing Our Glorious Leader.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> Harper's likeness could be carved on the right side of the Narrows at the entrance of St. John's Harbour or into Signal Hill.
> 
> Money should not be of any concern when it come to immortalizing Our Glorious Leader.


Interesting idea, BigDL. That way, the first rays of the rising sun could fall upon his likeness each day ............ or at least those days when Cabot Tower atop Signal Hill is not shrouded in fog. Under his likeness would be the inscription "Neither snow nor sleet nor rain nor fog nor gloom of night will prevent the Harper government from attaining a majority." Sounds like a fine plan. :clap:

We might have to build him a monument of some sort at the mouth of the St.John's Harbor, something dignified and fitting. At its base might be the inscription 

""Give me your youthful, your rich,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The new found voters of your teeming shore.

Send these, the conservatives, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door of Harperland!" 


Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

How did my thread on Iggy derail so badly and turn into all this nonsense about Harper? And it IS nonsense. Start a new thread on Harper. Please.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting idea, BigDL. That way, the first rays of the rising sun could fall upon his likeness each day ............ or at least those days when Cabot Tower atop Signal Hill is not shrouded in fog. Under his likeness would be the inscription "Neither snow nor sleet nor rain nor fog nor gloom of night will prevent the Harper government from attaining a majority." Sounds like a fine plan. :clap:
> 
> We might have to build him a monument of some sort at the mouth of the St.John's Harbor, something dignified and fitting. At its base might be the inscription
> 
> ...


I did not consider fog even though I grew in Halifax and should know better.

Your photos and comment inspired me to consider if we were to truly honour Our Glorious Leader we should have a shining beacon facing east the Colossus of Harper. The burning light would have a direct link to Hibernia for a never ending flame suitable to the Colossus and Our Glorious Leader for which it represents.

I thought at first it would mean the loss of Cabot Tower on Signal Hill. Then I knew the place for this beacon should straddle the entrance to St. John's Harbour.

Just think of the connecting shots for the Republic of Doyle television series, with the Colossus of Harper in there,think of the ratings, the sky's the limit.

Why Newfoundland tourism would not have to rely on interesting names, vikings nor UNESCO heritage designations, they would have Our Glorious Leader to attract the tourists.

Danny is but a memory, the Colossus of Harper would be eternal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for that thoughtful post on Iggy, BigDL.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Your Welcome No Problem


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Your Welcome No Problem


I don't own a welcome.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I don't own a welcome.


Speaking of thoughtful posts...


----------



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

BigDL said:


> I did not consider fog even though I grew in Halifax and should know better.
> 
> Your photos and comment inspired me to consider if we were to truly honour Our Glorious Leader we should have a shining beacon facing east the Colossus of Harper. The burning light would have a direct link to Hibernia for a never ending flame suitable to the Colossus and Our Glorious Leader for which it represents.
> 
> ...


A grand idea, BigDL. :lmao:


----------



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

As Monty Python might say, "Now for something completely different."

I think that it shall be the Bloc that causes the budget to pass, and thus, no election. They have indicated that its sine qua non budget demand is $2.2-billion in compensation for Quebec for harmonizing federal and provincial sales taxes, a subject that has been in negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec. 

Sinc the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff is successfully draining support from the New Democratic and Green parties, they should be gaining a chance for forming the next government, but that won't happen.

I personally feel that while many voters don't trust PM Harper with a majority government, they don't understand Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. He really has not capitalized upon all of the stumbles of the Conservatives, and is only now trying to portray himself as a potential PM with specific policies. However, I think that the voters have made up their minds, and will be voting the same way as in the last election. I know I am, and I have no problem doing so, since MP Jack Harris of the NDP is a fine representative of our riding. We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I think Ignats big problem is he is perceived to be in the pockets of Corporate America. The appearance is that he only came home to take a shot at being PM.

Not to say Harpo is any less enthralled. The recent fighter jet purchase and continuing involvement in Afghanistan would indeed indicate the opposite.


----------



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

An interesting piece on what all the leaders looked like years ago. Sadly, we all age as the years pass on by.

Meet the Leaders | CBC Archives


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

It seems as though the Conservatives 'don't want Iggy' to speak either.

PMO apologizes for booting media before Ignatieff speech - The Globe and Mail

Interesting strategy Stevie boy has. He really wants that majority badly, doesn't he? Wonder why.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It seems as though the Conservatives 'don't want Iggy' to speak either.
> 
> PMO apologizes for booting media before Ignatieff speech - The Globe and Mail


From the article:



> A press release issued earlier in the day by Mr. Ignatieff's office had said only that the Liberal leader would be attending the Indian event; it did not say he'd be addressing the gathering.* Liberal insiders maintained the release was ambiguous about Mr. Ignatieff's participation* because they were concerned the PMO would block the Liberal leader from speaking.


Can't have it both ways.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why the hell did the harperites kick out the media in the first place?

(excuse in 3... 2... )


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think it's even interesting enough to come up with a reason. The only reason this is news at all is that Ignatz felt snubbed. Probably got the event more play than the actual content of what was happening!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> why the hell did the harperites kick out the media in the first place?
> 
> (excuse in 3... 2... )


A non event GT. MF said so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> A non event GT. MF said so.


A _minor_ event. MF said so.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A _minor_ event. MF said so.


Seems as though_ 'a minor event'_ is the spin du jour for the Reformatives.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> How did my thread on Iggy derail so badly and turn into all this nonsense about Harper? And it IS nonsense. Start a new thread on Harper. Please.


The title of this thread is "Canadians Don't Want Iggy: Poll". I imagine that this should include discussion of Stephen Harper and why voters might prefer him or not over Iggy ... or laugh at him ... or love his _beautiful_ piano recitals. 

If we morphed the thread into a discussion of why, for instance, Microsoft might not be wise to focus their branding strategy around Steve Ballmer, this might be considered a derailment. But IMHO discussion of federal leaders and politics should be within the boundaries. Especially given the advanced age of this thread and the fact that threads tend to stray somewhat when they've been around for many months or years.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

nothing to see here.

And DO NOT, speak badly about Harper. It upthets me so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Reuters had a nice photo of Iggy that accompanied the snub article in the _National Post_. Perhaps limiting coverage isn't such a bad idea for the Libs.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Do I have to keep posting this old chestnut?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You have to keep posting that chestnut in your own Harper thread. This one is about Iggy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You have to keep posting that chestnut in your own Harper thread. This one is about Iggy.


Please see GA's post above.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, GA is wrong.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, GA is wrong.


No, GA is right.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The title of this thread is "Canadians Don't Want Iggy: Poll". I imagine that this should include discussion of Stephen Harper and why voters might prefer him or not over Iggy ... or laugh at him ... or love his _beautiful_ piano recitals.
> 
> If we morphed the thread into a discussion of why, for instance, Microsoft might not be wise to focus their branding strategy around Steve Ballmer, this might be considered a derailment. But IMHO discussion of federal leaders and politics should be within the boundaries. Especially given the advanced age of this thread and the fact that threads tend to stray somewhat when they've been around for many months or years.


I think what constitutes derailment of a thread should be whatever the originator says it is. We have seen this before and that was the conclusion that was drawn and people conducted themselves accordingly, think back to Embarrassments for Harper thread...

SINC should be paid the same respect as other members in this regard and it isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is derailment of his thread... I tried that with the "Embarrassments" thread and was shot down in no uncertain terms. It's two way street and we shouldn't be playing by different rules depending on whether or not we agree with the intent of the thread.

If he says move it along, be respectful and move it along...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> No, GA is right.


No he is wrong.... the "Embarrassments" thread set the precident... CubaMark as the originator of the thread set the limits and we abided... you want to poke fun at Harper GO THERE.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed, screature.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes, GA is wrong.





mrjimmy said:


> No, GA is right.


Please don't discuss whether I'm right or wrong, this thread is about slamming Iggy. 



screature said:


> I think what constitutes derailment of a thread should be whatever the originator says it is. We have seen this before and that was the conclusion that was drawn and people conducted themselves accordingly, think back to Embarrassments for Harper thread...
> 
> SINC should be paid the same respect as other members in this regard and it isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is derailment of his thread... I tried that with the "Embarrassments" thread and was shot down in no uncertain terms. It's two way street and we shouldn't be playing by different rules depending on whether or not we agree with the intent of the thread.
> 
> If he says move it along, be respectful and move it along...


I didn't state it was "up to me", I used the acronym "IMHO" -- In My Humble Opinion. If it's up to anyone regarding what the rule is on this, that would be ehMax. Sorry, I missed the particular discussion you are referring to and if there is a rule written somewhere on this I didn't know about it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Please don't discuss whether I'm right or wrong, this thread is about slamming Iggy.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't state it was "up to me", I used the acronym "IMHO" -- In My Humble Opinion.* If it's up to anyone regarding what the rule is on this, that would be ehMax*. Sorry, I missed the particular discussion you are referring to and if there is a rule written somewhere on this I didn't know about it.


Why? An existing precedent has been set by members, why do we need the Mayor to *rule* on anything. Can't we just agree among ourselves when a clearly already existing practice has been set in place. 

EhMac didn't start this thread SINC did as was the case with the Embarrassments thread and CM determined what was within bounds. So let's let SINC set the bounds here it is only fair. 

Do we really need for the Mayor to settle such things? Are we not adults and not capable of working things out without resorting to"higher powers"? Do we really need to call the "bylaw" police over every little thing, or can't we just work it out among neighbours?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Why? An existing precident has been set my members, why do we need the Mayor to *rule* on anything. Can't we just agree amoung ourselves when a clearly already existing practice has been set in place.
> 
> EhMac didn't start this thread SINC did as was the case with the Embarrassments thread and CM determined what was within bounds. So let's let SINC set the bounds here it is only fair.
> 
> Do we really need for the Mayor to settle such things? Are we not adults and not capable of working things out without resorting to"higher powers"? Do we really need to call the "bylaw" police over every little thing, or can't we just work it out among neighbours?


OK screature, if this is some generally accepted standard on ehMac that I didn't know about and not simply your opinion then I accept that. Again I was only stating my opinion not intimating that I was "right". Can you tell me what area of the Embarrassments thread this agreement was hatched? It's being asserted that this is a rule, so naturally I assumed there would be something ruled upon or written to confirm it. If it's simply a standard of practice that some people have agreed upon, then asserting the absolute wrongness or rightness might not be the right approach.

Does the OP have editing powers or do they simply get to rule on what is acceptable content in their thread?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here you go:



screature said:


> What exactly does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread? There is not even any story yet and you post it here...
> 
> I don't mean to discredit your opinion... no need to go through that again.
> 
> I just fail to see what this has do with the discussion at hand other than a cursory distraction to the actual subject matter of the thread.





BigDL said:


> A story some what International in scope, and National implications if Khdar is some how "sprung" without a trail and without Harpers approval. c
> 
> Could be viewed by citizens that the PM is less than effectual internationally on our national stage, just a thought.





screature said:


> Well... so start another thread, it has nothing to do with this one.
> 
> Honestly, lets keep it relevant to the subject matter at hand... you will get more traffic on your post, if this bothers you, by starting a new thread IMO and I mean this in the friendliest and most serious way...





BigDL said:


> Your opinion is understood and acknowledged. We will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Others may view this as a related issue or as a separate issue worthy of its own thread, I expressed my opinion i'tis mine....





mrjimmy said:


> Last time I checked, CubaMark started this thread. Are you our new (self appointed) thread constable? Why don't you just chill and wait for the OP to determine what is or isn't relevant to his thread.





Macfury said:


> Those who start a thread do not become the moderators. They do not own them.





mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps not but it's the type of civility and respect I've grown to enjoy at ehMac. Screature needs to dial it back. It is not in the spirit of this forum.





fjnmusic said:


> Given that the thread is devoted to Harper's misdeeds, I agree that the refusal by his government to do anything to help represent Omar Khadr is completely relevant. Any other country has done it's best to ensure its citizens receive a fair trial, which Mr. Khadr is unlikely to receive in the US or at Gitmo. Note that this had nothing to do with whether or not the individual is guilty; it is simply about ensuring access to a fair process, and if he is found guilty, at least it can be said the accused had the best defense possible rather than a kangaroo court. Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial, even for one of his own citizens, and I have no doubt that this may well have impacted the decision of the international community. How can an individual be very effective on the subject of human rights internationally when one won't even defend the rights of his own citizen?





bsenka said:


> Hey.... That is a great idea for a forum structure. Might not work at this site, but it could be a really neat idea in practice somewhere.





screature said:


> Yep.
> 
> This thread is about:
> 
> ...





CubaMark said:


> I'm the OP. I'm fine with how things are turning out... I consider the treatment of Khadr a huge embarrassment not only to Harper, but to all of Canada...





fjnmusic said:


> Well then. Game on!
> 
> And with all due respect to Screature's very thorough and well-reasoned argument as vigilante forum moderator, it seems to me that forum debates/discussions, like most forms of conversation, tend to take on a life of their own and evolve quite naturally into related areas of discussion. This can present a problem when linear sequential people talk with random abstract people, for example. However, if I read it correctly, the OP cited two prime examples of what he felt were actions/decisions/consequences of our current PM's governance that are embarrassing to the country as a whole, which we can either agree with or refute, providing example and counter-examples as we see fit. Sounds like a reasonable debate to me.
> 
> I would also venture to say that Harper puts his foot in it quite regularly, almost pathologically, which is why I believe he will never win a majority in Canada. Just prior to the last election, for example, he made some rather cutting comments about Quebec and arts funding which may well have pissed off enough people to cost him the majority he sought. Harper cannot function without having a received adversary to attack.





screature said:


> No one was invited to add others by the OP... CM just clariied that and we are moving on...
> 
> Continue the bashing free for all.... :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Here you go:


I'm not completely understanding the context of those posts and I guess I wasn't following that thread when this discussion happened. It appears to me, IMHO, that a few people agreed that this was a good way to run a particular thread, not that it is a generally accepted standard on ehMac.

If it does have a wider agreement and applies to other threads than this one, there are many, many transgressions of this rule, this particular discussion being one of them.

Again if this is the standard of behaviour that we are agreeing to, then what additional rights does the OP hold over non-OPs and what are the parameters for "thread derailment"? 

If I'd known about this new standard I might have invoked it myself. I seem to remember a thread I was the OP on in the last year or two where I mentioned discussion being derailed and I was basically ignored. (Don't have time to dig up the link right now.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't dwell on the past. I like the idea going forward.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I blame this posting on one of my staffers. I'm having them fired immediately. This _obviously_ has nothing to do with me...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ooh those over zealous staffers of mine....


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Sacrifice a virgin while you are at it. Just for good measure.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Please don't discuss whether I'm right or wrong, this thread is about slamming Iggy.


Sorry GA, just having a little fun with MF. His gigantically ironic defense of staying on message was too good to pass up. I guess you have to stay on message when it suits you.

I do agree though that threads need to flex and bend a little in order to remain interesting and alive.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I do agree though that threads need to flex and bend a little in order to remain interesting and alive.


Yes, they evolve.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Sorry GA, just having a little fun with MF. His gigantically ironic defense of staying on message was too good to pass up. I guess you have to stay on message when it suits you.
> 
> I do agree though that threads need to flex and bend a little in order to remain interesting and alive.





Ottawaman said:


> Yes, they evolve.


How convenient when they do so and reflect your inclinations despite the objections of the OP who wishes to keep it relevant to the original intention. 

mrj, your were one of the defenders of CM as having the right to indicate what is acceptable with a thread that he started ("Embarrassments") yet your position here seems to be different. Please explain the apparent hypocrisy/double standard?.




mrjimmy said:


> Last time I checked, CubaMark started this thread. Are you our new (self appointed) thread constable? Why don't you just chill and wait for the OP to determine what is or isn't relevant to his thread.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

screature said:


> The Opposition, as does the media, refers to the Government as the "Harper Government" all the time the only difference is they use the term derisively. It is disingenuous of them to complain about this, it a matter of common practice, it was the Chretien Government, the Mulroney Government, etc. in common parlance all the time. This is much ado about nothing.




[URL="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110304/harper-liberals-110304/]The releases during Chretien's tenure are all headlined "government of Canada" and use those words throughout. (ctv.ca)[/URL]


It's one thing when it's used in the media, but quite wrong when the government of the day requires its official bodies to use such a term on official government communication.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> [URL="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110304/harper-liberals-110304/]The releases during Chretien's tenure are all headlined "government of Canada" and use those words throughout. (ctv.ca)[/URL]
> 
> 
> It's one thing when it's used in the media, *but quite wrong when the government of the day requires its official bodies to use such a term on official government communication*.


Who says? Where it is written or agreed upon?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The institution of government belongs to the people, not the party of the day.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> How convenient when they do so and reflect your inclinations despite the objections of the OP who wishes to keep it relevant to the original intention.
> 
> mrj, your were one of the defenders of CM as having the right to indicate what is acceptable with a thread that he started ("Embarrassments") yet your position here seems to be different. Please explain the apparent hypocrisy/double standard?.


Well, if you were referring to the images of Harper that were posted, I've already stated that one of my staffers was to blame and they have subsequently been fired. 

Other than that, besides posting an 'Iggy' related link, I was having a bit of fun with one of one resident derailers, MF. But I really don't need to explain myself to you now do I?

I also may have just been doing a bit of this:



screature said:


> Well if the question were translated from "Can A Leopard Change It's Spots?" to "Do people change their minds? or "Do people change?"
> 
> In my experience of myself and others the answer is a most resounding ... YES.


Or not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Well, if you were referring to the images of Harper that were posted, I've already stated that one of my staffers was to blame and they have subsequently been fired.
> 
> Other than that, besides posting an 'Iggy' related link, I was having a bit of fun with one of one resident derailers, MF. But I really don't need to explain myself to you now do I?
> 
> ...


You should run for government you would do well in QP... Question asked. Not answered.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> You should run for government you would do well in QP... Question asked. Not answered.


I think not answered to _your satisfaction_ is more like it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> The institution of government belongs to the people, not the party of the day.


Yes true. But a *given* government is ruled by a *given* party. Once again It is common parlance.... Chretien Government, Harper Government, itf it can be used "against the ruling government they should be able to refer themselves in the same manner as do their detractors.

If things were fair we would just say government in the media and elsewhere... Period. But as long as the media and Opposition try and use the phrase pejoratively the government should be free to use it to their advantage or do you no believe in a level playing field?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The position of "Government" is a trust. Keep the separation of institution and politics separate in official communication. Do you applaud the use of tax dollars on political advertising?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I think not answered to _your satisfaction_ is more like it.


Nope you failed to address the issue of your double standard/hypocrisy which was the premise of my question, for which I had a direct quote from you revealing your contradiction to recent statements you made.

Seems to me... this is what many of your critiques regrading the government have been about and yet you are unwilling to even plainly address your own statements, so it would seem to be a case of to what I say, not as I do.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Nope you failed to address the issue of your double standard/hypocrisy which was the premise of my question, for which I had a direct quote from you revealing your contradiction to recent statements you made.
> 
> Seems to me... this is what many of your critiques regrading the government have been about and yet you are unwilling to even plainly address your own statements, so it would seem to be a case of to what I say, not as I do.


Where did I derail the thread? (as you are doing right now btw). I backed up my actions with responses, one of which was to quote you regarding people's ability to change (which I'm sure your intended target was your boy Harper). So methinks you are once again protesting too much.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> The position of "Government" is a trust. Keep the separation of institution and politics separate in official communication. Do you applaud the use of tax dollars on political advertising?


Do you... per-vote subsidy?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

screature said:


> Do you... per-vote subsidy?


Works for me. Keep the PACs out of Canadian politics please. Run on the merit of your platform, not how big your bankroll is.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Where did I derail the thread? (as you are doing right now btw). I backed up my actions with responses, one of which was to quote you regarding people's ability to change (which I'm sure your intended target was your boy Harper). So methinks you are once again protesting too much.


I didn't accuse you of derailing the thread... let's just call the whole thing off as you clearly are intentionaly playing dumb on this issue. i.e., does an OP have the right to determine what is permissible in a thread he started,which you previously were in favour of.. but not now that it goes against YOUR man. 

I guess this is pragmatic on your part....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Works for me. Keep the PACs out of Canadian politics please. Run on the merit of your platform, not how big your bankroll is.


The per vote subsidy *IS* the spending of tax dollars on political advertising. So you applaud it yourself, so don't ask me if I do, as if you were on some higher moral ground in asking the question.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Yes true. But a *given* government is ruled by a *given* party. Once again It is common parlance.... Chretien Government, Harper Government, itf it can be used "against the ruling government they should be able to refer themselves in the same manner as do their detractors.
> 
> If things were fair we would just say government in the media and elsewhere... Period. But as long as the media and Opposition try and use the phrase pejoratively the government should be free to use it to their advantage or do you no believe in a level playing field?


It just seems to reflect more of Harper's desire to extend the executive powers over every part of the Canadian government. The Government of Canada, our government, is not the Harper government. He can use it in his campaign branding, it can be used conversationally and colloquially, but the Government of Canada is an abiding institution that is outside of and greater than Harper's temporary tenure at Sussex Drive.

Stephen and his crew know the difference and understand the distinctions fully. They also know the value of blurring the lines for political reasons in the public eye.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

conservatives just don't see what could possibly wrong with any of that. They'll holler the holier than thou if they even smell one of the other parties doing anything of the kind (even though in this case they didn't), but if it gives the conservatives any leg up in advertising, branding, etc., well, there's nothing to see here, much ado about nothing, move along.

Remember, this is a government in minority, you just wait til Harper gets a shot at a majority. The 'you won't recognize Canada' will be realized I'm sure. 

Too bad since I actually like, Canada, quite a bit!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

screature said:


> The per vote subsidy *IS* the spending of tax dollars on political advertising.


I can accept that premise, but at least it is a somewhat fair distribution of funds. The ruling party has access to the entire wealth of the system. That stacks the deck and creates an unnatural inequality that robs the process and the voter.

edit
I say somewhat fair because I believe FPP is a bad system.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> I can accept that premise, but at least it is a somewhat fair distribution of funds. The ruling party has access to the entire wealth of the system. That stacks the deck and creates an unnatural inequality that robs the process and the voter.
> 
> edit
> I say somewhat fair because I believe FPP is a bad system.


Maybe yes maybe no it depends on the popularity of the government doesn't it... it could well work against them as well....

It is not inaccurate to say Harper government as this is how everyone refers to the government and it is in fact correct. If you chose to disagree with it on some "higher principle" then that "higher principle" should be by right of fairness applied universally and the Opposition and the media should not be able to refer to the government as the "Harper" Government either.

I suspect this is some of the logic that is at play with this change in policy. But again I also think it is a marketing strategy as Harper as PM is more popular as PM than is the the CPC as a government.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The party in power has a greater responsibility than the press, the opposition or anyone else. The ruling party can exercise the power of the government, the others cannot. If a party cannot find it in themselves to practice self restraint they don't deserve to govern.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> T*he party in power has a greater responsibility than the press, the opposition or anyone else.* The ruling party can exercise the power of the government, the others cannot. If a party cannot find it in themselves to practice self restraint they don't deserve to govern.


Why? Are we all not part of the same society,,, should we all notadhere to the same/similar set of values.

I, the media and especially the Opposition have far greater latitude in terms of expression than the government does. It you don't believe this to be true then the discussion has ended and we are done.

The only circumstance where this is not the case is statements made within the House which I think should change. If what you say in the House is liable for defamation outside the House it should liable for defamation within the House.

As it is now this is not the case, even though what you say in the House is published as much and more than what you say outside the House.

It still makes its way into public discourse.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Fine we are done. 


> *the ruling party can exercise the power of the government, the others cannot.*


That's the rub, right there. Ignore at your own peril. The power of government is to be used in the interest of the citizens, not the party in power.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Fine we are done.
> 
> 
> That's the rub, right there. Ignore at your own peril.


The point is when it comes to expression the individual/the media/the Opposition have greater freedom than the government... I see it every day.

I live this life everyday based on first hand experience. Our elected representatives are no better or worse than the rest of us. Those that feel they should be held to some higher standard only relinquish/diminish their own personal integrity.

I expect no better or worse from an elected official that I do from anyone else, myself included, perhaps that is why we differ.


----------

