# Conservatives polling ahead of Liberals



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Liberal support is dropping like a stone and a Conservative Minority is starting to look possible.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2648d61d-9a55-4d0a-bc9d-668cf5d19b07&k=33927

Three weeks to go and I bet the Liberals start to turn the whole thing negative now.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Peaking to early could cost the Tory's like it did last time. I'm not going to get my hopes up.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some good analysis on Coyne's blog regarding the poll results versus the 2004 campaign:
http://www.andrewcoyne.com/


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Champagne on the plane again.... - never learn...

A tad more reliable that the Vancouver SUN

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls-ontario.php

It's along way til the fat lady sings and if THAT's a masterful campaign pity the nation.
Those ads look like something out of high school.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Champagne on the plane again.... - never learn...
> 
> A tad more reliable that the Vancouver SUN
> 
> ...


The poll was not done by the Vancouver Sun, it was done by Ipsos Reid. The margin of error is within the poll you reference. Why do you think the Sun is not reliable? 

In any case, you are the one who always references unscientific polls (e.g. Globe and Mail on-line polls).

I agree, their ads are weak and come across like an infomercial.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i was watching cp 24 yesterday and saw on their news crawl that Decima announced that the cons and libs have an equal chance of forming the next gov't

after seeing what the liberal party has been pulling in the last couple of months, even i think a con minority might not be a bad thing

there are far too many liberal party 'holier than thou' decision makers that think themselves above the fray

an election loss might just be what the party needs to clean house of those sneaky rats and get some new blood in there

============================

by the way it looks good on jack layton aka "whore" - his NDP is taking an a$$ kicking in the polls
and all because jack wanted to be king maker


----------



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

The campaign starts today. Everything till now has flopped because the vast majority of voters could not give a hoot prior to the Holiday season (many will remain ambivalent even now). As for going negative, I think the Conservatives will be first to try this tactic. The "issue-a-day" approach was very positive but didn't strike much of a chord for some reason (perhaps because it seemed too strained?). It will be interesting to see whether the Liberals follow suit or try to reclaim some high ground.

Given that the predictions (and they are safe bets) are that Canadian economic growth will be driven by the oil sector in 2006 and that Alberta is home to about 10% of the Canadian population (3.1 million), I can't see the rest of the country firmly embracing a party that is seen to have its stronghold in that province. By contrast, the rest of the country would be incredibly short-sighted to expect Alberta to bail out the rest of the nation. The danger is not Quebec separatism but Alberta separatism. The former would not lead to economic chaos to the rest of the country despite the fears. Losing Alberta would.

My take on the campaign:

Conservatives - stuck with the Harper albatross and alienated MPs
Liberals - stuck with a bunch of ineffectual, entitled MPs, a soft leader and the laughing stock of Quebec
NDP - stuck with knowing some of their base will switch to the Liberals if Harper is seen to have a chance

Right now I think the country is down to two choices (that only differ by $350 million - the cost of another election when a Conservative minority goes belly-up): a Liberal-NDP coalition or a Conservative minority. If the Conservatives replaced Stephen, they'd be 10 points ahead of the Liberals overall.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> The poll was not done by the Vancouver Sun, it was done by Ipsos Reid. The margin of error is within the poll you reference. Why do you think the Sun is not reliable?


People who do not like, nor agree with the results of a particular poll will inevitably dig up one that better reflects their views. Matter of fact, some people make a habit of doing just that, so I wouldn't worry about it. 

The Vancouver Sun poll is just as valid as elections Canada. In fact elections Canada may be even more tainted than the Sun poll, given the Liberal party's power as the reigning government controlling the process.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if belinda stronach was leading the CONs, they'd almost be a shoe in, but harper stupidly blew that chance when he told belinda she'd never be leader of the CONs

i agree that a CON minority would last barely last a year
they CONs don't know how to play well together
they would find an ally in the Bloc as long as they stayed on provincial rights issues, but as soon as that ran out and they started up on social/foreign policy, down they would go


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I dunno... I'm a liberal supporter, you could supposedly say "their all corrupt", but I have a feeling that unless Martin commits to throwing out the individuals whom have done wrong, I have an inkling that there may be a conservative minority.

By the way, I personally have no patience or interest in reading or watching any CanWest Global publication (Vancouver Sun, Times-Communist... ermmm Colonist, National Post, The Province). 

The Aspers are notorious for pumping their own agenda (Sale of radio stations from Shaw to Global was their lead story across all of their TV stations in Aug 1998). There has been zero interest in producing Canadian content on their television stations, with Izzy proclaiming: Producing a Canadian show is not in our interest. There is no audience for it, and it is unprofitable. He then went on a tirade to the CBC about the CRTC and their "unjust" Canadian content rules.

Governments over the years have also had their issues with CanWest, as the Aspers have consistently pushed a pro-America, sometimes anti-Canadian slant on drug war stories, trade disputes and other international conflicts (Personally, I blame this on a news staff that hadn't had any international correspondents, and pulling news stories from fox/cbs/abc)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Nice analysis, UTBJW. 

What frustrates me is that we're paying the cost of an election without having any viable choices. The best-case scenario is that we wind up with exactly what we started with having spent $.35B on the process. The worst case is that the conservatives get a minority, playing directly into the hands of the Bloc, resulting in a referendum.

The only good thing about a conservative minority is that they can't conceivably last long... they'll have no parliamentary allies and will fall on their first budget.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jicon said:


> By the way, I personally have no patience or interest in reading or watching any CanWest Global publication (Vancouver Sun, Times-Communist... ermmm Colonist, National Post, The Province).


So I gather the fact the poll was commissioned and done by Ipsos Reid has no bearing on your decision?

It is NOT CanWest who conducted the poll. IR is one of the mainstream pollsters in the country after all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh so it's just YOUR spin on "freefalling Liberals".. 

No one pretends the Globe polls are done by a polling company but the opinion of some 20,000 readers in the GTA and surrounds is a damn sight wider sample AND indicative for the region where the minority gov makeup is likely to be determined.
Your freefall also does not show in the national polls.
Personally I think the Goodale sitution hurt the Libs and I also agree with the investment community that it's political hooey with no substance.

Todays' poll



> Has anything said by any federal politician during this election campaign prompted you to change your vote?
> 
> Yes	1242 votes (14 %)
> 
> No 7408 votes (86 %)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ow_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

Appears no party is getting anywhere fast in winning hearts and minds and it's a long way yet to go - the last election was decided somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12 hours before election time and no pollster got it right in Ontario.

Pretty desperate if you think to party this early.

UJW has it about right.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> an election loss might just be what the party needs to clean house of those sneaky rats and get some new blood in there


Some of the anti-Martin Liberals have said this too. The party badly needs renewal and ideas; a good leadership contest can do this. Given Martin's coronation in 2003, they haven't had a real leadership contest in about 15 years, and it shows. They are too focussed on 'the game' because the party is where the power is, not the government.

Of course, the Conservatives have had many leadership contests, and look at them now...my theory is riddled with problems.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Oh c'mon SINC, even you have to admit that the Aspers have their own agenda and are real pigs when it comes down to pushing it.

I trust CanWest just 2% more than FAUX.

I can discuss polls and political reality/pragmatism, but lets just stop defending the Aspers and their unholy quest to Americanize Canada.

Vive le Canada libre !


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Some of the anti-Martin Liberals have said this too. The party badly needs renewal and ideas; a good leadership contest can do this


I think all the parties are due with Layton perhaps least.
Libs really need an internal refresh and they are on their way to being an Ontario party with scattered support elsewhere mirroring the Cons.
Bloc is already regional and the coasts determine the balance of power.

New federation arriving with NO ONE at the helm.
Recession iceberg looming too 

Sad situation and i think many as I do feel really powerless to see change implemented as there are too many vested interests in Ottawa in the status quo.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Some good analysis on Coyne's blog regarding the poll results versus the 2004 campaign:
> http://www.andrewcoyne.com/


Andrew Coyne is nothing more than a Neo Con fart-catcher. I don't give much credence to anything he may pen.... It's like asking Rush Limbaugh a neutral article about George Bush.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: Yep couldn't have said it better.


----------



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

Here in NL, the talk is of strategic voting. It looks as if this form of voting could result in the Conservatives gaining a seat held by the Liberals, and the Liberals gaining a seat now held by the Conservatives. Thus, there would be no change here in NL, with 5 Liberals seats and 2 Conservative seats.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Coyne analysis challenges the 'conventional wisdom' that the current Conservative campaign is well run by showing how they made more progress, in the polls, much quicker last time with with more handicaps and fewer opportunities. 

I find he runs hot and cold. Much of his recent stuff is better than around the 04 election, where he went shrill. When he's not ranting or in a huff, his arguments are generally interesting and better than most columnists. Whether you agree with his opinions or not is another matter.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Oh so it's just YOUR spin on "freefalling Liberals"..
> 
> No one pretends the Globe polls are done by a polling company but the opinion of some 20,000 readers in the GTA and surrounds is a damn sight wider sample AND indicative for the region where the minority gov makeup is likely to be determined.
> Your freefall also does not show in the national polls.
> Personally I think the Goodale sitution hurt the Libs and I also agree with the investment community that it's political hooey with no substance.


You don't get it. The population size is completely irrelevant when the sample is not taken randomly. Do you know what a random sample is? 

Selecting readers of a particular newspaper (with a Liberal left stance), printed in only one language (33% of this country is French, plus add minorities) and from only one area (when our country is highly divisive electorally) does not even come close representing the views of this country.:lmao: 

A random sample of 1,000 people (+/- 3%) beats 20,000 non-random (+/- ????).

Take a courses in stats, or at least do a bit a reading on it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Oh c'mon SINC, even you have to admit that the Aspers have their own agenda and are real pigs when it comes down to pushing it.
> 
> I trust CanWest just 2% more than FAUX.
> 
> ...


Having a bit of trouble with comprehension today are we Michael?

The post in no way showed any support for the Aspers. I simply stated that the poll was NOT done by the CanWest group, rather it was Ipsos Reid which makes the poll every bit as accurate as any other.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC, would have bee nice to see you dump on the Aspers is all
they're such whores and indicative of what's wrong with cdn. journalism


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah macdoc, reader polls are biased - they are by defintion
i would hardly call G & M readers "liberal"

it's not scientific like a true random poll


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No you don't get Vandave - your comment about the Globe being Liberal and Coyne being "balanced: says it all as well as your "free fall".

You are so far right and ignorant of the situation in the GTA you couldn't recognized a balanced view if it slapped you in the face.

Elections have been won with the popular vote way out of whack with the seats won or lost. You thinking the Globe is Liberal is a perfect example of why the Cons just don't get it.

It's WHERE the swing seats are. Where are the business drums beating out the Con message.......??? If you don't lend credence to the Globe readership responses....it shows clearly how far off base you are in assessing the political landscape in the real world. 

There are moderate conservatives here in Ontario and you're an exemplar of the kind of thinking and approach small c centrist conservatives abhor and will send would be NDP voters running to the Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Michael it doesn't matter scientific - the Globe readership is very reflective of the GTA business community - historically small c as you are.

If the appeal is not there......which it's not.....it does not need a scientific weather station to tell which way the wind blows.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, would have bee nice to see you dump on the Aspers is all
> they're such whores and indicative of what's wrong with cdn. journalism


Geez, there you go again agreeing with me. Stop it already!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No you don't get Vandave - your comment about the Globe being Liberal and Coyne being "balanced: says it all as well as your "free fall".
> 
> You are so far right and ignorant of the situation in the GTA you couldn't recognized a balanced view if it slapped you in the face.
> 
> ...


You still don't get it........:lmao: 

Your Globe and Mail polls do not represent what is happening NATIONALLY.

A NATIONAL poll taken randomly does. Live with it. That is what I am talking about.

I never said your polls weren't useful to looking at regional opinions, or for assessing the opinions of GLOBE AND MAIL readers.

I have no idea where you are coming from with your rant and why you are making all sorts of accusations (I never even mentioned Coyne) and assumptions.  

BTW... I consider myself to be a small c Conservative.


----------



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

MacDoc, I would agree, in part, with Vandave's contention that "A random sample of 1,000 people (+/- 3%) beats 20,000 non-random (+/- ????)." It should "beat" the non-random sample, although a poorly undertaken random sample will not necessarily beat out a non-random sample of that size (i.e., 20,000).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do you read or not??- the swing vote for the minority makeup gov will be determined in the GTA and to some degree on the coasts.

The "national" % means diddly squat at this point. The seat rich area is the GTA and the Globe readership is a strong cross section for possible swing voters as they are blue libs and red cons for the most part.

Sticking a finger in the wind still tells you the wind direction - the "scientific polls" got it wrong in Ontario last time and this early in the election time frame, national %s are of marginal use other than telling people what they already know.

Regional information in swing centres gives much more useful *information.*

There is a huge difference between "statistics" and useful information. Something you seem to have difficulty comprending. 
You still think the Globe is a liberal rag - why not write Rex Murphy and Maragaret Wente and tell them how they are biased lefties. 

Your ability to ascertain "useful information" is certainly questionable given your stance on a national paper that prides itself on presenting a balance of views and paid to get a third party assessment of their success in doing so.

The election outcome will be decided in swing areas - the GTA is most critical and seat rich of those.


----------



## apple=god (May 21, 2005)

AHHHH once again, macDoc (and everyone else) chill your engines man... --passes the joint, once again, to macDoc-- VOTE GREEN PARTY (jokes, there a bunch of hippies craving attention, but still they are a ligit party)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, would have bee nice to see you dump on the Aspers is all
> they're such whores and indicative of what's wrong with cdn. journalism


But at least they admit their bias.

How many other biased news outlets do that? The CBC? Fox?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Regional information in swing centres gives much more useful *information.*


And a scientific poll taken in said regional centre will give you more accurate information when compared to the Globe and Mail.



MacDoc said:


> There is a huge difference between "statistics" and useful information. Something you seem to have difficulty comprending.
> You still think the Globe is a liberal rag - why not write Rex Murphy and Maragaret Wente and tell them how they are biased lefties.


You have the comprehension problem. A scientific poll beats your silly Globe and Mail polls.

The National Post is Conservative. I am sure even you agree on that. Since it draws Conservative people to their website and paper, their polls are going to be slanted to the right. The remaining people naturally migrate to the Globe and Mail. Thus, their readers are going to be more left of centre than the average and will vote that way.



MacDoc said:


> The election outcome will be decided in swing areas - the GTA is most critical and seat rich of those.


I agree. The recent poll shows a drop in Liberal support which likely translates into some a loss of swing riding seats.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The election outcome will be decided in swing areas - the GTA is most critical and seat rich of those.


Yes, but those WHAT?

Certainly not informed voters who give a hoot about anyone outside the GTA.

Give us more Liberal corruption seems to be their gift to the rest of Canada.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Now, now, Sinc. You appear to be painting all of us in the GTA as unrepentant, Liberal-loving morons. Did it never occur to you that many of us fear and loathe the rampant idiocy and sanctimonious posturings of the Harper crowd? And does anyone in your riding care more for Canada than we do here in Hawgtown, _really_? I'd love to see your proof for that, man - it's bound to be entertaining.

Don't be so royally peeved at us just because a significant chunk of us don't want to vote conservative - especially as long as Harper leads the party in question and that same party sees fit to harbor intolerant loose cannon loons with titanic chips on their shoulders. If and when that changes, you might be surprised with how many Ontarians (and 905 Torontonians in particular) readily agree with the base tenets of the conservative wing of Canadian politics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Now, now, Sinc. You appear to be painting all of us in the GTA as unrepentant, Liberal-loving morons.


Geez Max, not at all.

I'm voting Liberal this time around too.

Seems to me if we're gonna re-elect crooks to run the country, I'm better off with a crook for an MP.

Be a darn shame to miss out on the spoils of corruption now, wouldn't it?


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

*Vote for X?*



SINC said:


> I'm voting Liberal this time around too.
> 
> Seems to me if we're gonna re-elect crooks to run the country, I'm better off with a crook for an MP.
> 
> Be a darn shame to miss out on the spoils of corruption now, wouldn't it?



So how do I get MY share of the Gun Control money, the Sponsorship Money, or any other Liberal kickback or scam to date? Or should I just lay low and hope no one will check under the dirty carpet?

Seems to me that the Mulroney government had scandals and similar corruption, either real or perceived, just before they were turfed out in favour of the Chretien Liberals with their "no GST" lies. And Kim Cambell was the best "leader" they had to offer? SHeesh, does no one remember this?

Politicians are all the same as far as I'm concerned. Just different stripes on the same animal. Which leaves the same dilemma as always. Which four year parliamentary dictatorship to non-democratically* vote for? (*see rep by pop)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rhino said:


> So how do I get MY share of the Gun Control money, the Sponsorship Money, or any other Liberal kickback or scam to date?


On January 23rd, support organized crime. Vote Liberal!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> I'm voting Liberal this time around too.
> 
> Seems to me if we're gonna re-elect crooks to run the country, I'm better off with a crook for an MP.
> 
> Be a darn shame to miss out on the spoils of corruption now, wouldn't it?


Okay, I get it. You had no better answer to provide me, so a schnappy comeback will have to do. Hey, that's okay, Sinc. But listen - better luck next time!


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

The difference between Mike Harris and Harper is that given the chance
Harper would most likely think bigger than Mike Harris and sell the Trans Canada
Highway rather than a small provincial highway.

I wonder what a 3 party poll in Walkerton Ontario would turn up.

I think I'll be voting Liberal.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> On January 23rd, support organized crime. Vote Liberal!


On January 23rd, support bigotry. Vote Conservative!


----------



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

On January 23rd, support democracy. Vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No question, Dr. G.'s line, "On January 23rd, support democracy. Vote.", wins the contest, hands down.


----------



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

Vote and the choice is yours................don't vote, and the choice is made by someone else.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> No question, Dr. G.'s line, "On January 23rd, support democracy. Vote.", wins the contest, hands down.


Agreed!


----------



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

We have three people of voting age in my house, and each one of us may vote for a different party. My next door neighbor has the exact same situation. A friend of mine has four votes in his household, and every major party, including the Green Party, is going to get one vote. I have heard of "Sleepless in Seattle", but this is "Stalemate in St. John's".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

FWIW, over the last few days I've seen a lot of polls being flashed on News World and NewsNet. None of them show the Conservatives leading the race nationally (although they have commanding leads in BC and Alberta). Every single one of the polls has shown a narrowing of the margin between the Liberals and Conservatives, though.

One interesting poll I saw on TV the other day went something like this. Statement directed at NDP supporters reads "If I think the Conservatives are in a position to win either a minority or majority in the coming election, I will change my vote to Liberal." IIRC, more than 35% of the decided voters agreed with the statement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting that so many NPDers would support corruption over change.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

SINC said:


> So I gather the fact the poll was commissioned and done by Ipsos Reid has no bearing on your decision?
> 
> It is NOT CanWest who conducted the poll. IR is one of the mainstream pollsters in the country after all.


Something got lost in translation somewhere. 

The fact that the poll was done by Ipsos Reid has no bearing on me voting for a party other than the liberals. I don't sway with the popular vote, and I certainly hope others don't also. As I said earlier, I think we're probably going to see a *conservative minority*, which this credible poll also outlines.

Because the poll was done by Ipsos Reid doesn't mean I discredit the results. I get the story, and as above, I agree it is likely accurate. It was published in an Asper newspaper doesn't make me want to buy or read the publication. I'll read the poll results elsewhere, thank you.

Nothing against the poll, I just have an issue with the way the CanWest Empire is currently run.

Evidently, others have concern on how the Liberal Empire has been running over the past dozen or so years.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Interesting that so many NPDers would support corruption over change.


Not really, given how far apart NDP and Conservative policies are. I think it makes sense theyd rather stick with the dickheads that have similar goals rather than the dickheads that have opposing goals.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

FWIW, I've always thought that CanWest's Vancouver Province is the most left-leaning NDP, neo-socialist rag published - makes the Toronto Star look small c conservative.

IMO, the Aspers aren't out to Americanize, they're just selling advertising space.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Because in BC the NDPs do have a strong foot. Not to say that they win all the seats here, in my Burnaby-New Westminster-Kingsway riding or whatever it's called we were represented by an NDP MP Julian something who the incumbent to win this January. It'll be interesting as the population of Vancouver becomes even more affluent if social issues that the NDP seem to best address will become less of an issue. It'll certainly be a sad day for me if the NDP does get voted out from my riding. Go NDP.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gmark2000 said:


> FWIW, I've always thought that CanWest's Vancouver Province is the most left-leaning NDP, neo-socialist rag published - makes the Toronto Star look small c conservative.
> 
> IMO, the Aspers aren't out to Americanize, they're just selling advertising space.


in addition to their souls


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Because in BC the NDPs do have a strong foot. Not to say that they win all the seats here, in my Burnaby-New Westminster-Kingsway riding or whatever it's called we were represented by an NDP MP Julian something who the incumbent to win this January. It'll be interesting as the population of Vancouver becomes even more affluent if social issues that the NDP seem to best address will become less of an issue. It'll certainly be a sad day for me if the NDP does get voted out from my riding. Go NDP.


Burnaby and New West are changing and are moving to the centre-right. In the recent provincial election, BC Liberals held 2 of the 4 seats in this area, although they are traditionally NDP strongholds. The recent municipal elections also indicated a shift to the right. Previously, only one centre-right Councillor was elected of eight possible, plus the mayoral seat here in Burnaby. In the recent election, four centre-right Council members have been elected. 

There is a demographic shift going on with urban professionals and immigrants moving into Burnaby and New West. Urban professionals tend to be more centre-right than the traditional unionist. Chinese immigrants strongly support free enterprise and dislike the NDP. I think these voters will be evenly split between Liberal and Conservative.

Bill Siksay is my MLA (NDP). Bill Cunningham (Lib) is going to give him a run for his money, with the Conservatives still in the running, but less likely.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Interesting that so many NPDers would support corruption over change.


This is such a load of BS and reflective of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Conservative platform. There is no basis to say that any current Liberal MP or Cabinet Minister is dishonest or "corrupt", but I guess if you have nothing else to say, you just parrot the Harper ads. 

Frankly, I see more reason to view Harper as corrupt, seeking to be elected on the basis of of hate and fear mongering, and appealing to the base and selfish aspects of human nature. That's not my idea of a leader and I will be deeply ashamed if he becomes our PM. 

I am not enthusiastic about any of our choices and I wish the conservatives could come up with a positive, principled platform to raise the level of debate. Instead, they drag it down to simple minded sound bites about throwing out the "corrupt" liberals.

If you prefer Harper's appeal to our dark side, so be it. Your incessant repetition of this corruption BS, however, just makes you look like a parrot, rather than a thinking voter.

Well, if you keep it up, I say our budgie rates a vote as much as you do.

---edit

For Beej's reference (see next post), my detailed non-parroted thoughts on the subject of Harper's divisiveness, etc. are set out in this thread: <a href="http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=34251&highlight=leader">What Kind of Leader would Harper be?</a>


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> This is such a load of BS and reflective of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Conservative platform.
> ...
> Frankly, I see more reason to view Harper as corrupt, seeking to be elected on the basis of of hate and fear mongering, and appealing to the base and selfish aspects of human nature
> ...
> If you prefer Harper's appeal to our dark side, so be it. Your incessant repetition of this corruption BS, however, just makes you look like a parrot, rather than a thinking voter.


Excellent example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy and parrot-like repetition you refer to. Popcorn and beer anyone?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I am not enthusiastic about any of our choices and I wish the conservatives could come up with a positive, principled platform to raise the level of debate. Instead, they drag it down to simple minded sound bites about throwing out the "corrupt" liberals.


Have you been following the election?

Harper has focused on the issues and has raised the level of debate. The Conservatives haven't been mud slinging at all. Just wait and see what the Liberals do. Don't worry, I'll remind you when it happens, because it will.

Saying that you want to clean up Ottawa is a valid platform and is worthy of discussion.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Regarding the translation of votes into seats, the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy applies a statistical model to polling numbers and derives an estimate. Interesting reading and results. 

The latest estimate is mid-December, but I anticipate it will be updated soon.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Have you been following the election?
> 
> Harper has focused on the issues and has raised the level of debate. The Conservatives haven't been mud slinging at all.


Announcing one policy after another in hopes that some will appeal to Canadians?
Sure, you throw sh!t against a wall and some will stick but most of the policies are ill-conceived with no long term goals. 
Even when little boy Harper comes to Quebec, he's not here to debate or talk about issues - mostly make announcements before his "handlers" put him back on the place lest he talk to "real" Canadians...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Regarding the translation of votes into seats, the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy applies a statistical model to polling numbers and derives an estimate. Interesting reading and results.
> 
> The latest estimate is mid-December, but I anticipate it will be updated soon.


Interesting - For Quebec you have more BQ members getting in....
Well, if you do consider the provincial Liberals to be Conservatives in disguise and the Federal Liberals to be Liberals makes you wonder where the other parties are....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Have you been following the election?
> 
> Harper has focused on the issues and has raised the level of debate. The Conservatives haven't been mud slinging at all. Just wait and see what the Liberals do. Don't worry, I'll remind you when it happens, because it will.
> 
> Saying that you want to clean up Ottawa is a valid platform and is worthy of discussion.


"... focused on the issues?"

- gay bashing;
- GST bribe;
- phony "childcare" cash bribe;
- "criminals are being coddled and our social ills can be solved by stiffer sentences" - well, that just a bald faced lie on may levels, and Harper knows it isn't true;
- more than anything, the "corrupt Liberals" line - if that's not mudslinging, I don't know what is.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I'd vote liberal if it looks like the conservatives might win*



SINC said:


> Interesting that so many NPDers would support corruption over change.


Absolutely. I'd much rather have continued petty corruption (that's a given in our system) that we have a chance of catching and stopping, over a government that will eagerly sell out to corporate interests and accelerate the Americanization already underway.

If it's a choice between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Liberals are easily the lesser of two evils.

If there was some form of proportional representation in this country, I'd vote NDP or Green without hesitation. But given our first-past-the-pole system, I'd much rather a Liberal win in my riding than a Conservative. Unfortunately, here in Texas North, the conservatives have an almost unassailable hold on power (look at the uncontested coronations of King Klein), so I'll probably vote Green just so they get my $1.75. But I will certainly keep my eyes on the poles to see if there is a strategic move I can make that will do maximum damage to the Conservatives.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But I will certainly keep my eyes on the poles to see if there is a strategic move I can make that will do maximum damage to the Conservatives.


If you're in landslide Annie's riding, she's relatively well respected across political lines and, from what I've seen, not as obnoxious as most. Chretien gave her every crap portfolio (from an Alberta perspective) and she did ok.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> This is such a load of BS and reflective of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Conservative platform. There is no basis to say that any current Liberal MP or Cabinet Minister is dishonest or "corrupt", but I guess if you have nothing else to say, you just parrot the Harper ads.
> 
> Your incessant repetition of this corruption BS, however, just makes you look like a parrot, rather than a thinking voter.


Gee, I guess you missed my first post on how I have thought through the options and made my decision, so for the record, here it is again:


SINC said:


> I'm voting Liberal this time around too.
> 
> Seems to me if we're gonna re-elect crooks to run the country, I'm better off with a crook for an MP.
> 
> Be a darn shame to miss out on the spoils of corruption now, wouldn't it?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

No, I didn't miss it. It was duly noted and fits in well with my response.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Glad to be of service. There are a few people out there you know, who think Liberals are not corrupt.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Bill Siksay is my MLA (NDP). Bill Cunningham (Lib) is going to give him a run for his money, with the Conservatives still in the running, but less likely.


Pssst. MLA, Member of the Legislative Assembly, (eg. The BC Legislature) is provincial. MP, Member of Parliament (eg. The Parliament Buildings in Ottawa), is federal.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Glad to be of service. There are a few people out there you know, who think Liberals are not corrupt.


Sinc wanna cracker?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was wondering if, you know, anyone here thought that the Liberals might possibly be corrupt. Just curious.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Sinc wanna cracker?


You'll have to share.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Harper harped it so....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> I was wondering if, you know, anyone here thought that the Liberals might possibly be corrupt. Just curious.


I don't think the whole party is corrupt, it has good individuals in it. 
The line between the civil servants and politicians, however, gets blurred the longer a party is in power, and this is the primary problem to me. I saw the same thing in the Alberta civil service. But that's not a good enough reason to vote for another party; it's a relatively small concern versus the whole government budget and decision making. More of a principle thing. For some it's more important than for others.

I don't think the Conservatives are fundamentally less corrupt, but their basic lack of a deep politico-bureaucrat network would lessen the chances. Most of the problems (proven and speculated) with the Liberals clearly demonstrate the unusual power and connections of the PMO. Martin's please everyone style just exacerbates this problem.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My sense is the general public has little trust in politicians of any stripe.
More posts like the Auditor general would put some confidence back in the system.

The oversight aspect of governance is surely lagging.


----------



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

MacDoc, this from CNN.com and it pertains to the US Congress.

http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/poll.congressimage/index.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> MacDoc, this from CNN.com and it pertains to the US Congress.
> 
> http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/poll.congressimage/index.html


The voters get what they respond to. Sad, but would Canada's results be more or less cynical?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I wish Conservative supporters could at least get posting an image right... :lmao:

Cracker?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I wish Conservative supporters could at least get posting an image right... :lmao:
> 
> Cracker?


Oddly enough, it works just fine on my Mac. Perhaps you have a Liberal Mac?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> I don't think the whole party is corrupt, it has good individuals in it.
> The line between the civil servants and politicians, however, gets blurred the longer a party is in power, and this is the primary problem to me. I saw the same thing in the Alberta civil service. But that's not a good enough reason to vote for another party; it's a relatively small concern versus the whole government budget and decision making. More of a principle thing. For some it's more important than for others.
> 
> I don't think the Conservatives are fundamentally less corrupt, but their basic lack of a deep politico-bureaucrat network would lessen the chances. Most of the problems (proven and speculated) with the Liberals clearly demonstrate the unusual power and connections of the PMO. Martin's please everyone style just exacerbates this problem.


Actually, I was being a tad facetious. I was poking fun at Sinc's stalwart trend to dredge up that lightning-rod term, _corruption,_ at every turn.

Thank you for providing a serious answer, though - one which I mostly agree with. Same with MacDoc's reply. I rather doubt the Libs, disgusting as they've been lately, harbour a natural tendency to stick their porcine noses in the trough any more than their more conservative brethren.

Perhaps the greater point is, however, that many Canucks are feeling fed up with this _latest_ display of wanton gluttony and blatant disregard for the inviolability of the public purse. Probably because it's been so damnably flagrant.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Oddly enough, it works just fine on my Mac. Perhaps you have a Liberal Mac?


Perhaps you have one of those "special" Alberta (read Texass - no typo) Macs


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought you were kidding, but wasn't sure...so I tossed my opinion out there anyway. 

The Libs are going after their votes, just as the Conservatives. You can almost see how they are physically holding their core with one hand while reaching out to swing voters (and maybe swingers!  )

How many people feel tax cuts are bribes and morally inferior to social programs? How many people feel every Liberal is corrupt? There is a basic and, in my opinion, healthy, philosophical divide. Unfortunately it's smothered in partisan hackery...I'm with Jon Stewart on this issue. Annoying that a comedian had to bring it the front, but better than nothing.

[Edit: Note that I do enjoy good political jokes that play up their opponent's views]


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Tax cuts are indeed bribes. I'm surprised they fish in so many people, year after year. Cut too many taxes and what happens? Programs for the public commonwealth tend to be dismantled only so much... after which point, governments tend to run up debts. Public debts, payable by Joe and Josephine Q. Taxpayer.

On the other hand, social programs are often band-aids - superficial sops addressing symptoms rather than root causes.

Government is, at best, a woefully awkward mechanism.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

All government action is, to the extent of vote getting, bribes. That's not necessarily bad, but it could be done with more vision than we are seeing from any party. 

There's nothing sacred about spending or tax cuts, and nothing magical about the current situation that makes more of either special. It's about how it's done and the context it's done in.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed!

(Someone better come along soon and call one or both of us fools. That way the thread keeps percolating.)

(;->))


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The corruption is more of a symptom than an issue to me; a symptom of a party that has been in power too long and has lost its vision as well as its standards. I can't point to a single accomplishment of the Martin government; they are on a rudderless boat content to ride the currents of public opinion without a destination in mind. More ominously, they seem to feel that they are the natural party of the government and deserve the spoils... that they are "entitled to their entitlements" as one of them so eloquently put it.

The Conservatives have clearly learned from the last election... their campaign has been smooth and content driven. Excepting their bizarre and regrettable position on same sex marriage, they have put forward a detailed and occasionally innovative set of proposals which should innoculate them against the charges of having a "hidden agenda". Despite Macdoc's comments though, I don't think they're touching the champagne yet... they're bracing for the same Liberal onslaught that came at them last time. It's not over till the CBC's Projection desk says so. 

My hope this election is for a Conservative minority. For their sake and ours, the Liberals have to be turfed, and the Conservatives have earned a shot... albeit a shot constrained within a minority government.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Excellent post... especially your first paragraph. The libs are trying to do nothing more substantial than stay afloat on a holed ship.

The conservatives have certainly learned to play the game under intense media scrutiny and have, thus far, suffered no crippling misfires. Compared to previous campaigns, that, in and of itself, is remarkable. For their part, the libs cannot lay claim to the same status... their trite gaffes stem from the same sense of entitled entitlement you referred to.

Tide's turning. Still three weeks to go, however. Plenty of room for mis-steps.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Politician's axioms
1. Get power
2. Stay in power


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean Ralphies comments aren't a "misfire" ?? 

The biz community is hardly lining up behind Harper and Martin's speech in Winnipeg about the "promise a day" from Harper shows it's adding up



> Stephen Harper's Conservatives are in front and setting a torrid pace with
> 
> 
> > nearly $80 billion in promised tax cuts ($73 billion) and spending initiatives ($6.6 billion) over the next five years.
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/spendingtallies.html

Bush math ........and half a campaign to go - no wonder some biz eyebrows are raised.

Stay tuned........


----------



## apple=god (May 21, 2005)

URE ALL FOOLS!!! 


(happy, beej and max?)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> You mean Ralphies comments aren't a "misfire" ??
> 
> The biz community is hardly lining up behind Harper and Martin's speech in Winnipeg about the "promise a day" from Harper shows it's adding up
> 
> ...


if i recall harper's GST announcement the 2nd GST cut isn't guaranteed


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't think any "promise " is guaranteed. It just the voodoo we can do all this and cut taxes spectre that is hanging about ala Mikey Harris.

In my opinion the federal system is bent if not yet busted given the regional forces at work and certainly not at all trusted as a system.

Maybe that's why the Globe Poll today showed this result



> Do you believe the Jan. 23 election will make much of a difference to Canada?
> 
> Yes	........7642 votes (39 %)
> No	........11934 votes (61 %)


The Liberals much to Martin's dismay are drifting into a regional party stance with it's dependence on Ontario and a bit of Quebec.

Canada just now 










Who can slide the puzzle pieces into place???


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

apple=god said:


> URE ALL FOOLS!!!
> 
> 
> (happy, beej and max?)


I didn't ask for it (except in the sense that everything I say means I'm 'asking for it' to some)...so I'm more hurt than happy. :-( 

On the up side, the Truth has been spoken, and we are all better for it. :clap:

That was emotionally exhausting.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

One columnists view of tax cutting and violence: Harris and the rage on our streets


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AND left a $6 billion smoke and mirrors deficit despite selling off the 407 in the lsit of "accomplishments" 

There WERE some necessary house cleaning chores but ideology went way beyond that. 

TANSTAAFL


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> One columnists view of tax cutting and violence: Harris and the rage on our streets



A most telling quote from the article;


> ``Health, education and public services suffer. The wealthy avoid the cuts by purchasing their own services in the marketplace.


and that's why a 2 tiered medical system is bad
health care should NOT be tied to "ability to pay"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

apple=god said:


> URE ALL FOOLS!!!
> 
> 
> (happy, beej and max?)


Thank you, sir. Now I feel my online experience here is more, well, let's just say _within statistical norms._ Much obliged!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> One columnists view of tax cutting and violence: Harris and the rage on our streets


Mr Harris can certainly lay claim to a legacy, and a long-lasting one at that.

The damage occurs all too quickly. Repairs can take generations, and depend on alignment between many forces and effective leadership.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> The corruption is more of a symptom than an issue to me; a symptom of a party that has been in power too long and has lost its vision as well as its standards. I can't point to a single accomplishment of the Martin government; they are on a rudderless boat content to ride the currents of public opinion without a destination in mind. More ominously, they seem to feel that they are the natural party of the government and deserve the spoils... that they are "entitled to their entitlements" as one of them so eloquently put it.


Quite true FN. The federal Liberals are rife with those who have made a comfortable career being in control and in power and fully enjoying all the perks of that position.


Fink-Nottle said:


> The Conservatives have clearly learned from the last election... their campaign has been smooth and content driven. Excepting their bizarre and regrettable position on same sex marriage, they have put forward a detailed and occasionally innovative set of proposals which should innoculate them against the charges of having a "hidden agenda". Despite Macdoc's comments though, I don't think they're touching the champagne yet... they're bracing for the same Liberal onslaught that came at them last time. It's not over till the CBC's Projection desk says so.
> 
> My hope this election is for a Conservative minority. For their sake and ours, the Liberals have to be turfed, and the Conservatives have earned a shot... albeit a shot constrained within a minority government.


I'm sorry but I believe that the hidden agenda is still very much there. What they have learned is how to more successfully "campaign on the left", an old trick that right-of-centre parties have used for years - including the current incarnation of the Martin Libs.

Harper's campaign manager continues to be the American Tom Flanagan, widely recognized as Harper's intellectual soul-mate, who is a hard core neo-conservative from the early days of the Reform Party and engineered Harper's rise to leader of the party. He has been very much a part of the neo-conservative "Calgary School", that has close ties to many US neo-con thinkers. Flanagan hasn't moderated his views one bit, but has learned from painful experience that they don't sell in Canada. Does anyone really believe that Harper's move to more middle of the road sounding policies, such as child-care money, is anything more than sheep's clothing?

An excellent article on Flanagan and the neo-con base of Harper's party, "The Man Behind Stephen Harper" appeared in Walrus magazine last year. For those who think that Harper and the Cons have somehow morphed into a little more of the old Red Tory style party, this article should strip away those illusions.


> But back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms [seminal neo-conservative thinker] Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"


Social and religious conservatives in the grassroots of the Conservative party have learned the new stealth methods too. Members of the religious right group "Focus on the Family" have managed to get two former organizers nominated as Conservative candidates in the Vancouver area. These people have learned to soft peddle their anti-abortion, anti-gay views when out on the campaign trail and just repeat the "corrupt Liberal, give us a chance" mantra that Harper has persued.

This is why, IMHO, the Cons don't deserve a chance at power of any kind, even in a minority. For now, short of having proportional representation, my best choice is a Liberal government dependant on the NDP, to keep them focused on the kind of policies Canadians want. This would be the likely result, if we did have pro-rep now, simply based on the polling, except with a Green MP or two. This is totally a crap shoot, given our current system, which could deliver a big surprise for us on January 24th.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

nxnw said:


> Regarding the translation of votes into seats, the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy applies a statistical model to polling numbers and derives an estimate. Interesting reading and results.


LISPOP is updated:

Liberal Party 109
Conservative Party 113
New Democratic Party 26
Bloc Quebecois 60

Huge swing in Ontario from the last projections, favouring both Conservatives and NDP. Interestingly, however, the projections have Liberals hanging in everywhere else, even improving a bit in Quebec.


----------



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

If the LISPOP poll holds true, how might the Conservatives form a government? In other words, from whom would they obtain votes in a confidence vote in Parliament?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Interestingly, however, the projections have Liberals hanging in everywhere else, even improving a bit in Quebec.


That's because we too want a corrupt MP so we can share in the spoils at the trough.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's because we too want a corrupt MP so we can share in the spoils at the trough.


You know, that is getting incredibly old.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope. It'll be current for the next 19 days. One should never forget their friends, especially in an election campaign.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The statements on Harper, Harris and the Hidden get old too, but I don't see too many pointing that out...maybe it all has a lot to do with personal preference.

For the record, I think there's some truth (and much fiction) to all of them. The details behind this are boring but there, for those who'll buy me a beer!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The details behind this are boring but there, for those who'll buy me a beer!


Father and Sons still open in Ottawa ?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Don't know, but the Royal Oak multiplied since last I lived here and my favourite pubs closed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Buy you a beer? Oh, if I only could, I'd be there with a Big Rock.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> If the LISPOP poll holds true, how might the Conservatives form a government? In other words, from whom would they obtain votes in a confidence vote in Parliament?


If the LISPOP projection becomes reality, the Cons will be rather hamstrung in Parliament. They will depend on the Bloc, who don't agree with them on much except one important issue, which is devolution of power to the provinces. Both parties reject a strong Canadian federation, although the Cons won't come out and say it exactly, while the Bloc has their quite obvious reasons.

The Cons want to hasten our integration within the United States of North America and a weaker federal government will help accomplish this faster, with fractious provinces at odds with each other applying different standards based on their incomes, depending on their sellable-to-the-USA, resource luck. Although the Bloc might not allow the Cons to go too far in some of their right wing agenda, their would be trade-offs made that favour Quebec's eventual separation by strengthening provincial powers. Who knows what Harper might give to the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois to maintain his government.

Harper as PM, could do a significant amount of damage to this country, even if his mandate is short. What's the slogan they're using, Stand Up For Canada? A load of BS, IMHO.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Derail: I'll look you up next time I visit Edmonton. Never a Big Rock fan, but a Stella (shameless urban yuppie ) almost anywhere downtown, if it's still safe, would be good.

Rerail: Recent polling is looking very interesting...er, sorry about the derail.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Derail: I'll look you up next time I visit Edmonton. Never a Big Rock fan, but a Stella (shameless urban yuppie ) almost anywhere downtown, if it's still safe, would be good.


Still safe and it would be my pleasure to buy you one. May I suggest Sherlock Holmes Pub on Rice Howard Way? They have neither Stella, nor Big Rock, but they serve a mighty fine Newcastle Brown!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It's worth noting that unless the Conservatives get enough seats to form a majority, the Liberals still get first crack at putting together a coalition government.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If things stay roughly as they are in the polls (big if), either the Liberals and Conservatives work together or with the Bloc or something much more radical (party splinters)...or we'll be doing this all over again real soon.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> It's worth noting that unless the Conservatives get enough seats to form a majority, the Liberals still get first crack at putting together a coalition government.


Nope.

If the Conservatives win a majority, the Liberals can't form a minority by definition. If you get >50% of the seats, the opposition parties cannot get more seats than you have. 

In any case, it is a virtual impossibility for the Conservatives to win a majority.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If the LISPOP projection becomes reality, the Cons will be rather hamstrung in Parliament. They will depend on the Bloc, who don't agree with them on much except one important issue, which is devolution of power to the provinces. Both parties reject a strong Canadian federation, although the Cons won't come out and say it exactly, while the Bloc has their quite obvious reasons.
> 
> The Cons want to hasten our integration within the United States of North America and a weaker federal government will help accomplish this faster, with fractious provinces at odds with each other applying different standards based on their incomes, depending on their sellable-to-the-USA, resource luck. Although the Bloc might not allow the Cons to go too far in some of their right wing agenda, their would be trade-offs made that favour Quebec's eventual separation by strengthening provincial powers. Who knows what Harper might give to the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois to maintain his government.
> 
> Harper as PM, could do a significant amount of damage to this country, even if his mandate is short. What's the slogan they're using, Stand Up For Canada? A load of BS, IMHO.


I think you are fear mongering now.

Giving the provinces more power does not take away from us nationally. Getting out of things that affect our cities and provinces (development, transportation,housing, etc...) doesn't effect our relations with the world. It's an internal organization. It has nothing to do with the US.

Giving Quebec more power might be what is necessary to keep them in our federation. Giving them what they want will reduce their desire to separate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Giving Quebec more power might be what is necessary to keep them in our federation. Giving them what they want will reduce their desire to separate.


If you give Quebec more power, what will be the difference between that and separation...?

The mindset about separation is not one of power but one of "we's been screwed by the anglos, so we's better be on our own 'stie". In other words, the Anglo bogey man has screwed Quebec historically - it's not a argument about logic or facts but one of emotion.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> If the LISPOP poll holds true, how might the Conservatives form a government? In other words, from whom would they obtain votes in a confidence vote in Parliament?


This is the real question and is something strategic voters need to think more about. Let's say you are an N-dipper scared of a Conservative Minority. Would you rather:

A. The NDP hold the balance of power (i.e. Con + NDP > 50%); or,
B. The NDP have too few seats to hold the balance of power (i.e. Con + NDP < 50%)

If situation B happens, due to strategic voting, you have left the Conservatives to form a government with either the Bloc or the Liberals. Doesn't really meet your objectives, does it? 

Back to your question... As I have said before, the Conservatives are going to have a hell of a time governing if they win the most seats. This election is more about a moral victory against the Liberals and denying them a minority government with the NDP. 

What I would like to see is a minority government formed between the Conservatives and Liberals. Sounds far fetched at the moment, but it is really where most Canadians sit politically. The party with the most seats should get the PM position and each party split Cabinet posts from there. I hope this election doesn't get so dirty that it makes this situation impossible.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think you are fear mongering now.


Yes, I think that a Harper led government is something to be afraid of. I have fears for the the future of this country regarding US assimilation. We are so utterly dependent on the US now that we are little better than a colony. It's something all Canadians should be very concerned with. 

If our Prime Minister makes a hint of criticism of the US government, our ambassador gets called on the carpet by some angry low level White House official. Yet the US ambassador to Canada feels completely comfortable criticizing Canada's lack of compliance with US policies in great detail in speeches or any other media that will give him time, all over the country. Usually with Harper echoing the same comments. The bugger even wrote a book on the subject.

I've attacked the Martin government for it's "Deep Integration" plans, (meeting with mostly a collective yawn here on ehMac,) and I think that the main difference between the two is that Harper and his neo-conservative brain trust would move there faster, as their policies and general positions on issues show. I don't trust Liberals or Conservatives here, who seem to be both bent on moving in a direction that most Canadians don't want. Which is one reason why I would prefer a Liberal government that is somewhat beholden to the NDP.

If that's considered fear-mongering, then so be it. But interestingly, if I bash the Liberals, conservatives would just call that fair comment. Is it not then fear mongering to portray all who are part of the Liberal government and party as hopelessly corrupt?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What I would like to see is a minority government formed between the Conservatives and Liberals. Sounds far fetched at the moment, but it is really where most Canadians sit politically.


That is EXACTLY what could have happened had there been a small c Conservative party. Martin sits exactly where centrist PCs have in the past and that is the natural coalition.

The current Con leadership would not make an effort and frankly I suspect Martin would not be receptive anyway but you point exactly the missing centrist conservative option.

You also highlight the unwillingness of parties to "govern" together instead of playing politics. Only Layton showed some effort in that direction in any formal way tho the split was so tight it ws an impractical parliament to begin with and may end that way again


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That is EXACTLY what could have happened had there been a small c Conservative party. Martin sits exactly where centrist PCs have in the past and that is the natural coalition.
> 
> The current Con leadership would not make an effort and frankly I suspect Martin would not be receptive anyway but you point exactly the missing centrist conservative option.
> 
> You also highlight the unwillingness of parties to "govern" together instead of playing politics. Only Layton showed some effort in that direction in any formal way tho the split was so tight it ws an impractical parliament to begin with and may end that way again


By definition, you have to negotiate with people you don't fully agree with. That's part of governing together. From that perspective, I don't agree with the rationale that Liberals should only negotiate with small c Conservatives. 

I think if the Liberals + NDP get less than 50%, then the Liberals and Conservatives have a responsibility to seriously consider and negotiate a coalition. Compromise is never easy, but that's what this country needs.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I think if the Liberals + NDP get less than 50%, then the Liberals and Conservatives have a responsibility to seriously consider and negotiate a coalition. Compromise is never easy, but that's what this country needs.


And I think we'd all rather see a Liberal + Conservative government than a Conservative + Bloc government.

Although, if the Liberals got more seats than the Conservatives and then they formed a coalition government with the Liberals in charge, couldn't that be seen by many Conservative supporters as compromising their principles to gain power?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If our Prime Minister makes a hint of criticism of the US government, our ambassador gets called on the carpet by some angry low level White House official.


If you're referring to what happened in Montreal, that was far more than a hint and it was our Prime Minister not our ambassador. Big difference. The U.S. has more than their fair share of Parrish's, but how often do you hear Bush criticise Canada versus Martin criticising the U.S. in an international meeting? How about Rice? 

It is far more acceptable in Canada for our leader to criticise the U.S. and then act shocked when their ambassador responds because...we have an easily coddled anti-American voting block. 

We cannot define ourselves as 'not them' and ignore good opportunities with 'them' because we want to be 'not them'. Setting our foreign policy on the basis of what we positively want (e.g. will work with pretty much anyone, even China) is the best route and making our contact with the world work better is also good. 

Whether it's with Britain, the EU, Japan, the U.S. or elsewhere. I'd prefer we had more work done with other countries, but we're pretty low on most country's radar. Some good work being done in Asia though.

Limiting our interaction with the U.S. because we're heavily connected with them is liking cutting off your nose to spite your face ('We're too dependent on one country so let's do less with them and...?'). 

Our foreign policy can, and does, pursue improved dealings with the U.S. AND other countries; that is, when they're not busy trolling for easy NDP swing votes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> And I think we'd all rather see a Liberal + Conservative government than a Conservative + Bloc government.
> 
> Although, if the Liberals got more seats than the Conservatives and then they formed a coalition government with the Liberals in charge, couldn't that be seen by many Conservative supporters as compromising their principles to gain power?


I am sure some people would feel that way in both parties. That's a big part of compromise. I am not an ideologue, so I could accept a coalition government.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am sure some people would feel that way in both parties. That's a big part of compromise. I am not an ideologue, so I could accept a coalition government.


The Conservatives need more like you. 

*Warning! Wild speculation and a factual vacuum about to occur.

After the merger, it was abundantly clear that the party had to moderate or satisfy itself as a permanent opposition party. The social conservatives, apparently, flexed their muscles (it didn't help that there was no broad-based strong pC leadership candidate) so the result is what we've got: most of the moderation was done to their fiscal platform. Exactly the moderation centre-right voters weren't asking for. They could have put the Liberals in a squeeze-play with the NDP, instead the Liberals were left with the ability to straddle the centre and play the Conservative fear-factor against the NDP. 

Aside from a couple key items, like childcare, the Cons and Libs are very similar so far. They're even copying eachother's healthcare and immigration policies.

:lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The Conservatives need more like you.


I can hear Bono saying it now, "The world needs more Vandave."

A coalition might take the following platform:

- 6.5% GST
- We'll pay you $1200 to put your child in our childcare program
- You only have to register 1/2 your guns
- The Auditor General will audit all departments but can only look at the left side of the balance sheet
- Guaranteed minimum non-sentencing for criminal acts 

Hmmm, on second thought....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I am not an ideologue, so I could accept a coalition government.


As could I. I just worry that the less than moderate portions of each party would not.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah Vandave, that's the spirit!

- Gay marriage, but not on Sundays

- Register your guns, but capital punishment now in effect for gun-related crimes

- Canada leaves from Quebec but promises to send annual Christmas cards (optional Kwanzaa, "Happy holidays" and other variations available) to their government representatives, wishing it all the best; both nations chip in to buy two icebreakers and a couple of planes for the Arctic

...that sort of thing.


----------



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

I think that Vandave makes a valid point with his comment that "I think if the Liberals + NDP get less than 50%, then the Liberals and Conservatives have a responsibility to seriously consider and negotiate a coalition. Compromise is never easy, but that's what this country needs." We need people in Parliament who put country over party. We shall see.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I think that Vandave makes a valid point with his comment that "I think if the Liberals + NDP get less than 50%, then the Liberals and Conservatives have a responsibility to seriously consider and negotiate a coalition. Compromise is never easy, but that's what this country needs." We need people in Parliament who put country over party. We shall see.


That would have to be a coalition without Martin or Harper. Yay, we would get rid of both of them at the same time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well this time the topic of this thread is actually accurate.



> Tories jump into clear lead
> Jan. 5, 2006. 05:49 AM
> SEAN GORDON
> OTTAWA BUREAU
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...845&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

'Course this is the REAL leftie pinko communist rag...aka Toronto Star opinion.....

so don't make too much of it 

Mind you 40% volatility is a big number and it's early yet but still that's a big swing.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I hate polls...
I've done a few online and I think that the questions are really retarded,
These pollsters must think that voters are a bunch of boat jumpers.

Just because a politition says something negative one day and on another day says
something positive then that would make me switch my vote.

I think we need Pollice to Police the Pollsters.


----------



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

Mugatu, I can't see both leaders being replaced. However, if Harper is replaced with a more traditional "red Tory" Conservative, this might be a workable coalition.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Dr. G., I do agree that Harper must go but how could Martin stay? He's the leader of a party in decline. He's not respected west of Ontario... or east of Ontario... and possible not even in Ontario. How could Mr. Dithers hold it together? The new coalition will need someone who could appeal to both sides of the political spectrum, someone, who might not be the ideal person for either party but who could be seen as 'good enough'.

Both leaders are on their last campaign if they don't win.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Mugatu, I can't see both leaders being replaced. However, if Harper is replaced with a more traditional "red Tory" Conservative, this might be a workable coalition.


But this is the point I am trying to make Dr. G. You can't choose who gets elected in the parties you don't support. Many on the Conservative side would say the same of Martin. Accepting your opponent as a valid representation of their party is the first step in compromise.


----------



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

Mugatu, it would be more difficult to dislodge Martin just now. Still, a fresh start for both parties might be in order.


----------



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

I see your point, Vandave. It would be interesting to have a leadership convention for both the Liberals and the Conservatives to see who might now lead this coalition building. I don't think that this will actually happen, but it would help to bridge the gap and build the compromise coalition.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Since Stephen Harper seems to be poised to become the next PM of this country....and since Paul Martin is definitely yesterday's news...then why are we even having this discussion?

I suspect that the massive witch hunt for crooked Liberals that will ensue after the Conservative victory will be the key to "cleaning house" in what was once called Canada's "natural ruling party". If the Liberals even survive as a party, then they will be an entirely different group of people. Since many of the top officials (and their minions) of the current Liberal party will actually be in JAIL at the time of the next election.

Or will have fled the country to avoid prosecution (cue stock photo of the disgraced former Prime Minister Jean Chretien boarding a plane to some far off place that has no extradition treaty with Canada).

Wild rant? Crazy stuff? Then recall the witch hunt that Jean Chretien went on after the Liberals regained power in the early nineties. He went after the former conservative PM witha vengance and tried to get him thrown in jail.

This set a legal precedent that is now accepted in the lexicon of Canadian politics. (too bad Chretien failed miserably). A former oppostion party can now actively prosecute and charge a former Prime Minister for the crime of corruption...and seek the harshest punishment under Canadian law if this former leader is found guilty as charged.

It would be poetic justice if Stephen Harper as the incoming PM were to use this Liberal party precedent to actively proscute old king Jean to the fullest extent of the law. There is certainly far more than enough evidence to make a real case of it, after all. (to say the least)

And...guess what?

He WILL!

 

And some of this nasty crap will splash onto Martin as well. Probably rather a lot of it, really. Martin was wayyy too close to the action to dodge the blast of crap at this point. He's finished.

And then some.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Since Stephen Harper seems to be poised to become the next PM of this country....and since Paul Martin is definitely yesterday's news...then why are we even having this discussion?


Because nothing is a certainty, because surprises are commonplace in Canadian elections, and because most of us aren't rhetoric machines.

Harper may win more seats, but again he'll have to win 155 for it to be assured. Even if the Conservatives won 153 seats the Liberals would get first dibs at forming a government with another party (or two!)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Because nothing is a certainty, because surprises are commonplace in Canadian elections, and because most of us aren't rhetoric machines.
> 
> Harper may win more seats, but again he'll have to win 155 for it to be assured. Even if the Conservatives won 153 seats the Liberals would get first dibs at forming a government with another party (or two!)


There is no constitutional rule saying that.

It is all based on historic precident. I think the party with the most seats get first crack.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The party with the most seats most certainly DOES get the "first crack".

And, although sudden surprises are very often the case in Canadian politics, I should also like to point out that Canadians are more well known for "Voting OUT" a particular political party than for "Voting IN" one.

Anyone here care to speculate on how much chance the tired and clearly corrupt old Liberals have of NOT getting outed, this time around?

Show of hands? :clap:


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Technically, it's up to the Governor General. If the incumbent can form a government in a coalition then I believe she/he is obliged to let them form it.
This is how W.L. Mackenzie King held on to power in 1925 (the Conservatives won more seats, but King's Liberals formed a government with the Progressive Party in support).

Of course, I could be wrong and it could be dependant on whether the party with more seats can form a government, but the Conservatives would be faced with the options of their polar opposite (who have already declined) or the separtist party, who few outside of Quebec actually want to have any real power.

So again, if the Conservatives want a for-sure victory, they are going to need 155 seats.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone here care to speculate on how much chance the tired and clearly corrupt old Liberals have of NOT getting outed, this time around?


There is a saying, "if you repeat something enough times it will eventually become truth." Is that what you are shooting for here? Because you've been saying this for, what, 4 years now and it's not come to fruition yet (and still might not).


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> There is a saying, "if you repeat something enough times it will eventually become truth." Is that what you are shooting for here? Because you've been saying this for, what, 4 years now and it's not come to fruition yet (and still might not).


That would be Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone here care to speculate on how much chance the tired and clearly corrupt old Liberals have of NOT getting outed, this time around?
> 
> Show of hands? :clap:


What are the alternatives to the Liberals?
Do we really want a police state under the conservatives?

Will he continue the Welfare and disabled bashing that Mike Harris started in Ontario?
Mike Harris cut and froze benefits to the disabled and introduced Workfare,
The Liberals gave the disabled a raise after being denied a raise all through Mike Harris' reign.

What will Harper give us?
Will he give us Super prisons like in the U.S.?

I'd rather vote for the Devil I know rather than the Devil I can't trust.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

dolawren said:


> What are the alternatives to the Liberals?
> ...What will Harper give us?


Well, his current big thing is tooting his deceitful, corrupt, horn about "Liberal revolving door justice". 

Let's see: 

- The criminal code is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It already has harsh penalties for serious crimes.
- What about those crown attorneys making sweet deals in plea bargains? Virtually all crime (except drug offences) is under the jurisdiction of provincially appointed crown attorneys, so the federal government has no power here. 
- So, what about those drug crimes? There are harsh minimum sentences for drug trafficking.
- What about those damn judges, giving light sentences to criminals? Well, first of all, that's a typical Harperian falsehood. There are plenty of criminals who have deservedly been sent to jail for a good long time. There will always be anomalies, including some people getting unduly harsh sentences as well as some getting unduly light ones.
- Also, on sentencing generally, the bulk of sentencing is done by Provincial Court judges - provincial appointees. 
- Of course, lots of sentencing is done by higher courts, with federally appointed judges. What about them? Well, we have an independent judiciary - Harper, we know, only likes judges as long as they agree with him, even those pesky Supreme Court judges. I guess maybe he isn't so crazy about an independent judiciary. 

Harper is a liar. He isn't "corrupt" like Paul Martin, who was Minister of Finance when dishonest things he know nothing about were happening in another ministry. No. Harper is corrupt in a real and much more serious way.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

nxnw said:


> Well, his current big thing is tooting his deceitful, corrupt, horn about "Liberal revolving door justice".


Yeah the law really came down hard on Killer Karla. No revolving door in this country.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It amazes me how many people still cling to the old ways. How many are ready to stand up and claim that the Liberals are still the better choice....despite all of the theft and lies and corruption we've witnessed from that batch of wastrels.

What are we on now...our third major Liberal scandal just since the election was called? Anyone keeping track of how many seperate RCMP investigations are in progress right now? Anyone want to guess how many more we will see before the Libs finally fade away forever?

Anyone keeping track of the broken promises and wasted tax dollars on totally futile Liberal do-nothing projects? One's that they always seem to get caught stealing tax dollars from?

But STILL they are the "best choice"?:yikes:  

And "Harper is EVIL...Harper is BAAAD!!"tptptptp 

I know this because my handlers told me it was so. It must, therefore, be the truth.:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah the law really came down hard on Killer Karla. No revolving door in this country.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You blithely make my point. Homolka got away with murder because the police failed to find the smoking gun, and needed her evidence. you can blame the police (OPP and Toronto - no RCMP, so you can't blame the federal government). You can blame the crown - again provincially appointed crown attorneys. No federal involvement.

And I doubt even you think that Homolka's sentence is par for the course for murder in Canada.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Well, his current big thing is tooting his deceitful, corrupt, horn about "Liberal revolving door justice".
> 
> Harper is a liar. He isn't "corrupt" like Paul Martin, who was Minister of Finance when dishonest things he know nothing about were happening in another ministry. No. Harper is corrupt in a real and much more serious way.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And so goes the chant from the rapidly shrinking ranks of the last few Liberal faithful.:baby: 

"Harper is wayyy more corrupt that Paul Martin!! Honest!! A Liberal TOLD me so!! And they never lie...do they?"

Yukyukyukyuk:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> How many are ready to stand up and claim that the Liberals are still the better choice....despite all of the theft and lies and corruption we've witnessed from that batch of wastrels.


You see, that's just the problem. I don't think that the Liberals are a "better choice." I think it's more apt to call them "less worse."

Also, for many many people the Liberals are the better choice. They may have their issues, but I know a lot of people who'd rather vote for the jackass that is in line with their own political ideals rather than the new guy who doesn't, and frankly I'm getting sick and tired of you deriding people over it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> You see, that's just the problem. I don't think that the Liberals are a "better choice." I think it's more apt to call them "less worse."


I find it interesting that not many people truly support the Liberals and believe in their platform. It seems most of their ranks are made up of people who reluctantly vote for them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is where so many make a basic mistake about the Liberals.

The Liberals don't have an ideology. They have a STRATEGY. It says: "Get elected at any cost. Say ANYTHING...play to whatever crowd you are in. Especially the center left types. They'll buy the crap and are the easiest to play. Then we can go back to living the high life and swiping all the tax money that we want. And those same soft lefty types will defend us as the 'better choice'....just so long as we keep on playing their song and appealing to their particular ideals".

This isn't just my take on things. This is fact. Jack layton is even saying the very same thing in a TV ad these days.

It's historical truth. See for yourself just exactly how often the Liberals have stuck with their so-called "center-left" ideology.

Like Thatcher said about similar groups in the bad old days of English politics..."watch what they DO, not what they SAY"


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Harper says:


> A 14 year old charged with a serious violent crime or repeat offence would be sentenced as an adult.


That'll be an interesting promise to keep,
Considering he'd have to abolish the young offenders act to do it.

Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...e_060105/20060105?s_name=election2006&no_ads=


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I find it interesting that not many people truly support the Liberals and believe in their platform. It seems most of their ranks are made up of people who reluctantly vote for them.


The Conservatives are too far right, the NDP too far left. Who does that leave?



MacNutt said:


> The Liberals don't have an ideology. They have a STRATEGY. It says: "Get elected at any cost. Say ANYTHING...play to whatever crowd you are in.


Like the Conservatives don't? Calling a no confidence vote 2 months before the Liberals pledged to call an election? Considering working with the separtists?

At least the Liberal campaign ads say more than "the other guys are worse."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

dolawren said:


> Harper says:
> 
> 
> That'll be an interesting promise to keep,
> ...


Not really. Juvenile offenders who commit violent adult crimes (like murder) are often moved up to adult court. And face adult sentencing guidelines.

And we should ask for a quick show of hands as to who here would like to see the young offender's act rewritten ASAP...or tossed entirely?

Anyone? 
:clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> The Conservatives are too far right, the NDP too far left. Who does that leave?


 If you really believe the Liberals do not have a good 'ideology' and/or are corrupt, then don't vote for them! Or vote for none of the above. You can return your ballet and it gets counted as somebody who doesn't want to pick a party.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I find it amusing that all the Con supporters hide for months when the Liberals where in the lead and like a bunch of mindless hyenas show up again once the tide has turned...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I find it amusing that all the Con supporters hide for months when the Liberals where in the lead and like a bunch of mindless hyenas show up again once the tide has turned...


I find it amusing that of all the Liberal apologists here, nobody admits to supporting them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I find it amusing that all the Con supporters hide for months when the Liberals where in the lead and like a bunch of mindless hyenas show up again once the tide has turned...


"Mindless hyenas" follow their lead dog blindly. Even if he's headed off of a tall cliff. Which brings me to my next question...

You still planning to vote Liberal, artistseries? Despite everything?
:baby: :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I find it amusing that of all the Liberal apologists here, nobody admits to supporting them.


As a recently annointed Liberal apologist, I can say I don't support them...of course I was surprise-annointed too...could be because I'm multi-partisan? Am I allowed to get married to a uni-partisan?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> You still planning to vote Liberal, artistseries? Despite everything?


Until recently, I was abstaining to vote. 
But given the arrogance of both the Block et Les Cons, I'm voting Liberal.
The Libs don't have a change in my area (Ici c'est le Bloc) ....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Mindless hyenas" follow their lead dog blindly.


Now you are starting to understand the Cons... 
:clap:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> You see, that's just the problem. I don't think that the Liberals are a "better choice." I think it's more apt to call them "less worse."
> 
> Also, for many many people the Liberals are the better choice. They may have their issues, but I know a lot of people who'd rather vote for the jackass that is in line with their own political ideals rather than the new guy who doesn't, and frankly I'm getting sick and tired of you deriding people over it.


This statement confuses me. From the anti-Harper camp the main concerns seem to be:
a) he opposes redefining marriage to include gays and lesbians (although he is fully prepared to give them all the same rights but under a different name like the UK has done and other countries)
b) He likes Americans (very unCanadian)
c) He supported the Iraq war (as did Paul Martin and Hillary Clinton at the time but they're loonie right wing zealots too)
d) He's one of those religious nut job Presbyterians 
e) He looks bad in a leather vest and stetson and he has scary icy colored eyes.

So as I see it these are the pillars of truth that galvanizes the Liberal support. If I missed one please feel free to add to the list. But I think you guys are overlooking your obvious choice. Jack Layton.

-Jack hasn't stole a dime from taxpayers or has an entire RCMP devision tied up investigating his party's shenanigans
-His party was supporting gay marriage back when Belinda was riding a Tricycle and the Liberals were beating their chests as the defenders of traditional marriage.
-He stands firmly against all things American (a true Canadian)
-He opposes the war in Iraq and did from day one.
-I don't think Jack's a Presbyterian or a Catholic so thats a double bonus.
-He'd probably look pretty cool in a leather vest and stetson. (Sort of a Marlboro Man thing happining there) Oh and those dreamy eyes.
-On social issues, the NDP and the Liberals are like saimese twins.

So do us all a favor and vote for Jack! If you think that Martin and Harper are devils (one you know and one you don't) don't pick either. Take the moral high ground and pick Jack because he's your angel. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> As a recently annointed Liberal apologist, I can say I don't support them...of course I was surprise-annointed too...could be because I'm multi-partisan? Am I allowed to get married to a uni-partisan?


As a United Church type minister, I believe I am allowed to marry you. None of the other denominations will do it, though. We decided it a while back, but the law has finally caught up, so it'll even be a legal marriage now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What about the kids? Would they have to join her party? I'd hate for them to be slagged if they no longer identify with their party (ala Stronach and Brison) or were corrupted (ala Liberals). Also, I'm not sure the world is ready for Beej Jr. yet...nor is Beej Sr. ready for Jr. I'll keep you posted.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> As a United Church type minister,


Just curious RevMatt

What exactly is a United Church "type" minister? Are you an actual United Church minister or something else?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

He's a reformed Druid - only worships small bushes....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'd just like to point out, for the record, that I am an undecided voter. I don't support any party exclusively, and given that none of the options really appeal to me this time around I'm having a hard time deciding.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Just curious RevMatt
> 
> What exactly is a United Church "type" minister? Are you an actual United Church minister or something else?
> 
> ...


I am the actual thing. In our denomination, though, we have rather loose rules. Thus, there are Anglican types here, and Pentecostal types. And everything inbetween. I am a United type, which is simply to say that I tend to stand where my denomination stands on most issues. That kind of distinction is important around issues of marriage these days .

AS - SHRUBBERY!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> He's a reformed Druid - only worships small bushes....


That could be taken, oh so many ways, must . . . just . . . leave . . . it . . . alone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Those cuts were approved by all the parties including retroactively to the beginning of 2005  Shades of things lurking....




> *Harper says he'd repeal current income tax cuts*
> Updated Sat. Jan. 7 2006 12:35 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...x_060107/20060107?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

I guess he's got to find his $80 billion and counting somewhere since he crippled his income with the GST cut.  ..shades of Mike Harris indeed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Those cuts were approved by all the parties including retroactively to the beginning of 2005  Shades of things lurking....
> 
> I guess he's got to find his $80 billion and counting somewhere since he crippled his income with the GST cut.  ..shades of Mike Harris indeed.


At least they are being honest about their promises.

I think tax cuts all round are warranted. I would like to see consumptive taxes reduced as well as income taxes. 

As discussed before, I think the GST isn't necessary the best tax to start cutting, but it beats increased taxes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Important to note that, according to the CBC, the Conservatives told them of the innaccuracy on income taxes. This wasn't an investigative journalist...the party told them of the problem.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Look we are really sorry if you are poor in this country, but hey we really care about our rich friends only and want to make them richer.
The Real SH.

"Tory plan would scrap Liberal tax cut on low-income earners"
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/06/taxes-tory060122.html

But don't you worry about it, we found a way to make sure some of you can still eat and our rich friends will feel even better because they will get even more tax deductions if they give to charity...


> Harper said his Conservatives would remove the capital gains tax on stock donations to charity to encourage Canadians to open their wallets.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...arper_tax_060107/20060107?s_name=election2006


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> At least they are being honest about their promises.


Oh you mean the promise to leave those tax cuts in place..........yeah right. 

Sounds like a champagne cork to me........premature exaltation indeed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The cost.......



> Jeffrey Simpson
> 
> By JEFFREY SIMPSON
> Saturday, January 7, 2006 Posted at 12:51 AM EST
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060107.wxsimps0107/BNStory/National/

ask indeed how......


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm guessing that a rather large cut in the massively expensive public sector would probably take care of much of the so-called "imbalance" or uncosted promises.

Sayyy....how about starting with all of those extra drones that come across the bridge from Hull each day to "work" in Ottawa? And we could also stop propping up Bombardier while they close factories and shift production to Mexico...

Dump the expensive and useless duck hunter's gun registry. that should trim a few billion. 

And...HEY...if they don't steal on the level of the previous outgoing Liberals, then there might be quite a lot of spare cash for real projects!

Stuff like that.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Yeah, see, that sounds good until you realize that there are a lot of Canadians who don't want the public sector cut too harshly. I mean, sure, gut the waste, but programs like Health Care and Child Care and etc. are programs that a lot of Canadians like and want to keep.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just think if the 2 billion wasted on registering pea shooters had been spent on health care. Waiting lines would be much shorter.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Did I say cut programs PB? I said cut the waste out of the public sector...which ,as we all know, is massively wasteful and hugely inefficient.

Much of the inefficiency is the direct result of decades of pandering to Quebec's own interests in order to "keep them in Confederation". This includes hiring lots of people from Hull to work in do-nothing jobs in this nations capital. It also includes propping up Quebec based companies like Bombardier et al with direct cash infusions of hard earned tax dollars.

Since Quebec has just elected a provincial government that is openly saying that it is committed to yet another referendum....and soverignty sympathies seem to be running at their highest level in la belle province in decades (despite all of the spending by the Liberals)...

Then I say cut that particular bit of fat out of the budget. And dump the ridiulously ineffective and horridly expensive gun registry as well. Add the money that we waste each year to the amount that wouldn't be stolen if the Libs weren't in the position to do their big skim and you might just find that there is more than enough spare cash around for all of the pet projects that actually DO help normal Canadians.

Not just wealthy Liberals and their close friends.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Since Quebec has just elected a provincial government that is openly saying that it is committed to yet another referendum....


Charest has said this?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Much of the inefficiency is the direct result of decades of pandering to Quebec's own interests in order to "keep them in Confederation". This includes hiring lots of people from Hull to work in do-nothing jobs in this nations capital. It also includes propping up Quebec based companies like Bombardier et al with direct cash infusions of hard earned tax dollars.


Only MacNutt could come up with such a distorted point of view. 
Any facts to back up that we hire work in do-nothing jobs in Ottawa?
Ottawa and Hull are closely linked and it's only natural that you have people from both cities working for one of the largest employers in the region. 
And, why don't you complain about the people from Ottawa that are hiring into these supposedly "do-nothing" jobs? I see the Neo-Con bigotry at work once again.

Easy to point finger at Bombardier but you omit many other companies that receive federal money. Of course MacNutt always back his statements with facts...  








MacNutt said:


> Since Quebec has just elected a provincial government that is openly saying that it is committed to yet another referendum....and soverignty sympathies seem to be running at their highest level in la belle province in decades (despite all of the spending by the Liberals)...


MacNutt, Jean Charest is a federalist and in all manners a Tory - he was their golden boy for the longest time. He did take over the provincial Liberals but has been running it like the Tories would. The unpopularity that he has in this province is partly due to the Tory way of mis-running any public office. 
Again, you can't get the simplest of facts straight, why should any credence be given to any utterance that you so easily spew?

Sovereignty sympathies are at the highest level in part because of the Federal Liberals and the way Tory golden boy Charest has been running the province. 
Like all Tory governments, he can't balance a budget, implements cuts and yet raises taxes on the poor and middle class (hello Mulroney).


Now, what has happened recently is that the PQ elected as their leader an openly gay politicians, who has said that he abused cocaine while he was a provincial minister. The PQ is committed to another referendum is they get into power. A character that would never make it as a politician outside of Quebec says alot about how different Quebec is....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Fence-sitters favour Liberals: Poll
> Results suggest 'tricky line to walk' for Conservatives*
> 
> Jan. 8, 2006. 01:57 PM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Harpers new colours....









'course there is this....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Tory spending promises would result in deficit,* Liberals say
> In addition, the Liberals say, the Conservatives would increase spending by about a billion dollars annually over the same period
> By GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Sunday, January 8, 2006 Posted at 12:38 AM EST
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060108.wdefic0108/BNStory/specialDecision2006/

I'd be very interested as well........biz community in Toronto awfully quiet about Harper.....wonder why.??


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Much of the inefficiency is the direct result of decades of pandering to Quebec's own interests in order to "keep them in Confederation". This includes hiring lots of people from Hull to work in do-nothing jobs in this nations capital. It also includes propping up Quebec based companies like Bombardier et al with direct cash infusions of hard earned tax dollars.


Funny and it's ok if the news didn't reach the outskirts of civilisation that is Salt Spring Island but last year Toyota announced a new plant in Ontario with Provincial and Federal help.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html

Laterz


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

K_OS said:


> Funny and it's ok if the news didn't reach the outskirts of civilisation that is Salt Spring Island ...


I'd like to say this once and for all because I hear this type of comment over and over again on ehMac.

Please don't associate MacNutt's uninformed views with the fact that he lives on Salt Spring Island - which is a part of the same region I live in - the Southern Gulf Islands. We are very well informed here and read, hear and see all the same news you get in Toronto. I've lived in both places and per capita, I would hazard a guess that residents here are more informed than your average Torontonian. Mr. MacNutt just happens to live amongst us. You have your share of MacNutts (or worse) living in Toronto as well.

Although our MP is a Conservative, in the polls from only the Gulf Islands and Salt Spring Island part of the riding, in the last federal election, the Green Party won the most votes, the NDP came second and the Cons came a distant third with 24 percent. You can check it out at Elections Canada. Our riding just happens to be glommed on to Saanich, the most conservative area on Vancouver Island and that's who keeps electing Conservatives. We are generally a pretty left-leaning socially liberal part of the country and views such as MacNutt's are not at all in the majority. No doubt he's so vociferous because he lives amongst so many lefties on SSI, that he's constantly in battle mode.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Although our MP is a Conservative, in the polls from only the Gulf Islands and Salt Spring Island part of the riding, in the last federal election, the Green Party won the most votes, the NDP came second and the Cons came a distant third with 24 percent. You can check it out at Elections Canada. Our riding just happens to be glommed on to Saanich, the most conservative area on Vancouver Island and that's who keeps electing Conservatives. We are generally a pretty left-leaning socially liberal part of the country and views such as MacNutt's are not at all in the majority. No doubt he's so vociferous because he lives amongst so many lefties on SSI, that he's constantly in battle mode.


Now I understand why you support PR so much. It's because you never get to elect the parties you support.

Maybe you need to move to East Vancouver.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Exactly Vandave.

Myself any many thousands of others who live in the Gulf Islands and SSI are in the same boat. It's not fair. Just the same for many conservatives who might be living in Vancouver East and have no chance of having their vote count for anything, because it's the safest NDP seat in Canada. My reasons for supporting PR are not only based on my own predicament, but for what is fair for everyone. My own predicament just allows me to see clearly how damn unfair it is.

If we have a democracy it should accurately represent the political views of it's citizen's both regionally and proportionately. My MP can pretty much not worry at all about what anyone on Salt Spring Island or the Gulf Islands thinks, which he does quite well, while catering to his base in Saanich.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Oh so it's just YOUR spin on "freefalling Liberals"..
> 
> Your freefall also does not show in the national polls.


Care to re-think that now?

The Conservatives have a solid 8+ point lead at the moment. Even Liberals are starting to see the trend:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...wxelxnliberals10/BNStory/specialDecision2006/


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Then there's THIS! http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b5edc6aa-ffff-417f-9899-99abafabed08&k=73198

The results were so stunning that the two newspapers that commisioned the poll (and the pollster as well) decided to sit on the results until after the english language debates.  

The Conservatives are making rapid gains in all regions and across all demographic groups. Including Quebec. If this keeps up...and all of the recent polls are telling us that it just might...then we are heading for a Conservative majority government after jan 23rd.

The Martin Liberals are, as I noted previously, in freefall.:heybaby:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Then there's THIS! http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b5edc6aa-ffff-417f-9899-99abafabed08&k=73198
> 
> The results were so stunning that the two newspapers that commisioned the poll (and the pollster as well) decided to sit on the results until after the english language debates.


From the same source:
"We felt it would be irresponsible to publish the poll results and risk affecting the course of the campaign without being more certain of the accuracy with a larger, more statistically credible sample. So we opted to wait a day and are augmenting the survey with additional interviews," he explained."

and of course
"Ironically, hours after refusing to rule out a Tory majority win, Harper criticized EKOS by name while chatting with reporters aboard his campaign plane in Hamilton on Saturday.
"They are, in my view, the least believable," he said. "Our people feel the momentum, but it is a statistical dead heat. ... There is over two weeks to go and a lot of things can happen. ... There is no certainty."

The polling firm that put the Cons ahead is called "the least believable" by Harper - LOL


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The polling firm that put the Cons ahead is called "the least believable" by Harper - LOL


Talking points: don't talk about majority, make it seem like a dead heat to the end.

Reason:fewer NDP-to-Liberal swingers, more Liberal-to-Conservative.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Makes sense to me. Wonder if anyone else can see it too? (artistseries?)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is only one poll that counts, the one that will be released around midnight on January 23rd.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed SINC. Polls can be completely wrong.

But we do seem to be seeing a trend here, eh? From pretty much every pollster, I might add.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> There is only one poll that counts, the one that will be released around midnight on January 23rd.


Will be over before that once the East votes...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Will be over before that once the East votes...


Sadly, you are right about that. The east rules Canada, plain and simple.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sorry SINC, could not resist that one (I'm an a** remember?).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not _always_ AS. You can be a lot of fun!


----------



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

Sinc, we here in the real east of Canada feel that Ontario and Quebec rules, which is west of the three Maritime provinces.......which are west of NL. My wife, who is from Calgary, is put off by the attitude of central Canada towards anything west of Kenora or east of Quebec City.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> My wife, who is from Calgary, is put off by the attitude of central Canada towards anything west of Kenora or east of Quebec City.


Where's that? 

Sounds like no man's land...


----------



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

Yes, we are in No Man's Land East, and you are in No Man's Land West. 

However, watch for the two ridings in NL -- St. John's East, and Avalon. The Conservatives have the incumbant in my riding of St.John's East, but the Liberals have a very strong candidate. Avalon was with the Liberals, but their candidate is not running this time due to health problems. If the Liberals pick up St.John's East, that is a good indicator for them, since they have only held this seat once since NL's joining Confederation in 1949. If the Conservatives pick up Avalon, which has been predominantly Liberal since 1949, this could mark a trend that will spill over eastward across Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals have 22 of the 32 seats in our four provinces. The Liberals have to go into Quebec and Ontario with these 22 seats or they are going to be in trouble. We shall see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Liberals ARE in trouble in Quebec - pretty much hopeless here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If the Liberals are lucky, their recently pulled attack ad will not see the light of day in the general public. Even for Harper-haters, it went way beyond reason.

It less than subtley equated more city military bases with military rule. It was beyond reason, substance or honour. They should have just focussed on Harper's own speeches if they wanted to attack Harper. Why make stuff up when you can use reality? Somehow that ad made it from the drawing board to production, before being cut. How did it make it beyond the drawing board?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> It less than subtley equated more city military bases with military rule. It was beyond reason, substance or honour. They should have just focussed on Harper's own speeches if they wanted to attack Harper. Why make stuff up when you can use reality? Somehow that ad made it from the drawing board to production, before being cut. How did it make it beyond the drawing board?


Sounds funny. I bet the reason they pulled it had more to do with the concern of people seeing right through it thus, giving them the impression the Liberals are grasping at anything now, rather than anything to do with honour.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> It was beyond reason, substance or honour. They should have just focussed on Harper's own speeches if they wanted to attack Harper. Why make stuff up when you can use reality?


Harper's speeches are readily available yet seem to have little impact. Easier not to think about them as THEY are scary.

The Con ads are dishonest and show that a smear campaign does work. So maybe the Libs decided to take a page from the Cons in that respect. Cons have not had any honour or honesty - it's been all for power with a secret agenda...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

More redirection. The ad went beyond the very generous boundaries that I see as politically pragmatic and publicly reasonable. Harper's speeches are appropriate content as is various Gomery/Fraser quotes. Quote his neocon speeches, by all means.

Who that has seen this now pulled ad finds it in line with common attack ads, all partisanship aside? In connection, who thought the 93' Chretien 'face' ad was in line with common attack ads and that it didn't go too far?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The Liberal Party put out an attack ad? When did they get a backbone/claws? No one would happen to have that saved anywhere would they?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That Chretien "face" ad went way over the line. And it backfired badly on the PC's, as I recall.

I haven't seen the pulled Liberal ad about military control of the cities. Sounds like a hoot!

( Pssstt...Got a link?):heybaby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm guessing that it's on the right in this link:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...attackads_060110/20060110?s_name=election2006

"...Harper and military presence" 

But I can't get it to work, so can't verify. It was pulled rather quickly (youth wing out of control on their PowerMacs?).

I am not a Harper fan (actually publicly stated that, forced to choose between Con and Lib, I'd pick Lib) and do think his current act is pragmatic politics rather than a change of heart...but the ad was beyond the line, just as I found the old Chretien 'face' ad.

Anybody have a link using Quicktime or (shudder) Realmedia, or just not from CTV.ca?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not working for me, either.

But I bet that this thing will get circulated around at some point during this campaign. I'm also betting it'll do more damage to the Liberals than help their failing campaign. They are looking so desperate right now...and Canadians are so fed up and cynical about the Libs these days...that something like this might just be the worst move they've made so far.

And that's saying something!tptptptp


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Got it working after installing Flip4Mac and somehow a file for all the ads loaded. From the other ads I skimmed, they're negative but seemingly within reason, consistent with the Conservative ads with their 'corruption' echo. 

The ad in question: The music (similar to ominous Terminator 2 music and common to the ad series) is played with a slow zoom in and focus on a black and white picture of Harper (all fair, just weak).

Words:
...
Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities.

Canadian cities.

Soldiers with guns.

In our cities.

In Canada.

We did not make this up.
...

I did not make that up.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Too funny! They actually SAID that?:lmao: :clap: 

No wonder they pulled the ad! I can hear the laughter already.

I guess it's official....the Liberals have sped right past "desperate" and are now deeply into "frantic". Next stop is "total irrelevance". (Maybe they should hit the brakes sometime soon).:lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I may find it funnier if the implications didn't bother me.

1) effin' sick
2) higher probability of Harper majority
3) professional spin doctors (ie career people) approved that? I wish I could be that bad at my job.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Many of the people who regularly report on Canadian political campaigns have been commenting on the lack of proffessionalism that Paul Martin's campaign team has shown so far. I seem to remember one pundit calling the Liberal election advisers a "bunch of young pups".

BTW...wasn't one of them already turfed for making some pretty stupid comments? I wasn't watching very closely due to Christmas...but I seem to remember something about this.

One has to wonder about a guy who wants to lead our country, but who can't seem to pick good people to work on his crew. Or who doesn't notice a few hundred million dollars missing from the piggybank when he's the one who's supposed to be watching it.

Hmmmmm.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Too funny! They actually SAID that?:lmao: :clap:


Actually Harper said that. He did say he would increase military bases around big cities.

Now the Cons have been presenting disjointed ads where they selective quote Gomery and entitements... 
tptptptp


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I am utterly and completely dismayed by these ads. I just can not believe that the Liberal Party put these ads out. This is not the Big Red Machine from '93 to 2000. Utterly disgusting tripe. 

It's propaganda plain and simple. Nazis everywhere would be proud.

NOTE: I said Liberal Party, not liberals, as I am sure most of you are just as disgusted by these ads as I am.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ghosts of Chretien's past. 

Martin is fighting his own weaknesses, a competitive Conservative team and leader, the Chretienites, past Liberal corruption, current Liberal problems (may be proven to be corruption, may not be). Not an easy challenge, but he doesn't seem to be rising to the occasion.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Actually Harper said that. He did say he would increase military bases around big cities.
> 
> Now the Cons have been presenting disjointed ads where they selective quote Gomery and entitements...
> tptptptp


True, but they don't have the Terminator 2 soundtrack playing in the background.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Actually Harper said that. He did say he would increase military bases around big cities.


The leap of logic from that to the ad's insinuations is beyond the other ads. This does not seem partisan at all, just blatantly too far and too stupid.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Agreed, the ad was stupid, which is no doubt why they won't put it on the air. AFAIK, it never made it to TV, I don't know about the others.

The others are all true though. What possible problem could anyone have with the Liberals using Harper's own words. As Martin said in the debate, why doesn't Harper just deny that he said those things, if they're lies as the Cons are claiming? The worst in my opinion was the racist comment he made about Western Liberal MPs living in Asian ghettos. That comment was as bad as some of the things that Manning had to evict some of his Reform ******* pals for.

So which Canada is Harper standing up for there, _white Canada?_ If he says crap like that in public it makes you wonder what he really thinks and says when he's hanging out with his homeboys.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Agreed, the ad was stupid, which is no doubt why they won't put it on the air. AFAIK, it never made it to TV, I don't know about the others.
> 
> The others are all true though. What possible problem could anyone have with the Liberals using Harper's own words. As Martin said in the debate, why doesn't Harper just deny that he said those things, if they're lies as the Cons are claiming? The worst in my opinion was the racist comment he made about Western Liberal MPs living in Asian ghettos. That comment was as bad as some of the things that Manning had to evict some of his Reform ******* pals for.
> 
> So which Canada is Harper standing up for there, _white Canada?_ If he says crap like that in public it makes you wonder what he really thinks and says when he's hanging out with his homeboys.


I completely agree GA. However, the format that they presented them in, the emotional music, the short terse wording is not informative, it's just... crap. They could have sent these out in a much better format.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

D E S P E R A T I O N
That's all there is here mugatu. That's all they have left.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Agreed, the ad was stupid, which is no doubt why they won't put it on the air.
> ...
> The others are all true though.
> ...
> it makes you wonder what he really thinks and says when he's hanging out with his homeboys.


I haven't seen all the other ads, but they seem fair (as far as fair goes in this sad game). It's good to see some acknowledgement that the ad I brought to attention stands out in a bad way, despite personal partisan leanings and anti-leanings. We don't need to be partisan here.

Harper is responsible to stand by what he has said, or convince Canada he has changed and/or convince Canada he will compromise because that is the nature of party politics. On the other hand, Harper can just run against the Liberals instead.

This ad was way out of line. Proof: pulled before it ran. But why was it even produced? The script by itself was clearly messed up...the visuals are somewhat irrelevant and ham-handed.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Paul Martin can't say 'I'm sorry' or 'Something will be done'. How can anyone believe him anymore? He's gone far past the boy who cried wolf phase.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> I completely agree GA. However, the format that they presented them in, the emotional music, the short terse wording is not informative, it's just... crap. They could have sent these out in a much better format.


IMO, it's about time someone attempted to nail Harper with his own statements. The guy's a creep as far as I'm concerned. As far as the music etc. that's not any different from the Con attack ads. No doubt there's a risk that the negativity might turn some people off, but the Libs are engaged in a political contest and this is how they think they need to play it coming from behind in the polls. Negative ads sometimes work. What should work is the fact that Harper has said some telling things that should let people know where he is really coming from.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ....it makes you wonder what he really thinks and says when he's hanging out with his homeboys.


Actually I've heard that Harper is really quite personable and even witty in private, when amongst friends. Many reporters have described him as a "nice guy". But he's known to go all wooden when the bright lights go on.

Oddly enough, most of us mere mortals would do the same. It's guys like smilin Jack who really seem phoney to me. Normal people don't look or act that smooth when the whole world is watching. Guy's slicker than whale snot.

That freaks me out a bit.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Paul Martin can't say 'I'm sorry' or 'Something will be done'. How can anyone believe him anymore? He's gone far past the boy who cried wolf phase.


Ads have been pulled no?

Harper did not fair well in the debate (language of course), Duceppe shined but he's been at this long enough....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Actually I've heard that Harper is really quite personable and even witty in private, when amongst friends. Many reporters have described him as a "nice guy".


A nice guy as far as fellow racists are concerned?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> IMO, it's about time someone attempted to nail Harper with his own statements. The guy's a creep as far as I'm concerned. As far as the music etc. that's not any different from the Con attack ads. No doubt there's a risk that the negativity might turn some people off, but the Libs are engaged in a political contest and this is how they think they need to play it coming from behind in the polls. Negative ads sometimes work. What should work is the fact that Harper has said some telling things that should let people know where he is really coming from.


All true. I am definately not argueing that. The Conservative Party attacks just don't have that feeling (at least to me) of utter and complete desparation. The Liberal Party ad(s) just look like they'll do anything to win. It's like you are seeing a frame by frame of the Liberal Party throwing off all it's past accomplishments for one last desparate grab at power. 

Heh, I always thought the Liberal Party was above this sort of thing. Guess not. They lost my vote... wait, I'm voting Green anyways.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A nice guy as far as fellow racists are concerned?


Now YOU are beginning to sound desperate too, GA. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mike Duffy is hammering Lib. spinner Duffy on the ad. There is no liberal media bias, as many have said for a while. The media goes after blood, red or blue.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Now YOU are beginning to sound desperate too, GA. :lmao:


Harper's statement, you judge Mr. MacNutt, racist or not, and why?

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Not ancient history either, not too long before Harpo became the leader.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Now YOU are beginning to sound desperate too, GA. :lmao:


Not desperate when it's the truth MacNutt...


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ads have been pulled no?
> 
> Harper did not fair well in the debate (language of course), Duceppe shined but he's been at this long enough....


Does it matter if they have been? They came up with the idea, thought out the script, storyboarded it, produced it and got it to the point that CTV has them on file. That's not 'oops', that's blatant. Just like the Conservatives in '93. I'm so happy that no party is on morally secure footing. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..... here we come January 23rd!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GA...perhaps you'd like to take this moment to review the Canadian Conservative Party and see how many of it's most prominent candidates are "not-white" to put it bluntly.

As for Harper's out of context comment...how is this racist? It sounds realist, not racist. Just the way it is.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not desperate when it's the truth MacNutt...


Several people here at ehmac have commented on how desperate the Libs sound these days. Several here have also commented on the fact that the anti-Liberal ads that the Conservatives are airing right now simply use well known headlines from national newspapers and quotes from the Gomery report to skewer the Liberals.

This is fact. This is truth. 

The fearmongering that the Libs are putting out...especially with this over the top ad that was just pulled...is NOT truth or fact.

It's just desperation. Pure and simple.:lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> GA...perhaps you'd like to take this moment to review the Canadian Conservative Party and see how many of it's most prominent candidates are "not-white" to put it bluntly.
> 
> As for Harper's out of context comment...how is this racist? It sounds realist, not racist. Just the way it is.


People who live in ghettoes? Realist? Sometimes you still manage to surprise me MacNutt. Of course if you agree with the comments, well what can anyone say?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)


The comment is an example of profound misunderstanding of Canada and it's politics. Canadian politics is not about identifying what any pollster can tell you about some Liberal support in the 1990s...that's always the past. It's about convincing a broad group of people that you have the better plan for the future. Standard partisan myopic interpretation. [Edit: clarify - the 'why don't they vote for us' approach instead of 'why should they vote for us'... messes up causality]

Racism? Maybe underlying that, but the statement itself is more of an unpolitical read of politics. As I've said before, the Libs should have stuck to real Harper quotes (like most of the ads), if they wanted to attack. The 'military' ad went too far.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The fearmongering that the Libs are putting out...especially with this over the top ad that was just pulled...is NOT truth or fact.


It's all been well documented MacNutt and Harper won't deny that he said those things.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm watching the post-debate discussions on Newsnet right now. Much of the talk is about the recently pulled "Bad AD"

The Liberal adviser is deeply into defensive mode...as was Paul Martin when he was queried about this very same ad, right after the debate ended.

Suggestions are now being made that Paul Martin and the Liberals should make a public apology to the Canadian Military. YIKES!

Man...this thing is gonna come back and HAUNT these silly clowns in the next few days. Like they needed more problems.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/10/liberal-ads060110.html said:


> Another ad questions why Harper has not released his list of donors for his leadership campaign and implies he may have had help from American conservatives.
> 
> "We do know he's very popular with right-wingers in the U.S." the ad states. "They had money. Maybe they helped. We just don't know."


Why couldn't they just have said: 'Why hasn't Stephen Harper listed his donors from his party leader campaign?' I mean, jebus, we're not stupid, we get what you are getting at, you don't actually have to spell it out.

They might as well have said 'Harper got his campaign funds from....
...
...
*SATAN!!!!!!*' 

Doo-dee-doo-dee Liberal Party splash.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Just like the 'face' ad against Chretien, some Libs and anti-Cons will defend it or portray it as no worse than other ads, but time will judge this ad. 

Time may judge it as irrelevant and not out of the ordinary, but I hope it goes down as a strong reminder to political parties that there is a line.

[Edit: I'm talking about the 'military presence ad']


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Like I said...this one's gonna come back and HAUNT the Liberal Party. 

Let's see now...a leader who can't seem to choose good people to work around him, and has demonstrated that he isn't watching when hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars get stolen (even though, as Finance Minister, he was the one who was supposed to be watching this)....
And his party is mired deep in scandals. Has been, for some time now. Police investigations are EVERYWHERE!

Yep. This is EXACTLY the guy we should put in charge of running the country all right. Oh yeahhhh....sign me up baby!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Why couldn't they just have said: 'Why hasn't Stephen Harper listed his donors from his party leader campaign?' I mean, jebus, we're not stupid, we get what you are getting at, you don't actually have to spell it out.
> 
> They might as well have said 'Harper got his campaign funds from....


Because for the most part voters are simple minded. And yes, you do have to spell it out. Most people don't look past their backyard when it comes to politics. 
Never under estimate the stupidity of voters. Just look at MACNUTT.... 

pss Martin is in charge of the country at the moment.... 
He has balanced the budget something the Cons have NEVER done.
Harper who REFUSES to stand by STATEMENTS he has done in PAST - what's he hiding? Could it be a hidden Agenda? :lmao:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Because for the most part voters are simple minded. And yes, you do have to spell it out. Most people don't look past their backyard when it comes to politics.
> Never under estimate the stupidity of voters. Just look at MACNUTT....
> 
> pss Martin is in charge of the country at the moment....
> ...


I just thought I'd quote this particular reply by artistseries. So we could all get a second look at it. It says....mmmmm....soooo much... 

(I'm enjoin this! It's more fun than XBox 360!)


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Could it be a hidden Agenda? :lmao:


How do you know there's an agenda if it's hidden?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think it falls under the heading of "last ditch desperation" mugatu.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Gerry, have no problem with my statements about Canadian voters. Voter turnout is a problem, people are influenced by headlines and don't really explore issues.

Many times you have been taken to task and you squirm and divert and do everything but answer a direct question. For example you keep on alluding to this magical private health care in Europe but have been unable to even elaborate on your statements beyond some pre-canned sound-byte. One of the few that has been able to advance the debate is Beej. 

When it comes to advertising, I'm surprised that some take offence when the Cons have been running ads about Martin ships registry and where he gets his use of private health care that are just as shameful. Of course the Liberals and others have to be held to another standard. 

Now Harper has been a lobby with the National Citizens Coalition and involved with Canadian Alliance Party. His right-wing agenda is still there but he prefers to try and divert from. Harper has taken the federal government to court to remove political advertising during elections - shade of our neighbour to the south surely....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Where do I start....ohhhh NOOOOO.... I just CAN'T do it! (but I'd sure like to) :lmao: 

You give me far to much material to work with, artistseries. I'd feel terribly guilty if I took advantage of this situation. Might even keep me awake...giggling like a twelve year old who's just pulled the ultimate prank on a good friend. So I won't.

Have a nice evening, artistseries. All the best.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mugatu said:


> How do you know there's an agenda if it's hidden?


NOW we're getting somewhere!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Gerry, have no problem with my statements about Canadian voters. Voter turnout is a problem, people are influenced by headlines and don't really explore issues.
> 
> Many times you have been taken to task and you squirm and divert and do everything but answer a direct question. For example you keep on alluding to this magical private health care in Europe but have been unable to even elaborate on your statements beyond some pre-canned sound-byte. One of the few that has been able to advance the debate is Beej.


^^ how about answering some of those Gerry?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We should all really go a bit easier on artistseries, SINC. Really.

(I'm starting to feel a bit guilty here...):yikes:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> ^^ how about answering some of those Gerry?


Don't rush into anything Macnutt. Seems to me that central Canada has a lot more to answer to us, than we to them over the course of the last 25 years or so, don't they?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So, it's safe to assume that once again you can't answer a single question.
Now, I'm not the only one who has asked you to answer questions or for you to justify your false and misleading allegations. 
Part of the course with you... really tells a lot about you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Don't rush into anything Macnutt. Seems to me that central Canada has a lot more to answer to us, than we to them over the course of the last 25 years or so, don't they?


I'm asking for Gerry to explain his stance on private health care - he should try to use complete sentences. Wonder if he can do that....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> So, it's safe to assume that once again you can't answer a single question.
> Now, I'm not the only one who has asked you to answer questions or for you to justify your false and misleading allegations.
> Part of the course with you... really tells a lot about you.


I'm assuming that english is not your primary language, artistseries. "Part of the course" should actually be "par for the course". (It's a golf reference).

Given this...I feel that you've done astoundingly well at this forum so far. Amazingly well, actually. Far better than I'd have done in either of my two secondary languages during any sort of heated debate with a group of people who were speaking their primary language.

My hats off to you. You done good! REALLY!

But now it's time for me to head off to bed. I've really enjoyed our exchange here...and I'd be very willing to continue this sometime later. Perhaps tomorrow?

Looking forward to it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Many times you have been taken to task and you squirm and divert and do everything but answer a direct question. For example you keep on alluding to this magical private health care in Europe but have been unable to even elaborate on your statements beyond some pre-canned sound-byte. One of the few that has been able to advance the debate is Beej.


Warning.... Fraser Institute Study.....

I'll only quote facts to keep things civil...

• Estimates indicate that Canada spends more on health care than all OECD nations with “universal access” health care systems save Iceland and Switzerland.
• Canada does not rank first in any of the seven health care outcome categories or in any of the comparisons of access to care, supply of technologies, or supply of physicians.
• No country in the industrialized world other than Canada outlaws a parallel private health care system for their citizens.
• All three countries that out-perform Canada on the cumulative rank for mortality amenable to health care, potential years of life lost, mortality from breast cancer, and mortality from colorectal cancer have private health care alternatives to the public system and some form of user fees at the point of access; none spends more than Canada after age adjustment.

We spend the most, yet we aren't performing anywhere near the best. European countries with different health care models are getting more for the health care dollars. You do the math.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What vandave said. Read it.

Or get stuck back in the old ways. The ways that have been abandoned by pretty much EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET THAT HAS PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

Those would be the ones where the only answer seems to be "throw more money at the problem...and just hope for the best".

Good luck with THAT!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I'm assuming that english is not your primary language, artistseries. "Part of the course" should actually be "par for the course". (It's a golf reference).


Thank you for the idiom correction.



MacNutt said:


> Given this...I feel that you've done astoundingly well at this forum so far. Amazingly well, actually. Far better than I'd have done in either of my two secondary languages during any sort of heated debate with a group of people who were speaking their primary language.


Well Gerry, it's been rather difficult to lower my language standards to one that you could comprehend. I regret to say that I have failed miserably...
Well, maybe not in lowering my standards. I think that the problem is elsewhere. It may have to do with trying to communicate with an utter and complete moron. 




MacNutt said:


> My hats off to you. You done good! REALLY!


I wish I could say the same about you. Sadly, you have demonstrated why the "ignore" feature exist on forums.





MacNutt said:


> But now it's time for me to head off to bed. I've really enjoyed our exchange here...and I'd be very willing to continue this sometime later. Perhaps tomorrow?)


I'm glad you enjoyed it. Now are you sure you are leaving Ehmac for the evening? Would not want you to repost after this and once again show what kind of.... well you get the picture...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Warning.... Fraser Institute Study.....
> 
> I'll only quote facts to keep things civil...
> 
> ...


Vandave, what are the other countries doing better than Canada and how do we translate this to our system?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, what are the other countries doing better than Canada and how do we translate this to our system?


Multiple delivery options with private sector involvement.

It's easy to translate. We don't have to do this overnight. Let's start in one area, say the GTA. Let's see what works and what doesn't. If private delivery methods work better than public, then let's use it. More health care delivery per dollar appeals to me.

I still want to keep universal access and that should be the underlying foundation of the whole system.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well Gerry, it's been rather difficult to lower my language standards to one that you could comprehend. I regret to say that I have failed miserably...
> Well, maybe not in lowering my standards. I think that the problem is elsewhere. It may have to do with trying to communicate with an utter and complete moron.


Too cool! I haven't been called an "utter and complete moron" for about three years or so.  

Nice of you to have noticed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed it. Now are you sure you are leaving Ehmac for the evening? Would not want you to repost after this and once again show what kind of.... well you get the picture...


And you so easily show me why I think you are dishonest (all the while reinforcing my opinion of you).
Later Gerry 
:yawn:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you so easily show me why I think you are dishonest (all the while reinforcing my opinion of you).
> Later Gerry
> :yawn:


Not bad. Three seperate personal insults towards me....and all on one single page! And done in a secondary language (I'm assuming).

BRAVO. That's almost a record!  

Looking forward to our next exchange, artistseries. Really!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave,

Thank you for providing what was by far the most convincing argument I've seen for having a private delivery option for our health care system. Am I convinced yet? No. But it's something I concrete I can look into instead of hearing the same old arguments bandied about.

Though to be truthful, I jumped into the end of this thread so late in the game because I couldn't sleep, and I was hoping some same old arguments would help.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What Europe has done to solve the same problems that they've had with their similar publicly-funded national health care systems bears a closer look.

They have similar systems to us. But they seem to have solved both the costing question and at the same time have reduced their waiting lists to virtually zero.

And they spend the same or even LESS on their health care, than we Canadians do!

Everyone in these countries...even the seriously poor...have total and equal access to their universal national health care system. NOBODY WAITS! They get treatment that very week. Not two or three years later! (like in Canada)

And the facilities are even better than our Canadian ones are. By all accounts. 

We really need to look at this. It certainly seems to be working.

And our current Canadian health care system certainly doesn't. By all accounts.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hey! Just heard an insider rumor that the Conservatives are now polling in the low-to-mid forty per cent level, pretty much all across the country...while the dying Martin Liberals are sinking fast through the low twenties. And still falling!

This indicates what all of the pundits are saying right now...that we may just be headed for a clear Conservative majority. And the Liberal party might suffer the same sort of political wipeout that the now defunct PC party went through, back in the early nineties.

Not sure if this can be substantiated. But it certainly follows current trends.  

I'll look for more on this tomorrow.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

We're getting a bit heated here. Everyone can relax a bit more as you don't need to end up falling to insulting members personally. Whether it be Macnutt or ArtistSeries, name calling sucks and isn't ehMac.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I see that the serious personal insults have now been edited out of the posts by artistseries. Prehaps Chealion might have had something to do with this. 

Whatever. I really don't mind personal insults at all. They let me know when I'm winning an argument (when people have to fall back on insults, then they have run out of gas and are lashing out in the most basic way. They've already lost the argument at that point).

But ehmac is a polite forum. Unlike many of the others out there. We don't swear (without asterisks) and we generally don't devolve into personal insults. At least publicly.

Anyone who might want to insult me in any way may feel free to do so via personal messages. I'll read them, honest.In fact...I'll probably enjoy them! Fly at it!

Just keep this forum clean. Okay?

We like it that way around here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I see that the serious personal insults have now been edited out of the posts by artistseries. Prehaps Chealion might have had something to do with this.


Gerry, nothing I wrote has been edited out (at this moment).
Your paranoia is showing. Comprehension is something that seems to be a problem for you. Strange, as English seems to be your first language...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Had they been edited, there would be a line advising it had been done at the bottom of the post, would it not Chealion?

So far, I see no evidence of any editing.


----------



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

Hidden agenda -ummm.... well what about Stephen Harpers previous promises to allow a free vote on abortion? Not one utterance in this campaign. What ARE his views on this today? Will he pander to the evangelicals? What about his views on weapons in space? Mr. Harper has effectively crammed the pipeline with a variety of "new" policies such that the old policies have been forgotten - but have they? The new policies are less radical than the old but are they replacing them or simply obscuring them until the Conservatives are in power? To read the papers and watch the news, you'd think the Conservative Party solely consisted to Mr. Harper (and a bit of Monty Solberg). Where's the rest of the "team"? Where's Gurmant Grewel and wife?

Coming back to healthcare and the Fraser Institute. There IS a reason we outlaw private medicine (actually, we don't but professionals who offer private services have to opt out of the public system). That is because we share the continent with the largest medical industry in the world which extracts the highest per capita cost of any system in the world. I don't exactly see evidence of reform south of the border. 

I do agree that there should be experimentation of different systems. However, we have to realise that the fundamental issues of universal and EQUAL access are incompatible with a "two tier" system. If Canadians are willing to allow some people to get better care because they happen to be able to afford it then 2 tier healthcare will cause injection of more money into the system. To me, its a simple issue of whether healthcare access should be a fundamental human right or a commodity. Given the inequities in every other aspect of our lives, I would hate to relinquish the fact that we operate our system with the requirement for equity and not ability to pay. To me, this helps define our National principles and we need to get it right. It's too important to simply give up.

BTW, the National Health Service in the UK is not an example I would use to promote two-tier healthcare. It is in a crisis that pales to our system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I do agree that there should be experimentation of different systems.


Trouble is that every time any government tries to experiment, the health care whackos come out of the woodwork screaming and hollering without even giving the system a chance to be modified. The so called friends of medicare are the very worst example of this "no way but our way" crowd.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> To me, its a simple issue of whether healthcare access should be a fundamental human right or a commodity. Given the inequities in every other aspect of our lives, I would hate to relinquish the fact that we operate our system with the requirement for equity and not ability to pay. To me, this helps define our National principles and we need to get it right. It's too important to simply give up.


Working within the system to make it better, now that's a novel ideal! 
Agree with you and I'm a little frustrated by the bold claims without backing them up.
I don't like government in my life but when it comes to basic rights then I feel that as a society we should completely be behind certain endeavours. Health care, childcare and education amongst other. Instead of always attacking the system, we should also be looking at the root causes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've been referring to the modified health care systems in some European countries to suggest that we might want to take a closer look at how they've managed to end waiting lists by allowing private medical care to take the pressure off of the national system. I've referred to France and Germany several times. As far as I know Switzerland also has parallel systems.

But I don't ever recall referring to the British health care system as a model of success. From what I hear, it's being changed and modified as we speak...but the same fearmongering and strong union sentiments that are keeping Canada mired in the past are also at play in British health care. And that may be why it isn't seen as a model of success. At least not at this point.

I say what's so wrong with taking a good hard look at the systems that are similar to ours...universal national health care...and that seem to be doing very well at delivering timely services to ALL of the citizens? Especially if they seem to be able to do this while spending the same per capita as we do? Some of these places actually manage to do this while spending even LESS than we do here in Canada.

Shouldn't we take a look at that? Consider the possibilities?

Instead of just freaking out and pointing towards the USA and saying "EEK EEK!" each time anyone mentions fixing our broken universal health care system?

Just a thought.


----------



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

There have been studies and you can bet that a large number of ministries of health across the nation are well aware of these systems. However, it is not just a case of adopting another healthcare practice. There are fundamental issues at stake including the fact that we are not actually located in europe and, instead, have a hungry behemoth to our south. You might notice that all of the companies and organizations calling for introduction of private medicine are either US based or have close ties to US companies.

Just an observation.

BTW, one reason the NHS is in dire straits is because of bleeding of staff from NHS facilities to the private sector - along with the NHS being responsible for bailing out bankrupt private institutions. It's hardly a union issue. For example, my mother in the UK is battling a ward closure where my father is cared for. Why are they closing the ward? Because its end of year and the budget has to be balanced. It's a chronic care ward for the elderly.


----------



## Canuckmakem (Jan 12, 2006)

Just read this http://www.harperwatch.ca and tell me you'll still vote Conservative.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Canuckmakem said:


> Just read this http://www.harperwatch.ca and tell me you'll still vote Conservative.


OK, I read it and I am still a Conservative. It's kind of compares to all the lies out there about Paul Martin's company registering ships outside Canada.

Oh, wait, that's the truth. Sorry. Got mixed up there for a minute!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sinc, how about this one? Bloc-Harper.com
http://www.bloc-harper.com/blocharper/blocteam.htm


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Canuckmakem said:


> Just read this http://www.harperwatch.ca and tell me you'll still vote Conservative.


I am voting Conservative and I am proud of it. Haven't heard too many Liberal supporters say that.

T - 12 days....

The Liberals are starting to get negative, as expected. Funny how that gets mirrored on this webpage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The Liberals are starting to get negative, as expected. Funny how that gets mirrored on this webpage.


And the Cons, to be honest, have run negative ads since the beginning of the campaign (as predicted). About time the Liberals got into the act...

So did you look up the quote where Harper said he would boost military presence in the big cities?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So did you look up the quote where Harper said he would boost military presence in the big cities?


Ya, it's actually a good idea.

Look what happened in New Orleans. It took the miltary a while to get there.

Here on the west coast, the nearest army base is in Edmonton. Imagine if the west coast got hit by a tsunami or earthquake.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So it was FACT?

(the ad... well maybe too effective as the Liberals are in full spin mode today)

You forgot to mention "imagine if Toronto gets a snowstorm"...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So it was FACT?
> 
> (the ad... well maybe too effective as the Liberals are in full spin mode today)
> 
> You forgot to mention "imagine if Toronto gets a snowstorm"...


No, it was fearmongering. They are suggesting the Conservatives would create a police state. They might as well dress Harper up like a Nazi while they are at it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sour grapes there.
Harper has stated that he would be sending troops in big cities.

The ads made you infer the rest.
Tit for tat. I mean the Cons have been running a campaign of distorting the Gomery report since the beginning.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> They are suggesting the Conservatives would create a police state


You mean like their current US fellow travellers.....just how far so you think that's off the deep cover agenda. Wanna do the fascism list indicators again......

Fortunately their will be serious dilution tho if the Neanderthals ( John Tory's words not mine) start getting noisy.............it's a long time to election day.

The Republican melt down in the US sort of puts paid to the "we're inherently more honest" nonsense.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5360980

Then there is also the example of the montrous deficit state thanks to NeoCon dogma to the south. SUCH a reassuring model 

I'm not fond of attack ads on either side, the harping on Gomery is juvenile in the extreme. But if Harper puts up a smoke screen, a bit of hot air to clear fog may be in order.
The Liberals need a time in opposition but this version of conservatism....yuck.

A Tony Blair NDP would sit far better. Ontario spanked the Liberals provincially and popped Bob Rae into power and in hindsight 'twas far better choice than Mike Harris and Co.

Fiscally responsible Labour is in power and doing well both in Britain and Australia..........food for thought.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The Liberals need a time in opposition but this version of conservatism....yuck.
> 
> A Tony Blair NDP would sit far better.


Yes, they need time in opposition and this version of conservatism will be a good change for our country. Finally.

LOL... The NDP has rejected the third way made popular by Tony Blair. The NDP won't be looking in the mirror for a long time before they decide to make real change. Their supporters are too single minded with their own pet issues.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Yes, they need time in opposition and this version of conservatism will be a good change for our country. Finally.


Which version of conservatism is that? The centrist sounding one they are trying to sell to Ontario or the one that Stockwell Day and hosts of other social-conservative Conservative candidates have been told to keep their mouths shut about?

The one where Harper says he won't re-open the abortion issue or the one that has anti-abortionist Con candidates across the country saying no comment when asked about the issue?

Is it the version of conservatism where Harper says he won't send our troops along to any US oil wars, or the one where Harper wants us to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with our Republican US allies?

Are we talking about the version of conservatism where Stephen Harper says "Stand up for Canada" or the one where he says "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"?

So do you mean the version of conservatism where Harper claims a new found love for the Canada Health Act or the one where his boy MP Jason Kenney says "I do support the idea of private health care"? Or when Harper himself said: "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party"?

Is it the version of conservatism that believes in the equality of women or the one espoused by Conservative Candidate and religious right organizer David Sweet when he testifies: "There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow. Men, on the other hand, had to be called"?

So are we contemplating the version of conservatism where Harper would grudgingly allow gays and lesbians to have civil unions (just not get married) or the brand that Conservative Elsie Wayne promoted when she told gays and lesbians to just shut up about their lifestyle because we live in a society founded on Christian values?

There are so many examples I could go on all night. It's confusing because this version of conservatism that is getting successfully sold right now is not the same brand that Harper and everyone else in the Reform movement have been trying to unsuccessfully sell to Canadians for years. 

So which version of conservatism are we talking about exactly here? I understand you believe in socially liberal fiscal conservatism. I don't know if that is the version a lot of the folks in the new Conservative party believe in. Just thought it might be nice to know before we actually crown the new kings.

Or maybe the socially liberal fiscal conservatives are in such a hurry to get Harper in Sussex Drive that they don't really care which version they're talking about, as long as it gets them there?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Ya, it's actually a good idea.
> 
> Look what happened in New Orleans. It took the miltary a while to get there.
> 
> Here on the west coast, the nearest army base is in Edmonton. Imagine if the west coast got hit by a tsunami or earthquake.


We would have to ask the USA for trucks and Russia for transport planes in order to get the troops from Edmonton to the West Coast.


----------

