# Worth calling an election over?



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Afghanistan could be Tory Waterloo
> ALEXANDER PANETTA
> Canadian Press
> OTTAWA — The opposition parties are threatening to pull the plug on the Tory minority government over its handling of the mission in Afghanistan.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061211.wblocafgh1211/BNStory/National/home

So which is it...saving face after Quebec nation mess or ??

Well this was supposed to be a poll but something went awry ;(

Comments?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

tory numbers in the toilet
duceppe sees a chance to work with a dion let minority gov't much easier than the harpocrites with their open-ness, but then have the deputy ministers spy and report to harper on the ministers themselves

its so 1984 that it makes me ill

call an election
it will be 200 million or so well spent

canadians want a new direction and i want to see dion and duceppe take on harper in a televised debate and make "poutine" out of him and his "policies"


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Certainly how war is waged or whether it should be waged is an issue worthy of pulling support for government. 

Hopefully though, the committee modified, amended, beefed up "clean air act" will be passed before this government falls. As soon as this key legislation is passed, they parties should move no-confidence in the government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We've got to have a version of Godwin's Law for referencing "1984." Not so you lose the argument outright--just so you have to read the book again and then write a test about it.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Hmmm, fighting an election over Afghanistan might be good for the BQ but I'm less sure that's were the Liberals want to go. Their policy on Afghanistan needs to take firmer shape and I think the last poll (Environics?) had Canadians divided almost 50-50 on the mission. Defeat the Tories on the war and the war, not the environment where the Liberals definitely stand out from the Tories, becomes the election issue.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I definitely think the Liberals would be stupid to sink the government over Afghanistan. It's their mess in the first place. The Tories have just been dealing with the mess that was left with them. As much as the other parties would love to pull out of there, we do have to worry about what message gets sent to the rest of the world by doing it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The two issues are important enough (Afghanistan, climate change) to justify sinking a government. The politics? Timing is everything. 

I think Harper would like to fall on 1) His next budget, 2) Afghanistan, 3) Almost everything else, 4) Climate change.

Dion, maybe: 1) Climate change, 2) Everything else, 3)Afghanistan? This one is murkier to me.

Bloc: 1) When winning conditions present themselves, 2) see 1. They're nervous about Dion; maybe they prefer taking their chances now versus waiting and seeing?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Politics aside, I'm curious how Duceppe, Layton and Dion propose that our soldiers lay down our guns and pick up their estwings while bullets are zinging over their heads? Makes as much sense as proposing the bouncers sweep the bar floors while a brawl is going on. Maybe they'll propose a construction version of this, complete with tool belt and steal toes.









Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Politics aside, I'm curious how Duceppe, Layton and Dion propose that our soldiers lay down our guns and pick up their estwings while bullets are zinging over their heads? Makes as much sense as proposing the bouncers sweep the bar floors while a brawl is going on. Maybe they'll propose a construction version of this, complete with tool belt and steal toes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



perhaps harper will have to explain why his gov't expanded the mission to search and destroy and why cdn. casualties are twice that of British

it's obvious that harpo used our brave men and women to curry favour with the americans by doing the real dirty work in afghanistan while u.s. forces were x-ferred to iraq

other countries, most notably continental europeans, have strict rules on where and how their troops are used

as long as the u.s. was making only a half hearted effort in afghanistan i don't see why our soldiers need to be doing the worst jobs
i guess so that we could get back only 4 out of 5 billion stolen from canadians vis a vis the softwood lumber tarriff


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Harper expanded the mission to search and destroy?

Better check your facts. If the Libs want to bring down the government because of Afghanistan they have some explaining to do. I don't think Dion would dare bring down the government on this issue. The Cons will eat the Libs for lunch on this one. There is a HUGE misperception about who did what and when. You can bet that in an election campaign the Cons will rectify the ignorance of people like Mac and much of the general populace.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Spectrum
I said politics aside. How do you propose we make a complete transition to rebuilding only while people are about that are trying to kill us? If you don't or can't secure the place, the only option is a complete with-drawl in my opinion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martin had our troops coming home feb 2007
harper et al extended it by at least 2 years along with the help of Liberal right wing cronies like Iggy
and Iggy got what he deserved - no leadership, no PM,


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Spectrum
> I said politics aside. How do you propose we make a complete transition to rebuilding only while people are about that are trying to kill us? If you don't or can't secure the place, the only option is a complete with-drawl in my opinion.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver



when did i say a complete transition to rebuilding?
there is no black or white
i want our troops in the same kind of mission that say the Dutch or Brits have
enough of our men and women dying at double the rate of the Brits
time for someone else to do some heavy lifting

and Dion's position is similar to your last statement
if our troops are being mis-used and rebuilding isn't possible, then it's time to bring them home, or so i understood him in his CBC interview with Mansbridge

Dion also used the phrase "some sort of Marshal plan" which is what sits very well with me
that requires a coordinated effort with all parties
if there is no will for such coordination then we should withdraw


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

The Bloc would love to have an election next year to coincide with a possible provincial election. This way, they could determine where the soft-core nationalists are sitting. And being able to demonize Dion, the father of the clarity act, and Charest, a very federalist premier, is very tantalizing. But be careful what you wish for, as Boiclair as PQ leader, is definitely no saviour of the Quebecois, and Duceppe is just a puppet for the hard-core nationalists who pull the strings of the PQ. 2007 will definitely be interesting for Quebec-Canada.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> Harper expanded the mission to search and destroy?


Odd how when Harper took ownership of this war and changed the mission the soldiers started dropping like flys...

Nevertheless seems that our dictator there is not too happy:


> With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai lamented yesterday that Afghan children were being killed by NATO and U.S. bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan -- a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiralling chaos.
> 
> In a heartfelt speech, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/12/11/2736095-sun.html

Now if Harper had given proper time for a debate, this would be a different political matter. 

As it stands, this is a waste of time and resources - do we need to let things degenerate into Iraq-like conditions to wake up? 

As for the motion, one more reason to like Duceppe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Many viewpoints 
My take

I think this is mostly political on Duceppe's part as he's surely lost ground.

The Libs would not dare bring the gov down on this despite the favourable polls.

I'd let Harper run the mission, he's the author of this phase and has to live or die on it's success and it's too early to pull out of an extended NATO commitment, not too early to change tactics as suggested.

At this point it's Harper's deal and Duceppes lever. I also thnk the nation is split and perhaps confused which is understandable.

Libs and NDP likely will stay well away and in my view they should.

I think Canadian's will punish any party that engineers an election over this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Many viewpoints
> My take
> 
> I think this is mostly political on Duceppe's part as he's surely lost ground.
> ...


For the most part I agree with you. However, I don't think you can pin the current activities and potential future failures in Afghanistan on the Conservatives. Firstly, it is a NATO mission and our success depends on all countries making a contribution, not just us. Secondly, the Liberals got us there to begin with. 

The Iraq situation is going to degrade quickly from here forward. Failure of the mission has now become an acceptable discussion point in the US media and the public is finally seeing the truth. The US will either increase troop numbers (more 'advisors') or will back off. Either way, I predict the situation gets worse. This will have big implications on the Afghanistan mission.

I think the public will punish the party who calls an early election. People just want the federal government to work. Harper and Dion should sit down and find a way to move forward. But it won't happen because everybody is convinced an election is coming this spring. It doesn't have to go down that way.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> For the most part I agree with you. However, I don't think you can pin the current activities and potential future failures in Afghanistan on the Conservatives. Firstly, it is a NATO mission and our success depends on all countries making a contribution, not just us. Secondly, the Liberals got us there to begin with.
> 
> The Iraq situation is going to degrade quickly from here forward. Failure of the mission has now become an acceptable discussion point in the US media and the public is finally seeing the truth. The US will either increase troop numbers (more 'advisors') or will back off. Either way, I predict the situation gets worse. This will have big implications on the Afghanistan mission.
> 
> I think the public will punish the party who calls an early election. People just want the federal government to work. Harper and Dion should sit down and find a way to move forward. But it won't happen because everybody is convinced an election is coming this spring. It doesn't have to go down that way.


it won't happen because harpo doesn't think GHG are a problem until maybe 2050
the cdn. people now see how he is beholden to the oil barons of calgary and being rich, but dead or very sick is no substitute for being healthy and leaving a healthy environment to future generations


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> *Harper and Dion should sit down and find a way to move forward. * But it won't happen because everybody is convinced an election is coming this spring. It doesn't have to go down that way.


Odd how whilst in opposition Harper acted like baby Bam-Bam saying he was going to take down the Libs at everyturn.

Sorry, but the Libs should work in Canadian's interest and owe nothing to the Cons seeing how they play the game.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it won't happen because harpo doesn't think GHG are a problem until maybe 2050
> the cdn. people now see how he is beholden to the oil barons of calgary and being rich, but dead or very sick is no substitute for being healthy and leaving a healthy environment to future generations


Is compromise really that hard to achieve?

Liberal and Conservative policy overlap by at least 90%. If each party just moved a little on some issues, they could come up with an acceptable agenda.

Instead, each party bickers over the differences and we are going to be left with a string of minority governments where little gets done. Nobody wins.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

None of this necessitates an election.

If the government of the day falls on a non-confidence vote, the Governor General can ask the opposition if they can form the government.

Perhaps the Liberals and Bloc will give it a go. Perhaps they'll just decline and there will be an election.

Just saying there are other possibilities.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Odd how whilst in opposition Harper acted like baby Bam-Bam saying he was going to take down the Libs at everyturn.
> 
> Sorry, but the Libs should work in Canadian's interest and owe nothing to the Cons seeing how they play the game.


We could point fingers all the way back to biblical times. Compromise requires a level of maturity where you don't focus on the past by rather on the future.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> We could point fingers all the way back to biblical times. Compromise requires a level of maturity where you don't focus on the past by rather on the future.


cough * Gomery * cough


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> cough * Gomery * cough


Yes, and let's tar the Conservatives with the Mulroney brush. Diefenbaker! Preston Manning... A collection of great leaders.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i find it amazing that now that they are in power, the cons and their supporters wish to forget the past, something they were hardly willing to do while in opposition

did harpo et al have some sort of group epiphany?

reminds me so much of the scene from "the Wizard of Oz" when the image of Oz says; "don't mind that man behind the curtain !"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> We could point fingers all the way back to biblical times. Compromise requires a level of maturity where you don't focus on the past by rather on the future.


:yikes: tell that do your beloved Cons - don't expect the opposition to be magnanimous when the style of politics espoused by baby Harper and his minions has been anything but.
Get the bums out of office before they do more dammage.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i find it amazing that now that they are in power, the cons and their supporters wish to forget the past, something they were hardly willing to do while in opposition
> 
> did harpo et al have some sort of group epiphany?
> 
> reminds me so much of the scene from "the Wizard of Oz" when the image of Oz says; "don't mind that man behind the curtain !"


Firstly, my criticism was towards both parties. Secondly, the Liberals have more dirt of them than the Conservative since they were in power for four terms. Your response makes no sense.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> :yikes: tell that do your beloved Cons - don't expect the opposition to be magnanimous when the style of politics espoused by baby Harper and his minions has been anything but.
> Get the bums out of office before they do more dammage.


Two thirds of Canadians voted either Conservative or Liberal. Based purely on that, the two parties have an obligation to sit down and try to form a common agenda. 

Going forward on an issue by issue basis will result in a short election cycle.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Two thirds of Canadians voted either Conservative or Liberal. Based purely on that, the two parties have an obligation to sit down and try to form a common agenda.
> 
> Going forward on an issue by issue basis will result in a short election cycle.



that 2/3 didn't change since January 20, 2006
why didn't harpo reach out?
oh right, because he was doing well in the polls, but now that his numbers are tumbling, it's time to "work together" and "we have an obligation"

what about limiting debate on the extension of the Cdn. mission in Afghanistan in the House of Commons?

was that working together?
oh i forgot, that's the "past"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Two thirds of Canadians voted either Conservative or Liberal. Based purely on that, the two parties have an obligation to sit down and try to form a common agenda.
> 
> Going forward on an issue by issue basis will result in a short election cycle.


An obligation? LOL
Maybe in 50 years....

A party that likes to divide and conquer cannot expect common ground. The values of the Cons are so far out of touch with many Canadians that there will never be common ground. I'd prefer to see Lib-BQ-Green-NDP in over any Lib-Con minority...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'm ready for an ellection now. No matter what the "reason" I will not be voting Conservative. Called on the war I certainly wouldn't support Harper. 

We should have never gone into Afganistan and we shouldn't be there now. All Afganistan is is Canada wasting money to clean up the USA's mess.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> An obligation? LOL
> Maybe in 50 years....
> 
> A party that likes to divide and conquer cannot expect common ground. The values of the Cons are so far out of touch with many Canadians that there will never be common ground. I'd prefer to see Lib-BQ-Green-NDP in over any Lib-Con minority...


Agreed. I WAY prefer the Bloc to the Conservatives and I'm a federalist.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

An election now would be a huge waste. We would most likely see another Conservative minority.

The Liberals are still all over the place, their leader is a nobody, so there is no real competition to the Conservations. A six week federal election campaign would be smooth sailing for the Conservatives, while the Liberals would be tripping over themselves trying to build an identity.

The Liberals know the last thing they need right now is a federal election. They would never support a non-confidence motion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I think you have it wrong guytoronto.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> I think you have it wrong guytoronto.


Your counter-argument is outstanding.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I wouldn't put it past the Liberals to try and capitalize on their current popularity. I don't think Harper would find the campaign as smooth as you do. Even if the war was what dissolved parliament there are plenty of other issues as well ie. transparency of gov't when all ministers and MPs are gagged into silence, the environment, women's funding, Child care, wasting time with ssm again etc.

Harper has a lot to answer for and his answer's so far have been lame.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GT careful what you wish for....very very unlikely the Cons would muster up a minority right now.
No party has been in 40% of the decided voters region for along time and the Libs ARE.
The Cons are down everywhere but Alberta.

Libs have picked up from both ends of their party spectrum.

Will it hold....very much depends on Cons and Libs next moves. You're in dreamland if you think the Cons are in 'comfortable" minority.

Quebec doesn't like Afghanistan
The rest of Canada except Alberta is pissed about the environment
Women are pissed at the Cons period.

Hence the poor numbers.

Harper might get it sorted out but he'll also need a blunder by the Libs.
I doubt Dion will jump fast.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GT careful what you wish for....very very unlikely the Cons would muster up a minority right now.
> No party has been in 40% of the decided voters region for along time and the Libs ARE.
> The Cons are down everywhere but Alberta.
> 
> ...


Polling in Canada is dubious at best and it is only one factor in predicting seats. Support for the parties is highly divided by riding (e.g. rural vs urban and disproportionate riding sizes) and by province.

The Cons are right where they were last time around.

How often has Quebec voted on foreign policy and how often has Quebec jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute? Predicting Quebec now is laughable. Predicting Alberta however....

The Conservatives now have a very strong base of support (I believe 30% of the overall vote). You say 'everybody' is up in arms about this and that. Well the base is stable and motivated. I don't think the Liberal base is as high as the Conservative base. The Liberals have a much greater potential to lose votes on all sides, while the Conservatives have a greater buffer and can only lose votes in one direction. How likely is that with the Liberals electing a lefty? :lmao:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Women are pissed at the Con's? Hmm.... none that I've spoken with lately. As a matter of fact, the younger women I've spoken with are pleased that Harper is at least attempting to do something about keeping perverts in jail. Trust me, this is VERY important.

Are you alluding to the Status of Women? If so, we think that's been a joke. Much better the funds will be going directly to community organizations that help REAL women. Those female lobby groups are just an excuse for a very few women to collect a nice salary at the taxpayer's expense. For too long governments have considered women to be idiots. Nice to see someone finally "get's it".

Where the Con's may lose is with Afghanistan and the environment. we'll see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

adagio said:


> Women are pissed at the Con's? Hmm.... none that I've spoken with lately. As a matter of fact, the younger women I've spoken with are pleased that Harper is at least attempting to do something about keeping perverts in jail. Trust me, this is VERY important.
> 
> Are you alluding to the Status of Women? If so, we think that's been a joke. Much better the funds will be going directly to community organizations that help REAL women. Those female lobby groups are just an excuse for a very few women to collect a nice salary at the taxpayer's expense. For too long governments have considered women to be idiots. Nice to see someone finally "get's it".
> 
> Where the Con's may lose is with Afghanistan and the environment. we'll see.


Thanks for posting that Marg. I agree 100%.

I would have posted it myself, but I would have been labelled anti woman, just like I get labelled anti gay and anti French for other views I post.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

adagio said:


> Women are pissed at the Con's? Hmm.... none that I've spoken with lately. As a matter of fact, the younger women I've spoken with are pleased that Harper is at least attempting to do something about keeping perverts in jail. Trust me, this is VERY important.
> 
> Are you alluding to the Status of Women? If so, we think that's been a joke. Much better the funds will be going directly to community organizations that help REAL women. Those female lobby groups are just an excuse for a very few women to collect a nice salary at the taxpayer's expense. For too long governments have considered women to be idiots. Nice to see someone finally "get's it".
> 
> Where the Con's may lose is with Afghanistan and the environment. we'll see.


I totally agree with that sentiment. I was quite happy when funding for the Status of Women group was cut down. Not because I'm against Women, more because I don't think our goverment should be footing the bill for lobby groups of any stripe. Just because it's a women's group doesn't give it a free pass.

The Liberals are riding high in the polls on the merits of a new face. In the end this is still the same Liberal party that was booted from office in January. The party will need to build its identity before an election. Look at the Conservatives after the merger. Martin pulled a quick election and ended up with a minority, while the Conservatives weren't quite able to get over the hump. If the other parties brought down the government I think it would result in a status quo, as the Conservatives probably would be able to hold onto power. People don't like having to go to the polls every year, so I'm sure the other parties involved would suffer a blowback from that move.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Yes, and let's tar the Conservatives with the Mulroney brush. Diefenbaker! Preston Manning... A collection of great leaders.


Mulroney and Diefenbaker were Progressive Conservatives. Harper is a Reform -> Conservative (not a PC)

To suggest that you can "tar" Harper with Mulroney simply means that you have not been paying attention, and have a problem understanding changes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Guess you talk to a different crowd



> Updated Sat. Oct. 21 2006 9:20 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


You can BET it's worse now.

I just love the "champagne on the plane" thinking that circulates so freely in Conland.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Guess you talk to a different crowd
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why doesn't the article say how much support they lost? Not questioning what they found now, but what was it before?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think "MacDoc: is up in arms" would be the most appropriate assessment here VanDave. When an ill wind blows through a tiny part of Mississauga, it's the whole country we're talking about.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think "MacDoc: is up in arms" would be the most appropriate assessment here VanDave. When an ill wind blows through a tiny part of Mississauga, it's the whole country we're talking about.


That's right MacDoc's poll is just a poll of folks from Mississauga. Nice vacume you live in...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The poll: national. Tha panic: local.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Guess you talk to a different crowd
> You can *BET* it's worse now.



that's a different tv network and a very different demographic


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think "MacDoc: is up in arms" would be the most appropriate assessment here VanDave. When an ill wind blows through a tiny part of Mississauga, it's the whole country we're talking about.


That's why I am interested in the before numbers. The Conservatives had an overall support rate of 36% in the last election. It was well known that men voted for the Conservatives in higher numbers than women. Let's assume that the % of women that supported the Conservatives in the last election was 30 to 34%. The present poll of 28% isn't much lower and is within the margin or error of where women may have voted before.

Further to the above, you also need to account for the overall drop the Conservatives have experienced. Saying they are losing support from women may be misleading. A more correct statement might be... they have lost support from everybody.

For example.... let's assume 39% of men voted Con and 33% women in the last election for an average of 36%.

Let's say the Conservatives are polling at 30% right now (i.e. an average loss of 6%). That would mean men should be at 33% and women at 27%. If women polled at say 20%, you could say the Conservatives are disproportionately losing their support from women (i.e. the claim MacDoc is trying to make). But, you couldn't make the claim that they are losing support for women disproportionately.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF gets indigestion from facts he doesn't like so he subs in eructations worthy of a grade 4.

At least Vandave TRIES to explain his rose coloured tint.

Cons have a window but it's closing quickly.
They even had to take the radical move of haling Mulroney out of mothballs today to pontificate on their green failure.
Now that was a risk  MUST be desperate times.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm still taking bets on those that think a con majority is in the offing come next election

i went to the bank today to get cash to cover said bets 

does one AB dollar still equal one Cdn. dollar?


for those that "lean that way" i will also cover u.s. dollar bets


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> for those that "lean that way" i will also cover u.s. dollar bets


:clap: 

No taker here!
:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>Cons have a window but it's closing quickly.

I pray they read this thread and heed your advice, oh rainmaker.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> >>Cons have a window but it's closing quickly.
> 
> I pray they read this thread and heed your advice, oh rainmaker.


in your case i think it's spelled "prey"
 

obligatory smiley emoticon so i can get away with an insult by using smiley face


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's not a worthy insult...this insurance thing must really be hitting you hard!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> That's not a worthy insult...this insurance thing must really be hitting you hard!


waking up in the middle of a burning house can do that to you
add to that evil insurance mega corporation that wants me to die before i get my house re-built so they don;t have to pay my claim and you get uberMACSPECTRUM

bulldozing his way thru corporate bull$hit from peons who take 3 days to answer emails which they don't bother to fully read

yeah, i'm not in a x-mas mood, but i really feel like giving it to someone at meloche monnex without the KY jelly


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Yawn. :yawn: 

Looks pretty steady to me. 

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-polls.asp

The Conservatives were hovering around 30% this time last year, but picked up support during the election.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Yawn. :yawn:
> 
> Looks pretty steady to me.
> 
> ...


sept 24
cons almost at 40%, libs almost at 25%

dec 3
cons at 32, libs at 38

how hum indeed


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sept 24
> cons almost at 40%, libs almost at 25%
> 
> dec 3
> ...


July.. Cons at 32

Sep... Cons at 38

:yawn: Up and down it goes. But it doesn't go below 30%, which is what I have called the 'base'. The Liberal base, over the long term, seems to be around 35%. How this translates into seats is anybody's guess.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i repeat i will cover all bets for a con majority


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hay Vandave - care to extract Alberta 

But I would say the unified core is in the 30% range.......much less if you pulled Alberta out and that will have a big impact on the where seats get picked up.

There is a possibility of splintering in the remaining 70% if the Libs do a face plant.
My feeling - the NDP are in serious trouble.
Lib or Con minority swings on middle right. Progressive Con/Blue lib turf.
Personally I'd prefer a Con minority with the Libs able to make legislation alone with the Cons. the way the Bloc are now.

Con/Bloc - scary.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now THIS on the other hand ......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like a new Environment Minister is in the works for Jan. 2007. I suspect this will be as cleverly played as previous Conservative strategies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hay Vandave - care to extract Alberta
> 
> But I would say the unified core is in the 30% range.......much less if you pulled Alberta out and that will have a big impact on the where seats get picked up.
> 
> ...


Every party has a geographic (either provincial or rural/urban) base of support. If you subtract, you have to do it for everybody.

The Bloc also have a solid 10 to 12% of the overall vote and the greens 4%. That leaves the Liberals and NDP fighting over the remaining 55%. 

I think this election could also swing on the left. If the NDP completely faceplants, the Liberals have the ability to pull off 40% plus. I also think any big gains the Liberals get on the left will be off-set to losses on the right. I think there are more right of centre Liberals than left of centre Liberals, so the Conservatives have the potential to pull a decent amount of votes out.

I think it will be very difficult for either the Libs or Cons to get over 40%.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We agree it hinges on the centre right vote. I'm really content either way. These clowns NEED to learn to govern to a concensus - they got it right with Accountabiility..more please.

We may know sooner than later......



> Dion primed for spring vote
> New Liberal leader maintains he isn't in rush to polls
> Dec. 14, 2006. 10:11 AM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


I wonder what the Bloc motivation is.....Provincial elections??/....damn this is getting tangled.

then Ontario decides to up MPP wages 25%  - First they let Ontario Hydro get away with murdering the tax payers and then they want to play "catch up" with Ottawa wages.

Can we start over......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Consensus is vastly overrated. It's the hallmark of feeble thought and watered down ideas.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So you'd rather a locked up do nothing scenario as everyone stands on their glorious carved in stone principles??.  No thanks.

Politics IS the art of compromise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Feeble politics is the art of compromise.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So you'd rather a locked up do nothing scenario as everyone stands on their glorious carved in stone principles??.  No thanks.
> 
> Politics IS the art of compromise.


Yes, politics is compromise. It's hard enough to get everybody within a single party to agree to issues, never mind outside of it. 

People focus on differences too much. Even the NDP and Conservatives have a lot of common ground, but the bickering is always at the margin. At the end of the day, I think all parties would agree on our overall objectives (e.g. good health care, strong economy, good international relations, government accountability, etc...). It's how we get there where the debate lies.

Everybody needs to get past the anger and vitriol and accept how Canadians have voted. Another election is only going to change a small number of seats. Either way, we are going to be stuck with a minority government. 

Everybody tries to discount the support that each party gets to rationalize being entrenched. Continual elections doesn't serve anybody.

But there are also downsides to agreement by committee. For example, here is a horse designed by committee:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

A new poll was just released, showing the Conservatives 3 points up on the Liberals. It looks like Dion's spike in popularity didn't last too long. Interesting that the Greens are doing so well in light of how Dion is perceived to be 'green'.

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n010351A

The Decima Research survey conducted December 27-30 and provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, suggests the Conservatives had 34 per cent support nationally, compared with 31 per cent for the Liberals. The difference is within the poll's 3.1-percentage-point margin of error.

The survey also indicated the NDP had 15 per cent support, the Bloc Quebecois 10 per cent and the Green party eight per cent.

In an earlier Decima poll last month, the Conservatives were at 32 per cent, compared with 35 per cent for the Liberals, placing the parties in a virtual tie then as well because of the margin of error.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Consensus is vastly overrated. It's the hallmark of feeble thought and watered down ideas.


Wonder how this affects your view on Thurday's shuffle...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i wonder how rona is gonna handle her demotion
couldn't be more appropriate for a not so nice person


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

VD nice spin but it's demographics that count and with Alberta weight taken out the Tories are no where near where they need to be in either Quebec or Ontario.



> *Poll suggests Tories, Liberals in dead heat*
> Updated Wed. Jan. 3 2007 7:51 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070103/poll_deadheat_070103/20070103/

Cons are not national yet tho could be without Harper. Get a decent centrist in without the social agenda hangover, and maybe from Ontario Quebec or east or west coast, then there is a game afoot.

The Cons have little or no "punish the Libs" sentiment going their way, the NDP are in disarray both of which help Liberal fortunes and many Canadians have seen quite enough of Harper.

That said I'd still prefer a Con minority for reasons stated elsewhere and would like to see more multi-party legislation actually put in place.

I see nothing facing Canada right now that is worth calling an election over unless the Cons don't about face right smartly on green issues which he shows signs of doing.

The only other national issue that is a fundamental one is early childcare program and should have a higher priority than it does. In that Harper is well out of step and I doubt "vote buying" will work a second time.

Afghanistan SHOULD be worked out for the next two years as a multi-party approach.
After that it well may be a major election issue.

One day somebody in the current Con party is going to wake up and figure they've got Alberta almost regardless and stop pandering to the NeoCon RR element and get back to small c positioning.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Get a decent centrist in without the social agenda hangover, and maybe from Ontario Quebec or east or west coast, then there is a game afoot.


you mean like Belinda Stronach?
oh wait...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder how rona is gonna handle her demotion
> couldn't be more appropriate for a not so nice person


How can you be demoted from Environment Minister for the Conservatives? Isn't the next step lower a seat on the back benches?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is a big difference between being demoted and being reassigned. Until the new cabinet is announced, no one can realistically refer to Ambrose's situation as one or the other. Out of cabinet = demotion. New portfolio = reassignment.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Being Environment Minister for the Conservatives is kind of like being a police officer in Iraq: it's a futile exercise any way you look at it. And people are taking aim at you all day long.

I agree with SINC: like I said above, you simply can't be demoted from being Environment Minister in a Conservative cabinet (and still be in Cabinet).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> 'Mr. Fix-It' gets green file
> 
> CP PHOTO
> Treasury Board President John Baird, left, shown with Prime Minister Stephen Harper after the accountability act was introduced in April.
> ...


The sweet smell of sacrificial goat.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The sweet smell of sacrificial goat.


Well, he did mess up when he disclosed those funny Con transactions and accounting practises....

No matter how much Harper shuffles, they all seem like jokers...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Actually I meant Ambrose.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> VD nice spin but it's demographics that count and with Alberta weight taken out the Tories are no where near where they need to be in either Quebec or Ontario.


35% support for the Cons in Ontario is nowhere near enough? That's only 5 points back from the Liberals in their strongest province.

Again, if you subtract one province, you have to do it for all parties. 



MacDoc said:


> Cons are not national yet tho could be without Harper. Get a decent centrist in without the social agenda hangover, and maybe from Ontario Quebec or east or west coast, then there is a game afoot.


Right now the Cons are the most national party we have. They have seats in every major province. No other party can claim that.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Do the "minor" provinces agree with you about their minor-ness?




Vandave said:


> 35% support for the Cons in Ontario is nowhere near enough? That's only 5 points back from the Liberals in their strongest province.
> 
> Again, if you subtract one province, you have to do it for all parties.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Do the "minor" provinces agree with you about their minor-ness?


I think the NWT, Nunavut and Yukon would agree that one seat is pretty minor.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> 35% support for the Cons in Ontario is nowhere near enough? That's only 5 points back from the Liberals in their strongest province.


It's not even close - without a strong showing in Quebec or Ontario - the Cons have neither.....they won't come close to a majority and marginal on a renewed minority.

Alberta in a % basis is far too heavily weighted.
The support in Ontario is also too concentrated in rural ridings.

Cons must have a split left just as Chretien had to have a split right.
Cons are unlikely to get the split left tho the Greens may have impact.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's not even close - without a strong showing in Quebec or Ontario - the Cons have neither.....they won't come close to a majority and marginal on a renewed minority.
> 
> Alberta in a % basis is far too heavily weighted.
> The support in Ontario is also too concentrated in rural ridings.
> ...


True, but I'd add that a Green-based split on the left could actually increase the Liberals' seats-to-votes ratio, and not do much for the Cons. Interesting times.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's not even close - without a strong showing in Quebec or Ontario - the Cons have neither.....they won't come close to a majority and marginal on a renewed minority.
> 
> Alberta in a % basis is far too heavily weighted.
> The support in Ontario is also too concentrated in rural ridings.
> ...


Guess what percentage the Conservatives received in the last election in Ontario? Do I hear a 35%? Yes. That's exactly where they are polling now. 

Guess what percentage the Liberals received in the last election in Ontario? Do I hear a 40%? Yes. That's exactly where they are polling now.

:lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And do we have a "anybody but the Libs vote available" no.
They are and will continue to be weak outside Alberta until they

a) correct the Green issue if they can
b) another party - the Libs face plants
They are stalled out and in the risk zone when they have to depend on other parties just to stay where they are. No traction.

They got 10 seats in Quebec with 24% of the vote - they are at 12......oops.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> And do we have a "anybody but the Libs vote available" no.
> They are and will continue to be weak outside Alberta until they
> 
> a) correct the Green issue if they can
> ...


The fact is that the Conservatives are ahead in the polls. They have similar support levels as the last election. 

The Conservatives know their shortcomings and where they can improve (e.g. environment). The Conservatives have achieved much of their priorities and can say so in the next election. Do the Liberals know their shortcomings and where to improve? I can't think of anything obvious.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The fact is that the Conservatives are ahead in the polls. They have similar support levels as the last election.


Seems about right - but with no break in Quebec - bring on the Pork oh porky one!



Vandave said:


> The Conservatives know their shortcomings and where they can improve (e.g. environment).


Nothing of substance, mostly window dressing no? Look at today's shuffle.



Vandave said:


> The Conservatives have achieved much of their priorities and can say so in the next election. Do the Liberals know their shortcomings and where to improve? I can't think of anything obvious.


What priorities? Cause they seem to have morphed. Can't wait for reduced waiting times - that will help... beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nothing of substance, mostly window dressing no? Look at today's shuffle.


Rome wasn't built in a day. Give the new Minister a chance to do something. Harper obviously recognized their shortcomings on the environmental file and he is making a gesture to improve the situation. It's way too earlier to pass judgement on substance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I think the majour shortcoming is the "Clean Air Act" - sending in a windbag to sell it will help in what way? 

Baird's record in the Harris government is not exactly stellar... If he really wanted to do something, appointing a partisan hack would not of been his priority...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What priorities? Cause they seem to have morphed. Can't wait for reduced waiting times - that will help... beejacon


Neither can I. Too bad not enough people see the obvious solution.

There are three countries in the world where privatized health care is illegal. I'll give you the first two and you guess the third. North Korea, Cuba and ........?

I can buy better health care for my cats than I can for myself.

I had a serious health care concern this past fall where my knees swelled up and locked. I was unable to walk or bend my knees for a number of days and it has taken months to walk properly again. I wish this service was around earlier:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/voices/story.html?id=213dbfd3-e1c2-43a7-9ccc-8d2917749fc5

They are currently not taking patients due to a spat with the province. Although I am on the road to rehab and working with a physiotherapist, I would still happily pay a couple hundred bucks to get good diagnostic service.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Rome wasn't built in a day. Give the new Minister a chance to do something. Harper obviously recognized their shortcomings on the environmental file and he is making a gesture to improve the situation. It's way too earlier to pass judgement on substance.


aw c'mon stop picking on Rona's height.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I would still happily pay a couple hundred bucks to get good diagnostic service.


just make sure it's not during the holidays


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just make sure it's not during the holidays


Why?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sorry, we have very different views of national healthcare - and the US system is not one I'd like to emulate. 
You should come down to Quebec sometime - private health care is booming and has been detrimental to public health care. 
Now, if I could afford to pay more, all my health problems would be gone also...


So, do you serious think that putting Baird will make up for the farcical "Clean Air Act"?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So, do you serious think that putting Baird will make up for the farcical "Clean Air Act"?


I think Harper will move on this issue. He already has acknowledged climate change and the link to human activities. 

Will he move as far as the other parties want? Probably not.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry, we have very different views of national healthcare - and the US system is not one I'd like to emulate.
> You should come down to Quebec sometime - private health care is booming and has been detrimental to public health care.
> Now, if I could afford to pay more, all my health problems would be gone also...


I don't want a US style system either.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think Harper will move on this issue. He already has acknowledged climate change and the link to human activities.


Just when I thought the Kool-Aid was wearing off....

Epiphany by the polls now? 

Take heart VD, I hear you maybe getting a new crossover Con Friday.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..bout right.

I think the only thing Harper has acknowledged is that environment is priority ONE with Canadians and therefore he has to deal with it politically - I don't think he's acknowledged the risks or GHG problem directly....only that others are concerned about it.

He is never going to be a convincing "green".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Why?





> The clinic -- which has been running several ads publicizing its services -- is usually open seven days a week, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.
> But when 17-year-old Stephanie Carr visited the centre at about 10 p.m. Tuesday with a sprained ankle, she found the clinic closed -- with a notice on the door saying it wouldn't reopen until Dec. 27.
> "I was shocked," said Carr. "It's an urgent care unit -- so it should be open. I was disappointed."
> 
> ...


closing an "urgent care facility" that is supposed to close for ONE DAY to install a machine now becomes "can't say when the clinic will re-open"

I guess Dr. X. had a bad day on the stock market or his wife just found out about his mistress and is threatenting to take the ol' doc to the cleaners in a divorce, but you just take those chest pains down the road to the socialist health care and we'll be here to gouge you when my lawyer lets him


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ..bout right.
> 
> I think the only thing Harper has acknowledged is that environment is priority ONE with Canadians and therefore he has to deal with it politically - I don't think he's acknowledged the risks or GHG problem directly....only that others are concerned about it.
> 
> He is never going to be a convincing "green".





> January 04, 2007
> Canadian Press
> OTTAWA – Environmental policy is both the top priority of Canadian voters and the subject of the most dissatisfaction with government performance, according to a new poll.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/167977

so harpo sends in his meanest, baddest MFer to take care of #1 issue for Canadians
let's see how this windbag stands up to the oil barons in Calgary
they sent Rona and her twice hourly brushed hair to the 3rd line


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I think the only thing Harper has acknowledged is that environment is priority ONE with Canadians and therefore he has to deal with it politically - I don't think he's acknowledged the risks or GHG problem directly....only that others are concerned about it.


You can read his comments here:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163817


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm laughing to see the fear expressed by some EhMacers over Harper's shrewd politicking. The arguments here appear to focus on the idea that Harper will fail to benefit from a green agenda because he isn't really sincere about it. This is the old saw about the public valuing intentions over action. 

I'm betting on action.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting to note. In a Toronto Star article today, Dion refers to himself as "Dion" a trait suggested by analysts as extremely unhelpful for political candidates because it denotes a basic insecurity and lack of personal conviction. We might remember the heat Bob Dole took for referring to himself as "Dole." 



> If that's (what) they want to do, I'm ready," Dion said. "But if they chose him (Baird) in order to attack Dion and to try to destroy what I represent as a hope for Canadians, it will not work."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

No MF, some a laughing at the "Green Air Plan" - it's a joke and sending in a windbag to sell it will not help...

I don't think MF is focusing....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Your post has the stink of fear about it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No MF, some a laughing at the "Green Air Plan" - it's a joke and sending in a windbag to sell it will not help...
> 
> I don't think MF is focusing....


Harper has made it one of the top five priorities for 2007. Harper has said more work needs to be done.

The fact is that the Conservatives have a good record of pursuing their priorities and achieving them. The Liberals and Dion do not, especially on climate change. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070105.wshuffle05/BNStory/National


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Those priorities have a habit of morphing and being forgotten there VD...

Now that Harper wants a green badge, lets hope that the Clean Air Plan was just a joke then and let him rewrite it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Harper's shrewd politicking.


If you view peeling your face off the floor "shrewd politicking"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> If you view peeling your face off the floor "shrewd politicking"


please, oh please, stop with the rona ambrose jokes...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The fact is that the Conservatives have a good record of pursuing their priorities and achieving them.


Since VD seems to have forgotten the priorities...
Accountability 
Lower Taxes 
Crime 
Child Care
Health

1 Accountability 
Legislation with loopholes...

2 Lower Taxes
They have gone up for the poor and we still seem to be having those nasty surpluses... But hey, I see services to Canadians have been cut...


3 Crime
Still waiting for something to be done...


4 Child Care
LOL

5 Health Care
Oopps that on is gone...


Don't worry VD only 6400 or so days until the "Clean Air Act"...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> If you view peeling your face off the floor "shrewd politicking"


But I don't call it "peeling his face off the floor." You're the one peeing his pants over global warming so you would view it that way I suppose.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Where are these guys on the Kyoto Accord?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Where are these guys on the Kyoto Accord?


There the guys who said we can't meet our commitment to it and that it needs to be scrapped in favour of a more oil-sands-friendly plan.

But they're changing their tune just as fast as they can right now... all of a sudden the Calgary Oil Team is all about being green and serious about environmental commitments... just watch as Harper's new Minister of Environmental Apology tries to distract us all with some Royal Commissions, or Non-partisan committees (of oil-company executives) who will be charged with 'studying the issue' for a few years and making recommendations.

At this point I'm afraid it's mostly arguing over who left the barn-door open after the horse has not only left, but long since died of old-age.

What needs to be looked at more seriously now is mitigating the damage we've done, and figuring out how we're going to deal with the millions of environmental refugees who will be swarming all over the planet trying to survive the catastrophe we've created.

I still favour doing whatever we can to reduce the damage we're continuing to do, but we need to start preparing for the consequences of the damage we've done.

cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF- Most of the world would call it face peeling and serious plastic surgery aka cabinet shuffle after the embarrassment at home and abroad. 'Course there are few flat earthers still about.
If takes a pimple sanding to get the message home and some action so be it.
I'll not believe for one second it's heartfelt but I'll take the shotgun wedding if it gets an all party and serious plan in place.

Clever politicking........what a joke ....how about "survival politicking".
This set of Cons will never have credibility on green..they might get tolerated.

•••

Bryanc that was the scariest aspect for me a couple years back when it was clear the serious science guys had effectively given up on thinking it could be stopped and resigned themselves to the attempt of mitigation.
I recall being seriously shocked as I felt the opinions and articles drifting that way.

I truly think we've not yet understood the rate of change.

Sometimes it feels like a set of doctors observing the death throes out of scientific curiousity having written the patient off.

Has the planet's Golden Hour for **** sapiens been and gone?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Has the planet's Golden Hour for **** sapiens been and gone?


No.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Where are these guys on the Kyoto Accord?


That one's dead and dying all over the planet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> That one's dead and dying all over the planet.


Come again little disinformation machine?
Please elaborate or it this the equivalent "I know you are but what I'm I" line of argument again....


----------

