2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by DrJ

Why does Gilles Duceppe care so much about Elf Care? Beyond me...

[zamler]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

My take on the debate:

1. Layton spent too much time trying for sound bites and ended up looking pretty dumb.

But he did have a couple of zingers. Everyone likes zingers!

2. Ignatieff kept going for the knock-out, never quite connected.

Does he ever connect?

3. Harper spent the night saying "That simply is not true" over and over again.

Harper was a little better than that. He was quite clear regarding his policies, whether you like them or not.

2. The Canadian Learning Passport (I will GLADLY accept a tax hike for it if necessary).

Hell no!

3. "It's not bickering, it debating".

Harper is right here IMO, if you look at what goes on in the commons, it's downright bickering. All parties do it, but let's not pretend it's very productive.

As of today, if the Liberals actually make an effort in my riding, they will likely get my vote. So ya, the debate was actually worthwhile and did sway at least one voter.

I highly doubt you are a traditional Conservative supporter.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't get it? Quebec shows the CPC at 20.7% and the Liberals at 20.4%. if you really want to be annoying you can point out the 0.4% lead and you're right?

The projected seat totals are 13 Liberals, 11 CPC and 50 BQ for whatever those projections are worth.

Im talking about Ontario.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that if we were to break down the leaders to our weird disfunctional families in a sitcom, it would be

Stephen Harper (Played by that guy from House) - The slightly disconnected, intense father. Sure he wants you to play sports, but he wants to see the win, he's the guy that you don't want looking at your homework because usually he's going to find mistakes. He eats bland oatmeal for breakfast, and when he gets home after work he slams down his briefcase storms around the house like a hurricane and then hides in the den util bed time.

Michael Ignatieff - (Played by the dude who played John Locke) - The slightly angry, intellectual, know it all uncle who comes to visit once a summer, tells you how great he is, tells you that your dad completely sucks and is full of crap. He's the guy that sends you a tie for christmas and tells you that you don't want to follow in your fathers footsteps. He has the air of I'm better then all of you, if I had kids, they'd be better then all of you. There's a reason why he's only invited over for Christmas, and when he's there dad seems to work late an awful lot.

Jack Layton (Michael Richards without the racism) - He's the other uncle the weird one, he just stops by and walks in without an invitation, but he's hilarious, and he's the one family member that you might go to a hockey game with. However he's zany and his view points are completely out of left field. He likes to talk about the glory Days when he was the big man on Campus, but in his current job, he's basically almost a non entity. He personally can't stand your other uncle, because Uncle Jack dispises snobs.

Gilles Duceppe - (Played by the jerk from the Karate Kid only 30 years older) - He's the angry neighbour who accuses you of letting your dog poop on his lawn even though you don't have a lawn. He constantly screams at your dad on Sundays over the fence, telling him to leave him alone, then asking to borrow the lawn mower 2 minutes later. Funny story, dads lost thousands of dollars to lawn mowers over the year because the neighbour always loses them. He has occassional parties but they're not only bring your own beer, but bring enough for his family to get drunk on. He once had a fist fight with weird uncle Mike over Uncle Mikes get rich quick scheme. He hates your dad with a fury of a thousand suns mainly because Dad won't pay for his sons to play on the local hockey team. He occasionally gets along with weird uncle Jack just to piss off dad.

In summary - Dad dislikes the neighbour, outright hates uncle Mike, and occassionally enjoys visits by Uncle Jack because he figures that he can get Uncle Jack to wash his car.

Uncle Mike hates dad with a fury of a thousand suns. He agrees with most of the things that Uncle Jack does, but sees Uncle Jack as an inferior, and he understands the neighbour and will give him the money for the neighbours kids to play hockey if the neighbour agress to a murder for hire scheme against Dada

The neighbour hates everyone equally, but he knows that he can manipulate him, he's made tons of money selling lawn mowers over the year, and he's trying to figure out how to steal dads internet signal and utilities so that he doesn't have to spend his money on day to day expenses. He'd like to declare himself a freeman on the land and not be part of the neighbourhood, but his wife and kids think that he's taking it too far.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by zamler

But he did have a couple of zingers. Everyone likes zingers!
Does he ever connect?
Harper was a little better than that. He was quite clear regarding his policies, whether you like them or not.
Hell no!
Harper is right here IMO, if you look at what goes on in the commons, it's downright bickering. All parties do it, but let's not pretend it's very productive.
I highly doubt you are a traditional Conservative supporter.

I thought where Harper was fairly effective was on the voting records of the Liberal's and Bloc and NDP. in a lot of cases around some of the social programs, immigration programs he bought up what sounded like reasonable bills that were voted down by parties.

And the house of commons is not a debating society, Ignatieff had it right, all four parties have poisoned parliment over the last few years. Ignatieff can say that its not bickering its debating, but his ton last night and really throughout this election has been bickering.

[SeoulFire]

I have been watching with moderate interest but I am afraid that I am one of the "traditional" voters that will not change.

I will be voting CPC and will continue to do so until another viable option (western based party) presents itself. The reason for me is very simple - I just don't trust the other parties in regards to policy that would affect the west. I am fairly certain that the other parties would not hesitate in screwing/selling out Alberta interests "for the good of the country". The CPC may still do this but seem least likely to do so.

The CPC seems to be the option that has the lowest probability of implementing another transfer of wealth scheme "for the good of the country".

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by zamler

I highly doubt you are a traditional Conservative supporter.

Party member, dues paid, volunteered on the last two campaigns. Go frakk yourself, doosh.

[simonsays]

Not a great debate for anyone.

Layton held the early lead and I actually found myself agreeing with him on policy once or twice, but then he switched gears after his 1on1 with Ignatief and reverted to the core values NDPer making the hard sell.

Duceppe faired pretty well, considering his target audience. He lead Layton around by his nose for a little while, but he wasn't so hot on the multicultural issue. But I doubt that he cares.

Ignatieff had a strong first half, but during his 1on1 with Harper he seemed to forget that he is also running for PM. Attacks are fine, but he didn't deliver an alternative to the Harper government. Instead of selling himself as the future leader of Canada he was the only candidate who took a blow to the chin (via Layton).

Harper weathered the storm, using the economy as a shield. He didn't really strike any blows, and his response to the coalition stuff was murky at best, but as the incumbent he did pretty well for himself.

I don't think there will be a whole lot of change from the last election we had. Minority Conservative government with a Liberal opposition. I don't think that enough Canadians trust Harper to give him a majority, and if the Liberals want to lead this country they need to start acting like leaders.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by zamler

I highly doubt you are a traditional Conservative supporter.

You realise that Harper is not a traditional Conservative, right?

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And the house of commons is not a debating society, Ignatieff had it right, all four parties have poisoned parliment over the last few years. Ignatieff can say that its not bickering its debating, but his ton last night and really throughout this election has been bickering.

That was one of Ignatieff's ineffective knock-out punch attempts.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but I think Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. The Liberals have been trying to paint Harper as a secretive autocratic leader that just does what he wants.....stating that Harper isn't interested in discussion (just bickers back and does what he wants) falls in line with the narrative.

Perhaps they were words of convenience at that moment, but I suspect Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. Dunno, just sort of how I interpreted the moment(s).

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by SebC

You realise that Harper is not a traditional Conservative, right?

That's the issue I have trouble with......others (like Slava, I suspect?) fall into that group as well.

Conservative by name doesn't mean Conservative by policy. Diefenbaker, Clark, and Mulroney are traditional Conservative leaders doing traditional Conservative work.

For a simple example, I just don't see Joe Clark building Supermax prisons and enforcing mandatory minimums.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

That was one of Ignatieff's ineffective knock-out punch attempts.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but I think Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. The Liberals have been trying to paint Harper as a secretive autocratic leader that just does what he wants.....stating that Harper isn't interested in discussion (just bickers back and does what he wants) falls in line with the narrative.

Perhaps they were words of convenience at that moment, but I suspect Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. Dunno, just sort of how I interpreted the moment(s).

I think Harper was effective in letting their actions speak for themselves:

The Libs paint Harper as disrespecting democracy and poisoning parliament. Yet Harper has led the longest lasting and most successful minority government in Canadian history. It's really hard to square those two statements.

Ignatieff paints Harper as passing off serious democratic debate as simply 'bickering', Yet Canadians clearly do not want nor understand why we are having an election. As much as the Libs try and make the bogus contempt of parliament charges stick, most people agree it just looks like more political opportunism to have an election than anything else.

I believe that the voters punished the Tories last election for the clear political angle when nobody wanted an election, and this time the Opposition will be punished for the exact same reason.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think Harper was effective in letting their actions speak for themselves:

The Libs paint Harper as disrespecting democracy and poisoning parliament. Yet Harper has led the longest lasting and most successful minority government in Canadian history. It's really hard to square those two statements.

Ignatieff paints Harper as passing off serious democratic debate as simply 'bickering', Yet Canadians clearly do not want nor understand why we are having an election. As much as the Libs try and make the bogus contempt of parliament charges stick, most people agree it just looks like more political opportunism to have an election than anything else.

I believe that the voters punished the Tories last election for the clear political angle when nobody wanted an election, and this time the Opposition will be punished for the exact same reason.

How has this minority parliament been the most successful in Canadian history?

Of course the politicians from all sides are engaged in political opportunism...its also known to them as "doing their jobs". Harper engages in political opportunism all the time....like when he helped to ensure that this election would take place and he could gun for his majority. Thats politics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

How has this minority parliament been the most successful in Canadian history?

Of course the politicians from all sides are engaged in political opportunism...its also known to them as "doing their jobs". Harper engages in political opportunism all the time....like when he helped to ensure that this election would take place and he could gun for his majority. Thats politics.

So your saying that Ignatieff and Layton and Duceppe are dupes then?

I agree with the above poster, there are scandals in the government nobody is arguing it. But as the days go by we're not seeing the traction that the opposition needed. I think that there is voter exhaustion in terms of elections and it balances off against the Contempt charges and even the draft release of the AG report (Personally I think that it was really premature of the opposition to try to use it for a weapon).

Right now if the polls are to be believed, the conservatives are hovering in the possible majority area, and thats going to be the message over the next three weeks, "Nobody wants another election in the next 6 months, so a vote for the conservatives is a vote for a break to the voters"

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

How has this minority parliament been the most successful in Canadian history?

Of course the politicians from all sides are engaged in political opportunism...its also known to them as "doing their jobs". Harper engages in political opportunism all the time....like when he helped to ensure that this election would take place and he could gun for his majority. Thats politics.

Longest lasting minority government ever. Most legislation passed by a minority government ever. Most elections won by a minority government ever. Not sure how else to slice it, really.

Like I said, I think Harper was punished severely for calling the previous election against the will of voters. But no matter what optics there may have been, it was the minority parties who voted this government down and caused an election. Harper's hands are clean in this regard and I think it will be the key part of their ability to gain a majority; he mentioned the 'unnecessary election' about 50 times last night.

[Slava]

I just think its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Sooner or later they have to vote down the government; they can't vote with them over and over because it weakens their campaign that eventually comes.

The AG report might still have some impact, but really people are of the mindset that none of them are any good, so in general that works in Harpers favour as the incumbent. No one seems to be strongly in favour of anything he plans to do, but just voting for the lesser of the evils sort of thing.

He might get a majority. I hope not. I like elections and have no issue with voting. It doesn't exhaust me to mark and "x".

[transplant99]

The one thing that the Liberal party has failed miserably to do is impeach Harpers leadership IMO. And it is becoming clear as to why...their own party is guilty in the past of everything they could attack him on for the most part. The whole contempt of Parliament thing is a non-starter at this point because of why it happened...not because it happened.

Honestly what can they say about him that they arent guilty of themselves?

Scandals...nope
Mis-informing Parliament...nope
Trying to form a coalition....nope
Toppling government repeatedly....nope

etc etc

So now they have to make waves on things like the economy, foreign policy, and other things that matter to Canadians. They lose badly in that regard at this point in time....and it doesnt look to be changing anytime soon unless a drastic change is made in strategy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Sooner or later they have to vote down the government; they can't vote with them over and over because it weakens their campaign that eventually comes.

The AG report might still have some impact, but really people are of the mindset that none of them are any good, so in general that works in Harpers favour as the incumbent. No one seems to be strongly in favour of anything he plans to do, but just voting for the lesser of the evils sort of thing.

He might get a majority. I hope not. I like elections and have no issue with voting. It doesn't exhaust me to mark and "x".

I do get what your saying, and Layton was smart enough to pick up that Ignatieff didn't show up for votes because he didn't want his record to show that he was agreeing with Harper all of the time. I'm sure Ignatieff didn't realize that it was the bad strategy that it was.

The AG report might have some teeth, but the stupidity of that is two fold. It was a first draft that was leaked to the media, and it sounds like it was substantially different from the second draft that the Conservatives got their hands on. Third of all, I think Harper played it well by agreeing that he would be willing to get the report released, even though the rules don't allow it, and Sheila Frasier if anything is a stickler for the rules. As of last night there is an investigation in her office about the leak, and she can't be too happy that the leaked document is being used in this campaign.

I hope that Harper gets a majority, to me the Liberal Party really needs its Kim Campbell moment where its forced to take a good hard look at itself and rebuild, because frankly, even with a decent campaign, I don't think the voters are all fired up about Ignatieff, and I think the senior leaders in the Liberal party spend too much time back stabbing each other, and not enough time on distinctive platform.

I like elections too, I think its clear that I'm a political animal, but even I'm saying that 4 elections in 7 years is not an efficient use of time and money.

On another note, it will be interesting to see what Ignatieff does after tonights debate. If he starts moving outside of his defended ridings, he's feeling good about how he did in the debate. If he starts going heavy into Ontario and defending the seats that he has, then he and his supporters don't feel good about his performances.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Sooner or later they have to vote down the government; they can't vote with them over and over because it weakens their campaign that eventually comes.

The AG report might still have some impact, but really people are of the mindset that none of them are any good, so in general that works in Harpers favour as the incumbent. No one seems to be strongly in favour of anything he plans to do, but just voting for the lesser of the evils sort of thing.

He might get a majority. I hope not. I like elections and have no issue with voting. It doesn't exhaust me to mark and "x".

I diagree with this to a point. Eventually, if the ruling party truly is poor and un-wanted, then the opposition parties can jump on it and point at them and say "see they are the ones responsible we are the better option". When the same results keep occuring maybe it is time to admit that the country as a whole doesnt want a change right now?

As for not having an issue with voting, fine....but "exhaustion" is not why people are tired of it. They have done this now 4 times in 7 years. The message is clear, they want the CPC forming government...again. And in no small part is the cost of repeating this excercise to the tune of 300+ million dollars each and every time. A colossal waste of money when an election is simply un-needed.

[Ford Prefect]

My enduring political dream is that voters would pay enough attention to what goes on in politics BETWEEN elections that they could make their voting decision based on those observations, rather than basing their voting decision on the partisan crap and posturing that goes on DURING an election.

IMO, if you're relying on the TV debates in any way to form your voting decision, you probably shouldn't be voting.