That whole idea just mystifies me in general. I've always heard that you don't pick a winter election or whatever because it makes the voters upset and they could take you down (as a governing party who gets to choose)...but I wonder if that is mostly antiquated thinking.
Today with cars and such do voters really vote against incumbents because of that sort of thing? I doubt it. I also find it funny that with the minimal effort of marking an "X" every few years that voters would really care....frankly they just might not show up - that seems to be the case more and more anyway.
I do agree with the not liking the platforms. I don't care for the Liberal platform, won't be voting NDP and the Greens are even further off my radar. The more I see of the CPC campaign though, the more I realise that they are really undeserving of another term. They are far from the financial stewards that they profess to be, and riddled with questionable ethics (if not something worse). I can't see myself voting for that either.
I am thinking of writing my name in, drawing a box and checking said box. At least I would agree with the guy I was voting for!
I think that the backlash is around 4 elections in 7 years, with this one kind of being the straw that breaks the camels back. And I agree with some people that have said that Ignatieff has had a surprisingly decent campaign but the bar was set low.
I don't think that any of the campaigns have been awe inspiring at all. And the cynic in me is tired of seeing mass impossible election promises.
I look at the Liberal Campaign and I see vote buying.
I look at the NDP campaign and see the usual stuff.
I'm ok with the conservative platform as its more realistic then the other two major parties.
But I am shocked at how poorly Harper has been campaigning, he learned some key lessons in the last election, but seems to have forgotten the rest.
I would think that we're quibbling about whether a majority is possible, other wise the size of the minority. The only way I think that Ignatieff can close the gap quickly enough is by doing a Mulroney Turner knockout, but I think that Harper will be too well prepared for that.
The cynic is me also thinks that within days of the election that Ignatieff and the NDP will try to take over parliment, the trust level isn't there for me, and then we'll be back to the polls by the fall.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
So the AG won't release the report but all the parties are demanding that she does.
Does this help or hurt the Conservatives?
I think any chance of a Conservative Majority just went out the window. This is their adscam for sure.
Reports say the draft version of Fraser's confidential report found that three people — Clement, the mayor of Huntsville, and the general manager of the Deerhurst Resort, which hosted the G8 summit — selected which projects received funding without considering either the needs of the summit or the funding rules laid out by the government. Among the 32 projects that reportedly received funding: - Public toilets that were 20 kilometres away from the summit site ($274,000); - A gazebo built a one hour's drive from the summit site ($100,000); - Upgrades to sidewalks and trees about 100 kilometres from the site ($1.1 million). - And downtown improvements to three towns about 70 kilometres away ($745,000).
I think that the backlash is around 4 elections in 7 years, with this one kind of being the straw that breaks the camels back. And I agree with some people that have said that Ignatieff has had a surprisingly decent campaign but the bar was set low.
I don't think that any of the campaigns have been awe inspiring at all. And the cynic in me is tired of seeing mass impossible election promises.
I look at the Liberal Campaign and I see vote buying.
I look at the NDP campaign and see the usual stuff.
I'm ok with the conservative platform as its more realistic then the other two major parties.
But I am shocked at how poorly Harper has been campaigning, he learned some key lessons in the last election, but seems to have forgotten the rest.
I would think that we're quibbling about whether a majority is possible, other wise the size of the minority. The only way I think that Ignatieff can close the gap quickly enough is by doing a Mulroney Turner knockout, but I think that Harper will be too well prepared for that.
The cynic is me also thinks that within days of the election that Ignatieff and the NDP will try to take over parliment, the trust level isn't there for me, and then we'll be back to the polls by the fall.
I guess that's what I'm missing though. Their platform isn't actually anymore realistic. They say that they can magically find "efficiencies" in government to balance the budget a year early. That sounds good, but in reality its not that simple. Over the past 5 years they've found about $2.7billion.....at least that is the figure I think that is in the Herald article this morning.
Couple that with an untendered purchase of jets (that you know way more about than I do), that everyone seems to think will be way over budget (everyone except the CPC) and you have a platform that could be a complete financial disaster. That's not even getting into the broken promises over the past five years, allegations of scandal and corruption, etc.
Today though we have a new low for the ethics and democracy of the party and its desperation to gain a majority.
The defence for them re-routing the funds is to have John Baird come out and speak about a draft of the report that he has seen that will allegedly exonerate them? That is absolutely unethical, and should not be happening. Baird (A) shouldn't have seen the report and (B) shouldn't be commenting publicly on the contents of the report before they are finalized and released. Its pretty clear that the governing party not only has a financially questionable platform (although its limited to a few questions a day!) and just doesn't care about acting within the bounds of an acceptable standard regarding parliamentary procedure or governance.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Also interesting to me is that the Conservatives are urging Canadian voters to wait until the final report is released before passing judgement. Fair enough, I say, as we shouldn't be hasty to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.
Funny how much the CPC's attitude has changed in the last five years, though. Some of you may remember that Paul Martin said the same thing about the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal (which ultimately found that he was in no way personally involved) but Harper refused to wait until the final report was complete before bringing down the government and forcing an election over that one issue.
Also interesting to me is that the Conservatives are urging Canadian voters to wait until the final report is released before passing judgement. Fair enough, I say, as we shouldn't be hasty to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.
Funny how much the CPC's attitude has changed in the last five years, though. Some of you may remember that Paul Martin said the same thing about the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal (which ultimately found that he was in no way personally involved) but Harper refused to wait until the final report was complete before bringing down the government and forcing an election over that one issue.
I guess that's what I'm missing though. Their platform isn't actually anymore realistic. They say that they can magically find "efficiencies" in government to balance the budget a year early. That sounds good, but in reality its not that simple. Over the past 5 years they've found about $2.7billion.....at least that is the figure I think that is in the Herald article this morning.
I didn't say the platform was the end all, just more realistic for me, I personally think that the government is hideously over employed and inefficient in the same way that I think that you can't fix health care by throwing money at it. I don't think its unrealistic to find deficiencies over the next four years of 1,2,4 and 4 billion dollars that can be cleaned out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Couple that with an untendered purchase of jets (that you know way more about than I do), that everyone seems to think will be way over budget (everyone except the CPC) and you have a platform that could be a complete financial disaster. That's not even getting into the broken promises over the past five years, allegations of scandal and corruption, etc.
True, I don't have a problem with the F-35 program, I don't see anything out there that competes and has the possibility of bringing in dollars at the same time, and as I stated before I do question the methods that the BPO office used to arrive at the $30 billion dollar amount thats somewhere earlier in the thread.
I would expect that this is going to be a heavy exchange in the debate, and either I'll be vindicated or look like a dumba$$.
Today though we have a new low for the ethics and democracy of the party and its desperation to gain a majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The defence for them re-routing the funds is to have John Baird come out and speak about a draft of the report that he has seen that will allegedly exonerate them? That is absolutely unethical, and should not be happening. Baird (A) shouldn't have seen the report and (B) shouldn't be commenting publicly on the contents of the report before they are finalized and released. Its pretty clear that the governing party not only has a financially questionable platform (although its limited to a few questions a day!) and just doesn't care about acting within the bounds of an acceptable standard regarding parliamentary procedure or governance.
It was funny that this stuff came out after the G20 with the allegations against Clement and it didn't seem to carry legs back then. I do find it disturbing, and I'd like to see this report.
while I think its a stinker, I still do believe that the sponsership scandal was a higher level of bad. But thats my opinion.
It does seem funny that Ignatieff hasn't been able to get much of any traction on the ethics of the Conservative party. I do think that this will come up in the debate, but I think it does balance off with voter apathy created by 4 elections in 7 years. I get what you were saying about the ease of voting, I'm right there with you, I don't miss voting because I think its a fundemental duty to vote. But I am getting sick of the same old sh%t year after year.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It was funny that this stuff came out after the G20 with the allegations against Clement and it didn't seem to carry legs back then. I do find it disturbing, and I'd like to see this report.
Aside from the fact that we're in the middle of an election campaign, the big reason this is gaining traction now is because the words of the non-partisan Auditor General carry significantly more weight than criticisms from members of the opposition parties.
Also interesting to me is that the Conservatives are urging Canadian voters to wait until the final report is released before passing judgement. Fair enough, I say, as we shouldn't be hasty to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.
Funny how much the CPC's attitude has changed in the last five years, though. Some of you may remember that Paul Martin said the same thing about the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal (which ultimately found that he was in no way personally involved) but Harper refused to wait until the final report was complete before bringing down the government and forcing an election over that one issue.
Which is why adscam is way overblown. It's politics.
The Libs sure miss handled the G8/20 announcement today, First it is a draft copy and before looking further into it, Ignatieff was out stating how the Con's broke the law, were lying, and spending like drunken sailors. But then when questioned couldn't answer the reporters questions, and then walked away from the press conference.
At least the Bloc was more like, this needs to be brought to the public's attention and the report needs to be released. Didn't hear the NDP release.
Ottawa’s $45.7-million G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund did not have to be spent on projects that were directly linked to the meeting of world leaders in Muskoka. “We wanted to ensure that we put a good face on Canada,” Conservative candidate John Baird said at a news conference. Mr. Baird said the money was used in part to build or improve on infrastructure linked directly to the summit, while the rest of the fund was a gift to the region.
Below is the full list of projects: District Municipality of Muskoka
Muskoka Tourism Gateway Signs: $408,000
Muskoka Tourism Visitor Information Centre: $260,000
Road improvements:$1.8-million Jack Garland Airport Corp.
Jack Garland North Bay International Airport Improvements: $3.5-million Province of Ontario
Highway 11 upgrades: $350,000 Town of Bracebridge
Bracebridge Sportsplex Emergency Backup: $40,000
Gateway Signage: $150,000
Annie Williams Park Upgrades: $500,000
Downtown revitalization: $800,000 Town of Gravenhurst
Downtown beautification: $1.2-million Town of Huntsville
Huntsville beautification and lighting: $106,000
Port Sydney beautification: $250,000
Reconstruction of Deerhurst Drive: $2-million
University of Waterloo G8 Centre Expansion: $9.8-million
G8 Centre:$17-million Town of Kearney
Main Street beautification: $730,000 Town of Parry Sound
Parry Sound beautification: $178,000
Parry Sound downtown streetscaping: $1.1-million Town of Sundridge
Sundridge pedestrian crossing: $125,000
Beautification of Sundridge: $750,000 Village of Burk’s Falls
Improvements to Burk’s Falls Town Centre: $150,000 Township of Georgian Bay
Port Severn Gateway feature signage: $1-million
Port Severn streetscape/linear parks: $1-million Township of Lake of Bays
All-season heritage plaque in Baysville: $39,000
Baysville community streetscape improvements: $117,000
Lake of Bays Band Shell and public washrooms: $300,000 Township of Muskoka Lakes
Tourism signage: $250,000
Bala Falls road upgrades: $386,000
Paignton House road upgrades: $424,000 Township of Perry
Road improvements: $100,000 Township of Seguin
Seguin Township beautification and streetscape: $745,000 Village of South River
With the technology we have today can't the G8 just meet via skype or some form of conference call and save a tonne of money. I mean even if the summit costs $100 million, let alone a billion, I think it is a waste of money.
The Following User Says Thank You to Stranger For This Useful Post:
With the technology we have today can't the G8 just meet via skype or some form of conference call and save a tonne of money. I mean even if the summit costs $100 million, let alone a billion, I think it is a waste of money.
I'm pretty sure the next one will be via teleconferencing.
Must be a pretty big story though. Not one peep of it mentioned on the Calgary Sun.
Now the Tories have "recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago."
Now the Tories have "recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago."
You've got to be kidding.
Wow. Insane.
I'm surprised they didn't recycle the comment "after the budget has been been balanced."
Yikes! I'd like to see this reported by another outlet, but the CBC is running a story in which Sheila Fraser claims that The Harper Government(TM) attributed a quote to her praising their G8/G20 spending but the quote was actually about the previous Liberal government on security programs following 9/11.
Quote:
Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer, CBC News has learned.
The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits.
The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”
But in her letter addressed to members of a Commons committee on Friday, which was received by the clerk and members on Monday, Fraser said the quote had nothing to do with the summits.
Instead, she said, the Conservatives recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.
“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter.
“I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”
Okay, confession time: when Bev Oda says it was common practice in her dept to alter signed documents, I BELIEVE HER.
For those discussing government waste, I think this guy makes a pretty good point about promises to find and eliminate waste.
It's a legitimate position to support spending cuts or to accept the need for higher taxes, but to think that any government is going to balance the books simply by cutting out the waste is unrealistic and the fact that every party promises to do that in every election campaign should be taken as a pretty powerful clue that government waste isn't something that any of them are doing on purpose or are indifferent towards.
Here in Ottawa I've seen a lot of election signs all over the city, growing up in Calgary I never saw so many election signs, I guess because other major parties conceded the city, but here there's signs everywhere from candidates of all the major parties. The riding I'm living in is be very NDP.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back2Back
The Oilers are very close on becoming a powerhouse team.
