40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[FlamesAddiction]

It's the same thing with the NDP in many ridings. Many people support them verbally, but when the cards are on the table, many of their softline supporters vote for the Liberals.

Personally, I am pretty disappointed with all 3 major federalist parties, that I doubt I will vote for them. If I hated either of them enough, I might vote for one of them to try and help the other lose... but at this point, I don't hate them either. I'm not conservative enough to want to vote for Harper, but at this point, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Changing governments too often is inefficient and I'd rather wait until there is more to judge him on.

[mykalberta]

I have a new thought about the debates.

Why not include them based on % of national vote. Say minimum 5 or 10.

That way fringe regional parties arent included.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have a new thought about the debates.

Why not include them based on % of national vote. Say minimum 5 or 10.

That way fringe regional parties arent included.

I agree on this approach; it's far more fair than whether or not a party has a seat; consider the election where the conservatives got shut out, I don't think anyone seriously talked about banning them from the debates next time around.

On the other hand, if you allow only parties who received 5% of the vote in the previous election, Preston Manning would have never been allowed to participate in the 1993 leaders debates, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Reform Party was going to be a major factor.

I think the ideal situation would be to allow three different options for the party to participate in leaders debates; A party must a) Have at least five seats in the House of Commons at dissolution; or b) Have received 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election; or c) Field candidates in at least half (or some other percentage) of the federal ridings (154, currently).

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I agree on this approach; it's far more fair than whether or not a party has a seat; consider the election where the conservatives got shut out, I don't think anyone seriously talked about banning them from the debates next time around.

On the other hand, if you allow only parties who received 5% of the vote in the previous election, Preston Manning would have never been allowed to participate in the 1993 leaders debates, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Reform Party was going to be a major factor.

I think the ideal situation would be to allow three different options for the party to participate in leaders debates; A party must a) Have at least five seats in the House of Commons at dissolution; or b) Have received 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election; or c) Field candidates in at least half (or some other percentage) of the federal ridings (154, currently).

Even after 92? The PC still had seats and a considerable vote %

I think the % of national vote is the only fair way for who goes on National Leadership debates - I wold say 5-8. It allows a fringe party who dominates one of the major provinces to be included but not say if you only run seats in the Yukon or whatever.

If you do it by candidates run or something else then the Bloc likely gets excluded and even though everyone outside Quebec should despise and detest them - they are still important to have in a national debate because their core issue is one of national importance.

I just dont think if some whackjob from Lethbridge or whatever who wants to run an Alberta Independence Federal party and gets 1 seat that somehow that whaco should have a debate and essentially free advertising nationally.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Even after 92? The PC still had seats and a considerable vote %

Oh, you're right, I thought they got shut out in 1993, but they actually got 2 seats.

I think the % of national vote is the only fair way for who goes on National Leadership debates - I wold say 5-8. It allows a fringe party who dominates one of the major provinces to be included but not say if you only run seats in the Yukon or whatever.

If you do it by candidates run or something else then the Bloc likely gets excluded and even though everyone outside Quebec should despise and detest them - they are still important to have in a national debate because their core issue is one of national importance.

Yeah, that's why you need an 'or' scenario. Seats or Votes or Candidates, enough of any one of the three gets you in.

I just dont think if some whackjob from Lethbridge or whatever who wants to run an Alberta Independence Federal party and gets 1 seat that somehow that whaco should have a debate and essentially free advertising nationally.

Yeah, again that's why I said 'at least five seats'.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have a new thought about the debates.

Why not include them based on % of national vote. Say minimum 5 or 10.

That way fringe regional parties arent included.

I would base it upon the number of ridings in which a party has a candidate running in. That makes sense to me. It restricts the silly parties and allows a party like the Green to participate, something that I agree with.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Sure, but you use that as a reason why you can't vote Liberal, or then you also can't vote CPC for the same reason. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.

If you won't vote for Liberals for some other policy reason, great, bring that up.

But to continuously trot out the same tired things that both parties are guilt of, and trying to apply the criteria to only one of the 2 is disingenuous at best.

Where did I post that I would not vote for the liberals because of broken promises? I didn't. I am against most of their policies and that is why I will not vote for them.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's the same thing with the NDP in many ridings. Many people support them verbally, but when the cards are on the table, many of their softline supporters vote for the Liberals.

But it starting to swing the other way. The NDP making leaps and bounds in the polls and now, in some ridings, a Liberal voter may throw his vote to the NDP to keep the Conservatives from winning.

There are some even thinking that the NDP may form the official opposition. That's an incredible long-shot, but even that the NDP are in that ballpark is great.

BTW - Is the lead news story each day of the campaign going to be Harper apologizing?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Where did I post that I would not vote for the liberals because of broken promises? I didn't. I am against most of their policies and that is why I will not vote for them.

I wasn't speaking specifically about you, but it was addressed to the, "many of the people that criticize the liberals for broken promises have done the same with the conservatives."

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I would base it upon the number of ridings in which a party has a candidate running in. That makes sense to me. It restricts the silly parties and allows a party like the Green to participate, something that I agree with.

At one time the Rhino's ran a candidate in almost every riding. The Marxist-Lenonists and Communist Party of Canada both run almost a full slate of candidates. I assume you consider these parties not to be "fringe" by the above definition.

I think the answer is a simple two pronge question: either official party status in the house of commons (12 sitting members) or at least 10% of the popular vote in the last election. Either one gets you in, having neither relegates you to the status of "fringe party" and until you can crack those rather meager requirements, you don't belong in a leadership debate where people are attempting to determine who would make the best Prime Minister.

Any comment from the Green supports on the news today that Lizzie called Canadian's "stupid", then threatened to sue those that host the audio clip of her making the claim?

[calculoso]

Elizabeth May: I think Canadians are stupid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxmfBPrptM

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I wasn't speaking specifically about you, but it was addressed to the, "many of the people that criticize the liberals for broken promises have done the same with the conservatives."

Fair enough, I got confused when you stated "you".

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Elizabeth May: I think Canadians are stupid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxmfBPrptM

That is the most amazing audio clip I have ever heard.

In the line "Politicians are scared of the word TAX and ____ think Canadians are stupid" ... if I am thinking the personal pronoun "I", I hear "I". But if I am thinking of the pronoun "THEY", I hear "THEY".

But that distinction is moot considering that she later says that she agrees with the assessment.

This is a common concern about May: "Mouth in overdrive, brain in neutral".

I listened to the original source from TVO and I know what she is getting at. The knee-jerk reaction to any tax change, be it Dion's "Green Shift" or the Green Party's own "Eco-tax" is that a "a tax is a tax is a tax and therefore evil". Considering that the Green Party platform includes cutting personal income taxes even more than Dion's "Green Shift" she is frustrated that people won't consider this as a "tax change" but cynically see this as a means to raise taxes. I understand her point, but she let her frustration boil over, while being recorded, on a campaign trail. I'm surprised her comment is only being reported in the back pages of the "National Post".

[Slava]

I looked quick and didn't see it, but what are some of your thoughts (CPC Supporters like JOM and Captain) on the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011? I just have a few words to say on that : nice flip flop.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Slava

I looked quick and didn't see it, but what are some of your thoughts (CPC Supporters like JOM and Captain) on the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011? I just have a few words to say on that : nice flip flop.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was this not already establish in parliament a few months ago? As far as I understood it they were just re confirming their stance to the public that if elected the would maintain parliaments decision to withdraw troops in 2011...

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Slava

I looked quick and didn't see it, but what are some of your thoughts (CPC Supporters like JOM and Captain) on the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011? I just have a few words to say on that : nice flip flop.

Do you have a CPC or news link claiming they wanted to be there past 2011?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Do you have a CPC or news link claiming they wanted to be there past 2011?

In February (IIRC) there was a lot of talk of extending the mission. There were numerous claims by the Conservatives that setting a definite end date was dangerous and should not be done. They also came out numerous times and said that it was cowardly to cut and run.

Seems now that there are votes on the line in Quebec though, the stance is changed. I just wanted to see how the conservative voters feel about this.

I suppose that I don't have a link to prove this to you, but I haven't bothered to do the digging on this...I think that their stance has been pretty well known by those that follow canadian politics.

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by kevman

Correct me if I'm wrong but was this not already establish in parliament a few months ago? As far as I understood it they were just re confirming their stance to the public that if elected the would maintain parliaments decision to withdraw troops in 2011...

This was settled back in March.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...onfidence.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I looked quick and didn't see it, but what are some of your thoughts (CPC Supporters like JOM and Captain) on the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011? I just have a few words to say on that : nice flip flop.

When the vote came to extend the mission to 2011, it also sent a strong deadline for withdrawl by 2011, so this is harldly a flip flop of any kind. Harper and the Conservatives just haven't talked about it as a firm date.

Personally, I'm against setting any kind of date, I'm for setting actual benchmarks in terms of making sure that the Afghan army and police are strong enough to do their own fighting and secure their own country. However, the Canadian Forces still isn't strong or well funded enough yet to go beyond another 3 years of constant combat operations, at some point they do have to withdraw and continue to try to rebuild and replace the men and equipment and integrate the combat veterans into the training cycle.

But not a flip flop by any stretch, more along the lines of Canadians not really paying attention.

Sorry someone has posted the story.

[Stranger]

It was settled earlier this year. White Tom said March. I think it is good to have an exit plan, however if the mission needs another year or two I think it should be looked at. Layton at the time just wanted to drop our guns and run with an immediate withdrawl.