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

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Should be interesting to see if the Conservatives get a bump on Tuesday when they release their platform. If its even a decent platform, it could sound the end of the other parties fighting to get elected, and start the breathless panic of trying to prevent the conservatives from getting a majority.

To me the Libs, NDP and Greens don't have anything left in their quiver, while Harper and the Conservatives have their biggest weapon coming.

I think that ship sailed when Layton called him on it at the debate. Whether you like Layton or not that was a pretty telling moment and triggered more than a few voters.

Sure I guess its nice that they are putting something out, but its only a week to the election (with a holiday weekend to boot). Basically the press they get for the platform coming out is going to be all of the other parties taking shots at it as well.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure I guess its nice that they are putting something out, but its only a week to the election (with a holiday weekend to boot). Basically the press they get for the platform coming out is going to be all of the other parties taking shots at it as well.

If there's anything of substance there won't be enough time to explain it.

If there isn't, well there won't be much of a lift.

I'm not sure there will be much of a ripple.

[mrdeeds]

Look for some Liberalesque spending announcements and initiatives this Tuesday from the Conservatives, and maybe something about the economy. It will be interesting to see what they will throw out their to try to regain their lost hopes of a majority.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Agreed. Harper isn't perfect, but he is so far ahead of the other options, its not even funny. Frankly, its downright scary how incompetent his competition is. The NDP and Green Party are downright frightening, and its scary that people can find their misguided, poorly informed, selfish, P.I.G. (personal interest group) mentality desirable speaks poorly about the Canadian voter. (ie: Carbon taxes in Europe are not working across the board... not even close... Germany is in massive recession with 18% unemployment).

At least the Liberals pre and post Dion can be considered a competent choice. (even if some of us find them undesirable). Dion just has them in pure crisis mode. Even so, he's still a better choice than the NDP and Greens.

Germany has an unemployment rate of 7.6% and does not have a carbon tax it has a series of taxes levied on oil products and electricity. The European nations that have a relativly long history with carbon taxes(Sweden, Finland Netherlands and Norway) have fared pretty well.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...681774,00.html

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Germany has an unemployment rate of 7.6% and does not have a carbon tax it has a series of taxes levied on oil products and electricity. The European nations that have a relativly long history with carbon taxes(Sweden, Finland Netherlands and Norway) have fared pretty well.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...681774,00.html

My bad, that should have said 8%, not 18%.

Either way, that is a rather high number, especially when considering that desired unemployment rates are around 4%.

[mrdeeds]

From what I remember of Economics 203, full employment was 5%. When I checked out Wikipedia, it was from 2%-7% depending on the circumstances.

[Ronald Pagan]

Rumour has it that the latest set of overnight tracking polls have significant backward movement from the Tories.

They could be outliers but needless to say, Conservatives are losing momentum if you look at the 3 week average.

Would it be annoying to have an election only to have another minority with relatively similar seat counts?

Update:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/10/05/t...re-in-trouble/

[Caged Great]

I am hoping for another minority, especially a weak one with either Dion or Harper as the PM. That way there will be some non Partisan solutions in order to fix the upcoming mess instead of having a guy with a majority who says the fundamentals of the economy are strong in the midst of the economy dropping 1000+ points on the TSX.

I'm not a fan of Dion's green shift. Not the idea of a green shift, but the lousy way in which Dion has presented it. I believe if we were to impliment something like what Denmark's doing, then it should be fine.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Exactly. Octothorp is right in theory, but with party solidarity and campaigning by brand moreso than individual... a vote for an MP is a vote for the party leader, since they pull the strings. Even someone as polarizing and destructive as Rob Anders can really only bluster with no effect on policy as a backbencher.

Well, using Rob Anders as an example, I don't think that very many of the people voting for him do so because they like Steven Harper; they do it because they identify strongly with the party. You could run just about any competent conservative as leader of the party, and that riding (Calgary West?) would still vote for them. Hell, you could run Rob Anders as party leader, and the Conservatives would still probably take a majority of ridings in Alberta (some in Calgary and all in rural Alberta) unless another right wing party appeared to challenge them.

In Alberta, the party is and always has been the greatest motivator for voting, on both a provincial and federal level. In other parts of the country, it's not nearly the same motivator.

Similarly, it would be foolish to suggest that voters in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver all identify strongly or trust Stephan Dion, while voters in rural parts of the country distrust him. Some are voting for him because they've always voted Liberal, some are voting for him because they like the Liberal platform, others are voting for him because they don't want to see Conservatives elected.

The vast shift from Liberal to Conservative in parts of Ontario and Quebec was not because people liked or trusted Harper more than Martin; it was because they felt that the Liberal party was corrupt, voters wanted to send a message; and again, any individual in the Liberal party could have been leader, and the result would have been more or less the same.

Look at Newfoundland this year: the conservatives have three seats going into the election, and it's currently predicted that they'll lose two of those three. Is it a coincidence that in the two seats they'll likely lose, the incumbents did not run again, while in the one seat they have a chance of retaining, the incumbent is running again? And this is in the face of prominent regional politicians running an anti-Harper campaign. Incumbent regional representation is proving to be an effective counter there for questions of leadership. Of course, regional issues and regional voting history are also factors. But we see that all the time: a region of the country shifts voting based on regional issues, but one or two ridings maintain allegiance to an incumbent until the incumbent retires, at which point they shift to follow the rest of the region.

For third parties, the leader is far more important; people aren't as familiar with the party history or platform, so a charismatic and trusted leader is necessary; Ed Broadbent for example, who constantly grew NDP support through earning trust on a national level.

The number of seats that change hands to the Conservatives or Liberals this election as a result of the party leadership will be small; the number of seats that remain for incumbent Conservatives or Liberals because of party leader is even smaller. The one issue where I do think that leadership plays a big role is determining whether a government will get a majority; people will vote to prevent a less trusted leader from achieving a majority. But in this case, it's not really weighing one leader against the other, Dion or Layton's charisma doesn't really affect whether people trust Harper enough to give him a majority.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Rumour has it that the latest set of overnight tracking polls have significant backward movement from the Tories. They could be outliers but needless to say, Conservatives are losing momentum if you look at the 3 week average.

Funny. Paul Martin calls an election when he thinks it politically expedient, runs a horrible campaign and loses seats. Now Harper calls an election when he thinks it politically expedient, runs a poor campaign thus far and by the latest numbers, could end up losing seats.

Of course, as they say, there is only one poll that counts.

There is absolutely no way that this ends up anything other than a Conservative minority or possibly, though unlikely, a majority. And I predict that is going to be the way of Canadian politics for many years to come until the Greens, NDP and Liberals get together and find some way of not having the centre-left vote split

[MarchHare]

And I predict that is going to be the way of Canadian politics for many years to come until the Greens, NDP and Liberals get together and find some way of not having the centre-left vote split

Or the Liberals nominate a decent leader.

[ikaris]

Ya know in Alberta if the left united their votes, they would be able to beat the Conservatives. Otherwise it is impossible. In my riding, I want to vote ABC, but do not know which party has the closest chance to win. If the Liberals and NDP were to just not run a candidate (just one of them) surely there would be enough votes to win. It's so frustrating.

[mrdeeds]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Ya know in Alberta if the left united their votes, they would be able to beat the Conservatives. Otherwise it is impossible. In my riding, I want to vote ABC, but do not know which party has the closest chance to win. If the Liberals and NDP were to just not run a candidate (just one of them) surely there would be enough votes to win. It's so frustrating.

True enough. Unfortunately, this is in not enough ridings. What I would do in your case is check the election results of the past election to get an indication how many votes the parties had last time around. In my riding Rona Ambrose just destroyed the other candidates, but still I voted.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have a simple rule

If someone complains to me about government, or elections, or the economy or policy, I ask one simple question "Did you vote"

If they say no, I punch em in the face every day until the next election. I like to call it the don't bitch to me if you didn't vote, maybe next time you won't complain to me about something you had a stake in policy.

[Flames0910]

While I don't agree with everything Harper stands for, I feel he is the strongest leader of the bunch. Even in the debate, it was everybody bitching and complaining at Harper. Instead of standing on their platform alone, they felt the need to belittle the status quo - to bitch and complain about everything that is wrong in Canada. I feel that there is something inherently wrong with this. Maybe its a problem in other countries as well, but I have always felt that the bashing the competition was something that we as Canadians did not put up with.
At least its something I don't put up with. Which is why for all their mistakes and blunders, I will be voting for the Conservatives this time around (despite protesting last time against Anders with a Marxist-Leninist vote).

Jack Layton is not a viable option. He knows he won't win - which makes him free to bash everybody he feels like so that he can try to muster up some support. What he doesn't realize is that the critical voter can see through his blustering. How many times did he mention Exxon in the debate? How many times did he say that he wanted to focus on the kitchen table instead of the boardroom table? What does that even mean? No matter the policy their will not be economic parity among all class levels, communism proved that. Focusing on the "kitchen table" simply changes who we tax, ultimately the taxation is the same: your employer pays you less because they are being taxed but your taxes are less so your discretionary income stays the same. Do Canadians feel that such a dramatic change in our economic policy is necessary? Businesses trying to adapt to such a shift would create new opportunities, but the turmoil would also result in lost opportunities, lost revenues and ultimately, a decrease in the power of the Canadian economy. In such tumultuous times is such a dramatic change wise? Personally, I would advocate some tweaking but nothing more.

The same can be said for the liberals. The green shift is a great idea in theory - but only in theory. Ignoring the recent occurences in the US, our economic plans are working great - Canada is experiencing growth, our dollar is near par with the American and the average Canadian seems to be happy. In my opinion the Liberal plan is far too dramatic. To me their platform screams of desperation and it feels far too extreme. They simply want to capitalize on what they feel is a popular trend towards green technology. If I had an extreme vote I would choose the Green Party thank you very much.

I'm not even going to even get into the green party (however I think they actually understand their target voter more than the other parties - they simply don't have the numbers within their target) or the bloc (although Duceppe impressed me more than any other leader, he is clearly focused on one thing - Quebec).

Harper is the devil we know. He doesn't promise huge changes to the economy, huge tax cuts or really anything huge. He is not making fancy promises that he does not have the ability to keep. He simply promises the status quo. Prior to the US economic failure we would have been happy with this promise, and his points in the debate are correct - we do have greater control over our securities markets. An Enron-like situation would be impossible here. The bank situation would not happen here. Our controls are too great - our markets require more disclosure of information, accountants can't "cook the books". Yes we will feel some backlash due to our ties with the United States but the effects will not be as dramatic - we are our own country (and that is something that we as Canadians should be proud of).




And one last sidepoint because it really ticked me off. May raised the point of our manufacturing jobs shifting to service jobs as though they were "lower productivity" and as though this was a bad thing. Our manufacturing jobs have always been shifting towards service jobs. This has been a trend over the past couple years and is nothing new. Service jobs require knowledge. It shows our increasing education levels as a population and is a trend we should be embracing!
Think about a recent university graduate that you know. Did they go to work on the oil rigs or on an assembly line in a factory? No they got a high paying job as a lawyer, business executive, doctor, consultant, etc. These are high level service jobs that require an education. Yes the benefits produced are intangible, but that does not make them "low productivity". Do you look down on CEO's for not creating a physical product? What about your doctor or lawyer? No, these are respected members of our community - they are prestigious jobs! These are the jobs that May would have you believe are bad! Sorry for that rant but it really ticked me off in the debate. I am studying business at the UofC and will ultimately be providing some sort of service, as will my peers. If May would have us all working on assembly lines so we can be 'productive' then maybe she should get with the times.

While things will probably hinge on the crucial southern Ontario/Quebec vote my money is on another Conservative minority.

[the_only_turek_fan]

I have two questions that I hope get answered....

1. Harper's excise tax cut on diesel.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Excise or Excise tax (sometimes called an excise duty), is a type of tax charged on goods produced within the country (as opposed to customs duties, charged on goods from outside the country).

Now he cut the tax from 0.04 to 0.02. So anyone that produces diesel in Canada now pays two cents less tax, which means that there expenses come down two cents.

Question is, does it mean that these companies will automatically cut there price down by two cents as well? Cause with out them doing that, I don't see how the tax cut helps consumers? If the two cents in savings is trickled down to the consumer, then its a great thing, but does a tax cut necessarily mean that the company producing diesel will charge two cents less?

2. Taxing Carbon

As I understand it upstream oil and gas companies produce and sell barrel's of oil.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The upstream oil sector is a term commonly used to refer to the searching for and the recovery and production of crude oil and natural gas. The upstream oil sector is also known as the exploration and production (E&P) sector.

Now as I understand it, crude oil is sold at the global price of oil set by the market place that day. Is that correct in saying that? Now if these companies are taxed by the Canadian government on their emissions because the price of their product is set by the global market they won't be able to pass that additional expense to consumers. So upstream companies get the shaft big time.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia again

The petroleum industry is usually divided into three major components: Upstream, midstream and downstream. Midstream operations are usually included in the downstream category.
The downstream oil sector is a term commonly used to refer to the refining of crude oil, and the selling and distribution of natural gas and products derived from crude oil. Such products include liquified petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline or petrol, jet fuel, diesel oil, other fuel oils, asphalt and petroleum coke.
The downstream sector includes oil refineries[1], petrochemical plants, petroleum product distribution, retail outlets and natural gas distribution companies. The downstream industry touches consumers through thousands of products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, asphalt, lubricants, synthetic rubber, plastics, fertilizers, antifreeze, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, natural gas and propane.

Do the big oil companies in Canada do both upstream and downstream work?

And if not, do the downstream companies buy the crude oil and then refine and then sell the products that are refined from the crude oil? Refining also emits a lot of emissions and as I understand it those products are not sold at a global price so the additional expenses (carbon tax) can be passed on to consumers. Am I correct there?

[Ronald Pagan]

This election is demonstrating that the Conservatives are not yet a national party.

They made a mind-boggling tactical error with their get-tough-on-youth-offenders policy. While the policy is popular for their base in western Canada it has shot themselves in the foot in Quebec. Numbers in Quebec have been crumbling ever since and they are now running third in the province. What looked like an improvement from their 10 seats in 2006 is now looking like a complete goose egg. Didn't polling numbers tell them that crime doesn't play in Quebec or Ontario much for that matter?

Either way, another election another minority.

[Resolute 14]

Simple fact is, there is NO national party in Canada.

That said, why in the hell would the Conservatives lose support with a policy of getting tough on crime? I mean, I know Montreallers love their riots, but that is a very odd thing for Quebec to bail on.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Simple fact is, there is NO national party in Canada.

That said, why in the hell would the Conservatives lose support with a policy of getting tough on crime? I mean, I know Montreallers love their riots, but that is a very odd thing for Quebec to bail on.

Agreed. If you look at the actual demographics of a party support, you find a hodge-podge of regional salience and strength that stands under each party. Not even the Liberals' vaunted "national brand" is able to make the sweep, but instead is mainly concentrated in urban areas, especially Southern Ontario and Lower Mainland BC.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Simple fact is, there is NO national party in Canada.

That said, why in the hell would the Conservatives lose support with a policy of getting tough on crime? I mean, I know Montreallers love their riots, but that is a very odd thing for Quebec to bail on.

What they should have said was they were going to let the provinces have more control over crime and punishment. Anytime Quebec gets more control they're happy and the idea of allowing Alberta to implement harder punishments would make them happy...everybody wins...