2011 Canadian Election Thread

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Conservative supporter says he did fine, the Liberal says he did not. Politics at its finest!



Not really. If Layton backs Duceppe, Harper points to that as evidence the opposition is working on a coalition now. The three opposition parties pretty much have to avoid being seen as working together on the campaign trail, or it plays into Harper's hands.

I think that the coalition issue has a huge potential to backfire on Harper if he can't come up with an adequate answer to the claim (and clear evidence) that he wanted to form a coalition in 2004. How can he claim it is so bad now when he was going to do it in 2004?

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't even get what is wrong with a coalition government.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't even get what is wrong with a coalition government.

Yeah no kidding.

Seeing as we've already got the Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservative coaltion in power.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't even get what is wrong with a coalition government.

"A" coalition government may work well in theory.

"This" coalition government puts seperatists and socialists into key decisions. "This" coalition would bankrupt our country if 1/3rd of Jack Layton's promises came to fruition. "This" coalition would tax the spirit out of entrepreneurs and small business. "This" coalition would covertly transfer wealth from Alberta to Quebec under the guise of environmental policy. "This" coalition would guarantee with government funds every pension fund which raised it's head.

"This" coalition is an unmitigated disaster.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by flames_1987

I'm not sure who your Layton argument was aimed at, just because I believe Stephen Harper lacks charisma among other things, it does not equal a resounding endorsement for Jack Layton. I'm pretty sure on your charisma measuring, that Jack Layton too also goes to hockey games and maybe plays a musical instrument.

Charisma to me is leading a country, and not falling into the trap of big business, party rhetoric, mind numbing politics that have destroyed our political system.

It wasn't aimed at anyone, it was just a general statement. Layton is seen as more likeable and charismatic than Harper. I don't see how it is measured. I think all 3 leaders are the same.. how is one more charismatic than the other? How does Harper lack charisma was my original question and I was using Layton as an example, not saying you support him.

Leading the country isn't charisma is it? That's functionability, effectivenes and politics. Unless I'm totally way off.

[HotHotHeat]

....

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Excuse me?!

Your excused.

They withhold costs of programs that they want to impliment, they prorogue parliament (three times, twice to specifically avoid answering to parliament, they write and distribute booklets on how to disrupt committees, etc., and you can actually say it isn't true?

They don't HAVE to do whatever it is the Liberals nor the Dippers want....what part of that are you not understanding? And yes they have compromised...so no it isnt true they havent done so.

Unbelievable!

Quite believable.

The NDP and Liberals did say what they wanted to see in the budget. What they got was not acceptable to them. The Conservatives made token concessions to the NDP and ZERO concessions to the Liberals. I ask you to name any that they have made besides the stimulus spending (which the Conservatives have taken credit for) in the five years that they have been in government.

Read the most recent budget...there are a bunch of concessions in there that would normally not of been included in a Con budget, they have been chronicled repeatedly over the last week.

What have the Liberals or the Dippers compromised on except their values when they attempted to get in bed with seperatists in a coup they promised they wouldn't try to accomplish?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

...They don't HAVE to do whatever it is the Liberals nor the Dippers want....what part of that are you not understanding? And yes they have compromised...so no it isnt true they havent done so...

...Read the most recent budget...there are a bunch of concessions in there that would normally not of been included in a Con budget, they have been chronicled repeatedly over the last week.

What have the Liberals or the Dippers compromised on except their values when they attempted to get in bed with seperatists in a coup they promised they wouldn't try to accomplish?

Yes they do have to do what parliament wants, or they lose confidence of parliament. What part of that do you not understand? They lost confidence of parliament. They are as much to blame for the election as anyone else. The compromises they made in the budget were window dressing just so that they could claim that they made compromises without doing anything meaningful.

The NDP, BQ, and Liberals have all made concessions to make parliament work. If they hadn't, we would have had an election 3 years ago, as we have a minority government.

As an aside, do you seriously condone what the Conservatives have done? What possible motive can they have for withholding costs of programs, proroguing parliament or disrupting committees that is for the benefit of Canada? I see the benefit to Conservatives, but if the Liberals, NDP or BQ tried to do any of these things you would be screaming about it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Really? I thought he looked really bad by not answering the question, and from his remarks back to the journalists (I couldn't hear what they were saying), they weren't buying it. Harper is taking a big risk by using most of his speeches (so far at least) on the coalition as Duceppe is using it against him. If Layton backs Duceppe, the coalition issue could hurt Harper more than help him

I don't see how he looked bad in it, there was nothing in his letter about forming a coalition government at all, there was no agreement signed dividing governmental responsibility

Originally Posted by John Doe

That is the fact of the matter when you have a majority government. I don't condone some of the questionable actions of the Liberal party under Chretien, but I don't see how that is an excuse for what the Conservatives under Harper have done either. If Harper is stupid enough to be in contempt of Parliament with a minority government, then he deserves to be found so.

Sadly thats how government in this country does work. The Liberal government under Chretien and Martin were just as secretive as the Conservatives now. I look at the contempt of parliment and I go back to the grandstanding of a committee of opposition members who are now trying to fight the election based on ethics. The only party that is theoretically clean on the ethics issues are obviously the opposition parties and the NDP.

Originally Posted by John Doe

What I have a problem with is that the Conservatives dismiss the charge by saying that it was just a vote by Liberals, NDPers and BQ's. Well sorry, but that is Parliament, which just happens to be the highest court in the land. I find is puzzling that the Conservatives try to portray themselves as the "law and order" party, yet will not accept rulings from the highest court in the land!

But thats what specifically it was. It was in my mind a highly partisan operation. If you want me to be convinced of it, then you should use impartial members in a committee, somewhat like the Gomery hearings tried to do.

Originally Posted by John Doe

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that withholding costs as the Conservatives have done by claiming them to be "cabinet confidence" is ground-breaking.

How a was it ground breaking when the Liberals were actively trying to hide the actual costs of the long gun registry until the Conservatives took party and exposed it.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Harper brought in the RCMP to get ahead of the game as he knows how potentially damaging Carson can be to him. The damage to Harper will be that the opposition will use Carson as an example of the type of people that Harper surrounds himself with.

Except that Harper called the RCMP then the media got a hold of it. Under your standard he would be damned no matter what he did.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Who is this going to help? If anything, I would think that it would hurt the Conservatives as they continually ridicule the NDP for their fiscal views, yet were willing to take advise from them to create the budget?

Remember that Harper at one point invited all party leaders to consult on the budget, It looks like Layton was the only one that was serious about.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Again, how will this help him? He created the PBO (I believe this is what you are talking about) and appointed Kevin Page, who has been more accurate in the past than the government has been with their predictions. If he attacks the PBO, it will further enforce the already existing view that he is very heavy-handed with independent government watchdogs who don't agree with him.

How is it heavy handed when the BPO office isn't even evaluating on the terms of the actual expected purchase contract, nor on a proper evaluation of the program as a whole? Its great that Harper created the BPO position, but I question its accuracy in this case after reading the document which in the end was fairly general.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Harper is strictly on the defense here and there is no offensive maneuvering for him on this file. Nothing he can do on this issue will hurt Duceppe, yet there are some potential huge risks for Harper here.

Until someone can show me that the 2004 letter is anything more then it is, and that like the 2008 coalition that Harper had an agreement in place for how a coalition government would be structured, its an issue that could hurt the Bloc and NDP and yes the Conservatives. But until there is something beyond the facts that are presented, to me as a voter it doesn't mean much.

Originally Posted by John Doe

But how can they use this argument when they only contacted the NDP and wouldn't call the Liberals?

Harper had invited all opposition members to take part in the budgetary process this year and with last years budget. Good for Layton to step up.

Originally Posted by John Doe

This will help the Bloc in Quebec more than it will help the Conservatives. It may help the Conservatives outside of Quebec, but will it help them in this case more than it will hurt them in Quebec?

Your right, it will probably help the Bloc in Quebec, but the Cons only need 12 seats outside of Quebec. So telling Quebec to stuff it could help him more outside then inside where they're probably looking at the non Bloc dominated seats.

Originally Posted by John Doe

This is what they should do. This was a stupid decision by Ignatieff.

Yup

Originally Posted by John Doe

About the reinstatement of corporate taxes to 2010 levels? They had better be careful about that as polling suggests that most people agree with this.

Nope, about Ignatieff wanting to bump the GST back up and a few other of his ideas on tax.

Originally Posted by John Doe

They are going to try this, but will it stick? This is pretty tough to do when you have just lost confidence of the house by being the first government in parliamentary history to be found in contempt of parliament.

The polls really haven't show a bump in Liberal fortunes due to the contempt of Parliment. If the polls are to be believed then the Conservatives are stronger at this point in the election then they were at the start of the last election. I really don't think once we get into the actual platform presentation of the election that the contempt of Parliment is going to remain as a strong issue.

Originally Posted by John Doe

The Conservative narrative over the last three years has been an all-out attack on Ignatieff. They need this negative portrayal to stick, as people will be paying more attention to him during the election period. If Ignatieff can change peoples perceptions of him during the election, it could significantly affect the results. I have always wondered why the Conservatives attacked Ignatieff so relentlessly from the git-go. I have come to the conclusion that they are afraid of him.

Kind of like when Harper came on board and the Liberal's attacked him as the next reincarnation of George Bush? Obviously between the Conservatives going after Ignatieff and his own personal weaknesses its worked and hes not seen as a good or trustworthy prime ministarial leader. I doubt that 36 days is going to change that perception that much.

Originally Posted by John Doe

I don't think the NDP will attack the Liberals as much as they attack the Conservatives. They are the existing government, and are further from the NDP values than the Liberals are. As of right now, the NDP are concentrating on Conservative ridings (according to "Question Period" from this morning).

The NDP has to attack the Liberal's to prevent the left vote splitting that will doom them and the Libs to opposition status. People that vote conservative are not going to swing that radically to the NDP cause.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Something else you should consider is that as of now, each party has spending limits. That means for every attack ad the Conservatives run, the Liberals, NDP and BQ will each be able to run one themselves, and from what I have read each party will spend to the limit. This advantage that the Conservatives have enjoyed for the last few years has now become a disadvantage.

The Liberals don't even have a full slate of candidates in Alberta, they're a disorganized mess of a party. Even with equal spending, the Conservatives have an advantage in the way way that they run their campaign and their effectiveness at using the media.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Agreed! I would actually like to see a debate between Harper and Ignatieff only, but I doubt very much that will happen.

I'd prefer a bare knuckle boxing match myself ala frankie goes to Hollywood.

At some point my friend, we'll have to find a more effective way of doing this, this posting stuff is too long.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Yes they do have to do what parliament wants, or they lose confidence of parliament. What part of that do you not understand? They lost confidence of parliament. They are as much to blame for the election as anyone else. The compromises they made in the budget were window dressing just so that they could claim that they made compromises without doing anything meaningful.

The Conservatives have to govern not act in servative to the opposition parties. And they did make consessions to the budget that were real and specific to the NDP suggestions. I would argue that Layton was the poison pen as he asked for some pretty unrealistic spending points that the government didn't put into the budget.

Originally Posted by John Doe

The NDP, BQ, and Liberals have all made concessions to make parliament work. If they hadn't, we would have had an election 3 years ago, as we have a minority government.

What consessions have those parties made beyond window dressing. If the Conservatives are responsible for the atmosphere in Parliment then you also have to equally look at the opposition parties as well.

Originally Posted by John Doe

As an aside, do you seriously condone what the Conservatives have done? What possible motive can they have for withholding costs of programs, proroguing parliament or disrupting committees that is for the benefit of Canada? I see the benefit to Conservatives, but if the Liberals, NDP or BQ tried to do any of these things you would be screaming about it.

Since the NDP or Bloc have never been in power its mute.

But remember that Jean Chretien proroqued parliment, canceled opposition days, sh$t canned committees investigating corruption and hid program costs as well so lets not act like this is a Conservative invention.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Isn't Ambrose the MP for Stony Plain or whatever? Technically not Edmonton. So why would she care? That's like saying Kevin Sorenson should support something the city of Calgary wants.

Nope, not Stony Plain. She's in my riding - Edmonton-Spruce Grove.

As for a coalition government, I think it would be a disaster. It'd be like governing by committee. Can't folks see what a disaster that would be?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Yes they do have to do what parliament wants, or they lose confidence of parliament. What part of that do you not understand? They lost confidence of parliament. They are as much to blame for the election as anyone else. The compromises they made in the budget were window dressing just so that they could claim that they made compromises without doing anything meaningful.

No they dont have to do everything parliament wants...no matter how many times you keep saying it and all non PC members were free to vote as they wished but chose to bring them down...which is fine. That is their right to do so. The sitting government still has to govern based on their platforms they were elected on. Happens every single time Parliament is formed.

The NDP, BQ, and Liberals have all made concessions to make parliament work. If they hadn't, we would have had an election 3 years ago, as we have a minority government.

We had an election LESS than 3 years ago...another one Canadians didn't want.

As an aside, do you seriously condone what the Conservatives have done? What possible motive can they have for withholding costs of programs, proroguing parliament or disrupting committees that is for the benefit of Canada? I see the benefit to Conservatives, but if the Liberals, NDP or BQ tried to do any of these things you would be screaming about it.

Do I think they have been a perfect government? Not even close but i have never seen such an animal. Beyond that prorogueing parliament was absolutely the correct thing to do IMO. Canadians DID NOT WANT the proposed coalition so in that case the CPC gave the people what they wanted.

The Liberals/NDP/BQ DID TRY and do something...something the vast majority of people in the country did not want and after lying to the people about not doing that exact thing 6 weeks earlier.

I think the Libs are in for a real rough ride unless Ignatieff can become a super personable guy who somehow catches the ears of the nation, otherwise it could be a catostrophic fail for the Libs and could take years to recover. The left has a big problem on their hands...vote splitting at a level not seen before. The last time something like that happened was when the PC's were coming of the Mulroney debacle and handed the reigns to Kim Campbell while the reform party was coming up the rear....the PC's ended up with 2 seats after consecutive majorities IIRC.

Going to be a fascinating watch for me. Can the CPC stay out of their own way and if they can how badly do the Libs fall and how much do the NDP actually gain.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nik-

So they push for it, and as a result there's a deficit which they bang him on. So do they want to take partial credit or use it as a negative point? They can't do both, and as a result of crying about the deficit they forfeit their rights to any credit for the stimulus imo.

The GST cut and spending increase BEFORE the recession (motivated by an ideology that sees a surplus as overtaxation, rather than caution) put us into a position where stimulus pushed us into deficit. Likely we'd have still gone into deficit but it would have been smaller.

The opposition may try to have their cake and eat it too (as pertains only to the stimulus only), but so could Harper. He's already claiming credit for the economy (which only got stimulus because the opposition forced it), and may go after the opposition for the cost of the stimulus package.

Originally Posted by John Doe

I think that the coalition issue has a huge potential to backfire on Harper if he can't come up with an adequate answer to the claim (and clear evidence) that he wanted to form a coalition in 2004. How can he claim it is so bad now when he was going to do it in 2004?

Harper's strategy will most likely be to deny as much as possible, ignore as much as possible, and count on people's short memories and his superior war chest.

It will be much like McIver's "Eliminate the Park and Ride fee" ads in the Calgary mayoral campaign. It wasn't a unique position, but I'd bet he got a few votes for it anyways, because other candidates didn't have the resources to get the same message out. In this case, Harper will tell us that the Liberals wanted a coalition with the Bloq and the NDP. The Libs will also tell us that Harper wanted a coalition with the Bloq and the NDP, but it won't be as loudly. Advantage Harper, even though Ignatief is not Dion, but Harper is still Harper.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by flames_1987

I'm not sure who your Layton argument was aimed at, just because I believe Stephen Harper lacks charisma among other things, it does not equal a resounding endorsement for Jack Layton. I'm pretty sure on your charisma measuring, that Jack Layton too also goes to hockey games and maybe plays a musical instrument.

Charisma to me is leading a country, and not falling into the trap of big business, party rhetoric, mind numbing politics that have destroyed our political system.

Charisma = Obama...has nothing to do with leading a country, and in his case, mixed with narcissism and stupidity, produces negative results.

[MarchHare]

We had an election LESS than 3 years ago...another one Canadians didn't want.

The election less than three years ago was brought on by Harper ignoring his own fixed election date law and asking the GG to dissolve parliament. The opposition parties did not pass a non-confidence motion in 2008; the Conservatives are 100% responsible for the last "unwanted" election.

Do I think they have been a perfect government? Not even close but i have never seen such an animal. Beyond that prorogueing parliament was absolutely the correct thing to do IMO. Canadians DID NOT WANT the proposed coalition so in that case the CPC gave the people what they wanted.

What are your thoughts on the second time Harper prorogued parliament (last year)? That one had absolutely nothing about preventing the opposition from forming a coalition.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

.....
On another note, please please please lets leave Elizabeth May at home during the debates, she was a waste of skin in the last one.

Oh God yes, that woman is irritating beyond belief.

[Slava]

I'm sure that this will make Alberta thrilled, but rumour floating around right now that the NDP might not field a candidate against Justin Trudeau. That would all but guarantee the BQ takes him out. Very interesting and bad news for the Liberals if true.

(I know that there are no fans of the BQ here, but I figure that most of you are thrilled when a Liberal loses a seat, nevermind one named Trudeau)

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

.....

Your right, it will probably help the Bloc in Quebec, but the Cons only need 12 seats outside of Quebec. So telling Quebec to stuff it could help him more outside then inside where they're probably looking at the non Bloc dominated seats......

I completely concur. A couple of months ago, Maxime Bernier made a comment to the effect that Bill 101 was not needed in Quebec, that the Quebecois could protect their language and culture without it.

Bill 101 has been a taboo subject for politicians for more than a generation so when Bernier's comments came down, the press was saying, "Oh oh, now Bernier has done it. He's put his foot in his mouth and this is going to cost the Conservatives big time."

And the reaction from most Canadians was just the opposite, they were glad a politician finally had the nerve to say anything period about Bill 101.

I think standing firm on Quebec, instead of always trying to buy them off, will stand the Conservatives in good stead overall.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...I'd prefer a bare knuckle boxing match myself ala frankie goes to Hollywood.

At some point my friend, we'll have to find a more effective way of doing this, this posting stuff is too long.

I couldn't agree more! For that reason I will not try to address your entire post and concentrate on the coalition issue.

You are right in that there doesn't appear to be a written document specifically stating that the three opposition parties would form a coalition in 2004. However, the document that does exist and the statements from the time by Harper do suggest that this was precisely what he was going to do. This has today been confirmed by both Duceppe and Layton. By taking the hardline that he has on the 2008 coalition, Harper has backed himself into a corner where he must now say that Layton and Duceppe are lying about 2004 as well as providing a motive for their lies.

Harper has also said that Ignatieff is lying when he made a statement that he wouldn't form a coalition with the NDP and BQ if the Conservatives don't win a majority. So basically, he has said that all three of Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe are all lying, while the existing documents suggest that he is the one lying about the coalition in 2004.

Now I know that your views will not change and neither will mine. The average Canadian who has tuned out politics since the last election, however, may very well make up their minds on who to vote for on what they hear in the next five weeks. Harper has to convince these people that all the other leaders are not telling the truth while he exclusively is. I still stand on my belief that this is a risky path for Harper and has a very good chance to backfire on him.

As for the boxing match, I am torn on who would win. I think that Ignatieff is a better athlete and he has a reach advantage, while Harper is younger and would probably be more aggressive. It would be a good match, though.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

...Going to be a fascinating watch for me. Can the CPC stay out of their own way and if they can how badly do the Libs fall and how much do the NDP actually gain.

I don't have the time or energy to give a good response to your post, so I will just say that I disagree with some of what you said, agree with some, and am not sure about the rest (and no, I am not a politician).

I do agree with the bolded part, however. It will be fascinating. Nasty, but riveting!