2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

why so mad? so long ago... hehe

Beat me to my edit. Mad? No, just curious on your point. Of course I dislike what Trudeau did.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

Harper's 2004 actions matter because they make him a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is a prerequisite of being a federal politician.

The ethics arguments are falling flat because the Liberals lack a moral high ground. If anything, their own history under Chretien has left Canadians jaded and cynical, so it is going to be nearly impossible to get any traction on this front. Moreover, the Liberals have replaced Chretien with three successively worse leaders, and they are going to continue to pay for their transgressions until they find a leader who can inspire the populace to forget.

[Frequitude]

The Liberals might really be onto something with this F-35 issue. They should just scrap the Conservative plan and buy some good used diesel powered planes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Ya, but who cares when it comes down to coalition vs Conservative majority. What does it actually mean in terms of the type of government this country has going forwards...ie what the election is about?

I get the hypocrite thing and I agree, its not a checkmark on the guy that's for sure. But what does it matter in the grand scheme of things if the majority of Canadians don't want a coalition?

Well the majority of Canadians don't want a Conservative majority government either. What does 2004 matter? Well, it seems a coalition of non-plurality parties is possible whether it's a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority. And if Canadians were voting strategically to give one party a majority to avoid such a scenario, the NDP/BQ votes would go to the Libs. However, NDP/BQ supporters do not vote strategically, unless you consider the possibility of a coalition.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The ethics arguments are falling flat because the Liberals lack a moral high ground. If anything, their own history under Chretien has left Canadians jaded and cynical, so it is going to be nearly impossible to get any traction on this front. Moreover, the Liberals have replaced Chretien with three successively worse leaders, and they are going to continue to pay for their transgressions until they find a leader who can inspire the populace to forget.

And what about Conservative trangressions? The Liberals have paid for their sins, the Conservatives haven't. We must be careful that in punishing the Liberals, we don't allow the Conservatives to act with impunity.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's not what it is, though!

It's a conditional promise: "If we have money in five years, then you'll get a tax break if you have a kid. Maybe. If you haven't forgotten by then."

It's way more then that:

If we have the money...
In 4/5 Years...
If we're still in power...
If Stephan Harper is still PM ('cause really do think the Tory leader in 2016 is going to feel obligated to uphold a Harper 2011 promise?)...
If your family has a significant income disparity...
If you have a kid...
If you haven't forgotten...
If we haven't forgotten...
If some unforeseen complication doesn't arise...

THEN you'll get a tax break. It's a promise so far off and riddled with conditions/limitations so as to be worthless. This year and next year... tell me about this year and next year not 2016. Honestly, if you really wanted to ease the tax burden on parents you'd be better served offering an expansion of the CTB that way you'd cover single parents and two income households as well as families with a stay-at-home parent.

[Parallex]

nm

[Frequitude]

Its just some blog from 2004, but its a good read. I'm surprised the Conservatives aren't countering Ignatief's stance on fighter jets "for the right price" using this piece of tragic history.

http://madcanuck.blogspot.com/2004/1...ubmarines.html

In 1993, there was a federal election in which the Liberal party attacked the conservatives for their planned defence spending, lambasting it as being extravagant. When the Liberals won, they promptly cancelled the Cormorant contract (paying almost $500 million in penalties) and instead of buying the modern nuclear-powered subs, they decided to buy some used diesel-powered submarines from Britain.

End of the story...one sub caught fire killing a Canadian crewmember, and the Liberals ended up buying the Cormorant anyways.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was fine with the diesel subs that we bought from Britain because the Upholders that became the victoria class submarines were a pretty solid sub design.

I used to be in the buy the old nuc boats from the American's argument. But we just don't have the naval personal or infrastructure to support the propulsion plants.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

He would be awesome if he dropped that fake french accent though. Like anyone would seriously talk like that.

"We mus fuk-kus on the issue today. I ave said it fo the tird time."

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

"We mus fuk-kus on the issue today. I ave said it fo the turd time."

hahaha. that is pretty good.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

And what about Conservative trangressions? The Liberals have paid for their sins, the Conservatives haven't. We must be careful that in punishing the Liberals, we don't allow the Conservatives to act with impunity.

Well, either the Conservative transgressions are not nearly as bad as the Liberal corruption was, or the Liberal party lacks the political acumen to make Canadians care. Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff are all decidedly uninspiring leaders. Harper isn't exactly inspiring himself, but he plays politics better, and the results are what they are because of it.

That being said, I think Harper is making some mistakes early on, and is vulnerable as a result. Is Ignatieff the kind of leader who can force a small opening into something bigger? I doubt it, but we'll see.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, either the Conservative transgressions are not nearly as bad as the Liberal corruption was, or the Liberal party lacks the political acumen to make Canadians care. Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff are all decidedly uninspiring leaders. Harper isn't exactly inspiring himself, but he plays politics better, and the results are what they are because of it.

That being said, I think Harper is making some mistakes early on, and is vulnerable as a result. Is Ignatieff the kind of leader who can force a small opening into something bigger? I doubt it, but we'll see.

Have to agree...the whole boogeyman coalition focus is a waste of time IMO. Though it should last in the minds of voters a little bit because of what happened in 08.

That being said eventually the whole campaign will come down to the economy and spending issues. That's where Harper will either gain his majority or start to lose his hold on the PC faithful.

[Slava]

Based on the early campaigning I think that the CPC is working really hard at making sure they stick with a minority. Their big tax cut announcement is pretty roundly brushed aside as too far in the future to make a difference. The coalition talk is largely irrelevant.

I'm not saying that the other parties are doing anything amazing either; I don't care about the credit card promise that Layton made today and while the RESP investment the Liberals announce today is nice I hardly see that galvanizing voters either.

I have a hard time seeing major gains for anyone so far...save maybe the Bloc. Although they have an issue as well (if any leader cares to exploit it) in that sovreignty is basically a dead issue for the time being. If I were a federal leader I would drive that point home hard in Quebec and explain that the entire point of existence for the Bloc is sovreignty that they don't even want to campaign for at this point.

[Cscutch]

I don't think the coalition talk was a mistake. It was early in the campaign when they are still developing the platform. As the days go on it will be moved to the back and only be mentioned in speeches.

Then depending on how the polls go, and it may look like a conservative minority, the liberals may get desperate for power and may make a mistake and someone will say something stupid about maybe working with the NDP/Bloc and then the con's will pull out the card right away. If not they can let it stay in the background.

Chris

[crazy_eoj]

I think the Cons are very smart to keep reminding Canadians that the Liberal Party has a signed agreement to allow the seperatists access to the levers of government. A coalition including the bloc is very offputting to a huge percentage of the population. It was a very silly move for the Liberals to jump in bed with them in such a formal arrangement, and the Conservatives have never polled higher than after the Coalition Agreement was released to the public.

It's a stark reality that many Liberal voters would prefer a Conservative majority government to a Liberal led coalition that includes the Bloc. Hence Ignatieff trying so strongly to deny it.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think the Cons are very smart to keep reminding Canadians that the Liberal Party has a signed agreement to allow the seperatists access to the levers of government. A coalition including the bloc is very offputting to a huge percentage of the population. It was a very silly move for the Liberals to jump in bed with them in such a formal arrangement, and the Conservatives have never polled higher than after the Coalition Agreement was released to the public.

It's a stark reality that many Liberal voters would prefer a Conservative majority government to a Liberal led coalition that includes the Bloc. Hence Ignatieff trying so strongly to deny it.

I'm more concerned that once Harper gets his majority he will finally unmuzzle his Reform party buddies like Anders.

Can't wait to see the debate though. I think Iggy will wipe the floor with Harper.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Based on the early campaigning I think that the CPC is working really hard at making sure they stick with a minority. Their big tax cut announcement is pretty roundly brushed aside as too far in the future to make a difference. The coalition talk is largely irrelevant.

I don't really think so. Polling has indicated that opposition to a coalition government was actually a pretty galvinizing issue for people who are considered part of the conservative base. The conservative base is actually not enamored with the work Harper's done in 5 years. Nothing on Senate reform, nothing on free speech, appeasing Quebec, income trust flop, there are a lot of bread and butter conservative issues not attended to that has disenfranchised core conservative voters.

If they're going to win a majority it's extremely important to at least win everything in places that are considered Conservative heartland. That includes places like Rahim Jaffer's old riding in Edmonton, and they also need to hold onto everything they have in Saskachewan, BC, and Manitoba, where the NDP or Liberals came in close second. They can't let voter apathy from core voters allow the odd seat to bleed in the west. Every seat counts.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm more concerned that once Harper gets his majority he will finally unmuzzle his Reform party buddies like Anders.

I don't buy it, there are elections every five years under a majority, so if you let your radical bubble head nutjobs loose and shift too far to the right then you lose the election in a Kim Campbell type fashion and all of your changes get gassed in the next election.

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Can't wait to see the debate though. I think Iggy will wipe the floor with Harper.

Personally I don't care that Iggy went to Harvard at this point, he's done nothing that shows he's the great communicator of thoughts and ideas.

It will be interesting to see the Harvard aristcrat versus Harper who was pretty effective in the last debate.

I hope that Iggy doesn't end up like a mop handle.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't buy it, there are elections every five years under a majority, so if you let your radical bubble head nutjobs loose and shift too far to the right then you lose the election in a Kim Campbell type fashion and all of your changes get gassed in the next election.



Personally I don't care that Iggy went to Harvard at this point, he's done nothing that shows he's the great communicator of thoughts and ideas.

It will be interesting to see the Harvard aristcrat versus Harper who was pretty effective in the last debate.

I hope that Iggy doesn't end up like a mop handle.

Harper vs a guy who couldn't even speak English for the Liberals. I think even Farmer Ed out debates Dion.... in French.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Have to agree...the whole boogeyman coalition focus is a waste of time IMO. Though it should last in the minds of voters a little bit because of what happened in 08.

That being said eventually the whole campaign will come down to the economy and spending issues. That's where Harper will either gain his majority or start to lose his hold on the PC faithful.

Actually, I think the coalition argument has gained some traction. Certainly far more than the Liberal ethics argument. That line will be there throughout, especially when only a small minority trusts Ignatieff's word.

The income splitting promise was a mistake though. Everyone knows politicians are full of empty promises, but Harper didn't even mask that this was empty. All Ignatieff has to do is make some kind of promise for families that takes effect immediately, and he scores points.