2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

This entire contempt of Parliament is a load of donkey S**t. It really means nothing at all. All it was, was the opposition ganging up on the government. They could have put forward a motion asking the government to produce a rock from Mars, and when they didn't, they would have voted in contempt.

This is no different than when the Reform party demanded all the financial info for the gun registery, Chretien would not provide it. There was nothing the opposition could do but yell in the House of Commons. They could not get a contempt of Parliament vote passed because they would have needed the Chretien government to support it.

This is nothing but smoke and mirrors by the opposition.

So, it was contemptuous of parliament when the Liberals refused to produce economic data for the opposition, but the opposition didn't have the majority of votes to find them in contempt.

When the Conservatives refuse to produce economic data for the opposition, it is not a real issue.

You have to decide whether governments should be required to inform parliament of the cost of programs or not. It can't be one set of rules for the party that you don't like and one for the party that you do (although the rules are apparently different for majority governments than minority govs).

You are defending the Conservatives by saying that if they had a majority, they wouldn't get in trouble for denying parliament to perform its function. It may be true but it doesn't speak to the issue. They weren't a majority government and they were required to get the support of another party to go forward with their plans. Instead, they tried to work around the system and got burned for it.

[Savvy27]

On a separate note:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...f35-costs.html

F-35s cost $100 million +

Interesting that they are more expensive than what the Conservatives were saying, but nowhere near the $30 billion that is being thrown out there by the opposition.

Does anyone know where they are getting their numbers?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Does anyone know where they are getting their numbers?

Like any other financial prediction, depending on how you go about calculating the future cost of something, you can spin the numbers to whatever you like. It's like predicting whether gas will be $1, $2, or $5/litre in 2025 - it's pretty well a guess dressed up as an argument.

[Pinner]

NDP's big idea to force banks to lower credit card interest rates is just stupid !

Banks are going to make that money somewhere, why the fawk should I pay it because others can't control their spending.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

On a separate note:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...f35-costs.html

F-35s cost $100 million +

Interesting that they are more expensive than what the Conservatives were saying, but nowhere near the $30 billion that is being thrown out there by the opposition.

Does anyone know where they are getting their numbers?

I don't know but I would have made the assumption that the initial agreement to purchase or whatever you call the pre-agreement was signed long before the pricing started moving up. I also think that there is some confusion in the BPO assessment about the specific model pricing based around the information that the BPO's office questioned the British about their purchase agreement even though the Brits are buying the B's and C's and not the A's.

We also don't know if the conservatives blended in the economic benefits into the per package price.

However I expect that they will release their information during the election.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Pinner

NDP's big idea to force banks to lower credit card interest rates is just stupid !

Banks are going to make that money somewhere, why the fawk should I pay it because others can't control their spending.

Chances are they'll pass off any losses to the venders who accept their cards.

[getbak]

When the televised leaders debates occur, Elizabeth May will not be invited to participate: http://www.calgaryherald.com/invited...297/story.html

The same thing happened in 2008, but there were enough complaints that she was later added to the roster. Considering how pointless her involvement was the last time, I don't know if anyone will fight for her this time around.



My favourite moment from the last debate was when Duceppe was asked a question about what he would do as Prime Minister and he replied something like "there are five of us at this table, and four of us have no chance of becoming the Prime Minister, but I'm the only one who will admit it".

[burn_this_city]

I hope they stick to the plan and leave out the noise machine. Her party has never won a seat, so why does she deserve to be there?

[Bertuzzied]

Current Medicine Hat Mayor running for the Liberals. Running against the incumbent conservative who got 70% of the vote last time.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Me...859/story.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Pinner

NDP's big idea to force banks to lower credit card interest rates is just stupid !

Banks are going to make that money somewhere, why the fawk should I pay it because others can't control their spending.

I'm pretty sure you'll be paying the bank's Requisite Gouging Surcharges no matter what other people do.

[Bertuzzied]

Whoopsies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1961618/

On Tuesday, Mr. Harper faced questions about a 1997 interview in which he discussed how parties in the Commons could form a “coalition” to oust Liberals as government even if that party won the “largest number of seats” in the House.
It appears to contradict the Conservative Leader’s campaign message, in which he repeatedly disparages the idea of a minority government being replaced by a coalition of other parties that won less seats in an election.
The TV Ontario interview shows Mr. Harper predicting a day will come when the Liberals win the most seats in the Commons but do not have enough to form a majority government.
“The way the Liberals are eventually going to lose office, whether it’s in this election or the next one, is they’re going to fail to win a majority,” he says in the clip.
“That’s where I think you’re going to face some day a minority parliament with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats,” he says.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Current Medicine Hat Mayor running for the Liberals. Running against the incumbent conservative who got 70% of the vote last time.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Me...859/story.html

Maybe interesting, maybe not.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by SebC

Maybe interesting, maybe not.

Probably not since Matt Cooke could win Calgary West if he ran.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Whoopsies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1961618/

On Tuesday, Mr. Harper faced questions about a 1997 interview in which he discussed how parties in the Commons could form a “coalition” to oust Liberals as government even if that party won the “largest number of seats” in the House.
It appears to contradict the Conservative Leader’s campaign message, in which he repeatedly disparages the idea of a minority government being replaced by a coalition of other parties that won less seats in an election.
The TV Ontario interview shows Mr. Harper predicting a day will come when the Liberals win the most seats in the Commons but do not have enough to form a majority government.
“The way the Liberals are eventually going to lose office, whether it’s in this election or the next one, is they’re going to fail to win a majority,” he says in the clip.
“That’s where I think you’re going to face some day a minority parliament with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats,” he says.

He never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc. Thats the sticking point in all the coalition talk. Besides I'd be curious what Ignatief was saying 14 years ago, probably something about being an American.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc. Thats the sticking point in all the coalition talk. Besides I'd be curious what Ignatief was saying 14 years ago, probably something about being an American.

yeah forming with the Bloq was closer to todays date. about 7 years ago...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc. Thats the sticking point in all the coalition talk. Besides I'd be curious what Ignatief was saying 14 years ago, probably something about being an American.

The Liberals and NDP never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc in 2008 either, which many people seem to forget. All Duceppe agreed to was that his party would not topple the government for a pre-defined period of time, but the Bloc was not a coalition member, contrary to CPC talking points.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

yeah forming with the Bloq was closer to todays date. about 7 years ago...

Here's Stephen Harper's letter to Adrienne Clarkson in 2004.

September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada


Close consultation doesnt amount to formally putting a coalition together. This letter is hardly the political dynamite some folks are desperate for.

[Bertuzzied]

^ see post above yours.

Is anyone really that naive to rule out both 'coaltion' plans in 2004 and 2008?

[MarchHare]

Close consultation doesnt amount to formally putting a coalition together. This letter is hardly the political dynamite some folks are desperate for.

Layton and Duceppe have both spoken on the record saying that Harper approached each of them about forming a coalition in 2004, a point Harper now denies. Someone is lying.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Layton and Duceppe have both spoken on the record saying that Harper approached each of them about forming a coalition in 2004, a point Harper now denies. Someone is lying.

hmmm i wonder if a recording of those conversations would surface about 2 weeks before the vote? hehe