2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't disagree, and I really am torn on this. Its just that the corporations benefit immensely from the government programs and funded infrastructure as well. Can I say that they should pay their fair share as a result of that though? Clearly no.....I'd be branded as a commie! Someone has to pay for that though, and because the corporations benefit along with the rest of us they should pay something.

I just think its a little more convoluted than the politicians would have us believe. Thats why I gravitate to the more moderate position here. Even if one party is totally right we're part of the way there that way!

Slava, you're totally right on this. Which car company was it that built their new plant north of the border instead of south so they wouldn't be burdened with health benefits? Toyota I think?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The one thing thats pretty clear is that Layton's early strategy of simply attacking the Conservatives was flawed. He really wasn't going to steal votes from the Cons as Con voters are really not interested in NDP policies.

Layton really needed to jump on Ignatieff from the start and try to pull seats away fromt he Liberals.

I would expect that Layton will start tearing into Ignatieff in a hurry, or he's really going to start losing more then percentage points.

Ya, why the heck would he leap frogging a party on the spectrum to steal votes?!?

Not to get back to the C word, but it does kind of fall in line with trying to prevent a majority so a coalition is possible.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He really wasn't going to steal votes from the Cons as Con voters are really not interested in NDP policies.

Oddly I know a good number of folk (self-defined populists all) that have alternated between the two. And Layton does have to attack the Conservatives... if he doesn't then his party will not be seen as a credible opposition to the Tories, and he'll be seen as operating contrary to the preferred outcome of his core supporters, and from a historical perspective his opportunities for leverage are likely greater with a minority Liberal Government then with a minority Conservative government. Opposing the government (as all opposition parties should do) doesn't present the risk that his supporters will abandon him enmasse.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I dunno, they didn't offer a class that examined the operational expansion of an identical company operating in states of both extreme privatization (0%) and in a state of extreme nationalization (100%).

We've seen what 100% coporate tax does (back in the USSR), and it's certainly a worse overall standard of living than being somewhere in the middle. The 0% countries tend to do not bad but rely on import duties and sales taxes for revenue (hello, Cayman Islands) - something that may not completely work for Canada being a net exporter that benefits enormously from free trade.

=======

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

They created this because it all stems from the opposition members of the committees trying to dictate how the government would run. This is why I said I don't like minority governments.

You have a party that has almost enough seats to form a majority government yet has almost an impossible time getting anything done that it was elected to do.

Parliamentary democracy is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades. Close doesn't count. Harper's government wasn't elected to do anything, other than to take the first crack at forming a government.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Oddly I know a good number of folk (self-defined populists all) that have alternated between the two. And Layton does have to attack the Conservatives... if he doesn't then his party will not be seen as a credible opposition to the Tories, and he'll be seen as operating contrary to the preferred outcome of his core supporters, and from a historical perspective his opportunities for leverage are likely greater with a minority Liberal Government then with a minority Conservative government. Opposing the government (as all opposition parties should do) doesn't present the risk that his supporters will abandon him enmasse.

But by thinking that way Layton cuts his own throats by losing seats by the number and he becomes ineffectual in terms of being a power broker depending on seat distributions.

I don't know of any people on lets call it my side of the spectrum that would even consider voting for Layton. They might consider voting for the Liberals, even though Ignatieff to them isn't a great option.

Layton's goal almost has to be to relegate the Liberal seat count down, or even push the NDP into the position of official opposition.

I get what your saying, but Layton's mistake is exclusively trying to fight the conservatives, he has to do that, but he also has to prove that he's the alternative vote to the Liberals especially with disenfranchised Liberal supporters.

However its still reletively early in the election, I would expect to see some pretty interesting polls leading up to the leaders debate.

But to me, Layton has been pretty lackluster, and he looks tired and pasty early on. Ironically Layton allowing the Conservative government to topple might lead to his down fall as the NDP leader.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Layton's goal almost has to be to relegate the Liberal seat count down, or even push the NDP into the position of official opposition.

And that's why the actual best strategy for the NDP is to disband. The best pseudo-attainable outcome for them is to have enough seats to form a majority coalition with the Liberals, but splitting votes with the Liberals makes that less attainable.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

And that's why the actual best strategy for the NDP is to disband. The best pseudo-attainable outcome for them is to have enough seats to form a majority coalition with the Liberals, but splitting votes with the Liberals makes that less attainable.

That might be the best strategy for the left, just like the merger of the Reform and PC was for the right. But I doubt that it would ever happen.

The biggest difference is that the PC and reform weren't that far apart in terms of political philosophies on a narrow scale.

The Libs and NDP are hugely far apart.

Hey, I don't much like Ignatieff at all, nor have I liked the Liberal part over lets say since the Trudeau days with the exception that I found Martin to be fairly reasonable. But philosophy wise they're closer to the Cons then the Libs are to the Dippers.

You'd have more success trying to get the Libs and Cons to merge together.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know of any people on lets call it my side of the spectrum that would even consider voting for Layton.

Yup, and consequently your idea doesn't exactly have his (and his supporters) best interests at heart. I'm not saying that there isn't any validity to it but I notice that only one group comes out on top in your scenario and it's those on your side of the spectrum and that's pretty anthema to folk on his side. What you propose is a really really risky for him. Probably to the point that it outweighs the potential rewards.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But to me, Layton has been pretty lackluster, and he looks tired and pasty early on.

Cancer treatment and hip (or was it leg?) surgery will do that to ya.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yup, and consequently your idea doesn't exactly have his (and his supporters) best interests at heart. I'm not saying that there isn't any validity to it but I notice that only one group comes out on top in your scenario and it's those on your side of the spectrum and that's pretty anthema to folk on his side. What you propose is a really really risky for him. Probably to the point that it outweighs the potential rewards.

But he's not seeing any rewards whatsoever. And lets call my side of the spectrum center right. Its not like I hang around with far right demons concocting plans on enslaving the human race while eating babies.

Originally Posted by Parallex

Cancer treatment and hip (or was it leg?) surgery will do that to ya.

Hip replacement. Thats his decision to throw the dice on an election, especially after getting consessions on the budget to me is a downward spiral move.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well its not "jacking up the tax rates" to use your term. Its just not cutting the last cut that the CPC wants to. Frankly the rates have come down from about 23% in 2005 to 18% now IIRC. Any study that you find is going to be influenced by the party paying for the study.

You're misinformed. It is a tax hike in every sense of the word, taxes in 2012 under the Liberal plan will move from the 2011 Corporate rate of 16.5% to 18%. From a corporate planning perspective you would have to erase 15% from 2012 and beyond in your model and plug in 18%. Business and spending decisions have been made on a 15% assumption. 18% changes the economics and will result is less spending in the economy, there's no arguing the direction of investment as a result of that decision, the only question is the magnitute.

The concept that taxes were 18% in 2010 and will be 18% in 2012 is kind of like using the Simpsons phrase 'temporary refund adjustment.' Because ultimately it's a hike from 15% to 18% in 2012 and a hike from 16.5% to 18% for 2011.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The one thing thats pretty clear is that Layton's early strategy of simply attacking the Conservatives was flawed. He really wasn't going to steal votes from the Cons as Con voters are really not interested in NDP policies.

Clearly Layton is working with Ignatieff in a secret coalition!


Election signs are starting to go up. I'm actually surprised it took this long.

[octothorp]

Liberals have raised more in the first 4 days of this election than they did in the first 3 weeks last time around. If the party faithful is rejuvenated enough to speak with their pocketbooks, that translates well to a whole bunch of secondary factors that weren't there with Dion, from volunteer efforts to voter turnout.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1965110/

First couple days were all good news for Harper, last couple days have been good for Ignatieff. Those little momentum shifts will likely continue at least until the leader debates.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

You're misinformed. It is a tax hike in every sense of the word, taxes in 2012 under the Liberal plan will move from the 2011 Corporate rate of 16.5% to 18%. From a corporate planning perspective you would have to erase 15% from 2012 and beyond in your model and plug in 18%. Business and spending decisions have been made on a 15% assumption. 18% changes the economics and will result is less spending in the economy, there's no arguing the direction of investment as a result of that decision, the only question is the magnitute.

The concept that taxes were 18% in 2010 and will be 18% in 2012 is kind of like using the Simpsons phrase 'temporary refund adjustment.' Because ultimately it's a hike from 15% to 18% in 2012 and a hike from 16.5% to 18% for 2011.

Ya, and I understand that. Even so though, its not a 3% difference is well within the wiggle room built into most budgets a year or two out? I see your point, but its not like this is completely out of question either.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

John Ivison, who's hardly a Liberal media guy, wrote about what I touched on. We may be seeing the signs of a hard turn in this election:

Mr. Harper would never have risked mixing with people who had not been pre-vetted. All Conservative photo-ops are carefully arranged and people at rallies must be on a list. Part of this is because he is running a low-risk, front-runner campaign, where you limit the number of opportunities to slip on the inevitable electoral banana-skin. The assumption is that people will vote for you, if you don’t irritate them into voting against you.

But it is more than that. Mr. Harper is simply not a happy electoral warrior and he has never been comfortable kissing babies and hugging pregnant women. When it comes to communication strategies, his need for message control has led to a testy relationship with the media. As Prime Minister, he has managed the flow of information to the media from his MPs and ministers, controlled the environment in which he faces journalists and rationed press conferences and interviews.

In Halifax Thursday, he attempted to carry those tactics into the election campaign and journalists rebelled, complaining they were corralled behind a fence 40 feet from the Conservative leader and limited to five questions a day.

Relations are threatening to spill over by all accounts. Conservative supporters are now making personal attacks on reporters, with one Conservative on Twitter calling two senior press gallery journalists “pathetic” and another approaching scribes to ask if “you guys are reporting the news or making it.”

No wonder Mr. Ignatieff is in good humour. A Nanos poll Thursday suggested the first possible shift of the campaign, with Conservative support holding steady at 39% but the Liberals rising four points to 32%, at the expense of the NDP. The Liberal campaign to this point has been unambitious – sticking mainly to big cities where they know they can draw a crowd.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-for-campaign/

Similar to this, here's an article from the Herald: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ha...225/story.html

You have to wonder if this strategy is going to cause trouble as the campaign goes on.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Wow... that's NOT a good photo for Harper... if the liberals had any money we'd start seeing that image on TV.

Word to the wise. Don't let the media photograph you swinging a cricket bat from a low angle while glowering menacingly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wow... that's NOT a good photo for Harper... if the liberals had any money we'd start seeing that image on TV.

Word to the wise. Don't let the media photograph you swinging a cricket bat from a low angle while glowering menacingly.

From octothorp's link...

Originally Posted by octothorp

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1965110/

"None of this, however, will change the party’s spending plan for the election: It will spend the allowable limit of $20.5-million."

Liberal fundraising will only determine how full the war chest will be after the election.

Of course, the Conservatives have a history of spending above the limit so...

[CaptainCrunch]

Not to totally shift gears, but I was reading on the U.S. Presidential election last night, and they mentioned that Obama spent $740 million on his campaign, and McCain spent $260 million.

God thats a billion dollars in campaign spending, no wonder that country is screwed up.

[Fire]

I can't believe some of these terrible ideas from the NDP and Liberals.

Liberals: Introduction of a National Day Care Program.
- Something the Liberals have promised, at least two times when they were in government, and they couldn't get done. I was watching the CBC and they mention if Canada would introduce a national day care program like the Quebec day care program it would cost the taxpayers 16 Billion a year. Yikes.
- They need agreement from all the provinces, good luck.
- How about the parents who want to stay at home with their kid?

NDP: Increase the corporate tax rates.
- Something the Liberals want to do as well, but the NDP says they will give tax credit to corporations for each employee they hire.
- This is just more typical "We are the government, we are here to help" BS the NDP guys love.
- The NDP voter will probably like this sort of thing, because they can't take a piss without the government holding their hand for support.

NDP: Reduce all subsidies to Oil Sands.
- The NDP claims that it costs $75 per Canadian to subsidies the Oil Sands producers. Wants to put the money in clean energy.
- Let's assume he is correct on the $75, doesn't he realize that Alberta contributes roughly $14 Billion to the rest of Canada because of the Oil Sands. Simple math says this brings a hell of lot more that $75 back to each citizen.
- If he kills the Oil Sands how will he pay for all his socialist programs?

[Slava]

^ Why is a national child care program terrible? For parents that are staying home, continue to do so? You still get the current $100 UCCB for kids under 6 with this plan. They have a provincial plan in Quebec and the people there love it. It would be an enormous help for people with kids who either want to, or have to work.

[Bertuzzied]

Ignatieff throws the gloves back to Harper's court on the debate. Harper would be stupid to actually do it but would look weak if he keeps declining.


On Wednesday, Harper opened the flood gates when he proposed the two leaders face off in a debate, since, he said, come election day the only real choice Canadians will have is between a Conservative government or a Liberal-led coalition.
Ignatieff swiftly responded: "Any time, any place."
But Harper backed down Thursday, saying the Conservatives aren't interested in extra debates, and would rather focus on touring the country — an action Ignatieff said "puzzled" him.
"Perhaps I can make this easier for you," he wrote. "I will meet you at the time and place of your choosing. There is no need for complicated or convoluted debate formats. Just two podiums — and you and me. A true, honest-to-goodness battle of ideas and visions."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Ignatie...232/story.html