2011 Canadian Election Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Apparently the Green Party's legal challenge to join the debate has been turned down.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1971474/

I remember the uproar about this last time, but nobody really seems to give a damn this time around. Am I misreading the situation?

To be honest, I don't really like the idea of a media coalition deciding who gets to participate, but so long as the "You have a seat, you get a seat" rule is applied equitably from this point on, fine by me.

I would also like to mention May's performance (re: the debate issue) has been pretty terrible. She comes off as a petulant child, not a major party leader.

Good, she didn't add anything significant to the debate last time, instead she choose to work with Dion and support him in the debate. And the only thing that she did do was everytime Harper tried to speak you'd hear her shrieking that "He just doesn't get it"

She's been a terrible party leader for the Green's and given then a fringe feel that they'll never move past with her in charge.

Looking at the polls the support of the Green party isn't increasing, its eroding, and thats her fault. I doubt that they're going to win a seat in this election.

I would expect that she'll be jettisoned after this election concludes.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I would also like to mention May's performance (re: the debate issue) has been pretty terrible. She comes off as a petulant child, not a major party leader.

She really was pathetic in the last debate. You would almost think that this is a blessing in disguise for her now that she isn't able to embarrass herself again on national television.

[Parallex]

Yeah, May shouldn't be there... I supported her presense last time but the Greens technically had an MP then, that is no longer the case.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ark2

She really was pathetic in the last debate. You would almost think that this is a blessing in disguise for her now that she isn't able to embarrass herself again on national television.

I would have paid money for Harper to have put his foot on the arm rest of her chair and pushed her out of the T.V. picture in the last election, then turned to the screen and said "Its time to let the growups talk"

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm sorry but this viewpoint seems to be rather deviod of any historical context. The Federal Liberal party had several members who were CONVICTED of FRAUD while IN OFFICE last time they were in power. I mean, this wasn't hiring of some lower level bureaucrat whose security check went awry, this was criminal activity from the very top of the government! To try and paint the conservatives as the party lacking ethics is just mindboggling to the highest degree.

Link? I'm almost certain that your claim here is false. What were their names? How long were they sentenced to jail?

People with links to Liberals in high positions (Jean Brault, Chuck Guité, and Paul Coffin are the only people I've seen charged) were certainly convicted of fraud, but I have yet to see a minister or MP from the party be convicted or jailed.

I've been over the Conservative party's blatant disregard for ethics several times in this thread already, but if you are going to use Liberal examples to justify overlooking the Cons faults, at least figure out what actually happened.

No Prime Minister in history Prorogued Parliament more than Jean Cretien. And certainly prorogation is nothing new in Canadian politics, it is rather common. When Stephen Harper progrogued parliament his popularity was never higher, so he clearly was acting in the interests of Canadians like never before.

I just don't see any traction in these arguments whatsoever.

Seriously?

Does your position that popular support for the leader of a party apply without regard to their party? Were you a big fan of Trudeau?

[flamingchina]

Interesting stat for Canadian elections (I realize this is common is First Past the Post)
Since confederation, we have had a total of 7 elections where the winning party received >50% of the vote.
1900 - Laurier(L) - 50.25%
1904 - Laurier(L) - 50.88%
1917 - Borden(C) - 56.93%
1940 - King(L) - 51.32%
1958 - Diefenbaker(C) - 53.66%
1984 - Mulroney(C) - 50.03%

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would have paid money for Harper to have put his foot on the arm rest of her chair and pushed her out of the T.V. picture in the last election, then turned to the screen and said "Its time to let the growups talk"

Oh man, just picturing this has me on the floor laughing

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yeah, May shouldn't be there... I supported her presense last time but the Greens technically had an MP then, that is no longer the case.

That was the opportunity of a lifetime for a new(ish) party......I was amazed at how wasted it was. A couple of interesting lines, a couple of potshots, and then zero substance.

The Green Party really was on the cusp of becoming a recognized major party party. The failure to impress at that debate has firmly replanted them as a fringe party. May's attempt to go to well a second time is killing that party even more.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by flamingchina

Interesting stat for Canadian elections (I realize this is common is First Past the Post)
Since confederation, we have had a total of 7 elections where the winning party received >50% of the vote.
1900 - Laurier(L) - 50.25%
1904 - Laurier(L) - 50.88%
1917 - Borden(C) - 56.93%
1940 - King(L) - 51.32%
1958 - Diefenbaker(C) - 53.66%
1984 - Mulroney(C) - 50.03%

I would suspect anything beyond 45% has got to be considered a real landslide. (Interesting find, btw)

To be honest, the only percentage I'm really interested in this time is what percentage of eligible voters did so.

If it ends up under 60% again (and definitely if it decreases), I may change my stance on mandatory voting. There's just no reason we can't get two-thirds of Canadians to make an educated vote every so often. Sadly, I suspect we'll see a new low....55%.

[TylerSVT]

Havent seen many mud slinging commercials yet, only from the liberals attacking Harper. not that that surprises me.

Modern Politics is so stupid, if i was running i would probably have a breakdown half way through and kill all the media.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

The Green Party really was on the cusp of becoming a recognized major party party. The failure to impress at that debate has firmly replanted them as a fringe party.

I think it was more May's refusal to run in a winnable riding that did them in. She should have simply ran where Green Party support was highest in the prior election and used her higher national profile to push herself past the tipping point. Then she'd have had a national platform to push herself and her party (the HoC, Question Period etc. etc.). Instead she's run in a riding where her chances of winning are marginal at best.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think it was more May's refusal to run in a winnable riding that did them in. She should have simply ran where Green Party support was highest in the prior election and used her higher national profile to push herself past the tipping point. Then she'd have had a national platform to push herself and her party (the HoC, Question Period etc. etc.). Instead she's run in a riding where her chances of winning are marginal at best.

Thats her own arrogance. I laughed when she went up against Peter Mackay last time around.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Thats her own arrogance. I laughed when she went up against Peter Mackay last time around.

That's not arrogance... that's just stupidity (although I suppose could have been both).

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's not arrogance... that's just stupidity (although I suppose could have been both).

Uh, and she's running against Gary Lunn in BC this time around. Native BC boy, Cabinet Minister, 14 years of service (5 elections), and minimally controversial.

I understand the PR coup if you upset a major name, but getting your first MP elected would be just as beneficial with half the hassle. The Greens need to ditch May, but there are obviously some cereal box strategists that need to be shown the door as well.

[Salisbury]

Meh!

I am tired of all the promises, and photo-ops, designed to make me vote for them. Frankly, I am unimpressed so far.

We need a majority this time, so we dont have to go through this again in year or two. Some stability and a government with basic common fiscal sense is what we need.

I just hate the finger pointing, bleating and blaming, along with the inevitable lists of financial promises. I think once in power they are all as bad as each other, with only slight variations in their degree of mendacity.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by TylerSVT

Havent seen many mud slinging commercials yet, only from the liberals attacking Harper. not that that surprises me.

Really? I've seen attack ads from all the parties, and I don't even watch that much tv. The NPD is running a particularly stupid campaign with what appears to be a South Park-style animation using a cut-out of Harper's head.

And of course Harper himself has been running anti-Ignatieff ads for the past several months, even before the election was called.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Uh, and she's running against Gary Lunn in BC this time around. Native BC boy, Cabinet Minister, 14 years of service (5 elections), and minimally controversial.

I understand the PR coup if you upset a major name, but getting your first MP elected would be just as beneficial with half the hassle. The Greens need to ditch May, but there are obviously some cereal box strategists that need to be shown the door as well.

The Green Party really needs to get a professional campaign strategist in place. May just comes across as disorganized and out of her element, she makes dumb choices in terms of the Ridings that she airdrops herself into. And instead of campaigning she spends her effort on a court challenge. I haven't seen anything from the Green Party in this election, its almost like they're content in getting that 4% to 6% of the vote.

I might sound a little mean here, but she's just somebody that I can't take seriously.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Really? I've seen attack ads from all the parties, and I don't even watch that much tv. The NPD is running a particularly stupid campaign with what appears to be a South Park-style animation using a cut-out of Harper's head.

And of course Harper himself has been running anti-Ignatieff ads for the past several months, even before the election was called.

But you have to admire the work of the NDP foley artist who has created an awesome thunderous high five sound.

[burn_this_city]

Why would anyone take her seriously? Everytime I see her on camera, I think she must have slept in a ditch the night before and brushed her teeth with a stick of butter.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Parallex

So? Just because they're costed out (to a deficit) doesn't mean that it's not massive spending.

Huh? Are you purposely just talking in circles? Clearly the Conservatives have the lowest spending platform of all the parties. Full Stop.

8.2B actually... and they did say how they are going to pay for it. You may not like how they intend to pay for it but that doesn't mean that they didn't cost it out. Which is more then Harpers done on what few non-budget promises (that don't take effect until 2015/16... maybe) that he's released. Surprise surprise... the former President and CEO of a Right-Wing think tank's opinion comes out on the side of the right-wing party. He didn't "shred" any credibility unless you were already predisposed to disbelieve it to begin with. I could just as easily point towards the opinions of Jim Stanford or other economists of his ilk regarding corporate taxes but they're no more credible then Mintz.

You've just spent three pages alleging that the Conservatives are every bit as left wing as the Liberals, and now you allege they only get the support of a very accomplished and recognized economist because they are right wing? Got it.

I mean, besides the fact every nation in the world outside the USA is lowering corporate taxes and seeing corporate tax revenues increase (exactly as economists like Mintz predict), that Canada is a special place and the Liberals plan will work against the rest of the world. They do control gravity, after all.

None of this changes reality; the Liberals are promising much more in spending than the Conservatives, they are promising to balance the budget much later than the Conservatives, and their projected financing of their new spending projects through increasing corporate taxes is dubious at best.