2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would love to get the opinions of people who have experience with coalitions.

I know we have a few posters from Finland on here, hopefully they will bite on the topic. They are typically pointed to as the model for how coalitions can work positively. Australia is also known for having a stable and effective coalitions.

Since our system is based on the British system, has anyone heard anything good or bad about their recent coalition?

If any of those countries have a party that is set on tearing the country apart as part of their coalition government, then I would absolutely want to hear their opinions. If not, then I think you are really comparing apples and oranges.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because the shelves you're stocking at the Food Bank can't burn you to death?

I think a better answer is that volunteer firefighting is predominantly a rural activity that involves spending money on fuel to travel significant distances from their homes to their practises and calls. It's fair to reward those people who spend their own money and time for something that is beneficial to their community.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

AFAIK, being fiscally conservative is pretty much defined by avoiding deficit spending. If the Conservatives were allowed to pass their original budget, there wouldn't even be a smidgen of discussion as to their fiscal priorities.

AFAIK, Paul Martin is not running in this election.

I maintain my point. If you are a true fiscal conservative, there is only one option in this election.

Fiscal conservatism is also defined by small government spending, which is the opposite of what the Cons did for their first three years.

And while the Cons we're initially against stimulus spending, they're also taking credit for its impacts on the economy... so it's a bit crazy to absolve them of reponsibility for its costs.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If any of those countries have a party that is set on tearing the country apart as part of their coalition government, then I would absolutely want to hear their opinions. If not, then I think you are really comparing apples and oranges.

An interesting comparison would be Belgium, but it has been without a national government for nearly a year now because the Flemish and French Nationalist parties are large enough and have platforms that are unpalatable enough that they can't cobble together a governing majority.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If any of those countries have a party that is set on tearing the country apart as part of their coalition government, then I would absolutely want to hear their opinions. If not, then I think you are really comparing apples and oranges.

Not if the coalition excluded the Bloc. It's a hypathetical scenerio I realize, but I get the feeling that the people against coalitions are against them at all costs. Not liking who is in the coalition isn't the same as not liking coalitions altogether.

I would bet that if the Reform Party and PC Party had never merged and were still splitting the right vote, many of the Conservative supporters that are against coalitions would not be so against them now. Just my opinion... I obviously can't prove it.

As for polls showing that most people are against them, I think the polls typically ask loaded questions. Whether or not it included the Bloc will affect the answer. If they are asking a Conservative supporter, obviously they will say no no matter what. If they are asking a Liberal supporter if the would want one and they say no, it is not the same as asking if they would accept one instead of some other scenerio. I don't trust opinion polls on matters like these.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

You're confusing fiscal conservative with spending less. You can definitely be a fiscal conservative and have a debt. In some situations its the preferred way to operate. The CPC might be closest fiscally, but that is a far cry from actually fiscal conservatives. Frankly Paul Martin was more of a conservative than Harper and Flaherty have proven to be.

As a small 'c' conservative myself, I have two options: vote for the CPC (which I already did today) or don't vote at all. That's it. I may come off as a partisan to you, but the reality is, I'm not happy with our current government's lack of fiscal conservatism. If the Liberals ran with a leader like Martin and presented a platform that was more centred and not simply a farce attempting to buy votes from the middle class, then I would seriously consider giving them my vote. As it stands, I don't have that option, so what I hope is that the reason we see such large expenditures from the CPC is because of the fact that they are in a minority government and aren't able to govern accordingly. Should they get a majority government and continue to spend the way they are, then they will likely lose my support.

To me, that is the logical approach for any non partisan small 'c' conservative. What seems illogical to me, however, is to say that you are a fiscally conservative person, aren't happy with how much money the CPC is throwing around, so you are considering giving your vote to one of two other parties that are even less fiscally conservative (in the case of the NDP, frightenly so). Kind of difficult to take your position on this one seriously.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

An interesting comparison would be Belgium, but it has been without a national government for nearly a year now because the Flemish and French Nationalist parties are large enough and have platforms that are unpalatable enough that they can't cobble together a governing majority.

Belgium is an interesting country. They have separate parties for French and Flemmish speakers so it makes it practically impossible to govern without a coalition even if the other parties are promoting their nationalist causes over federal ones.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not if the coalition excluded the Bloc. It's a hypathetical scenerio I realize, but I get the feeling that the people against coalitions are against them at all costs. Not liking who is in the coalition isn't the same as not liking coalitions altogether.

I would bet that if the Reform Party and PC Party had never merged and were still splitting the right vote, many of the Conservative supporters that are against coalitions would not be so against them now. Just my opinion... I obviously can't prove it.

As for polls showing that most people are against them, I think the polls typically ask loaded questions. Whether or not it included the Bloc will affect the answer. If they are asking a Conservative supporter, obviously they will say no no matter what. If they are asking a Liberal supporter if the would want one and they say no, it is not the same as asking if they would accept one instead of some other scenerio. I don't trust opinion polls on matters like these.

I think people are against coalitions because of whom they fear will be a part of them. Personally, I'm against any coalition that sees the Bloc and/or NDP have any serious say in how this country is governed. If, on the other hand, the Liberals abandoned their recent left wing lunacy and went back to being slightly left of centre, then I would absolutely be able to support a Conservative-Liberal coalition. I think we could actually end up seeing a pretty balanced government under these conditions which could very well work out as the best solution.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Fiscal conservatism is also defined by small government spending, which is the opposite of what the Cons did for their first three years.

And while the Cons we're initially against stimulus spending, they're also taking credit for its impacts on the economy... so it's a bit crazy to absolve them of reponsibility for its costs.

True enough, but that still doesn't do any justification for the argument [and shamelessly stolen from Ark because of the great clarity] "is to say that you are a fiscally conservative person, aren't happy with how much money the CPC is throwing around, so you are considering giving your vote to one of two other parties that are even less fiscally conservative (in the case of the NDP, frightenly so)."

I hope we can judge the merits of a Harper government without being in a minority position as well because clearly they have done an admirable job of governing from the center and cooperating with the demands of the opposition parties.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

As a small 'c' conservative myself, I have two options: vote for the CPC (which I already did today) or don't vote at all. That's it. I may come off as a partisan to you, but the reality is, I'm not happy with our current government's lack of fiscal conservatism. If the Liberals ran with a leader like Martin and presented a platform that was more centred and not simply a farce attempting to buy votes from the middle class, then I would seriously consider giving them my vote. As it stands, I don't have that option, so what I hope is that the reason we see such large expenditures from the CPC is because of the fact that they are in a minority government and aren't able to govern accordingly. Should they get a majority government and continue to spend the way they are, then they will likely lose my support.

That only really applies to the stimulus spending. The long-term spending increases that pushed us closer to structural deficit (18% in 3 years) stemmed from an ideology that surpluses are bad. That, and attempts to buy votes... but if we don't attribute vote-buying costs to the Conservatives, then it is unfair to attribute them to any other party either.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know that its easy to say that its Harper, but his track record is one of a huge spender (and thats prior to the 2008 crisis!).

Question that I don't know the answer to:

- How can we account for promises from previous governments in "today's" budget?

For example, the big bad fighter planes have a contract signed today, but the cost doesn't hit the books for 5 years. Regardless of who is in power, this will need to be in the budget in 5 years. Is it their fault that spending has increased by this amount, due to a promise/contract made 5 years ago? At any point in time, how do we know how much spending is based on prior promises and how much is new spending?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

That only really applies to the stimulus spending. The long-term spending increases that pushed us closer to structural deficit (18% in 3 years) stemmed from an ideology that surpluses are bad. That, and attempts to buy votes... but if we don't attribute vote-buying costs to the Conservatives, then it is unfair to attribute them to any other party either.

Why does it only apply to stimilus spending? The Harper government has always maintained that it has attempted to govern from the middle while in a minority position. Which it always has been in.

There's no evidence that the budgets would have been the same in a majority position.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

True enough, but that still doesn't do any justification for the argument [and shamelessly stolen from Ark because of the great clarity] "is to say that you are a fiscally conservative person, aren't happy with how much money the CPC is throwing around, so you are considering giving your vote to one of two other parties that are even less fiscally conservative (in the case of the NDP, frightenly so)."

Nope, but it's not intended to. My point that relates to that argument is that the Liberals have a better record (although admittedly not platform) for fiscal responsibility than the conservatives do. So which is more important? What the party has done, or what the party says it will do? (For the record, that's a tough call for anyone to make.)

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I hope we can judge the merits of a Harper government without being in a minority position as well because clearly they have done an admirable job of governing from the center and cooperating with the demands of the opposition parties.

What the hell? With the 2008 budget update, they were so brazenly uncompromising that the only option they had left when the opposition decided to fight back was basically surrender.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

That only really applies to the stimulus spending. The long-term spending increases that pushed us closer to structural deficit (18% in 3 years) stemmed from an ideology that surpluses are bad. That, and attempts to buy votes... but if we don't attribute vote-buying costs to the Conservatives, then it is unfair to attribute them to any other party either.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the increased spending by the Conservatives was an attempt to reach a middle ground with the other parties. We won't really have any answers unless the Conservatives get a majority.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why does it only apply to stimilus spending? The Harper government has always maintained that it has attempted to govern from the middle while in a minority position. Which it always has been in.

There's no evidence that the budgets would have been the same in a majority position.

The Libs had been keeping a lid on spending... you don't think they would have supported a budget with less spending? The Conservatives increased spending over previous Liberal budgets, so I think it's fair to say that it was their decision.

The stimulus spending, however, was clearly something they didn't want to do but were forced into in order to retain power. Really, there's an obvious difference.

Just because you're in a minority government does not mean you get to say "hey guys, none of this is actually our fault". How do you know the Conservatives wouldn't have GDP growth at 100% annually with a majority? You don't, but the same could be said of any other party. Minority or not, it was Conservative budgets and legislations being passed.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Nope, but it's not intended to. My point that relates to that argument is that the Liberals have a better record (although admittedly not platform) for fiscal responsibility than the conservatives do. So which is more important? What the party has done, or what the party says it will do? (For the record, that's a tough call for anyone to make.)

It doesn't make much sense to compare the Liberal Party of 1995 with the party of today. In that sense, there is nothing to say that the Liberal Party wouldn't behave more like the Cretien or King governments who were even more spending crazy than the Conservatives.

I'm no fan of Stephen Harper's fiscal record, but you can't also ignore the reality of the situation when in a Minority government and global recession position. Heck if the Liberals had run on a Paul Martin platform based upon fiscal responsibility and spending cuts they probably wouldn't be reduced to third party status but everyone knows they are just promising to be NDP-lite.

What the hell? With the 2008 budget update, they were so brazenly uncompromising that the only option they had left when the opposition decided to fight back was basically surrender.

Ah yes, that brazenly uncompromising 2008 fiscal conservative position of which you purport did not exist. Of which was so roundly denounced by the (apparently in action only) fiscally conservative Liberal Party.

Bottom line remains; there is only one option in the current election for any rational and fiscally conservative voter.

[Tinordi]

Incredible new polling numbers show a stark break away from the Liberals to the NDP. If this holds then it will be historic.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2GAHBd...ampaign-twist/

Even crazier is the NDP ceiling compiling first and second choices.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Libs had been keeping a lid on spending... you don't think they would have supported a budget with less spending? The Conservatives increased spending over previous Liberal budgets, so I think it's fair to say that it was their decision.

The stimulus spending, however, was clearly something they didn't want to do but were forced into in order to retain power. Really, there's an obvious difference.

Just because you're in a minority government does not mean you get to say "hey guys, none of this is actually our fault". How do you know the Conservatives wouldn't have GDP growth at 100% annually with a majority? You don't, but the same could be said of any other party. Minority or not, it was Conservative budgets and legislations being passed.

The Liberals were in the envious position of having a majority government with its threat coming from the Reform party. They were under pressure to balance the budget. They could cut and it would hurt but, the left knew the other option would be a more spend thrifty party. Paul Martin's budgets were meant to appease the right of center voter because he knew the left would vote Liberal just to avoid the possibility of a conservative majority. Harper has only had minority governments and the pressure has come from the left.

Also, Paul Martin balanced the budget by lowering increases in transfer payments to the provinces. As a result we don't have the health care we had 10 years ago. That was smart politically but, has ruined the health of many Canadians.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Incredible new polling numbers show a stark break away from the Liberals to the NDP. If this holds then it will be historic.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2GAHBd...ampaign-twist/

Even crazier is the NDP ceiling compiling first and second choices.

Not unless the Libs tumble down to 40 seats which was their lowest total under John Turner.

[Ozy_Flame]

A rising NDP. Good lord. And I'm not blue by any means.