2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Anders complaining that he has to run against someone this election:

Heh . . .Virtually non-existent. Might want to look in a mirror, Rob.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Heh . . .Virtually non-existent. Might want to look in a mirror, Rob.

hehe. Anders was the only one who didn't show up for the debate.

I'm surprised he had real quote this election. I thought he was still on the full muzzle.

[evman150]

Ya I'm more shocked he was allowed to say anything at all.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

Careful...earlier in this campaign Harper said the CPC policy IS asymetrical federalism.

Do you think that a person supporting the CPC means that they agree with everything?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Do you think that a person supporting the CPC means that they agree with everything?

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this as well. It seems to some that if you aren't in agreement with something that your party of choice has done, then you are supposed to hold them accountable and vote for someone else, regardless if you disagree with the other party more.

[Cowboy89]

More wacky Jack comments: Realizes that ultimately the consumer will have to pay, then comes back with an ignorant statement ignoring that ultimately both consumers and producers will have to pay. You cannot ultimately increase production costs and expect the same price and quantities provided. This is second week of class ECON 101 stuff here people! Clearly if he was polling so high going into the election he wouldn't even be coming out of it with his old seat total retained. Two days of serious questioning and he's coming apart. Might not matter on Monday, but I know that if the country voted in an NDP government at least 2/3rd of those voters will regret it.

“There’s no legal way, you can’t – ultimately, it’s their responsibility to relate to their customers in an appropriate fashion,” he said.

He insisted that Canadians want oil companies to pay the costs of pollution, but the oil companies are trying to scare people.
“First of all, it’s time that these companies absorbed some of the cost of their pollution. I think most people agree with that. Naturally, the big companies like Exxon, big global corporations, are going to try to scare Canadians – to say, ‘If you try to do anything about pollution, we’re going to make you pay.’ That’s exactly what they said when we dealt with the issue of acid rain and sulphur emissions.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2004555/

[Cowboy89]

There is no free lunch. Even the CBC who have much to gain as stated in the NDP platform by an NDP government are striking down Layton on Gas prices:

With the New Democrats surging in the most recent pre-election polls, Canadian consumers might want to take a closer look at the party's centerpiece plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The end result could be sticker shock on the average family's hydro bill.

But there is one overwhelmingly inconvenient truth about any cap-and-trade system designed to cut GHG emissions.

Someone has to pay for it, and the most likely candidate is the Canadian consumer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ker-shock.html

[You Need a Thneed]

Back to the daycare vs CCB discussion:

We are a one income family, with two kids under six years old.

Anyone who wants to take taxes from me to give to parents who both want to work, while putting their children in daycare, deserves a punch in the face. I know that most of the money would come from the richer, but there would be part of a daycare program that would be lower income families subsidizing higher income families. I don't think it's an insignificant number, either.

Perhaps the CCB isn't the best solution, but it's a whole lot better than a plan which only provides benefit to dual income families. Of course, there are many single parents out there for which some form of child supervision is required, and it's fair that the government should help them out. We don't need to give extra money to families so that they can make $100,000 combined though.

[Azure]

About time that he gets challenged.

[spotthefan]

“First of all, it’s time that these companies absorbed some of the cost of their pollution. I think most people agree with that. Naturally, the big companies like Exxon, big global corporations, are going to try to scare Canadians – to say, ‘If you try to do anything about pollution, we’re going to make you pay.’ That’s exactly what they said when we dealt with the issue of acid rain and sulphur emissions.”

I don't disagree with this comment at all. However, the conundrum is how do we ensure that we won't "pay" for it. This is a big issue. Oil companies still have record profits, yet are up in arms when royalties are raised by the provincial government.

Personally, like any other natural resource, Ottawa's place is not in the revenue of oil. That should be left to the provinces. However, saying that, Ottawa should be the ones that mandate environmental policies to ensure that "big corporations" are not blackmailing provinces, and politicians in provinces are not benefitting from doing nothing.

[spotthefan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Do you think that a person supporting the CPC means that they agree with everything?

This goes hand in hand with the idea that politicians are not allowed to change their mind on something. I look at a change of mind as a sign of intelligence, so long as it is not reactionary and in the moment. Most would take it as flip flopping.

[Azure]

Thing is, I would probably benefit a LOT from a NDP government, especially because of increased funding for the 'welfare' state, which would result in increased funding for low-income housing, which would result in me making a LOT of money.

Especially considering how moronic the NDP government was here in Manitoba with changes to low-income housing that they made 2 years ago.

But, I would still never vote for the NDP.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this as well. It seems to some that if you aren't in agreement with something that your party of choice has done, then you are supposed to hold them accountable and vote for someone else, regardless if you disagree with the other party more.

Try searching the forum archives for old threads from the 2004 and 2006 elections. Many CPC supporters on this site were doing exactly what you're complaining about in the quoted post above. Anyone back then who dared say they liked Paul Martin or the Liberal platform in the wake of the sponsorship scandal was called all sorts of nasty names and were told they were "sheep-like" and "susceptible to fear-mongering" for not voting Conservative and holding the Liberals accountable.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by spotthefan

“First of all, it’s time that these companies absorbed some of the cost of their pollution. I think most people agree with that. Naturally, the big companies like Exxon, big global corporations, are going to try to scare Canadians – to say, ‘If you try to do anything about pollution, we’re going to make you pay.’ That’s exactly what they said when we dealt with the issue of acid rain and sulphur emissions.”

I don't disagree with this comment at all. However, the conundrum is how do we ensure that we won't "pay" for it. This is a big issue. Oil companies still have record profits, yet are up in arms when royalties are raised by the provincial government.

Personally, like any other natural resource, Ottawa's place is not in the revenue of oil. That should be left to the provinces. However, saying that, Ottawa should be the ones that mandate environmental policies to ensure that "big corporations" are not blackmailing provinces, and politicians in provinces are not benefitting from doing nothing.

That's kinda the point I'm making. If you want to reduce green house gas emissions you have to reduce demand. The only way to do that in a market economy is to increase the price. You cannot avoid 'paying for it.' There isn't a free lunch!

There's isn't an anti-reality fairy choice in the election here! There simply isn't an option to lower green house gas emissions and then pull up to the gas pumps in your SUV and pay 0.80 cents a litre on demand.

Also if you look at oil and gas companies here in Canada, most invest 100% or more of their money back into their businesses. The capital spend is what creates jobs both directly and indirectly, so attacking them with carbon pricing and then regulating pricing takes away what they have to reinvest into the business and hurts the economy and it will attack you on the revenue side of things (Ie Canadians will make less money). There isn't a way to make the emissions disappear with zero consequence for the Canadian people.

[Ark2]

This is why I really have to laugh at anyone that says the NDP has a solid platform. Several of their policies are powered by nothing more than ideology. When cross-examined, we see them tumble. My hope is that we will hear more and more about how truly awful some of these NDP policies are before Monday and people will come to their senses. I get that Layton has a cool moustache and all, but this is our country, people. Time to take things a little more seriously.

[spotthefan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thing is, I would probably benefit a LOT from a NDP government, especially because of increased funding for the 'welfare' state, which would result in increased funding for low-income housing, which would result in me making a LOT of money.

Especially considering how moronic the NDP government was here in Manitoba with changes to low-income housing that they made 2 years ago.

But, I would still never vote for the NDP.

I concur, however, I am stuck as I do not believe the 'foundation' of the Conservative party is all that dead. By that I mean the reform/alliance roots. I am certainly not against a conservative government. However, I am unsure of my support for a former leader of those parties mentioned before.

Of course Politicians, Harper included, can change their stance. Like I said before I believe it is a sign of intelligence. I just don't believe we have had the opportunity to see if this party (under this leadership) truly is centrist or appears centrist when kept in check.

I would love to know for sure before they get that majority, but I can only hope to eat crow after, if it happens.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Try searching the forum archives for old threads from the 2004 and 2006 elections. Many CPC supporters on this site were doing exactly what you're complaining about in the quoted post above. Anyone back then who dared say they liked Paul Martin or the Liberal platform in the wake of the sponsorship scandal was called all sorts of nasty names and were told they were "sheep-like" and "susceptible to fear-mongering" for not voting Conservative and holding the Liberals accountable.

That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question. For those who like to point to the CPC faithful and call them blindly partisan, what exactly should they do? There are certain things about their party that they don't like, but they like the other parties a lot less, and yet, if you don't vote for someone else, you are apparently giving them a free pass.

[Azure]

I think you'll always have a problem with the party that promises the world to everyone because most people don't understand how that isn't feasible.

[Azure]

Economically, I don't think the Conservatives would wreck anything. Socially? Maybe, but I think we have to give them that chance and see.

Right now I'm worried about all those free-trade agreements that they tabled and are working on. The NDP would ruin almost all of them, which results in a loss of Canadian jobs.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Do you think that a person supporting the CPC means that they agree with everything?

I get that people are likely to disagree with pieces of the platforms of the party that they end up supporting. I just find it somewhat dishonest to campaign against the other parties with the exact same policies being in their platform.