2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

For me it wasn't really about what we're going to get from the federal government (I contest that Albertan's don't view themselves as wanting to be 'on the take' anyways), but rather how much less we're going to have to give away. The Conservatives represented the party that would rape my existance the least.

Also, let's look at this cap and trade thing rationally. The Liberals and the NDP are serious, the CPC just wants to delay and ride this out until it becomes blatently obvious that niether the US nor China are going to get on board with this thing and avoid shooting ourselves in the foot for 'optics sake.'

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So saying that the conservatives had a generic cap and trade like the others is incorrect.

No, but I'm pretty sure he is going to deliberately misrepresent that until the end of time if it suits him.

Slava, you really need to check your bais. Conservative supporters are getting out of hand? Have you seen some of the comments from left wing supporters? All this whining about how Harper doesn't deserve a majority is coming from a group of hypocrites who had no problems with Chretien winning majorities on the same share of the vote, and doing so as a direct result of vote splitting.

I've favoured election reform for years myself - that is probably one of few things you and I agree on politically, at least at a high level - but there is something to be said for the necessity of stability in a government.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but I'm pretty sure he is going to deliberately misrepresent that until the end of time if it suits him.

Slava, you really need to check your bais. Conservative supporters are getting out of hand? Have you seen some of the comments from left wing supporters? All this whining about how Harper doesn't deserve a majority is coming from a group of hypocrites who had no problems with Chretien winning majorities on the same share of the vote, and doing so as a direct result of vote splitting.

I've favoured election reform for years myself - that is probably one of few things you and I agree on politically, at least at a high level - but there is something to be said for the necessity of stability in a government.

I'm not misrepresenting the CPC policy though. It's there, plain as day. I'm not in favor of cap and trade by ANY party. If the Liberals or NDP campaigned in the same manner and had won I would say the same thing.

I also note that I never said that Harper doesn't deserve a majority. I actually think that is a separate issue from electoral reform. Harper won the election fair and square by the rules in place. I just happen to think that these rules are illogical.

This idea that the West made some amazing gains is still laughable though. Our votes were totally taken for granted here. No matter which party wins at the end of the day that is really distasteful and undemocratic. Sure the arguments that "you can't blame them" are understandable....except for the local candidates. Guys like Jason Kenney who spent the entire campaign in Ontario and didn't even attempt to connect with constituents here is really a bad precedent in my eyes.

[transplant99]

I thought stupidity ended on election day.

I was wrong.

[getbak]

On the subject of Parliamentary reform: It looks like the house will be expanding again (for the first time since 1997), which will help (slightly) with the disproportionate allocation of seats in the House: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../18109146.html

30 new seats will be added, with 18 going to Ontario (despite having as many as they do, they're still under-represented), 7 to BC, and 5 to Alberta.

It won't change the imbalance between the larger provinces and the smaller, but it will at least bring Alberta, BC, and Ontario roughly in line with Quebec and closer to the rest.

The Conservatives have been trying to make this change for years, but the Bloc kept arguing against it because it weakened Quebec's voice. Now that they have won a majority without Quebec's help, the CPC doesn't need to pander to Quebec, so this change should go through relatively soon.

Of course, there doesn't need to be a rush, so I'd think they'll wait until after the 2011 Census is completed to get the final numbers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I thought stupidity ended on election day.

I was wrong.

It could've, but instead we got a CPC majority!

[Resolute 14]

The Bloc did a good job of squashing the last attempt at adding seats to the house because Quebec got nothing, so this will be the first benefit of their demise. Also, this new change will also serve as a shot across the bow of the NDP's asymmetrical federalism idea.

I did get a kick out of the NDP argument that Quebec shouldn't get 25% of all new seats regardless of population, but instead should always have 24.4%.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

You guys can call it sour grapes, and thats fine. It's just totally logical though. If you were running a business would you let a guy with 40% ownership have sole control?

Terrible comparison. Shareholders all pretty much have the same goal in common. The different regions, ethnicities, classes, etc. of Canada do not. They also have many many many different types of goals.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Terrible comparison. Shareholders all pretty much have the same goal in common. The different regions, ethnicities, classes, etc. of Canada do not. They also have many many many different types of goals.

I don't believe that at all. I think that Canadians all want similar ends. If we are really that divergent then we may as well split into some smaller countries?

It's also not a terrible comparison because many shareholders have a similar end goal but different ways to get there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Bloc did a good job of squashing the last attempt at adding seats to the house because Quebec got nothing, so this will be the first benefit of their demise. Also, this new change will also serve as a shot across the bow of the NDP's asymmetrical federalism idea.

I did get a kick out of the NDP argument that Quebec shouldn't get 25% of all new seats regardless of population, but instead should always have 24.4%.

What does it do to the asymmetrical federalism that the CPC brought out during this campaign?

[Azure]

Well personally I like getting out of hand because the party I voted for won.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

What does it do to the asymmetrical federalism that the CPC brought out during this campaign?

You lost Slava. Get over it.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Slava

You guys can call it sour grapes, and thats fine. It's just totally logical though. If you were running a business would you let a guy with 40% ownership have sole control?

This can actually happen in a business - if 1 person owns 40% of the shares and the remaining 60% are extremely diluted among huge numbers of shareholders.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Makes perfect sense. Which part doesnt make sense?

Your conclusion makes no sense. You say look at the stability of our previous two minority governments and then you use that to proclaim that is why Canadians need a PR system. Makes no sense. Under a minority government, we had a weaker, less stable government that couldn't do anything that they campaigned on and somehow you conclude that Canada needs to inject even more instability? Sorry, but I don't get it. I like the whole idea of looking at a party's platform, voting, and then seeing if they keep their promises during their term. With a minority government, you get a hodge-podge of things pushed through that no one wanted and no one is accountable because "the other party made us do it". Throw in the fact that all parties seem more interested in scoring political points rather than making necessary changes and I'll say no thank you.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You lost Slava. Get over it.

Oh, so we shouldn't discuss things for the next 4-5 years then? It's a simple question to a point you brought up. How does the proposed change affect the CPC view on asymmetrical federalism?

Win or lose an election you should be able to speak to points you bring up?

[Dan02]

Closest races in 2011

Jay Aspin (CON) - Nipissing--Timiskaming, ON - won by 14 votes (0.03% margin); Anthony Rota (LIB) finished second.. A judicial recount is under way.

Ted Opitz (CON) - Etobicoke Centre, ON - won by 25 votes (0.05% margin); Boris Wrzesnewskyj (LIB) finished second. A judicial recount is under way.

François Lapointe (NDP) - Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, QC - won by 5 votes (0.01% margin) after the validated count reversed the election night win by 100 votes of his opponent Bernard Généreux (CON). A judicial recount is under way.

Kevin Lamoureux (LIB) - Winnipeg North, MB - won by 45 votes (0.18%); Rebecca Blaikie (NDP) finished second. A judicial recount is not automatic, but may be requested.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

If you go back into the platforms of all three major parties, the Liberal's and the NDP had unconditional cap and trades. The Conservatives did not have cap and trade in their platform at all.

When Harper talked about Cap and Trade he said that it would not be implemented unless the U.S. implemented a cap and trade strategy and Canada's would be implemented on a sector by sector basis so that it would not harm the Canadian economy.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh, so we shouldn't discuss things for the next 4-5 years then? It's a simple question to a point you brought up. How does the proposed change affect the CPC view on asymmetrical federalism?

Win or lose an election you should be able to speak to points you bring up?

Except that you don't seem to want to speak to your side either. The only thing you've got is "blah blah what about the Conservatives? blah blah"?

Discussing is fine, but you spend more time deflecting than discussing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that you don't seem to want to speak to your side either. The only thing you've got is "blah blah what about the Conservatives? blah blah"?

Discussing is fine, but you spend more time deflecting than discussing.

You brought up that this move will be a shot across the bow for the NDP and their asymmetrical federalism. I asked you (as a CPC supporter, who seems concerned about that topic) what that would do for the CPC and their own view of asymmetrical federalism.

I have no idea how that is deflecting? I'm asking you a simple question about a topic that you brought up.

[Resolute 14]

Given Quebec is getting zero of these seats, I'm not sure what your point regarding the Conservatives' supposed view on it has to do with anything.

The NDP, on the other hand, are specifically stating that Quebec should have more power than it deserves in regards to the number of seats within the house.

One side is treating all with relative equality in this case, the other is not. I'll let you figure out which is which.