New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Bunk

For Chretien, keeping the GST and maintaining free trade, although broken election promises, were the right decisions financially for Canada.

No question, it was the right thing to do. It was however the opposite of what they campaigned on. I highly doubt you would see the same sorts of fiscal policies from a Trudeau government, he certainly won't campaign that way anyhow.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Bunk

For Chretien, keeping the GST and maintaining free trade, although broken election promises, were the right decisions financially for Canada. Harper on the other hand, cutting GST, while keeping an election promise, was really stupid, and kept us in deficit far longer than we needed to be out of the recession and did little if nothing to help the economy recover.

You can also look to the US for evidence - exhibit A Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush.

However, the GST and free trade were instituted by a Conservative Government, refuting your claim regarding fiscal conservatives.

Why not leave the US out of the discussion as their politics are definitely on a different spectrum than ours? In Alberta, the more 'progressive' the PC's have become the larger our spending and subsequent deficits and debts have been.

In Saskatchewan, the election of a fiscally conservative party has led to a much improved fiscal situation and economic growth where 'liberal' governments in the past had racked up large debts and poor economic growth.

I think your assertions are entirely off base.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes.

Chretien cut well over 20,000 from the federal bureaucracy. While seemingly quite harsh, it was what was probably needed at the time in an overly bloated federal government, which delivers few actual front line services compared to provincial or municipal governments.

In his first few years, during the same era, Bill Clinton as President had cut well over 100,000 federal positions in order to reduce the massive deficit.

What seems to have been forgotten over time is that the liberals slashed a lot of federal bureaucracy by rolling more responsibilities down to the provinces and making it their problem.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I could see an NDP liberal merger coming out of a strong liberal showing, if it appears obvious the NDP have had their day in the sun and will inexorably slip back into third they may have the good sense to use there strong currant position to create an equal partnership.

Decidedly unlikely. The Liberals and NDP are father apart than the Liberals and Conservatives are. The Liberals could not effect an "equal partnership" without making a big jump left, which would lose right-leaning Liberals to the Conservatives.

But beyond that, the general delusion that NDP types operate under wouldn't allow for it. If they weren't going to press for a merger when they were largely irrelevant, they won't press for one when they are momentarily relevant.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm still not understanding how anyone here can relate progressivism with increased spending, outside of possibly pushing for the use of modern technology (and the associated purchasing) within government agencies.

Though I guess you could say the PCs are progressive, forcing taxpayers to buy fighter jets that can't fly in the rain to win wars we haven't started yet, since the F35 is a modern technological marvel.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by RyZ

Right now it really is like picking the shiniest of 3 turds. I don't know who I will vote for (just not the NDP). I have big problems with both the Libs and Cons at this point. Maybe I'll just sit this one out.

Kinda how I felt in the last Alberta Election.

You could pick the crazy b**** or the Bat S*** Nutty racist.
So I tossed my vote away voting for the first Independent on the ballet.

To bad the Canadian system has us voting for the party rather than the person who is actually on the ballet.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's almost as if they didn't have to weather a massive global economic recession or anything...

You can compare Harper's pre-recession performance to the Chretien/Martin Liberals and look at what he did to the surplus in that time frame if you'd like.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by #-3

To bad the Canadian system has us voting for the party rather than the person who is actually on the ballet.

While this may be common in Alberta, this is not nearly do ubiquitous in other parts of the country. In BC, I'd like to believe there are many voters who will vote for the best candidate.

In the last three federal elections, I've voted for three different parties. Each time, I went with the person I felt would best represent my riding's interests.

To prevent this from being a total holier-than-thou post, I will admit this is more readily possible on the centre-left, where there are three options instead of one (on the centre-right).

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm still not understanding how anyone here can relate progressivism with increased spending, outside of possibly pushing for the use of modern technology (and the associated purchasing) within government agencies.

Though I guess you could say the PCs are progressive, forcing taxpayers to buy fighter jets that can't fly in the rain to win wars we haven't started yet, since the F35 is a modern technological marvel.

What's your definition of progressivism? Im not sure who you're arguing against in this thread besides faceless "sun media subscribers".

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The same can not be said about the Trudeau years. He was a socialist who pretended to be a liberal in order to get into power.

Out of curiosity, why is socialism a bad thing?

Why do people look at any sane political stance and think bad of the people affiliated with it? I am not a conservative, but I know there are good conservatives, and I don't use the term "conservative" in a negative light, at least I try not to.

Socialism, like Conservatism, can be greatly beneficial. Perhaps Canada is in need of a leader more closely aligned on the political spectrum to socialism. Our financial records aside, the way our government treats people and their rights leaves much to be desired.

Trudeau isn't a socialist, maybe his father was or wasn't, but people get so painfully focused on money, and low taxes, and individual needs. What's wrong with higher taxes? Free education and day care? Would Trudeau do that? I doubt it. But I do think he would be better for the people of Canada. Harper has been very much about punishment and putting money into places that doesn't really improve our lives. Wouldn't it be better if Canadians were better educated, less criminalised, better cared for, and living on cared for land?

I'll probably vote for Trudeau. The NDP stands for more of what I believe in, but Mulcair simply doesn't seem to represent his party the way he should. Trudeau is young and growing, but he's got good ideas. He makes mistakes. So does Harper, everyone does. I'm going to vote for the person who cares a little more about the Canadian people, and a little less about what he thinks the Canadian people should be. Harper doesn't appear to trust the Canadian people, and sometimes seems to show a blunt mistrust of science. Those two things, in my mind, show he's incapable of representing Canada any longer.

[Erick Estrada]

Who is Justin Trudeau? There's such a lack of substance or history other than his last name and silver spoon upbringing. We all know he was hastily pushed up the food chain by a desperate party and we all know he's not their leader because of his ideas or political smarts. IMO it's a massive leap of faith to assume he's PM material based on what he's accomplished politically.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

You can compare Harper's pre-recession performance to the Chretien/Martin Liberals and look at what he did to the surplus in that time frame if you'd like.

And the Chretien/Martin Liberals probably did a better overall job. You can't really compare the two though since the Liberals had a majority and were free to implement tough policies, even ones that they campaigned against. Harper spent the worst of the recession in a minority parliment with three opposition parties who demanded more spending and less cuts. Since Harper has had a majority we seem to be ahead of schedule balancing the books. I would bet a dollar that if an election was being held this year we would find out that the books are already balanced but that they are fudging the numbers to show a surplus in the election year. By fudging I mean allocating more money to projects and services than they actually intend to spend, that money getting returned for next years "rosy" budget.

Regardless of all that, I don't see how Chretien/Martin policies have much to do with Trudeau. I guess we'll see when he releases some actual policies besides pot and abortion.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by evman150

While this may be common in Alberta, this is not nearly do ubiquitous in other parts of the country. In BC, I'd like to believe there are many voters who will vote for the best candidate.

In the last three federal elections, I've voted for three different parties. Each time, I went with the person I felt would best represent my riding's interests.

To prevent this from being a total holier-than-thou post, I will admit this is more readily possible on the centre-left, where there are three options instead of one (on the centre-right).

It was more of a comment on the strength of the party whips. I'm am sure everyone has their own reasons for voting a particular way. But it seems on so many important issue even though you voted for an MLA/MP your vote truly went to the party leadership/PM.

Pretty much the only thing I admire about the american system is that congressmen are free and willing to cross party lines on votes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

However, the GST and free trade were instituted by a Conservative Government, refuting your claim regarding fiscal conservatives.

Why not leave the US out of the discussion as their politics are definitely on a different spectrum than ours? In Alberta, the more 'progressive' the PC's have become the larger our spending and subsequent deficits and debts have been.

In Saskatchewan, the election of a fiscally conservative party has led to a much improved fiscal situation and economic growth where 'liberal' governments in the past had racked up large debts and poor economic growth.

I think your assertions are entirely off base.

In saskatchewan it was also the election of an ndp premier replacing a terrible conservative government that saved the province from Bankruptcy. He was the replaced by a far left leader which slowed the province down. (Calvert). Eventually the Sask Party (center right) got elected only after replacing the wack job right leader in Hermenson.

I think as you go through good and bad governments you see that the party doesnt really matter as effective governments come from all sides of the spectrum.

I would say good governments are fiscally responsible ie they balance budgets, they look to cut taxes where possible, they look to fund good social programs and most importantly make decisions based on the facts that exist and not ideology.

Rather than kill the gst they leave it in because fiscally it was the right thing to do.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Liberals and NDP are father apart than the Liberals and Conservatives are. The Liberals could not effect an "equal partnership" without making a big jump left, which would lose right-leaning Liberals to the Conservatives.

On what issues are the Liberals closer to the Conservatives than the NDP? I've actually been getting pretty POed at Mulcair moving the NDP towards the centre and past Justin on some issues. The Liberals are talking about decriminalizing while Mulcair has said "that would be a mistake" due to health risks. As I follow the NDP on Facebook, I'm getting more and more disenfranchised with them as they move more towards the centre. The feed is constantly touting more jobs, talking about balancing the budget. The only real lefty things they are holding onto is bull#### stuff like labelling of GMO products!

I'd be interested in knowing what these "big jumps left" would be?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

What's your definition of progressivism?

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

Which I would assume everyone would be for, unless for whatever reason you're all for stagnation or regression. I suppose the status quo is fairly alluring.

Im not sure who you're arguing against in this thread besides faceless "sun media subscribers".

Who's arguing? I'm just making comments.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And the Chretien/Martin Liberals probably did a better overall job. You can't really compare the two though since the Liberals had a majority and were free to implement tough policies, even ones that they campaigned against. Harper spent the worst of the recession in a minority parliment with three opposition parties who demanded more spending and less cuts.

Pre-recession, they governed as a majority because the opposition was so weak. The stimulus spending, I'll agree, was forced upon them - but we'd have been in a better position to implement stimulus, which I believe was necessary, if Harper hadn't gone about reducing the surplus when times were still good.

[edslunch]

Word is the next conservative budget will balance the budget and cut taxes. Yet these been a ton of slashing to get to this position. When are taxes low enough??

[SebC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Word is the next conservative budget will balance the budget and cut taxes. Yet these been a ton of slashing to get to this position. When are taxes low enough??

Never!

[LanceUppercut]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cana...tute-1.2734146

42% seems excessive to me.