2011 Canadian Election Thread

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why the heck do you think Ignatieff was absent from parliament so much? It's because the Liberals were abstaining to let the Cons pass legislation.

What a load of horse dung. Even Ignatieff didn't try and spin that kind of answer. He told us all that the reason he was missing 70% of the votes was because he was out on the road "taking my message" across the country. I might also point out he missed votes on bills that the members of his own party introduced. Also, why do you have to be absent in the house to abstain from voting? Hint: You dont.

This is the guy that is trying to hammer Harper on "respect for democracy"...and it has been exposed for what it is, a thinly veiled attempt to paint Harper as someone who isn't in touch...yet the man himself is by FAR the one who hasnt a clue whats going on in the house.

You should apply to the Liberal party for a PR position, your spinning ability is worthy of the position.

[Slava]

Again though what would you have them do? If they abstain/skip votes and the legislation you aren't happy with that. If they show up and vote in favour then they pay dearly when the election comes. If they vote down the government we hear that its an unnecessary election.

Frankly they just can't win your support, no matter what they do here?

[The Goon]

For all of you pluralizing Liberal and using an apostrophe - please stop, for the love of God.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Alberta was staunchly anti-Liberal long before then. Even before Trudeau.

I think there's a mischaracterization there (although unintentional).

Pre-Trudeau, Alberta was Pro-Conservative. Liberal candidates were still often elected. This all changed after Trudeau, at which point Alberta became staunchly anti-Liberal.

Personally, I think the "I live in Alberta and therefore only vote Conservative" mindset is beyond silly. They aren't even the same party that some us previously voted for.....and certainly not the same party that our parents supported.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Slava

Again though what would you have them do? If they abstain/skip votes and the legislation you aren't happy with that. If they show up and vote in favour then they pay dearly when the election comes. If they vote down the government we hear that its an unnecessary election.

Frankly they just can't win your support, no matter what they do here?

He should show up and then abstain from voting (if abstaining is his desired tactic). At least that way he would make more of an impression. Not showing up just isn't good enough IMO. Say what you want about Harper and Layton, but they are both hard workers. Ignatieff could do a little more I think.

There is a lot of BS slamming of the Ignatieff IMO, but only showing up to parliament 30% of the time is a valid point.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Addick

I won't bitch, I'll simply shake my head.

It is up to Albertans to approach things with an open mind rather than plain ignorance.

Ignorance is assuming that the Liberals are overwhelmingly rejected because of ignorance.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Again though what would you have them do? If they abstain/skip votes and the legislation you aren't happy with that. If they show up and vote in favour then they pay dearly when the election comes. If they vote down the government we hear that its an unnecessary election.

Frankly they just can't win your support, no matter what they do here?

What would I have them do? How about their job? I dont care if he opposes any particular piece of legislation, thats what opposition parties do. If he doesn't want to work with the CPC or whoever may be sitting as government, that is his right. Just don't try and tell me he wasn't there so the CPC could pass legislation, its completely disingenuous and flat out ridiculous.

And no Michael Ignatieff would never ever get my support, that much is true. I admit that. This is a guy that was part of the Bush administration planning team to go into Iraq, but somehow when it came to anyone in Canadian politics supporting the same plan, they were ostracized for it by all the Liberal MP's and members.

He claims you can't trust Harper...well i would say the exact same thing about him only by about 100 times more.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I think there's a mischaracterization there (although unintentional).

Pre-Trudeau, Alberta was Pro-Conservative. Liberal candidates were still often elected. This all changed after Trudeau, at which point Alberta became staunchly anti-Liberal.

Yes and no, I think. You have to go back to the mid 1950s for the last time the Liberals consistently had support in Alberta, and back to the 1930s, Liberal election of MPs was always hit or miss. But yes, they had a lot more support. The irony of Trudeau's interactions with this province is that his first election in 1968 was the Liberal high weather mark for the past 60 years - 36% of the vote and 4 seats. He eroded that to 25% and zero seats by the 1972 election, then down to just 12% of the vote by 1984. The Libs haven't recovered.

It was asked earlier what it would take for the Liberals to gain support out in the west. Two things come to mind...

First, stop announcing anti-oil patch policies out in Ontario and Quebec. All that ever accomplishes is to play the east against the west. Things like this cap and trade system... come to Alberta, talk to the impacted companies and communities. Build a plan everyone can live with then go present it to the nation.

Second, break the habit of electing Ontario and Quebec elites as leader. The only truly western leader the Liberals have ever had was the lame duck John Turner. And while MacKenzie King was based in Saskatchewan for a time, he spent most of his career out east. The Liberals have always been the party of Eastern Canada, and it shows when you look at who has typically occupied power positions within the party.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ignorance is assuming that the Liberals are overwhelmingly rejected because of ignorance.

Actually arrogance better describes it. They assume that their platform is the pinnacle of public policy and that there are many wonderful things in that book for Alberta, and in reality it's Albertan's who are being sticks in the mud and not jumping on board. People aren't blindly voting conservative here, they're voting against the redbook.

The learning passport is supposed to be a huge plank. Sure giving an extra $442 (Keep in mind that the new plan calls for the elimination of $558 of tax credits available) per student per year is a positive investment in education. However with cap and trade and banning tanker traffic off the west coast you're effectvely reducing incomes and wealth in Alberta by a much larger portion than $442 per year. Seriously from public workers right through to oil patch workers, everyone will take a huge hit on this.

If I was trying to save for a kids education then it would be easier if I made more money, unless of course the Liberals believe that if they don't handle my money for me I'd just blow it on beer and popcorn and ignore my kids education.

Bottomline, if you're the party proposing to hit a province in the pocketbook for your policies, the duty of care is on you to articulate why your way is better for the country in the present and better for the province long term. It's not on people taking a blind leap of faith in a party that doesn't even try to get their vote. Democracy is about representing peoples views, not telling them smugly that they are inferior and then hope they elect you to be their king.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The don't bitch about it when Alberta annihalates them in 13 days.

Its not up to Albertans to give them a chance, its up to them to earn it from voters.

A brief introduction to game theory.

I posit that Alberta's relationship with the Liberal party is a prisoner's dilemma (assuming most Albertans would like to be pandered to, but inherently dislike voting Liberal).

For the Liberals:

If they ignore us and we vote for them, great.
If they pander to us and we vote for them, good.
If they ignore us and we don't vote for them, okay.
If they pander to us and we don't vote for them, bad.
Whether or not we vote for them, their best strategy is to ignore us.

For Albertans:

If we don't vote for them and they pander to us, great.
If we vote for them and they pander to us, good.
If we don't vote for them and they ignore us, okay.
If we vote for them and they ignore us, bad.
Whether or not they pander to us, our best strategy is to not vote for them.

Yet, mutual co-operation yields better results for both Albertans and the Liberals than going with the "best strategy" - which leads to mutual relation. Such is the nature of a prisoner's dilemma.

Now, because this happens over multiple elections, our prisoner's dilemma becomes an interated prisoner's dilemma. You know what the best strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma is? Tit-for-tat with forgiveness, precisely because it allows you do become unstuck from mutual retaliation whereas a both parties employing a pure tit-for-tat strategy does not.

Either Albertans or the Liberals could extend the first olive branch, but if we want our vote to start mattering to the Liberals (and by extension, to matter more to the Conservatives), the only way we can start a mutually beneficial relationship with them is to start voting for them whether they deserve it or not. Having them start the process by "forgiving" us is not something that's within our control.

[Clarkey]

Why do they keep talking about hiring doctors? That's a provincial matter!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

A brief introduction to game theory.

I posit that Alberta's relationship with the Liberal party is a prisoner's dilemma (assuming most Albertans would like to be pandered to, but inherently dislike voting Liberal).

For the Liberals:

If they ignore us and we vote for them, great.
If they pander to us and we vote for them, good.
If they ignore us and we don't vote for them, okay.
If they pander to us and we don't vote for them, bad.
Whether or not we vote for them, their best strategy is to ignore us.

For Albertans:

If we don't vote for them and they pander to us, great.
If we vote for them and they pander to us, good.
If we don't vote for them and they ignore us, okay.
If we vote for them and they ignore us, bad.
Whether or not they pander to us, our best strategy is to not vote for them.

Yet, mutual co-operation yields better results for both Albertans and the Liberals than going with the "best strategy" - which leads to mutual relation. Such is the nature of a prisoner's dilemma.

Now, because this happens over multiple elections, our prisoner's dilemma becomes an interated prisoner's dilemma. You know what the best strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma is? Tit-for-tat with forgiveness, precisely because it allows you do become unstuck from mutual retaliation whereas a both parties employing a pure tit-for-tat strategy does not.

Either Albertans or the Liberals could extend the first olive branch, but if we want our vote to start mattering to the Liberals (and by extension, to matter more to the Conservatives), the only way we can start a mutually beneficial relationship with them is to start voting for them whether they deserve it or not. Having them start the process by "forgiving" us is not something that's within our control.

Wow.

Again you are saying it is up to Albertans to give in to Liberal ideas and platforms that ultimately will cause harm to the people in the province, not for the Liberals to appeal in some way to Albertans. Thats assinine since one party is easier to change and compromise than it is to change the mind of millions of Albertans.

The forgiving part is ludicrous as well...Trudeau started this thing when he literally cost 10's of thousands of Albertans their jobs and homes. No one is going to forgive someone else for destroying their lives, its both impractical and far too much to ask. Alberta owes the Liberal party of Canada exactly...nothing. It's much much more the other way around.

Funny that the analogy is that the Liberals intend to keep Alberta prisoners however...because that's about what it is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Funny that the analogy is that the Liberals intend to keep Alberta prisoners however...because that's about what it is.

That actually shows that you don't understand the analogy. Forgiveness is certainly counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

That actually shows that you don't understand the analogy. Forgiveness is certainly counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Oh I understand it just fine...its just that its a load of crap. I have no forgiveness for the absolute raping of Alberta by the Liberals because they knew what they were doing and what effect it would have, they just didn't care as they knew it would get them re-elected in Ontario. Forgiving such actions would definately be wrong on my part as it would allow them freedom to do it once again.

the whole "fool me once" thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

While we talk about things being years ago, in terms of the institutional memory, the people that were for example victimized by the NEP are still very much part of the voting pool.

I even remember the Liberal rape of Alberta, because I remember my parents losing a business that they had spent years building up. I rememeber that they lost all of their savings to keep us kids fed and clothed when they weren't able to find work. I remember the tow truck showing up to tow away our car.

I remember my mom and dad sitting down and telling us kids that we would probably have to move because we couldn't keep the house.

And yet in most of the elections, the Liberal's have a policy in place that designed to move money from west to east.

So your right, when the Liberal's run up their platform, maybe I do eye it with a more jaundiced eye looking for its effects on the province that I live in.

So I do look at the Liberal's as more of a critical judge then I look at the Cons.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh I understand it just fine...its just that its a load of crap. I have no forgiveness for the absolute raping of Alberta by the Liberals because they knew what they were doing and what effect it would have, they just didn't care as they knew it would get them re-elected in Ontario. Forgiving such actions would definately be wrong on my part as it would allow them freedom to do it once again.

the whole "fool me once" thing.

Fair enough, as long as you accept that the logical consequence of perpetually voting Conservatives is that the Conservatives will take us for granted (hello, resource trusts) and the Liberals won't see any incentive to try.

Sooner or later, the Libs will be strong in Ontario again. What then?

[FlamesAddiction]

Governments will tend to pander to the areas that support them the most. It's much easier to keep votes than it is to change people's minds, especially when it is ingrained in the fabric of the culture. If Alberta voted Liberal, you would definitely see the party aim its policies towards keeping them happy. As it is right now, they have nothing to lose in Alberta and that fact probably makes Alberta less politcally persuasive than it ought to be in Canada. By not having that vote to dangle over the heads of other parties, they lose in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion.

For the Liberals to change the mind of the majority of Albertans, it would take a cultural shift that would take at least a generation to show results as most of the older folks already have perspective that are unlikely to change no matter what... not to mention, parents tend to indoctrinate their children with political beliefs. Sure, they could start trying to make inroads now, but no politicians think long term like that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Fair enough, as long as you accept that the logical consequence of perpetually voting Conservatives is that the Conservatives will take us for granted (hello, resource trusts) and the Liberals won't see any incentive to try.

Sooner or later, the Libs will be strong in Ontario again. What then?

I would rather be taken for granted than taken advantage of...I can tell you that.

I don't know how old you are or if you remember what the NEP did to Alberta, but it was unconscionable . Much like CC said up there^^^, I remember going to move my parents out of their house that they had been in for many years, the look in my mothers eyes as she was holding my (at the time) baby brother...all because of what PET did with malice and forethought.


Maybe the Liberals will be strong in Ontario again sometime, maybe they wont....but if they are, we go right back to where its always been....take take take from Alberta, and give give give to the East.

I could just as easily turn around and ask why so many in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes dont vote CPC. Is it because they dont agree with the policies? Well then you have the same answer for your question. But lemme guess...its the right that has to compromise...no one else. Seems to be a recurring theme among the left.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Governments will tend to pander to the areas that support them the most. It's much easier to keep votes than it is to change people's minds, especially when it is ingrained in the fabric of the culture. If Alberta voted Liberal, you would definitely see the party aim its policies towards keeping them happy. As it is right now, they have nothing to lose in Alberta and that fact probably makes Alberta less politcally persuasive than it ought to be in Canada. By not having that vote to dangle over the heads of other parties, they lose in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion.

I really disagree with what you're saying. Basically if I'm reading it right, you're stating that Alberta should be willing to vote for the Liberal's on faith that if we do the Libs will then shift their platform to include Alberta concerns.

Thats reverse logic. If you want to be a national ruling party then you have to try to fit every region into your platform. The cons have done a fairly good job of that, the Liberal's haven't.

I don't believe that the statement should be "Vote for us and we'll include you", instead it should be "This is why you should vote for us because we will include you". Its like the T.V. shows where the guy kicks the crap out of his wife and then drops to his knees crying and says "Don't leave me baby, I can change" then in the next episode it opens with a backhand slap across her face.

Once you have those votes then you can concentrate on other areas of weakness and try to win those seats. The Conservatives had their breakthrough in Ontario because they did that in combination with the weak Liberal party efforts.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

For the Liberals to change the mind of the majority of Albertans, it would take a cultural shift that would take at least a generation to show results as most of the older folks already have perspective that are unlikely to change no matter what... not to mention, parents tend to indoctrinate their children with political beliefs. Sure, they could start trying to make inroads now, but no politicians think long term like that.

I agree with this, the Liberal's have to stop thinking like a central Canadian Party and embrace the whole country.

But I do disagree with the indoctrination theory in some ways. For example, my father and mother supported The Cons, then reform and Cons. Early on I did vote for a Liberal in my riding and then switched to the Cons. MY three sisters are all Liberal supporters, which by the way makes election time uncomfortable.

Oh and when the Liberal's win office again, and it will happen at some point, then thats a battle that we'll have to take up then, god help us but we'll need to have a better premiere in office by then.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Fair enough, as long as you accept that the logical consequence of perpetually voting Conservatives is that the Conservatives will take us for granted (hello, resource trusts) and the Liberals won't see any incentive to try.

Sooner or later, the Libs will be strong in Ontario again. What then?

We lose again and the West returns to talks of separation. The alternative is voting for a party today that isn't by platform or history at the least interested in the West's best interests.

At least Harper has a stake in both the West and Central Canada. What you might call "taking for granted" only goes so far and Harper knows it. Harper also knows that oil is the driving force in the Canadian economy today. He wont pander to the enviromental lobby at alberta's expanse. Can the same be said for the Liberals?