2011 Canadian Election Thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Honestly, that's the nature of any election. The incumbent candidate/party defends their record while the opposition candidates/parties criticize the incumbent's record. When he was running against Paul Martin in 2004 and 2006, Harper was no better or worse than Ignatieff is now.

Harper used to be terrible. I recall how it seemed like he was always asking for an apology any time someone would make a quip. He sounded like such a weiner.

He is a lot more confident and thick skinned now though.

[getbak]

The reality in Alberta is that we're more likely to start a new party and vote for it than we are to elect the Liberals.

It has been a full century since the Liberal Party held the majority of Alberta's seats in the House of Commons (1911 election). Since that time, 3 separate grass-roots parties have emerged and claimed the majority of Alberta's seats in a Federal election (often sweeping the Province) -- the Progressives, the Socreds, and the Reform/Alliance.


There's a pretty long history of "Western Protest" parties forming when the people on the prairies start to feel exploited, marginalized, and ignored by the Liberals and/or Conservatives.

After the First World War, it was the United Farmers and Progressive parties that emerged. The CCF (the precursor to the NDP) was founded in Calgary in 1932. Social Credit also emerged in Alberta in the 1930s. Then, in the late 80s, Reform came along.


Maybe what needs to happen is a bunch of disgruntled Alberta Liberals to band together with Libs in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (where they're also marginalized) and basically do for the Liberal Party what the Reform did for the PCs. Hell, they could even resurrect the Progressive Party name, since it was also formed from disgruntled Liberal supporters.

[IliketoPuck]

^ Just lipstick on a pig as far as Alberta voters are concerned.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by getbak

The reality in Alberta is that we're more likely to start a new party and vote for it than we are to elect the Liberals.

It has been a full century since the Liberal Party held the majority of Alberta's seats in the House of Commons (1911 election). Since that time, 3 separate grass-roots parties have emerged and claimed the majority of Alberta's seats in a Federal election (often sweeping the Province) -- the Progressives, the Socreds, and the Reform/Alliance.


There's a pretty long history of "Western Protest" parties forming when the people on the prairies start to feel exploited, marginalized, and ignored by the Liberals and/or Conservatives.

After the First World War, it was the United Farmers and Progressive parties that emerged. The CCF (the precursor to the NDP) was founded in Calgary in 1932. Social Credit also emerged in Alberta in the 1930s. Then, in the late 80s, Reform came along.


Maybe what needs to happen is a bunch of disgruntled Alberta Liberals to band together with Libs in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (where they're also marginalized) and basically do for the Liberal Party what the Reform did for the PCs. Hell, they could even resurrect the Progressive Party name, since it was also formed from disgruntled Liberal supporters.

I'm going to start the Alberta First Party.

Frankly I have come to the conclusion that after all of these pages in this thread and through talking to others that the Federal Liberals are a lost cause in Alberta, the NDP is even farther from legitimacy and the Greens are only a protest vote. If they ever came close to actually mattering then the moratorium on the oilsands would crush them (and rightly so!).

I really don't know what the Conservatives stand for anymore either: they are not fiscal conservatives and their past five years shows that pretty clearly; they are no socially conservative if we're to believe their recent campaigns. I can't figure out what they're actually trying to "conserve" actually?

The Alberta First Party doesn't necessarily want to separate, we just want a seat at the table. We'll look to get elected so that we can campaign strictly for the interests of Alberta, and basically seek to make sure that we are getting our fair share from Ottawa. Sure its only 28 seats, but just think - a federal leader will actually be campaigning here in Alberta for your votes! We'll attend forums, and finally Albertans won't have to worry about the poor representation we've received from our federal MPs over the years. if you're tired of being taken for granted then the Alberta First Party is your home.

Tired of playing second fiddle? Vote Alberta First!

(I'm really only half joking...)

[nik-]

An Alberta first party would have enough votes to screw the Conservatives but not enough to be a pivot in parliament like the Bloc. An Alberta first party is probably exactly what every non Conservative party wants haha

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nik-

An Alberta first party would have enough votes to screw the Conservatives but not enough to be a pivot in parliament like the Bloc.

Who cares? The point is that we'd finally have representation at the table, and not cave to eastern interests along the way. We could never form government, but could form a decent opposition.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who cares? The point is that we'd finally have representation at the table, and not cave to eastern interests along the way. We could never form government, but could form a decent opposition.

Yeah, but it's opposition that could effectively be ignored with no penalty.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, but it's opposition that could effectively be ignored with no penalty.

Not in a minority parliament it couldn't.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

Tired of playing second fiddle? Vote Alberta First!

(I'm really only half joking...)

That's pretty much how the Reform Party got started. Remember "The West Wants In"?

Alberta-only won't work, but BC and Alberta have a combined 64 seats. Add in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, you have 92 seats. More than Quebec and just behind Ontario.

Both the current Conservatives and the NDP have their roots as Western protest parties. It's been over 20 years since the last one came along. Maybe it's time for another.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's pretty much how the Reform Party got started. Remember "The West Wants In"?

Alberta-only won't work, but BC and Alberta have a combined 64 seats. Add in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, you have 92 seats. More than Quebec and just behind Ontario.

Both the current Conservatives and the NDP have their roots as Western protest parties. It's been over 20 years since the last one came along. Maybe it's time for another.

Well it could make some sense. I think that the key is not to actually try to become government though; thats where you have to start sacrificing ideals.

[transplant99]

That was me. Someone earlier in the thread contacted the local Liberal candidate and asked about it...

And that was me....

So yay you! your getting your oil patch consultation and an assurance that no one sector will be singled out (Which "Turning the Corner" also emphasised).

And i am still waiting for her to get back to me with what happened when she met "members of the oil and gas industry to better understand and communicate on this issue".

That particular line is about as politikspeak as it gets. She had no idea what was entailed in what she origially said. I give her all the credit in the world for attempting to truly answer my question, (because it was clear when it was asked she had no idea) and with a bit more in-depth questioning, she folded. This is a LP member running in Calgary..the heart of the oil patch.

If not frightening, certainly sad. And IMO, an indication of a much deeper agenda by the federal party.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Well that's what conservative (small "c") demogogues have conditioned people to think at any rate. I'm pretty sure the worldwide economic downturn combined with the shape decrease in the global market price of oil may have had something to do with it y'know.

Good lord man...you are smarter than this I believe.

Did the decrease in oil prices hurt Alberta, hell yes they did and would ....but in no way did anything cause the total and complete annihilation that occurred other than the most malicious and intentional "legislation" of all time. And it was clear to anyone at the time who had any grasp of economics, that what happened...was going too. It was sad.

I will refer you to this one more time....

the decline in world crude oil prices that began only a few months after the NEP came into force, the graph of long-term oil prices show that prices adjusted for inflation did not drop below pre-1980s levels until 1985. Given that the program was cancelled in 1986, the NEP was active for five years which are amongst the most expensive for oil prices on record and the NEP prevented Alberta's economy from fully realising those prices

So now what?

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by nik-

An Alberta first party would have enough votes to screw the Conservatives but not enough to be a pivot in parliament like the Bloc. An Alberta first party is probably exactly what every non Conservative party wants haha

Not necessarily. From early this thread I wrote:

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Well as long as you live in Alberta your vote does not really matter anyways. From 1968 to 2005 the results of the Federal election would have only been different once if Alberta was completely removed from the ballot. 2005 would have been a Liberal minority rather than a Conservative minority.

Federal representation indeed.

In going back I see my typo but the fact stands. 2008 would also have led to different results - barely.

Originally Posted by Slava

Not in a minority parliament it couldn't.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Slava

Well it could make some sense. I think that the key is not to actually try to become government though; thats where you have to start sacrificing ideals.

Unless that government is your own.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I really don't know what the Conservatives stand for anymore either: they are not fiscal conservatives and their past five years shows that pretty clearly; they are no socially conservative if we're to believe their recent campaigns. I can't figure out what they're actually trying to "conserve" actually?

Power.

Harper would sell his soul for a majority... one could argue that he already has. The question is: why?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SebC

Power.

Harper would sell his soul for a majority... one could argue that he already has. The question is: why?

oh my god.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I really don't know what the Conservatives stand for anymore either: they are not fiscal conservatives and their past five years shows that pretty clearly; they are no socially conservative if we're to believe their recent campaigns. I can't figure out what they're actually trying to "conserve" actually?

That's part of the problem of a minority. They've been forced to compromise so much to get things done that it is hard to say how much of it is their policy and how much is bending their policy to suit the other parties.

It had been mentioned earlier that the Stimulus wasn't originally planned but there was a reversal. This was a compromise. I would wager that the amount of stimulus was more than the CPC wanted to spend and still wasn't near what the other parties would have liked, but they all compromised on the amount to get it out there. As a result, it is hard to determine what any one party's line truly is.... but they are all bending to make parliament work.

Is it fair to rail against a party for not compromising, when there is evidence to the contrary, and then slamming the party for the outcomes of this compromise? This goes for the CPC, the LPC, the NDP, etc...

[Slava]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1993971/

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1993971/

Weird and stupid crap someone from Saskatchewan says should not be newsworthy. They are from Saskatchewan.

I've never even heard of this fool, but I have heard of Hedy Fry. I wonder if there are any crosses burning on her lawn during this election?

Having said that, I wonder if this mini-scandal will have any more effect than the multiple mini-scandals that have already occured through this election. So far, everything the Libs and the Lib friendly media have tried to throw at Harper has had little to no effect. Yet Iffy is slipping badly in the polls and unless there is a major correction soon, Layton and the NDP will surpass Iffy and the Libs as the second most popular party in Canada.

That has to be keeping the poor Liberal war room awake at night. And the best they could come up with is a 1/2 hour infomercial on Easter Sunday that isn't even live, but a rehash of his "Rise Up" speaches?

Stick a fork in them...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1993971/

Prime Minister denies it in the same article.

A spokesman for Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper said the government had not made such a decision about funding Planned Parenthood and that it had no desire to decide who to fund based on abortion issues.
“We have been crystal clear on this issue – we are not re-opening this debate,” said Dimitri Soudas.

[Slava]

Oh, Phew. The PMO denies this, so clearly its not true. Good thing that they've never gone back on their word before!

I do think its somewhat amusing that just in the last few days my saying that I had some concerns regarding the social conservative element of the party had all of the CPC apologists jumping down my throat here, and lo and behold within the week we get a public confirmation from the party itself (an elected MP afterall!).

Good to know that you guys won't let those facts get in the way of pressing for that majority though.