2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

I'm just ignoring the coup talk. Its a pure red herring so the CPC can avoid talking about actual issues.

If we see another minority I have a hard time believing that Harper would be around for a 5th election in ten years. Pretty clearly some others are going to want a turn.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just ignoring the coup talk. Its a pure red herring so the CPC can avoid talking about actual issues.

If we see another minority I have a hard time believing that Harper would be around for a 5th election in ten years. Pretty clearly some others are going to want a turn.

Ignore it all you like...but Ignatieff stated clearly and concisely he would not do it at the beginning of this campaign. Not sure how that is a red herring, it is an issue for a LOT of people.

"We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function," Ignatieff said in a statement. "We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

"If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal prime ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did: to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum."

His own words.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just ignoring the coup talk. Its a pure red herring so the CPC can avoid talking about actual issues.

If we see another minority I have a hard time believing that Harper would be around for a 5th election in ten years. Pretty clearly some others are going to want a turn.

If/When Harper wins this election.

If its a majority then I would expect that he will still step down at the end of the term.

If its a minority, he will step down at the end of the term, it will just be more fluid.

If its a minority and the Liberal's Bloc and NDP go no confidence at the budget. There will be an election within the calender year and Harper will probably fight in that election.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just ignoring the coup talk. Its a pure red herring so the CPC can avoid talking about actual issues.

Huh? So apparently, people shouldn't be ignoring some back bencher MP when he says that the CPC will end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, but it's cool to ignore coup talks when Ignatieff says that he would try to form the government as the opposition leader. Okay...

Admit it, when you say you are undecided, what you really mean is that you haven't decided whether to vote Liberal or abstain from voting completely.

[North East Goon]

does MacKay speak french?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Huh? So apparently, people shouldn't be ignoring some back bencher MP when he says that the CPC will end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, but it's cool to ignore coup talks when Ignatieff says that he would try to form the government as the opposition leader. Okay...

Admit it, when you say you are undecided, what you really mean is that you haven't decided whether to vote Liberal or abstain from voting completely.

The reason its a red herring is because its not actually a reason to vote for/against a candidate. Rather than trying to discuss actual issues or talk about actual concerns that the government will face though we're stuck listening to plain rhetoric. The list of actual possibilities is seemingly endless: Libya, our aging population, health and education (yes they are provincial, but the Feds still play a large role), foreign ownership of Canadian corporations, etc. That doesn't even touch on real questions such as Afghan detainees, G8/20 etc. that some parties would like to see made an issue.

Why can't we have some actual dialogue in the campaign about their actual plans? The Liberals have about $8 Billion in new spending and the NDP is somewhere near $30 billion. Where does that come from? The CPC doesn't fare a whole lot better as they are expecting to save billions from what can only be described as efficiencies. The problem is that in order to save on the magnitudes they're claiming its going to take somewhere closer to 8 years based on the actual attrition rates.

As far as my vote goes its a real struggle. I don't like the whole "give me a majority because the other guys are going to make my life hard" angle. I also don't appreciate the rampant spending proposed by the opposition. I have no idea why that idea of feeling disenfranchised is so hard to grasp, but just because I don't care for Harper means I support the Liberals either.

Overall a large part of my frustration here is the complete avoidance of Calgary in the campaign. Its really inexcusable for MPs to just ignore a large city they purport to represent.

[Resolute 14]

Except that it is a reason to vote against the Liberals. If you fear the NDP gaining control of economic policy, then the potential of a non-coalition coalition, which Ignatieff has admitted he may try, is most certainly a reason to vote against the Liberals.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

does MacKay speak french?

Yes he does.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that it is a reason to vote against the Liberals. If you fear the NDP gaining control of economic policy, then the potential of a non-coalition coalition, which Ignatieff has admitted he may try, is most certainly a reason to vote against the Liberals.

The problem is that all 3 of these parties have questionable economic policies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem is that all 3 of these parties have questionable economic policies.

True but I think that right now, Ignatieff's platform just isn't resonating with the voters at all. At one time even under Chretien and Martin the Liberal's could claim the middle ground by taking policy ideas from the Left and the Right side. This time they took their policies from the Left which is Dipper territory, and they're seeing a backlash.

Its expected that Layton is going to talk about massive government spending, so he's true to form.

So Voters are looking at Ignatieff who has appeared to be angry, confused and a little bit bitter with a very left leaning policy guide, then they look at Layton, who's charming, somewhat funny and relaxed, and seemed far more prepared then Layton in the debates, with the same kind of platform.

Who do you think they're going to vote for?

Meanwhile, Harper has basically run a campaign on the budget that he tabled in the house, which in a sense, he's trying to get a mandate by going directly to the people with his budget and cutting out the opposition.

Harper's also managed to get some resonation on the whole Coalition issue.

He's kept his campaign simple and controlled and nothings stuck.

Ignatieff has flailed, and if you asked me to look honestly at his campaign, he might claim to run a positive campaign, but he's run a pretty heavy campaign of fear.

SO

No credibility, no experience in a campaign, a bad platform that I'm not even sure that he believes in, while he won't have an election result like the 1984 election under John Turner, I believe that his seat numbers are going to be severely chopped away by the other three parties.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem is that all 3 of these parties have questionable economic policies.

Agreed. But there is questionable and there is bat-crap insane.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reason its a red herring is because its not actually a reason to vote for/against a candidate. Rather than trying to discuss actual issues or talk about actual concerns that the government will face though we're stuck listening to plain rhetoric. The list of actual possibilities is seemingly endless: Libya, our aging population, health and education (yes they are provincial, but the Feds still play a large role), foreign ownership of Canadian corporations, etc. That doesn't even touch on real questions such as Afghan detainees, G8/20 etc. that some parties would like to see made an issue.

Are you serious? A party could form a coalition government, in which the voting public would have no idea on where they stand on any of the above issues that you listed and that's not a reason to vote for or against a candidate? Seriously, think about this one. Supposing that NDP/Liberals/Bloc form a coalition, what does their budget look like? What is their stance on Afghanistan? What is their plan for health care, education, immigration, etc? No one knows because these are all issues that would be hashed out in a back room somewhere. Is your hatred for the Conservatives so blinding that you can't understand how this is a serious issue? You aren't making any sense.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reason its a red herring is because its not actually a reason to vote for/against a candidate. Rather than trying to discuss actual issues or talk about actual concerns that the government will face though .

Why do you dismiss the possible coalition as an issue for voters? I don't get it.

When the last attempt was tried, it became overwhelmingly obvious that Canadians simply didnt want it to happen. Even Liberal party supporters didnt want it, and who can blame them. When they would be sitting with Layton as deputy PM, the Bloc having a say in financial matters affecting the whole country...you bet your ass its an issue, and a big one at that.

And just to reiterate....should any 2 parties be able to form a real coalition out of the NDP/Libs/CPC, then by all means...coalate away. But if the Bloc is needed to acheive it...forget it, and that goes for any of them.

The absolute best scenario in this country should the CPC fail to get a majority is for the Libs and CPC to get together and make a deal that will allow for stable governing for at least 3 years and say as much to the people. Secondary would be the CPC and the NDP doig the same, but i cant see how that could work at all ideology wise. If the Libs and NDP combine to have more seats than the CPC does, then thats fine as well but at this point a pipe dream.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reason its a red herring is because its not actually a reason to vote for/against a candidate. Rather than trying to discuss actual issues or talk about actual concerns that the government will face though we're stuck listening to plain rhetoric. The list of actual possibilities is seemingly endless: Libya, our aging population, health and education (yes they are provincial, but the Feds still play a large role), foreign ownership of Canadian corporations, etc. That doesn't even touch on real questions such as Afghan detainees, G8/20 etc. that some parties would like to see made an issue.

The reason it is an issue, and should be THE issue, is that right now the choice is very very clear on one side, and very very murky on the other.

The Conservatives have clearly spelled out what their policies would be and how they would achieve them. You can argue if it is the right vision for Canada, whether they are realistic objectives that are fully costed and further whether or not you believe they will do what they say - but they have put forth a plan.

On the other side you have three party platforms that are significantly different, none of which have any chance of being implemented (based on current polling numbers and even the admission from the parties). If the Conservatives don't get the majority and the NDP/Libs/BQ form a coalition, what will be the policies and goals of said government? It won't be any of the independant promises currently being put out as that would not be implmented by the other necessary parties to achieving said coalition. What would the NDP have to give the Libs and BQ (ok, we know that one - money to PQ) to get their support? What would the Libs have to give the NDP and BQ should they retain more seats than the NDP? Very murky, very unsure.

If you want a stable government, you need to vote Conservative this election. If you are OK handing power to some mish-mash of the NDP (exceedingly high tax and moronic spending, more government involvement in everyones personal business), the Libs (wishy washy on everything, who knows what they actually stand for other than ensuring their own entitlements and lining their own pockets) and the BQ (break up the country while getting as much from the rest of Canada for PQ as possible) then go ahead and vote for someone else.

The Greens are proving, yet again, that they are completely irrelevant.


edit: what Ark2 said in less words. Important to read the whole thread before responding I guess...

[CaptainCrunch]

Not to shift the subject, but what the hell happened to the Green Party, they finished with 6.8% of the vote in the last election and some claim to legitimacy. Now they're polling at under 3%.

Has Elizabeth May actually campaigned?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not to shift the subject, but what the hell happened to the Green Party, they finished with 6.8% of the vote in the last election and some claim to legitimacy. Now they're polling at under 3%.

Has Elizabeth May actually campaigned?

Apparently she has been putting almost all her effort into her home riding trying to actually get a seat.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not to shift the subject, but what the hell happened to the Green Party, they finished with 6.8% of the vote in the last election and some claim to legitimacy. Now they're polling at under 3%.

Has Elizabeth May actually campaigned?

She's just an extremely poor politician. Nothing more than that. She had her chance to get into Parliament last election and probably had a good chance to turn her inclusion in the debates into a seat in Parliament. Instead, rather than just picking a riding that had the strongest support for the Green party, she goes up against Peter Mckay. The woman is an absolute moron.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not to shift the subject, but what the hell happened to the Green Party, they finished with 6.8% of the vote in the last election and some claim to legitimacy. Now they're polling at under 3%.

Has Elizabeth May actually campaigned?

And, to pile on, they traditionally see WORSE results on election day than random polling days. Last year, I believe, they were polling around 10% to finish with that 6.8% on election day. If they are polling in that 3% range now, expect less on election day.

I'd say a couple things - the environment is not the same issue it was a few years ago. You almost never hear Kyoto anymore. Being a one issue party, when that issue is shuffled to the background you are kinda screwed. Couple that with the near universal dislike of May and the wackiness of some of her other Birkenstock with sock wearing granola eaters and you have a recipe for obscurity.

I'd argue the only reason they are actually polling in the 3% range is that they are still listed as an option by the pollsters. When that stops, you'll probably not hear from them again unless they make a major change in leadership/philosophy.

To compare, I think the Greens have been around since the early 80s and have never come close to electing someone. The Reform party started in the late 80s, had an MP in 89 (I think) then a big breakthrough in the early 90s. You could make similar comparisons to the BQ, although a regional party.

Two of these parties were/are relevant (although again, one regionally), the other clearly is not.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not to shift the subject, but what the hell happened to the Green Party, they finished with 6.8% of the vote in the last election and some claim to legitimacy. Now they're polling at under 3%.

Has Elizabeth May actually campaigned?

I got an email from a candidate back in BC. In it, she apologized about not showing up to the "meet and greet".

Not much to say after that really.

[Slava]

Well in reality I'm just not terribly afraid of a coalition. Its really just a little more formal arrangement as far as what we've seen over the past five years. I just don't want that coalition to include the BQ formally. Needing their support issue to issue is just the nature of the situation. The CPC would be in that exact spot if they didn't get Liberal or NDP votes.