2011 Canadian Election Thread

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Yeah, but you can't force banks to lend money to people. The thing about governments and the economy is that a government cannot mandate the economy to improve, but rather only attempt to create winning conditions for improvement. The opposite is that they can certainly mandate the economy into ruins with restrictive laws.

If the NDP were to implement this, and then legislate charge out rates with businesses, and then legislate that they cannot drop credit limits of existing customers, then the banks will simply stop taking on new clients and all of the bad things I mentioned would still happen. You can't force people into economic activity, but you can certainly provide incentive for people to shy away from it.

Leading to a significant increase in broken thumbs and kneecaps.

[FlamesAddiction]

I do find it kind of hillarious that Harper's anti-Liberal campaign has probably been one of the key factors in pushing people towards a more socialist option thus giving socialists more power in the country.

Harper should have been running a mostly positive campaign about his party's virtues rather than trying to destroy the Liberals.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think in Alberta, politics is emotional and Liberal and NDP are like curse words which prevents a lot of people from objectively looking at the Conservatives - they are the exact same as the liberals at the best of times with different social policies. There's a million dollar piece of sod with 3 trees getting put in at the end of my block right now under the "Economic Action Plan" umbrella that I look at every day and laugh about.

Well I agree, lets look at all the parties objectively. How about objectively looking at the NDP and the liberals? As the CPC is in power we will have to look to the past for the others.. How did Bob Rae and Gordon Campbell work out? Or maybe the NDP in BC before that. You could look at that comparison every day and have a laugh about it!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I do find it kind of hillarious that Harper's anti-Liberal campaign has probably been one of the key factors in pushing people towards a more socialist option thus giving socialists more power in the country.

Harper should have been running a mostly positive campaign about his party's virtues rather than trying to destroy the Liberals.

Completely agree...he had the whole lot of em by the testes in regards to the economy and let em go.

The CPC campaign organizers blundered a great opportunity IMO. All Harper had to do was keep hammering on that one issue and let the others figure out how to respond which they really had no answer for..and he wins in a cruise.

Aaaand just after i wrote this, I read this...way too late IMO.

The choice is to continue on the economic track we're on. Low taxes that are providing jobs and enabling us to deliver real affordable benefits to families," Harper said.


"The alternative that the opposition offers, symbolized most dramatically by the NDP, are enormous increases in government expenses, the raising of taxes, the raising of prices which we know will have a devastating effect on consumers' pockets and ultimately on our economy and the destruction of jobs."


"That is the choice. And it's the choice no matter which one of these parties is leading this band of opponents."

Should have been the message from day 1.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/de...006/story.html

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by getbak

Virtually every riding in Alberta was won by the Conservatives with greater than 50% of the votes last time around. There would have to be an unprecedented backlash for them to lose any seats outside of Edmonton, and more than 2 in Edmonton. The CPC will win between 26 and 28 seats in Alberta. The margins might be a lot closer than in the past, but they'll still be landslides.

The Conservatives in my riding have done nothing to earn my vote, but neither have the other parties, so, at this time, I'll likely cast a blank ballot on Monday.

Yeah I agree things are still pretty safe in Alberta, was thinking more on a national scale.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well I agree, lets look at all the parties objectively. How about objectively looking at the NDP and the liberals? As the CPC is in power we will have to look to the past for the others.. How did Bob Rae and Gordon Campbell work out? Or maybe the NDP in BC before that. You could look at that comparison every day and have a laugh about it!

You're mistaken if you think I am a huge NDP or Liberal booster - they've all done moronic things at various points and deserved to be punted. I think every politician should be scrutinized on the basis of their actions and capabilities and voting blindly on party lines is reprehensible which is what really puts me off in Alberta, the hyperpartisan atmosphere doesn't lead anywhere good.

Campbell was a 10 year super popular premier here before the HST. He made a poor decision economically and politically and was taken to task on it which is as it should be. Lived in AB during the NDP years so I can't comment - was enjoying my Ralphbucks at the time.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Completely agree...he had the whole lot of em by the testes in regards to the economy and let em go.

The CPC campaign organizers blundered a great opportunity IMO. All Harper had to do was keep hammering on that one issue and let the others figure out how to respond which they really had no answer for..and he wins in a cruise.

This, and answer more than 4 questions a day. Basically their campaign message of "Vote for me and you won't have to vote again for a while" has fallen flat.

In a sentence they should've run a campaign as though they were losing and looking to make-up ground. Instead they've tried to do nothing and just not rock the boat. I'm not an NDP supporter, but the reality is that at this point they are the national party: they have support in every region and look poised to win seats in every region. You can't make that same claim about any other party as far as I'm concerned.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Woke up to read the latest Nanos poll in the globe which I think is the best polling organization and wow is all I can say. Awesome to see the election get interesting - I'm still not sure who I'm voting for but I enjoy a good contest.

I think all the hairpulling about the NDP is kind of ridiculous. I've never voted for them to this point but the alliance/reform people villainizing them is borderline comical. A coalition with the liberals would be a pretty solid check on them fiscally - the last couple liberal governments spent way less money than the current government.

The last couple Liberal governments benefited from having an extermely conservative opposition. They could govern a little right of center and keep the left voting for them because the only alternative was the evil Reform. Harper's pressure has been from the left. He has spent more because of it. A coalition government's pressure would be from its partners. The NDP would spend freely and maintain their coalition by spending more. The NDP owes trade unions and environmentalist and have always been good about paying their debts.

In B.C. the NDP formed government corporations for things like Building maintainance and ran them at a loss to hide their increasing budget shortfalls. That took some creative accounting and they knew it couldn't be hid forever. The NDP weren't trying to hold power long term. They knew their socialist policies creates debt and slows economic growth. What they wanted to achieve was firstly pay their debt to their supporters and secondly advance their social causes. They knew that it is very hard to take away social programs once they have been extablished. They also know that things like Union contracts and such can have an effect long after they are gone.

The difference between the NDP and the other two major parties is they won't hope or expect to be in power long. In B.C. and in Ontario that created spending, spending, and more spending.

[Azure]

The interesting part is, if the NDP is at 30%, why isn't that turning into projected wins in the numerous riding's across the country that they were relatively close to the leader?

30% should have them at 70-80 seats. Not at 40-50, which is apparently what every single website tracking the actual seats is showing.

The Nanos poll, which I participated in, might be accurate, but it won't necessarily translate into actual seats.

Nevermind the fact that the Conservatives haven't really attacked the NDP yet, and I also believe the NDP is getting more support at the expense of the BQ and the Liberals.

Attack ads work, the the CPC has only started attacking the NDP now.

[MarchHare]

The Conservatives in my riding have done nothing to earn my vote, but neither have the other parties, so, at this time, I'll likely cast a blank ballot on Monday.

I haven't received any campaign literature from any of the candidates in my riding. The only signs I've seen have been from the Green Party and the Liberals, and even those have been pretty sparse. If I didn't know better, I'd say that the CPC and NDP aren't even running a candidate in Calgary Centre.

Also, and I'm surprised this story hasn't generated any media attention, but my MP (Lee Richardson) charged over $535,000 to his MP expense account in 2009. What the heck was this no-name back-bencher spending all that money on? For comparison, PM Harper only expensed $190k during the same year.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Completely agree...he had the whole lot of em by the testes in regards to the economy and let em go.

The CPC campaign organizers blundered a great opportunity IMO. All Harper had to do was keep hammering on that one issue and let the others figure out how to respond which they really had no answer for..and he wins in a cruise.

I'm not so sure about that. Look at those that are supporting the NDP/Liberals and they all seem to generally dislike Stephen Harper. Right now, they are focusing on little piddly crap things like contempt of Parliament and wearing a sweater once in a commercial. I think no matter what he does, they would always find reasons to dislike him. What the Conservatives need to do is find a new leader. One that is charismatic and delivers the best sound bites, because that's what matters to Canadians. Being calm and discussing the issues is simply not an attractive quality to the majority of this country.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

This, and answer more than 4 questions a day. Basically their campaign message of "Vote for me and you won't have to vote again for a while" has fallen flat.

In a sentence they should've run a campaign as though they were losing and looking to make-up ground. Instead they've tried to do nothing and just not rock the boat. I'm not an NDP supporter, but the reality is that at this point they are the national party: they have support in every region and look poised to win seats in every region. You can't make that same claim about any other party as far as I'm concerned.

Huh?

The CPC are going to win seats in every region as well....and more than everyone else at that.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The last couple Liberal governments benefited from having an extermely conservative opposition. They could govern a little right of center and keep the left voting for them because the only alternative was the evil Reform. Harper's pressure has been from the left. He has spent more because of it. A coalition government's pressure would be from its partners. The NDP would spend freely and maintain their coalition by spending more. The NDP owes trade unions and environmentalist and have always been good about paying their debts.

I think pinning the actions of 3 or 4 successive majority liberal governments on pressure from the opposition is a bit rich. I do agree that a national NDP majority would be way too much but I think a Conservative/NDP or Liberal/NDP coalition government is basically the same thing if the dippers are strong.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Completely agree...he had the whole lot of em by the testes in regards to the economy and let em go.

The CPC campaign organizers blundered a great opportunity IMO. All Harper had to do was keep hammering on that one issue and let the others figure out how to respond which they really had no answer for..and he wins in a cruise.

Yeah, that's the thing. A lot of Liberal supporters were already weak and looking for someone to win them over (I know I was), but convincing people to like them less did necessarily make them want to like the Conservatives more.

Man, it must have too tempting for Harper though, seeing that the Liberal party was on the ropes from the get-go. I know that if I was in his position, I would personally want to try for the knockout punch.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

The interesting part is, if the NDP is at 30%, why isn't that turning into projected wins in the numerous riding's across the country that they were relatively close to the leader?

30% should have them at 70-80 seats. Not at 40-50, which is apparently what every single website tracking the actual seats is showing.

The Nanos poll, which I participated in, might be accurate, but it won't necessarily translate into actual seats.

Nevermind the fact that the Conservatives haven't really attacked the NDP yet, and I also believe the NDP is getting more support at the expense of the BQ and the Liberals.

Attack ads work, the the CPC has only started attacking the NDP now.

Well there are polls that I've seen showing as high as 107 seats for the NDP, but people seem to dismiss those right away as outliers (there have been a few,which starts to make me wonder).

I don't buy the attack ads working over the weekend idea. When every news outlet starts election talk with "The Orange Crush" or some clever line about the surge of Jack Layton and the NDP its too late. Strategically the time to launch those attack ads about Layton was a few weeks back....you have to be ahead of these things.

Its not much different than playing the trap for two periods. Once your opponent scores and ties the game its hard to just turn it on again and start playing offence. It might not be impossible, but its an uphill battle.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Huh?

The CPC are going to win seats in every region as well....and more than everyone else at that.

Well the NDP is polling higher than the other parties consistently. Maybe its in my phrasing.

The CPC seats are inflated by the West and Alberta in particular. In the martimes and Quebec they are behind. In Ontario they are ahead, but not by much. MB and SK are a little better for them obviously, but even there the NDP looks pretty good. Skip to BC and the NDP looks strong there as well.

Will that translate to seats? Who knows.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think pinning the actions of 3 or 4 successive majority liberal governments on pressure from the opposition is a bit rich. I do agree that a national NDP majority would be way too much but I think a Conservative/NDP or Liberal/NDP coalition government is basically the same thing if the dippers are strong.

The last Liberal governments were fiscally conservative because they had a majority. Even Martin himself said that he couldn't possibly have as fiscally conservative as he was as finance minister had he been a part of a minority government. The CPC really didn't have any choice but to be less fiscally conservative because if proposed cuts, the opposition parties could defeat their bills and use it as an example of the Conservatives "hurting Canada". On the other hand, if you spend more and try to give something to everyone, it discourages the opposition from voting against them as then the CPC can turn to the public and say "we tried to give you X, but they defeated it." You can't compare a majority government with a minority government.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

This, and answer more than 4 questions a day. Basically their campaign message of "Vote for me and you won't have to vote again for a while" has fallen flat.

In a sentence they should've run a campaign as though they were losing and looking to make-up ground. Instead they've tried to do nothing and just not rock the boat. I'm not an NDP supporter, but the reality is that at this point they are the national party: they have support in every region and look poised to win seats in every region. You can't make that same claim about any other party as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that Harper could have done more to win votes but, only time will tell if he should have. If Harper wins a minority government again and no immediate coalition emerges I could see him tabling the same budget as he did before the election with little changes. No political party could afford to start another election campaign for at least a couple years. I'll bet both the Liberals and the NDP will be deeply in debt from this election run. That gives him two more years to govern without a lot of pressure to spend borrowed money.

Election promises generally cost money. If Harper wins with basically only a promise to be reserved in his governance and move towards a balanced budget that will be good for Canadians.

[Slava]

Andrew Coyne on who he is voting for and why: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/a...2;but-by-whom/

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The last Liberal governments were fiscally conservative because they had a majority. Even Martin himself said that he couldn't possibly have as fiscally conservative as he was as finance minister had he been a part of a minority government. The CPC really didn't have any choice but to be less fiscally conservative because if proposed cuts, the opposition parties could defeat their bills and use it as an example of the Conservatives "hurting Canada". On the other hand, if you spend more and try to give something to everyone, it discourages the opposition from voting against them as then the CPC can turn to the public and say "we tried to give you X, but they defeated it." You can't compare a majority government with a minority government.

The point is that they had a majority and total free reign, and could have spent like wildmen and yet they chose fiscal conservatism - I agree the cons spent more than they would have in a majority (although the nauseating "Economic Action Plan" was all them and 90% wasteful) and in a majority situation their policies fiscally are very similar. Yet in some places conventional wisdom is that one is the root of all evil, which is nonsense.