2011 Canadian Election Thread

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, you read the letter again.

Okay, if your interpretation were somehow correct, would it even make sense? Why would you need to form a coalition to dissolve the parliament? Parliament would be dissolved without the formation of a coalition of non-plurality parties. Come on man.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Does fundraising ability correlate to capable decision making and support, or to pandering to the wealthy, special interests, and hyper-partisans?

As has been mentioned...there is a cap in place on corporate donations and it is a hard one to circumvent.

What I am saying is that a group of bright minds as should be at the lead of any political party should be able to have the wherewithall to fund themselves and not leech off the backs of taxpayers.

pretty simple concept....no?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What I am saying is that a group of bright minds as should be at the lead of any political party should be able to have the wherewithall to fund themselves and not leech off the backs of taxpayers.

pretty simple concept....no?

You have a tremendous ability to simplify things to the point where they are no longer full and accurate representations of reality.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Step 1: Buy a big ol' lobster
Step 2: Boil alive
Step 3: Profit! (umm...maybe- Deliciousness?)

Step 2 1/2 buy a stethoscope from the drug store, dip in water.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

You have a tremendous ability to simplify things to the point where they are no longer full and accurate representations of reality.

So you have no answer then... got it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you have no answer then... got it.

The question has no merit.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

The question, as per your MO, is a false dichotomy.

No it isn't...not even in the least.

It's a very simple one actually. Why can't parties fund themselves?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No it isn't...not even in the least.

It's a very simple one actually. Why can't parties fund themselves?

They can, and they do, but it's worth limiting the extent to which they do because it gives a disproportionate amount of influence to the wealthy, the hyper-partisan, and special interest groups.

Also, I softened my post before you edited it, but the false dichotomy is "fund themselves or leech of taxpayers". Either repeal the per-vote funding, or they are leeches. No other options?

Now your turn: is peter12 misunderstanding Harper's 2004 letter? I want corroboration from a conservative.

[old-fart]

Nice to see Iggy continue to completely sidestep the "coalition" question again today. So far, this election will be about 3 issues:
1) Economy
2) Coalition
3) Ethics

The first two are home runs for Harper and gang, the 3rd is barely a tie and will likely not become much of an issue at all. Unless something drastic happens, the absolute best the Libs can hope for is a return to a similar seat count as we have now.

How long after May 2nd before Iggy returns to Harvard?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by old-fart

How long after May 2nd before Iggy returns to Harvard?

Is Gretzky any less a Canadian for living in LA?

[transplant99]

They can, and they do, but it's worth limiting the extent to which they do because it gives a disproportionate amount of influence to the wealthy, the hyper-partisan, and special interest groups

If that was the case then why did they lose their collective heads when Harper, foolishly I might add, tried to take it away from them? That coalition ploy was nothing more than trying to protect their sense of entitlement to taxpayer dollars. It could not have been more apparent nor transparent.

Also, I softened my post before you edited it, but the false dichotomy is "fund themselves or leech of taxpayers". Either they do what you want, or they are leeches. No other options?

Correct.

Now your turn: is peter12 misunderstanding Harper's 2004 letter? I want corroboration from a conservative.

Don't know as I haven't read it nor will I speak for someone else....ask him. All I recall from that time and I may be incorrect is that harper was attempting to prevent the Liberals from dissolving government without consultation by the GG to look at other alternatives...but again that was some time ago and there are likely things about it that suggested otherwise.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Don't know as I haven't read it nor will I speak for someone else....ask him. All I recall from that time and I may be incorrect is that harper was attempting to prevent the Liberals from dissolving government without consultation by the GG to look at other alternatives...but again that was some time ago and there are likely things about it that suggested otherwise.

thats how the letter read to me, it stated that should the Liberal's request the government be dissolved, that the governor general consult with the numerical majority opposition.

but I don't see where it says anywhere that it requests that the opposition coalition form a government.

The difference is in 2008 the coalition agreement actually laid out the split of power with the NDP getting 25% of the cabinet seats, and I believe Jack Layton taking over finance, the Bloc in essence wouldn't be part of the government but would be consulted on all policy decisions.

[transplant99]

Pretty sure the Conservative message will be any vote for the Liberals or the NDP will eb avote for the BQ as well and the coaliton angle.

The Liberals will have to try and portray Harper as a scoundrel and unable to contain his own MP's, but they will not want to take on a lot of economy stuff.

The NDP...well they just dont matter....and will be all over the map in what they say.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If that was the case then why did they lose their collective heads when Harper, foolishly I might add, tried to take it away from them? That coalition ploy was nothing more than trying to protect their sense of entitlement to taxpayer dollars. It could not have been more apparent nor transparent.

There was also that whole budget update without any sizeable economic stimulus thing. Losing the per-vote money would have made them a lot more ineffective at getting their message out, but they still receive some donation money and therefore would continue to be able to operate without the per-vote money were it gone. All the parties involved raise funds themselves, just not all their funds.

Correct.

In your opinion, hence the false dichotomy. I see the money as providing value to Canadians. Are doctors leeching off the taxpayer's back?

[Slava]

Andrew Coyne tweeted a 35-28 poll. I really respect Coyne as a guy who takes shots at every party, and is generally entertaining if not right. The poll also had a question about whether the government is on the right track or not and that was a 42% on track versus 58% not. Might be meaningless, but that's a lot tighter than the poll yesterday.

If Harper wins a smaller minority will he pursue a coalition? Fact is that its not undemocratic at all. It's totally legitimate and in a parliamentary democracy you sometimes need to build concensus. Obviously Canadians are fairly divided right now, so what's the big deal about a parliament that reflects those divisions?

[Inferno099]

Unreal.... another waste of about $300M of taxpayer money on yet another federal election.

I'm not a conservative supporter, nor do I agree with a number of their decisions; however from looking at the polls - I think people will focus on one party to get a majority & probably will be the Tories this time.

I do not see Canadians electing the Liberals as a majority government.... especially after all the waste that occurred during their time in power as well.

Unfortunately.... no matter who is in control... their always seems to be lies, wasted money & scandals.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

thats how the letter read to me, it stated that should the Liberal's request the government be dissolved, that the governor general consult with the numerical majority opposition.

but I don't see where it says anywhere that it requests that the opposition coalition form a government.

What do you think that they wanted the GG to consult with them about? Layton said it was a coalition, Duceppe said it was a coalition, and both of them said that Harper called them to set it up.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The difference is in 2008 the coalition agreement actually laid out the split of power with the NDP getting 25% of the cabinet seats, and I believe Jack Layton taking over finance, the Bloc in essence wouldn't be part of the government but would be consulted on all policy decisions.

So the difference was that in 2008, the BQ wouldn't be part of the government while in 2004 they very well may have been. And this is better optics for the Conservatives?

[CaptainCrunch]

My Lord, the opposition has triggered an election



Wipe them out . . . all of them

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by John Doe

What do you think that they wanted the GG to consult with them about? Layton said it was a coalition, Duceppe said it was a coalition, and both of them said that Harper called them to set it up.



So the difference was that in 2008, the BQ wouldn't be part of the government while in 2004 they very well may have been. And this is better optics for the Conservatives?

Please show me anywhere where the Conservatives had a governmental agreement laying out the government.

There is nothing in that letter showing that the opposition were going to form a government, you do know that the GG has the right to refuse the disolution of government.

Please show me where that letter was in any way equivalent to the agreement signed by all three opposition parties breaking down the rolls in a coalition government.

[Slava]

^so CC will Harper form a coalition this time if he doesn't have enough seats?