The alternative being to vote for a party whose platform included destroying our economy with an oppressive tax designed to filter money out of our region and into the poorer parts of the country.
Yup, that's pretty much the dilemma. I was always against the Alliance/Tory merger because it meant that Alberta's vote would be locked up and nobody would ever bother trying to win Alberta's vote again. It's okay right now as right now a lot of senior members of the party are Albertan, but that will inevitably fade over time.
Yup, nobody in Canada plays the game of politics as well as the voters of Quebec. It's almost like they all get together, and say "okay, we're going to mostly elect Bloc because they'll effectively lobby on our behalf and can give us the balance of power in a minority government, but we'll give a few representatives each to the Conservatives and Liberals so that they think that they actually have a chance of winning us over if they give in to our demands. And we'll even throw the NDP a bone and see if they'll support us from time to time."
Compare that with Alberta, where it's as though we get together and say, "Okay, we're going to unanimously elect the same party that we always do, even though it means that nobody cares about us, since our own party doesn't need to give us concessions and there's no point in the other parties even trying to win votes here."
Yup, that's pretty much the dilemma. I was always against the Alliance/Tory merger because it meant that Alberta's vote would be locked up and nobody would ever bother trying to win Alberta's vote again. It's okay right now as right now a lot of senior members of the party are Albertan, but that will inevitably fade over time.
You're bang on. People in Alberta need to realize that they've become the patsies of the current iteration of the Tory party. Harper is no more pro-West than Martin was, and is certainly no different from Ignatieff in that respect. He might throw us the occasional bone but until we show that we're willing to hold them accountable--and to hold them to certain minimal standards of competence and good governance, we'll get nothing and we'll be told to like it.
A good place to start would be Rob Anders. I disagree with Bownesian on this one. Getting rid of Anders would not threaten Harper in the slightest, but might A. Communicate to the Tories that Calgarians won't let them run just anybody to represent us and B. Communicate to all the parties that our voice matters and that it pays to listen, and to work for Alberta's vote.
As it is now, the Tories will give us nothing because it makes no difference, the Liberals will give us nothing because we'll never vote for them anyway, and the NDP are irrelevant. How does that serve Alberta's interests?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
As it is now, the Tories will give us nothing because it makes no difference, the Liberals will give us nothing because we'll never vote for them anyway, and the NDP are irrelevant. How does that serve Alberta's interests?
Wrong perspective, by about 180 degrees.
Alberta isn't in the "gimme" category, so it is irrelevant whether or not any of the parties are going to give them anything.
We are, however, quite astute to see who would take away things. The Tories wouldn't, but the Fibs and Dippers would in a heartbeat.
The Following User Says Thank You to Shawnski For This Useful Post:
As it is now, the Tories will give us nothing because it makes no difference, the Liberals will give us nothing because we'll never vote for them anyway, and the NDP are irrelevant. How does that serve Alberta's interests?
That's tough to say without seeing the platforms. The last Liberal election platform would have been disasterous for Alberta's economy. Under that regime, the one area that is still functioning at all (Oil Sands) would have been faced with enough taxes to make the in-situ extraction uneconomical while seriously threatening the pit mines. This would have killed probably 80% of the drilling that will be happening this winter in the province plus the billions in construction plans that are ongoing.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record but until I see what Ignatieff plans to do with Alberta's economy, I cannot conceive of voting for him. My biggest worry is that there will be a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition along the lines of the previous one, which included as part of the coalition document a plan to implement a 1990 standard for a cap-and-trade GHG plan. 1990 was before any of the current projects in the Oil Sands were underway and would effectively result in another tax shifting money out of our province's main industry elsewhere.
As we have seen with the changes in the royalty regime, what seems like a very small change in terms of % makes a huge difference in the resulting drilling activity. Projects that were planned with 100's of wells before last winter were knocked back to a handful. This has led to us losing more than half of the drilling crews, service company jobs, head office jobs and consultant work. These projects might be back up this winter because the provincial Tories have backed off of the royalty changes having seen their revenues plummet as a direct result.
I cannot vote myself out of a job. I cannot vote to gut the industry that drives city in which I live. We may not be getting economic "action" out of the Conservative government but we sure are preventing something much worse. They are doing what a good capitalist wants them to do - staying out of the way and letting us get down to the business of business.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record but until I see what Ignatieff plans to do with Alberta's economy, I cannot conceive of voting for him. My biggest worry is that there will be a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition along the lines of the previous one, which included as part of the coalition document a plan to implement a 1990 standard for a cap-and-trade GHG plan.
One of the areas in which there is not much difference between Ignatieff and Harper is on the Oilsands. I personally, though I wasn't in favour of the bungled "green shift" do think that something has to be done to generate market conditions that accelerate the market's push toward alternative energy--though I agree that in the end the solution to this problem will be market-based, not government-based.
In that sense, Ignatieff sounds pretty good to me. He's in favour of oilsands development, but wants to develop strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions in consultation with the oil industry. That is, he recognizes the challenges we face and knows who we need to talk to about it. It might not reassure those who are working in the industry, but let's not make the mistake of comparing him to Dion, who just about drove the party to hell in a handbasket and came close to dragging the country along with it. Ignatieff is not (as far as I can tell) cut from the same cloth.
But in the end, it comes down to that same philosophical disagreement. You say that you are voting for Stephen Harper over Michael Ignatieff. I say that you are voting for Rob Anders in spite of his obvious shortcomings. As you say, Anders has spent 11 years as an MP without so much as a feather in his cap. Could a trained monkey do the job as well? My sense is yes--probably. And for me, that's not good enough. An effective MP must also represent my riding to the caucus and take an active part in policy development. Otherwise my democracy is meaningless, and I might as well vote for the Green party, for all it matters.
However, there isn't much to make of this yet. Poll shows roughly the vote splits in the last election. You also would have to imagine that the Liberals would have predicted a slide in support ramping up to the election as that just happened to them in the summer.
I still think they're banking on a good old fashioned campaign. More on that later.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pastiche For This Useful Post:
Bigger sample size confirms the other result. Not good news for the Liberals.
The question is whether or not the drop and softening support is just punishment for forcing an unwanted election. I bet if it is then that issue will mean less and less as the campaign goes on.
Good to see; I like the Ekos ones. These have all been polled since the Liberals announced that they would seek to bring down the government, so it gives a good idea of the reaction to that. So no surprise to see their support weaken, the question is how much.
Consider Ottawa for example, which is typically a three-party city, but where the Liberals are polling at 44%. That shows that that they could challenge both the CPC and NDP seats there. On the other hand, their numbers in Montreal are probably lower than they'd like, but depending on how those break down further, it may or may not be a concern.
Compared to last election, the numbers are still way up for the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec, and consistent everywhere else.
The question is whether or not the drop and softening support is just punishment for forcing an unwanted election. I bet if it is then that issue will mean less and less as the campaign goes on.
I would still expect a massive dip in the polls for the Liberal's and NDP if they infact cause the fall of this government leading to another election. Especially if the Cons can really play up the "we didn't want this election" and the "what the f$$k are we having this election for?" angles.
I would expect the Green's and the Bloc's numbers not to shift or to trend upwards.
Right now the polls are the way they are because people probably see the Libs posturing but believe that at the last minute they won't trigger another election.
If the Conservatives play this right, they will have a very good headstart in any election race.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I would still expect a massive dip in the polls for the Liberal's and NDP if they infact cause the fall of this government leading to another election. Especially if the Cons can really play up the "we didn't want this election" and the "what the f$$k are we having this election for?" angles.
I would expect the Green's and the Bloc's numbers not to shift or to trend upwards.
Right now the polls are the way they are because people probably see the Libs posturing but believe that at the last minute they won't trigger another election.
If the Conservatives play this right, they will have a very good headstart in any election race.
That angle didn't seem to hurt the CPC last year and I doubt it will make a huge difference this time around. The reality is that people who will base their vote on that factor are already decided anyway.
Pretty much Harper's whole speech did not irk me one bit (at least not any more than he normally does), its just Harper trying to energize his base. Its the separatist comments that hurt him before, and will hurt him again. He is not going to win any seats in Quebec if he keeps this polarizing attitude towards the quebecois, and Ignatieff is going to try and squeeze all he can out of this in hopes that he can make major breakthroughs in that province.
Harper wont be winning that majority without Quebec.
I do think Harper is right though, if he does not win a majority Ignatieff will be PM.
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the video demonstrates the hypocrisy of Harper's approach to politics. He noted that Harper, as opposition leader, tried negotiating a deal with the Bloc and the NDP five years ago so that he could become prime minister.
"In 2004, Mr. Harper met me and (NDP Leader) Jack Layton at the Delta Hotel in Montreal to discuss a number of things," said Duceppe in an interview with the French-language LCN television news network.
"It was Mr. Harper who did this with those he called the `evil socialists' and the `evil separatists.' Today he's blaming others of supposedly doing this, which isn't the case."
Duceppe also blasted Harper for criticizing opposition parties for allegedly negotiating "backroom deals," saying that it contradicts what he did in the past and is causing Canadians to lose respect for politicians.
"He came to my office (as opposition leader) saying, `If I become prime minister, what would you like to see in my program to ensure that you'll support me and that I have a majority?"' Duceppe said. This is intolerable in politics. He wants an election at any price, just like Mr. Ignatieff wants and election at any price."
Wow. So after this video leak thing, it appears that the conservatives will have a hard time winning over Quebec now.
Gilles Duceppe claims that when Harper tried to form a coalition propped up by the bloc, he asked him what he wanted.
(snip links)
The bit about the coalition is old news. This was trotted out last fall too and didn't really stick then.
As for Harper finding his majority in Quebec, I think he's realised that it isn't possible. If cutting a couple of minor subsections of the cultural funding (while increasing overall funding) was enough to soften their support there so much, it was never there to begin with. I can see the Quebec Ministers plus Bernier (who won his riding with about 75% of the vote IIRC) being reelected next time and losing the rest. That still means that the CPC needs to make up, what, 14 seats from the rest of the country?
I think that the coalition was/is unpopular enough to swing voters in Ontario who don't want the NDP to have their hands on the tiller more than they dislike anything out of the current government. The advantage the Conservatives have is they can now attack the unpopular policies out of each of the three left wing parties and lump them all together because the Liberals refuse to count out a coalition and can easily make the case that there is no certainty except with a conservative vote.
If they can pick up a handful from the Maritimes and Newfoundland/Labrador and pick up a few more in Ontario and BC, that's where their majority lies. I think they need to tone down the Separatists/Socialists rhetoric now that the seed has been well planted in peoples' minds and fight the Liberals by fighting the NDP.
There were thousands of Liberal voters who stayed home simply because of Dion and the green shift, I am pretty certain that this wont be the case with Ignatieff.
Ignatieff has a pretty good strategy of selling the line "I could have been Prime Minister, but chose not to because it was not in the national interest". I think voters will not be swayed by the argument that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for the separatists/socialists.
It is easy to say they could pick up a few seats in the rest of the country, but the only thing that seems certain is that they will lose seats in Quebec. The rest of the country is still up in the air. I think the conservatives will have a much tougher time with Ignatieff, especially now that he is constantly saying the word 'centrist' and 'moderate'.
But in the end, it comes down to that same philosophical disagreement. You say that you are voting for Stephen Harper over Michael Ignatieff. I say that you are voting for Rob Anders in spite of his obvious shortcomings. As you say, Anders has spent 11 years as an MP without so much as a feather in his cap. Could a trained monkey do the job as well? My sense is yes--probably. And for me, that's not good enough. An effective MP must also represent my riding to the caucus and take an active part in policy development. Otherwise my democracy is meaningless, and I might as well vote for the Green party, for all it matters.
Is your democracy meaningless when your MP is not of the party you support?
I prefer to think that democracy is the process - participation, public discourse between citizens, orderly transition of goverments of one form to another without revolution. Provincially, I have campaigned among my coworkers and friends for whomever is most unikely to unseat a Tory for the last two elections and despite losing both times, I did my best and respect the result.
I am pragmatic enough to understand that in a caucus of more than 100 people, not everyone needs to be a star. I feel comfortable voting for an MP who seems to be little more than part of an agreeable collective, though I have voted against him in a general election in the past and may do so again, policy platform pending.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
There were thousands of Liberal voters who stayed home simply because of Dion and the green shift, I am pretty certain that this wont be the case with Ignatieff.
Ignatieff has a pretty good strategy of selling the line "I could have been Prime Minister, but chose not to because it was not in the national interest". I think voters will not be swayed by the argument that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for the separatists/socialists.
It is easy to say they could pick up a few seats in the rest of the country, but the only thing that seems certain is that they will lose seats in Quebec. The rest of the country is still up in the air. I think the conservatives will have a much tougher time with Ignatieff, especially now that he is constantly saying the word 'centrist' and 'moderate'.
It's tough to say what will happen. I was outlining what I believe to be their road to majority, rather than what I think will be most likely. No one can know what will happen on the election trail but I'm pretty sure there are only three possible results - Coalition (i.e. Conservative minority), Liberal minority or Conservative majority. I think it's impossible that the Liberals could gain 80 seats from the Conservatives and Bloc given the new professional corps of campaigners in the CPC so I don't count a Liberal majority as a possibility.
