2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

In all honesty I was at first pretty impressed with this. Would my vote be bought? Possibly (I'm a total whore)....maybe even have another kid and really cut those taxes! But seriously making plans to spend the money before we have it....thats just stupid. I won't be promising my wife a house that we can look at buying five years from now based on an increased income either. So much for fiscal responsibility I suppose.

That's not what it is, though!

It's a conditional promise: "If we have money in five years, then you'll get a tax break if you have a kid. Maybe. If you haven't forgotten by then."

It's as though you told your wife "we can buy a house five years from now, if we can afford it." It's not really a promise at all, it's just kicking the can down the road.

Hopefully people can see through this. If you can't afford to promise a tax break NOW, then don't promise one at all. Weakest campaign promise ever.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I didn't mean to imply that Meighen had a coalition. He won the most seats, but King convinced the GG that he could form a coalition with the 28 progressives forming a coalition. He did and everything was fine for the year.

Ahh, true enough.

Bottom-line is that a coalition is totally legitimate, and had the opposition gone to the GG and said they lost confidence and wanted to have a shot to form government it could've happened. With the Liberals and NDP targeting each others ridings though its fairly obvious that Harper is just wrong with his coalition assertion. Its all smoke and mirrors.

While such a coalition was technically possible, I still maintain that the GG would always prefer to avoid the crisis such a move would create. Calling an election was always the only reasonable option.

And you should know as well as anyone that politics isn't about truth, but belief. So long as the population believes that a coalition is realistic, and that coalitions are bad, Harper will push it. Just as Martin and Dion pushed the "Harper is scary and will destroy the country" argument. And in this case, we already have Dion stating on the record in 2008 that he would neither form a coalition with the NDP nor work with the separatists before the vote, and signing a formal agreement not two months after. The poll I linked to above notes that Ignatieff's flat denials aren't being trusted, and he has Dion to thank for that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's not what it is, though!

It's a conditional promise: "If we have money in five years, then you'll get a tax break if you have a kid. Maybe. If you haven't forgotten by then."

It's as though you told your wife "we can buy a house five years from now, if we can afford it." It's not really a promise at all, it's just kicking the can down the road.

Hopefully people can see through this. If you can't afford to promise a tax break NOW, then don't promise one at all. Weakest campaign promise ever.

It's not really a tax credit, it's income splitting, which is far more affordable.

[Slava]

^ Its not more affordable? Its less money that a guy like me otherwise has to pay.

IFF is totally right though. Its the ultimate non-promise. So easy to say that when push comes to shove they can't afford it. Oh well, vote buy #1 didn't work on me this year.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

"A" coalition government may work well in theory.

"This" coalition government puts seperatists and socialists into key decisions. "This" coalition would bankrupt our country if 1/3rd of Jack Layton's promises came to fruition. "This" coalition would tax the spirit out of entrepreneurs and small business. "This" coalition would covertly transfer wealth from Alberta to Quebec under the guise of environmental policy. "This" coalition would guarantee with government funds every pension fund which raised it's head.

"This" coalition is an unmitigated disaster.

When Paul Martin was PM, Harper drafted letters to the Bloc and NDP wanting to form a coalition gov't with Harper in charge. How is that different from whats happening now?

Harper should shut up about it ASAP

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...969/story.html

"Today [Mr. Harper] is saying never, never did he intend to bring down the Martin government. Let me read to you what he wrote at the time," Mr. Duceppe said.
" 'You could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program,' " he read, then added: "For a guy who didn't want to bring down the government, he writes some strange things."
The letter went on to advise Ms. Clarkson that she should first consult the opposition parties "and consider all of your options" before dissolving Parliament. It added that the three opposition parties had been "in close consultation."
Mr. Duceppe said the letter's intent was clear. The other option open to Ms. Clarkson would have been to invite the opposition parties to form a government. And clearly Mr. Harper did not see Mr. Layton, "a dangerous socialist with 19 MPs," nor Mr. Duceppe, "the nasty separatist," heading that government, Mr. Duceppe said.


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ion-backfiring
Harper is warning people that unless the Conservatives win a majority, there will be a Liberal-led coalition government with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
However, the Opposition parties say maybe the PM can clarify his own plans to seize power, through a coalition in 2004 when there was a Liberal minority.

[MarchHare]

Why does Harper's proposed spousal income-splitting plan only apply to couples with children under 18? Why not apply it to all families? Harper already has a parental wealth-redistribution program to the tune of $1200 per child per year, and now he wants to make taxpayers without children shoulder an even greater share of the national tax burden? F that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

When Paul Martin was PM, Harper drafted letters to the Bloc and NDP wanting to form a coalition gov't with Harper in charge. How is that different from whats happening now?

Harper should shut up about it ASAP

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...969/story.html

"Today [Mr. Harper] is saying never, never did he intend to bring down the Martin government. Let me read to you what he wrote at the time," Mr. Duceppe said.
" 'You could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program,' " he read, then added: "For a guy who didn't want to bring down the government, he writes some strange things."
The letter went on to advise Ms. Clarkson that she should first consult the opposition parties "and consider all of your options" before dissolving Parliament. It added that the three opposition parties had been "in close consultation."
Mr. Duceppe said the letter's intent was clear. The other option open to Ms. Clarkson would have been to invite the opposition parties to form a government. And clearly Mr. Harper did not see Mr. Layton, "a dangerous socialist with 19 MPs," nor Mr. Duceppe, "the nasty separatist," heading that government, Mr. Duceppe said.


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ion-backfiring
Harper is warning people that unless the Conservatives win a majority, there will be a Liberal-led coalition government with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
However, the Opposition parties say maybe the PM can clarify his own plans to seize power, through a coalition in 2004 when there was a Liberal minority.

Again, please show me where in that letter it talks about an intent to form a government.

I see it as requesting consultation with the GG and the three opposition parties, but nowhere do I see where it discusses a coalition government.

I also don't see an agreement in 2004 like the agreement in 2008 where there was an agreement to govern put in place by the opposition governments.

Until Duccepe and Layton produce something akin to an actual agreement on how they were going to govern I'm going to continue on the line that 2004 and 2008 were entirely different events.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again, please show me where in that letter it talks about an intent to form a government.

I see it as requesting consultation with the GG and the three opposition parties, but nowhere do I see where it discusses a coalition government.

I also don't see an agreement in 2004 like the agreement in 2008 where there was an agreement to govern put in place by the opposition governments.

Until Duccepe and Layton produce something akin to an actual agreement on how they were going to govern I'm going to continue on the line that 2004 and 2008 were entirely different events.

So where is this letter by Ignatieff showing that they are going to form a coaltion govt this time around? Why does Harper keep bringing it up? show me the proof! hehe

If Harper wants a conservative majority government there is only one thing he can do. He can step down. He obviously is not the right person for this. If you can't get it with Dion in charge you can never get it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So where is this letter by Ignatieff showing that they are going to form a coaltion govt this time around? Why does Harper keep bringing it up? show me the proof! hehe

If Harper wants a conservative majority government there is only one thing he can do. He can step down. He obviously is not the right person for this.

The coalition agreement that the three parties signed does not expire until June of this year.

I don't believe that Ignatieff is stupid enough to follow the Coalition road, but you have to admit that his initial denials after he took control of the Liberal party followed by his agreeing to enter into the coalition made him a target for this.

And I could counter by saying if the Liberal's want to gain seats, Ignatieff should step down.

I was listening to the radio this morning when they were discussing a recent poll that stated that only 17% of Canadian's trust him on what he said about not forming a coalition, so obviously the Conservative message is hitting home.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The coalition agreement that the three parties signed does not expire until June of this year.

I don't believe that Ignatieff is stupid enough to follow the Coalition road, but you have to admit that his initial denials after he took control of the Liberal party followed by his agreeing to enter into the coalition made him a target for this.

And I could counter by saying if the Liberal's want to gain seats, Ignatieff should step down.

I was listening to the radio this morning when they were discussing a recent poll that stated that only 17% of Canadian's trust him on what he said about not forming a coalition, so obviously the Conservative message is hitting home.

Harper sure wants to hammer out that coalition point to stupid people.

Well we are both going to get our wish after this election. Another minority Conservative govt will oust both these jackasses. and hopefully Layton too.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that we could see massive changove in all of the parties.

If Harper wins, he will still remain as Prime Minister stepping down before the next election.

But I can see where the NDP, Liberal's and Green Party will all eject their leaders. The only guy thats safe is probably Ducceppe unless they lose a bunch of seats in Quebec.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that we could see massive changove in all of the parties.

If Harper wins, he will still remain as Prime Minister stepping down before the next election.

But I can see where the NDP, Liberal's and Green Party will all eject their leaders. The only guy thats safe is probably Ducceppe unless they lose a bunch of seats in Quebec.

Maybe the liberals will change the way they select their leaders from now on so we dont get another Stelmach, Dion again.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Maybe the liberals will change the way they select their leaders from now on

They already did that actually at the convention that affirmed Ignatieff's leadership. The Liberal Leadership selection rules are pretty close to the way that the tories do it now IIRC.

Almost a pity... brokered conventions always made for some dramatic TV.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

a GG overruling a PM will always be deeply controversial.

True, but so will a GG acting for a PM against the wishes of the majority of the house.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Its not more affordable? Its less money that a guy like me otherwise has to pay.

IFF is totally right though. Its the ultimate non-promise. So easy to say that when push comes to shove they can't afford it. Oh well, vote buy #1 didn't work on me this year.

Agreed. Ultimate non-promise. But, as if you would ever vote Conservative...

Every policy \ promise is a vote buy. It all depends on its importance to you. Not surprisingly, most people are interested in policies that support keeping more money in their pockets. Good try on the negative connotation though.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Every policy \ promise is a vote buy. It all depends on its importance to you. Not surprisingly, most people are interested in policies that support keeping more money in their pockets. Good try on the negative connotation though.

Not true. Sometimes leaders will enact policies that they know will cost votes, typically because they believe such policies are genuinely good for the country. Othertimes, leaders can enact policies that they know will gain votes, even though they may believe the policies are actually bad for the country.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not true. Sometimes leaders will enact policies that they know will cost votes, typically because they believe such policies are genuinely good for the country. Othertimes, leaders can enact policies that they know will gain votes, even though they may believe the policies are actually bad for the country.

You're right. I should have clarified. All policies for campaign purposes are for gaining votes (or "buying" if you like.) The types of policies you're referring to tend to be enacted as far from election time as possible.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that we could see massive changove in all of the parties.

If Harper wins, he will still remain as Prime Minister stepping down before the next election.

But I can see where the NDP, Liberal's and Green Party will all eject their leaders. The only guy thats safe is probably Ducceppe unless they lose a bunch of seats in Quebec.

Duceppe is probably done too, he's being lured by the PQ to either be the leader or a strategist to oust Charest.

This is truly the election the settle everything. After 3 minorities, this will settle it. Someone's going down!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Duceppe is probably done too, he's being lured by the PQ to either be the leader or a strategist to oust Charest.

This is truly the election the settle everything. After 3 minorities, this will settle it. Someone's going down!

I had heard that he was beeing wooed at a provincial level, but I will honestly say that he's one of the best party leaders in a campaign out of the big four.

I would honestly miss him just a little.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You're right. I should have clarified. All policies for campaign purposes are for gaining votes (or "buying" if you like.) The types of policies you're referring to tend to be enacted as far from election time as possible.

Even during campaigns, there a good policies that gain votes, and there are bad policies that gain votes. I would only charaterize the ones that are bad policies that gain votes as "vote buying".