2011 Canadian Election Thread

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't buy it, there are elections every five years under a majority, so if you let your radical bubble head nutjobs loose and shift too far to the right then you lose the election in a Kim Campbell type fashion and all of your changes get gassed in the next election.



Personally I don't care that Iggy went to Harvard at this point, he's done nothing that shows he's the great communicator of thoughts and ideas.

It will be interesting to see the Harvard aristcrat versus Harper who was pretty effective in the last debate.

I hope that Iggy doesn't end up like a mop handle.

Ya, I'm not so sure the Libs should be anxious to see Iffy in a debate either. He didn't debate for the leadership of his own party, and didn't exactly handle softball questions about the coalition on Friday very well - and they were coming from the Liberal friendly media gallery.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, I think the coalition argument has gained some traction. Certainly far more than the Liberal ethics argument. That line will be there throughout, especially when only a small minority trusts Ignatieff's word.

The income splitting promise was a mistake though. Everyone knows politicians are full of empty promises, but Harper didn't even mask that this was empty. All Ignatieff has to do is make some kind of promise for families that takes effect immediately, and he scores points.

The only one of them that has promised anything for families thus far ( at least immediately) is Layton with the absolutely lame credit card nonsense.

Ignatieff promised 1.5 Billion in education stuff this afternoon, while Harper threw out the EI assistance for small business....which could cost the feds a 165 million in revenue currently collected.

It would be interesting to keep track of how much money these 3 promise over the course of the next 6 weeks.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The only one of them that has promised anything for families thus far ( at least immediately) is Layton with the absolutely lame credit card nonsense.

Ignatieff promised 1.5 Billion in education stuff this afternoon, while Harper threw out the EI assistance for small business....which could cost the feds a 165 million in revenue currently collected.

It would be interesting to keep track of how much money these 3 promise over the course of the next 6 weeks.

Don't forget the Liberals promised to increase business tax back up to 18%, costing roughly $6B and associated job losses.

Also, on the Liberal "Learning Passport" or whatever they are calling it, it means students in Quebec could actually turn a profit by going to school.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Harper vs a guy who couldn't even speak English for the Liberals. I think even Farmer Ed out debates Dion.... in French.

True, but Harper more then held his own against Gilles and Layton.

And Elizabeth May was terrible too.

What they have to avoid with Ignatieff is the guy just comes across as arrogant and unlikeable, and they're going to need to work on that with him in the debate.

[TylerSVT]

Im ready to just vote and get it over with... Frig.

I cant wait until we start voting every 6 months because the opposition is pissed off.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The only one of them that has promised anything for families thus far ( at least immediately) is Layton with the absolutely lame credit card nonsense.

Well that really depends on how you define "for families" it's pretty easy to look at the Learning Passport and call it "for families" except that it's more easily lumped into a label such as "students" or "education" even though I'm sure that many parents that hope their kids go to post-secondary would say that it would help their family. Really anything that does something for anyone can be labelled "for families" I mean we're all a part of someones family, nah?

Regardless, I think the Credit Card interest cap business is something that sounds good but I'm not sure it wouldn't do more harm then good unless Layton has further plans to establish Credit caps/service charge caps to prevent lenders from shifting the burden on to other services in order to maintain profit margins. I suppose lower Credit Card interest rates may make that unnessicary (alternative hikes from the credit lenders) if it encourages greater use (higher average balances) but then we've started further encouraging personal debt... and higher personal debt loads hardly sounds like a good thing.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm more concerned that once Harper gets his majority he will finally unmuzzle his Reform party buddies like Anders.

Can't wait to see the debate though. I think Iggy will wipe the floor with Harper.

Ack, hidden agenda, hidden agenda!!!!!

As per the debate, Iggy may be able to deliver a lecture, but he sure can't communicate or think on his feet... although his feet are very democratic!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Regardless, I think the Credit Card interest cap business is something that sounds good but I'm not sure it wouldn't do more harm then good unless Layton has further plans to establish Credit caps/service charge caps to prevent lenders from shifting the burden on to other services in order to maintain profit margins. I suppose lower Credit Card interest rates may make that unnessicary (alternative hikes from the credit lenders) if it encourages greater use (higher average balances) but then we've started further encouraging personal debt... and higher personal debt loads hardly sounds like a good thing.

If the NDP were to have to put caps and limits on all means financial institutions have to generate a profit it would be all out super regulation of the financial industry and will drive up the costs of capital for all and hurt us economically. All for the sake of limiting the punishment for activities that constitute the pinnicle of financial stupidity (running credit card debt). This is an example of a typical NDP policy plank of serious economic unintended consequences to appear to 'defend the poor.'

This would also directly hurt those it intends to help too. If you're the credit card company and you cannot get more than 5% over prime for unsecured credit than the natural reaction would be to cut the limit capacity for people that have balances and thus reduce people's access to credit. In effect this would actually take away peoples lifelines in the case they have no other options to pay for things. Dumb dumb dumb.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If the NDP were to have to put caps and limits on all means financial institutions have to generate a profit it would be all out super regulation of the financial industry and will drive up the costs of capital for all and hurt us economically.

Well...ya. But if he doesn't do that then all he does is shift around what credit source lenders get their revenue from (or encourage higher personal debt per capita). Really, I doubt that Layton would set lower caps across the board so really he isn't doing anything except making more reasonable secured loans/lines of credit more expensive (unless he thinks that lenders will just take one for the team... ya right). Like I said more harm then good.

Not that it really matters. Like I said it sounds like a good idea without examining the deeper implications and really something that superficially sounds good is fine for the fourth place party to spout out. Gotta get attention somehow right. It's an empty promise that he knows he'll never have to deliver on.

[Frequitude]

My 30,000 foot level questions for Liberals:

Do you actually think you have a shot at winning a minority? Do you think your party thinks it does?

If yes, cool. If no, why bring down the government? I get the contempt thing, but if its just going to be another Conservative minority, what's the point?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

My 30,000 foot level questions for Liberals:

Shouldn't that be an open question to Dipper's and the Bloc as well? It's not as if they didn't have the option of saying "no" or alternatively sitting on their hands... and if even one of them had then the election wouldn't have happened. Ultimately though it's the responsibility of the Government to maintain the confidence of the house. There are no innocent bystanders here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

True, but Harper more then held his own against Gilles and Layton.

And Elizabeth May was terrible too.

What they have to avoid with Ignatieff is the guy just comes across as arrogant and unlikeable, and they're going to need to work on that with him in the debate.

Well these kinds of comments sound good and all, but the early campaigning suggests something different. Ignatieff is getting good sized crowds out to see him, looks loose and relaxed and even has some dumb jokes to go with that (all of the politicians have dumb jokes....they aren't allowed to have any that are actually funny because they might offend someone). It sounds good to say the he sucks and maybe a rally in Calgary would be lacklustre (there are still a lot of Liberals here though), but its simply not playing out that way at this point.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

My 30,000 foot level questions for Liberals:

Do you actually think you have a shot at winning a minority? Do you think your party thinks it does?

If yes, cool. If no, why bring down the government? I get the contempt thing, but if its just going to be another Conservative minority, what's the point?

I don't get it. If the Liberals don't bring them down then the CPC can say "we didn't do anything wrong and look the opposition voted in favour." If they bring them down and say that they think that they have gone too far with some of their actions then the argument is "you can't win, so why are you making me mark an "X" for someone else?" What would you advise them to do here?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Shouldn't that be an open question to Dipper's and the Bloc as well? It's not as if they didn't have the option of saying "no" or alternatively sitting on their hands... and if even one of them had then the election wouldn't have happened. Ultimately though it's the responsibility of the Government to maintain the confidence of the house. There are no innocent bystanders here.

Sure, but my question is to the Liberals.

Its also the responsibility of the opposition to not throw around "losing confidence" too loosely. If they don't think its going to change the public opinion, then its probably not a big enough issue to lose confidence over.

edit: not trying to be antagonistic here or set some logical trap, I honestly want to know if the Liberals think they have a shot.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't get it. If the Liberals don't bring them down then the CPC can say "we didn't do anything wrong and look the opposition voted in favour." If they bring them down and say that they think that they have gone too far with some of their actions then the argument is "you can't win, so why are you making me mark an "X" for someone else?" What would you advise them to do here?

Conversely, if its just another Conservative majority, can the CPC not just say "look the Canadian people don't think we did anything wrong and that's what matters"?

There's a big gap between doing nothing and heading to the polls. Perhaps its wiser to go the media route and chip away for a bit instead of conducting closed door contempt discussions then running to the polls. It seems they've jumped the gun. Build some political capital for a while until heading to the polls might actually do something.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Conversely, if its just another Conservative majority, can the CPC not just say "look the Canadian people don't think we did anything wrong and that's what matters"?

There's a big gap between doing nothing and heading to the polls. Perhaps its wiser to go the media route and chip away for a bit instead of conducting closed door contempt discussions then running to the polls. It seems they've jumped the gun. Build some political capital for a while until heading to the polls might actually do something.

It just doesn't make sense.

This election will all be worth it in that if there is another minority govt, we can actually have a chance to bring some competent leaders to the parties. Right now? I wouldn't want any of them to be PM let alone a PM with a majority govt.

Bring back Chretien!

[Parallex]

Well... consider this. If you were an MP and you genuinely believe that the government of the day has contempt of Parliament (the instrument of our democracy), could you in good faith vote to allow that government to continue? In my mind the answer to that question has to be "no" and if the answer is "yes" then IMO you're not worthy of the office you hold.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Conversely, if its just another Conservative majority, can the CPC not just say "look the Canadian people don't think we did anything wrong and that's what matters"?

There's a big gap between doing nothing and heading to the polls. Perhaps its wiser to go the media route and chip away for a bit instead of conducting closed door contempt discussions then running to the polls. It seems they've jumped the gun. Build some political capital for a while until heading to the polls might actually do something.

It just doesn't make sense.

Well if the voters give him a majority then yes that is what matters. People get to have a say every so often, and when you have a minority you don't control when that is, necessarily. Its not a waste of time, or anything like that though. This is the basis of the system. Whether the CPC likes it or not (they love it, and have been hoping for this for at least a year!), is irrelevant. The house lost confidence and the penalty for that is that as a politician you have to go out and work for your job.

The one thing I find funny though is that half of the people complaining about the election as unnecessary are the same people who would like more referendums to give their voice.

Its a moot point anyway though. The CPC would have to do something catastrophic to lose your vote, so basically no matter why the Liberals, NDP and BQ bring down that government you will pretty much always think its a waste of time, right?

EDIT: Just wanted to add here that I'm not trying to accuse you of hyper-partisanship or anything. My point is just that if you generally agree with the policies and procedures of the governing party then it will always appear to be a waste of time/energy/resources for the others to bring them down.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Bring back Chretien!

Yes, because if there is something Canadian politics needs, it's more corruption and divisiveness!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

My 30,000 foot level questions for Liberals:

Do you actually think you have a shot at winning a minority? Do you think your party thinks it does?

If yes, cool. If no, why bring down the government? I get the contempt thing, but if its just going to be another Conservative minority, what's the point?

The point could be to prevent a Conservative majority in a year. Or to show some backbone in the face of Conservative transgressions. There are lot of scenarios outside of a Liberal plurality that would make an election now a good strategic move for the Liberals.

I will also add that campaigns matter. Just because the Conservatives are polling in minority government range at the start of the campaign does not mean they'll finish there.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, because if there is something Canadian politics needs, it's more corruption and divisiveness!

It wasn't that bad. Plus the man can lead. I wish he would have gave Bush the Shawinigan handshake.

The funniest thing is that the Harper supporters on here forgets that when Paul Martin had the minority govt, Harper was doing almost the same exact things he is accusing the Liberals of doing now.