2011 Canadian Election Thread

[transplant99]

I emailed my liberal candidate 2 days ago and asked her to expound on the alleged cap and trade policy that was printed in the Sun. She (impressively i will admit) got back to me that afternoon.

her response?

I will get further details for this afternoon. Thanks for asking.

So either she had no idea what her party's platform was or was seeking advice on how to answer it. Pretty weak to say the least, and I havent heard another word since.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Liberals are trying to paint Harper as George W's evil twin - nothing new. Have the Liberals burned there one seat in Alberta with the cap and trade policy?

The Liberals don't have a seat in Alberta. The NDP does, however.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I emailed my liberal candidate 2 days ago and asked her to expound on the alleged cap and trade policy that was printed in the Sun. She (impressively i will admit) got back to me that afternoon.

her response?



So either she had no idea what her party's platform was or was seeking advice on how to answer it. Pretty weak to say the least, and I havent heard another word since.

Hey, at least you got a response. A couple of elections ago, I emailed our Conservative MP candidate twice to ask questions about their immigration policy and a few other things, and I never got a response at all.

The chances are, these people do not even do the 1st looks at the emails they get. They probably have employees who do the first responses and sort them by priority. A large portion of the emails are probably pointless and it would take a candidate several hours to answer them all directly.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Stranger

This is just the media trying to run with something. You can't tell me that other parties don't keep a good eye on who's attending their events. I'm quite sure when the Liberals released their "Family Pack" that they knew each and every person in the hall to make sure there were no chance of opposition.

When I watched this story on TV this morning, both reporters from CBC and CTV were just amazed that this could ever happen.

I agree, at least in so far as all parties keep tabs on who is at their events (although the girl in question is not actually a Liberal supporter, and the RCMP actively involved in screening and ejecting people isn't standard). But the media is running with it, because Harper's tightly controlled campaign has been one of the emerging storylines early in this election.

By comparison, Ignatieff is getting the best treatment possible regarding the candidate who made racist comments; media coverage has focused on Ignatieff quickly denouncing and ousting the candidate, rather than on the fact that the comments were made years ago and nobody within the party picked up on them.

Neither issue is really about either leader, but everything that happens during an election campaign gets filtered through the lens of how it relates to the leaders.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

No matter what you set the max limit at, the well off will be better able to afford that money more than the less well off. Unless you think that my cousin should forego his dental work AND his brake problem and give it to a political party.

I had forgotten that the donations are also a writeoff against income.

If he can't afford 500 bucks a year, he should be looking for a new job. That's less than 100 beers. Does your cousin have 100 beers throughout the course of a year? I bet he could also work directly for the party in a paid position, and donate 100% of his pay and it would only be 56 hours of work at minimum wage. Less than a months worth of weekends.

The whole 'can't afford it' memo is really a misnomer.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree with the highlighted, there were $300 million in changes that were a direct result of NDP requests. The major change which was the corporate taxation, was never going to be on the table.

Interesting to note. I'll have to spend more time looking into this, as mentioned it's been hard to digest this initial information from a distance when the rhetoric quickly switched to cries of a coalition and the typical spin from both sides.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On the military side, the thing thats not getting legs yet for the Liberal's in the Red book when they talk about the F-35 cancellation their wording is quite different from what they've been saying to the press. They've been saying that they don't like the single source and would re-open the bid process. In their red book they're talking about cancelling and not replacing the aging F-18's until the last possible moment. From a military standpoint I doubt that the Liberals have changed.

I am curious to see how Ignateuff handles the military policy. One of the things that always intrigued me about Ignateuff is his realistic (or what I deem realistic) view point on the Military's role in modern government. From what I can gander from reading his comments from Harvard he is a far more pro-military liberal than any before him. I'm curious to see how he would handle his own beliefs in regards to the how the Liberals mishandled the military in the past.

IMO that's the biggest litmus test of Iggy. To me he's the opposite of the Dion/Chretian liberals and I find that the most interesting aspect of persona.

Its early in the campaign, and pre debate, this is the slow time. I do think that the Conservatives are waiting til the debate to try to ambush Ignatieff.

It might be early on the campaign, but it's a very short campaign and takes sometime to shift momentum (a quick look at the aftermath of Barb's campaign show how hard it can be to shift momentum). I'd like to see his campaign shift gears and move far away from the negative and guarded campaigning.

It also doesn't help that I don't have the luxury of voting on May 2nd.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by old-fart

1) There have been many instances where Harper has taken more than 5 questions. These, of course, have not been reported by the leftist media.

2) You do not know that the people ejected were "actively trying to get informed on each political party" and it is equally as likely that they were actively trying to disrupt a rival political party. Having said that, it was definitely not handled very well. Addtionally though, where are the news stories about people being denied access to Liberal events (they are out there if you look for them), or the case of the "Liberal thugs" elbowing a pregnant reporter to keep her away from Iffy? Again, very one sided media coverage in this election.

3) The broadcast folks have said that the 1:1 debate won't happen, and Layton raised holy h e double hockey sticks about any thought of it. Harper did not "flip flop" on any debate challenge, but again believe the one sided media report on the issue if you must.

I would agree with most of your comments and would normally give the benefit of the doubt to each instance... if each event was a one off. But it's been a string of over the top controlling actions since the campaign began that is the most alarming.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I had forgotten that the donations are also a writeoff against income.

If he can't afford 500 bucks a year, he should be looking for a new job. That's less than 100 beers. Does your cousin have 100 beers throughout the course of a year? I bet he could also work directly for the party in a paid position, and donate 100% of his pay and it would only be 56 hours of work at minimum wage. Less than a months worth of weekends.

The whole 'can't afford it' memo is really a misnomer.

What do you expect? The whole party's platform is based around "I am entitled to this, but I don't feel that I should be the one that has to pay for it." Why do you think that would change when it comes to their supporters donating their own money to the party?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I had forgotten that the donations are also a writeoff against income.

If he can't afford 500 bucks a year, he should be looking for a new job. That's less than 100 beers. Does your cousin have 100 beers throughout the course of a year? I bet he could also work directly for the party in a paid position, and donate 100% of his pay and it would only be 56 hours of work at minimum wage. Less than a months worth of weekends.

The whole 'can't afford it' memo is really a misnomer.

Again, typical Albertan thinking. "Just get another job!". That isn't very easy in most parts of the country. I get the impression that for many people they are living in this wonderland where everyone makes good money and if they don't they just didn't apply for the right job.

And no, my cousin doesn't drink alcohol. At all.

As for the tax credit, you have to pay now and get the money back a year from now. If you got the money back immediately, you might have a point. But my cousin has his dental and car problems NOW. That 79 year old shoveling driveways has to pay his electric bill NOW. Not a year from now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Did someone mention 100 beers?!?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I am curious to see how Ignateuff handles the military policy. One of the things that always intrigued me about Ignateuff is his realistic (or what I deem realistic) view point on the Military's role in modern government. From what I can gander from reading his comments from Harvard he is a far more pro-military liberal than any before him. I'm curious to see how he would handle his own beliefs in regards to the how the Liberals mishandled the military in the past.

IMO that's the biggest litmus test of Iggy. To me he's the opposite of the Dion/Chretian liberals and I find that the most interesting aspect of persona.

I don't think it matters, if you look at the platform announcement, its really not consistant with Michael Ignatieff pre liberal party, its closer to a Bob Rae platform.

If Ignatieff loses the election, it will be interesting to see how he really feels about this platform, or if he blames the platform for his loss.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Again, typical Albertan thinking. "Just get another job!". That isn't very easy in most parts of the country. I get the impression that for many people they are living in this wonderland where everyone makes good money and if they don't they just didn't apply for the right job.

And no, my cousin doesn't drink alcohol. At all.

As for the tax credit, you have to pay now and get the money back a year from now. If you got the money back immediately, you might have a point. But my cousin has his dental and car problems NOW. That 79 year old shoveling driveways has to pay his electric bill NOW. Not a year from now.

Not if you file to have the amount of tax withheld at source (by your job) reduced. Why give the gov't an interest free loan?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Again, typical Albertan thinking. "Just get another job!". That isn't very easy in most parts of the country. I get the impression that for many people they are living in this wonderland where everyone makes good money and if they don't they just didn't apply for the right job.

And no, my cousin doesn't drink alcohol. At all.

As for the tax credit, you have to pay now and get the money back a year from now. If you got the money back immediately, you might have a point. But my cousin has his dental and car problems NOW. That 79 year old shoveling driveways has to pay his electric bill NOW. Not a year from now.

I think it's pretty easy to scrape an extra 500 bucks together if you really want to donate to a party that represents your interests in government. Or to free up a couple weekends to volunteer

If you are too busy shoveling driveways or going to the dentist that's your priority.

But trying to pretend that the 'rich' are the only people who can donate to the political process, or that they should subsidize everyone else who aren't willing to get another job or move somwhere they can, is really just forcing socialism on everyone.

Realistically, there are very very few barriers to the majority of Canadians contributing to the federal party of their choice for the exact same amount as every other Canadian.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think it matters, if you look at the platform announcement, its really not consistant with Michael Ignatieff pre liberal party, its closer to a Bob Rae platform.

If Ignatieff loses the election, it will be interesting to see how he really feels about this platform, or if he blames the platform for his loss.

I was also intrigued that Ignatieffs platform is so left leaning. I really thought he was more of a centrist type liberal, but sadly it seems the entire party has gone more of the way of Bob Rae than Paul Martin. Good news if you are hoping for a majority government, I guess....

[Hockeyguy15]

I don't understand why people are getting their nose out of joint about donating to a political party....No way will I ever donate to one! I would rather donate money to a worthy cause, not some rich politician so they can spew whatever they feel like in these attack ads. It's getting old and it makes a mockery of the democratic process in my view.

Or I could buy 100 beers!

[octothorp]

I like the debate format this year. Each of the four party leaders will take on each of the other four party leaders in a one-on-one, six minute debate over a single issue, followed by a larger discussion (involving all leaders) about each issue. The big benefit I see here is that we avoid a situation like last election all opposition leaders spent the entire debate attacking one another; forcing them to debate one-another will make it much more watchable and will allow viewers to better distinguish party viewpoints. So we will get to see Harper vs. Ignatieff, but we'll also see Layton vs. Duceppe, Duceppe vs Harper, Ignatieff vs Layton, Layton vs Harper, and Ignatieff vs. Duceppe.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...bate-draw.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Somebody needs to make a march madness style tournament poster.

[MarchHare]

My predictions for the 1-on-1 debates:

Duceppe: 3-0
Ignatieff: 2-1 (loses to Duceppe)
Harper: 1-2 (beats Layton, loses to Duceppe and Ignatieff)
Layton: 0-3 (loses to all)

Duceppe, of course, has a huge advantage because he only needs to talk about Quebec and how best to siphon money from the ROC to his province while the other leaders must think nationally. IMO, he really shouldn't be included in the English-language debate because he's a non-factor for most of the country's English-speaking population, but unfortunately that's not my decision.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I don't understand why people are getting their nose out of joint about donating to a political party....No way will I ever donate to one! I would rather donate money to a worthy cause, not some rich politician so they can spew whatever they feel like in these attack ads. It's getting old and it makes a mockery of the democratic process in my view.

Or I could buy 100 beers!

For the most part I'm with you. Forcing Canadians to donate to any party, especially the bloc or greens, is really unfair. That's why they need to get rid of the abdurd vote subsidy and let people who want to donate their hard earned cash do it on their own time.

More beers for all!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My predictions for the 1-on-1 debates:

Duceppe: 3-0
Ignatieff: 2-1 (loses to Duceppe)
Harper: 1-2 (beats Layton, loses to Duceppe and Ignatieff)
Layton: 0-3 (loses to all)

Duceppe, of course, has a huge advantage because he only needs to talk about Quebec and how best to siphon money from the ROC to his province while the other leaders must think nationally. IMO, he really shouldn't be included in the English-language debate because he's a non-factor for most of the country's English-speaking population, but unfortunately that's not my decision.

I'll put down my bets

Duceppe 2-1 (Beats Harper, loses to Ignatieff, beats Layton)
Ignatieff 2-1 (Beats Layton, Beats Duceppe, loses to Harper)
Harper 2-1 (Beats Ignatieff, beats Layton, looses to Duceppe)
Layton 0-3