2011 Canadian Election Thread

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You say you can't argue with results, but you're choosing to ignore the good work done during the Chretien/Martin years where our economy was very strong, the budget was balanced, the federal debt was being paid down, personal and corporate taxes were reduced, and they put in place (as CaptainCrunch noted above) strong banking legislation that largely protected Canada from many of the problems that plagued the US financial industry during the recession.

I know it's not popular in Alberta to say anything positive about the Liberals because of a bad government policy from 30 years ago enacted by politicians who are now either retired or dead, but you have to give credit where it's due. The previous Liberal government did a great job with the economy and budget, work that has mostly been continued by Harper's team (I give him a pass for putting us into deficit spending again because of the recession).

it will be interesting to see if Ignatieff repeats his previous statements that the NEP was a mistake in this campaign with the rise of Trudeau light

Trudeau light is going to be hammered for his mistake on wanting the government to soften language on the brutality of honour killings

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is the new reality of Canadian politics. It's unlikely any party can win a majority, so unless we start entertaining the idea of coalition governments (like every other countries with a parliamentary system), we're going to see nothing but unstable minorities and elections every two years.

As a slightly left-leaning moderate, I'm not sure what scenario scares me more: a Harper majority or a coalition government with Jack Layton and the NDP in a position of real power.

I would think the major and unavoidable difference in Canada is that in order to form a coalition that is truly reflective of the whole country, the Bloc would have to be left out. Not sure how many other countries elect a substantial portion of the opposition who's only agenda is to represent less than 25% of the population in said country.

The Bloc is not a federal party therefore when being involved in federal decision making have no real legitimacy in forming a government. Thats why they have no business being anywhere near a coalition to run Canada.

I wish that to gain fed status in Canada that any party would be forced to run candidates in at least 51% of the ridings....at least that way there would be a veiled appearance of legitimacy if elected in enough seats to be part of any law making.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I guess Ignatief got word that he could go back to Harvard when he loses this election.

Elections used to mean something because you didn't have one every 2 or 3 years. This is just getting stupid.

Is that Ignatieff statement fact or conjecture? Very interesting......and I don't think many people (regardless of political stripe) would mind him leaving sooner rather than later.

What is Ignatieff's political legacy after 5 years? An ill-timed and (arguably) foolish coalition attempt? The opposition leader standing against a moderate sized minority government should be able to show some serious policy influence after five years. Instead, he (and the Lib Party in general) have spent most of their time acting like Hall Monitors.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sometimes Academics just don't work well in the real world.

I think Ignatieff has found that.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

At least Ignatieff doesn't teach gym...

[Slava]

I find it odd that so many people are opposed to an election in general. I get that they cost money, and we might not see a lot of change (I think its another conservative minority), but its the foundation of our system. Its not that hard to take 1/2 hour out of your day once every few years and express your thoughts for the future of the country!

I also find the conservative stance that "we don't need an election because it shows instability while we are recovering economically" (paraphrased by me) as ridiculous. We're talking about a completely legitimate democratic election. How could that possibly be de-stabilizing? Again, this is the base of our system and every so often people get a chance to express their wishes. Politicians of every stripe should be so lucky that its only once every few years!

As far as a coalition goes, there could easily be a CPC-Lib coalition that would represent the vast majority of Canadians, have representatives in every province and actually accomplish things along the way. My hope is that we have a minority government that is so much a minority that they have no choice but the form a coalition. I'm not saying that will happen, just that I would like that.

Anyone else figure that when Harper only gets a minority this time around he's out? My money then comes to Flaherty for leader, and once again we can all start talking about the NEP and the "West wants in".

[killer_carlson]

how could that be destabalizing?

I bet our dollar goes back under par if our goverment falls and the international community fears a wild spending NDP in a coalition or near the purse strings.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Slava

I find it odd that so many people are opposed to an election in general. I get that they cost money, and we might not see a lot of change (I think its another conservative minority), but its the foundation of our system. Its not that hard to take 1/2 hour out of your day once every few years and express your thoughts for the future of the country!

I also find the conservative stance that "we don't need an election because it shows instability while we are recovering economically" (paraphrased by me) as ridiculous. We're talking about a completely legitimate democratic election. How could that possibly be de-stabilizing? Again, this is the base of our system and every so often people get a chance to express their wishes. Politicians of every stripe should be so lucky that its only once every few years!

As far as a coalition goes, there could easily be a CPC-Lib coalition that would represent the vast majority of Canadians, have representatives in every province and actually accomplish things along the way. My hope is that we have a minority government that is so much a minority that they have no choice but the form a coalition. I'm not saying that will happen, just that I would like that.

Anyone else figure that when Harper only gets a minority this time around he's out? My money then comes to Flaherty for leader, and once again we can all start talking about the NEP and the "West wants in".

Commie.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

how could that be destabalizing?

I bet our dollar goes back under par if our goverment falls and the international community fears a wild spending NDP in a coalition or near the purse strings.

The dollar dropping a bit might not be a bad thing for the economic recovery of the eastern part of the country.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm actually surprised this minority government lasted as long as it did!

Well, Harper did have to prorogue parliament against the will of the majority to do it, in the process setting a bad precedent that will exist forever.

Originally Posted by TylerSVT

Plain and simple the conservative government has saved our economic ass and has put us in an excellent position for future success. You cant argue with results. that right there is the ace that trumps all the other cards.

Not a liberal fan, never have been, they give to those who dont need it and usually run the government into the ground.

Good grief man. The conservative government saved our economic ass? Perhaps, but they certainly didn't want to. It was the other parties who dragged them into it kicking and screaming. Flaherty's budget before prorogation is the one the Conservatives wanted to implement.

You can't argue with results: well here are some results.

Conservative government (Mulroney) -> deficit
Liberal government (Chretien/Martin) -> surplus
Conservative government (Harper) -> deficit

And no, it's not just the stimulus spending demanded by the other parties that made the Harper deficit what it is. Spending started ballooning well before the recession started.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyone else figure that when Harper only gets a minority this time around he's out?

I don't. At least not until the following election. No reason for it either. There just isn't enough there to oust him other than not winning a majority, and that could be said for every single leader in the last 12 years. Its the way the country operates now. At least he is forming the gov't...and these days that's as good as it gets.

Unless there is a major scandal to be revealed, or a collapse of the economy he will be entrenched in the leaders seat.

I also find the conservative stance that "we don't need an election because it shows instability while we are recovering economically" (paraphrased by me) as ridiculous. We're talking about a completely legitimate democratic election. How could that possibly be de-stabilizing? Again, this is the base of our system and every so often people get a chance to express their wishes. Politicians of every stripe should be so lucky that its only once every few years

It's called rhetoric and there will be lots more coming down the pipe the next 6 weeks. Its no different than Ignatief saying the budget isnt "credible".

As far as a coalition goes, there could easily be a CPC-Lib coalition that would represent the vast majority of Canadians, have representatives in every province and actually accomplish things along the way.

Easily? No way that happens unless a major philosophy change takes place at the top of both parties. They both see each other as mortal enemies and it is a deep and entrenched feeling.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by SebC

You can't argue with results: well here are some results.

Conservative government (Mulroney) -> deficit
Liberal government (Chretien/Martin) -> surplus
Conservative government (Harper) -> deficit

And no, it's not just the stimulus spending demanded by the other parties that made the Harper deficit what it is. Spending started ballooning well before the recession started.

this is typical lefty garbage. Lets put the blinders on and ignore the worst financial collapse globally in several decades. Lets also ignore that the only way they could get any type of budget passed was to glean onto the wild spending demands of the lefties.

You know, for as much as the left tries to vilify the right as being a bunch of backwater uneducated hicks, the left is really ignorant on so many issues.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well, Harper did have to prorogue parliament against the will of the majority to do it, in the process setting a bad precedent that will exist forever

Revisionist history?

More Canadians would rather have a new election than be governed by a coalition if the Tories were defeated in a budget vote, according to a poll.

A Nanos Research survey revealed that 49 per cent of Canadians would rather go to the polls, compared to 42 per cent who believe a Liberal/NDP coalition — backed by the Bloc Québécois — should be given a chance to govern in the event the minority government falls.

And this was CBC backed poll!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...n.html?ref=rss

[burn_this_city]

Surplus generated by slashing transfer payments and dipping into EI. Amazing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well, Harper did have to prorogue parliament against the will of the majority to do it, in the process setting a bad precedent that will exist forever.

Depends on your definition of "majority". The majority of selfish politicians looking out only for themselves? Yes.

The majority of the people they completely forgot they are supposed to represent? No.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyone else figure that when Harper only gets a minority this time around he's out? My money then comes to Flaherty for leader, and once again we can all start talking about the NEP and the "West wants in".

If he still wants a party leadership, Peter McKay could likely beat Flaherty. I like Flaherty (a lot), but I think McKay wins based because:

1. We're seeing a trend internationally towards a "Younger" generation of leaders. The torch is clearly being passed, imo.

2. I suspect young Trudeau (current problems notwithstanding) will be hoisted as the next Liberal leader. Yes it's a bit early, and yes Bob Rae could be a stop-gap, but I refer back to point number one. If Rae wins, Flaherty has a shot. If Trudeau wins, McKay is a certainty.

3. McKay still has tremendous support and profile within the Party. Finance is normally the heir apparent's role, however I think that Foreign Affairs and Defense gives McKay cabinet experience is pretty solid.

4. This is lame, but I think it matters that Flaherty has lost 2 leadership contests (Prov).

[TylerSVT]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

this is typical lefty garbage. Lets put the blinders on and ignore the worst financial collapse globally in several decades. Lets also ignore that the only way they could get any type of budget passed was to glean onto the wild spending demands of the lefties.

You know, for as much as the left tries to vilify the right as being a bunch of backwater uneducated hicks, the left is really ignorant on so many issues.

I was thinking the same thing, Canada has done really well given the worst GLOBAL RECESSION since the great depression... I dont believe the liberals would have handled the recession as well because their mantra is spend spend spend.

Yes the liberals might have done some good things economically in the past but Harper is dealing with an entirely different animal here, this isnt some meager 2001 bust in the economy, this is global economic failure with huge corporations like GM and Chrysler going bankrupt. They have done a pretty incredible job keeping the country afloat and actually putting us far ahead of the curve in terms of economic stability. You just cannot ignore those facts.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

this is typical lefty garbage. Lets put the blinders on and ignore the worst financial collapse globally in several decades. Lets also ignore that the only way they could get any type of budget passed was to glean onto the wild spending demands of the lefties.

You quoted the part of my post that deals with this, yet chose to ignore it. Awesome. Yes, the government should be in deficit spending right now. Stimulus spending. What they should not have done is attacked the surplus before the recession, thus making the deficit higher than it needed to be after stimulus.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Revisionist history?

Allow me to rephrase... a Prime Minister who had de facto lost the confidence of the House of Commons proroguing parliament to avoid a confidence vote set a bad precendent that can never be erased from history. There's nothing revisionist about that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SebC

You quoted the part of my post that deals with this, yet chose to ignore it. Awesome. Yes, the government should be in deficit spending right now. Stimulus spending. What they should not have done is attacked the surplus before the recession, thus making the deficit higher than it needed to be after stimulus.

Allow me to rephrase... a Prime Minister who had de facto lost the confidence of the House of Commons proroguing parliament to avoid a confidence vote set a bad precendent that can never be erased from history. There's nothing revisionist about that.

Chretien prorogued Parliament to avoid Sheila Fraser's report on the Sponsorship Scandal. He also canceled the Somalia Inquiry to avoid revelations from the incident that would have damaged his government's credibility.

Paul Martin cancelled opposition days repeatedly during his minority tenure.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1425333/

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

Chretien prorogued Parliament to avoid Sheila Fraser's report on the Sponsorship Scandal. He also canceled the Somalia Inquiry to avoid revelations from the incident that would have damaged his government's credibility.

Paul Martin cancelled opposition days repeatedly during his minority tenure.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1425333/

Well that article contained much less info than I was hoping, but thanks for a quality response nonetheless. Would you say those Liberal actions are equivalent to what Harper did?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well that article contained much less info than I was hoping, but thanks for a quality response nonetheless.

It was just corroboration.

I've said this a lot on here, and it's disappointing how little it's been picked up, but the problem we have is a hyper-tactical (not strategic) leader in Harper plopped into a political system that encourages partisanship in a minority setting, and piles massive amounts of power onto the Executive (PMO).

Let's not forget that the opposition could have rung the bell on the PM anytime they wanted to, but they've been so busy building Harper up into the boogy-man that they've forgotten to do their job as elected representatives. They just come off as weak. If Harper is such a monster, why haven't they done anything to stop him?

EDIT: In response to your question. Well it all serves a nasty precedent, but I would say the real problem here is the PMO itself, and the inability or unwillingness of MPs on both sides of the House to risk their careers to create a proper balance in Parliament between the Executive and Legislature.