Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[Wezil]

Flinx - Wow! That was a lot of work. Out of curiousity.... who is the BC independant you predict? (Or anyone else with the answer....)

Looks like you got my area of Ont. pegged pretty good. Libs should hold Kingston but will likely lose this riding (Hastings - Lyle Vancliefs old riding).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flinx
A majority for the Conservatives would require them to win around 90 of the 106 ridings in Ontario. All the recent polls indicate the Liberals are in the lead in Ontario and take about 50 of the ridings.

... IF Liberal voters go out and vote AND those who might normally skip it aren't so po'ed that they don't go to the polls to turf the Liberals.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Wezil
Out of curiousity.... who is the BC independant you predict? (Or anyone else with the answer....)

Chuck Cadman in Surrey North. Popular former Reform/Alliance MP who lost the Conservative nomination.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm glad I'm not a conservative because you guys have some difficult choices to make.

If the Conservatives win the most seats, but not a majority then they will probably make an alliance with the BQ. So a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the BQ. Do you want the Seperatists as part of the government?

That's an interesting twist considering that Harper has categorically shut down any talk of close cooperation with the Bloc.

Then there's the Conservative fiscal policy. Harper is obviously not a fiscal conservative. He wants bigger government, not smaller government. His government will interfere more in people's lives.

You must be reading about stopping the growth of government and respect for provincial jurisdictions and support for provinces to run things the way they see fit in a very interesting light.

Right wing voters definitely have some hard decisions to make.

No actually, the decision is getting easier with each passing day.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by joncha


Chuck Cadman in Surrey North. Popular former Reform/Alliance MP who lost the Conservative nomination.

Doh!

Thanks Joncha. The name was rattling around my brain refusing to be pinned down.

I saw a bit on Cadman and his fight for that riding. I wasn't aware his support was still that solid and wide.

[Flinx]

What I heard was that the riding association wanted Cadman but the person that won sold a lot of memberships and managed to get the nomination. Expect Cadman to rejoin the Conservative Party if elected.

[Ben Kenobi]

what the West is on about with Senate reform? One person equals one vote and no rigging for regions is not representative of the nation?

Are you a closet Central Canadian?

Did I say I approved of the PC methods?

[Ben Kenobi]

No actually, the decision is getting easier with each passing day.

Actually, he's right, for some of us.

I still haven't decided who I'm voting for. The conservative in Vancouver South hasn't done much for the last month, even with Dosanjh in his riding.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's an interesting twist considering that Harper has categorically shut down any talk of close cooperation with the Bloc.

We know he's lying about that. If the Conservatives get enough seats to form a minority government, who would be their partners? Forget about the NDP. They have nothing in common. The Liberals? Possible, but then a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the Liberals.

Originally posted by notyoueither
You must be reading about stopping the growth of government and respect for provincial jurisdictions and support for provinces to run things the way they see fit in a very interesting light.

Transferring power from one government to another doesn't stop the growth of government. It will create more bureaucracy as all the provinces do what one government used to do.

Then's there's all the constitutional battles that Harper wants so that the government can interfere in our lives.

They'll be interfering in Asher's life, telling him who he can or cannot marry.

And look at all the money Harper wants to spend, and the tax cuts. A Conservative government would mean a massive increase in the deficit. That's got to bug you IF you're a fiscal conservative.

[St Leo]

Ian Welsh:
I came into the election as an ex-member of the now dead Progressive Conservative Party(PC). I attended the Conservative Toronto Center nomination meeting (though as a non-member I didn't vote.) My father is a long time Conservative of the Reform stripe and I have defended the Reform Party and the Alliance in the past. In short, I started off favouring the Conservatives and expecting to vote for them.

Moreover I grew up in B.C. I'm sensitive to the very real slights and injuries that the West has endured at the hands of successive governments - issues such forcing oil to be sold at below market prices; giving bids to Quebec companies that were underbid by western companies; and allowing west coast fish to be sold before processing. I think Western alienation is entirely justified on the facts.

Like many Canadians I was disgusted by Liberal corruption. I've been talking about it for years - although the sheer brazenness of AdScam was something of a shock, the actual corruption wasn't. I knew there was a sense of entitlement amongst certain members of the party - a complacency born of too many years in power and too much assurance of continued power - a feeling that they were our rulers, not our servants and that it was their money, not ours.

So I wanted to kick them out. This isn't a reflection on Paul Martin personally - it's a matter of the party as a whole being too complacent. A one party state is inherently unhealthy and a few years in the wilderness with much rending of hair would be good for the Liberals - and for Canada.

But there is a price I'm not willing to pay for the privilege of punishing the Liberals...

My initial twinges came during my first look at the Conservative platform (or rather at the first, basically accurate leak of the Conservative platform.) The fiscal part of the platform made me very, very uneasy. A 25% tax cut. Now everyone likes paying less in taxes, but I remember the pain of wrestling the debt under control. Still - I wasn't sure and I gave them the benefit of the doubt. But last weekend I spent fifteen hours pouring over the federal debt, revenue and expense numbers and what I learned made my feeling that we couldn't afford Conservative party fiscal policies turn into iron hard certainty - because we balanced the budget primarily through increased revenues.

Bottom line: we can't afford Harper's tax cuts combined with his promises of increased spending. Odds are that he will either have to take the axe to signifcant amounts of spending, or he will have to run deficits. Without knowing what he intends to cut (the Conservatives think they can hold spending down much more than most independent economists think they can) or if he'll run deficits I'm not willing to take a gamble on his irresponsbile fiscal program. I don't say "irresponsible" lightly, I say it with due consideration. It's simply not a plan that leaves any room for anything to go wrong. Now Harper has muttered recently that it might be phased in, etc... but that doesn't reassure me. The plan is inherently unrealistic and that means he put out, as part of his policy platform, something he either knew he couldn't deliver on, or something he intends to delivery on in ways that are unacceptable to me as a real fiscal conservative.

Then there is Harper's agenda of radical parliamentary change. Let's put it all together. First there are free votes on everything except fiscal issues. Second there is the inability of party Leaders to appoint candidates to local ridings. Third there are elected Senators. If Harper actually comes through on all three of these issues we're looking at radical change. There are consequences to changing institutions and they aren't always what people think they are.

It is my considered opinion that the combination of the three changes that Harper wants to put in will lead to an extreme weakening of party discipline and ability to move measures through parliament. Freed of the ability of Party Leaders to get rid of them without losing an MP, MPs will be freer to vote as they choose. Sounds good, eh? What it means is that party platforms matter much less - and individual beliefs of MPs matter much more. Add in free votes and that freedom becomes even greater.

But it's not just a matter of belief - it's a matter of trading. If most votes are free and you're an MP suddenly you have something of value to trade, your vote. And most will use it, giving it away on issues they care less about for support on issues they care more about. Then, adding in the fact that the Conservatives will allow many more private members bills to come to a vote - with enough trading, who knows what might get through? Don't think it will happen? Go look at the process for bills in the US and get back to me. And while you're at it, note especially how beholden US reps are to special interests.

Because with MPs suddenly so much more powerful they're going to be worth more. Having an MP in pocket who can vote as he chooses, who can present bills and who has a vote that he can trade to others is worth something. Moreover the way people vote will change. Because MPs are more powerful people will vote more for them and less for their party. Spending in local ridings will become much more important than it is today, where most candidates fly in on their party's wings. That money will come from those who can afford to give it. Which is to say, people with more disposable income will have more clout with your MP than those who don't. That's already true, of course, but degree matters. Get ready for that degree to be ramped up exponentially.

Then there are elected Senators. The Senate has a lot more power than most people realize. It can send back pretty much any bill it chooses. It doesn't so choose these days because the Senators aren't elected. Elected Senators are going to feel that they have a mandate - and they will be right. They will feel that they have a right and a duty to send bills back which they don't agree with.

Good thing? Maybe, except that it adds one more level of horse trading to the entire mess and reduces the ability of the government to govern. Maybe you think that's good, that a government unable to act quickly unless there is overwhelming support for an issue, is a good government. And I won't argue that there aren't advantages, but be sure that the corruption, horse trading, increased influence of those with money and inability to set a clear policy easily that we will give up are worth what we're getting in return.

The bottom line of Harper's structural changes are that they fix a problem (the electated dicator that is the PM) by creating a series of other problems with far reaching consequences. What we need is not a radical solution, but an incremental move back towards a sitaution more akin to how the British Parliament operates - less discipline and more accountability, but not so little that we are electing an individual representative to wrestle with other individual representatives on our behalf, rather than the current situation where we elect a government.

Or to put it another way, we need reform, but do we need radical reform?

There are good things about a possible Conservative government; a significant voice for the West in Ottawa, something which has been sadly lacking, greater oversight of government spending; more respect for provinces; more money for the armed forces; and teaching the Liberals a lesson.

But I'm not willing to vote Conservative purely as a way to punish the Liberals if doing so means hurting Canada and Canadians. I'm not willing to overlook the irresponsible fiscal policies and radical change that the Conservatives want just because there are a few things they want to do which I agree with.

And that, in sum, is why I won't be voting Conservative. I haven't decided whether I can overcome my distaste for the corruption of some Liberals enough to vote for them, or my distaste for certain aspects of the NDP party to vote for them. But when it comes time to cast my vote, it isn't going next to my local Conservative's name, as much as I think she'd be a good MP.

Because I don't believe in radical parliamentary change and I don't believe in irresponsible tax cuts and I'm not lending my vote or name to either.

Hmm.

[St Leo]

Based on Flinx's expert analysis, I will somewhat cautiously proclaim that the NDP will get 63 seats and that the Conservatives will get 59 seats.

[KrazyHorse]

[Loif]

I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, only the first one or two. I am voting Conservative though. I'm tired of the Liberals and all of their scandals. Go Harper.

[Tingkai]

Then you're voting for irresponsible fiscal policies that will create a massive deficit.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Did I say I approved of the PC methods?

And? The PCs set the process to assure that PCs from PEI are not swamped by those from Ontario or the West.

That is exactly what Reform demanded in the Senate. Don't you think that regions need representation beyond their pop anymore?

If it's good enough for the Senate, isn't it good enough for the major parties?