Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

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.

You should say that you know. I would then observe that you know some pretty strange things.

btw, from which party did the last guy come from who said he would govern as if he had a majority? I think that's what Harper will do. He may be right that the Liberals won't want to go anywhere near the polls for a bit, in which case he will live for 18 to 24 months. Or he may be wrong and then we will be voting again before Christmas.

I wouldn't want to bet the Liberals want to risk it for a long while once the judicial enquiry gets under way.

Of course, that assumes that Martin will cede power. The answers he has given lately indicate to me that he is keeping the door open to staying on as PM even with fewer seats than the Conservatives.

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.

Transferring has jack to do with it. It's called respecting the division of power as it already exists.

Case in point, municipal finance. Municipalities are creatures of the provinces. Martin says he's gonna fix the big cities right up... too bad that the provinces have a large say in the matter. Harper is in favour of helping the cities out too, but doing it in cooperation with the provinces.

Since when is recognising facts a transfer of powers?

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

You mean like the gun registry?

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

They'll be having a free vote in Parliament on a new definition of marriage. Why are you and Martin so afraid of Parliament?

Most likely anything restrictive will be voted down. Go anywhere near 'notwithstanding' and you assure many Tories to vote 'nay'. No way in hell would that pass, even in a majority if Harper sticks to the promise that the whips will be chained.

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.

Funny, I've read that the various platforms come in at $40, $50, $80 billion range. Nobody was way out of line as of that point a couple weeks ago.

Fact is Harper wants to spend less than the others, and he wants to cut taxes if there is enough slack left to allow it.

btw, one of the three major leaders is a trained economist. Guess which one.

[notyoueither]

I should say that I liked Martin, and I appreciate a lot of the things that went right while he was finance minister and had some say in Cabinet. We have among the best, if not the best, performing economies in the G7 (or 8, or 12, or what have you).

Problem is that the Lberals have been in too long, and the problems that come from that are already slapping us in the face.

I waited and I watched to see if Martin deserved a chance despite the problems with his party. First he started to fudge on the Sponsorship scandal, and then he is treating us to a campaign that is worthy of any major league Liberal slut for power.

I was going to vote Green, but now I feel I need to send a message. Martin is the same **** in a different pile. Time for a change.

[KrazyHorse]

I convinced my mother to vote NDP.

The world must be coming to an end.

[KrazyHorse]

One day left.

WUTANG

[joncha]

The Election Prediction Project just made their final seat projection:

Lib       122
Con       104
NDP        29
BQ         52
Ind         1

It's pretty close to what I'm guessing.

[Starchild]

*gets out the popcorn and sits back to watch*

I love foreign elections. It's all the drama, none of the living under the oppressive brutal regime that follows.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You should say that you know. I would then observe that you know some pretty strange things.

What? You think it is strange to say the NDP and Cons have nothing in common?

Originally posted by notyoueither
He may be right that the Liberals won't want to go anywhere near the polls for a bit, in which case he will live for 18 to 24 months. Or he may be wrong and then we will be voting again before Christmas.

No one wants to go anywhere near the polls. All the parties will need to refill their election war chests.

If it is Cons minority government, it will collapse in March. The Cons will screw things up like they always do.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course, that assumes that Martin will cede power. The answers he has given lately indicate to me that he is keeping the door open to staying on as PM even with fewer seats than the Conservatives.

What planet are you living on?

Martin said "It's a common sense proposition that the party that has the most seats is the party that certainly ought to form a government."

What part of this do you not understand?

Originally posted by notyoueither
Transferring has jack to do with it. It's called respecting the division of power as it already exists.

Common sense should tell you that if 10 governments do what one government once did, then the bureacracy will increase.

Originally posted by notyoueither
They'll be having a free vote in Parliament on a new definition of marriage.

Which is Harper's standard cop-out. He doesn't have the guts to stand up and say what the Cons will do.

And if you ask the individual Cons candidates how they would vote, they refuse to say.

The Cons are trying to hide the truth.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Most likely anything restrictive will be voted down. Go anywhere near 'notwithstanding' and you assure many Tories to vote 'nay'. No way in hell would that pass, even in a majority if Harper sticks to the promise that the whips will be chained.

You don't actually believe that do you? Harper already has the Cons candidates whipped, chained and muzzled. If he keeps them on a tight leash during an election, do you really think he's going to give them freedom to vote if they get elected.

You're not the naive are you?

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fact is Harper wants to spend less than the others, and he wants to cut taxes if there is enough slack left to allow it.

btw, one of the three major leaders is a trained economist. Guess which one.

What? Have you been paying any attention to this election. The Conservative are promising to spend more and to cut more taxes. The result is a massive deficit or cuts to essential services.

Well, I'm a trained economist and that hasn't stopped you from ignoring my words of wisdom.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What? You think it is strange to say the NDP and Cons have nothing in common?

You're jumping from Harper having nothing in common with the NDP or Liberals (I don't buy that, but you're free to be a zealot) to he would be willing to give seperatists a larger voice in national government. There is a third way, as I pointed out.

No one wants to go anywhere near the polls. All the parties will need to refill their election war chests.

If it is Cons minority government, it will collapse in March. The Cons will screw things up like they always do.

Yes, most minorities do not go the distance, and Conservatives have been shorter than most in recent memory. However, the past is not an iron clad assurance of the future. I agree it is likely to be voting again soon, but let's wait and see.

What planet are you living on?

Martin said "It's a common sense proposition that the party that has the most seats is the party that certainly ought to form a government."

What part of this do you not understand?

I'm living on the planet that watched him get grilled on the topic and never say 'yes, I will resign as PM if I get fewer seats'. He said everything but that, and then he mentioned 'support in Parliament' (not restricted to his own party's seats). What planet are you living on? What part of a politician being evasive do you not understand?

Common sense should tell you that if 10 governments do what one government once did, then the bureacracy will increase.

The history of Canada should tell you that the 10 provinces have had jurisdiction over things like health and cities since, ohh, about 1867. Where is this 'one government once did' of which you speak? You should really check into those fact thingies, they are a fascinating subject.

Which is Harper's standard cop-out. He doesn't have the guts to stand up and say what the Cons will do.

And if you ask the individual Cons candidates how they would vote, they refuse to say.

The Cons are trying to hide the truth.

Well, quite a few seem willing to say what they feel about the big button issues, don't you think? What do the Liberals say? What about the NDP? Is ducking out of the Commons when such an issue comes up for a vote OK?

And since when is putting power back into the hands of MPs and Parliament a bad thing? You see it as a cop out. I see it as what he has been shooting for all the time he has been in politics.

You don't actually believe that do you? Harper already has the Cons candidates whipped, chained and muzzled. If he keeps them on a tight leash during an election, do you really think he's going to give them freedom to vote if they get elected.

You're not the naive are you?

Less naive than you. During an election what one person says can be amplified a hundred fold, especially when the media are on a witch hunt. btw, how do you explain the Liberal and NDP candidates being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage being largely ignored while the press and the opponents never cease to harp on the personal convictions of the candidates of one party in particular?

How stupid and partisan are you?

What? Have you been paying any attention to this election. The Conservative are promising to spend more and to cut more taxes. The result is a massive deficit or cuts to essential services.

Well, I'm a trained economist and that hasn't stopped you from ignoring my words of wisdom.

Yes... wisdom... heh, good joke.

Do you have any reputable report putting the Conservative platform at a higher cost than that of the NDP?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're jumping from Harper having nothing in common with the NDP or Liberals (I don't buy that, but you're free to be a zealot) to he would be willing to give seperatists a larger voice in national government. There is a third way, as I pointed out.

Third way? AFAIK, the first thing a minority government has to survive is a vote of confidence.

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm living on the planet that watched him get grilled on the topic and never say 'yes, I will resign as PM if I get fewer seats'. He said everything but that, and then he mentioned 'support in Parliament' (not restricted to his own party's seats). What planet are you living on? What part of a politician being evasive do you not understand?

No politican is going to say "I will resign" in the middle of a campaign. No politican is going to say anything that sounds like he has given up.

He was quite in what he said: Party with the most seats should form the government.

What more does he have to say.

Originally posted by notyoueither
The history of Canada should tell you that the 10 provinces have had jurisdiction over things like health and cities since, ohh, about 1867.

Open a history book and you will see that certain health care policies are set at a national level in order to create equality for all Canadians.

I know you have trouble dealing with the facts, and I know you prefer to say screw the East, but most Canadians believe in equal access to health care.

Harper does not.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, quite a few seem willing to say what they feel about the big button issues, don't you think?

The Conservatives have themselves to blame for that. Harper is constantly avoiding the questions and refusing to take a position, so yes, when the rare Cons candidate escapes and says what he thinks, then it is news.

Originally posted by notyoueither
During an election what one person says can be amplified a hundred fold, especially when the media are on a witch hunt. btw, how do you explain the Liberal and NDP candidates being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage being largely ignored while the press and the opponents never cease to harp on the personal convictions of the candidates of one party in particular?

Because Harper is being evasive. The Cons hide behind a smokescreen of "free" votes and then refuse to say how they would vote.

Why has Harper refused to say "The majority of our candidates believe..."? Because he's trying to deceive the voters. He wants to pretend he's in favour of gay marriages and against gay marriages at the same time.

The NDP have clearly stated where they stand on abortion and equal rights. When an NDP candidate stands up and says she supports the party position, that ain't news.

I know you love looking for Eastern Liberal Media conspiracies, but they don't exist. The Cons have been their worst enemy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Third way? AFAIK, the first thing a minority government has to survive is a vote of confidence.

And you said he was lying when he said he would not cooperate with the Bloc to survive one. Do you have anything other than hot air to back that up?

No politican is going to say "I will resign" in the middle of a campaign. No politican is going to say anything that sounds like he has given up.

He was quite in what he said: Party with the most seats should form the government.

What more does he have to say.

Only he never said that. He never said the party with the most seats wins. He actually alluded to 'support in Parliament'.

btw, that is his right by the rules, even if we don't like it.

Open a history book and you will see that certain health care policies are set at a national level in order to create equality for all Canadians.

I know you have trouble dealing with the facts, and I know you prefer to say screw the East, but most Canadians believe in equal access to health care.

Harper does not.

Open a history book, and you will see that health care came from provincial initiatives. Open a law book and you will see that health care delivery is a provincial jurisdiction just as it always has been.

That Harper wants to respect jurisdictions is a good thing, not a bad one. After all, what happened to the last Liberal promise about child care? That's right, it sank when the provinces balked.

What happened the last time we had a national government say '**** Quebec, we're doing it anyway'?

Do you have even the faintest notion that Canada is not Britain or China? The central government is powerless in many spheres. We have very strongly rooted provincial powers, and for good reason.

The Conservatives have themselves to blame for that. Harper is constantly avoiding the questions and refusing to take a position, so yes, when the rare Cons candidate escapes and says what he thinks, then it is news.

Duh, because neither he nor his party have a binding position on the questions?

What part of MPs decide without party discipline do you not understand?

Because Harper is being evasive. The Cons hide behind a smokescreen of "free" votes and then refuse to say how they would vote.

Why has Harper refused to say "The majority of our candidates believe..."? Because he's trying to deceive the voters. He wants to pretend he's in favour of gay marriages and against gay marriages at the same time.

The NDP have clearly stated where they stand on abortion and equal rights. When an NDP candidate stands up and says she supports the party position, that ain't news.

I know you love looking for Eastern Liberal Media conspiracies, but they don't exist. The Cons have been their worst enemy.

Free votes are a smoke screen only to an adherent to the Central Committee system. Only one who wants dicatorship could see them as a shortcoming in any party.

Elect your MPs. Let the MPs look after the issues. That is how the system is supposed to work.

What about when an NDP candidate stands up and says she would leave the House if a vote were held on abortion or marriage definitions? Why isn't that candidate willing to vote 'yah' or 'nay' with the party line and stand by it?

What about Dennis Mills? Liberal cabinet minister and in favour of 'the traditional definition of marriage'? Why aren't people like him in the Liberal party such a big issue?

What happened to that quaint picture of a Liberal screaming at Harper about wanting to restrict people's rights when speaking of abortion after she voted for 'the traditional definition of marriage'? Why is hypocrisy like that not an issue with legs?

I don't have to go looking for a media witch hunt, it's been on display in all its glory for the last 5 weeks.

[notyoueither]

Of course now I have to put in the disclaimer, and may I burn in Hell for saying it, but the CBC has had far better coverage of the campaign as it went on than any other source I've seen.

It didn't take long for the impartial gloves to come off at CTV. The Sun chain never tried to claim impartial status. All I've seen from other papers is one side or the other. Never the middle road and the good with the bad.

Son of a ***** if I didn't pinch myself when I saw the CBC as being impartial and delivering the best coverage.

[notyoueither]

Actually, the Edmonton Journal was relatively good too. Such is the lot of a Liberal paper in the midst of Tory heaven. It lends to balance if simply to prevent the paper boxes being set on fire.

Harr harr. I joke, I joke.

[Tingkai]

One of the reasons I decided to quit being a journalist is that it doesn't matter what we write. We can quote someone saying "Black is black" and far too many readers will be absolutely convinced that the person said "Black is white".

And then there were the constant complaints that "You're baised against [insert political party name here]". Heard it from the NDP. Heard it from the Liberals. Heard from the PC/Reformers.

The election isn't even over and certain fanatics are already screaming screaming about how the media screwed them. It's BS of course.

Each of the three main political parties had a chance to win a majority, but each one blew it.

The Liberals blew this election by being on the defensive and not playing to Martin's strength: a proven track record of fiscal responsibility.

The Conservatives blew the election with two many crazy promises that didn't add up, and accusing Martin of a child porn supporter didn't help.

The NDP blew it by not really believing they could win. At the start of the campaign, the Liberals were collapsing. That was a golden opportunity for the NDP to position itself as the only viable challenger to the Conservative. The NDP could have taken up the void left by the Liberals, but it didn't seize the day.

The fault is not the media. The media is what it has always been. The fault lies with each political party.

[Tingkai]

NYE: As for your latest response. Haven't got the time or the energy to repeat myself ad nauseam. You obviously can't the concept.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

I fail to see how this makes me a closet easterner.

The East likes the appointments process since that means the party has a much easier time of controlling the selections.

This appointments process is actually less democratic than a direct election, which is the approach historically favoured by the PCs.

The PCs in PEI are no more swamped than they would be in the Alliance party. They vote for their members via a proper election in that all the members select their riding. Each person gets one vote, and no one vote gets more than the other.

The reason for this is that there are much fewer numbers of people voting for the leadership campaign, then in the general election, so that a small number can have a disproportionate influence. This is why the party in its leadership elections can acheive proper representation through direct election rather than an appointments process.

In the federal election, the numerical supremacy is much easier to assert, thus the need for balance in the terms of regional representation found in the Senate.