The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I looked to see who your MP was but I was already aware of Rob Anders and his troubles. I'm a political junkie and know more about our MPs than is healthy but I just can't seem to leave it alone.

I figured you might know Anders-- THats why I said you looked up Calgary West-- I didn't assume you would remember his riding name-- heck half the time I wouldn't remember except for the fact that its calgary West both provincially and federally for me

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Parkdale-High Park. It's a staunch NDP riding. At least it's not Liberal.

And no, Conservative candidate has no chance of winning.

Peggy Nash is another dipper that gets her name/face in the media a lot. She should do well.

I think you grossly overestimate the importance of Afghanistan on the right-wing base. Most of them simply don't care. You can also increase military spending in the name of arctic sovereignty without destroying military assets by sending them to Afghanistan.

I think their support for the mission runs deeper than that. They constitute a significant portion of the minority still in support of this mission. Harper actually offended them with this reversal but made the political calculation he could afford to. The support he would lose out west would be more than compensated for with gains in Quebec...

The CA supported going to Iraq. Harper was a member of the CA. So he echoed the party line. I'm not going to explain Canadian party politics to you again.

As has already been pointed out to you (and referenced) - Harper was LEADER of the party when he publicly asserted this position. He wasn't just a "member". I granted you earlier that we will never really know if he would have done it had he somehow become PM at the time as this falls into the category of "What If?", but his statements were very clear. Please do not try to argue he didn't support the position. That's like saying Dion doesn't support the Green shift. You constantly harangue another poster at this site for saying up is down and left is right. Don't do it yourself.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


My question on this issue is that the liberals who were governing at the time put the disatrous policy in place. An opposition party with far less information said they would continue it.

If the Liberals had won last election they would have had to reverse the income trust policy- It was just too big a loophole-- or face a fiscal problem as ALL corporate income tax revenues disappeared over the following years

So everything you attribute to the conservatives on the issue aplies equally to the liberals does it not? Or is there a distinction I am not seeing?

Hmmm. Interesting. Is breaking a promise worse, better, or the same as not saying anything about something you know is unsustainable? A distinction to be sure. How important? I don't know but definitely "worse" I think. Publicly making the promise was geared at earning a vote. You could argue not saying anything was hoping to either skewer the Conservatives later or simply hope no one notices the real issue/problem. I like your point.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


I figured you might know Anders-- THats why I said you looked up Calgary West-- I didn't assume you would remember his riding name-- heck half the time I wouldn't remember except for the fact that its calgary West both provincially and federally for me

Too many damn ridings to know both the member and where they are from. I have exceptions of course and would obviously know the Ontario ridings better. I travel across the province for work and deal with reasonably intelligent people so I get a fair amount of political talk.

One riding I want to watch is Whitby-Oshawa where Jim Flaherty is running. He has many GM employees in the riding and recent events at the plant have them riled up. Add in the hurt he did the province a few months back with his public statements about Ontario being a bad place to invest, and you can see how he might have some problems.

I was looking forward to Emerson running again but as I predicted after the last vote, there was no way in hell he was going to face the electorate in his riding after his fraud job last time out.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Michael Fortier lose (again) in the riding of Vaudreuil. There is a reason Harper appointed the man to Cabinet. He can't win a damn election.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
I think their support for the mission runs deeper than that. They constitute a significant portion of the minority still in support of this mission. Harper actually offended them with this reversal but made the political calculation he could afford to. The support he would lose out west would be more than compensated for with gains in Quebec...

Completely delusional. If he pulls out of Afghanistan he's NOT going to lose the right-wing vote. Period.

That's why he's said he's going to. And if he's already "lost" there by saying he's going to, there's nothing to be lost by actually following through with it.

As has already been pointed out to you (and referenced) - Harper was LEADER of the party when he publicly asserted this position. He wasn't just a "member". I granted you earlier that we will never really know if he would have done it had he somehow become PM at the time as this falls into the category of "What If?", but his statements were very clear.

Yes, when he said it he'd just inherited the party and was leader of the opposition. As a supposedly avid follower of Canadian politics, I'm sure you know how it works. If the ruling party does something, the opposition party opposes it. They stand to gain nothing by agreeing with how the government is running, they oppose it just to get their names out there.

Again, as I've said, these are ALL "what ifs" and are pointless given the lack of honesty the Canadian system permits from its MPs. As I said, it's a complete and utter waste of time to debate because we don't know factually one way or the other, and to pretend you do know is disingenuous and frankly boring as ****.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Completely delusional. If he pulls out of Afghanistan he's NOT going to lose the right-wing vote. Period.

That's why he's said he's going to. And if he's already "lost" there by saying he's going to, there's nothing to be lost by actually following through with it.

It's more than just getting them to vote for you. You need them to donate, volunteer and spread the word. Happy campers do this - pissed off ones don't.

Yes, when he said it he'd just inherited the party and was leader of the opposition. As a supposedly avid follower of Canadian politics, I'm sure you know how it works. If the ruling party does something, the opposition party opposes it. They stand to gain nothing by agreeing with how the government is running, they oppose it just to get their names out there.

They did more than simply oppose. They made their position known internationally. They were quite vocal about it and you continue to sound a fool by taking the position you have in the face of reality. Your subtle backtracking now (the just playing politics angle) seems to be as close as you've come to admitting your were wrong about Harper not supporting it.

Again, as I've said, these are ALL "what ifs" and are pointless given the lack of honesty the Canadian system permits from its MPs. As I said, it's a complete and utter waste of time to debate because we don't know factually one way or the other, and to pretend you do know is disingenuous and frankly boring as ****.

I know the position he publicly took and thank you for finally admitting it as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. As was pointed out, we are not yet in deficit.

Nope, but Harper has less leeway now then he did last year.

I would have thought that the Conservatives much touted refurbishment of the armed forces would raise the armed services budget by far more than 8%

Not if it is accompanied by progam cuts. There is plenty of pork out there, wrt to domestic spending.

3. Regardless of the fiscal situation there are ALWAYS some increased expenditures that could be worthwhile.

--Imagine we could cut greehouse gas emissions in Canada by 90% countrywide but it would take a 2 billion dollar federal expenditure

I wouldn't want a single penny to go to reducing "greenhouse gas emissions". It's a boondoggle, with slim to no public benefit.

--Imagine another Hitler emerged and only spending to build am army could keep our people safe

I'd support increased military spending so long as it was accompanied with program cuts elsewhere. There's plenty of pork. Why don't we start with Communist Broadcasting Corporation?

If debt as a precentage of GDP is shrinking anyway through growth of the economy, the interest becomes less and less significant anyway

It all depends on the interest rates. If interest rates jump, the whole calculation goes out the window.

-- Alberta is a good example of a place that focused too much on debt repayment and now faces some crushing infrastructure needs as they try to play catch-up in a boom economy with a labour shortage

So why is Stelmach frittering away the money that he does have on trivialities? Alberta is very well off. I was impressed in my recent travels there. Infrastructure in Alberta is way better off then here in BC.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



So why is Stelmach frittering away the money that he does have on trivialities? Alberta is very well off. I was impressed in my recent travels there. Infrastructure in Alberta is way better off then here in BC.

I don't claim to know the situation in BC but here in Alberta there is an acknowledged need for infrastructure catch-up. In Calgary perhaps the biggest need is the hospital in the SE but there are numerous schools needed and lots of roads and transit. There is a pretty prevalent school of thought that it would have better to attend to some of these things 5-10 years ago. Costs were much lower and the debt would still have disappeared

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I wouldn't want a single penny to go to reducing "greenhouse gas emissions". It's a boondoggle, with slim to no public benefit.

Do tell. Are you saying that unregulated and massive releases of carbon dioxide are no problem whatsoever? Or are you simply saying that canada's emissions are so small compared to the US and to what China and India will be doing that any Canadian action is futile?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Not if it is accompanied by progam cuts. There is plenty of pork out there, wrt to domestic spending.

ah-- Facing a portrayal and real FEARS that he IS a budget and program slashing conservative, Harper has to go slow. Cut the CBC? you lose more votes than you gain. Its the political problem generally. ANY existing program will have people who simply love it and usually the number of people that will vote for you for cutting a program is far exceeded by those that will suddenly be very ardently against you.

Second and most importantly, Harper faced a minority Parliament so proposing things that cannot and would not pass makes little sense. Its stupid actually . The only reason to do so would be to provoke an election but the program cut then becomes your main election issue. I don't think Harper wanted his defining issue to be " I want to cut the CBC" Enough people consider it a cultural icon or 'sacred" in some ways that it would support those that consider him "scary"

So, while I hardly would give Harper a free ride on rising spending, I do see political realities that explain why it probably occurred

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

Completely delusional. If he pulls out of Afghanistan he's NOT going to lose the right-wing vote. Period.

That's why he's said he's going to. And if he's already "lost" there by saying he's going to, there's nothing to be lost by actually following through with it.

Wezil

While I wouldn't go so far as to say your view "completely delusional", I have to agree with Asher on this one. I just don't see Harper losing many votes on this one, particularly if it is spun corectly. He could talk about his responsibility to reflect the clear wishes of the people in a democracy, or he could simply cite the idea that canada has done its part on the mission and it is time for the NATO allies to shoulder more of the burden etc etc. I doubt there are THAT many people who want to stay in Afghanistan come hell or high water that a decision to pull out would change their vote.

The main exception might be those that perceive this to be a breaking of a commitment to stay. I haven't followed Harpers statements on Afghanistan closely enough to recall. Would pulling out as he now proposes break any unequivocal promises he made? The few times I heard him speak, I always thought he left things unclear about a pullout while reiterating that it was a hard mission that could take a while


More generally I always find it odd when the Liberals try to make political hay out of Afghanistan. The Liberals commited to send the troops there. Did they think it was a one or two year in and out job? All Harper has done is keep them there (oh yah and get them some decent equipment)

Since Harper has governed for such a short period, wouldn't anyone that thinks that he should have pulled the troops already have almost NECESSARILY been of the view that the decision to deploy them was wrong and therefore blame the Liberals?

[Wezil]

I guess time will tell with Afghanistan. If Harper gets his majority we will have a definitive answer.

The NDP and Bloc have been the only parties with a consistent position against Afghanistan. You are right, Liberals cannot claim this ground, particularly after the Libs rolled over and died on the issue months ago when they supported the Conservative extension to 2011.

Harper's problem is that he always claimed setting a date for our departure would provide motivation to the Taliban and now he has gone and set a date. It pisses me off b/c he slandered those of us opposed to the mission as "cut and run" types for years and now has become a cut and run type himself. *spit*

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Peggy Nash is another dipper that gets her name/face in the media a lot. She should do well.

I just realized Gerard Kennedy is running for the Libs in my riding. It might actually be a close race.

He was at my subway station this morning trying to meet and greet with a throng of supporters and a few members of the press. Yours truly may end up in a photo in some kind of paper as they took my picture as I laughed as everyone walked by Kennedy as he tried to shake everyone's hand. I doubt it, but I just might! I'll let you know if I do.

It was actually really pathetic. He had like a dozen supporters in suits with him trying to guide people towards him: "Meet Gerard Kennedy!" as they moved their arms towards him trying to whisk us over. They looked kind of frustrated that no one cared.

But now I'm wondering if I should vote for the NDP (GRRRRRRR) incase the libs may win a seat here.

[Wezil]

That does make it interesting. Kennedy is on the left of the Lib party so he may make a good race with Nash. Lucky you. You may actually have a battle to watch.

[Asher]

I hate both of them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil
Asher - No doubt. I call you on your lies.

Oncle - I found the thread....

Okay then.

I state Dion will not win the next election and become PM.

If he does I will display an avatar of your choice for 6 months(?).

If he does not you will display an avatar of my choice for 6 months.

You added the provisoes that both must still be leader of their parties at the time of the vote.

Therefore, it seems to me I win if Harper wins most seats and forms a government, even if he is immediately toppled. Now, if he doesn't form the government but a Coalition is formed instead, then you would win. Agree or no?

From this thread:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...0&pagenumber=5

Agreed. If he's toppled afterwards you've still won.

If a coalition is formed right away, the victory is mine.