The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
...and you wonder why I prefer the canoe site.

We don't have many options for online news and they all suck. I'm more conservative than liberal but not a rabid partisan. What would you suggest?

I hate the Canoe site because it's the same but from the other side. The difference is The Star's readers and editors are even more delusional, so it is at least entertaining. And enlightening, I wonder what kind of drugs people are on out here.

A couple guys at work were casually talking and wondering why Alberta always think it's under attack. I asked them if they knew what the NEP was, and they didn't -- is that not taught in public schools around here? Pathetic.

[Wezil]

I would agree the editorial/columnist side of the site leans right overall but the news section is no where near as biased as you seem to think.


current headlines there:


Dion ditches candidate over 9/11 remarks

Jack’s not settling for second best

Mixed views on Harper as he comes back to hometown


and I see a paid ad by the NDP at the side

[Asher]

I'm genuinely curious about the NEP thing. Maybe DanQ can answer that.

Is that not part of the curriculum in Ontario? That's a pretty glaring omission considering it's played a very important rule in shaping the political landscape in Canada.

[Wezil]

I was done public school by the time the NEP came around.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


As I recall the bet was who wins the most seats. I guess we could search for the thread if it becomes an issue.

I personally hope it does. You would hear my gut laugh from one end of the country to the other if Harper won most seats then immediately lost a confidence motion setting up a Coalition government. That would be so sweet.

Now you're dreaming.

Coalition governments are extremely uncommon. Unheard of outside of a major war.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


But that is the problem. The fact all these corporate entities were considering the option was no big secret. For this government to make the promise then reverse it after the election means 1 of 2 things:

1) They knew they couldn't keep the promise but made it anyway (lied), or
2) They didn't know when they should have (incompetent).

I don't see a #3. Lying or incompetence are good reasons to vote against a party imho.

They were opposition at the time.

But don't let me detract from your ***** fest.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
Harper and the Conservative's base of support is still the old Reformers. Try as they might they can't win over the former PCs in numbers they want/need much less those not considered "conservatives". The red Tories don't trust the power an influence of the Reform wing of this party and are still in political limbo.

This is unpossible if the Conservatives form a majority.

There is no way, no how, it is possible to form a majority government in the Parliament of Canada based on the Reformers.

For them to do it, they would not only have to have won over most of the remaining PCs in the East, but made significant inroads in the conventionally undecideds.

I'm not sure what you're selliing, but it smells of fear and irrational arguments.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I think to him, everything the Liberals do is anti-Alberta .

Still, I'd honestly like the carbon tax better if it didn't kick in as fast, had no exemptions, and was refunded by cutting the federal sales tax instead of income taxes. (It'd make more sense too... tax goods and services by carbon footprint rather than sales price.) Then you'd see "clean" things get cheaper and "dirty" things get more expensive.

If it were a real carbon tax aimed at changing behavoiur, it would target large passenger vehicles with large taxes. It does not.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


If it were a real carbon tax aimed at changing behavoiur, it would target large passenger vehicles with large taxes. It does not.

I'd push for such a tax... this is part of the reason I'd never be elected

[notyoueither]

It's also the reason Dion's plan is a tax grab aimed at industries, and not a real plan to reduce emmissions.

The assumption is that at high oil prices, the oil industry will happily go on producing, and pumping up federal coffers even with a higher cost of production. The problem comes in when the price of oil goes back to normal and the tax is added to the naturally high cost of production.

The risk is that a strength of the Canadian economy gets killed off, as has happened once before.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Now you're dreaming.

Coalition governments are extremely uncommon. Unheard of outside of a major war.

I presume you speak only for the Fed level else you are mistaken.

It is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility. A daydream perhaps....

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


They were opposition at the time.

But don't let me detract from your ***** fest.

NYE, I am one of the least economically minded posters at this site and I heard they couldn't keep the promise when they made it. As Flubber points out, it was no secret many large corporate entities were considering the switch. To follow this to the next logical step (that they would actually do it) is not too much of a stretch. Even for a Conservative.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


This is unpossible if the Conservatives form a majority.

There is no way, no how, it is possible to form a majority government in the Parliament of Canada based on the Reformers.

For them to do it, they would not only have to have won over most of the remaining PCs in the East, but made significant inroads in the conventionally undecideds.

I'm not sure what you're selliing, but it smells of fear and irrational arguments.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Conservatives are trying to win over former PC's? Yes they are b/c as you say (and I implied) a majority isn't possible without them. They obviously haven't done it YET.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


I presume you speak only for the Fed level else you are mistaken.

It is unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility. A daydream perhaps....

I don't think coalitions are very common provincially either.

I would say pipe dream more than day dream, for the simple fact that a coalition would not be necessary to form a government with fewer seats than the Conservatives. All that would be required would be that the leaders of the other parties make it clear to Harper and the GG that a Conservative government would not survive the Throne Speech. The GG would then most likely ask the leader of the second largest party if he/she could form a government.

There would be no need for a smaller party (like the NDP) to marry itself to a government to effect the end desired (assuming that end is to avoid a Conservative government) and in fact any smaller party that did so would be dangerously close to electoral suicide.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


NYE, I am one of the least economically minded posters at this site and I heard they couldn't keep the promise when they made it. As Flubber points out, it was no secret many large corporate entities were considering the switch. To follow this to the next logical step (that they would actually do it) is not too much of a stretch. Even for a Conservative.

My recollection is that it was after the Tories made their noise with the issue that more larger entities began looking at making the switch.

Besides, what I pointed out is that you erred in presenting the Tory position as one made by a government. It wasn't.

Also, if it was so obvious what the outcome would be, why wasn't it reported that way at the time?