-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian Election
- Thread starter Gorgie
- Start date
- Status
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c60fbcd5-2091-4998-9e3f-681a49e9de11
Tories heading for a majority government.
Tories heading for a majority government.
Is it just me or does our health care system has enough frigging funding already ? The government should start spreadings its health care funding to OTHER provinces instead of just Ontario and Quebec... *cough* British Columbia *cough*. Therefore, we don't need another raise in health care funding and start focusing on some other matters. Like post-secondary educations for one ! Our tuition fee is rising at what, 200% every year ? WHEN WILL IT STOP ? It's time that the Canadian government start caring about us youngsters and also about provinces OTHER THAN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC. Those French Canadians in Quebec are too demanding and are always asking for more money because they think they're special. Guess what ? We're all Canadians, and there are more Canadians in British Columbia and Alberta than Quebec. SO START SPENDING MORE MONEY AT WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE AND NOT BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE SPECIAL (aka French Canadians). Oh, and who cares about defence budget ? We don't have a frigging army here in Canada. Maybe use those budgets are the police and firefighing forces or something.
Here in Alberta the education funding has suffered mostly because of the Provincial government's cutbacks and seizing of power from the Municipal. It's kind of crappy that it seems like it has to be the Federal candidates that have to fix it.
But ya, even though I'm done school and have been done for 2 years I still think education is one of the most important issues. For its impact, education funding seems to get little attention as a major issue in the campaign. Everyone wants more young people to vote, but when you think of it, why would they really care about military spending, healthcare, etc.? Ok, they would care.. but I think they'd care more about education as it affects them more directly.
Unfortunately its all the baby boomers who have all the power so healthcare is the big big issue because they are all getting old and sucky.
But ya, even though I'm done school and have been done for 2 years I still think education is one of the most important issues. For its impact, education funding seems to get little attention as a major issue in the campaign. Everyone wants more young people to vote, but when you think of it, why would they really care about military spending, healthcare, etc.? Ok, they would care.. but I think they'd care more about education as it affects them more directly.
Unfortunately its all the baby boomers who have all the power so healthcare is the big big issue because they are all getting old and sucky.
Here's some liberal media for ya!
THE DEVIL IN STEPHEN HARPER
Gotta love those metropolitan free papers
WARNING: I do not endorse this opinion.
THE DEVIL IN STEPHEN HARPER
Gotta love those metropolitan free papers
WARNING: I do not endorse this opinion.
Mike Works
Member
I know politics- much like religion- is obviously a very testy subject (which is why I almost always avoid threads focused on them), but please try to keep down the "IF YOU LIKE ____ THEN YOU ARE A ____" shit out.
There's nothing dumber than getting banned for calling someone you don't know an idiot based on their political affiliation.
There's nothing dumber than getting banned for calling someone you don't know an idiot based on their political affiliation.
But back then, Harper was not the leader of the CPC, he was the leader of the CA.
You have to accept that it's a huge difference. One of the most blatant difference that I saw the last time I went to a CPC convention was the large amount of ethnic people there, such as Muslims, who the CPC are catering to because they are conservative in many ways (against abortion and gay marriage). You wouldn't see that at a CA convention. Not that I've been to any CA convention mind you.
Though I'll have to agree that Harper himself can potentially be the reason why the CPC won't do as well as they can. I was going for Belinda, despite her inexperience in politics (which in reality is an absolute must), I knew that out of the 3, she's the most marketable. Plus, her decisions wouldn't be made alone, thus she wouldn't make any extreme bone-headed decisions.
The best person who could have ran would be the Calgary lawyer, Jim Prentice. But he simply didn't have enough funds (used them all when trying to win leadership of the PC party).
If Prentice was the leader of the CPC, I'm sure most of you would be voting CPC, unless you were actually satisfied with the performance of the Federal Liberals.
Plus, this guy just looks trustworthy and a great representative for Canada.
McLesterolBeast
Member
What i find interesting is that there's a discrepency between who people believe will win, who they plan on voting for and the outcome people want to happen. That's according to the Star's figures.
Intuitively, it seems like 2-3% of those polled had foreseen a majority liberal government and voted conservative to compensate, when they actually would rather have had a minority liberal government (according to the figures). If that's the case, then the very fact that the polls are made public should sway those voters back over to liberal.
Intuitively, it seems like 2-3% of those polled had foreseen a majority liberal government and voted conservative to compensate, when they actually would rather have had a minority liberal government (according to the figures). If that's the case, then the very fact that the polls are made public should sway those voters back over to liberal.
Bah to you Netmapel, Ontario is in just as much trouble as the rest of the country, Mike Harris and the federal liberals went on a social spending slash and burn campaign in tandem that left us with soaring transit fares, huge freaking post secondary education fees (I have a 22K student debt to pay off thanks to Harris/Cretien) and demoralised teachers and doctors/nurses.
You know what Campbell has been like for BC in the past few years? That's the way it's been in Ontario for a DECADE.
Shit man, Ontario doesn't get equalisation payments. We just have the most mouths to feed in all of Canada.
You know what Campbell has been like for BC in the past few years? That's the way it's been in Ontario for a DECADE.
Uh, you mean like Ontario and Quebec? As of last census Ontario had 11 million people, Quebec had 7, Alberta and B.C have 3 and 4 respectively.
Shit man, Ontario doesn't get equalisation payments. We just have the most mouths to feed in all of Canada.
NetMapel said:
Incase you didn't know, education and health care are under provincial jurisdiction and how much funding each provinces allocate is up to each provincial government. The government provides Canada Health and Social Transfers on an equal, per capita basis... so blame your government first. Next, Ontario's tuition fees are about $800 dollars higher than in British Columbia. And as for Ontarians getting all the money. I guess you've never heard of equalization payments. Alberta and Ontario are the only provinces that do not receive these (ie. they give more than they receive).
And health care does NOT have enough funding. Our health care system is very pressed right now. It was cut in the 90s and now we're feeling the repercussions of those cuts. We have very few MRI machines, we have a shortage of doctors and other health care professionals, and waiting lists are long.
neptunes said:
Explain to me how this affects your vote in the Federal Election...please do. I'd like to know the rationale.
Prentice? Is he the Anti-Free Trade guy?
My comment on CanWest not exactly being the most unbiased source is really quite true. I mean, they fired a local newspaper reporter for writing an Anti-Israel editorial, and for no other reason than that it clashed with their personal view.
I can't stand watching Global News, it just sickens me for some reason.
I'm still predicting a Liberal Minority, despite the polls.
CanWest has come under fire for it's Pro-Israel views, and I think that the heat they are recieving is warrented. It really makes you wonder about the information you recieve from papers, as in CanWest's case, it's being filtered through the owner beliefs and political convictions, and then printed all over Canada.
A famous story, the first thing Israel Asper (Izzy Asper as he's called) did when he bought the paper was prevent an interview with the Priest of the Church of Nativity to be printed in the Ottawa Citizen. Replacing Conrad Black was a tough job, but Asper was obviously up for it.
Haha...
Global News on TV seems very.... American. The constant advertising of the news service itself rather than the news stories, the "what you don't know could kill you/harm you/inconvenience you" bumpers, and they keep flashing that damn chopper!
After learning that the newspapers and TV news were in bed with each other, the editorial slants just seem that much more obvious.
Global News on TV seems very.... American. The constant advertising of the news service itself rather than the news stories, the "what you don't know could kill you/harm you/inconvenience you" bumpers, and they keep flashing that damn chopper!
After learning that the newspapers and TV news were in bed with each other, the editorial slants just seem that much more obvious.
I start my work shift right when the debate starts, but its not like any new major points will be clarified. Questions are asked to frequently, and the "winner" is the one who is most composed, not who gives the most intelligent answers.
Hell yeah, Alberta is basically Canada's only have province left. BC squadered its riches, and now struggling to stay afloat, also Ontario really is in turmoil, with budget deficits. Also, Alberta is the only province without a fricken PST, I mean, the savings add up.
And I don't get why people think paying high taxes is Canadian. I hate paying taxes, and I believe that the government should only be paying for defense, police, education, and health care. That's it, if I were to make a party, I'd cut all "social services" altogether. These saftey nets encourage free loading, and the high unemployment in some areas of Canada *cough*Atlantic*cough*.
The only concern I have with the conservatives is the scare of their "moral crusade." I believe people have no right to impose their values on others, but I also believe the Conservatives won't deal with these touchy issues as the status quo if fine, and they have bigger fish to fry.
Like increased military spending. Are we proud on relying on the US to protect our collective asses? If China decided to take Canada because of our rich natural resources, could we stop them? I mean, the US could be all like "China is our friend, take our neighbour" and then I'd be living in Chinada.
I feel bad for Martin, but he was Finance Minster when the ad-scam was going on, unless he is an moron (and why would you vote for a moron) he knew what was going on, and never put the brakes on it, and for that, he must go, because the taxpayer's money is the taxpayer's money, not the governments piggy bank where anything goes.
Suffice to say, if you want to turn Canada into Alberta, vote Conservative.
Hell yeah, Alberta is basically Canada's only have province left. BC squadered its riches, and now struggling to stay afloat, also Ontario really is in turmoil, with budget deficits. Also, Alberta is the only province without a fricken PST, I mean, the savings add up.
And I don't get why people think paying high taxes is Canadian. I hate paying taxes, and I believe that the government should only be paying for defense, police, education, and health care. That's it, if I were to make a party, I'd cut all "social services" altogether. These saftey nets encourage free loading, and the high unemployment in some areas of Canada *cough*Atlantic*cough*.
The only concern I have with the conservatives is the scare of their "moral crusade." I believe people have no right to impose their values on others, but I also believe the Conservatives won't deal with these touchy issues as the status quo if fine, and they have bigger fish to fry.
Like increased military spending. Are we proud on relying on the US to protect our collective asses? If China decided to take Canada because of our rich natural resources, could we stop them? I mean, the US could be all like "China is our friend, take our neighbour" and then I'd be living in Chinada.
I feel bad for Martin, but he was Finance Minster when the ad-scam was going on, unless he is an moron (and why would you vote for a moron) he knew what was going on, and never put the brakes on it, and for that, he must go, because the taxpayer's money is the taxpayer's money, not the governments piggy bank where anything goes.
Alberta didn't get rich because it has low taxes, Alberta can handle low taxes because it's rich. Because you see AB is rich in one of the only lucrative natural commodites left... oil and gas.
Poverty and homelessness have been on the rise in Canada for the past 10 years, and that's been with social spending being cut by the federal and most provincial governments.
Edit: as for millitary spending. Look, we're a nation of 30 million people, we'd have to become a completely millitarised state with every able bodied person being a soldier to have any chance of resisting an invasion by any of the super powers.
Frankly China and the U.S are competitors and they know it. The U.S would never allow anybody to take over Canada thus the only threat of invasion we face comes from the south. And we have no chance of resisting an American invasion.
Hell if places like France, Britian and Germany can't compete with the big boys in arms races, then we can't either. I'm in favour of increased millitary spending (a bankrupt army is frankly embarassing), but we have to specialise and excel in areas that would make us valuable and important members of a coalition and thus gain some diplomatic leverage because of that.
Poverty and homelessness have been on the rise in Canada for the past 10 years, and that's been with social spending being cut by the federal and most provincial governments.
Edit: as for millitary spending. Look, we're a nation of 30 million people, we'd have to become a completely millitarised state with every able bodied person being a soldier to have any chance of resisting an invasion by any of the super powers.
Frankly China and the U.S are competitors and they know it. The U.S would never allow anybody to take over Canada thus the only threat of invasion we face comes from the south. And we have no chance of resisting an American invasion.
Hell if places like France, Britian and Germany can't compete with the big boys in arms races, then we can't either. I'm in favour of increased millitary spending (a bankrupt army is frankly embarassing), but we have to specialise and excel in areas that would make us valuable and important members of a coalition and thus gain some diplomatic leverage because of that.
Man, lots of strange stuff to read when politics becomes the topic.
Military spending increases doesn't mean we're going to double the size in number of troops. Most of the funding increases would be going to equipment. And considering how poor a lot of our equipment is (Sea King helicopters, etc) I find it strange that people are going to complain about it. A large part of the problem is that the Liberals continuously cut into military spending, to the point where even maintaining it as it was, was not possible any longer. Considering the Liberals were planning on increasing spending for the military this year, I'm not sure how the Conservatives doing so is any worse.
If you're going to complain about provinces needing more money, you might want to look at the provincial governments before the federal governments. Ya, the Conservatives in Ontario and the Liberals in B.C. cut and slashed spending, but they had to. The NDP governments in power before were spending way, way, way too much money. You can't run a government that basically spends money like water, then complains the Federal transfer payments aren't high enough.
Living in Alberta for the last 11 years, I have a pretty good idea of how the spending cuts can affect people. I had to drop out of University before finishing my degree because I couldn't afford the classes anymore without putting myself into debt. The problem is, at some point the governments need to get spending under control, and it's always better to get things done sooner or later.
On the matter of spending at the Federal level, I'm not sure why people figure the Conservatives won't be able to afford the tax cuts and program funding. Every year the budget increases, it just depends how much, and where the money goes. All they've done is said where that increase will go to. You can disagree with that, sure. You can't say they can't afford it though. Otherwise the Liberals wouldn't be able to afford increasing health care payments either. Or continue the $100 billion dollar tax cut they started in 2001.
Looking forward to the debates, should be interesting.
Military spending increases doesn't mean we're going to double the size in number of troops. Most of the funding increases would be going to equipment. And considering how poor a lot of our equipment is (Sea King helicopters, etc) I find it strange that people are going to complain about it. A large part of the problem is that the Liberals continuously cut into military spending, to the point where even maintaining it as it was, was not possible any longer. Considering the Liberals were planning on increasing spending for the military this year, I'm not sure how the Conservatives doing so is any worse.
If you're going to complain about provinces needing more money, you might want to look at the provincial governments before the federal governments. Ya, the Conservatives in Ontario and the Liberals in B.C. cut and slashed spending, but they had to. The NDP governments in power before were spending way, way, way too much money. You can't run a government that basically spends money like water, then complains the Federal transfer payments aren't high enough.
Living in Alberta for the last 11 years, I have a pretty good idea of how the spending cuts can affect people. I had to drop out of University before finishing my degree because I couldn't afford the classes anymore without putting myself into debt. The problem is, at some point the governments need to get spending under control, and it's always better to get things done sooner or later.
On the matter of spending at the Federal level, I'm not sure why people figure the Conservatives won't be able to afford the tax cuts and program funding. Every year the budget increases, it just depends how much, and where the money goes. All they've done is said where that increase will go to. You can disagree with that, sure. You can't say they can't afford it though. Otherwise the Liberals wouldn't be able to afford increasing health care payments either. Or continue the $100 billion dollar tax cut they started in 2001.
Looking forward to the debates, should be interesting.
Hey I think everybody in here is in favour of increased millitary spending (at least I am, and I'm voting NDP). The issue I had was with the
The Mike Harris conservatives in Ontario slashed spending and slashed taxes even more to the point that they routinely sold off important provincial assets to maintain a blanced budget. They sold off the 407 Highway right before their second election and now we have a private consortium owning the highway that increases tolls every chance it gets. They were planning to sell off the LCBO to get somewhere close to a balanced budget this time around thus depriving the province of a very important source of revenue. The Liberals when they came to power HAD to raise taxes just to maintain the depleted level of service we have. I frankly applaud McGuinty for doing this... it seems like I'm the only Ontarian that does.
Thing about the conservatives is that they're promising roughly 25 billion in spending and 25 billion in tax cuts they are the ones that have the most optimistic view of the surpluses (that's a dangerous thing). The NDP is promising roughly the same amount but would be rasing taxes to cover the costs. The Liberals have the most modest promises and would easily fit under the surplus. I'd rather have that 25 billion in tax cuts go to reducing deficit, enivronment, education, homelessness, national housing program, urban infrastructure etc.
If the surpluses aren't as optimistic as the Conservatives predict, then Harper would definetly increase spending on the millitary and healthcare but he would slash other programs to stay out of deficit. Since I believe we need to increase these other programs this completely doesn't jibe with I want to happen.
This election is really about how to spend the surplus. My summary is:
Harper: Most optimistic on surplus, will spend it on millitary, healthcare, taxcuts, and turn funds over to provinces.
Martin: Least optmisitic on surplus, will spend it on healthcare, a little bit on all social programs and deficit reduction.
Layton: Middle of the road on surplus, will increase it by rasing certain taxes, will spend it on reducing taxes on low income families and eliminating GST on essentials, a national retrofit program, and a whole buncha other social spending.
quote. Because well, no matter how much we spend on our millitary that will always be true.
I'm not disagreeing that at certain points it is necessary to cut spending. There's a time and place for everything. What I *am* saying is that sometimes you swing too much that way and that's the place we're at now. Also what I am saying is that there is a time to cut taxes and considering that's what we've been doing for the past ten years, it's time to swing the pendulum in the other direction for a while.
The Mike Harris conservatives in Ontario slashed spending and slashed taxes even more to the point that they routinely sold off important provincial assets to maintain a blanced budget. They sold off the 407 Highway right before their second election and now we have a private consortium owning the highway that increases tolls every chance it gets. They were planning to sell off the LCBO to get somewhere close to a balanced budget this time around thus depriving the province of a very important source of revenue. The Liberals when they came to power HAD to raise taxes just to maintain the depleted level of service we have. I frankly applaud McGuinty for doing this... it seems like I'm the only Ontarian that does.
Thing about the conservatives is that they're promising roughly 25 billion in spending and 25 billion in tax cuts they are the ones that have the most optimistic view of the surpluses (that's a dangerous thing). The NDP is promising roughly the same amount but would be rasing taxes to cover the costs. The Liberals have the most modest promises and would easily fit under the surplus. I'd rather have that 25 billion in tax cuts go to reducing deficit, enivronment, education, homelessness, national housing program, urban infrastructure etc.
If the surpluses aren't as optimistic as the Conservatives predict, then Harper would definetly increase spending on the millitary and healthcare but he would slash other programs to stay out of deficit. Since I believe we need to increase these other programs this completely doesn't jibe with I want to happen.
This election is really about how to spend the surplus. My summary is:
Harper: Most optimistic on surplus, will spend it on millitary, healthcare, taxcuts, and turn funds over to provinces.
Martin: Least optmisitic on surplus, will spend it on healthcare, a little bit on all social programs and deficit reduction.
Layton: Middle of the road on surplus, will increase it by rasing certain taxes, will spend it on reducing taxes on low income families and eliminating GST on essentials, a national retrofit program, and a whole buncha other social spending.
The only reason Alberta still doesn't have a PST is because it cut spending massively. The province basically had two choices. Cut spending or increase taxes. No PST, making lots of money off of oil and natural and still had a deficit. Ran that way for years. Runaway spending and a surplus budget just don't happen.
Well, I can definitely agree with parts of that statement. Harris definitely cut too much, too quickly. Especially considering the people in Ontario had been under an NDP government that basically tossed money at every problem that showed up. I think it was a pretty shocking wake up call really. If he would have done it slower, with more of a long term plan I think Ontario would be better off now. I can't say if increasing taxes in Ontario was the right thing to do or not, I don't live there and I'm not quite sure what the actual numbers were for Ontario at the time.
Considering the Federal government is running surpluses right now though, increasing taxes is definitely not the way to be going. It's not needed. That's not to say decreasing taxes further is right either. At this point, however, any government that is elected federally that can't live within its means is doing something wrong.
Gorgie said:
As a resident of the Atlantic Provinces, I can only take offense to this remark.
There is a propensity of unemployment in Atlantic Canada, I'll even admit it, but to claim that it is freeloading is entirely a generalization. Are you talking about the seasonal fisherman, who draw unemployment when they're not working? Are you talking about the coal miners whose entire lives were taken away and now rot away on Cape Breton Island, a land of no job prosperity? Or are you talking about all of us in general?
Those people on unemployment are not all freeloaders. Some of them are very simply people who are unable to find work. Without economic assistance, today, there aren't jobs. And you could say "Go to Alberta, work in the Oil Fields" but that takes money they don't have without EI.
As someone who really doesn't pay much in the way of taxes, being only 18 and just graduating from high school, I don't quite share your hatred of taxes. But, I don't understand the close-minded view you seem to have on the issue. I mean, there ARE people who rely on government programs, but they're not freeloading. If you do nothing about homelessness, nothing happens. If you do nothing to support your people, nothing will happen. This is not a nation of taxpayers, it is a nation of people. I would rather pay my government to support every single person in this country as they need it, rather than pay less and know others are suffering because of it.
The debate is tough to watch to me because there's no point in even trying to watch it in French for me, and the English voices are either too similar or weird. Martin's translation, I swear, is being done by Stephen Hawking's computer, and Layton's is a cheesy After-School Special Voiceover Woman.
BigJonsson
Member
Why do people not seem to get the fact that the Ontario Tories fucked things up so much and hid deficits at such a magnitude that the Liberal's HAD NO CHOICE but to "break" their promises in the first budget.
This is what happens when taxes are cut way too low and public resources are sold off to compensate, further reducing government cash flow...
This is what happens when taxes are cut way too low and public resources are sold off to compensate, further reducing government cash flow...
BigJonsson
Member
Conservatives tend to believe that budget deficits aren't a bad thing (See Reaganomics)
BigJonsson said:
Probably because the media outside of Ontario didn't talk about it a whole lot. Heck, I don't even know what promises the Liberal government in Ontario made that they had to break were. For the most part provincial media concerns usually deal with their own provincial issues, and federal issues. It's probably a pretty big problem that needs to be dealt with actually. People in the 'have' provinces might be a bit more compassionate, if they really knew what people in other areas were dealing with. Too bad it usually only comes up when the federal elections take place.
As for selling off government cash flow, if the crown corporations weren't making money, then keeping them around isn't increasing government cashflow anyway. So if they're mismanaged badly enough that you can't really fix them, you probably are better off selling them, and getting what you can.
Smiles and Cries
Member
ya'll have elections?
They're actually split on the issue.
Conservatives are the ones who pushed to force governments to have balanced budgets and be fiscally responsible. This goes back to deficits of the past made to pay social programs governments could not afford. This is certainly the case with Canada.
Conservatives are the ones who pushed to force governments to have balanced budgets and be fiscally responsible. This goes back to deficits of the past made to pay social programs governments could not afford. This is certainly the case with Canada.
Yeah, it was weird to see Tories in the opposition take them to task for knowing about how bad the deficit was, and trying to gloss over the fact that they were in the government that was hiding it as well.Draff said:
I had to stop watching the debate too, the translators were starting to bug me too. I'll read the analyses on the news sites instead.
I didn't watch about 45 mins of the debates because I had to go to the airport. But damn the Martin/Harper and Layton/Duceppe one on one sessions were so extremely dull.
<Duceppe> The Liberals suck.
<Layton> I agree boy do they suck.
<Duceppe> Oh yes indeed. Suck Suck Suck
<Layton> Definetly.
and... repeat.
and then
<Harper>Sponsorship Scandal! You're corrupt and wasteful!
<Martin>Gay Marriage! You're socially regressive!
<Harper>Sponsorship Scandal!
<Martin>Gay Marriage!
repeat.
<Duceppe> The Liberals suck.
<Layton> I agree boy do they suck.
<Duceppe> Oh yes indeed. Suck Suck Suck
<Layton> Definetly.
and... repeat.
and then
<Harper>Sponsorship Scandal! You're corrupt and wasteful!
<Martin>Gay Marriage! You're socially regressive!
<Harper>Sponsorship Scandal!
<Martin>Gay Marriage!
repeat.
belmakor said:
I think this is one of the shortcomings of Canadian politics. A budget doesn't need to balance overnight, but every government that wants to balance books starts working on it like it's some sort of TV extreme makeover. I lived in Alberta when Klein was first elected, I watched as Ontario started the Common Sense Revolution, and I'm living in B.C. as the government here begins the New Era. All three cut hard and fast. It has meant results, but there has been some cost to those.
A well-planned, measured approach would kill a lot of the pain, and get the same results in the end. Probably better results because more thought could be given to the transition. Instead, you get rocky transitions as services are chopped in the matter of a couple of years.
-SB
BigJonsson
Member
After watching that debate I can't see how the Bloc or NDP would be in a coalition with the CPC
Well, it would depend on what the particular issues are. The NDP and CPC are fundamentally different in so many ways, that you'd only have them agree to vote together if it was a Liberal government and neither liked the proposal.
The Bloc and the CPC, at least in regards to decentralizing the power structure in Canada, are on the same page. It's just that that Bloc sees it more as a Quebec only issue as opposed to an issue every province probably needs to have examined.
A CPC minority government wouldn't stand for very long at all. They're the only party who has distinct rhetoric now that Martin has swung obviously to the left. Though the CPC, NDP, and Bloc would probably find common cause in the issue of Proportional Representation (the conservatives have been pretty quite about that).
How about a CPC/Liberal alliance though? They're both fiscally conservative parties and if the CPC can keep a lid on its vocal lunatic fringe then they can probably get along on a modest tax cut, slight defecit reduction, somewhat increased health care and defense spending kind of platform.
I think it's obvious that the Liberals have lost quebec to the Bloc.
How about a CPC/Liberal alliance though? They're both fiscally conservative parties and if the CPC can keep a lid on its vocal lunatic fringe then they can probably get along on a modest tax cut, slight defecit reduction, somewhat increased health care and defense spending kind of platform.
I think it's obvious that the Liberals have lost quebec to the Bloc.
Well, the funny thing is, if you discount the liberal scare tactics about abortion, same sex marraige, etc, then the parties are almost running on the same platforms. The only difference is the Liberals just mismanaged large parts of the government for 10 years. So it's not too hard to see why they're hammering away at those when it deals with the Conservatives, as opposed to really attacking the actual party platform for running the country.
Watching the debate though, did anyone else feel like Layton was a snake oil salesman? I've never seen such prolonged, weird, fake smiling and intense staring in my life.
videogamer
Banned
Gorgie said:
Honestly, at one time I thought Bush was going to be primarily concerned with military affairs and keeping the financial house in order. I never really expected that much social conservatism from that government. In retrospect, it should have been sort of expected... but during the campaign I didn't really catch onto it. There was a little foreshadowing during the primary, but it kind of disappeared after a while.
Of course, the government has spent even more during the Bush years, and not just in the military either. Yes, the military and foreign affairs have been paid attention to. But this administration has gone so much farther than I had expected in so many different areas. Science is one gripe I have with this current adminstration.
Actually, for a while I kind of followed that "compassionate conservative" line. I really did think that Bush could be a nice change and wouldn't push things too far, but in reality Bush was much more than I had ever really wanted or predicted.
Warm Machine
Member
I'm probably voting Liberal here in Vancouver. I can't trust NDP to do anything and everyone else is a little too radical.
As a side note, for all the flak our liberal premier here gets he had a gigantic mess from the NDP to clean up. Remember the fast cat disaster? I helped pay for those fucking things!
As a side note, for all the flak our liberal premier here gets he had a gigantic mess from the NDP to clean up. Remember the fast cat disaster? I helped pay for those fucking things!
Amen. The policy planks are nearly identical in many respects.belmakor said:
Martin didn't seem very Prime Ministerial to me, and with everybody talking over each other - well, everybody except Harper, he didn't interrupt nearly as many times as the other 3 guys did - they just seemed downright RUDE. Especially Layton - and that Stepford Wife smile has to go. Harper seemed pretty focused, as opposed to trying to score points off everyone, and Martin was ranged from level-headed to red-faced and stammering like a freaking yo-yo. I was wondering if he would be able to complete some of his sentences when the heat was on.
Anyways, all that stuff is pretty superficial in the end - I'm more concerned about track records and integrity, and the Liberals have come up seriously short in both areas. I hope that whichever party gets elected will have a minority government.
Peter Mansbridge is the MAN.
I'm convinced that the scandals in the past will give us a more responsible Liberal government, if anything.
As for the platforms being so alike, I'm afraid that Harper will seriously injure our sovereignty if he is elected. I think that's my greatest concern with him, as well as his image on the global stage. Otherwise my quality of life will change very little, but the future will go in totally discernable directions based on which party is elected.
Concerning relations with the US (sovereignty) and Martin, I found it kind of annoying that they ripped into him regarding that, even though he's been repairing a lot of the damage done by Chretien. Then again a lot of the complaints were of Chretien's Liberals which aren't what we'd be electing.
There's no consistency to this post, I understand that. Just a few thoughts mashed together.
As for the platforms being so alike, I'm afraid that Harper will seriously injure our sovereignty if he is elected. I think that's my greatest concern with him, as well as his image on the global stage. Otherwise my quality of life will change very little, but the future will go in totally discernable directions based on which party is elected.
Concerning relations with the US (sovereignty) and Martin, I found it kind of annoying that they ripped into him regarding that, even though he's been repairing a lot of the damage done by Chretien. Then again a lot of the complaints were of Chretien's Liberals which aren't what we'd be electing.
There's no consistency to this post, I understand that. Just a few thoughts mashed together.
I missed the debates, but I'll read about the summary in tomorrow's paper.
I'd just like to say, yes, Klein cut a lot of services, but look at us, next year Alberta will have NO DEBT, and in fact, the Alberta goverment could pay off the debt right now, but instead lets the surplus collect interest in the Heritage funds. By saving money for when oil and gas prices are low, Alberta can whether the bust of the oil cycle.
Also, education is expensive, but its an investment in yourself, and it almost always pays itself off when you working a job that requires expertise and dedication. And it's not like the Alberta government is not helping students, and it still shoulders 2/3 of the tutions cost.
As for the threat of ANOTHER teachers strike, well I'm glad I'm not in high school anymore. There are studies that show fairly large class sizes aren't that big of a deal when it comes to student learning. Sure its stressful to teach many kids, but no one is forcing you to teach!
As for all the Atlantic Canadians, I'm sorry I offended you, as you guys have a wicked sense of humor. Nearly every show on CBC has people from the Maratimes. But my family got hit hard by the mad cow, we're not waiting for the government to hand us money. We're looking for new jobs, or even to start our own business. Believe it or not, way back when, the majority of Canadians were farmers, and somehow, they got over the transition to new industries. Really, all the seasonal fisherman have to no the waters are overfished, its time to look for new work. No one said it will be easy, but the will to live and thrive will help them succeed.
I'd just like to say, yes, Klein cut a lot of services, but look at us, next year Alberta will have NO DEBT, and in fact, the Alberta goverment could pay off the debt right now, but instead lets the surplus collect interest in the Heritage funds. By saving money for when oil and gas prices are low, Alberta can whether the bust of the oil cycle.
Also, education is expensive, but its an investment in yourself, and it almost always pays itself off when you working a job that requires expertise and dedication. And it's not like the Alberta government is not helping students, and it still shoulders 2/3 of the tutions cost.
As for the threat of ANOTHER teachers strike, well I'm glad I'm not in high school anymore. There are studies that show fairly large class sizes aren't that big of a deal when it comes to student learning. Sure its stressful to teach many kids, but no one is forcing you to teach!
As for all the Atlantic Canadians, I'm sorry I offended you, as you guys have a wicked sense of humor. Nearly every show on CBC has people from the Maratimes. But my family got hit hard by the mad cow, we're not waiting for the government to hand us money. We're looking for new jobs, or even to start our own business. Believe it or not, way back when, the majority of Canadians were farmers, and somehow, they got over the transition to new industries. Really, all the seasonal fisherman have to no the waters are overfished, its time to look for new work. No one said it will be easy, but the will to live and thrive will help them succeed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked