Support NeoGAF

[killer rin]

Everything Mulclair has said about the Senate all sounds of political opportunism to try and score easy points with the electorate after a decade of Harper interference and the toxicity he has instilled by manipulating the Senate with all the skills of a Republican.

To me it would be folly to jump straight to the end game, which again "feels" like political mischief, to first use the option of last resort by opening up the constitution for abolition when there are plenty of other recommendations and suggestions to improve Senate functionality that we have not even tried.

I would say let's try those first which buys us some time and allows the Harper stench to dissipate. Given everything else the NDP and Liberals are campaigning on to repeal, put back and correct about the Harper legacy, it seems like their plates will be more than a little full to then also open up delicate constitutional talks given that some provinces have already declared they won't be supporting the effort anyway.

True.

My view on the Senate is one which I came to and have grown to like over the past few months is that we take the power to appoint senators right out of the Federal Governments hands. The Senate was made as an institution to ensure that the Provincial Government was properly represented in the Federal Government. so, to solve it, lets give the power to appoint senators to the Provincial Government. Make it so that the appointment process has to go through Provincial Parliament. If we want to go further, give each senator a maximum term limit of 10-15 years. If you want to go even further, make it so that if a senator is seen colluding with the HoC, then the senator has to resign

 

[lacinius]

It may sound like 'political opportunism' to you, but it's been a central plank of the NDP for decades. It has *always* been a major issue for them. They would actually be betraying their long time base by not pursuing it.

Even though the NDP has been in support of getting rid of it for over 50 years, given the current climate and rhetoric it still does to me... but then that's just me.


Edit to add...

True.

My view on the Senate is one which I came to and have grown to like over the past few months is that we take the power to appoint senators right out of the Federal Governments hands. The Senate was made as an institution to ensure that the Provincial Government was properly represented in the Federal Government. so, to solve it, lets give the power to appoint senators to the Provincial Government. Make it so that the appointment process has to go through Provincial Parliament. If we want to go further, give each senator a maximum term limit of 10-15 years. If you want to go even further, make it so that if a senator is seen colluding with the HoC, then the senator has to resign

Sounds reasonable and certainly worthy of consideration among the many options available that we haven't even tried.

 

[maharg]

True.

My view on the Senate is one which I came to and have grown to like over the past few months is that we take the power to appoint senators right out of the Federal Governments hands. The Senate was made as an institution to ensure that the Provincial Government was properly represented in the Federal Government. so, to solve it, lets give the power to appoint senators to the Provincial Government. Make it so that the appointment process has to go through Provincial Parliament. If we want to go further, give each senator a maximum term limit of 10-15 years. If you want to go even further, make it so that if a senator is seen colluding with the HoC, then the senator has to resign

Oh god. While we're on the subject of things that would increase discord among the provinces and against the federal government, let's make the upper house appointed by and thus somewhat accountable to provincial governments. Let's also exacerbate the problems created by FPTP by electing an upper house by the people who are elected into false majorities in provincial legislatures, I'm sure that won't distort the will of the people at all.

Even the US got away from doing things that way. It was terrible.

 

[killer rin]

Oh god. While we're on the subject of things that would increase discord among the provinces and against the federal government, let's make the upper house appointed by and thus somewhat accountable to provincial governments.

Even the US got away from doing things that way. It was terrible.

Come on maharg, I'm a man of reason. Tell me why it wouldn't work and I will gladly re-evaluate my position.

 

[gutter_trash]

You'all forget Meech Lake Accord failing, Clyde Wells of Newfoundland say "Fuck No" And forget Wesern Provinces voting NO on Charlettown.

and Elijah Harper in Manitoba's legislator stood his ground saying that "First Nations are ignored while Quebec will get Special Status"
you know what, I agree with Elijah Harper, First Nations should come first before giving any other province "Special Status"

Constintutional debates would fail like Meech and like Chartlettown.

Western Provinces are the ones who want the Senate abolished but they are also the ones who would be the most opposed at giving in demands from Eastern Provinces.

It's a lose, lose situation for both the Federal and the Provinces.

 

[maharg]

Come on maharg, I'm a man of reason. Tell me why it wouldn't work and I will gladly re-evaluate my position.

I put one really big reason into an edit of that post, the issue of abstracting representation even further away from the people. Furthermore, because of the seat balance in the senate, it means that you could have a controlling bloc in the upper house elected by a tiny fraction of the country, which could easily hold the rest of the country, and the will of the more democratically (even if not perfectly) elected House, hostage. (ie. 30% or so of the provincial governments, each elected by 33%+ of their population, could quite easily control the senate)

Meanwhile, those representatives are representatives to *governments*, not to the people who elected that government. This abstraction is terrible. We have enough trouble keeping politicians to their promises, now you want to try to keep the politicians pandering exclusively to the politicians accountable too?

I mean, for fuck's sake, to put into perspective how the will of a government can fail to reflect the will of the people, look no further than the fact that apparently 51% of Quebecers would support abolishing the senate, but we're talking about how their government intends to block abolition at every turn. Now you want to give that government control over nearly a quarter of the seats in the upper house it supports but its people do not? It's ridiculous.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-election-2015-elizabeth-may-interview-1.3224696

Greens are easily the most reasonable party. FPTP needs to go.

 

[Walpurgis]

It is rediculous that the RCMP waste its time arresting a man from New Brunswick who bought six cases of beer in Quebec then brought them back to New Brunswick

 

[Walpurgis]

I just watched the Mansbridge interviews with Mulcair and May. The difference in personality/style is like night and day. May just seems so genuine and trustworthy. She's very likable too.

Mulcair, as well as Trudeau and Harper, are always on the defensive when questioned and constantly attack other parties when given the opportunity. You can really feel a sense of hate; Mulcair and Trudeau even argue/attack each other on stuff that no one gives a shit about. You can tell that it is personal.

May said that this kind of hate and pettiness is created by the FPTP system. I'd never looked at it this way but I think she is right. With PR, parties no longer have to worry about majorities or having many of their votes rendered useless because an opposing party won some ridings so they won't have to attack those who they should be cooperating with. I really hope the NDP wins this election.

 

[Prax]

Yeah, May's interview showed her as very genuine and generally informed about how politics works. Her constituents are lucky to have her as a reasonable rep, and she made a good case for getting rid of FPTP.

 

[sikkinixx]

Yeah, May's interview showed her as very genuine and generally informed about how politics works. Her constituents are lucky to have her as a reasonable rep, and she made a good case for getting rid of FPTP.

Problem is her platform numbers seem bonkers. Money flowing left and right, no more tuition! More transit and eco infrastructure!

All things we should aim for but predicting surpluses and such? Come on. Plus her offer of being a mediator for NDP/liberal is pandering. If those two can put ego aside and partner up in some way like they will give a shit about the couple seats the greens might get.

 

[Prax]

Problem is her platform numbers seem bonkers. Money flowing left and right, no more tuition! More transit and eco infrastructure!

All things we should aim for but predicting surpluses and such? Come on. Plus her offer of being a mediator for NDP/liberal is pandering. If those two can put ego aside and partner up in some way like they will give a shit about the couple seats the greens might get.

Yeah.. good personality, but questionable policy. Kind of the same with Mulcair, except he has a bit less of the personality and more of the sense. >_> And the balance keeps going onto Trudeau who has weaker personality and the most sense.
Harper.. well.. bottom of the barrel for both criteria. :l

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...es-arrest-for-cross-border-beer-shopping.html

I'm not making it up

New Brunswick retiree is launching a constitutional challenges after he was arrested by the RCMP for buying cheaper beer in Quebec. A Prohibition-era law is in question.

this is how stupid inter-provincial restrictions are

 

[Walpurgis]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...es-arrest-for-cross-border-beer-shopping.html

I'm not making it up


this is how stupid inter-provincial restrictions are

As part of a sting operation, RCMP arrested Comeau, now 62, in October 2012 when he returned with 12 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor which he bought legally in Pointe-a-la-Croix, Que., just across the river from Campbellton. Police seized the booze and charged him with illegally importing alcohol into his home province.

Holy crap. I know it's the law but really? Do they not have anything better to do with their time?

 

[Silexx]

Yeah, May's interview showed her as very genuine and generally informed about how politics works. Her constituents are lucky to have her as a reasonable rep, and she made a good case for getting rid of FPTP.

Actually, the interview showed her as ill-informed by how our system works as the other leaders except that she went in a totally different direction. Harper, Muclair and Trudeau all stated that the party with the most seats win and gets first Crack at forming government. May believes that all she has to do is call the Governor General and say that the opposition wants to form a coalition and then they get to form government. Which probably more bonkers than what the other 3 guys said.

 

[AuthenticM]

Chrétien wrote in the newspaper today, saying he is ashamed of Harper.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Actually, the interview showed her as ill-informed by how our system works as the other leaders except that she went in a totally different direction. Harper, Muclair and Trudeau all stated that the party with the most seats win and gets first Crack at forming government. May believes that all she has to do is call the Governor General and say that the opposition wants to form a coalition and then they get to form government. Which probably more bonkers than what the other 3 guys said.

She is kind of right. The Governor General does have the power to choose whomever he wants as Prime Minister, since he can kick the old one out at any time for any reason. Convention, however, dictates that he does not do this, and also dictates that the person with the most seats gets the first crack. But convention also has shown that the 2nd place leader can then have a shot if the 1st fails to hold confidence.

 

[Prax]

Actually, the interview showed her as ill-informed by how our system works as the other leaders except that she went in a totally different direction. Harper, Muclair and Trudeau all stated that the party with the most seats win and gets first Crack at forming government. May believes that all she has to do is call the Governor General and say that the opposition wants to form a coalition and then they get to form government. Which probably more bonkers than what the other 3 guys said.

She has idealistic ideas about how things should work, of course, but I feel her stuff had a consistent internal logic. I don't have great hopes for her being able to implement her ideas though.

 

[gutter_trash]

Chrétien wrote in the newspaper today, saying he is ashamed of Harper.

thanks, I miss Chretien

 

[jstripes]

Chrétien wrote in the newspaper today, saying he is ashamed of Harper.

Great piece.

But shouldn't you link to the article itself, rather than an article about the article?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...m-its-role-as-a-world-leader/article26337462/

 

[NetMapel]

Justin Trudeau completes Grouse Grind with impressive time

SWOON~

 

[gutter_trash]

too close to call updated:
http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/p/canada-2015.html

too close to call, riding projection:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/280328413/Projections-September-11th-2015
------
threehundreight updated:
http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/09/2015-federal-election-link-round-up.html

Week 6: NDP 32.4% LPC 30.9% CPC 28.1% GPC 4.6% BQ 3.4%

threehundredeight riding projection:
http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html

Seats:
NDP 115, CPC 113, LPC, 109, GRN 1

-----
election almanac as of sep-10
http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada/

interetingly, election almanace predicts seats to be:
Seat Projections

The latest election result seat projections by various websites. See the complete list...
NDP 115, CPC 113, LPC, 109, GRN 1

 

[subrock]

Justin Trudeau completes Grouse Grind with impressive time

SWOON~

Sweet god this is stupid

 

[gutter_trash]

Sweet god this is stupid

explain? there are like 30+ days left to this long campaign, might as well show off physical physique superiority over the two other candidates

 

[Mr.Mike]

explain? there are like 30+ days left to this long campaign, might as well show off physical physique superiority over the two other candidates

This is what the escalator ad might have been about too.

 

[Stumpokapow]

She is kind of right. The Governor General does have the power to choose whomever he wants as Prime Minister, since he can kick the old one out at any time for any reason. Convention, however, dictates that he does not do this, and also dictates that the person with the most seats gets the first crack. But convention also has shown that the 2nd place leader can then have a shot if the 1st fails to hold confidence.

Here's my beef, as I elucidated a few pages back--convention dictates Canada is not governed by coalition. So my challenge is that if we already recognize that the legitimacy of a government matters more than the convention on how it is formed, why not skip the inevitable step?

Of course it's also the case that if the Liberals and NDP agree to a coalition and make it clear to Harper they'll drop him on the first Speech from the Throne, then he would presumably spare himself the embarrassment.

Regardless of what would happen, what should happen is that, like with continental European governments that routinely form coalitions, a formateur should be appointed by the GG to find the a viable government with the confidence of the house, and proceed from there. Some places appoint the leader of the largest party as the formateur, otherwise it's an elder statesman type.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Here's my beef, as I elucidated a few pages back--convention dictates Canada is not governed by coalition. So my challenge is that if we already recognize that the legitimacy of a government matters more than the convention on how it is formed, why not skip the inevitable step?

Of course it's also the case that if the Liberals and NDP agree to a coalition and make it clear to Harper they'll drop him on the first Speech from the Throne, then he would presumably spare himself the embarrassment.

Regardless of what would happen, what should happen is that, like with continental European governments that routinely form coalitions, a formateur should be appointed by the GG to find the a viable government with the confidence of the house, and proceed from there. Some places appoint the leader of the largest party as the formateur, otherwise it's an elder statesman type.

Actually, what you are describing is not really convention. Convention is usually something happening not because it has to, but because everyone has agreed that it's the proper way. Coalitions haven't be excluded because of convention, they've been excluded because of no strong need. It was easier for Pearson to simply have a minority with NDP support on key issues (in exchange for a few bones thrown to them) rather than the fallout resulting from forming a form coalition (which would have granted the NDP more legitimacy at the time).

Just because something has been one way, that doesn't mean it's convention. Also, there have been a few coalitions provincially in the past (Saskatchewan and Ontario come to mind, both in the last 30 years), and there has even been a time when a 2nd place party has governed with the support of the 3rd place (Ontario in the 80s).

 

[Silexx]

The way it works is this: the sitting Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister until he resigns. Either willingly or forcibly because he is not able to command the confidence of the House. Plain and simple.

If anyone needs a proper explanation, read this:
http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-no-the-party-that-wins-the-most-seats-does-not-automatically-get-to-form-government

So no, May was not 'kinda right' she missed the mark way wide and it's quite frankly embarrassing that none of our party leaders seem to know how our form of government works.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Convention is that there are no fixed election dates and that parliament shouldn't be prorogued as a political maneuver, but here we are.

 

[matthewwhatever]

The way it works is this: the sitting Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister until he resigns. Either willingly or forcibly because he is not able to command the confidence of the House. Plain and simple.

If anyone needs a proper explanation, read this:
http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-no-the-party-that-wins-the-most-seats-does-not-automatically-get-to-form-government

So no, May was not 'kinda right' she missed the mark way wide and it's quite frankly embarrassing that none of our party leaders don't seem to know how our form of government works.

Thank you. The constitutional ignorance being shown by some people -- both here and in the country as a whole -- is astounding. I know the Americanization of our politics has been going on for years, but the fact so many people, including the leaders of all four major parties, believe things that are patently false is pretty worrisome. Though, like most bad things afflicting Canada, it can all be traced back to Harper: he managed to delegitimize the idea of coalitions, just like he managed to impose the idea of fixed election dates that conflict with the Constitution.

Here's my beef, as I elucidated a few pages back--convention dictates Canada is not governed by coalition. So my challenge is that if we already recognize that the legitimacy of a government matters more than the convention on how it is formed, why not skip the inevitable step?

Of course it's also the case that if the Liberals and NDP agree to a coalition and make it clear to Harper they'll drop him on the first Speech from the Throne, then he would presumably spare himself the embarrassment.

Regardless of what would happen, what should happen is that, like with continental European governments that routinely form coalitions, a formateur should be appointed by the GG to find the a viable government with the confidence of the house, and proceed from there. Some places appoint the leader of the largest party as the formateur, otherwise it's an elder statesman type.

I really don't understand your obsession with reversing nearly a century of convention to give the GG more power. And not just a little more power, either -- you want the person filling the role to actively decide who runs the country. I'm glad you've moved off the notion that the GG should be able to dismiss the PM at will, but I don't think your current idea is much better. Since King-Byng, we've had nine (I think -- I'm just going off the top of my head) minority governments, yet somehow all of them were able to organize themselves and decide who should run the country without having the Crown step in and unilaterally select someone. While Jean's actions during the prorogation crisis a few years ago were definitely unfortunate from our perspective, I don't know that I'd have liked the idea of a GG -- especially appointed by someone from a different party than the PM -- deciding to ignore a PM's wishes much better.

 

[Silexx]

I really don't understand your obsession with reversing nearly a century of convention to give the GG more power. And not just a little more power, either -- you want the person filling the role to actively decide who runs the country. I'm glad you've moved off the notion that the GG should be able to dismiss the PM at will, but I don't think your current idea is much better. Since King-Byng, we've had nine (I think -- I'm just going off the top of my head) minority governments, yet somehow all of them were able to organize themselves and decide who should run the country without having the Crown step in and unilaterally select someone. While Jean's actions during the prorogation crisis a few years ago were definitely unfortunate from our perspective, I don't know that I'd have liked the idea of a GG -- especially appointed by someone from a different party than the PM -- deciding to ignore a PM's wishes much better.

While I appreciated the previous thumbs up, I want to note this: The situation with prorogation was not between the GG deciding whether to dismiss the PM or allow Harper to prorogue Parliament. It was whether she should differ to the PM's advice or force him to go through a no-confidence vote.

While Jean's reasoning was not unsound, there were many constitutional scholars who argued that given that opposition parties had made it clear they were intent on forming a coalition, Harper was no longer acting with the confidence of the House and that would have given the GG the justification to hold a no-confidence vote before she differed to the PM.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Hey Vancouverites, Mulcair is going to speak at 11:30 at Jack Poole plaza today. There's not too many opportunities to easily see a leader speak nearby at a big plaza on a sunny weekend day, so you should go down if you're at all interested in the election.

 

[Silexx]

So given that the discussion here seems to have slowed down. Here's something not really election related but perhaps of interest:

Canadaland interviews one of the most notorious columnist in Canada, Christie Blatchford.

 

[Azih]

So... Canada's in the black:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost

Harper fans rejoice.

Oddly enough also makes Muclair's vow to balance the budget seem.. reasonable?

Will this lead to a significant Con bump?

 

[Walpurgis]

So... Canada's in the black:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost

Harper fans rejoice.

Oddly enough also makes Muclair's vow to balance the budget seem.. reasonable?

Will this lead to a significant Con bump?

Noooooooooooo!!!

 

[gutter_trash]

looks like those GM shares paid off (short term)

 

[gabbo]

So... Canada's in the black:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost

Harper fans rejoice.

Oddly enough also makes Muclair's vow to balance the budget seem.. reasonable?

Will this lead to a significant Con bump?

It's only good news, if; like their budget, you don't dig in.
it seems most of it comes from the GM share sale and departments NOT spending money.
it's easy to balance a budget if you don't spend any money

 

[Tabris]

I haven't found any counter arguments to the Liberal platform except "I don't trust them or him" and "he's just not ready". Or "they put stickers on my door"

The Liberals converted me from NDP, I wonder what it would take for the rest of you.

EDIT - I understand the trust aspect, especially with how Bill C-51 went down. But it's a learning process.

 

[NolbertoS]

You know in rhe past, I use to care about Canadian politics but lately, could care less. Seems I'm not the only one as more Canadians aren't really oaying attention to Canadian politics like in the past. I'm not impressed by any candidates, but, here in BC anyways, I'll vote Conservative. The NDP has a hisorical bad record of government in BC, so I don't expect BC to vote for them federally. The Liberals also have a mixed results here, as when the last time the Liberals were inpower, Chretien didn't really care for the Western provinces and gave more benefits to Quebec. I expect Canada to be polarized again with the West atill being Conservative country , as at least they give federal funding to projects here.

 

[Alavard]

I haven't found any counter arguments to the Liberal platform except "I don't trust them or him" and "he's just not ready". Or "they put stickers on my door"

The Liberals converted me from NDP, I wonder what it would take for the rest of you.

Repeal of C-51 would help.

 

[Tabris]

You know in rhe past, I use to care about Canadian politics but lately, could care less. Seems I'm not the only one as more Canadians aren't really oaying attention to Canadian politics like in the past. I'm not impressed by any candidates, but, here in BC anyways, I'll vote Conservative. The NDP has a hisorical bad record of government in BC, so I don't expect BC to vote for them federally. The Liberals also have a mixed live here, as when the last time the Liberals were inpower, Chretien didn't really care for the Western provinces and gave more benefits to Quebec. I expect Canada to be polarized again with the West atill being Conservative country , as at least they give federal funding to projects here.

You are part of the problem btw.

First, you don't care to pay attention to the platforms, so you are making an uninformed vote. Don't bother voting if that's the case.

Then you are emotional and past voting based on provincial governments (quite different from federal governments) and past party actions from over a decade ago. If you paid attention to the platforms, both Liberals and NDP are doing a lot for western provinces.

And finally the West is currently very entrenched in NDP. Conservatives are strong in suburban Ontario.

Let me guess, you are 35 to 40+ years old?

 

[Kifimbo]

GM shares were sold this year (2015-2016), not last year. It has nothing to do with the 2014-2015 budget surplus.

Nevertheless, the government recently announced it had posted a $5-billion surplus in the first three months of the 2015-16 fiscal year (April to June), fuelled in large part by the government’s one-time sale of its shares in General Motors.

Government revenues in 2014-15 were $3 billion higher than projected, largely from higher-than-expected gains in personal and corporate income tax.

Comments in the various articles are hilarious. Accusing the Conservatives of cooking the books. Good news for the Evil party, so it's a conspiracy and/or a lie.

 

[Tabris]

There's nothing cooked about those books. It's a good example of fiscal conservatism.

It's a good thing when you are not in a non-recession. We should be spending right now when interest rates are low to help bolster our economy out of the non-recession.

You can't rely on the private sector as they also get conservative during a non-recession thus creating the spiral down into an actual recession.

 

[NolbertoS]

You are part of the problem btw.

First, you don't care to pay attention to the platforms, so you are making an uninformed vote. Don't bother voting if that's the case.

Then you are emotional and past voting based on provincial governments (quite different from federal governments) and past party actions from over a decade ago. If you paid attention to the platforms, both Liberals and NDP are doing a lot for western provinces.

And finally the West is currently very entrenched in NDP. Conservatives are strong in suburban Ontario.

Let me guess, you are 35 to 40+ years old?

I'm actually 28 and sorry but the NDP are still distrusted here in BC. The only places rhe NDP are entrenched are rhe poorer neighbourhoods in Van and some BC regions. BC, AB, SK and MB has been conservative country for awhile now (at least majority) wise. I wouldn't trust the polls either as I saw some of the polls and asked other friends what there vote was and most of them were conservative too.

Edit: and provincial records do trickle down federally too, at least perception wise. The provincial Liberals of BC are more conservative in their government though.

 

[Tabris]

I'm actually 28 and sorry but the NDP are still distrusted here in BC. The only places rhe NDP are entrenched are rhe poorer neighbourhoods in Van and some BC regions. BC, AB, SK and MB has been conservative country for awhile now (at least majority) wise. I wouldn't trust the polls either as I saw some of the polls and asked other friends what there vote was and most of them were conservative too.

Edit: and provincial records do trickle down federally too, at least perception wise. The provincial Liberals of BC are more conservative in their government though.

You can't be serious, can you? Don't trust data but trust anecdotal evidence from conversations with friends?

First, didn't you see the provincial NDP total demolition of the Conservative government in Alberta earlier this year? 53 seats to 10 seats. Here's a link on it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/al...eps-across-province-in-historic-win-1.3062605

Second, this is what I'm talking about uninformed voting. Why even bother voting if you are just going to vote based on no platform information, just that you don't trust a party based on an older party platform and candidates that has nothing to do with the current one?

 

[NolbertoS]

You can't be serious, can you? Don't trust data but trust anecdotal evidence from conversations with friends?

First, didn't you see the provincial NDP total demolition of the Conservative government in Alberta earlier this year? 53 seats to 10 seats. Here's a link on it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/al...eps-across-province-in-historic-win-1.3062605

Second, this is what I'm talking about uninformed voting. Why even bother voting if you are just going to vote based on no platform information, just that you don't trust a party based on an older party platform and candidates that has nothing to do with the current one?

Firstly that election was caused by financial misgivings of a party that was in power for along time. secondly, AB has been a two party province for awhile and people chose the party yhat they deemed better than the current government. Thirdly, an NDP provincial governemnt anywhere hasn't balanced a budget, unless we're goinf back to the CCCP days. We'll see what happens then

 

[Silexx]

It appears that this surplus is being fueled mainly, if not entirely by the EI premium freeze.

 

[Samyy]

This whole government balanced budget nonsense is going to give me an aneurysm

 

[Tabris]

Firstly that election was caused by financial misgivings of a party that was in power for along time. secondly, AB has been a two party province for awhile and people chose the party yhat they deemed better than the current government. Thirdly, an NDP provincial governemnt anywhere hasn't balanced a budget, unless we're goinf back to the CCCP days. We'll see what happens then

Once again, not knowing facts, I assume you didn't bother reading the article. Alberta is a 3 party province. The Wildrose party took 21 seats vs the 10 seats from the conservatives.

It frustrates me so much that people like you have a vote It's why we're stuck with Harper and why we're an embarrassment to the rest of the world lately. I know I should be more tolerant of it, as it is representative of 30% of Canadians, mainly older generation, but it's so hard to be tolerant of.

This is what Americans must feel like talking with their tea party members :|

 

[Buba Big Guns]

You know in rhe past, I use to care about Canadian politics but lately, could care less. Seems I'm not the only one as more Canadians aren't really oaying attention to Canadian politics like in the past. I'm not impressed by any candidates, but, here in BC anyways, I'll vote Conservative. The NDP has a hisorical bad record of government in BC, so I don't expect BC to vote for them federally. The Liberals also have a mixed results here, as when the last time the Liberals were inpower, Chretien didn't really care for the Western provinces and gave more benefits to Quebec. I expect Canada to be polarized again with the West atill being Conservative country , as at least they give federal funding to projects here.

And this is how the Conservatives keep getting elected.

Look at their policy positions. You will most likely be shocked. Making an uninformed decision for how you want your country to be run will result in shitty governments, like the one we have now.