Ho humm....another day, another federal vote.

[Cranky]

Aren't there better things to do with 300 million bucks then have ANOTHER federal vote? Is this like a make work project by the Liberals? How contrived can the reasons be?

Here is what my Dollar Store crystal balls predict....

Harper majority.

Iggy visitors pass revoked.

Rooster Layton is put out to pasture.

Bloc will scream that now is the time to separate before the Conservatives start eating Quebec babies.

Justine Trudeau discovered his dadies bell bottoms but are several sizes to big for him.

Boob Rae.wants to unify his butt cheeks.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Should have realized an election was coming a few months ago. That's when all of the mud-slinging commercials started.

I tuned into CTV yesterday and the panelist I was listening to suggested that most Canadians were content with the way things are going and that an election simply wasn't necessary. The economy is good and we fared pretty well as a country during that financial meltdown.

So, here's a couple of questions. It's hard to know just how this one came about. Knowing that they're far ahead in the polls right now, is it possible the Tories tabled a budget that they knew the opposition parties wouldn't accept so as to force an election now while their popularity is high? If not, what would the opposition gain by forcing an election now?

I've voted for each of the major parties at one point or another and even though I've voted for Harper in the past, I never wanted to give the guy a majority. Well, this time around might be different.

IMHO, the Liberals haven't sorted out their leadership. Letting Dion walk was the right thing to do, yes. But then they bring in Ignatieff and he isn't much better.

NDP? While I do like the leadership Layton provides, I can't see them making all that much a difference. I've voted for the NDP in the past, but I won't be this time around.

I'm going to look over each party platform, but I think I'll vote Tory this time around.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

Mar 26, 2011 6:13:12 GMT -5 Disgruntled70sHab said:

Should have realized an election was coming a few months ago. That's when all of the mud-slinging commercials started.

I tuned into CTV yesterday and the panelist I was listening to suggested that most Canadians were content with the way things are going and that an election simply wasn't necessary. The economy is good and we fared pretty well as a country during that financial meltdown.

So, here's a couple of questions. It's hard to know just how this one came about. Knowing that they're far ahead in the polls right now, is it possible the Tories tabled a budget that they knew the opposition parties wouldn't accept so as to force an election now while their popularity is high? If not, what would the opposition gain by forcing an election now?

I've voted for each of the major parties at one point or another and even though I've voted for Harper in the past, I never wanted to give the guy a majority. Well, this time around might be different.

IMHO, the Liberals haven't sorted out their leadership. Letting Dion walk was the right thing to do, yes. But then they bring in Ignatieff and he isn't much better.

NDP? While I do like the leadership Layton provides, I can't see them making all that much a difference. I've voted for the NDP in the past, but I won't be this time around.

I'm going to look over each party platform, but I think I'll vote Tory this time around.

Cheers.

I don't trust Harper ... and being found in contempt of parliament - the reason we have to go to the polls, not the budget, they didn't even vote on the budget - is all I need to know.

Breaks my heart to vote Liberal, NDP, or Green .... but democracy is on the line here. Telling lies in parliament is simply unacceptable, blatantly misleading the public on costs of programs and hiding monies is unacceptable, and using tax payers money to pay for campaign ads is unacceptable, and then there is the in-and-out scam ....

Canadians still won't forget the Adscam fiasco ... but we are going to allow this? This government wasted 300 million (most experts say that figure is high too) on unnecessary stuff too .... but to me democracy is not unnecessary.

A vote for Harper , is a vote for a change in what democracy means to me ....

[franko]

a picture of all 4 national parties:



the reason why Harper won't win a majority: some time during the campaign he'll open his mouth and say something "just enough" to give people second thoughts . . . and then away we go again.

disappointed in Iggy . . . thought he was the best man to lead the party . . . thought wrong. no leadership. think he'd turn into another Paul "Dithering" Martin .

Jack is in the wrong party. sad to say he's the best of the bunch [which ain't saying much] but NDP will go nowhere until the merge with the Libs [be sooner than later]. and a bit rich for him to again say that he is running for PM -- he'll be second fiddle even in a coalition.

Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Elizabeth . . . it shows just how serious you are to be in parliament when you run as a Green candidate in Alberta. unless you haven't noticed, oil runs the province, the tar sands are in the province . . . so you shouldn't have parachuted in.

Duceppe . . . aren't you getting bored yet?

maybe a Cons majority, maybe not . . . and at least a coupla new party leaders after this election.

[franko]

Mar 26, 2011 18:15:35 GMT -5 Skilly said:

I don't trust Harper ... and being found in contempt of parliament - the reason we have to go to the polls, not the budget, they didn't even vote on the budget - is all I need to know.

Skilly, the opposition has been looking for an excuse to force an election for a while [don't know why -- the pools aren't good for any of them]. the contempt charge just meant they didn't have to go on the budget . . . and the fiscal picture is what the Cons want to run on.

as to the contempt charge, this isn't the first government to have the charge against them; just the first minority government to have the charges against them. and the result was a foregone conclusion -- if you thought that any of the opposition parties wouldn't vote that way I have some land . . .

democracy is on the line here.

no more than it ever is/was

Telling lies in parliament is simply unacceptable, blatantly misleading the public on costs of programs and hiding monies is unacceptable

indeed it is, though this government isn't the first guilty of it. Harper's problem is that he claimed to be different . . . but I guess the PM's office comes with a bag of wool and instruction on how to use it with eyes. bad instructions.

using tax payers money to pay for campaign ads is unacceptable

is this the Action Plan thing?

and then there is the in-and-out scam

which all parties use in varying forms. unfortunately. I want the watchdog to watch closely this time and to fine parties BIG TIME if they do it.

wonder if the Cons will bring up the fact that the Libs [Dion] took out loans that were to be repaid by a certain date and keep asking for extensions.

it could get ugly

This government wasted 300 million

1. on what?
2. that's all? there's a LOT more waste than that, but you are pointing to somethign specific.

to me democracy is not unnecessary.

huh?

unless Harper puts his foot in it, it'll be a majority by a couple of seats or a minority that Iggy can force quickly to its knees and for the coalition . . . which would be an interesting thing to see.

[Skilly]

That's the problem with Canadian politics/voters ...it's always "but they do it too"

That doesn't make it right.

I could say we turfed the Liberals for doing this .... but are willing to put up with the Conservatives?

I agreed with turfing the Libs back then ... and on the same grounds I want Harper out now. To me, if we vote Harper in now, he will take it as a mandate that he is above parliament and we agree with his fraudulent tactics - especially with a majority

[Skilly]

Mar 26, 2011 21:29:03 GMT -5 franko said:

Skilly, the opposition has been looking for an excuse to force an election for a while [don't know why -- the pools aren't good for any of them]. the contempt charge just meant they didn't have to go on the budget . . . and the fiscal picture is what the Cons want to run on.

They had many excuses. All those budgets for example. The opposition wasn't looking for an excuse, they had many of those, they were looking for an issue they could run a campaign on.

as to the contempt charge, this isn't the first government to have the charge against them; just the first minority government to have the charges against them. and the result was a foregone conclusion -- if you thought that any of the opposition parties wouldn't vote that way I have some land . . .

Actually this is the first government to fall over a contempt of parliament charge ... and in fact it is the first time a government fell anywhere in the Commonwealth (54 states).







.

[Skilly]

This is also the fourth or fifth time the opposition were leaning towards issuing a motion of contempt of parliament against Harper's government ... but Harper prorouged parliament to interfere in the parliamentary process (was it twice?, definitely once).

So how many acts of contempt of parliament is the man allowed to commit without having to answer to them? The opposition's only tool to them is to put forth a non-confidence motion.

If people are upset over the money ... blame the GG ... he could have said "the House has lost confidence in this government, and the public has no stomach for an election, I am formally asking the opposition to form the government" ... ahhhh now all the Conservative's don't mind that 300 million being spent.

[Cranky]

The Fiberals under Chretian INVENTED contempt and now, Iggy wants people to believe that if he screams it out enough times, people will believe him. It's not going to work.

Let's see....

Liberals....$200 million in Adscam.

Conservatives.....there wasn't "enough" information in ten binders of numbers, they wanted a 100 binders of numbers that nobody would go through anyway. When they offered 100 binders of numbers, Liberals said....too late.

Bev Oda? She's an Indian and a woman who is not really suited for the job but Harper was hoping she can do it. Blame Harper for the crime of not enough oversight on her. On the other hand., the opposition long knives couldn't go deep enough in her.

Here is a link....

bevoda.ca/

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Mar 26, 2011 21:29:03 GMT -5 franko said:

Mar 26, 2011 18:15:35 GMT -5 Skilly said:

I don't trust Harper ... and being found in contempt of parliament - the reason we have to go to the polls, not the budget, they didn't even vote on the budget - is all I need to know.

Skilly, the opposition has been looking for an excuse to force an election for a while [don't know why -- the pools aren't good for any of them]. the contempt charge just meant they didn't have to go on the budget . . . and the fiscal picture is what the Cons want to run on.

This confuses me as well. Why would they want to force an election with the Harper Conservatives at an all-time high?

as to the contempt charge, this isn't the first government to have the charge against them; just the first minority government to have the charges against them. and the result was a foregone conclusion -- if you thought that any of the opposition parties wouldn't vote that way I have some land . . .

I only learned of the contempt charge this morning. After skilly pointed it out I had to do some poking around. I need to read more about it both past and present.

... unless Harper puts his foot in it, it'll be a majority by a couple of seats or a minority that Iggy can force quickly to its knees and for the coalition . . . which would be an interesting thing to see.

I still have some reservations about a Harper-led majority government, but I'm also fed up and tired of constantly going back to the polls. If there is another minority government I suspect the opposition parties are hoping for it so as to immediately implement a coalition ... could be, could be not .... but, if I'm voting "anything-but-Tory" this would be my concern. A vote for the opposition is a vote for a coalition, though I don't see that selection on the ballets. I'm not saying this is so, but the opposition parties have already proved they're capable of it.

it could get ugly

It's ugly now, Franko. It's not about the Liberals, the NDP or the Tories. It's not about their policies, their lies or what have you. This is an election between Harper and a coalition.

Cheers.

[seventeen]

We don't have any real choice for a good leader. I will never vote for Harper. Conservatives? Maybe, but never Harper. I never liked Chretien, but Harper makes him look like a boy scout. Manipulative, egocentric, power hungry. It seems you can't get to party leader status without having those characteristics. Harper has those qualities in spades. Harper doesn't lead by respect, he leads from fear, the same recipe as all tyrants.

Never knew much at all about the guy, but two things above all make me dislike him intensely. Firstly, he's such a great family man....he sends his son off to his first day of school with a handshake. Who the heck does that? Good parents that I know give their kid a kiss, or a hug or tousle their hair. They do not shake hands.

Secondly the ocean of ads that have run insulting Ignatieff, when no election was anywhere in sight. When you elect someone who only hates and has no plan to build things or make things better, you're going to get what you deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us who don't vote for him get the same treatment.

What a dilemma. One choice is basically a dictatorship, another choice is a party that may not have learned any lessons from being deposed, a third choice needs to read the Idiot's guide to Economics and the fourth choice doesn't even run candidates in most of Canada.

Last time in BC I voted Green as a protest. Maybe again.

[seventeen]

Mar 26, 2011 21:16:45 GMT -5 franko said:

a picture of all 4 national parties:

Not bad Franko. Except if that's Harper holding it, he's aiming at the other leaders' heads.

[Cranky]

Mar 27, 2011 12:58:27 GMT -5 seventeen said:

Never knew much at all about the guy, but two things above all make me dislike him intensely. Firstly, he's such a great family man....he sends his son off to his first day of school with a handshake. Who the heck does that? Good parents that I know give their kid a kiss, or a hug or tousle their hair. They do not shake hands.

.

Well.....I met him and he did tousle my hair....and pat me on the rear.

The impression I get from him is a guy that is obsessively guarded. I mean OBSESSIVELY. He doesn't want to be caught off guard or misquoted so he keeps everyone at arms length. To many, that is aloof, to me, it's a guy who needs to let go of his shield. There was four of us and at one point somone made a crack about....."Conservatives are not only smarter, they are better looking". He looked over, thought about, thought about it some more, then cracked a little smile. You could almost hear him think and worry about his reaction.

As for the Fiberals. I despised Dion and I don't like Iggy. This is not the Liberal party that I liked when PET was there.

[franko]

been too busy today to answer . . . go figure ;D

Mar 26, 2011 23:40:44 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Mar 26, 2011 21:29:03 GMT -5 franko said:

Skilly, the opposition has been looking for an excuse to force an election for a while [don't know why -- the pools aren't good for any of them]. the contempt charge just meant they didn't have to go on the budget . . . and the fiscal picture is what the Cons want to run on.

They had many excuses. All those budgets for example. The opposition wasn't looking for an excuse, they had many of those, they were looking for an issue they could run a campaign on.

this isn't an issue to run a campaign on, it is an issue to force an election on. the contempt charges will be a minor issue by the half-way mark. so will the specter of the coalition [which the Cons will keep bringing up]. some actual political/economic issue will crop up and then the "real electioneering" will begin.

as to the contempt charge, this isn't the first government to have the charge against them; just the first minority government to have the charges against them. and the result was a foregone conclusion -- if you thought that any of the opposition parties wouldn't vote that way I have some land . . .

Actually this is the first government to fall over a contempt of parliament charge ... and in fact it is the first time a government fell anywhere in the Commonwealth (54 states).

I agree, it is the first government to fall -- but it is the first one that could have fallen, as the others were all brought against majority governments [an no way a government would vote against itself in this].

[franko]

Mar 26, 2011 23:33:22 GMT -5 Skilly said:

That's the problem with Canadian politics/voters ...it's always "but they do it too"

That doesn't make it right.

no argument there.

[franko]

Mar 26, 2011 23:57:48 GMT -5 Skilly said:

This is also the fourth or fifth time the opposition were leaning towards issuing a motion of contempt of parliament against Harper's government ... but Harper prorouged parliament to interfere in the parliamentary process (was it twice?, definitely once).

as much as I don't like it, it is politics at its best [worst?]. it's what happens -- ask Chretien or Trudeau about it . . . except when they did it it was a shrewd move.

So how many acts of contempt of parliament is the man allowed to commit without having to answer to them? The opposition's only tool to them is to put forth a non-confidence motion.

but this isn't about contempt of parliament, its about finding an issue to fight a campaign on.

[franko]

Mar 27, 2011 12:58:27 GMT -5 seventeen said:

We don't have any real choice for a good leader. I will never vote for Harper. Conservatives? Maybe, but never Harper. I never liked Chretien, but Harper makes him look like a boy scout. Manipulative, egocentric, power hungry. It seems you can't get to party leader status without having those characteristics. Harper has those qualities in spades. Harper doesn't lead by respect, he leads from fear, the same recipe as all tyrants.

probably learned from those who carried the knives to bury Mulroney, and Martin, and Chretien, and now Iggy.

Never knew much at all about the guy, but two things above all make me dislike him intensely. Firstly, he's such a great family man....he sends his son off to his first day of school with a handshake. Who the heck does that? Good parents that I know give their kid a kiss, or a hug or tousle their hair. They do not shake hands.

and guys that hate being in the public eye, or who have watched the media crucify the previous leader are very careful what they do.

it was no-win, actually. he was already facing it for doing everything for a photo-op, and a hug would have added fuel to the fire. unfortunately, he has now learned that everything is a photo-op, and so we have him playing the piano at the NAC, etc.

Secondly the ocean of ads that have run insulting Ignatieff, when no election was anywhere in sight.

pre-emptive strike. you can only spend so much money during an election, you can spend as much as you want beforehand. I imagine that the Libs would have loved to put out some anti-Cons adds but just don't have the money. 'course, they're still paying for the last election. if they get in the first order of business will be upping the per-vote subsidy.

oh, and you can blame the Liberals under Chretien for bankrupting their party.

What a dilemma. One choice is basically a dictatorship, another choice is a party that may not have learned any lessons from being deposed, a third choice needs to read the Idiot's guide to Economics and the fourth choice doesn't even run candidates in most of Canada.

great analysis!

but do you not think that the Greens are a viable party?

Last time in BC I voted Green as a protest. Maybe again.

oh, I see you at least give them protest party status. soon to disappear off the face of the Canadian political landscape. boy do I wish that Chernushenko had been elected as leader, but instead we get Elizabeth "I wonder which unwinnable riding I should run in this year" May. way to build your credibility, and that of the party.

[franko]

Mar 27, 2011 13:00:18 GMT -5 seventeen said:

Mar 26, 2011 21:16:45 GMT -5 franko said:

a picture of all 4 national parties:

Not bad Franko. Except if that's Harper holding it, he's aiming at the other leaders' heads.

no, I don't think so. they could have let things ride and let the Cons do even more damage but they decided to roll the dice early. there is absolutely no way that the Conservatives will should lose this election [hedging, just in case some miracle happens].

this will probably be the beginning of the end of 2 leftist parties . . . but a NNDP will appear within 8 years of the merger.

[seventeen]

You're probably right about the Cons (intended) winning the next one. The majority hardly ever votes the way I do.

Re the Greens. I voted for the local candidate in the last one and it was a federal election. She was quite sensible in her platform and surprisingly got a reasonable % of the vote (about 20%) in a riding with an overwhelming number of retirees and other dementia sufferers. The MP's own wife was overhead telling him the Cons could run a fire hydrant in this riding and still win. She's right.

It really annoys me to not have a real choice. Oh well, in the past it wasn't even worth our voting since the decision was made long before our polls closed. But, I still go through the pain and suffering, just so I feel I can legitimately bitch later on.

[Cranky]

It looks like I'm the only Conservative in here. Don't worry my little friends. I will put in a good word for all of you at our next baby eating contest. And if any Blackshirts come visiting, tell them you know the Cranky guy.

[Cranky]

Mar 27, 2011 17:27:29 GMT -5 franko said:

there is absolutely no way that the Conservatives will should lose this election [hedging, just in case some miracle happens].

A miracle can happen. I was asked if I want to do canvassing in the Greek community. That's right. Me. Canvassing. Without heavy police presence.

What the hell are they thinking?

[Skilly]

Mar 28, 2011 1:01:19 GMT -5 Cranky said:

It looks like I'm the only Conservative in here.

I'm not a Liberal, in fact I voted Conservative way more than any other party. My father-in-law and sister-in-law went and voted at the local Conservative nomination vote. The guy they supported won the nod - the only Conservative in place in NL at the moment. I was asked to participate too and I seriously considered it. I told him I have no problem nominating you, I have no problem paying the money to be eligible to nominate you, (he is a good man, no doubt about that, a real hard worker), but you'll have quite the job convincing me to vote for you in a Federal election given what I am seeing the "Harper Government" is doing. (Imagine changing all the references to the Government of canada to the Harper Government ... really? ... that shows me what that man is all about right there).

The response I got was not from him, but my father-in-law who asked "what has Jack Harris done for me?" I just looked at my father-in-law and said "serious? He has represented the district municipally, provincially, and federally and you are asking me to compare his record to a rookie? .. How about telling me what your guy is going to do for the district? How is your guy, a rookie, going to change Harper's way of operating not to mention his feelings about NL/ the east in general?"

Anyway, I consider myself an independent nowadays .... I have conservative notions no doubt, bit I don't vote Blue simply because "I'm a conservative" if that was the case a fire hydrant (as said above) or a sheep (as the saying goes in NL) is just as well to run and save the candidate the hassle.

I vote now based on the policies of the party and what I feel is the most important issue. IMO, the most important issue of this government (not past governments, but this session) is corruption. Lying about the afghan detainees, getting called on it, hiding information, being told to unredact documents, prorouging parliament at will to avoid releasing information, editing documents (which I have no problem with actually), lying about it (I do have a problem there though), hiding information again ..... the list is endless, it just isn't about the in-and-out or Bev Oda ... the list starts way back when he came into power. There comes a time when you see a pattern (once or twice I am sure we can live with) ... My fear is not that he'll eat babies, but that if he forms another government, he'll take it as a mandate that the People of Harper Canada actually want him to mislead the public whenever he deems it necessary.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Mar 28, 2011 1:01:19 GMT -5 Cranky said:

It looks like I'm the only Conservative in here.

No, you're not, HA. I'm probably going to give the Harper-led government (notice I didn't say Tory) my check.

From what I was told yesterday, the Liberals torpedoed an initiative by the Tories, that would have ended the clawbacks of military and RCMP pensions at age 65.

But, while I don't completely trust Mr Harper, I'm going to give his government the nod. I simply don't think the other parties have what it takes at this point; leadership being the main one.

Cheers.

[The New Guy]

Another election, another struggle to find someone worth voting for.

I can't vote Liberal because as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of spineless crooks who stand for nothing by lining their own pockets. Their actions during these past minority years have shown this - they've given in on a half a dozen Conservative bills and propped up the government mainly because they didn't think they could win an election. I don't want leaders that compromise their ideals for political expediency.

The NDP - I like the NDP's idealism. And if money grew on trees they might have my vote. As it is money grows only in the fertile waters of the sweat of the Canadian people and so their pie in the sky plans will never, ever get my support.

The Greens - if the Greens ever could put together a coherent platform I might be able to comment on them. As it is I can't really comment - or imagine how this group could ever govern a country. I mean seriously - have you ever read their platform? It's like they were tripping on something when they wrote it.

And then there's the Conservatives. I identify as a conservative although I'm probably more of a libertarian when it comes down to it. Stay out of my way, stay out of my pocketbook and let me live. But when the Conservatives tore up their promise on the Atlantic Accords I wrote them a letter and told them in no uncertain terms that I would never vote for them again. So I can not vote for them.

I'm really stuck. A write in? Spoil my ballot?

[franko]

looks like we're back to Brewster's Millions and "None of the Above".

[franko]

Well, Mr. Harper is nearing the tipping/shoot yourself in the foot point. I suggested it would happen

Mar 26, 2011 21:16:45 GMT -5 franko said:

the reason why Harper won't win a majority: some time during the campaign he'll open his mouth and say something "just enough" to give people second thoughts . . . and then away we go again.

I just didn't think it would happen so soon. He like a dog with a bone and he won't let it go for anything, but if he doesn't let go of the coalition theme immediately he is going to drive people on his fence away.

Sometimes [OK, often] I don't understand the guy. He keeps playing to the people he already has in hand and ignores those who are leaning in his direction. Instead of holding out his hand out to the ones who would hold their noses and vote for him to bring them in he either makes a fist and gives them a shot, or he just gives them a shove in the other direction. He's been in the game long enough he should know how it works, but he doesn't get it.

[Tankdriver]

I am going for Conservative on the basis of military support (Liberals always have cut backs and to cancel the contract on those fighter jets is going to be costly) and for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed through with. I also don't want the Libs in so they can increase taxes even higher than they are now. The economy has being running prett smoothly aswell so that is a plus in my book. I also hate the idea of coalations....how Liberals can team up with their(and mine) nemessis the Bloc I just don't understand. So conservative it is.

[franko]

dis: you're kind of in the mix . . . tell us about the CF18s. are they really necessary? its been suggested that unmanned drones will man the skies about the same time the jets are ready -- won't they be almost out-dated once they arrive [at their double-the-projected cost]?

[franko]

Mar 28, 2011 20:42:15 GMT -5 Tankdriver said:

for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed thoguh with. I also don't want the Libs in so they can increase taxes even higher than they are now.

you realize that if they Cons hadn't lowered the GST the deficit wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now, don't you? not sure that the few cents saved makes that much difference to the average person -- let's him buy an extra TH coffee a week, maybe.

[Tankdriver]

Mar 28, 2011 21:20:25 GMT -5 franko said:

Mar 28, 2011 20:42:15 GMT -5 Tankdriver said:

for the decrease in GST that they promised and followed thoguh with. I also don't want the Libs in so they can increase taxes even higher than they are now.

you realize that if they Cons hadn't lowered the GST the deficit wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now, don't you? not sure that the few cents saved makes that much difference to the average person -- let's him buy an extra TH coffee a week, maybe.

Maybe so, but 2% on 50K is still a thousand dollars more in someones(families?) pocket...Also we were putting out surpluses before the global crash.