The Canadian Federal Election of 2011

[I Think]

Well said Glace. These aircraft are a kluge, any tool that tries to do many things, does none of them well.

Why do we want to vote in a party/leader that clearly wants to Americanize our business and bank structure?
Or wants to build more prisons that we just do not need, for prisoners who should be being eased into productive ways.
or was so corrupt that it mis-used election funds.

Remember your ABC's
Y'know Anything But Conservative.

A green vote actually means something.

[grammafreddy]

If I'm not satisfied with what my local politician has done for me (and by the way, I’m not after he forwarded a motion to put out “closed for business” signs along our west coast), then I will vote for someone else – perhaps a Conservative. Not voting accomplishes nothing. No one will even notice if you don’t vote. By not voting you are essentially telling all the politicians you are so dissatisfied with, “All right – you win”.

I agree - not voting is never an option for me. I have voted in every election and every referendum since I have been of legal voting age. I feel it is not only my duty as a citizen of this country but my only way of telling government(s) my choices. In between times, I write letters and make phone calls to my representatives so they will know how this one Canadian feels about issues and about their decisions. To not vote is totally asinine to me - only by voting and speaking out will change happen and improvements be made.

I’m not a huge Harper fan, but I would have benefited by the budget. Tax breaks for renovating my home to be more energy efficient would be a huge benefit for me, and corporate tax breaks that have led to increased corporate tax revenue (by enticing more corporations to set up in Canada) benefit everyone.

I would choose Harper over Iggy and Layton and May. I want a government that is right leaning and which understands that tax breaks to corporations is the way to get more jobs happening in Canada (and BC). The other three leaders and their parties would raise corporate taxes and drive the few existing ones we have elsewhere. I wish people could understand that concept - and the concept that only businesses provide jobs for people. The more successful they are, the better off the workers of the nation are.

You’re never going to get everything you want. The question is what government will give you (and everyone) the most in both the short and long term. Our system isn’t perfect (not by a long shot), but by making the decision not to participate you have given what little influence you have away. Let us know how that worked out for you after May 2.

One of our biggest problems is that too many people have swallowed this socialist bull and equate government with social benefits to them personally. They think they deserve all that they can squeeze out of government(s) and do not equate taxes with their demands. They expect governments to cover their pathetic *bleep* when they spend foolishly and get so far into debt they can't afford their basics and whine to have more and more social funding. Too many voters think it is government's role to be their babysitters and their mothers - and to clean up their messes behind them. They want (and think they deserve) more, more, MORE!

Non-profits used to raise money in their communities but now their hands are outstretched to government as well and when they can't get the funding they think they need (sometimes to pay very high-priced staff), they close their doors and snivel about their situation and how government and capitalism are the big, bad, nefarious plotters against them and their "causes".

It is a whole vicious circle. The three left-leaning parties raise corporate taxes which kills the capitalist jobs, businesses and corporations leave the country (or make cuts to their work force - or both), more people become unemployed, more taxes need to be raised to cover the unemployed, marginalized and the lower classes (and the endangered middle class now), more people and agencies have their hands out to government, more of the remaining working people's income goes to the government tax coffers to cover the people who wanted (and voted for) all the corporate and business taxes to go up in the first place. Prices also go up as a result, and more people cannot afford to eat or provide basic shelter for their families.

[grammafreddy]

A green vote actually means something.

Yes, a green vote does mean something .... more taxes from the working people, fewer jobs, more foolish carbon initiatives that IMO are a total waste of money, more social funding for "causes" and the envirofreeks, and not a brain amongst them about actually running a country. The Green Party is a me, me, ME party.

[Symbonite]

Well I hope the conservatives get the majority. They should have a chance to show what they can do as a majority. We all know what happened when the liberals were a majority government and thats why they will never be in power for a long long long time.

300 million for a vote that is a month long of campaigning? Just so it either be a minority conservative government again or better yet a majority for them.

You know with 300 million divide that up with all canadians...and then you will see economic stimulation. That would be a better way of using that money.

[NAB]

I have to counter some of the lies and half truths that are emerging here, particularly the one about the copy of a letter Duceppe has been waving around...

This is the written press release (not a verbal response to media questioning) that the Liberals put out on the coalition issue, and then Ignatieff tried to spar with the media over when they didn't buy it as adequate response to their questions...:

"We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties," Ignatieff said in the statement. "In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function."

"We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Québécois."

1. He doesn't define a "minority parliament" by whom. It's hard to imagine him living up to his assertion that he'll work "issue by issue with other parties" as to mean inclusive of the Conservative Party. Layton talks in similar language, as it usually revolves around "give me exactly what I want or I don't work with you on anything that doesn't accomplish that".

2. "collaboration with other parties" is to me undefined as to whether by formal or informal coalition among the opposition. Just because someone doesn't put an agreement on paper and sign it, doesn't mean there couldn't/wouldn't be a verbal agreement to coalesce around a specific list of agenda items in an effort to shove them down a minority government's (and the people's) throat. The only reason to put something on paper formally is to try and convince the Governor General to invite them to form a government (the Layton/Dion gambit). Otherwise it could be formulated around the idea that they get what they want or simply bring the government down and force an election once more, just as they recently did.

3. He states his continued belief that coalitions are a legitimate option under our constitution.

4. He only rules out a formal coalition with the Bloc, not formal or informal with the NDP, plus informal with the Bloc.

5. The only reason he added " We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Québécois" is as an attempt to counter the Conservative's argument that he will get in bed with a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada. We have to remember that with the prior effort by the Dion Liberals and the NDP, it was the Bloc who refused to fully buy in to it, not that the Liberals and the NDP didn't try to get them to. What assurances do we have that they wouldn't try again under the right (for them) circumstances?

So far Ignatieff's response to the coalition question seems to me all waffle words to keep his options open.

Of course, Duceppe prattles on once more about the letter that he, Layton, and Harper sent to the Governor General back in (2004?) apparently indicating they were prepared to replace the Martin Liberals and form a government if called on. No big revelation there we have heard all that stuff before, and it just makes Duceppe look like a political ho. The real reason Duceppe is on about it once more is that he has little other than that to build a case against either the Conservatives or Liberals in Quebec. And with all the attention the two main parties and their agenda's are going to get in this election, he is going to be hard pressed to find any valid issues to use to avoid losing seats there.

And of course, most who know the details instead of just trying to spread false information know that there was no proof related to an intention to form a coalition indicated by that letter at all.

It only took 3 hours for Election 2011 to see what seemed like its first high-level Twitter dustup. But it didn't last very long.

It appeared Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe had decided to take on his critics directly when his Twitter account started answering conservative columnist Andrew Coyne.

"On Twitter, Mr. Duceppe (@GillesDuceppe) accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of lying about their 2004 agreement to replace Paul Martin's minority Liberal government, just moments after the Bloc leader made the same accusations in person at his Saturday morning opening press conference.

When Mr. Coyne (@coyne), who works for Macleans, started asking pointed questions about what the 2004 agreement really meant, Mr. Duceppe replied that he remembered Mr. Harper talking specifically about a coalition in 2004.

“Talked about it, how? Did he propose forming one? Then why wasn't that what was proposed in the letter?” Mr. Coyne asked.

@GillesDuceppe didn't immediately address those specifics.

A Bloc staffer later confirmed Mr. Duceppe doesn't write his own tweets. Bloc staffers usually tap out Mr. Duceppe's spoken words, though Mr. Duceppe does apparently monitor the account.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1958180/

Nab

[steven lloyd]

You’re never going to get everything you want. The question is what government will give you (and everyone) the most in both the short and long term. Our system isn’t perfect (not by a long shot), but by making the decision not to participate you have given what little influence you have away. Let us know how that worked out for you after May 2.

One of our biggest problems is that too many people have swallowed this socialist bull and equate government with social benefits to them personally. They think they deserve all that they can squeeze out of government(s) and do not equate taxes with their demands. They expect governments to cover their pathetic *bleep* when they spend foolishly and get so far into debt they can't afford their basics and whine to have more and more social funding. Too many voters think it is government's role to be their babysitters and their mothers - and to clean up their messes behind them. They want (and think they deserve) more, more, MORE!

I think you have either completely misunderstood my point or taken it way out of context or both. I’m not asking for anything personally from the government – other than to create an economic climate that encourages business and economic growth, to spend my tax dollars responsibly, and to be accountable for their decisions. There are many situations, however, where social spending not only makes sense, but also saves us in greater costs (social and fiscal) down the road. It’s just as easy to make presumptions and swallow a whole bunch of bull when you’re blinded by either extreme in ideological thinking.

[grammafreddy]

You’re never going to get everything you want. The question is what government will give you (and everyone) the most in both the short and long term. Our system isn’t perfect (not by a long shot), but by making the decision not to participate you have given what little influence you have away. Let us know how that worked out for you after May 2.

One of our biggest problems is that too many people have swallowed this socialist bull and equate government with social benefits to them personally. They think they deserve all that they can squeeze out of government(s) and do not equate taxes with their demands. They expect governments to cover their pathetic *bleep* when they spend foolishly and get so far into debt they can't afford their basics and whine to have more and more social funding. Too many voters think it is government's role to be their babysitters and their mothers - and to clean up their messes behind them. They want (and think they deserve) more, more, MORE!

I think you have either completely misunderstood my point or taken it way out of context or both. I’m not asking for anything personally from the government – other than to create an economic climate that encourages business and economic growth, to spend my tax dollars responsibly, and to be accountable for their decisions. There are many situations, however, where social spending not only makes sense, but also saves us in greater costs (social and fiscal) down the road. It’s just as easy to make presumptions and swallow a whole bunch of bull when you’re blinded by either extreme in ideological thinking.

Sorry, Steven. I did neither - I agreed with you and then expanded on my own personal views of the situation. I have also agreed with you on many other occasions that SOME social spending is necessary, but maybe you have a tendency to forget that? Where we differ is on our views of the word "necessary", perhaps????

[steven lloyd]

Where we differ is on our views of the word "necessary", perhaps????

Perhaps - but from what I remember of what you've posted on the subject when you've actually started to identify what services you would spend money on I don't think we differ that much. In fact, I'd probably fund less things than you would but fund the critical services that I would identify more adequately.

On that subject (spending) and getting back to the topic at hand (the election), I support some of the spending that has been suggested Harper will instigate. While his “get tough on crime” initiatives are possibly purposely misleading and vague and fly in the face of actual research (ie. will ultimately only result in additional strains on our already underfunded and under-resourced criminal justice system), the fact of the matter is we already desperately need upgrading to our existing prisons and more prison space resulting from years of neglect. I also support an increase in military spending, and much of the necessity for that, like our prisons, has resulted from years of neglect as well. The interesting thing about this sort of spending, is that while it is costly and will no doubt add to our deficit, it will also create a lot of jobs and could act as an economic stimulus.

[MAPearce]

I also support an increase in military spending, and much of the necessity for that, like our prisons, has resulted from years of neglect as well. The interesting thing about this sort of spending, is that while it is costly and will no doubt add to our deficit, it will also create a lot of jobs and could act as an economic stimulus

Gotta give you a "Hell Yeah" on that one. Only Harper has spoke of things that have any meaning to me.

I know NDP means spend spend spend and Ignati....Ignate... that liberal guy is just an american in a "Maple Leaf "jersey. Between the Greens and the Bloc... why do they all think now is the best time to spend 330 millions bucks on an election that could have waited ?

[I Think]

that liberal guy is just an american in a "Maple Leaf "jersey.

Whaaaa, harper is the most Americanizing prime minister that Canada has ever had.

[StraitTalk]

Why even bother voting anymore, when it's clear the opposition doesn't respect the decision of the voters? I am so sick of these freaking non-confidence votes.

This is old but I had it favorited:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Countr ... z18Pqogyc0

[NAB]

that liberal guy is just an american in a "Maple Leaf "jersey.

Whaaaa, harper is the most Americanizing prime minister that Canada has ever had.

Many many people would disagree with you on that point nibs. Trade and cooperation with the USA is Canada's bread and butter, main course as well as desert, and it is a fine line how to keep that intact and still maintain our national sovereignty. Many Prime Ministers, including PM Harper, have struggled with how to maintain both (IMO he is one of the best so far). If I were to pick recent PM's I consider far worse than Harper in that respect, I would probably pick such as Martin, Mulroney, Trudeau, and Pearson in that order.

For non PM's, I would certainly pick Layton and Ignatieff as far more USA leaning than Harper or Duceppe. Elizabeth May? Well who really knows, or even much cares? Politically naive is totally naive in her case IMO.

Nab

[GrooveTunes]

"One of our biggest problems is that too many people have swallowed this socialist bull and equate government with social benefits to them personally. They think they deserve all that they can squeeze out of government(s) and do not equate taxes with their demands. They expect governments to cover their pathetic *bleep* when they spend foolishly and get so far into debt they can't afford their basics and whine to have more and more social funding. Too many voters think it is government's role to be their babysitters and their mothers - and to clean up their messes behind them. They want (and think they deserve) more, more, MORE!"

So you agree with Harper with CMHC so people could get more,more, more house with no money? He's responsible for allowing that to happen. Most people don't realize that we on the hook for billions in mortgages.

[NAB]

I think the Bank of Canada, Canadian banks, the real estate and investment sectors and private enterprise are more to blame for that than Harper Groove. Of course, in Conservative and business ideology getting people to spend and keep borrowing and spending more has always been an objective in order to produce economic growth and more private sector jobs. I have been rather surprised that in recent times the Harper Government, to their credit, has taken steps to try to curtail that to some extent.

Nab

[GrooveTunes]

I think the Bank of Canada, Canadian banks, and private enterprise are more to blame for that than Harper Groove. Of course, in Conservative and business ideology getting people to spend and keep spending more has always been an objective in order to produce economic growth and more private sector jobs. I have been rather surprised that in recent times the Harper Government, to their credit, has taken steps to try to curtail that to some extent.

Nab

To some extent, yes. But they couldn't have done it without Harper changing the rules. Now he knows there's a problem thats going to hurt a lot of people.