youshouldknowbetter

As a former Progressive Conservative I used to hate it when Liberals and NDPs would mock the new Conservative party as having been "taken over by the Reformers." It would appear now that the NDP has much more to worry about as they are beginning to see a takeover from within by the Bloc. The Bloc Orange indeed!

He laid out his plan for the non-coalition coalition. I can't help but think that that will come back to haunt him given that this issue has been the elephant in the room since the start. Everyone has known that he will bring down a Harper minority very quickly. This has to be good for the Tories

That's an interesting statement given that Ignatieff was flanked by members of his caucus for the first few days of the campaign. There is a Liberal team but he can't bring them together in the way that most of his predecessors could.

The reason that politicians are not showing a genuine interest in students is because they don't show up their radar. They are not in the working middle class who would benefit from childcare or home renovation initiatives. Nor are they in the high income bracket that might take a keen interest in lower taxes or income-splitting. They are not even in the most vulnerable categories that would feel the effects of the strengthening of the social safety net. For the most part, university students are dependents who will not feel the effects of any policy unless it is filtered through their parents or guardians. That's why, for example, the Liberal party would introduce the $1,000 per-year incentive to all high school students who qualify to go to university. That policy has nothing to do with students. It has everything to do with the parents who foot the bill for their kids' education. Let's be honest: Students didn't become interested in the political system so much as politics made its way in to social media. Once their language was being spoken, the students' sense of entitlement kicked in. For years, voter turnout in all elections by those 18-25 has been abysmal. Now, all of a sudden, when our nation's “leaders of tomorrow” found out from Twitter that there was a general election going on, they expect all of the major parties to drop everything to accommodate them? Not so fast. When they can demonstrate that they are independent members of society who might do their due diligence on all of the parties and the issues involved, only then can they expect the party leaders to talk to them. Students can take a step in the right direction by casting a ballot on May 2nd if they aspire to one day be taken seriously.

I think I get it. Political philosophy is not a straight line, it's cyclical. Therefore extreme right and extreme left on a spectrum would be side-by-each. I'm pretty sure he means W. GHW Bush was much more "big tent." Where would you put the Bloc, Social Credit and Creditists?

Agreed. The wheel has been reinvented too many times when it comes to political ads. Pawlenty's is better but I assume they have much more money to work with. Also, it's a bit unfair to say that Harper plagiarized it. He probably had nothing to do with it and probably never saw it until it was complete...even with his micromanagement fixation!

It is well documented that none of the leaders are taking questions from the public and the gatherings themselves are not meant for locals, they are for the news media and the TV audience. Now, before you call me a Conservative apologist, understand that all the parties are doing this. They bring in their own supporters to fill the room for a half-hour pep rally, they field questions from the media then they hustle back on to the bus and head to the next stop to do the same thing. In the NDP’s case, for example, they are even strategically placing attendees to look like the room is so full that they have to put people behind Leader Jack Layton, when, in fact, there is no one in front of him. The Tory campaign is just taking every precaution to ensure that no one hijacks the show. Let’s be honest, it wouldn’t matter what Harper said if a heckler began shouting at him during a Q&A. The news media would show the conflict instead. Therefore if someone who happens to have a Facebook profile picture that clearly is of them supporting another leader, then the party should question their reason for being there.

Actually, the "Big Red Tent" brokerage theory works in Canada quite well. Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney succeeded with the "Big Blue Tent" for the tories in the 1970s and 80s. Why wouldn't Iggy want to employ that given that The soft NDP voters will cost him huge. It's anything but patronizing to the average voter looking to get behind a cause. I agree 100% on the coalition issue. Faced with another Tory minority, Ignatieff would be crazy not to entertain the idea of bringing down the government given the opportunity. Why he dodged that question is beyond me. Harper has a reputation as a (small-c) social conservative from his years as a Reformer and the head of the NCC, but his record as PM is anything but. From appointing a Senator on his first day in power to running this massive deficit, identifying the Quebecois as a Nation within a United Canada to blocking two major international mergers of Canadian companies, not to mention the size of his Cabinets rival that of Mulroney's (and he had the biggest majority in history). Perhaps harper is being kept to this by his minority status,but I doubt there will be any huge ideological shifts should he secure that majority.

The debate should only include Harper and Ignatieff. One of those two leaders will form the government. If the basis for permitting participants is based on past success as a barometer for future success then we need not invite any other debaters.

They won't be become a norm by any means. But it would be normal to assume that another Liberal NDP coalition is in the works based on the notion that there will be another Tory minority elected. In fact, Ignatieff and Layton might even bring them down after the throne speech. Funny enough, that might be the impetus that the population will need to elect a majority government.

That's a good point. This election will see the turnover of at least 3 leaders. If Harper can't produce a majority: Out. If Ignatieff loses: out. Layton is sick and I still wonder why he wants an election when his party will lose seats: out. Not sure about Duceppe because he seems to be holding his own. Elizabeth May: Who cares? We still have no clue who Harper's successor might be, which is really the most fascinating point in Canadian politics these days. 3 elections, 1 loss, 2 minorities, similar prospects in the pending election and no one seems to be the heir apparent?

McGuinty boasts of 81% high school grad rate in Ontario. More signs point to the bar being lowered, not raised. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/08/17544171.html Dave www.youshouldknowbetter.com

Well, If it were that blatant, as Keepitsimple suggests, wouldn't it be a pretty open-and-shut case? Funds were transfered for ad purchaces and at took 5 years to lay any charges or citiations in the case. Did they skirt the rules? Perhaps. Are they "blatant crooks?" Hardly! And, of course they submitted receipts. They felt that they were plying with in the rules Dave www.youshouldknowbetter.com

Harper has only managed to lose a majority, not an election (not since 2004, at least) Two things are most surprising: 1) No matter what the scandal, the Liberals can't make it stick. Even when there are multiple scandals. 2) There is still no heir apparent to Harper. Who will succeed him? Isn't it fascinating to see a leader with 3 elections (2 minorities, 1 loss) under his belt and a third on the way which looks to produce the same results and still, the attention is on the Liberal leader's possible successor? Dave www.youshouldknowbetter.com