theWatcher

Here's a link to Belindas scrum. Belinda's postdebate scrum Can anyone guess at what she is really saying?

I thought Stronach started off better than expected but her main problem was that she had only memorized 10 minutes worth of canned responses and about 30 minutes of time to fill. She started off ok but become more of a non issue the further the debate went. She never really answered any of the questions she just repeated her canned responses. What exactly was her opinion on sending troups to Iraq, or two tier health care? I thought her post debate media scrum was not handled well at all. Snapping at the reporters who were asking her questions won't earn her many brownie points with the journalists. Tony was energetic but seemed to be very narrowly focussed on trashing the other two candidates. Continually calling Stephen a wallbuilder is starting to get annoying, we got the point the first 100 times you said it Tony, please come up with something new. I tend to use the debates to assess what the candidate will look/sound like for the nect term of office. I can't say I would want to listen to Belinda and her inbaility to answer or even ask quality questions. Tony might be interesting, if only too see if he chews Martin's arms off. After seeing the last two debates my preference is still for Harper but I could put up with Clement even though he's a distant second on my ranking list.

latest poll shows the Libs are still in freefall: Blech, it is not showing the image. Here's the numbers Liberals 35 CP 27 NDP 17 Bloc 11

If no party gets a majority of seats then some form of coalition has to happen though. If there are 308 federal seats then the magic number becomes 155. If no party receives 155 then you can't form a government. So if the Liberals receive 150 seats then they need 5 more. Would the NDP turn down a chance to become government? I am sure other parties would jump at the chance. You can find an election forecaster here: 2004 Canadian Federal Election Forecaster This next election will be very interesting.

If the current siuation continues and the Liberals keep free falling in the polls, I was wondering which coalition would most likely form in the event of a minority goverment. Liberal, NDP Liberal, NDP, BLOC Conservative, BLOC Conservative, NDP Conservative, NDP, BLOC This is my list in order of likelyhood depending on the seats that the Liberals and Conservatives get. The Liberals have a long way to fall, and they can count on a minority coalition with the NDP as they have done in the past. The NDP could conceivably choose between the Liberals or Conservatives if both end up with roughly the same number of seats. I wonder if they would automatically join with the Liberals or actually consider the Conservatives in light of recent events.

My only concern about Clement is how will a guy who couldn't even get elected as leader of a province or even keep his seat for that matter be perceived as a leader of the country?

Well they are already doing that. They don't need any special advertising laws to do it. Bulk votes, phone in votes by proxy, low numbers in Quebec, means you will end up opposition leader. How can you express an opinion if you can't create a party or advertise? And the government (Liberals) can spend as much as they want and have no limits at all. How is that fair? Meanwhile the government (Liberals) can spend as much as they want to advertise anything they feel like. From: Liberals fear worst in Auditor General's report This is called the golden rule. He who has all of the gold makes the rules.

Who says all third party ads come from the "wealthy"? In a free country you should be able to express an opinion. How does restricting third party ads help promote free speech? How does the new party financing rules serve democracy? How do you express a personal point of view or a group of like minded individuals now? Start a new party? Nope, sorry you can't do that. Party financing now occurs based on the number of votes you received in the previous election. What's that? Your party didn't exist in the previous election? That's too bad, you can't get any funds. So sad. Can your group put an ad together to express their point of view or show an injustice in the world? No, the Liberals want to quash that too. A "rich" group might try to influence something and that's interfering on Liberal turf. They are the only rich group that gets to decide things like that. Oh sure the other three parties can too, but are now severely curtailed because funds are now extremely limited. We might as well paint the white part of our flag red and put a few stars and a sickle on it.

Interesting. My theory is that if Stronach wins then BC and Alberta are gone. I hardly think Quebec would separate over a Harper Opposition/PMship. If anything Harper is for divesting federal powers and allowing the provinces a little more autonomy something that will sell well in Quebec. Having a billionare barbie doll or Campbell V2.0 there will totally disenfranchise western voters. But what do I know. Maybe some of the 40% of voters who never bother to vote would be enticed to come out and vote for the babe. Politics never really does make sense, <shrug>.

Make no pre election promises and you don't have to worry about breaking them after you win <grin>. Martin got tired of having the Red Book thrown back at him time and time again. So they just recycled the old throne speeches and removed anything that they actually promised.

Pellaken wrote: Strategic Voting in Canada: A Cross Time Analysis Here's where the NDP vote went to: 25.2% of the NDP vote went to the Liberals in 2000, I wonder why? Stockwell Day perhaps? PC's had pretty bad strategic voting too: They lost a combined 29% of the vote to the Liberals and Alliance in 2000. Summary Pre merger document, but it states strategies for the parties in more of a mathemtical nature. Interesting how Martin is following this to a tee.

Here's the kicker with the NDP. The stronger the Conservative vote gets the weaker the NDP votes will be as many of their members tend to vote for the Liberals strategically in order to block them. Many of the people I work with are high level NDPers (in Alberta of all places) and they haven't voted NDP in the past 3 elections. With the new party funding formula they might change their strategy but I doubt it. My boss still crows all the time about being one of the ones who got Anne Mclellan elected as she has won by as little as 7 or 8 votes in past elections. The NDP has quite a bit of support with Younger voters who tend to not reliably show up at the polling stations on voting day. But who knows what the biggest issue will be in this next election. The social issues could still be a large determining factor here. Abortion, Pot Laws, same sex marriage are all issues that have the electorate split at about 50/50. The Liberal side (Bloc, NDP, and Liberal) have to share that 50%, and the Conservatives have the remaining 50% to themselves. Of course there are more factors than these issues but for people that feel strongly about them there isn't very much choice.

From: National Post

From"RICK BELL -- Calgary Sun

From: LICIA CORBELLA -- Calgary Sun

Yes I do want the Conservative party to win. And I have seen this script played out before in 1993 with Ms. Campbell. The Liberal press is building up the worst candidate, one they know has no chance at all against Layton and Martin. Soon as she is crowned winner the knives come out and they will destroy her. And this time there won't be anything left. Kim managed to get two seats. Kim actually had experience and opinions on issues. The average Canadian has a better platform than Belinda. I am sure her high price help will eventually create a platform for her but if she gets the leadership than the debates in the next election campaign are going to be the nastiest thing you've ever seen.

from: Globe and Mail As previously predicted:

Yes its very sad. All any rich candidate has to do is buy Quebec and they've got it in the bag. So many ridings don't have any members at all and all it takes is signing up 20 members and you've cancelled out Western ridings with 10,000 members. Canadian democracy is grand, isn't it? Charles Adler yesterday said that he held off unloading on Belinda Stronach because "it would be like shooting Bambi". ( Couldn't find a web site quote). Looks like the Anybody But Harper gang has their candidate.

I apologize that my figures are not verifiable from any single website. I just stated a figure given to the college I work at. The provincial numbers don't include secondary schools like colleges and universities for example. But the numbers change everywhere you look. Over here: Budget 2003 (pie chart in the lower right corner) the numbers add up to 64.1% and still don't include secondary schools or universities. And for future reference, what % increase does something become Grossly innacurate?

I suggest that in such a circumstance of the CA people leaving the new party they would shift their energies from the federal scene to the provincial parties. For many of us the CP party was the last kick at the federal cat, and after that the only choice left is to persue independence. Barbera Straunach leading the conservatives is the preferred scenario for both Martin and Layton and is the recipe needed to give the NDP the official opposition. Think about it, what choice does it give the electorate? How is a Straunach vote any different from a Martin vote? Layton would have a field day with it, do you vote for Billionare #1 who leans slightly to the left, or Billionare #2 who leans, well, no one knows where, or do you vote for the socialist?

Its all the "free" things that are bankrupting our society. Free medicare eats up what percentage of our budget? In Alberta I have heard figures that about 80% of the budget is spent on hospitals and schools. Imagine that, you could lay off EVERYTHING not related to healthcare and education and you would only reduce the budget by 20% There's no room left to give anyone anything more "free" unless you advocate increasing our taxes. Taxes that are already amongst the highest in the world. My wife arrived in Canada in her late 30's and I have been trying to explain to her how the Canada Pension Plan works. She gets the privilige of paying upwards of $300 a month into the plan so she can collect $17 per month at age 65. Oh, and that $17 per month is contingent upon her maintaining her current contribution rates for the next 25 years. Because everyone was given "free" CPP once the plan was started the plan went immediately into the red and we are balancing it on the backs of our children. My biggest problem with "free" services is they tend to be abused by the consumers. But 100% pay as you go tends to be abused by the providers. The hard part of governance is finding the middle path to make it fair for both sides. People are funny, its proven that we could drastically reduce the demands on our healthcare by applying a token $10 payment on visits to the doctor (for those that could pay). I have seen figures that prove it can give as high as a 30% reduction to the healthcare system. But no, you can not touch one of Canada's sacred cows lest you face the wrath of an angry electorate having lost one of their "free" services.

Many people believe that preventing abortion is protecting the rights of an innocent child. Why do left wingers think its ok to murder them? Why do left wingers insist on forcing their beliefs on others and then immediately cry "bigot" when those people aren't able to deal with it? Older people spent the first 60 years of their lives where homosexuality was punished. With that much conditioning its hard if not impossible to change. Thats just human nature. Why do these same left wingers who run around calling others "bigots" all the time think its ok to hate, as long as you hate the right groups? Example: hate a homosexual and thats "bad" and lets put you in jail or punish you with various hate bills. But hate a hetero who doesn't want to change the definition of marriage and thats ok. Hating Isreal is ok, but hating Palistine is bad. Why do left wingers chant "eat the rich" over and over at demonstrations and parades while being led by MP's who make more many than 95% of average Canadians?

The original mandate for the CBC was to provide television services to all areas of the country including the remote north. There were many locations that had too few potential subscribers to make a profitable cable company, and during that time the CBC was definitely needed. But now technology has improved to the point where that is not an issue. Anyone can buy a $100 dish and receive upwards of 300 channels. Private operators can rebroadcast the signals much cheaper than before. It's time to reevaluate the CBC's role in this new time and age.

Why??? Can you tell me one reason why? That doesn't invlolve being born rich and running her fathers company? She had better prepare for press like this:

Wouldn't proportional representation allow a dingbat party that managed to get .33% of the vote to get a seat in the house of commons?