madmax

I am of the position that we are going to have another election. As for the free ride, the fact is, the CPC, LPC and NDP have experienced a "Free Ride" with the biggest benefactor of being the CPC. Receiving nearly 80 confidence votes in a row from the LPC for nothing in return, is quite a free ride. The LPC free ride has been hard on the Morale of the party. The NDP free ride, gives them the position to use the role of opposition to the will of the government. Of which the government was the CPC/LPC. The BQ also got a free ride. The ride continued for far too long, and unfortuneately, parties are so entrenched that while trying to shake the Dion Monkey off their back, are going to trigger an election. The CPC has no intention, based upon all their messaging, to work with "Socialists and Separatists". Working with the LPC was ok for them. Their is only a few bills the NDP and CPC could work together on and then what? An election of course. The CPC believe they can do enough positive PR on EI to totally ignore the NDP. It could well work. Therefore, we are going to an election, and on my street, people are only hearing Election talk now, and are instantly blaming the Liberals. It may not be fair, because the CPC have been far from forthcoming with the LPC over the summer, but the fact is , people haven't figured out what the LPC are about. The LPC are election ready, certainly in the regions surronding me, and appear game for an election. Will they be able to make that case to the public, is yet to be determined. I wouldn't hedge any bets on a CPC/NDP solution to the train wreck about to cost us another $300million.

Don't know how far you are going to have to go back to get a TWO leader debate. Considering the CCF/NDP were regular participants, going back to the age of televised debates. The arrogance of the LPC never fails to surprise me. The Opportunism of the CPC never fails to surprise. Yup, No Preston Manning, no voice, no future alliance, No future CPC, and Conservative Idealogy in the dust heap of failure. That's how important the smaller parties are. The problem is that last years debates STUNK. The threshold was set, and the guerrilla strategy of the GPC were successful in getting into the debates with public support, only then to put us all asleep. And yeah, could you imagine a two man debate in the last election. The CPC would be sitting with a Majority that would surpass the Mulroney era, and Dion would surpass the all time lows of Turner. Seriously, as I have said elsewhere. Harper spent the debate hiting base runs. Layton made some of the best lines of the night. May sounded intelligent, but her finger made her look stupid. And Dion was Hapless. Duceppe hasn't had to change script since his first debate. Bottum line, Television bowed to the will of the public, and couldn't create good television. The format sucked. It was BAD, and the Media have themselves to blame for putting on such a shitty show. People tuned out pretty fast. At least the media are talking about changes. I doubt that you will see a Debate without the BQ or the NDP. Media don't like being the story.

You need to look at these happy pictues of Hudak and Levy http://votelevy.ca/photos/ Makes yah wonder what funeral they were at? It's funny, but alot more blame is put on the Rae government after its demise, then during the period they governed. I recall someone saying how he hated the NDP tire tax, only to discover that the NDP got rid of the tax, because it was not achieving its goal of reducing tire consumption or creating viable recycling options. IT was a tax grab, that initially was welcome by the the Peterson government and the public, after the Hagersville tire fire. But, yes, the well intentioned Rae government managed to let down everyone including their base. Another thing I found of interest was the number of Conservatives who voted in the Rae government, some saying their first and last time, to ever vote NDP. There was something in the surprise of 1990, that inspired alot of hope. It never materialized, although I have to say, the Harris Conservatives outspent the NDP, and the McGuinty Liberals have heavily outspent the Rae era NDP. Another interesting thing in this By election is that the Green Party appear asleep. For me personally, and I am not voting, the HST is a major change coming to Ontarians, and voting anything but Liberal is a start, to send a message in the By Election. The fact that the PCs and CPC are talking out both sides of their mouths on the HST, means I can't see rewarding the PCs with a vote, in which they are Federally saying HST and provincially saying NO HST, yet it is the same membership. The papers have been kind to Heller and some have said he should be the MPP, but I still think this is a STRONG STRONG STRONG Liberal riding. Voting for Heller or independant isn't a bad set of options over spoiling a ballot, although I prefer those who spoil a ballot, better then those who fail to vote. Good to know a few people in the riding are on MLW.

A few articles kicking around on the debate http://mytowncrier.ca/voters039-voices.html http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandg...832721-sun.html http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/ar...y-miffed-at-hst http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/694129

What about Levy?

I apologise for creating the poll and leaving out these other candidates. I was working from the Newspapers on this one, (Mistake), and only now am I hearing of these other candidates.

Turmel has been thrown out of many parties. He is in the guinness records for most elections lost. He has been on a new quest the last few years, to get kick out or escorted by police out of all candidates debates. He gets national press, and that is his goal.

The Taliban had virtually pacified 90% of the country and Al qaeda eliminated the Tajik War Hero Massud in 2001. From 1996 to 1998 the rise of the Taliban was near bloodless as many tribes switched over and the public wanted the Taliban because they could provide the security that the Mujahudin Warlords could not. The Taliban created a level of Stability and ruthlessness vs random barbarism, theft, and rape. It was for this reason that that Taliban appealed to the Republicans and various rightwingers. Many Conservatives have expressed their support for Capital punishment and open executions, in order to show justice being served. The Taliban were certainly going to deal with those of different religious and ethnic beliefs, and there are many examples of mass murder. The reverse is also true of those belonging to the Northern Alliance. No group has set aside their desire for ethnicism, and revenge. No group of Canadians is going to change Centuries and Centuries and Centuries of tribal activity. Its been nearly 10 years, and little has changed in Afghanistan, other then the Taliban do not hold power, and are unlikely to ever hold power again.

The role she is discussing is one that Canadian soldiers have provided for decades in many different capacities, including providing security. What is debatable, is the futility of running around the country with a handful of soldiers in the false belief that you are defeating the Taliban, and securing the swinging loyalties of the Pashtun tribes. Security and reconstruction is a role that existed in peacekeeping as well. This is nothing new and a role that many Canadians believe in. The GG is likely to improve morale. I just met with a few young fellas this past weekend. Some going back, some eager to go back, and some not going back at all. However, while they believe they are making a difference within the footprint they occupy and help, the reality is that Afghanistan is a "basketcase to crazy to try to figure out." Get in, do good things and get home, is all that matters.

Last years CPC platform was... Harper is driving the BUS and Dion is sitting too close to me. This year the LPC platform is Ignatieff wants to drive the BUS, and its ok if Harper sits beside me, we are going the same way. The NDP platform is... Hey Look, Its Steve and Iggy hanging onto the porcelin bus again. Don't forget to flush, and remember to wash your hands. People think you stink, and take a breath mint. Got some Irish Spring forsale. Deal or No Deal.

He says both. You are, after all, looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada, and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Mr. Ignatieff. Canwest News Feb 16, 2009 And on the weekend, Ignatieff said the coalition government would have been unstable, politically illegitimate to many Canadians and divisive - one report quoted him as saying it would have "profoundly, profoundly and durably divided the country." Montreal Gazette May 12, 2009 The coalition, he told a gathering in Montreal last weekend, would have “profoundly and durably divided the country.” “There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me,” he confided. While perfectly legal, it would nonetheless have struck many Canadians, coming so soon after an election in which the Liberals had suffered their worst defeat since Confederation, as if they and their coalition partners had “in some sense or another stolen power.” Moreover, it would have been very difficult to assure the country of the certainty and stability it needed in a time of crisis “with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said, likening it, CP reports, to a rickety three-legged stool. “That was my first doubt. I couldn’t guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition.” Especially when, as he told an interviewer back in March, one of the partners was a separatist party. “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but . . . I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.” Macleans, May 21, 2009

Certainly, it informed the GG of the right to form a government. And this letter was drafted before Harper attempted to defeat the government on the throne speech. I still think the CPC will use it as a wedge issue. I think it will stabilize their base, and like any strategy it has the potential to backfire. The LPC will be ready for the cheap attack strategy. But the strategy only has to have the plausibility behind it, not the truth. However, its not unlike the CPC to blow an election by going to the gutter. It has cost the CPC the majority each and everytime.

That's correct. It is an option in all minority parliments to form a government with the MOST MPs to reach a majority of seats. Now, Ironically, if you read all of Ignatieffs talking points after he personally rejected the Coalition agreement, they mimick the talking points of the Conservatives. Which means, that there is no difference in behaviour between these two parties.

And two things that few believe are occurring. Things are virtually flat, with minute growth, and continual job losses exceeding job growth. These issues aren't there for the other parties either, which is why the voters aren't there. Socialism has been with this country since its foundation. The socialists drove many ideas into the mainstream and our country and the people of this country have benefited from those policies. The Corporations only need two parties to swing between. A 3rd only adds confusion. And since the time the CCF change their name to the NDP, the fact remains, unions will be part of that party. Whether the Unions choose to back the NDP is an altogether different issue that the NDP has to deal with as Unions, particularly in Ontario, left the NDP in the 1990s. Perhaps you miss that the CAW and BUZZ Hargrove have backed the Liberals since the late 90s and Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked, for campaigning in Windsor for the Paul Martin Liberals against the 2 NDP MPs.

I'd be surprised if all those talking points weren't in the fall election.

Thank you.

As many as the November Coalition attempt. Both in 2004 and 2008, the 3 oppositions parties, wrote to the governor general to suggest alternative government then the present minority that was recently elected. YES HARPER SIDED WITH THE DREADED BQ. And if you really wish to read how Harper felt when he was in the passengers seat... " So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition? Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people."

Yup, apartments are a complete waste of time. Did they interfere with your soap opera or your 100th viewing of Joe Dirt? Did you have potato chips on your clothes? I hope you offered them a beer and smoke. were on your way to do laundry... Those darned activist going door to door wasting their times with the likes of you.

Topaz has confused Paul Martins Government pulling the plug on itself, only to be fasttracked by the NDP getting out of the bathtub. The NDP didn't even have enough seats to keep the Martin Government alive if it wanted to. And that's where you are WRONG!!! Only it was Jack Layton who walked away this time.In early 2004 Harper had talks with the BQ and the NDP to create..... A coalition. THE HORROR THE HORROR!!! HARPER AND DUCEPPE AND LAYTON !!!!

If a party wants to advertise a coalition or anything as an option, they can. But it is stupid to do so, because it automatically suggests your party is surrending its chances to win a Majority. The media, and other parties often try to get parties to commit to a weak position in an election campaign. If a party wants to say it WON'T support a coalition, association, accord, or any other form of agreement if parliment results in a minority government, they are free to do so. But its foolish to close doors, or not use the tools of parliment for good responsible government. The fact is, party agreements are ALWAYS an option when in a minority situation. They are there for the taking and no party is above that. Not even the CPC. The only difference this time, is that they nearly had their asses handed to them last November, and since they have virtually alienated themselves from all parties except the Liberals, they can play this little charade. If Joe Clarke had learned to count, he would have secured the support of the Social Credit. His foolish belief to govern as if he had a majority is the mark of ridicule to this day. People will choose stability over instability. Parties will govern with the members that the public sends. Obviously, the David Emmerson affair, demonstrates quite clearly how little the word of the Harper Government, meant. That farce, along with putting their Quebec Bagman in the Senate demonstrated how little campaign policy means, once scum is elected. Harper broke his word on Floor Crossing and Senate Appointments in record time in 2006. Most of his principles are based on BS, and posturing to get the public to buy into an... ITS THEM not US that do these things. But the CPC would be the FIRST to break a Coalition Promise if in a position of weakness and seeking a position of strength. The CPC is just that hypocritical, and their word is not to be trusted in an election campaign. You think CPC are different then the LPC? The CPC want the LPC to be put in an uncomfortable position during the campaign and it's unlikely to work.

Nonsense. Fact is, in any situation with a minority prospect, there are many possibilities in forming a government. The are not created until after the MPs are elected. If the CPC want to be stupid enough to say that they will govern and ignore all others in a minority parliment, let them do so, because it boxes them in a corner and leaves the door open to not being the governing party. I prefer associations, coalitions, accords, call them what you want, compared to the constant posturing and threat of election when ever a poll fart is released. Many people claim prior to an election, that they would not support a coalition, or anything because they want their party to win a majority. However, when faced with a minority situation, people on the winning side will always be happy. Infact, if the CPC and LPC decided tommorrow to create a grand coalition and govern to 2010, the 70% of the public that don't want an election will be quite happy. Fact is, when Martin lost his CPC dancing partner, the country had a sense of relief when the NDP and Chuck Cadman avoided the CPC thrust for an election. The LPC cry the blues that the NDP failed to support them after the LPC pulled their own ripcord. If the LPC had a document in writing, they could well have missed an embarrassing election debacle in which they lost power. Sure the CPC are going to Scream bloody murder over last year. But it could backfire on them, and I think it will. What worked in December, was never addressed by the other parties, as the CPC attack machine went into action. It became a moot point with Ignatieff at the helm. Infact, I think the LPC will be able to handle this with teflon. It won't stick. It may inspire the base, but the LPC base may be inspired and they will ignore the CPC rant strategy. There is also another bad part of bringing this up. It puts the NDP back in the spotlight, and the NDP is good with controversy and dismal when ignored. Something like this will pump up their numbers as they put forward the case they didn't have time to make last year. However, what is truly interesting is that this election looks like a High Road Low road campaign. And people have had it with the petty antics of the CPC. They have done a piss poor job governing, and the only thing they will be able to hang their hats on is the pork being delivered to many ridings in the form of stimulust spending, that is in direct relation to the Coalition activity of November, when the CPC were found , out to lunch , petty and wanting for direction.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Its called a confidence vote and that is the measure. 100% cooperation from the LPC was the lame excuse Harper gave for pulling the plug. 100% cooperation wasn't good enough for him, and he pulled the plug on himself.

Weekly poll bump.

Reform wasn't conquered by the PCs. Reform was unwilling to follow through on their platformbecause of the lure of power and once power was attained there was no conviction to give up the perks of power. Thus, those things were bad if LPC/PCs were getting them, and when push came to shove the Reform Party backed down starting with BIG FAT OBSCENE GOLD PLATED PENSION PLANS. There were no PCs involved in this trek off of the holy mountain of a Reform Policy. Reformers should have said, NO we will not take this obscene pension, and when we get in power, we will make certain no one else does either. Reform through away principles for power and are not pigs at the trough. There is Little PC involved in the current Conservative party, although this is a scapegoat for those who used to vote Reform and looking for someone to blame for the turn of events.