Who to vote for?

[blueblood]

Based on what, exactly? People getting mad at government? Because that won't last no matter what happens. As for a coalition hurting the economy or provincial relations - no, it won't. There's no reason to believe that it would.

I can see it hurting the economy. Tax and spend policies especially having to be propped up by two spend happy parties won't help with the deficit and with keeping up the pace with attracting business to canada. Things are going good and are steadily improving, no need for tax and spend.

[fellowtraveller]

Based on what, exactly? People getting mad at government?

No, geeting enraged at the machinations employed to unseat an elected govt immediately after an election.

You can puff and wail at the legality of The Coalition(sorry Mikey, I mean The Cooperative), but before you do review for a moment the reaction of the Canadian public in Decemeber 2008 when Dion etc tried it then. Review also Iggys reaction at the time, he knew the danger then. But now he knows it is his only route to The Big Table as PM, even though he'll have to start packing kneepads every time he talks to Duceppe. . Layton will do anything to get a cabinet seat. Duceppe wins and wins big in any scenario that sees him as kingmaker.

But you are dreaming if you think there will not be a visceral and sustained backlash to what will happen in May/June......

[icman]

I can't emphasize enough how much this point is actually a huge reason why my Conservative support is so strong right now. They found a way in a minority to stand up to the parties that lost. The constant complaining of "but you can't do that" only serves to make me like it more. Other minority governments have been timid and far too accommodating to the opposition. This one ruled like it had a majority anyway, it shows strength and leadership.

"I don't care that you guys have more members in the house than I do, I'm the Prime Minister, and this is how it's going to be". That's balls, and that's what I want from my leader.

Bryan, if you think this, then I don't think that you understand how Parliament works. In a minority government, there are NO losing parties. Or they ALL lost.

There are only two reasons that Harper has lasted as long as he has in his minority leadership role...

1) He hasn't done very many things that the other parties can't hold their nose and agree to it, and

2) Those items that have riled up the opposition parties weren't so bad that they overcame the feelings of helplessness and inability to capitalize on Harper's mistakes that those other parties have cultivated within themselves over the past several years.

The exception was the 2009 Budget, but Proroguement staved off disaster for the CPCs.

If the Libs had a strong leader, Harper would be finished. He has made too many moves that seriously pissed off 60+% of Canadians. But they don't have a strong leader, and so long as Rae is second in line with the albatros of Ontario Premier hanging around his neck, weakling Iggy won't get booted out.

One thing I agree with Layton about is that we need Proportional Representation.

[eyeball]

I already answered that. When it allows the losers to interfere with the governance by the winner, yes I do think is a bad thing.

So, where is this going to leave Harper and your 38% or so if and when the other 62% form a coalition?

Will we have soldiers in the streets after all?

[cybercoma]

PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR PM ARE YOU EVEN FROM THIS COUNTRY?

What do the candidate in your riding think, how will they represent you, those are the questions you should be asking, its not a democratic vote if they arn't.

You do vote for PM. The Prime Ministerial candidates typically have the most power in their respective parties and the MPs in each riding are required to follow the decisions that are made by the top tier of the party. So to answer your questions:

What do the candidates in your riding think?

It doesn't matter.

How will they represent you?

They won't.

It is democratic because you're able to vote for the party whose interests most align with yours and rightfully expect the MP to vote along with those beliefs.

[cybercoma]

See my previous answer. NONE of the candidates inspire me. I guess I will hold my nose and vote for the one that stinks the least.

BTW, I am NOT a new voter. I have voted in every election for the past 40 years. I have NEVER seen such a poor choice as I have in this election.

If you don't like the options, may I suggest dropping a blank ballot into the box. This allows researchers and elections canada later on to see how many people are dissatisfied with the options. It shows that you took the time to go to the poll and cast a vote that indicates exactly what your preference is in this election: none of the above.

[cybercoma]

My heart is telling me to hold my nose and vote Tory, mainly because, on any other day of the week I'm a fiscal conservative and a strong advocate for our institutions. Obviously the problem there is that the Tories themselves have shown damn little respect for our institutions.

...and they've done very little that would indicate they are fiscally conservative.

I know many people are opposed to Jack Layton's idea of raising corporate taxes, but honestly, he made the claim and we should rightfully hold him to it that he will never raise them above the US levels. Moreover, he has promised a tax-incentive for those businesses that create jobs in Canada. Personally, I think this is a good compromise between fiscal conservatism and social support for our institutions.

[icman]

I can see it hurting the economy. Tax and spend policies especially having to be propped up by two spend happy parties won't help with the deficit and with keeping up the pace with attracting business to canada. Things are going good and are steadily improving, no need for tax and spend.

Which party is "tax and spend"? I get quite upset and annoyed that so many people make their decisions based on false perception and media hoopla rather than the actual track records of the parties. The Conservatives and Liberals haven't diverged much on economic policy in the last 30 years, in practice. The Conservatives typically campaign on economic reform, then spend more money less transparently than any government that preceded them. The Liberals typically promise money to everyone, then cinch the purse strings tight as soon as they ascend to power. Both parties donate taxpayer money to their favourite private causes about equally.

The only difference between them in their supporters' minds is that its always OK for our guys to do what they want/need, and always wrong for the "other" guys to do what they want/need - even when the outcome is identical in both cases.

The big differences between the CPC and Libs is NOT in the economic arena. It's in the other stuff - crime prevention, foreign policies, etc.

[cybercoma]

You just described me to a "T". I also don't agree with Harper's tough on crime stuff.

What scares me most about his "tough on crime" agenda is that even the Right in the US have claimed that these types of programs have been damaging in the US. It's not just pretty bad, it's crazy when you're a conservative and Newt Gingrich says your crime bill is a bad idea.

[Dave_ON]

Well yes what? You will recall the very intense and very visceral reaction from across Canada, not just Quebec, to news that the results of the election of 2008 were about to be reversed just a few weeks later.

Oh how I tire of this kind of tripe. Please explain precisely how the election results would be reversed? Were duly elected MP's to be ousted from the house? The electorate does not elect a government, parliament elects the government. By convention it is the party with the most seats, but this doesn't need to be the case if that party proves unable to win or maintain the confidence of the majority of MP's. That is the essence of our democracy, we can't vote on every single item, or at least we don't want to, thus we elect MP's to do this for us. They represent us and if we don't like how they vote we kick them out next election, our say on how our rep votes, begins and ends on election day.

There would be no reversal, the house would have the same composition as elected by the people, the reps would not be replaced, and members would retain their seats. Only those who would write the bills to be passed by said reps would change nothing more. So in short if you don't like the idea of a coalition, or how the fundamentals of our democracy work, that's all well and good. Say as much, but please stop spreading misinformed tripe, and repeating baseless CPC rhetoric.

[cybercoma]

[thumb up icon] cybercoma likes this.

[Pliny]

Which party is "tax and spend"? I get quite upset and annoyed that so many people make their decisions based on false perception and media hoopla rather than the actual track records of the parties. The Conservatives and Liberals haven't diverged much on economic policy in the last 30 years, in practice. The Conservatives typically campaign on economic reform, then spend more money less transparently than any government that preceded them. The Liberals typically promise money to everyone, then cinch the purse strings tight as soon as they ascend to power. Both parties donate taxpayer money to their favourite private causes about equally.

The big differences between the CPC and Libs is NOT in the economic arena. It's in the other stuff - crime prevention, foreign policies, etc.

Please do look at the track records.

Do you feel thirty years to be the cut off point of where we should look?

Mulroney was a tax and spend Tory. He only looked good to start with becuase he wasn't Pierre Turdeau or Joe Clark. Interestingly, Mulroney, Turdeau, Turner, Clark, Chretien and Martin were all lawyers.

Harper is an economist. We see a little difference in the economic arena this time. He has cut the GST by two percent, cut corporate taxes, changed his mind on corporate trusts, and has managed a global economic crisis that could have been more disastrous for us if any of the previous lawyers were at teh helm.

It hasn't been an easy road for him with a minority government meaning he hasn't entirely had free rein to implement what he would like. He has managed and although I don't agree with all his policies and everything he has done, that's probably the politically expedient aspect of government.

The idea that governments create jobs or should intervene in every aspect of the economy needs to be abandoned. It's seems harder to do with lawyers.

Should we take our chances on a Historian/Journalist/Intellectual who went to school with Bob Rae and insists upon granting us "rights" paid for out of our pockets or someone else's pocket instead of the rights each individual should have that cost no one a dime to provide and only a pittance to maintain because of the few who cannot understand and respect them?

Edited April 19, 2011 by Pliny

[ToadBrother]

It hasn't been an easy road for him with a minority government meaning he hasn't entirely had free rein to implement what he would like. He has managed and although I don't agree with all his policies and everything he has done, that's probably the politically expedient aspect of government.

Which is just fine by me. A Tory minority is my preferred form of government.

[Scotty]

I am aware of how it works. Why do you think those four clowns had their debate. They all hope to be PM. They all stink. As to my local candidates, I haven't heard anything from any of them that inspires me to vote for them,.

I've never managed to work up much enthusiasm for Harper, but his government has been reasonably competent without resorting to the massive corruption of its Liberal and Tory predecessors. It would be nice if the guy had an iota of charisma, and had the ability to communicate things to people so he didn't have to be so afraid of contrary messages getting out, but what can ya do?

[Scotty]

I think looking for a candidate who "inspires" you is asking for more than anyone can provide. And sometimes candidates who inspire turn out to be less spectacular when they actual hit the ground

Finding someone who is both competent and a charismatic leader is like winning the lottery. Most of the ones I've known are military officers, and we don't generally bring such people into politics. I would have liked to have seen Lew Mackenzie become a party leader, Libs or Tories.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Can you define "loser" here? The Tories got less than half the seats in the House, they received less than 40% of the popular vote, and yet you have no problem with a party unable to reach the majority mark dictating policy.

He certainly represents the majority of English Canada...

[Scotty]

What scares me most about his "tough on crime" agenda is that even the Right in the US have claimed that these types of programs have been damaging in the US. It's not just pretty bad, it's crazy when you're a conservative and Newt Gingrich says your crime bill is a bad idea.

The conservatives have not proposed 'getting tough on crime' in the American way. And I bet if the American Right saw the kinds of sentences served in Canada their eyes would bug out of their heads in horror.

And I wish people would stop deciding the right and wrong of every policy based on what they think the Americans are doing!

[ToadBrother]

He certainly represents the majority of English Canada...

My quick calculation is that the Tories won 43.1% of the popular vote outside of Quebec. In other words, even excluding Quebec (now why would you want to do something like that), you're wrong.

[Scotty]

My quick calculation is that the Tories won 43.1% of the popular vote outside of Quebec. In other words, even excluding Quebec (now why would you want to do something like that), you're wrong.

I suppose I meant his seat numbers in the Commons. Excluding the separatist MPs Tories represent the majority of ridings by a good number.

And if you really want to get into representation, if you pull Toronto out of the equation, just how much support do the Liberals have across the country?

[ToadBrother]

I suppose I meant his seat numbers in the Commons. Excluding the separatist MPs Tories represent the majority of ridings by a good number.

And if you really want to get into representation, if you pull Toronto out of the equation, just how much support do the Liberals have across the country?

Seat counts doesn't give you your count either. But if all you have to do is eliminate regions to prove your point, why not just count Alberta and proclaim that 97% of English Canada supports the Tories.

[scouterjim]

Ok scouterjim if you don't like what you see then run for office yourself.

Good luck

WWWTT

I would like to run, but I am too honest. In the debates, I would tell people NOT to ask me for anything, because I don't care about them. All I want is that parliamentary pension. Unlike the others, I would be outright with it. The people wouldn't elect me because I won't lie to them or give them empty promises.

[ToadBrother]

I would like to run, but I am too honest. In the debates, I would tell people NOT to ask me for anything, because I don't care about them. All I want is that parliamentary pension. Unlike the others, I would be outright with it. The people wouldn't elect me because I won't lie to them or give them empty promises.

I've thought about it myself, but two things continually get in the way; 1. I couldn't become a party whore and 2. I'd be lucky if my wife voted for me.

[Dave_ON]

He certainly represents the majority of English Canada...

That's only correct from a purely seat count point of view... if we deduct the 75 seats allocated to Quebec, to simplify the math we'll assume all seats are "French" we are left with 233 seats of which the CPC won 133 (deducting the 10 seats they won in Quebec) which equates to roughly 57% of English Canada seats. (this of course fails to recognize that Parts of Northern Ontario, Northern NB and Southern NS are in fact technically "french" as well) Given that we have a first past the post system it's somewhat erroneous to assume that winning a seat mean you represent more than 50% of voters in that riding, you only need more votes than any other candidate not 50 plus 1. If you take out the folks in Quebec that voted, and average the percent of vote that the CPC captured across all "English" provinces, you arrive at about 46%. This of course fails to account for the significant population differences between regions. So it's not truly representative of the "English" vote. Considering that more than half of English people live in Ontario and BC and the CPC only captured 39.2 and 44.5 respectively.

Source http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

There's actually a lot of interesting information about the last election on elections Canada's website. I found it especially interesting that every single party last election lost votes except for the Greens who actually made a significant gain.

[Dave_ON]

I suppose I meant his seat numbers in the Commons. Excluding the separatist MPs Tories represent the majority of ridings by a good number.

And if you really want to get into representation, if you pull Toronto out of the equation, just how much support do the Liberals have across the country?

Yes excellent idea, let's exclude Quebec, Canada's second most populist province and then let's exclude Toronto, which contains a third or more of the population of Ontario. That would be truly representative of Canada.

[icman]

Please do look at the track records.

Do you feel thirty years to be the cut off point of where we should look?

Mulroney was a tax and spend Tory. He only looked good to start with becuase he wasn't Pierre Turdeau or Joe Clark. Interestingly, Mulroney, Turdeau, Turner, Clark, Chretien and Martin were all lawyers.

Harper is an economist. We see a little difference in the economic arena this time. He has cut the GST by two percent, cut corporate taxes, changed his mind on corporate trusts, and has managed a global economic crisis that could have been more disastrous for us if any of the previous lawyers were at teh helm.

It hasn't been an easy road for him with a minority government meaning he hasn't entirely had free rein to implement what he would like. He has managed and although I don't agree with all his policies and everything he has done, that's probably the politically expedient aspect of government.

The idea that governments create jobs or should intervene in every aspect of the economy needs to be abandoned. It's seems harder to do with lawyers.

Should we take our chances on a Historian/Journalist/Intellectual who went to school with Bob Rae and insists upon granting us "rights" paid for out of our pockets or someone else's pocket instead of the rights each individual should have that cost no one a dime to provide and only a pittance to maintain because of the few who cannot understand and respect them?

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on Harper. He cut corporate taxes and the GST when times were good, and accrued a huge deficit by crazy spending on the way into a recession. Both were stupid economic decisions - how can you cut revenue at the same time as you increase spending commitments and be called fiscally brilliant? The only reason Harper comes up smelling like a rose in the recent economic turbulence is because of the stabilizers which were NOT removed from the Canadian Banking Industry when Chretien (and Martin) were running the show, despite the anti-regulatory rantings at the time of you'll-never-guess-who... Harper.

But that's how it goes. When the national economy goes into the toilet under your guy's watch, I'll say he sucks, and you'll say it would have been worse if he wasn't there. There's no valid, independent way to rate the performance of the party in power when ideology gets in the way of critical thinking. And it ALWAYS does.