So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[On Guard for Thee]

I'd suspect it's B, but no one wants to admit it.

It's not hard to understand. If one option gave you more money then a other option on guard? Which option would you choose?

I'll take more money over less money everyday. We are all looking out for our best financial interest. You can't fault someone for doing that.

You missed the point...again. They are bailing because they see a good chance of not wining re election..

[WIP]

His oil sand plans were rather binary in thinking. Harper didn't seem to anticipate the world would react hostile, to the new supply Canada & other countries was providing. It showed he was a bit lacking, vision wise in this global economy market. Even though energy independence has been achieved. It's not as great as we all had first dreamed.

We are still better off for it in my opinion, Even though it's not as good as we first anticipated.

It was a colossally bad policy for economic and environmental reasons. What Harper and the oilpatch investors hadn't figured on is:

OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia, do not allow independent analysis of their oil fields and operations. There was a lot of speculation 10 years ago when the Saudi's allowed prices to rise and stay over $100 a barrel, that their primary reserves were being depleted, and they could not boost production to keep prices in a comfort zone desired by their US allies. In the past year, they've found extra production capacity to help drive down global oil prices, but now the question is why? Who are they trying to punish? Their enemies - Iran, Iraq and Russia...all oil producers dependent on oil exports? Or were they doing what US officials didn't want to believe or admit to: deliberately trying to kill off the "unconventional" oil production operation that started in the new era of oil scarcity: deep sea drilling, tar sands and shale oil developments.

The Saudis believe they have the US more dependent on them than vice versa, since their multibillion dollar annual arms purchases are important export for the US, so it may not have been by accident that they have taken out small time shale drillers in the US and seriously damaged the future prospects for more tar sands developments in Alberta.

For Harper, it's just one more example of a politician's luck running out by hanging around too long. But this thread hasn't got to the main reason why I will be voting for anything but Harper: foreign policy.....namely we haven't got one! With Stephen Harper in charge and his US advisers by his side, Canada's foreign policy seems to be run out of Washington!

[WIP]

I suspect a lot of that comes from A: seeing the writing on the wall and then B: getting the pension going before the rules change.

I think you're right there. Politicians do seem a lot similar to rats leaving a sinking ship when they think their chances for re-election are going bad.

[hitops]

If I vote at all it'll be for the NDP, because of the grotesque mismanagement and destruction of our fisheries at the hands of Liberals and Conservatives.

The NDP are the only party that has talked about basing fisheries management on the coast rather than leaving it in Ottawa - 1500 miles from the nearest ocean.

Being close to the ocean has exactly what to do with making policy for fishing?

This is precisely the kind of non-logic, totally emotion-based nonsense that I associate with NDP voters.

Edited August 3, 2015 by hitops

[ReeferMadness]

This form of government doesn't lend itself to that. We'd have to switch to something like a presidential system (the United States) or a semi presidential (France). It would be a massive undertaking that would fix things that aren't necessarily bad.

What we have is bad. It's horrible.

The system is designed such that the PM is supposed to be accountable to parliament and implement the will of parliament. However, what actually happens is the PM and the PMO control the government's MP's. And in the case of a "majority government" (most often a majority of MP's but nowhere near a majority of the populer vote), controlling the government's MP's means controlling parliament. So, the system is upside down. Instead of the PM being accountable to parliament, the PM is effectively accountable to nobody.

You have someone with the power of a president but without all of the checks and balances.

It's the worst of both worlds. And Harper is the most insidious exploiter of this power to date.

[hitops]

What we have is bad. It's horrible.

The system is designed such that the PM is supposed to be accountable to parliament and implement the will of parliament. However, what actually happens is the PM and the PMO control the government's MP's. And in the case of a "majority government" (most often a majority of MP's but nowhere near a majority of the populer vote), controlling the government's MP's means controlling parliament. So, the system is upside down. Instead of the PM being accountable to parliament, the PM is effectively accountable to nobody.

You have someone with the power of a president but without all of the checks and balances.

It's the worst of both worlds. And Harper is the most insidious exploiter of this power to date.

I fail to see how he is the most insidious exploiter when he gives his MP's more far more independence and freedom than he other parties, and indeed more than any government in recent history. Nobody allows as many free votes as Harper, nor tolerates the Michael Chong's of his party, as Harper does.

If your problem was truly that MP's are just government representatives, then the logical choice for you would be the CPC since they offer more freedom in that regard than the others. I suspect your reason has nothing to do with that, and so naturally you will find a way to ignore that reasoning.

It was quite a sight to see last year when the NDP had to, at the same time, accuse Harper of being a tyrant and also accuse him of not controlling his MP's who they felt were allowed too much freedom. So which is it?

[On Guard for Thee]

I fail to see how he is the most insidious exploiter when he gives his MP's more far more independence and freedom than he other parties, and indeed more than any government in recent history. Nobody allows as many free votes as Harper, nor tolerates the Michael Chong's of his party, as Harper does.

If your problem was truly that MP's are just government representatives, then the logical choice for you would be the CPC since they offer more freedom in that regard than the others. I suspect your reason has nothing to do with that, and so naturally you will find a way to ignore that reasoning.

It was quite a sight to see last year when the NDP had to, at the same time, accuse Harper of being a tyrant and also accuse him of not controlling his MP's who they felt were allowed too much freedom. So which is it?

Jeezus Christos, all you have to do is listen to all Harper's donks repeating ridiculous talking points ad nauseum until you know even they know how stupid they sound, and you'd know that's they have zero freedom at all.

[hitops]

Jeezus Christos, all you have to do is listen to all Harper's donks repeating ridiculous talking points ad nauseum until you know even they know how stupid they sound, and you'd know that's they have zero freedom at all.

Unsurprisingly, this does not address the point I made at all.

Whatever nonsense MP's say, has nothing to do with the issue you raise. It is a FACT, that Harper allows more free votes and more MP independence than the other parties by a large margin. The opposition parties specifically criticize him for not controlling his people, whenever one of them starts a discussion on something they feel is a waste of time.

Edited August 3, 2015 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

Unsurprisingly, this does not address the point I made at all.

Whatever nonsense MP's say, has nothing to do with the issue you raise. It is a FACT, that Harper allows more free votes and more MP independence than the other parties by a large margin. The opposition parties specifically criticize him for not controlling his people, whenever one of them starts a discussion on something they feel is a waste of time.

Yeah it has to do, in part, with your attempt to dismiss Harper from being a tyrant.

[hitops]

Yeah it has to do, in part, with your attempt to dismiss Harper from being a tyrant.

But that's the whole point, let's say for example he is one. Your problem was with this problem of tyranny in Canadians politics. Yet by your own criteria, you will not vote for the lesser offender, the guy who allows his MP's more freedom than the others (Harper), rather you will vote for a greater offender (mulcair of trudeau).

It makes no sense, which is how I know you don't really care about this issue, you just care about finding a reason to be against Harper.

It is illogical to complain about the practices of a leader, and then follow this up by voting for a leader who promotes those same practices to a larger degree.

Edited August 3, 2015 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

But that's the whole point, let's say for example he is one. Your problem was with this problem of tyranny in Canadians politics. Yet by your own criteria, you will not vote for the lesser offender, the guy who allows his MP's more freedom than the others (Harper), rather you will vote for a greater offender (mulcair of trudeau).

It makes no sense, which is how you don't really care about this issue, you just care about finding a reason to be against Harper.

Except Harper is the biggest tyrant. Everybody knows that, Even some of his own cabinet. sshhh!

And if you don't like it he'll throw you under the bus. Nigel Wright ay have something to say about that, not to mention a few Harper appointed senators.

Edited August 3, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[hitops]

Except Harper is the biggest tyrant. Everybody knows that, Even some of his own cabinet. sshhh!

Except that the recorded, demonstrable facts prove otherwise. Harper often allows freedom to MP's, the others never do. You will of course ignore the readily available, public record of this.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except that the recorded, demonstrable facts prove otherwise. Harper often allows freedom to MP's, the others never do. You will of course ignore the readily available, public record of this.

Yeah I'd like to see those "facts".

[blueblood]

What we have is bad. It's horrible.

The system is designed such that the PM is supposed to be accountable to parliament and implement the will of parliament. However, what actually happens is the PM and the PMO control the government's MP's. And in the case of a "majority government" (most often a majority of MP's but nowhere near a majority of the populer vote), controlling the government's MP's means controlling parliament. So, the system is upside down. Instead of the PM being accountable to parliament, the PM is effectively accountable to nobody.

You have someone with the power of a president but without all of the checks and balances.

It's the worst of both worlds. And Harper is the most insidious exploiter of this power to date.

Ask pm chretien how the system worked for him...

[hitops]

Yeah I'd like to see those "facts".

The easy thing would be to post them (Warawa, Chong for starters). But honestly, what would be the point? It's not like they would change your mind. You will believe Harper is the tyrant, no manner how many backbench MP's have annoyed him with their issues after he let them speak freely (something that simply does not happen with the other parties). You are emotionally committed to believing that, I will not change your mind.

Edited August 3, 2015 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

The easy thing would be to post them (Warawa, Chong for starters). But honestly, what would be the point? It's not like they would change your mind. You will believe Harper is the tyrant, no manner how many backbench MP's have annoyed him with their issues after he let them speak freely (something that simply does not happen with the other parties). You are emotionally committed to believing that, I will not change your mind.

Warawa would be a really bad example for you to post. It would totally backfire to your case if you look at what actually happened, and I assume we are talking the abortion issue.

[eyeball]

At least you are voting for them based on what suits your needs.

Canadians would do well to examine the debacle that Ottawa has made of Canada's fisheries - Canada's fishing communities on both coasts that depended on fishing are veritable canaries-in-a-coal-mine indicating in their case just how poisoned their governance has been on virtually every level that matters the most to people.

Recall that as the canaries go so do the miners unless they take heed and some fairly drastic action...and suddenly, frogs in pots of warming water come to mind.

[eyeball]

Good reason......I don't claim to know if it's accurate - but many people vote for local reasons. Thanks for sharing yours.

Like I said the mismanagement of Canada's fisheries is the result of some pretty universal fundamental flaws in how we're all being mis-governed. It's far from being just a local reason for Canadians to consider voting more appropriately.

Edited August 3, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Do you hear all the complaints about the "rich"Conservatives outspending the Libs and the NDP?This once again shows that left wingers are not as generous as right wingers in my opinion.On the flip side,lefties are extremely generous with other people's money.

How does that square with Harper just committing taxpayers to paying $100 million more than necessary by inflicting the longest election campaign in history on us?

[Freddy]

It was a colossally bad policy for economic and environmental reasons. What Harper and the oilpatch investors hadn't figured on is:

OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia, do not allow independent analysis of their oil fields and operations. There was a lot of speculation 10 years ago when the Saudi's allowed prices to rise and stay over $100 a barrel, that their primary reserves were being depleted, and they could not boost production to keep prices in a comfort zone desired by their US allies. In the past year, they've found extra production capacity to help drive down global oil prices, but now the question is why? Who are they trying to punish? Their enemies - Iran, Iraq and Russia...all oil producers dependent on oil exports? Or were they doing what US officials didn't want to believe or admit to: deliberately trying to kill off the "unconventional" oil production operation that started in the new era of oil scarcity: deep sea drilling, tar sands and shale oil developments.

The Saudis believe they have the US more dependent on them than vice versa, since their multibillion dollar annual arms purchases are important export for the US, so it may not have been by accident that they have taken out small time shale drillers in the US and seriously damaged the future prospects for more tar sands developments in Alberta.

For Harper, it's just one more example of a politician's luck running out by hanging around too long. But this thread hasn't got to the main reason why I will be voting for anything but Harper: foreign policy.....namely we haven't got one! With Stephen Harper in charge and his US advisers by his side, Canada's foreign policy seems to be run out of Washington!

I don't believe it to be a colossal failed policy. Here is why.

Without the capacity to produce our own oil, we are at the mercy of OPEC.

That means they could decide to completely stop selling to us and our whole economy would crash in 30 days.

Millions could potentially die.

Now that we are energy independent, We are protected from them.

You are being even more short sighted then Harper. I agree I didn't anticipate blowback from our energy independence policy. But we are still better off in the grand scheme of things.

As for our foreign policy strait out of Washington. As we don't spend anywhere close on military as our U.S. Allies and protectors would like, I believe that as long as we are as dependent on their military strength as we are, we should be as helpful to them as we can.

If you want your own foreign policy, let's spend accordingly on military. Until we do, Harper plan is the best.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

You missed the point...again. They are bailing because they see a good chance of not wining re election..

It's a risk management life we live. Everyone needs to look out for their own best financial health. Ether way.

[Argus]

I don't want to see Harper step down after the election. I hate the idea that the Conservatives win, Harper quits, and our next PM is decided by the usually-ridiculous party leadership convention process instead of a general election. (and look how well that worked out for the Alberta Tories.)

Who, aside from Harper, do you see in the Conservative Party that you'd like to take over?

-k

Actually, Jim Prentice wasn't a bad choice for Alberta. I think it was more that Albertans were tired of that party, and for good reasons. The PCs in Alberta had been running deficits during boom years while spending away the Heritage Fund. Albertans didn't seem to mind until, as was inevitable, the rug got pulled out from under the oil industry. Suddenly they woke up and recalled why Lougheed had wanted to build up a rainy day fund in the first place. Combined with his 'cleverness' in disemboweling the Wild Rose, Albertans just suddenly decided they wanted a big change. I don't think you can lay all that on Prentice.

Right now, the obvious front runner if Harper goes would e Jason Kenney. I like that he's less stridently partisan and more willing to cooperate with others. He's well spoken in front of the camera, doesn't mind BEING in front of a camera (unlike Harper), and he seems to have done pretty well in most of his portfolios. He had one misstep with the TFW program, but you never know how much of that was him and how much was his boss telling him what to put in.

[Argus]

The OP appears to be calling the NDP and liberal self serving then how about the Cons? Are they not self serving.

All politicians are. But I was speaking to the specifi policies the NDP and Liberals advocate which I don't think are in Canada's best interests.

This conservative government has used political opportunism and manipulation to buy votes.

Every government from the beginning of time has done that.

End to political opportunism and manipulation and vote buying,

Not going to happen. Have you looked at the campaign promises of the opposition parties?

End to undemocratic way they push the bills through the parliament and infringing on our rights as citizens to free speech. Yes our security is very important (bill C-51) but so is our freedom and democracy.

Nothing the Tories have done in parliament is new or unique to them, nor will it end with them. As for your free speech, who's stopping you?

End to scandals which there are plenty and political corruptions the list of which is too long.

As I've said elsewhere, aside from some individuals who misspent small amounts, there's been very little corruption in this government, certainly nothing to match the massive corruption of the previous three governments.

The OP's point on family reunification as a cause for bring uneducated people to this country is another misrepresentation of the facts in which the OP is an expert. Statistics show that immigrants in general hold better education than average born Canadians not to mention harder working so how come the family of these better educated people have no education!!!!.

Statistics also show large numbers of immigrants are performing very poorly, much more so than in the past. The days when anyone could come here without an education and with barely a word of English and get work on a farm or a fishing boat or in the lumber yards are gone. You need to have a certain level of applicable education and job skills, including, and this is very important language skills. Even with the points system bringing in people with all those things we still have public housing and slums full of immigrants and their children. I've posted often on this and given lots of government statistics on the poor economic performance of immigrants.

Changing our immigration system to remove the points system and simply bringing people here because they're related to someone is idiotic. How is that going to improve things? It's being advocated simply to pander to the ethnic vote.

[Argus]

If it's a Conservative minority result, don't worry about whether Harper will step down. An informal coupling of the NDP and Liberals will rid the nation of him in short order - and fulfill voters number one priority of affecting change.

I'd like to see change too. So much so I even briefly considered the NDP! I kind of like what I've seen of Mulcair! But then, being me, I followed up by going to the NDP web site and looking at their policy document. Whoa! Any thought of voting for those guys went right out the window after that!

Change is good! Sometimes. Sometimes not so much.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Rajotte (he was my MP last time I lived in Edmonton) is leaving politics. I don't know that there was ever anything special about him; just a typical backbencher, isn't he? I had no idea Jean Charest was still around.

-k

Charest is keeping his head down amid the corruption scandals in Quebec, desperately hoping no one can follow any strings to the permier's office. The only reason to suggest him is he's fluently bilingual and from Quebec.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus