CHANGE OF GOVT

[betsy]

I have not had the chance to really go in each and every official party sites and check out their stance on various issues.

My knowledge and understanding of polices was derived from watching the first debate and listening to Mike Duffy Count Down discussions.

From what I heard, I find that the policies of Liberals and NDP are practically similar. Only Harper had something different to offer as an alternative.

Jack Layton was somehow trying to say that his policy is different, but different in what exactly?

He tried to take credit for the NDP in pushing for the National Childcare....so that means with NDP, National Childcare it is. We know what Conservatives will do.

His healthcare plans promises to cut the waiting list, so does the Liberals....but how exactly? He was busy pointing out how Harper is trying to put a two-tiered plan, instead of explaining how NDP will actually improve the situation.

I, as a viewer, understood perfectly what Harper laid out was nothing like the two-tiered interpretation of Layton. I wanted to hear a laid out plan...not just a sweeping statement. If he did actually spelled out how he'll imrpove Healthcare, I must've missed it somehow.

BTW, one of them mentioned about getting the doctors (immigrants) to be able to do their practice in Canada without going through all the bureacracy and red tape. Anyone remember who said this? It's either Harper (which I think it is) or Layton. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Harper laid out a plan that medicare will still pay for those essential treatments that are taken to private facilities. I like the practicality of that! A person in pain have a way to get treatment right away. A person who gets treated faster can go back to the workforce asap!

Then there is the GST. Harper's plan is attainable and believable. I don't recall NDP's plan for GST.

So when it comes to actual change, the choice is actually Conservatives or NDP/Liberal.

But of course, this is not taking into consideration the track of records of the Liberals when it comes to corruptions and all the billions wasted on non-effective "Band-aid" approach on fixing problems.

For a lot of voters out there, the choice now is between Conservatives and NDP.

[scribblet]

Both parties seem to have done an about face on the crime issue since the Toronto shootings and are now taking a page from the CPC on justice.

[Guest eureka]

If you like Harper's "well laid out plan" then vote CPC. If you like the idea of euthanasia, then vote for anyone who will support it. If you like bodies lying in the streets, then vote for the "right to carry" crowd.

Vote your conscience and never let social benefit get in its way.

[betsy]

Both parties seem to have done an about face on the crime issue since the Toronto shootings and are now taking a page from the CPC on justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes. I forgot about that plan of Harper regarding crime. Tis true, tougher sentences is a practical solution.

And I would even support that they get those youths...especially the youths... on their FIRST crimes, and give them a good jolt.

Most crimes on the headlines are perpetrated by the young. And by the looks of it, the situation is only getting worse.

[betsy]

Both parties seem to have done an about face on the crime issue since the Toronto shootings and are now taking a page from the CPC on justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes. I forgot about that plan of Harper regarding crime. Tis true, tougher sentences is a practical solution.

And I would even suggest that they get the youths...especially the youths... on their FIRST crimes, and give them a good jolt. I bet a good dose of reality in jail will deter them to re-offend.

Most heinous crimes on the headlines are perpetrated by the young. And by the looks of it, the situation is only getting worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[scribblet]

Both parties seem to have done an about face on the crime issue since the Toronto shootings and are now taking a page from the CPC on justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes. I forgot about that plan of Harper regarding crime. Tis true, tougher sentences is a practical solution.

And I would even support that they get those youths...especially the youths... on their FIRST crimes, and give them a good jolt.

Most crimes on the headlines are perpetrated by the young. And by the looks of it, the situation is only getting worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/issues/index.html a good comparison of platforms here:

I find this one from the NDP curious "Create aboriginal seats in Parliament"

Exactly how they plan on getting around the democratic voting process, is this a form of affirmative action, or a plan to create more MP's which would maybe represent a reserve and voting would only be by reserve residents ?

[Argus]

If you like Harper's "well laid out plan" then vote CPC. If you like the idea of euthanasia, then vote for anyone who will support it. If you like bodies lying in the streets, then vote for the "right to carry" crowd.

Vote your conscience and never let social benefit get in its way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just sulking, and arrogant sulking, to boot. You think just because others have other ideas they're less moral than you? Certainly the liberal ideas on crime haven't worked. Time to try some conservative ideas. We haven't had real conservatives in power in 50 years or more. Could be a nice change. Certainly won't be to guys like Johnson, that asshole who decided to shoot up Yongue street on Boxing day, but the rest of us will like it.

[scribblet]

If you like Harper's "well laid out plan" then vote CPC. If you like the idea of euthanasia, then vote for anyone who will support it. If you like bodies lying in the streets, then vote for the "right to carry" crowd.

Vote your conscience and never let social benefit get in its way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just sulking, and arrogant sulking, to boot. You think just because others have other ideas they're less moral than you? Certainly the liberal ideas on crime haven't worked. Time to try some conservative ideas. We haven't had real conservatives in power in 50 years or more. Could be a nice change. Certainly won't be to guys like Johnson, that asshole who decided to shoot up Yongue street on Boxing day, but the rest of us will like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, so far liberal policies have allready created bodies on the street, its time went for change. I don't believe in the 'right to carry arms' and not agreeing with the gun registry doesn't make it so either.

[Chronic]

I hope I'm not putting this in the wrong area.

As I hope you all know a Federal Election is coming up on Jan 23.

There is one more Leaders Debate scheduled on Monday.

There is a petition collecting signatures to stop the TV executives from being the ones who decide who is allowed in the debates. Right now for a party to be recognized as an official federal party, they must get at least 2% of the popular vote. Once this happens they recieve funding from taxes and are regarded as an offical party.

At this point in time they should be being included in all Federal Political Events. That isnt the way it works though when it comes to the televised debates. Regardless of the criteria already set out for federal parties, the television executives arbritarily decide who can be invloved. Which means that they are subverting the federal election process if they follow any guidelines except the established governmental regulations.

For a brief refresher (or maybe new knowledge) there are 308 ridings across canada. In the last election only four parties ran a candidate in every riding. To me this is important, because if you wish to be a federal party that represents the whole country, shouldn't you have represenatives across the whole country? The four parties were; the Liberals, Conservatives, N.D.P. and The Green Party.

The following link is to a petetion at the Green Parties website. This has nothing to do with any poll or survey, and it is not about supporting the Green Party. It is about allowing the democratic principles that our country is about to work as they were meant to.

Nowhere does it say that televion executives should have the power to decide who has access to the leaders debates.

By monday's scheduled debate, we need to collect another 10,000 canadian signatures.

Just ask yourself this, wouldnt you at least like to see the leader of the Green Party have a chance to say his peace, especially considering a couple of million tax dollars went to them since the last election?

Here's the link

http://www.info-greenparty.ca/petition/

Let's let the democratic process work without hinderance from the television executives.

Tom Adshead

[Slim MacSquinty]

Ya I've got a good idea, lets let the greens have a debate with the NDP, and let the CPC and Libs have their own debate.

You just can't have a four way or five way "debate", what you have is a panel discussion.

[Chronic]

Ya I've got a good idea, lets let the greens have a debate with the NDP, and let the CPC and Libs have their own debate.

You just can't have a four way or five way "debate", what you have is a panel discussion.

So what you're suggesting is that you would rather see a party such as the bloc, who makes no bones about the fact they they are not in this to form a federal government, be involved then than The Green Party who has made more progress each election and is trying to be a national party?

As for the argument of them not having any seats, what do you think would happen if they were included in the debates. They made it this far without that publicity boon that the other main aprties have, and until this last election did it with no government funding.

[betsy]

Ya I've got a good idea, lets let the greens have a debate with the NDP, and let the CPC and Libs have their own debate.

You just can't have a four way or five way "debate", what you have is a panel discussion.

So what you're suggesting is that you would rather see a party such as the bloc, who makes no bones about the fact they they are not in this to form a federal government, be involved then than The Green Party who has made more progress each election and is trying to be a national party?

As for the argument of them not having any seats, what do you think would happen if they were included in the debates. They made it this far without that publicity boon that the other main aprties have, and until this last election did it with no government funding.

Gee, with just two hours allotment, it didn't seem long enough for me between the four. But I do understand the unfairness. Maybe the tv executives should prolong the hours?

[Guest eureka]

Where does morality come into this, Argus? An unschooled conscience is a dangerous thing. Remember "Thank God I am not as other men?"

[err]

Jack Layton was somehow trying to say that his policy is different, but different in what exactly?

He tried to take credit for the NDP in pushing for the National Childcare....so that means with NDP, National Childcare it is. We know what Conservatives will do.

His healthcare plans promises to cut the waiting list, so does the Liberals....but how exactly? He was busy pointing out how Harper is trying to put a two-tiered plan, instead of explaining how NDP will actually improve the situation.

I, as a viewer, understood perfectly what Harper laid out was nothing like the two-tiered interpretation of Layton. I wanted to hear a laid out plan...not just a sweeping statement. If he did actually spelled out how he'll imrpove Healthcare, I must've missed it somehow.

This is actually one of the primary reasons that we're having the election earlier than Martin's promised date. There is a fundamental difference between the NDP and Liberals, but let's deal with the difference between the Harper and these two first... In the first debate (en Francais), Harper actually said "I don't care if the healthcare is privately or publicly delivered".... These words came out of his mouth. He said that Canadians should pay for it (through their taxes) whether it's delivered publicly or privately. I don't think that I need to go into the cost difference between "for profit" and "non-profit" delivery.... especially when it would require the same bureaucracy for the implementation of insurance....

The fundamental difference between the Paul Martin's position and Jack Laytons is this.... Paul Martin doesn't mind paying for private delivery, but won't say it out loud. The removal of support for the Liberal government by the NDP was specifically about this. The NDP asked for a guarantee that all of the new money to "fix the system" to improve speed of delivery be spent on fixing the public system. Paul Martin said OK, but we won't include the $40 Billion that we agreed to provide for the speedup of delivery in this promise...

Effectively, Paul Martin would allow much of the money slotted for "fixing the bus" to be used for "limosine rentals".... leaving less money to "fix the bus".... Effectively, Harper is more honest than Martin about allowing our heath-care system to deteriorate, and give public money to corporate interests... rather than ensuring it goes to providing healthcare.....

BTW, one of them mentioned about getting the doctors (immigrants) to be able to do their practice in Canada without going through all the bureacracy and red tape. Anyone remember who said this? It's either Harper (which I think it is) or Layton. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Layton.

Harper laid out a plan that medicare will still pay for those essential treatments that are taken to private facilities. I like the practicality of that! A person in pain have a way to get treatment right away. A person who gets treated faster can go back to the workforce asap!

That's how the system currently works... Much of the degradation of our health-care system is due to Paul Martin's removal of funding for it so that the deficit could be paid off faster..... The new $40 Billion was to speed up delivery... The NDP wants that money to fix the system by investing in it... rather than giving it to private corporate interests.... Harper's plan appears to be the acceleration of degradation of the system....

Then there is the GST. Harper's plan is attainable and believable. I don't recall NDP's plan for GST.

Paul Martin promised drops in personal taxes, dropping it a percentage point for the poorer Canadians .... and an increase in the basic personal exemption.... Which Harper says he will undo.....

The NDP actually has the best plans for those with children. In fact, a large percentage of the NDP's new spending is on --- a real Childcare program (rather than just a minor tax cut), and a huge increase in the Child Tax Credit....

So when it comes to actual change, the choice is actually Conservatives or NDP/Liberal.

But of course, this is not taking into consideration the track of records of the Liberals when it comes to corruptions and all the billions wasted on non-effective "Band-aid" approach on fixing problems.

For a lot of voters out there, the choice now is between Conservatives and NDP.

If you really want to go on records, Paul Martin slayed the deficit... the "biggest problem for Canada" according to the Progressive Conservative party (Brian Mulroney's party, not the new Reform Party with the borrowed name)