# Conservative minority government



## Docherty (24 Jan 2006)

The votes are in and we are going to be governed under the Conservatives for the next few years, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Docherty (24 Jan 2006)

HAHA, ya we are turning into the Americans, this election isn't even over and now we are talking about the next :dontpanic:


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Well it is going to be dicey for sure, Harper is going to work with the (NDP and possibly the Bloc) on an issue by issue basis to get things done.  The liberals are broke and can't afford another election too soon.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (24 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> About time, I guess a minority is better then nothing.



Agreed. Now that PM Harper has his chance (has a nice ring to it doesnt it?), Im really rooting for him and his ability to prove to canada that he CAN change things for the better. 

Im proud to have voted for him (even though my local riding didnt get the win we all hoped he would get)


----------



## Docherty (24 Jan 2006)

Ya, it should be interesting there has only been a few times where the Conservatives have been the Gov't since post WWI, I believe 5 times and no longer than 2 terms.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Whats really going to be interesting as CityTV pointed is what Harper is going to find once he releases the hounds (auditors, forensic accounts etc.) on all the financial records the Liberals have been keeping for the last 12 years.  Its going to be fun to watch.


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

"Whats really going to be interesting as CityTV pointed is what Harper is going to find once he releases the hounds (auditors, forensic accounts etc.) on all the financial records the Liberals have been keeping for the last 12 years.  Its going to be fun to watch."

 - No doubt, as we speak, the  RCLP (Royal Canadian Liberal Police) HQ is directing the shredding of files, the re-assigning of officers and the implementation of a plan that will make it VERY difficult to find any evidence at all of misdeeds in the billions of tax dollars stolen over the last ten years.  No senior 'crats or MPs will spend so much as a day in jail.  None.

Tom


----------



## Gunner (24 Jan 2006)

Docherty said:
			
		

> The votes are in and we are going to be governed under the Conservatives for the next few years, what are your thoughts?



We'll be back at the polls within a year (18 months at most).  Parliament is to fragmented to work.  A coalition with the Bloc is a death sentence in English Canada.  NDP and Conservatives or NDP and Liberals do not generate enough to form a majority.  Liberals vs Conservatives prevent any type of collaboration on issues.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

Does this mean that the state run news agency CBC will be more pro PC now?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

"18 months at most"
just enough time to do a through search of the Liberals records and distort the findings in their own way.  May get a majority out of it.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jan 2006)

True CFL, it may happen.  I think it depends if the Liberal party, in the face of defeat, can rally around Paul Martin or another leader.  Same thing on the Conservative side, if they can rally around Stephen Harper based on less then ideal results.  Most of the Liberal Cabinet Minister's were reelected so they have the benefit of in depth knowledge of the issues as well as experience.  The Tory government will be very weak (both experience wise and numbers).  

Look what happen to Joe Clark's 100 day government in 1979...


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

This time, they need a 'Whip' who can count on budget night.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Well, the Tories have at least 3 former Ontario Cabinet ministers (unless things go sideways in recounts), so their is some experience there.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man,

The experience is provincial (Garth Turner was Federal Revenue Minister for all of 4-6 months) and the remainder of the caucus has been in opposition too long.  The Conservatives can't let their guard down or they will allow the Liberals to set the agenda.  I was very disappointed in the results.  Did Gordon O'Conner get elected?


----------



## gate_guard (24 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We'll be back at the polls within a year (18 months at most).  Parliament is to fragmented to work.  A coalition with the Bloc is a death sentence in English Canada.  NDP and Conservatives or NDP and Liberals do not generate enough to form a majority.  Liberals vs Conservatives prevent any type of collaboration on issues.



I really don't think so. All parties are maxed out in terms of monetary funds not to mention the man hours required to run a campaign. Having just gone through two back to back elections, I doubt any party would consider going back to the polls any time soon. Also mentioned on one network was the possibility that the liberals would lose votes in another quick election due to many voters just deciding to vote either conservative (in order to give Harper a valid shot) or ndp in order to give them more parliamentary voice. As has been mentioned, I think you'll see Conservative issues brought one at a time and dealt with individually. The best bet for the liberals (playing devil's advocate of course >) would be to hope that the Conservatives fail to do anything signicant and pray that the voters forget about all the Liberal mismanagement.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jan 2006)

Answered my own question.  He did by a substantial margin.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Answered my own question.  He did by a substantial margin.





			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Did Gordon O'Conner get elected?



Unfortunately, and I think it is very likely harper will make him Defence Minister, D'oh!


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2006)

Mike Bobbitt for defense minister.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jan 2006)

> All parties are maxed out in terms of monetary funds not to mention the man hours required to run a campaign. Having just gone through two back to back elections, I doubt any party would consider going back to the polls any time soon.



Certainly the Liberals are probably maxed out as indicated by some of the articles written during the campaign.  The other parties not so much.



> The best bet for the liberals (playing devil's advocate of course ) would be to hope that the Conservatives fail to do anything signicant and pray that the voters forget about all the Liberal mismanagement.



They have an opportunity to reinvigorate themselves with a new leader (and new candidates...) since Paul Martin is rightly stepping down.  They remain a potent political force and the conservatives remain weak and subject to the whims of the extreme right wing.  Liberal wing nuts can say whatever they want but the Conservatives are tainted by the musings of their own wing nuts!

Might have to start a poll as to when the next election is.


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

Here is where 'Deep Battle' lies:  How much time will the Liberals allow the Conservatives at the trough?  How much money will start counter-flowing from the well lubed Liberal ridings into the starving sticks?

More to the point:  How many senators, senior 'crats,  and supreme court judges can the CPC put in before they have to act on some of their 'Phase II' promises?

A majority guvmint would have allowed the radical surgery the country so desparately needs - now, that will have to wait.

Tom


----------



## greydak (24 Jan 2006)

What Is Next For The CF? 

Planes, submarines, arctic sovereignty, more troops, MBT's, any ideas.

 Tory Minority


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

greydak said:
			
		

> What Is Next For The CF?
> 
> Planes, submarines, arctic sovereignty, more troops, MBT's, any ideas.



Making sure any potential Defence Minister (cough O'Connor cough) doesn't can our current CDS, and doesn't neuter JTF2.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Well Martin conceeded defeat and announced he will NOT be leading the liberals in the next election.  I think if as many of the pundits say will happen, Michael Ignatieff will be a nice target for the Conservatives in the next election.  They would be able to paint him in the same light as Harper (and Day, and Manning) were painted.  I mean the dude hasn't even been in the country for 30 years, who knows what kind of "hidden agendas" he has.


----------



## derael (24 Jan 2006)

Docherty said:
			
		

> The votes are in and we are going to be governed under the Conservatives for the next few years, what are your thoughts?



Good luck. Get ready to go back to the polls in the next year.


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Making sure any potential Defence Minister (cough O'Connor cough) doesn't can our current CDS, and doesn't neuter JTF2.



If anyone tries to can Hiller, they are in for a lot of trouble  :rage:


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2006)

I'm glad the Conservatives have won. I think it was time we had a change and the liberals were getting a little too comfortable in power and it was obvious from all the fraud and investigations.

It makes me sad that the liberals are (in my opinion) going to focus on fucking over the Conservatives instead of working for a better Canada.

They've wasted enough money. I think they should give it a break and let the Conservatives do their thing.

I'm so amazed at how the liberals can commit such blatant fraudulent acts and STILL get so many votes.


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

" Michael Ignatieff will be a nice target for the Conservatives in the next election."

- It won't be him.  He is not a lawyer. He is not from Quebec.

Tom


----------



## Docherty (24 Jan 2006)

Does this mean the Airborne is back?  ;D


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jan 2006)

Docherty said:
			
		

> Does this mean the Airborne is back?  ;D



If Hiller is asking for it, probally. But I think we will see plenty of movement on defense issues and procuring for the DND. The Conservatives are known to be big on defense.


----------



## HDE (24 Jan 2006)

Hmmm...

   It appears the Libs lost a considerable number of their Cabinet as well.  That, combined with the need to select a new leader, might keep them tied up for a good period of time.  I think there's also some hope that Harper and crew will govern moderately enough that the Liberal scare campaign will lose a lot of strength.  One of their aces was that they could paint the Tories as a really nasty bunch of guys and voters had no way of knowing how much was fact or fiction.  Now the Tories have some time to disprove it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

GST cut from 7 to 6% according to Harper


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

"The Conservatives are known to be big on defense."

- Not always:

1.  Chopped AVRO Arrow.  Lost the next election.
2.  Backed away from putting nukes on the Honest John missles and BOMARC missles they had already bought.  Pearson said he would do it and so one the next election.
3.  Chopped 1CAG/4 CMBG and closed CFE. Then lost the next election.

Shall I continue?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> GST cut from 7 to 6% according to Harper



When the annoucements were first made, thats what he said 7-6 immediately then down to 5 over the life of the government (this is of course assuming they were going to win a majority mandate).


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jan 2006)

To counter-balance that:
1. Purchased the current fleet of CF-18 Hornets to replace the ageing existing fighters
2. Ordered the current Halifax-class frigate fleet to replace the ageing destroyer escorts
3. Purchased the Oberon-class submarines that served us well for almost 35 years

So their more current history is bigger on defense. I see the Conservatives as a can-do type on defense issues.


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2006)

"counter-balance that:
1. Purchased the current fleet of CF-18 Hornets to replace the ageing existing fighters
2. Ordered the current Halifax-class frigate fleet to replace the ageing destroyer escorts
3. Purchased the Oberon-class submarines that served us well for almost 35 years

So their more current history is bigger on defense. I see the Conservatives as a can-do type on defense issues."

NFA project (New Fighter Aircraft) started under Trudeau.

CPF project started under Trudeau.

Oberon project started under Pearson.

Though, my memory may be failing me.  Remember that on major projects, the party that starts and funds the program may not be the party that delivers.

Oh, I forgot, 'folded the Leo Tank replacement project' in the 80s.

Tom


----------



## karl28 (24 Jan 2006)

I am just happy to see a conservative government ;D . It is also nice to see that  I have a new MP MR Rick Norlock it should be interesting to how things go for our local area .


----------



## DJ (24 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> A majority guvmint would have allowed the radical surgery the country so desparately needs - now, that will have to wait.
> Tom



Not that I agree, however, a policy professor commented that the Conservative agenda can still be pursued to a large extent because many policy decisions are done by executive decision, not a vote in parliament (case in point: Kyoto was only put to a vote in the House because the Liberal leadership wanted to earn brownie-points with certain segments of the population).  The only problem is that if the Conservatives try to get too much done too fast they may face a confidence motion brought forward by the opposition.


----------



## ChopperHead (24 Jan 2006)

FINALLY. It's not what I was hoping for. I was hoping for a Majority or at least a lesser minority like 140 seats or so but never the Less, They still won and it's a damn good day.
Quebec was especially a shocker for the conservatives as most predicted maybe 2 or 3 seats might go Conservative. They Got 10. The Bloc was also supposed to sweap Quebec and leave maybe a handful of seats under the Liberals. they ended up lossing a few seats instead of gaining them. So all in all not a bad result. The conservatives are in power the Seperatist movement lost some seats so it's also a win for Federalism as well. If the conservatives perform well and follow through with their promises I would imagine The Bloc will lose many more seats come the next election.
I hope the Conservatives can manage to get a few things done before we get into another election ( im thinkin a year). The best bet for the tories is to do things slowly and not to fast as to much change to fast might yield unfavourable results come the next election. We have to bring Canada out of a Liberal country and into a more potent, respect player on the world stage. It cant be done all at once to quickly as people will get scared but alittle here and there over time will slowly ease people into the Idea of the not so Left wing.

Congrats to the NDP as well. they almost doubled their caucaus.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "The Conservatives are known to be big on defense."
> 
> - Not always:
> 
> ...



They did give us the CH-146 Griffon... :

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (24 Jan 2006)

Well Landslide Annie got here ass kicked  ;D -- maybe Laurie Hawn will get to be next MND (we can hope...) One hopes Gordon O'Connor is shuttled into insignificance.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Jan 2006)

Fingers crossed on that one!


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2006)

1. Harper will concentrate on a few key issues on a point by point basis in Parliament.

2. Parties are exhausted and impoverished by the election; most won't have the stomach for another fight. Most voters will be unimpressed as well.

3. The Liberals will have to do a leadership review and rebuild. If we are lucky, there will be a lot of self destructive infighting over the next few years, limiting their effectiveness.

4. If I were Harper, I would launch wide ranging investigations on Government finances as part of the accountability pledge. There are a decade + worth of scandals we KNOW about; what else will be discovered. Done correctly, this could drive a stake through the Liberal Party's heart for a generation or more. A two party parliament (Conservatives and NDP) with a sprinkling of independents and minor parties is something I could live with.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (24 Jan 2006)

I'm Just happy that the NDP didnt get enough votes to do anything.....Layton scares the crap out of me....that smile!!!!!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

"Laurie Hawn"
What's hIS riding?


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Jan 2006)

Tories swept Alberta.

Well, lets see if he holds up his promises to inject some cash into the military....


----------



## Jantor (24 Jan 2006)

After seeing the election results, my first thoughts on the CF was...you're screwed! The liberals will probably do whatever they can to derail the conservative agenda. That CF transformation was a liberal priority as well might be conveniently forgotten should it become politically expedient to do so. Martin's quitting as the leader of the liberal party will hopefully give the conservatives some time to act on their promises before the next election. My greatest fear was that Martin would stay on as PM and form a coalition gov't with Layton and the NDP. 

Buz


----------



## Jantor (24 Jan 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "Laurie Hawn"
> What's her riding?



I think" he " was a Lt. Col. in the air force and he beat Anne McLelland in Edmonton

Buz


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> I'm Just happy that the NDP didnt get enough votes to do anything.....Layton scares the crap out of me....that smile!!!!!!



I guess you didn't look at the final numbers, the tories are a MINORITY. The tories are going to have work well with all three parties, as even with the entire NDP caucus supporting them and the one independant that only equals 154 Seats, which is exactly HALF of Parliament.  So the NDP certainly got enough seats to hold a considerable balance of power.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (24 Jan 2006)

Yea I know........look at the numbers after I wrote in....my bad....


----------



## Inch (24 Jan 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> I think" he " was a Lt. Col. in the air force and he beat Anne McLelland in Edmonton
> 
> Buz



Yes, Laurie Hawn is a he. He is a retired fighter pilot.

http://www.lauriehawn.ca/


----------



## winchable (24 Jan 2006)

The liberals and conservatives combined hold a majority of the seats correct?

While many of us dislike the liberals, they're not lightyears from the tories, they're certainly closer in terms of political ideology compared to the NDP or the Bloc. There's no reason they can't work together, that certainly seems to be what they're saying right now, and working on the assumption they're not complete idiots and children (a stretch maybe) perhaps they'll realise through a series of compromises and non-partisan politics that they can actually improve Canada somewhat.......and then marshmallows will rain from the skies and everyone will join hands and sing songs about flowers..and stickers.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> The liberals and conservatives combined hold a majority of the seats correct?
> 
> While many of us dislike the liberals, they're not lightyears from the tories, they're certainly closer in terms of political ideology compared to the NDP or the Bloc. There's no reason they can't work together, that certainly seems to be what they're saying right now, and working on the assumption they're not complete idiots and children (a stretch maybe) perhaps they'll realise through a series of compromises and non-partisan politics that they can actually improve Canada somewhat.......and then marshmallows will rain from the skies and everyone will join hands and sing songs about flowers..and stickers.




 ;D Hahahaha, I wish I had your optimism even if it is a bit sarcastic.


----------



## Jaxson (24 Jan 2006)

I think if the liberals see Harpers numbers dropping in Quebec that they might try to recall a new election in 18 months just to screw with the Conservatives if for no other reason. Quebec i feel will be a big player in the upcoming months, if Harper continues to keep his support there, or even drum up more of it, they wont want to call him out and risk giving him a majority, especially if in the time leading up to an election, he has done good by all those who didn't vote for him.


----------



## Inch (24 Jan 2006)

Well, the way I see it is the first thing that will happen is a budget will be put forward which includes the GST cut. Next will be the government accountability act. If either of those two lose a confidence vote, we'll be back to the polls and the Conservatives will come out with a majority and smelling like roses since the two promises they made were shot down by the rest of parliament. Then they can say "look, we tried to clean up government/cut the GST as we promised but we weren't allowed to by the other parties". Bingo bango, Conservative majority.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2006)

One group of potential supporters that Harper has a better shot at keeping on side than the Liberals did - The Council of First Ministers.  If he can square the circle with them ( in the House he would likely have the support of the Bloc as well when dealing with issues that concern the provinces) then he would have a very powerful group of allies to counter the Liberals and NDPers with their centralizing tendencies and may even be able to get something done on Senate reform.  That alone has the potential of reducing regional alienation.

One thing I would point out when analyzing this election - the scale of the map necessary for the Recce keeps getting smaller.  Libs, NDP and Tories now all have representation from coast to coast and this is a good thing.  The "islands" of concentration of support are now not characterized by region, or by province so much as by community.  There is less opportunity to pit one Canadian against another in the hope of electoral advantage.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " Michael Ignatieff will be a nice target for the Conservatives in the next election."
> 
> - It won't be him.  He is not a lawyer. He is not from Quebec.
> 
> Tom



There is a good chance the next liberal leader will not be from Quebec, as there is no one there who is a "Big name' for lack of better words, who would they pick there, Pettigrew or Coderre, about the only name might be Dion. whereas you have Michael Ignatieff a man like that wont sit in the back benches by choice, Belinda Stronach or even Scott Brinson, would that not be poetic Justice, the Liberal party led by a turncoat.


----------



## DG-41 (24 Jan 2006)

What I think you are going to see is a Liberal party that cleans house. They are very much aware that they lost this one based on scandal and the perception of corruption, not on the issues themselves (Harper was smart enough to downplay some of the extreme views held by certain Reformers and not make this an issues-based campaign) The Conservative support, at least at this stage, is very soft in many circles, with a lot of Conservative voters "holding their nose and voting" because they wanted to send a message to the Grits.

Harper's challenge will be to win over these "temporary" conservatives. The Grits will need to win them back. They can do that by cleaning out all the vestiges of the (percieved to be) corrupt Old Guard and starting fresh - and with Martin already stepping down as leader, that process has already started.

In order to really capture these small "c" conservatives, he is going to have to play a much more centrist position than he could get away with if he had a majority. He is going to have to prove that, no, he doesn't really drink his own blood and keep a dragon in his shed - because the second he starts edging towards an extreme right, the more the Grits are going to pound him with it.

Plus he really doesn't have many friends to work with. The Grits and the NDP are natural allies, and working with the Bloc is political suicide. He's really kinda out there on his own, which means he's going to have to play nice with (at least) the Grits if he wants to get anything done.

I think the Accountability Act will go through in some form, because the Grits can't possibly be seen to be arguing against accountability. But I don't think we'll see any big investigations of past malfesence, because the Grits won't want to see all their durty laundry come to light, and will promise to fight EVERYTHING the Reformers want if they go down that road. 

I also think the Gun Registry is dead. That was a huge white elephant that I think many (most?) Liberals wanted to see killed off, but couldn't because of the loss of face. This is an easy Reform win, and I don't think the Grits will fight it at all.

Senate Reform and the GST cut.... I don't think either will happen. The Grits have too much power invested in the Senate as it sits so I think they'll fight this tooth and nail. The NDP and the Bloc might ally with Reform on this (as it offers a way for them into the Senate) but I just don't think the Reformers have the ability to carry this. The GST cut I don't think will go through because we simply need the tax revenue to keep paying down the National Debt - and that is THE most important task for ANY Canadian government. See http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpa2e.htm I expect the Grits to take a hard line on this, and Harper, not being an idiot (he may want to put a laser on the moon to carve his initials into Greenland, but he's a pretty smart guy) will probably see the wisdom of this once he can see into the books.

Similarily, I don't expect Harper to open the issue of either Abortion or Same-Sex Marriage, because these are drink-you-own-blood issues that chase off his newest supporters. If he tries, we have an instant vote of non-confidence and we go back to the polls.

The one thing that really has me worried though is the military angle. Harper has military advisors who seem to go back to the bad old days of wimpy CF leadership circaf Somalia, and who appear to have a SERIOUS hate-on for Hillier. I'm worried that Gen Hillier is going to get cut off at the knees and marginalized, that we will go back to "peacekeeping" missions where we aren't expected to fight back, and that equipment procurement will go back to extended boondoggles designed to put cash in the pockets of Canadian defense firms, instead of putting the best kit possible in the hands of the troops. I'm equally afraid that we will knuckle in to every single demand the Yanks make,no matter how stupid or bad for Canada. NOTHING would make me happier than to be proven dead wrong on this.

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

I hope your wrong about the military aspect.  I think Harper is one of our biggest supports (so it seems).  Hopefully he visits this board.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jan 2006)

Re: Liberal succesor. I believe Ignatief lost his bid, so unless he's going to replace a liberal who won last night, he's out. Manley, IIRC, is a Chretien cronie. I'm not sure if I would want him as leader (wait a second, maybe I do   ). McKenna is a real possibility, especially if he is fired by Harper. And this may sound odd, but Stronach may make a run. I'd love it if she won. Talk about taking candy away from a baby.


----------



## cryssy22 (24 Jan 2006)

i know i do not have the right to say since i did not vote...but i truly feel we will be at the voting booths in 18 months again...i did not vote since i do not understand much about politics and i wanted to vote from my opinion and not someone elses...i have made far too many mistakes in my life from following others choices and not my own...at least i can say, hey i did not vote, so i did not contribute to stephen harpers win....


----------



## Gunnar (24 Jan 2006)

> at least i can say, hey i did not vote, so i did not contribute to stephen harpers win....



And whether you should be proud to say that, or ashamed, you'll need to understand politics better before you know.  You have probably at least 18 months to get so informed.  Make the most of it.


----------



## ChopperHead (24 Jan 2006)

I never understood why people dont vote. like most have that argument that they dont like any of the partys etc etc. Well there are like 20 something parties. there is a party out there that you can support. just cause you dont support the Liberals, tories etc they arnt the only ones there. We have everything from the Communist party of Canada, to the Grey Party, the Marijuana Party like whatever your value and beliefes are there is someone out there you CAN vote for. so that argument holds no water with me.

Also take 5 min and check out the party websites. there they have links to all their adds what their platform and policies are etc. Watch Cpac for 30min and you will have at least a somewhat Informed view of what each of the parties are and represent.

the only real excuse for not voting that I buy is if someone is out of the country or is working and cant get there. but even then they could have done advanced voting but whatever still at least thats a real excuse.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Re: Liberal succesor. I believe Ignatief lost his bid, so unless he's going to replace a liberal who won last night, he's out. Manley, IIRC, is a Chretien cronie. I'm not sure if I would want him as leader (wait a second, maybe I do   ). McKenna is a real possibility, especially if he is fired by Harper. And this may sound odd, but Stronach may make a run. I'd love it if she won. Talk about taking candy away from a baby.


 ???
Umm Ignatief won his riding quite handily.


----------



## HDE (24 Jan 2006)

You,ve gotta love the way the Dept of Finance uses GDP as a means of comparison between nations and "Polaris" Staples pooh poohs that measure as being invalid   ;D


----------



## dutchie (24 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ???
> Umm Ignatief won his riding quite handily.


You're right. I meant Marc Garneau. Ignatief DID win, and could take over as leader. IIRC, when he first joined, talk of him being the leader was brought up, but it was said at the time that he needs some experience as an MP before that can be supported by the party.

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Gayson (24 Jan 2006)

I think a new law should be passed.

People who don't vote don't get free health care.  This will kill 2 birds with 1 stone:

1)  More people will vote

2) Since the vote will still never reach 100%, more money in health care will bw available to those who use it, the voters.

After all, if you don't vote you must not care about how this country is being run.  If you don't care about the policies you don't care about health care.  If you don't care about free health care than you probably don't mind paying for it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

I'm very interested to see how this accountability legislation plays out.


----------



## rifleman (24 Jan 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I think a new law should be passed.
> 
> People who don't vote don't get free health care.  This will kill 2 birds with 1 stone:
> 
> ...


Perhaps we can start with cutting off health care from people, who don't care about a persons' right to chose whether they want to vote..
Even they pay taxes which funds that Health Care.


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jan 2006)

How about doing what Australia does, slap a $200 dollar fine against people who don't vote? It can provide some revenue for the government, and it serves as a way to just get people to vote.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> How about doing what Australia does, slap a $200 dollar fine against people who don't vote?



Reference?


----------



## CanadianGuy (24 Jan 2006)

Liberal party is rumoured to be $30+ million in debt, 2nd lowest votes for it in its history will get it not much for funding from votes received, previous ban on big donations and with the Accountability Act banning business and Union donations the Liberal Party is in serious trouble. Add to this their internal battles and leadership problems and they won't be wanting an election for a long while especially with public opinion against any election in the near future. Ditto for the NDP and Bloc.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Reference?



It's been all over the news. It's not really enforced, apparantly, but is there to remind people of the importance of voting.

there is another thread on the 'not voting' topic here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38841.0.html


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Reference?



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/mandatory_voting_060118/20060118?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

Over there is its a $50 dollar fine, but it does the job. High voter turnout.


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Jan 2006)

My opinion,
see post at:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36886/post-325710.html#msg325710

maybe the mods should merge these two threads


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Over there is its a $50 dollar fine, but it does the job. High voter turnout.


well..... 
50$ fine (not 200$) and voting day scheduled on weekends .... and they're still getting 90% turnout... wonder what that 10% brings in to the Gov't coffers.

The way I see it - if you vote then you have a right to speak your mind about what is going on in Ottawa... and if you don't vote;..... I don't want to hear a peep outa your corner.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (24 Jan 2006)

I think that Harper has, at minimum, two years.  Most likely closer to three.

The Lieberal party went deep in to debt, and will have to go further in debt because they have to run a leadership campaign.  They will need close to three years to recover, I'm thinking.

I don't think the Bloc really wants another election quickly, either.  They already lost some seats, and may lose more by forcing an election over something silly, like lower taxes.

The NDP most likely can't wait for another election.  But they barely count.

If PM designate Harper plays his cards right, in three years he'll have most Canadians eating out of his hands.  Run a centrist government, keep scandals to a minimum, prove that he's not the devil incarnate (as painted by the lieberals...), et voila!


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2006)

Well.... 
the LIEberals of the Chrétien/Martin Era VS the CONservatives of the Mulroney Era....

All I see is a bunch of corruption issues that span all the major parties.


----------



## rifleman (24 Jan 2006)

and you wonder why people don't vote


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2006)

Somebody around here needs and opto-rectotomy.  Its guaranteed to cure that brown haze discolouring the vision.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2006)

By the way Lance, I agree with you.

Harper has a lot of tools to hand with which he can operate without creating major confrontations in the house -

Consider: Accountability Act - Supported by NDP and Bloc - just think how much red meat can be thrown to the journalists with that one by loosening up Freedom of Information rules.  That alone should keep headline writers busy for a while.

Beyond that:  Regulations in all departments do not needs acts of parliament to change.

Discussions with the premiers are entirely within the purview of the PM - rebalancing finances, responsibilities and potentially the Senate are there for consideration

Parliamentary reform; supported in some way shape or form by Bloc and NDP.

Mulroney famously rolled the dice.  Often poker is used as an analogy for describing the actions of our power-brokers.  I think the question in this case will revolve around how good a game of Bridge Harper can play.  He has a lot of cards to play.  Its up to him to prove that he can play them.


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Jan 2006)

Just finished watching the news. Last story a 30 yr bureaucrat explaining the in's and out's of adjusting loyalty to the new party in power and their need to educate the new party in power about how things are done in Ottawa. Harper's first move should be doing a little "out with the old and in with the new". Having watched that interview it is now a little clearer why things never change.


----------



## onecat (24 Jan 2006)

I'm looking forward to the new government.  harper has a lot of power on hand even with minority in which he can prove to Canadians that 1) the conservatives are not sracey and 2) the Liberal are not that natural ruling party of canada.

The first thing he should do is force the liberals to pay back all the money they stole from canadians not just some amount as the martin government said was okay.  They also need to look into all finances and deals the liberals have done in the last few years to make sure they are clean and legal. After all the liberals are corrupt for a reason.

Second they should keep all of their promises, just by doing that they prove how much more hones they are then martin or the Liberal party ever were.  and in keeping their promises they need to stay mid of road to prove they can work with all parties, again something martin was unable to do.

The other thing I'm hoping to see come out of this is a new position for the NPD.  To finally get out and take over the position of the liberal party.  To not just be voice, but to be actually a party that can get things done; and unlike liberals actually have policies and stand by them.  The reason the liberals have done so well in the past is not their good government ( or lack of it) but they ability to read the polls and stay  in the mid no matter what.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2006)

Not sure who'se got the haze discoloured vision.
I'm not expecting much......


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2006)

The Conservatives have five key pledges, which are supported in one form or another by one or more opposition parties. They are:



> http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1738/37446
> 
> •   Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act;
> 
> ...



There are some tactical advantages to each one, 

The Federal Accountability Act can hang the Liberals out to dry for a very long time (we KNOW of over 10 years of scandals, what HASN't come to light yet), which may be pleasing to all the other parties; 

Tax relief will make the voter base happy and gain some converts, especially given the proven ability of tax relief to energize the economy;

No one is FOR crime (at least not as a party platform plank, anyway); 

Child tax credits reinforces the voter base; and,

The Wait Time Guarantee will play well to the socialist hordes, Red Torys and Liberal supporters (who can be reminded this was promised in each and every Liberal "Red Book" in some form or another). Personally I think such a thing is useless, only privatization and exposure to market forces could save the Canadian health system, but the mass of Canadians will have to be led to this conclusion in slow steps.

Most of these ideas can be played directly to the electorate in Reaganesque fashion (Harper as the "great communicator"?), putting some pressure on MPs as well as opposition parties ("We were defeated because Party X dosn't support us on accountability"), and I think Harper himself is made of sterner stuff than anyone expects (although after welding the Alliance and former PC parties together, people should have taken notice of his political skills). Look for a lot of stick handling in and out of Parliament as parties and MPs get courted on a case by case basis to pass each of the five major bills. 

Where does that leave us, the Service Members? We will see a very modest increase in capabilities, but nothing earth shaking. We will be able to enjoy a bit more of our take home pay, but not driving around in new tanks; neither Parliament or the electorate sees the CF as "Job One", and unless a suitcase nuke detonates in Toronto, probably never will.

Given the depleted states of all the parties and their apparatus (and the patience of the electorate), I will go on record as saying Prime Minister Harper will have at least three years in power.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jan 2006)

Bill Davis - Premier of Ontario 

1971 (Majority)
1975 (Minority) - 51 Tory, 38 NDP, 36 Libs 
1977 (Minority) - 58 Tory, 33 NDP, 34 Libs
1981 (Majority)
1985 (Retired)

Bill Davis hired Hugh Segal as his Legislative Secretary in 1975 after only gaining a minority.  Hugh stayed on through the next minority as well.  Note that it lasted 4 years.

Hugh Segal is now Senator Hugh Segal and acting as advisor to Stephen Harper.

A couple of good Bridge players I'm thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Davis


----------



## larry Strong (25 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Look what happen to Joe Clark's 100 day government in 1979...



I think we are going to see that Steven Harper is made of different stuff than Joe Who ever was!


----------



## geo (25 Jan 2006)

glad to hear your opinions guys.
the PC have a weaker minority than the Liberals had and their reign was cut short for all sorts of reasons.
the PC will have to grease the way with a lot of listening to what the NDP and the Bloc are saying...
PC + NDP = 153
Lib + Bloc = 154
+ 1 nutcase independent.....


----------



## DG-41 (25 Jan 2006)

What do we know about that independant, aside from him being some sort of disk jockey?

Anybody got a link to a bio?

DG


----------



## larry Strong (25 Jan 2006)

Here you are

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051231/ELXNARTHUR31/National/Idx

QUEBEC -- More than 200 people packed a local restaurant in the small community of Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf last week to help launch Quebec's legendary radio host André Arthur on a possible new career in federal politics.

The invective king of Quebec radio had just completed his final show at CKNU in Donnaconna, where he has been in exile since being dumped from what was once one of Quebec City's top radio stations. The Roi Arthur, as everyone called him in honour of his 35 years behind a microphone lashing out at the establishment, had once again lost his throne when the station's new owners did not renew his contract.

Now, he intends to run as an independent candidate in the riding of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier in the hopes of defeating the Bloc Québécois incumbent and bringing the aggressive style and verbal attacks he so often aimed at politicians into the House of Commons in Ottawa.

In his final days as a radio host, about 500 people responded to his invitations to have coffee and discuss politics at local restaurants, sending a clear signal to his opponents that Mr. Arthur was no symbolic candidate. The outspoken radio host said he was in it to win, and given the level of enthusiastic response to his candidacy, he might just pull it off. 

"For the first time, I've entered a race with the intention of winning. I have this strong desire to fight after my adventures in radio that were provoked by the federal authorities," Mr. Arthur said in an interview. He said the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission was behind his firing. 

In 1994, Mr. Arthur ran provincially as an independent, finishing second in the Quebec City riding of Louis-Hébert. He once campaigned to become mayor of Sainte-Foy by telling everyone he didn't want to win. This time, he is seeking revenge against those in Ottawa who he says have conspired to silence him.

Throughout the communities spread out over the 7,000-square kilometre riding, André Arthur is a household name. Everyone knows him for his hard-hitting comments and his war of words against the CRTC. Anyone interested in the gossip and rumours about political leaders and venting their anger at the established order would tune in to his open-line radio show.

Now the 62-year old Mr. Arthur wants to become the lightning rod for all those fed up with politics and seeking a way to protest against what he calls political corruption.

He said the only honourable badge a politician can carry these days is that of independent. He said that the most striking comments received from average citizens who are federalists is that many have not voted federally for years but are now willing to support him.


----------



## winchable (25 Jan 2006)

Some of the stuff about the political conspiracy to silence him sounds a little out there but he did say one thing I liked:



> He said the only honourable badge a politician can carry these days is that of independent.



He obviously won because the majority communit feels they represent them.
And, hey, one less Bloc MP.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2006)

Finessing the votes in Parliament could be interesting, but for the person who pointed out Conservatives + NDP = 153, the Liberals and Non Democrats are a more natural partnership; and rebalancing Federal and Provincial powers is certainly something the Bloc will support (I am no separatist, but this is something which is long overdue anyway).

Meanwhile, on a slightly different note:

http://anglosphere.com/weblog/archives/000243.html



> January 24, 2006
> *Harper's Anglosphere Option*
> 
> Harper's win in Canada is welcome news to the entire Anglosphere. This is not so much on account of what Harper may do, although there are some interesting possibilites, but at a minimum for what he will not do: ride anti-Americanism as his substitute for an honest patriotism. *The fundamental problem with the Liberals is that ever since Trudeau deconstructued the basis of historical Canadian patriotism, the Liberals have not been able to construct an adequate substitute.* They are almost embarassed to love the real, historical Canada, (they are too busy apologizing for it) unless that sentiment can somehow be tied into America-bashing. Dudes, get a life -- and while you're at it, get a national narrative that consist of something else besides "I'm not them."
> ...


----------



## bubba (25 Jan 2006)

a-major i went over your priority list for Harper,why isn't gun registry on that list.Alot of his support came from gun owners,he better throw them a bone don't ya think.If he doesn't that could alienate some of his grass roots supporters.On a personnel note i like a minority gov makes all the politicians earn there money.Also no more snowballin the sheeple.When it comes to the gun registration i hope they allow a free vote by all MP's,i think its the only way to put that white elephant down.         comments


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2006)

Since Harper has a minority, it will take a lot of skill and attention to move on the five priorities. In our terms it is called Selection and Maintenance of the Aim; and Economy of Effort (Force).

The gun registry can simply be suffocated by not allocating any more funding, but in order to keep on track with the tough on crime stance, the PM might use some clever slight of hand; i.e. "The previous government spent _x_ billion or more dollars on the Gun Registry, which has had no impact on crime. We intend to take that funding and apply it to hiring _y_ new RCMP officers, Customs Officers, building and modernizing _z_ new prison spaces for repeat offenders...."

If he were to say something like that, *closing* the Gun Registry is a positive, and *keeping it * hinders the anti-crime efforts of the government.


----------



## TCBF (25 Jan 2006)

Remember that the registry replaced the old Green Sheet sytem that has been used since 1934 to register handguns and full autos.  All he needs is an order in council to stop registering non-restricted firearms, and repeal the order in coucil that prohibited the FAL, AR-10, etc.  This will keep the full autos and pistols the way they were back when (for now).

Then, establish a class of license that automatically tracks any criminal who is convicted of a violent or gun crime.

Bingo.

He just kept 3,000,000 votes.

Tom


----------



## DG-41 (25 Jan 2006)

I get the feeling that a lot of Liberals felt that the whole gun registry, at least as implemented, was a huge white elephant that they couldn't get rid of without serious loss of face.

I don't think anyone will fight to keep it.

DG


----------



## Haggis (25 Jan 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that a lot of Liberals felt that the whole gun registry, at least as implemented, was a huge white elephant that they couldn't get rid of without serious loss of face.
> 
> I don't think anyone will fight to keep it.



Except maybe MPs in heavily urban ridings.


----------



## xFusilier (25 Jan 2006)

In terms of registration of non-restricted firearms, the only thing that can be done through order in council is push the date upon which it becomes an offence not to have registered non-restricted firearms.  As for prohibited firearms those are now prohibited by statute instead of Order in Council, specifically via s.12(1-6) of the Firearms Act.

I don't expect in the government to be able to deliever on many of the promises that appealed to the Tory faithful (gun control, stiffer sentencing, tax reform or defence spending) any initiatives on this front will be sufficiently watered down to gain the support of other parties.


----------



## bubba (25 Jan 2006)

Yeah xFusilier i got to agree with your last paragraph.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

I don't believe the gun registry was the issue that got the Liberals out. Those gun owners were around during the last few elections. They need to just look at a more efficient way of running it.


----------



## bubba (25 Jan 2006)

The gun registry wasn't the main reason it was part of the equation.Whats that saying total power corrupts totatally something like that.Any way my point is there should be a better way to vote something like that registry in or out.Say on the ballet,the party choice's and do you vote for the act or against.I would like to see the regular guy have more say in whats beein ramed down are throats.Not just the gun registry but any contraversial act or law.Lets face it are MP's don't always vote with there constituates in mind,they usually are told how to vote by there leader.I think MP's should be responsible to there constituants not tow the party line.Maybe thats part of the reason voter turnout is the way it is.Just some of my thoughts about are system.


----------



## xFusilier (25 Jan 2006)

The gun registry had very little to do with the conservatives victory.  People who saw firearms control as the single biggest issue, have been voting Reform/CCRAP/Conservative in every election since 1995 and probably earilier than that.  The story of this election was not that the Conservatives won, but that the Liberals lost, it was Paul Martins election to loose and he did so through the quality of his campaign.  The only thing that Harper managed to do differently was keep a lid on the paleo-cons in the party, who cost him a fair number of Ontario votes in the last election.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2006)

Don't forget a Speaker must be chosen.  The minimum to pass a bill will be 154, not 155.

All of the 5 key points should be palatable to one or more of the opposition parties; the only one I see having deadlock potential is the difference over how child care should be supported.  Harper doesn't have to implement the whole CPC platform in the first year; all he has to do to solidify the image of the CPC as a moderate, competent, and trustworthy party is pursue those 5 main points.

The opposition parties and their supporters, despite all that has been and is being said and written, are not worried that the CPC are going to govern as immoderate ideologues.  Their collective worry is that the CPC will _not_ govern as immoderate ideologues.  Once the monster under the bed is gone, they will have to come up with real and practical ideas.


----------



## Koenigsegg (25 Jan 2006)

Some people are saying PC, wrong party.  Thye PC is dead, it is now the Conservative Party of Canada.  The Reformers merged (ahem, took over) the PC party after the Mulroney fiasco, and was going to call the party CRAP (I dont kid), but then realised that that would be a huge mistake, and decided to call the new party the Conservative Party of Canada.  They did this to get more votes, and to to trick some people into thinking they were voting for the long lived, experienced PC party.  Apparently, their plan worked.
Harper was a reformist, and after the merger, there was only something like 5 conservatives in the entire party.  Now though, I believe that more are coming back now that the new party is competent.
I would be watching for the Conservatives to change their platform once in office.  I am not saying they will of course, just given the two parties that formed this one, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

"I don't believe the gun registry was the issue that got the Liberals out. Those gun owners were around during the last few elections. They need to just look at a more efficient way of running it."

There is no efficient way of running it.  For every car in Canada - there is a gun - 18,000,000 of them.  Try registering all of our cars out of a fishing village in NB...

"The gun registry had very little to do with the conservatives victory.  People who saw firearms control as the single biggest issue, have been voting Reform/CCRAP/Conservative in every election since 1995 and probably earilier than that.  The story of this election was not that the Conservatives won, but that the Liberals lost, it was Paul Martins election to loose and he did so through the quality of his campaign.  The only thing that Harper managed to do differently was keep a lid on the paleo-cons in the party, who cost him a fair number of Ontario votes in the last election."

- A common fallacy.  Those are the core/base votes upon which right of center parties fail when they forget their roots.  Those are the votes that formed Reform after Mulroney stabbed the right wing of his party in the back.  Those are the votes that backed Ross Perot and caused Bush Senior to lose to (edit: added Clinton), because Bush folded on gun control.

When right of Commie parties forget their foundations, they get kicked out real fast.  

If the Conservatives have learned this, we will soon see.

Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."

Tom

Edit: Thanks for the tweak.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jan 2006)

Carter?


----------



## RangerRay (26 Jan 2006)

I agree with a_majoor.  The Tories should be able to get their 5 priorities passed without too much trouble.  If the opposition brings down the government over these sensible, moderate and mostly popular policies, they have to face an angry electorate.  Not to mention all the parties are broke.

If Harper plays his cards right (which I'm sure he will), the government should last 2 to 3 years, during which time the Conservatives can prove to Canadians that they aren't the "scary" ideologues that they were fooled into believing they were.

 8)


----------



## rifleman (26 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> There is no efficient way of running it.  For every car in Canada - there is a gun - 18,000,000 of them.  Try registering all of our cars out of a fishing village in NB...



?? Maybe I'm wrong but we register our cars already ??.


----------



## Inch (26 Jan 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> ?? Maybe I'm wrong but we register our cars already ??.



That is true, they are all registered, but it's not all done out of Mirimichi NB. It's done in thousands of Transportation Ministry offices across the country.


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Jan 2006)

I predict that the Libs and the Cons are more likely to commiserate on policy frequently than the Cons and NDP. 



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."



Bad idea - if you want anything to get done and services to run properly, you leave the bureaucracy alone. A newbie government telling the bureaucracy how to run itself is like telling your grandmother how to suck eggs or a mother in labour telling the doctor how to peform the delivery - neither makes much sense and both are a recipe for disaster.


----------



## xFusilier (26 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - A common fallacy.  Those are the core/base votes upon which right of center parties fail when they forget their roots.  Those are the votes that formed Reform after Mulroney stabbed the right wing of his party in the back.  Those are the votes that backed Ross Perot and caused Bush Senior to lose to (edit: added Clinton), because Bush folded on gun control.



Your base does not get you elected to power - as witnessed by conservatives (in what ever permutation) failing to form the government over 5 general election.  It might cause you to loose an election, usually only once because in terms of conservatives it usually works that conservatives abandon a party that isn't conservative enough which usually results in a liberal party getting elected


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2006)

> Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."



This is the source ot the real problem for Prime Minister Harper. Our Federal Bureaucracy is not apolitical, and many other organs of government, the appointed Senate and the Appointed courts are also implicitly or explicitly pro Liberal. Even if each and every individual was as pure as new, wind driven snow, they were all appointed by Chretien, Martin and coy on the basis of being friends or at least being in close agreement with the aims of the Liberal Party, so certainly share a different world view than the new government.

Since the Liberal Party ruled through the gross abuse of patronage, favors and a place at the trough, there will be a percentage of people who are not only hostile to the Conservatives, but also in a position to obstruct them. Perhaps a thorough purge is exactly what will be needed to bring the entire system of government accountability back to life.

(_edited to correct spelling_)


----------



## Gunnar (26 Jan 2006)

> Some people are saying PC, wrong party.  Thye PC is dead, it is now the Conservative Party of Canada.



Not quite.  The Progressive Canadian Party has continued in the liberal traditions of the PCs.  Thankfully, they no longer call themselves Conservative, at least officially.



> They did this to get more votes, and to to trick some people into thinking they were voting for the long lived, experienced PC party.  Apparently, their plan worked.



Well, anyone who was "tricked" by this doesn't have the brains to watch national TV news programmes.  The change, including the CRAP gaffe, was widely reported.  If anything, the Progressive Canadian party are "tricking" people by appearing on ballots as PC, when they have received virtually NO coverage by any media network.



> Harper was a reformist, and after the merger, there was only something like 5 conservatives in the entire party.  Now though, I believe that more are coming back now that the new party is competent.



After the merger, and the subsequent defections by Liberals calling themselves Conservative, the party was entirely conservative.  I certainly hope none of the "Progressive" Conservatives (i.e., liberals in blue ties) come  back.  They were what led to the PC party losing its  support base, as detailed above by other posters.



> I would be watching for the Conservatives to change their platform once in office.  I am not saying they will of course, just given the two parties that formed this one, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better.



Wow.  Pure propaganda.  Unsubstantiated, unsupported suggestions which you back away from by saying "it could happen".

I would be watching for the Conservatives to save all of Canada from alien invasion and give everyone a free kitten.  I'm not saying they will of course, just given the hard work they put in representing Canadian beef interests in the US, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better...


----------



## xFusilier (26 Jan 2006)

> .  If anything, the Progressive Canadian party are "tricking" people by appearing on ballots as PC, when they have received virtually NO coverage by any media network.



Ballots have the name of the party in full written under the candidates name.  Seeing as the Conservatives have been campaigning as Conservative for the past two elections as Conservative, I doubt anyone mixed up "Progressive Canadian Party" with "Conservative Party".


----------



## Koenigsegg (26 Jan 2006)

I said the party itself was dead, I did not say the people who were in it did not continue their political views into another party.
Funny, how the conservatives spoke of their momentary decision to call the new party the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance the word Party was added unofficially (CCRAP) but the "Party" was catchy, and natural to say.  The media, for the most did indeed add the word Party, but the party members themselves have called the party CCRAP.
Also, I said one should watch, I never originally said that it would happen, So I did not back away from anything, I was clarifying my comment.  What I was getting at was to watch for them to drop some of their more major points that attracted votes.  I am well aware this happens all the time, But many people are saying how the Conservative are the be all and end all of more recent Canadian politics.  If the party pushes such important points aside, many people will be taken aback, like they never expected it.  The Conservatives are following up after a scandled government, and who knows what shape the books are really in.  Also, if anyone paid attention to anytime Harper was asked questions, he would not give a 100% precise answer, and his views changed (like most politicians) for region to region.  Several times TV hosts have had to say "You did not answer the question" and then Harper would reply, not answering the question again.  He always said things were a possibility (which is the right move) but it also leads to giving the party a chance to drop points, and when the people of Canada say "Hey, you said you would do this" the government can claim no responsibility for said cuts as they stated that they would "try", it was a "possibility", "We promise that we could", "We are determined to", and my personal favourite "well the Liberals did This!"
Don't take what any party says as what they ARE going to do.
Please excuse my wording of this as I have not slept in a while, I said things above in a very simple way, that does not truly express my view. and by no means does the whole thing try to express my views.
I am by no means a Liberal supporter or opponent, the same stands for my views on the Conservative party.  I am the son of people who are good friends with politicians from both parties.  I am not trying to Cut down the Conservatives, I am very sure it comes across that way.  It just seemed that since my last post was on the topic, and your rebuttal also stayed on the topic, I should keep it in the same vein.  If I had my way, I would try to basically restart the political system in Canada (not like that is going to happen), or adopt a more European, namely German voting system, as it could help us over here.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

"Your base does not get you elected to power - as witnessed by conservatives (in what ever permutation) failing to form the government over 5 general election.  It might cause you to loose an election, usually only once because in terms of conservatives it usually works that conservatives abandon a party that isn't conservative enough which usually results in a liberal party getting elected"

- You missed my logic:  when the sunshine voters who walk in the door of the polling station and THEN decide to vote are not overwhelmingly on your side the absolute LAST thing you want to do is piss of the people who stay with you through thick and thin for idealogical reasons.  Pee off the 3,000,000 gun owners, and a new Reform will emerge.  This time where it CAN make a difference - at the provincial level in Alberta.

Watch Ralph Klein try to slow this somehow.

Tom


----------



## Gunnar (27 Jan 2006)

> He always said things were a possibility (which is the right move) but it also leads to giving the party a chance to drop points, and when the people of Canada say "Hey, you said you would do this" the government can claim no responsibility for said cuts as they stated that they would "try", it was a "possibility"



I always sorta figured that for truthfulness, actually....because he has priorities, 5 of them, not 75000 like Martin...and he will look at a lot of things...but asking him now about the tax credit for left-handed pipers who only drink drambuie on page 74 of the tax code (footnote 7) isn't going to get you much of an answer...how the hell would he know?  He'll look at it, if it's important, and get back to you.

And No, Pipers, there is no such exemption!

So basically, you're not being cynical about the Conservatives, you're being cynical about politicians in general...I get it, but don't agree.  Reform was formed by angy people who wanted to clean up government...I'd like to give them at least one administration before power corrupts them too...;-)

Maybe I'm still too young and starry-eyed.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2006)

Since one of the major initiatives of the Conservatives involves tax reform, here is some ammunition for them:





> *The 2003 Tax Cut on Capital Gains Entirely Paid for Itself*
> I’m not just saying it — CBO is.
> 
> On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media: *The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.*
> ...



The most important thing to look at is the time line; the explosion of new wealth and revenue took place in a two year period, quite enough time to make Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives heros to milions in the short time a minority government usually sits.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (27 Jan 2006)

The above data is slightly misleading as it refers to the upswing in the  American economy at a time when Canada was already well on its' way in terms of fiscal performance. I repeat, this is American data, not Canadian statistics; besides the Liberals were quite responsive (during their tenure) in their efforts to improve the climate for businesses with Canadian interests. I must add the caveat that their policies were not enacted overnight but rather phased in gradually.

 Simply put, those Congressional Budget office figures are mostly linked to improvements in core budget areas (contributors like defence, high tech, and manufacturing) as well as the tremendous amount of investment (at the time) in the American stock market. Capital gains reduction meant more to the American economy as it was used by their investors to continually re-invest their income without significant penalties accrued.

 In Canadian terms there is no real comparison as our market capitalization is much smaller, especially when resource companies are stripped out from the equation. With a smaller market cap, there is less income accrued by the continual turnover of the same groups of stocks. 1997's tech boom spurred massive purchases by small scale investors and as these people capitalized on their gains they had to pay taxes on the income accrued. With incentives given to re-invest, these people would be more inclined to take their money and make another gamble on the stock market.

 As we all know, there was a subsequent crash in the stock market (Nortel anyone) which wiped out many middle income investors and devastated many companies. This market crash precipitated interest in core investments, hence the return to dividend bearing stocks, bonds, currency speculation, and renewed interest in foreign markets (like Canada).

 It is more responsible to state that an aggressive fiscal policy designed by the Bank of Canada to pre-empt significant market collapse is a significant reason for our superior economic performance over the last decade. In tandem with the BOC policies was an  upswing in resource investment which is, to this day, propelling our economy.

 Suffice it to say that the Conservatives have inherited a healthy economy and given Harper's indications to address the fiscal imbalance and maintain servicing of the debt, it is likely that we will not see major reductions in Federal government income streams. As some analysts have noted (Politics with Don Newman, CBC, January 27) there still exists the possibility that the Provincial governments will seize the reduction in Fed taxes as an opportunity to boost their own. The example given today was the linkage that most provinces have between the GST and their PST's.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

Overtaxation and Enron like accounting do not a great economy make. The reality is Canadian incomes remained stagnant for most of the 1990s, investment and productivity fell off since capital formation was choked, and much of the limited capital available was diverted to "causes" (the Billion dollar Boondoggle, Bombardier, Regional Development Funds) which devoured taxpayer wealth with little or no return. The various ideas of productivity budgets and productivity incentives under the Liberal Governments between 1993 and 2006 were laughable since they simply compounded the fundamental problem, diverting capital from its most efficient uses.

We can see a very similar problem with the EU, it is a high tax and regulatory environment with plenty of State subsidized industry, yet its economy is essentially stagnant, investment is falling and even the high tech industries the EU had hoped would lead them to economic parity with the United States are instead jumping ship and making their new investments in the United States (bypassing us BTW).

What prosperity we do have is mostly through our trade with the United States, and primarily in the resource sector. This is far to narrow a base to be comfortable with. Tax reduction will allow investors more ability to seek the highest rates of return for their dollars (more dollars to invest) and provide incentive to do so (more dollars in their pocket). 

To recap, our economic performance in the 1990s stank. We lost a decade because capital was being taken from the economy and there was no incentive for people to take risks, and Canada and Canadians suffered for it. What is the opportunity cost of over a decades worth of lost compound interest? Tax cuts have proved effective all over the world, or perhaps you might suggest the reality of South Korea, Tiawan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, etc. is also "slightly misleading". The evidence is before us yet again, time to start acting in accordance to facts, not socialist fantasy.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

This is the direction we were going under the Liberals, and a victory of of the NDP or Greens would have simply accelerated the process....

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000359.php



> *Counterproductive regulation*
> By Dr Eamonn Butler
> 
> I write this from Bratislava, where I've been lecturing to the Entrepreneurs' Association about the horrors of EU labour market regulation. *With its liberal employment code and 15 percent flat tax rate, Slovakia sees itself as one of the new European tigers - a sort of European Hong Kong.* They're not much pleased when Old Europe tells them they need to adopt lots more regulation and raise their tax rates so that the EU is properly 'harmonized'. Chancellor Schoeder was saying that to them just last week and it did not go down too well.
> ...


----------



## Slim (29 Jan 2006)

This was in the Toronto Sun this morning...


*A new, honest face at the table*

Mr. Bush, meet Mr. Harper

By BOB MACDONALD, TORONTO SUN

It's fascinating to watch all the pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative commentators scratch around for new ways to attack prime minister-elect Stephen Harper. Such as the CBC and the Toronto Star. 

No matter what stance this brilliant young leader takes, his critics try to punch holes in it. 

For instance, this past week Harper -- who doesn't take office until Feb. 6 -- told U.S. ambassador David Wilkins to keep his hands off Canada's Arctic sovereignty. Canadians -- duly elected by our people -- will run the Arctic. Yes, we will do it while co-operating with other sovereign nations such as the U.S., but we will not take orders from any other countries. 

After decades of Liberal regimes squabbling with the Yanks over Arctic sovereignty, defence and natural resources development, Harper has made it simple: He and his elected government will decide on Canadian policy and negotiate any deals that are necessary. There will be no bullying from either side -- just honest bargaining and mutual respect. 

Canada's defence forces will be designed and built to do that job. And, where possible, those forces will work closely with our American neighbours. 

Now that sounds straightforward and workable -- as long as good North American common sense is allowed to come into play. 

But if we allow all those back-room dealings of European-type politics to take over, we can look to a sneakier, mistrusting future -- the kind of deals that French President Jacques Chirac liked to make with Liberal PM Jean Chretien and former German chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder. 

Or the kind of money-grubbing deals that Chirac, Schroeder and even Russian President Vladimir Putin made with genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein. You remember the deals over exchanging Iraqi oil for food? 

No, what President W. George Bush is going to find out is that he can do honest business with Harper. For instance, it wouldn't take long for those two straight-talking leaders to complete the necessary negotiations to settle the long-standing softwood lumber and mad cow disease disputes. 

The same will go for any other trade and military differences. 

The only time nasty disputes became nastier was when Chretien or Paul Martin started publicly sniping at Bush and his people part way through negotiations. Bush is not much for public sniping, but that doesn't mean he's soft. Martin and his ministers have had to learn that the hard way. 

However, if you prove a loyal ally of the Americans, you will soon learn that there are dividends. Such as those Australian PM John Howard earned for his backing of the U.S.-British-led coalition that put the boots to Saddam and his sadistic forces. 

Chretien, Martin and Canada sat that one out, but Canada has been given full backing by the Americans as allies in Afghanistan. And no matter how you slice it, democracy and freedom are slowly and surely taking over in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

So when Harper actually takes over in Canada I expect some very welcome changes. Especially in rebuilding our armed forces and border security, plus recognizing Americans as trusted friends with whom we can negotiate honest deals. 

Now that will be a breath of fresh air between democracy's two closest trading partners, allies and, yes, friends.


----------



## clasper (30 Jan 2006)

> Social costs make it much more expensive to employ people in continental Europe than the UK - something approaching 60 percent more. And that means that continental businesses simply have to be more productive, just to overcome that barrier. So they make sure they employ only the most productive workers, experienced workers. They try to avoid employing anyone young, inexperienced, disabled, old, with family commitments, less-well educated... all the people we want workplace regulation to help, in fact. Look at youth unemployment on the continent, for example, and it's far higher than ours. Continental businesses also employ more part-time workers so they don't get locked into contracts.



Some of this is true, and some of this is pretty exaggerated.  I work in France, and the company has similar operations in Houston.  Engineers here cost about 25% more to employ than their American counterparts (total compensation), and this is mainly because of the reverse in Euro/Dollar exchange rates over the last 5 years.  Social costs are more expensive here, but I can't believe that total compensation here is 60% higher than the UK.

In comparing the French and American workforces, they look about the same to me in terms of age, education, family commitments, etc.  European businesses do have more contract workers than the US.  For kids fresh out of school, it is common to work for the first year or two under contract, instead of hired on permanently.  The reason for this is because of labour laws, it's more difficult to fire someone over here.  In the US, if a new hire just isn't working out, even if he's done nothing seriously wrong, he still gets shown the door.  That's much harder to do here, so they use contracts as a probationary period.

In terms of productivity, French labour has amazing bursts of productivity.  Nothing happens in August because everyone's on vacation.  Little happens in July because everyone's getting ready to go on vacation.  In September, people are catching up on all the crap that piled up while they were gone.  Oct, Nov, and the first part of Dec see huge amounts of productivity.  There are breaks during the winter for Christmas, spring break in Feb (two weeks), another couple of weeks off in April/May.  But if the French have a couple of months at a stretch to work, they are very focused and get a lot done.

By contrast, Americans spread their productivity throughout the year.  Generally speaking, you're more likely to see an American take an extra long coffee break, or surfing the net at 4 o'clock.  The French will do this (and more) during July, but never in October.  The final result?  Americans tend to have a steady production throughout the year, the French have bursts here and there, but in the end, they come out about the same.

Now obviously this is a generalization, taken from my experience with one company, so it's not gospel.  It does however, dispute some of the rampant Euro-bashing that goes on around here.


----------



## TCBF (30 Jan 2006)

Very interesting.  What do you think of their health care? Less dogmatic than ours? Better?  Worse?  Can we learn (both good and bad) from it?

Tom


----------



## clasper (30 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Very interesting.  What do you think of their health care? Less dogmatic than ours? Better?  Worse?  Can we learn (both good and bad) from it?
> 
> Tom


There are absolutely things to learn from French health care.  People definitely aren't as dogmatic about it here as they are back home, but here it isn't "in crisis".  They recently changed the way you access specialist care (you have to get a referral from a GP first now), and there was no giant uproar.  People realize the government is just trying to make things run more efficiently.

From a personal standpoint, my per month costs for health care are slightly higher here than they were in the US (and much higher than they were in Canada).  Per use costs are much lower here than the US (the deductable on my insurance in the US was $2000).  Here it costs 20 Euros to see a GP, 100 Euros for x-rays, and part of that is reimbursed.  Dental is covered in universal health care, and drug costs are practically nothing here.  A couple of times I've had to make an appointment with a GP or a dentist for the same day.  I had to call two or three different offices in my neighbourhood to get a same-day appointment (I live in Paris, so there's a reasonable density here).  In contrast, my sister has lived in small town New Brunswick for over 4 years, and finally got to see a GP about 6 months ago.

I would say my experience boils down to this:
In France, you pay more monthly, a small fee per use, and have very good service (and more services covered).  In the US, you pay slightly less monthly, much more per use, and service is hit and miss- great in some areas, apalling in others.  In Canada, you pay less monthly and per use, and service is good if you can get it.  Overall, I think the French system has served me best over the years.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jan 2006)

a small fee per use,.....says it all.....the answer!!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2006)

Some interesting observations about Prime Minister Harper. I stand firm in my prediction: a three year term in office to start.





> * Mark Steyn: A Howardesque leader*
> Have your say, email The Forum theforum@theaustralian.com.au
> 25jan06
> 
> ...


----------

