# Winter Election?



## kcdist (8 Nov 2005)

Calling all Ontarians.

What is up with Ontario voters? I am so very confused by the lack of a public uproar over the Gomery findings. Although by the narrow scope of the inquiry, Martin was 'vindicated', there is no question of the culpability of the Liberal Party in using stolen funds to help win the past two elections.

Therefore, why are Ontario voters not clamoring for a chance to go to the polls? Why the disinterest? Why the apathy? There are very few of us, in our personal lives, who would not immediately take action if someone close to us, in a position of trust, was found stealing from us. How is this any different?

What would have to be done to convince the average Ontarian to want to go to the polls in December? Are we that weak as a society, do we take Democracy that much for granted, that a one hour trek to the polls is too great of a burden?

Even if I were a card carrying Liberal, who, for some illogical reason decided that the actions of my party and my leadership did not warrant political banishment, I would still welcome an election to show my continued support and to put this matter to rest forever.  

Unfortunately, the answer lies only in Ontario.

Thoughts?


----------



## xFusilier (8 Nov 2005)

What would have to be done to get Ontarians to want to go to the polls hmmm:

1.  Replace Stephen Harper with Peter MacKay
2.  Lobotomize all of the mouth breathers in the Conservative Party who think the party is the political wing of the Heritage Front and think its a great idea to comment on: Jesus, Gay Marriage, Immigration, Constitutional Issues, etc, to national media during an election campaign
3.  Fire all of the Conservative policy advisor's and strategists that are/were responsible for the Grewal Affair/The fuss over Dingwalls expense account (over which I might add the cons made themselves look like clowns, they should all be thanking John Gomery for putting that out of the public eye) and the whole Jet Skiing for Jesus photo op.
4.  Have the conservatives start opining policies that appeal to Ontarians vice Albertans after all if anything been proven time and time again, you can win an election if the majority of Ontarians vote for you, and nobody in Alberta votes for you (not the other way around STEPHEN!)

Other than that I really don't know.  But I do know that if the Conservative aren't able to convince the voters of Southern Ontario that they are capable of running the country, than I've got a better chance of giving birth than they do of ever winning a general election.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

Because there is nobody worth voting for. Thats why.


----------



## In the light of things (8 Nov 2005)

All I can say is, at least he didn't give the money to any conservatives.  Then we'd have a real problem, considering what they want in a budget.  The conservatives are just morons who want Canada to be exactly like the US, and to delete the moral fabric that this country was founded on, peace, freedom, and law.  They want something but they have no plan to get there (we know how good Republican Intel is  ), and what they want is not in the interest of the people (I sincerely hope it isn't, at least).  I'd rather Canada stay Canadian, or the world turn Canadian  ;D (...just an idea...).  Anyway, whiskey's right, there hasn't yet been a politician I would want to vote for, just people I have to vote against to keep out:
Conservatives = Republicans with a longer name

Vote NDP  .


----------



## Zartan (8 Nov 2005)

You're a general?? :


----------



## kcdist (8 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> What would have to be done to get Ontarians to want to go to the polls hmmm:
> 
> 
> 2.   Lobotomize all of the mouth breathers in the Conservative Party who think the party is the political wing of the Heritage Front and think its a great idea to comment on: Jesus, Gay Marriage, Immigration, Constitutional Issues, etc, to national media during an election campaign




Funny. Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell stated in the 1993 election that a General Election was no time to discuss serious issues, and she was pilloried by all sides. Not that I generally disagree with the statement, but, by and large, issues such as immigration and how the Constitution is applied _should_ be discussed during an election. How better to know the views of the party that you're voting for?

Anyhow, how very sad. Is the answer to my question nothing but sweeping exaggerations and generalizations? Beliefs held by the masses that are not based on intelligent understanding of the issues? Sigh. One always hopes that the Canadian electorate is more intelligent than most, but I fear that is not the case. 

In my case, I could competently debate issues such as gun control, national child care, medicare and the like from both sides. However, when presented with all the facts and rationalizations, coupled with my own personal experiences, I choose the Conservative side of the fence more often than not.  I wish all voters could state the same level of knowledge of issues, but alas, that is clearly not the case.

However, to repeat the question: Why is Ontario not clamoring for an election ASAP? Either to put the Gomery beast to rest for good, (ie. a vindication of Martin), or to replace the lyin', thievin' scoundrels immediately, before they do further damage. In my neck of the woods, that is all that is discussed in the papers and on talk radio, with the results seeming to be 10 to 1 in favour (even by some Liberals).


----------



## In the light of things (8 Nov 2005)

Yeah Zartan, I'm an amazing General.  You should see me at StarCraft.


----------



## x-zipperhead (8 Nov 2005)

Look at the latest polls.  The liberals and conservatives are neck and neck both hovering around the 30% range.  You would think that with this kind of bad press, the conservatives would have a much larger lead, but they don't.  So what's the rush to an election? ( besides Harper trying to capitalize on Canadians anger before it fizzles out )  So we can end up with another minority government - be it liberal or conservative.  That's a lot of $ to have an election for really little change in the make up of parliament.  If the conservatives can't do better than that in this political climate, it makes you wonder if they ever can.

As bad as the liberals look right now, it is a pretty big leap ideologically to Stephen Harper and the conservative platform.  

I think, personally, that the liberals are as guilty as sin but there is no real alternative.  I think you will see the electorate stick with the devil they know.  Voters have a very short memory and I think this will blow over, just like all the other scandals - liberal and conservative alike.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Nov 2005)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> Look at the latest polls.   The liberals and conservatives are neck and neck both hovering around the 30% range.   You would think that with this kind of bad press, the conservatives would have a much larger lead, but they don't.   So what's the rush to an election? ( besides Harper trying to capitalize on Canadians anger before it fizzles out )   So we can end up with another minority government - be it liberal or conservative.   That's a lot of $ to have an election for really little change in the make up of parliament.   If the conservatives can't do better than that in this political climate, it makes you wonder if they ever can.
> 
> As bad as the liberals look right now, it is a pretty big leap ideologically to Stephen Harper and the conservative platform.
> 
> I think, personally, that the liberals are as guilty as sin but there is no real alternative.   I think you will see the electorate stick with the devil they know.   Voters have a very short memory and I think this will blow over, just like all the other scandals - liberal and conservative alike.



I think that's a pretty fair assesement of whats going on.  neither the conservatives or the bloc are prepared to pull the trigger on the libs at this point for fears that the will be screwed by the NDP anyways.  Jack Layton, IMHO, is playing games with the rest of the oposition in order to get concessions from the liberals Re: health care.  trouble is, at least in my mind, is that he has taken a tough stance and so far the libs are not bitting.  If the libs continue to refuse NDP demands, Jack layton risks looking like a fool if he doesnt act when his oposition day comes.

But i fully agree with x-zipperhead that the collective canadian memory fades way too quickly and we will simply wake up with a change of minority if it comes to an early election.  We are in the midle of a scandal that has hangered many and the best the conservatives can do is 30% ?

electing the liberals again will not be a choice, it will be a lack of option.


----------



## kcdist (8 Nov 2005)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> As bad as the liberals look right now, it is a pretty big leap ideologically to Stephen Harper and the conservative platform.



Help me out then. I know the Conservative platform quite well (I've read the web site), and I can't find a single issue that would qualify as a big leap ideologically. I consider myself a strong fiscal conservative, a strong environmentalist and a social moderate. The gay marriage thing could have gone either way. I understood both sides, and noted with interest members from all parties voted both for and against. I could have cared less either way.

So, gay marriage aside, what are the issues that Ontarians find _major_ fault with? Within the military, there are specific policies that should resonate well with serving member. For example Employment Insurance overpayment. With over a $40 billion surplus in the EI account, the Liberals have no plans for a major reduction. The Conservatives do, as they consider it a payroll tax that stifles investment. When I left the military, despite having paid into it for 10 years, I was paid not one penny. It is bad enough to have to pay into EI, it's worse having to overpay into it. 

Another issue is National Childcare. I know that the percentage of stay- at- home moms in the military is much higher than the general population. (Kind of hard to work outside the home when your husband is away much of the time). The Billion dollar Childcare plan offers no help to families that have one parent that stays home. The Conservative plan is to give families with small children a tax credit, the saving for which can be applied to anything the family wants - even Childcare.

Two ideas. Hardly a big leap. There are many others that make just as much sense.

All that said, Stephen Harper is fat, he dresses for the Calgary Stampede like a member of the Village People, his hair looks like a hockey helmut and he doesn't smile very often. On the other hand, he is bilingual, very intelligent and quite articulate. Does this make him scary?   

Anyhow, slightly of topic, but I just can't understand the phobia in Ontario in regards to the Conservatives.


----------



## x-zipperhead (8 Nov 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Jack Layton, IMHO, is playing games with the rest of the oposition in order to get concessions from the liberals Re: health care.   trouble is, at least in my mind, is that he has taken a tough stance and so far the libs are not bitting.   If the libs continue to refuse NDP demands, Jack layton risks looking like a fool if he doesnt act when his oposition day comes.



Yeah, old smiling Jack is just loving his role in the way this has all played out.  After years of no NDP influence in parliament he finds himself in the rare position sharing the balance of power.  He will prop up this government to hold on to this balance.  That's why IMO he is a little less eager than Harper to bring the house down with a confidence motion.  I also think the libs a very aware of Jacks position and that's why they are not bending over backwards for him.  It'll be interesting to see what they do.  Probably status quo.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Nov 2005)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> Probably status quo.



You know it.   The liberals are going to go on claiming that they are trying to govern through all this and that its the oposition preventing the house from bringing such "sweeping" legislation as national child care.   Gomery will fade from the collective memory of canadian voters who, in a case i saw on TV, think that twining the trans-canada hwy should be the government's top priority.   As has been said before , the oposition parties have not been able to capitalize on "adscam" for a variety of reasons ( The inability of the consevatives to get a foothold in ontario being a big one), so realy, not much is going to change.   realy, come to think of it, if   the " billion dollar boondogle" wasnt enough to shock canadian voters into action, what made us think that "adscam" would ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2005)

Well, rain, snow, freezing temps, Xmas, I don't care. I say the sooner the better, bring it on.


----------



## x-zipperhead (8 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Help me out then. I know the Conservative platform quite well (I've read the web site), and I can't find a single issue that would qualify as a big leap ideologically. I consider myself a strong fiscal conservative, a strong environmentalist and a social moderate. The gay marriage thing could have gone either way. I understood both sides, and noted with interest members from all parties voted both for and against. I could have cared less either way.
> 
> So, gay marriage aside, what are the issues that Ontarians find _major_ fault with? Within the military, there are specific policies that should resonate well with serving member. For example Employment Insurance overpayment. With over a $40 billion surplus in the EI account, the Liberals have no plans for a major reduction. The Conservatives do, as they consider it a payroll tax that stifles investment. When I left the military, despite having paid into it for 10 years, I was paid not one penny. It is bad enough to have to pay into EI, it's worse having to overpay into it.
> 
> ...



I don't think you can call yourself a social moderate and just ignore the gay marriage fiasco.  This conservative created social crisis didn't help them win the hearts of Ontario.

National childcare - I can relate given that I am military and my wife stays home.  A tax credit? great so I'll save a few hundred bucks for the year will that change my life ? no. What good is a tax credit to a single mother making $15,000/year.  Tax credits do nothing for the poor. Nothing.

As for it not being a big leap in ideology, well it's enough of a leap that Ontario has no appetite for Stephen Harper or his parties social policies.  As x- Fusilier pointed out very well, if Ontario makes or breaks you in a federal election and you cater your platform to Alberta, it's kinda a no brainer.  As a matter of fact I think x-fusiliers post kind of sums their problems up quite well, in an amusing kind of way


----------



## RangerRay (8 Nov 2005)

In any other democratic country, the Liberals would have been turfed by the voters for fraud and corruption 5 years ago, and broken up into 3 or 4 different factions.

The Tories want to clean up government, restore funding to the CF and create a Canadian foreign policy that isn't dictated by the UN or the US.  Yeah, that's pretty scary.  :


----------



## kcdist (8 Nov 2005)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> National childcare - I can relate given that I am military and my wife stays home.   A tax credit? great so I'll save a few hundred bucks for the year will that change my life ? no. What good is a tax credit to a single mother making $15,000/year.   Tax credits do nothing for the poor. Nothing.



For the record, low income earners are well taken care of under the Conservative plan. The ideological selling point with the Conservative plan is that, as a family with a stay at home parent, my tax dollars are not going to subsidize a two income, $120,000 a year family with their childcare choices, as is currently the situation. Conservatism (Canadian Style) means the poor and underprivileged are looked after with a hand up, not a hand out.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The Tories want to clean up government, restore funding to the CF and create a Canadian foreign policy that isn't dictated by the UN or the US.   Yeah, that's pretty scary.   :



They won't do any of those things. They'll cut taxes and cut services but they sure as shot won't do anything else- as a party that is a collection of bizarre regional competing interests they aren't capabale of anything else.  Thats why I will never vote for them again. 

I'm voting for the cute little blonde lawyer running for the Green Party in London West again.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> They won't do any of those things. They'll cut taxes and cut services but they sure as shot won't do anything else because as a party that is a collection of competing interests thats all they are capable of. Thats why I will never vote for them again.
> 
> I'm voting for the *cute little blonde lawyer * running for the Green Party in London West again.



I dare say she is highly qualified for the job !!!


----------



## RangerRay (8 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> They won't do any of those things. They'll cut taxes and cut services but they sure as shot won't do anything else- as a party that is a collection of bizarre regional competing interests they aren't capabale of anything else.   Thats why I will never vote for them again.
> 
> I'm voting for the cute little blonde lawyer running for the Green Party in London West again.



You might want to check out their proposed _Federal Accountability Act_...

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20051104-Policy-Accountability2.pdf


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

Means nothing. By the time the civil service is done with consulting with the conservatives, the whole thing will be hollowed out and worthless.


----------



## xFusilier (9 Nov 2005)

> Funny. Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell stated in the 1993 election that a General Election was no time to discuss serious issues, and she was pilloried by all sides. Not that I generally disagree with the statement, but, by and large, issues such as immigration and how the Constitution is applied should be discussed during an election. How better to know the views of the party that you're voting for?



Unfortunately there are members of the Conservative party who believe that an electon is a great time to comment on issues that are outside of the party platform or if they are in the party platform, have completly nothing to do with the price of Tea in China.  This ammounts to usually one or two members of the party usually Jason Kenny or Myron Thompson commiting political seppuku for the entire party in the middle of a general election.

To be quite frank the reason that the Conservatives have not and will not form a government is they are bad politicians.  Honesty is not a virtue in politics, never was and never will be, people, quite frankly, have an unconcious expectation of being lied to.  People don't really care if you make unpopular decisions in the four years your in power as long as once every four years for a couple of weeks you tell them what they want to hear.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2005)

Frankly, the best result which will come from all this will be another minorety Liberal government. Why?

1. Paul Martin will go down in flames, his political career effectively ending then and there

2. With Mr Dithers out of the way, the knives will be out in the Liberal party, and there will be lots of people who will be more than willing to dig up dirt about ADSCAM, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Shawinigate etc. if it will discredit potential rivals or sink rival factions in the party

3. There is no "bench strength" in the Liberal party, and people will realize what a very thin slate is being offered up as potential post Martin leaders and cabinet ministers (although this should have been obvious a long time ago).

4. With the Liberals holding a minorety and consumed by in fighting, a lot of their "Really Bad Ideas"tm like Koyoto, National Day Care and other potential spending sink holes will never see the light of day. As taxpayer protection that is something worth fighting for.

While this isn't the ideal solution, it works well enough for now, and several Conservative platform planks like tax relief will certainly be actioned (like they are doing now) in an attempt to stave off total disaster.

As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?



LOL- why did you trademark "hidden agenda" with the common law mark? Did I miss the memo on that one?

There's nothing scary about privatization, unless you are the one being privatized. I must admit I don't know much about the consrvative tax cuts, since one would require a pretty hefty income to see any benefit of a tax cut without also cutting it's evil sister- red tape.

Cheers


----------



## Monsoon (9 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Frankly, the best result which will come from all this will be another minorety Liberal government. Why?
> 
> 1. Paul Martin will go down in flames, his political career effectively ending then and there
> 
> 2. With Mr Dithers out of the way, the knives will be out in the Liberal party, and there will be lots of people who will be more than willing to dig up dirt about ADSCAM, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Shawinigate etc. if it will discredit potential rivals or sink rival factions in the party


No it won't.  This is exactly what would (and will) happen in a party as fractious, disorganized and incoherently-directed as the Conservatives.  The federal Liberals have always been good at regrouping.



> 3. There is no "bench strength" in the Liberal party, and people will realize what a very thin slate is being offered up as potential post Martin leaders and cabinet ministers (although this should have been obvious a long time ago).


Do you suppose people don't also realize that there is literally no "bench strength" in the Tories?  The only Conservative with any cabinet experience, federal or provincial, that I can think of is Tony Clement, Health Minister in Harris' oh-so-effective Ontario cabinet.  The rest of them are former municipal politicians and nobodies who decided to hitch their cart on what they thought was a rising star.  Sounds like small-town cheap, to me.



> 4. With the Liberals holding a minorety and consumed by in fighting, a lot of their "Really Bad Ideas"tm like Koyoto, National Day Care and other potential spending sink holes will never see the light of day. As taxpayer protection that is something worth fighting for.


Heard of Kyoto lately? Or National Daycare, for that matter?  No - because the Martin crew have done a good job of burying that nonsense.  The only thing that will force National Daycare is another minority where they have to rely on the NDP.



> As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?


It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.  Remember the Mulroney years?  Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.  The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.  The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.

Since we're swapping predictions, here another: the next federal election - no matter when it is eventually held - will result in a stronger Liberal minority or Liberal majority government.  Harper's career as leader of the Conservatives is (deservedly) already over.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2005)

> Heard of Kyoto lately? Or National Daycare, for that matter?  No - because the Martin crew have done a good job of burying that nonsense.  The only thing that will force National Daycare is another minority where they have to rely on the NDP.



These spending sinkholes are not officially off the table, and I would suspect they will come to the fore when the next election comes (whenever that happens). There is good reason to suspect the reason we are not hearing about it is the government is in dissarray over Gomrey and other scandals (real or potential), and the focus of their efforts right now is to deflect whatever fallout from the scandal onto Creitien and stratagize a way of avoiding a vote of no confidence (at least until they are ready to call an election).



> It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.  Remember the Mulroney years?  Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.  The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.  The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.



I do remember the Mulroney years. Let's see, there was clear direction and action on tax reform (the GST, flattened tax rates and reduced tax brackets), the economy (FTA, crushing inflation), and international relations (NAFTA, taking a stand against South Africa, White paper on Defence). While you might not agree with what actions were taken or the end results achieved, at least we had form and direction. Since the end of the Conservative era, the Liberals have done nothing but were content to drift on the Conservative tide in terms of national direction. I daresay their record of mismanagement is certainly equal to if not greater than anything ever uncovered during the Mulrouney years. 

If Martin doesn't deliver a majority (and without Quebec, that won't happen), then he is toast. Perhaps the Liberals will not succumb to infighting, but there are lots of indications (the fallout from the Gomrey report, for example) which suggest otherwise. At any rate, lets get them away from the public trough.


----------



## kcdist (9 Nov 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.   Remember the Mulroney years?   Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.   The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.   The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.



Most true conservatives realized later on in the Mulroney years that, although they introduced financial legislation that has been overall benificial for the country (Free Trade, GST), as a whole, the senior leadership was as corrupt as the Liberal Party of today. That is why voters such as myself deserted in droves to the then newly formed Reform party. 

As an aside, I remember one incident when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, a newly minted Quebecois defence minister made his first order of business the mandatory replacement of all syrup in mess halls with genuine Made in Quebec Maple Syrup. That got my goat more that anything. But I digress.....

The difference between Liberal supporters of today and Progressive Conservative supporters in 1993 is that the true conservatives realized their leadership was corrupt and took the appropriate action. The Liberal supporter seems so keen to give 'one more last chance'.

The new Conservative party bears little if any resemblance to the Progressive Conservative party of old. The Conservatives no longer pander to Quebec (Remember the CF-18 maintenance contract). It has, however, introduced policies that should encourage Quebecors, such as more provincial autonomy. Moreover, the cancerous element of the old party, Red Tories such as Joe Clark, are no longer part of the equation. 

Are there guarantees there won't be corruption in the new Conservative party? No....but I like it's chances. One of the reasons Stephen Harper may not be so popular back East, is that he is not a typical politician. He often says what he believes to be right, rather than waiting for polling to tell him what to say. He is an academic and is perhaps the first leader in a generation to possess a higher IQ than most of the posters on this board. Most importantly, I believe that he does not possess the sense of entitlement that has inflicted all of our recent leaders.   Colour me an optoimist.....That said, I would be the first to move my support on the first whiff of corruption (Billion Dollar Boondoggle, 2 Billion dollar Gun Registry, Shawinagate, Robbing National Defence of $100 million for unneeded Ministerial jets, and on, and on and on)

Final point. If you are going to use the term 'hidden agenda', have the courtesy to explain what you think it means. If you wish it no longer to be 'hidden' to someone such as yourself, take the time to visit the web site. You may not agree with it all, but it certainly isn't hidden. Most of the posters on this board are intelligent enough not to be swayed by the use of tired cliches void of meaning to all but the most gullible.


----------



## xFusilier (9 Nov 2005)

The reason that Stephen Harper is unpopular in the East is that many of the old-time members of his party...that being the REEEEEFORM Party (a rose by any other name) persist in casting their stereotypical biases about Easterners and Ontario in public without realizing that eventually they are going to have to go and ask these people to vote for them.  Their party platform on too many issues seems to mirror that of neo-conservatives in the United States, and the average Joe or Jane in this country tends to take their national identity from how we are unlike Americans (rather than being proud of what this nation has accomplished but that's fodder for another thread).  That and I really don't need to taste a big heapin helpin of reheated Reganomics to know its going to taste like ass.  Someone once said to me that Stephen Harper, in attempting to commit suicide would discover the secret of eternal life.  The Conservative make a great opposition party, and as such form a good balance to some of the more extreme members of the Liberal Caucus, but as a party they are not yet ready for prime time.  It is only when the Conservative party realizes that they have to change to suit the voters and not the other way around that they will ever stand a chance of forming the government (and lets face it they've basically been saying the same general...less taxes...blah,blah,blah...no gay marriage....blah,blah,blah...lets renegotiate the relationship between the crown and aboriginals...blah,blah,blah...repeal gun control...blah,blah,blah thing since the 1992 General Election and they haven't got any takers)
I am disappointed by this fact because I think that one party in power for the better part of 20 years is not a good thing for the country...well that and I think the Liberals are ideological scumbags who believe in nothing more than moving whatever way the windblows to stay in power.  Notwithstanding my dislike of the Liberals that certainly does not mean that I am going to vote Conservative by default.  Basically with the demise of the old Tories there really is no home for a socially liberal, fiscal pragmatist who believes in the benefits of a mixed economy so should we have another federal election I think I'm going to give the Greens a good look or the Marijuana Party...because if the current political hopelessness keeps up like this I'm gonna need to be stoned.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Jack Layton has said that the NDP are going to call for a February election; looks like the Liberals lost their last leg to stand on.  All this wishy-washy debate over unwritten Parliamentary procedure is pissing me off; this is why I don't believe in unwritten Constitutional laws - they have no real moral authority and can be bent by any government that figures it can get away with it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2005)

Unfortunately for Jack Layton, he doesn't make policy. He can have all the pie in the sky ideas on how he wants to see it unfold, but in truth, when the Gov't falls, the GG will decide when we go to the polls.


----------



## Hunter (10 Nov 2005)

Based on what I've seen it is incorrect to say that Ontarians don't want an election.  I live in Ottawa, and people here definitely want an election.  The informal polls and surveys done by the local media are all pretty consistent that approximately 85-90% of respondents want an election ASAP.

I also think it is incorrect to say that the Conservatives are a big ideological leap from the Liberals.  The fact is there are more similarities than differences in their platforms and in my opinion the few good ideas in the Liberal policy platform are the ones they borrowed from the Tories.

The coming election offers an interesting choice.  A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the status quo and the acceptance of this criminal behaviour by the party.  An NDP vote is a vote for a party that will sell it's integrity if the price is right. A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a well-intentioned group of people who no matter how hard they try can't seem to find their collective arse with both hands.


----------



## Monsoon (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Jack Layton has said that the NDP are going to call for a February election; looks like the Liberals lost their last leg to stand on.  All this wishy-washy debate over unwritten Parliamentary procedure is pissing me off; this is why I don't believe in unwritten Constitutional laws - they have no real moral authority and can be bent by any government that figures it can get away with it.


It's not exactly unwritten, it's just based on precedent rather than one central all-encompassing document.  This sort of a "live" system is exactly the same way the commonlaw legal system works, and it means that the system can evolve over time without any single individual shaping it excessively.  You're right that it does promote stability - but that's only frustrating if you're on the other side of fence from the way things are.

In any case, Layton's proposal is highly questionable.  The government doesn't have to act on opposition motions that aren't non-confidence and the opposition can't just rub the genie's lamp and wish for unlimited wishes, which is exactly what they're trying to do by voting to have a vote in January.  The government will probably ignore the vote and conduct business as usual.  It's getting a bit silly, really - if the opposition is willing to wait until mid-January to call a mid-February election, why not wait until March?


----------



## S McKee (10 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there are members of the Conservative party who believe that an electon is a great time to comment on issues that are outside of the party platform or if they are in the party platform, have completly nothing to do with the price of Tea in China.   This ammounts to usually one or two members of the party usually Jason Kenny or Myron Thompson commiting political seppuku for the entire party in the middle of a general election.
> 
> To be quite frank the reason that the Conservatives have not and will not form a government is they are bad politicians.   Honesty is not a virtue in politics, never was and never will be, people, quite frankly, have an unconcious expectation of being lied to.   People don't really care if you make unpopular decisions in the four years your in power as long as once every four years for a couple of weeks you tell them what they want to hear.



Your bang on with that assessment! Says alot about the intelligence of the electorate though, doesn't it?


----------



## xFusilier (10 Nov 2005)

True, but then again what's more likely to change the intellegence of a party or the intellegence of the electorate, or my intellegence seeing as I think that I just misspelled intellegence for the third oops no fourth time.


----------



## S McKee (10 Nov 2005)

Unfortunately you just answered my question. So will it be a lib majority or minority? I think every single vote west of Sask should count as two.


----------



## xFusilier (10 Nov 2005)

My call a lib majority  :again.  My whole point is that conservative have to start blaming their party for their poor showing and not the electorate (I fail to see the correlation between western longitude and political wisdom).  What was that definition of insanity: reapeating the same action and expecting a different result?


----------



## S McKee (10 Nov 2005)

The further you are away from the centre of the universe, the better you can see it for what it really is.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2005)

>The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.

There's the problem, then: the public memory is incorrect.  A look at the federal revenue/expense/debt service figures since 1970 tells the story exactly the way it was: Liberal governments created nearly every dollar of the federal debt.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

...and, since I love showing my Uncle who blames everything shitty in Canada on Mulroney, I found Brad's stats to point to the veracity of his statement above!



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ah, who created the debt?
> 
> Figures are from 88-7E "Federal Deficit - Changing Trends" (from 2000 forward, they are estimates).  I have inserted federal election results where applicable with dates taken from the Library of Parliament web site.
> 
> ...


----------



## In the light of things (10 Nov 2005)

There's no good candidate in a capitalist democracy, only good, and worse.  If there was a good one, the position of governor general would have been disabled a long time ago in my mind.


----------



## In the light of things (10 Nov 2005)

bad* and worse, sorry


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Nov 2005)

1995-1996. Quite the swing in the figures there. That must be the year the axe struck home.


----------



## North (10 Nov 2005)

*bites tongue*


Oh, man, I have not been here long enough to start a rant. I will just say that the lack of interest by Canadians to reject a government that has been PROVEN to lie to it's people for SO long is completely frustrating. As is their complete failure to deal with military issues.

We deserve accountable, credible government. Something better has to be out there.


----------



## xFusilier (10 Nov 2005)

What those number show is that Conservative spending, including debt servicing was greater than all the combined spending of the Liberal Party over the years.  So the statement that Mulrooney contributed to the loins share of the national debt is in fact correct.  The national debt almost doubled in size during the Conservatives tenure.  So the allegation that big bad ol'Trudeau created the national debt is a strawman. So vote Conservatives folks, the party of high debt and big government (except that todays Tories aren't yesterday's Tories, but you get the point).


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

You didn't look at those figures properly.  Look at that magical number called "Operating Surplus" and think about your credit card.

...and I think the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth, so there.


----------



## Monsoon (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You didn't look at those figures properly.  Look at that magical number called "Operating Surplus" and think about your credit card.


Operating surplus or no, Mulroney took over with a debt of $169B and left with a debt of $466B.  Sure, the debt peaked under Chretien, but only because it took four years of steady cutting (that the Mulroney crowd was unprepared to do) to get things back in order.



> ...and I think the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth, so there.


Sure - that cloth called "Canada".  The difference is that the Liberals are organized enough to make the tough calls.  The Conservatives are too fractious to summon the political will to do anything approaching what Martin/Chretien did with the budget in the '90s.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2005)

>What those number show is that Conservative spending, including debt servicing was greater than all the combined spending of the Liberal Party over the years.   So the statement that Mulrooney contributed to the loins share of the national debt is in fact correct.   The national debt almost doubled in size during the Conservatives tenure.

And there we have the reason I hesitate to post the numbers: innumerate people draw the wrong conclusions.

1) Your first error: those numbers don't show spending at all; they only show the difference between income (revenue) and expenses (spending).

2) Your second error: what the operating balances show (applying the arcane and difficult incantations of "add" and "subtract") is that the Mulroney governments took over $13B more in revenues than they spent in the years during which those governments should reasonably be held responsible for introducing budgets.   Generally when you earn more than you spend, that's a good thing.

3) Your third error: the debt servicing charges were, in view of (2), nearly 100% due to debt accumulated by the previous overspending of Liberal governments and the effect of compounding of interest.   A simple example might help you to grasp this complex concept: if I ring up $10,000 on my credit card and then leave you holding it to pay compounding interest on the debt over the next few months until the inevitable "doubling in size", does that make you responsible for the interest charges or me?

>So the allegation that big bad ol'Trudeau created the national debt is a strawman. So vote Conservatives folks, the party of high debt and big government (except that todays Tories aren't yesterday's Tories, but you get the point).

Wrong and wrong.   But I think I've stated it simply enough for you to get the point.


----------



## In the light of things (10 Nov 2005)

http://www.politicalcompass.org

see which leader you're closest too.   (the score chart is kind of stupid but meh)


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2005)

>Operating surplus or no, Mulroney took over with a debt of $169B and left with a debt of $466B.

See my previous post.

>Sure, the debt peaked under Chretien, but only because it took four years of steady cutting (that the Mulroney crowd was unprepared to do) to get things back in order.

Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.   How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.   This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada.


Fun fact: those of you giddy to malign the Mulroney governments for failing to clean up the Liberals' mess, and to praise the Chretien/Martin team for accomplishments, will note that the net federal debt is still somewhat higher than it was when Chretien's government took the reigns in 1993.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Nov 2005)

I hope it is a Conservative minority but I think the libs will squeak by with a real slim minority.

  Reason Conservatives wont win.....Conservatives are the worker bees of the economy and are all employed and working too hard to reach the dream to vote. Two working parents too busy to give up the shot time they have to relax or working 90 hour weeks at there own business.

  The libs are in the lower demongraphic working class one employed living off the work of the above  professionals or company owners.

   NDP, parasits of the system usually poor or unemployed or not yet employed students lots of time to run around and protest.

Helmets on!      :warstory:


----------



## Big Foot (11 Nov 2005)

Wow, I'm not even gonna touch that, 3rd Horseman.


----------



## onecat (11 Nov 2005)

"Reason Conservatives wont win.....Conservatives are the worker bees of the economy and are all employed and working too hard to reach the dream to vote."

so your saying the conservative voter is TOO lazy to take the time to vote.  Sorry horseman: no one is too busy, to take 30 mins out of one day to vote when the polls are open 8-8. Also have to disagree with the logical on voting demo graphics too.

If the liberals to win, it won't be because conservatives didn't it will becuase of the old dated and un democatic first past the post voting system we have.  Where parties with 34-35% of vote get to claim massive majorities.


----------



## onecat (11 Nov 2005)

"Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.  How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.  This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada."

On the debt, one also has to remember that Chretien did much the balancing with massive defences cuts and changes to E.I. so that all most no one could use it and then took that surplus and spent it. Wait a minute their doing that.  I would like to see the chart of where the Liberals would of been with EI or the defence budget... 
their jobs..


----------



## Monsoon (11 Nov 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.  How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.  This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada.


The economy went into recession in Canada in the early '90s at least in part because of the high and uncontrolled government deficit.  It's not a coincidence that things began to turn around once the fiscal house was brought into order.  I agree that the cause and effect are more inter-related than that and that the high interest rates of the '80s played a part in exacerbating the debt situation, but you can't blame Trudeau for inventing the debt and ignore the fact that Mulroney did nothing about it while Chretien & Co. went in and cleaned up shop.  As I said before, it all goes back to political will - the Conservatives are populists and are too fractious to make the tough calls.


----------



## onecat (11 Nov 2005)

The recession of early 90's had a lot to do with the recession in the US and western world at time.  And as the US recovered so did canada only a slower.  Did  deficit paly into this, I'm sure it did.. but Canada's economy is totally linked with US and when they south so did we. When their economy satarted to work again thiongs improved here, it wouldn't of matter want party of power.  Liberals more populists than any party in canada and blow with wind of the polls.  Had polls said Canadians were okay with the debt, they would just kept on spending, as it was they did most of the cuting with EI and defence and downloading on to the provences.


----------



## Monsoon (11 Nov 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Liberals more populists than any party in canada and blow with wind of the polls.  Had polls said Canadians were okay with the debt, they would just kept on spending, as it was they did most of the cuting with EI and defence and downloading on to the provences.


So why didn't the Conservatives do anything about the debt in their 10 years in power? Because they didn't care what the people wanted or because they were incompetent?


----------



## onecat (11 Nov 2005)

I wasn't old enough in the 80's to remember their plans.  But from what i do remember their wasn't anyone who was talking about cutting spending or reducing the debt.  i know they put the policies in place that liberals later used unchanged to clain credit for reducing the debt so if they had a won a 3th election it could of been Kim would of gottan the credit.  I'll do soon checking in policies and get back to you.  the liberals sure wouldn't of been doing any cutting in the late 80's... the need was just not there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Nov 2005)

1) "you can't blame Trudeau for inventing the debt"

Strictly speaking, I can't, because there was a federal debt (small) before he was chosen to lead the party.  However, it is an incontrovertible fact that a large spending deficit during the Trudeau years led to a large debt.  It is no exaggeration to state that Trudeau governments created a debt of sufficient magnitude as to make the servicing costs unmanageable in a high interest climate.

2) "and ignore the fact that Mulroney did nothing about it

It is also an incontrovertible fact that during the 1980s interest rates rose very high.  Those who had mortgages may remember.  To try to claim Mulroney "did nothing" is to try to ignore the balancing of the operating budget and the NAFTA.

3)  "while Chretien & Co. went in and cleaned up shop."

Or, Chretien & Co happened to be present when the economy turned favourably.  All we know with certainty is that interest rates drew down and economic growth started to take off again.  What the Chretien governments can take credit for is spending cuts (although some of the effect may have been merely to transfer spending to other jurisdictions) and tax cuts, both of which had visibly beneficial effects on accelerating the revenue growth curve.

The real story of taming the deficit and reducing the debt lies in the growth of federal revenues somewhere after 1999-2000 or so.  The point I am making here, though, is that the existence of the debt itself was an achievement of Liberal governments.


----------



## xFusilier (13 Nov 2005)

Operating Surplus/Deficit has nothing to do with the price of Tea in China, you made the statement that the Liberals created the debt.  Net public debt to me means that with surplus/deficit and servicing accounted for this is what you owe. So once again the statement that the national debt under Progressive Conservative stewardship of the nations finances the net public debt almost doubled.  And no amount of Fraser Centre spin will change that without liberal (there's that nasty word again) use of a time machine.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Nov 2005)

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Federal Fiscal Update brought out yesterday by Goodale.  The policy itself in my mind seem pretty sound.

Raising all Canadian's base minimum deduction so that poor get the same benefit as the wealthy - good.

Creating a working income tax benefit which create an incentive to work a low-paying job as opposed to sitting at home on one's fat rump collecting benefits - excellent.

Corporate tax cuts to make Canada MORE competitive vis a vis with the United States by targeting an effective tax rate of 33.0 versus their 34.5 (approximately) which will lead to foreign investment - anyone who doesn't recognize this as essential needs to look up the success in Ireland.

Another couple of billion to assist new immigrants and help universities and students - good, however I'd more details on the immigration component.  Personally, I think english and/or french fluency training should be manditory as an inability to communicate effectively hold back many very bright people from foreign lands who otherwise would be able to contribute much more.

The only downside to the plan is that if we kept the exact same taxation structure we have now we'd pay off $96 billion of that monster debt we've created, as opposed to only $15 billion with the tax code revisions (End point would be $396 billion versus $475 billion in net debt)

Regardless, I think it's a pretty good plan and would actually be in favour of its implementation.  My problem is that I guess I learned my lesson first from Chretian and then from McGuinty.  The Liberal Party is interested in one thing and only one thing "staying in power" and will promise ANYTHING in order to do so.  They will write it down.  They will print it.  They will circulate it.  They will repeat ad nauseum in interview and during debates....and after elected....it didn't matter.

I'm not be a fan of Harper's personal religion (I think if gays want to marry one another, what business is it of mine) but at the very least I do trust the Conservatives to act in a more ethical way once in power.  The key will be can they get all the bigots out there (many who reside on this board) to actually read their policy as opposed to taking the word of the NDP/Liberal spin machine as to what that policy actually is.

Sadly, I'm not confident the electorate will do its homework, will lap up Liberal lies and misrepresentations and as such we'll end up with yet another minority Liberal Government.

Just thinking about that is enough to make me ill....



Matthew.   ???


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one is talking about the Federal Fiscal Update brought out yesterday by Goodale.   The policy itself in my mind seem pretty sound.
> 
> Raising all Canadian's base minimum deduction so that poor get the same benefit as the wealthy - good.



Check



> Creating a working income tax benefit which create an incentive to work a low-paying job as opposed to sitting at home on one's fat rump collecting benefits - excellent.



Check



> Corporate tax cuts to make Canada MORE competitive vis a vis with the United States by targeting an effective tax rate of 33.0 versus their 34.5 (approximately) which will lead to foreign investment - anyone who doesn't recognize this as essential needs to look up the success in Ireland.



Check. Also look up Singapore, South Korea, UK (1980s), USA (1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2002+)



> Another couple of billion to assist new immigrants and help universities and students - good, however I'd more details on the immigration component.   Personally, I think english and/or french fluency training should be manditory as an inability to communicate effectively hold back many very bright people from foreign lands who otherwise would be able to contribute much more.



Bad idea. You were and Ralph were doing good by following the Reform/Alliance/Conservative platform, but fell off the rails here


> The only downside to the plan is that if we kept the exact same taxation structure we have now we'd pay off $96 billion of that monster debt we've created, as opposed to only $15 billion with the tax code revisions (End point would be $396 billion versus $475 billion in net debt)



The wonders of static analysis. There is lots of economic data demonstrating that tax receips increased substantially with tax CUTS (just check out the US Treasury Department) due to the incentive effect of being able to keep more of your own wealth.



> Regardless, I think it's a pretty good plan and would actually be in favour of its implementation.   My problem is that I guess I learned my lesson first from Chretian and then from McGuinty.   The Liberal Party is interested in one thing and only one thing "staying in power" and will promise ANYTHING in order to do so.   They will write it down.   They will print it.   They will circulate it.   They will repeat ad nauseum in interview and during debates....and after elected....it didn't matter.



Too true. Remember Papa Jean and the GST. Denying he said he would axe the GST AFTER the recording was played back to him on national television is certainly brazen lying of the highest order. Mr Dithers has managed to fill these very big shoes after all (what Adscam?)



> Sadly, I'm not confident the electorate will do its homework, will lap up Liberal lies and misrepresentations and as such we'll end up with yet another minority Liberal Government.
> 
> Just thinking about that is enough to make me ill....



Me too



Matthew.    ???
[/quote]


----------



## Blue Max (15 Nov 2005)

Good assessment Blackshirt. Even my wife a registered nurse started an argument with me yesterday as to why this Liberal mini budget is not just another attempt to buy themselves in as the governing party, again.   :brickwall:

Most people have effectively been scared by the Liberals and have forgotten actual history (what Mulroney and PC's did vs Liberal spin; Airbus scandal-NOT...), thus are frightened to try another political flavour to steer our national helm. 

Personnel I believe this Liberal party could be the most brazenly dishonest ruling party in Canadian history! :dontpanic:

Bring on the election, never too early!!


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051117/martin_election_051117/20051117?hub=TopStories

Read all about it! Tories ruin Christmas!

The lastest from the PM: A holiday election may offend some religious groups. Apparently it is now fashionable for liberals to consider the religious sensibilities of Jews and (as unbelievable as it seems) Christians. Are there no depths to which this government will sink too?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2005)

Just makes me want to get rid of them more. Martin is starting to make my stomach turn like the Cretin used to make it. Getting so I can't even stand the sight of him. Thank heaven for TV remotes.


----------



## Long in the tooth (17 Nov 2005)

Whenever I watch the house of commons on TV I always get the feeling of insincerity, as if afterwards MPs are secretly buddy buddy and toasting to each other as they legally pick our pockets through coercive tax laws.  After six years MPs receive a pension for which they've paid just a fifth, and get far more than we do after 25 years.

I guess it's a great racket to be in.


----------



## xFusilier (17 Nov 2005)

> Read all about it! Tories ruin Christmas!
> 
> The lastest from the PM: A holiday election may offend some religious groups. Apparently it is now fashionable for liberals to consider the religious sensibilities of Jews and (as unbelievable as it seems) Christians. Are there no depths to which this government will sink too?



Who was it that said the art of politicking is to find out which way the crowd is moving and then get in front of it.  Stuff like this is how the Liberals became the "natural governing party".  The opposition parties have to realize that this is going to happen and have a strategy to counteract it before they move, and if they cant figure out a strategy to do this despite having been opposed to the same party (which has been up to the same tricks) since 1993, then I'm sorry but they probably won't be able to run the country either.

If anyother party had managed to portray itself as a "government in waiting", then Canadians would be chomping at the bit to go to the polls.  Harper hasn't been able to do that and should IMHO resign simply over that failure.  The NDP's ideas (while good intentioned) are far too nutty for the average Canadian (although if they were to adopt a New Labour approach the might find there numbers increasing), and the Bloc wants to leave Canada.  I think what you are going to see in the near future is a those people in the conservative party who are interested in actually forming a new government pull pole and leave for a new party, leaving the social dinosaurs, behind.

So what has to be done to make the conservatives palatable to Mr. and Mrs. Upper Canadian?  That is the question that has to be answered, and when it is our democracy will be so much the healthier for it.


----------



## S McKee (17 Nov 2005)

XFuslier

I agree. 

First, the Conservatives have got to stop before THEY ruin our Christmas. The children! The children! Won't someone think of the children? 

Second, Stephan Harper HAS to resign and the malcontents from the Conservative party have to leave and form yet another political party to further divide the votes.

Or how about this...Mr and Mrs Upper Canadian wake-up, stop being such pussys, think for once and throw the bums out!


----------



## RangerRay (17 Nov 2005)

Strange timing for the Liberals to get religious about tax cuts... :

It can't be soon enough to turf these bums out!   :threat:


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> First, the Conservatives have got to stop before THEY ruin our Christmas.



Well even if they do this I'm sure that the career managers have a habit of coming out with the Merit Lists right before the Holidays to ruin it anyways!!


----------



## vangemeren (17 Nov 2005)

Looks like I'm going to have start reading party platforms. It will fit in nicely with the Fantasy fiction stories I'm reading at university.  :blotto:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Nov 2005)

>Operating Surplus/Deficit has nothing to do with the price of Tea in China, you made the statement that the Liberals created the debt.

If you can't understand that the Liberals produced the debt which compounded interest increased and that the Conservatives achieved what would have been a net surplus in the absence of neither debt charges nor investment gains, I suggest you neither invest nor go into debt, ever.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you can't understand that the Liberals produced the debt which compounded interest increased and that the Conservatives achieved what would have been a net surplus in the absence of neither debt charges nor investment gains, I suggest you neither invest nor go into debt, ever.


----------



## xFusilier (20 Nov 2005)

Well I surely won't invest with anyone who says, here look at this, the numbers on this page don't support my conclusions, but trust me I'm right and if you don't believe me you're obviously simple.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Nov 2005)

Gotta love Cdn politics  ;D

Do i miss it? 

No.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## RangerRay (20 Nov 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Gotta love Cdn politics   ;D
> 
> Do i miss it?
> 
> ...



To have a government like Australia's...I'm so envious!  :crybaby:


----------



## McG (21 Nov 2005)

> *Christmas election inevitable*
> PM: Will not prorogue Parliament, Martin says; gov't will likely fall on non-confidence vote at month's end
> Anne Dawson
> CanWest News Service
> ...


It seems even the PM believes there will be a winter election.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2005)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Looks like Thursday is the day the Liberal government falls. I am really hoping for a conservative government that will fund the modernization of the CF.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

Yup, Harper drew up a non-confidence motion that will be voted upon tommorrow.  Bring out the campaign buttons!


----------

