# Government Falls!  The 2006 election thread



## Infanteer (28 Nov 2005)

Alright - the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin has just been given the boot.   171-133; the Governor General will be consulted and the election date will be given tommorow.   All election chatter will be here.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/28/noconfidencevote051128.html


----------



## MissHardie (28 Nov 2005)

Paul Martin seems to be quite adamant that Canadians are appalled (or should be, anyway) at the notion of a holiday season election campaign.  Is this on the mark?  I'm excited about the upcoming election, and don't really care that it will span December and most of January. What say you?


----------



## beach_bum (28 Nov 2005)

I agree.  The fact that it runs throughout the holidays doesn't bother me at all.  I'm rather tired of hearing Paul Martin go on about the whole thing "ruining" the holidays for Canadians.   :


----------



## karl28 (28 Nov 2005)

The election wont ruin my holidays at all . I am looking forward to this just hope that we don't end up with another minority gov .


----------



## xFusilier (28 Nov 2005)

As an election junkie...screw horse racing, politics is the sport of kings I am a little bit biased.  But I do think that his statement that Canadians are appalled at the idea of a Christmas election campaign, will appeal to some voters, largely because none of the other parties have been able to portray themselves as a "government in waiting".  At this point and, don't forget, I have seven weeks to be proven wrong, alot of people don't see the Conservatives as a viable option and are planning to go back to the polls and mark an X for the Liberals.    Although the latest poll herel shows a narrow margin between the Conservatives and Liberals, its usually only the exit polls in a first past the post system that have any predicitive value.


----------



## JasonH (28 Nov 2005)

> *Canadian government toppled by no-confidence vote*
> 
> Monday, November 28, 2005; Posted: 8:09 p.m. EST (01:09 GMT)
> 
> ...


----------



## JasonH (28 Nov 2005)

Now to see what happens to all that funding the army just recieved.   :-\


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2005)

> November 28, 2005, 8:18 a.m.
> *The "Choo Choo Man" Party On the Outs*
> Cautious changes ahead in Canada?
> 
> ...



The last line of "Presumed Innocent" says it all for so many people today: [we] looked with hope, hope, everlasting hope.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2005)

The election won't ruin the holiday season. The holiday season has been ruined for the last ten years by the lump of coal Lieberals who, like the Grinch, stole everything worth celebrating.


----------



## Sheerin (28 Nov 2005)

I suspect we'll have incredibly low turn out for the election.  I seriously doubt most people will want to trudge out to the polls on a cold January night...


----------



## chaos75 (28 Nov 2005)

Not a good start for the Conservatives in my book..their list of important issues doesnt even include National Defence. (as of 28 Nov 05)
Guess were not an important issue for them as of yet.


----------



## kcdist (28 Nov 2005)

Let the partisanship begin

You might be a Liberal if.....

- You confuse supply and transport ships for full blown aircraft carriers. (See ads during last election)

- You think the poverty and hopelessness on many Canadian First Nations reserves can be solved by adding just a few more Billion dollars to the unaccountable Indian Affairs budget.

- You think you are entitled to your entitlements.

- You think tax cuts are only a good idea in the last month leading to an election call.

- You believe that only Cuba and North Korea have got the right answers to medicare.

- You believe that if someone is from the the West, they're scary.

- You believe that only 50 gun related deaths in Toronto this year is a sign that the Long Gun Registry is a success.

- You think a good election slogan is 'Give us just one more last chance'.

- You live by the slogan 'plausible denyability'.

- You believe the CBC is the glue that holds this country together


Enough for now. Feel free to add you own or substitute another political party


----------



## Sheerin (28 Nov 2005)

You might be a conservative if you think those types of jokes are funny.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2005)

> You might be a conservative if you think those types of jokes are funny.....



Guilty, some of those lines were pretty good!



> - You confuse supply and transport ships for full blown aircraft carriers. (See ads during last election)
> 
> - You think the poverty and hopelessness on many Canadian First Nations reserves can be solved by adding just a few more Billion dollars to the unaccountable Indian Affairs budget.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambex (28 Nov 2005)

lol 
"- You confuse supply and transport ships for full blown aircraft carriers. (See ads during last election)"

I heard one of those ads over the radio last election, was like "wtf" because I had just spent the last week pouring over the conservatives platform and it never mentioned aircraft carriers.  Then again that same station also had a talk show going on where a "liberal supporter" said that Harper was planning on letting Bush station nukes in Canada. I know this wasnt an official statement from the party but it just sounds bad, and some people actually believed it.


----------



## clasper (29 Nov 2005)

MissHardie said:
			
		

> Paul Martin seems to be quite adamant that Canadians are appalled (or should be, anyway) at the notion of a holiday season election campaign.   Is this on the mark?   I'm excited about the upcoming election, and don't really care that it will span December and most of January. What say you?


The politicians are appalled, because they actually have to work in December, and trudge around in the cold to campaign.  The Ottawa press corps is appalled, since they'll have to work hard during a traditional slow-news month.  I doubt the average Canadian is all that offended.

Of course the politicians can agree on some things- apparently there's a deal in place to take a holiday break and stop campaigning between December 23 and January 3.  They wouldn't want to feel too much like the rest of us poor slobs who have to work during the holidays.


----------



## McG (29 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Alright - the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin has just been given the boot.  171-133; the Governor General will be consulted and the election date will be given tommorow.


Wouldn't the GG have the option of asking the Conservatives to form a  coalition government without calling an election?


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2005)

I think that was answered in a de facto manner with the King-Byng affair.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2005)

As expected, the Governor General dissolved Parliament and the election date is set for January 23.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/11/29/elxn-called.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2005)

Anyone taking bets on the liberals "winning" and we find ourselves with a liberal minority government again? 
Sans a few million dollars...


----------



## FredDaHead (29 Nov 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Anyone taking bets on the liberals "winning" and we find ourselves with a liberal minority government again?
> Sans a few million dollars...



I'd rather waste a few million dollars on proving the average canadian citizen has no clue what's going on around him, (and possibly on getting a government that'll actually do something other than steal our money and cut into every program that exists) than have those millions of dollars lining the pockets of the Liberanos and their friends.


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Nov 2005)

I hate to say it, but I agree that the liberals will be back with a minorty again IMO  :  Why? Because MY PROVINCE (Ontario) is a glutten for punishment and in the GTA, the conservatives are considered as popular as Bush Jr. I am probably going to vote Conservatives again (in wich case many people in my home town will tell me I am a racist, bigot, pro-bush, military nazi, etc, etc). Sad. Ignorance runs amuck.


----------



## rifleman (29 Nov 2005)

liberal majority is my guess,


----------



## Zartan (29 Nov 2005)

I think that the only party that's going to benefit from this is the Bloc. It'll probably be status quo elsewhere. A slimmed liberal minority, I predict.


----------



## Glorified Ape (29 Nov 2005)

rifleman said:
			
		

> liberal majority is my guess,



Lets hope so.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2005)

My personal opinion is that Canada needs to take the "Ariel Sharon" approach - there seems to be some general trends that Canada shares with Israel's chaotic political scenario that may make this approach feasible.

Like Israel, central moderates in Canada are overpowered by the barking from the left/right.   The Liberal Party has been weakened by an internal turf war between ideologues and loyalties - "Chretianistas" vs. "Martinis" exemplifies this; you can see it all over the Gomery Report.   They lost their bastion in Quebec to the Mulroney/Bouchard alliance (which was a Liberal stronghold since Confederation) and, as one of the commentators stated the other night, the camouflage of being a "National Party" has withered away as it became apparent that the Bloq picked up all of the fallout from the PC meltdown.   With the "united right" forming a strong party in the West, this camouflage is all gone now and we see no end in the near term to minority government.

The Conservative Party will never govern - it is being drug through the mud by its far-right faction.   As it is Canada's only real "right of center" party, it attracts alot of people who would probably be better members of the Christian Heritage Party.   Canada has a far different political landscape than the US, and focussing on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and what not is political suicide - Stockwell Day the preacher found this out the hard way.   But the loud-mouths in the party (along with the Western separatists) succeed in destroying any credibility that the Conservative Party has in being a national party for Canada.   Even people out east who are conservative in outlook don't see the Conservative Party as a reasonable alternative due to the legacy as a Western protest party - whispers of forming a coalition with the Bloq (the other protest party) only serve to strengthen this fear.   Ralph Klein knows this - that's why he said as much with his prediction on the outcome of the next election.

The Left is represented by the NDP and the Bloq.   The NDP have their strength in the union/(trade) protectionist racket.   The Bloq, a seperatiste party and essentially a wasted protest vote in the the legislature of Parliament, represents the traditional left wing nature of Quebec politics.   Both of these parties seem keen to pounce on any move away from Canada's "Europeanization" (as one commentator called it) - this incites the left wing of the Liberal Party (which Edward Campbell as deemed its "subversive elements") to action and makes the position of the more fiscally conservative elements of the Liberal party that Paul Martin is trying to lead today very untenable - careful to avoid a coup d'etat from within his own caucus, Martin can ill afford to abandon the left-wing element that entrenched itself in the Liberal Party in the 60's and 70's under Trudeau; thus we are left with Mr Dithers.

So, you have the left and the right pulling from the fringes.   A smart politician from the Conservatives or Liberals would pull a "Sharon" and essentially aim for a "Unity" platform.   Harper could abandon the foaming right-wing elements and the narrow minded "Western alienation" section of the Conservative Party while Martin could leave behind his left-wing hangers-on who push us, politically and ideologically, down the road to serfdom through far left agitation.   Martin is a good man with the bank; one only has to compare our economy and finances today to when he first got ahold of things.   It would be foolhardy to not give him credit when it is due.   Harper is an economist from the West, and I make the assumption that he'd be more interested in focussing on the real issues rather than having elements of his own caucus push him to political _sepukku_.   I really don't see too much difference in these two leaders.

Together, the "Unity ticket" could be one that dedicated itself to three key platform initiatives:

1)   Sorting out the Health Care and Social Security systems by maintaining their universal nature and ignoring the ideological imperative from either side.   
2)   Dedicating itself to a stronger foreign and defence policy and the institutions (Defence, Foreign Affairs, CIDA) to back it up (again, avoiding ideological draws from either side) to be capable of securing our security and prosperity both at home and abroad.
3)   Bill itself as a true national party dedicated to overcoming regional squabbling - a ticket like this could avoid the tag of "Toronto" or "Western" party.   From this, it could gather a real moral imperative to fix Canadian democracy by addressing the "democratic deficit" (things like the antagonistic Federal/Provincial relationship, the much-maligned Senate, etc, etc).

Anyways, if I wanted to form a majority government right now that would be my strategy.   But, alas, I think the party trenchlines are dug too deep and unlike Israel, we don't have something as pressing as what has been going on in the Occupied Territories to ensure political urgency can overcome traditional party factionalism.   Although the image of Martin and Harper backing each other would be interesting to see....


----------



## KevinB (29 Nov 2005)

See I just see the Conservative Party as a soft lower case c party.  Personally I want them FURTHER right than they are.  For me it is not necessarily about governing, especially not if you have to sellout your values to do so, then you end up with a moral bankrupt party ruling the country (i.e. the Liberal Party of Canada).  The Reform bent to accomodate the PC's and still is viewed with hostility and suspicion.  


   I won't alter my beliefs in order to accomodate others, and I dont think the political partys should either.  

Israel has 17 parties, and it has some much more serious issued facing it (national survival) - it is a bad analogy (IMHO).   


IF Canada votes another Liberal Gov't minority that forms a coalition with the NDP, I think Canada is doomed --I think that then the West will seperate.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I won't alter my beliefs in order to accomodate others, and I dont think the political partys should either.



Canada is a polyglot nation that has pronounced regional and urban/rural divides - concession and concensus are required (and, in my view, desirable).  I hate the idea of a coaltion of the left driving us to further marginalization through abrogation of basic civic responsibilities, but I also hate the fact that my local MP trumpets the sanctity of marriage while not being able to offer any real reason why it is sacred....



> Israel has 17 parties, and it has some much more serious issued facing it (national survival) - it is a bad analogy (IMHO).



Yes, but the political analogy of centrists being torn by the left and right is apt.  The left and right may be aiming for different objectives (hawk/dove), but the general themes of Sharon's solution is what I was aiming for.


----------



## The Gues-|- (29 Nov 2005)

CONSERVATIVES!


----------



## Zartan (30 Nov 2005)

I too want the Conservatives to win, and I'm a centrist. I really don't like any of the parties, but I feel a balance has to be restored, certain parties cleansed, and certain people made happy.

However, if I had a choice, which I don't - I would vote Infanteer '06. SPOILED BALLOTS BE DAMNED!!!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

Im voting conservative.... and in the spirit of the election and the madness that always ensues, I will refer you all to the Benny Hill TV Show theme song.

Heeeereee we go again  :


----------



## vangemeren (30 Nov 2005)

Compromise is the basis of the country, without it Canada would probably not exist. It was the Great Coalition under Mac Donald, Cartier and Brown that led to Canadian Confederation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Coalition

For a new centrist party to form there would have to be a party leader with some power/leadership that would draw people from both sides of the political spectrum (like Sharon in Israel). This election campaign is going to be nasty one (if the last one was any indication), even though it will probably retain the status quo. I think people are going to get tired pretty quickly of the partisan politics, and potentially with 2 successive (and non-effective; I can't recall any important bills coming into law other than the budget) minority governments, something is going to move.


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Nov 2005)

This is an interesting election site:

http://electionprediction.org/2005_fed/

It gives a reasonable glimpse at a riding by riding breakdown.  It might be useful to watch this site as the campaign progresses.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

DAY 1:  Well, I agree with the CTV corresponent Craig Oliver - to Steven Harper, I'm sending out a big WTF OVER?  Right off the bat, he pulls out the gay marriage thing.  Didn't we already pass the legistlation on that?  Obviously he doesn't read Army.ca, because it's been established that social policy is not the way to win an election in Canada.... :

In other news, it looks like the Liberals are in for a bit of a rough ride in Quebec....


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

Is it just me or is alot of the conservative campaign typically just liberal bashing? ... or maybe thats every party.

About that aircraft carrier thing;

I was confused about it before, while the campaign was going on because I didnt hear anything like that... but for whatever reason I assumed it was true because I wasnt paying an incredible amount of attention.

I voted Liberal last time... oops?


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Nov 2005)

Here's another useful site from the CBC about scandals:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1700-11692/politics_economy/political_scandals/clip10

It's going to be quite a campaign.


----------



## kcdist (30 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> DAY 1:   Well, I agree with the CTV corresponent Craig Oliver - to Steven Harper, I'm sending out a big WTF OVER?   Right off the bat, he pulls out the gay marriage thing.   Didn't we already pass the legistlation on that?   Obviously he doesn't read Army.ca, because it's been established that social policy is not the way to win an election in Canada.... :



This is precisely the torque that the media can put on an issue....and shame on you for falling for it.

The Conservative position on Gay Marriage, incidentally, shared by at least two dozen Liberals and at least one NDP'er, is well established. It has been articulated by the Conservative party from the outset, and again after the House of Commons not-so-free vote. It was also voted on during their last policy convention.

Now, to set the stage, Stephen Harper was conducting a press conference. One of the questions, asked by a reporter, was specifically about the Conservative stance on Gay Marriage. How would you have Harper respond? Lie? Avoid answering? I should hope not. This is what differentiates him from the other leaders. A controversial subject, sure. Do I personally wish it would go away? Yes. However, the underlying issue here is Harper did not bring the subject up, he was asked about it and responded truthfully. There's a word for this........Honesty.

Unfortunately, his prize for truthfully answering a question is the negative media torque that he is placing this policy at the forefront of the election campaign. It is a mere one of dozens of policty positions held by the Conservatives. Most I agree with, some I don't.    

Methinks this is all a mere question of semantics, however, as a non-religious person, I don't have a strong opinion on it- but I do respect those that do.


----------



## clasper (30 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> How would you have Harper respond? Lie? Avoid answering? I should hope not. This is what differentiates him from the other leaders. A controversial subject, sure. Do I personally wish it would go away? Yes. However, the underlying issue here is Harper did not bring the subject up, he was asked about it and responded truthfully. There's a word for this........Honesty.



Yep- kudos to Harper for answering honestly.  But I would have had much more respect for him if he said something along the lines of: "I personally disagree with gay marriage.  Polling has shown that this is a very divisive issue that is evenly split for and against.  The duly elected government of Canada passed a law, and the pro-gay marriage side won the day.  I lost that battle, but I don't plan on dragging Canada through another contentious debate to revisit this issue.  My vision for Canada's future includes blah blah blah..."

If the conservative party wants to form a government, they have to increase their appeal to voters in Ontario and Quebec.  Alienating the majority of those voters on day 1 is a pretty dopey move, IMHO.


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

Harper soiled the bed...elections are not about the truth, elections are about shaping public perceptions and the Conservative party has to change the perception of it in Central Ontario.  Opening that entire can of worms was a bad idea, one that he should have been advised against.  I agree with clasper, would have been a much better answer, and one that had the veneer, so to speak of the leader of the official opposition.  Instead we got the same subtle as a train wreck comments that we are used to seeing from the Tories.


----------



## kcdist (30 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Harper soiled the bed...elections are not about the truth, elections are about shaping public perceptions



I can't disagree with this statement, however it runs to the heart of the problem.

The reason the Liberals have been so successful is that they fully subscribe to the statement. Are Canadians simple-minded dupes? Apparently so, because either they don't realize that the Liberals are being dishonest with them, or, like xFusilier, they do know but accept it as the unchangeable status quo.

I think this does explain the Liberal popularity, despite an impressive list of scandals.

I believe that in the next few weeks, enough Canadians will decide they want true honesty in their politicians, warts and all. I would rather vote for a party whose platform I only 75% agreed with, than to vote for the party that pulled the old bait-and-switch time and time and time again. (Who wasn't excited about the plan to scrap the GST?).  

Again, for Harper to suddenly change his views on the spot would have been a lie. That would have been bad. And as Clasper stated, polls indicate that Canadians are still almost evenly divided on the issue. That would mean 50% agree with Harper, despite his current polling numbers of 30-35%. Maybe not such a bad response after all.

On Gay Marriage I agree with most of the posters on this subject. Not that big of a deal. However, to a great many people in this country, it is the hill to die on and it trumps all other issues. Those that hold the anti-view, even those that supported other parties in past elections, will be the hard-core, vote in -40 C weather voter, compared the the 'soft' support that the Liberals have. So again, maybe not so bad of a response, and the truth to boot!


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> This is precisely the torque that the media can put on an issue....and shame on you for falling for it.



I didn't "fall for it" - I saw exactly how it panned out.   It's a campaign, and it's all about how you present yourself.   Clasper has it right.   The Conservative Party needs to do some hard thinking about their stance on issues like that if they only way they can answer questions is "We plan to go back and rewrite laws".   And this isn't just about voters in Ontario and Quebec, it's about voters in the major urban centers (look at the seats in Vancouver) which are fairly polyglot and tolerant of this stuff.



			
				kcdist said:
			
		

> I believe that in the next few weeks, enough Canadians will decide they want true honesty in their politicians, warts and all. I would rather vote for a party whose platform I only 75% agreed with, than to vote for the party that pulled the old bait-and-switch time and time and time again. (Who wasn't excited about the plan to scrap the GST?).



Semper Gumby - as I said, a real national party has to be about concession and concensus; if this means meeting others in the middle, so be it.   I'm not eager to send ideologues to Parliament, I want to see guys that can get the job done in the most acceptable way possible.  Why do you think the Liberal Party has been the most successful party in Western democracy, getting the mandate for 75% of the 20th century?

Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?   Look at the shape of our economy at the time and look how much money those things were pulling in; kudos to Mulroney for the assist.


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

The Liberals win time and time again because they are simply better a politicking than the other parties.  As for there being a large number of single issue voters as regards SSM, there are just as many voters who are as dedicated that will go to the polls with equal dedication, keeping Steven Harper and the Conservatives out of office.  Canadians are not simple minded dupes, and there are many people who are disgusted with the sponsorship scandal, however,who see no other party that reflects their vision for Canada except the Liberals.  Conservative proponents who allude to the rest of Canada being simple, because their party has undergone "electile dysfunction" for the past 3 general elections do nothing other than further marginalize the party.  The Conservatives for the most part have either campaigned on how the are not like the ruling party or in the past on a platform that the reflects a view of Canada that voters find disturbing.  The current platform of the Conservatives is great, but until they start to articulate that vision for Canada, rather than always being on the defensive regarding stupid, ill timed remarks by caucus members, they will be unable to make any real headway.  As Infanteer said the Liberals are great at telling Canadians exactly what they want to hear...1 part patriotism...1 part anti-Americanism...1 part healthcare...1 part social programs...bake at 425 F for 7 weeks and Bob's your uncle (and a Privy Councillor to boot!)

Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.  Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,  or the Conservatives?


----------



## kcdist (30 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.   Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,   or the Conservatives?



Great Question. No easy answer.

Part of the problem is the communications strategy of the Conservatives. Part of the blame lies with the National Media. Disagree if you will, but how else to explain my dear Aunt, whose views are right of Attilla the Hun, but still not wanting to support the Conservatives because she thinks they're 'scary'. When pressed to substantiate her beliefs, she simply replies that that's what she had read.

Think about it. The CBC's virtual survival relies upon the Conservatives not gaining power. It is also not possilbe for the The Toronto Star to be more anti-Conservative, and it maintains the highest readership within the GTA. Also, remember the MacLeans cover story awhile back with the "How Scary?" title.

In fact, the media holds so much power, they often dictate what the issues of the election will be. If they run a national headline on some unknown candidate's stupid comment, that will be the story of the day. Yes, some Conservative need a muzzle, however, that applies to all parties. It is up to the media to pick and choose what stupid comment they wish to highlight, and more often that not, it will be from a Conservative member. As I was born in Prince George, I am still peeved about Heady Fry's cross burning comment, however, I remember going on line at the time and seeing no condemnation by either the Star or the Globe and Mail.

To be truly successful, you must first have your supporters control the Media......In this regard, the Liberals have done well.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> As Infanteer said the Liberals are great at telling Canadians exactly what they want to hear...1 part patriotism...1 part anti-Americanism...1 part healthcare...1 part social programs...bake at 425 F for 7 weeks and Bob's your uncle (and a Privy Councillor to boot!)



Unfortunately, that isn't what the Liberal Party of old (the Party of Laurier, King, St Laurent) achieved the most notable success upon - this is the vestiages of Trudeau.   I agree with Edward Campbell's summation of it and it makes me as squeemish as listening to Conservatives talk about abortion - there is no intelligent debate in those policies and they make the Liberal Party seem as neutered as the Conservatives in my eyes (hence my call for a "Unity" ticket above).



> Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.   Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,   or the Conservatives?



I think running on an "Ethics" strategy is a bad one - most Canadians seem to have a low opinion of politicians in general (lower then usual), and I doubt many see the Conservative Party as a bunch of "honest guys who will clean things up".   It just isn't going to get many votes - anyone who hated the Liberals and is enraged by Gomery's report wasn't going to vote Liberal anyways; all the Conservative's could hope for was that it would shame enough Liberal supporters away from the polls, but when you start talking about social policy (and make it a big part of your platform), you'll ensure they turn out to vote.

The economy, on the other hand, is something to ride on and Martin has the fortune to run on a hot Canadian economy that is, in part, due to his hard work.

My take on it, for what it's worth.


----------



## kcdist (30 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?



Well colour me naive, but I truly did. Although I voted for the Reformers in '93, I wasn't appalled that the Liberals took power. In fact, I would have voted for them if Manning's party didn't exist. For me, the GST was a defining moment, because, prior to that, I was young and stupid enough to believe that if a politician promised it, it would happen. 

Now colour me naive again, but I truly believe that if it is Harper's policy to do something, he will follow through or die trying.


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

The media may be an issue, but don't forget when even when Lord Tubby threw the entire Southam media empire behind the Reform/Conservative Party, they couldn't get arrested in the 403 area coder.  The media and politics are pretty much similar, the both depend on public opinion for their survival.  Does the content of the Star shape the opinions of its readers or the opinions of its readers shape the content?

Whilst the media can frame issues, it cannot make them.  Generally stupid politican tricks sell newspapers, something that almost every politician has experienced along with foot in mouth disease.  As for the fact that the CBC depends on the unelectability of the Conservatives for its survival, I might venture that if I was employed by the CBC and such was the case, I'd be tempted to put a negative spin on the Conservatives as well.  The issue then becomes, getting you message out while not doing anything stupid to sully the issues you are campaigning on.  At the end of the day the media has to report fact...it may be editorialized, or interpreted through the political bent of the media outlet but it still must report facts, and all parties are in direct control of the facts that the media receives.

As for the old Liberal party, I really think that is what we need to see to rejuvenate  politics.  A Leader who will articulate a vision of Canada that will restore national optimism, and leave us with a sense of accomplishment, that was IMHO the legacy of the old Liberal party.  Unfortunately Trudeau, Mulrooney, Chretien and Martin all have run on a basis of politics of self interest.  Articulating policies that do not illustrate how to make US better, but rather policies that appeal directly to the voters self interest.  I would have no problem voting for any party that could articulate such a view. Unfortunately what we are stuck with is a polyglot of policies designed by confidence interval,, that do nothing to illustrate how to improve on the society that we live in today.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Nov 2005)

What the hell is Harper doing?  Why revive the gay marriage issue?  What good could come of it?  Did Harper just blow the election on the first day of the campaign?

It's a dead issue - its a law, let's just move on.  It only affects 1 percent of us anyway.  I agree with Harper's stance, but nothing will change.  

Can any good come of this strategy?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Now, to set the stage, Stephen Harper was conducting a press conference. One of the questions, asked by a reporter, was specifically about the Conservative stance on Gay Marriage. How would you have Harper respond? Lie? Avoid answering?



He should have said that it is now the law of the land and we have more important issues to look to.


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

The only good that may come of it is tha hopefully they will learn a lesson about making theses kind of gaffes, early on in the campaign and undertake to avoid them in future.  The up side of this whole issue is that it happened on day one of a seven week campaing...an the public has a short memory for these kind of mistakes.  Hopefully they've managed to secrete Jason Kenny, Myron Thompson and Garry Breitkreuz in a "secure undisclosed location" for the duration of the campaign.  If I was a Conservative I'd look at those people as agents of the Liberal Party, they've probably caused more electoral damage than Warren Kinsella wired on speed, on a good day ever did.


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that Canada needs to take the "Ariel Sharon" approach - there seems to be some general trends that Canada shares with Israel's chaotic political scenario that may make this approach feasible.
> 
> Like Israel, central moderates in Canada are overpowered by the barking from the left/right.   The Liberal Party has been weakened by an internal turf war between ideologues and loyalties - "Chretianistas" vs. "Martinis" exemplifies this; you can see it all over the Gomery Report.   They lost their bastion in Quebec to the Mulroney/Bouchard alliance (which was a Liberal stronghold since Confederation) and, as one of the commentators stated the other night, the camouflage of being a "National Party" has withered away as it became apparent that the Bloq picked up all of the fallout from the PC meltdown.   With the "united right" forming a strong party in the West, this camouflage is all gone now and we see no end in the near term to minority government.



Such are the dynamics of the parliamentary system. Loyalties will always be drawn along party lines, and thus along ideological lines, because of the importance of the party line and party affiliation/support in getting elected. 



> The Conservative Party will never govern - it is being drug through the mud by its far-right faction.   As it is Canada's only real "right of center" party, it attracts alot of people who would probably be better members of the Christian Heritage Party.   Canada has a far different political landscape than the US, and focussing on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and what not is political suicide - Stockwell Day the preacher found this out the hard way.   But the loud-mouths in the party (along with the Western separatists) succeed in destroying any credibility that the Conservative Party has in being a national party for Canada.   Even people out east who are conservative in outlook don't see the Conservative Party as a reasonable alternative due to the legacy as a Western protest party - whispers of forming a coalition with the Bloq (the other protest party) only serve to strengthen this fear.   Ralph Klein knows this - that's why he said as much with his prediction on the outcome of the next election.
> 
> The Left is represented by the NDP and the Bloq.   The NDP have their strength in the union/(trade) protectionist racket.   The Bloq, a seperatiste party and essentially a wasted protest vote in the the legislature of Parliament, represents the traditional left wing nature of Quebec politics.   Both of these parties seem keen to pounce on any move away from Canada's "Europeanization" (as one commentator called it) - this incites the left wing of the Liberal Party (which Edward Campbell as deemed its "subversive elements") to action and makes the position of the more fiscally conservative elements of the Liberal party that Paul Martin is trying to lead today very untenable - careful to avoid a coup d'etat from within his own caucus, Martin can ill afford to abandon the left-wing element that entrenched itself in the Liberal Party in the 60's and 70's under Trudeau; thus we are left with Mr Dithers.



The Liberal Party has become a brokerage party, hence the dithering. I think the extremities that the NDP/Bloc and Conservatives represent are important in preventing a slide into pan-party brokerage which would turn our political environment into something resembling the US two-party system where options are generally reduced to Pepsi and Coke, complete with the low voter turnout and perceived voter efficacy that such a system brings.   



> So, you have the left and the right pulling from the fringes.   A smart politician from the Conservatives or Liberals would pull a "Sharon" and essentially aim for a "Unity" platform.   Harper could abandon the foaming right-wing elements and the narrow minded "Western alienation" section of the Conservative Party while Martin could leave behind his left-wing hangers-on who push us, politically and ideologically, down the road to serfdom through far left agitation.   Martin is a good man with the bank; one only has to compare our economy and finances today to when he first got ahold of things.   It would be foolhardy to not give him credit when it is due.   Harper is an economist from the West, and I make the assumption that he'd be more interested in focussing on the real issues rather than having elements of his own caucus push him to political _sepukku_.   I really don't see too much difference in these two leaders.
> 
> Together, the "Unity ticket" could be one that dedicated itself to three key platform initiatives:
> 
> ...



Sounds like a brokerage platform. It seems the Liberals have come closest to this type of platform, though their attempts at pleasing the West have fallen quite short. Whether this is from lack of trying or a Western determination to be displeased with anything short of a Conservative government, who knows. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?   Look at the shape of our economy at the time and look how much money those things were pulling in; kudos to Mulroney for the assist.



Indeed, though hindsight is 20/20. NAFTA scared quite a few people but the 81/82 recession kind of gave NAFTA the kick in the ass that it needed. Regional integration is the norm of the day - just look at MERCOSUR in South America, the EU, and ASEAN. There's been some talk of expanding NAFTA into a customs union but support for it seems low in the US (and likely would be here, too). I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the agenda in the next few years.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The Liberal Party has become a brokerage party, hence the dithering. I think the extremities that the NDP/Bloc and Conservatives represent are important in preventing a slide into pan-party brokerage which would turn our political environment into something resembling the US two-party system where options are generally reduced to Pepsi and Coke, complete with the low voter turnout and perceived voter efficacy that such a system brings.



I wouldn't put us that far ahead of the United States.  We just have Dr Pepper and shit-water thrown in for extra measure.  Our numbers for turnout aren't any better than that of the United States (the trick is to look at registered voter turn out and eligible voter turnout)


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put us that far ahead of the United States.   We just have Dr Pepper and crap-water thrown in for extra measure.



I had a good laugh at "crap-water". I'd say the differences between our system and that of the US are quite definite, though many are subtle (most especially differences in political attitudes, conceptions of the role of government, etc). I wouldn't say it puts us "ahead" of the US in any universal normative sense, but it does put is in a different category. I personally prefer our system but I wouldn't say it's superior to the US. 



> Our numbers for turnout aren't any better than that of the United States (the trick is to look at registered voter turn out and eligible voter turnout)



I believe they're slightly higher, though by a very small margin. In any case, that just proves my point - a slide towards a US-style 2-party brokerage system would kill turnout even more - and THEN where would we be??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I believe they're slightly higher, though by a very small margin. In any case, that just proves my point - a slide towards a US-style 2-party brokerage system would kill turnout even more - and THEN where would we be??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!



Effective Government?


 Harper IMHO did the best he could -- he stated the truth when asked.  If they dodge it, this issue would come up over and over and over again (and it probably will due to media portrayal of the CPC as the bbogeyman.  It is best to be transparent on issues that are controversial -- at least from an ethical standpoint  -- you probably could run a Grey Man party and stand for nothing and win in this country -- oh wait we have a Liberal party already...


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

Israeli politics is a pretty poor analogy to use in the case of Canada.  The dynamic in the Knesset is due to the issues that are faced (which do not translate to Canada) as well as the fact that members are chosen according to a "list" system whereby seats are allocated in terms of a precentage of the popular vote, in a priority determined by the party.  The race to the centre in Canada as already been won, by the Liberal Party which runs on a strong centerist platform and simply shifts to the left or right as the whims of the electorate dictate.  This is why the Liberal party is formed of members from a broad political spectrum.  The problem for Martin is that he failed to produce on the one thing the Liberals really stand for and that is staying in power.  Had Martin returned a majority government last year, the remaining Chretien loyalists would have been given the good news.

Unfortunately the post 1993 trend in Canadian Politics is regional politics being given place of primacy in Parliament.  The Conservatives despite attempts to be seen as a national party have not yet been able to divest themselves of the image of the REEEEFORM party.  Those individuals who prior to Meech Lake/Charlettown would have either been NDP or Tories from Quebec have gone on to form a single issue party.  As it remains the only true national party (that remains capable of electing members in every province) is the Liberals.

The rejection of the western vision of the nation is not so much a rejection of the west, but due the manner in which confederation works.  The original intent of confederation was to politicize an economic system whereby resources were harvested on the periphery, and processed in the centre.  As years have gone by the industrial base in the centre has withered yet the harvesting or resources in the periphery has increased, thus those on the periphery are demanding a greater say in the goings on of the nation.  Any national party will have to address this schism.  Western Canada wants more say, yet their vision of Canada is unappealing to the Centre.  Compounded by the fact that the centre wishes to remain at its place of primacy.  The only resolution to this issue is a party that is able to capture the imagination of Canadians as to what we can be as a whole, and with the origination of "politics of the self" in the late 1960's there is little hope of this happening.  As such we grow more and more apart.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Shifting gears a bit, I watched an interesting piece this morning.  If the Bloq indeed takes a bite out of the Liberals in Quebec (3 Liberal cabinet ministers there won by a very small margin), say winning 60 seats, that puts the Liberals down to 120.  This means that, theoretically, the Conservatives only need to win 20 races against the Liberals to get the highest total.  Given the way things have been, I think there are a fair number of races that may go that way.  I think this one may be close than the last one.

However, even if the Conservatives did win more seats, the idea of a Conservative minority government being a feasible one seems to be a pipedream when you consider the other 3 parties sitting in Parliament.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What the hell is Harper doing?   Why revive the gay marriage issue?   What good could come of it?   Did Harper just blow the election on the first day of the campaign?
> 
> It's a dead issue - its a law, let's just move on.   It only affects 1 percent of us anyway.   I agree with Harper's stance, but nothing will change.
> 
> Can any good come of this strategy?



I think so. He's clearing up all the things the Liberals will likely slander right off the bat... last time around they were saying harper was opposed to gay marriage etc which wasnt exactly true.... hes getting everything cleared up right away so nothing like that happens again... trying to get all the angles covered that the Liberals might attack him on before they have a chance to.

Somebody was going to talk about it again at some point, you just know it


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Nov 2005)

When Harper opened that Pandora's box again he mayhave blown the whole campaign. I agree he is trying to get the crap on the table early so he does not get taken out by liberal lies but he is also doing it to appease the fundamentalist right wing of the party. That minority is leading a covert operation to take over what was once and could be again, a strong voice of reason and fiscal responsibility party. That christian right group is the reason the conservatives will never get and hold government in a centrest country like ours, they must move back closer to the centre and remove that pile of stink called religion from the political mix. I hate to say it but I think Ralfy (king Ralf of Alberta) had it right!


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

If you remove the Church from the State -- it will be one HELL of a State...


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

We've already done so.



> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> a) freedom of conscience and religion;



Although this establishes religious freedom for citizens and not seperation of Church and State per se, _R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd_ seems to establish suffiicent precedent to ensure that this seperation is real.

Incidently, our American neighbours were even more thourough in ensuring the Church and State were seperated - in Article VI of the Constitution it states that:



> but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.



...and in the First Amendment further underscores the principal:



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...


----------



## UberCree (30 Nov 2005)

At one point in time I considered myself a conservative.  They lost me when they lost the likes of Joe Clark, Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach.  For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.  My family has lived through the results of mixing religion and politics first hand.  Now their absurd shadow defence minister is another nail in their coffin, as is Tom Flannigan, Steven Harpers campaign manager and all time nemesis of Aboriginal Canadians.
Economically I am all for them, but lose the social conservatism.  
When will they learn....
I still havent decided if I will think short term and vote Liberal (man I never thought I would say that) or long term and vote green.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 Dec 2005)

The "Red Tories" were the biggest problem for getting real change, Joe Clark, Scott Brison are clear examples and the confused Belinda Stronach was the most recent Red (capital "R", small "t") tory.  Joe and his ilk in their various attempts to be like the liberals have alienated a larger and larger segment of our population.  As a firearm owner I found the Kim Campbell gun control regime to be a particularly offensive manifestation of "Red toryism".

Fortunately, the Red tories have largely identified themselves to be the liberals that they always were and are now in decline.  It is true that some of the Conservative social policy is not palatable to all Canadians  However, ignoring some of the comments of the defence critic, they are much more friendly philosophically to the military that the liberals.  The liberals treat the forces like some sort of trick horse, to be trotted out to make the government look good and then suppressed when anything that might not be politically correct goes on.

The Liberals, however, are much worse than the Red tories and likewise much worse than the Conservatives.  The record of corruption, scandal, waste of money and arrogance that permeates the ranks of both the Liberal party and the Liberal government is completely mind-boggling.  What is even more mind-boggling to me as a westerner is that there continues to be people who vote for these crooks.  I certainly won't be voting liberal.  Green certainly isn't an option - this is a party that supports "peacekeeping" but is not very interested in a strong military.

No, the best bet for positive change in this country is to put the Liberals in opposition and give the Conservative Party a chance.

(Edited to correct typos)


----------



## kcdist (1 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.



Here's a challenge. Visit the Conservative web site. Aside from the issue of traditional marriage, which by the way, was previously confirmed by a large majority within the House of Commons in (I believe) the late 90's, find _anything_ that would back up this comment.

UberCree, you are guilty of rehashing a tired, worn out cliche/slur that the Liberals have been so successful in using up to now. Although there are people of faith in every party (Remember Tommy Douglas?), it is sad that the Conservatives have been tarred with this fact as a negative. It is so easy to perform a drive by smearing without any substantiation. The sound bite is great, and to the ignorant, it works quite well in installing fear.

The simple fact that the placing of even the most basic of regulations on abortion (which the majority of Canadians _do_ concur with), has been definitively articulated as NOT part of Conservative policy, should be sufficient evidence to most observers that the religious bogeyman has not infiltrated the party.

By all means disagree with specific policy of the various parties, but adding unsubstantiated, slanderous comment to the board does nothing to further political debate.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> At one point in time I considered myself a conservative.   They lost me when they lost the likes of Joe Clark, Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach.   For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.   My family has lived through the results of mixing religion and politics first hand.   Now their absurd shadow defence minister is another nail in their coffin, as is Tom Flannigan, Steven Harpers campaign manager and all time nemesis of Aboriginal Canadians.
> Economically I am all for them, but lose the social conservatism.
> When will they learn....
> I still havent decided if I will think short term and vote Liberal (man I never thought I would say that) or long term and vote green.



Clark, Brison, Stronach? 

Clark - a bumbling wanker.
Brison - competent, but switching parties to gain a position of power doesn't impress me.  
Stronach - She was the lucky sperm who inherited her daddy's company, then sold out no less than 25 close people including her serious boyfriend (MacKay) live-and-in-living-colour in the media to jump for an opportunity at power.  I wouldn't trust that @#$%@ to carry my golf clubs.


RE:  Social Conservatism as a hurdle for my support - I agree.  I'm for the right of any individual to practice their beliefs in private without government interference as long as it does not promote hate.  Where I draw the line is an application of religious values to governmental law such as the mandating that only heterosexual marriage is in fact marriage or that because some people believe a divine soul enters the fetus at conception that abortion should be illegal.

Bottom Line:  I'm more of a social libertarian, fiscal conservative and would greatly prefer MacKay to Harper, but Harper is still better than Martin and his big fake smile.  Any prick who can sanctimoniously label Harper in favour of "American-style tax cuts" while he moved Canadian Steamships offshore to avoid paying any taxes at all, and then calls Harper "the start of American-style two-tiered health care" while he goes to a doctor that runs that largest chain of private MRI clinics in Canada, has a set of ethics and guiding principles that have no place in the PM's office.



Matthew.


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

> Visit the Conservative web site.



The is nothing on the conservative web site in terms of policy save fpr aboput five pages of generic bullet-point statements.  I've looked to find their platform and I cant find it.  Suffice to say many of the old-time members of the Conservative Party have come from Reform and there are valid concerns with how these people view the role thier faith plays in politics.

As for labelling Martin a tax cheat, I'm sure that if we looked hard enough at the conservative party we could find more than a few members who have failed to "rend unto Caesar".  AS for tax cuts, in terms of the middle class usually show very little return, the only people that have really benefit from the type of tax cuts the Conservatives talk about are the wealthy.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

As the Conservatives have a hard time shaking the "social issues" gorilla on their back, it looks like the Liberals have just as hard a time with the "ethics" one on thiers.   With Chretien taking the Gomery findings to court, implying that the commission was tainted, really goes against the idea of atonement and apology that Paul Martin has been trying to push.

Now, for the interesting stuff, Steven Harper announced that the GST would be dropped to 5% in 5 years, with the first pecentage point being dropped in the first year.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/elxn-harper-gst2.html

That is some good campaigning, IMHO.   The idea is simple, bright and clear with that 5% sign.   The Liberal proposal was complicated and phased over many years, whereas this one addresses GST, something that bothers Canadians every time they pull their wallet out.   Goodale's cheap response is that it is bad economics and that income tax cuts are better - ingoring the obvious fact that Harper is an economist, the Liberal response really doesn't address the issue that cutting consumption taxes is pretty strong as the money never leaves the consumer's wallet, whereas income tax cuts (while also good) go through the meat-grinder; it isn't money that you see in your wallet on payday.

I give the Conservatives the first real point for a solid plank that would win my vote.

In other news, Duceppe is a jerk who wants to eliminate wreck "Team Canada" on the international sporting stage.  I wonder if guys like Mario Lemieux and Martin Brodeur would want to quit Team Canada for "Team Quebec"?


----------



## Hunter (1 Dec 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> You might be a conservative if you think those types of jokes are funny.....



Well I don't think it's ha-ha funny, because it's true.   More of a gallows humour/ironic kind of funny.     ;D

For a list of 199 Reasons not to Vote Liberal, check this out:

http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2005/11/dubious-day.html

It's an interesting list of the scandals we've seen under the Liberals.   Some familiar, some I had forgotten about.   It's too long to post here, but worth reading.


----------



## Hunter (1 Dec 2005)

FWIW here are the reason in the above-mentioned list that have some relevance to the military:

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement
21. Tom Wappel refusing to help blind veteran
24. Iltis replacement
25. Purchase of new Challenger jets for the Prime Minister and cabinet
26. NATO Flying Training program contract
51. Prime Minister's former assistant, Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on Veterans Review and Appeal Board as Minister pleaded poverty to veterans' widows.
60. $5.3 million GG northern travel
61. GG budget doubles in 5 years
90. Problems with DND's contracts with Compaq Computers that may have cost taxpayers up to $159 million for work not performed.
91. Martin using government jets to tour the country campaigning before election, spending up to $1 million for air travel alone.
105. Contracting irregularities on more than two dozen projects at DND worth tens of millions of dollars, showing over-billing, profit excesses, unauthorized additional work, lack of accounting records, spiralling cost overruns, etc. (Globe and Mail, July 14, 2004).
122. Abuse of Challengers by Paul Martin and various ministers (eg. Andy Mitchell, Claudette Bradshaw)
123. Abuse of Challenger jets for political business instead of government business (Le Devoir, October 4, 2005)
124. Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers
125. Challenger food bill of $508 per flight
142. Revelations that the program to bring in foreign exotic dancers was created under pressure from organized crime (National Post, December 18, 2004)
166. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on questionable acquisitions at CFB Borden (Ottawa Sun, April 18, 2005).
167. Joe Volpe keeping stripper visa program operating, despite having promised to shut it down (CTV.ca, March 5, 2005)
174. Liberals handling of the submarine program
196. Delays and ballooning costs mean a giant software project at National Defence will eclipse its original budget and won't meet its goals until 2011 -- if at all. An internal audit obtained by Canadian Press raises red flags about a new system designed to streamline computer tracking of military inventory and purchases. MASIS -- or Materiel Acquisition Support Information System -- started in 1997 as a $147-million undertaking. What began as a focused effort to cover a single equipment category in each of the navy, army and air force soon mushroomed. By 2003, Defence officials estimated MASIS would be in place by 2006 at a cost of $325 million, more than twice its forecast budget. A full introduction of the complex software has now been extended to 2011. The heavily censored May 2005 internal audit, released under the Access to Information Act, catalogues a litany of "revised planned milestones.'' "The prime contract has been amended six times, each time increasing amounts for professional service fees,'' it says. (CP, The Record, October 24, 2005)


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

Does anyone really believe that the Conservatives will be any better.  Not having put your hand in the cookie jar because you're to short to reach it is not an indication of morality, its a symptom of being too short.  I guess what I'm getting at is patronage is as Canadian as Hockey and getting smashed on Rye whiskey.  The only way you win an election campaign in this county is by making promises to people, sometimes you have to carry through on those promises.  Alot of those promises involve cushy government jobs.  Let's also not forget that alot of people who hold patronage positions take their jobs very seriously and actually do endevor to serve the public trust.  Alot of the reasons not to vote Liberal on that list are about as valid as "my cat threw up on my rug and its Paul Martins fault!".

I really don't believe people care about ethics in this election.  We've moved past being concerned with the functioning of government outside of how it effects our own personal sphere.  Stephen Harper can push ethics all they want, meanwhile the Liberals will be telling people how a Liberal government.  Its an uphill battle for the Conservatives, simply because the answer to that old gem of the Gipper's is a resounding yes, we are better off now (personally) than we were in 1993.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

xFusilier is correct - anyone who believes that the Conservative Party are honest do-gooders coming to clean up Parliament will most likely be sadly disappointed.  Remember that Grewal fellow?  Not a sterling example of ethics, is he?  We point the finger at Chretien wrestling in the courtroom with Gomery, but does anyone remember that Mulroney pulled the same stunt with the RCMP over the Airbus incident?  I am sure I could draw up a list of retards from the PC's time in power.

That being said, it would be interesting to see the Conservative Party given an equal opportunity to shit the bed....


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> xFusilier is correct - anyone who believes that the Conservative Party are honest do-gooders coming to clean up Parliament will most likely be sadly disappointed.   Remember that Grewal fellow?   Not a sterling example of ethics, is he?   We point the finger at Chretien wrestling in the courtroom with Gomery, but does anyone remember that Mulroney pulled the same stunt with the RCMP over the Airbus incident?   I am sure I could draw up a list of retards from the PC's time in power.
> 
> That being said, it would be interesting to see the Conservative Party given an equal opportunity to crap the bed....



So, you think it's better to keep a government in office that's so corrupt it makes the Third World look clean and well, rather than replace it with one that might be kinda-corrupt-but-we-don't-really-know.

Great logic there, chief.

I'm not saying the Tories are perfect. After all, they're politicians, aren't they? What I AM saying is that the Liberal party needs to be taken out, immediately or sooner. Sure we might run into problems with the Conservatives, but why keep a government that has been proven time and again to be rotten to the core, rather than one we think might be a bit shady?

I think the problem this country has, is we're so afraid of the possibility of the Conservatives being slightly imperfect, we'd rather keep the thieves and other assorted criminals in office.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So, you think it's better to keep a government in office that's so corrupt it makes the Third World look clean and well, rather than replace it with one that might be kinda-corrupt-but-we-don't-really-know.
> 
> Great logic there, chief.



Did I say that dipshit?

First off, your comparison of the sponsership scandal to a third-world dictatorship is completely off base; I've been to a third-world country and seen corruption in action and trust me, it doesn't compare to what we've seen here.   So can the rhetoric.

If you reread my post (and Xfusilier's), you'll see that I brought up the point that it is pretty naive to believe that the Conservatives are going to be the ones to clean Ottawa up.   As X said, this kinda shit is PO check for politicians, irregardless of stripe - look at the US; Democrat and Republican are equally good at taking the pork on the sly and generally screwing with the taxpayers dollar.

Besides, what was criminally wrong is being dealt with in the justice system; unless you are going to convince me that there was a vast conspiracy amongst the Liberal Party as a whole to defraud Canada, then you should be ready to back up your accusations of thieves and criminals.   Of course, there is the the moral issue that occured with criminal acts being committed on behalf of the Liberal Party during the Liberal Party's watch, and this is a valid reason to call for change (which you would have noticed had you read my post), but I'm not going to go into the campaign thinking that the entire issue will revolve around a single ethical problem that, quite frankly, didn't surprise me the least.


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

Holy flying hyperbole batman!  I highly doubt that one can make any comparison to the Sponsorhip scandal ($355 million) to the conduct of any tinpot dictator, anywhere on the planet.  Furthermore there are substantial differences between the Martin government and the Chretien government, most of the people who were front benchers under Chretien are no longer there.  Furthermore, no end of wishing or hoping it going to change the fact that the Gomery inquiry found no fault with the Prime Minister.

I'll say it again Patronage exists in Canadian politics, it has existed since the time of Sir John A. and will continue to exist long after you or I have shuffled off the mortal coil.  Many people here don't like the Liberals period, hell I don't like the Liberals.  I agree, it is repugnant that the former Prime Minster used the public purse to enrich his friends, but there are greater issues at stake, and the fate of any party will be based on those issues.  Canadians are far more concerned with social issues than they are about the Gomery Inquiry.  If the Conservatives were serious about running on ethics they'd be running media along the lines of $335 million would have bought X MRI machines, or X hip replacements, instead they trot out the same tired old Mr. Smith goes to Washington schticlk that makes them look simple.

The reason the Conservatives have not got into power is that they have repeatedly elected unappealing leaders, who do not know how to politick, and think that what worked in the One Party State of Alberta will work for the rest of Canada.  Furthermore their continued belief that pandering to voters in Alberta, whilst blissfully ignorant of the fact that elections in this country are decided on the shores of Lake Ontario, will actually lead to people voting for them certainly doesn't help either.


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

On another note it appears that Harpers GST cutting idea has been panned, by economists, the CTF however, supports the idea.  But then again get one drink into you and the Conservatives, the Fraser Institute, and the CTF appear to be one large indistingiushable mass.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Dec 2005)

Infanteer,

Of course it's not the sole issue, or at least it shouldn't be, but so far the only thing I've heard is the Conservatives wanting to get rid of some tax (the GST, thank you xFusilier for posting before I did).

That doesn't give us much to ponder yet except for the scandal, does it?

As for the comparison with the US, I have to concede the point about both sides taking the taxpayers' money, but I doubt there's the same culture of entitlement in both parties... But that's just me.

xFusilier,

Ok, so I went a bit far on the pathos trail with the third world comment. However, even if the Chretienites are gone, it seems to me as if the Martinis are still doing pretty much the same thing. Same actions, different people.

And I think that although you're partly right about the Conservatives not electing the right leaders (I still think Stockwell wasn't that bad...) I still think there's a fundamental problem with the canadian voters themselves. The few people who actually follow the elections only do so with the mainstream media, without really thinking about the whole issues. And that's another big problem: the media itself. But that's a whole new ballgame and has already been talked to death, I think.


All in all, I might have gone _a bit_ far, (note the Tsar-sized understatement) but I still think keeping the Liberals in power is just hurting Canada.


On a funny note, did you hear Martin speaking about ethics, while talking about Wal-Mart? I found that extremely funny, but I'm also very tired tonight.


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

It was downhill right from the Jetskiing for Jesus incident.  Alot of Conservatives don't get it so I will say it again, the founding principle of a democracy is *the electorate is never wrong* ever.  If we have been stuck with the Liberals for 12 years the reason is that all of the other parties have failed to win the support of the electorate.  The consistant believe that the fault that the Liberals have stayed in power for 12 years is almost as naive as the whole "the electorate is stupid" argument.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2005)

xfus

Winston Churchill...


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2005)

FWIW:  he was wrong a benevolent dictatorship under yours truly would be far better. ;D WHERE'S THE CONCUBINES DAMMIT?  However, I'm more partial to people get the government they deserve.

I'll get back to practicing bellowing "Off with head!", now.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2005)

From NRO:



> In Number 71 of The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton wrote about the relationship between presidential rhetoric and public opinion in a republic.
> 
> 
> _There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
> ...



This is an observation that can also apply to people aspiring to political office and leadership positions next January ( and indeed any time) as well.......


----------



## UberCree (4 Dec 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Here's a challenge. Visit the Conservative web site. Aside from the issue of traditional marriage, which by the way, was previously confirmed by a large majority within the House of Commons in (I believe) the late 90's, find _anything_ that would back up this comment.
> 
> UberCree, you are guilty of rehashing a tired, worn out cliche/slur that the Liberals have been so successful in using up to now. Although there are people of faith in every party (Remember Tommy Douglas?), it is sad that the Conservatives have been tarred with this fact as a negative. It is so easy to perform a drive by smearing without any substantiation. The sound bite is great, and to the ignorant, it works quite well in installing fear.
> 
> ...



I visited the website.   Nothing concrete at all in there either way.   
Now you read this, about Tom Fanagan (the strategic headman of the conservatives), and tell me the party isn't a 'religious bogeyman' (your own words).

The Man Behind Stephen Harper
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/media-2004/flannagan-walrus-macdonald-200410xx.html

''What ignited the most fury was Flanagan's contention that aboriginals were simply conquered peoples who'd been bested by Europeans with a higher degree of "civilization," as he termed it. That argument, peppered with references to "savagery," hadn't been heard in polite company for decades. "There's a fundamental racism that underpins his view," says Radha Jhappan. "It's an amazingly selective reading of history and it's driven by a particular right-wing agenda that wants to undermine the claims of collectivity.

...

On one side are MacKay and other former Tories pressing for progressive policies -- and adjective that gives neo-conservatives palpitations. "It has to happen," MacKay insists. "This party has to portray a modern, moderate vision with compassion for people who represent all facets of this country." For him, it's not a matter of choice. "We're right at the precipice of electing a new government if we play our cards right," he says. "But we have to lead people to a new comfort zone. We don't want to remain in opposition forever.

Lined up against him are those true believers who have long made up the Reform and Alliance faithful -- not to mention Flanagan himself. He has never blanched at owning up to his most contentious beliefs: scrapping medicare in favour of personal medical savings accounts -- a policy adopted by some U.S. corporations -- and whittling aboriginal claims on land and self-determination down to individual property rights and municipal self-government. Flanagan may, in fact, not be unlike Louis Riel: a man with a mission, albeit secular. In his last literary outing with Harper, a June, 2001, column in the National Post, they warned fellow conservatives to stick to their policy guns and offer a genuine right-wing alternative -- not some pale vote-getting pap. "If all we want is the exercise of power," they wrote, "we might as welljoin the Liberals." 

The looming power struggle is not only for the soul of the new party. It is also over Stephen Harper's political future: how much is he willing to water down the ecumenical wine required to win the PMO? Rick Anderson calls it "the defining question of his leadership -- whether he'll fudge the party's policies or not." 

But back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way -- in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group people in Calgary -- Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> scrapping medicare in favour of personal medical savings accounts -- a policy adopted by some U.S. corporations



Not a bad idea in my opinion - US corporations have adopted them for good reason; like Canada, US health care is collapsing under big bureaucracy management.  HMO's are as bad as the Ministry of Health....



> and whittling aboriginal claims on land and self-determination down to individual property rights and municipal self-government.



I still think some of the arguments he has put forth are pretty good.  We need to recognize that everyone here is an immigrant.  I'm not to sure the status quo of entrenching difference (and supporting it with big political dollers) is what I'm interested in....


----------



## xFusilier (4 Dec 2005)

The problem with personal medical savings accounts, is what happens when you deplete the funds in your account?  If the answer is you pay to make up the difference, people aren't going to go for it.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> The problem with personal medical savings accounts, is what happens when you deplete the funds in your account?   If the answer is you pay to make up the difference, people aren't going to go for it.



Well, maybe it means you should quit going to the doctor every time you get the flu or feel like a chat (not you, X).  MSA's don't cover major stuff, so if one chooses to nickel and dime their account to death, then that is their problem and not mine.

RAND did a long term study using two groups - one group who had no health costs and one that had to pay a bit everytime they needed to use the system (I forget the exact parameters).  The two groups experienced no radical difference in overall health, but the one group that had to pay used the health care system far less (and/or found alternative means).


----------



## xFusilier (4 Dec 2005)

The problem is, that we have an aging population, which will require more and more health care, for whom preventative medicine is not an option.  I agree with the value of preventative medicine, however, there are any number of serious illnesses that bear no relation to healthy living, or critical injuries.  Depending on the funds, in the account one bout of serious illness or critical injury would wipe the funds out.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

One bout of serious illness or critical injury shouldn't affect an account - all injuries over a certain amount (Grazer used $2000 as a baseline) are covered by Universal Health Insurance provided by the government; get cancer, get hit buy a bus, or what not, and a deductible taken from the MSA should cover it.  For long-term illnesses, special MSA's would be provided (ones that get the extra funds they need but don't offer the same incentives such as withdrawl and banking of MSA dollars).


----------



## xFusilier (4 Dec 2005)

Fair enough, the only problem is that as a policy point in an election it doesn't really sing, plus it has a great potential for other parties to put out disinformation, as evidenced by this exchange.  The only other problem is that what your trying to promote is preventative health through paying people to live healthier, what you will get is people simply not going to the doctor when they are ill.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> what you will get is people simply not going to the doctor when they are ill.



That is exactly what the RAND report looked at, and determined that it was an unfounded fear.   When people are hungry, they will eat; this doesn't mean that the government should be forced to provide all the food they could want at no cost.   I believe that Canadians are wise enough to manage their health care - if you're sick, you'll go to the doctor.   Positive incentives encourage you to use the doctor properly.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

...and just so we are aware of how much of a "national" party the NDP is:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/04/ndp-vote051204.html

I've always chuckled at how the NDP can get away with being a political platform for a specific interest group whereas the Liberals and the Conservatives get flamed for appearing to do so.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Dec 2005)

Not sure that a labour union is actually considered a special interest group within the broader political culture- especially the NDP which is essentially a Labour party in the truest sense of the word. The CAW union is more like an organic element to the NDP, but one must take care to separate union interests from union political  interests and unions (generally) from union members (generally). Most male, blue collar union members tend vote Conservative, when they bother to vote at all. 

For example, I am 99% positive the CAW workforce at GDSL in London or the Ford plant in Talbotville are not in favour of gay marriage, the Kyoto protocol, higher taxes for social programs, open immigration and a number of other issues important to the NDP and the CAW. 

What they do want is the right to keep most of their paycheck, the ability to be treated in the hospital when they are sick, see that their kids get a decent and realistic education that focuses on the necessary skills to do well in life, they want to see criminals go to jail under sentences that fit the crime, they want to work a decent work week for a decent living without fearing they will lose their job to a scab or low cost worker in another country - any country. In these respects, and many others, unions have failed their workers because unions back the wrong political horse.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

I remember reading an interesting piece about the schism in the NDP between the Union element and the element that included everyone to the left of Che Guevara.  Pretty interesting; I think that was one reason that the last leader was chucked (don't quote me on it, I am not a careful follower of the NDP party politics)....


----------



## xFusilier (4 Dec 2005)

This has alway been the problem with union activism, and especially ties between Unions and the NDP.  The big unions in Canada, CUPE, PSAC, CAW have all been so successful that they've managed to move their members out of the Lower and into the Middle Class, with some "Blue Collar" workers making better salaries than "White Collar" workers.  As such many of the issues put forward in labour activism simply do not ressonate with their members, as a result most of the real "blue collar" communities especially in Southern Ontario return MP's that are other further to the right than the NDP.  Personally, the only thing worse than a politician is a union politician, especially seeing as most of them are anything but democratic (the delegate system is oligarchy at its best).  However, the majority of Union members are concerned with the issues Whiskey601 pointed out, but if the Liberals are successful at portraying the Conservatives as the party of big business, the blue-collar vote goes out the window.  People usually vote with their wallets before their conscience comes into play.


----------



## xFusilier (5 Dec 2005)

The reason Audrey McLaughlin was chucked had more to do with the NDP going from their best showing in Parliament (43 seats) to a paltry 9  seats in the 1993 General Election.  That and being from Whitehorse she really didn't have many friends within the unionist base.  Many people felt that Dave Barret should have been chosen as the leader, but alas he did not speak french.  In addition she went from being a rookie MP to being the leader of the Party which probably didn't help things either.  One of the problems in the NDP is the opposition of OMOV (one member one vote) during leadership races as Unions are guaranteed a certain percentage of ballots in the elections for Party officers.  Kinda funny that the New Democratic Party isn't really all that democratic.  FWIW they have the same problem in the prairies where people who religiously vote NDP in provincial elections turn around and vote Conservative in federal elections.  The grassroots upon which the CCF was founded (Farmers, Labourers, etc) have abandoned the Federal party due to its slide into radical left politics.


----------



## UberCree (5 Dec 2005)

Well the Conservatives just won back some of my support with the child care announcement they made today.  This policy makes much more sense than the Liberal child care policy... er promise I should say.
I think they've found the price of my support (well almost), I will still vote green.  It is $1,200.00 x 2.


----------



## dutchie (5 Dec 2005)

Obviously this is Harper's last attempt at forming a Government. If he and his party fail to win, I predict a leadership review with MacKay as the clear winner. I also believe that MacKay is WAY more electable than Harper, and should have been the leader from the start anyhow. 

So I won't be jumping from my office window if the Lie-berals get another crack at the cookie jar. I am fairly confidant that if that were to happen, MacKay would form the _next_ government, maybe even a majority, and probably by Jan 08.

The GST cut is genius. Really sexy and easy to understand. Plus, everyone buys stuff, even the poor. In fact, as the poorest Canadians don't even pay income tax, but they do pay GST, the Conservative tax relief proposal benefits our poorest more than the Liberals does. I'm not saying it is, or is not, the most fiscally prudent way to provide tax relief, but that's not the point - it will win votes.

My 0.02


----------



## kcdist (5 Dec 2005)

The child-care payment announcement reeks of common sense. I believe this one issue will cut across party lines like no other. 

I'm sure that it is not only Conservative families that make the difficult financial decision to have one parent stay at home. Many families of all political stripes have, I believe, formed the conclusion that there is no one better suited to look after your single most valuable, precious and irreplaceable asset(your children of course), than the parents.

It has stuck in my craw for years that my tax dollars are used to subsidize some families, far wealthier than mine, who choose to warehouse their children in government subsidized facilities.

I think this one policy will click with many voters who have not traditionally voted Conservative. Well done.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

In today's news:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/stronach051205.html

I see a big "waa-waa" from an MP who pulled a move of pure political oppurtunism.  I think she may lose her seat for this (I hope she does).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/lapierre051205.html

Shame on the Liberal Party's Lapierre for trying to use the Nazi's to demonize his opponents.  There should be a Godwin's Law for politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/elxn-conservatives-child-care.html

"Choice-in-Child-Care" allowance.  Another simple and easy to understand plan that adds clarity to the platform.  Add another point to the Conservatives.  I wonder how many points they'll pick up from the Liberals who are too busy trading barbs with the Bloq to notice?


----------



## RangerRay (7 Dec 2005)

ONE MORE REASON NOT TO VOTE LIBERAL!  :rage: :threat: :akimbo:  :cam:  :rage:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=28eeda45-a3d3-4892-be0e-cfbb397c5af8&k=59372

*Liberals expected to announce handgun ban*

Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Press has learned that Prime Minister Paul Martin will venture into a violence-plagued area of Toronto on Thursday to announce a sweeping ban on handguns. 

Martin is scheduled to visit Toronto's troubled Jane-Finch area to make a "safer communities announcement.'' 

Liberal sources have confirmed the announcement includes a ban on handguns. 

Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years. 

But a rash of recent gun deaths in Toronto has prompted Martin to promise to crack down even more. 

Gunfire was responsible for 50 of the 74 murders so far this year in the city. 

The rash of shootings prompted city police to launch a gun amnesty program in November, during which they collected 261 guns and more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition. 

A ban on handguns is likely to be popular in Toronto and other large urban centres, like Montreal and Vancouver, where residents have been disturbed by recent gun violence. 

On Tuesday, Montreal residents marked the 16th anniversary of the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique, where 14 young women were gunned down. 

© Canadian Press 2005

*************************************************************************************************************

I guess that they are trying to emulate the success the Brits had when they banned handguns.  Oh, wait a minute...handgun crime INCREASED there when the banned handguns!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2005)

HOLY SHIT!!!     

Get out and buy 'em now!

Unbelievable.   And how does Mr Martin suppose a handgun ban will prevent urban youth gang-bangers from getting their hands on illegal weapons coming from the States???

Continued infringment upon the property rights of Canadians to appease the anti-gun lobby.   Forget O'Connor, this made me lose any idea of voting Liberal....


----------



## AoD71 (7 Dec 2005)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I guess that they are trying to emulate the success the Brits had when they banned handguns.  Oh, wait a minute...handgun crime INCREASED there when the banned handguns!



It probably increased because the people who were charged for using the gun in a crime were also charged with HAVING the gun in the first place. So basically you're making it *slightly* harder for people to get them, but all of a sudden people are being charged with twice as many accusations.  :-\


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2005)

Here is a quick selection of some of the Parties:

Liberal Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
New Democratic Party
Green Party
Canadian Action Party
Freedom Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Canada
Grey Party of Canada
Bloc Québécois 
Progressive Canadian Party
Communist Party of Canada

If you are one of those people that does not want to vote for any of the big parties, then be sure to give the little ones a look.


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Dec 2005)

The liberals are now saying that they will announce a ban on private ownership of handguns.  Yet another reason to make a donation and work on the Conservative campaign.   :akimbo:


----------



## Popurhedoff (8 Dec 2005)

Not just handguns, but Military style rifles and shotguns... so anything that looks... evil.. total confiscation without compensation.  This coming from a Government that did nothing but waste $2Billion on the Gun registry to now going after the Law Biding gun owners...

The Criminals do not register firearms, and now... and if the Liebral Party gets their way only the Criminals will be armed.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2005)

The Liberal version of the GST cut; it is easy to understand, "seems" to be taking action on the issue but is really rather irrelevant. "Ban guns" is a good sound bite, though.

Why not start writing letters to the editor, calling phone in radio shows, writing your Blogs etc. and demonstrating with factual evidence how the Liberal promise is meaningless or counterproductive. It will make them look like the opportunistic idiots and maybe they will back away from this nonsense.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Popurhedoff said:
			
		

> Not just handguns, but Military style rifles and shotguns... so anything that looks... evil.. total confiscation without compensation.  This coming from a Government that did nothing but waste $2Billion on the Gun registry to now going after the Law Biding gun owners...
> 
> The Criminals do not register firearms, and now... and if the Liebral Party gets their way only the Criminals will be armed.



You don't think moronic screen names like "Popurhedoff" and avatars of guys aiming firearms at the camera might create a lessened public perception of gun owners, do ya?


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

Michael, if you look at my avatar you will see that the FN is not pointed at the camera.  When I took that picture that rifle was cleared by three people, the holder, me, and one other person.  I think it turned out very well.  Let's not distract from the aim of this thread.


----------



## Dare (8 Dec 2005)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> ONE MORE REASON NOT TO VOTE LIBERAL!  :rage: :threat: :akimbo:  :cam:  :rage:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=28eeda45-a3d3-4892-be0e-cfbb397c5af8&k=59372
> 
> *Liberals expected to announce handgun ban*



If true, they're getting desperate. Considering this would have been part in parcel of the gun registry plan, it's been a long time coming. Given they are likely to lose, I suspect a few agendas were rapidly surfaced. It is also particularly worriesome given the gun violence they are using as an excuse to disarm. Are we to fight off these armed aggressors with knives and forks? Or perhaps a cell phone? I know when there were armed thugs trying to kill someone outside my house, going through the toughtone 911 menu to finally get to the RCMP seemed rather unfortunately delayed. My presence on the street altered the scenario significantly. Had I been armed, it's likely that those apes wouldn't have put the victim into a coma. Of course, the Liberal strategy has always been divide and conquer.. under the guise of unification. In their Ivory towers they don't have to experience the realities of the broad stretching mental disease that brings about these shootings. Rather they are using recent shootings as an excuse. Frankly, this gives me a really bad feeling. Really. Really bad feeling..


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Michael, if you look at my avatar you will see that the FN is not pointed at the camera.  When I took that picture that rifle was cleared by three people, the holder, me, and one other person.  I think it turned out very well.  Let's not distract from the aim of this thread.



Wasn't referring to you in the least, redleaf...  ??? ???


----------



## enfield (8 Dec 2005)

I have to say that news of this hand gun ban is the clincher for me - I was already leaning heavily Conservative, but some of their clownish policies (Mr. O'Connor and his defence fantasies....) were making me keep an open mind. Banning hand guns though? I'm not even a gun owner, but thats it - Liberals have to go. I'd vote Conservative if they had a trained ape running in my riding.


----------



## vangemeren (8 Dec 2005)

Personally I wouldn't consider this a hot button issue (I'm not a gun owner or advocate), however I don't agree with this position at all.

While it doesn't make me vote for the Conservatives, it will still keep my options open.

To me this sounds like an NDP-like position, I wonder if they are going to one up them by banning all guns, or is Mr. Layton going to avoid this like the plague.

This just looks like a vote grab to get GTA votes.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

Okay Michael, perhaps I'm just a little sensitive about my firearms right now.  I have been buying a few a year for 30 years and most of them are what these alpha hotels intend to take away.  If the conservatives lose pictures might be all I have.

Join, donate and vote conservative.


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

Damn, so now legal gun-owners will consider selling off their 'soon to be illegal' firearms to anyone that will give them money for them before they have to turn them in or become a criminal.  

Guess who will but them?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Okay Michael, perhaps I'm just a little sensitive about my firearms right now.   I have been buying a few a year for 30 years and most of them are what these alpha hotels intend to take away.   If the conservatives lose pictures might be all I have.
> 
> Join, donate and vote conservative.



My dad has a 1936 Luger in mint condition, with the waffenamt markings intact.  It used to be worth a pretty penny, I think.  I kept telling him to go out and get it de-activated.  I suck at shooting handguns but would still like to own it one day; if nothing else a good prop to go with German uniform displays.  He didn't want to deactivate it.  It is fully registered, of course, but he doesn't shoot it either, just keeps it under lock and key properly stored.  If this ban goes through, I take it that this piece of history which at one time might have been worth 2000 dollars is now going to be melted down to make Toronto housewives feel safe?  Maybe I'll ask for the dewat for Christmas.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/11/daycare051211.html

First the Liberals apologize for trying to tag Bloq commentary with the Holocaust.  Then the Bloq apologizes for using the wrong words.  Liberal handgun ban proposal gets a poor showing in the news.  Now the Liberals again apologize for insinuating that Canadian families are a bunch of dopes who need to be told how to best spend their money.

At least the Conservatives (and the NDP) can say that they haven't stepped on their wangs yet.


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2005)

"Maybe I'll ask for the dewat for Christmas."

- Why don't you just get your PAL, then your restricted weapons course, and inherit it in one piece?

Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (11 Dec 2005)

Michael, I've got to agree with TCBF on the Luger, please, please don't be tempted to cut up such an important historical relic.  Instead get your license and have that Luger whole.  Concurrently, make a donation to the local conservative campaign and maybe you'll even be allowed to keep it!



(edited for typo correction)


----------



## nsmedicman (12 Dec 2005)

It's pretty bad that we're just over a month from a federal election, and Canadians are forced to decide which leader is less of a MORON, and vote for his party. The four party leaders are the reason some animals eat their young! I haven't seen this much dead wood since I walked on the beach a couple of days after a hurricane. I do greatly encourage folks to vote; as for me, my decision is far from being made......


----------



## paracowboy (12 Dec 2005)

my decision was very easy to make. While I don't agree with everything the Conservatives have to say, they are our best and perhaps only chance at removing the criminals currently in power.


----------



## larry Strong (12 Dec 2005)

Another fiberal "Faux Pas"

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051208/elxn_campaign_stops_051211/20051212?s_name=election2006&no_ads=


----------



## rifleman (12 Dec 2005)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Another fiberal "Faux Pas"



This is just another indicator of how some politicians feel about the general public. They feel that us 'commoners' need to be looked after. 

Walking with kings has made them lose the common touch (Kipling). Time for the Kings to go.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

Well, they have come out in the open and said they do not trust people with their own money early in the campaign (although this is the underlying theme of almost all Liberal ideas). 

Any bets on how fast the CBC, Toronto Star and the rest of the lapdog press try to put this remark in the memory hole? If we want to do our part, we should keep the "Beer and popcorn" remark front and center whenever we write letters to the editor, post on blogs, talk to reporters and in conversation with anyone in the outside world. We can also give it the proper twist:

"Why should we give the Liberals $10 billion dollars to spend on beer and popcorn?"


----------



## rifleman (12 Dec 2005)

Perhaps what the liberals meant to say was "Why give people money so they can spend it on Guns?"


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2005)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Perhaps what the liberals meant to say was "Why give people money so they can spend it on Guns?"


Obviously they didn't mean "Why give people money to spend on Ads?"


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

The problem with the Libs (and politicians in general) is that they dream up this stuff without consulting the *real* experts on this issue - in this case, law enforcement agencies. 

I'm pretty sure if you asked any cop they'd tell you this is total garbage. We already have laws that enable cops to get illegal guns off the streets, the only difference here is that law-abiding citizens will lose their right to own handguns.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

nsmedicman said:
			
		

> It's pretty bad that we're just over a month from a federal election, and Canadians are forced to decide which leader is less of a MORON, and vote for his party. The four party leaders are the reason some animals eat their young! I haven't seen this much dead wood since I walked on the beach a couple of days after a hurricane. I do greatly encourage folks to vote; as for me, my decision is far from being made......



I wouldn't put Duceppe in the same category as the other three.  If one considers his political goals as legitimate - an independent Quebec - you have to admire how he's managed to win people over to his point of view.  I also think he conducts himself well and seems like more of a statesman than any of the other three.  Of course, it's easy to give that appearance when all you have to do is thumb your nose at "legitimate" members of the Canadian parliament.  I wonder how he would do if he was actually president of an independent Quebec.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Dec 2005)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Another fiberal "Faux Pas"
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051208/elxn_campaign_stops_051211/20051212?s_name=election2006&no_ads=



Another example of Liberal elitism.

Basically they're saying that parents don't know how to raise children and child rearing should be left to the state!


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (13 Dec 2005)

Negativity is a much maligned quality. From mom's " if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything" stance, through to the assorted election campaigns gone bad because- we are assured by the winners- they "went negative," naysaying has taken its share of hits.

This undeserved denigration has been especially exploited in the last decade and a half by political correctness-- otherwise known as liberalism-- which has done its damnedest to camo every negative as a positive.

Examples are numerous, but the general inclinations for PC-speak are the same. They may be to spare someone's feelings (e.g.,_ she has incontinence issues_; not,_ she shites her diapers hourly_). They may be to advance a cause (e.g., _lucky Luc has two mommies_; not, _poor Luc is being raised by a_ _couple of lesbians_). They may merely be cowardly-- to avoid a confrontation (e.g., _Quebec is a_ _distinct society_; not Quebec is a basket case).

In Canada, along with the "First Nations People" (nee Indians), Quebec has been the standard beneficiary of political correctness. For about 40 years now, the mainstream media, politicians, and the judiciary have fallen all over themselves in a group indulgence of_ la belle pain dans le butt_. It has become not just wrong, but bigoted to criticize a province that consistently elects governments & trade unions that take it down the road to what, in any real world, would be referred to as ruin.

With a provincial debt of over $100 billion, an unemployment rate close to 10%, the highest damn income taxes in North America, an addiction to social programs that far exceeds its means, a morbidly obese civil service, an ongoing exodus of the young and talented, and a pig-headed insistence on restricting its citizens to a language that otherwise would have disappeared from the continent years ago, Quebec should have succeeded Newfoundland as the butt of our national jokes.

There was a lot of blather in the press tied to the 10th anniversary of the Oct. 30, 1995, Quebec referendum in which separatism, or at least "sovereignty-association," was avoided by less than one per cent of the vote: near disaster averted, separatist sentiments on the rebound, how clear is the clarity bill, blah,blah,blah. The blather was followed by the release of part one of the Gomery report, which reiterated and encapsulated what we had learned during the Gomery inquiry: Liberals spending money on their pimps in Quebec under the pretext of warding off separitism; Gomery revelations hurting the federalist cause in Quebec. Ho-hum. :

Who needs such negativity? Like a loud fart at a cocktail party, Quebec's many manifestos have raised a few eyebrows, but will doubtless be lost to the inevitability of Quebec's decline.

Quebec is a nice place to visit, but it is a foreign country-- as anyone who has crossed the border from Ontario can attest, and as more than half of the Francophonie keep on trying to drum into our thick skulls.
In 1995 and the years after, hundreds of millions of our dollars were spent on waving the Maple Leaf in a province that laughs with Gallic disdain at such glee-club antics. The sponsorship scandal and its corruption only validated the disdain, and will be exploited by the PQ and the Bloc to virtually erase Liberals from the province's next election.

It is time for the opposition leaders to stop trying to learn French and to stop pretending. It is time to admit the emperor has no clothes. It is time to cut-away the political correctness and embrace the negative reality. It is time to wish Quebec _au revoir_, _bon voyage _ and _bonne chance_.

Just my two cents on the upcoming election.


----------



## Aislinn (13 Dec 2005)

Election campaigns silent on Afghan war.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=5fe7ae99-e9f5-4d98-b662-7f7b80974b3a&k=76811

It would be interesting to hear exactly what the various leaders' thoughts actually are, but according to this article, we may not know until after a party is elected to government.


----------



## Aislinn (13 Dec 2005)

Sapper Bloggins said:
			
		

> It is time for the opposition leaders to stop trying to learn French and to stop pretending. It is time to admit the emperor has no clothes. It is time to cut-away the political correctness and embrace the negative reality. It is time to wish Quebec _au revoir_, _bon voyage _ and _bonne chance_.



So you're in favour of ripping the country apart? 
It's aggravating. I sort of agree with you, but I'm also annoyed with your post. I can't decide if truth hurts or if you're being overly critical. 
I have to say though, my decision will be based less on the Quebec issue, and more on health care, military, taxes, and foreign policy. And on whether the status quo needs to be shaken up. 

Cheers.


----------



## HADES 1962 (13 Dec 2005)

taken from Canoe.ca news

Tories promise big military boost

By MARTIN O'HANLON

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's political leaders traded fire but it was the U.S. ambassador who scored the biggest hit of the election campaign Tuesday, warning Ottawa to tone down the anti-American rhetoric.
 Conservative Leader Stephen Harper got the tough talk started with a whopping $5.3-billion pledge to beef up the military's air power. However, his promise to re-establish an airborne regiment and buy huge new military transport planes was quickly overshadowed by David Wilkins. The ambassador punched into the campaign using an iron fist in a velvet diplomat's glove to scold Prime Minister Paul Martin for America-bashing. Wilkins said he understands election-year politics and realizes the United States is an easy target, "but the last time I looked, the U.S. was not on the ballot for the Jan. 23 election." 
Last week, Martin chided the White House for lacking a global conscience on climate change. He has also been slamming Washington for maintaining punishing duties on softwood lumber despite a final trade ruling in Canada's favour. Wilkins was careful not to mention Martin by name, but the rebuke was crystal clear.
"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner," he said in a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa. But it is a slippery slope and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.
"It's a toxic attitude that I fear can't help but hurt the relationship unless all of us make a concerted effort to simply tone it down."
Martin denied bashing America to bolster his re-election bid, saying he has been voicing his position on softwood and climate change for a long time. And he remained unbowed: "We do expect our partners to honour our agreements and I will defend Canada - period."
As Martin was defending Canada his way, Harper had a few ideas of his own.
The Tory leader said his plan to boost spending by $5.3 billion over five years - including buying three new strategic airlift planes - would boost Canada's sovereignty.
The new aircraft would allow the military to send troops and heavy equipment overseas without having to charter planes or ask allies for help.
"To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed," Harper said.
"To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing." 
Harper is also proposing to re-establish a 650-member airborne battalion and double the size of the 200-member Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Not to be outdone on the tough talk, NDP Leader Jack Layton warned that politicians and profiteers are sabotaging the country's cherished system of public health care.
He warned that the very people, who claim to protect it, including Martin, Harper, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, are threatening Medicare. Layton told supporters in Regina - the birthplace of Medicare - which he would bring in tough rules to ensure no public money, goes for private health care.


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2005)

Sapper Bloggins, you have my vote wrt Quebec and the Political Correct approach we have taken as a country ! If the friggin Liebrals continue to lead the country after this next election, I will be about ready to tar all of urban ON ie Toronto with the same brush.  

I expect we are going to see a pretty divided country with some pretty PO'd westerners next spring.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

Can Canada, whole and complete, seperate from the separtistes?


----------



## PViddy (14 Dec 2005)

Interesting news from the Conservative camp:

 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051212/elxn_tories_defence_051213/20051213?s_name=election2006&no_ads= 

I generally think they are on the right track.  Very interested in the proposed Airborne Battalion, see what pans out in the coming days.

cheers

PV


----------



## Slim (14 Dec 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Interesting news from the Conservative camp:
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051212/elxn_tories_defence_051213/20051213?s_name=election2006&no_ads=
> 
> ...



Glad you like it...Its already in existance!


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Very interested in the proposed Airborne Battalion, see what pans out in the coming days.


Do a search for JATF or CSOR.


----------



## PViddy (14 Dec 2005)

> Glad you like it...Its already in existance!



a 600 pers plus Airborne battalion based out of Trenton  (besides the school, which i don't think is that big anyways) ?   obviously i don't have the sec clearance!  ;D 

Buying at least three new strategic lift aircraft; 
Creating a *new*, 650-strong airborne battalion; and 
Doubling the size and capacity of Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to enhance international disaster relief capability



> "JTF 2 is to deal with terrorism," O'Connor said.
> 
> The airborne regiment is intended to protect Canadian sovereignty, he said.
> 
> ...



cheers


PV


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> a 600 pers plus Airborne battalion based out of Trenton   (besides the school, which i don't think is that big anyways) ?     obviously i don't have the sec clearance!   ;D


Once again: Do a search for JATF or CSOR.   The unit was just announced and is starting to be manned.

Also have a look in "Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election."


----------



## PViddy (14 Dec 2005)

So this is not totally new then ? (i will take your word for it).  I guess it's just the conservatives wanting to make themselves look good.  Thanks for the insight.

cheers

PV


----------



## vangemeren (14 Dec 2005)

*Former gov. gen. Schreyer to run for NDP in unprecedented move
Last Updated Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:42:00 EST
CBC News*

Former governor general Ed Schreyer will announce Thursday he's entering the federal election campaign as an NDP candidate in Manitoba, an unprecedented move for a former Canadian head of state.

Schreyer will run in the Selkirk/Interlake riding, which is just north of Winnipeg between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis in the west and Lake Winnipeg in the east.

"It's remarkable in the sense there is no precedent and now it creates a precedent on that, which creates much dialogue in constitutional circles.," David Mitchell, a political historian and vice-president of the University of Ottawa, told CBC News Online.

Mitchell said the appointment of Schreyer, who served as governor general from 1979-84, was controversial at the time as he became the first formerpolitician to be given the post.

He said Schreyer's return to politics will raise questions about the nature of our constitutional democracy. They include whether former politicians should be candidates for governor general having once played partisan roles, and can a person serve in that role and emerge again in the political fray?

"Does it depreciate the perceived independence of that position?" Mitchell asked.

The seat is currently held by Conservative MP James Bezan.

At age 22, Schreyer became the youngest member of the Manitoba legislature in 1958.

He was elected to the House of Commons in 1965. Four years later, he became the leader of the New Democratic Party of Manitoba, and served as premier from 1969 to 1977.

When Schreyer become governor general at 43, he was the youngest to hold the position since Lord Lorne in 1878 at age 33, and Lord Lansdowne in 1883 at 38. After his term, he was appointed high commissioner to Australia.

He has since returned to Winnipeg, where he works as the national representative for Habitat for Humanity, a non-profit housing organization.

In the last election campaign, the NDP introduced another star candidate, with the announcement that former NDP leader Ed Broadbent would run in the riding of Ottawa Centre. Broadbent, who won the seat, is not seeking re-election.

Voters go to the polls Jan. 23.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/14/schreyer051214.html


I thought this was interesting. I would like to know what others think.


----------



## career_radio-checker (15 Dec 2005)

I just watched CBC's the National and was dumbfounded by the public question period they had with Jim Harris -- leader of the Green party. This guy is an idiot and is going to do more harm then good for his party. Harris managed to tie every single question he was asked, a lot of which were normal decent questions (health care, tax cuts and jobs), to the environment. Ya I know its the party's name but I thought he could at least form a sentence without mentioning "environment, Kyoto, pollution, green." Then he went on a tyrade about how the media was shuting him out. You could just see the dissappointment in his supporters faces after they finished asking their questions. 

You can watch it on cbc.ca just click on 'newscasts' and then the 'national.' The interview begins at about 25 minutes into the program so fastfoward it abit.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Interesting, I watched CTV news tonight and the top story was on this poll.

Now, a poll is a poll is a poll, but it does create for some interesting conversation.  What stuck out were the four questions that the story featured - the first one was a general, Canada-wide support poll:



> Liberals: 33 (-3)
> Conservatives: 31 (+2)
> NDP: 17 (unchanged)
> Bloc Quebecois: 14 (+1)
> Greens: 6 (+1)



Seems the two leading parties are in a dead heat.  It appears that the Liberals have been support piece by piece.  I think we are all fairly confident on another minority government - but who will be forming it???

Next was this:



> Time for a change: 59 per cent (+4)
> Time not to change: 30 per cent (-8)
> DK/NA/Ref: 11 per cent (+3)



It seems that no matter what Paul Martin does, he cannot get away from Scandal in his party - this seems to be a consequence of the RCMP investigation into Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.  Even if nothing illegal did happen, Canadians seem to be getting fed up of hearing about this stuff.  Just when you thought Toronto gang-violence had overtaken Gomery, this pops up.

The next two polls focused on key battlegrounds - this one was a poll in Ontario:



> Liberals: 38 per cent (-9)
> Conservatives: 32 per cent (-1)
> NDP: 22 per cent (+6)
> Greens: 6 per cent (+2)



With it seeming that the Liberals are all but lost in Quebec, losing support in Ontario hurts bad.  Note who is getting support - Greens and the NDP.  But I'm willing to bet that the Conservatives, despite the drop in support, gain big from this too.  That -9 that the Liberals face is votes that will be spread amongst 3 left-leaning parties.  Well we may see more NDP and even a Green seat or two in Ontario, we may also see some Conservative victories stemming from a "Ralph Nader" effect in some races (one of those evils of pluralism I guess).

The other poll looked at BC:



> Conservatives: 40 per cent (+11)
> Liberals: 31 per cent (-4)
> NDP: 25 per cent (-5)
> Greens: 5 per cent (-1)



That was a big number - the article says it was a smaller sample size, so the margin of error will be bigger.  But if there is any truth to a general trend, you can see an improvement in the 22/36 seat count that they got last time.  Some reports have been saying that BC is returning to the NDP, but my general impression is that NDP support in BC is, like it is in most places, very concentrated and thus not conducive to taking a large number of seats.

Anyways, I thought the stats were an interesting start to the second half of the campaign.  If I was the Conservative Party (or the NDP and the Greens even), I'd be excited about the momentum and "go for the jugular".  Now, there may not be any truth to these figures and there is still 3-weeks in which anyone can commit political sepukku, but they do present a possible outcome that is worth exploring here.  In any case, I'll have the popcorn out for this election as it is going to be a good one.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2006)

...and we see that this momentum seems to be achieving something.  A new EKOS poll has the Conservatives 6 points in the lead; this difference is higher then the margin of error.  Interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/05/elxn-poll-ekos.html



> New poll shows Tories in the lead
> Last Updated Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:43:07 EST
> CBC News
> The Conservatives had the momentum going their way as they entered the federal election campaign's second half, suggests a new poll.
> ...



As well, here is the link to the actual poll done by EKOS:

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/5Jan2006PR.pdf


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (5 Jan 2006)

Although i'm optimistic, its usually when things are going great that a conservative MP steps on his **** and makes some lewd/crude comment that puts shame on the whole party.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jan 2006)

Well, the media will certainly be much more scrutinous of the Conservatives now.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (7 Jan 2006)

After watching the news last night with the Conservatives "edging" ahead, I wouldn't doubt if Mr. Harper didn't call all conservative MP's and threaten them with their lives to keep from making "stupid" statements to the media. The liberals are accusing a conservative MP in Calgary of too much "inaction" because they are trying to goad him into stepping on his d*** with the media.

 Go Conservatives......


----------



## Slim (7 Jan 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> After watching the news last night with the Conservatives "edging" ahead, I wouldn't doubt if Mr. Harper didn't call all conservative MP's and threaten them with their lives to keep from making "stupid" statements to the media. The liberals are accusing a conservative MP in Calgary of too much "inaction" because they are trying to goad him into stepping on his d*** with the media.
> 
> Go Conservatives......



That is most certainly the act of a very desperate party! I hope that the conservatives and the public in general are smart enough to see that.


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2006)

This looks good:Stephen Harper announces plan to Stand up for Security


----------



## privatesteve (8 Jan 2006)

So the liberals have promised to pay for half of students tuition. It seems they are systematically promising every group of people exactly what they want in a desperate attempted to buy votes. I don't see why they need to pay for half of the tuition, its not very expensive to being with. If you work hard enough over summer holidays on the rigs or something..you can make more than enough to cover living expenses and school for the year. Basically they are taking our tax money and giving it to some art-poofter so he can waste it on dumb courses. 

I was also wondering if this would have any affect on recruiting for the Canadian Forces. I know free education is kinda why a lot of people join. What are your opinions on this? 




> ncreasing Access to Post-Secondary Education
> 
> The new 50/50 Plan will be open to any student pursuing a first undergraduate degree or diploma from an accredited university, community college or other post-secondary program in Canada. Qualifying students will be those who commence their undergraduate educations beginning in 2007-08. Parents and students will have the choice to either opt in to the new plan, or draw benefits from the existing Tuition Tax Credit and Education Expense Deduction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Privatesteve, please post links to your sources when you quote an article. Sources often establish the credibility of the posted material.

Thank you

Mike
Staff


----------



## Grunthor (8 Jan 2006)

i completely agree with you privatesteve, all that means is that the rest of us are going to be paying for half of each students, why should we have to pay for someone else wanting to "further" their education.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Jan 2006)

privatesteve said:
			
		

> So the liberals have promised to pay for half of students tuition. It seems they are systematically promising every group of people exactly what they want in a desperate attempted to buy votes. I don't see why they need to pay for half of the tuition, its not very expensive to being with. If you work hard enough over summer holidays on the rigs or something..you can make more than enough to cover living expenses and school for the year. Basically they are taking our tax money and giving it to some art-poofter so he can waste it on dumb courses.



Sure, working on an oil rig you might make enough money to cover tuition and some of your living expenses for the year. I don't think there are enough jobs that pay like an oil rig to employ the entirety of the Canadian student body. If, like many students, you're confined to unskilled labour like retail work, you can expect maybe 9 or 10 dollars an hour. If you worked 40 hours/week for the months of June, July, and August, you'd earn 4300-4800 dollars over the summer. That MIGHT cover your base tuition costs, not including books, instruments, etc. Assume a lowball figure for your rent (400/month) and that utilities are included, you'll pay 4800 in rent for the year. Books/instruments for each semester, estimate $600/year. Food, estimate about $200/month, so 2400/year (that's a lowball). Spending money, estimate about $200/month, so 2400/year (and that's lowball too). Telephone, say 40$/month so 480/year. Internet 30$/month = 360/year. Other expenses (haircuts, school supplies [pens, paper, etc], toiletries, photocopy costs, etc.) say 40$/month = 480/year. 

With all the lowballs added up, including tuition (say 5000/year), you're looking at 16 520. I don't know about you, but I'd have a hard time earning that much money in a summer, as would 99% of students. If I did, I'd have a job that would pay 66 000/year. I won't see that kind of money until I'm a Captain, at least. 

As for "dumb courses" (  : ) what, in your esteemed wisdom and experience, would you suggets people take at school? Which courses aren't dumb? In fact, are there one or two fields of study you can suggest which aren't dumb, and thus worthy of a person's attention? I'm curious to know which courses you think are dumb, perhaps you could provide examples of such dumb courses, their course codes, and the schools at which they're provided along with an explanation of why they're dumb. 



> I was also wondering if this would have any affect on recruiting for the Canadian Forces. I know free education is kinda why a lot of people join. What are your opinions on this?



That's a good question. I'd be interested to see how many of the people who join through ROTP wouldn't join if they could get the education cheaper. I would imagine there would be some effect on ROTP recruitment if the government covered more tuition costs, but I'd be interested to know just how much. I guess we'll have to wait and see - although this sounds like just another promise to garner votes, I doubt they'll actually do it.


----------



## chrisf (8 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> With all the lowballs added up, including tuition (say 5000/year), you're looking at 16 520.



Given we're on an army forum, I'd love to point out there's plenty of reserve units hiring... I made a good bit more then that as a class A reservist last year...

That being said, while I'd be in support of lowering education costs, I don't see any economic reasons for it... I'm sure statistics will show that an educated population is more productive, but at the same time, we've already a surplus of university educated workers (Not in all fields, but over all) and a deficiet of trades skilled people... I forsee this producing yet more over-educated individuals who never actually use their degree (No offence to my friends with a BA  )

I see this as buying votes, plain and simple... that being said, if it were more in the direction of an interest free student loan, rather then a grant, I'd be more in support of it, simply because it places more onus back on the individual student to succeed.


----------



## fourninerzero (8 Jan 2006)

I agree with glorified ape, its very hard for a full time student to earn enough in a summer and  working part time during the school year to pay for everything. Student loans are an option, but can take a long time to pay off, especially with a lack of jobs in many fields of study.

On the other hand, education is never a bad thing, no matter what the area of study is. Most university programs require a few courses from other disciplines, as to get a rounded education. (Sciences have to take some arts classes etc etc). My belief is that the more educated our country is, the better off our country will be. I like the idea of the government paying for half of the tuition, as it will hopefully attract people to getting more education as well as making life easier for current and future students.

As for vote buying, this seems to be a text book example. My hope is that no matter who is elected, areas like our military, health care and education are the winners.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2006)

Since up to 70% of the cost of University education is already subsidized, it is hard to imagine how much more money that should be poured into this.

The price of university tuition is rising far faster than the cost of living because there are no market incentives to keep it down, and in order to keep the unwashed masses out; after all what good is a university degree if everyone can get one out of the Liberal CrackerJack box?

Perhaps prospective students need to think very carefully what they are actually getting when they go to University..........


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Jan 2006)

First off, 

 This program is not exclusive to degree status institutions. This plan is aimed at all potential students, meaning tradespeople and Uni students alike.

 Secondly, any efforts to reduce the rising debtloads of the student body is an effective way to mitigate the loss of purchasing power that is spread out over the long term for the average graduate. As debt load increases there is a direct effect on all facets of our economy. Essentially, if people are servicing debt, they are not buying new cars or taking out a mortgage on their first home. 

 With the erosion of Provincial support for education (ie: BC has no more grants for students), this provides an opportunity for the Feds (all parties), to make inroads with a very large demographic that currently is not renowned for exercising their voting power. A corellary effect is that the Feds can allocate a portion of the surplus budget towards a long term strategy that will effectively boost the tax base for future generations.

 As Canada moves more towards a Service based economy, there must be a realisation that higher skilled, better trained workers are more productive and hence render our economy more resilient to global competition.

WRT to majoor's comments, it is evident that you do not think highly of the next generation of Canadians. I am curious as to what aversions you may have to producing another strong generation of tax payers which will carry us towards a tax base that will support the likes of yourselves (boomers and the like) into your old age? I know, maybe we should farm out your care to 3rd world nations as seems to be the case nowadays. Once you hit 65 or go senile, let's ship you off to Zimbabwe or Romania. It will be cheaper, meaning you won't have to pay the real costs that you have incurred.

 The sense of entitlement of the boomer generation is what is driving many of the economic decisions made nowadays. Unless we destroy all that has been built up terms of social programs INCLUDING THE MILITARY, radical decisions must be made with respect  to building a fiscal framework that derives the most benefit for the citizens of this great country.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2006)

;D

Nice Campaign promise.....like all Liberal promises of the past.

If they do get elected and by some miracle do keep this promise, does anyone think that it may be back-dated?  I wouldn't mind getting half my Tuition Monies back.  That dates back to the 1970's.  What are my chances, after all I have supported this Nation for all these years working hard to pay my Taxes to keep people on Welfare,.... and Liberal Sponsorship scandals,..... and Ad Scam, and.........?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Jan 2006)

I must be thick.  I simply cannot figure out why the taxpayer should pay any tuition, for any students.  Tax free loans, sure.  How does the taxpayer benefit from a new batch of BA's, or Poli-Sci students graduating?  

Actually, upon reflection, helping some disadvantaged may be of some assistance down the road, but only if they learn trades, maybe.  In my opinion, we don't need more "professional students", with little incentive to earn their own way.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

I would add a few extra conditions:

Once a degree is registered for and the student receives any funding, they only receive funding for as many years as that declared program is supposed to take.

No second or further degree will receive funding while any loan remains outstanding.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2006)

Sheikyerbouoti, you are suggesting a hypothetical result, with very little basis of evidence. 

Given the quality of university students which I see when wearing my training NCO hat, it would seem either these students are idiots (probably*not* true in most cases), or the quality of instruction has been greatly diluted, so to suggest people with poor communication skills, incomplete grasp of mathematics and an inability to think in complete and coherent thoughts will be a benefit to the economy and future generations of Canadians is a bit of a stretch.

Blatent vote buying is not a strategy for educating the population or improving the economy (and speaking of debt load, since taxes are the highest single expenditure of the Canadian family, this is the area that needs to be looked at).

I can suggest a proven strategy to energize the Canadian economy; *cut* government spending and taxes.

The American economy benefited greatly in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and post 2001 (check the numbers on quarterly economic growth and employment).
Ireland went from a virtually third world status to having a standard of living comparable to Canada's after steep tax cuts
Singapore, Korea and Tiawan became the "Little Tigers" after tax cuts
Mike Harris was able to increase health care spending by $11 Billion Cdn in Ontario because revenues increased due to the economic boom after his tax cuts (this offset the funding cuts from the Chretien Liberals; overseen by a certain finance minister who is currently running for office)
The Thacher era UK came out a virtual depression after the tax cuts of the 1980s.

These benefits are manifest very shortly after the tax cuts take effect, so you and I can enjoy them now, not waiting for future generations of ill  educated Canadians to attempt to deliver them.


----------



## Daidalous (8 Jan 2006)

Wow  was thinking there for half a second "Maybe I should stop putting money away for my kids education"  Yeah right,  it looks good on paper.   I do not know why people want the government to pay for everything for them.  My best friend  during high school leaches every dollar he can out of the government through student loans. He only spends half of the money on school and the rest he spends on computer parts and games,  his big goal is to graduate then declare bankruptcy,  just makes me sick.  On the other hand I know one guy that flipping burgers 4 nights a week to pay for school.  That man has ever ounce of respect I can give.


----------



## 3rd Herd (9 Jan 2006)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I must be thick.  I simply cannot figure out why the taxpayer should pay any tuition, for any students.  Tax free loans, sure.  How does the taxpayer benefit from a new batch of BA's, or Poli-Sci students graduating?



Don't know about the poli sci types BUT the tax payers are sure getting there money from all us BA types who went into teaching over crowded classrooms with kids who don't want to be there in the first place with little or no resources and unreal expectations from higher authorities who have no clue what is occurring on the ground. Gee it almost sounds like a military job again.

As for student loans and grants when I went back not by choice but necessity hmm work and do 4 crse per semester or 5 to 6 crse a semester year round and grad quicker.Then pay taxes sooner so our military can buy badley needed equipment Hmm just a major or double my options and go for a double major. For you math challenged types that means four study areas. Oh yeah in my spare time I was President of the Disabled Students Society for two years rewriting areas of university legislation which not only my university passed but three others adopted as well. Benefiting not only us BA types but B.Sc and B.Eng too.

As for a_majoor comment "Perhaps prospective students need to think very carefully what they are actually getting when they go to University.........." Several university recognized this and have change policy and will not allow a student to declare a major until 2/3 of the way through second year. I believe University of Winnipeg was first to adopt this policy and others have quickly followed suit. Seems academia can recognize the need for policy change allot more rapidly than the CF can.

As for free secondary education and the costs to the tax payers. Well several European countries tax payers are screaming right now as their highly educated graduates recipients of free education are flocking here to Canada, Germany is a prime example of this. Next gentlemen before you rant and holler about life time students on loans check your informayion. ALL student loans are matched to programs already, the only exception to this is an extention for medical resons for yourself or immediate family.

oh by the way I going to complete an MA just so I can teach BA to keep the conspiracy theory going that a BA does not contribute to society.


----------



## COBRA-6 (9 Jan 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The sense of entitlement of the boomer generation is what is driving many of the economic decisions made nowadays.



This is what drives me nuts, the sense of entitlement some have towards a post-secondary degree. No you are not entitled, you must earn it. Both academical and fiscally. College or University is not simply "what happens the year after grade 12", and the less effort that goes into obtaining something, the less value it has.  

There is nothing wrong with working for a while after high school before pursuing a post-secondary education. In fact these people were by far the most motivated group of student on campus from what I saw. They had enough life experience to know what they wanted to do in life, and they treated school seriously.


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Jan 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> This is what drives me nuts, the sense of entitlement some have towards a post-secondary degree. No you are not entitled, you must earn it. Both academical and fiscally. College or University is not simply "what happens the year after grade 12", and the less effort that goes into obtaining something, the less value it has.



So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations? What about the rich kids who get Mommy and Daddy to pay for everything? How is it going to affect THEM whether or not education is paid for? They won't earn it either way!

Oh well, guess we have now moved on to a Caste system in Canada. Awesome.


----------



## rifleman (9 Jan 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations? What about the rich kids who get Mommy and Daddy to pay for everything? How is it going to affect THEM whether or not education is paid for? They won't earn it either way!



Everyone knows that educating the masses is the first step to revolt. Afterall, why do we need University, there are plenty of Call Centre jobs out there.   :


----------



## COBRA-6 (9 Jan 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations?



No I didn't say that at all. I said no one should expect someone else to pay it for them. They are not entitled to it, it is not a right.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Oh well, guess we have now moved on to a Caste system in Canada. Awesome.


I would say that is a false statement.  We have not 'now moved into a Caste System in Canada"; we have always been in one.  It isn't as formalized as in other cultures, but it is still there under the surface.  You have Blue Collar workers, White Collar worker, etc.  It is there, but we allow Canadians to work hard to move to a higher Caste more than in other Nations where more stringent rules are enforced.  The Paul Martins, KC Irvings, Brian Mulruneys, Trudeaus, Desmaurais, Strongs, etc., are not in the same caste as John Q Public.  There will always be caste systems, even if they are hidden, as in Canadian society.

There will always be 'Elitists' in any society.  In Canada, there are numerous instances of Political Elitism, Educational Elitism, Economic Elitism, and the list goes on.  In the Military we, of course have the Rank system.  You will also find that in Police Departments, Fire Departments, Para Medics, Coast Guard, Civil Services, etc.  The higher you make it on the 'scale', the easier it is to provide your children with an education to have them enter the 'caste system' at a higher level than you did.

In the end: "Life isn't Fair".


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Jan 2006)

I agree, George, but I meant "caste" as it is often conceived: an Indian-style system where you absolutely cannot move from one caste to the other, and especially cannot be helped to move up.

Seems to me that the people who say "people should pay their own way" and whatnot, are following exactly the same school of thought. If you were born as white trash, you'll die as white trash. If you were born to a "good family" who can send you to school, then you'll go to a good school, get a degree, and rule over the white trash.

You said we "allow" people to move into higher castes, but it is near-impossible for someone who was born in a trailer park to get good grades and somehow get enough money to go to College, unless they get some government help. (I'm not saying the entire cost should be granted, just enough that people can afford it without ruining their health.) The problem is, people are saying that government help shouldn't be given.

What that means is, basically, that if your family can help you out, you'll go to College and if they can't, well, you better suck it up and find something else to do, and that's the sticking point for me.


----------



## Dog (9 Jan 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> This is what drives me nuts, the sense of entitlement some have towards a post-secondary degree. No you are not entitled, you must earn it. Both academical and fiscally. College or University is not simply "what happens the year after grade 12", and the less effort that goes into obtaining something, the less value it has.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with working for a while after high school before pursuing a post-secondary education. In fact these people were by far the most motivated group of student on campus from what I saw. They had enough life experience to know what they wanted to do in life, and they treated school seriously.



+1

While the eariler "'Boomer" comment feels justified to me as well, since most major policy decisions are made by the generation who has grown up having everything their way, I can't help but agree with Mike_R23A when he says there's nothing wrong with working for your education.

I did, and I feel that I'm a better developed person for it. 

HOWEVER... even working nights and going to school during the day didn't provide me with enough cash to survive on my own, and as such, I couldn't afford to eat all the time, I couldn't afford to buy every text that I wanted to, and I couldn't always afford to pay my rent on the 1st of the month. I'd spent time (2yrs) working before I went to school, and managed to scrounge barely enough to pay for my first year... after that I ate a lot of Mr. Noodles, rice, and fell asleep in class more times than I care to admit. I couldn't afford to ride the bus, so I was riding my bike to school in ice-rain, and snow.... or I was hopping on the bus' back door... hoping I wouldn't get caught because I needed my 2.25 to buy supper for that night.

I had to stop going to the gym, because it made me too hungry, so I ended up losing weight, and strength (which I've not quite been able to recover from). I had to go into a social coma because I couldn't afford to go anywhere or do anything, no friends, no girls. My health deteriorated, and I caught a record number of colds... it was bloody depressing. I ended up getting a student loan just so that I could eat, take the bus, and pay my rent and other monthly bills, and now I'm saddled with thousands of dollars of debt, that, from where I stand, seems insurmountable.

There's nothing wrong with 'working like a beast' for your education, but there IS something wrong when working still isn't enough to cut it.... I feel I've developed some pretty strong coping skills, and are a stronger person for having to undergo that sort of experience, but if I had missed a single paycheque, I would have totally lost it, and been unable to recover.... thoughts of Bankruptcy have floated through my head a few times.... and when I was at university back in 2001, someone in the same sort of situation as me, took a dive out of a window because the pressure was too much for him. Those years are not years I look back upon fondly... 

I'm no liberal supporter, and I'm not saying their plan is any good. I'm not a financier. But the system is a harsh one for students who are willing to work and really want an education.... it shouldn't be out of reach for those who are capable and willing, and who don't have mommy and daddy to fall back on.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2006)

In most cases, what you have been talking about is the fact that some are not as 'able' to get the education.  That is true, but hard work to achieve a goal is more rewarding, than a handout.  Handouts are not a reliable source of funding for any endeavour.  Who is to say that there will be an equally charitable handout next year or the year following?  The people who have worked hard to achieve a higher position in life, can in turn provide better opportunities for their children.  

If we work for what we want in life, we have a better appreciation of what we achieve.  Giving people money from EI, Student Loans, or any other 'Plan' only perpetuates the "Welfare Philosophy" that is spreading across the land in many 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation "Welfare Families".  As their Base grows, the number of people who pay the Taxes to support them shrinks.  Some of these people are milking the system, not getting Degrees or Jobs, not paying back Student Loans, not contributing to the betterment of the country.  Paying half a students tuition is only encouraging them to continue to live off the hard work of others.

As I jokingly said earlier, if they bring this into effect, do I have the opportunity to also claim for half of my tuition, that I paid years ago?  I have worked hard ever since to pay off my Student Loan and to pay Taxes.  Do I have any chance of recouping any of those funds?  Can you imagine the amount of money the Gov't would have to shell out to do that, let alone the whole creation of a new Dept to administer it?


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2006)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I must be thick.  I simply cannot figure out why the taxpayer should pay any tuition, for any students.  Tax free loans, sure.  How does the taxpayer benefit from a new batch of BA's, or Poli-Sci students graduating?



Would you like the people running the country to be educated or to walk into government and politics with about as much subject matter knowledge as I have of physics? The fact of the matter is that for alot of jobs, they don't care which degree you have, just as long as you have a degree. Whether it's physics, bio-chemistry, or art-history doesn't matter - it's simply the fact that you have a degree. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. That's what the employers want. Some jobs are different. Try getting a policy position in government without (at LEAST) a BA in poli-sci or related field. Nowadays you're more likely to need a Master's in Public Policy and Public Administration [MPPPA] or similar graduate degree (read: poli sci). 



> Actually, upon reflection, helping some disadvantaged may be of some assistance down the road, but only if they learn trades, maybe.  In my opinion, we don't need more "professional students", with little incentive to earn their own way.....



42% of our population is university/college educated. What level of education is necessary to qualify one as a "professional student"? Master's degree? PhD? What fraction of that 42% do you think is quarternarily (beyond undergrad) educated if only 42% has an undergrad degree? I'd wager not a whole lot and nowhere near enough to be concerned about "professional students". 

As for trades, I agree we need more. I wouldn't say we need to fund them to the exclusion of university degrees, though. I don't understand the disdain people seem to have for a degree - I'm sure they don't mind their doctors having degrees when they're being operated on, or their lawyers having degrees when they're defending them, or psychiatrists having degrees when they're counselling a severely depressed/drug addicted family member.


----------



## xFusilier (9 Jan 2006)

The sense of entitlement of students towards a University degree is one thing, however, very few posters have supported that notion.  The majority of persons, however, are concerned with the fact that the cost of a University education, is rapidly moving away from the realm of a student being able to finance his or her education.  This translates to fewer post-secondary students, and also translates to university students being selected on who can pay, vice who can achieve.  One also has to realise that in many fields, take Biotechnology for example (according to the Government of Canada, produces $2 billion in revenue annually), it takes 7-10 years of education to produce a researcher(BSc, MSc, and PhD), and in a technology driven market it is research and innovation that drive profit.  Increased studet debt loads, will in translate into higher wages, or those professionals seeking greener pastures abroad.

To be sure, we need more tradespeople.  That is a matter that needs to be addressed in the secondary education system, and the advantages of an apprenticeship versus university need to be articulated.

But as Ape said below, there's only one way to train Physicians, there's only one way to train Lawyers, and there's only one way to train Scientists, and if current trends continue, your going to have to accept that there's going to be less of them, and the fact that Mommie and Daddie's bank balance isn't a very good predictor of professional ability.
'


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2006)

> *Liberals attack on eve of debate*
> Tories would run up $12.4B deficit: Martin
> Mark Kennedy and Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
> Published: Monday, January 09, 2006
> ...


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2006)

Remember the tune in to the leaders debate or visit www.decisioncanada.ca to watch it live online today.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Looks like the media didnt want to report the poll showing a Tory double digit lead.

Tories head for majority
Poll shows `breakthrough' for party
`Significant growth' in Ontario, Quebec
Jan. 10, 2006. 06:28 AM
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Conservatives are charting a course toward a majority on Jan. 23, according to a new national poll completed yesterday.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Toronto Star and La Presse, shows Stephen Harper's Conservatives have sailed into majority government territory after a stunning week of rising popularity, largely at the expense of the Liberal party.

The EKOS survey of 1,240 Canadians through the weekend and yesterday found 39.1 per cent support for the Conservatives. The Liberals had 26.8 per cent support; the NDP 16.2 per cent; the Bloc Québécois 12.6 per cent; and Green party 4.6 per cent.

"This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for," EKOS president Frank Graves said.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have widened the gap to a 10-percentage-point lead over the Liberals. Of the 518 Ontarians surveyed, 43.8 per cent supported the Tories, 33.5 per cent the Liberals, 16.2 per cent the NDP, and 5.4 per cent the Greens.

Even in Quebec, the Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals. A total of 330 people were surveyed in that province and 19.1 per cent threw their support behind the Tories, compared with 17.4 per cent for the Liberals. 

The Bloc, however, remains miles ahead with 52.4 per cent.

"The Conservatives' gains are nationwide, but their most significant growth is in Ontario, where they have surpassed the Liberals in their traditional heartland, and in Quebec, where they are now the leading federalist alternative to the Bloc Québécois," Graves said.

The national poll numbers are considered accurate within 2.8 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The margin of error in Ontario was 4.3 percentage points.

EKOS's Paul Adams said Harper's popularity is driving the surge. When those surveyed were asked who had the most positive vision for the future, the Conservative leader received 32 per cent support. Prime Minister Paul Martin had 20 per cent, the NDP's Jack Layton 16 per cent, and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe 10 per cent. "None of the above" registered 10 per cent and 12 per cent said they didn't know.

But premature talk of winning a majority of Parliament's 308 seats spooks the Conservatives. A party would have to win 155 seats to win a majority.

At dissolution, there were 133 Liberals in the House of Commons. The Tories held 98 seats, the Bloc Québécois 53 and the NDP 18. There were four Independents and two vacancies.

`This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for.'

EKOS President Frank Graves

The Tories are well aware that after Harper predicted a majority win in June 2004, their political fortunes started a downward spiral in the last election.

"I'm certainly not going to be drawn into any questions that can be used to have me making predictions," Harper said during last night's English-language leaders' debate.

"My role here is not to be a political analyst. My role here is to explain to Canadians why we need a new government." 

Following stories Sunday in the Star and the Toronto Sun about Harper hinting at a majority, right-wing blogs were abuzz with dark ? and unsubstantiated ? suggestions of a mainstream media conspiracy to stall the Tories' momentum.

Ironically, hours after refusing to rule out a Tory majority win, Harper criticized EKOS by name while chatting with reporters aboard his campaign plane in Hamilton on Saturday.

"They are, in my view, the least believable," he said. "Our people feel the momentum, but it is a statistical dead heat. ... There is over two weeks to go and a lot of things can happen. ... There is no certainty."

Graves said the "wild card" in the campaign now is how Canadians react to the potential of a Harper government ? minority or majority.

"What happens when Canadians fully realize the Conservatives' current potential?" Graves asked.

"Will there be a bandwagon effect, as there was for Brian Mulroney in the 1984 campaign after he surged into the lead? Or will Harper succumb to a whiplash as he did in 2004 with many voters recoiling from the prospect of a Tory victory after a serious Liberal onslaught in the last weeks of the campaign."

On June 16, 2004 in Niagara Falls, Harper boasted there were "no safe Liberal seats for the Liberals any more," and said the Tories could win a majority. Less than two weeks later, the Liberals won a minority government. 

The Liberals received 36.7 per cent of the popular vote in the June 28, 2004 election. The Conservatives garnered 29.6 per cent of the vote, the NDP 15.7 per cent, the Bloc 12.4 per cent and the Greens 4.3 per cent.

Graves said the apparent Conservative breakthrough in Quebec is "especially astonishing," heralding the possible return of the Tories as a truly national party.

But he warned that because the Harper Conservatives are poised to win some seats in Quebec, the media spotlight will be on the aloof Harper more than ever before. Graves stressed that the party's growth in Quebec is inherently fragile.

With files from Robert Benzie


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Jan 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
> 
> Looks like the media didnt want to report the poll showing a Tory double digit lead.



Wait a second... didn't you just cite a liberal newspaper reporting the Tory lead?  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2006)

The earlier poll had the Tories at 43 and the Liberals at 29.  

Apparently that needed to be confirmed before it could be released to the public as their other polls had.


----------



## LilMissChicky (10 Jan 2006)

Could I get some info as to what the two main parties stand for regarding our military. I've looked and so far it's been off the issues. Must be blind or looking into the wrong places. Anyway so far I've seen what they used to offer or what they did in the past. Oh yeah, heard something about moving the JTF but that's about it.
Can you guys enlighten me a bit? I just don't have a stand as of yet for Liberals or PC and I do not like politics :-\.
Thanks
RR


----------



## Rubes (10 Jan 2006)

$5 on a Conservative majority, any takers?  ;D


----------



## 3rd Herd (10 Jan 2006)

RoadRunner said:
			
		

> Can you guys enlighten me a bit? I just don't have a stand as of yet for Liberals or PC and I do not like politics :-\.
> Thanks
> RR



Get "Who killed the Canadian Military" now availble in paperback so it is cheap. All the info in there minus the politics.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2006)

RoadRunner said:
			
		

> Could I get some info as to what the two main parties stand for regarding our military.


Try here: Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jan 2006)

This obscene Liberal attack ad has me fuming!  I can't even type anything coherently, I'm so POed!

 :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat:  :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage:
 :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

http://tinyurl.com/csech

The Libranos figured it was so bad, that they pulled it!  Attack!  Retreat!


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jan 2006)

Interesting.  The Liberals apparently believe that the thought of Canadian soldiers with guns in our cities should create a negative impression.

The LPC and its membership have, until such time as an unreserved public and official apology is extended on behalf of all LPC members and supporters to all past, present, and future Canadian service personnel, earned my everlasting contempt.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2006)

Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy on Mike Duffy's show just stated that that ad was not a Liberal party ad and he has no idea how it got included with the rest.  Despite the fact that it was released with the rest, has the Liberal logo, was on the Liberal website and makes up an even dozen.  Tory gremlins I guess or Chretien moles.

It may be a while before you get that apology Brad.


----------



## Scott57 (10 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy on Mike Duffy's show just stated that that ad was not a Liberal party ad



That's not what I heard. I had watched that earlier. It's ongoing. In fact, I just watched (CTV - 2020hrs).  Mike Duffy *exploded* on John Duffy on his intimidation tactics. Apparently, during a break, he had asked Mike Duffy not to bring the subject up again. After the debate, Mike Duffy asked the question again ( who came up with this idea). When John Duffy answered with his own question (words to the effect - Why do people wish to continue with this issue when we just finished this debate ...), .Mike Duffy exploded, went at him ref to Party integrity etc etc. Nice !!


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

Check out Mike Duffy lacing into Librano puke John Duffy here:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTVs_Mike%20Duffy_Stands_up.wmv

Enjoy!  ;D

BTW: as of 2140 Mountain Time, it was difficult to access this file because the website is experiencing high traffic apparently...


----------



## enfield (11 Jan 2006)

That Liberal Ad is absolutely disgusting. Even if it wasn't released, the fact it was even conceived is quite simply shocking. In my mind, whatever points the Liberals have earned with their defence priorities in the past few months has just been washed away. The Conservatives may have a mixed up, inane defence platform, but at least they don't see us as fasicst thugs.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

I saw Ujhal Dosanhj on TV saying that these ads were approved by the PM himself, including this disgusting POS.

And that was BEFORE they pulled that ad!


Edit: Here's another link to Mike Duffy ripping John Duffy a new one

http://www.conservativelife.com/videos/duffy.wmv


----------



## kcdist (11 Jan 2006)

Disgraceful....Abhorant....Despicable....

I am literally shaking as I'm typing. These links belong in an entirely separate thread, with the title "LIBERALS ATTEMPT TO DISHONOUR CANADIAN MILITARY".

I have a new found respect for Mike Duffy. I have lost any respect for the Liberal Party of Canada.

How DARE they attempt to paint members of the Canadian Military as instruments of evil. 

I DARE any Liberal party supporter to attempt to explain this libelous crap.

This has crossed the line.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jan 2006)

Perhaps the Conservatives ought to role out the film tape of Trudeau in 1970 making his statements about troops with helmets and guns on the street along with his famous "Just watch me" lines. Play that to a drum beat over and over.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Interesting.  The Liberals apparently believe that the thought of Canadian soldiers with guns in our cities should create a negative impression.
> 
> The LPC and its membership have, until such time as an unreserved public and official apology is extended on behalf of all LPC members and supporters to all past, present, and future Canadian service personnel, earned my everlasting contempt.



I find it interesting that I can't find mention of this on either the ctv or cbc websites...perhaps I'm blind?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

Perhaps the reply in this thread from yesterday; Re: Government Falls! The 2006 election thread 
« Reply #178 on: Yesterday at 19:32:29 », would be the place to start.  It has the link.  There are even more links to video on CTV site and other sites referring to it within this thread and the thread on Defence in the 2006 Election.  Perhaps Liberal supporters are in denial and can't find any reference to the Liberal Attack Ads, but others not of the Liberal persuasion have no problems finding them.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

Conservative now have ammo and are firing back.  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060111/attackads_react_060111/20060111?s_name=election2006



> "Essentially what the Liberal party attempts to do in this advertisement, is to suggest a government led by Stephen Harper … could be a threat to democracy, and would use Canadian troops, who have always been stationed in our cities, to protect democracy and to provide support or citizens in times of need -- that somehow a Conservative government would use Canadian troops to impose something like martial law.



More video links of 11 Jan 06 news conferences with Jason Kenney, Gordon O'Connor, and Monte Solberg, can be found on that page.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps the reply in this thread from yesterday; Re: Government Falls! The 2006 election thread
> « Reply #178 on: Yesterday at 19:32:29 », would be the place to start.  It has the link.  There are even more links to video on CTV site and other sites referring to it within this thread and the thread on Defence in the 2006 Election.  Perhaps Liberal supporters are in denial and can't find any reference to the Liberal Attack Ads, but others not of the Liberal persuasion have no problems finding them.



I'm voting Conservative and found no mention of any of this on the main page and links from the main page; didn't look at the specific election coverage.

I see CTV now has mention of the 'attack ads' and military as as the lead story; wasn't that way this morning - not a mention at all on the main page. Glad to see the press is running with it. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060111/attackads_react_060111/20060111?s_name=election2006

Incidentally George, do you know anyone here who is voting Liberal?  You seem to be drawing some interesting conclusions.


----------



## Hollywog (11 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy on Mike Duffy's show just stated that that ad was not a Liberal party ad and he has no idea how it got included with the rest.



Last I heard it was still running in french.  

I live near the Kapyong barracks in Winnipeg and I feel far safer when platoons used to jog by vs the roving gangs of thugs down town.

Hell River Heights near where they were stationed had one of the lowest crime rates in the city.




> Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities.
> 
> Canadian cities.
> 
> ...



http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003314.html


----------



## xFusilier (11 Jan 2006)

Not advocating activism on the part of any readers here but:

This is the company according to the CBC that handles Liberal Campaign advertising is Bensimon-Bryne: www.bensimonbryne.com.  Thier clients include Reebok, Molson, Hyundai, the Ontario Provincal Goverment and the CFL.

The phone numbers and email for Brian Bensimon (president) as well as Peter Bryne (chief creative officer) can be found on the site as well as the firms Toronto mailing address.

I personally will be letting my disgust in reference to the portrayal of Canadian soldiers in the light of an Argentine Junta known to both directors of the firm as well as the firms clients.


----------



## Spartan (11 Jan 2006)

Liberal Slam ad - Soldiers with Weapons -in our cities, I know it might be a shock that we  as soldiers might have weapons. This ad is totally right out of 'er no matter if it wasn't released - to me it seems that their trying hard to slam the conservatives and yet appeal to the Left side of the house as well - maybe they should sort themselves out and realize that the CF isn't going away, ever, as much as people have tried to make it go away. Coincedentally in a red colour as well.... I wonder if the Liberals know where we're collectively operating in the world, and what it is that we do and are trained to do.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Jan 2006)

Spartan said:
			
		

> Liberal Slam ad - Soldiers with Weapons -in our cities, I know it might be a shock that we  as soldiers might have weapons. This ad is totally right out of 'er no matter if it wasn't released - to me it seems that their trying hard to slam the conservatives and yet appeal to the Left side of the house as well - maybe they should sort themselves out and realize that the CF isn't going away, ever, as much as people have tried to make it go away. Coincedentally in a red colour as well.... I wonder if the Liberals know where we're collectively operating in the world, and what it is that we do and are trained to do.



In Gwynne Dyer's old WAR miniseries, or perhaps it was the related book (or both) there was a nice story of a Marine or GI who came back from a tour in Vietnam.  He settled in back home and decided to go hunting with a friend; as they were about to leave his parents' house, his mom said "you boys be careful with those shotguns, now."  He said in his interview, and I paraphrase,: _"it was at that point it was made obvious to me that she had absolutely no idea what I had gone to Vietnam to do, what kind of training had been instilled in me, or any inkling of what I had experienced over there."  _

So it is with, apparently, the Liberals.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jan 2006)

xFusilier can you direct me via link to the CBC saying this ad company made up the un aired ad.


----------



## xFusilier (11 Jan 2006)

Here you go, thought I put it in there:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/ad_players.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jan 2006)

Thanks


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

Ridings...with soldiers...with Liberal MPs...

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/politics


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jan 2006)

MP's family shouldn't be registered to vote here
Ariss residents prohibited from doing so by federal Elections Act

GREG MERCER
GUELPH (Jan 11, 2006)

Ken Morgan's curiosity was piqued the moment he spotted two voter cards tucked in the mail at Conservative Brent Barr's campaign office in Guelph.

They were for Kevin and Gillian Chamberlain, son and daughter-in-law of Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain. _Both live outside the Guelph riding, but the address on the cards was clearly for Barr's campaign office on Speedvale Avenue._
"I read the names and my eyebrows kind of raised," said Morgan, the Conservative campaign manager.
"I thought, 'Why would they be sent here?' "

They were sent there because in 2004, Chamberlain used that same office to run her federal election campaign. Unless Elections Canada is informed of a change in address, it doesn't update its records.
The MP said some of her family reported the Speedvale Avenue office as their address to Elections Canada, which allowed them to vote in Guelph.

_That, according to the Elections Act, is against the rules._

Chamberlain also readily admits her family -- who like her live outside the Guelph riding in the Ariss area -- have always voted in Guelph.
Before the electoral boundaries were redrawn in 2004, the riding was called Guelph-Wellington and included Ariss.

The MP said her family was told years ago by a former returning officer that they should vote in the city.
But Chamberlain says if anyone in her family broke the rules by voting in the riding of Guelph in 2004, it's not her place to do anything about it.
"We don't police it. I'm not an employee of Elections Canada," Chamberlain said.

"If (Elections Canada) made an error, then that is their error. It's totally a matter for Elections Canada."
Anne Budra, current local returning officer for Elections Canada, suggested there was nothing wrong with the MP's family registering to vote by using a campaign office as their mailing address or voting in the city, outside their own riding.

Budra compared that right to winning the Masters tournament in golf.
"It's the same as when you're a golfer, when you have won the Green Jacket, you're automatically allowed to play in the next game," Budra said.
_The Elections Act says only MPs and those who live with them, as well as students, inmates and military personnel are allowed to vote in a riding where they don't reside.
Chamberlain said neither her son nor daughter-in-law have lived with her since before the last election._

Elections Canada wasn't aware of the issue in Guelph until contacted by the Mercury, spokesperson Réjean Grenier said.
He said last night he filed a report and passed it on to his superiors.
_It is also against the rules to use a non-permanent address when registering to vote. "You can't use a non-residence. It has to be where you live," Grenier said._

Chamberlain insists her family was "told to vote in Guelph" by former returning officer Jeff Kane in 1997. He no longer lives in Ontario and couldn't be reached last night for comment.
Up until the 2004 election, Chamberlain lived in the former riding of Guelph-Wellington. With redistribution, two new ridings were created -- Guelph, and Wellington-Halton Hills.
Residents of Ariss, like Chamberlain and her family, are in the riding of Wellington-Halton Hills.

When the boundaries changed, Chamberlain said, no one contacted her to say her family couldn't vote in Guelph.
"I have nothing to do with it and neither do the kids. They voted that way before and they believed they were able to do so again," she said.
Chamberlain, who won by almost 10,000 votes in 2004, is covered by the exemption that lets MPs vote either where they reside, in the riding they represent, or in Ottawa.

When asked if she knew it is against the rules for non-resident family members to vote in Guelph when they don't live here, Chamberlain said: "I have not thought about it, let's put it that way. We were told to vote in Guelph, so we go and vote in Guelph."

The exemption for incumbents --but not other candidates -- means the Green's Mike Nagy, who lives in Rockwood, and the Christian Heritage Party's Peter Ellis, who lives in Fergus, can't vote for themselves in the Guelph riding.

gmercer@guelphmercury.com


..one would think that this Anne Budra, "the current local returning officer for Elections Canada", shouldn't be suggesting that this is alright.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

*THIS IS DEFINATELY THE GREATEST LIBERAL OUTRAGE SO FAR!!!*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060111/wl_canada_afp/canadavotespaceus_060111201929

By God I did not pay for a space weapons safety course and install a satellite based weapons platform safe in my basement and register my Orbital Plasma Cannon with the CSFC to have those Liberal bastards take away my right to hunt from outer space!  Total "Big Brother".  I don't even know where I live anymore. :crybaby:


----------



## Daidalous (12 Jan 2006)

Quote says it all.

"He'll push for an international treaty at the United Nations to prohibit the use of weapons in space -- an idea Canada failed to rally support for two years ago. "

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/01/12/1389949.html

So for Monday January 23rd here is what I predict

a Conservative Majority

       And
Toronto 4  Ottawa  3   Final


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Jan 2006)

I watched PM Paul Martin squirm before the questions of voters on the CBC National tonight.  My impression was that he was very uncomfortable, spoke in a disjointed manner, and had trouble answering some of the more thoughtful questions posed by the panel selected by CBC.  Peter Mansbridge did a great job of trying to keep him on track and forcing him to give complete answers.  At one point he said he approved the military ad that all are raving about and which is still playing in Quebec, and then at another point he denied that he had approved it.  He was completely radical about banning all handguns and unfortunately the question on that issue was quite weak and not followed up very well.  I sure won't be voting for Mr. Martin's bunch.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jan 2006)

redleafjumper:

I have to agree with you about Dithers' radical agenda.  Consider the following:

-calls for a complete ban on handguns; says over 500,000 handguns are "waiting to be stolen"
-calls for parliament to drop the Not Withstanding Clause, thereby having no democratic oversight over the appointed Supreme Court
-during the the debates said something to the effect of "the government should take money from the well off and give it to those who need it".  If this doesn't sound like something from Marx, I don't know what does.
-claims property rights would "bring back child labour"

There are other examples, but I can't think of them at the moment.  Using these examples, I've started to realise that the Librano$ are far more radical than the NDP!

Either that, or Dithers is completely off his rocker!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2006)

The whole "Weapons in Space" is another FIBeral boogeyman that they've dreamed up to deflect the Darwin Award winners attention and make them vote for the LIEberals.


----------



## rifleman (13 Jan 2006)

I'm surprised they didn't start with a "space weapon registry" first


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Jan 2006)

The only ones ever expressing an interest in stealing any of my many firearms were Kim Campbell, Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin (and their various minions).  Gary Breitkreuz has some useful information on theft of firearms in Canada that refutes the claims of the Libranos:

NEWS RELEASE

January 10, 2006 For Immediate Release 

NUMBER OF LEGAL GUNS STOLEN IS NO MORE THAN 16% - NOT 48%
“It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns,” says Breitkreuz. 

Yorkton – Today, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, released an academic analysis on the number of ‘crime guns’ stolen from law-abiding gun owners that brings into question claims by the Mayor of Toronto and data recently released by the Toronto Police Services. “According to Professor Mauser’s analysis the number of legal firearms stolen from law-abiding gun owners ranges between 2 and 16 percent - not 48 percent as claimed by Mayor Miller and reported in the media,” revealed Breitkreuz. 

Professor Gary Mauser, Ph.D., of Simon Fraser University, reported the following results based on his analysis of the following published data (see link to his full report at the bottom of this page):

  1. Toronto Police Services Board report dated January 22, 2004: 16 (9%) of the 183 firearms (11 registered and 5 reported stolen) came from lawful Canadian owners. 
2. Toronto Police Service report dated December 1, 2005: 35 (16%) of the 214 handguns were stolen from law-abiding Canadian owners. 
3. Peel Regional Police, Project Gun Runner report dated December 21, 1994: 14% of firearms used in crime in Toronto had been registered at some point in the past.
4. Toronto Police Services Annual Report for 2000: 2% of the firearms came from Canadian owners.
5. Statistics Canada Homicide Report for 2004: 16% of the firearms used in homicide were in the registry. 


But, criminals will steal guns from anyone and anywhere including the police and the military. Professor Mauser noted in his analysis that published reports typically do not identify the number of firearms used in crime that were reported stolen from the police and the military. However, thanks to the Access to Information Act, a few numbers have been uncovered:

  • On July 4, 2002, an RCMP report listed 409 firearms reported lost by or stolen from the Canadian Forces including: 218 Lee Enfield Rifles, 17 Browning 9mm pistols, an FN Browning .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun, an AK47, an FN Browning Canadian C9 Service Light Machine Gun 5.56mm, a Colt AR15A2 .223 calibre, etc. 
• On September 3, 2003, the RCMP reported 16 handguns and 1 shotgun stolen, 2 handguns and 1 shotgun lost; and 88 more firearms being traced by the RCMP armourers.  

Neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Firearms Centre collects information on the number of firearms stolen or missing from other police forces in Canada. The police are not yet required to register their guns and the Department of National Defence is totally exempt from the registration requirements of the Firearms Act.

“Law-abiding gun owners, who have had their homes and businesses invaded and their safely stored firearms stolen, are victims of a crime wave instigated by a decade of Liberal mollycoddling of violent criminals. Now, the Liberals want to victimize these law-abiding citizens again by banning their guns. It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns, and that’s exactly what a Conservative government intends to do,” vowed Breitkreuz.

Professor Mauser’s Analysis:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/45.doc


----------



## xFusilier (13 Jan 2006)

I read the report and it isn't useful at all.  Both the sides of the firearms control debate both display zelotry.  Statistics are completely useless without reference to the methodology used in the analysis, and I for one question any statistic that comes from Brietkreuz-Mauser as much as I question those that come from Cukier-Rathjen, as thier personal feelings on the issue render their status of unbiased observer questionable at best.

On the topic, however, of the election it is interesting to ponder as to wheter this is a crack in what has been an admirably disciplined communications plan on the part of the Tories.  We haven't heard anything from the Conservative members that displayed an afliction of "foot-in-mouth" disease during the last general election.  I would argue that the one thing that would ensure that Harper snatches defeat from the jaws of victory is backbenchers making press releases that are outside of the current communications plan.


----------



## dutchie (13 Jan 2006)

As Election Day comes closer, I find it interesting to watch the death throes of a PM who was once touted as the Next Liberal Dynasty. I remember the stature he had as Finance Minister, and the love-in that occurred in the lead up to his take-over as PM. What a fall he has taken. He now looks like a desperate man trying to cling to his post, powerless to stop the constant blunders, mis-steps, scandals, and parade of skeletons from his and his predecessors reign.

It's like watching a mighty elephant fall to a hundred spears and arrows.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> As Election Day comes closer, I find it interesting to watch the death throes of a PM who was once touted as the Next Liberal Dynasty. I remember the stature he had as Finance Minister, and the love-in that occurred in the lead up to his take-over as PM. What a fall he has taken. He now looks like a desperate man trying to cling to his post, powerless to stop the constant blunders, mis-steps, scandals, and parade of skeletons from his and his predecessors reign.
> 
> It's like watching a mighty elephant fall to a hundred spears and arrows.



Amazing when you really stop and look at the record. Paul Martin's only responseto the financial crisis gripping Canada in the early 1990's was to increase taxes and use Enron like accounting to suck money from EI, the military, healthcare etc. to "balance the books". Now I might not know too much about accounting, but this process of taxation and cooking the books isn't dramatic, different, origional or, in the end, very smart. So where exactly did his reputation and stature come from?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jan 2006)

I hijacked this link from another thread, so I can't take credit for finding it.  Though this thread's folks may appreciate it if they didn't see it on the other:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_Self-Satisfied.wmv


----------



## redleafjumper (14 Jan 2006)

Thanks Dennis, 


Apparently the BC Liberals have read the wind and don’t like to be committed to a plank by someone else.  This is good news.


PUBLICATION:  The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
DATE:  2006.01.14
EDITION:  Final
SECTION:  Local
PAGE:  A4
BYLINE:  Betty Ann Adam
SOURCE:  The StarPhoenix
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: (Irwin) Cotler
WORD COUNT:  344 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cotler misstated handgun ban support: adviser

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontario is the only province that has endorsed a Liberal proposal to ban
handguns, an adviser to federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said
Friday. 

Cotler said last weekend in Saskatoon that support for the Liberal
proposal is "not just in Ontario." He mentioned Manitoba, British
Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec, saying some provinces would buy in and
others would not. 

But Cotler did not intend to give the impression other provinces support
the plan, said Leigh Lampert. 

Lampert said Cotler was talking about a bill to amend the Criminal Code
that was tabled before the government fell in November. 

"Coming out of the federal, provincial, territorial meeting in
Whitehorse in November (Cotler) talked regularly about the three-prong
strategy to combat gun violence and that was tougher laws and penalties,
increase in the effectiveness of enforcement and what he's called
recently the hope and opportunities package. 

"When he was speaking with the reporters in the scrum on Saturday, when
he said he had the support of other provinces, it's only Ontario that's
supported the actual ban, but the other provinces he mentioned have
publicly supported the three-prong strategy to combat gun violence,"
Lampert said. 

The ministers in Yellowknife talked at length about mandatory minimum
penalties, but they did not discuss banning handguns, Lampert said. 

"If he left the impression he has commitment from each of those
provinces, that they're 100 per cent supportive, that's the not the
message he intended. It's Ontario that requested the handgun ban," he
said. 
*
The British Columbia government does not support the Liberal handgun ban
proposal, said Mike Morton, press secretary for British Columbia Premier
Gordon Campbell. *

The Manitoba government is not commenting on any proposals or promises
made by any of the parties during the election campaign, said
spokesperson Peter Dalla-Vicenza. 

The handgun ban proposal was not part of the November meeting of federal
and provincial justice ministers, he said. The Manitoba government is
not in favour of the gun registry, Dalla-Vicenza said. 

Nova Scotia also is not commenting on election promises, said Richard
Perry, spokesperson for the Justice Department in that province. 

"I take issue with the fact he claimed a bunch of provinces support it
when they don't," said Eric Lerhe, a Nova Scotia target shooter who owns
three handguns, two rifles and a shotgun. "It's a crazy idea," he said.


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2006)

Conservative Party of Canada, Federal Election Platform: http://www.conservative.ca/media/20060113-Platform.pdf


----------



## RangerRay (14 Jan 2006)

> *The British Columbia government does not support the Liberal handgun ban
> proposal, said Mike Morton, press secretary for British Columbia Premier
> Gordon Campbell. *



 :cheers:


----------



## Blakey (14 Jan 2006)

Lol, I wonder if the Palestinians know about this....  :


> He said the Liberals would also establish the Canada Centre for Peace and Democracy in the Middle East. Martin said it would be based in the region and would help Palestinians in building a state founded on democracy, the rule of law, strong public administration and good governance.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/14/foreignpolicy060114.html


----------



## RangerRay (15 Jan 2006)

I found this little jem here http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/151705.php







 ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Jan 2006)

One of the most retarded moves the liberals ever made was allowing inmates to vote. But what the hey? This all caring and politically correct Canada, right? So maybe Inmates I mean socially misguided people have rights too


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jan 2006)

As demonstrated in the other threads, criminals have more rights in Canada than anyone else, especially their victims.


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

I'm just happy that I live in Anne McLellan's riding; watch for me doing the happy-dance in front of her campaign office when she's fired next week!  :dontpanic:


----------



## armyvern (16 Jan 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I'm just happy that I live in Anne McLellan's riding; watch for me doing the happy-dance in front of her campaign office when she's fired next week!  :dontpanic:


Post video clip of said dance into this thread....please!!


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Jan 2006)

Mo-litia, I really hope that you can make that dance, but there have been other elections that people were dancing about adled Annie's defeat before it happened.  Make sure you get people out to vote to make that dance a real happy one.


----------



## mo-litia (16 Jan 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Mo-litia, I really hope that you can make that dance, but there have other elections that people were dancing about adled Annie's defeat before it happened.  Make sure you get people out to vote to make that dance a real happy one.



Seen, redleaf.

I would be happy if Canada passed an Australian-type law making voting a legal duty, not a right.  I grit my teeth every time I hear someone rail against  politics only to re-cap their 'argument' with "And that's why I don't vote."

Some people's kids these days... :


----------



## TCBF (17 Jan 2006)

"I'm just happy that I live in Anne McLellan's riding; watch for me doing the happy-dance in front of her campaign office when she's fired next week! "

- You just might want to be rolling your self down to Laurie Hawn's campaign office and lending a hand.  They could probably use it.

Tom


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jan 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I'm just happy that I live in Anne McLellan's riding; watch for me doing the happy-dance in front of her campaign office when she's fired next week!  :dontpanic:



Don't be too sure about that...she has a nasty habit of pulling victory from out of her arse...


----------



## mo-litia (17 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> You just might want to be rolling your self down to Laurie Hawn's campaign office and lending a hand.  They could probably use it.
> 
> Tom



Laurie Hawn?!? But I'm voting NDP!  

Seriously, though; that sounds like a good idea. I think I just might look into it-all of our Members of Parliment should have served in the CF.  What a good (run on common sense) country this would be... ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jan 2006)

Here is the email I got back from Merv Tweed the Conservative MP of my city:

Mr. Gator,
Thank you for your email regarding the Liberal Party ad that depicts our soldiers in a most negative way.
I have asked the local Liberal Canadidate to apologize but he has refused.
Let us join together with ouor colleagues and send Paul Martin a message on January 23rd.
Sincerely, 
Merv Tweed
Conservative Candidate for Brandon-Souris


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jan 2006)

Four days, brother.  Just survive another four days. :warstory:


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jan 2006)

Final Ipsos poll in with the conservatives show a 12 point lead. 8)

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2948


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jan 2006)

never ever trust the polls


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jan 2006)

True. Election day is the true poll. Monday the voters of Canada will make their will known.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2006)

The almost last word:

http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200601191410.asp



> January 19, 2006, 2:10 p.m.
> *“I’m a Lumberjack and I’m Okay”*
> The upcoming election in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2006)

Another interesting email:  





> Oh Canada!
> 
> From a retired RCMP member, and yes he has been shot at.
> 
> ...


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Jan 2006)

Yippee!  The margin of victory is not as large as was hoped, but it is still a victory.  I hope the victory dance in front of Anne McLellan's office went well.  



(Edited for spelling)


----------



## Cliff (24 Jan 2006)

Nice to see the conservatives in, even if it's just a minority ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jan 2006)

Cliff said:
			
		

> Nice to see the conservatives in, even if it's just a minority ;D



Agreed, but stand by for months of pissy pants bill torpedoing by the Lieberals.  WTF is wrong with people?  They should have been seatless. ???  At least Dithers is gone.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2006)

You're in the Golden Horseshoe....you tell us.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jan 2006)

Oh, trust me, the collective voting brain dump zone that I live in drives me up the wall.  We have TWO bloody NDP seats here (thanks robot auto workers) and once again we are poised to be completely overlooked by the fed for funding and support.  Down in these parts, the fear mongering ooooo-scary Conservative talk gets taken at face value and is very real.  I avoid talking about it, because when you start actually talking to people about the issues, they have no real answers, just "ahhh, I just don't trust those guys".   :brickwall:
Maybe in 2010....


----------



## LordVagabond (24 Jan 2006)

I'm just happy that there is now a military-friendly minority government in power. Harper + Hillier = possible good future ahead for the forces   :warstory: 

(I voted conservative, but not just because of the military)


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Jan 2006)

What judging from the number of posts, that the recent conservative win in going to be a bonanza for the military. Give your 'happy' pills back guys. First election promises are just that promises-no date time frames to completion. Next as to the Conservatives in general anyone out there remember Brian "M" and all the promises and military equipment related fiasco's. Wake up smell the coffee and read " Who Killed the Canadian Military?: What Canada Must Do to Defend Itself in the 21st Century" by J.L. Granatstein. Here's a summary for those of you who cannot afford the 16.00 for the paperback version.

Prime Minister St. Laurent was not responsible for the death of the Canadian military. In fact, his leadership and ability to explain to Canadians the necessity of military participation in Korea and NATO serve as a role model in challenging times. During his tenure, defence spending averaged 6.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s (1957-1963) tenure conjures up security/military issues related to NORAD, nuclear weapons delivery, and the Avro Arrow fighter jet. He was suspicious of the USA, and of President Kennedy in particular. During the Cuban missile crisis, he delayed putting the military on alert, infuriating the Americans in the process. Diefenbaker failed to understand Canada’s national interests; he made the Canadian Forces political and used defence policy to "smack" the US. Diefenbaker killed the military.

Lester Pearson’s only fault was that, as foreign minister to 1957, he did his job too well. His understanding of international affairs and responsible leadership led to the successful interposition of Canadian troops and the defusing of the Suez Crisis in 1956. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the model statesman and envy of politicians. He established the Pearsonian peacekeeping myth that continues, today to hurt the military (peaceful intervention leads to the faulty deduction that there is no need to acquire arms for the military). Succeeding Liberal leaders have tried to emulate Pearson by sending Canadian Forces on a myriad of "peacekeeping" missions. The peacekeeping myth, along with the reluctance to arm Canada’s military, has dealt the military a mortal blow. Mike Pearson killed the military.

Defence Minister Paul Hellyer also ranks as one of the killers of the Canadian military. The idea of unification was not a bad one. The military should work together. However, Hellyer’s tactics were terrible: changing uniform and rank structures was not necessary to effect unification. Hellyer went too far and killed the Canadian military.

Pierre Trudeau viewed soldiers as unintelligent thugs. Likewise, his perception of the major powers was distorted: he saw the USSR and US as moral equivalents. His belief that Canada could find a new way in foreign and defence policy led to European-based Canadian military reductions in NATO. Trudeau killed the Canadian Military.

Brian Mulroney came to power with the promise to restore the Canadian Forces after the Liberal government’s long neglect. Every promise was broken; expectations raised by the 1987 White Paper were dashed. Mulroney killed the Canadian Forces.

Jean Chrétien finished off the Canadian Forces. He did not understand Canada’s national interests nor did his government understand the US response to 9/11. With no coordinated purpose or knowledge of interests, he sent Canadian troops all over the globe during his tenure, weakened the military, and failed to tell the Canadian people that he had depleted their force of last resort. Jean Chrétien killed the military.

Edit spelling


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jan 2006)

hopefully being from the west will change that.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jan 2006)

Hey, Harper is a bible thumper isn't he?  They believe in the resurrection?  So after everyone repeatedly "killed the military" maybe he will bring it back to life.
*CAN I GET A HALLELUA!!!*


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jan 2006)

Will an "Amen Brother" suffice? ;D


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Jan 2006)

Actually Harper is not a "bible thumper".  His conservatism is more fiscal in nature rather than social.  Even so, family values are important to him.  I knew him from the early Reform Party days and he is a serious fellow with good common sense.  He doesn't suffer fools.  He'll do just fine, and so, I hope will the Canadian Forces because of his government.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Jan 2006)

And that too will get an "Amen Brother"


----------



## RangerRay (26 Jan 2006)

Although this is good news, I don't think the military will see any great benefit anytime soon.

In this minority, Harper is going to concentrate on the 5 priorities in his platform (Federal Accountability Act, GST cut, crime, wait time guarantee for health care, and fiscal imbalance).  These are issues that he can pass through the house with the minimal of trouble because no party is going to want to face the voters and explain why they were against these measures.

We will have to be patient and wait for these priorities to be dealt with.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jan 2006)

Finally the Liberals are out!!!!!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Glorified Ape (26 Jan 2006)

It'll be interesting to see what happens - thankfully with a minority. As much as I despise the Cons, getting the Libs out for a while should give the party the wake-up call it needs to run properly when it's reinstalled. Ten years made them sloppy. I'm interested in seeing what kind of coalitions and policies get put through.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2006)

The Liberal Party of Canada is one of our great national institutions.  It has been around for well over a century in _relatively_ its current form.  It is the party of Laurier, King and St. Laurent.  Liberals leaders can, fairly, be said to have ‘made’ modern Canada – to the extent than any politician anywhere can say that sort of thing.

I believe the Liberal Party lost its way in the late ‘50s – it decided, and I believe it was a conscious decision, to make itself into the _natural governing party_ and, equally consciously, it decided to abandon policy in favour of continuous electioneering.  In so doing it was not breaking new ground: the Democratic Party in the US had, just previously, embarked on the same course.  For a variety of reasons, including the post Riel Québec factor, the Liberals were better at it.

In the late ‘50s and early ‘60s the Liberals cast aside the _values_ which John Manley, in today’s _Globe and Mail_* says are central to the Liberal Party of Canada; Liberals are, or ought to be, he says:

•	Socially moderate;

•	Economically responsible; and

•	Possessed of a vision of the future for Canada that comprehends the challenges of competing in a world of giants.

In fact that pretty accurately sums up what I want in a political party.  It was, I believe, what animated the Liberal Party from about 1947 until, for the sake of argument, 1967.  It is my personal belief that the Liberals consciously tossed those values away in about 1967 – creating _policy_ turmoil, within the Liberal Party, which Manley suggests is the case when he says (same _Globe and Mail_ article) that Liberals must heal the: ”divisions that have been with the party since Pierre Trudeau's time.”  Trudeau and the Liberal brain-trust which managed the _politics_ for him set out to be:

•	Aggressively socially _progressive_;

•	Economically irresponsible; and

•	Possessed of a strong anti-capitalist vision which led them to wish to break away from the American led, capitalist West and court the (then) so-called _second world_.

The _Trudeau Liberals_ retain a strong hold, maybe a stranglehold on the Liberal Party of Canada.  The Liberal propaganda machine has elevated Trudeau and his half baked _ideas_ to the status of national legend; in this they were aided and abetted by a largely ill-educated mob of so called journalists who are, in reality, little better than _stenographers_ who think that taking dictation from Liberal hacks and flacks is a substitute for research and critical analysis, and by an educational system run by their equally inept cousins.

It is the latter two of Manley's _values_ which ought to concern us most here in army.ca.  The Canadian Forces are one of the primary tools a government has to help the nation meet _”the challenges of competing in a world of giants_”  In a recent a recent army.ca editorial our own _Ruxted Group_ said:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38177.0.html 


> Canadians want, need and deserve peace and prosperity – the two go together for trading nations.  We want to be able to sell our goods and services around the world, without undue interference.  To do that we need:
> 
> •   Peace in our markets, around the world, so that others have the means and inclination to buy our goods and services; and
> 
> ...



We cannot have those kinds of armed forces unless we have an *economically responsible* government – Conservative or Liberal.

Finally, I agree with Mr. Manley when he says that the 2006 election shows that Canadians want _”the ability to choose between alternative governments”_.  I hope that both the Conservative and Liberal parties will try to move towards the three values John Manley prescribes:

•	Social moderation;

•	Economic responsibility; and

•	Being possessed of a clear vision of a strong, free Canada competing – fairly and squarely – in a world of giants and playing a leading role in shaping that world for the benefit of us all, Canadians, and all others from Afghans to Zimbabweans.

----------
* http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060126.wxmanley26/BNStory/National/

Edit: spelling & sentence structure


----------



## Jed (26 Jan 2006)

Right on with that post, Edward.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2006)

As usual Edward - I find little to disagree with.

Here's a question for you though:  What was the role of the "Rain/Reignmaker" Senator Keith Davey in all of this?  Was he a facilitator or a driver?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As usual Edward - I find little to disagree with.
> 
> Here's a question for you though:  What was the role of the "Rain/Reignmaker" Senator Keith Davey in all of this?  Was he a facilitator or a driver?



My sense is that Davey came after the fact.  He was, no doubt, an able practitioner of the politics of expediency but I think we have to go back to the fellows (they were all men) who decided to run St Laurent again in 57.  The phrase, if I recall, was that they _”could run him dead and stuffed”_ if that’s what it took.  They were wrong – Diefenbaker’s _”Follow John”_ campaign and Canadians’ shock (not too strong a word) at the use of closure in the pipeline debate* settled the matter but, I think, also confirmed in the Liberals’ mind the need to ‘sell’ their _brand_ and that, I think, is where Davey (and later Coutts and Davey) came in,

In any event I have Stephen Clarkson’s new book “The Big Red Machine” in the pile and I may actually know something after I get around to it.

----------
* Closure is now used routinely but, in the '50s, it was seen as being a rather sneaky political trick


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2006)

I'm curious as to whether the Libs are busy muddying the waters (ie shredding papers, burning evidence ect) in preperation for the investigative onslaught that harper has promised with regard to ethics?

I would dearly love to see a new federal prison built SPECIALLY for Liberal ex-politicians!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to whether the Libs are busy muddying the waters (ie shredding papers, burning evidence ect) in preperation for the investigative onslaught that harper has promised with regard to ethics?
> 
> I would dearly love to see a new federal prison built SPECIALLY for Liberal ex-politicians!



Hans Island sounds like a perfect spot........


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Jan 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to whether the Libs are busy muddying the waters (ie shredding papers, burning evidence ect) in preperation for the investigative onslaught that harper has promised with regard to ethics?
> 
> I would dearly love to see a new federal prison built SPECIALLY for Liberal ex-politicians!



That would be sweet.  With any luck, the Canadian Cowboys are sitting on a bunch of stuff and now that they won't get a huge serving of shaft for trying to do their jobs they can do some serious investigating and charging.  But like all organized crime, the ones at the top are usually the ones that are hardest to topple.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jan 2006)

"With any luck, the Canadian Cowboys are sitting on a bunch of stuff and now that they won't get a huge serving of shaft for trying to do their jobs they can do some serious investigating and charging."

- The RCLP?  Bought and paid for by the Liberals from the top down...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Jan 2006)

Maybe, but I bet there are a bunch of them that don't like it.  And with a non confidence vote around the corner at any given moment, I'm sure the PC's would be thrilled to back them with anything they want to pursue.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jan 2006)

I think you are right on both counts.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2006)

With all this talk about open government and having Parliament appoint the Auditor-General, Ethics and Information Commissioners, the Supreme Court Justices amongst others I wonder if they shouldn't also appoint the Solicitor-General on the same basis.  The Justice Minister handles making the law.  The Solicitor-General handles applying the law  if I understand things correctly. Might also be good if Director CSIS and Commissioner RCMP were similarly appointed - something a little more non-partisan perhaps??


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Jan 2006)

Nah, lets go partisan!  Petty and vindictive Conservative appointments >


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2006)

The incomparable Styne on the election:

http://www.marksteyn.com/



> *An Act of Hygiene*
> Democracy fells yet another anti-American government.
> 
> BY MARK STEYN
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (1 Feb 2006)

Mark Steyn is brilliant!  :cheers:


----------



## mo-litia (1 Feb 2006)

Perhaps Mr Steyn can run for PM...

I'm sure glad I was able to do my 'happy-dance' after that heinous cow Anne McClellan was defeated in my riding. 

Ahh...Alberta.  Tory blue as far as the eye can see!  :dontpanic:


----------

