The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[SeaKingTacco]

Kirkhill,

I am always amazed at your political/biological analogies... 

 

[Celticgirl]

Weeeeee!  Elizabeth May's turn (in reference to why people don't want to vote):

"It doesn't matter who I vote for, the Government always wins"..............Well D'uh!

Of course the Government wins.  That is what we are electing members to Parliament for; to create a Government.   :

I saw that today and I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it to be a ridiculous statement.  :blotto:

 

[Old Sweat]

Dion had his miscue in his opening address. The report is here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080907/election2008_dion_080907/20080907?s_name=election2008

In the report he says that details of his plan can be found at GreenShift.ca, which is the site for the company that is suing the Grits for stealing the name. The Liberal site is thegreenshift.ca

 

[midget-boyd91]

Here's a question for those with more technical knowledge on politics/elections:
Is there any such a thing as a 'cut off date' for a party to enter a candidate? I ask because here in Kings-Hants we have no Conservative running against Brison yet. I know there had been plans to nominate a member to run in October or November, but it would seem the election call came a bit early.
Is there a certain date where the CPC will no longer be able to enter someone for this riding?

I've met with and spoken with Mr.Brison on a number of occasions, and personally I think it is a shame he crossed the floor.
Had he not crossed, he'd have my vote just like that. Yes, I can understand completely why he would choose to cross, I just think it's a shame he's part of the dark side now.

Midget

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Is there any such a thing as a 'cut off date' for a party to enter a candidate?
...

Nominations close at 1700 Hrs on the 21st day before the election which means, I guess, if I am counting correctly, on 23 Sep 08.


Edit: removed an Elections Canada link (to the nomination form) that would not work.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Nominations close at 1700 Hrs on the 21st day before the election which means, I guess, if I am counting correctly, on 23 Sep 08.


Edit: removed an Elections Canada link (to the nomination form) that would not work.

Thanks.

Midget

 

[JBG]

And Canada will become a series of distinct "colonies" (in the microbial, Petrie dish type sense) isolated by their natural geography into distinct cultures......

Unlike Liberals (and strident Nationalists) I don't consider this to be a problem.  I consider it a natural stage in the evolution of a population (mitosis - the spreading of the seeds of a stressed organism).

With the establishment of a variety of healthy and growing independent cultures we can then hope that our politicians will find new opportunities to bind us together on the basis of symbiosis (mutual advantage between discrete organisms) or even meiosis (sexual reproduction between two separate organisms resulting in a related but distinct new organism).

Mitosis
Symbiosis
Meiosis

We are truly Slime. ;D

Why not what you have,  one of the greatest countries ever known to man, a proud, English-speaking country?

 

[Yrys]

I went to Radio-Canada to see what was the vote the last time
in my  circonscription. Doesn't matter for who I vote, BQ will win...

Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie
BQ 55,99 %
LIB 15,76 %
NPD 11,55 %
PC 9,30 %
PV 6,60 %
PM 0,80 %

By the way, PM is Parti Marijuana ...

 

[Kirkhill]

Why not what you have,  one of the greatest countries ever known to man, a proud, English-speaking country?

The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.  I just figure that the tensions and the path will be similar regardless of the details.  As to it being an English speaking country - likely, in the same sense that both Holland and England currently speak variants of Fries,  or Britain, Hong Kong, India, the US and Australia currently speak English - in a mutually incomprehensible fashion.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I decided to do some research to see what sound bytes might come up next week.  It seems the NDP are ... playing catch up.

http://www.ndp.ca/platform  (as at sept 7, 2008)

Platform: Getting results for people
RELATED LINKS
NDP – The Better Choice for WomenmoreNDP platform gets results for artistsmorePLATFORM 2006: Getting results for peoplemoreGetting results to clean up politicsmoreGetting results for children and young peoplemoreGetting results to improve public health caremoreTaxes
In November 2005, the Liberals unveiled their budget priorities for Canada – and in the process made it clear whose side Liberals are on. » More

Education
It’s time to give hope to young Canadians. Hope for good jobs in a growing and prosperous economy, and help for families so their children can succeed. » More

Health care
Canadians value our public health care. But after 12 years of Liberal government, its erosion is more dramatic than most people realize – as individuals, we’re spending vastly more than ever before on basic health care needs. » More

The Environment
No issue has been handled more ineptly by the Paul Martin Liberal government than the environment, and few broken promises are clearer. » More

Aboriginal Peoples
People from the Original Nations of Canada can and do make prominent contributions to a better Canada and a better world: in the arts, media, science, government, business, health and education. » More

Ethics
During the past months, Canadians have witnessed the spectacle of almost-daily revelations of the abuse of public trust by the Liberal Party. » More

Getting More Done
The Liberals are out of steam – and their list of neglected commitments is evidence of that. They’ve become so mired in the corruption scandal and so concerned about trying to talk their way out of their broken promises that they are doing nothing on the priorities on which people expect action. » More

Jobs
Canadians are looking for evidence of a strong economy that brings direct benefits to them and their families. The Liberals’ answer is to take credit for the drop in Canada’s unemployment rate, while ignoring the dangerous loss of manufacturing jobs and failing to respond to George Bush’s attack on forest workers and businesses. » More

Children
There can be no clearer example of the difference in priorities between New Democrats and Mr. Harper’s Conservatives. We believe Canada should look after its people – beginning with our children – before investing in lower-priority measures like broad-brush tax cuts. » More

Child Care
The NDP has fought for years alongside women, early childhood education experts and parents for a national commitment to quality child care. » More

Housing
In his 1996 federal budget, Paul Martin abolished Canada’s internationally recognized affordable housing program created by New Democrats and Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s. » More

New Canadians
Canada is a nation, largely, of immigrants. Our cities are powerful magnets for talented and creative people from around the world who look to Canada for economic opportunity, social cohesion and political freedom. » More

Seniors and Pensions
It has been 40 years since the last major, comprehensive reform of Canada’s income security system for the elderly. Our economy and our labour market have changed a great deal since then. » More

Ending Violence
While Canada’s overall crime rate has held steady and declined over the last few years, there are serious crime issues that threaten the security each of us feels in our own community. » More

Respect. Renewal.
The Liberal Party of Canada has gravely damaged the federation within Quebec due to its conduct, while gravely damaging the effectiveness of the federal government in the rest of the country – without the apparent intended benefit of building unity. » More

Peace and Security
In this Parliament, the House of Commons adopted unanimously an NDP motion calling on the government to honour its commitment to overseas development assistance. Meeting these commitments is not a matter of altruism. It is the most practical response Canada can offer to reduce global economic inequality. » More


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

I went there to see if their position on the Afghanistan mission has changed.  Apparently I traveled back in time... damm I should have loofed for Lottery numbers.
 

 

 

[a_majoor]

I have to admit I'm not very happy with the election, nor the current campaign platforms of any of the major parties. (most of the minor ones as well, but as a realist, I'd rather vote and get half a loaf....). Thoughts?

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011838.html

The Canadian prisoner's dilemma

Why vote for any party? David Warren is mad as hell and doesn't want to have to take this any more:

    We are all prisoners of the Canadian consensus

    ..all parties are committed to preserving Canada's dysfunctional socialist health care system. All are committed to the continued heavy regulation of private enterprise generally, and to choking small business in particular with red tape. All are committed to maintaining a crippling tax burden, and a tax collection system with arbitrary and unaccountable powers of search and seizure. Moreover, in the name of the "global warming" imposture, all are committed to significantly extending the leaden hand of government micro-mismanagement into every aspect of our daily lives that may touch even tangentially on "the environment."

    And to take a subject of special interest to me, none is prepared to defend our country's common-law heritage, and due process in our courts (especially our family courts). None will vindicate the most elementary rights of free speech and free press. None will lift a finger when journalists and many others are hauled before "human rights" kangaroo courts, and put under star chamber inquisitions, as if Canada were exactly the sort of country our fathers fought in two World Wars.

    The debates are seldom if ever about which direction we should be going, but rather, how far and how fast we should proceed along the pre-determined highway. This is the "Canadian consensus," shared by the various self-appointing and self-regulating elites in government, law, media, and academia...

Read the whole thing. Very much along my line of thinking - a society almost closed to real debate on far too many issues.

Mark C.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I just don't trust this poll of polls. The various companies ask different questions, may use different methodolgies and distribute their collected data differently. Did they include the two firms that accurately measure data in Quebec with a sample of about 1,000 compared to the national firms that have a sample in that province of about 250, with most on the Island of Montreal?

Apples plus oranges plus peaches plus pears equals fruit flies.

The Conservatives’ lead is not strong, in fact, not all the pollsters agree there even is one.

Looking at the component polls we see:

Poll                      Cons    Libs
Strategic Counsel    37      29
Ekos                      37      24
Environics              38      28
Ipsos                    39      31
Nanos                    33      35
Angus Reid              36      28
Harris/Decima          33      34

 

[George Wallace]

But if we average them all, it still looks like they have about a 7% lead.

 

[GAP]

Strategists' corner
Globe and Mail Update September 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM EDT
WHAT DOES EACH LEADER NEED TO ACHIEVE IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS?
Article Link

Rod Love (Calgary-based political consultant and former chief of staff to Ralph Klein): I'm working on the assumption that this might be the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. If I'm right, then it is important for each leader to engage and energize their base. The swing voters will come later.

For Stephen Harper, the narrative is clear in the ads they have already been running: strong leader, experienced, competent. A message to the Conservative faithful that they are starting from a position of strength will galvanize their volunteers.

For Stéphane Dion and the Liberals, the challenge is different. Morale and money is low, and their organization is weak in too many parts of the country. Mr. Dion should attack – the Liberal foot soldiers need to see a leader who is going to fight from the opening bell. But not the silly “hidden agenda” line of attack. Attack where Mr. Dion is strong – on policy.

My sense of both the Bloc and the NDP is that victory would be holding on to what they have got. While the Conservatives and Liberals will eventually end up fighting for the centre, Jack Layton needs to hold on to the left, while Gilles Duceppe needs to keep the nationalists in the fold.

The Greens? Focus on three or four ridings where there is hope, and work them.

Scott Reid (former director of communications for Paul Martin): If you want to know what campaigns think, watch what they do, not what they say.

Stephen Harper is running ads about what a nice fellow Stephen Harper is. That tells you the Conservatives remain worried about the way their leader is perceived. For Mr. Harper, his early focus must be to echo the efforts of his advertising by being a reassuring rather than polarizing figure. As he argues that he and not Stéphane Dion is best able to manage a teetering economy, Mr. Harper must keep his Jekyll mask firmly in place and his inner Hyde well concealed.

Mr. Dion faces not one but two early challenges. First, he has to directly counter the Conservative effort to fortify Mr. Harper's image. That means tugging at Jekyll's mask to reveal the nasty, hyper-partisan face that has given Canadians such pause in the past. And yes, that means Mr. Dion must okay “negative” ads. There is little logic in dividing your paid and earned media efforts into competing camps. Mr. Dion's second early challenge is to demonstrate basic competence. He doesn't need to be spectacular. No one is expecting the Cirque de Soleil. A capable, well functioning campaign that stays on track, stays on message and smiles through the early pressures will reassure voters that he is up to the task.

The others? Jack Layton must show that he, not Mr. Dion is the legitimate foil to Mr. Harper's right-wing vision. Gilles Duceppe must persuade Quebeckers there remains a battle that requires the Bloc to wage. And Elizabeth May just needs to be seen. Everywhere she goes, she'll walk away with votes in her pocket. Entry into the leaders' debate must remain her guiding objective.

Gerald Caplan (former NDP campaign manager and national director): Each leader has daunting challenges that need to be addressed promptly though they're almost certain to recur until the very last moment.

Stephen Harper has to insist that he's not going to win a majority government even though that's what he lusts after and it's the only objective that justifies his decision to call an election. For him, the worst news of the last week came from polls showing him on the brink of majority territory. Many Canadians who are prepared to see him lead a second minority government will think twice about electing him to lead a majority. This is particularly true in urban and even suburban Ontario, where his party seems to have made a real breakthrough in the last few weeks. But achieving this tactical goal is not at all easy, since the distance between Conservative support in the last election, 36 per cent, is only a few points away from a possible majority - in fact close to the margin of error in many polls. And we can be sure that his opponents will cry majority on an hourly basis.

Stéphane Dion needs to show that he's actually a leader. For most of his pathetic tenure as Liberal chief, he's conveyed the sense that he has no idea why he ever wanted to run for the job. For a brief moment not long ago, as he unveiled his green plan, he seemed at last to be in control. He gave, even in English, first-rate interviews and exuded a confidence that seemed genuine. Unaccountably, that moment was allowed to slip away, and he enters the campaign perceived as a weak individual with no apparent policy priorities other than a muddled green one. Mr. Dion was right, of course, to chastise Mr. Harper for demanding that the opposition support a non-existent public agenda (the hidden agenda is a different matter). The irony is that Mr. Dion seems to have none either, and while Mr. Harper got away with his cheeky little game, Mr. Dion cannot.

Jack Layton faces the same old impossible dilemma that has haunted the NDP since the far right of the Conservative party first split and then reunited as a far more American-style right-wing entity. Somewhere between 60 per cent and 65 per cent of Canadians will never support Mr. Harper and his policies. The threat of a majority Harper government is enough to persuade many progressives that they must hold their noses and vote for their local Liberal candidate. Call it strategic voting. Mr. Layton needs to convince every living, breathing New Democrat that they need to stick with the party even in the face of a possible Harper majority, about which the Liberals will remind them at every opportunity. Several compelling policy priorities would make this uphill task easier.

Elizabeth May faces the same dispiriting challenge. Most of her natural band of supporters fear a Harper majority and see that Mr. Dion is a pretty reliable green advocate. (Compared to Mr. Harper and John Baird, who isn't?) And after all, Ms. May herself vouches for Mr. Dion's green credentials. Voting Green can wait till the next election. But Ms. May is an extremely appealing campaigner and must try to keep her flock from straying by sheer force of personality.

A weary Gilles Duceppe has to demonstrate a raison d'etre for his party's very existence. The task become harder and harder each year. A few small missteps and it's good-bye Charlie Brown.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

But if we average them all, it still looks like they have about a 7% lead.

Yes, but see Old Sweat's comment: averaging them, which is, essentially, what the Good Grey Globe's Poll of Polls does, means you are averaging apples, oranges and pears - and you're not even gong to make good marmalade.

 

[George Wallace]

Yes, but see Old Sweat's comment: averaging them, which is, essentially, what the Good Grey Globe's Poll of Polls does, means you are averaging apples, oranges and pears - and you're not even gong to make good marmalade.

Reading some of the early analysis coming out of some political strategists in the Press gives the impression that we will likely get bad marmalade in Oct.  This being Day 2, we can only wait and see how many days it will take to change/confirm/modify these comments.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have several issues; here, in no particular order, is a six-pack of what I want the next government to:

1. Read former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s introduction to A Role of Pride and Influence in the World. There is a lot of good policy there. It needs to me updated and implemented;

2. Deal with productivity. The problem is not that Canadian workers are either lazy or overpaid. The problems include, in the main –

• Timid, grovelling leadership management in our corporate boardrooms,

• Ill conceived government policies that tax savings and investments, thereby frustrating job creation and innovation,

• Political pork-barrelling,

• Under-funded education (academic and applied (practical) – at the post secondary level, and

• Incoherent R&D policies and programmes;

3. Address the democratic deficit by, both, reforming the Senate (which can be done, partially, without any constitutional changes), and adding enough seats to the House of Commons to repair the equality imbalance;

4. Withdraw from areas on shared federal/provincial jurisdiction – leaving tax points behind;

5. Craft a ‘customs union’ with the USA – that may, also, involve an ‘immigration union,’ too. The creates a common CANUS ‘border’ for the rest of the world and, effectively, erases the existing border between Canada and the USA for goods, services and people (and their jobs); and

6. Continue, simultaneously, to –

• Reduce both corporate and personal income taxes so that future governments will not have the resources to implement ill-considered (Trudeauesque) programmes without either raising taxes or running a deficit, and

• Lower the total (federal and provincial) debt to some level =< 20% of GDP.

I think the kinds of social changes people like Warren want, a few of which, I agree, are necessary, some of which are likely desirable and many of which are downright silly, can come only after some structural changes have been made to the national governance and management systems.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wanted to:
1)  share my own collection of links for tracking the election, and
2) start a thread where you would feel free to post any links to help keep track of the latest "running of the snakes" you might think others would enjoy.

Feel free to share your sources of info (no individual stories, please - lotsa threads already out there discussing specific MSM coverage).

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a bit of a rant, but: here’s another issue:

• The poor, abused US taxpayer just bought Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (originally established, as US government entities, as Federal National Mortgage Association (1938) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (1970)) for about $200 Billion – that is about (a very rough about) $1,400 for every one of the (roughly) 135,000,000 US taxpayers;

• I have no great problem with the bailout. Here are good and valid, albeit very debatable, political and economic reasons for so doing.

• But: the CEOs of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac will each get multi-million dollar buyouts for, essentially, as former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee put it on TV, earlier today, “flying their airplanes into a wall.”

My issue is not the too generous ‘retirement’ and ‘termination’ payments built into too many executive contracts, my issue is with executive compensation.

About nn years ago executives, typically, earned about forty (40) times the wage of a typical hourly wage rate employee in the same industry. If automotive assembly line workers got $15/hr (which was about $30,000/year – without any overtime) then a typical senior executive in the automotive industry probably got an annual salary of, say, $1.2 Million/year. Now a typical Canadian autoworker (in the middle of an effective three tier wage structure) might earn $45/hour or  $87,750/year but senior executives now routinely get $10 Million/year – more than 100 times the hourly rate. There’s something wrong with that model. A multiplier of forty or even fifty can be justified, (even though, in the CF, the multiplier for the CDS (vs. a Cpl) is only about 5) but 100? No!

We have entered an era of celebrity CEOs who command fabulous salaries – which might be tolerable IF they were accompanies by strict performance requirements and penalties for failure to perform. But the executive compensation is a one way ladder, leading ever upwards, even for CEOs who “fly their airplane into a wall.”

CEOs, like hourly wage rate workers, are nothing more than employees of the shareholders – they are hired to do one, and only one thing: make money for the shareholders. Those who put nice, consistent profits in the shareholders’ bank accounts deserve a good, even excellent salary – and 40 times a typical hourly wage IS excellent. Those who cost the shareholders money, who fail to deliver profits, who lower value deserve a swift kick in the ass and summary dismissal with NO benefits or bonuses at all.

The government cannot do anything about this except to lead by example – in both the public sector, proper, and in the Crown Corporations. The Government of Canada should be an exemplary employer: hiring good people to work hard at useful jobs and rewarding them, through a mix of salary and benefits, in an appropriate manner. Executives should want to come to work for the Government of Canada because the work should be challenging and fulfilling – even if the most senior executive salaries are paid only, say, 10 to 20 times what most clerks earn. (By the way, that would see most senior civil servants and CEOs of Crown Corporations earning around $500,000.00/year – twice what some of them get now.)

We need to change our socio-economic and political culture, not our social mores.

 

[dapaterson]

• Under-funded education (academic and applied (practical) – at the post secondary level, and

I'd argue this point.  Post-secondary institutions are over-resourced, fat, and too large.  We've destroyed any value in the concept of a degree, amking instead an exercise in credentialism.  The unfortunate truth is that half of all people are below average.  Steering everyone to a degree serves no one well - the standards become so diluted that the value to society is eliminated.

Providing better post-secondary options may be one worthwhile tact - encouraging people into skilled trades, for example.  But I'd also argue with direct governmental investment in education.  Better to provide post-graduation tax relief to students, and charge whatever the freight will bear at the front end.