Canada votes 2011

[Bouncing Bettys]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

My comment was geared towards the Liberals and NDP forming a two-party coalition or merging to topple the Cons 'because they can'.

You mean doing exactly as the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives did only they actually have the ability to form a majority with a merger and end the all these minority government deadlocks?

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Blaupunkt69

You mean doing exactly as the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives did only they actually have the ability to form a majority with a merger and end the all these minority government deadlocks?

You think they will end the deadlocks? So the NDP and Liberals are going to agree on everything, and when they vote they'll always vote as a group? I'm curious as to how they're going to merge their platforms and election promises, and which ones will go forward and which ones will be left out. You can't have it all, so they're going to have to come up with some kind of a compromise.

And if you voted NDP/Liberals because of specific parts of their platforms, how will you feel when what you voted for ends up being dropped from their "coalition platform".

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by dangonay

You think they will end the deadlocks? So the NDP and Liberals are going to agree on everything, and when they vote they'll always vote as a group? I'm curious as to how they're going to merge their platforms and election promises, and which ones will go forward and which ones will be left out. You can't have it all, so they're going to have to come up with some kind of a compromise.

And if you voted NDP/Liberals because of specific parts of their platforms, how will you feel when what you voted for ends up being dropped from their "coalition platform".

Still will be better than anything the conservatives have done.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Originally Posted by dangonay

You think they will end the Liberal majorities? So the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives are going to agree on everything, and when they vote they'll always vote as a group? I'm curious as to how they're going to merge their platforms and election promises, and which ones will go forward and which ones will be left out. You can't have it all, so they're going to have to come up with some kind of a compromise.

And if you voted Reform-Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservative because of specific parts of their platforms, how will you feel when what you voted for ends up being dropped from their "coalition platform".

fixed from 2003

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Still will be better than anything the conservatives have done.

So then I assume you already know which portions of their respective platforms will be kept and which will be dropped? I wish I could predict the future.

I have benefitted from the Conservatives. In the past I have also benefitted from the Liberals and voted for them as well. That's the bottom line - people vote for who benefits them the most.

[carisear]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Unlike Young who is getting support from terrorists?

did you even READ the article you posted?


She is getting unsolicited support from him. Canada is a free country still -- anyone can support anyone they choose.

If Malik decided to throw his support to Dosanj, would you suddenly be all up in arms, and say the same thing?

There is no story here.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by carisear

did you even READ the article you posted?


She is getting unsolicited support from him. Canada is a free country still -- anyone can support anyone they choose.

If Malik decided to throw his support to Dosanj, would you suddenly be all up in arms, and say the same thing?

There is no story here.

She went to the school he founded that harbored a terrorist hijacker from India at one point for meeting and she met him at a house on a separate occasion. How could someone who has lived in that riding all her live and is running for a seat in Parliament not know who he is.

Edit: Ujjal Dosanjh would never be allowed on Khalsa school property.

Edit: http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2003/terror060403.htm

Malik organized and ran the Khalsa Credit Union and the Khalsa School in British Columbia. He had earlier expressed open disdain for Canadian society and its values, and stated that the reason for creating the Khalsa School was a means of isolating Sikh children from

[goo3]

Globe endorsements through history

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/.../?from=2001610

Their editorial endorsement for 2011 is up. Here it is, but first a couple of notes:

- Their history back to 1953 is in that link
- You can take a look at who they've endorsed and their reasoning behind it
- Notice they're not fanboys of one party
- People say G&M is biased to the left. Maybe/maybe not. So what? What you should be asking is: Is what they write legit? Is their research and facts solid? Is their reasoning sound? Are they deceiving you in some way?
- The editors' goal is "who's best to lead Canada." Maybe your goals/criteria are different. It's within your right to vote according to your situation.
- Also, 80% of this thread is horse shit. It smells from a mile away.

2011: Conservative Party
Facing up to our challenges

Globe editorial from April 28, 2011

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.

The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy. It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity. Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security. Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada's role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country's ethnic and cultural makeup – the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.

Whom should Canadians turn to?

The Liberal Party's Michael Ignatieff has been an honourable opposition leader; he has risen above the personal attacks launched by the Conservatives, he has stood up for Parliament, and he has fought hard in this election. But his campaign failed to show how the Conservative government has failed, and why he and the Liberals are a preferred alternative.

Jack Layton has energized the New Democrats and the electorate, and seems more able than the other leaders to connect with ordinary people. He has succeeded in putting a benign gloss on his party's free-spending policies, but those policies remain unrealistic and unaffordable, at a time when the country needs to better manage public spending, not inflate it. He has shown that a federalist party can make serious inroads in Quebec, but it has come at the cost of an unwelcome promise to impose provisions of Quebec's language law in federal workplaces.

Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.

Mr. Harper could achieve a great deal more if he would relax his grip on Parliament, its independent officers and the flow of information, and instead bring his disciplined approach to bear on the great challenges at hand. That is the great strike against the Conservatives: a disrespect for Parliament, the abuse of prorogation, the repeated attempts (including during this campaign) to stanch debate and free expression. It is a disappointing failing in a leader who previously emerged from a populist movement that fought so valiantly for democratic reforms.

Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have demonstrated principled judgment on the economic file. They are not doctrinaire; with the support of other parties they adopted stimulus spending after the financial crash of 2008, when it was right to do so. They have assiduously pursued a whole range of trade negotiations. They have facilitated the extension of the GST/HST to Ontario and British Columbia, and have persisted in their plan for a national securities regulator. The Conservatives have greater respect, too, for the free market, and for freedom of international investment, in spite of their apparent yielding to political pressure in the proposed takeover of Potash Corp.

Even more determination will be needed to confront the sustainability of publicly funded health care in an aging society. Health care is suffering from chronic spending disease. If left unchecked, it could swallow as much as 31 cents of each new dollar in wealth created in Canada in the next 20 years. In spite of some unwise commitments he has made on subsidy increases to the provinces, Mr. Harper has the toughness and reformist instincts to push the provinces toward greater experimentation (in private delivery, for instance) and change.

The campaign of 2011 – so vicious and often vapid – should not be remembered fondly. But that will soon be behind us. If the result is a confident new Parliament, it could help propel Canada into a fresh period of innovation, government reform and global ambition. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are best positioned to guide Canada there.

[tool001]

Tory candidate's access to Kenney questioned click for video by cbc

Tory candidate's access to Kenney questioned


There are allegations in the Ontario riding of Brampton-Springdale that Conservative Party candidate Parm Gill has inappropriate access to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Brampton has a large South Asian population, so the ability to get visas for family members of voters is an issue in the riding.

Liberal candidate Ruby Dhalla accused Gill, a businessman and entrepreneur in the hospitality industry, of setting himself up as Kenney's official delegate on visas and suggests someone in his office must be tipping off her rival after she's submitted official visa requests.

"In those cases the families have been called before even I was notified, that had they had been accepted and approved by the minister's office and they were called by Parm Gill," said Dhalla.

As for proof, Dhalla said people are too afraid to come forward and speak publicly.

Kenney, who has visited the riding to speak during the election campaign, was asked about the accusations, and responded: "That's completely ridiculous, you know, she's a Liberal MP who's under a lot of pressure, and of course she's going to make unfounded and ridiculous accusations."

There's a reason why they are going to Mr. Gill for that advice, said Kenney on a conference call with South Asian journalists.

"It's because they can't get any service from their member of Parliament and that's one of the reasons why I think Parm Gill should be elected member of Parliament for Brampton-Springdale."

Kenney told CBC that if "their own MP isn't providing them with the services and the advice that they require on technical issues on immigration then that's a problem.

"So Mr. Gill has every right as a private citizen to provide volunteer unpaid advice. I understand he has taken no payment for that. He has never claimed to represent the government or me, but he's just providing a volunteer service and that's totally legitimate."

At a sporting event in February, Gill said: "I have approximately three people assisting me; they are full time just taking calls and helping me process….immigration files or anything else."

In January 2009, Kenney made an official government trip to India, where he was pictured with Gill, who was asked about the trip during a candidates' debate in the riding.

"I was not in India on any government-sponsored trips. I was in India on a private business," said Gill.

"Mr. Gill came as did other Canadians with different backgrounds and attended some public events," said Kenney of the trip.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland says Kenney shouldn't show favouritism.

"You can't politicize the immigration function when the immigration minister holds the key to Canada's immigration kingdom in any case," said Kurland.

Gill was not available for an interview.

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by goo3

- Also, 80% of this thread is horse shit. It smells from a mile away.

Though maybe we need a thread about the role of media in elections, I really object to the authorative news producers that claim to be neutral telling us who to vote for. Blogs, and places that are clearly personal opinions or places that are clearly sided with one team or another are the place for that. I feel though that the Globe and the CBC are both better served by presenting the facts rather then informing people of who they should vote for.

That to me stinks like horse shit.

I wish our news providers (on all sides) would abide by their equal and unbiased mandate rather then trying to sway people. The Globe is out of line for telling people they only have one choice (and I would say the same no matter who they supported). Their job is to tell them the facts and let them decide.

I'm tired of having them regurgitate party rhetoric, if I wanted that I would read the party news.

[Graeme S]

I think if nothing else the outcry over the article has proven that while Canadians might not act outraged with the gov't by protesting, that there is indeed a great deal of frustration and/or anger which comes out online in things like this.

Whether that will turn into votes is not something that can be as easily determined, however.
Posted via RS Mobile

[goo3]

TheNewGirl's not gonna like this one from The Vancouver Sun

These guys make their judgments based on certain criteria. If their criteria isn't relevant to your situation, it's better if you don't vote that way. But I'm posting this for non-political ppl because there's way more honesty and integrity in their reasoning than 90% of what gets attention out there.

If not them to flush out the BS then who? This laughable thread? The political junkies took over and filled it with petty lying meant to mislead others to vote how you want them to vote. That may be how you guys operate, but there's others who don't do that shit. Making decisions based on lies built upon half-truths is a poor way to go through life.

EDITORIAL: Conservative majority needed to see us through turbulent times

Even when he’s singing Beatles tunes, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper comes across as stern and austere. His style contrasts sharply with New Democrat leader Jack Layton’s warmth and humour and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s passion and erudition.

But an election is not about personalities; it is a collective decision about leadership. It is up to us to elect the leader and party best able to govern at this time, in these circumstances.

Over the last five years, Harper has kept a steady hand on the economy, steering Canada calmly through a global financial crisis from which many countries have yet to recover. Canada’s resilience through the economic storm garnered international respect. Harper acceded to opposition demands for $60 billion in stimulus spending but has quickly pared the resulting deficit to $28 billion and has a credible plan for restoring balanced budgets to which his party is firmly committed.

His government has maintained a competitive tax regime, building on the foundation the Liberals put in place in the 1990s, pursued bilateral and multilateral trade deals to further advance Canada’s economic interests and encouraged provinces to streamline their inefficient sales tax regimes under the harmonized sales tax.

The Conservative government has given Canada a leading role on the international stage, especially its speedy and generous response to the earthquake in Haiti and participation in military interventions led by the United Nations and NATO. Under the Conservatives, Canada has taken a principled stance on foreign policy issues, a dramatic departure from the “soft power” dogma of the Liberals.

Harper has re-established a close relationship with the U.S., which had eroded under the Liberals, allowing for productive negotiations on perimeter and border security. The Conservatives can provide the U.S. with the assurance it needs that Canada is a reliable bulwark against terrorism, thus preventing further thickening of the border, which would hurt all Canadians.

Some voters may be swayed by the promises of the Liberal and NDP platforms. But this is not the time for an abrupt, fundamental change in direction. Layton’s personal appeal cannot mask his party’s lack of fiscal discipline and Ignatieff, despite his remarkable career as educator, author and journalist, has run a poor campaign and has failed to demonstrate the leadership Canada needs to navigate the turmoil that surrounds us.

Although Canada has been relatively unscathed by the recession that devastated other nations, it is not immune from continuing economic chaos beyond our borders. Many European nations are mired in massive sovereign debt and face ruthless restructuring. At the same time, upheaval in the Middle East is altering the geopolitical landscape in unpredictable ways.

In the midst of this uncertainty, Canada must be seen as a safe harbour of constancy. Our reputation for steadfastness will attract the foreign investment and skilled immigrants needed to relieve the pressures of an aging population and keep the economy growing so that we can pay for social programs, health care and education.

For these reasons, the Conservatives should be returned to Parliament with a majority. A minority government will be unstable at a time when we need stability. Without a majority, Canadians will have no idea who their leader will be. The fact is that the opposition could defeat the government on the budget within a matter of weeks of the next sitting of Parliament. Then, either Ignatieff (or possibly his successor, whoever that might be) or Layton could ask the Governor-General to invite one or the other or both of them to form a government.

The Liberal leadership is in doubt because if the Liberals win fewer seats than in the last election, Ignatieff may be asked by his caucus to step aside, triggering a leadership contest.

Canada can’t afford an election that delivers a result with so much uncertainty.

That being said, the Conservative record has some serious shortcomings and some remedial work is required. For a start, the government needs to revisit its position on the strategy to improve the health of mothers and young children in poor countries — Canada’s signature initiative at last June’s G8 summit. The Conservatives ruled out support for a contraceptive proposal, supplies and information for the program, arguing that family planning has no part of any plan to save lives. Wrong. Roughly 600,000 women die every year due to complications of pregnancy, labour, childbirth or unsafe abortions. The exclusion of family planning from this project puts women in danger and is illogical.

The Conservatives also need to rethink their policies on crime, particularly on mandatory sentencing and building more prisons. Policy should be based on evidence, and the evidence shows clearly that such costly measures are ineffective in preventing or reducing crime.

On issues of governance, Harper and the Conservatives must show more respect for open government and parliamentary conventions. They are the bedrock of our democracy. In that vein, we expect greater transparency and accountability in budgeting. Parliament is entitled to full disclosure on the cost of all programs, including the purchase of fighter jets. MPs need to vet these expenditures; that’s their job.

Despite the Tories’ flaws, however, a Conservative majority is the only path that at this time leads us to a Canada that will remain the prosperous, peaceful and predictable country in which we are fortunate enough to live.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dec...#ixzz1L00A1tHz

[Meowjin]

^why don't they list the author

[Meowjin]

how about vote for the best mla in your area.

[m!chael]

LOL

The second there's a general consensus that a conservative majority is needed for Canada, Majin " Anything but conservatives because they're scumbags" hurricane becomes a bipartisan.

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by m!chael

LOL

The second there's a general consensus that a conservative majority is needed for Canada, Majin " Anything but conservatives because they're scumbags" hurricane becomes a bipartisan.

Actually NDP are projected to have more than 100 seats, and took quebec by storm.

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by m!chael

LOL

The second there's a general consensus that a conservative majority is needed for Canada, Majin " Anything but conservatives because they're scumbags" hurricane becomes a bipartisan.

Actually that's really far from the consensus. Unless you mean the consensus amongst tory supporters is that a conservative majority is needed in Canada.

But we'll find out on Monday what that translates to.

[apple_cutie]

[m!chael]

.

[Manic!]

So who is going to try to get early election results from the east?

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by m!chael

Haha yeah I might have overstated the consensus part but I was just making fun of the fact that he was so anti-conservative and suddenly once someone posted two articles supporting the conservatives he became a bipartisan and wants people to vote for the best MLA in their area.

But I guess were just gonna have to wait and see on Monday. In all honesty, even if the conservatives don't win majority (which I want them to), I'll still be happy with the outcome because that's that the people want.

I have left leaning bias. But that's the result of growing up in a super religious upbringing. Plus I grew up in east side van.
Posted via RS Mobile

[spideyv2]

LOL I wonder how many people are gonna vote for Charles Boylan (marxist-leninist) in the Vancouver South riding

[Graeme S]

Today is the day, people. I've voted...have you?
Posted via RS Mobile

[TheNewGirl]

I have!

I went on my way to work this morning.

I'm curious about election coverage. Given I have east coast channels on my cable, will I be able to get coverage early of the election results or will that be blocked?

I know early coverage is illegal but I can't figure out how they would prevent it.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

I have!

I went on my way to work this morning.

I'm curious about election coverage. Given I have east coast channels on my cable, will I be able to get coverage early of the election results or will that be blocked?

I know early coverage is illegal but I can't figure out how they would prevent it.

Nope all east coast channels will be blacked out. So will websites and online radio. There has to be a RS member out east that can give us updates.

I just got back from voting too.