Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[SirJosephPorter]

The Liberals and Conservatives are not exactly neck and neck. If both parties get an equal share of the undecided vote, the Liberals would win a majority. The following is the latest Nanos poll:

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Committed Voters - Canada (N=879, MoE ± 3.3%, 19 times out of 20)

Liberal Party 37% (+1)
Conservative Party 32% (-1)
NDP 16% (+1)
BQ 8% (-1)
Green Party 7% (NC)
(*Note: Undecided 12%)[/FONT]

Juan, Nanos has the reputation as being the most reliable in predicting election results (they predicted Paul Martin minority when conservatives had just about started celebrating victory).

I had not seen that poll; the one I saw was Lib:Con 33:31 Nanos poll certainly looks better for Liberals.

The point is, Conservatives are toast in Quebec (and Liberals have made big strides in Quebec). So can Harper persuade enough Ontarians to vote for him and give him a minority? We will have to wait and see. But Ontario has always been suspicions of Harper, and Harper may have a daunting task ahead of him.

 

[taxslave]

Enough is enough the Conservative government has outlived their usefulness in leading this country.

Today on CTV Question Period the two hosts will get the news and off we go.

This election will be different from previous years and this election people will have a simple choice.

Do Canadians want to elect a bumbling government for a third time or will they elect a government that wants to fix the problems and plan for the future.

The campaign bus is fueled and ready to go.

It is time for a change.

I don't have any love for Harper but if the Liberals force another election on us before 2012 I will vote for the Conservatives. Besides which the Liberals still have to find a leader. He/she must have some business experience, be able to speak English and been West of Toronto at least once in their lifetime.

 

[#juan]

IF everything went the Liberals' way. It would depend very much how that undecided vote is spread amongst the ridings. I would guess that a majority of the undecideds probably won't vote. Liberals should have the edge solely because Harper isn't doing much to pull us out of the recession (but that's because a P.M. has very little power in that regard)

At the time of that poll, the Liberals were looking at 37 percent. The undecided represented 12 percent. If the liberals got only forty percent of the undecided vote they would be in majority territory. At the moment I won't make any bets.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyway, if conservative lose power without getting even one majority, that will be truly pathetic. Liberals got three majorities and a minority, I would think Conservatives would get at least one majority.

In fact that was the main reason why none of the big name candidates (McKenna, Manley etc.) ran for Liberal leadership (when Dion won the leadership). Liberals had just lost power, Messiah had got a minority. They figured there will be two years of minority government and then four year of Con majority government. Then if Liberals win after that, the candidate will have to commit himself to serving at least one four year term.

That would mean a commitment for at least ten years. Many of them were not willing to do that. But they evidently overestimated the Conservative chances of getting a majority.

Contrast this with the last time. After a prolonged Liberal rule (Trudeau and Turner), Mulroney managed to get two back to back majorities. If this time Messiah cannot manage even one, that really will be an indication of how far out of touch with Canadians the Conservative party actually is.

 

[#juan]

I don't have any love for Harper but if the Liberals force another election on us before 2012 I will vote for the Conservatives. Besides which the Liberals still have to find a leader. He/she must have some business experience, be able to speak English and been West of Toronto at least once in their lifetime.

Most Liberal would disagree with you. Business experience didn't seem to help Flaherty. Ignatieff speaks English, French, and Russian fluently. The Conservatives have a leader who has only managed a couple minority governments and he won't even have that this time around.

 

[captain morgan]

Juan,

Your sole focus appears to rest on some form of negative (relative to the cons) that is convenient at the time... Rather than beat this drum about why to not support Harper, perhaps you can provide tangible reasons why someone should support Ignatieff.

As far as I can tell, all he represents is fluency in a few languages (only 1 of which is 'official' in Canada) and having taught in some international locations... He has lived out of Canada for over 3 decades, I believe that it's fair to state that he doesn't have a clue about what's happening (and has happened) in Canada over that time.

Certainly that is not the resume of a person that you wish to lead your nation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Most Liberal would disagree with you. Business experience didn't seem to help Flaherty.

That is an understatement, Juan. Wherever Flaherty stepped in, he caused utter destruction. He was finance minister under Mike Harris, here in Ontario. He steered the economy into a ditch, put it into a huge hole (6 billion $ deficit, which conservatives falsely claimed to be 2 billion during the election campaign)

His lot was booted out of Toronto, but like a bad penny surfaced again in Ottawa. Here he outdid himself, from 6 billion $ deficit, he went to 50 billion $ deficit, the biggest ever in the history of Canada (he outdid Trudeau and Mulroney, which must have taken some doing).

Now to be fair, it was not totally his fault, there is a word recession going on, thanks to Bush. However, Flaherty does deserve some blame, for frittering away the Liberal surplus, wasting it into tax cuts mainly benefiting the rich. If Flaherty had kept on with Liberal tradition of running healthy surplus, the deficit today may be a lot less than 50 billion $.

But somehow conservatism seems to be synonymous with huge deficits, there have been so many examples. Mulroney, Reagan, 1st Bush, 2nd Bush, Mike Harris, now the Messiah.

 

[#juan]

From what I've heard, Iggy stated that both a carbon tax and a GST hike were not out of the question.

It's no secret that I am not a fan of tax increases, but increasing a person's overall cost of living via GST and a increase through the carbon tax will be disastrous. The timing on this one is extraordinarily bad.

Our debt is piling up at a rate we haven't seen before and even Harper doesn't know how high it will get. A tax increase has been guaranteed by Flaherty. A hike in GST is the next obvious choice. Has Flaherty's insane spending helped employ people? The unemployed are over 9 percent and growing. God help us.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your sole focus appears to rest on some form of negative (relative to the cons) that is convenient at the time... Rather than beat this drum about why to not support Harper, perhaps you can provide tangible reasons why someone should support Ignatieff.

That is the reality, Captain, people vote for or against the government, it is rare that people will vote for or against the opposition. Thus Harper won his first election because people were fed up with Liberal scandals and in general got bored with Liberals (hardly surprising, after being in power for13 years) and not because they particularly liked Harper.

So Cons won the first election because people voted against the government of the day (Liberals). After that, it was up to Harper to give Canadians a positive reason to vote for him. Canadians will not keep voting for him just because he says that the alternative is worse.

It is the government’s task to give people a positive reason to vote for it, not the opposition’s task. So far Harper has failed miserably in giving people a reason to vote for him.

 

[Colpy]

Your sole focus appears to rest on some form of negative (relative to the cons) that is convenient at the time... Rather than beat this drum about why to not support Harper, perhaps you can provide tangible reasons why someone should support Ignatieff.

That is the reality, Captain, people vote for or against the government, it is rare that people will vote for or against the opposition. Thus Harper won his first election because people were fed up with Liberal scandals and in general got bored with Liberals (hardly surprising, after being in power for13 years) and not because they particularly liked Harper.

So Cons won the first election because people voted against the government of the day (Liberals). After that, it was up to Harper to give Canadians a positive reason to vote for him. Canadians will not keep voting for him just because he says that the alternative is worse.

It is the government’s task to give people a positive reason to vote for it, not the opposition’s task. So far Harper has failed miserably in giving people a reason to vote for him.

and Iggy has failed miserably in giving the people a reason to vote for him........

 

[Machjo]

Enough is enough the Conservative government has outlived their usefulness in leading this country.

Has any party been useful in achieving anything other than division? It's the MPs, not the parties, that pass the laws. The parties are but composites of their MPs.

 

[Machjo]

As scary as it may seem I think I'd rather take my chances with Harper than Ignatieff. Ignatieff isn't going to get us out of the recession- probably just borrow his way deeper into it.

I can't take my chances with either of them; neithr is in my riding. I hope I have a good candidate to choose from though, one who'll be at least somewhat independent from bowing to the party.

 

[Machjo]

Liberalman

People will receive three(3) Red Books full of promises which includes scraping of the GST , right?

We're in debt now and we're going to scrap the GST? Any party willing to reduce taxes while putting us into debt is likely to win votes, unfortunately. After all, taxes go down, government jobs go up, and the national debt can just be left for the future generation. Don't you love it when an MP only needs to think about what's best for Canada's short term in the next four years? When I go to the poll, I want a candidate who's looking at the next 70 years at least.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A hike in GST is the next obvious choice. Has Flaherty's insane spending helped employ people?

Precisely Juan, I have always thought that GST decrease was a nutty idea, for two reasons. One, it disproportionately benefits the rich (as a result of 1% GST cut, the rich billionaire playboy who buys a 100,000 $ Rolls saves 1000 dollars, while a single mother working for minimum wage and who spends most of her income on food, rent and other essentials saves squat).

The other is that it involves expenditure on the part of businesses, they have to reprogram their machines, cash registers etc. In my opinion, an income tax cut is much fairer. Not that even that was called for, Harper basically frittered away all the surplus on ideological tax cuts.

But somehow I don’t think Harper will increase GST. That will mean admitting that he made a mistake, no politician likes to do that. My guess is that he will continue to run bigger and bigger deficits and debt, rather than increase taxes. It is only the Liberals who have the guts to increase taxes when the situation warrants it. Conservatives would much rather rack up huge deficits than increase taxes.

 

[L Gilbert]

Has any party been useful in achieving anything other than division? It's the MPs, not the parties, that pass the laws. The parties are but composites of their MPs.

Waste of time explaining this to the guy. He's not a very discerning person. All he sees is liberal red and the rest is black.

 

[L Gilbert]

I can't take my chances with either of them; neithr is in my riding. I hope I have a good candidate to choose from though, one who'll be at least somewhat independent from bowing to the party.

Indies are my choice here, too. The Green here isn't too bad, though. Outside oi the Indie and the Green, prospects are dismal. The Liberal dood can't figure out which party to run for (he's flipflopped 4 times. He should run for Indie, IMO, but he'd be a dud there, too judging from the flipflopping) and the Con is a glib jerk of a local lawyer who couldn't take anything seriously and the Dipper isn't a bad dood but not too bright. A$$uming the rest of the ridings were like this one, it's no wonder we end up with clowns or crooks in the PMO.

 

[Machjo]

Indies are my choice here, too. The Green here isn't too bad, though. Outside oi the Indie and the Green, prospects are dismal. The Liberal dood can't figure out which party to run for (he's flipflopped 4 times. He should run for Indie, IMO, but he'd be a dud there, too judging from the flipflopping) and the Con is a glib jerk of a local lawyer who couldn't take anything seriously and the Dipper isn't a bad dood but not too bright. A$$uming the rest of the ridings were like this one, it's no wonder we end up with clowns or crooks in the PMO.

But the fault isn't theirs; it's ours. Some people will vote for a candidate just because he belongs to the party their parents voted for. Others will vote for a complete idiot just because they like his party leader. After all, the ony ones who get to vote for the leader are the ones in his riding; and just because the leader is smart, it doesn't mean his candidate is.

So if we end up with smart leaders and a bunch of ignorant party hacks following him, that makes for a mighty powerful leader whose riding then has hundreds of MP looking out for ti interests, and other ridings with no real representation. But again, in the ned it's not their faut, it's ours.

 

[L Gilbert]

A hike in GST is the next obvious choice. Has Flaherty's insane spending helped employ people?

Precisely Juan, I have always thought that GST decrease was a nutty idea, for two reasons. One, it disproportionately benefits the rich (as a result of 1% GST cut, the rich billionaire playboy who buys a 100,000 $ Rolls saves 1000 dollars, while a single mother working for minimum wage and who spends most of her income on food, rent and other essentials saves squat).

To the rich dood, $1K isn't much. A single mother working 1 minimum wage job can't afford squat and ANY extra money is gold. You really are pretty thick.
BTW, any Rolls one can buy for $100K is likely 30 years old. Unless they collect cars, the rich prefer something newer.
Besides that, you sure have a thing against women. To you its always the male with the better circumstances. Male doctors & female nurses. Rich doods & poor single mothers, etc.

The other is that it involves expenditure on the part of businesses, they have to reprogram their machines, cash registers etc. In my opinion, an income tax cut is much fairer. Not that even that was called for, Harper basically frittered away all the surplus on ideological tax cuts.

My wife says to change the tax %age in her till, it took 3 whole key punches. Yeah, that's a toughie. She said less than a mnute. Any decent spreadsheets for accounting automatically adjust figures when you change one.

But somehow I don’t think Harper will increase GST. That will mean admitting that he made a mistake, no politician likes to do that. My guess is that he will continue to run bigger and bigger deficits and debt, rather than increase taxes. It is only the Liberals who have the guts to increase taxes when the situation warrants it. Conservatives would much rather rack up huge deficits than increase taxes.

Liberals increase taxes at ANY time. And they are just as unlikely to undo something once they've done it as the Cons are. Get a grip.

 

[#juan]

and Iggy has failed miserably in giving the people a reason to vote for him........

I don't know what you call a failure. From yesterday's Nanos poll, Micheal Ignatieff has a growing lead over Harper at 37 percent to 32 percent. Harper had won a minority government last election and this time he won't even get that Who is failing here? The next Nanos poll will be out next week. What do you bet the Liberals will be even higher. Remember, anything over forty one percent is majority territory.

 

[L Gilbert]

But the fault isn't theirs; it's ours. Some people will vote for a candidate just because he belongs to the party their parents voted for. Others will vote for a complete idiot just because they like his party leader. After all, the ony ones who get to vote for the leader are the ones in his riding; and just because the leader is smart, it doesn't mean his candidate is.

It is partly our fault. Once every 4 or 5 years we get to have a say in gov't and we blow it. The rest of the time, it's the duds and culls running the gov't. A better electoral system might fix it, a different system (I like the Swiss style gov't) would PROBABLY fix it, something other than this idiotic fptp disaster we've got. Did you ever notice that not all people in Canada are equal, electorally? A PEIer has a much larger say than some dood in BC or ON. Someone from Yukon has more say than some lady in Kebec. And so on.

So if we end up with smart leaders and a bunch of ignorant party hacks following him, that makes for a mighty powerful leader whose riding then has hundreds of MP looking out for ti interests, and other ridings with no real representation. But again, in the ned it's not their faut, it's ours.

As I said, you are partially right.