You are right about the regions. There is no way to satisfy BC, while at the same time satisfying the Maritimes. No way to satisfy Alberta while satisfying Ontario, etc.
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
You are right about the regions. There is no way to satisfy BC, while at the same time satisfying the Maritimes. No way to satisfy Alberta while satisfying Ontario, etc.
So the majority of your liberal friends do not like Conservatives. I am speechless. BTW, how do you have no party affiliation with that avatar??
A couple of points. First of all, the single mother gets back the GST she spends, so she does not save anything because she does not actually pay anything in the end. As far as surpluses go, yes there were surpluses, and Harper kept them going, until the recession hit. At that time, Iggy and Smilin Jack insisted on massive stimulus spending, mostly to help the Easter auto workers. Yes, this caused a deficit. If Harper had not made the stimulus spending, there would have been no deficit, but we would also have been in another election last January. Some choice. But the main point is that for Iggy to blame Harper is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.
But what has changed is that the economic engine in Canada has switched to Western Canada, and the country has basically operated on the profits of the West for the past several years. Surely we should have some say in how our money is spent, instead of having a separatist party in Quebec decide how to spend tax money that should be for all Canada. For example, for years, Alberta would send in anywhere from $10million to $20million in excess funds over transfer payments, and the surplus would be, gee, about the same. Yet our votes out west mean absolutely nothing about the makeup of the country, when it gets right down to it. That underlying problem is one reason why the issue of western separation is always just under the surface. God forbid a Lieberal majority, cause then it will be well above the surface.
Your votes should mean as much as mine. 1 person = 1 vote. How much money you have should NEVER enter the equation. The day a rich person's votes counts more than a poor person's is the day democracy dies.
BTW - the West accounts for 30% of the population of Canada, and 30% of the seats in the HoC.
Also - I enjoyed your last sentance. Please tell me how that is any different from what Quebec seperatists threaten.
The idea that the Western provinces should have greater House of Commons representation is absurd (as stated by me, a citizen of British Columbia. The House of Commons is based on representation by population—the higher the population of a province, the more Commons seats are held.
- Manitoba has 3.7 % of the population and 4.5 % of Commons seats.
- British Columbia has 13.3 % of the population and 11.7 % of Commons seats.
- Alberta has 10.9 % of the population and 9.1 % of Commons seats.
- Saskatchewan has 3.1 % of the population and 4.5 % of Commons seats.
Quite right, FP. and the numbers are close to the correct proportion for Ontario as well.
A couple of points. First of all, the single mother gets back the GST she spends, so she does not save anything because she does not actually pay anything in the end.
Quite so, AlbertaBlue, But the GST cut did not benefit the single mother one bit (she was already getting the GST credit), while it benefited the rich playboy to the extent of several thousand dollars.
As far as surpluses go, yes there were surpluses, and Harper kept them going, until the recession hit.
No, I don’t think so. They were gone long before the recession hit Canada. The surplus was gone in a pretty short order. I remember Harper even went into deficit for one month (but slipped back into a modest surplus the next month). The 10 billion dollars surplus was reduced to 1 or 2 billion before the recession.
If Harper had not made the stimulus spending, there would have been no deficit, but we would also have been in another election last January. Some choice.
Well, if Harper was adamantly opposed to deficit, he would have risked another election, wouldn’t he? Harper running deficit only tells me that he regards staying in office more important that any principles (not that I blame him for that, that is what a typical politician does).
But the main point is that for Iggy to blame Harper is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.
It is neither disingenuous nor a lie, AlbertaBlue, it is politics. In his place, Harper would have done the same thing.
Quite so, AlbertaBlue, But the GST cut did not benefit the single mother one bit (she was already getting the GST credit), while it benefited the rich playboy to the extent of several thousand dollars.
As far as surpluses go, yes there were surpluses, and Harper kept them going, until the recession hit.
No, I don’t think so. They were gone long before the recession hit Canada. The surplus was gone in a pretty short order. I remember Harper even went into deficit for one month (but slipped back into a modest surplus the next month). The 10 billion dollars surplus was reduced to 1 or 2 billion before the recession.
If Harper had not made the stimulus spending, there would have been no deficit, but we would also have been in another election last January. Some choice.
Well, if Harper was adamantly opposed to deficit, he would have risked another election, wouldn’t he? Harper running deficit only tells me that he regards staying in office more important that any principles (not that I blame him for that, that is what a typical politician does).
But the main point is that for Iggy to blame Harper is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.
It is neither disingenuous nor a lie, AlbertaBlue, it is politics. In his place, Harper would have done the same thing.
That underlying problem is one reason why the issue of western separation is always just under the surface. God forbid a Liberal majority, cause then it will be well above the surface.
Separation is not that simple AlbertaBlue, Quebec has been trying to separate for several decades now. Over at Canada.com forum, we had quite a lively debate about Alberta separation, lasting for a few months (several thousand posts), where I got into discussion with several separatists (or were you there under a different name?). I pointed out to them the many obstacles to separation.
[FONT="]Now I don’t want to turn this into a thread about separation (post a new thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you). Suffice it to say that separation is easier said than done[/FONT]
Separation is not that simple AlbertaBlue, Quebec has been trying to separate for several decades now. Over at Canada.com forum, we had quite a lively debate about Alberta separation, lasting for a few months (several thousand posts), where I got into discussion with several separatists (or were you there under a different name?). I pointed out to them the many obstacles to separation.
[FONT="]Now I don’t want to turn this into a thread about separation (post a new thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you). Suffice it to say that separation is easier said than done[/FONT]
Perhaps your colon is interfering with your view. I for one have seen lots of negative comments about the Cons from AnnaG.
The Easter Bunny has abandoned the auto industry in favour of motorcycles...with the price of gas and all it was only a matter of time.
Why do all four western provinces get lumped together. I think Saskatistan and Manitoba should get fewer seats and Alberta and BC should get more. I know that the Libs and Dippers would suffer but we either have rep by pop or we don't. Those that favour the unfair status quo always lump the west together in a feeble attempt to make the numbers look better.
No they haven't. There is a difference between trying to separate and threatening to separate.
I think they get lumped together, mostly because "Westerners" lump them together, when it suits their purposes.
Its a trap "Easterners" fall into to. When Albertans cry Western Alienation, they mean Alberta.
Personally, I agree with you - Alberta and BC should have more seats, and Sask. and Man. should have less.
Quite right, pegger. As a rule Ontarians don’t lump the four provinces together. In fact, the four provinces are totally different from each other. The Maritime provinces are much more homogeneous.
Actually, I find Westerns tend to do more often than Easterners. And when I say Westerners, I mean Saskatchewanites and Manitobans. Having grown up in Manitoba I always felt that way - till I lived in Alberta, and found what many Albertan thought of the Eastern Prairies....
This morning the new Ipsos poll gives the Cons a 39% to 30% lead over the Libs.
Three or four polls this week confirm the Cons are incrementally gaining or at the very least holding ground.
Anything over 40% gives Harper a serious shot at a majority in an election.
Count Iggy has refused to vote alongside Harpo and the Cons for the foreseeable future.
So the Liberal trained seal show now draws to a close.
However it means Liberal MP's must now vote against bills that both they and their constituents may support.
Like the Conservative home renovation credit bill that has not, as yet, passed.
Only Taliban Jack is left to prop up Harpo's minority government.
If an election is held in the very near future the winners look like the BQ and the Cons.
Thus the losers would probably be the Dips and the Libs.
So Jack is probably more than willing to hop into bed with Uncle Stevie.
Gives Iggy a bit of a breather I suppose.
You just have to wonder what Count Iggy's master plan is?
Get it over and done with so he can either grab the sceptre, or chuck in his hand and head back the ivy covered halls of Harvard and his estate in the south of France?
And where does Bob Rae fit into all this?
Et to Brutus?
I figure Bob badly wants Iggy to run and loose.
Then he may get a chance at the wheel.
And try to cut a deal consisting of a permanent alliance between the Libs and the Dippers.
Whats best for Canada and Canadians in general does not really seem to be any kind of concern for the opposition parties.
It seems to be more of a "It's all about me" kind of thing.
With the exception of Duceppe.
He gets full marks for sticking to his guns and working hard to advance the interests of the Québecois.
Trex
Three or four polls this week confirm the Cons are incrementally gaining or at the very least holding ground.
Anything over 40% gives Harper a serious shot at a majority in an election.
Count Iggy has refused to vote alongside Harpo and the Cons for the foreseeable future.
So the Liberal trained seal show now draws to a close.
However it means Liberal MP's must now vote against bills that both they and their constituents may support.
Like the Conservative home renovation credit bill that has not, as yet, passed.
Only Taliban Jack is left to prop up Harpo's minority government.
If an election is held in the very near future the winners look like the BQ and the Cons.
Thus the losers would probably be the Dips and the Libs.
So Jack is probably more than willing to hop into bed with Uncle Stevie.
Gives Iggy a bit of a breather I suppose.
You just have to wonder what Count Iggy's master plan is?
Get it over and done with so he can either grab the sceptre, or chuck in his hand and head back the ivy covered halls of Harvard and his estate in the south of France?
And where does Bob Rae fit into all this?
Et to Brutus?
I figure Bob badly wants Iggy to run and loose.
Then he may get a chance at the wheel.
And try to cut a deal consisting of a permanent alliance between the Libs and the Dippers.
Whats best for Canada and Canadians in general does not really seem to be any kind of concern for the opposition parties.
It seems to be more of a "It's all about me" kind of thing.
With the exception of Duceppe.
He gets full marks for sticking to his guns and working hard to advance the interests of the Québecois.
Trex
I think you're over-simplifying Iggy's options.
Iggy could still vote to support the motion - and table a non-confidence vote on the "opposition day."
What iggy has done is
1) Forced Layton to stop his childish antic of voting against everything, and then blaming the Liberals. Since the Liberals are now prepared to vote against the Conservatives, the safety blanket that Jack has used for the last 4 years is gone. This effectively neuters the whole "Liberals are impotent" line that Jack has been using every time the Liberals voted in support of the government
2)Forces Harper to actually do something worthwhile, instead of purely partisan. Notice, once the threat of an election comes out - BANG - EI reforms. Go figure, eh?
3) If Harper, Layton, etc... jump on the "bash the liberals for being cowards, or being weak," Iggy can use that to show that he is not the one pushing for an election - but that Harper is.
4) If Layton DOES vote with Harper - all talk of the Liberals getting into bed with the socialists is dead.
Looks to me like Iggy can kill a lot of the negative talking points about the Liberals with this grandstanding. The only downfall is the whole "Oh - there goes the Liberals, talking tough, but caving when it comes down to it." However, as I said, I think that would play into Iggy's hand, in revealing that it's the Cons that don't want the government to work.
Plus, keep in mind, Iggy doesn't need to do anything, except increase his seat count to be deemed successful.
Don't get me wrong - I still want an election. But that's just me.
Iggy could still vote to support the motion - and table a non-confidence vote on the "opposition day."
What iggy has done is
1) Forced Layton to stop his childish antic of voting against everything, and then blaming the Liberals. Since the Liberals are now prepared to vote against the Conservatives, the safety blanket that Jack has used for the last 4 years is gone. This effectively neuters the whole "Liberals are impotent" line that Jack has been using every time the Liberals voted in support of the government
2)Forces Harper to actually do something worthwhile, instead of purely partisan. Notice, once the threat of an election comes out - BANG - EI reforms. Go figure, eh?
3) If Harper, Layton, etc... jump on the "bash the liberals for being cowards, or being weak," Iggy can use that to show that he is not the one pushing for an election - but that Harper is.
4) If Layton DOES vote with Harper - all talk of the Liberals getting into bed with the socialists is dead.
Looks to me like Iggy can kill a lot of the negative talking points about the Liberals with this grandstanding. The only downfall is the whole "Oh - there goes the Liberals, talking tough, but caving when it comes down to it." However, as I said, I think that would play into Iggy's hand, in revealing that it's the Cons that don't want the government to work.
Plus, keep in mind, Iggy doesn't need to do anything, except increase his seat count to be deemed successful.
Don't get me wrong - I still want an election. But that's just me.
Well, I pretty much agree with what you are saying.
But it really doesnt change my opinions in my previous post.
Repeat polling and focus group testing for the Libs has shown that even if the Bloq and the Dippers vote against a non-confidence bill the general public is still going to blame Iggy and the Libs for forcing the election.
So the Dippers and the BQ get a free ride.
And Iggy holds the bag for an election no matter what.
So I see it as a pretty risky move for the Libs to vote against all bills.
But I agree that all Iggy has to do is win a couple of seats and it's a victory (for him if not the party).
If Harpo swung a majority however Iggy would be flushed quicker than a used Kleenex.
Maybe Iggy just wants to roll the dice?
Get it over and done with.
Like you, I too, would like to see an election.
But the vast majority of Canadians would not.
Trex
Taliban Jack
Definition
Jack Layton got the derogatory label because NDP policies regarding Afghanistan were a clear alternative to Conservative and Liberal policies. Most Canadians are now coming to the conclusion that Jack Layton and NDP policies regarding Afghanistan were right all along. Its not Layton's fault that its taken Canadians so long to realize that Liberal and Conservative policies regarding Iraq were ill advised and poorly conceived. Formulating a policy years before it becomes popular is a sign of a leader and a political party with clear vision.
Layton and the NDP may not agree with the direction of the Liberals and Conservatives regarding Afghan mission, but that hardly makes him unsupportive of Canadian soldiers. The NDP supports Canada's armed forces where it counts and if given a chance would do more than pay lip service to the concept of "supporting the troops".
Here is the NDP policy regarding Canada's Armed Forces. Judge for yourself whether the NDP is sympathetic to our adversaries in Afghanistan:
If you want to debate the merits of one political party versus another then avoid derogatory labels and focus on the facts and policies. Otherwise you are just slinging mud and not actually debating the issues.
Definition
Considering that the many Conservatives share similar viewpoints with the Taliban regarding the death penalty, abortion, separation of church and state, homosexuality... the term "Taliban Jack" is pretty hypocritical.
Jack Layton got the derogatory label because NDP policies regarding Afghanistan were a clear alternative to Conservative and Liberal policies. Most Canadians are now coming to the conclusion that Jack Layton and NDP policies regarding Afghanistan were right all along. Its not Layton's fault that its taken Canadians so long to realize that Liberal and Conservative policies regarding Iraq were ill advised and poorly conceived. Formulating a policy years before it becomes popular is a sign of a leader and a political party with clear vision.
Layton and the NDP may not agree with the direction of the Liberals and Conservatives regarding Afghan mission, but that hardly makes him unsupportive of Canadian soldiers. The NDP supports Canada's armed forces where it counts and if given a chance would do more than pay lip service to the concept of "supporting the troops".
Here is the NDP policy regarding Canada's Armed Forces. Judge for yourself whether the NDP is sympathetic to our adversaries in Afghanistan:
If you want to debate the merits of one political party versus another then avoid derogatory labels and focus on the facts and policies. Otherwise you are just slinging mud and not actually debating the issues.
Last edited: