Military vote turning on the Conservatives?

[Machjo]

Ignatieff seems to have positioned himself strategically here. He's swung so far left I wonder if he might not have placed the NDP to the right of him! he's bound to attract at least a few NDP votes there. I don't know of his environmental policies yet, but have heard he's flirted with cap and trade. Heck, even the Green Party has not gone that far, merely recommending a simple gas tax. So if that's true, then he's greener than the Greens. And as for supporting our troops (a strong point of the Conservatives at least until recently where they'd really blown it by kicking our veterans to the curb), Ignatieff is now promising a GI Bill.

So, he seems redder than a dipper, greener than a green, and more committed to our troops than the Conservatives. All that's missing now is fiscal responsibility.

Without a doubt though, his policy platform, obviously an attempt to attract everything from the Greens (traditionally a much lighter shade of red than even the Liberals, even fairly comparable to the old Progressive Conservative party) all the way to the NDP (avowed socialists!), while also trying to sweep the military vote from under the Conservatives' feet.

This is a game changer. Certainly the military vote will melt quickly away from the Conservative party, the only Conservative candidates escaping unscathed being non-incumbent Conservative candidates and those that had voted against their party to vote for those cuts to veterans.

I don't believe this is a guaranteed shift to the Liberals though. I could see some libertarian Conservatives turn to the Libertarian candidate in some riding. The red-Tory vote could turn to the Green Party candidate in some ridings if they're a lighter shade of green than most Greens (besides, what many forget is that the NDP is traditionally greener than the Green Party when you consider the NDP's cap and trade). Some social conservatives could turn to the Christian Heritage Party. Where there is a Progressive Party candidate, some red Tories might turn to them too.

I could see the Conservative Party implode to the benefit of other right-leaning parties and also the Greens for some Conservatives. While the Liberal Party's shift to the left will hurt the NDP, it could very well benefit Greens in those ridings with moderate Green party candidates when we condier that the Greens are essentially wedged between the cons and the Libs on economic policy. The Liberal shift to the left will likely benefit the Greens.

In the end, i could see a Liberal coalition with one or more parties, with a number of right wing parties taking the right.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Ignatieff seems to have positioned himself strategically here. He's swung so far left I wonder if he might not have placed the NDP to the right of him! he's bound to attract at least a few NDP votes there. I don't know of his environmental policies yet, but have heard he's flirted with cap and trade. Heck, even the Green Party has not gone that far, merely recommending a simple gas tax. So if that's true, then he's greener than the Greens. And as for supporting our troops (a strong point of the Conservatives at least until recently where they'd really blown it by kicking our veterans to the curb), Ignatieff is now promising a GI Bill.

So, he seems redder than a dipper, greener than a green, and more committed to our troops than the Conservatives. All that's missing now is fiscal responsibility.

Without a doubt though, his policy platform, obviously an attempt to attract everything from the Greens (traditionally a much lighter shade of red than even the Liberals, even fairly comparable to the old Progressive Conservative party) all the way to the NDP (avowed socialists!), while also trying to sweep the military vote from under the Conservatives' feet.

This is a game changer. Certainly the military vote will melt quickly away from the Conservative party, the only Conservative candidates escaping unscathed being non-incumbent Conservative candidates and those that had voted against their party to vote for those cuts to veterans.

I don't believe this is a guaranteed shift to the Liberals though. I could see some libertarian Conservatives turn to the Libertarian candidate in some riding. The red-Tory vote could turn to the Green Party candidate in some ridings if they're a lighter shade of green than most Greens (besides, what many forget is that the NDP is traditionally greener than the Green Party when you consider the NDP's cap and trade). Some social conservatives could turn to the Christian Heritage Party. Where there is a Progressive Party candidate, some red Tories might turn to them too.

I could see the Conservative Party implode to the benefit of other right-leaning parties and also the Greens for some Conservatives. While the Liberal Party's shift to the left will hurt the NDP, it could very well benefit Greens in those ridings with moderate Green party candidates when we condier that the Greens are essentially wedged between the cons and the Libs on economic policy. The Liberal shift to the left will likely benefit the Greens.

In the end, i could see a Liberal coalition with one or more parties, with a number of right wing parties taking the right.

The Liberals are known for including the best policies of other parties, that's what made them so successful.

The conservatives on the other hand seem much more content with divide and conquer politics that leaves a scorched earth for those who follow. The separatist movement after two conservative terms in the mid 1980s early 1990s is a prime example.

 

[Machjo]

The Liberals are known for including the best policies of other parties, that's what made them so successful.

The conservatives on the other hand seem much more content with divide and conquer politics that leaves a scorched earth for those who follow. The separatist movement after two conservative terms in the mid 1980s early 1990s is a prime example.

The problem though is that Ignatieff doesn't seem to have a coherent way to balance the budget. If my local Liberal candidate is more moderate than Ignatieff, I might consider him, but he'd have to be much more moderate than Ignatieff. Ignatieff comes across like he plans to max out the national credit card.

Now of course Harper has nothing to brag about either, and as for my local candidate, he's just a Harper hack, big-government candidate himself.

But fiscal conservatism is certainly not Ignatieff's strong point, any more than Harper's.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The problem though is that Ignatieff doesn't seem to have a coherent way to balance the budget. If my local Liberal candidate is more moderate than Ignatieff, I might consider him, but he'd have to be much more moderate than Ignatieff. Ignatieff comes across like he plans to max out the national credit card.

Now of course Harper has nothing to brag about either, and as for my local candidate, he's just a Harper hack, big-government candidate himself.

But fiscal conservatism is certainly not Ignatieff's strong point, any more than Harper's.

It was the Liberals who balanced the budget in the 1990s and prevented the same kind of bank mergers that made other countries so vulnerable to the sub-prime meltdown. I think Ignatieff is more than capable of building the kind of economic stability we need.

 

[Machjo]

It was the Liberals who balanced the budget in the 1990s and prevented the same kind of bank mergers that made other countries so vulnerable to the sub-prime meltdown. I think Ignatieff is more than capable of building the kind of economic stability we need.

Remember that the Liberals of then and the Liberals of today are not necessrily the same Liberals. I'm sure there are a few fiscon Liberals scattered around the country and a few fiscon Conservatives too, and possibly even a few fiscon Dippers and Greens. In my particular riding so far at least, the Greener seems to be the best fiscon so far, though I haven't had a chance to get my local Liberal's side. But I don't think it reasonable to assume that because the Liberal party was fiscally responsible over a decade ago that all Liberals will automatically catch the fiscon bug. That would be a dangerous assumption. Definitely grill your local candidates to be sure.

 

[Omicron]

The Liberals are known for including the best policies of other parties, that's what made them so successful.

That's for sure... everyone keeps forgetting that the Liberals are fundamentally as much about business as conservatives... they just figure it's easier and cheaper to keep the sheeple happy than to threaten them with ten billion dollars worth of prisons.

The conservatives on the other hand seem much more content with divide and conquer politics that leaves a scorched earth for those who follow. The separatist movement after two conservative terms in the mid 1980s early 1990s is a prime example.

Hmm... that's true. Creation of the BQ was a direct consequence of Mulroney's badly envisioned attempts with the Meech Lake Accord.

 

[Machjo]

Hmm... that's true. Creation of the BQ was a direct consequence of Mulroney's badly envisioned attempts with the Meech Lake Accord.

I disagreed with the content of the Meech Lake Accord too, but still I admire Mulroney for having had the courage to realize that the Constitution does need a serious overhaul. At least he tried. None have dared touch the Constitution since, preferring to delay the inevitable once it's bloated beyond all control, rather than try to deal with it now while we could still save the country.

 

[Omicron]

The problem though is that Ignatieff doesn't seem to have a coherent way to balance the budget.

Oh, it's pretty straightforward.

As has been noted, Liberals are famous for cherry-picking the policies that work from other parties, so it's a case of implementing some NDP style programs with money that would have been spent on prisons and jets, but otherwise it's pretty-much stay the course except undo some unnecessary corporate tax cuts in order to be back in black in 3 years instead of 5.

Oh, and fix issue of vets with implementation of a proper GI bill.

Just that promise alone, all by itself, is worth the vote.

 

[Machjo]

If you want to raise corporate taxes and ensure that management and stockholders share the brunt of it, you'd need to introduce German or Swedish-style co-determination laws, otherwise the tax hike flows mostly down to the grassroots.

 

[Omicron]

If you want to raise corporate taxes and ensure that management and stockholders share the brunt of it, you'd need to introduce German or Swedish-style co-determination laws, otherwise the tax hike flows mostly down to the grassroots.

Indeed.

But should someone be accused of "raising corporate taxes" if all they do is undo a cut that's only a few months old?

Crumb, the cut won't have been in place long enough to affect anyone's quarterly filings.

 

[Goober]

It was the Liberals who balanced the budget in the 1990s and prevented the same kind of bank mergers that made other countries so vulnerable to the sub-prime meltdown. I think Ignatieff is more than capable of building the kind of economic stability we need.

And it was the Libs in 2005 that were going to loosen the rules on those self same banks - US style rules. Check it out - Fact
The budget was balanced in 97 - yest No increase in Med School for Docs - Hence the shortage of MD's
1/2 billion to cancel choppers they later bought - The budget can easily be balanced when you slash, burn and throw the low income to the wolves. And on and on:canada:. .

 

[Omicron]

And it was the Libs in 2005 that were going to loosen the rules on those self same banks - US style rules. Check it out - Fact
The budget was balanced in 97 - yest No increase in Med School for Docs - Hence the shortage of MD's
1/2 billion to cancel choppers they later bought - The budget can easily be balanced when you slash, burn and throw the low income to the wolves. And on and on:canada:. .

Hmm... you know... I just wish people prejudiced against Green would actually read their financial policy papers.

I bet a lot of conservatives would be blown away by how moderate and controlled the Greens are about that.

I think the problem is, when Green's talk about their financial policies, they use that word "Sustainable" which they also use to talk about the environment, which people instantly translate to mean hippie tree huggers.

I know a chap running as a Green candidate, and he's financially as conservative as they get, having graduated from the London School of Economics.

He's totally into investing. When he was a kid he started a bank and took deposits from his friends. His main issue is he hates bubbles, because he says they end up reducing the net size of the economy after they've popped. He says every time a bubble pops, the pie shrinks. He doesn't even think about the environment very much, other than his issue about how it would cost $36 trillion per year to do the water-cleaning that coastal wetlands do, which are being demolished.

When he talks about investing, the only public personality I've heard sound like him is Warren Buffet, who is *very* long term in his investments. Warren Buffet may not be aware of it, but he invests green. You know how Buffet spent $46 billion to take over a huge chunk of railroading in the US? In fact railroads are the most ecologically least-damaging way to transport as long as you're not pulling the train with a steam-and-coal locomotive, and it's what we're going to fall back on once cheep oil stops, so, there you go... a good business investment that's green.

Maybe what's not generally known is that the Green party platform has planks, just like other parties.

There are red-Torries, and there are some *very* blue-Greens.

 

[Machjo]

There are red-Torries, and there are some *very* blue-Greens.

You're absolutely right. That's why you need to look at the candidate, not the party. The Green candidate in my riding makes our local Conservative incumbent look like a big spender. But again, the Green and Conservative candidates in another riding might be different.

 

[earth_as_one]

I was going to hold my nose and vote Liberal this election but after Ignatief announced a Canadian version of the US GI bill now I can happily vote Liberal.

Supporting the troops means more than just empty words but endless demands on some of the most highly motivated and civicly minded individuals in our society. If you look at the US after WW II it was the large amounts of vets who went to college, got degrees and went on to help build some of the strongest preforming companies of the last half century that made America the success it was.

Supporting the troops just means putting a bumper sticker on your car that says so. Cutting their retirement benefits is also supporting the troops according the Reformacons. Our Vets risk their lives for Canada and Canadians so that they can live out their life in abject poverty. Its called character building. sarcasm intended...

I support a Canadian Forces Bill of Rights. Canadian Veterans should have preferential access to education and employment opportunities. Vets should also have preferential access to medicare.

BTW, Tommy Douglas was fiscally conservative. Its a myth that NDP are fiscally irresponsible and Conservatives are better at controlling spending. Bush Jr. raised spending and cut taxes at the same time. The 2008 economic collapse happened on his watch...

 

[Machjo]

Supporting the troops just means putting a bumper sticker on your car that says so. Cutting their retirement benefits is also supporting the troops according the Reformacons. Our Vets risk their lives for Canada and Canadians so that they can live out their life in abject poverty. Its called character building. sarcasm intended...

I support a Canadian Forces Bill of Rights. Canadian Veterans should have preferential access to education and employment opportunities. Vets should also have preferential access to medicare.

BTW, Tommy Douglas was fiscally conservative. Its a myth that NDP are fiscally irresponsible and Conservatives are better at controlling spending. Bush Jr. raised spending and cut taxes at the same time. The 2008 economic collapse happened on his watch...

Fiscal conservatism is not particularly ideological really. A socialist party running on tax increases and making spending increases conditional on paying off the debt is far more fiscon than a conservative party that promises tax cuts without cutting spending or cutting it in all the wrong places.

I like the Swedish model too, which many incorrectly call 'socialist' when in reality it's more of a liberal-corporatist or social-corporatist system, whereby its main focus on democratization of the economy (codetermination laws and such for example, which do not affect govrnment revenue at all).

Actually what's interesting about the Swedish system is that there is in fact no legally mandated minimum wage and in fact never has been, but co-determination legislation ensures that during recessions labour can negotiate fair wage reductions with management requiring management to take wage reductions too. In Canada in bad recessions that's not possible since:

1. Workers have no representation on the board of directors, and
2. We have a legally mandated minimum wage not allowing companies to negotiate wage reductions if necessary.

Ironic, seeing that Sweden is often hailed as a 'socialist' model by many on the left. But again, strictly speaking it's a corporatist state, not a socialist one. And I'm not using 'corporatist' in a negative sence, but rather in reference to the economic ssytem of the same name.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I support a Canadian Forces Bill of Rights. Canadian Veterans should have preferential access to education and employment opportunities. Vets should also have preferential access to medicare.

Sorry. As much as I want a service vet to get the treatment they desrve in the way of proper healthcare and pensions I cannot agree to an idea of 'preferential access' to anything for anyone.

Right after your idea was introduced there would be a line up of public servants and other special interest groups asking for similar benefits and before you knew it anyone who didn't serve in the military or public sector would be forever uneducated and unemployed.

Canda is a great country because we believe in equality, not giving anyone a free ride to a job or moving them up the line to school.

 

[earth_as_one]

I mean served in a conflict, not sat behind a desk. Even for the military. A vet means they served in a war zone.

You could join the military too and get the same perk. So this doesn't introduce any inequality.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I mean served in a conflict, not sat behind a desk. Even for the military. A vet means they served in a war zone.

You could join the military too and get the same perk. So this doesn't introduce any inequality.

I did my service a long time ago.
Any 'preferential' treatment is introducing inequality. Why should somebody, even if they have been shot at, get bumped ahead of another qualified applicant, who may have been on a wait list already, for a placement in school or hired ahead of a better qualified candidate for a job. What you suggest may increase the amount of applications to join the forces but will seriously discriminate against anyone who doesn't. If you really stop and think about the ramifications of what you suggest it is farcical.

 

[Omicron]

In and around Vancouver there's scores of ex-servicemen who are homeless on the streets or living up in the mountains. They were given no orientation, no safe-house to bunk up in while they get their bearings strait... nothing.

Well, when the troops come back from Afghanistan, half of them are going to be snapped.

Not just because they've "seen the elephant", but because this will be the first time Canadian troops got caught in a meaningless war.

Up until now, Canada's had a perfect track record. It's never lost a war to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and nothing messes up a mind worse than wondering what the hell the carnage was about.

I don't care what they do and I don't care how they do it, but I'm voting for the frikkin' Rhinoceros party if it comes up with the best GI Bill.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Remember that the Liberals of then and the Liberals of today are not necessrily the same Liberals. I'm sure there are a few fiscon Liberals scattered around the country and a few fiscon Conservatives too, and possibly even a few fiscon Dippers and Greens. In my particular riding so far at least, the Greener seems to be the best fiscon so far, though I haven't had a chance to get my local Liberal's side. But I don't think it reasonable to assume that because the Liberal party was fiscally responsible over a decade ago that all Liberals will automatically catch the fiscon bug. That would be a dangerous assumption. Definitely grill your local candidates to be sure.

It's true there's no guarentee in politics and we could get a lemon with the Liberals but I don't buy into the conservative myth that they're responsible for the economic turnaround of Canada and we need to stick with them for stability. It was long term Liberal foresight that provided much of the protection Canada enjoyed during the financial crash and we need the much wider worldview of people like Ignatieff to lead us out of what is in reality a very serious long term problem.