well it was E-night last night. very eventful as usual. some upsets (NDP win in Edmonton, beating out longtime Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer), some no-surprises : Michael Fortier failing to win his riding, Elizabeth May falling to Mackay, and Harper collecting a whopping 72 percent of the vote in his riding.
Hats off to May, she really did come close. David Orchard, running for the first time as a Liberal in the northernmost Saskatchewan riding of Desnethe-Misinippi, made a good showing.
Now the fun begins though. The Conservatives have another minority. Yet, no two parties can combine their votes to vote them down (it would take all three: the Grits, the Bloc and the NDP).
Harper has some controversial bills he'd like to put into motion. Among them cuts to arts funding and treating 14 year old young offenders as adults under the Criminal Code.
So. The Conservatives will lay their proposals on the table. The other parties may or may not support them. If they don't support the motions then essentially there would be a "vote of non-confidence". By convention, the leading party would then have to call an election.
Yet Canadians don't want another election. We've already had three in a little over four years. So what do they do? Do they support Harper's policies?
Harper in his "victory" speech called on the other parties to "set partisan politics aside" and work together for the benefit of Canadians. The trouble is, Harper and the Conservatives are so ideologically different from the other parties. Does he expect the Bloc to support the Conservative party motion to treat 14 / 16 year olds as adults in court? Does he expect the NDP to accept major corporate tax cuts? I don't really see how this is going to work.
We'll wait and see.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
election 2008
i had a thought.
mr. harper has not been campaigning very hard this election it would seem. perhaps im just not watching as much tv as i used to. but how about this:
about 2 weeks ago we learned through the polls that we would likely be getting another minority government. a conservative minority government will not likely last more than a couple of years. the next party to call the election is going to be very unpopular. 300 million dollars per federal election. thats the cost to canadian taxpayers every time we go to the polls.
if the liberals get a minority, Harper can bide his time in the opposition. this is advantageous to him because:
1 - the economy may not do so well over the next two years. during that time unemployment may rise, investment in canada may diminish, and all the nasty effects of a recession will unfold.
2- as opposition leader, rather than leader of the country, mr harper could effectively harangue and harass the governing liberals. he would get the people behind him - "those bloody liberals, look at our economy!"
Conclusion: Layton and Duceppe would evenutally jump into the foray (although i have feeling that duceppe will retire before the next federal election. i would say in about 2 years. he wants his party to have a leader in the event of a snap election.). anyways, layton and duceppe would start calling on the government to do more, etc. they would stop supporting them in the House and before long they would be forced to call an election.
Canadians: "Another election? 300 more million dollars! Bloody hell. these liberals. look at our country! look at our economy!"
Harper: "the Conservatives offer Canadians the solution they've been looking for. on ___, 2011 vote for us!"
and thus he would likely get his majority. perhaps this is why he's not campaigning so hard. any party that inherits the economy right now will likely be extremely unpopular in 2 years.
mr. harper has not been campaigning very hard this election it would seem. perhaps im just not watching as much tv as i used to. but how about this:
about 2 weeks ago we learned through the polls that we would likely be getting another minority government. a conservative minority government will not likely last more than a couple of years. the next party to call the election is going to be very unpopular. 300 million dollars per federal election. thats the cost to canadian taxpayers every time we go to the polls.
if the liberals get a minority, Harper can bide his time in the opposition. this is advantageous to him because:
1 - the economy may not do so well over the next two years. during that time unemployment may rise, investment in canada may diminish, and all the nasty effects of a recession will unfold.
2- as opposition leader, rather than leader of the country, mr harper could effectively harangue and harass the governing liberals. he would get the people behind him - "those bloody liberals, look at our economy!"
Conclusion: Layton and Duceppe would evenutally jump into the foray (although i have feeling that duceppe will retire before the next federal election. i would say in about 2 years. he wants his party to have a leader in the event of a snap election.). anyways, layton and duceppe would start calling on the government to do more, etc. they would stop supporting them in the House and before long they would be forced to call an election.
Canadians: "Another election? 300 more million dollars! Bloody hell. these liberals. look at our country! look at our economy!"
Harper: "the Conservatives offer Canadians the solution they've been looking for. on ___, 2011 vote for us!"
and thus he would likely get his majority. perhaps this is why he's not campaigning so hard. any party that inherits the economy right now will likely be extremely unpopular in 2 years.
Friday, October 3, 2008
English Leader's Debate 2008
Just finished watching the debate. Must say in this election I am definitely non-partisan. But I will still vote. Just not quite sure for whom. We can vote for a candidate, a party, or a "best chance to beat ___" option.
I don't live in Quebec anymore, but if I did I might consider voting for the Bloc. I find Duceppe to be engaging and charismatic. However, he is a through and through Quebecer and seems not only to disregard other Canadians, but many facts as well. One point he made tonight, that quebec had lowered its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.6 percent from 96(?) - 2001. In that same time, Alberta increased theirs by 36 % and Saskatchewan by 63 %. Now I have lived in both Saskatchewan and Alberta for the greater part of my life and feel a strong attachment to those two provinces. Duceppe finished his point by saying Quebec should be finanically "rewarded" for this decrease in GG emissions, while AB and SK should be punished. He forgets that between 1971 and 2001 220 billion dollars! left the province of Alberta in the form of transfer payments. Guess what? In that same period of time, that same amount of money just happened to enter Quebec (in the form of transfer payments) to subsidize its manufacturing sector so that Quebecers could have jobs and see economic growth in their province. (source: CBC radio show, 2006)
I crunched the numbers on my own and every year, Quebec receives 20 billion dollars in federal transfer payments. That money comes from the "have" provinces like AB, and SK, those same GG spouting provinces that deserve to be punished financially. The industries creating GG emissions in those provinces generate a lot of wealth for Quebecers and other Canadians. No. Our GG emissions cuts should be calculated nationally!
Moving on to Elizabeth May. She had an excellent showing. She knows her facts. She reads reports. She listens to Canadians. However, her French needs some work. And as well, the Green Party supports tougher sentences for young offenders - something I DO NOT approve of. As Dion pointed out, under new Conservative proposals, a 14 year old could get life in prison! We need to get to the root of the problem.
Dion made a good showing. He plays the polite professor. Sounds a lot like Schwarzenegger actually.
Layton. VERY drippy! Talks about the "loved ones" and the "kitchen table" way too much. He smooths over his wrinkles very well. Bulges rather. For example attending the Shouldice(?) private clinic. He claims to support the public system. For "heaven's sakes" Jack.
Contention number 2. "Our country needs to improve the living conditions of its Aboriginal peoples." As Dion pointed out, he voted AGAINST the Kelowna Accord. While not a cure-all, it was a push for Aboriginal self-government in the Kelowna area whereby they would have greater control over their affairs. In the hopes that they would take better care of their people that the federal gov't has.
Finally Harper. A very good debater. Knows "when to jab, and when to parry", as Keith Boag said. More importantly, (I actually box so these metaphors do not go without merit), he knows how to move away. He did not throw any knockout punches, nor was he overly aggressive. Anyone watching would have been impressed by this seemingly down to earth "family man in a sweater".
One enormous point of contention I have was that he gave absolutely no numbers. He cited the Conservative government's investments into such and such an initiative without ever divulging whether it was 1 dollar or 1 million dollars of investments. The other four leaders used statistics and numbers and it makes an impression on the voter.
That's it for tonight. Advance polls open tomorrow.
I don't live in Quebec anymore, but if I did I might consider voting for the Bloc. I find Duceppe to be engaging and charismatic. However, he is a through and through Quebecer and seems not only to disregard other Canadians, but many facts as well. One point he made tonight, that quebec had lowered its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.6 percent from 96(?) - 2001. In that same time, Alberta increased theirs by 36 % and Saskatchewan by 63 %. Now I have lived in both Saskatchewan and Alberta for the greater part of my life and feel a strong attachment to those two provinces. Duceppe finished his point by saying Quebec should be finanically "rewarded" for this decrease in GG emissions, while AB and SK should be punished. He forgets that between 1971 and 2001 220 billion dollars! left the province of Alberta in the form of transfer payments. Guess what? In that same period of time, that same amount of money just happened to enter Quebec (in the form of transfer payments) to subsidize its manufacturing sector so that Quebecers could have jobs and see economic growth in their province. (source: CBC radio show, 2006)
I crunched the numbers on my own and every year, Quebec receives 20 billion dollars in federal transfer payments. That money comes from the "have" provinces like AB, and SK, those same GG spouting provinces that deserve to be punished financially. The industries creating GG emissions in those provinces generate a lot of wealth for Quebecers and other Canadians. No. Our GG emissions cuts should be calculated nationally!
Moving on to Elizabeth May. She had an excellent showing. She knows her facts. She reads reports. She listens to Canadians. However, her French needs some work. And as well, the Green Party supports tougher sentences for young offenders - something I DO NOT approve of. As Dion pointed out, under new Conservative proposals, a 14 year old could get life in prison! We need to get to the root of the problem.
Dion made a good showing. He plays the polite professor. Sounds a lot like Schwarzenegger actually.
Layton. VERY drippy! Talks about the "loved ones" and the "kitchen table" way too much. He smooths over his wrinkles very well. Bulges rather. For example attending the Shouldice(?) private clinic. He claims to support the public system. For "heaven's sakes" Jack.
Contention number 2. "Our country needs to improve the living conditions of its Aboriginal peoples." As Dion pointed out, he voted AGAINST the Kelowna Accord. While not a cure-all, it was a push for Aboriginal self-government in the Kelowna area whereby they would have greater control over their affairs. In the hopes that they would take better care of their people that the federal gov't has.
Finally Harper. A very good debater. Knows "when to jab, and when to parry", as Keith Boag said. More importantly, (I actually box so these metaphors do not go without merit), he knows how to move away. He did not throw any knockout punches, nor was he overly aggressive. Anyone watching would have been impressed by this seemingly down to earth "family man in a sweater".
One enormous point of contention I have was that he gave absolutely no numbers. He cited the Conservative government's investments into such and such an initiative without ever divulging whether it was 1 dollar or 1 million dollars of investments. The other four leaders used statistics and numbers and it makes an impression on the voter.
That's it for tonight. Advance polls open tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
