• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Canadian Election

PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
Is the Conservative Party really saying that their promised $1.2 Billion proposed budget increase for the military will include a purchase an Aircraft Carrier or two? [/URL]
Click to expand...

Where exactly did you see that? Do you have a source? I couldn't find anything on it.
 
PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
Is the Conservative Party really saying that their promised $1.2 Billion proposed budget increase for the military will include a purchase an Aircraft Carrier or two? If so, have they done a thorough feasability study to examine that?


The cost of a Nimitz Class AC
Click to expand...

WTF would we do with that? Have to show me where they say that as this is the first I've heard about it.

And there are carriers less expensive than the Nimitz. We could buy one from the UK that can't launch fighters to go with our subs that leak when submurged.
 
Bearguin said:

And there are carriers less expensive than the Nimitz. We could buy one from the UK that can't launch fighters to go with our subs that leak when submurged.
Click to expand...

As long as it were big enough to carry our sea king helicopters that can't fly.
 
Segnosaur said:


So, that is very different than the policy being put forward by our conservative party (i.e. national referrndums on serous issues of morality, such as capital punishment).

The more I think about it, thye more I'm confused by your opposition to referrendums. Yes, people may not understand the issues, but the people voting in the referrendum are pretty much the same people who vote for the leaders. Is there any reason to believe they'd be any worse at understanding the issues when deciding on a referrendum as opposed to when deciding on a leader?
Click to expand...
There's this vague hope that "leaders" are knowledgable about public policy, supposedly understanding, for instance, that when you cut taxes you need to need to cut expenses or else anticipate shortfall.

Posterchild: California.

p.s. Try telling an anti-tax crusader that it's not a serious issue of morality.
 
PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
Is the Conservative Party really saying that their promised $1.2 Billion proposed budget increase for the military will include a purchase an Aircraft Carrier or two? If so, have they done a thorough feasability study to examine that?


The cost of a Nimitz Class AC
Click to expand...

I understood them to be helicopter carriers. I don't know how much those cost.
 
Badger said:


I understood them to be helicopter carriers. I don't know how much those cost.
Click to expand...

This makes a little more sense but I don't see a reference to it on the Conservative site or googling.
 
Segnosaur said:

A couple of problems though:
- Take a look at their policies on health care. One of their platforms is increased investment on "alternative" health care (they don't spell out what alternatives, but some alarm bells should be ringing... Government-supported homeopathy anyone?)
- They talk about reducing income taxes and shifting the tax base on 'consumables', but they also seem to want to increase funding to things like housing support. Frankly, I don't think they've thought out the numbers too well (in fact, the more successful they are with their environmental policy the more their financial polocies will fail)

 Yeah, I saw that too. Gave it the thumb-down. I doubt that would be a major thing, though... Still, though, keeping an eye on how big of a deal they make it. And what you mentioned is another problem I have: I doubt their ability to balance a budget. However, there is a certain appeal to them not having a chance of winning the election, but maybe a couple of seats. They may push issues that I fully support (Gay marriage and legalization of marijuana) without having the power to mess up the budget.



Don't you think the Liberals may be just a little biased in their reasons not to vote for Harper?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but what I meant was that the Liberals aren't big on "Vote for us because X", but more on "Don't vote for him because of X". Okay, no votes for Harper, but no votes for you either.

One thing that none of the parties seem to be concerned about, which worries me, is paying off the national debt. I'm not quite sure what the numbers are today, and I'm assuming they aren't too different, but in 1990 Canada paid 40 000 000$ for debt-related costs. Fourty billion!

Wouldn't a debt-free government be great? Sure, we'd have a bit less money now, but so much more later. I'm just afraid that, after this election, the debt is going to grow. Sustantially.
 
Segnosaur said:


Where exactly did you see that? Do you have a source? I couldn't find anything on it .
Click to expand...


It was a sound bite on CBC about Harper's/ Conservative Party's political promises. I can't locate the specifics anywhere on CBC's website.


Canoe.ca has a tidbit on it

defence spending


wow quite an ambitious Christmas list:





50-page report contained 33 recommendations to be implemented by 2015. Among them:
- Create a national security council.

- Create a national agency to expand Canada's ability to gather intelligence.

- Expand the Forces to 80,000 regulars from the present level of under 60,000, including an army of 45,000 - more than double the present numbers.

- Expand the reserves to 60,000 from the present 20,000

- Re-create an airborne regiment as the spearhead for a rapid reaction force.

- Buy new heavy-lift transport planes and helicopters.

- Plan to buy the high-tech F-35 joint strike fighter to replace the Forces' CF-18 fighter bombers.

- Give the navy a helicopter carrier and four amphibious supply ships capable of landing troops across a beach.

- Replace aging Tribal-class destroyers with four new vessels capable of command and control duties as well as air defence.

- Give the navy new missiles and heavier guns to provide a land attack capability.

- Buy at least six submarines capable of under-ice operations.

- Join the missile defence system, proposed by the United States.
Click to expand...
 
PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:

Canoe.ca has a tidbit on it

defence spending

wow quite an ambitious Christmas list:
Click to expand...

At first I was a little worried... I thought the conservatives were going a bit nuts and making excessive spending promises. But then, I noticed a few things....

- The list is for things that are to be purchased over more than 10 years. If this was for one term, I'd be worried, but 10 years is a lot more doable (well, assuming they get into power for 2 terms)

- Many of the items are needed to bring Canada in line with its NATO and other requirements. For example, if Canada is to continue being a peace keeping nation, we need more troops. And its strange that we have all this claim to northern oceans, yet cannot patrol the area effectively (and we complain when the Americans send ice breakers through there)

- The planes and helicopters will be expensive, but lets face it, much of that will have to be done anyways (the helicopters are needed now, and I think the current CF-18s and transport planes will be nearing the end of their useful life by 2015), regardless of who's in power
 
sorgoth said:

However, there is a certain appeal to them not having a chance of winning the election, but maybe a couple of seats. They may push issues that I fully support (Gay marriage and legalization of marijuana) without having the power to mess up the budget.
Click to expand...
If gay marriage and marijuana were the only issues, you'd probably be better off to vote NDP, which will win more seats and probably be more effective in pushing the agenda on those items. However, economically they're likely to be more disasterous than the Green party.

sorgoth said:

Yes, of course, but what I meant was that the Liberals aren't big on "Vote for us because X", but more on "Don't vote for him because of X". Okay, no votes for Harper, but no votes for you either.
Click to expand...
But if the liberals are saying "Don't vote for him (harper) because of X", shouldn't you at least determine whether X is a valid reason not to vote for harper?

The liberals have insinuated that voting for Harper is somehow 'anti-canadian'. Some posters here have stated that he is 'scary' and our answer to Bush. None of those arguments stands up to analysis.

sorgoth said:

One thing that none of the parties seem to be concerned about, which worries me, is paying off the national debt. I'm not quite sure what the numbers are today, and I'm assuming they aren't too different, but in 1990 Canada paid 40 000 000$ for debt-related costs. Fourty billion!

Wouldn't a debt-free government be great? Sure, we'd have a bit less money now, but so much more later. I'm just afraid that, after this election, the debt is going to grow. Sustantially.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that in the past the reform party was the one suggesting the strongest course on debt reduction. (I haven't looked at the policies of the parties lately, but I assume that's still the case.) And yes, having a 0 debt would be nice, but I'd be satisfied with a 0 deficit and a significant chunk of money spent towards the debt every year. That (in addition to inflation, etc.) should take care of most of the problem.

And there's something else to consider... simply taxing $1 isn't necessarily the best way to get the debt to come down by $1. As the expeience in Ontario under Harris showed, by cutting taxes, the economy gets stimulated which can actually lead to higher tax revenue in the future.
 
The last poll I saw was 34% Liberal vs 30% Conservative.

Serious talk of a minority govt.
 
Bearguin said:
The last poll I saw was 34% Liberal vs 30% Conservative.
Click to expand...

I've seen similar numbers....

From : http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/06/02/482279.html
- Liberals 35%, conservatives 30% (Leger marketing)

From : http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=99cf5316-fe21-465b-a170-55691846db01
- LIberals 34%, Conservatives 31%, NDP 19% (SES research)

Looks like the Bloc is going to take the most seats in Quebec. Ironically, Chretien had claimed that he had somehow 'beaten' teh sepratists. Guess he was wrong.

I have to admit, I am suprised at the turnaround, and I'm not sure what to base it on. It seems like the Scandals are the big problem the Liberals are having in Quebec, while in Ontario it is probalby due to people associating federal liberals with the provincial ones (who have just broken a bunch of promises.) But you have to wonder why the liberals didn't drop in the polls until recently, when the scandals and provincial problems have been going on for a while. This election may just restore my faith in Canada.

Bearguin said:

Serious talk of a minority govt.
Click to expand...

That will be interesting...

- The Conservatives are further to the right than NDP so they won't cooperate
- The conservatives definitely won't work with the liberals
- The NDP leader accused Martin of killing homeless people so there's problems between the NDP and liberals
- Nobody wants to deal with the 'separatists' of the Bloc

Most likely scenario...
- Liberal minority supported by the NDP (gotta keep the evil conservatives out of power don't ya know...)

Other possibilities...
- Liberals supported by the Bloc. (The Bloc wants influence and the Liberals wil do anything for power)
- Conservatives and the Bloc (the conservatives want power decentralized, which might helm make the bloc want to support them.)
 
Things are getting really ugly in the election, with the liberals resorting to 'ambush tacktics'...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1086141630518_123?s_name=election2004&no_ads=

Conservative leader Stephen Harper was ambushed by two Liberal cabinet ministers on the campaign trail Tuesday, suggesting the Liberals have started a new and aggressive strategy to deny the Conservatives an easy ride.
Click to expand...

Looks like abortion is one of the issues that the Liberals are trying to use... one of the Conservative party members made a statement that counselling should be given before an abortion. I'm assuming the Liberals are going to try to try to make the Conservatives seem like a bunch of repressive rednecks over it.

Of course, it should be noted that the other parties have troubles over the abortion issue:
- The liberals have Paul Steckle as a candidate, who was involved in various pro-life activites
- The NDP want to get rid of all private health care; however, most abortion clinics are privately owned. Do you really want the government to be in complete control of abortion services?
- Harper has stated that he will not be bringing any abortion legislation in his first term
(see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ry/LAC/20040602/ELECABORT02/TPNational/Canada)
 
How does physically assaulting gay people heckling at a Conservative Party Convention serve to help the Party? Looks like the same old reform party to me.


Ah the good ole days when they Reform Party would use the boys from the Heritage Front ( HF ) to provide secuity at conventions and screen out commies, blacks, immigrants, Jews and Catholics.
 
PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
How does physically assaulting gay people heckling at a Conservative Party Convention serve to help the Party? Looks like the same old reform party to me.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see an actual video of the event. While it doesn't look good to see someone assulted like that, I'd like to know just what the person was doing there. Was he there simply to heckle Harper? Was he causing a disturbance? (Some news reports mention that the people were trying to shout down Harper. See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040604/ELECCONS04/TPNational/Canada)

For some reason, the Conservatives have been subject to those types of attacks while the other parties seem to be getting a free ride. If I show up at an NDP rally and start shouting "you are a communist" or whatever at the leader, I'd probably also get punched.

A few other things to keep in mind:

- Why should Harper and the rest of the conservatives be blamed over the action of one person who isn't even in the party leadership? Can you vouch that All liberal and NDP members are squeaky clean?

- Are you also going to condem the Liberals for assaulting protesters? Remember the pepper spray incident? Remember the Shawinigan strangler (aka Chretien)?

I guess it only matters if its a mistake by the Conservatives.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:

Ah the good ole days when they Reform Party would use the boys from the Heritage Front ( HF ) to provide secuity at conventions and screen out commies, blacks, immigrants, Jews and Catholics.
Click to expand...

That's a very unfair statement to make.

The fact is, at one point, the Reform/Alliance party actually had the largest number of immigrants proportinally in the house of commons.
From: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpsbo.asp?lang=E&Hist=N
- Percentage of immigrants who are Reform/Alliance MPs : 27%
- Percentage of all MPs who were reform/Alliance: 20%

So, looks like the old reform/alliance party is the most inclusive party for immigrants.

Also, the Liberals were certainly not immune from racism. I remember hearing a story from a few years ago where a Black Liberal senator had a racial slur used against her in her own caucus!
 
So if a minority government comes in it will likely be a Liberal/NDP coalition, which is more left-wing than just a Liberal gov't. That still doesn't look good for the Conservatives (in fact, isn't that worse?)
 
TriangleMan said:
So if a minority government comes in it will likely be a Liberal/NDP coalition, which is more left-wing than just a Liberal gov't. That still doesn't look good for the Conservatives (in fact, isn't that worse?)
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, that would be very bad. It would have a couple of silver linings though...
- There is a chance the Liberals/NDP might be more honest (just a chance, mind you)
- Catering too much to the NDP may just cause a backlash for the next election, resulting in increased Conservative support down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom