The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[Edward Campbell]

Well, maybe stand-down rather than stand-by.

See my comments/articles in Military Current Affairs. It appears that M. Dion is exercising leadership again.

 

[geo]

I am certain he figures it would be easier to campaign on the Budget VS Afghanistan.

I figure that since Afghanistan is a divisive issue in his own party, it's not a good subject to take a stand on... else his party will disintegrate before the campaign even starts.

Oh well.... wait and see... or NOT!

 

[sgf]

i really doubt that harper wants to campaign on Afghanistan either

 

[stegner]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080214/confidence_matters_080214/20080214?hub=TopStories

It looks I voted correctly in the poll.  But time will tell if we will have an election over the budget.  The last Conservative Prime Minister who lost on a confidence vote on the budget did not fare well.  Sad because Joe Clark was a man of character and actually an Albertan.  He was not the faux Albertan that Harper is. 

 

[TCBF]

... i am sure that combined with their many years actually forming the govt...

- HRDC boondoggle, ADSCAM, Gun Registry, Shawinigate, Billions lost on the cancelled EH-101...

Think they've learned?

 

[vonGarvin]

how a party perform in opposition is entirely different when they form the government.  i am sure that combined with their many years actually forming the govt, plus this short term in oppositon will give the libs more than enough experience in running the country... 

Oi.  ADSCAM?  Indecision?  Yikes, I'm moving to Florida! ;D

 

[armyvern]

i really doubt that harper wants to campaign on afghanisan either

sgf

As a retired Adm Clerk, especially if of the rank you indicate in your profile -- I am quite sure that you are familiar with the English language requirement for proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization. In the case of your above post, even spellcheck would have picked up "afghanistan".

As per this site's guidelines -- start doing it.

Fair warning

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff

 

[sgf]

my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..

 

[armyvern]

my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..

As this one probably was too.

Nice try. Inadvertant typos are common and will earn you no grief. Blatant refusal to use "Caps" certainly will though; especially after fair warning was given.

Welcome to the warning system.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff

 

[George Wallace]

my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..

I don't think so:

"My apologies.  It was a simple typing mistake....There was also one in another post that I just responded too.."

Seems you are not what you seem.  Reviewing all of your posts, it is impossible to believe that you were a WO in the CF who happened to also be an Administrative Clerk.  You typing is atrocious.  You use of capitals suck.  Your spelling and grammar are not on par with what a WO Admin Clerk would be expected to produce. 

I would say you are a fraud.  A High School student, who has very little knowledge of politics in the long run.

 

[sgf]

- HRDC boondoggle, ADSCAM, Gun Registry, Shawinigate, Billions lost on the cancelled EH-101...

Think they've learned?

Lets hope the govt has learned from the broken promises Harper made: income tax trust, appointing non elected people to the Senate and the Atlantic Accord. (just to mention a few).

 

[JesseWZ]

appointing non elected people to the Senate

....
The senate is made up of appointed people. Of course they aren't elected.

 

[aesop081]

appointing non elected people to the Senate

As oposed to what ?

The entire senate is made up of political apointees. Last time i checked, its the senate and the oposition parties that have given Harper nothing but trouble and have resisted senate reform.

 

[McG]

... appointing non elected people to the Senate ...

Yet, is he not the only PM to have appointed any elected people to the Senate?  Sounds like progress (though slow progress) to me.

 

[TCBF]

Lets hope the govt has learned from the broken promises Harper made: income tax trust, appointing non elected people to the Senate and the Atlantic Accord. (just to mention a few).

- Income trust: could go either way.
- Non elected people to the senate: well, until the provinces start holding elections for their senators - like Alberta did once - he has no choice.
- Atlantic accord: wasn't his promise to keep.

 

[a_majoor]

I lost the link, but there was some speculation that the Bloc might be on board to possibly support the next budget. A certain sweetening of the pot for Quebec interests would do the trick.

Although from a moral standpoint (among others) this sucks, we must keep in mind that Prime Minister Harper is by far the best tactician in the House. Prolonging the agony of the Liberals will only decrease their effectiveness as the opposition, drain off funds (which their fund raising isn't making up), exacerbate splits between factions inside the caucus, as well as create potential splits between the grassroots riding associations and the Party as members get disgruntled by lack of results or Imperial meddling from the centre like Mr Dion appointing candidates who are not the choice of the riding membership. For the Liberal party, they may have to trigger an election now while they are still somewhat functional and before their supporters move towards the NDP or Greens. The alternative calculation might be to grit their teeth and try to use the time to shake out and reorganize, although with the knives out Mr Dion might not like his chances.

For the NDP, they have the potential to siphon off Liberal votes and the potential to become the opposition in a minority house. Letting the Liberals flounder makes them look better, although they also have to look out for a potential surge in support from the Greens. This scenario works better the longer the Liberals are thrashing on the floor, but you can never count out sheer greed; Mr Layton might decide it would be better to make a move into official opposition status now rather than let the Liberals get a breather and reorganize, or let the Greens catch up.

For the Bloc, they are slowly loosing relevance in their only province (and by their very nature have no way to expand), so hanging on to their current roster of seats and influence in the house might well be worth while. They only have to sit quietly until October 2009, plenty of time for events to change and offer the prospect of a turn around.

The Prime Minister's confidence motions are designed for more than two purposes, in each case there is the win/win component of the measure itself, while at the same time it is playing pinball with the opposition, alternatively strengthening and weakening the opposition parties and keeping them off balance.

 

[sgf]

Yet, is he not the only PM to have appointed any elected people to the Senate?  Sounds like progress (though slow progress) to me.

No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.

 

[George Wallace]

....... (S)He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. ........

OK.  That covers almost every politician in Canadian Politics.  Dalton McGuinty has to have been the worse of the lot recently.

The thing is, which one has managed to keep the most promises that have benefited the nation.

 

[armyvern]

No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.

I find it hard to fathom that the Libs keep promising this & that to look after YOU each and every election, thereby earning your vote. Then, they'd go about blowing money that it takes to hold those promises to look after YOU on Via, Adscam, Gun Registrys, Flags, Income Trust, Quebec Sponsorship, Shawinigate, 10 billion to "Government" "foundations" outside of Attorney General auditing authority which are headed by Liberal appointees, 100 million in untendered contracts to Bombardier, Paul Martin's "Cordex" (invested into by Saddam),  Helicopter cancellations costing you 5 billion, 1 billion dollar boondoggles at HRDC, that 500 million "secret" Unity fund ...

(It's a very long list -- I could go on, but it seems that even this site has a size limit to posts)

And, THEN people like you -- still go out and vote for them, forgiving and forgetting.  :

 

[stegner]

Vern,

So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?  Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.  They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.  Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.  You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.  But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.         

Stegner