• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Get out and vote today Mar 17/08 (4 Bi-Election positions)

Old Ranger

Full Member
Subscriber
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
THIS IS A REMINDER THAT TODAY, MARCH 17, IS ELECTION DAY.

Rob Clarke, and Stephen Harper needs YOUR help to win.
This has been historically a very close riding,so EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
Your vote can make the diference between another Stephane Dion hand picked candidate
in Ottawa or Rob Clarke,  a strong member of Stephen Harper's Conservative team
representing you.

Its time to elect someone who will stand up for those who work hard, pay their taxes,
and ply by the rules.

For any questions concerning your voting location or the voting process, contact us at
Rob Clarke Campaign: 306-234-2357 or info@robclarke.ca

Remember, YOUR vote CAN make the Difference!


To Find Out Where to Vote Please Contact Us!

Rob Clarke Team
306-234-2357
www.robclarke.ca

This link for the 4 areas, 2 are in Toronto
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&document=index&dir=2008&lang=e&textonly=false
 
my prediction on the next federal election,Harper may win another minority simply because a lot of Canadians can not warm up to Dion. So another Con minority govt, the Libs will take that opportunity, and replace Dion with a more charismic leader and go on to win another LIb majorty in the following election.
 
sgf said:
my prediction on the next federal election,Harper may win another minority simply because a lot of Canadians can not warm up to Dion. So another Con minority govt, the Libs will take that opportunity, and replace Dion with a more charismic leader and go on to win another LIb majorty in the following election.

sgf ... you already have another thread that you're using for this majority/minority wave that you're on. THIS thread is a:

"Reminder to get out and vote; it's election day" thread. Keep it that way ...

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff
 
This thread is dangerously close to being too partisan, so I will qualify it with a " Get out and vote,..........no matter whom you cast the ballot for".

So many have, would, or will give their lives for this simple right too many of us take for granted.
 
I'm heading out to vote in just a couple of minutes.  ;D
 
Is this a by-election or a bi-election? /snicker/


But, in all seriousness, VOTE.  People died for your right: exercise it.
 
While I rarely agree even 90% with Jeffrey Simpson, this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's Globe and Mail, is one with which I wholeheartedly concur:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080319.wcosimp19/BNStory/National/columnists
Think the Liberals triumphed on by-election night? Think again

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
March 19, 2008 at 4:16 AM EDT

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion tried to spin Monday's by-elections into some sort of party triumph and, for the most part, the media fell for it. The facts, as opposed to the spin, suggest otherwise. The Liberals retained two Toronto ridings where, with due respect to the party's candidates, proverbial yellow dogs could have won.

That an already Toronto top-heavy party held two Toronto seats was no news at all; that the Liberals nearly blew a safe seat in Vancouver and lost one it shouldn't have in northern Saskatchewan represented the serious news of the night.

Perhaps because the media are concentrated in Toronto, or because the two successful Liberal candidates - Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay - had profiles, or because Mr. Dion, by his presence in Toronto, wished to associate himself with victory, or because Toronto is in the Eastern time zone and thus presents its "news" earlier, the story got turned upside down. It was a dispiriting night for the Liberals, nationally speaking, which means for Mr. Dion, too.

The Liberals had captured Toronto Centre (Mr. Rae's riding) with 52 per cent of the vote and Willowdale (Ms. Hall Findlay's) with 55 per cent in the 2006 general election. For the Liberals, they were the equivalent of Alberta rural ridings for the Conservatives. The only issue, therefore, was whether the Liberal candidates would hold the party's share of the popular vote from the general election - which they did, and more, pushing that share to 59 per cent.

But in Vancouver Quadra, a silk-stocking riding held by the Liberals since John Turner's leadership, the 2006 election result that gave the Liberals 49 per cent to the Conservatives' 29 per cent dropped to 36.1 per cent versus 35.5 per cent on Monday night. The Greens improved to an impressive 13.5 per cent; the Conservatives' share rose by six points.

Stephen Owen had been the Liberal MP. He was respected and popular and a former provincial ombudsman, so some of the general election margin was an "Owen" vote that would disappear with his departure. But still, for a party in between elections, when the opposition usually does well, losing 13 points spells disappointment, if not trouble.

The most interesting riding of the four by-elections was also the most complicated and, for the Liberals (and maybe Canadian politics as a whole), the most depressing.

Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River runs north from Prince Albert into Saskatchewan's forbidding Canadian Shield country. It's roughly divided, ethnically, into one-third white, one-third Métis and one-third aboriginal. For the Liberals to win, they need aboriginal votes to offset the big Conservative advantages among non-aboriginals.

That is what happened in the general election, when a grand chief, Gary Merasty, took the riding for the Liberals by 67 votes. He did it by getting aboriginals to vote, so he carried Indian communities such as Buffalo Narrows and Pelican Narrows by huge majorities.

Mr. Merasty was something special: a young but experienced, highly articulate and intelligent leader who, had he stayed in national politics, might have had a big future. He certainly would have been an excellent role model and spokesperson for aboriginal issues. He was exactly the kind of aboriginal person national politics desperately needs.

But, disillusioned with Ottawa, Mr. Merasty quit. He was never mentored properly by Saskatchewan's Liberal kingpin, Ralph Goodale, and felt aggrieved when Mr. Dion passed him over as aboriginal affairs critic. Maybe the adjustment from being a grand chief to opposition backbencher was a step down. Maybe Mr. Merasty felt Ottawa a cold and remote place. (He wouldn't be first person to think so.) Whatever, the party leadership should have bent over backward to help him. But Mr. Merasty left, causing the by-election, which, in turn, produced a mini-fiasco when Mr. Dion hand-picked a former provincial NDP minister as the candidate, thereby annoying David Orchard, a renegade Liberal who had backed Mr. Dion and had wanted to run. The results: an internal Liberal mess, aboriginal voters who stayed home en masse, and an easy Conservative victory by 16 points, 47.8 per cent to 31.4 per cent.

The Saskatchewan riding, not the easy Toronto ones, required skillful handling by the leader and his advisers. The thumping Liberal loss spoke volumes.

I agree with Simpson that Dion and the Liberal Party, as a whole, are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. The simple fact is that in half the by-elections that are, traditionally, easy for the opposition, the Liberals lost seats and vote share to the Tories. Toronto is, indeed, the Liberals’ Alberta and there is no use in either party crying about that.

But the Liberals are under pressure: too many Liberals, starting with Ignatieff, are too much like the Conservatives, and too many Liberals, starting with Rae are too much like the NDP and too many Canadians are tired of leaders from Québec and are so worried about their pocketbooks that the Tories may even start to look good.

Canadians have notoriously short political memories. Dion had a few good, maybe even great excuses to go to the polls but he hesitated. The longer Harper can govern competently the closer he is to a majority. Competent government might, however, require a bit looser command and control from the political centre, the PMO, and a bit more emphasis on the somewhat more likable members of the Conservative team.
 
I also feel that if Harper wants a majorty, he is going to have to make bigger inroads in more urban ridings, something that he failed to do in these elections.
 
Here is a guesstimate of a Harper majority:

• Territories: 0/3 – no change
• BC: 19/36 – that means the Tories need to gain two over their 2006 result
• Alta: 28/28 – no change
• Sask/Man: 23/28 – that’s a net gain of 3
• Ont: 48/106 – a net gain of six which can, probably, be had outside of Toronto, proper
• QC: 23/75 – this requires more than doubling the Tory seat count in 2006 and it will require some Montreal seats
• NB/PEI: 6/14 – requires more seats than they won in 2006
• NS/NF: 5/18 - requires more seats than they won in 2006

It is going to be very, very hard for the Tories to make the kinds of gains they need East of the Ottawa River. Conversely, it is going to be even harder for the Liberals to make the gains they need in Québec and West of Toronto. I still stand by my “Herculean struggle” thesis, despite my weak, early morning arithmetic.

 
Actually, I thought the NDP were the big losers...the biggest percentage they got was only 17% in the northern Saskatchewan riding, where I would have thought they would have done better.  Jack Layton should re-think his extremism.
 
RangerRay said:
Actually, I thought the NDP were the big losers...the biggest percentage they got was only 17% in the northern Saskatchewan riding, where I would have thought they would have done better.  Jack Layton should re-think his extremism.

Well, we may all be in luck. According to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web edition, the NDP may force Dion to force an election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080319.immigration/BNStory/National/home
Move on budget bill could force election

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
March 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM EDT

OTTAWA — The New Democrats are preparing to force Stéphane Dion's Liberals to take the country into an election or vote for a bill that lawyers say will strip transparency from the immigration system and deny basic rights to foreigners hoping to come to Canada.

Olivia Chow, the NDP Immigration critic, said yesterday that she will introduce an amendment to omnibus 136-page budget legislation that includes two pages of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act – a law bought in by the Liberals in 2002.

Because they are included in the budget bill, the proposals will not get separate debates in Parliament, nor will they be examined by a House of Commons committee. But they will be considered a matter of confidence.

Voting against the bill – or voting for Ms. Chow's amendment – would plunge the country into an election.

“It should be a separate immigration act so that there is decent consultation and discussion. Instead, it just gets stuck in a budget implementation bill where it doesn't belong,” Ms. Chow said. As a stand-alone bill, she said, it would not be passed by the minority Parliament.

The Liberals have ducked every opportunity to take down Stephen Harper's Conservative government. Maurizio Bevilacqua, the Liberal immigration critic, was unwilling to say yesterday that his party is prepared to take the plunge. But he is no fan of what is being proposed.

“It is incredible that they went as far as they did. It's absolutely astounding that they would do this,” he said. “It's just bad public policy.”

Immigration Minister Diane Finley defends the changes, saying something must be done to fix a system that is not working.

“In some places, we are only now starting to process applications that we received six years ago,” she said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

“In the meantime [the applicants] have gone somewhere else, they have decided not to come to Canada, they may even have passed away. But under the existing legislation, we have to process that application from start to finish anyway. That is not responsible. It's not a good use of taxpayers' money and it's certainly not helping us to get the immigrants that we need.”

The minister said that, once the changes have been explained to members of Canada's immigrant communities, they agree that they are good news for newcomers.

Ms. Chow, who met yesterday in Toronto with representatives of more than 30 different immigrant groups and organizations, disagrees. “They are up in arms,” she said.

Toronto lawyer David Garson said the Conservative proposals would “eviscerate” the Immigration Act.

The Conservatives want the immigration minister to be able to cap the list of people waiting to be accepted into Canada – a list that is more than 900,000 names long. They would allow the government to reject an applicant that had been approved by immigration officers. And the minister could make decisions about immigration policy that, under the current system, require regulatory changes, Mr. Garson said.

“We live in a democracy governed ostensibly by a set of rules and regulations that we have come to be familiar with,” Mr. Garson said. “If you go around those to determine how you best can deal with something in a government, I think that you are circumventing our democratic system.”

Ms. Finley takes issue with the allegation that there is a lack of transparency to what she is trying to achieve. The bill requires that any priorities set by the minister be published in the Canada Gazette, she said.

I guess that Layton reads the tea-leaves the same as many here: the Greens are pressing the NDP on one flank and the Liberals will press them on the other (the Liberals always campaign on the left and govern from the right), it’s time to go while the NDP still has its core support.

Harper will be thrilled if Layton/Chow can force Dion’s hand.

I’ll write another cheque for the Conservative Party.

 
Back
Top