Government Falls! The 2006 election thread

[redleafjumper]

The "Red Tories" were the biggest problem for getting real change, Joe Clark, Scott Brison are clear examples and the confused Belinda Stronach was the most recent Red (capital "R", small "t") tory.  Joe and his ilk in their various attempts to be like the liberals have alienated a larger and larger segment of our population.  As a firearm owner I found the Kim Campbell gun control regime to be a particularly offensive manifestation of "Red toryism".

Fortunately, the Red tories have largely identified themselves to be the liberals that they always were and are now in decline.  It is true that some of the Conservative social policy is not palatable to all Canadians  However, ignoring some of the comments of the defence critic, they are much more friendly philosophically to the military that the liberals.  The liberals treat the forces like some sort of trick horse, to be trotted out to make the government look good and then suppressed when anything that might not be politically correct goes on.

The Liberals, however, are much worse than the Red tories and likewise much worse than the Conservatives.  The record of corruption, scandal, waste of money and arrogance that permeates the ranks of both the Liberal party and the Liberal government is completely mind-boggling.  What is even more mind-boggling to me as a westerner is that there continues to be people who vote for these crooks.  I certainly won't be voting liberal.  Green certainly isn't an option - this is a party that supports "peacekeeping" but is not very interested in a strong military.

No, the best bet for positive change in this country is to put the Liberals in opposition and give the Conservative Party a chance.

(Edited to correct typos)

 

[kcdist]

For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.  

Here's a challenge. Visit the Conservative web site. Aside from the issue of traditional marriage, which by the way, was previously confirmed by a large majority within the House of Commons in (I believe) the late 90's, find anything that would back up this comment.

UberCree, you are guilty of rehashing a tired, worn out cliche/slur that the Liberals have been so successful in using up to now. Although there are people of faith in every party (Remember Tommy Douglas?), it is sad that the Conservatives have been tarred with this fact as a negative. It is so easy to perform a drive by smearing without any substantiation. The sound bite is great, and to the ignorant, it works quite well in installing fear.

The simple fact that the placing of even the most basic of regulations on abortion (which the majority of Canadians do concur with), has been definitively articulated as NOT part of Conservative policy, should be sufficient evidence to most observers that the religious bogeyman has not infiltrated the party.

By all means disagree with specific policy of the various parties, but adding unsubstantiated, slanderous comment to the board does nothing to further political debate.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

At one point in time I considered myself a conservative.   They lost me when they lost the likes of Joe Clark, Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach.   For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.   My family has lived through the results of mixing religion and politics first hand.   Now their absurd shadow defence minister is another nail in their coffin, as is Tom Flannigan, Steven Harpers campaign manager and all time nemesis of Aboriginal Canadians.
Economically I am all for them, but lose the social conservatism.  
When will they learn....
I still havent decided if I will think short term and vote Liberal (man I never thought I would say that) or long term and vote green.

Clark, Brison, Stronach?

Clark - a bumbling wanker.
Brison - competent, but switching parties to gain a position of power doesn't impress me. 
Stronach - She was the lucky sperm who inherited her daddy's company, then sold out no less than 25 close people including her serious boyfriend (MacKay) live-and-in-living-colour in the media to jump for an opportunity at power.  I wouldn't trust that @#$%@ to carry my golf clubs.


RE:  Social Conservatism as a hurdle for my support - I agree.  I'm for the right of any individual to practice their beliefs in private without government interference as long as it does not promote hate.  Where I draw the line is an application of religious values to governmental law such as the mandating that only heterosexual marriage is in fact marriage or that because some people believe a divine soul enters the fetus at conception that abortion should be illegal.

Bottom Line:  I'm more of a social libertarian, fiscal conservative and would greatly prefer MacKay to Harper, but Harper is still better than Martin and his big fake smile.  Any prick who can sanctimoniously label Harper in favour of "American-style tax cuts" while he moved Canadian Steamships offshore to avoid paying any taxes at all, and then calls Harper "the start of American-style two-tiered health care" while he goes to a doctor that runs that largest chain of private MRI clinics in Canada, has a set of ethics and guiding principles that have no place in the PM's office.



Matthew. 

 

[xFusilier]

Visit the Conservative web site.

The is nothing on the conservative web site in terms of policy save fpr aboput five pages of generic bullet-point statements.  I've looked to find their platform and I cant find it.  Suffice to say many of the old-time members of the Conservative Party have come from Reform and there are valid concerns with how these people view the role thier faith plays in politics.

As for labelling Martin a tax cheat, I'm sure that if we looked hard enough at the conservative party we could find more than a few members who have failed to "rend unto Caesar".  AS for tax cuts, in terms of the middle class usually show very little return, the only people that have really benefit from the type of tax cuts the Conservatives talk about are the wealthy.

 

[Infanteer]

As the Conservatives have a hard time shaking the "social issues" gorilla on their back, it looks like the Liberals have just as hard a time with the "ethics" one on thiers.   With Chretien taking the Gomery findings to court, implying that the commission was tainted, really goes against the idea of atonement and apology that Paul Martin has been trying to push.

Now, for the interesting stuff, Steven Harper announced that the GST would be dropped to 5% in 5 years, with the first pecentage point being dropped in the first year.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/elxn-harper-gst2.html

That is some good campaigning, IMHO.   The idea is simple, bright and clear with that 5% sign.   The Liberal proposal was complicated and phased over many years, whereas this one addresses GST, something that bothers Canadians every time they pull their wallet out.   Goodale's cheap response is that it is bad economics and that income tax cuts are better - ingoring the obvious fact that Harper is an economist, the Liberal response really doesn't address the issue that cutting consumption taxes is pretty strong as the money never leaves the consumer's wallet, whereas income tax cuts (while also good) go through the meat-grinder; it isn't money that you see in your wallet on payday.

I give the Conservatives the first real point for a solid plank that would win my vote.

In other news, Duceppe is a jerk who wants to eliminate wreck "Team Canada" on the international sporting stage.  I wonder if guys like Mario Lemieux and Martin Brodeur would want to quit Team Canada for "Team Quebec"?

 

[Hunter]

You might be a conservative if you think those types of jokes are funny.....

Well I don't think it's ha-ha funny, because it's true.   More of a gallows humour/ironic kind of funny.    ;D

For a list of 199 Reasons not to Vote Liberal, check this out:

http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2005/11/dubious-day.html

It's an interesting list of the scandals we've seen under the Liberals.   Some familiar, some I had forgotten about.   It's too long to post here, but worth reading.

 

[Hunter]

FWIW here are the reason in the above-mentioned list that have some relevance to the military:

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement
21. Tom Wappel refusing to help blind veteran
24. Iltis replacement
25. Purchase of new Challenger jets for the Prime Minister and cabinet
26. NATO Flying Training program contract
51. Prime Minister's former assistant, Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on Veterans Review and Appeal Board as Minister pleaded poverty to veterans' widows.
60. $5.3 million GG northern travel
61. GG budget doubles in 5 years
90. Problems with DND's contracts with Compaq Computers that may have cost taxpayers up to $159 million for work not performed.
91. Martin using government jets to tour the country campaigning before election, spending up to $1 million for air travel alone.
105. Contracting irregularities on more than two dozen projects at DND worth tens of millions of dollars, showing over-billing, profit excesses, unauthorized additional work, lack of accounting records, spiralling cost overruns, etc. (Globe and Mail, July 14, 2004).
122. Abuse of Challengers by Paul Martin and various ministers (eg. Andy Mitchell, Claudette Bradshaw)
123. Abuse of Challenger jets for political business instead of government business (Le Devoir, October 4, 2005)
124. Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers
125. Challenger food bill of $508 per flight
142. Revelations that the program to bring in foreign exotic dancers was created under pressure from organized crime (National Post, December 18, 2004)
166. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on questionable acquisitions at CFB Borden (Ottawa Sun, April 18, 2005).
167. Joe Volpe keeping stripper visa program operating, despite having promised to shut it down (CTV.ca, March 5, 2005)
174. Liberals handling of the submarine program
196. Delays and ballooning costs mean a giant software project at National Defence will eclipse its original budget and won't meet its goals until 2011 -- if at all. An internal audit obtained by Canadian Press raises red flags about a new system designed to streamline computer tracking of military inventory and purchases. MASIS -- or Materiel Acquisition Support Information System -- started in 1997 as a $147-million undertaking. What began as a focused effort to cover a single equipment category in each of the navy, army and air force soon mushroomed. By 2003, Defence officials estimated MASIS would be in place by 2006 at a cost of $325 million, more than twice its forecast budget. A full introduction of the complex software has now been extended to 2011. The heavily censored May 2005 internal audit, released under the Access to Information Act, catalogues a litany of "revised planned milestones.'' "The prime contract has been amended six times, each time increasing amounts for professional service fees,'' it says. (CP, The Record, October 24, 2005)

 

[xFusilier]

Does anyone really believe that the Conservatives will be any better.  Not having put your hand in the cookie jar because you're to short to reach it is not an indication of morality, its a symptom of being too short.  I guess what I'm getting at is patronage is as Canadian as Hockey and getting smashed on Rye whiskey.  The only way you win an election campaign in this county is by making promises to people, sometimes you have to carry through on those promises.  Alot of those promises involve cushy government jobs.  Let's also not forget that alot of people who hold patronage positions take their jobs very seriously and actually do endevor to serve the public trust.  Alot of the reasons not to vote Liberal on that list are about as valid as "my cat threw up on my rug and its Paul Martins fault!".

I really don't believe people care about ethics in this election.  We've moved past being concerned with the functioning of government outside of how it effects our own personal sphere.  Stephen Harper can push ethics all they want, meanwhile the Liberals will be telling people how a Liberal government.  Its an uphill battle for the Conservatives, simply because the answer to that old gem of the Gipper's is a resounding yes, we are better off now (personally) than we were in 1993.

 

[Infanteer]

xFusilier is correct - anyone who believes that the Conservative Party are honest do-gooders coming to clean up Parliament will most likely be sadly disappointed.  Remember that Grewal fellow?  Not a sterling example of ethics, is he?  We point the finger at Chretien wrestling in the courtroom with Gomery, but does anyone remember that Mulroney pulled the same stunt with the RCMP over the Airbus incident?  I am sure I could draw up a list of retards from the PC's time in power.

That being said, it would be interesting to see the Conservative Party given an equal opportunity to shit the bed....

 

[FredDaHead]

xFusilier is correct - anyone who believes that the Conservative Party are honest do-gooders coming to clean up Parliament will most likely be sadly disappointed.   Remember that Grewal fellow?   Not a sterling example of ethics, is he?   We point the finger at Chretien wrestling in the courtroom with Gomery, but does anyone remember that Mulroney pulled the same stunt with the RCMP over the Airbus incident?   I am sure I could draw up a list of retards from the PC's time in power.

That being said, it would be interesting to see the Conservative Party given an equal opportunity to crap the bed....

So, you think it's better to keep a government in office that's so corrupt it makes the Third World look clean and well, rather than replace it with one that might be kinda-corrupt-but-we-don't-really-know.

Great logic there, chief.

I'm not saying the Tories are perfect. After all, they're politicians, aren't they? What I AM saying is that the Liberal party needs to be taken out, immediately or sooner. Sure we might run into problems with the Conservatives, but why keep a government that has been proven time and again to be rotten to the core, rather than one we think might be a bit shady?

I think the problem this country has, is we're so afraid of the possibility of the Conservatives being slightly imperfect, we'd rather keep the thieves and other assorted criminals in office.

 

[Infanteer]

So, you think it's better to keep a government in office that's so corrupt it makes the Third World look clean and well, rather than replace it with one that might be kinda-corrupt-but-we-don't-really-know.

Great logic there, chief.

Did I say that dipshit?

First off, your comparison of the sponsership scandal to a third-world dictatorship is completely off base; I've been to a third-world country and seen corruption in action and trust me, it doesn't compare to what we've seen here.   So can the rhetoric.

If you reread my post (and Xfusilier's), you'll see that I brought up the point that it is pretty naive to believe that the Conservatives are going to be the ones to clean Ottawa up.   As X said, this kinda shit is PO check for politicians, irregardless of stripe - look at the US; Democrat and Republican are equally good at taking the pork on the sly and generally screwing with the taxpayers dollar.

Besides, what was criminally wrong is being dealt with in the justice system; unless you are going to convince me that there was a vast conspiracy amongst the Liberal Party as a whole to defraud Canada, then you should be ready to back up your accusations of thieves and criminals.   Of course, there is the the moral issue that occured with criminal acts being committed on behalf of the Liberal Party during the Liberal Party's watch, and this is a valid reason to call for change (which you would have noticed had you read my post), but I'm not going to go into the campaign thinking that the entire issue will revolve around a single ethical problem that, quite frankly, didn't surprise me the least.

 

[xFusilier]

Holy flying hyperbole batman!  I highly doubt that one can make any comparison to the Sponsorhip scandal ($355 million) to the conduct of any tinpot dictator, anywhere on the planet.  Furthermore there are substantial differences between the Martin government and the Chretien government, most of the people who were front benchers under Chretien are no longer there.  Furthermore, no end of wishing or hoping it going to change the fact that the Gomery inquiry found no fault with the Prime Minister.

I'll say it again Patronage exists in Canadian politics, it has existed since the time of Sir John A. and will continue to exist long after you or I have shuffled off the mortal coil.  Many people here don't like the Liberals period, hell I don't like the Liberals.  I agree, it is repugnant that the former Prime Minster used the public purse to enrich his friends, but there are greater issues at stake, and the fate of any party will be based on those issues.  Canadians are far more concerned with social issues than they are about the Gomery Inquiry.  If the Conservatives were serious about running on ethics they'd be running media along the lines of $335 million would have bought X MRI machines, or X hip replacements, instead they trot out the same tired old Mr. Smith goes to Washington schticlk that makes them look simple.

The reason the Conservatives have not got into power is that they have repeatedly elected unappealing leaders, who do not know how to politick, and think that what worked in the One Party State of Alberta will work for the rest of Canada.  Furthermore their continued belief that pandering to voters in Alberta, whilst blissfully ignorant of the fact that elections in this country are decided on the shores of Lake Ontario, will actually lead to people voting for them certainly doesn't help either.

 

[xFusilier]

On another note it appears that Harpers GST cutting idea has been panned, by economists, the CTF however, supports the idea.  But then again get one drink into you and the Conservatives, the Fraser Institute, and the CTF appear to be one large indistingiushable mass.

 

[FredDaHead]

Infanteer,

Of course it's not the sole issue, or at least it shouldn't be, but so far the only thing I've heard is the Conservatives wanting to get rid of some tax (the GST, thank you xFusilier for posting before I did).

That doesn't give us much to ponder yet except for the scandal, does it?

As for the comparison with the US, I have to concede the point about both sides taking the taxpayers' money, but I doubt there's the same culture of entitlement in both parties... But that's just me.

xFusilier,

Ok, so I went a bit far on the pathos trail with the third world comment. However, even if the Chretienites are gone, it seems to me as if the Martinis are still doing pretty much the same thing. Same actions, different people.

And I think that although you're partly right about the Conservatives not electing the right leaders (I still think Stockwell wasn't that bad...) I still think there's a fundamental problem with the canadian voters themselves. The few people who actually follow the elections only do so with the mainstream media, without really thinking about the whole issues. And that's another big problem: the media itself. But that's a whole new ballgame and has already been talked to death, I think.


All in all, I might have gone a bit far, (note the Tsar-sized understatement) but I still think keeping the Liberals in power is just hurting Canada.


On a funny note, did you hear Martin speaking about ethics, while talking about Wal-Mart? I found that extremely funny, but I'm also very tired tonight.

 

[xFusilier]

It was downhill right from the Jetskiing for Jesus incident.  Alot of Conservatives don't get it so I will say it again, the founding principle of a democracy is the electorate is never wrong ever.  If we have been stuck with the Liberals for 12 years the reason is that all of the other parties have failed to win the support of the electorate.  The consistant believe that the fault that the Liberals have stayed in power for 12 years is almost as naive as the whole "the electorate is stupid" argument.

 

[KevinB]

xfus

Winston Churchill...

 

[xFusilier]

FWIW:  he was wrong a benevolent dictatorship under yours truly would be far better. ;D WHERE'S THE CONCUBINES DAMMIT?  However, I'm more partial to people get the government they deserve.

I'll get back to practicing bellowing "Off with head!", now.

 

[a_majoor]

From NRO:

In Number 71 of The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton wrote about the relationship between presidential rhetoric and public opinion in a republic.


    There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.


This is a critically important observation. One of the most important functions of the president in our form of republican government, writes Hamilton, is to shape public opinion, not put his finger in the air to determine what direction the wind is blowing.

This is an observation that can also apply to people aspiring to political office and leadership positions next January ( and indeed any time) as well.......

 

[UberCree]

Here's a challenge. Visit the Conservative web site. Aside from the issue of traditional marriage, which by the way, was previously confirmed by a large majority within the House of Commons in (I believe) the late 90's, find anything that would back up this comment.

UberCree, you are guilty of rehashing a tired, worn out cliche/slur that the Liberals have been so successful in using up to now. Although there are people of faith in every party (Remember Tommy Douglas?), it is sad that the Conservatives have been tarred with this fact as a negative. It is so easy to perform a drive by smearing without any substantiation. The sound bite is great, and to the ignorant, it works quite well in installing fear.

The simple fact that the placing of even the most basic of regulations on abortion (which the majority of Canadians do concur with), has been definitively articulated as NOT part of Conservative policy, should be sufficient evidence to most observers that the religious bogeyman has not infiltrated the party.

By all means disagree with specific policy of the various parties, but adding unsubstantiated, slanderous comment to the board does nothing to further political debate.

I visited the website.   Nothing concrete at all in there either way.  
Now you read this, about Tom Fanagan (the strategic headman of the conservatives), and tell me the party isn't a 'religious bogeyman' (your own words).

The Man Behind Stephen Harper
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/media-2004/flannagan-walrus-macdonald-200410xx.html

''What ignited the most fury was Flanagan's contention that aboriginals were simply conquered peoples who'd been bested by Europeans with a higher degree of "civilization," as he termed it. That argument, peppered with references to "savagery," hadn't been heard in polite company for decades. "There's a fundamental racism that underpins his view," says Radha Jhappan. "It's an amazingly selective reading of history and it's driven by a particular right-wing agenda that wants to undermine the claims of collectivity.

...

On one side are MacKay and other former Tories pressing for progressive policies -- and adjective that gives neo-conservatives palpitations. "It has to happen," MacKay insists. "This party has to portray a modern, moderate vision with compassion for people who represent all facets of this country." For him, it's not a matter of choice. "We're right at the precipice of electing a new government if we play our cards right," he says. "But we have to lead people to a new comfort zone. We don't want to remain in opposition forever.

Lined up against him are those true believers who have long made up the Reform and Alliance faithful -- not to mention Flanagan himself. He has never blanched at owning up to his most contentious beliefs: scrapping medicare in favour of personal medical savings accounts -- a policy adopted by some U.S. corporations -- and whittling aboriginal claims on land and self-determination down to individual property rights and municipal self-government. Flanagan may, in fact, not be unlike Louis Riel: a man with a mission, albeit secular. In his last literary outing with Harper, a June, 2001, column in the National Post, they warned fellow conservatives to stick to their policy guns and offer a genuine right-wing alternative -- not some pale vote-getting pap. "If all we want is the exercise of power," they wrote, "we might as welljoin the Liberals."

The looming power struggle is not only for the soul of the new party. It is also over Stephen Harper's political future: how much is he willing to water down the ecumenical wine required to win the PMO? Rick Anderson calls it "the defining question of his leadership -- whether he'll fudge the party's policies or not."

But back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way -- in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group people in Calgary -- Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"

 

[Infanteer]

scrapping medicare in favour of personal medical savings accounts -- a policy adopted by some U.S. corporations

Not a bad idea in my opinion - US corporations have adopted them for good reason; like Canada, US health care is collapsing under big bureaucracy management.  HMO's are as bad as the Ministry of Health....

and whittling aboriginal claims on land and self-determination down to individual property rights and municipal self-government.

I still think some of the arguments he has put forth are pretty good.  We need to recognize that everyone here is an immigrant.  I'm not to sure the status quo of entrenching difference (and supporting it with big political dollers) is what I'm interested in....