The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread
- Thread starter Yrys
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
I guess you can say this election was a referendum on Afghanistan and Harpers government. Canadians seem to like the direction Harper is going and maybe when the next election is called Canadians will give the Conservatives a majority.
tomahawk6 said:
I think Harper took the Afghanistan issue off the table early in the election, and I didn't see anything resounding coming out of the "cost of the war", any of the peacenik groups, NDP musings, or any such throughout the rest of the campaign.
The Liberals had a weak, very weak leader and it showed, both before and after. The Conservatives can't count on that the next time around....the Liberal Party has its' stupid moments, read Dion, but you can't count on them to remain collectively stupid. If they elect Bob Rae as the next leader, he will the equivalent of another Dion in Ontario....Rae is a good politician, but the Ontario memory of him being premier can and will be used against him with success. Reality says Ignatiaff is probably the most logical next B team candidate (the A team all opted out early before the Dion crowning) while the party bids it's time waiting for Trudeau to grow up...
Harper himself, and only Harper cost the CPC the majority. He got cocky and shot off his mouth about the arts & culture community. I and probably 3/4 of the west agree with him, but nonetheless, the Bloc used it to their advantage.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Don't forget the dauphin was crowned last night in the Papineau riding.
- Reaction score
- 2,064
- Points
- 1,160
At least Michael Byers didn't win, he came third in his selected riding. And Hedy Fry was elected again? Wow.
Danny Williams is now saying that "as far as he is concerned, the feud between himself and Harper is finished"
This came after Harper he would announce "elected" members to represent both NFL & Quebec....
This is kinda like some jerk thowing a shot, then quickly saying "I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it!!!.....friends??"
It might take a couple of years, but I think somewhere down the line Danny Williams is gonna be saying "ouch"
This came after Harper he would announce "elected" members to represent both NFL & Quebec....
This is kinda like some jerk thowing a shot, then quickly saying "I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it!!!.....friends??"
It might take a couple of years, but I think somewhere down the line Danny Williams is gonna be saying "ouch"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ignatieff also has some baggage among the left wingers - his support for intervention in Iraq and Afgh. But he will pull some people from the right - the progressive c. crowd that are uneasy with the social conservative views of the right wing.
As a commentator in CBC this morning said (I paraphrase and can't remember who) Dion did his job; he was a compromise leader - one faction could not abide by Rae and his obvious handicap in Ontario and the other - the left wingers - could not support Ignatieff. Now that both issues have had some time down the river and both have had their term as MP's let the hounds loose and see who comes out on top - I bet on Ignatieff but have been wrong before.
cheers,
Frank
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with you entirely GAP.
With respect to the election I tend to see the result this way:
Two Parliaments sitting together.
75 Quebec seats
233 For the Rest of Us.
Harper gained a Majority of the 233 (133) but only won 10 of 75 in Quebec.
For Quebecers this works fine. The returned a few Liberals and Tories so they covered their bets for representation but they also returned a large block of representatives that can divert the government to act on Quebec's behalf. This has nothing to do with sovereignty. It has everything to do with their personal and provincial interests.
The worst thing that could happen to Quebecers now would be for the country to split. They have clout. They have the ear of government.
In the rest of Canada the Tories are the preferred party while the Liberals are a marginalized party relegated to University Ghettoes. The NDP is depriving them of the centre-left-right unionists. (A unionist is an individual coerced into paying dues to support progressive causes while being socially conservative and economically "progressive" except when it comes to paying taxes).
I can foresee this situation lasting a very long time.
The long question will be: Can the Government reach past the Quebec media and the Bloc to talk policies to right-wingers in Quebec that would force the Bloc to become more accomodating to retain their seats?
Remember 3 or 4 BQ voted against gun control. And many Quebecers are pro-life.
Not all Francos are Social Democrats.
I don't think the Quebecers see the Bloc as sovereigntists or even in terms of their policies. I think they just see them as Quebecers representing their interests in Ottawa. And isn't that what Reform called for? For MPs to be agents of their electors.
With respect to the election I tend to see the result this way:
Two Parliaments sitting together.
75 Quebec seats
233 For the Rest of Us.
Harper gained a Majority of the 233 (133) but only won 10 of 75 in Quebec.
For Quebecers this works fine. The returned a few Liberals and Tories so they covered their bets for representation but they also returned a large block of representatives that can divert the government to act on Quebec's behalf. This has nothing to do with sovereignty. It has everything to do with their personal and provincial interests.
The worst thing that could happen to Quebecers now would be for the country to split. They have clout. They have the ear of government.
In the rest of Canada the Tories are the preferred party while the Liberals are a marginalized party relegated to University Ghettoes. The NDP is depriving them of the centre-left-right unionists. (A unionist is an individual coerced into paying dues to support progressive causes while being socially conservative and economically "progressive" except when it comes to paying taxes).
I can foresee this situation lasting a very long time.
The long question will be: Can the Government reach past the Quebec media and the Bloc to talk policies to right-wingers in Quebec that would force the Bloc to become more accomodating to retain their seats?
Remember 3 or 4 BQ voted against gun control. And many Quebecers are pro-life.
Not all Francos are Social Democrats.
I don't think the Quebecers see the Bloc as sovereigntists or even in terms of their policies. I think they just see them as Quebecers representing their interests in Ottawa. And isn't that what Reform called for? For MPs to be agents of their electors.
Interesting take on Obama and Harper
What the Canadian election means to Barack Obama if he wins
Submitted by Chad on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:04am.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS by Chad Rubel
Article Link
You probably didn't watch C-SPAN's coverage of the CBC from Canada in its coverage of the Canadian federal elections. And even if you did, you might wonder how last night's results affect the U.S. and our presidential race.
Stephen Harper was elected to another minority government in Canada last night. It's a stronger minority government, 143 seats of a possible 308. After the last election, Harper had 126 seats.
The Liberals, who have been in the charge for most of the last 45 years, now have 77 seats, a whopping 26 seats down from the last election. THis is the fewest seats the Liberals have had since 1984.
The key issues between the two countries are oil, immigration, trade, border crossings, Afghanistan, and for a lack of a better word, terrorism. Canada is the U.S.' largest trading partner and the U.S. gets more oil from Canada than any other country, including Saudi Arabia.
In the last 45 years, there have often been polar opposites in charge of the two countries: Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau, Bill Clinton and Brian Mulroney, George W. Bush and Jean Chrétien.
So the prospects of Barack Obama and Stephen Harper getting along are entirely possible. But there was hope on a number of fronts that the Liberals could run a better race, but Stéphane Dion ran a terrible race, and likely won't be back as the opposition leader.
If the Liberals had won, there was hope that talks on border crossings, trade, and "terrorism" would go smoother and more commonality would be found.
Harper had, as CBC's Rex Murphy said last night, the perfect storm last night: weak Liberal leader, an improved Green Party, and improved New Democratic Party. And he still couldn't get a majority.
But Harper will try and run the government like a majority. For what it's worth, Harper had been able to run a minority government for the last two years with fewer seats. And now he has more power.
The implications of Harper not having a like-minded person in the White House are unknown. Harper, having been ignored by Bush, has tried to come up with policies, especially on "terrorism," to try and please Bush. And Bush has pretty much ignored him.
Bush wasn't really paying much attention to Canada even before 9/11 and the Iraq War. Then-PM Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq. If you think that snub is petty, think of John McCain and Spain. Even if you don't believe his handlers that McCain knew what he was saying to the reporter, the McCain campaign believes Spain should be punished for not keeping troops in Iraq. And yes, Spain has troops in Afghanistan.
If Obama wins in November, he needs to be pro-active with Harper right away. Harper will have the upper hand, but Obama needs to be direct on what we need and want, while also understanding where Canada is coming from.
McCain has been on Canadian soil in 2008, and Obama's Canadian connection was the talk about reopening NAFTA. Obama definitely would need to schedule a trip very soon after taking office.
Obama can also expect some animosity. Traditionally, Canadian prime ministers don't like to be seen as being too chummy with U.S. presidents. That didn't bother Harper with Bush, but with Obama, Harper will likely develop a different tone. And Obama needs to be ready.
Obama also needs to be welcoming on trade issues, and perhaps offering a few concessions (think softwood lumber). And Obama needs to be clear with Harper that trade needs to flow easier between the two countries. Border crossings have a lot to do with trade, since trucks bring lots of products back and forth.
All of this would have been much easier with Obama and Dion (or anybody but Harper). But it can be done: Harper wants attention from a U.S. president, and Obama wants to work well with Canada.
End of article
What the Canadian election means to Barack Obama if he wins
Submitted by Chad on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:04am.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS by Chad Rubel
Article Link
You probably didn't watch C-SPAN's coverage of the CBC from Canada in its coverage of the Canadian federal elections. And even if you did, you might wonder how last night's results affect the U.S. and our presidential race.
Stephen Harper was elected to another minority government in Canada last night. It's a stronger minority government, 143 seats of a possible 308. After the last election, Harper had 126 seats.
The Liberals, who have been in the charge for most of the last 45 years, now have 77 seats, a whopping 26 seats down from the last election. THis is the fewest seats the Liberals have had since 1984.
The key issues between the two countries are oil, immigration, trade, border crossings, Afghanistan, and for a lack of a better word, terrorism. Canada is the U.S.' largest trading partner and the U.S. gets more oil from Canada than any other country, including Saudi Arabia.
In the last 45 years, there have often been polar opposites in charge of the two countries: Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau, Bill Clinton and Brian Mulroney, George W. Bush and Jean Chrétien.
So the prospects of Barack Obama and Stephen Harper getting along are entirely possible. But there was hope on a number of fronts that the Liberals could run a better race, but Stéphane Dion ran a terrible race, and likely won't be back as the opposition leader.
If the Liberals had won, there was hope that talks on border crossings, trade, and "terrorism" would go smoother and more commonality would be found.
Harper had, as CBC's Rex Murphy said last night, the perfect storm last night: weak Liberal leader, an improved Green Party, and improved New Democratic Party. And he still couldn't get a majority.
But Harper will try and run the government like a majority. For what it's worth, Harper had been able to run a minority government for the last two years with fewer seats. And now he has more power.
The implications of Harper not having a like-minded person in the White House are unknown. Harper, having been ignored by Bush, has tried to come up with policies, especially on "terrorism," to try and please Bush. And Bush has pretty much ignored him.
Bush wasn't really paying much attention to Canada even before 9/11 and the Iraq War. Then-PM Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq. If you think that snub is petty, think of John McCain and Spain. Even if you don't believe his handlers that McCain knew what he was saying to the reporter, the McCain campaign believes Spain should be punished for not keeping troops in Iraq. And yes, Spain has troops in Afghanistan.
If Obama wins in November, he needs to be pro-active with Harper right away. Harper will have the upper hand, but Obama needs to be direct on what we need and want, while also understanding where Canada is coming from.
McCain has been on Canadian soil in 2008, and Obama's Canadian connection was the talk about reopening NAFTA. Obama definitely would need to schedule a trip very soon after taking office.
Obama can also expect some animosity. Traditionally, Canadian prime ministers don't like to be seen as being too chummy with U.S. presidents. That didn't bother Harper with Bush, but with Obama, Harper will likely develop a different tone. And Obama needs to be ready.
Obama also needs to be welcoming on trade issues, and perhaps offering a few concessions (think softwood lumber). And Obama needs to be clear with Harper that trade needs to flow easier between the two countries. Border crossings have a lot to do with trade, since trucks bring lots of products back and forth.
All of this would have been much easier with Obama and Dion (or anybody but Harper). But it can be done: Harper wants attention from a U.S. president, and Obama wants to work well with Canada.
End of article
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
Interesting article, GAP. I Mr Harper is successful in cultivating a positive relationship with Mr Obama (which I think he's smart enough to work towards), what will the Liberals et al have to demonize him with in the next election? He's too close to the left? He's too chummy with the Democrat president? The satanization of Mr Harper has been the main talking point for the left for the last two elections.
Don't forget that the Canadian right is left of the American left.
Don't forget that the Canadian right is left of the American left.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Regardless of who is in the White House, Canada really isn't going to be on their radar a lot of the time. We are not the neighbour from "Lakeview Terrace", who gets in your face and causes trouble. (That would be Mexico).
On the other hand, should Senator Obama win, he will be in a difficult position. The Democratic congress will not feel beholden to him, which should make governance especially rocky in these tough economic times. Should he or his advisors decide to bring up NAFTA or import other rules and initiatives to Canada, they will suddenly discover that Prime Minister Harper holds the whip hand with Alberta oil (see, they should be paying more attention to us!), which will really change the dynamic of the relationship. States which rely on cross border trade will also oppose protectionist initiatives.
WRT Newfoundland and Quebec, since "courting" seems to pay little or no dividends, I would think Prime Minister Harper has an opportunity to cut many government initiatives and programs (in the name of cost cutting to protect the Canadian economy), and simply provide Quebec and Newfoundland access to what remains with the same terms as the other provinces. I think this is one of the long standing goals of the Reform movement anyway, and fits in with the Prime Minister's putative long term vision of the Canadian Federation of equal provinces and a far reduced role for the Federal Government. Indeed, this could effectively defang a lot of the chattering class and MSM opposition to the Harper Government; the message will be everyone has to take one for the team to preserve the Canadian economy, jobs, savings and opportunities. Duccepe and Williams can be painted as opponents to the Canadian recovery and their authors of their own misfortunes.
On the other hand, should Senator Obama win, he will be in a difficult position. The Democratic congress will not feel beholden to him, which should make governance especially rocky in these tough economic times. Should he or his advisors decide to bring up NAFTA or import other rules and initiatives to Canada, they will suddenly discover that Prime Minister Harper holds the whip hand with Alberta oil (see, they should be paying more attention to us!), which will really change the dynamic of the relationship. States which rely on cross border trade will also oppose protectionist initiatives.
WRT Newfoundland and Quebec, since "courting" seems to pay little or no dividends, I would think Prime Minister Harper has an opportunity to cut many government initiatives and programs (in the name of cost cutting to protect the Canadian economy), and simply provide Quebec and Newfoundland access to what remains with the same terms as the other provinces. I think this is one of the long standing goals of the Reform movement anyway, and fits in with the Prime Minister's putative long term vision of the Canadian Federation of equal provinces and a far reduced role for the Federal Government. Indeed, this could effectively defang a lot of the chattering class and MSM opposition to the Harper Government; the message will be everyone has to take one for the team to preserve the Canadian economy, jobs, savings and opportunities. Duccepe and Williams can be painted as opponents to the Canadian recovery and their authors of their own misfortunes.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Exactly!!Kirkhill said:
The medias here have done an excellent job of making Montreal, or more the Montreal "in progressive" people the poster children of this province.
too many to share votes over...
- Reaction score
- 1,466
- Points
- 1,040
The BQ will prevent any majorities, failing a massive inroads into that province by either Liberals or Conservatives. Or Danny Williams can STFU :rage:
Of 233 non-Quebec seats, 133 went to the Conservatives, a clear majority outside of Quebec.
Another way to look at it is the "Big Smoke". It is almost as though Toronto is out of touch with the rest of Canada. (I know, quel surprise!!)
30 seats or so of all liberal seats are in the GTA. Wow. Just half of them to the conservatives, and there's the majority. I just don't get it.
Of 233 non-Quebec seats, 133 went to the Conservatives, a clear majority outside of Quebec.
Another way to look at it is the "Big Smoke". It is almost as though Toronto is out of touch with the rest of Canada. (I know, quel surprise!!)
30 seats or so of all liberal seats are in the GTA. Wow. Just half of them to the conservatives, and there's the majority. I just don't get it.
Outgoing MP's Receive Rich Severance Packages
10/16/2008
Article Link
The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says Canadians don't have to worry about the financial situation of members of Parliament who were defeated in Tuesday's election.
Outgoing M-Ps will be getting a lot more than a gold watch.
The federation's acting director, Adam Taylor says defeated and retiring M-Ps are eligible for a generous pension plan and rich serverance payments.
Taylor tells CJOB a former Prime Minister is at the top of the list.
Click on link to hear audio portion
10/16/2008
Article Link
The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says Canadians don't have to worry about the financial situation of members of Parliament who were defeated in Tuesday's election.
Outgoing M-Ps will be getting a lot more than a gold watch.
The federation's acting director, Adam Taylor says defeated and retiring M-Ps are eligible for a generous pension plan and rich serverance payments.
Taylor tells CJOB a former Prime Minister is at the top of the list.
Click on link to hear audio portion
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Oh this sounds fun, lets continue with this "if not for this group of 'others' we would have won" logic.
If not for Newfoundland, which out of regional interests failed to elect a single conservative and PEI which only elected one and Nova Scotia which only elected 3 of their 11 seats... so that is 4 seats out of 22 for those "provinces". I put "" around that because I wanted to highlight that they are different, you know not like us. You know the 37.63% that voted conservative... you know as opposed to the 44.44% that voted Liberal (26.24%) or NDP (18.2%).
I don't like it when people start 'stripping out regions' and seeing the results. This put into mind us vs them. We're all Canadians. The Conservatives came in second in Toronto Center, and the NDP came in second in my home riding in Alberta (Red Deer) as they did in all but 5 or so seats (not including the one they won)
Every region/riding elected the person/party they wanted. Many decided on which party would be the best to serve them. Conservatives were elected in Alberta because they have policies that favour Albertans. The liberal green shift plan, cutting income tax and taxing carbon, would have saved this TTC taking guy in Toronto allot of money. People can act in their own best interest without malice towards other regions.
Which reminds me, who saw the daily show when they mentioned Canada? http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=3350 click on the Canuck vote. Apparently we're the creepy older brother that lives in the attic - the "Gay Nader fans for Peace" won. ;-)
If not for Newfoundland, which out of regional interests failed to elect a single conservative and PEI which only elected one and Nova Scotia which only elected 3 of their 11 seats... so that is 4 seats out of 22 for those "provinces". I put "" around that because I wanted to highlight that they are different, you know not like us. You know the 37.63% that voted conservative... you know as opposed to the 44.44% that voted Liberal (26.24%) or NDP (18.2%).
I don't like it when people start 'stripping out regions' and seeing the results. This put into mind us vs them. We're all Canadians. The Conservatives came in second in Toronto Center, and the NDP came in second in my home riding in Alberta (Red Deer) as they did in all but 5 or so seats (not including the one they won)
Every region/riding elected the person/party they wanted. Many decided on which party would be the best to serve them. Conservatives were elected in Alberta because they have policies that favour Albertans. The liberal green shift plan, cutting income tax and taxing carbon, would have saved this TTC taking guy in Toronto allot of money. People can act in their own best interest without malice towards other regions.
Which reminds me, who saw the daily show when they mentioned Canada? http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=3350 click on the Canuck vote. Apparently we're the creepy older brother that lives in the attic - the "Gay Nader fans for Peace" won. ;-)
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
GAP said:
You can't imagine how happy I am that my tax dollars go to pay people who loose...some of them for the rest of their lives.
/sarcasm on
However, I believe deep deep down that their *service* to Canada is worth every penny. I don't disagree at ALL that they get better pensions, after shorter periods of *service* than members of the CF.
/sarcasm off
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Similar threads
