News   Jul 17, 2024
 193     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
 821     1 
News   Jul 17, 2024
 543     0 

Canada's next Prime Minister?

Who would win in the Federal Elections?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Brandon: My point being you have no idea what you're talking about.:D

While you are free to believe that, its simply not true. I am not perfect, and I've got a lot of Canadian history to still study before I become a citizen of Canada, but I know a lot about Canada.
 
Mr. HARPER: I ASSURE YOU, YOU WILL NEVER GET MY VOTE

Moonmoth, how have Harper's policies been harmful to you, a Canadian citizen? Specifics please.

Well, let me see, you want specifics as to why Harper is bad for me as a Canadian, here are a few that come to mind. Just off the top of my head:

1) The current outbreak of listeriosis is a direct consequence of Harper's deregulation of food inspection:

"The listeriosis epidemic is a timely reminder that the Harper government has reversed much of the progress that previous governments made on governing for public health. Following the 2003 SARS epidemic and subsequent recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) was created and given its own minister in government— a direct line to the prime minister. But in 2006, among Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s first acts was to eliminate the PHAC minister and public health’s seat at the Cabinet table. His government also left the chief medical officer of health within the ranks of the civil service, working under the minister of health. In so doing, it left our country without a national independent voice to speak out on public health issues, including providing visible leadership during this crisis...."

from Canadian Medical Association Journal
'Listeriosis is the least of it'
A. Attaran LLB DPhil, N. MacDonald MD MSc, M.B. Stanbrook MD PhD, and colleagues

2) Canada's presence in Afghanistan though started under the Liberals as a peacekeeping mission quickly morphed into full-on combat, George W. Bush-style, under Harper:

http://www.jameslaxer.com/2006/07/stephen-harpers-foreign-policy.html

3) Harper laughs in the face of the Kyoto protocol. Chretien's number two achievement (the number one being, staying out of Iraq). He dismisses it as a "socialist-scheme". He'll be crying out for that so-called "socialist-scheme" when the suburbs become the slums of the future.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

4)With the 18 billion Harper has spent in Afghanistan we could have had national childcare, pharmacare or some kind of national infrastructure for public transportation in large & small cities, hell even high speed trains would have been nice. Instead we have an illegal war with lots of death & destruction and harm to civilians, women & children and no offer of real hope for the Afghan population, and Canadians are paying for it.

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2007/Bratt.pdf

Harper is already pledging half a TRILLION dollars for the military:

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=527

5) Harper in gov't means bad news for women, he crippled the budget of the Status of Women Canada:

"By a simple stroke of the pen (and without parliamentary involvement), he removed "the pursuit of equality" from the mandate of Status of Women Canada (SWC).

Before that, SWC's role was to protect the equality interests of women in government policies and programs. Harper ruled that SWC could no longer fund any organization that did research, advocacy or lobbying to promote women's equality. Then he financially crippled their ability to do the part of the job he had not excised, by cutting $5 million from a $13 million budget.

Twelve of the agency's 16 regional offices were closed. Any available funding was short-term and for projects; there was no core funding and no funding for administrative costs."

Rest of the article here:

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=522

6) What a complete and total troglodite (AS IF that wasn't already cemented before) for condemning artists and their "rich galas", when in fact the majority of artists are poor, they are some of the most over-educated yet poor members of Canada. Even the ones who get the $50,000 prize it's a one time thing! They don't even qualify for EI! There's funding for big fancy opera houses and big renos at the ROM & the AGO but they won't hire much permanent staff cause they might give a person with an arts related degree a steady job!! It's an established fact that the presence of artists signals gentrification, to the point that eventually they are pushed out of the area they helped gentrify, (Yorkville, and Queen West are examples) how DARE he claim that artists are rich, (they might be stylish though because they can throw together an outfit from Value Village that equals anything on the runways of Milan)

Plus AS IF all those people in Alberta and rural Canada that he's attempting to encourage their support don't turn on their tv's every night and -gasp - see an actor performing....Harper blatant contempt for everyone's intelligence is perhaps the most infuriating of all.
 
^Moonmouth

The Martin Liberals committed us to Kandahar on the current Afghan mission. And it was their delay in decision-making that put us there. We would have ended up in Uruzgan instead. That decision has resulted in increased Canadian casualties.

Also, 18 billion over 5 years would buy you some pharmacare, or daycare, transit infrastrcture etc. But 3.5 billion a year is hardly a panacea. Also, let's hear your solution for Afghanistan. What would you have done in the aftermath of 9/11 (that saw 2 dozen Canadians killed)? And what you have done to help the Afghan people, victims of 2 decades of conflict? Is a subway in Toronto more important than the rights of little girls to an education, or the incredible decrease in infant mortality since NATO intervened?
 
As much as I despise Harper's government (I'm all but a card-carrying Dipper these days), words like "fuckwad" don't win debates, Moonmouth. You've been warned to tone down the language.
 
I know many Green supporters off this forum I chat with, and they all tell me they just don't "trust" the Liberals anymore and still feel jaded from the events 5 years ago.

When people get over the fact that Liberals had a scandal, dealt with it, and its history they'll come home. Especially when they start to realize Harper might lead Canada with even more power. That's more distasteful to most potential Green voters than anything.

The left is effectively split into 4 parties and Harper can't garner a majority government, that speaks volumes as to how unpopular Harper is. When the right was split, it was only two parties for crying outloud... The right is presently united under one singular party for both Anglophone and Francophones, and they still can't be guaranteed a majority, and might still lose to a surprise Liberal minority.

IMO Harper doesn't represent Canada in any way, shape, or form.


Your point was that people were knowingly wasting their votes by supporting the Green Party. If these people don't trust or don't like the Liberals anymore, so be it. It is you who is insisting that the votes are wasted. For some of these individuals, the Green party now represents an alternative to the Liberals and the NDP - and for some - the Conservatives.

Something to think about: while you deride Harper, you fail to explain why the other parties are unable to garner a majority. What is Dion's excuse? Certainly the NDP has never had a majority - even when there was no Green Party.

Finally, Harper is a Canadian, the party he leads has formed a government, and the country is still here. That was done by Canadian voters.
 
My opinion with regards to the Green Party is that there's a bit too much greenwash to it. I'm not yet going to say that people who vote for it are "wasting their votes", as I think it shows that people are tired of the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, and want to vote for someone else.

The Greens are libertarians with a 'green' bent. The NDP support has not evaporated with their support, the Liberals and even Conservatives have lost some support to them because they are still very much a protest party. I think their support has helped Harper, and I don't think the electorate is fully aware as to what they stand for, though I know some supporters on UT do know, and, like others, support them for what they are.
 
The Bold is yours.
The response is mine.

1) The current outbreak of listeriosis is a direct consequence of Harper's deregulation of food inspection

Actually, the plant was regularly inspected. What caused the outbreak was a tough bacteria that spread rapidly in a very short time, and a slow response time on the part of the company.


2) Canada's presence in Afghanistan though started under the Liberals as a peacekeeping mission quickly morphed into full-on combat, George W. Bush-style, under Harper:

This never was a peace-keeping mission.

3) Harper laughs in the face of the Kyoto protocol. Chretien's number two achievement (the number one being, staying out of Iraq). He dismisses it as a "socialist-scheme". He'll be crying out for that so-called "socialist-scheme" when the suburbs become the slums of the future.

Chretien never did anything to meet Kyoto goals, either. In the end, most countries won't meet their Kyoto commitments.

4)With the 18 billion Harper has spent in Afghanistan we could have had national childcare, pharmacare or some kind of national infrastructure for public transportation in large & small cities, hell even high speed trains would have been nice. Instead we have an illegal war with lots of death & destruction and harm to civilians, women & children and no offer of real hope for the Afghan population, and Canadians are paying for it.

What exists in reality is a war in Afghanistan. Anyone can fantasize about what could have been done with eighteen billion dollars. Had someone spent such money on a high speed Windsor- Quebec City rail line, there would have been a chorus complaining about what that money could have paid for.

Also, you seem quite unconcerned about what the Taliban was doing to the people of Afghanistan. Is it that their actions had your approval, or that you really don't care about the people of Afghanistan?

The military costs money. We do a poor job patrolling out Arctic regions and equipment has to be updated. That all costs money.

5) Harper in gov't means bad news for women, he crippled the budget of the Status of Women Canada:

Equality is enshrined in the constitution. Today, there are extensive bodies, tribunals, initiatives and laws that protect women. Many institutions make great efforts to encourage and promote women in the workforce. While there are still issues, great strides have been made.

6) What a complete and total fuckwad (AS IF that wasn't already cemented before) for condemning artists and their "rich galas", when in fact the majority of artists are poor, they are some of the most over-educated yet poor members of Canada. Even the ones who get the $50,000 prize it's a one time thing! They don't even qualify for EI! There's funding for big fancy opera houses and big renos at the ROM & the AGO but they won't hire much permanent staff cause they might give a person with an arts related degree a steady job!! It's an established fact that the presence of artists signals gentrification, to the point that eventually they are pushed out of the area they helped gentrify, (Yorkville, and Queen West are examples) how DARE he claim that artists are rich.

"There's funding for big fancy opera houses and big renos at the ROM & the AGO but they won't hire much permanent staff cause they might give a person with an arts related degree a steady job!!"

Oh, those awful, horrible arts organizations.

You're aware that the opera house and the AGO are arts organizations? The ROM is a museum (but hey).
 
So observant.

Actually, it is very observant. Despite the histrionic propagandizing of extreme-left partisans the reality is that their fear-mongering has failed. The nation did not fall apart under the Conservatives. The brown-shirts are not on the march. Canada remains one of the most tolerant and liberals nations in the world. We've seen a lowering of taxes (GST, income and corporate), a fairly stable economy in the face of a global economic downturn (on the world stage Canada is looking like one of the most stable of nations and is poised to benefit enormously from the credit crisis), increased spending in many government portfolios (much to the chagrin of many Conservatives) and safe and steady stewardship that has eschewed the grand gestures of green trendiness and other big government initiatives for more prudent gestures that are good for the times I should think.
 
Well, let me see, you want specifics as to why Harper is bad for me as a Canadian, here are a few that come to mind. Just off the top of my head:

Well despite the fact that I disagree completely with your logic and the validity of your points if these are the central issues for you that will decide how you choose the future course of the nation I feel you will be in the minority. You make no mention of the economy, jobs, taxation, government spending, social services or any of the day to day realities that the majority of Canadians have to be concerned about in these confusing times (re: global economic slowdown).

My sense is that this will not be an ideological election, and Canadians will not be swayed by the dogmatic extremes of either end of the political spectrum.
 
Actually, it is very observant. Despite the histrionic propagandizing of extreme-left partisans the reality is that their fear-mongering has failed. The nation did not fall apart under the Conservatives. The brown-shirts are not on the march. Canada remains one of the most tolerant and liberals nations in the world. We've seen a lowering of taxes (GST, income and corporate), a fairly stable economy in the face of a global economic downturn (on the world stage Canada is looking like one of the most stable of nations and is poised to benefit enormously from the credit crisis), increased spending in many government portfolios (much to the chagrin of many Conservatives) and safe and steady stewardship that has eschewed the grand gestures of green trendiness and other big government initiatives for more prudent gestures that are good for the times I should think.

You mean the green trendiness like how the Conservatives will set up a bureaucracy to oversee their new carbon pricing scheme, which is being phased in in 2010? The Conservatives got a complete free ride on this issue, when they are planning to impose higher prices on carbon than the Liberals. Of course, Canadians don't deserve to know the details, so the Conservatives are releasing details after the election.

Just like the rather huge issue of free trade with Europe, which the Conservatives didn't plan to mention until after the election.

And yet they're going to claim a mandate on these issues. The only things the Conservatives can claim a mandate for is the pathetically short list of crime and punishment and tiny irrelevant tax credits in their platform.
 
Actually, it is very observant. Despite the histrionic propagandizing of extreme-left partisans the reality is that their fear-mongering has failed. The nation did not fall apart under the Conservatives. The brown-shirts are not on the march. Canada remains one of the most tolerant and liberals nations in the world. We've seen a lowering of taxes (GST, income and corporate), a fairly stable economy in the face of a global economic downturn (on the world stage Canada is looking like one of the most stable of nations and is poised to benefit enormously from the credit crisis), increased spending in many government portfolios (much to the chagrin of many Conservatives) and safe and steady stewardship that has eschewed the grand gestures of green trendiness and other big government initiatives for more prudent gestures that are good for the times I should think.

Well, Harper was one of the big supporters of the cutting down and trimming of the federal govt by Paul Martin in mid 90's, and it was for the better, or else we would be like Great Britain.

Well, Harper learned some real harsh lessons from the past three elections.
The second you act as a "tough conservative", your polls nosedive.

He has realized he has to keep a steady hand and knows people were not angry at the Liberal's policies (most people generally agree with them), it was how they acted.

Now Harper knows if he stays in the centre, the right will still vote for him (what choice do they have) and then some Liberal supporters will vote for him due to the Carbon Tax and the fact he look like a strong leader.


Anyways my prediction...


Tory 125 seats
Liberal 90 seats
NDP 40 seats
Bloc 55 seats


A win for the Tories, however Liberals will win a Pyrrhic victory. They ran with a "weaker leader" and a tax hike plan and they still do well. Imagine if they go back to being like the Liberals back in 1993...
 
I suspect that lordmandeep's predictions on the outcome are pretty close, these 2 days before the vote, however, I cannot understand anyone in Ontario actually voting for Harper. He wants to reduce our representation, doesn't agree that the funding formulas (aka equalization payments) are skewed against Ontario as we become much less a "have" province. In short, he doesn't court this province at all, but he sure likes the money we kick in to revenues -- money that is spread all over everywhere when we really need it (especially for infrastructure spending--green priorities like subways, transit, etc).

That said, come election night I'll be at a marathon opera (War and Peace) --the opera, you know, some fancy arts thing. I voted at an advance poll. I suppose you can guess that since I am an anti-Harper Cabbagetowner, I voted for the Rae of sunshine. I am counting on Ontario and Quebec to band together (for once) and deny Harper a majority.

It's also personal. I feel strongly that for Harper, it's about Harper, not Canada. In justifying this election, he described Ottawa as "dysfunctional" and it's true that it is dysfunctional--for Harper. Wouldn't it be ironic for Harper if nothing changes with this election?
 
Oh, those awful, horrible arts organizations.

You're aware that the opera house and the AGO are arts organizations? The ROM is a museum (but hey).

Hydrogen, on that point re-read what I wrote: that there is funding for building new fancy buildings such as the ROM, the AGO etc (that politicians can take credit for) but there is no money for infrastructure within the institutions!
 
You make no mention of the economy, jobs, taxation, government spending, social services or any of the day to day realities that the majority of Canadians have to be concerned about in these confusing times (re: global economic slowdown).

My sense is that this will not be an ideological election, and Canadians will not be swayed by the dogmatic extremes of either end of the political spectrum.

Then they shouldn't be considering Harper since he is an extremist from the far-right!

Economy: we're in uncharted waters regarding the global economy, but clearly the economy is tied to the environment and any government we elect should be making concerted efforts to shift manufacturing jobs towards green manufacturing processes and renewable sources of energy.

I am into pro-social programs, so more money for all of them and also into creating new social programs.
 

Back
Top