2008 Canadian Federal Election Thread

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply

Who are you planning to vote for?

Stephen Harper (Conservative)
13
52%
Stephane Dion (Liberal)
5
20%
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois)
0
No votes
Jack Layton (New Democrat)
7
28%
Elizabeth May (Green)
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 25
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Sir Purrcival wrote:
Toppy Vann wrote:I think there will not a majority government until Gilles Duceppe steps down as leader of the Bloc. That is why no one can get majority. Quebec is how the Liberals stayed in power along with enough seats elsewhere so that by the time they starting counting ballots at the Lakehead the election was decided.

Duceppe comes across to even the rest of us as sane, sensible, and looks leader like. If he goes, I think the Bloc will fade. I had hoped he'd run provincially.

For me, we'd be better off if the Bloc fell to a minor rump group like the old Creditistes were with a few seats now and again the 60s and the Tories and Liberals divided up Quebec in future elections. Three significant parties with the NDP still strong is the best for this country. In the old days...the 60s etc, Tories had trouble in Quebec getting any seats as votes went to anyone but them. Now they have some national credibility, they should be okay there if not for the Bloc which to me is more about Duceppe's capability than any desire by Quebecers to go their own way.

Also have the Green candidates go to the other parties... change from within. Hard but better than too many parties.
Unfortunately, that may be true in the short term but dissatisfaction in that province seems to work on the Merry Go Round principle where it goes away and comes back every few years. Unfortunately, they have been well conditioned to respond accordingly whenever the Federal Government does something that Quebecers don't like. And as a result, it usually ends up with some kind of Federal gimme in some vain hope of pacifying the mob. It is no different than giving into a spoiled child. This Arts and Culture cut is a prime example. A 45 million dollar cut is relatively minor one in todays kinds of dollar figures. However as soon as Quebecers wailed about it, Harper backtracked quicker than you can say "Vivre le Quebec Libre" Just once, I would like to see it turned around where political parties say "If you elect us, maybe we won't cut this". It is still buying votes but at least you don't pay until you have a result. I have seen two referendums on separation in my lifetime and fully expect a 3rd sometime within the next 15 years. As painful as the thought is, I think maybe it might be a better thing for them to go their own way. Let them deal with the rest of the world without the benefits that come from the rest of the country and the hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts they get annually from the Federal Government.
There is book out saying it'd be best for them to go. It is not a hate book from what I saw of it. Just a guy who thinks it would work if there were cooperation with the parties.

The cuts to arts sounds major to me. Ronald Regean's philosophy on dumping grants to not for profit social agencies in the 1980s spilled over to Canada and in both nations, set these groups back decades. While the theory was good, the reality of corporate and individual giving to social agencies working on community social issues like drugs, rehabilitation, mental health, child care, services to the elderly, homeless and hungry, consumers have never fully recovered from those days and that thinking. I have always done my share of volunteer service to the United Way fund raising efforts including two years as a member of the Lower Mainland UW Cabinet in 1983 and 1984. A kind of waterboys group to the United Way. I also sat on their Supplementary Fund Raising Committee as many agencies were getting into "smile and dial" activities that turned off giving to all groups.

It has long been acknowledged that innovations in social problem resolution come from not for profit - not government.

The fall out from the Reagan thinking that came to Canada in the mid 1980s is that consumers no longer have strong, research based consumer groups and social agencies devote a lot more resources to fundraising - all things that used to go to direct services.

Churches who used to perform so much of the roles in helping in communities are often now struggling themselves to keep the flock together and just help their own.

Innovation like research often needs seed money that governments used to provide but have severely cut back on. I know I worked as a consultant for groups that could no longer afford innovation grants as the money was too small to justify independent auditing of the accounts. This meant that for $50,000 you needed to hire an audit firm that is not your firm. Yikes, that is costly as a unknown to you auditor is not going to work for cheap like the ones most not for profits use where they charge minimally in part as a service to the community themselves.

Quebec historically is like a spoiled child. Yes, and they buy votes.

If they went to a Parliament that required all votes to be free and if lost on bills, then a provision to allow a separate non-confidence motion by the Opposition you might get all the MPs in BC in all parties voting down some bad for BC stuff and thus change how politics is played. We have a good system that if tweaked like this would give more accountability to MPs.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Post Reply