Election 2011

[PuckChaser]

Socialist ideas got us where we are today, which is awesome. The NDP of today is pushing an almost communist agenda of having a big communal pot of money that pays for everything. I'm thankful people like Tommy Douglas came up with the idea, and that makes us a unique country. Their policies will drive big business out of Canada and cripple the economy to appease the working masses who want to "stick it to the man". Well, the man will just pack up and leave. Someone should ask Ignatieff and Layton what 19% of nothing is.

 

[VinceW]

Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.

That's not true if Pearson didn't accept communist medical practices for our healthcare systems we would have done something else probably more similar to Western European models of private regulated healthcare and then government pays for healthcare to those who can't afford it.

The danger with the NDP is that if you like a few aspects of their programs you have to accept the rest of the baggage that comes with them like all their socialist social engineering and job destroying overtaxing of businesses and people.

 

[Jed]

Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.

Have you ever wondered why the 'Home of Tommy Douglas', Saskatchewan does not have any NDP seats in Parliament? You just have to compare Alta and Sask governmental history to see what fuzzy headed thinking will do to the Economy when you suffer through decades of near communistic approach to governing. Thank the lord enough of the  'Dirty Thirties' survivors have passed on and sanity now prevails in the Province.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.

It is not clear, not to me anyway, that Douglas wanted what we have. His aim was clear: to save us from the catastrophic costs of major medical crises.

One day in a modern hospital ICU costs about $10,000.00, about two month's pay for a typical master seaman/master corporal for one night in an ICU. A day in intensive care in the 1950s took about the same share of a Canadian's pay cheque. That, not small charges for visits to a doctors office or for an X-ray or even for routine hospital procedures, was what troubled Douglas and his constituents. The problem was implementation. The doctors, especially, fought Douglas tooth and nail - not because they feared being 'conscripted' but, rather, because they did not trust governments to regulate medical care. Finally the MDs in Saskatchewan literally went on strike - in 1962 (I was a young private soldier, maybe even a junior NCO at the time). Douglas won but not before opinions on both sides of the debate hardened.

Tommy Douglas
Source: http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/history_of_saskatchewan.html

But, despite all the fear mongering, Douglas never proposed "socialized medicine." What he did implement was a clumsy single payer system that must - it is the very nature of single payer, monopolistic systems - rely upon rationing since money still does not grow on trees.

When the Canada Health Act was introduced, by Monique  Begin, 20 years later, it enshrined the worts parts of various provincial health regimes but few of their good ideas. The processes it enshrined and that Brian Mulroney later described as a "sacred trust" provided, above all that the health insurance system must be universal, must cover "all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners or dentists" (Section 9) and has to be "administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority, responsible to the provincial/territorial governments and subject to audits of their accounts and financial transactions." (Section 8 ). These provisions effectively preclude "extra billing" and "two tier" (private) medical insurance. By so doing it limits the "inputs" to the system to your and my tax dollars.

Monique Begin
Source: http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/sfu_news/archives/sfunews03230601.shtml

I doubt anyone in their right mind disagrees with the core of Douglas' "public healthcare:" we are all sheltered from the catastrophic costs of major medical crises. But we are, also, sheltered from paying anything at all, except through taxes, and because health care costs are rising at rates that are two, three or four times the rate of inflation and the rate at which you and I get pay or pension raises, those increased costs are not, cannot be covered by incremental tax increases. To pay for the heath care we want we must accept all of: higher taxes, decaying infrastructure, declining resources for education and so on. I know I don't want that and I'm pretty sure Douglas wouldn't either.


Edit: punctuation  :-[

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the subject of coalitions, I've read the much-celebrated 2004 letter several times and see no mention of a coalition - only a pointed reminder to the G-G to consider certain options.  Understanding that the negotiated support of the Bloc in 2008 did not make the Bloc a coalition member of the proposed coalition, one - and particularly the ones who took pains to make that point - should be hard-pressed to interpret anything in the 2004 letter as a coalition. Using a looser interpretation of the term to include any formal agreement to vote with the government, one still does not find in the 2004 letter a coalition.  A vote or series of successive votes to support the government on issues of confidence does not equal a coalition.  I assume that if the NDP or Bloc had more evidence than the hint to the G-G by which they could condemn Harper in his own words, they would present it to attack his credibility on the issue.  They have not, so I infer there is none and there were no negotiations of any more significance than the agreement to write a reminder to the G-G.

 

[OldSolduer]

Lets see how irrelevant the NDP are if you have ever someone sick in your family. Tommy Douglas was a socialist. It was his party that took the first step to social medicine.  If it were not for socialist ideals of a controlled market than we would be in as bad a condition as the US.

Tommie Douglas also beleived in forced sterilization.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Tommie Douglas also beleived in forced sterilization.

As did pretty much everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Sterilization_Act_of_Alberta

The Alberta government paid out tens of millions to institutionalized individuals who were sterilized, many with their parents concurrence or at their request.

 

[a_majoor]

All the ore reason for Mr Ignatieff to trigger a coalition. Remember, for him it boils down to:

Become Prime minister
Avoid a hostile leadership revew, and,
Discipline or punish members of his caucus who dared oppose him

This shows hs fears about items two and three are well founded:

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2011/04/mark-holland-looking-to-replace-michael.html

Mark Holland Looking To Replace Michael Ignatieff After Election?
The following is a letter to the editor of the News Advertiser Ajax, concerning Liberal candidate Mark Holland:

"To the editor:

I've never met Mark Holland but by all accounts he appears to be a decent, hard-working politician.

That said, when his canvassers came to my door a couple of days ago I told them that although I liked Mr. Holland, I just could not bring myself to vote Liberal so long as Mr. Ignattief was their leader.

A fellow canvasser overheard my comments while at a neighbour's door and came over to tell me that Mark was thinking of running for leader should things go wrong for them in this election, and that we should vote for him to 'keep him around' should that be the case.

This person introduced himself to me and I have to believe the comment is true. It might be something that Mr. Holland would like to clarify in order that people know just exactly who they are voting for this time and why. Is he an ambitious politician who just wants to hang around for when the leadership is up for grabs, or is he someone who has the best interests of Ajax and Pickering at heart?

Derek XXXXXXX

 

[ModlrMike]

I wager the MSM doesn't pick this up. However, if they do, it could be catastrophic for the Liberals. Looking to replace the leader while still in campaign mode? That's got to hurt.

 

[Dissident]

I think Mark Holland dreams in colour. He might hang on for this election, but there is a movement afoot to get rid of him on the political scene:

http://www.turfmholland.ca/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com, are the latest projection and analysis:

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 15, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government​

FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2011

Liberals slip back two seats

It was a whirlwind 24 hours, but the Liberals are now back to 73 seats after this morning's Nanos poll brings them back down to earth. As that poll is just replacing yesterday's in the projection, and a new Mustel poll for British Columbia does not shift things much out west, there is little real change in the projection. But the two close ridings the Liberals took back yesterday have slipped just out of their fingers again.

The Conservatives have picked up 0.1 points in the projection are are now at 39%. They have been between 38.6% and 39% since March 29th, demonstrating just how little the numbers have moved in this campaign. They also pick up one seat and are back to 152.

The Liberals are unchanged at 28.2%, but small drops in Ontario and Quebec mean they are down to 73 seats.

The New Democrats are unchanged at 16.8% and 33 seats, while the Bloc Québécois is up 0.1 points to 8.9% and one seat to 50. The Greens are unchanged at 6% support.

We are supposed to hear from EKOS today, so look for tomorrow's projection in Le Devoir to see what effect it has on the numbers.

Since there wasn't much new to add to the projection, it has changed very little.

Atlantic Canada has had the biggest shift, with the Tories dropping 0.4 points to 37.3% and the NDP gaining 0.4 points. They are now at 18.9%. The Liberals are steady at 38% in the region.

In Quebec, the Conservatives and Liberals have dropped a little to the benefit of the Bloc Québécois, up 0.2 points to 36.9%. This is due to the 37.3% result from Nanos today.

And in Ontario, the Conservatives have widened the gap again by 0.3 points.

The seats lost by the Liberals are the ones they gained yesterday: Brampton - Springdale and Brossard - La Prairie. Parm Gill (Conservative) and Marcel Lussier (Bloc Québécois) are now favoured in those ridings.

This week I've been focusing on the Ontario ridings which could go from the Conservatives to the Liberals. But now that the trend has been reversed, at least fro today, let's look at the ridings liable to swap in this province and others, based on which parties are gaining and losing.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives have dropped a little while the Greens have gained a little. The only riding where the two parties are going head-to-head is Saanich - Gulf Islands. However, I still have the Tories 10.2 points ahead in the riding.

In Ontario, the Conservatives are within three points of the Liberals in Brampton West (0.5 point gap), Kingston and the Islands (1.2), and Mississauga South (2.7). There is, actually, little room for Tory growth at the expense of the Liberals in the province, though a gain of three seats would put the Tories back at 155.

In Quebec, where the Bloc has now gained while the Liberals and Tories have dropped, Gilles Duceppe's party is within three points of their opponents in Beauport - Limoilou (Conservative, 1.7 point gap), Papineau (Liberal, 2.2), and Montmagny - L'Islet - Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup (Conservative, 2.3).

And in Atlantic Canada, where the NDP is making headway at the expense of the Conservatives (at least, numbers-wise. The Tory vote could be going to the Liberals and some Liberal vote could be going to the NDP, or some other combination of these shifts from one party to another), there is very little prospect of seat gains for Jack Layton. The NDP is within 13.4 points of the Tories in South Shore - St. Margaret's (Nova Scotia) in the projection, while St. John's South - Mount Pearl in Newfoundland & Labrador is a close three-way race.

So, two or three days after the debates we see precisely nothing new.

And, to demonstrate that "nothing," here, also from ThreeHundredEight.com, is a graph showing voting intention trends for the first half of the campaign:

 

[Redeye]

Have you ever wondered why the 'Home of Tommy Douglas', Saskatchewan does not have any NDP seats in Parliament? You just have to compare Alta and Sask governmental history to see what fuzzy headed thinking will do to the Economy when you suffer through decades of near communistic approach to governing. Thank the lord enough of the  'Dirty Thirties' survivors have passed on and sanity now prevails in the Province.

And yet, the NDP is a political stalwart in provincial politics in Saskatchewan, which is why the Saskatchewan Party had to be formed to oppose them.  They're currently the official opposition with a sizeable presence in the Provincial Legislature.  They also came in well ahead of the Liberals in the popular vote in the last election.  So, your point again was what?  They still exist and still are quite a force.

 

[Redeye]

That's not true if Pearson didn't accept communist medical practices for our healthcare systems we would have done something else probably more similar to Western European models of private regulated healthcare and then government pays for healthcare to those who can't afford it.

What "communist medical practices" are those?  A single payer insurance system where most services are delivered by private sector actors?  Not really clear on the meaning of the word "communist", are you?

No two Western European systems are alike, incidentally, so using that term as though they were substantially similar is folly.

But we're getting off track here.

 

[Container]

Why are Afghan Detainee docs so important in this election all of the sudden? Am I crazy or does that seem like a fishing expedition at what could possibly at the expense of the troops?

If I am wrong Id appreciate knowing it as it seems like its going to be used distastefully.....

 

[Rifleman62]

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post - 15 Apr 11 - Editorial

Putting our political disease on display

Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. Instead, we got three good ones

Depressed and disappointed. Those are the two words that encapsulate the reaction of many federalist Canadians to the French leaders’ debate. Not simply because the three federalist party leaders gave the impression of fish gasping for air, as they struggled to find words in their second language, but because of what the debate says about the Canadian political system, and our country more generally.

Canada’s two solitudes are alive and well. If anything, the gulf between English and French Canada has grown wider in the past five years, in terms of priorities, cultural differences and political attitudes. Stephen Harper’s resolution identifying Quebec as a “nation” within Canada — which seemed a good idea at the time — has blurred many of the red lines that used to demarcate what federalists could and could not say. Critics of Michael Ignatieff may not like his Wednesday-night declaration that “You can be a Quebecer or a Canadian in the order you prefer.” But once the word “nation” is used by a Prime Minister to describe a Canadian province, all bets are off.

As for Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québécois leader’s arguments in the French debate could be summed up in two sentences: Quebec should be its own country. Until then, please send money.

Money for forestry companies. For R&D. For HST harmonization. And for Montreal’s Champlain Bridge — a local issue that the journalists moderating the debate inexplicably took great pains to emphasize (perhaps they themselves are south-shore commuters). How embarrassingly parochial is it that in a national leaders’ debate, the issue of a single bridge took up more time than the environment, international trade or other matters of truly national importance?

Stephen Harper, who was impressively calm during the English debate, occasionally faltered on Wednesday night, his voice rising as he betrayed an (admittedly understandable) irritation at the tone of the discussion. Only when the debate moved to the subject of Quebec’s place in Canada did Mr. Harper find his feet — stepping into a pointless back and forth between Messrs. Duceppe and Ignatieff to say, in effect, “this is what you get with a minority Parliament.”

As in the English debate, Jack Layton started strong but weakened as the night went on. He came out with a few good one-liners and hockey metaphors. But when he started talking about running for Prime Minister, Mr. Duceppe ran him into the boards with a hockey analogy of his own: “[The Bloc] won’t form government, [even though] we’ve always had more players on the ice than you.”

Which, sadly, is true: Thanks to the interplay of regionalism and our first-past-the-post electoral system, the BQ has 11 more seats than the NDP — despite having only about half the NDP’s overall national vote.

Having been christened the intellectual heir to Pierre Trudeau, Michael Ignatieff once was seen as a figure who might break through in Quebec. But his Wednesday-night lectures about democracy and the allegedly outdated nature of sovereignty were too professorial: The time when Quebecers went in for this sort of faculty-lounge approach to identity politics is long past. (And, in any event, one glance at the map of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia proves the argument wrong.)

What Mr. Ignatieff might have emphasized instead was that a sovereign Quebec would be an economic basket case — which at least would hit Quebec’s upwardly mobile, apolitical middle-class voters where it counts. He might also have played tough guy by declaring: If you want to separate so badly, Mr. Duceppe, go take over the Parti Québécois and stop living off political subsidies from English Canada. Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. But instead, all we got were three good cops.

Overall, the debate showed what a destructive force the Bloc has become in Canadian politics. For it is not only an obstacle to majority government, as Mr. Harper noted, but also a permanent distraction for any federalist party seeking to discuss the substantive issues that should be at the forefront of debate — rather than federal-provincial nation-envy, or the funding of a single bridge project.

How long this situation can continue before Canadian federalists get well and truly sick of BQ agitation is anyone’s guess. But when the moment does come, the result may be that separation is achieved on the initiative of English Canada, not Quebec — and on terms that neither Mr. Duceppe nor his fellow travellers much like. For now, Quebecers treat a vote for the BQ as a cost-free gesture of nationalist solidarity. But if and when their province gets asked to leave confederation, if only to cure the debilitating regionalism that now infects our political culture, the province’s BQ voters may come to regret their choice.

Which, sadly, is true: Thanks to the interplay of regionalism and our first-past-the-post electoral system, the BQ has 11 more seats than the NDP — despite having only about half the NDP’s overall national vote.

Having been christened the intellectual heir to Pierre Trudeau, Michael Ignatieff once was seen as a figure who might break through in Quebec. But his Wednesday-night lectures about democracy and the allegedly outdated nature of sovereignty were too professorial: The time when Quebecers went in for this sort of faculty-lounge approach to identity politics is long past. (And, in any event, one glance at the map of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia proves the argument wrong.)

What Mr. Ignatieff might have emphasized instead was that a sovereign Quebec would be an economic basket case — which at least would hit Quebec’s upwardly mobile, apolitical middle-class voters where it counts. He might also have played tough guy by declaring: If you want to separate so badly, Mr. Duceppe, go take over the Parti Québécois and stop living off political subsidies from English Canada. Wednesday night’s debate needed a federalist bad cop. But instead, all we got were three good cops.

Overall, the debate showed what a destructive force the Bloc has become in Canadian politics. For it is not only an obstacle to majority government, as Mr. Harper noted, but also a permanent distraction for any federalist party seeking to discuss the substantive issues that should be at the forefront of debate — rather than federal-provincial nation-envy, or the funding of a single bridge project.

How long this situation can continue before Canadian federalists get well and truly sick of BQ agitation is anyone’s guess. But when the moment does come, the result may be that separation is achieved on the initiative of English Canada, not Quebec — and on terms that neither Mr. Duceppe nor his fellow travellers much like. For now, Quebecers treat a vote for the BQ as a cost-free gesture of nationalist solidarity. But if and when their province gets asked to leave confederation, if only to cure the debilitating regionalism that now infects our political culture, the province’s BQ voters may come to regret their choice.

 

[George Wallace]

When I hear Iggy's attack on the money Harper is spending on F-35s on this "Red Friday", I get the impression that the Liberals DO NOT SUPPORT the Troops.

 

[Container]

When I hear Iggy's attack on the money Harper is spending on F-35s on this "Red Friday", I get the impression that the Liberals DO NOT SUPPORT the Troops.

I agree with you. When I read the article about "Trudeau's Amry" on CBC I am shocked by the revisionist history. The liberals are no friend of the military, although Martin seemed like he may have been had he stuck around, but Im trying not to vote soley on defence. But it seems like defence spending, and Quebec are all anyone wants to talk about. And since all parties are wrong on Quebec....whats a guy to do?

 

[Jed]

When I read the article about "Trudeau's Amry" on CBC I am shocked by the revisionist history. The liberals are no friend of the military, etc. ....whats a guy to do?

Exactly on the money, in my opinion. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone wearing a uniform, who follows past history, even entertains the idea that the Liberal party lead by Mr. Ignatieff will support the military. Or the NDP, lead by Mr. Layton for that matter. It is difficult enough just getting adequate support from the Conservatives.

 

[a_majoor]

It was not always this way.

I am old enough to remember sitting around the hanger listening to NDP true believers in uniform. Ed Broadbent was the leader then and the NDP was not so scary as they are today, nor did they openly call soldier war criminals.

Politics have evolved and polarized since then; politics is defined in organizational theory as a means of allocating scarce resources, our resources are being targeted by people who want to allocate them to feed the welfare state and preserve their own political power.

 

[ModlrMike]

This could turn out badly. Even if Elections Canada rules the poll illegal, the Torries are likely to take a hit:

Article Link

Conservatives accused of trying to halt U of Guelph vote
CBC News
Posted: Apr 15, 2011 10:50 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 15, 2011 10:59 AM ET

The Conservatives come under fresh criticism Friday over the actions of a campaign volunteer who allegedly attempted to grab a ballot and halt voting at the University of Guelph.


Of course the Liberals have their typical short memories:

Artilcle

Three polling stations to open on U of T campus
Anthony Reinhart
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 8:41AM EST
Last updated Sunday, Apr. 05, 2009 12:58AM EDT


-----------------------------

Personal observation: Why do I feel there's always some type of shenanigans at this the University of Guelph?