posted
I'm not going to pretend to know a whole lot, but Paul Martin, called an election. actually I believe the time was coming up and he just had to decide the exact date.
posted
Elections occur at a minimum 4 years after the current party was elected. I am not sure the exact process when a candidate retires before his term ends (as happened in this case), but I think the new leader is given a period of time (not sure if it extends to the end of the previous candidates term or not) in which to call an election.
I should really know more about this, but being that I live in Alberta, the election is usually decided before I cast my vote, so I am more concerned with voting for good local representation than for who wins the big picture.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: being that I live in Alberta, the election is usually decided before I cast my vote, so I am more concerned with voting for good local representation than for who wins the big picture.
As am I solo. For I live in Saskatchewan, the ignored part of the country.
posted
*Agrees with Gwan* You guys at least have oil. We have cows and oats. And Pooka, elections must be held within 5 years of the previous election. The Prime Minister has the power to call it any time it would be most beneficial to him. (Stupid, stupid Paul Martin.) And I couldn't find the thongs, Gwan; I'll go searching again.
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Liberal Party has been in power since the early 90s. During that time, the now-ex Prime Minister Jean Chretien showed himself to be almost comically corrupt.
The most recent example of laugh-me-to-tears corruption in the Liberal party is known as the sponsership scandel. For all intents and purposes, members of the Liberal party stole 250 million dollars and used it for advertising campaigns. They stole it. They just went out and stole $250 million.
Jean Chretien recently retired, turning the party over to Paul Martin. Since Martin is so new, he's getting a reletively easy time with the scandel.
If we Canadians are stupid enough to vote the Liberals in again, then we should just starting writing them checks made out to CASH.
In the last provincial election, I voted for the Green Party. In the next Federal election, I am seriously considering voting Conservative. I am not conservative, but they are the only viable opposition. The far-left NDP party is my personal favourite, but they aren't viable.
I will never, ever vote Liberal.
*sighs* Unless the Conversatives turn out to be even bigger thieves, then I'll have to vote for the only viable opposition which will almost certainly be the Liberals... stupid politics.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't find sexy Democracy undergarments. However, I was thrilled to find out that Ed the Sock endorses Rush the Vote! Now I HAVE to vote!
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most recent example of laugh-me-to-tears corruption in the Liberal party is known as the sponsership scandel. For all intents and purposes, members of the Liberal party stole 250 million dollars and used it for advertising campaigns.
Let's not forget to mention that dear Paul was the FINANCE MINISTER! (Big jerkface ...)
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only 1 in 3 18-24 year-olds voted in the 2000 election in the US. (Technically, 33.8%.)
The amusing thing, looking at the table I'm looking at, is the voting record based on income. Of those making less than $5,000 only 28% voted. $5,000-$10,000 = 34.7% $10,000-$15,000 = 37.7% $15,000-$25,000 = 43.4% $25,000-$35,000 = 51% 35,000-$50,000 = 57.5% $50,000-$75,000 = 65.2% Over $75,000 = 71.3% Of those who did not report their income, 48.2% voted.
No wonder the higher tax brackets get the tax cuts. They actually vote. Doesn't giving stuff away to get votes cause problems? I think the most we can do is give out "I voted" stickers.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The two parties have it worked out between them in the state I live in - Illinois. The one thing you know about both parties is that if they are in power, they will be taking anything not nailed down. It's like they try to out-corrupt each other here.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. There are more ridings in the city of Toronto than there are in my home province of Nova Scotia, guys. Don't talk to me about having no voice
As for Canada standing on her own 2 feet, I don't think there's any worry about that. It used to be that no politician could go wrong by sticking it to Great Britain and now they all know they can't go wrong by distancing themselves from the US. Which seems to be more and more of a good thing these days, at least when it comes to the things the US wants us to do (Sell you our water? Global Missile Defence?)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dude, has anyone ever SEEN politicians? That Jean Chretien was a HOTTIE. <------- most sarcastic thing I've ever said I know Rush the Vote has its heart in the right place; however, do we want those people who will be swayed to vote as a result of this campaign geared toward irresponsible, mindless, gullible delinquents to actually vote for the leaders of our country???
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This seems as good a place as any to make my first post.
Hello!
I live in Toronto, so I have no right to whine about not being represented, but I'll take a stab anyway: for the past six years, in any election, I've voted Liberal out of fear of anything further right getting into power. I'd rather vote NDP but even this year, when I've sworn not to compromise my standards through defensive voting, Stepher Harper terrifies me enough that I just may go red. Again. Point being our three-party system is slowly degenerating into an American-style one-or-the-other system... Sigh.
Foust: I understand not wanting to vote for the Liberals. Paul Martin is pretty far down on my list of favourite people, but at least investigate Harper and his Conservative Party first. Sometimes, stealing 250 million bucks is better than, say, throwing your lot in with a couple non-Canadian politicians (likely far more corrupt, too) and invading a sovereign nation unprovoked to the loss of thousands of lives. Stephen Harper Said is an interesting reference on the matter.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard about this. Even though it's fun to poke fun at Canada, in many ways their politics are nicer than those of the United States.
I took a political science class that focused on four democratic nations worldwide--Canada, Mexico, India, and Russia--Canada came out ahead as the most remarkable democracy (with India just behind). An interesting class, even if it spent way too much time explaining the concept of the political party (we are college students, after all!).
[edit] If anyone finds those "Democracy is Sexy" thongs, I'd like to get ahold of one to give to my girlfriend as a joke.
posted
I know, Aludra. The last thing I want is to vote for anyone that supports the Iraqi war. I don't see that as a practical issue, however. I wouldn't expect a Canadian government to send troops to Iraq under a US flag, it's just not politicaly feasible.
I insist on seeing the Liberals out, almost as much as I want the Republicans out.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, another Torontonian. Rock on. And a dyed in the wool socialist? Even better
Just a quick snippet re: Democracy is Sexy. I believe they're being made by a group called Apathy is Sexy (in Edmonton?) and current plans have them handing the clothes out at local bars and the like. If you wanted to buy one maybe you could E-mail them?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Layton laid out the NDP platform today, and fielded questions. Yes, he actually answered them. Straight answers, too, no BS here.
I was, to say the least, impressed. He's the best speaker of the party leaders, that's for sure. Sadly, I think my riding will be going Conservative, so I may have to vote Liberal to avoid a vote-split.
Ugh. I've never voted anything other than NDP before in my life.
posted
I saw what NDP did to BC...I then resolved to avoid voting for them if I could...not that my vote counts as I'm also in the west ...I'm considering Conservative just so there might be a little more chance of an opposition...
posted
Hey, I'm new here. This would be my first post. Being a Canadian, in this election I would have to vote for the liberals, though it pains me that there is no decent conservative option. I'm definitely not a socialist, and find it hard to take the NDP seriously as an option for federal government. Stephen Harper is simply too inexperienced and unstable to hold the position competently, which leaves us with the devil we know. However, 4 or 5 years from now, I'm looking forward to a decent conservative party ready for leadership after the liberals muck things up again, when Stephen Harper has the experience as an opposition leader and will have (hopefully) developed into a decent option for a leader.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like everyone else in the world we seem to be left with picking the best of a bad lot, eh? You know, I've heard Stephen Harper speak on a number of occaisions and I have to say that I think he's a very smart man. Not that I would ever vote for him, mind you. I can't stand how the Conservatives of the past love to sell off assets and call it a balanced budget when, clearly, it isn't. If you had to sell 10 highways to pay for everything this year you're going to be in trouble next year when you can't sell them any more. And there seem to be precious few examples where privatizing someone hasn't resulted in higher costs for consumers and decreased quality. So much as my experiences in Ontario go, at any rate. And I really, really don't mind paying taxes. So their promises to cut, hack and slash at taxes don't really matter to me.
While I'll be more than likely voting for the NDP, I don't really want them to be in power. They have no experience at the federal level and, well, Bob Ray? 'Nuff said. But I would like to see them in the position of opposition because I think that would give them the experience to become more viable (for much the same reasons people want to see Harper as the face of the official opposition). While I'm leery of their economics their position on most social issues and the environment really resonate with me. Of course, the reason why their interviews are more honest and candid than the reds or the blues is that they've got nothing to lose. When nobody really expects you to win you're free to say things like, "If you don't like our policies than please, vote for the other guys." (paraphrased, but words to that effect where said during the Ontario provincial debate last year).
Paul Martin has always struck me as a conservative in liberal clothing. I guess he's just not quite far enough to the right to find a home there. Of course, I'd rather have them in power than the conservatives. I don't like them, but not as afraid of what they'll do to my country.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me it all depends on Scott Brison's popularity. I'm not sure how to get a feel for the vote around here, though. I'll have to start looking at the local papers, I suppose.
Brison's running in my riding, which has traditionally been federally Conservative. My hope is that people will be smart enough to recognize the Alliance takeover and move to the Liberals who when you get down to it are really just like the Progressive Conservatives used to be now. My other hope, even fainter than the first, is that traditional Liberal voters will recognize Paul Martin for the Conservative he is and, accordingly, vote NDP.
Up until yesterday, I didn't want to see the NDP form the federal government; I just wanted to see them have more influence in the House to keep the governing party socially honest (because let's face it, every government since Trudeau's has been socially bankrupt, with the lone exception of Jean's last year in office). I've been skeptical of Layton for a while now, waiting to see how he would turn out, but I think now I'm satisfied. While I know they won't form the government, my view on whether or not they could do it has changed. I think they could, now. They're finally ready. Of course, it'll be a long time before they get there (if ever), but I'd like to help them along the way if I can. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've decided that the only thing I really want to come out of this is... Paul Martin getting kicked out of Parliment.
I have this erry feeling that people will vote liberal simply because they don't know what else to do. And yah know the cost of moving vans and all..: I think right now I'm routing NDP but as its been said [QUOTELike everyone else in the world we seem to be left with picking the best of a bad lot, eh? ] [/QUOTE]
Posts: 197 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm going with NDP too. I watched the election of Jack Layton on TV a long time ago and I must say I like him a lot more than I do most politicians... he may not be better, but he's less worse in my opinion. Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Layton may seem like a decent guy, but I can't support his platform. He wants to increase taxes by about 29 billion and spend it on 'health care and social services'. The way the NDP has historically managed their budgets, he basically wants to charge working Canadians $100 dollars a month (that's right, his proposed increases would cost working taxpayers over $1000 a year EACH) for him to feel like he's giving the downtrodden a hand up. I'm all for upping the taxes on big businesses, but I'm not willing to pay that kind of money knowing it'll be going towards welfare systems that are already mismanaged. I simply can't trust the NDP to spend that kind of money properly.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question for all the Canadians: does the sponsorship scandal outweigh in your mind the new Cons. party's plans to almost completely unsocialize healthcare? (paraphrase: do the problems with the Liberals outweigh the caustic changes that the cons.s plan for your gov't.?)
posted
>> (that's right, his proposed increases would cost working taxpayers over $1000 a year EACH) <<
Having just perused their 66-page party platform, I don't see where that increase comes from. My understanding is as follows:
The $250,000+ tax bracket rate goes up to 32%
Intra-family inheritance transfers in excess of $1M become subject to tax
$8.5 billion in uncollected -- largely corporate -- taxes will be collected
Tax on the < $15,000 bracket is entirely eliminated
GST on "family essentials" (e.g., children's clothing) is eliminated
I don't see an increase for working-class and middle-class Canadians in there. Besides which, I honestly would have zero objection to paying increased taxes if I saw a corresponding increase in the quality of government-provided social services. >> I'm not willing to pay that kind of money knowing it'll be going towards welfare systems that are already mismanaged. <<
Currently, they aren't particularly mismanaged -- just woefully underfunded.
>> does the sponsorship scandal outweigh in your mind the new Cons. party's plans to almost completely unsocialize healthcare? <<
No. Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about the sponsorship scandal. I was sick of hearing about it in April and now I'm really sick of hearing about it. There are plenty of important things that politicians and the media could be talking about, but they're ignored in the frenzy of the sponsorship scandal. Ridiculous.
posted
I guess this is as good a place for my first post as any. I too am from Sask, so I know that my vote doesn't really matter, but honestly, the sponsorship thing wouldn't bother my if they'd actually do something about it, not just waste more money on a stupid inquiry, either do something or don't. One of the other things I'd like to bring back up is the whole Iraq thing. OK, I admit it, I think we should be in Iraq right now, but we're not so whatever. What I DO think we need is a military and foreign aid policy that allows us to actually do some peacekeeping that we are supposedly famous for. Our armed forces can't even deploy overseas on it's own. And all you out there who say military is bad.....the military is the ONLY orgaization that can get to a country in need, restore peace (or at least security) and then start helping the people. When I hear a party that will actually do that, they'll have my vote. We're one of the greatest countries in the world, and I know we have more than most countries, so I'd take a cut in social programs, or increased taxes to help others out.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I hope that works, off the good ol' CBC. I originally heard about this at lunch break today, and found this web site for ya.
There are admittedly a few bright spots in here, such as the municipal gas tax allotment and clamping down on 'foreign tax havens' (clamp down on Switzerland? Needs clarification.) However, I think that this budget leaves lots of room for the historic NDP 'tax and spend' irresponsibility. For example, I don't believe that lowering tuition costs by throwing millions at the buzzword 'education' will help trade industries approaching a labor crisis.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with the NDP's proposition to tax the wealthy. We live in a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and I HATE that. As for:
quote: GST would be scrapped on feminine hygiene products.
Thanks for considering us, guys. Can you lower the taxes on dishwashing soap and laundry detergent, too? Then we'd really sway the vote for you. Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, the way the polls look now, folks west of Ontario might actually get a say in this election. It could be pretty close.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't it PM MacKenzie King who said "threats to Canada are secondary in nature and indirect in origin"? I recently read a book by Desmond Morton entitled Canadian Defense and it made the case pretty strongly that Canada should not even bother trying to obtain a decent military since they would have to spend 20 more billion than the size of their entire federal budget on defense alone.
Since the Mulroney folly of attempting to massively increase the military for the huge "soviet attack" that never came I think Canada has been right to keep cutting its military. They can neither afford nor do they need a military with the US protecting them by default. I think I read a quote that said something like over 70% of the Canadian population lives within 1 hour of the US border. Any attack on Canada would be an attack on the US in practice and in theory thanks to all the joint North American defense agreements dating all the way back to Roosevelt.
A good reason Canada should not bother with its military? In the last couple conflicts it participated in Canada had to rely on the US to transport most its troops and equipment around and the Canadian equipment is so old that their Avro Arrow fighters cannot even communicate with new American aircraft radio technology.
I think all the Canadian conservatives who remember Vimy Ridge as such a unifying point in Canada's history need to temper that nostalgia with a healthy dose of reality. There is a coming budget crisis that will either force healthcare to tank, or probably have defense near-completely cut. PM Martin has been saying he can fund both but it's an election year and I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe him.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to see some military budget cut and put towards health care. I think we ought to stick to peacekeeping rather than fighting America's wars for them, which calls for an unattainable level of technology and insane expenses.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canadian politics, Very interesting stuff, and non more interested than I. An Alaskan.
"I recently read a book by Desmond Morton entitled Canadian Defense and it made the case pretty strongly that Canada should not even bother trying to obtain a decent military since they would have to spend 20 more billion than the size of their entire federal budget on defense alone. "
Uh huh yep yep yep. Therefore it is time for the resource rich areas of western Canada, or at least yukon and BC and Alaska to join up and create their own sovereign nation because we have more in common with each other than any else, and if successful in succeeding(Ok no that doesn't seem to likely) an in populating the land we could be the free-est, cleanest, and all around badest ass people on the globe. Why the heck should we be ruled by elsewhere just because we have the resources, I mean we could have a open doors immigration policy so it's not like we would be selfish and sitting on it, just why should we be leached? Then all we have to deal with is that little problem of the US military... maybe if Russia... well on the other hand that might not be such a good idea, but there's gotta be some way, right? I mean it's the 21st century, and people should be able do what they want with the land they live on, right? -The Optimist
posted
OK, so Paul Martin spoke at my school today... I despise him and all my slow-witted peers. He beat around the bush while "answering" students' questions, and he posed one (over and over and OVER) himself: IF, perchance, there was a country somewhere out there where the citizens were oppressed, do other countries have a right, no, a RESPONSIBILITY to step in and help??? It was all I could do to stand up in my chair and speak my enraged mind on the subject and tell him that his view on this issue was precisely the reason I would not be voting Liberal (well, among other things) and that he was an idiot. GR! I believe that yes, if people in [said country] were under oppression then Canada DOES have a responsibility to step in-- as peacekeepers, not war-starters. Bush intervened (and got his revenge for 9/11) and as much damage as Hussein's regime, and NOW we're supposed to ally ourselves with him against his invisible enemy we romantically named "Terrorism"? Bush started a war in Iraq-- he is an aggressive antagonist. Canada has an international reputation as a nation of peacekeeping. Idiots, all. Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you ask a question? Did you run out to the parking lot and slit his tires? Did you ask the jerk why he went to your school and not mine? Did make rude noises while he was speaking? Did you do anything fun??
Posts: 197 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I read through that CBC link but I didn't see anything about increasing the taxes by $1000/year for those earning between $15000 and $250000 (the two numbers that were mentioned). Although, I really don't like the sounds of cutting deficit payments in order to fund these programs. I really like a balanced budget, I want the national debt gone. But I also want health care... So, I guess I want my taxes raised for a few years until the debt goes away? S'pose I'll have to pay to eat my cake.
I completely agree with BrianM about our military. I was under the impression that we were still able to send out peacekeepers where they need to go, we just can't send large equipment like jeeps with them. I'd be happy with Peacekeepers, keep JTF2 around, maybe make a JTF3 and keep some boats in the water to shoot the crap out of all the bastards from other countries who insist on overfishing our stocks.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sneered a lot. And made clever wisecracks to those within the vicinity... which would include his wife if her hearing's still good. I was planning to bring tomatoes, but that didn't pan out... you know, he has very watery eyes, like all old, senile people. And a red face. Darn airbrushing; I didn't recognize him at first.
Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote the numbers in question immediately after hearing the broadcast on the radio, and averaging the cost over a rough number of working Canadians. Indirectly, it will cost that much anyways, because if they raise taxes for the rich, they could lower them proportionally for the poor instead of spending extra on social programs for the poor.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
The whole problem with the Canadians is the bacon! Can't get it right northside of the border, can't make it anything but freaky-streaky red-striped fatty on the southside.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
...)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Point being our three-party system is slowly degenerating into an American-style one-or-the-other system... Sigh.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
