NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the man that should be running our country, he seems to be the only one who is actually thinking of our country, not his own personal ambition which is all we have seen from flip-flopper Layton and Conservative Neo-con Harper.


November 29, 2005



Good morning.


A minority Parliament means the opposition can force an election whenever it chooses. In this case, I believe ambition has overwhelmed common sense.


I know most of us don’t want a campaign over the holiday season. However, the Conservatives and the separatist Bloc, working with the NDP, have decided we’ll have one – as is their right. They have decided that forcing an election now is more important than establishing benchmarks to reduce wait times in health care, more important than making sure Canadians receive the full benefits of the tax cuts announced by the finance minister.


Therefore, I have just met with the Governor-General, and she has agreed to dissolve the 38th Parliament. A general election, one forced over the holidays by the three opposition parties, will be held on Monday, January 23.


I do not believe the last several weeks of manoeuvring and strategic cynicism among the opposition leaders has been consistent with the clear message of a year and a half ago – when Canadians sent a minority Parliament to Ottawa and asked the parties to make it work: to choose co-operation over conflict, progress over partisanship.


We tried to do our part. My government worked in a spirit of collaboration to pass a budget for a stronger Canada.


At the same time, I pledged in a televised address that I would call an election within 30 days of receiving the final report of Judge Gomery – so that my government would be accountable to Canadians. Most people found that reasonable and fair. But the opposition still spent the spring and then the fall trying to force an election. It was their obsession.


In this election, my government will go before Canadians with a record of achievement – a record of promises kept – and with a clear and comprehensive plan to continue to achieve progress for all.


We have worked to strengthen our public system of health care – investing $41-billion over 10 years to ensure Canadians get to see a doctor when they need one, where they need one.


We have worked to create a national program of early learning and child care, reaching agreements with all 10 provinces and investing in affordable, quality care and teaching -- to make sure future generations of Canadians will have the best possible chance to succeed.


We have worked to implement our New Deal for cities and communities, to date reaching agreements with eight provinces and all three territories and investing to help ensure our municipalities are great places to live, work and raise a family.


We have worked with the provinces, territories and national Aboriginal groups to create a detailed plan to help improve the lives of First Nation, Inuit and Métis people.


And we have brought forth a plan to reduce taxes for Canadians – some $30-billion in tax cuts that will contribute to our collective prosperity.


Under a Liberal government, Canada has gone from pauper to powerhouse. Deficits are history – we’ve had eight surpluses in a row now, helping to keep our economy strong.


Under a Liberal government, Canada has paid down more than $60-billion in debt – ensuring we won’t burden the next generation of Canadians.


Under a Liberal government, interest rates are low. Inflation is low. More than 400,000 new jobs have been created across our land since the beginning of last year alone – sending unemployment to its lowest rate in 30 years.


Eight straight surpluses. $60-billion less debt. 400,000 new jobs. I’m proud of these numbers, and you’ll hear me talk about them throughout this campaign. But it’s not really about the numbers – it’s about what those numbers represent.


They represent the fact that today it is easier for Canadians to find work, to pay the bills, to afford a home.


And they represent freedom -- the hard-won freedom to make our own choices, not those dictated to us by creditors. The freedom to build the society we want. To succeed in building Canada.



I want that society to be progressive and generous, concerned not only with economic prosperity but with fairness and social justice. A society that will never stray from the values on which it was built: respect for each other, equality of opportunity, a shared commitment to helping all Canadians seize their potential.


The other leaders hold very different views of what our country should be.


Jack Layton thinks government should do everything, even if it puts at risk the nation’s finances.


Stephen Harper sees no role for government and would turn his back on our investments in early learning, in cities and communities, in helping immigrants adapt to their new lives in Canada.


Gilles Duceppe has but one imperative: to divide us at a time when there is so much we can achieve together, when a proud and ambitious Quebec is contributing to making our country stronger.


The Bloc wants only for us to go through the turbulence of another referendum. But they should be asked: will the world wait for us throughout that turbulence? Our competitors are not within our borders, they are outside them. Together we must confront them. Together we will succeed.


And so I say to Canadians today: You have a stake in this. Your vote will make a difference in this election. And, in turn, the result of this election will make a difference in your life and in the life of our country.


When you cast a vote for a Liberal government, you vote to protect a strong economy and the lowest unemployment since 1975. You vote to continue the best fiscal performance in our nation’s history. You vote for standing proud in the world – meeting our responsibilities while speaking with an independent voice. You vote for standing up to the United States on softwood lumber.


When you cast your vote for a Liberal government, you vote for better health care, for early learning to help children thrive, for more vibrant and liveable cities and communities. You vote for a Canada defined by respect, generosity and fairness, a Canada that seeks to extend equality of opportunity to all, a Canada that strives to be the standard by which other nations judge themselves.


There is such potential in our nation, such promise in the years ahead. If we choose to, together we will fulfill that potential. If we choose to, together we will achieve that promise. On January 23rd, that choice will be yours.


Thank you.

Just curious, but do you have the statements from Hapless and JackAss from last night so we can compare them?

This is the man that should be running our country, he seems to be the only one who is actually thinking of our country, not his own personal ambition which is all we have seen from flip-flopper Layton and Conservative Neo-con Harper.

I thought you didn't like the term "flip-flopper"

Just curious, but do you have the statements from Hapless and JackAss from last night so we can compare them?

No, I could probably find the Harper one if you can even call what he did a speech. I doubt that there is any news transcript of Layton as they broke away from him in middle sentence to air our Prime Ministers's speech. Although his depressed little act last night might be around some where.

I thought you didn't like the term "flip-flopper"

It is a stupid phrase though. It suggests learning from experience is wrong.

I thought you didn't like the term "flip-flopper"

In this case it really fits. I never said I didn't like the term, I just thought it was applied wrong in your election. However what else do you call a man that less than 6 months ago stood with the government and when he didn't get to actually be the PM took a temper tantrum and alined himself with what by any means of the imagination is the enemy of the NDP and bring down that same government. Flip Flopper is what I call it! He's about as flakey as a Crisco pie and that's not saying much for him.

It was all the buzz on the news last night, he did not act like himself with the press, had to read from notes and as the press put it "had nothing new to say, and appeared very depressed." I guess he didn't believe that Martin would call his bluff. It wouldn't surprise me to see a backlash come election day against the NDP for back stabbing the government and alining with what any real NDP'er would consider the enemy.

Holiday election. This is going to be bizarre.

If Paul Martin steps down as leader of the Liberal Party, I am voting Green.

In this case it really fits. I never said I didn't like the term, I just thought it was applied wrong in your election. However what else do you call a man that less than 6 months ago stood with the government and when he didn't get to actually be the PM took a temper tantrum and alined himself with what by any means of the imagination is the enemy of the NDP and bring down that same government. Flip Flopper is what I call it! He's about as flakey as a Crisco pie and that's not saying much for him.

It was all the buzz on the news last night, he did not act like himself with the press, had to read from notes and as the press put it "had nothing new to say, and appeared very depressed." I guess he didn't believe that Martin would call his bluff. It wouldn't surprise me to see a backlash come election day against the NDP for back stabbing the government and alining with what any real NDP'er would consider the enemy.


Hmm. I could agree that the use of the term on Kerry didn't apply during the election, but it sure applies now. Using your example, what do you call a man who stood with the President and authorized the Iraq War (although by his own admission, instead of reading the entire 94 page intelligence report, he only read part of the summary), and when he didn't win the election, he and his party threw a temper tantrum (a planned tantrum, if the Rockefeller Memo is to be believed).

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about the Canadian elections. All indications are that the government will remain very nearly the way it is now, albeit with a time-wasting, freeze your socks off in the line January election.

Most politics is an exercise in time-wasting. I expect no backlash, and I expect no major power shift in Canada (quite unlike the US, where you can be rewarded heavily for repeating something loud and often).

If things worked in Canada the way they work in the US, Quebec would already be a separate country.

In this case it really fits. I never said I didn't like the term, I just thought it was applied wrong in your election. However what else do you call a man that less than 6 months ago stood with the government and when he didn't get to actually be the PM took a temper tantrum and alined himself with what by any means of the imagination is the enemy of the NDP and bring down that same government. Flip Flopper is what I call it! He's about as flakey as a Crisco pie and that's not saying much for him.

I actually disagree. While I'm not enamored of Layton at all, what I saw was him working as best he could for the principles of the NDP. When co-operating with the government made that possible, he did that. When the government would not co-operate, to promote the values of the NDP, he proposed a means that would allow the government to still co-operate in order to conduct business that both the Liberals and the NDP were in favor of, but would halt legislation they were not (private healthcare). When the Liberal party, buoyed by recent polls realized that perhaps they didn't have to cooperate to stay in power, effectively said (in their typical fashion) "It's our way or the highway." Layton chose the highway, preferring to allow some potential benefits to be scuttled in order to ensure that the things they feel would really hurt Canada were not allowed to pass.

Unlike yourself, Layton doesn't seem trapped in the notion of ideology, and is unafraid of the conservative boogey-man. Instead he seems to be looking toward practical effects. If I didn't think that the Green Party deserved my federal vote dollars more, I would likely be voting for the NDP simply because of Layton's actions over the last few days.

Not that my vote is going to change the course of this election.. I'm in Calgary after all.

Apparently it's only okay to use the term 'flip-flopper' if Stephi doesn't agree with your opinion.

I was wondering when someone was going to notice that.

It's like a really crappy version of the rise of Palpatine.

It's like a really crappy version of the rise of Palpatine.
You can't do that. The script was written in the US, and we already did it with our government...

Not that my vote is going to change the course of this election.. I'm in Calgary after all.

Keep your chin up, Waterkeep. It's good to see that you are determined to vote, even though you feel (know) it won't influence who is MP in your riding. At least the new campaign financing rules do mean that every vote counts (as long as your selected party gets at least 4% of the vote).

These new rules have helped some of my apathetic family members a) get out to the polls in 2004 and b) do more than just spoil their ballot, and I call that a good thing

I actually disagree. While I'm not enamored of Layton at all, what I saw was him working as best he could for the principles of the NDP. When co-operating with the government made that possible, he did that. When the government would not co-operate, to promote the values of the NDP

No, you seem to not know what actually went on, when Layton was getting EVERYTHING he wanted he was fine, when Martin disagreed but was still willing to co-operate Layton took a hissy fit. See Layton thought that co-operate meant that he was going to take over the health care agenda. Now call me crazy, but I do believe that the Canadian people election Paul Martin as PM, not Jack Layton. It was all or nothing for Layton. Which is not the way co-operation works.

I really don't care that much about Layton anyway, he's on a bus going no where. NDP are at 16% in the polls. They won't even form the official opposition I suspect.

This country will have to elect a Conservative government eventually. Otherwise we're looking at continuous Liberal rule, not the kind of thing that promotes democratic reform.

Multi-party, parliamentary politics fascinate me. They're so different than what we have here in the States. I think our politicians would be much better at foreign relations (which resemble multi-party, parliamentary relations) if they had to practice at home. And yet, our two-party, presidential system is so simple. Most of the time I don't know which system I like better.

You can't do that. The script was written in the US, and we already did it with our government...

Have we? I was drawing the comparison to the "vote of no confidence" thing. I think this ordeal in Canada rivals it more than anything that's happened in the US yet. As I understand it, those guys who brought about the vote are Sith lords.

This country will have to elect a Conservative government eventually. Otherwise we're looking at continuous Liberal rule, not the kind of thing that promotes democratic reform.

It looks like Liberals ruling in a minority for the foreseeable future.

I actually disagree. While I'm not enamored of Layton at all, what I saw was him working as best he could for the principles of the NDP. When co-operating with the government made that possible, he did that. When the government would not co-operate, to promote the values of the NDP, he proposed a means that would allow the government to still co-operate in order to conduct business that both the Liberals and the NDP were in favor of, but would halt legislation they were not (private healthcare). When the Liberal party, buoyed by recent polls realized that perhaps they didn't have to cooperate to stay in power, effectively said (in their typical fashion) "It's our way or the highway." Layton chose the highway, preferring to allow some potential benefits to be scuttled in order to ensure that the things they feel would really hurt Canada were not allowed to pass.

Unlike yourself, Layton doesn't seem trapped in the notion of ideology, and is unafraid of the conservative boogey-man. Instead he seems to be looking toward practical effects. If I didn't think that the Green Party deserved my federal vote dollars more, I would likely be voting for the NDP simply because of Layton's actions over the last few days.

Not that my vote is going to change the course of this election.. I'm in Calgary after all.

Thank you.

This country will have to elect a Conservative government eventually. Otherwise we're looking at continuous Liberal rule, not the kind of thing that promotes democratic reform.

I think another poster in a different thread said it best..

Originally Posted by Silliopolous
Unemployment at a 30-year low.
Dollar up 15% since MArtin took office.
We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.
Interest rates low.
Balanced budget.
We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.
Trade surplus up.
inflation down
Personal income taxes dropping.
US caving on softwood.
oh yes, and We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.

Now tell me, what exactly needs to be fixed again???????

I think another poster in a different thread said it best..
Now tell me, what exactly needs to be fixed again???????

The question is, how much of that can be directly and undeniably connected primarily to the policies of the current government?

The question is, how much of that can be directly and undeniably connected primarily to the policies of the current government?
Non-involvement in Iraq.

I think that's good enough.

The question is, how much of that can be directly and undeniably connected primarily to the policies of the current government?

All of it. The Liberals have been in power for most of the past century and non-stop for the last 12 years.

We had 3 conservative governments in any recent memory. 1) John Diefenbaker (from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963.) he appeared to do an "ok" job. Then no conservative was elected until 2)Joe Clark, who won a minority government and his government collapsed in 8 months, at which point Trudeau came back to win a massive majority government. Then when Trudeau quit, 3)Brian Mulroney (September 17, 1984, to June 25, 1993.) And who's legacy is that of the most hated PM in Canadian history, often called "Lyin Brian" by the Canadian people.

It was his fault trying to get his name in the history books who brought Quebec separation back to the minds of the people of Quebec, as he opened a can of worms that didn't need to be opened. Most Canadian people directly blame him for the formation of "The Bloc" which actually constitutionally doesn't really even have a right to exist in federal politics given that their interests only lays in one province and that's not allowed, but we don't say anything and it keeps them quiet.

The NDP have never formed a federal government in Canadian history.. so not much to say about them.

Other than that, it's been Liberal government after Liberal government, so yes, I can say without doubt that the progress is by all accounts a direct result of the Liberal party of Canada's doing.

It looks like Liberals ruling in a minority for the foreseeable future.
According to the poll numbers, it may be so, despite that Canadians wants a majority.

I think it'd be kind of fun to have a coalition gov't of the Bloc and the NDP. Fun, like spinning around until you puke fun. In any case, the Libs made me somewhat happy with them for the whole Residential Schools deal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455597). And gay marriage. Definately happy with the gay marriage. FUCK YOU HARPER!

I think it'd be kind of fun to have a coalition gov't of the Bloc and the NDP. Fun, like spinning around until you puke fun. In any case, the Libs made me somewhat happy with them for the whole Residential Schools deal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455597). And gay marriage. Definately happy with the gay marriage. FUCK YOU HARPER!

The funny thing about both these issues is that the Liberals brought about these things just before federal elections, and presenting themselves as proponents of these changes when activists have been pushing these issues for years.

Not to say that these are bad things, or that we should scrap them just because the Liberals have used them as campaign material.

Just putting things in perspective.

The funny thing about both these issues is that the Liberals brought about these things just before federal elections, and presenting themselves as proponents of these changes when activists have been pushing these issues for years.

Not to say that these are bad things, or that we should scrap them just because the Liberals have used them as campaign material.

Just putting things in perspective.

Putting things in perspective? No, they did these things and then the Bloc, Conservatives and NDP forced an election. The Liberals didn't ask for this election, it was forced on them. So by saying these things were done as "pre-election" stunts, is not only not true, but is disingenuous to even imply!

Putting things in perspective? No, they did these things and then the Bloc, Conservatives and NDP forced an election. The Liberals didn't ask for this election, it was forced on them. So by saying these things were done as "pre-election" stunts, is not only not true, but is disingenuous to even imply!

Sure, because the Liberals had no idea that the opposition was going to do that.:rolleyes:

Besides, I don't mind if you say I'm being disingenuous. You've said worse.

The funny thing about both these issues is that the Liberals brought about these things just before federal elections, and presenting themselves as proponents of these changes when activists have been pushing these issues for years.

Not to say that these are bad things, or that we should scrap them just because the Liberals have used them as campaign material.

Just putting things in perspective.
Here's my perspective:

I don't care who takes the credit, as long as these things get done. I do however, care, when certain parties say that they would try to prevent these things from happening.

Here's my perspective:

I don't care who takes the credit, as long as these things get done. I do however, care, when certain parties say that they would try to prevent these things from happening.

I agree 100%. If the Liberals make promises like this every election period and then keep them, then more power to them. If the actions are good, the motives are unimportant. I sincerely hope that whatever party ends up governing continues to address the Residential School program. And I'm with you in opposing those who would oppose these decisions, especially the residential schoolsissue, which I feel is one of the darkest parts of Canadian history.

What I am saying is that election periods are the only time the Liberals really move forward on these issues.

I think Steph is being a little idealistic and blinded when they say "all of it" is due entirely to the Liberal gov't.
Let's face it, the dollar isn't up 15% BECAUSE of Martin's gov't. It's up because the world is scared of investing in the USD, because of a- terrorism b- Bush's spending policies. With the USD sinking, the Canadian dollar automatically rises in comparison, even if it's technically of the same value to the rest of the world.
And that dollar going up isn't all roses, either. Our manufacturing sector has been hit hard by it. We just lost a paper mill here (down 250+ good paying jobs) because of the rise of the loonie.

I'd be interested to see the actual breakdown of the lost jobs vs. the new jobs. 400000 new jobs SOUNDS nice, but are they all minimum wage, going nowhere sorts of jobs? Because the jobs we've been losing sound like they've been more middle-income with benefits and protection sorts of good jobs.

What I am saying is that election periods are the only time governments really move forward on these issues.
My change:)

Then we should just have elections more often!:eek:

Besides, I don't mind if you say I'm being disingenuous. You've said worse.

And I'll continue to say worse. We have the best government in recent memory. We have so much to be thankful for as Canadians. We have true leadership in Martin and he won't sell us out. I don't know about you, but I love my country and yes, it angers me when I see people advocating to destroy all the good that has been accomplished by the Liberals. Just look at their record, a record to be more than proud of. So you'll have to excuse me if it upsets me when I see other Canadians who would rather see our country go down the drain instead of simply admitting that Paul Martin has done amazing things in his time in Parliament.

I would be the first person screaming for change if the Liberals were destroying our country, but they aren't. No other party has a platform that would improve upon the Canada we have now. When and if that day ever comes, I'll vote for them. Because at the end of the day, all I care about is what is good for Canada. I love this country as if it were my own child. I would die for her, there is simply nothing I wouldn't do to keep this country FREE and STRONG!

The only people who have shown that they can do that is the Liberal party. If the day ever comes that they are not the best option, I will change my vote, but not until.

You know, I wish we had a serious Liberal Party here in the U.S.. Our dichotomous political system drives me nuts.

You know, I wish we had a serious Liberal Party here in the U.S.. Our dichotomous political system drives me nuts.

It drives us nuts, too. ;)

I think Steph is being a little idealistic and blinded when they say "all of it" is due entirely to the Liberal gov't.
Let's face it, the dollar isn't up 15% BECAUSE of Martin's gov't. It's up because the world is scared of investing in the USD, because of a- terrorism b- Bush's spending policies. With the USD sinking, the Canadian dollar automatically rises in comparison, even if it's technically of the same value to the rest of the world.

And I might agree with you if it was true..


Investors flock to Bush's dollar despite declining presidency
(http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/detail.asp?ID=72590&GRP=E)

And I might agree with you if it was true..


Investors flock to Bush's dollar despite declining presidency
(http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/detail.asp?ID=72590&GRP=E)

That's really recent news, and certainly lends some credibility to your statement... interesting stuff! :)
I'm tending to be leaning more to voting Liberal again with all the recent news taken into consideration... I like Martin. But I like Layton, too.

And I might agree with you if it was true..


Investors flock to Bush's dollar despite declining presidency
(http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/detail.asp?ID=72590&GRP=E)
It's because the US economy has been growing steadily between 3 and 4 percent, even during and after Katrina and the war in Iraq - go figure that one out.

I think that Canada's economy is bound tighter to the US economy than most people will admit.

Not that Bush is responsible for the US economy growing - I credit no President with that power, given that the economic power of the US government doesn't add up to a single day's worth of trading at the NYSE.

My change:)

Then we should just have elections more often!:eek:

Thanks, it's a good change.

and i think we should have elections more often too

Thanks, it's a good change.

and i think we should have elections more often too

I'm going to disagree with you there... they cost too much money to have often. :P It's fine the way it is. :)

Wow, I had no idea Steph was such a die-hard Liberal fan. I'm disappointed.

That's really recent news, and certainly lends some credibility to your statement... interesting stuff! :)
I'm tending to be leaning more to voting Liberal again with all the recent news taken into consideration... I like Martin. But I like Layton, too.

I live in Ottawa..lol what can I say. I see it all first hand all the time. My husband's Grandfather (who has passed) help form the CCF which became the NDP. But lets be honest, they stand no chance in hell. They've never formed a federal government and I seriously doubt that's about to change any time soon. Maybe, years from now, who knows, but we know they won't now. And let us not forget these are not the old red Tories of the past. These are hard-core conservatives that also have never been tested. So we have 3 options if you want me to include the NDP.

Liberals - Tried, tested and true.

Conservatives - One that have never formed a federal government. They are not the old progressive conservatives.

NDP - Again, unknown, they've never held office federally. They almost destroyed Ontario with Bob Rae.

What choice is there? And lets be honest, it's not exactly like the Liberals are not doing a good job.

I think another poster in a different thread said it best..

Originally Posted by Silliopolous:
Unemployment at a 30-year low.
Dollar up 15% since MArtin took office.
We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.
Interest rates low.
Balanced budget.
We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.
Trade surplus up.
inflation down
Personal income taxes dropping.
US caving on softwood.
oh yes, and We're still not in Iraq as Harper wanted us to be.


Now tell me, what exactly needs to be fixed again???????

I agree. These are all wonderful things. It should be a given that a strong economy and low unemployment rates are a major goal for any party in power.

However, there are a number of areas where the government needs improvement:

1. Healthcare. It's Canadians' #1 issue, and it is not being adequately addressed.

2. Poverty in Canada. The government made 'eradicating child poverty' a major goal years ago. What has happened? More Canadian children live in poverty than ever before.

3. Environment. Yes, the Kyoto treaty has been a big fight in Canada. But one reason for this is that the government has not produced any plans, any goals, or any targets thus far. We've got the One-Ton Challenge, and that's pretty much it. There is so much more we could be doing - particularly in the area of encouraging research and development of sustainable green energy.

4. Foreign aid. Former PM Lester B. Pearson (and my pick for Greatest Canadian) stood up at the UN and challenged the developed nations to put .7 percent of their GDP towards foreign aid. And we haven't even met our own challenge!

5. Recognizing the skills of foreign trained professionals and putting them to work. We keep hearing how there is a shortage of doctors, and then we hear about the foreign doctors driving taxi cabs. We give them extra immigration points for their skills and knowledge, and then we don't let them use it.

6. Infrastructure. The federal and provincial governments keep off-loading costs and responsibilities onto the municipalities, who have the least ability to maintain and grow this infrastructure. We've got to correct this imbalance.

7. Military. I'm not suggesting going overboard on this, but our forces need better equipment and transport. Their pay levels should better reflect their service to the country, and military housing is in bad need of an upgrade in many parts of the country.

8. Native issues. This really shouldn't be so far down this list. The latest scandal from the Kashechewan reserve only highlights how poorly this has been handled. There are reserves that have had boil water advisories for 9 years. And while we're at it, let's look at the poor employment opportunities on reserves, substance abuse issues, self-government issues, and yes, we can (and shoud) require investigation of allegations of fraud and mismanagement on the part of native leaders when band councils mis-spend money without being called racist.

9. Trade diversity. 1/3 of our GDP is dependent on our trade with the US. Yes, steps have been made to diversify, and this dependency has dropped by a few percentage points in the last few years, but frankly we need more.

10. UNITY! We need to pull this country together. Back in 2003/2004, I really thought that Chretien had pulled off a major coup and brought Quebec back into the fold, and that Martin could spend his career bringing Alberta and the West back. And then, Adscam broke and we're worse off than we ever were before. This really breaks my heart.

Wow, I had no idea Steph was such a die-hard Liberal fan. I'm disappointed.

I rather expected her to be NDP.

Wow, I had no idea Steph was such a die-hard Liberal fan. I'm disappointed.

Why?

I think Steph is being a little idealistic and blinded when they say "all of it" is due entirely to the Liberal gov't.
Let's face it, the dollar isn't up 15% BECAUSE of Martin's gov't. It's up because the world is scared of investing in the USD, because of a- terrorism b- Bush's spending policies. With the USD sinking, the Canadian dollar automatically rises in comparison, even if it's technically of the same value to the rest of the world.
Actually, a quick search tell me that the dollar is up on most market. The only way it seems down is against european currencies (GBPound and Euro)

And that dollar going up isn't all roses, either. Our manufacturing sector has been hit hard by it. We just lost a paper mill here (down 250+ good paying jobs) because of the rise of the loonie.

Can't blame the closing of the paper mill on the dollar alone. I seem to recall a softwood dispute that is costing paper companies upwards of 5 billions as we speak. Can't forget that one...

Conservatives - One that have never formed a federal government. They are not the old progressive conservatives.
That is a very important point. This Conservative Party of Canada is a new party, the likes of which we have never before seen.

NDP - Again, unknown, they've never held office federally. They almost destroyed Ontario with Bob Rae.
Yet, they did well in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Just out of curiosity - the urban/rural thing plays quite heavily in the US. Does it play heavily in Canada? I'm wondering if Steph's stance on the Liberal party comes from living in an urban setting.

Wow, I had no idea Steph was such a die-hard Liberal fan. I'm disappointed.

I vote for who will be best for Canada. At this time in history it is the Liberals. It's not rocket science my dear. It's also not like we have any other viable choices. I love my country, so yes, I'm vocal about what is best for the country. I have only one loyalty, that is to Canada, not the Liberal party.

Why?
Maybe I've missed my guess, but she sounds more to the left than the current government.

Just out of curiosity - the urban/rural thing plays quite heavily in the US. Does it play heavily in Canada? I'm wondering if Steph's stance on the Liberal party comes from living in an urban setting.
In Alberta, almost certainly.

Maybe I've missed my guess, but she sounds more to the left than the current government.

Surprise, surprise..lol ;)

Surprise, surprise..lol ;)
You're so big on subordinating to the UN - I should have guessed it when you defended NATO action in Serbia.

Most people who believe in the UN as strongly as you appear to usually believe that NATO should subordinate itself to the UN Security Council.

I think Steph is being a little idealistic and blinded when they say "all of it" is due entirely to the Liberal gov't.
Let's face it, the dollar isn't up 15% BECAUSE of Martin's gov't. It's up because the world is scared of investing in the USD, because of a- terrorism b- Bush's spending policies. With the USD sinking, the Canadian dollar automatically rises in comparison, even if it's technically of the same value to the rest of the world.
And that dollar going up isn't all roses, either. Our manufacturing sector has been hit hard by it. We just lost a paper mill here (down 250+ good paying jobs) because of the rise of the loonie.

I'd be interested to see the actual breakdown of the lost jobs vs. the new jobs. 400000 new jobs SOUNDS nice, but are they all minimum wage, going nowhere sorts of jobs? Because the jobs we've been losing sound like they've been more middle-income with benefits and protection sorts of good jobs.


Do bear in mind that the Canadian dollar has also appreciated from .60 to .73 Euros over the past 18 months also - a similar rise as against the USD.

And as to the types of jobs created, this is a tough one to determine. a good indicator would be median income as you would know if new jobs are skewed towards the low or high end of the scale.

Unfortunately The most recent full stats out from StatsCan only include 2003 where median income fell by .05% (in other words, pretty stable indicating likely job gains and losses across the full spectrum of incomes), but no 2004 statement yet that I could find.

HEre was what I found: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050512/d050512a.htm

You're so big on subordinating to the UN - I should have guessed it when you defended NATO action in Serbia.

Most people who believe in the UN as strongly as you appear to usually believe that NATO should subordinate itself to the UN Security Council.

Well, I think most Canadians with perhaps the exception of these new type of American neo-cons we have here calling themselves "the Conservatives" are pro-UN and pro-NATO.

It doesn't hurt that my mother-in-law holds a pretty high position in the UN as does my sister-in-law. ;)

I vote for who will be best for Canada. At this time in history it is the Liberals. It's not rocket science my dear. It's also not like we have any other viable choices. I love my country, so yes, I'm vocal about what is best for the country. I have only one loyalty, that is to Canada, not the Liberal party.

And that's fine, but in most of your posts you are implying that to vote for anyone other than the liberals is dumb or immature or short-sighted. I hope you can understand why people would find that annoying.

Just out of curiosity - the urban/rural thing plays quite heavily in the US. Does it play heavily in Canada? I'm wondering if Steph's stance on the Liberal party comes from living in an urban setting.

Yes. Rural ridings tend to go Conservative. Urban ridings tend to go Liberal or NDP. There are exceptions of course - Skeena, a northern BC rural riding tends to go NDP, Calgary goes Conservative. And the far north almost always goes Liberal.

And that's fine, but in most of your posts you are implying that to vote for anyone other than the liberals is dumb or immature or short-sighted. I hope you can understand why people would find that annoying.

I can see your point. However in this time and in this election the Liberals are the only real choice. Sure, the NDP want to save the world, me too. Am I willing to bankrupt Canada to do it? No, never!

I'm for fiscal responsibility and I'm for very liberal social freedoms. The Liberal party of Canada is too. Therefore I support them.

NDP - Again, unknown, they've never held office federally. They almost destroyed Ontario with Bob Rae.
No, they inherited the mess from the past Liberal and Conservattive governments. They had to make do. Further, it was the Harris PCs that did a better job of sinking Ontario with its bloody 'Common Sense Revolution' policies!

Why?
Because I'd convinced myself that people only supported the Liberals as a compromise.

Just out of curiosity - the urban/rural thing plays quite heavily in the US. Does it play heavily in Canada? I'm wondering if Steph's stance on the Liberal party comes from living in an urban setting.
It's more of a regional thing, really. The 'west' (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and sometimes Manitoba) against the 'east' (usually just Ontario, Quebec too, but in a different sense, since they are seen as being against everyone else)...with the 'lowly' maritimers in the REAL East, kind of ignored by everyone.

It's more of a regional thing, really. The 'west' (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and sometimes Manitoba) against the 'east' (usually just Ontario, Quebec too, but in a different sense, since they are seen as being against everyone else)...with the 'lowly' maritimers in the REAL East, kind of ignored by everyone.
Except by Harper who kindly designated them as part of the 'dependant culture'. In other words, sucking on Ottawa's *beep*. :D (use your imagination here!)

Because I'd convinced myself that people only supported the Liberals as a compromise.

I live in Ottawa, haha, what did you expect. ;)

I live in Ottawa, haha, what did you expect. ;)
Fortress Liberal.

Fortress Liberal.

To tell you the truth Sinuhue, I came so close to checking the NDP box on my ballot in 2004. I too was sickened by King Jean, and willing to take out my frustration on Paul Martin. But, at the last minute and I mean last minute (I was in the voting booth) changed my mind, while I was still pissed with the Liberals, I couldn't take the chance of the Conservatives taking control of the country, so I voted Liberal only strategically.

Although, this time it is different. Paul Martin has been found to have had nothing to do with Ad-Scam, he fired any one who did. The Liberal Party is clean again. And I can't ignore the Liberals record. I admit last time I voted for them only strategically. This time, I'm voting for them because I believe in them.

Because I'd convinced myself that people only supported the Liberals as a compromise.
I switched from NDP to Liberal in the last election based primarily on Paul Martin's actions and personality, and secondarily on how unimpressed I was with Jack Layton (disappointed, actually). Plus I respect the Liberal idealism more than the NDP idealism, which they would pass off as realism.

secondarily on how unimpressed I was with Jack Layton (disappointed, actually)

Yes, I think that we can all at least I hope agree on, Jack Layton is certainly no Ed Broadbent!

I can see your point. However in this time and in this election the Liberals are the only real choice. Sure, the NDP want to save the world, me too. Am I willing to bankrupt Canada to do it? No, never!

This myth again?

As you said, the NDP has not been a federal party, so I have no idea what you're basing your ideas that they'd bankrupt Canada on.

Is it their provincial record? You seem to harp on Bob Rae but as pointed out the economy of Ontario was in the bucket before he came along. If anything his government was a reaction to the failed policies of those before him. Now if you want real world examples of what NDP budgeting does, check out Saskatchewan, Pre-NeoLiberal BC, and Manitoba.. you'll see the Liberals aren't the only ones who can run a surplus. It seems your memory is very selective, as Equus has pointed out a number of times the report created by the very federal government you're supporting that said quite clearly that the NDP budget was actually the most responsible.

As for your assertion that liberal policies have done anything to Canada, it's completely ignoring the true origins of their policies.

This myth again?

It's not a myth, read their platform. :rolleyes:

It's not a myth, read their platform. :rolleyes:
This one? (http://www.ndp.ca/ourrecord)

This one? (http://www.ndp.ca/ourrecord)

Wow, they changed that overnight..lol Jack Layton really is a lying sack of shit isn't he.. oh man! haha. Carry on.. ;)

Wow, they changed that overnight..lol Jack Layton really is a lying sack of shit isn't he.. oh man! haha. Carry on.. ;)
Ah, so what did it say before then?

And can you find anything on that page that isn't true? I'd be happy to hear it.

It's not a myth, read their platform. :rolleyes:

It is a myth. Steph, when the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives reviewed the budget and tax platforms of the LPC, CPC, and NDP for the 2004 election, the platform they overwhelmingly preferred was the NDP's. They stated that the LPC one was indeed the more fiscally prudent and paid the most debt off. (It will be interesting to see whether that changes with the corporate tax cuts that will be presented as part of their platform, though.) The NDP still came through with a surplus to put towards debt repayment - but they also allocated funding to some critical areas where Canada has struggled since the cuts in the 90's. For the record, this NDP platform would have put more than $4 billion of surplus against the national debt.

I will be very interested in seeing the CCPA analysis on the party platforms once they're all available, to see if there are any changes. I hope they include a Green Party analysis as well.

Wow, they changed that overnight..lol Jack Layton really is a lying sack of shit isn't he.. oh man! haha. Carry on.. ;)

What are you talking about? That's the "NDP budget" that was brought through several months ago. You know, at the same time as the Same Sex Marriage legislation came in.

No, they inherited the mess from the past Liberal and Conservattive governments. They had to make do. Further, it was the Harris PCs that did a better job of sinking Ontario with its bloody 'Common Sense Revolution' policies!
Yeah, stupid conservatives fucked us up royally.

And people wonder why Ontario doesn't go to the conservatives federally... especially when certain party leaders pat Harris on the back and say he did a good job.

For anyone interested in an analysis of the 2004 budget platforms (since no analysis is available yet for the upcoming election), see:

Can They Pay for What They Say? (Budget analysis) http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=593&do=article&pA=BB736455

Given that these platforms this paper reviews are only 17 months old, they should still be relevant, at least until the platforms for this election are released.

Yeah, stupid conservatives fucked us up royally.

And people wonder why Ontario doesn't go to the conservatives federally... especially when certain party leaders pat Harris on the back and say he did a good job.

Think after McGuinty they will vote Conservative?

"I won't cut taxes and I won't raise them.......I WILL JUST CREATE NEW ONES MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

Looks like Harper isn't very serious about the urban vote - he just promised to revisit Same Sex Marriage.Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote.

And this is how he wants to make inroads in Ontarian and British Columbian cities?

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n112921A

What are you talking about? That's the "NDP budget" that was brought through several months ago. You know, at the same time as the Same Sex Marriage legislation came in.

First of all, the federal government has no place in "affordable housing" that is up to the province's. His (Layton's) attack on the PM, only goes to show that they have nothing to offer except to try and smear the Liberals. Politics as usual I suppose. But at least they could be honest, which they are not on their site.

The ONLY choice!
http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

First of all, the federal government has no place in "affordable housing" that is up to the province's. His (Layton's) attack on the PM, only goes to show that they have nothing to offer except to try and smear the Liberals. Politics as usual I suppose. But at least they could be honest, which they are not on their site.

Given that the Liberals agreed to putting a million or so into affordable housing in the "NDP budget", they must have been putting the money somewhere, even if it is just grant matching for provincial initiatives, or something like that. Therefore there must be room for federal decisions on this issue.

First of all, the federal government has no place in "affordable housing" that is up to the province's. His (Layton's) attack on the PM, only goes to show that they have nothing to offer except to try and smear the Liberals. Politics as usual I suppose. But at least they could be honest, which they are not on their site.

The ONLY choice!
http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif
Says who the federal government has no place in affordable housing? You?

I happen to live in a housing co-op that was built with federal assistance back in the Trudeau days. Thank God we aren't a provincial co-op, or we'd have had to completely purge the members who were living on subsidy during the fun old Duffer Harris era.

Goddamn right the federal government has a place in providing affordable housing - what the bloody Hell's a bloody Liberal government supposed to, borrow a page from Preston Manning's playbook, Steph? I mean, c'mon, WTF?? You're slagging some of the Canadian government's better works, here, y'know, and I'm getting a little miffed at you.

That's all I'm gonna say.

The ONLY Choice!

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

The BALONEY Choice!


*yawns*

shoot me now.

The ONLY Choice!

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

Nuff Said!

You're slagging some of the Canadian government's better works, here, y'know, and I'm getting a little miffed at you. <much snippage before and after>


51% of Canadians (53% outside of Quebec) thought that the NDP budget was a good thing, according to the CBC poll. Only 39% thought it was not. (Yeah, lots of fence sitters who can't make up their minds.)

Think after McGuinty they will vote Conservative?

"I won't cut taxes and I won't raise them.......I WILL JUST CREATE NEW ONES MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Yeah, but the federal liberals aren't saying "let's look at the excellent work of McGuinty" wheras the federal conservatives think Mike Harris did a great job.

And yeah, McGuinty was stupid to make that promise...

Though not nearly as stupid as Harris for selling off the ownership of the ETR.

Yeah, but the federal liberals aren't saying "let's look at the excellent work of McGuinty" wheras the federal conservatives think Mike Harris did a great job.

And yeah, McGuinty was stupid to make that promise...

Though not nearly as stupid as Harris for selling off the ownership of the ETR.

Not all of us conservatives like Harris, just like we all don't like Mulroney. We all love John A. MacDonald though.

Not all of us conservatives like Harris, just like we all don't like Mulroney. We all love John A. MacDonald though.
But Harper and his crew were on about how great Harris was. They're the ones who will be making decisions should they get into power...

But Harper and his crew were on about how great Harris was. They're the ones who will be making decisions should they get into power...

How the hell do you think I feel about it? Only one conservative party left, I will not vote liberal or NDP. I just have to hope that they are forced to govern center right by a minority Parliament.

For anyone interested in an analysis of the 2004 budget platforms (since no analysis is available yet for the upcoming election), see:

Can They Pay for What They Say? (Budget analysis) http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=593&do=article&pA=BB736455

Given that these platforms this paper reviews are only 17 months old, they should still be relevant, at least until the platforms for this election are released.
I find this very interesting, depending upon the accuracy:

The results? Based the specific assumption made to create this projection, the federal government has about $78 billion in spending room between 2004/05 and 2008/09.

And what do the various party platforms cost over the same time period? Conservatives:$89.4 billion. Liberals: $53.8 billion, New Democratic Party: $63.4 billion.

The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are able to balance the books over the next five years and post a considerable surplus. That may not be big news for the Liberals, who have been sitting on surpluses for many years now. The NDP ends up posting a larger surplus than they themselves forecast. So both the Liberals and the NDP have some margin for error and unexpected events.

However, by our calculations the Conservatives' platform promises would produce a cumulative deficit of $11.4 billion during this time period.

I guess this would be consistent with the last Conservative government back in 1993 that was running a $42 Billion deficit.

To tell you the truth Sinuhue, I came so close to checking the NDP box on my ballot in 2004. I too was sickened by King Jean, and willing to take out my frustration on Paul Martin. But, at the last minute and I mean last minute (I was in the voting booth) changed my mind, while I was still pissed with the Liberals, I couldn't take the chance of the Conservatives taking control of the country, so I voted Liberal only strategically.

Although, this time it is different. Paul Martin has been found to have had nothing to do with Ad-Scam, he fired any one who did. The Liberal Party is clean again. And I can't ignore the Liberals record. I admit last time I voted for them only strategically. This time, I'm voting for them because I believe in them.

Your experience nearly mirrors my own. Go Martin!

I find this very interesting, depending upon the accuracy:

The results? Based the specific assumption made to create this projection, the federal government has about $78 billion in spending room between 2004/05 and 2008/09.

And what do the various party platforms cost over the same time period? Conservatives:$89.4 billion. Liberals: $53.8 billion, New Democratic Party: $63.4 billion.

The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are able to balance the books over the next five years and post a considerable surplus. That may not be big news for the Liberals, who have been sitting on surpluses for many years now. The NDP ends up posting a larger surplus than they themselves forecast. So both the Liberals and the NDP have some margin for error and unexpected events.

However, by our calculations the Conservatives' platform promises would produce a cumulative deficit of $11.4 billion during this time period.

I guess this would be consistent with the last Conservative government back in 1993 that was running a $42 Billion deficit.

CanuckHeaven, thank you, thank you, thank you for reading this. I've been trying to point this stuff out to people since it was released in June of 2004, but no one would listen to me. So many people are so stuck in their beliefs that they don't seem to be interested in reading something that might tell them something new - like that Conservative tax breaks could send us back into deficits, or that the NDP could increase spending without sending us into a debt spiral.

I know that we agree on some things political and agree to disagree on others, but you have no idea how grateful I am that you were willing to take the time to look! Some days I just get so frustrated.

<smothers CH in fluffles>

Conservatives under Harper will never win. Thankfully.

CanuckHeaven, thank you, thank you, thank you for reading this. I've been trying to point this stuff out to people since it was released in June of 2004, but no one would listen to me. So many people are so stuck in their beliefs that they don't seem to be interested in reading something that might tell them something new - like that Conservative tax breaks could send us back into deficits, or that the NDP could increase spending without sending us into a debt spiral.

I know that we agree on some things political and agree to disagree on others, but you have no idea how grateful I am that you were willing to take the time to look! Some days I just get so frustrated.

<smothers CH in fluffles>
Why thank you. :)

I always look at the reference materials if I am going to respond to that post, and on the whole, I do look at a lot of material, but in this case it was especially sweet, because it exposes the Conservatives' less than fiscal policies.

<fluffles back atcha>

Fluffles all around!