The Canadian Election - Liberals Win Majority

[aGENT]

BTW: A good article from Neil MacDonald on CBC.ca today, that shows we as voters tend to give the PM a bit too much credit (or criticism) for the state of the economy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927

Excellent article, thanks.

Showing yet again how Harper does the opposite of what he should economically.

Also one of the main reasons I'm still dithering NDP vs Liberal. I don't know how much of Mulcair's statement is simply politicking to not scare off fiscally centrist/right folks or if it's his actual plan, but it's frightening that he may be serious.

As scary as running a temporary deficit sounds to some (I'm looking at you Phil ) the Liberals economic plan makes the most sense given current circumstances.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Excellent article, thanks.

Showing yet again how Harper does the opposite of what he should economically.

Also one of the main reasons I'm still dithering NDP vs Liberal. I don't know how much of Mulcair's statement is simply politicking to not scare off fiscally centrist/right folks or if it's his actual plan, but it's frightening that he may be serious.

As scary as running a temporary deficit sounds to some (I'm looking at you Phil ) the Liberals economic plan makes the most sense given current circumstances.

I sense the theme of the election has been that we should probably just settle for the Liberals.

Nobody saw the NDP's win in Alberta coming I guess, it's been damage control since.

Still, the fear of the Cons getting back in is significant for me. This is why voting Liberal or NDP loyalty is meaningless and I'll be voting strategically to get that neoReformative bullcrap party out. I think a lot of other Canadians are thinking the same way. It's fairly obvious which ridings are leaning more towards Liberals and which are leaning more towards NDP.

I believe that not voting strategically may secure another majority for Harper.

http://anyonebutharper.net/

[Hugor Hill]

BTW: A good article from Neil MacDonald on CBC.ca today, that shows we as voters tend to give the PM a bit too much credit (or criticism) for the state of the economy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927

Been saying this all along.

[Magikal]

Unfortunately with current our political system in place, it's a numbers game with voting these days. If you don't like the party in power you are often more inclined to vote for the strongest opposition to topple the party in power instead of the party you truly side with.

I'm torn between whom I want to vote for because while I want to remove the Tories, I am not sure who the strong est opposition party is that will have the best chance to beat them. One of the parties I really don't like but I dont dislike them as much as I do the Tories.

Rock - Me - Hardplace

Ugh.

[inane]

http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422/a-conversation-with-meagan-murdoch-communications-staffer-with-conservative-party-headquarters-1.2063283?blogRssReaderId=7.8399

Jennifer: Weve been getting calls from people concerned that the Conservatives, the candidates, are not coming to the all-candidates meetings, and I wanted to see what kind of policy you have for these kinds of events.

Meagan: I dont know that we have one at all. Its up to their availability and their own decision.

What about talking to media, whats the policy around that?

Same.

So theres no party policy that says everyone has to go through the campaign manager, that kind of thing?

No, candidates decide whats the best use of their time.

And again, nothing on all-candidates meetings?

Theyre encouraged to talk to their constituents as much as possible.

I have a hunch, correct me if Im wrong, maybe theres a focus on door knocking? Is that why?

I cant confirm your hunch. You would have to go with fact.

Yeah, except we cant get any of the Conservatives candidates on the phone to answer questions directly.

Have you requested?

Yes, and they tell me to go through their campaign managers.

Well, they do have people to organize their day for them. I dont think thats surprising.

No, but this is for media calls and comments on stories, right?

Who would you like to speak to? Have you asked? I can facilitate. Sorry, would you like to speak to someone, because I can facilitate. I can help you, I do that all day long.

Yeah, I would like to speak to all three of them actually.

On what subject?

Well, now, its about why theyre not going to the all-candidates meetings.

All three are not going to any candidates meetings.

No, I did not say that, I did not say that. Were getting calls from people complaining theyre not going to the all-candidates meetings.

What are the facts?

Other candidates are going and the Conservatives are not attending. Id like to know why.

Which ones arent attending which meetings?

OK, (New Westminster) Chamber of Commerce. In Burnaby North-Seymour, it was one that was held on the hall on South Howard Street.

OK, is that the only one thats being held?

No.

So there are multiple that are being held, and that candidate is not going to any? I have to look into this if thats what youre claiming.

No, thats not what Im claiming.

Youre claiming that they dont go to some.

Ok, were getting calls from people, that are complaining to us, the newspaper, that Conservative candidates are not coming to all-candidates meetings. Weve got one complaint in each riding, and one of them wasnt even really a complaint, she was just saying theyre not coming and that other people are trying to get a hold of Chloe Ellis for a second all-candidates meeting, and they are having no luck contacting her. So, my hunch is you guys have some kind of policy -

Well, we dont. Our policy is that candidates are encouraged to talk to their constituents in whichever means thats best for them and their constituents. Would you like me to confirm which debates they are attending, if any are decided yet? Theres still a great deal of time left in the election.

That would be great, because I cant get them without going through their handlers.

Their handlers? You mean their campaign managers that field phone calls?

Mmhmm.

Have you talked to their campaign managers already?

Only for Mike Little. And he said go through his campaign manager. (Previously) all three of them have said the same thing: all media calls have to go through the campaign manager. So that sounds to me like a policy.

I know that they do use campaign managers. Every party uses campaign managers to help organize.

Yeah, I dont think you need to organize returning someones phone call. Its not that complicated.

Ill take your point.

Its kind of a waste of time for us as reporters. And no other candidate, from any other party does this.

So youve been able to speak directly to all of the others.

Oh yeah, I have their cell phone numbers; its not an issue. I can call them up and get comments on a story in a timely fashion. But not with the Conservatives. Its been like this every election. And we often dont get comments from them period. And thats a problem.

Would you like a comment from any of them?

Yes, I would like to talk to all three of them.

About what subject?

About attending all-candidates debates in their riding.

Now, I will pass your request along to all three ridings and let them know youre looking to speak to the candidates about this subject. I cant force them to do that, but I will definitely pass the request along, and they can decide whether theyd like to get back to you or not. It seems like you have your story already written.

Its not already written, but it has to get done today, because this is the last day Im here.

It just sounds like its already written, so Im not sure what the benefit would be for them. It will be up to them.

Why are you saying it sounds like it is already written? Theres nothing written.

You just said you have a hunch.

Yes, thats what Im calling and asking about. Dont you see a pattern here?

I dont actually.

Really? This happens every election?

Stop being hostile.

Im not being hostile, Meagan.

I will certainly take your request. Give me your contact information.

604-444-3021.

Do you have an email address as well?

No, its better to just call.

Forgive me I missed your name at the beginning.

Its Jennifer.

Do you have a last name, Jennifer?

Yes, its M-O-R-E-A-U.

And whats your deadline?

Today by 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

Ok I will pass your request along. I will do what I can to get a hold of details they are attending. There are obviously many debates in every single riding. But if they are attending some dates in their riding I will try to get that information for you to facilitate. Certainly, Ill tell them youre looking for them to call you back.

That would be great, much appreciated.

Youre welcome, bye.

(The NOW did not hear from any of the three candidates by 5 p.m. on Friday.)

- See more at: http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422/a-conversation-with-meagan-murdoch-communications-staffer-with-conservative-party-headquarters-1.2063283?blogRssReaderId=7.8399#sthash.7NQQUk1S.dpufPainful.

[RWMc1]

BTW: A good article from Neil MacDonald on CBC.ca today, that shows we as voters tend to give the PM a bit too much credit (or criticism) for the state of the economy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927

Do we really want such a deceiptful person like Harper to be our leader?

Harper is bragging about a $1.9 billion surplus. What Canadians need to know is that he reduced our Federal Reserve Contingency Fund by $2 billion. He also sold Canadas shares in General Motors for $2.16 billion. He also sold 51% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million. He has created the illusion of a true economy derived surplus.

He has sold Canadas future prosperity for the chance at more power! The result could be GM plant closings which would reduce our GDP by $5 billion and lose $1 billion in annual revenue. The price of bread and other products could rise dramatically if Saudi Arabia takes half of our wheat!

If Harper did not make these sneaky moves he would have a $2.963 billion defecit. Don't be gullible Canada. Don't let stupid attack ads deflect you from facts! He craves power and has proven that the prosperity of regular Canadians does not matter to him.

Anyone but deceiptful power hungry Harper!!

Canadians need to know about this! Spread the word! Let other Canadians know the truth!

[thejazz97]

Question 1. Would you have preferred to have Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister for the last 12, 6, or 4 years? (Leaving out Layton because the NDP haven't really been a force until last election)

Question 2. If so, would they have done any better than Harper?

Question 3. If not, how much worse would they be?

Question 4. Which party leaders (out of the big 3) aren't power hungry or being somewhat deceitful?

[Hugor Hill]

Question 1. Would you have preferred to have Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister for the last 12, 6, or 4 years? (Leaving out Layton because the NDP haven't really been a force until last election)

Question 2. If so, would they have done any better than Harper?

Question 3. If not, how much worse would they be?

Question 4. Which party leaders (out of the big 3) aren't power hungry or being somewhat deceitful?

1) Yes

2) They were far less likely to sell out to Netanyahu on everything single issue every single time even if 95% of the world disagrees, far less likely to implement the 2-tier citizenship scheme, far less likely to suppress our scientific voice, and far less likely to leave refugees to die, far less likely to damage our environment, and overall far less likely to embarrass Canada.

3) Economy would've been more or less the same.

4) None.

[RWMc1]

Question 1. Would you have preferred to have Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister for the last 12, 6, or 4 years? (Leaving out Layton because the NDP haven't really been a force until last election)

Question 2. If so, would they have done any better than Harper?

Question 3. If not, how much worse would they be?

Question 4. Which party leaders (out of the big 3) aren't power hungry or being somewhat deceitful?

1,2,3: He had 8 deficits in 10 years. Canadas infrastructure deteriorated during that time. There are many bridges and roads that need fixing or replacing because Harper neglected them during his tenure while still running deficits. Now he villifies Trudeau for promising to fix what he wouldn't.

4: Harper reduced Canadas National Reserve Contingiency Fund by $2 billion. He sold Canadas GM shares for $2.16 billion. He sold 51% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million. Without those sneaky moves he would have to had declared a $2.963 billion deficit. That is not somewhat deceitful. He sold-out Canadas future for the chance at more power. Those are tangible facts that show Harpers deceipt and hunger for power.

[thejazz97]

1,2,3: He had 8 deficits in 10 years. Canadas infrastructure deteriorated during that time. There are many bridges and roads that need fixing or replacing because Harper neglected them during his tenure while still running deficits. Now he villifies Trudeau for promising to fix what he wouldn't.

4: Harper reduced Canadas National Reserve Contingiency Fund by $2 billion. He sold Canadas GM shares for $2.16 billion. He sold 51% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million. Without those sneaky moves he would have to had declared a $2.963 billion deficit. That is not somewhat deceitful. He sold-out Canadas future for the chance at more power. Those are tangible facts that show Harpers deceipt and hunger for power.

You didn't really answer any of my questions directly.

[RWMc1]

You didn't really answer any of my questions directly.

You mean the questions that could only be answered with conjecture? I wonder why?

[thejazz97]

You mean the questions that could only be answered with conjecture? I wonder why?

Hugor managed to.

You so vibrantly and enthusiastically reject Harper, yet you aren't willing to explore the past or present alternatives. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

I'm not saying Harper's been the best PM we've ever had, in fact, perhaps, he's been far from. I'm just asking questions, and it's frustrating that you won't even try to answer them except with an anti-Harper comment and nothing else each step of the way.

[inane]

Hugor managed to.

You so vibrantly and enthusiastically reject Harper, yet you aren't willing to explore the past or present alternatives. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

I'm not saying Harper's been the best PM we've ever had, in fact, perhaps, he's been far from. I'm just asking questions, and it's frustrating that you won't even try to answer them except with an anti-Harper comment and nothing else each step of the way.

Playing the what if game is stupid. You can what if anything. I'll stick with what actually happened.

[RWMc1]

Hugor managed to.

You so vibrantly and enthusiastically reject Harper, yet you aren't willing to explore the past or present alternatives. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

I'm not saying Harper's been the best PM we've ever had, in fact, perhaps, he's been far from. I'm just asking questions, and it's frustrating that you won't even try to answer them except with an anti-Harper comment and nothing else each step of the way.

I provided facts! What have you provided except obvious support while ignoring facts?

Withdrew $2 billion from Federal Reserve Contingiency Fund: Fact

Sold Canadas GM shares for $2.16 billion: Fact

Sold 50.1% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million: Fact

[thejazz97]

1) Yes

2) They were far less likely to sell out to Netanyahu on everything single issue every single time even if 95% of the world disagrees, far less likely to implement the 2-tier citizenship scheme, far less likely to suppress our scientific voice, and far less likely to leave refugees to die, far less likely to damage our environment, and overall far less likely to embarrass Canada.

3) Economy would've been more or less the same.

4) None.

I'm just wondering, out of the three I mentioned, which one do you prefer the most?

I agree with you for the most part. IMO Harper was excellent to have Israel's back (even if 95% of the world disagreed, depending on what it was they disagreed with), but if Israel ever did or ever does something dumb, the PM shouldn't be afraid to call BS. 2-tier, I'm still working out understanding it (I feel like it has something to do with terrorism, but I haven't had the time to research it), he definitely shouldn't have stopped/slowed our scientific contributions to the global community, and apparently the Cons have a plan in place to slowly turn green (not sure if true or not, this is coming from a friend who is normally a Lib supporter). I think as far as reputation, Harper's had his ups and downs. He got us on par with the USD for a while. He stood up to Russia before anyone else. But then you have the clean water as a human right thing and the Kyoto accord, which:

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on the premise that (a) global warming exists and ( man-made CO₂ emissions have caused it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

I thought it that we were actually in a stage of global cooling and the warming is from CO2 creating holes in the ozone layer. Again, minimal research has been done on my part, but I'm pretty sure it's global cooling. Still though, you've got to wonder why Harper wouldn't go for a greener option when he had the chance - unless he knows something we don't.

Have to agree with you on the third answer, I do wonder though if any of the Liberals I mentioned would have also tried to take away the policies like Harper tried to.

And the fourth answer as well. Kind of embarrassing on the NDP's part: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/skewed-ndp-poll-suggesting-trudeau-trailed-in-his-own-riding-could-be-another-dagger-for-polling-industry

[thejazz97]

Playing the what if game is stupid. You can what if anything. I'll stick with what actually happened.

It really isn't stupid. Harper may not have been the best at being PM, but you never know what could have been - good or bad.

I provided facts! What have you provided except obvious support while ignoring facts?

Withdrew $2 billion from Federal Reserve Contingiency Fund: Fact

Sold Canadas GM shares for $2.16 billion: Fact

Sold 51% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million: Fact

Please stop using that bright pink... it's hard on the eyes. I'm not saying the facts are wrong (Forsberg is).

Question. From all that $4.41b, what was it used on?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I provided facts! What have you provided except obvious support while ignoring facts?

Withdrew $2 billion from Federal Reserve Contingiency Fund: Fact

Sold Canadas GM shares for $2.16 billion: Fact

Sold 51% 50.1% of Canadas Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia for $250 million: Fact

If you're going to make statements so bold you might want to get you're fact straight.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

[RWMc1]

If you're going to make statements so bold you might want to get you're fact straight.

I changed it. It is still a majority of Canadas Wheat Board sold to Saudi Arabia. Canadians should be concerned about these things. Instead the majority of Canadians aren't even aware that Harper did these things to create the illusion of an economy derived surplus.

I find it offensive that so many Harper supporters are pointing to the surplus as a sign that he has run our economy effectively.

I put it in bright pink and huge font so it catches the casual perusers eyes. Canadians have a right to know the truth about how the surplus came about.

Yes I will bump my post again and it will be in a huge font and a bright color.

[Hugor Hill]

One supporter.