The Canadian Election - Liberals Win Majority

[thejazz97]

Nickel back guy looks like Rita from Flushed Away

[LaBamba]

In regards to what?

Experience?

Track record?

Don't understand because Harper had no experience and it bloody showed and we have suffered for it.

Nobody else stands out you say? I prefer to think of it as ANYONE would be a better choice at this stage because the other parties would have to actively work on trying to screw things up more than harper has

Screw what up? Jean Chretien's body of work? Brian Mulroney's?

Dam Warhippy you are what 75 years old? You surely remember what Canada was like during the Chretien and Mulroney days.

Our currency was worthless, we were paying 15% interest on our worthless homes, unemployment was through the roof, it was one of the lowest points in history for Canada. Even when the rest of the world was thriving we were still a dark spot in the developed global economy.

Both pierre trudeau and Steven Harper manned the ship when times were at their best in this country, both pulled us out of a dark age and made Canada relevant.

So yes, I agree that maybe Harper is running out of steam but don't completely discredit a guy that blew the idiots he replaced out of the water. When he was first put into office things started to happen immediately.

You could take any leader in the history of the world and pick apart everything they have done wrong and completely discredit them or you can look at what the country was before and after their reign.

Even with how crappy things are today, which is mostly a global issue, we are still leaps and bounds ahead of where we were before Harper.

Justin Trudeau Is not Pierre Trudeau, and everyone else is completely irrelevant.

I would be open for a change but I just don't see how anyone can make things better right now. I will pick the guy that got us through the last global recession.

I vote Harper by Default.

[King Heffy]

Screw what up? Jean Chretien's body of work? Brian Mulroney's?

Dam Warhippy you are what 75 years old? You surely remember what Canada was like during the Chretien and Mulroney days.

Our currency was worthless, we were paying 15% interest on our worthless homes, unemployment was through the roof, it was one of the lowest points in history for Canada. Even when the rest of the world was thriving we were still a dark spot in the developed global economy.

Both pierre trudeau and Steven Harper manned the ship when times were at their best in this country, both pulled us out of a dark age and made Canada relevant.

So yes, I agree that maybe Harper is running out of steam but don't completely discredit a guy that blew the idiots he replaced out of the water. When he was first put into office things started to happen immediately.

You could take any leader in the history of the world and pick apart everything they have done wrong and completely discredit them or you can look at what the country was before and after their reign.

Even with how crappy things are today, which is mostly a global issue, we are still leaps and bounds ahead of where we were before Harper.

Justin Trudeau Is not Pierre Trudeau, and everyone else is completely irrelevant.

I would be open for a change but I just don't see how anyone can make things better right now. I will pick the guy that got us through the last global recession.

I vote Harper by Default.

Harper has turned us from a peacekeeping nation to a bigger bully's sidekick. Our currency is getting worse, our assets are being sold, we're piping out raw materials instead of creating jobs, and we're left with a borderline facist using fear-mongering propaganda to violate our privacy.

Harper's not only the worst PM in the history of this country, he's a disgrace to this country on a personal level. I'm just grateful I have dual citizenship; if this scumbag gets into power again it may be time for a move.

[DonLever]

Harper has turned us from a peacekeeping nation to a bigger bully's sidekick. Our currency is getting worse, our assets are being sold, we're piping out raw materials instead of creating jobs, and we're left with a borderline facist using fear-mongering propaganda to violate our privacy.

Harper's not only the worst PM in the history of this country, he's a disgrace to this country on a personal level. I'm just grateful I have dual citizenship; if this scumbag gets into power again it may be time for a move.

Really? The worst PM in Canadian History?

Were you even born when Pierre Trudeau was in power? Trudeau was considered the worst PM in Canada by people in the West. People in BC hated Trudeau; you should have listen to the talk shows of those days.

Trudeau won in a landslide in 1968. He won 16 seats in BC but by 1972 he dropped to 4 seats and the Liberals have never recovered since. When John Turner ran for PM the Liberals won only one seat in BC.

[Warhippy]

Screw what up? Jean Chretien's body of work? Brian Mulroney's?

Mulroney was voted the worst PM in Canadian history, he presided over some horrific times and left some horrific legacies largest of which is the joke called NAFTA which while great on paper gutted our ability to be competitive in the manufacturing sector and cost us a lot fo our own internal R&D as well as world prices for our resources. Or did you forget about the most recent softwood dispute, or how california still owes BC billions in power bills?

Dam Warhippy you are what 75 years old? You surely remember what Canada was like during the Chretien and Mulroney days.

I do in fact remember what it was like in both eras.

Our currency was worthless, we were paying 15% interest on our worthless homes, unemployment was through the roof, it was one of the lowest points in history for Canada. Even when the rest of the world was thriving we were still a dark spot in the developed global economy.

Our currency in the Chretien years dipped to 64 cents based on a number of economic policies enacted by Mulroney and his spend happy ways who managed to accrue a debt almost as large as Trudeau did but Trudeau did it through an energy crisis and a world wide downturn that rivaled 2008. Except Chretien managed to pay down debt and deficit slashed non essential spending and enacted legislation that while in place assisted us in getting through the 2008 recession that harper "didn't see coming" yet still took credit for.

Both pierre trudeau and Steven Harper manned the ship when times were at their best in this country, both pulled us out of a dark age and made Canada relevant.

Wrong. Pierre managed this ship well and was a widely respected leader throughout the known world up to and including visiting the soviet union during the cold war. Harper...well he's managed to make us a laughing stock in the UN and now has us buddy buddy with israel and such super powers as micronesia and the west indies. Harper was in power and did less than nothing to actually steer us through anything, in fact it was DESPITE Harper that we came through 2008 unscathed as harper in 2007 wanted to deregulate the banking industry and pair/twin it with the US banking industry to streamline business which would have devastated us the same way Landsbankii's failure from iceland affected the UK. Add to that the 40 year amortization period and allowance of sub prime lending and wow...again despite Harper and his omnibus fetish

So yes, I agree that maybe Harper is running out of steam but don't completely discredit a guy that blew the idiots he replaced out of the water. When he was first put into office things started to happen immediately.

By idiots you mean who? He replaced Manning Mackay as head of the PC/Alliance?Reform party. He took over and went back on everything the Conservative party stood for. The only truly conservative thing about Harper and his party is its name. I grew up and voted Conservative for years and until that vile excuse for a leader is excised from that party and the corruption purged from it I will never vote for them again. Again, things didn't happen immediately, they happened because of the initial coalition (recall Harper used Laytons ideas in his first 2 years in office which is why Layton sided with him)

You could take any leader in the history of the world and pick apart everything they have done wrong and completely discredit them or you can look at what the country was before and after their reign.

I agree I could be revisionist and do just that. But we are speaking of the present and in the present Harper is an absolute joke.

Even with how crappy things are today, which is mostly a global issue, we are still leaps and bounds ahead of where we were before Harper.

Name 1 piece of legislation Harper enacted that was for the betterment of this country or the people (all people) within it. You say leaps and bounds; I say come again and prove it. Because again, despite Harper not because of him.

Justin Trudeau Is not Pierre Trudeau, and everyone else is completely irrelevant.

This is where we agree. I do not approve of Trudeau, he has flopped on any number of issues that could have defined him as a leader and instead didn't. As of now his best running weapon is his name.

I would be open for a change but I just don't see how anyone can make things better right now. I will pick the guy that got us through the last global recession.

If you want the guy who got us through the last recession you're voting Chretien/Martin bud. I call a spade for what it is and Harper again did nothing but ride their regulations and legislation through 2007. His best piece of work was literally doing nothing and taking credit for it.

I vote Harper by Default.

Go right ahead, some of us see the forest through the trees and again, while neither of the two LEADERS seem like better options, they come with a stable full of well equipped MPs ready to affect a positive change for the entire country, not just sections of it or specific demographics or income brackets. And I will vote for the MPs not the leaders in this coming election because of that.

Just saying man. I pay fairly close attention to my former party. You will be hard pressed to point out 1 single piece of legislation that is to the betterment of all of Canada under Harpers watch that wasn't originally from another party or from the previous government.

[Warhippy]

Every single Canadian that Stephen Harper meets between now and October 19th will be vetted by his staff. "It turns out Stephen Harper is not going to interact... with anyone during the election campaign that wasn’t cleared in advance by his staffers. Even “public” rallies with hundreds or thousands of people will be made up entirely people who are pre-screened."

http://ecocidealert.com/?p=13353

And just as in 2011, when he first got away with it, he will restrict media to asking no more than five questions per day, and if the first one is any indicator, he won't be offering any real or honest answers to any of them anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/…/stephen-harper-election-2015…

He did kick off the election by lying to us all, after all.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/…/fact-checking-the-campaign-kick-off…

Anyone can lie about politics online to further an agenda, but when you can point to, say, evidence that the Harper government is muzzling scientists even when it might harm public health to do so, like this:

http://thefulcrum.ca/featu…/confronting-canadas-war-science/

it becomes a lot harder to dismiss what you have to say. The current government of Canada despises and suppresses evidence, because the facts do not support their position, so share as many facts as you can.

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”
― H.L. Mencken

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

I got a big problem figuring who to vote for in this thing. See, I've always believed and followed the old dictum "anyone under thirty who votes conservative has no heart, anyone over thirty who votes labour has no brain." Trouble is this election is taking place as I am thirty years old precisely. I figure I will therefore lean more towards the conservatives as the campaign goes by and I, in turn, grow older. However at the moment I am entirely undecided.

None of the four major parties or leaders have displayed any governing philosophy, developed any platform, or announced any policy ideas that really appeal to me strongly. On the other hand all four have done, said, or proposed a variety of minor things that tick me off. If it continues like this it will be down to which of the local candidates for MP seems most competent and capable of representing the local interest to the chumps back in Ottawa, provided there is such a person and their party/leader doesn't do anything egregiously awful.

[LaBamba]

Just saying man. I pay fairly close attention to my former party. You will be hard pressed to point out 1 single piece of legislation that is to the betterment of all of Canada under Harpers watch that wasn't originally from another party or from the previous government.

I don't need my government or its legislations. I need lower corporate tax for my consulting company, and oil companies to consult for. Steven Harper is the man who will make this happen.

I don't want royalties raised so the government can give it to the east or some foreigner fleeing from their crap country.

I don't care about anything else regarding the government, I don't care what they do with my tax money either. Just keep drilling and the people earning money in the energy sector will reward the government with their income taxes.

[Lockout Casualty]

I don't need my government or its legislations. I need lower corporate tax for my consulting company, and oil companies to consult for. Steven Harper is the man who will make this happen.

I don't want royalties raised so the government can give it to the east or some foreigner fleeing from their crap country.

I don't care about anything else regarding the government, I don't care what they do with my tax money either. Just keep drilling and the people earning money in the energy sector will reward the government with their income taxes.

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

I did hear one interesting claim concerning the election just the other day, a theory that was put to me which I had not considered. We've all seen those damn commercials with young Trudeau getting rejected for a job interview. I found it baffling because the commercials are so annoying I figured they couldn't possibly be doing the Tories any good. Well the theory goes, polling shows those commercials are actually hurting the Tories slightly, because they make people feel sorry for poor young Trudeau, getting beat up by the Conservative media machine. The effect is weakening the Conservatives relative to the Liberals but strengthening them relative to the NDP. The media strategy is to divide and conquer by annoying us all with these intentionally stupid ads.

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

The one thing I can't stop thinking about, and this being CDC I feel like this is a good place to discuss this without seeming too crazy, now when a government's been around as long as Harper's has been, there's a lot of pent-up "throw the bums out" feeling, it just accumulates over the years. That's natural. But the thing I can't put out of my head is, it's this traumatic memory I have of how the Canucks got rid of Vigneault and brought in Tortorella, right? "Throw the bums out!" is a natural response to have when someone's been around in a controversial spot for a while and grievances build up, it's an emotional response. But sometimes that reaction leads to the bums getting thrown out and there not being anyone better. Now I am not going so far as to say that Harper is Vigneault, and Mulcair is Tortorella, and Trudeau is Eakins. That would be unfair and premature, since we know how that situation panned out while in the political arena the jury is still very much out. But it COULD be like that. I am haunted by the parallels in that analogy and it tempers my visceral "throw the bums out!" line of thinking as an undecided voter.

[LaBamba]

The one thing I can't stop thinking about, and this being CDC I feel like this is a good place to discuss this without seeming too crazy, now when a government's been around as long as Harper's has been, there's a lot of pent-up "throw the bums out" feeling, it just accumulates over the years. That's natural. But the thing I can't put out of my head is, it's this traumatic memory I have of how the Canucks got rid of Vigneault and brought in Tortorella, right? "Throw the bums out!" is a natural response to have when someone's been around in a controversial spot for a while and grievances build up, it's an emotional response. But sometimes that reaction leads to the bums getting thrown out and there not being anyone better. Now I am not going so far as to say that Harper is Vigneault, and Mulcair is Tortorella, and Trudeau is Eakins. That would be unfair and premature, since we know how that situation panned out while in the political arena the jury is still very much out. But it COULD be like that. I am haunted by the parallels in that analogy and it tempers my visceral "throw the bums out!" line of thinking as an undecided voter.

This is exactly how I feel, there is nothing to convince me that the other options are better. Switching leadership during focal points like this is dangerous.

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

This is exactly how I feel, there is nothing to convince me that the other options are better. Switching leadership during focal points like this is dangerous.

I mean, the parallel IS pretty decent. Even down to appearance. You've got the buttoned-down incumbent with the "conservative" (ahem) haircut, who's maybe worn out his welcome. You've got the hotshot young candidate with the inexperience and stupid hair. You've got the grizzled old hand with the scruffy salt-and-pepper look.

And someone actually agreed! If this keeps up yall are gonna hear about my 2011 Canucks/World War One analogy, so be careful cause nobody wants that.

[Lockout Casualty]

I mean, the parallel IS pretty decent. Even down to appearance. You've got the buttoned-down incumbent with the "conservative" (ahem) haircut, who's maybe worn out his welcome. You've got the hotshot young candidate with the inexperience and stupid hair. You've got the grizzled old hand with the scruffy salt-and-pepper look.

And someone actually agreed! If this keeps up yall are gonna hear about my 2011 Canucks/World War One analogy, so be careful cause nobody wants that.

This is pure drivel.

WTF stupid hair?

[inane]

This is exactly how I feel, there is nothing to convince me that the other options are better. Switching leadership during focal points like this is dangerous.

Focal points? There's always focal points. Change isn't scary, it's good. Harper has got to go.

[Ghostsof1915]

Really? The worst PM in Canadian History?

Were you even born when Pierre Trudeau was in power? Trudeau was considered the worst PM in Canada by people in the West. People in BC hated Trudeau; you should have listen to the talk shows of those days.

Trudeau won in a landslide in 1968. He won 16 seats in BC but by 1972 he dropped to 4 seats and the Liberals have never recovered since. When John Turner ran for PM the Liberals won only one seat in BC.

Funny I liked P.E.T. At least he was trying to get Canada to be self-sufficient, not bend over to the US like Mulroney and Harper.

Harper has been horrible with the economy, Chretien at least kept balanced budgets and surpluses, without cutting things like Coast Guard Stations, Environment Ministry, buying worthless F-35's, then closing Veteran's Affairs offices, removing tax breaks for seniors...

[DonLever]

Looks like its a lock for the NDP to gain power. According to the Vancouver Sun, the NDP will get 21 to 24 seats in BC.

Vancouver Sun:

OTTAWA — The Conservatives head into the October election potentially facing major B.C. losses to the Liberals and especially the New Democratic Party, according to pre-campaign polling data.

And Prime Minister Stephen Harper should look in the mirror if he’s wondering why he could lose one of the western provinces that he has long counted on, according to one of Canada’s top election and public opinion experts.

“There’s a B.C. thing going on about Harper,” said University of B.C. political scientist Richard Johnston, who holds the Canada Research Chair in public opinion, elections, and representation. “I get the sense people here really are fed up, there is a more settled intention to defeat Conservatives this time than last time.”

Johnston blamed the Tory slide since the 2011 election on energy and pipeline politics, the poor federal response to a fuel spill earlier this year in English Bay, feuds with the city of Vancouver, and the Senate scandals.

However, B.C. pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos said the Tories will likely lose some seats, but the grim scenario painted by some goes overboard. There are enough voters in B.C. concerned primarily with the economy, and supportive of Harper’s approach, to prevent a Tory collapse, he said.

“There’s not going to be a tectonic shift in B.C.”

Harper, who won 21 of 36 seats while taking a whopping 45.6 per cent of the B.C. votes in 2011, would win between nine and 13 of 42 seats if recent polls mirror actual Oct. 19 voting results, according to two separate analyses based on recent polling data.

Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats would win B.C. with 21 to 24 seats, while Justin Trudeau’s Liberals would take between six and eight and Elizabeth May would manage only to hang on to her Saanich-Gulf Islands riding.

The projections are based on a compilation of B.C. results from recent national and regional polls compiled by Eric Grenier, creator of the threehundredeight.com website and the CBC consultant on polling in the current campaign.

Polling data, which is weighed by Grenier based on how recently the polling was done and on the track record of the pollsters, shows the NDP in the lead in B.C. with slightly under 40 per cent support. The Conservatives are second at just over 29 per cent, the Liberals are third at 21.6, and the Greens fourth at 8.8 per cent.

Grenier used a particular mathematical formula to apply current polling to 2011 election results in various Canadian regions, which is known among experts as the “proportional” system. His figures give the NDP a whopping 24 seats in B.C., the Conservatives nine, the Liberals eight, and the Greens one.

A Vancouver Sun analysis, using a more conservative and simpler “uniform” formula that is commonly used by British political analysts, also showed the NDP dominating B.C. The New Democrats would take 21 B.C. seats, while the Conservatives would win 13. The Liberals under The Sun’s alternative formula end up with seven seats, and the Greens one.

The last time the NDP dominated B.C. was in the 1988 election, which was viewed by many Canadians as effectively a referendum on the Canada-U. S. free trade agreement, which the NDP opposed. In that election, the Ed Broadbent-led party took 19 of 32 seats with 37 per cent of the vote, or just over 59 per cent of the seats.

Poll-based seat projections are not always reliable, as embarrassed pollsters and media pundits learned to their chagrin in the surprising 2013 B.C. and 2012 Alberta elections.

“We’re a little wary of polls in B.C. after the last provincial election, so I’m not sure I’m willing to trust the polling at this point,” said Wilson Bell, a political scientist at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/poll+position+long+election+begins/11263183/story.html#ixzz3hpC0Rtwj

[Realtor Rod]

Donald Trump 2016 anyone?

[Warhippy]

I don't need my government or its legislations. I need lower corporate tax for my consulting company, and oil companies to consult for. Steven Harper is the man who will make this happen.

I don't want royalties raised so the government can give it to the east or some foreigner fleeing from their crap country.

I don't care about anything else regarding the government, I don't care what they do with my tax money either. Just keep drilling and the people earning money in the energy sector will reward the government with their income taxes.

So to sum up, LITERALLY what you just said

You don't care what the government does as long as corporate taxes stay low and oil is unfettered. The rest can come from the taxpayer who quite frankly you could give two wet sharts about

How very Harper of you

But hey bud, just to clarify, there are almost 40 MILLION more people who NEED the government to act like a government and actually govern, not just act as a liason for a massive multi national corporation.

That's not how things work

So I will ask, knowing what your exact mind set is to just avoid talking to me about this in the future. Anyone who is that single minded cannot be spoken to or reasoned with and I'd rather avoid the headache.

because anyone who cares so very little about what happens to their neighbours and countrymen is not someone I care to speak to.

It is in actuality...actually very American

[Warhippy]

In regards to Harpers we're the best economic spin nonsense.

"We have been head and shoulders above all of our G7 partners in terms of economic growth over the long term — in terms of job creation. We have far and away the best fiscal management."

— Conservative Leader Stephen Harper

Conservatives have long portrayed themselves as the best "stewards of the economy" among the political parties.

Leader Stephen Harper is now dismissing the all-but-certain recession that started this year as the product of "temporary effects."

Meanwhile, his opponents are challenging the Conservatives' image of champions of the economy — pointing to the fact Harper's government brought in the largest deficits in Canadian history and has now watched two recessions happen on its watch.

The Spin

There is no denying this has been a rough decade — economically speaking.

The financial crisis that started in 2008 triggered a global recession from which few were spared.

But the Conservatives' point is that Canada did better than its peers in the Group of 7 industrialized nations.

So when Canada's economy shrunk by 2.7 per cent in 2009, the government rightly pointed out that was the best performance of any economy in the G7, as sad as the news still was.

The United States was close behind, with a loss of 2.8 per cent, while Europe's uber-economy, Germany performed worst as it withered by 5.6 per cent.

Jobs too were slashed.

Between 2008 and 2009 Canada's unemployment rate jumped from 6.2 per cent to 8.4 per cent.

This time too, while not the best, Canada was not the worst performing economy on that front.

The counter-spin

"[stephen Harper] has had eight deficits in a row and has added over $150 billion in debt," NDP Leader Tom

Mulcair said as he launched his campaign on Sunday.

This is also true.

The NDP and the Liberals chalk up the dismal economic numbers to the Harper government's "failed policies."

They point to the fact that the Canadian economy has shrunk in each of the first five months of this year.

Barring astronomical, unprecedented growth in June, the first two quarters of this year will have experienced what economists call "negative growth."

Economists go on to define that as a recession.

Which would, indeed, be the second in the life of Harper's government.

The rinse

Harper's contention is that Canada's current downturn is an anomaly, and that what's important is the long-term performance of the country.

Fortunately for us, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — just to name a few — have tracked global economic indicators for decades.

So let's have a look at how Canada stacks up to its peers since January, 2006 when Harper first took power.

Since that time, Canada has topped the list of G7 performers for annual growth twice.

The first time was in 2008, the second (as mentioned above) in 2009.

Between 2010 and 2014, Canada has been in second or third spot.

Interestingly enough, Canada's projected GDP growth for 2015 will put the country exactly where Harper inherited it in 2006 — exactly in the middle of the pack.

As for employment, the other measure on which Harper stakes his claim that Canada is "head and shoulders" above other G7 countries — the numbers are less clear.

In 2006, Canada's unemployment rate stood at 6.3 per cent — fourth-best among the G7.

Today, the jobless rate stands at 7 per cent — sliding Canada to fifth place in the G7.

"Head and shoulders," above the others? That might be a stretch.

Perhaps Harper should stick to his line from Sunday's campaign launch when he said Canada has performed "well" compared to other G7 countries.

Looking at the records of Japan and Italy, there is no denying that's true.