Qui volonté que vous votez pour dans cette élection fédérale ?For you Quebecois, for the rest of us Who will you vote for in this federal election? I think a bit of Canada is need on sci, considering it is a Canadian website. So here you go:

Liberals- Paul Martin
Conservatives- Steven Harper
NDP- Jack Layton
Bloc Quebecois- Jill Duceppes?

I'm Canadian, and new to the board, so what better place to start. Personally, if I lived in Quebec, I'd vote bloq just to get Quebec to quit whining and leave already. The French component in the upper reaches of our government and military also means we sacrifice quality with diversity.

Realisticly though, I don't think either Harper or Martin is really fit to govern, and Layton doesn't have much chance of winning. But I'm young, I can be idealistic, I'll go NDP.

god help me but as it stands now I'll vote liberal. I despise them and feel they've been in power WAY too long but the opposition is just so pathetic I don't see that I have a choice.

The NDP is clearly not in it to win, they're in it to form part of the opposition. And if the Liberals end up with a minority government (a very real possibility), the opposition will be an important part of governing the country. My election prediction is that the Liberals will end up with a minority or small majority with Conservatives, the Bloc, and the NDP each taking non-trivial portions of the remainder.

If it means keeping Stephen Harper from office, I would vote Liberal. However, if it appears that the Liberals will win regardless (fairly likely, I think), I would vote for NDP purely because a voice for the left is sorely needed. Strong and diverse opposition can only benefit the country.

I'm speaking rather hypothetically here. My electoral district is Calgary Southwest, Harper's personal riding and there's no way in hell he's going to lose it, what with all the hicks that live there. I'll vote to satiate my conscience, but it's not going to do a damn thing.

I agree with Porf, I live in Toronto so the NDP is much stronger here then it is in Alberta. I really don't like Harper, he gives me the creeps. He is a nicer version of Stockwell Day, but that’s about it. When you see the likes of Joe Clarke dissenting from the party in opposition from the Canadian Alliance take over of the PC party, the new Conservative party is new just in name. The NDP is not going to win a national election ever, but what they will do is moderate the conservative tendencies of Paul Martin, and the Conservatives. Also with Layton the NDP seems to have been reinvigorated again after the disaster that was Alexa. If the NDP can make gains here in Toronto, Vancouver, and Atlantic Canada hopefully they will gain some real power, and the Liberals would be forced to join into ad hoc coalitions with them. “Anyone but Harper” is happening.

Talk about not having a choice:
I live in a riding where the NDP can't possibly lose, but the NDP can't possibly form a government. No matter how I vote, I'm going to have an NDP MP and (probably) a Liberal government.
I'll still vote NDP because the guy has done a good job for years, but I don't like the federal NDP (or any of the federal parties, for that matter).
What must the rest of the world be like if immigrants are breaking down the door trying to get in?

it's sad but the best I can even hope for is a liberal minority government so we can get some decent checking and balancing back in ottawa. I don't like the PC's very much (in any iteration) and the NDP's are SO reactionary that the few good ideas they do have are always pushed to ridiculous extremes by the end.

WE'VE GOT NOTHING TO CHOOSE FROM! God, I hate them all.

I would vote for Paul Martin and the Liberals, change is good...:D

I would vote for the Green Party. They will never win, but with a good popular vote, maybe politicians will start to pay attention to environmental issues more.

They will never win
wow, I can see you have a lot of faith in the Green Party:D (joking)

I do support the Green Party's plan to improve and protect our environment, but I don't think it's the best party for a nation, because there are other issues such as economy, foreign policy, health care in a country to think about

The Green Party is only trying to help the environment that many don’t care about. They are trying to bring up the issue, and get it out there and recognized, because no one else will. I vote for them, to affect change with the ruling party. To have them perhaps take a different stance on the environment for the better.

are you saying that the Green Party is a political party that has nothing to do with politics? then what is it doing in a political election? Isn't there other methods to get support? yeah by the way I totally support environmental protection and improvement
remember, we are part of the environment... :p

What it is doing in an election is gaining support, and making sure they are notice. It is exposure. By the way, I am not a member of the party, so i am just drawing conclusions. However i want to join asap. :)

Whatever party wins the election (conservatives or liberals), i just hope it's a minority government. It really does bother me how people always associate minority governments with weakness. I think that has to do with the institutional structure that it becomes weak, but it really has the potential for being the best government.

Alright, hear me out. Any type of democratic reform is great, pro PR, pro triple E senate, all that gibberish, but what i really want to see is the legislative branch of government gain power over the executive. Actually having the standing committee's serve their purpose and have all the representatives in the house of commons, go into meetings with their party's stance behind them, and propose, discuss, and make a consensus of the legislation pass. If the house of commons worked in this fashion, it would be such a revolution. Think about it, a Canadian government working together with the citizens in mind.

Alright, I went too far. Mea Culpa.

Let 'er rip.

pro triple E senate

The senate is there to provide 'sober second thought' i.e. review proposed legislation without prejudice. How can, do you suppose, a triple E senate provide 'sober second thought' when they'll carry a mandate? I know the senate, as it is, is imperfect. I personally think a shift to a triple E senate is a leap from the frying pan into the fire.

I don't have time to debate right now, L8R......

I'm voting for Galiano.

I fear sorry for the Conservatives if they in a minority gov’t, they are surrounded by socialists, and pseudo-socialists. Who will the Conservatives work with? It will be a very ad hoc coalition situation, and Canada will be weaker for it. Laws will take much longer to pass, but on the plus side at least they will be better laws. If the Liberals get a minority gov’t things wouldn’t be as bad, the NDP would more easily support a Liberal agenda. But this is where get interesting, the role of the two smaller parties. The Bloc and the NDP could become huge players in the future of gov’t. Both are left leaning, and both would represent a challenge to the Conservatives. I feel sorry for Martin, he is looking like he may become the new John Turner, or even dare I say… Kim Campbell!

Granted the fact I live in Quebec ... I would never want to catch myself voting for the Bloc. Ever since that referendum they had in '95 about seperating the province from the rest of Canada (thankfully they lost that referendum by a mere [50.4]:[49.6] margin), I've always despised their political views and objectives. They won't admit that they want another referendum because they know it hurts them in the polls every time they mention it but given the chance ... they will do it all over again. I think as myself as a Canadian first rather then a Quebecois.

As for this election, I would vote for the Green party just because I'm all for the environment ... considering I'm doing Environmental science as a minor.

It will be a very ad hoc coalition situation, and Canada will be weaker for it. Laws will take much longer to pass, but on the plus side at least they will be better laws.

Thats what I mean it's in the institutional structure that makes a minority weak. You need to think that if there were a shift in the electoral system to make a majority in the house of commons, it would be extremely rare (with past elections, only 2 would have ever been true majorities Mulrooney in 84 being the last). That would completely shift the way in which legislation is approached. Because they know that an election majority is almost impossible, government will depend mostly on getting co-operation through the process. Since nobody wants constant elections it'll be in everybody's best interest. You also prove this by saying that the laws would be better laws. Isn't that what we should strive for? It would only take longer because of the Us Vs. Them mentality its currently conducted. You change the enviroment you change the attitude.

Here is my stance as to the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP.
Currently I like the liberals, and here is why. They will not cut taxes, and I believe that they should not, because that isn't what is needed. The little thing with the sponsorship scandal couldn't be helped. You can't let a few bad eats ruin the bunch. They do not spend that much on the military, which I feel we don’t need. They didn't go to Iraq. They don't run a deficit, and they are trying to, slowly I must say, eliminate the debt.
As to the conservatives, I don’t know a lot of good about them, except lowering the deficit, but I do have some bad. I wouldn’t say I would never vote for them, but I currently don’t like them. Here is why: Bush is a conservative, enough said. They want to cut taxes, including corporate tax cuts. I don’t think that it is a good idea to cut taxes at this point, especially the corporate ones, because there is so much that needs to be done. They want to spend much more on the military, which I do not like.
As for the NDP, all I can say is that they would raise corporate taxes which I do agree with, and they don’t endorse the Missile Defence Program, which I like. They also are nice to the environment, which is a big issue for them, and I also like that. So that is why I also like them.
However I would vote for the Green Party, because I believe in them, and I feel that they need my support. They won’t win, I have no illusions about that, but if they have a large popular vote, maybe other politicians will pay attention to the environment a bit more, and change some things. The Green Party is only trying to help the environment that many don’t care about. They are trying to bring up the issue, and get it out there and recognized, because no one else will. I vote for them, to affect change with the ruling party. To have them perhaps take a different stance on the environment for the better.
Well you guys can critique me, and add in your bits, but that is all I have for now. Sorry I don’t live in Quebec, and so have no understanding of them, and I am also not very knowledgeable about the NDP, but I do know a bit.

As per the military, why should canada not have a stronger military? It's really a disgrace the state that its in now. Of the already negligable ministry funds, 51% goes to the office administration, where 49% goes to troops and equipment. We didn't really choose not to go to Iraq, even if we wanted to, our military absolutely couldn't. I'm not saying we should have it at any level close to the Americans, but we do have the worlds largest most unprotected border. Our navy has helicopters that can't go up. Submarines that can't go down. For the place Canada wants to take in the world, not only politically, but economically as well, a better military is a pre-requisite. I'm not even necessarily proposing more spending, just better spending. Canada needs a respectable armed force.

As per the military, why should canada not have a stronger military? It's really a disgrace the state that its in now.

The problem is that the Conservatives want to imo Americanize Canada (like they have been doing since Mulroney). The Cons. (pun intended) want to increase military spending by $1.6 billion per annum effectively doubling Canada’s military budget. Do you know what that means? Our more important social programs will have to their budget growth slashed, and even cut. Most Canadians (I included) don’t want to see that. If Canada wants a relevant military we should make our military into the most elite fighting force in the world, and getting rid of the excessive tanks, and other heavy machinery.

Canadian Military? What would we do with a few more tanks and helicopters? We are (and will be for a while) 100% dependant on US for security and everyone knows that. Any Canadian presence in any current war is purely symbolic. I agree with Undecided that we should spend all of our current "military" budget on developing elite tactical forces or intelligence agencies.

Like I said, I didn't explicitly say we need to increase spending. Smarter spending would be a good start. Personally, I think that the government right now that's in place is much to fat. I'm by no way shape or forms a minimalist, but I really don't think the Governer's General budget should be anywhere close to what it is. There is a point where more people in an office is not a good thing. Isn't it called the diminishing labour productivity principle? Something like that. I'm aware this means some jobs will need to be lost in the government sector, that doesn't mean the economy will collapse as some people who think any job loss of any kind will result in.

I'm always weary of the Americanizing ideology people want to throw on Harper. I'm not a fond supporter of Harper, but the rep is pretty unnecessary. It's fear mongering by the Liberals if anything.

Personally, I don't think select privitization in the healthcare system is really a bad thing. By subcontracting out some aspects of the system, (laundry services, diagnostics as per doctor referral etc) it will alleviate much strain on the system. Think about it, somebody is diagnosed with cancer. They still had to wait to see the doctor as does everybody else, and before they get treatment they need a CAT scan. If you privatize the diagnostics, it enables the people with money to get that before they can get onto the waiting list for treatment. There's still legitimacy in that they're not jumping ahead of the line. They're just getting to the line earlier. Since firms doing such diagnostics will still be partially subsidized for patients, there's no worry that service is decreasing, but it's reducing the governments costs for the uber-expensive diagnostic tools, and staying arguably within the bounds of having a better accesible system for all. Just my view though.

Update: Layton officially lost my support. "Canada has not opened its borders enough to immigration" Two words. Bull. S---. Oooooh a one time only bill so that for every immigrant they can bring one "family" member back. Family as a loose term for close friend, or neighbour, or co-worker, etc. Hmm. Canada has missed out on 1 million new Canadians. We need to let 50,000 more immigrants in a year???? What the hell for????

Well, it's starting to look more and more like my vote will go to the PC's now. The polls are making it clear that a Liberal minority gov't is a very real possibility, the best end result available I think. I wouldn't like to see the PC's in power but a Liberal majority is just as bad so I figure I'll add to the opposition and cross my fingers.

The more I think about it, as long as the gov't is a minority I almost don't care who actually wins. At this level, the fundamental differences between parties is minimal if not in rhetoric then in practice.

I just want a strong opposition, whoever wins. Without it the gov't ends up resembling a monarchy.

Update: Layton officially lost my support. "Canada has not opened its borders enough to immigration" Two words. Bull. S---. Oooooh a one time only bill so that for every immigrant they can bring one "family" member back. Family as a loose term for close friend, or neighbour, or co-worker, etc. Hmm. Canada has missed out on 1 million new Canadians. We need to let 50,000 more immigrants in a year???? What the hell for????

Think for a second here shall we? The liberals stated that the level of immigration needed to keep Canada’s population up to snuff is around 300,000 ppl per annum. You know how much Canada get’s? 250,000 we are below the levels of replenishment. If Canada didn’t have immigration the population of Canada would begin to depreciate greatly over the next 50 years. Canada needs more immigrants, the natural increase is a mere 1%, and that’s even dropping. Unless you want to be like Russia with a declining population, Layton is right.

I've stayed quiet long enough - quite possibly to the pleasure of most. No longer!

I don't get too caught up in the weeds of strategic voting i.e. theorizing a 'minority' government. From my vantage point, a vantage point which has me looking out from the 'inside', I've learned that an effective government (politicians) is tantamount for a functional government(civil service). Truth is, a minority government is not effective, it lacks leadership, it lacks a plan. Why? Because everyone from the backbencher to the Minister of Finance (the most prestigious appointment of cabinet) are skittish, always looking over their shoulder, indecisive, walking on glass. They're afraid of a non-confidence vote in the house, a vote that would send them packing. So, ultimately, nothing gets done with a minority government.


My opinion is this: find the party with the best plan, the plan which suits you best, and vote for them. If a minority government forms, so be it. The parliamentary system of government is designed to have the 'minority' status as a default, not as a choice.

What is wrong with a declining population? The world is already overpopulated? SO many people die each year of starvation. Even though we have enough food to feed them.

The issue is clearly not a declining world population, it is a declining population in Canada. If we fall below replenishment levels, the economy will contract and Canada's political power in the world will decline. Nevermind military spending as a means to maintain a presence on the global scene, if Canada's population contracts we'll be even less relevant and no amount of military spending will matter.

We need to let 50,000 more immigrants in a year???? What the hell for????

Is this comment motivated by anything except racism? It's an overused comment, but need I remind you that the vast majority of Canadians are or are descendants of immigrants? I would not exist if my grandparents had not left Japan, Poland, and the Ukraine to somehow manage to intertwine their lives in Canada.

Its funny, I hear my grandmother and many others of her generation lamenting the influx of immigrants to canada and ALWAYS gloss over the fact that their parents were immigrants themselves. The really amazing thing is they don't seem to even realize they're doing it. When I put the fact of my grandmother's immigrant heritage to her she looked at me in complete puzzlement, as if I had started speaking greek. It occurred to me that she genuinely considered her parents as somehow different from the new immigrants.

I would favour a minority government if it were institutionally possible to have it be effective. As stated, it's not. Hence electoral reform. If the parties knew that they had nothing to gain by making the government weak (as in if they could obtain a majority from the electorate), they'd have the motivation to co-operate, and in fact make better laws.

Alright, firstly, I forget who said it, but i'm going to plagarize them anyways. It's not racism, if you hate everybody equally. That being said (in good natured humour in case you missed the boat), I'm not against immigration. I think we have quite enough as it is. I have a sincere problem with how our immigration is currently handled. I have a problem with how we're accepting so many immigrants from Asia. Don't even consider ripping in on me for being racist against Asians. I also have a problem with how current immigrants who do make it in, are forced to have menial jobs because this specific administration won't recognize their qualifications. Case in point, a Pizza Hut delivery man in my area is from somewhere in the former Eastern bloc. He has PhD's in biochemical engineering, but because they were from Soviet controlled countries, we do not recognize them. This qualified immigrant is therefore forced to deliver pizza, instead of taking a leading role in an expanding industry. The same goes for China.

Here's my justification now for not liking the number of Asian immigrants flooding to Canada. Canada is a nation of ethnic diversity. That is part of what it means to be Canadian. A melting pot of different cultures, different foods, different languages, but the key term here is 'melting pot'. I'm not too sure how many people here are from BC, or have ever been to BC, but certain areas of the Greater Vancouver area do not experience this because of how certain areas are just so entirely dominated by ethnic minorites. You don't get ethnic diversity when approximately 90% of Richmond is Chinese. It's almost the same for areas of Surrey with East Indians. When our ancestors came to this country, they came with the intention of -becoming- Canadian. I'm beginning to feel like an immigrant in my hometown (not Richmond, and definately not Surrey for the record). Canada has 2 official languages. If i'm walking down the street and i can't recognize the characters on all the signs, nevermind what they mean, I think something needs adjustment.

Additionally, people know Canada already has such a horrible immigration and refugee system, that they come here to abuse our system. Draining resources on our courts, our police, our social services. I thought somewhere it stated that a refugee has to go to the first available safe haven from an area you're fleeing from. I didn't exactly know Canada was the most accessible place to get too when fleeing war zones and floods, and famines, and droughts. Planes aren't that cheap, boats aren't that common. The boats that do get here are smuggling people, but the people on such craft are paying like 60,000 dollars to get here. Real refugee.

I lived in richmond for six years and then moved downtown for a few years... god I missed richmond. To this day, it's still the best place I've ever lived. I think you'll find that the first generation immigrants may well live here never learning english and clutching to their countries of origin by staying in small ethnic communities but their children (in my experience) act and live as canadian as I do.

What you are seeing now has always happened, it's just isn't european countries moving here as much these days and therefore they're more obvious.

No, it has to do with how the immigration policy is structured. 90% of the immigrants who applied here during the Trudeau era would not be admitted. That doesn't seem like too much of natural trend to me, especially considering the last decade of the 20th century.

I'm just finding it now, that there's so many new immigrants, that they are the majority in classes and just in the community, so they don't develop into naturalized citizens, they just keep their own language culture and traditions. I just feel extremely alienated when I'm in my hometown, and I can't read signs on the street. I'm not even beginning to suggest that we impose language laws, I just don't think it should need to be an issue. Thats how our 'melting pot' is disappearing.

I'm just finding it now, that there's so many new immigrants, that they are the majority in classes and just in the community, so they don't develop into naturalized citizens, they just keep their own language culture and traditions

If you moved to a foreign country, would you not do the same? I've only been living in Australia for three months now, and I find my sense of Canadian patriotism to be greater than ever. It feels quite alien, even though there's the huge benefit of not having to learn a new language. Obviously I do my bit to fit in, but it sure is good to run into a fellow Canadian every once in a while.

That said, the children of immigrants are naturalized very quickly. My father's parents were both straight from Japan and despite being brought up in a Japanese-centric community in BC, my father retains almost no Japanese qualities. He can barely speak Japanese and certainly knows little about the culture. As for me, I couldn't tell you any more about Japanese culture than anyone else. It took one generation to transition most of the way and by the second generation the lineage is totally naturalized. That seems pretty quick to me.

Thats how our 'melting pot' is disappearing.

I was always taught that the Canadian ideal was a mosaic not an American-esque melting pot. We value diversity and cultural integrity. The Americans value homogenization and integration. I know our history has several episodes that might dispute this, but that was the mantra I was taught.

As an immigrant I am quite offended by the over-generalized statements of Despotic. People come to Canada for a better life, for a better social safety net, for a future. I am a Canadian and I am proud to be one, but I am also from where I originated from as well, and I do keep my traditions as well as that of Canada. Coming from Toronto, pretty much everyone is an immigrant and we all are tolerant of each other. Immigration and our diversity is truly something that is an example of Canada worldwide. If we want Canada’s economy to collapse, and if we want Canada’s average population to be 65 then go ahead stop immigration. But if you enjoy not having to pay 90% tax to support the baby boomers we need immigration. Also Despotic, I do note an anti-European feeling in your comments. I am of European origin, and I have yet to hear any complaints of European immigration, why?

Where did I say immigration is bad, or that we need to stop it? I'm saying the system is flawed, this is how I see it is flawed, and if you don't agree with me, don't. I also don't recognize me trying to impose a new system, but just saying that the system Layton wants makes me unable to vote for him.

"If we want Canada’s economy to collapse, and if we want Canada’s average population to be 65 then go ahead stop immigration. But if you enjoy not having to pay 90% tax to support the baby boomers we need immigration"

A lot of that statement has to do with other things than immigration. Like I said, I never suggested we get rid of it, but I see the healthcare system and post secondary education being the principle problems for an increasing tax rate, and a decrease of jobs. How tuiton is increasing so that many lower income students aren't getting the opportunity to get the training that is ever more becoming required, and also, how universities administer international students. At triple the fee's I can understand why. Again, I can already envision people ripping in on that saying I'm anti-anybody who's not Canadian already, and thats not the case at all. I love Canada to death, and I don't think that we get enough respect abroad as we deserve, because of how we mismanage things so severely at home.

"Also Despotic, I do note an anti-European feeling in your comments. I am of European origin, and I have yet to hear any complaints of European immigration, why?" I'll gladly answer the question, but I'm not quite following.

Where did I say immigration is bad, or that we need to stop it?

Canada has missed out on 1 million new Canadians. We need to let 50,000 more immigrants in a year???? What the hell for????

Sounds like an endorsement to me don’t you?

but just saying that the system Layton wants makes me unable to vote for him.

You won’t find anybody who would disagree with Layton on that one. Layton is simply repeating what Jean did; Canada needs more immigrants for its mere survival. It is not like we have a choice here.

“A lot of that statement has to do with other things than immigration.”

Like what do expand…

I see the healthcare system and post secondary education being the principle problems for an increasing tax rate, and a decrease of jobs.

Why do you think Health Costs are going up? Our population is soon not going to be able to support a public healthcare system. Our population is rapidly aging and fewer workers are available to work. Canada’s economy will shrink, and for every one retiree there will be only 2 workers to pay for that retiree’s pension. If we got those extra million immigrants we would be better off indeed.

I'll gladly answer the question, but I'm not quite following.

Read it again, it’s not incomprehensible.

If we elect the Liberals into government this year, we are sending a very strong message. We are telling the Liberals that they can waste and waste money, and they won't be held accountable. This will only give them a greater sense of power, and consequently make them an even more careless party. You need to scare a party, and make them know that the public is in control. When parties fight for votes, it is the citizens who win.

Undecided,
In spite of any disagreements we may have had in other threads, let me say "Welcome to Canada."
Whenever I catch myself thinking, "Those damn immigrants..." I stop and remind myself, my grandparents were immigrants. Whatever I say about you, I'm saying about them.
I hope you do as well here as they did.

And in spite of all we say about having no choice, etc., we're better off than a lot of places - as many immigrants know only too well.

well the federal election is next monday (June 28th), make up your minds, people
not me though, I am not even old enough to vote :D

I'm not voting. Why, you may ask?

Green Party: Supports the war in Iraq, leans conservative (I was suprised when they said that they support the war on The National). I disagree with War.

Liberals: Careless spending, scandals, have been in power for too long.

Conservatives: They support the Americans

NDP: Will increase certain Taxes and decrease others. They will go into debt.

Bloq: There is no way in hell I would vote for the seperatists who support the conservative point of view. I live in ontari so that don't have a candidate here.

Communist Party: Good Ideas but too difficult to practice.

Action Party: They also have interesting concepts. They won't win anyway.

There are aspects of all the parties that I like and dislike. If I HAD TO CHOOSE, I would vote NDP. I hate the election. It forces candidates to lie to get votes and the TV is littered with stupid commercials.

NDP seems to be for me, I like Jack. Of the three he seems to actually know what he is talking about. Being from Toronto, he is attractive to us for obvious reasons. I hope the NDP take Toronto by storm, and the Liberals Ontario. I just don't want to see Harper in that PM's seat in Ottawa.

Like ILikeSalt I don't want to vote but I will (I think it's some kind of genetic thing in my family). I'm either going to spoil my ballot or vote liberal (ugh), I haven't decided yet.

I know that my parents have spoiled their ballots when the candidates are not up to their standards. If I was going to vote, I would be tempted to vote liberal even with their scandals because they are being watched carefully by the auditor general's grew. The thing is, who can police the government?

Jack Layton is quite an interesting person. He has stood up for respectable ideals for a long time. If he becomes prime minister, be can stir up some international political controversy about the war. I am simply anti-war and anti-stupidity. It's sad that none of the parties seem to hove those qualities... except for the NDP. The NDP can be prone to scandal and mistakes from not being experienced in parliment. all I knwo is that we need some sort of change in parliment. I hate war therefore I hate the conservatives.

NDP have a good outlook I think and if they weren't economic poison I'd probably vote for them. From what I can tell though, they'd have to bankrupt the country or tax 95% of my income to pay for even half of the stuff they claim they'll do if they win.

Im only 15, but I'd vote Green Party. Not because Im a pot smoker, but because I like the way they think.

NDP have a good outlook I think and if they weren't economic poison I'd probably vote for them. From what I can tell though, they'd have to bankrupt the country or tax 95% of my income to pay for even half of the stuff they claim they'll do if they win.

That’s the typical stereotypical attitude taken towards the NDP; they have a budget that is more logical then the conservatives. According to the major banks the conservative numbers simply don’t add up. The NDP’s budget is well within the range of future fiscal projections, and Jack Layton has been able to slay the TORONTO BUDGET (scrarry!) for the past decade or so. So really that old straw man about the NDP is now wholly unjustified.

well, I live in a place that's been 'lead' by the ndp for twelve years so don't give me that straw man crap. My assertion is based on actual experience and over a decade of evidence.

So then I should say that the Provincial and Federal parties are the same? If so the Liberal Govt has a severe case of schizophrenia. I don’t buy that crap that provincial and federal parties are one in the same.

of course there are differences but it's the only comparison available. Is it perfect? no but it's all I've got. Looking at the success/failure of a previous ndp prime minister, for example, is even less helpful. The promises and numbers offered by each present party leader is also pointless if history is any indication so, in my opinion, present provincial success/falure is the best (if flawed) method I can think of.

If you have a better gauge let me know.

of course there are differences but it's the only comparison available. Is it perfect? no but it's all I've got.

That’s not true, go on their website and check out their platform. You cannot compare something to nothing; they haven’t been in power federally so let’s not immediately dismiss them like some fringe. Unlike the conservatives, Jack Layton has practical experience with budgets, and the hardest one in Canada, Toronto’s who has a budget larger then Sask. I’d have more trust in Layton then Harper imo.

Looking at the success/failure of a previous ndp prime minister,

There’s been a NDP PM? Have I missed a decade?

If you have a better gauge let me know.

http://www.ndp.ca/ That’s a good start.

There’s been a NDP PM? Have I missed a decade?

lol, I think it's pretty obvious that was a typo, reread that sentence minus "ndp" and you'll get my point.

http://www.ndp.ca/ That’s a good start.

I hate to quote myself but I addressed this. "The promises and numbers offered by each present party leader is also pointless if history is any indication..."

I hate to quote myself but I addressed this. "The promises and numbers offered by each present party leader is also pointless if history is any indication..."

I am one of the biggest cynics when it comes to politics, but what else do we have? Like that 80’s sang says “One thing leads to another” they all get corrupted by their own megalomania.

I am one of the biggest cynics when it comes to politics, but what else do we have?

exactly, we have nothing but imaginary numbers and promises or the record of provincial leaders currently in power. Both are poor but of the two at least looking at premiers tells you something. Party platforms are about as good a future indicator as madame cleo.

Sorry to disrupt a perfectly good debate folks but, a party's effectiveness depends on their ability to lead - something that hasn't been addressed in the past several posts.

NDP- Looking to move the agenda. Very noble. The only problem is their track record is marred. They're a deer caught in the headlights when their attempt to move the agenda succeeds - have no clue what to do next (look no further than the NDP era in Ontario for evidence).

New Conservatives- Too focussed on promising everything under the sun for no other reason than to gain power. Too focussed on overthrowing the Liberals than to critically think about leading this country.

I've seen it time and again, a new government come to power on the strength of their promises without a clue how to follow up.

Far too often people, and political parties, overlook the bureaucray of government - it's a necessary evil, one that requires strong leadership and one that devours whimsical promises.

Green Party- Absolutely no experience in leading.

Bloc- Too centralized and focussed to fully represent 'Canadians'.

Liberals- The only party with solid experience in leading - may have become complacent. There is a risk; parties that become complacent tend to lack leadership.

From what I've seen in this political race, i'd be hard pressed to think the Liberals are anything but complacent - they're in for the fight of their careers.

It doesn't matter what a political party promises, it comes down to a political parties ability to deliver what they promise, which takes leadership. The Liberals have delivered on many fronts because of their ability to lead.

My greatest hope is that the Liberals come into power with a minority, the NDP being the official opposition, and the Bloc and Conservatives are secluded in the corner. But in reality it seems that the Conservatives and Bloc are going to hold the power, Martin is scared shitless about a NDP ride in Ontario (begging ppl not to vote NDP because they share the same core values and using the Nader response a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives). I am glad to see that this election isn’t over before it started like the last three, but I seriously do fear a Conservative victory, Bush on Morphine.

Undecided
My greatest hope is that the Liberals come into power with a minority, the NDP being the official opposition, and the Bloc and Conservatives are secluded in the corner.

The worst possible outcome is a minority government, it serves no one.

The worst possible outcome is a minority government, it serves no one.

Not when there is a coalitional government, I have always feared a majority govt because its too monotonous and it’s too mob like in nature. Where are the checks and balances in the Canadian political system? Unlike in the US where everything has a check and balance, Canada only has the commons to deal with.

Without question, the Parliamentary system of government we Canadians adopted from the Brittish tends to lack a 'checks and balances' system the US has but, that fact doesn't make our system fallible at the expense of such a void.

Simple answer (I'm tired): a checks and balances system is nothing more than duplicity, another layer of bureaucracy that weighs on the ability of government to be effective. Sure, a minority government will provide a default 'checks and balances' system. My argument nests with a party's ability to effectively lead - something that is inherantly hindered by a minority government.

that fact doesn't make our system fallible at the expense of such a void.

Our system is fallible like the rest but more so then others. The liberal dictatorship of the last 10 years indicates as such, Canada is a dictatorship all but in name. Our country suffers from such a void, with western alienation to Quebecois rejection; our system has facilitated the regionalism that defines what Canada is today.

a checks and balances system is nothing more than duplicity, another layer of bureaucracy that weighs on the ability of government to be effective.

How is a check and balance weaken the effectiveness of govt? I assume you believe that passing shit laws, and the 2 billion spent on the gun registry (which was only supposed to cost $2 million) isn’t a gross layer of bureaucracy? What we need to do is strengthen the Senate, the mechanism already exists we just need to empower it.

My argument nests with a party's ability to effectively lead - something that is inherantly hindered by a minority government.

Canada needs effective govt, efficient govt, and a socially conscience govt. If we are a “democracy” then why not takes people’s opinions into account? Why have this monotonous govt structure like in Orwell’s 1984, all or nothing attitude has never done a nation good.

Bill C-68 (the gun registry) would have been defeated if the Liberals allowed a free vote.

I say away with the party whip and party discipline, allow members to vote in accordance to their constituents (a practice employed by our sister legislature in Brittain).

No need for radical senate reform. All that does is create another layer of bureaucracy - not to mention a heavy burden on the public purse which would make the $2 b dollar expense of c-68 look like chump change.

The Liberals have done a lot of good things during their tenure. Unfortunately, the electorate has a short memory that cries 'what have you done for me lately'.

In response to a much earlier comment about immigration laws:

Despotic said:
"You don't get ethnic diversity when approximately 90% of Richmond is Chinese."

well where the hell would you want to live in canada if you were Chinese and on your way to a better life? of course you would want to live near your fellow country folks.

Despotic said:
"When our ancestors came to this country, they came with the intention of -becoming- Canadian. I'm beginning to feel like an immigrant in my hometown (not Richmond, and definately not Surrey for the record)."

all of these cultures MAKES us Canadian, you dumbass.
And of course they should hang on to their heritage and teach ignorant canadians all about it. especially you punk.

I taught in South Korea and was happy to be in an area where there were a few Canadian foreigners close by.

After seeing first hand how some people live, I would gladly let foreigners into Canada and give them a taste of why it's great to be born in such an amazing country.

The liberal dictatorship of the last 10 years indicates as such, Canada is a dictatorship all but in name.

Except that this "dictatorship" is on the verge of being dismantled peacefully through the normal democratic process - you're using flamboyant terminology without understanding the meaning of your words. The Liberals remained in power due to skillful politicking, solid policies, and a fragmented opposition. One could argue that any "arrogance" of the Liberals was a result of weak and lame opposition.

No need for radical senate reform. All that does is create another layer of bureaucracy - not to mention a heavy burden on the public purse which would make the $2 b dollar expense of c-68 look like chump change.

The Senate doesn’t have to be reformed that much, give me a break. All I insinuated is that she given real powers is that too much to ask? The Senate already exists; all we do is give it real actionable powers. All the mechanisms exist, they have their chambers. The Senate is a waste of money right now, it does nothing. At least we would be paying for something. I really don’t see where your argument is going.

The Liberals have done a lot of good things during their tenure. Unfortunately, the electorate has a short memory that cries 'what have you done for me lately'.

I agree.

Prof:

Except that this "dictatorship" is on the verge of being dismantled peacefully through the normal democratic process - you're using flamboyant terminology without understanding the meaning of your words.

I understand the meaning of my terms, and I stick by them. No where does it state that dictatorships have to be broken apart my war, and a coup. The country was dominated by one leader and one party for ten years, which really only nominal debates. The decisions were already made; the liberal backbenchers were hardly allowed to vote their own conscience, or that of their constituencies. That is the tyranny of the majority, that’s why I have a innate mistrust of it.

One could argue that any "arrogance" of the Liberals was a result of weak and lame opposition.

I agree with you there.

P.S:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=622321#post622321

anybody watched the election?

I understand the meaning of my terms, and I stick by them. No where does it state that dictatorships have to be broken apart my war, and a coup. The country was dominated by one leader and one party for ten years, which really only nominal debates.

OK... feel free to disregard the fact that that tenure was broken by multiple democratic elections. We were not bound to the Liberals for that whole time - we willingly elected them time and time again.

Further, from dictionary.com:

dictatorship: n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

So, unless you think the Canadian Constitution counts for nothing, the opposition parties in Parliament are just puppets of the governing party, all our elections are rigged, etc., you are horrendously misusing a term.

I say away with the party whip and party discipline, allow members to vote in accordance to their constituents (a practice employed by our sister legislature in Brittain).

I dont mean to but in on a CAnadian argument,
(how do you like your new election results?)
But the party line is used with abandon here in the UK. I have heard very little of MPS voting the way their constituents might like them to on any important issues. For example, there is something caled a three line whip, when that gets invoked, if your an MP in the party, theyll drag you moaning gently from your hospital bed in order to get you into the lobbies. Every Prime minister I have known (ok, only 3.) has used the party line and whip in every instance they could to pass legislation they personally wanted passed. In many ways the UK system is inferior to the USA system, including in having the party leader, as prime minister, with effectively dictatorial powers.

OK... feel free to disregard the fact that that tenure was broken by multiple democratic elections. We were not bound to the Liberals for that whole time - we willingly elected them time and time again.

Exactly did I not mention the dictatorship of the majority? That is really what was going on Canada; this nominal democratic process really was useless. We had 10 years of a Liberal dictatorship, they were basically totalitarian no one could oppose them. You are looking at the term dictatorship from a skewed historical assumption, that dictatorships are bad, and headed by bad men. Dictatorship is neither negative nor positive in its connotation. You are the one who is putting the categorical emotive response to the term. Not me…

So, unless you think the Canadian Constitution counts for nothing,

With the notwithstanding clause, pretty much.


the opposition parties in Parliament are just puppets of the governing party,

They aren’t rigged but they are there for show.

you are horrendously misusing a term.

As are you for trying to limit use of the term because you think it’s “bad”.

So much to comment on, but I'll start here: "a party's effectiveness depends on their ability to lead"
It's pretty hard to judge anyone but the Liberals, especially on the federal scale, which it appears you've done. No other party besides the Conservatives has ever led the country, so how can we really judge their abilities to lead? Provincial governments are not a good example, just look at the differences between the old Ontario Conservatives and the Alberta Conservatives.
Personally, I'm happy with the election results. I'm looking forward to seeing what will happen with a minority government. Right now, I do think the Liberals are the best equipped to lead, despite all the scandals and infighting. THe rest of hte parties are sorting themselves out.
I do, however, think democratic reforms are needed, aka we need proportional representation.
If anyone's interested, I voted green. Even though my candidate was an idiot. I wanted to give them some support and see what direction they'll take. Their Conservative leaning do scare me, but we'll see...