Has anyopne seen the new Conservative commercials (Ontario)?

[milhaus]

Are you kidding me? Who did they pay to do these up? They're so ridiculous, and Harper looks worse than he did before. So fake and contrived. Seriously, I want to be their communications director - I could do my worst and still do better than them . . . I wonder what firm did the ads, and what demo they tested with. Worse than most infomercials.

[Bordello]

The one with Peter McKay and Stephen Harper talking to some lady? Yeah I've seen it. Did you prefer a video of them attacking the Liberals instead?

[Shaner]

Please shutup already.

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.

[Bordello]

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.
Amen.

[EchoAngel911]

the commercial is just funny to me. I still remember all the dirty tactics from last election.

The only politician I like is Layton (NDP).

[gilboman]

Please shutup already.

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.

because everybody knows if the nutjobs at the reform aka conservatives were let into power , the country would've been destroyed long ago

[simplyno]

because everybody knows if the nutjobs at the reform aka conservatives were let into power , the country would've been destroyed long ago

Amen.

[gman]

The ad is pretty gay. It does not matter if it is C, Liberals or NDP. Anybody creates that ad should be fired. It really makes any party looks dumb. 2 female MPs asked Harper simple questions and waiting for Harper to answer them. Asking those elementary questions made that 2 ladies look dumb.

[guest10586]

No political commercials here. Conservatives need a new leader...one less like a reform leader.

[UrbanPoet]

because everybody knows if the nutjobs at the reform aka conservatives were let into power , the country would've been destroyed long ago

Think of it this way..... Look @ what the liberals have done. I dont think the Conservatives are gonna do any worst, probably even better.

[gman]

Think of it this way..... Look @ what the liberals have done. I dont think the Conservatives are gonna do any worst, probably even better.
Don't underestimate the ability of Federal Conservative. The WMD of wannable can be huge. "Can't be worse" should not be the reason to choose them because they can be worse.

[guest10586]

After seeing some political posters here I really don't know who to vote for, too many extreamist ideas both left and right. All politicians suck anyways, it is just who sucks the least.

[poedua]

Please shutup already.

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.

The maddening thing is, there is very little evidence that the Conseratives could do any better - either in mangaing the economy or in their overall ability to govern.

While we've got our fair share of domestic problem both in terms of social policy and regional differences , we're leaving the rest of the G7 in our dust economically and rank #1 or #2 in most UN etc. polls as among the leading countries in the world for 'quality of life' for it's citizens.

So while the Liberals can clean up their act quite a bit , it's another thing to say that they're Liberals are destroying this country.

The reason the Liberals are back up in the polls, I think, is that Canadians simply feel there is no viable alternative. Stephen Harper either scares them and / or they think he's an utter buffoon and political lightweight IMHO.

The Tories need a class act like John Tory as leader - the sooner the better.

[aquariaguy]

Think of it this way..... Look @ what the liberals have done. I dont think the Conservatives are gonna do any worst, probably even better.

The conservatives just like to set up traps, but get trapped in their own traps. They also like to make fun of people and compare them to devils and monsters. If the conservatives won, we'd be in Iraq fighting bushes war and our gas would still be sky rocket. We should flood them with cheap pharmaceuticals like they flood us with guns.

If you want to be bush's ***** and kill people than vote Conservatives.

[Bordello]

If you want to be bush's ***** and kill people than vote Conservatives.
Bush already has a b1tch, Martin. He's the biggest pushover PM ever.

[gman]

Bush already has a b1tch, Martin. He's the biggest pushover PM ever.
What has Martin pushed by Bush that was against Canadian interest?

[sptembergurl]

the commercial is just funny to me. I still remember all the dirty tactics from last election.

The only politician I like is Layton (NDP).

Jack Layton makes me laugh. I ran a 10K for Mt. Sinai hospital a few months ago. He came with Olivia to run the race. They began the run behind me and never ended up finishing. My guess is that he showed up for publicity reasons and then sneaked off once he and Olivia ran past the big crowd of onlookers and media. I won't bash him though. He definitely is in shape so even if it was a publicity stunt, I bet he could have run it!

[gilboman]

Bush already has a b1tch, Martin. He's the biggest pushover PM ever.

sure.... if you say Martin is his b1tch, then with the conservatives, we would be flying the american flag here already and be involved in the insane and ineffective missle defence, helping to destabalize the world, commit terrorism around the world with totally false pretenses and be in the red for atleast tens of billions

i mean even a bafoon (but the conservative's intelligence are below a baffoon as witnessed in past two years or so) will know tax cuts and fighting one man's war are not exactly going to leave the economy stronger

[sumfunny]

It's funny but I remember martin saying we should go to war in Iraq. In either case look at the liberal waste that has come to fruition, all these stupid programs. The liberals are playing canadians like dogs, if we park loud enough they'll give us a treat. Why do you think we have all these surpluses, the gov't brings in billions more then they know they need, and then they can cover their asses when billions are wasted on buying off their buddies.

Did you hear how the liberal's said canada wants a majority, oh yeah, we are too dumb to actually have any political debate in this country. Why don't we go back to being told over and over again what to do.

[NG]

Please shutup already.

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.

That seems rather harsh and out of line. He is not entitled to have an opinion that differs from yours?

[poedua]

. Why don't we go back to being told over and over again what to do.

Simply ignore what the Liberals tell you and vote against the Liberal in the next election..


as for " being told over and over again what to do ' - if it's not policy or law yet - just turn a deaf ear- pretty simple.

[Txiasaeia]

sure.... if you say Martin is his b1tch, then with the conservatives, we would be flying the american flag here already and be involved in the insane and ineffective missle defence, helping to destabalize the world, commit terrorism around the world with totally false pretenses and be in the red for atleast tens of billions

i mean even a bafoon (but the conservative's intelligence are below a baffoon as witnessed in past two years or so) will know tax cuts and fighting one man's war are not exactly going to leave the economy stronger

Keep up the group attacks and this thread will get locked quicker than Layton would spend that surplus.

And by the way, I wouldn't call it "one man's war": Kurdish Iraqis are no longer at threat of being pushed to genocide. But I suppose you would have opposed Canada's entry into WWII too because it cost too much, hmm?

[Daemar]

the commercial is just funny to me. I still remember all the dirty tactics from last election.

The only politician I like is Layton (NDP).

God help us if the ND's ever come to power.

[gilboman]

Keep up the group attacks and this thread will get locked quicker than Layton would spend that surplus.

And by the way, I wouldn't call it "one man's war": Kurdish Iraqis are no longer at threat of being pushed to genocide. But I suppose you would have opposed Canada's entry into WWII too because it cost too much, hmm?

WWII had a reason for it...stoping an invading force. but iraq we would be the invading force ;)

a more accurate analogy is for you to say why canada didn't join Germany :lol: :lol:

[gilboman]

Keep up the group attacks and this thread will get locked quicker than Layton would spend that surplus.

And by the way, I wouldn't call it "one man's war": Kurdish Iraqis are no longer at threat of being pushed to genocide. But I suppose you would have opposed Canada's entry into WWII too because it cost too much, hmm?

yes, now the minority in iraq faces genocide. not to mention attack from americans and other extremists. do you really mean to say that iraqis are better off since being invaded and occupied by the US terroism force?

[NG]

God help us if the ND's ever come to power.

They've done a better job running the prov's they've been in charge with than the Conservatives ever did when they were last in power on the federal level. Your statement is basic fear mongering.

[NG]

Keep up the group attacks and this thread will get locked quicker than Layton would spend that surplus

More scare tactics. As said Doer, Romanow and Calvert are doing better for Canada than Mulroney ever did.

[devious9191]

They've done a better job running the prov's they've been in charge with than the Conservatives ever did when they were last in power on the federal level. Your statement is basic fear mongering.

I don't want to get into 'who's better than who', but that's a pretty broad stroke when you think of Bob Rae, and what he did to Ontario.

[Txiasaeia]

More scare tactics. As said Doer, Romanow and Calvert are doing better for Canada than Mulroney ever did.

Oh, come now, I was just trying to lighten the situation a bit. I actually like Layton more than Martin or Harper as a politician, if that makes you feel any better!

yes, now the minority in iraq faces genocide. not to mention attack from americans and other extremists. do you really mean to say that iraqis are better off since being invaded and occupied by the US terroism force?

The Kurds are, yep.

[NG]

I don't want to get into 'who's better than who', but that's a pretty broad stroke when you think of Bob Rae, and what he did to Ontario.

That was during a recession where nobody was doing well. He also bit the hand that fed him with the Rae days because he thought that was what was best for Canada. Looking back doing that, even tho he thought it was right, was a bad move for him when it came time for confederates during election time.

[gman]

I don't want to get into 'who's better than who', but that's a pretty broad stroke when you think of Bob Rae, and what he did to Ontario.
Actually, that is a very good comparision. I had no doubt Rae wanted to do something good to Ontario just as some people (that does not include me) have no doubt Harper wanted to do something good to Canada. However, what they "want" does not mean they "can".

[devious9191]

That was during a recession where nobody was doing well. He also bit the hand that fed him with the Rae days because he thought that was what was best for Canada. Looking back doing that, even tho he thought it was right, was a bad move for him when it came time for confederates during election time.

The same could be said for Mulroney.

[milhaus]

My point has nothing to do with politics, but with the poor communications strategy of the Conservatives. Doesn't matter who is "best" for the country - my point is that the Consv. will never win an election with Harper as their front man, and with those geniuses running their campaign. The latest ads were meant to raise his profile and make him more appealing to Ontario voters - they only make him look insincere and fake. I wish Belinda was still around and with Peter so that they could have really pushed the knife into his back - Pete's already done it once . . .

[Bordello]

Peter McKay would make a better leader than Harper.

[gman]

Peter McKay would make a better leader than Harper.
He won't be 'effective'. People will never forget and forgive he back stabbed his own people.

[poedua]

Actually, that is a very good comparision. I had no doubt Rae wanted to do something good to Ontario just as some people (that does not include me) have no doubt Harper wanted to do something good to Canada. However, what they "want" does not mean they "can".

I agree, Rae's intention was honourabe, but you need the ability to govern with political acumen and pragmatic economic policies - I think the Rae government dropped the ball on both fronts.

Putting the NDP reign in perspective a bit, the recession of the early 1990's was global in scope. The Peterson Liberals handed Rae an "unforseen" budgetary deficit of about $2 or $3 billion at the time. And before he left Canada with one our worst nation-wide recessions, Brian Mulroney short-changed Ontario by another $4 billion in transfer payments. Rae's public auto insurance, if it flew, would have meant not being gouged for the privilege of driving in Ontario.,

Rae's was the first government in Ontario to reduce the year-to-year spending in the face of a recession while spending more in the North where decades of neglect had turned parts of it into third world-like conditions and dilapidated infrastructure. Conservatives dinged-up the first $40 billion dollars of provincial debt during some of the best cold war economies the province had ever known.

But, on the other hand , without a doubt - the net impact of the Rae years were brutal !

- they had a 70% approval rating at the beginning of their term and ended up with just 6% of the vote at the end of the term

- faced with large and growing deficits as the term began, Rae's response was to create billions in make-work projects across the province, and spent like crazy - social contract ! The result was that Ontario's credit / debt rating would be downgraded three times during their term it would take 14 years before Ontario got it's good rating back- which cost us taxpayers countless millions.

- Rae also concluded that the costs in the health care system could be drastically reduced if only there were fewer doctors. And so they slashed spots available at the province's medical schools - you can see where that got us today.

I think they - as a party - simply do not have the acumen to govern a country effectively, based on from the pragmatism of ' applying' their policies and the experience of the NDP in Ontario - which, to be fair, may be an anomaly - given NDP governments haven't imploded in other provinces as it did in Ontario.

Oh - on the topic of poor acumen - let's not forget photo radar too !

[poedua]

Peter McKay would make a better leader than Harper.
What do you base your opinion on - that Peter McKay would make a better leader ?

[milhaus]

What do you base your opinion on - that Peter McKay would make a better leader ?
On the fact that there are only a limited number of worse leaders than Steven Harper. Peter McKay is more articulate, more centrist, and a huge prick. He deserved all he got from Belinda. Man, that was fun times . . .

I might be swayed to vote Cons. if they ever gain back the "P" they lost, and if John Tory became the leader. The Ontario Liberals have me so riled up, I might even change my vote federally.

[thelefteyeguy]

The maddening thing is, there is very little evidence that the Conseratives could do any better - either in mangaing the economy or in their overall ability to govern.

While we've got our fair share of domestic problem both in terms of social policy and regional differences , we're leaving the rest of the G7 in our dust economically and rank #1 or #2 in most UN etc. polls as among the leading countries in the world for 'quality of life' for it's citizens.

So while the Liberals can clean up their act quite a bit , it's another thing to say that they're Liberals are destroying this country.

The reason the Liberals are back up in the polls, I think, is that Canadians simply feel there is no viable alternative. Stephen Harper either scares them and / or they think he's an utter buffoon and political lightweight IMHO.

The Tories need a class act like John Tory as leader - the sooner the better.


Damn...i've been preaching John Tory forever...however I stopped posting in these political threads cause really the conservatives at the current state isn't going anywhere.

btw that lipstick colour on Harper really needs to be more subtle.

[UrbanPoet]

The maddening thing is, there is very little evidence that the Conseratives could do any better - either in mangaing the economy or in their overall ability to govern.


So you just let the people that proved that they can run a country, but run it bad continue? :(

[Ojam]

The Kurds are, yep.

and the Christian minority have taken their place.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003549.php

[poedua]

So you just let the people that proved that they can run a country, but run it bad continue? :(

Everyone knows what the liberals are about. We know that they are reasonably competent managers, that Canada is better off today than 10 years ago, and that their is some politicking and patronage, but likely no more than in any long sitting government would have.

If the PC's want to be the party governs, they have to show the public why it is better to risk the devil that they don't know than the devil they do- why they will be more competent or their priorities are different ?

Becaused they say so ?

This is the game for those looking to get elected. The liberals can run on, or away from, their record. I would choose the prior. Harper doesn't have that luxury. He deserves more focus, and a hell of a lot of scrutiny.

For example, Harper keeps talking about US-style taxes ( cuts ). For him to get there we would need to either 1) - cut programs (and health would be an easy target), 2) - start running a deficit or 3) - break his promises. People need to understand that when Harper speaks in his "code" about tax cuts these will be his choices...but never hear that part.

But I must confess, I've always been skeptical of Tories as a party.

They bring to mind the the Tories in the U.K. who were once known as, “The Stupid Party" (John Stuart Mill, 1861 ) - a political term well known and still used in the U.K. today - because they were famous for saying ignorant, dumb things.

It was their combination of saying stupid things and losing, that for the UK Tories, arose primarily from ignorance of how to be effectively political. And the same might be said about our own Tories and their ignorance of how the Commons works in a minority govenment as seen by how they got snookered on votes, delays of votes on budgets , non confidence etc.

So as unpalatable as it is, the two choices we have for governing in Canada today, in the immediate future at least, are my concept of the The "Stupid" Party or The "Corrupt" Party. ( aka Liberals )

Though i would not cast my vote for either one, I'd be a lot more comfortable with criminals running the country than with stupid, ignorant, brethren of the UK Tories. At least you can reason with a criminal ie. appeal to their sense of self preservation or advancement.

Dumas said it best....."Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest."

[devious9191]

Everyone knows what the liberals are about. We know that they are reasonably competent managers, that Canada is better off today than 10 years ago, and that their is some politicking and patronage, but likely no more than in any long sitting government would have.

Can you name even one area that the average Canada is 'better off' in, than 10 years ago?

If the PC's want to be the party governs, they have to show the public why it is better to risk the devil that they don't know than the devil they do- why they will be more competent or their priorities are different ?

Becaused they say so ?

Worst case scenario of a minority Conservative government for 4 years?

This is the game for those looking to get elected. The liberals can run on, or away from, their record. I would choose the prior. Harper doesn't have that luxury. He deserves more focus, and a hell of a lot of scrutiny.

For example, Harper keeps talking about US-style taxes ( cuts ). For him to get there we would need to either 1) - cut programs (and health would be an easy target), 2) - start running a deficit or 3) - break his promises. People need to understand that when Harper speaks in his "code" about tax cuts these will be his choices...but never hear that part.

This is true. In order for Canadians to have lower taxes, the system needs an overhaul. And guess what? The system needs an overhaul. Audit after audit shows that our government is wasting our tax dollars. Our health care system is literally on the verge of collapse. How do you expect to fit the entire generation of 'baby boomers' into our hospitals, when we already have people lying in stretchers in hallways for lack of beds. Who's going to pay for new hospitals when our higher tax bracket goes on CPP?

But I must confess, I've always been skeptical of Tories as a party.

They bring to mind the the Tories in the U.K. who were once known as, “The Stupid Party" (John Stuart Mill, 1861 ) - a political term well known and still used in the U.K. today - because they were famous for saying ignorant, dumb things.

It was their combination of saying stupid things and losing, that for the UK Tories, arose primarily from ignorance of how to be effectively political. And the same might be said about our own Tories and their ignorance of how the Commons works in a minority govenment as seen by how they got snookered on votes, delays of votes on budgets , non confidence etc.

I'm not even going to comment on this. How can you compare political party's in different countries? Would you say that the liberal party of Canada should be considered to be similar to the liberal democrats? Of course not.

The liberals used a backdoor tactic to sidestep democracy.. If you consider that to be a 'good' thing, and that the Conservatives got back doored, then you have a different opinion on the job of your mps than I do.

So as unpalatable as it is, the two choices we have for governing in Canada today, in the immediate future at least, are my concept of the The "Stupid" Party or The "Corrupt" Party. ( aka Liberals )

Though i would not cast my vote for either one, I'd be a lot more comfortable with criminals running the country than with stupid, ignorant, brethren of the UK Tories. At least you can reason with a criminal ie. appeal to their sense of self preservation or advancement.

?

[Txiasaeia]

and the Christian minority have taken their place.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003549.php

Huh. Thanks for pointing that out. But as a Christian, I'm less upset about Christians being targetted in Iraq with conventional weapons rather than Kurds being gassed. This is mostly because, as a Christian, I'm confident that most (if not all) of these Christians will be going to heaven, but also because I feel extremely uneasy about chemical weapons.

This is one of the comments at the bottom of that article:

"Posted by: jasmine
How do you change it?

I think we need to kick Moslem ass.

Most of our enemies hang out in ONE place this month.
If we were as barbaric as them we would use this time to takeout a lot of those peace loving Moslems and send them to home to Allah where they belong.
Maybe that would cut down on their ability to rise money and practice jihad.
A biological weapon could do wonders. Q fever would work very nice..
Also Ebola, Saxitoxin. Or something that makes it look natural."

This is simply unbelievable. You want to talk about evil in the world, you start with people like this (who is probably a Christian, if you read between the lines). Even though he said "If were as barbaric...", the very fact that he proposed it...

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah. Liberals suck. If there's a surplus, does that mean that Canadians will be getting back the money stolen by the Liberal party in the sponsorship scandal? I'd prefer to receive my monies as a cheque. Thanks.

(No, I haven't seen the conservative commercial. I've not seen an intelligent political commercial for any party or any country for years.)

[Ojam]

Huh. Thanks for pointing that out. But as a Christian, I'm less upset about Christians being targetted in Iraq with conventional weapons rather than Kurds being gassed. This is mostly because, as a Christian, I'm confident that most (if not all) of these Christians will be going to heaven, but also because I feel extremely uneasy about chemical weapons.

This is one of the comments at the bottom of that article:

"Posted by: jasmine
How do you change it?

I think we need to kick Moslem ass.

Most of our enemies hang out in ONE place this month.
If we were as barbaric as them we would use this time to takeout a lot of those peace loving Moslems and send them to home to Allah where they belong.
Maybe that would cut down on their ability to rise money and practice jihad.
A biological weapon could do wonders. Q fever would work very nice..
Also Ebola, Saxitoxin. Or something that makes it look natural."

This is simply unbelievable. You want to talk about evil in the world, you start with people like this (who is probably a Christian, if you read between the lines). Even though he said "If were as barbaric...", the very fact that he proposed it...

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah. Liberals suck. If there's a surplus, does that mean that Canadians will be getting back the money stolen by the Liberal party in the sponsorship scandal? I'd prefer to receive my monies as a cheque. Thanks.

(No, I haven't seen the conservative commercial. I've not seen an intelligent political commercial for any party or any country for years.)

Yeah, that comment is pretty sick. It seems as if the violence against Christians is not being reported upon here in North America for some reason. I don't know if it’s because there is a fear that it will lower approval ratings for this "war" further or what. I personally just find it ironic that the one person that was keeping them safe is also the one person that a lot of Christians around the world also wanted out.

[gman]

I like Ontario C and dislike Harper's C. If Federal C can figure out why I (and a lot of Canadian) dislike Harper's C, they can earn our votes.

[poedua]

Can you name even one area that the average Canada is 'better off' in, than 10 years ago??

I'll try

I think that while the ' lot ' for the average Canadian has improved over the 10 years, as a result of a Liberal mandate. But , there is a long way to go and much more to do, as you know , such as...

- doing more to ensure the sustainability and efficiency of the health care system

-the tax burden remains for businesses relatively high despite some tax cuts at both the federal and provincial level. The effective tax burden on households is also relatively high and measures to to be taken to assess what can be done to reduce them.

- the Employment Insurance system remains an uneasy combination of unemployment insurance and social assistance and needs to be revamped.

- equalization payments policies to the provnices need to be re-worked to address inequities where they may exist


Nontheless, I think that from a ' net improvement' perspective, we're clearly better off than 10 years ago. Some very quick examples;


1. 61% of all Canadians aged 25 to 34 had at least some education beyond high school. up from a decade earlier when only 49% of people in that age category had any post-secondary education.

2. real disposable income per capita has increased at an average rate of 1.7% per year since 1997, reflecting strong employment growth and Liberal cuts in personal taxes. Real disposable income per capita increased from $18,241 in 1993 to $20,324 in 2003.

3. despite the increase (6%) in the national crime rate in 2003, the crime rate in Canada is 15% lower than a decade ago

4. life expectancy at birth has steadily increased from 77.8 years in 1991 to 79.7 years in 2002 (82.1 years for women and 77.2 years for men).

5. the Canadian infant mortality rate has dropped steadily in the past decade from 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1991 to 5.2 per 1,000 in 2001.

6. An estimated 1 million people living alone were below the poverty line - this represents about 25 per cent of the total, down from 34 per cent in 1996.

7. An estimated 10.2 per cent of children, or 702,000 Canadians under the age of 18, were living in low-income families -this represents a decline for the sixth consecutive year from a peak of 16.7 per cent in 1996.
But I think Canadians are also better off now simply because the Liberals have made Canada a better country overall. For example, Canada is one of the fastest growth rates ( since 1997 ) and highest living standards among the G-7 countries. Canada has delivered seven consecutive years of fiscal surpluses that have reduced net debt by almost 30 percent of GDP while still accomodating tax reduction—the best fiscal performance in the G-7.

I suspect the Tories interpret this commendable performance assomehow ' ruining the country ' - and they could do a much better job than the Liberals - who guided Canada toward lead ing the G7 countries on almost all performance indicators.


Pehaps the Tory campaign slogan should be: ..If it ain’t broke, fix it till it is.



I'm not even going to comment on this. How can you compare political party's in different countries? Would you say that the liberal party of Canada should be considered to be similar to the liberal democrats? Of course not.?

The comparison was made as a joke - not a genuine comparison.

Our health care system is literally on the verge of collapse. How do you expect to fit the entire generation of 'baby boomers' into our hospitals, when we already have people lying in stretchers in hallways for lack of beds.

A good point and a legitimate concern - no question.

But the desire to ensure Canadians have timely access to quality health care prompted the First Ministers to agree in 2004 on a 10-year plan to improve health care. As you correctly pointed out, the agreement responds directly to reducing these wait times and improving access - the goal being, to achieve meaningful reductions in wait times in priority areas (such as cancer, heart disease and joint replacements) by March 31, 2007.

But Canadains still think their health care is pretty good - Stats Can said the percentage of Canadians who rated the quality of overall health services as being either excellent or good is about 86.6 per cent- about the same as the U.S., but both higher than any other G7 country. Pretty good, but we can do better.

[UrbanPoet]

I'll try

I think that while the ' lot ' for the average Canadian has improved over the 10 years, as a result of a Liberal mandate. But , there is a long way to go and much more to do, as you know , such as...

- doing more to ensure the sustainability and efficiency of the health care system

-the tax burden remains for businesses relatively high despite some tax cuts at both the federal and provincial level. The effective tax burden on households is also relatively high and measures to to be taken to assess what can be done to reduce them.

- the Employment Insurance system remains an uneasy combination of unemployment insurance and social assistance and needs to be revamped.

- equalization payments policies to the provnices need to be re-worked to address inequities where they may exist


Nontheless, I think that from a ' net improvement' perspective, we're clearly better off than 10 years ago. Some very quick examples;


1. 61% of all Canadians aged 25 to 34 had at least some education beyond high school. up from a decade earlier when only 49% of people in that age category had any post-secondary education.

2. real disposable income per capita has increased at an average rate of 1.7% per year since 1997, reflecting strong employment growth and Liberal cuts in personal taxes. Real disposable income per capita increased from $18,241 in 1993 to $20,324 in 2003.

3. despite the increase (6%) in the national crime rate in 2003, the crime rate in Canada is 15% lower than a decade ago

4. life expectancy at birth has steadily increased from 77.8 years in 1991 to 79.7 years in 2002 (82.1 years for women and 77.2 years for men).

5. the Canadian infant mortality rate has dropped steadily in the past decade from 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1991 to 5.2 per 1,000 in 2001.

6. An estimated 1 million people living alone were below the poverty line - this represents about 25 per cent of the total, down from 34 per cent in 1996.

7. An estimated 10.2 per cent of children, or 702,000 Canadians under the age of 18, were living in low-income families -this represents a decline for the sixth consecutive year from a peak of 16.7 per cent in 1996.
But I think Canadians are also better off now simply because the Liberals have made Canada a better country overall. For example, Canada is one of the fastest growth rates ( since 1997 ) and highest living standards among the G-7 countries. Canada has delivered seven consecutive years of fiscal surpluses that have reduced net debt by almost 30 percent of GDP while still accomodating tax reduction—the best fiscal performance in the G-7.

I suspect the Tories interpret this commendable performance assomehow ' ruining the country ' - and they could do a much better job than the Liberals - who guided Canada toward lead ing the G7 countries on almost all performance indicators.


Pehaps the Tory campaign slogan should be: ..If it ain’t broke, fix it till it is.





The comparison was made as a joke - not a genuine comparison.



A good point and a legitimate concern - no question.

But the desire to ensure Canadians have timely access to quality health care prompted the First Ministers to agree in 2004 on a 10-year plan to improve health care. As you correctly pointed out, the agreement responds directly to reducing these wait times and improving access - the goal being, to achieve meaningful reductions in wait times in priority areas (such as cancer, heart disease and joint replacements) by March 31, 2007.

But Canadains still think their health care is pretty good - Stats Can said the percentage of Canadians who rated the quality of overall health services as being either excellent or good is about 86.6 per cent- about the same as the U.S., but both higher than any other G7 country. Pretty good, but we can do better.

easy to mention those points...
but other factors could contribute to those things.
eg. That education increase could be because of an influx of immigration.
Immigration is increasing and not decreasing, and plus our point system of immigration places education high on the list :-0

[sumfunny]

[QUOTE=poedua] Stuff [QUOTE]


There was some good stuff their, but alot may have had to do with other factors,
health changes are due to technological changes both birth and life ex.
Education - could be immigration
Crime- dropped in the US too didn't it could be other factors
Real Income changes are not great compared to historic growths.

And surpluses are just the gov't taking more money from us, or providing less service then it planned to, its great if it happens 7 years in a row just means we have been either over taxed or underserved.

What the conservative are saying is that the liberal's have been biggy backing on global shifts, and are inefficient in their use of canadian dollars.

[milhaus]

Can you name even one area that the average Canada is 'better off' in, than 10 years ago?
?
You're joking, right? Have you been living under a rock? Or are you one of those suffering from the good ol' days nostalgia? It may not be solely due to Liberal management, but we are, in most areas, "better off," unless by "better off" you mean less tolerant and more poor.

[devious9191]

You're joking, right? Have you been living under a rock? Or are you one of those suffering from the good ol' days nostalgia? It may not be solely due to Liberal management, but we are, in most areas, "better off," unless by "better off" you mean less tolerant and more poor.

I'm not joking at all.. real income hasn't increased in this country in 15 years. Our health care is in the worst shape it's been in since the start of the public system... why don't you point out one area where the *average canadian is better off?

[devious9191]

I'll try


That's a well written post from what I can see, but the wife's giving me a hard time so I don't really have a chance to address it. Will do tomorrow though. I do appreciate the time you take to write your posts poedua, it's a nice change from the usual on this forum.

[poedua]

easy to mention those points...
but other factors could contribute to those things.

I agree with you.

I was simply asked what improvements , via proof, have been made under a Liberal watch.

The extent to which the Liberals had a direct influence on them - I agree - is a matter of debate.

But they are Canadian country / government stats from the IMF and others - and the Liberal government is held responsible, as they govern the country.

Right/wrong..good/bad - the Liberals are held resposible both by it's citizens and the word comminity at large.

But the fact remains, they took place while the Liberals were in power - and I can assure you - if the stats had been poor, the Tory fingers would have been immediately pointed directly at the Liberals as being soley responsible ( no ' other factors ' ) for the poor stats.

[Txiasaeia]

You're joking, right? Have you been living under a rock? Or are you one of those suffering from the good ol' days nostalgia? It may not be solely due to Liberal management, but we are, in most areas, "better off," unless by "better off" you mean less tolerant and more poor.

Health care.

[Samir]

The last two long-serving conservative governments were astounding successes! How can anyone not be falling over themselves to vote Conservative.

Let's see, Brian Mulroney took Trudeau's $100 billion debt and turned it into $446 billion, bringing us to the point of almost needing a bail out from the International Monetary Fund. THAT is destroying the country, not farting away a pittance on sponsorships while managing to balance the books *AND* create a stable climate for business to flourish so the Canada experiences 12 years of growth.

Then, the other example is Mike Harris. Wow, he was great for Ontario wasn't he guys?

Then you look at Harper and he's proning all the same ideas as these two governments did. Why would I vote for this again? Not compounding the fact that he has the political instincts of a donkey, he would assuredly drive Quebec to sovereignty, his leadership is so bad that he can't even control his caucus (Gurmant, Belinda) and he want's to be America's point man.

VOTE REFORMATIVE. GREAT IDEA!!!

[gman]

Then, the other example is Mike Harris. Wow, he was great for Ontario wasn't he guys?
Yes.

[sumfunny]

VOTE REFORMATIVE. GREAT IDEA!!!

You forgot alberta. Anyways didn't free - trade probably the biggest to Canada happen under his watch. Wasn't there a recession then.

[Samir]

Ok I will admit two good things happened under Mulroney

1. Free Trade (but not all of it, we still get screwed over stuff like natural resources)
2. The GST (it was needed.)

The rest of it was some of the worst governance in Canadian history.

The Libs in their first 10 years:

1. Balanced a budget they inherited that had a 46 billion deficit anually
2. Reduced the national debt
3. Beat back Quebec sovereignty once. If you recall, it was Mulroney who fanned the flames by aligning with nationalists in his party (Lucien Bouchard minister of justice!) _AND_ dragging constitutional issues back to the forefront
4. Cut personal taxes
5. Cut corporate taxes
6. Reinvested in infrastructure
7. Created the Clarity Act
8. Re-invested in the national parks program

Under Martin:

1. Atlantic Accord, which will give some of the maritimes their best shot at becoming "have" provinces
2. Health Accord promising $43 billion to provinces
3. Kept the books balanced
4. Invested in municipal infrastructure (this issue is one of the main reasons Belinda left the CPC)
5. Seeded the national daycare program

For some reason I don't see any of this having happened under the plethora of leaders presented to us from the Canadian right. Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, Kim Campbell, etc., etc.

The only chance the CPC has to get anywhere is to bring Charest back from Quebec or bring in Bernard Lord from New Brunswick. At the federal level, the party is facing a huge leadership void.

[poedua]

That's a well written post from what I can see, but the wife's giving me a hard time so I don't really have a chance to address it. Will do tomorrow though. I do appreciate the time you take to write your posts poedua, it's a nice change from the usual on this forum.


No problem - thanks for the positive feedback - facts seem to do a much better job of avoiding flaming attacks against me than my opinions do.

Though I did manage to scrounge up some statistics, with some effort, I suppose probabky could have come up with stats to make a case for condeming the Liberals just as easily.

You know what they say about statisitics......


"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

"There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up"

"I can prove anything by statistics except the truth"

"Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures."

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

[poedua]

Ok I will admit two good things happened under Mulroney

1. Free Trade (but not all of it, we still get screwed over stuff like natural resources)
2. The GST (it was needed.)

The rest of it was some of the worst governance in Canadian history.

The Libs in their first 10 years:

1. Balanced a budget they inherited that had a 46 billion deficit anually
2. Reduced the national debt
3. Beat back Quebec sovereignty once. If you recall, it was Mulroney who fanned the flames by aligning with nationalists in his party (Lucien Bouchard minister of justice!) _AND_ dragging constitutional issues back to the forefront
4. Cut personal taxes
5. Cut corporate taxes
6. Reinvested in infrastructure
7. Created the Clarity Act
8. Re-invested in the national parks program

Under Martin:

1. Atlantic Accord, which will give some of the maritimes their best shot at becoming "have" provinces
2. Health Accord promising $43 billion to provinces
3. Kept the books balanced
4. Invested in municipal infrastructure (this issue is one of the main reasons Belinda left the CPC)
5. Seeded the national daycare program

For some reason I don't see any of this having happened under the plethora of leaders presented to us from the Canadian right. Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, Kim Campbell, etc., etc.

The only chance the CPC has to get anywhere is to bring Charest back from Quebec or bring in Bernard Lord from New Brunswick. At the federal level, the party is facing a huge leadership void.

Don't forget the subs and helicopters.

[poedua]

Yes.

I must say, the Ont Tories may have had some ' guts' to do what they promised, but I must tell you, they made some errors in judgement.

All the other YTory issues aside, what I considered as their ' attack' on education was very disturbing to me.

In all honesty, I consider Gerrad Kennedy who heads up the Education portfolio is one of the few men I respect in the Liberal cabinet. I feel he is better touch with parent/ teacher/ student issues than any of his predecessors in that porfolio - I certainly admire his performace so far.

( Smitherman - I ate his personality and style, but i think his vision is on the right track as well )

[Samir]

If you want to talk choppers, Mulroney ordered EMH choppers that were, combined, more expensive than the entire public works program. End of story.

[Paksis]

Simply put the stink that is emanating from the Liberals is enough for many. The degree of corruption exposed is simply far too much to overlook anymore. Before many could hold their nose and vote Liberal. Now it is hold your nose, close your eyes, shut off the brain.

It doesn't matter sometimes. When it is time to go it is time to go.

When does a reasonable person say enough is enough. That is what will I hope bring a surprise when the great dictator brings in an election. Until then this type of debate is all noise and not very productive.



1. Atlantic Accord, which will give some of the maritimes their best shot at becoming "have" provinces
How much has been pored into the Atlantic provinces in the last 50 years?
And they are further behind. The basic problem is that too many mouths in a land without enough productive industry to support the population. $50 says 10 years from now even furhter behind. Basic rules of economics.

2. Health Accord promising $43 billion to provinces

Yippee over 10 years it means squat. The rate of inflation eats that money up in no time.

3. Kept the books balanced

Massive increases in taxes have propelled a massive ocean of cash to the liberals. Government spending has increased at an almost unheard of rate. Alberta's 7 billion surplus that NG bitches about is a speck compared the ocean of cash that the Liberals have stolen from the Taxpayers.

4. Invested in municipal infrastructure (this issue is one of the main reasons Belinda left the CPC)

Most of this money is going for phony make work green projects. Most of the cities are very upset at the paltry sums being offered. EG Gas tax will bring in 30 bill, gas tax refund est to be 6 billion. Belinda S left the party for what reason???? She left for gay marriage, she left for democratic whatever. BS kiddo she left to be a short lived minister of the Librano Family and hopefully will get her just reward from the voters of her riding.


5. Seeded the national daycare program

The North Korean version of daycare staffed by lots of beaucrats who of course will be very interested in the future welfare of the children in their care. Lets count the ways the Liberals can pad this one. You know most middle class citizens who pay most of the taxes in this country can't get a look in because they make a little too much money.

7. Created the Clarity Act

Give it a break, when Crouton sat in despair because the PQ were managing to con Quebecers into giving it a sort of yes, not really, but it could be if we want it too vote The much revilled Harper forced the Librano's into getting some backbone and putting a bill together that squashed it.

The basic fact is that we are overtaxed and under represented. That is the essence of a government surplus, it is money extracted from the general public under protest. 9 billion/30 million would mean a refund of 300 bucks to every Canadian roughly. That would be 1200 per family of 4, think of how a person works hard for that money and go ask your Father how much he would like a refund of that size.

Bet you he doesn't say give to Atlantic Canada etc. etc. etc.

[poedua]

Health care.

But. we are among ' the best ' health systems in the world.

What is the valid basis of criticism ?

Let's say for example we were # 2 in health care among 130 countries in the world even though, as #2 we aren't as good as we used to be years ago i.e cost, wait times, acces etc.

Do you attack the Liberals for not being better on a worldwide basis - i.e not being #1?

Or do you attack them on health care because even though we're #2 , we slipped from what we used to be even though we hung on to #2, we nedd to be compared to what we used to do years earier.

In other words , it doesn't matter where we stack up against the world today - the world, being the people/ cultures we measure / compete ourselves against. The Tories say it's more meaningful to compare healthcare today to 10 years ago - if we really want to see how well our health care sytem is working - and not to compare ourelves to other countries ?

So, what's the best way to determine if the Liberals are doing a lousy job in health care ?

[poedua]

Simply put the stink that is emanating from the Liberals is enough for many. The degree of corruption exposed is simply far too much to overlook anymore. Before many could hold their nose and vote Liberal. Now it is hold your nose, close your eyes, shut off the brain.

It doesn't matter sometimes. When it is time to go it is time to go.

.

My only concern is that there isn't a viable alternative to the Tories.

After all the sponsorship scandal, immigration scandal and a minority position heavily weighed to their advantage, the Tories still can't seem to win the hearts of Canadian voters. Last poll I could find was at the start of June...

Liberal 37
Tory 23
NDP 21

I know these polls can change all the time.

Now I'm asking this as a genuine question, but does anyone have a theory as to why the Liberals - I'll put a Tory hat on now and say - have managed to ' fool ' the public yet again and remain at the top of the polls ?

I'm not trying to bash Tory faithful with this question, but I'm just a bit lost why the poll isn't neck and neck ? Is the reason the Harper factor alone , if at all ?

[gman]

As I said before, C supporters should ask why Harper's C cannot beat a corrupted Liberals. Harper's C should look at the mirror and ask themselves what they have done wrong. As far as I concern, if Harper could not manage/control/present/market his own party professionally, how can I expect him to run a country?

[NG]

The same could be said for Mulroney.

It wasn't the recession that did him in. He frankly annoyed the **** out of Canada. Free trade, buddy buddy with the Americans, his sperm making Ben Mulroney, singing Danny Boy with Regan. I was just a young kid when he was in office so I'm sure there's many more that I'm not remembering.

[guest10586]

It wasn't the recession that did him in. He frankly annoyed the **** out of Canada. Free trade, buddy buddy with the Americans, his sperm making Ben Mulroney, singing Danny Boy with Regan. I was just a young kid when he was in office so I'm sure there's many more that I'm not remembering.

haha, Ben Mulroney is pretty annoying but that has only been a recent occurence unless he annoyed you as a kid. Free Trade may or may not have been a mistake, countries that are isolated don't seem to do well in the long run. Trudeu was a mistake as well, charming but not all that good.

[NG]

Peter McKay would make a better leader than Harper.

Agreed. I see what you mean Gman however really anybody would be better than Harper. Hell with that "firewall around Alberta" line of his he was pretty much a separatist. Atleast those in the BQ are honest about it - and they're not running to lead a federal party.

Even if Harper was to go I'd still be concerned that he's damaged the party beyond repair to be a viable right of centre party that Canada would elect. From what I understand he's been doing a fair bit of work inside the party to oust anybody who doesn't share the same social conservatism that he does.

He may have doomed Canada to live under a one party political system - unless this minority gov't thing catches on.

[NG]

haha, Ben Mulroney is pretty annoying but that has only been a recent occurence unless he annoyed you as a kid. Free Trade may or may not have been a mistake, countries that are isolated don't seem to do well in the long run. Trudeu was a mistake as well, charming but not all that good.

He is recent - which means Brian's still doing **** that pisses off Canada :lol:

I actually kinda support free trade - not this monster of an agreement that we have now - as we've seen with softwood and mad cow it's slanted way too much in the Americans favour.

There's alot of speculation that Rae actually didn't introduce public auto insurance into Ontario (like he promised) b/c he was worried about a Chapter 11 challenge. Inability for us to experiment with medicare is another thing too - we basically can't under NAFTA. Once we start allowing private corps into a non-grey market role then it can't be removed w/o being being in violation of NAFTA. If it wasn't for the concerns over NAFTA I may entertain the idea of more private sector delivering services within the public sector - however with NAFTA in place never.

I did like Trudeau's balls however, for a former NDP'er, I found him to be not all that progressive when you judge him not by comparing him to other PMs.

[iNFiNiTe]

even with all the scandals, let's be honest here, majority are quite CONTENT with liberals in power... the country is running a surplus account, unemployment rate is relatively modest, and it also helps their logo is awash in red... LOL

on the other hand, Harper, no matter how you dress him up, comes off as a hardcore neo-con... and project a cold, stark image... I agree, McKay will fit the bill better as far as looking the part of party leader is concerned... kinda tells you why conservatices can't seem to beat liberals even with the scandals... THEY LACK QUALITY LEADERSHIP. :cheesygri :D

[Txiasaeia]

But. we are among ' the best ' health systems in the world.

What is the valid basis of criticism ?

Let's say for example we were # 2 in health care among 130 countries in the world even though, as #2 we aren't as good as we used to be years ago i.e cost, wait times, acces etc.

Do you attack the Liberals for not being better on a worldwide basis - i.e not being #1?

Or do you attack them on health care because even though we're #2 , we slipped from what we used to be even though we hung on to #2, we nedd to be compared to what we used to do years earier.

In other words , it doesn't matter where we stack up against the world today - the world, being the people/ cultures we measure / compete ourselves against. The Tories say it's more meaningful to compare healthcare today to 10 years ago - if we really want to see how well our health care sytem is working - and not to compare ourelves to other countries ?

So, what's the best way to determine if the Liberals are doing a lousy job in health care ?

Wait times in hospitals + government surplus = liberals not doing everything they can to help fund doctors and our medical system.

To be completely honest, I have absolutely no problems with my or my family's experience with health care over the last ten years or so. Every time there's been a critical problem that needs to be looked at right away, we've been able to see a doctor at emergency within minutes. Whenever I need a prescription right away, I can see a doctor at a walk-in clinic within ten minutes. Same with ambulance - last time took four minutes or so. But when I hear all the horror stories from others about extensive waiting in emergency for hours, or not being able to get in and see a family doctor for a month, or the wait times for surgery (which we haven't needed, thank goodness) reaching a critical point, it makes me wonder what can be done about the problem, and if the libs have so much extra cash, what they should be doing to fix it.

[devious9191]

It wasn't the recession that did him in. He frankly annoyed the **** out of Canada. Free trade, buddy buddy with the Americans, his sperm making Ben Mulroney, singing Danny Boy with Regan. I was just a young kid when he was in office so I'm sure there's many more that I'm not remembering.

The only thing that 'did him in' was introducing GST, which was sorely needed in this country. Canada was in a recession and the last thing people wanted was more tax.. The liberals ran on a platform of removing the GST, and that was the end of Mulroney.

[poedua]

As I said before, C supporters should ask why Harper's C cannot beat a corrupted Liberals. Harper's C should look at the mirror and ask themselves what they have done wrong. As far as I concern, if Harper could not manage/control/present/market his own party professionally, how can I expect him to run a country?

excellent point.

I think another PC leader is a yoke around the party's neck.

I don't who ( ? ) among the Tory party's ranks is being totued as a possible replacement to Harper - perhaps that's another problem on the horizon.

[Paksis]

My only concern is that there isn't a viable alternative to the Tories.

After all the sponsorship scandal, immigration scandal and a minority position heavily weighed to their advantage, the Tories still can't seem to win the hearts of Canadian voters. Last poll I could find was at the start of June...

Liberal 37
Tory 23
NDP 21

I know these polls can change all the time.

Now I'm asking this as a genuine question, but does anyone have a theory as to why the Liberals - I'll put a Tory hat on now and say - have managed to ' fool ' the public yet again and remain at the top of the polls ?

I'm not trying to bash Tory faithful with this question, but I'm just a bit lost why the poll isn't neck and neck ? Is the reason the Harper factor alone , if at all ?

Well, the answer is who really knows. I understand that Harper just hasn't been able to click with the public. Also Ontario and Quebec still refuse to give up their navel gazing and look up and around. If you go back to Dief it was the same issue and still the same bitchin by Central Canada.

The proof will be in the next election if their is one. And we will see what happens.

[poedua]

Well, the answer is who really knows. I understand that Harper just hasn't been able to click with the public. Also Ontario and Quebec still refuse to give up their navel gazing and look up and around. If you go back to Dief it was the same issue and still the same bitchin by Central Canada.

The proof will be in the next election if their is one. And we will see what happens.

Surely you're not putting ( elevating ) Harper into the same class as "Dief the Chief " are you ?

Frankly, I think Ontario and Quebec would easily give up their navel gazing and look up and around - it only they had a PC leader to look up to - IMHO , Harper isn't it - fickle as they are - i think the polls ( lack of PC support ) speak for themselves.

I scandal after scandal won't turn the electorate to Harper, what will ?

[guest10586]

The only thing that 'did him in' was introducing GST, which was sorely needed in this country. Canada was in a recession and the last thing people wanted was more tax.. The liberals ran on a platform of removing the GST, and that was the end of Mulroney.

Yes, which they never removed. GST, and I feel worse for provinces with PST too. No one like GST but lying about getting rid of it is just as bad.

[poedua]

Yes, which they never removed. GST, and I feel worse for provinces with PST too. No one like GST but lying about getting rid of it is just as bad.

2 failed attempts to amend the Constitution ( with a ' pro - Quebec' bias many others in Canada felt were relflected in those proposed amendments ) along with relying on Kim Campbell to carry the Tory banner didn't help.

Not sure how much of an issue the GST really was - if it was such a divisive issue , such that it alone spelled the doom of Tory fortunes in the election, how did Chretien win re-elctions(s) with the GST still, very firmly, in place ?

[guest10586]

2 failed attempts to amend the Constitution ( with a ' pro - Quebec' bias many others in Canada felt were relflected in those proposed amendments ) along with relying on Kim Campbell to carry the Tory banner didn't help.

Not sure how much of an issue the GST really was - if it was such a divisive issue , such that it alone spelled the doom of Tory fortunes in the election, how did Chretien win re-elctions(s) with the GST still, very firmly, in place ?

Because no better alternative was in place. Reform was capitalizing on fallout from the conservatives and Liberals were sitting their unchallanged. That's why with the merging of Alliance (Reform) and the Conservatives now it is a minority governement. Reform and Conservatives were splitting the vote.

[ccdude]

Please shutup already.

Everyone is so busy bashing the Conservatives that you're turning your back to the fact that the Liberals are destroying this country.

yes

[devious9191]

2 failed attempts to amend the Constitution ( with a ' pro - Quebec' bias many others in Canada felt were relflected in those proposed amendments ) along with relying on Kim Campbell to carry the Tory banner didn't help.

Not sure how much of an issue the GST really was - if it was such a divisive issue , such that it alone spelled the doom of Tory fortunes in the election, how did Chretien win re-elctions(s) with the GST still, very firmly, in place ?

It was an old issue at that point I think. The PCs were massacred in that election (they had 2 seats left?). People just get used to paying more taxes.. and in Canada in particular, we have a tendancy to get fired up on an issue and forget about it completely within 6 months (ie. sponsorship scandal).

[Paksis]

Surely you're not putting ( elevating ) Harper into the same class as "Dief the Chief " are you ?

Frankly, I think Ontario and Quebec would easily give up their navel gazing and look up and around - it only they had a PC leader to look up to - IMHO , Harper isn't it - fickle as they are - i think the polls ( lack of PC support ) speak for themselves.

I scandal after scandal won't turn the electorate to Harper, what will ?


No, but if you go back the media said the same things then as they do now. As to what will change, I do not know what will, do not have a clue. People will vote what they vote when they vote if they vote.

[blackhawk]

Problem with conservatives is now Harper but more the national leadership that says how the platform must be presented.

Harper is cold and uncomfortable with the media and it might be OK if he could talk policy but he wont and that feeds the "hidden agenda" and other conspiracy theorists.

If they're afraid the liberals will steal their policies, so be it, the country wins then if the party doesn't. The liberals have been stealing other party policies for generations because they know what the majority wants. Thats how they can campaign against the GST and Nafta yet keep them in place satisfying both sides or at least confusing them enough.

The political landscape is turning from french vs english to east vs west now.

Conservatives need a new leader and some professional handlers. As for Harpers statement about the "firewall" against eastern policy affecting the western provinces, its thought about and talked about all the time out west.

Without some democratic input into the country, no westerner wants to support the eastern Canada club,

"If you want our money, then give us a say!"


That wont change until they pry some power out of the PMO's office for the other parties to share.

[gman]

Conservatives need a new leader and some professional handlers. As for Harpers statement about the "firewall" against eastern policy affecting the western provinces, its thought about and talked about all the time out west.

If new means a new kid on the block, it won't help Conservative. They need a heavy weight instead of yet another wannable without a resume. If they want to win Ontario, they need an old dog with a long resume such as Manning, Clark, Mike Harris. Yet another "nobody" will not win Ontario (unless Liberals has a even bigger screw up).

Ontario is 'conservative' when it chose its leader. It took a few elections before Rae, Harris and McFly got into office. A new face does not work in Ontario (again, unless the other side really screws up).

[poedua]

Without some democratic input into the country, no westerner wants to support the eastern Canada club,

"If you want our money, then give us a say!"


That wont change until they pry some power out of the PMO's office for the other parties to share.

Good points

What do you mean when you say more ' democratic input' exactly ?

Simply winning more Conservative seats or some form of democratic reform like proportional representation ?

Not really up on the powers of the PMO - any powers that come to mind you want to ' pry out ' ?

[devious9191]

Good points

What do you mean when you say more ' democratic input' exactly ?

Simply winning more Conservative seats or some form of democratic reform like proportional representation ?

Not really up on the powers of the PMO - any powers that come to mind you want to ' pry out ' ?

I think that 'winning more Conservative seats' is probably what he means. The Conservatives (and Alberta) have little say in the house of commons and their voices go largely unheard. A very pointed example is the gay marriage debate, where a number of conservative MPs weren't even permitted to debate the issue in the house (and therefore represent the views of Alberta). It's one thing to elect members of parliament who aren't in the same party as the government, it's another thing when your elected representative isn't even given the opportunity to voice your opinion.