Canadian Election Information

[Fidatelo]

So I'm working from home this afternoon and decided to put the debate from Oct 2 on in the background. First impression: Elizabeth May is frickin' good, Jack Layton is what I thought he was, Stephen Harper is smug and has a look to his face that would make me not want to leave him alone in a room with my kids, Stephane Dion sounds kind of like a french Arnold Swarzenegger, and Gilles Duceppe is not as feisty as I remember him from past debates.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Ah ok, I thought it was maybe something that just recently came out in the news (Carbon Tax has been in their plans from the beginning). I agree, it's a poor plan when you consider the current economic situation.

As I've said earlier, I can't vote Liberal anyways because they are no longer running a candidate in my area, so I've kind of stopped even paying attention to their campaign. I've narrowed my choice down to two candidates, and I think I know which way I'm leaning... but I hate being this undecided this late in the process.

Yeah, I remember you saying that about the Liberals (not a choice), but when I read that carbon tax thing, I thought it was really dumb. I haven't been paying the closest attention so it was news to me.

Someone was telling me that in our area, the Conservative candidate is almost a guaranteed win...

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Someone was telling me that in our area, the Conservative candidate is almost a guaranteed win...

Most likely, yes. That said, if most of the people that in the past voted for the Liberal candidate moved left to the NDP guy, he could probably pull off an upset. I doubt that will happen though, as I suspect those votes will get split 5 ways: some will still vote for Hughes as an independant, some will indeed go to the NDP guy, some will go to the Conservative lady, some will go Green, and the last chunk will stay home.

[Fidatelo]

As smug and possibly pedophilic as he looks, Harper is actually defending himself pretty well against the 4 person onslaught.

That said, May's attacks are destroying him. She came prepared. I like this lady.

Dion is really disappointing. I'd heard that he did better than expected in this debate, but he must have had some pretty low expectations because what I've seen so far is pretty poor.

[MikeVic]

I didn't watch a lot of it, but I thought it was really weird how it just seemed like everyone teaming up against Harper.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I didn't watch a lot of it, but I thought it was really weird how it just seemed like everyone teaming up against Harper.

I don't know about weird, it seems logical to me. It's basically crabs in a bucket with this format.

[Fidatelo]

I'm glad I watched this debate, it has helped make up my mind. I've never really found these things overly useful before (I suppose likely because I went in with pretty firm idea of who I was voting for, so it was probably harder to sway me with some fancy talk).

[johnnyshaka]

May couldn't win her riding...but going up against pretty boy MacKay I don't think that was much of a surprise.

Overall, though, May didn't do much for me and I wouldn't mind seeing her go away, for good. Both her and Layton benefited from Dion's lack of anything resembling leadership qualities.

[Fidatelo]

Looking like the Conservatives have a decent shot at the majority...

[Fidatelo]

Hmm, looks like they won't likely get it, but they sure came close.

On the topic of Elizabeth May, I think if the Liberals were to ditch Dion and replace him with May, they could make some serious waves...

[Galaxy]

Just out of curiosity, what are the big things that each party is pushing for (tax cuts/reform, more social spending, ect.)?

[Fidatelo]

The following is through my eyes, and I tend to lean left so take it with a grain of salt (I've always voted Liberal or NDP in the past, this year went Green).

That said, as I see it:

Conservatives: tax cuts for everyone, harsher punishments on criminals... and more tax cuts? I'm not really sure beyond that, they didn't exactly lay out a platform beyond 'stay the course'.

Liberals: a crappy carbon tax plan. Oh, and maybe something about how good they used to be on balancing the budget. Overall a terrible campaign.

NDP: Very socialist. Tax corporations, give money to the kitchen table not the boardroom table, increase all kinds of social programs. Very much for the 'working man'.

Green: Environmental initiatives and voter reform (proportional representation). Normally pretty fringe, they became a bit more legitimate this time around. Not likely to make any dint in the overall political picture.

Bloc: Only running in Quebec, they represent giving power to the provinces, getting stuff for Quebec, and ideally (for them) Quebec separation.

[Fidatelo]

Current results according to CBC, who are declaring this over (numbers may change slightly, but this will likely be the ballpark final results):

Conservatives: 142
Liberals: 79
Bloc: 47
NDP: 33
Others: 3

Bottom line: Conservative Minority Government (they needed 155 to take a majority), Liberals as Official Opposition. AKA - Status Quo.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Current results according to CBC, who are declaring this over (numbers may change slightly, but this will likely be the ballpark final results):

Conservatives: 142
Liberals: 79
Bloc: 47
NDP: 33
Others: 3

Bottom line: Conservative Minority Government (they needed 155 to take a majority), Liberals as Official Opposition. AKA - Status Quo.

Does this mean a government that really won't do much? How did Ontario do (I know it votes liberal).

Are conservatives in Canada, at least policy wise, more liberal on social issues?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Current results according to CBC, who are declaring this over (numbers may change slightly, but this will likely be the ballpark final results):

Conservatives: 142
Liberals: 79
Bloc: 47
NDP: 33
Others: 3

Bottom line: Conservative Minority Government (they needed 155 to take a majority), Liberals as Official Opposition. AKA - Status Quo.

Does this mean a government that really won't do much? How did Ontario do (I know it votes liberal).

Are conservatives in Canada, at least policy wise, more liberal on social issues?


It seems like that that when it comes to regulation and taxes, it comes down to provinces more than federal laws.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Does this mean a government that really won't do much? How did Ontario do (I know it votes liberal).

Yes, pretty much. They'll be able to act a bit like a majority for awhile (probably a year or so) because the people won't put up with anyone bringing down the government over anything other than a massive issue, and also because the Liberals are likely going to turf their leader and will need some time to get their internal issues settled. But for the most part, minority governments don't do much of anything major because they have to barter with the other parties all the time.

Ontario actually went mostly Conservative, and they made some big gains there. The Liberals are now down to 38 seats in ONT (compared to 51 Conservative and 17 NDP).

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Are conservatives in Canada, at least policy wise, more liberal on social issues?

A bit, but they still do have similar stances to the Republicans. Harper wanted to follow Bush into Iraq, they want to increase military spending, they want to partially privatize health care, and they support the traditional definition of marriage. I think they might be pro-choice though. I'd say they fall somewhere between the Republicans and the Democrats.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It seems like that that when it comes to regulation and taxes, it comes down to provinces more than federal laws.

I'm not so sure about that. Our federal taxes are very high, and they have their fingers in a lot of our social programs. I'm not actually very familiar with where the lines are drawn between Ottawa and the provinces, but the provinces certainly don't have the autonomy that individual states do down south.

[BishopMVP]

As an american outsider, does it seem like there is a large geographical split because of the federal tax and social service system (~-5000 net per BC/Albertan, +5000 for Newfoundland/Nova Scotia) or is that just incidental and there really is a large ideological split between the east and west? I've just seen some various things on the idea that, while the Quebecois are the vocal seperatists, it makes more sense for Alberta and/or BC to split and maybe even try to join the US. I'm curious whether that comes up in Canada at all, or is just something bored American columnists say.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

As an american outsider, does it seem like there is a large geographical split because of the federal tax and social service system (~-5000 net per BC/Albertan, +5000 for Newfoundland/Nova Scotia) or is that just incidental and there really is a large ideological split between the east and west? I've just seen some various things on the idea that, while the Quebecois are the vocal seperatists, it makes more sense for Alberta and/or BC to split and maybe even try to join the US. I'm curious whether that comes up in Canada at all, or is just something bored American columnists say.

There are some definite splits based on geography, but it is also an ideological split. Alberta has long felt ignored by Ottawa, who tends to cater to Ontario and Quebec despite the fact that Alberta has been essentially paying for some of the other provinces for years. But the West and East also don't quite see eye-to-eye on many social issues either, so it's sort of a combination of the two.

Alberta separation is tossed around, but not nearly to the degree that Quebec separation does. Alberta is riding high on oil right now, but in 20-30 years that won't likely be the case. I also think that they are kidding themselves if they think they will somehow be better represented within the US. I think they are smart enough to realise both of these things, and that they should use this time of prosperity to get more power within the nation. They have been ignored in the past, and it's about time they got to wield a little power, but I think going to the point of separation would be an act of hubris and greed.

Quebec is different. Economically, separation for them would be a disaster (despite what some of the people there have been led to believe). However, it is mostly ideology that leads their separatist movement. They really see themselves as apart from the rest of Canada in almost every way, which is really a shame because the view is not shared to nearly the same degree the other direction. I lived in Montreal for 6 months and was totally floored with the way people there feel. Many honestly think the rest of Canada hates them, that we don't respect their culture, etc. The only thing we hate is how much they whine about how much we supposedly hate them!

Anyways, separation on either side just pisses me off. If you want to go, go. I don't have time to suck up to babies that would rather just take their ball and go home. I'd rather work together to make the country a better place from east to west, to help out the weaker provinces when they need it, and hopefully have the favor returned when the tables turn (as they often do).

[Kevin]

There is indeed an ideological split across the regions. Alberta became alienated during the Trudeau years because of the National Energy Program. When the Progressive Conservatives didn't come around to their right wing sentiments, the Reform Party started as a western regional party, but soon spread eastward in reaction to the distrust of Mulroney and eventually the Liberal adscam scandal. Quebec was a Liberal stronghold for many years until the separatist movement gained momentum with many francophone PCs and the provincial PQ parties getting to gether to form the Bloc as a nominally separatist federal party. After the post Mulroney debacle Peter Mackay sold out the PCs to Reform which evolved in name to the Conservative party to attract Ontario voters. The NDP grew out of the cooperative and trade union movements, but had litle success federally until they started moving more the center although they are still very much anti big business.

Increasingly the Liberals power base became isolated to Ontario and somewhat in Atlantic Canada.

Atlantic Canada through history became impoverished through centralizing policies of both the Liberals and Conservatives who ensured the national infrastructure moved all the economic growth into Ontario and Quebec, and forced the Atlantic to remain dependant on dwindling fishing and forestry resources. Had we been allowed to develop North South infrastructure, we would have prosprered through additional trade with the northeastern US, a more natural and closer trading partner than Ontario.

Now that oil and gas are being exploited on the East coast, the central government moved to cancel deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that would have helped them gain economic self sufficiency in a quicker manner. Instead the Conservatives clawed back equalization right away to appease the Albertans who have been rolling in the oil money since the 1950s. Hence the protest vote in Newfoundland and a landslide independant victory in one Nova Scotia seat. The NS Premier has managed to calm the waters with a side deal to save other conservative seats in NS.

The ideological split is real among large chunks of the population. In the american context, our right wingers would likely be considered moderates, our moderates considered left wing, and our left wing would be called all sorts of nasty names. However on the fiscal front, we would call Republicans radical leftists because of their inability to balance a budget.