Jump to content


Photo

Sample Poll


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Poll: As things now sit:

Which Party would you vote for?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

What is the most important issue for you?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Outnumbered

Outnumbered

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:29 PM

Let's see../

#2 Hunnybunches

Hunnybunches

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:54 PM

Voting for harper...Im impressed with what hes done,and if he had a majority govnt...could do much more
without a solid economy and new business....well..then we would be obama loving america(and weve seen how well hes done)

#3 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 02:57 AM

Voting for harper...Im impressed with what hes done,and if he had a majority govnt...could do much more
without a solid economy and new business....well..then we would be obama loving america(and weve seen how well hes done)


i'm with you on this! without a majority, we can count on the 3 stooges pulling 2008 ALL over again. anyone else smell coalition?!

#4 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 07:17 AM


Voting for harper...Im impressed with what hes done,and if he had a majority govnt...could do much more
without a solid economy and new business....well..then we would be obama loving america(and weve seen how well hes done)


i'm with you on this! without a majority, we can count on the 3 stooges pulling 2008 ALL over again. anyone else smell coalition?!


Hopefully even those who wouldn't ordinarily vote Harper do this time, to put a stop to the antics of the Stooges. Only one player in their trio has changed, so with the exception of Ignatieff (who I dislike immensely as well) they have triggered mass amounts of money being spent on ridiculous elections.

I strongly feel that changes to government procedures need to happen.

#5 Ellivort

Ellivort

    Proud Mommy of a Princess

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 809 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:29 AM

I am normally an NDP voter, but I have been impressed with what Harper and the Conservatives have done for Canada in the recession. I never would have imagined voting PC, but I just can't in good faith admit that we need a change of government right now. I think staying the course and building a stronger majority is important in order to continue pulling Canada out of the recession.

Edited by Ellivort, 29 March 2011 - 09:30 AM.


#6 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:37 AM

What about all the sneaking, lying and "proroguing" to avoid dealing with issues that are very concerning?

I will never vote for Stephen Harper, shady, shady mofo. I don't want to see a coalition either, necessarily, but I cannot in good faith, vote for Harper. Harper with a majority gives me MAJOR nightmares.

Edited by ~Jill~, 29 March 2011 - 09:38 AM.


#7 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:48 AM

Harper with a majority gives me MAJOR nightmares.


But a coalition would be extensive nightmares for all of Canada. The only thing the three agree on essentially is a dislike of Harper. They disagree on policy, budget, legislation. There would be insane spending in ridiculous areas, and nothing would get done to improve the country because the three stooges will be competing for big dog and no one will bend.

I understand you don't like Harper, and I respect your right to your opinion. I just hope you will consider whether your dislike for him is more important than what's good for the country, as I truly believe the coalition will breed chaos.

#8 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:57 AM

I don't want a coalition, I want NDP or Green Party with a minority government. I don't like the idea of ANYONE having a majority, not even my own party of choice. I think we need everyone to do this right. I just wish WE had the majority of that minority.. heh

I wish I could feel there was a good alternative to my first choice. I just don't feel that is true. I look at Harper and I want to claw his eyes out. Plus, my values don't match CP at all. I think it's a moral and ethical deceit for me to vote for that party. I am too much of a democrat at heart to be able to stomach making that statement.

I hate election season. Some just choose whoever they are told to, or follow the crowd, but I am not one of those people. I find these times stressful and confusing.

#9 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:59 AM

i really question the thought process of the Liberal party...first they elect Dion to lead their party, then Iggy. WTF were they thinking? Iggy's case of foot-in-mouth disease rivals Celine's...err, Stephane's.

a really interesting article i read this morning:

Asking Michael Ignatieff if he’s going to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc is the wrong question.

Because even if Ignatieff loses the election (as early polls suggest), he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.

The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power.

They didn’t make a formal coalition. A coalition is a specific deal where cabinet seats are divided up and more than one party becomes an integral part of the government.

The Liberals and NDP just agreed that, as soon as Ontario’s legislature met, they’d join forces to vote non-confidence in the Conservatives and propose the Liberals should rule with the NDP’s support.

Being lawyers, they called it an accord, not a coalition. But it was a deal. The Liberals promised to implement a series of NDP policies. And in return, the NDP agreed to sink the Conservatives, and keep the Liberals in power for two years.

A coalition? No. Seizing power away from the party that just placed first in a democratic election? Absolutely.

Forcing NDP policies onto the province, just days after Liberal voters thought voting for the Liberal Party meant Liberal policies? But of course.

Technically, there is nothing illegal about opposition parties ganging up on a minority government and replacing it. But mere days after an election, overriding voters for no reason other than to seize power? At the very least that must be called undemocratic. Tricky is another word that comes to mind.

It’s clearly what Ignatieff — with his lieutenant, the same Bob Rae — is plotting to do again. On the first day of the campaign, Ignatieff had a disastrous press scrum where he repeatedly refused to rule out forming a coalition.

Even the left-leaning Toronto Star and CBC weren’t buying Ignatieff’s painful ambiguity on the subject.

So that night the party’s lawyers produced a very carefully crafted document. Ignatieff now swears he “will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties” or “a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.”

Do you see the specific, lawyerly wording here? To Ignatieff, there are “coalitions” and there are “formal arrangements” and, by inference, there are informal arrangements. And he did not rule out informal arrangements — or “accords” as the 1985 deal was called.

Oh, and it just so happens the 2008 Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton deal — signed by Ignatieff and Rae — was also called an “accord.”

Coalition or no coalition? That’s a lawyer’s trick; it’s a diversion. The real question is whether Ignatieff and the other parties will immediately vote non-confidence in a Tory minority right after an election. What that deal is called is not the issue.

Ignatieff has claimed his love for democracy caused him to force this election campaign. Perhaps that love can move him to disclose whether he will accept another Conservative minority mandate — and what conversations he’s had with the NDP and Bloc about any post-election “accord.”

http://www.torontosu...8/17787511.html

#10 cbarker78

cbarker78

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:00 AM

Thusfar, Harper is the only one talking "coalition of the opposition"... Even the opposition isn't proposing it!!! So I fail to see why everyone has the knickers in a know over this.... and why is it such a horrible thing when it's against Harper, when he himself attempted to form one in 2004?!?! Have you all forgotten about that?!?!

I refuse to vote for a CRIMINAL to be PM..... there is an extensive list of Harper & his conservatives "wrong-doings" just in the last few years... it's insane.... I just cannot understand how or why anyone would willingly support him..... but that's just me....

ETA - a comment to the above poster (we seem to have posted at the same time)..... In my own, personal opinion, I don't necessarily see a coalition/accord/agreement between the left parties as a bad thing.... Many years running, more seats were won by "left" parties than "right"... (2008 - Con's only got 37.7% of the popular vote, compared to Lib/NDP 44.5% (combined); or looking at seats won - (2008) 143 Cons compared to 163 BQ/Libs/NDP.... it's clear that MAJORITY of Canadians are left of the political spectrum.....
[source: http://www.electiona...da/results.php]

Had the 2 (or 3?) Right Wing parties not amalgamated, we'd likely still be seeing Liberal governements.... I'd like to see a merger of the Libs and NDP so that they're no longer splitting the popular vote, and allowing a Cons minority....

Edited by cbarker78, 29 March 2011 - 10:09 AM.


#11 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:04 AM

I don't want a coalition, I want NDP or Green Party with a minority government. I don't like the idea of ANYONE having a majority, not even my own party of choice. I think we need everyone to do this right. I just wish WE had the majority of that minority.. heh

I wish I could feel there was a good alternative to my first choice. I just don't feel that is true. I look at Harper and I want to claw his eyes out. Plus, my values don't match CP at all. I think it's a moral and ethical deceit for me to vote for that party. I am too much of a democrat at heart to be able to stomach making that statement.

I hate election season. Some just choose whoever they are told to, or follow the crowd, but I am not one of those people. I find these times stressful and confusing.


and i totally respect and understand your values and choice in party(ies). i just think it's entirely decietful and un-democratic when a party wins the most seats and the other parties decide the votes that didn't belong to them don't count.

#12 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:06 AM

Thusfar, Harper is the only one talking "coalition of the opposition"... Even the opposition isn't proposing it!!! So I fail to see why everyone has the knickers in a know over this.... and why is it such a horrible thing when it's against Harper, when he himself attempted to form one in 2004?!?! Have you all forgotten about that?!?!

I refuse to vote for a CRIMINAL to be PM..... there is an extensive list of Harper & his conservatives "wrong-doings" just in the last few years... it's insane.... I just cannot understand how or why anyone would willingly support him..... but that's just me....


of course they aren't proposing it, they didn't last time either. they waited what? 6 wks till after the election last time to try and sneak that one in?

and as for criminal and wrong doings...shall i pull out the list of the liberal government before him?

#13 cbarker78

cbarker78

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:13 AM


Thusfar, Harper is the only one talking "coalition of the opposition"... Even the opposition isn't proposing it!!! So I fail to see why everyone has the knickers in a know over this.... and why is it such a horrible thing when it's against Harper, when he himself attempted to form one in 2004?!?! Have you all forgotten about that?!?!

I refuse to vote for a CRIMINAL to be PM..... there is an extensive list of Harper & his conservatives "wrong-doings" just in the last few years... it's insane.... I just cannot understand how or why anyone would willingly support him..... but that's just me....


of course they aren't proposing it, they didn't last time either. they waited what? 6 wks till after the election last time to try and sneak that one in?

and as for criminal and wrong doings...shall i pull out the list of the liberal government before him?



.... or how about Harper's government is the only one in the history of those Commonwealth countries following British parliamentary practice to be found in CONTEMPT of Parliament!!

We can trade lists of EVERY parties' wrong-doings..... I tend to weight what the CURRENT gov't has done - and to what degree......

#14 JavaBean

JavaBean

    Thoroughly addicted

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,134 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:17 AM

Thusfar, Harper is the only one talking "coalition of the opposition"... Even the opposition isn't proposing it!!! So I fail to see why everyone has the knickers in a know over this.... and why is it such a horrible thing when it's against Harper, when he himself attempted to form one in 2004?!?! Have you all forgotten about that?!?!

I refuse to vote for a CRIMINAL to be PM..... there is an extensive list of Harper & his conservatives "wrong-doings" just in the last few years... it's insane.... I just cannot understand how or why anyone would willingly support him..... but that's just me....

ETA - a comment to the above poster (we seem to have posted at the same time)..... In my own, personal opinion, I don't necessarily see a coalition/accord/agreement between the left parties as a bad thing.... Many years running, more seats were won by "left" parties than "right"... (2008 - Con's only got 37.7% of the popular vote, compared to Lib/NDP 44.5% (combined); or looking at seats won - (2008) 143 Cons compared to 163 BQ/Libs/NDP.... it's clear that MAJORITY of Canadians are left of the political spectrum.....
[source: http://www.electiona...da/results.php]

Had the 2 (or 3?) Right Wing parties not amalgamated, we'd likely still be seeing Liberal governements.... I'd like to see a merger of the Libs and NDP so that they're no longer splitting the popular vote, and allowing a Cons minority....



As of late, Ignatieff AVOIDS the question of coalition. He won't deny it. That is concerning for people who think that "there isn't going to be one".

#15 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:19 AM

Thusfar, Harper is the only one talking "coalition of the opposition"... Even the opposition isn't proposing it!!! So I fail to see why everyone has the knickers in a know over this.... and why is it such a horrible thing when it's against Harper, when he himself attempted to form one in 2004?!?! Have you all forgotten about that?!?!

I refuse to vote for a CRIMINAL to be PM..... there is an extensive list of Harper & his conservatives "wrong-doings" just in the last few years... it's insane.... I just cannot understand how or why anyone would willingly support him..... but that's just me....

ETA - a comment to the above poster (we seem to have posted at the same time)..... In my own, personal opinion, I don't necessarily see a coalition/accord/agreement between the left parties as a bad thing.... Many years running, more seats were won by "left" parties than "right"... (2008 - Con's only got 37.7% of the popular vote, compared to Lib/NDP 44.5% (combined); or looking at seats won - (2008) 143 Cons compared to 163 BQ/Libs/NDP.... it's clear that MAJORITY of Canadians are left of the political spectrum.....
[source: http://www.electiona...da/results.php]

Had the 2 (or 3?) Right Wing parties not amalgamated, we'd likely still be seeing Liberal governements.... I'd like to see a merger of the Libs and NDP so that they're no longer splitting the popular vote, and allowing a Cons minority....


The reason the vote gets split between the two is they are two different parties! They are not the same party, and to say they sometimes can be when it suits the left so they can combine votes that they didn't jointly earn, THAT is crooked (whether the law allows it or not.)

I don't care that they both lean to the left. We don't vote by left or right, we vote by party (or platform).

#16 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:19 AM

Amen, sister.

#17 cbarker78

cbarker78

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:30 AM

The reason the vote gets split between the two is they are two different parties! They are not the same party, and to say they sometimes can be when it suits the left so they can combine votes that they didn't jointly earn, THAT is crooked (whether the law allows it or not.)

I don't care that they both lean to the left. We don't vote by left or right, we vote by party (or platform).


....and so were the "right wing" parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives- "merged" into the Conservative Party!! Prior to that, votes were split (though still not enough for a majority) between those right wing parties....

Yes they have different platforms, but they are not that vastly different..... I do not see a potential merge between the two as something that would too difficult...

#18 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:32 AM

I would be much for likely to vote any part that leans left, over right. I know core principles that way.

Where did you find that post to quote? lol It's only in your message, not anywhere else!

Sorry, hijack.

Edited by ~Jill~, 29 March 2011 - 10:34 AM.


#19 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:38 AM


The reason the vote gets split between the two is they are two different parties! They are not the same party, and to say they sometimes can be when it suits the left so they can combine votes that they didn't jointly earn, THAT is crooked (whether the law allows it or not.)

I don't care that they both lean to the left. We don't vote by left or right, we vote by party (or platform).


....and so were the "right wing" parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives- "merged" into the Conservative Party!! Prior to that, votes were split (though still not enough for a majority) between those right wing parties....

Yes they have different platforms, but they are not that vastly different..... I do not see a potential merge between the two as something that would too difficult...


If all the left were close enough, all left leaners would vote liberal, and give themselves better odds in the elections.

They don't however, because that isn't what they support. Its only after their party fails that it comes up that they should be counted together.

#20 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:42 AM



The reason the vote gets split between the two is they are two different parties! They are not the same party, and to say they sometimes can be when it suits the left so they can combine votes that they didn't jointly earn, THAT is crooked (whether the law allows it or not.)

I don't care that they both lean to the left. We don't vote by left or right, we vote by party (or platform).


....and so were the "right wing" parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives- "merged" into the Conservative Party!! Prior to that, votes were split (though still not enough for a majority) between those right wing parties....

Yes they have different platforms, but they are not that vastly different..... I do not see a potential merge between the two as something that would too difficult...


If all the left were close enough, all left leaners would vote liberal, and give themselves better odds in the elections.

They don't however, because that isn't what they support. Its only after their party fails that it comes up that they should be counted together.



and lets not forget if a coalition were to happen, it's very likely to include the Bloc...and their interest lies solely with the province of Quebec.

#21 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:44 AM




The reason the vote gets split between the two is they are two different parties! They are not the same party, and to say they sometimes can be when it suits the left so they can combine votes that they didn't jointly earn, THAT is crooked (whether the law allows it or not.)

I don't care that they both lean to the left. We don't vote by left or right, we vote by party (or platform).


....and so were the "right wing" parties - the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives- "merged" into the Conservative Party!! Prior to that, votes were split (though still not enough for a majority) between those right wing parties....

Yes they have different platforms, but they are not that vastly different..... I do not see a potential merge between the two as something that would too difficult...


If all the left were close enough, all left leaners would vote liberal, and give themselves better odds in the elections.

They don't however, because that isn't what they support. Its only after their party fails that it comes up that they should be counted together.



and lets not forget if a coalition were to happen, it's very likely to include the Bloc...and their interest lies solely with the province of Quebec.

True!

#22 Outnumbered

Outnumbered

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 04:45 PM

FYI, Contempt of Parliament isn't a crime. In fact, it's such a broad censure that it isn't defined at all in parliamentary regulations. This prevents underhanded players from skirting the definition by a hair and getting away with it.

The decision of whether an individual is in contempt is made by the parliamentary standing committee on Ethics, which was made up of 5 conservatives and 6 opposition members during the last session. Essentially all the opposition needed for this was an agreement among them to vote for the measure, and enough rhetorical gymnastics to make it credible.

Also, the idea of holding an entire government in contempt is a new one. This is a censure historically used only against individuals for specific transgressions, especially journalists.

#23 Mom0f2

Mom0f2

    Just getting started

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 04:54 PM

We have always been strong for NDP, especially in our area.. Brian Masse, I still like him, but this time we are changing over to Conservative....
I was surprised to see that party with the majority here... but we will see when it comes to voting.....

#24 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 05:33 PM

I don't worry about my area, I know it will be NDP convincingly.. always is.

#25 Hunnybunches

Hunnybunches

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:10 PM

My aunt emailed me this today..and I was laughing



Michael Ignatieff was invited to address a major gathering of the Indian Nation in B.C. last summer.

He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every First Nation's present standard of living if he were elected Prime Minister. He assured them he was always urging the present government to address more of the native community's concerns.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribe presented Mr. Ignatieff with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - "Walking Eagle". The proud Ignatieff then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to Ignatieff.


They explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.



look...ive come to like harper for many reasons..but when we are currently one of the few countries with a STABLE economy...it would be idiotic to rock a boat.Ask any american what rocking the baot for "change' did for them.I wouldnt trust my dog with either iggy,or his buddy jack layton,who screwed toronto royally

#26 rwf05

rwf05

    New Kid on the Block

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 181 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:30 AM

How easy people forget in 2005 Harper tried to make his own coalition. To those praising what he has done so far, he has a minority government, if a party has a majority government its a whole new playing field.