Canadian Conservative Party Supporters

The conservative party is an INDUSTRIAL DOOR MAT

lukin2006 wrote:

Tories 19 points up, NDP tops Liberals for second: Poll

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/21 ... cond-poll/

And this at the end of a week where the topic of abortion was mentioned? Even though it was just one loony candidate doing the mentioning I thought that that would really hurt them. Very surprising imo.

lukin2006 wrote:

I wonder if under Dion and now Iggy if the Liberals are perceived to be to far to the left so the centrist liberals have moved to the tories. We'll see May 2nd, I'm not so sure it will translate into a huge seat pick up for the NDP, but it might cost Liberals enough votes where that translate into a seat gain for the tories.

I saw the Iggy on CBC and I got the impression from him that he was not going to give Harper a vote of confidence, forcing the Governor General's hand...so I wonder if that'll push the tories over the top.

Do you mean in terms of the electorate or how Harper's campaign will react to it between now and the 2nd? Interesting assessment of the centrist Liberals. Personally I think that they look a little more centrist under Ignatieff than Dion, but I'm not sure how I would really argue that point. My s/o (who isn't a citizen but is a political junkie) figures that the Liberals shot themselves in the foot when their last leadership race lasted a year or so, and people tuned them right out.

lukin2006 wrote:

I thought it was pretty clear the last time they tried this that the Canadian people were not interested...I'm interested in a coalition lead by Layton that includes members of the 3 national federalist parties and no support from the bloc...Quebec gets more than enough already, next thing you know we'll be building them a rink for a NHL team that is know where even close to coming.

As for that abortion comment, I doubt that'll make any difference. I still can't understand the liberals, they needed to focus on what they were going to do to make things better, I think they focused to much on the corruption of the tories and isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black.

I agree with that completely; don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for Harper, tell me why I should vote for you. If it does end up being a Tory minority then the GG will have an interesting spring/summer. Apparently Johnston is a constitutional expert, and others are already refusing to comment publicly because they might end up involved. I don't see how any coalition can exclude the Bloc and survive though, because there seems little chance that the NDP + Liberals >= 155.

Anyway after vacillating since the writ dropped, I will now commit my vote to anyone who can improve the weather, this is ridiculous even by maritime standards.

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I wonder if under Dion and now Iggy if the Liberals are perceived to be to far to the left so the centrist liberals have moved to the tories. We'll see May 2nd, I'm not so sure it will translate into a huge seat pick up for the NDP, but it might cost Liberals enough votes where that translate into a seat gain for the tories.

I saw the Iggy on CBC and I got the impression from him that he was not going to give Harper a vote of confidence, forcing the Governor General's hand...so I wonder if that'll push the tories over the top.

Do you mean in terms of the electorate or how Harper's campaign will react to it between now and the 2nd? Interesting assessment of the centrist Liberals. Personally I think that they look a little more centrist under Ignatieff than Dion, but I'm not sure how I would really argue that point. My s/o (who isn't a citizen but is a political junkie) figures that the Liberals shot themselves in the foot when their last leadership race lasted a year or so, and people tuned them right out.

lukin2006 wrote:

I thought it was pretty clear the last time they tried this that the Canadian people were not interested...I'm interested in a coalition lead by Layton that includes members of the 3 national federalist parties and no support from the bloc...Quebec gets more than enough already, next thing you know we'll be building them a rink for a NHL team that is know where even close to coming.

As for that abortion comment, I doubt that'll make any difference. I still can't understand the liberals, they needed to focus on what they were going to do to make things better, I think they focused to much on the corruption of the tories and isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black.

I agree with that completely; don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for Harper, tell me why I should vote for you. If it does end up being a Tory minority then the GG will have an interesting spring/summer. Apparently Johnston is a constitutional expert, and others are already refusing to comment publicly because they might end up involved. I don't see how any coalition can exclude the Bloc and survive though, because there seems little chance that the NDP + Liberals >= 155.

Anyway after vacillating since the writ dropped, I will now commit my vote to anyone who can improve the weather, this is ridiculous even by maritime standards.

I really just meant, come May 2nd we'll find out if we have tory majority or minority, I don't see the tories changing strategy now, I think they'll just play it safe. I agree I think there're more centrist except for one policy that puts them at the left cap 'n' trade, I think centrist and people on the right want to know how much this is going to cost them. I would really like to know that...how much is it going to cost. The people I talk to on a daily basis are concerned about jobs, rising gas prices, food prices, taxes etc., I really see the NDP as the only one talking about these issues, which could explain there rise in support, and if someone is going to implement a cap 'n' trade I trust the NDP to do so, so that lower income, working poor and such are not absorbing the brunt of the cost.

That's a great assessment of the liberals...never thought of that as well, and then of course when they selected Iggy he was basically acclaimed...now thats democracy.

I always considered the Liberal almost on the centre of the political spectrum and when Martin was finance minister they might have been a tiny bit to the right fiscally so I think they attracted a lot of red conservatives.

Now they appear to be a party in total confusion as to what they are...and I've read that if Iggy goes then many want to replace him with Bob Rae, so things might not get any better if that happens, but that might be good for the NDP.

Really that's what I think the NDP are doing well, there telling me whats a good about them and why I should vote for them...and their support is rising. The 1 Green commercial was good and informative and at this point they would likely get vote.

Yeah I'm with you on the weather, it's been horrible.

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

What I don't understand in all of this...and nobody in the media or anywhere seem to be able to answer.

After being found in contempt of Parliament, LEGALLY how can Stephen Harper be allowed to run in this election??? I would think it would make MORE sense to have a coalition gov't till the Tories choose a new leader THEN we have an election. That's just my opinion. What's happening here shows that contempt of parliament is just another name for non confidence vote. Makes me sick.

I asked this question earlier in the thread, and after getting no response, I asked google and this is the best explanation I could find:
http://robcottingham.ca/2011/03/yes-ste ... ce-sheesh/

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

If Harper gets his majority...welcome to the first western dictatorship! We'll all be fucked.

:roll: :roll:
What's this? EASTERN alienation??
Seriously, decades of Western alienation is exactly why we're in this position. Since the days of the NEP, most Westerners have felt completely disenfranchised by the Libs, and IMO, vote Con because of that. It is not us against them...BC and Sask both have leftist tendencies, and AB votes Con as a protectionist measure (ie: reactionary greed)...Using hyperbole like 'western dictatorship' only increases the rift between regions....

Drowned Out wrote:

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

What I don't understand in all of this...and nobody in the media or anywhere seem to be able to answer.

After being found in contempt of Parliament, LEGALLY how can Stephen Harper be allowed to run in this election??? I would think it would make MORE sense to have a coalition gov't till the Tories choose a new leader THEN we have an election. That's just my opinion. What's happening here shows that contempt of parliament is just another name for non confidence vote. Makes me sick.

I asked this question earlier in the thread, and after getting no response, I asked google and this is the best explanation I could find:
http://robcottingham.ca/2011/03/yes-ste ... ce-sheesh/

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

If Harper gets his majority...welcome to the first western dictatorship! We'll all be fucked.

:roll: :roll:
What's this? EASTERN alienation??
Seriously, decades of Western alienation is exactly why we're in this position. Since the days of the NEP, most Westerners have felt completely disenfranchised by the Libs, and IMO, vote Con because of that. It is not us against them...BC and Sask both have leftist tendencies, and AB votes Con as a protectionist measure (ie: reactionary greed)...Using hyperbole like 'western dictatorship' only increases the rift between regions....

I think Western Dictatorship was meant on a global level. Like we're the first Western country to have a dictator. Hopefully Harper will follow that little law he created that forces the pm to call an election every five years.

bytterman...

I think you are right companies will just pass it on to us. I really don't know how there going to get us off fossil fuels, this is big country and many people commute long distances to work, so I really don't know...I commute 35 minutes myself, so when fuel is up it effects me...of course 32% of the price tax.

As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to vote, but that's where democracy ends in this country...they get elected on lies, do as they want for 4 years, lie some more hope they get re-elected or we elect some other bullshitter. No politician ever seriously consults with his/her constituents once elected...we're all suckers...if no one showed up May 2nd, then that would give the stupid ass bullshitters something to thing about.

As for me the least corrupt seems the green party, but the ndp is a lock here, so it doesn't matter if people really vote or not.

I'm pretty sure if the green party or ndp ever formed government, corruption would be there...power seems to corrupt.

I think you might be right...if the green gets 0 seats the party will have trouble surviving, the question is, if the tories get a majority and eliminate party subsidies, can they survive?

I was 1 of those who didn't think the tories would get a majority, but I now see it as a real possibility, or at the very least a even stronger minority that might get some right leaning liberals to cross the floor...it will be interesting May 2nd...I will be glad when it is over, then of course we have our provincial election coming up in October, so it'll be like listening to the best bullshitters for 9 months..hehehehehehe.

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

bytterman...
As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to vote, but that's where democracy ends in this country...they get elected on lies, do as they want for 4 years, lie some more hope they get re-elected or we elect some other bullshitter. No politician ever seriously consults with his/her constituents once elected...we're all suckers...if no one showed up May 2nd, then that would give the stupid ass bullshitters something to thing about.

As for me the least corrupt seems the green party, but the ndp is a lock here, so it doesn't matter if people really vote or not.

If we threw an election and no one came would we get our $300000000 back? Probably not. I don't agree with your last statement though. Maybe the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but a vote indicates someones preference, and if there are sufficient numbers against the eventual winner it may influence future strategy. I view voting as a requirement of citizenship, and wouldn't mind seeing it become a legal obligation.

lukin2006 wrote:

I'm pretty sure if the green party or ndp ever formed government, corruption would be there...power seems to corrupt.

I think you might be right...if the green gets 0 seats the party will have trouble surviving, the question is, if the tories get a majority and eliminate party subsidies, can they survive?

I was 1 of those who didn't think the tories would get a majority, but I now see it as a real possibility, or at the very least a even stronger minority that might get some right leaning liberals to cross the floor...it will be interesting May 2nd...I will be glad when it is over, then of course we have our provincial election coming up in October, so it'll be like listening to the best bullshitters for 9 months..hehehehehehe.

Barring a majority I think we might be at this again right after you guys, perhaps at the same time. :roll: Fife's original election thread spawned two others and a total of 400-odd posts: wanna start the ON thread now?

I think I'll leave the Ontario election thread until the federal is over . Like I said here it's a forgone conclusion, unless something dramatic happens the NDP are a lock. I would like for 1 election for them to add ''none of the above" and "write on" spots on the ballots just to see if voter turn out goes up. I'm one of those who doesn't care the percentage of votes a party gets, it's always been the party with the most seats get the opportunity to govern first, under our system it would be very unlikely that any party could garner 50% of the vote anymore...I guess it's just the way it is...I suspect voter turnout will be fairly this time.

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I think I'll leave the Ontario election thread until the federal is over . Like I said here it's a forgone conclusion, unless something dramatic happens the NDP are a lock. I would like for 1 election for them to add ''none of the above" and "write on" spots on the ballots just to see if voter turn out goes up. I'm one of those who doesn't care the percentage of votes a party gets, it's always been the party with the most seats get the opportunity to govern first, under our system it would be very unlikely that any party could garner 50% of the vote anymore...I guess it's just the way it is...I suspect voter turnout will be fairly this time.

Based on our earlier exchange I assume that you mean fairly low turnout? I'm starting to think the NDP surge might have the effect of dragging people out for this one. My mom told me that she had to line up for nearly half an hour at an advanced poll in Ontario. Not saying it means too much, but who knows. Probably the good call on the provincial thread!

Yes I meant fairly low...my bad typing. Well you never know, maybe we'll get a good turnout. If the NDP vote is up in Ontario that might translate into more seats for Harper, I can't see many tories switching, but the NDP are likely drawing from liberals. I was talking to my neighbour yesterday and she said " she's voted liberal her entire life and might vote NDP this time because she dislikes Ignatieff". It seems that might be the sentiment across the country...to me he comes across as rather arrogant anyways. You know what I find interesting, of the people I've spoken to and come across most say that Harper doesn't really bother them one way or another, as for the corruption they all are in the agreement that whoever we put in will be corrupt...I find that interesting...but hard to argue with...JC 13 years were strewn with scandals and corruption and Mulroney before him...thats the only reason I can figure why Harper will likely retain his seat count or increase it, where used to corruption in politics.