| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seanmcginty
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 203
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| canuck wrote: |
Wait, that's what I said,
| canuck wrote: |
| All the problems started with Trudeau and Chretien as the finance minister. Let's spent, spent, spent irresponsibly and tired to keep Eastern Canada happy. The Torries tried to clean up the mess, were marginally successful, and then the Liberals continued on...scandals after scandals, representing Eastern Canada once again. |
|
I'd recommend you do a little reading yourself. Under the Tories the deficit continued its merry little rollercoaster ride upwards, versus the past 8 years of Liberal governments that have had budget surpluses. Yet in your rendition of events the Tories tried to fix the problem, but then the Liberals came back in and "continued on"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seanmcginty wrote: |
I'd recommend you do a little reading yourself. Under the Tories the deficit continued its merry little rollercoaster ride upwards, versus the past 8 years of Liberal governments that have had budget surpluses. Yet in your rendition of events the Tories tried to fix the problem, but then the Liberals came back in and "continued on"? |
Ever wonder how much the interest payments were on Trudeau's free spending Liberals? Basically, they dug a huge whole and crippled the country financially...downward economic spiral. 
They are paying back for borrowed time, and not even coming close. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GambateBingBangBOOM
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 2021
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chirp wrote: |
Just another thought: Since Mr. Martin has decided not to lead the Liberals in a future election, what do you think the chances are that Conservatives will change leaders going into the next election? I mean really, Mr. Harper couldn't get a majority government (twice) even with all scandals and bad press plaguing the Liberals.
I agree wholeheartedly that change was needed but I could not be more opposed to Mr. Harper's personal views on a number of hot topics. That being said, I do not believe that all the members of the half Conservative-half Reform party share his opinion. We'll just have to see if he allows a free vote... |
It will almost definately be Harper running for the Cons in the next election. You don't work that hard to get a guy elected (with a whopping 36% of the people! ) in order to replace him with a new face that nobody knows.
One of the things that Harper has going for him is that all the cool 18~20somethings who have never really had a job, and don't know the policies and who vote Conservative as a way to be rebellious (these are the kids who go through their little right wing fanatic phase) like him because he is younger. In fact I've read posts by English teachers in Japan saying that it's great to have a younger leader. They never really write why, though.
Parties get rid of leaders who lose them power. They might try with the same guy a couple of times if that guy has never won the national (or Provincial in the case of McGuinty) election, but you don't keep the same guy if he gets shut down when he was in power, because he'll likely just get shut down again.
The number of people who go based on debates and media reports and never actually read the party platforms (available by just going to the party's homepage) astounds me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chirp
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It will almost definately be Harper running for the Cons in the next election. You don't work that hard to get a guy elected (with a whopping 36% of the people! ) in order to replace him with a new face that nobody knows. |
Actually, I was thinking of Peter McKay or another well-known Conservative - not an unknown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 339
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't wish to make excuses for Trudeau, however I seem to recall the Mulrooney government claiming to be fiscally responsible but at the same time they were giving all kinds of money, gov't contracts, freebees and whatnots to people connected with the conservative party.
I also seem to recall that the deficit increased tremendously under the watchful eyes of our beloved "Lian' Brian".
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zzonkmiles
Joined: 05 Apr 2003
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seven years of budget surpluses can't be all wrong. (Or was it eight years of surpluses?)
Even in defeat, maybe the Canadian Liberals could teach the rogue leader of its southern neighbor a few things about surpluses... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zzonkmiles wrote: |
| Seven years of budget surpluses can't be all wrong. (Or was it eight years of surpluses?) |
Exactly...or, really?
Imagine in year one your went into debt $200 million dollars.
In years 2-8, each year, you were plus $2 million. Would you be happy being down $186 million? Just think of how hard it is to pay back borrowed money plus interest. Then in each of yeas 2 to 8, don't forget to add the interest. With eight years of surpluses, do you just forget about the first year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 504
Location: Middle of Nagano
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I kind of imagined this thread might turn into a Liberal vs Conservative grudge match. Im curious though. What do you think the consequences may be in terms of foreign policy? What do all the Bush bashers and high and mighty Canadians do now that their country has elected a right-winger. What if any effect does it have on our image now that we have elected a openly pro Bush goverenment? Are we headed in the same direction as Australia? Just curious to hear other's thoughts/opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Harper won the mandate to change policy very much in this regard. Harper had to come out during the campaign and show that there was no plan to send troops into Iraq, most likely based on what polling told him. If anything, Harper in power will have a good effect in that Parliament as a whole now has someone through whom to voice concerns up to the Whitehouse. Check the first date Bush and Harper set for a round of golf.
Kyoto may be an issue since this conservative represents Alberta oil, and not big business (Mulroney), Harper is going to get some pressure from his base.
Missile defense. I have to grant that Harper is the only person who's been honest about this. Canada has always been a part of it, and Liberals fudging the details was purely for show. NORAD is too old and entrenched an institution. Public bickering is only about money. Canucks and Yanks have stood shoulder to shoulder when it comes to fortress North America and always will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nagoyaguy
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: Aichi, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was happy to see a conservative win, but disappointed that it was not a majority. The caterwauling about a "hidden agenda" is just so much bullshit IMHO. If the agenda is hidden, how do you know it exists? Harper won't touch abortion, doesnt have a priority on same sex marriage, what else is there? Besides, these two issues are not exactly cut and dried. Canada is split on both of them. The 'right wing' of the Conservatives represents a position that is supported by millions of Canadians- hardly an extreme stance.
What really gripes me is that a group of traitors like the Bloc Quebecois are allowed to pollute the political landscape. Where else would a political party whose mission is to destroy the country be allowed to exist on the national scene? Unbelievable. It says much (too much) about Canadian tolerance that they can breathe the same air as the rest of us.
After a couple of years, people will realize that the scaremongering the left does against the Tories is just so much BS. Next election, look for a majority. Harper wants to let Canadians decide their own future, not depend on the government teat. Nothing wrong with that at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chirp
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nagoyaguy,
This is but my humble opinion. Having actually been in Canada for the election campaign, I would just comment that I don't think some Canadians were concerned about Harper's "hidden" agenda; I agree with you - there is nothing hidden about it. I think the concern was that Mr. Harper and some members of the Conservative party have expressed views on topics that are not in line with what the majority of Canadians believe and that these issues were not addressed during the election campaign. In fact, there was much discussion that the more outspoken Conservative members should reign themselves in and stick to the Election rhetoric. No deviations permitted.
None of the "slips" that occurred during the last election occurred this time around. Personally, I don't believe that their opinion on these topics has changed, just that they were better able to control what they said to the press this time around. Voters had heard their feelings on same sex marriage, health care, abortion, the notwithstanding clause etc. before and had not forgotten, which is why the Conservatives could only muster a weak minority government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sody
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nagoyaguy wrote: |
I was happy to see a conservative win, but disappointed that it was not a majority. The caterwauling about a "hidden agenda" is just so much *beep* IMHO. If the agenda is hidden, how do you know it exists? Harper won't touch abortion, doesnt have a priority on same sex marriage, what else is there? Besides, these two issues are not exactly cut and dried. Canada is split on both of them. The 'right wing' of the Conservatives represents a position that is supported by millions of Canadians- hardly an extreme stance.
What really gripes me is that a group of traitors like the Bloc Quebecois are allowed to pollute the political landscape. Where else would a political party whose mission is to destroy the country be allowed to exist on the national scene? Unbelievable. It says much (too much) about Canadian tolerance that they can breathe the same air as the rest of us.
After a couple of years, people will realize that the scaremongering the left does against the Tories is just so much BS. Next election, look for a majority. Harper wants to let Canadians decide their own future, not depend on the government teat. Nothing wrong with that at all. |
Great points, you and chirp both. I like your comments about the BQ I haven't heard anyone bad mouth them like that in a long time. I love it! No sugar coating BS, just a straight honest opinion. Conversely though, the Canadian tolerance for the BQ could be seen as a strength. Canadian history has always been about tolerance and slow change. I kind of like the fact that all opinions are heard and tolerated even though it is screwing our country over as one might argue. I would tolerate an unclear agenda if it helps us. An unclear status quo doesn't hurt us in the short run and honestly, I know of no Canadians who think long term. Hence the reason why most Canadians aren't loyal to any party.
Remember that we once had five parties fighting for the majority, I think Australia was the only other country that has ever had that many major parties in a national election. I could be wrong though.
I actually liked the Reform party when it was around because Manning brought in a lot of interesting ideas. He was logical and reasonable, nobody in the East voted for him because he looked like a dork. But it was a testament to the fact that Canadians take their politics very passively and with slow judgment and sometimes little interest. That is why Harper and others can beat around the bush and not be definitive. That is why there was no majority.
I was proud to be a Canadian when Chretien did not offer support for the war in Iraq. I'll be damned if we end up like Australia, worshipping the US. I will say one thing about Harper, he better watch his steps until the next election because I don't think Canadians will give someone like him a second chance if he screws up. Just my two cents.
Sody |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
