The Canadian Election

[Grey]

Ok, caught the last 30 minutes.

Paul Martin. You have to feel some sympathy for the guy. Hammered on from all sides, there were times he couldn’t even get a word in edgewise. He looked beleaguered, and evasive. Why, though didn’t he hit the economic high points, and push his liberal agenda rather than attack the Conservatives and NDP?

Stephen Harper. Well those that fear the man and his party are likely not going to change their minds. Those on the fence though may have found him more conciliatory and upfront than they expected. He did well, I thought.

Jack Layton. Attacking Harper was obvious but I was surprised that he kept mentioning Harper being up front about his views. I thought the idea was to present an image of a hidden Conservative agenda to swing votes away from the centre/centre right? Maybe that’s more of a Liberal strategy. Still I thought he presented himself well, though I did wish he stop talking over other debaters. My biad showing I guess.

Gilles Duceppe. I could honestly not care less. Ok I have to be fair. The man is well spoken and passionate about his cause. His obvious target was Liberal voters and I think he made a reasonable case for those whose views extend to the borders and not much beyond. How many soft sovereignties votes he can pry away I couldn’t say.

[RickJay]

I watched the whole thing. Random thoughts:

MARTIN: Just terrible. He was caught flat-footed by Harper about the “knowing the numbers” jab, and Layton asked him at least three or four simple questions he simply wouldn’t answer. He was just terrible - evasive, stumbling, eyes flying all around the place, and refused to really address a single question, the worst being Layton’s simple question about gay marriage, which he wouldn’t respond to. Ducking a question is one thing, but you have to do it in a way that makes you sound like you answered it. Martin couldn’t even do that. Worse yet, he repeated attacks on Harper framed the entire debate with Harper as the leader, which puts Martin on even keep with Layton, and Layton looked far better. Martin’s jab at Layton - “did your handlers tell you to not stop talking?” - sounded petty and childish. In direct debate with Duceppe he was at Duceppe’s mercy; Duceppe beat him like a redheaded stepchild, and Martin just refused to take any initiative. His continuous lying about “aircraft carriers” made him look like an idiot to anyone who knows what an aircraft carrier is. He lost the debate really badly.

John Turner 2.0. You know it.

DUCEPPE: Did okay for what he had to do. His discussions with Harper were often the most intelligent points of the debate. He lied about Martin saying cabinet ministers were involved in Sponsorgate - Martin never said any such thing - but Martin inexplicably never denied it, so he wins that point. He stayed on message about a fiscal imbalance, which was smart. He comes across very well - not too slick, not too stumbly. As has been pointed out, he’s the experienced one.

I thought the most insightful point of the night was Duceppe pointing out that it’s stupid to promise more military spending when you haven’t decided on a foreign policy and a defence policy, so you can figure out what kind of military you need. Shit, I’ve been saying that for ten years and he’s the first politician I’ve heard mention it.

HARPER: Won by default; he managed to come across as reasonable rather than as a right wing nut. He doesn’t seem comfortable in this setting; he kept lowering his eyes and he was just a little too passive to carry the discussion at times. His comments about health care were smart and centrist. For what reason I cannot imagine, the other leaders did not go for the kill on the Iraq issue, never asking the one obvious question, so Harper dodged a bullet there, and he dodged a bullet on the WSJ letter (ouch.) They also didn’t attack him aggressively enough on social issues; it was just Harper’s night. He SOUNDS smart, which impresses people in and of itself. His non-stance on gay marriage still bothers me, and his point about churches and the notwithstanding clause is just absurd, but once again his opponents just did not pick up on that opening. Layton sort of tried but didn’t point out the falsity of the we-have-to-use-the-NWC angle. His shot at Martin about knowing the numbers was one of the best of the night; I thought he should have been a bit more aggressive, though.

LAYTON: On message, but as he was in the French debate, a bit too abrasive and interrupting. He just murdered Martin by repeating simple questions; he obviously picked up early on that Martin would not answer him, so he set about making Martin look bad, and boy, did he succeed. Managed to mention a few ideas the other leaders didn’t emphasize, and his monologues were positive. His emphasis was Star Wars was baffling; most Canadians just don’t give a shit about missile defense. Why didn’t he stay on the Iraq issue? A little too much name dropping, which makes him look slimy. He looks evasive a few times; absolutely refused to answer Duceppe’s question about the Clarity Act, for one. He probably won 10 seats at Martin’s expense but I felt he didn’t attack Harper as effectively.

[Balduran]

Man, the Liberals needed an old warhorse like Cretien in that debate. The prime-minister always gets hammered, because of course, they are the ones that have had policies implemented that can be critisized. The other contenders only have promises and assertions which aren’t as easy to attack. At least Cretien could weather these storms with relatively good humor.

[Uzi]

@Hamish

Assuming you can get a job in your field, this is true.

With my field, a bachelor’s degree is next to useless. It requires a master’s or a teaching certificate before you can do much with it. Meanwhile, while I try to raise funds for a master’s, Quebec student loans is taking $200 out of my account every month, which was about a quarter of my monthly income back when I had a job (I’m recently unemployed)…

If you chose a degree that doesn’t allow you to work in the field of your choice without getting a Masters\Phd. then whose responsibility is that?
Shouldn’t you have chosen an educational path that allowed you a job after your first degree, or budgeted for the total cost of a second degree right from the start? And if that wasn’t attainable then chosen a career that fell within the constraints of your situation at the time? People make the mistake of thinking that a particular career path is what they will be doing all their lives. Most people change careers more than once.
Now don’t get me wrong: I think that education should be free to those that show the necessary apptitude for the field they are going into, but that isn’t the way it works now and we have to adjust accordingly.

I had no opportunity to go to university when I was growing up in a little town in central BC. Nor did I finish high school at that time due to family reasons. The only choice I had was working in a saw mill, or joining the army. After working in a saw mill for 1 day it wasn’t a hard choice. Off to the army I went.
After 3 years I got out and worked odd jobs until I found continuous work as a low end shift supervisor. At about 28 years old I had gotten fed up with my lot in life and decided to finish the education that was holding me back while obviously inferior candidates (from a work ability point of view) were getting promoted ahead of me. I worked 12 hour nights and went to school during the day. Eventually, I quit my job and went to school full time and lived on a meal a day for over a year. So be it, such is the price of fame.
At no point did I feel anyone owed me anything. At no point did I feel that the rich, or someone else, wasn’t doing enough to help me and should pay more. I always wanted to be wealthy some day and when it happened I wouldn’t want some pissant like me knocking on my door for change. Now I am in that position through long and hard work. And guess what? I am going back to university again to get that degree I wanted when I was younger. Granted it is online university that some look down on, but the courses are just as hard. I can afford to pay for it now. And it is in a field that I am interested that may, or may not, apply to my work. I don’t care as I am doing it for me, not someone else. I have that opportunity now because I worked for it.

I am telling you this, not to brag, but to explain why I am voting the way I am and give some history as to why I think that way.

Not for the lower or middle classes. …And why is only taxing the rich “a line?”.

Well, why should I pay you for something that I perceive could be accomplished through hard work?

I’m all for helping out those in need who are extremely unlikely to get work due to physical, or mental, issues, but people have to take some responsibility for their lives sometime.

We’re planning to close a lot of loopholes for large businesses, and impose a tax on the profits of the big banks when they exceed 10%.

Businesses employ people. Taxing businesses more cause them to employ less people.

For someone like me, the government is security. If I’m desperate an at the point of starvation, I can go for employment insurance or welfare. I don’t have to worry that a health problem will eat up all my cash resources (although the money I’d saved up was eaten by a dental emergency I had – something else I think should be covered).

I have trouble being sympathetic towards people who make many times what I ever have (I have no idea if you’re in this category, of course) and talk about having trouble making ends meet. You can imagine that it’s rather obnoxious to hear people whose after-tax income greatly exceeds yours complain about taxes.

I do not think the tax burden is excessive in this country by any means. You get what you pay for, and security is worth paying for.

Sorry, but is sounds like you are saying, “Security is worth **someone else ** paying for”. You seem to be in no position to pay for anything and I think it is rather big of you to volunteer my money to pay for the problems that I think, from the little you have posted here, are of your own making.

Of course. But by this point, I don’t see how a person who’s against gay marriage can be called left or even centrist.
If Martin was another Trudeau, or a Pearson of his age, there wouldn’t have been all this stalling on gay marriage. It would’ve been a done deal by now.

This is odd because weren’t there gay people when Trudeau et al were in power, or did they just spring from the ground recently?

This is where I have difficulties with the right. I wish there was a party that was fiscally conservative and didn’t care a rat’s ass what people did in their bedrooms. As it is I have to vote with the party that says they are going to leave the most money in my pockets. If they only manage to not take any more than they are now then I’ll be satisfied.

It’s getting harder and harder to get access to services, and the burden is falling on those who can’t pay.

I don’t know about those who can’t pay, but even myself, who someone like Layton would consider rich, can’t afford to go to private hospitals, either.

Sam Stone brought up the issue about how people in Alberta don’t care that we pay transfer payments. He must not talk to the same people I do, because the people I talk to care.
Using Sam’s figures, $3500 per person pays for a hell of a lot if it stayed here. Free health care and free education most likely. As it is, we redistribute the wealth so that we are all equally poor when it comes to these services. Anyone who is willing to curtail this I will also seriously look at supporting.
But that is the western separatist in me talking. If such a party existed I’d probably be voting for them.

[Grey]

@matt_mcl

Duceppe won the debate –
<snip>
One real twanger was when he asked Martin whether the health care system was better now than in 1993; Martin said, “In some areas yes, in others, no,” which left him wide, wide open for the inevitable “And whose fault was that?”

Ok I just noticed that Harper brought up this question in the English debate and said that he’d asked the same one the night before. Is anyone able to find a transcript from the French debate? I’d like to see what’s what.

Oh and Hamish, Bloq my fault, which I notice Gorsnak was gracious enough to point out. I have no idea why, I’ve simply spelt it that way for while now I guess.

[shirt_brown_honesty]

First off, as a newbie here, wow Im impressed with the length and depth of discussion here. I spent several hours reading this thread. Here’s my two cents.

Well I voted today.

I would have preferred not to vote in the advance polls, but my personal life is a little crazy lately and I knew I had time to vote today.

I voted the way I wanted, for the party I believe in. So what ever happens, I know that I can live with myself.

But just how much do other Canadians here think you can “vote strategically” and vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives. Does anyone really think that would work?

Interestingly enough the Prime Minister was in town tonight. And Ken Dryden. Bringing in the “Big Guns.” Im thinking the Liberal incumbent is not doing so well…are they running scared?

[fubar_tabarnac]

harper has spent the last day in hiding, which is as safe a place as any after accusing two whole parties of “support(ing) child pornography”

it’s damage control and staying away from policy the rest of the campaign for the crap. it looks like they’ve peaked around 32%, and are about even now with the libs who have seemed to bottom out at 29% - depending on the splits this suggests neither will top 120 seats or so (bottom range for each say 85.)

the ndp are slightly over 20%, with the bloc polling 14% which suggests close to 60 seats for bq, and about 35-40 for the dippers.
a few liberal points going ndp in a handfull of bc ridings (on the island especially) could add a few more ndp seats without the pop vote increasing much. climbing 3 more points overall might add another 3-4 seats in ontario - max range for the ndp now looks about 48 seats, which would mean neither the libs nor cons topping 110.

unless someone has a major breakthrough or a major breakdown this week, a minority government is all but guaranteed.

pm will remain pm unless the libs drop below 80 seats. with no seats in quebec, the crap will be unable to form a majority.

[shirt_brown_honesty]

So, do you think minority Liberal gov’t? Or minority Conservative gov’t.

Its interesting thats for sure. Last few elections were so boring (and to my mind sickening) that I hardly cared. Except I always vote. To my mind, if you don’t vote you can’t complain.

Which is my favourite part.

[fubar_tabarnac]

So, do you think minority Liberal gov’t? Or minority Conservative gov’t.

liberal, like i said, unless they drop below 80 seats* or so. martin will not hand over power to harper unless he has to. neither the ndp nor the bloq would have much, if any, interest in propping up a con minority if presented with a choice.

(in case you were unaware, simply getting the most seats in parliament w/o majority does not a government make. pm is pm until the govt. is defeated by non-confidence, or he resigns. say frinstance the election brings 120 cons, 85 liberals, 60 bloc, 43 ndp, paul martin can call the house, and with the support of the bloc & ndp maintain the confidence of parliament and continue to govern. harper wouldn’t even get a meeting with the gg.)

the liberals could not support a con minority without destroying the party, so unless harper gets an outright majority, or close enough (say 150 seats, which is quite a stretch at 30%) to cherry pick support from a handfull of right liberals or bloquistes, he will not be pm.

*note that for the libs to drop to under 80 seats their popular vote would have to drop below 26-27% which does not seem to be happening. if it does though, look for john manley to take over lib leadership within 18 months.

[Sam_Stone]

Man, that child porn ad campaign was a disaster, wasn’t it? I wonder what genius in the party thought that would be a good idea?

Every time I think the conservative party has shed its wacko roots and is ready to govern, they pull something like this. <shakes head>

[cdnguy]

First off I must say I am in the same boat as Malthus, Scule and Wolfstu. I have no idea who I am going to vote for, but ido know who I’m not going to vote for. I amnot going to vote for the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party. This is because I completely disagree with there social policies. I believe in Gay marriage, even thouh I don’t see why it has to be exactly the same as traditional marriage, so long as gay mariages get all the same rights as traditional ones, such as tax reasons, easier access to adoption, alimony, etc. As well I firmly believe in the right to choose for a women. Abortion must not be criminalized. The Gun registry is a good thing. I don’t see any reason why a government shouldn’t know how many guns are in a country and can see no legitimate reason to not want to say hey I have a gun. I believe the Police chiefs of Canada are also in favour of this registry, because they can know what their officers are getting into in instances of domestic disturbane for example. Also I am not convinced there are not a lot of racist people in the party who will help to bring in a very social conservative policies. I am also quite happy that we are not in Iraq, as I think the UN is the only orginization that has the right to wage war in our world today.

So what does this leave me with? I was thinking of voting NDP, despite their fiscal irresponsibility and tendency to throw money at problems, thinking that will solve all. That was until I watched the english leader debates. Layton was an ass in the debates. He never shut up and wouldn’t allow anyone to answer his questions. Sorry no way can I stand hearing him for 4-5 more years. So that takes care of them. Annoying leader and irresponsible fiscal policies means they probably don’t get my vote. I do agree with their social policies, and to certain degree, their environmental ones, but I’m not hippy :).

So how about the Liberals? A very corrupt arrogant party who has had my vote inthe previous 2 federal elections I was able to vote in. It isn’t the sponsorship scandal that really turns me off, I think any government has a certain amount of waste. But they really are arrogant. Martin started off the english debates saying there was only 2 parties legitametly (sp?) in the running to form a government. While maybe true, still offensive. However the Liberals are closest to my ideological bent. I belive in fiscal responsibility while maintaining an effective safety net.

The Green Party? Not much there but environmental issues. As I stated above I am not a hippy, the environment is not my number 1 concern. However I find it disgusting that a party running candidates in the vast majority of the ridings throughout the country was not in either of the debates, but a party dedicated to destroying my country and who just runs candidates in 1 provionce was there. As well because of the new election laws a vote for these guys actually means something, and maybe with enough votes they can be present at the next debates (which will probably be soon as I don’t see anything but a minority gov’t being formed)

The BQ? Not even if I lived in Quebec. I love Canada, we are the best nation in the world, screw you for trying to break it up. Duceppe did perform well though, personable guy.

So where does that leave me? NDP= annoying leader, fiscally irresponsible, but maybe a good counterpoint and possibly a great partner to control either the Alliance or Liberals. Alliance (or whatever they want to pretend they are now)=hell no way to conservative, racist, would have been in Iraq, pretty much reminds me of the Republican party and I hate dubya. Liberals= corrupt, but potentially lesser of 2 evils, still good chance they get my vote. Green= only will vote for them as a sort of protest. Not vote? No way, never done that, not going to start now particularly becaus eit is such a hard decision. Refuse my vote? I am thinking very hard of doing this, actually. Going to the electionand telling them I want to vote but I dont liek anyone so I’m voting for no one. Only problem with this is the don’t make public the amount of people who do this, so its not a very effective protest.

In conclusion, on the 28th, I will probably vote liberal, not because I want to but because I really hate the alternative.

In case you want to know I have only voted Liberal federally (2x), provincially I have voted PC, NDP and most recently Liberal, in that order. I live in Ontario, Oshawa specifically.

[fubar_tabarnac]

I was thinking of voting NDP, despite their fiscal irresponsibility and tendency to throw money at problems, thinking that will solve all.

well, if you believe that, i’ve got some swampland in saskatchewan for you to buy. the ndp are a very fiscally responsible party - one only has to look at the provincial governments they have formed. in bc for example, the ndp turned former socred (now bclib) deficits into a record surplus, which was immediately squandered by the campbell government, creating bc’s largest ever deficit.

bob rae’s ontario ndp government, for all it’s downsides, reduced the provinces deficits and total year on year spending during the worst recession in the province (and country for that matter) since the great depression.

the most fiscally irresponsible governments have been the conservative minded governments… harris/eves leaving ontario over $6b in the hole after an astoundingly prosperous eight years; the previously mentioned socred/bclibs; mul-fucking-rooney fer chrissakes.

So how about the Liberals? A very corrupt arrogant party

well, to be fair, i don’t think the liberals are any more corrupt than the cons would be given power. patronage built this country, and that ain’t gonna change over night no matter who thinks they’re running the show. arrogant yes. quite so. but they are the natural governing party so it should really come as no surprize that they have swollen heads.

However the Liberals are closest to my ideological bent. I belive in fiscal responsibility while maintaining an effective safety net.

the liberal ideology is maintaining power, and whatever needs be done to do so. it just happens that this coincides with an appearance of fiscal responsibility and and at least a minimal safety net. as joe clark put it, the liberals are only marginally less worse than the crapservatives.

and the greens, on top of being quite an electoral non-factor (2000, eg. they polled about 6% in the runup, but on e-day managed under 2%, prolly the same thing again - mostly get support from dissaffecteds who don’t bother to vote anyway) are basically just granola eating tories. the ndp has a much “greener” platform than the greens.

and oshawa eh? sid ryan stands a good chance there, though it will be a close race (he damn near won the seat in the provincial election, and ndp support in the province is up a good chunk since.)

[fubar_tabarnac]

Man, that child porn ad campaign was a disaster, wasn’t it? I wonder what genius in the party thought that would be a good idea?

i think it came from the top; maybe not harper, but someone close to him. otherwise he would have disowned/downplayed the statements like he did with the abortion & bilingualism issues a couple weeks back, instead of just equivocating on the titles of the memos.

the thing is though, i don’t think that is what has hurt the cons most. last week’s talk of majorities and transition teams with a two point lead in the polls, coupled with the growing realization that the party has no actual policies they’ll speak of publically started the slide. the kiddie porn comments will probably serve to increase liberal and ndp turnout more than they will bleed con votes.

[cdnguy]

[QUOTE=fubar tabarnac]
well, if you believe that, i’ve got some swampland in saskatchewan for you to buy. the ndp are a very fiscally responsible party - one only has to look at the provincial governments they have formed. in bc for example, the ndp turned former socred (now bclib) deficits into a record surplus, which was immediately squandered by the campbell government, creating bc’s largest ever deficit.

[QUOTE=fubar tabarnac]

True, but those are provincial parties. Really not the same, as a previuos poster has pointed out. Otherwise I would be taking my anger at McGuinty and his lieing ways out agianst the federal Liberal party. The NDP platform is full of promises to increase Health care spending, help the environment and the only way they mention paying for this is by the budget surplus, which they claim the Liberals are underreporting, and by taxing the rich, with no real definition of what ‘rich’ is besides an over $1 million inheritance or death tax. That is what I meant by fiscal irresponsibility. Not just balancing budgets, eliminating deficiets/debts, as sometimes it is fiscally responsible to run a deficit (such as during the Great Depression and other times of massive unemployment), as it could be construed as an investment.

[Grey]

@fubar tabarnac

well, if you believe that, i’ve got some swampland in saskatchewan for you to buy. the ndp are a very fiscally responsible party - one only has to look at the provincial governments they have formed. in bc for example, the ndp turned former socred (now bclib) deficits into a record surplus, which was immediately squandered by the campbell government, creating bc’s largest ever deficit.

bob rae’s ontario ndp government, for all it’s downsides, reduced the provinces deficits and total year on year spending during the worst recession in the province (and country for that matter) since the great depression.

tabarnac how do you explain this then?
World Socialist

The alleged fraud is that the BC NDP government failed to make good on pledges that the province’s budget would be balanced in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years!

Or from page 145 from BC government pdf the NDP managed to maintain a deficit in the 300-1000 million dollar range through 1995/96-1999/2000. Mind you, after capitalization in 1999/2000 there was a small surplus of $52 million.

Or the fact that the PCs in Ontario took over a Provincial debt of 10 billion in 1994/95 from the NDP and made it a 2 billion surplus in 2001? RBC (pdf doc)

As to the assertion that the NDP shrank spending … from Ontarion budget 1996 (Tories)

($Millions) 	                     1992-93   1993-94 	1994-95 1995-96 1996-97
Revenue 	                      41,807	43,674	 46,039  47,819  46,660
Expense					
Programs 	                      45,350	44,293	 44,653	 43,652	 41,841
Restructuring Fund and Other Charges 	- 	  - 	   - 	  1,431	   900
Total Programs Expense 	              45,350	44,293	 44,653	 45,083	 42,741
Capital 	                       3,592	3,552	  3,831	  3,510	  2,704
Public Debt Interest 	               5,293	7,129	  7,832	  8,324	  8,745
Total Expense 	                      54,235	54,974	 56,316	 56,917	 54,190
Reserve 	                        - 	- 	   - 	   - 	    650
Deficit 	                      12,428	11,300	 10,277	  9,098	  8,180

total expenses continued to grow. Mind you the NDP did manage to shrink the deficit by $700 million from 93-94; however revenues grew by $1800 million.

For me it comes down to punishment. The Liberals must go. You simply have to remember Radwanski, or the Canadian Business Deveopment bank strong arming, or even Gagliano as ambassador. Let’s not forget Ad Scam or the continual omission to buy helicopters. Let’s remember the waste that is the long gun registry (handguns have been registered since 1937), HRDC, the failure to debate issues in the House (check back if the Conservatives win I’d put money on that issue hanging around). I can almost understand people’s concerns about conservative public policy but given a Liberal legacy bureaucracy, the Charter and the need to keep Ontario (read moderate) support how dangerous can they possibly be?

And if it is only social policy you wish to avoid endorsing, vote NDP or Green. Unless you feel the Liberals have earned your support.

[RickJay]

@fubar tabarnac

bob rae’s ontario ndp government, for all it’s downsides, reduced the provinces deficits and total year on year spending during the worst recession in the province (and country for that matter) since the great depression.

???

I’m sorry, but you must be referring to a different Ontario. See Grey’s charts. the NDP ran the biggest deficits in the history of the province.

[cdnguy]

@Grey

And if it is only social policy you wish to avoid endorsing, vote NDP or Green. Unless you feel the Liberals have earned your support.

See my problem with this is its quite possible that a vote for NDP or Green will be in actuality a vote for the Conservative party by allowing them to get the balance of power in Parliament. I honestly don’t think the need to keep Ontario happy would be enough to stop the Alliance from instituting there backwards social policies. And I believe social policies should be the major issues.

[fubar_tabarnac]

yes, the bcndp took two years longer to balance the budget than planned, but they still handed gordo a record surplus - $1.5b+ ag report (pdf) which was dissappeared “on their first full day in office, the Liberal government announced the largest tax cut in Canadian history.” here (pdf)
yes the ontario cons got rid of the old deficit…(that they created in the first place) only to create a whole new one of over $6b.

total expenses continued to grow. Mind you the NDP did manage to shrink the deficit by $700 million from 93-94; however revenues grew by $1800 million.

sorry, i should be more specific, but program spending trended slightly down through the rae years (except the final year, when prog spending turned slightly up, by approximately equal to inflation before dropping faster under the cons.)
but my point stands that the ndp are proven fiscally responsible, at least as much as any other government we’ve had in this country, and better than more than a few. ndp deficits were inherited, and shrunk or eliminated roughly during times when conservative govt.'s were creating deficits for the next govt. to pay off. and these were deficits largely created by regressive tax cuts, accompanied by decreased services, and higher user-fees all over the place.

we pay a moderate amount of tax in this country, about the middle of the pack in terms of oecd countries for personal income taxes, and the general federal corporate tax rate is now only 21%. cheap! fin.gc.ca

more tax cuts are not what is needed. adjusting the tax system to be more progressive would be a good idea. investing in infrastructure and social programs while we have the money (surplus) and not giving it away to those who don’t need it – i.e large corporations and the top income brackets.

the liberals do need to be humbled (though not destroyed, at least yet.) the cons the cons have peaked, at a lower pop than alliance + pc last go round. and the liberal are gonna lose a ton of seats. but they’ll still govern, and the ndp & bloc will get concessions for it.

so hey, maybe you’re right, that the cons might not be too dangerous;

CPAC-SES tracking completed last night shows the Liberals ahead of the Tories: Liberals 34%, Conservatives 31%, NDP 21%, BQ 10%, Green 4%. Still within the margin of accuracy, the Liberals have been able to nudge ahead of the Conservatives. On who Canadians think would make the best PM, “unsure” has surpassed Stephen Harper for the first time in three weeks of tracking. Best PM: Martin 28%, Unsure 24%, Harper 22%, None 10%, Layton 10%, Duceppe 5%.

cpac-ses

[Northern_Piper]

Article from today’s National Post is giving the Tories a 30 seat lead over the Grits. The two parties are tied at about 33% in the popular opinion polls, but apparently the vote distribution is likely to favour the Tories.

As fubar tabernac points out, in a minority situation the current PM can try to put together a government even if he comes in second in the seats, but a thirty seat difference is pretty hard to overcome, in my opinion. The new House will have 308 seats, so you need 154 for a majority. If the Grits come in with 95 seats, they need to get 60 other votes, which the NDP are not likely to have. So it’s looking increasingly like Gilles Duceppe will be in the cat-bird seat. Would he support Paul Martin in office, or go with Harper? The Bloc is closer to the Grits on social policy issues, like same-sex marriage, but they might find Harper’s view of federalism more attractive.

All told, this is going to be an election where every single vote counts, not a yawner like the last two.

[Northern_Piper]

[sidebar]

By the way, what is all this flap about child porn? I’ve been on holidays for the past two weeks and wasn’t following the news. Can anyone give me a quick summary?

[/sidebar]