28 replies to this topic

[Monsieur B]

Well, after turning 18 yesterday I was allowed to vote today and I just got back from doing so and it felt good to put my 'X' on that ballot card . I felt an immense surge of power from within me as I slipped my ballot into the box ... Okay, maybe not that dramatic but it's such a privilege to be able to vote.

Are there any other Canadians here who voted today? :tup:

[Byron]

• Back to top

[addyb]

I voted, I always do. And you're right, standing in that voters booth, making your "x" gives you a good feeling. It's great to know that your one vote can make a difference. I'm not going to explain who or why I voted for, I think that's a personal choice, and should be kept that way.

Adam

[Byron]

I voted, I always do. And you're right, standing in that voters booth, making your "x" gives you a good feeling. It's great to know that your one vote can make a difference. I'm not going to explain who or why I voted for, I think that's a personal choice, and should be kept that way.

Adam

Although i respect what you say and yes it is obviously a 'personal choice', i also think there is no shame in wearing your colors on your sleave.

Otherwise this will be a very dull thread, if people just say they voted and feel good about it etc.

It's much more interesting if you give a reason as to your choice (although i don't expect you to).

[Monsieur B]

I can't vote but am taking a keen interesting in the Canadian elections.

Although the Liberals are tainted with some scandals of various sorts they are much more preferable to that slimey Harper, who will no doubt browntongue up to that moron Bush.

Martin is a man that actually cares about the welfare of people.

So my first vote would be Liberal, 2nd preference the Bloc Quebecois.

Why the Bloc? Although i would not want to see the Canada split into two parts, the idea of a sovereign French speaking North American nation is an intriguing one.

Daltons Wendy and The Dove, what do you think about this election.

Byron

Well, I voted for the NDP. I agree with you about Harper being a slimey one and I agree again when you say that Martin actually cares about the welfare of the people but concerning Martin, I think that the Sponsorship Scandal has sort of brought his trust (and ex-PM Chr

[Byron]

Well, I voted for the NDP. I agree with you about Harper being a slimey one and I agree again when you say that Martin actually cares about the welfare of the people but concerning Martin, I think that the Sponsorship Scandal has sort of brought his trust (and ex-PM Chr

Edited by Byron, 24 January 2006 - 04:47 AM.

[Jeff007]

Conservative government have won a minority Government.
Stephen Harper is PM.

[Tinfinger]

Michael Moore is pissed. The liberals are out of power in Canada. Now, it's back to the tough choices for Mr. Moore...one salad bar or two....decisions, decisions....

[Max Zorin]

I was at school all night so I didn't get a chance to vote. If I had, though, it woulda been NDP.

[FelixLeiterCIA]

Ummmmm...This is a James Bond Web site, right???? I was puzzled because I am seeing a discussion of Canada's national elections and am wondering what that has to do with James Bond...But what the heck? As long as we are taliking about it..Glad to see the Canadians woke up and kicked the Liberals out of power.

[homerjbond]

There's room for non-Bond discussions on this website...interesting to see how fellow Bond fans feel about politics.

Good for the people of Canada. Any Canadian celebrities threatening to move out of the country?

[00-FAN008]

So, Stephen Harper is our new Prime Minister of Canada.

Buh...

[Monsieur B]

M Belanger,
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I also like the NDP and its ideals.

Yes "Bloc" does sound a bit militant, maybe they should switch to a slightly more user friendly name. For a party that wants an independent Quebec i am not surprised they are only campaigning in Quebec itself.

The Green Party - I would not personally vote for it as i would direct a protest vote to the NDP first. I am sure a sizable number of votes it receives are protest votes. However i do think that governments around the world have to start taking drastic action in regards to the environment and climate change in order to avoid an environmental catastrophy 50 years from now. I saw on the news the other day that Iceland will be the world's first country to be totally free of fossil fuels in a few years thanks to the use of water for electricity and fuel. Canada could do the same thing. But it's the US and emerging countries in East Asia that have to really implement changes and reduce carbon emmissions, otherwise we are all screwed. So its good that the Green party is there to remind us of these things unlike the Conservative/Republican parties that pander to the interests of a rich and selfish elite.

By the way are is French your first language?

Well, kudos to Iceland . I agree that we all should take more notice to the environment and what kind of affect we are having on it. Rather than simply informing the public about what's happening and suggesting changes (because, let's be absolutely honest, no one really pays those suggestions any mind) and rather make the changes, start ratifying some environmental protection treaties or something. Okay, perhaps it's not as easy as that.

And to answer your question, no French is my second language. I have actually studied it since Grade Five and I'm just finishing Grade Twelve French, six years of Enriched French. Je ne suis pas bilingue compl

[Byron]

Ummmmm...This is a James Bond Web site, right???? I was puzzled because I am seeing a discussion of Canada's national elections and am wondering what that has to do with James Bond...But what the heck? As long as we are taliking about it..Glad to see the Canadians woke up and kicked the Liberals out of power.

Well if you have a closer look, you will see that there are numerous non Bond threads in certain sections eg Superbowl Predictions or US Presidential elections.

[Byron]

Michael Moore is pissed.  The liberals are out of power in Canada.  Now, it's back to the tough choices for Mr. Moore...one salad bar or two....decisions, decisions....

Let's have a closer look at the results:

Conservatives 124 36% of vote
Liberals 103 30%
NDP 29 17%
Bloc Quebec 51 10%

Hmmmm, not much of a victory for Harper is it? Left leaning parties (Libs & NDP) got more seats/ridings than the Cons 132 to 124 or 47% to 36% of the vote. If you look at his share of the vote it is a paltry 36%, some mandate! I would say a large majority of disenchanted Lib voters couldn't stand Harper and voted for the NDP instead.

I can't see the NDP supporting the Cons, so his only way out is getting support from the Bloc Quebecois. I bet there are a lot of French Canadian Bloc voters that can't stand Harper and his Western Province / American centricity.

No doubt he will offer greater autonomy to Quebec as a way of buying their support.

So in conclusion this was no victory for Harper.

[FelixLeiterCIA]

Hey, I have no problem with outside discussions...I was just surprised to see it. Believe me, I am delighted to talk about the Liberals' devastating loss in Canada. May Liberals in Canada become as ineffectual as liberal Democrats in the U.S. Time to let the grown-ups (the Conservatives) take over and do the job right.

[Monsieur B]

Hey, I have no problem with outside discussions...I was just surprised to see it. Believe me, I am delighted to talk about the Liberals' devastating loss in Canada. May Liberals in Canada become as ineffectual as liberal Democrats in the U.S. Time to let the grown-ups (the Conservatives) take over and do the job right.

'Devastating loss'? It was 6%, how is that 'devastating'?

Just for know: On the Conservative ad campaign, they said that the Martin cabinet was "too foreign". What is wrong with having a multicultural cabinet? I don't see anything wrong with that but why do the Conservatives?

Edited by Monsieur B, 25 January 2006 - 10:06 PM.

[FelixLeiterCIA]

It's "devastating" just by virtue of the fact that they lost and there is now a Conservative Prime Minister who will reverse years of anti-Americanism on part of the Canadian government.

[Monsieur B]

But it's a minority government, it's going to be quite difficult for him to 'do the job right' with that sort of government. An example being gay marriage, Harper said that he plans to use the Notwithstanding Clause to bring gay marriage back into Parliament discussion and maybe take away the homosexual's right the marriage. It would be quite difficult to get that past them since he only has 6% more seats than the Liberals who made it legal in the first place.

And I would like to ask how you see the Canadian government as being 'anti-American'?

Edited by Monsieur B, 25 January 2006 - 10:12 PM.

[FelixLeiterCIA]

Martin's whole campaign, especially in the last desperate days, was an appeal to anti-Americanism. As The New York Time's put it, "A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration." Martin's refusal to step up to the plate and assist the U.S. in the liberation of Iraq was also a sign of Martin's anti-Americanism. Fortunately, Harper has said that he supported the liberation of Iraq (although he does say that Canada is not militarily strong enough to assist in the War on Terror in any meaningful way, so I do not expect an influx of Canadian help in Iraq or Afghanistan) and he also wisely opposes the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has also said that he would reverse Martin's strong (and baffling) opposition to a joint U.S.-Canada missile defense system.

The Liberals in Canada (and in the U.S.) can try to spin these election results all they want, but the fact is that they suffered a serious setback this week and the Conservatives are going to changes things for the better.

[Dalton's Wendy]

Let's have a closer look at the results:

Conservatives 124 36% of vote
Liberals      103 30%
NDP            29 17%
Bloc Quebec    51 10%

Hmmmm, not much of a victory for Harper is it? Left leaning parties (Libs & NDP) got more seats/ridings than the Cons 132 to 124 or 47% to 36% of the vote. If you look at his share of the vote it is a paltry 36%, some mandate! I would say a large majority of disenchanted Lib voters couldn't stand Harper and voted for the NDP instead.

I can't see the NDP supporting the Cons, so his only way out is getting support from the Bloc Quebecois. I bet there are a lot of French Canadian Bloc voters that can't stand Harper and his Western Province / American centricity.

No doubt he will offer greater autonomy to Quebec as a way of buying their support.

So in conclusion this was no victory for Harper.

Sorry to be so late in replying to this thread and your request, Byron; I did not even realize this topic was being discussed here.

I think everyone has presented valid opinions, but I think that your last post quoted herein is the best summation of the situation:

"If you look at his share of the vote it is a paltry 36%, some mandate! I would say a large majority of disenchanted Lib voters couldn't stand Harper and voted for the NDP instead."

No, it is not a mandate, and I would say that, had Mr. Martin not stepped down immediately following the election, the likelihood of Mr. Harper's government lasting more than eighteen months would be minimal. However, Mr. Martin's announcement changes things quite a bit for the Liberal party, as their is no clear heir-apparent.

One glaring problem with the Conservative victory stands out: their party did not win one riding in either of Canada's three major cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. In fact, Toronto, and its adjoining cities of Brampton and Mississauga, are, with the exception of four ridings, solid Liberal red!!!! Twenty out of twenty-three seats in Toronto are Liberal; the remaining three went NDP.

What does this mean, aside from the standpoint of being an interesting fact on the urban view of the new ruling party? It means that there will not be one cabinet minister who hails from the country's three greatest centres of population. A bit ludicrous, I should say.

[triviachamp]

One glaring problem with the Conservative victory stands out: their party did not win one riding in either of Canada's three major cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. In fact, Toronto, and its adjoining cities of Brampton and Mississauga, are, with the exception of four ridings, solid Liberal red!!!! Twenty out of twenty-three seats in Toronto are Liberal; the remaining three went NDP.

What does this mean, aside from the standpoint of being an interesting fact on the urban view of the new ruling party? It means that there will not be one cabinet minister who hails from the country's three greatest centres of population. A bit ludicrous, I should say.

Oh Brother two more years of New Deal for Cities and David Miller bellowing. Anyway these three biggest cities have shown boundless arrogance and mindless adoration for the Liberals so that is their problem. Oh and there are more cities in Canada than those three. Also all of those Liberal MPs sure helped the Waterfront haven't they?

Now we see that the Liberals are an Ontario party. So much for the "National Party" and the party that can Stop Separatists.

It looks like the New Leader of the Natural Governing Party and the Next Prime Minister (Ugh) will be either a uniligual former Conservative, a Supporter of the War in Iraq who has barely lived in Canada and is an Ontarian and a former Maritime PM who killed Meech Lake. Election 2007 (or 2008?) will be interesting unless the Liberals can find a Quebecer.

Anyway these results show a lot of regional problems with Canada. However self righteous whining by Torontonians will not make it better.

Trudeau never got a majority of the vote. Nor Chretien.

Edited by triviachamp, 29 January 2006 - 05:29 AM.

[triviachamp]

Interestingly Canadian Parliament is looking a lot like UK Parliament before WWI. Often in the late 19th and pre-WWI UK the Liberals and Conservatives proved unable to win a majority in the House of Commons and the Irish Nationalists held the balance of power. And there was the Labour Party as well. Switch the Irish for the Bloc and NDP for Labour and we got Canada right now. Of course we all know what happened to Ireland soon after...

[Dalton's Wendy]

One glaring problem with the Conservative victory stands out: their party did not win one riding in either of Canada's three major cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. In fact, Toronto, and its adjoining cities of Brampton and Mississauga, are, with the exception of four ridings, solid Liberal red!!!! Twenty out of twenty-three seats in Toronto are Liberal; the remaining three went NDP.

What does this mean, aside from the standpoint of being an interesting fact on the urban view of the new ruling party? It means that there will not be one cabinet minister who hails from the country's three greatest centres of population. A bit ludicrous, I should say.

Oh Brother two more years of New Deal for Cities and David Miller bellowing.Anyway these three biggest cities have shown boundless arrogance and mindless adoration for the Liberals so that is their problem. Oh and there are more cities in Canada than those three.

I think, my friend, that when the economy which supports the remainder of the country is centred in those three cities, then those three cities should be represented in the Cabinet.

It would be nice to think that the rural smaller centres make equal contributions to the national gross product, but the plain fact of the matter is that they do not.

As someone who lives in one of those cities, you should be a bit more concerned about their interests. Perhaps the populace of these cities support the Liberals due to the fact that the Liberals look after their interests.

Now we see that the Liberals are an Ontario party.

No, they also carried the cities of Montreal and Vancouver, as well as Newfoundland, Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, most of Nova Scotia, a good hunk of Manitoba, and all of the Yukon and Nunavut.

So much for the "National Party" and the party that can Stop Separatists.

As they have, ever since the mess began in 1967.

It looks like the New Leader of the Natural Governing Party and the Next Prime Minister (Ugh) will be either a uniligual former Conservative, a Supporter of the War in Iraq who has barely lived in Canada and is an Ontarian and a former Maritime PM who killed Meech Lake.  Election 2007 (or 2008?) will be interesting unless the Liberals can find a Quebecer.

Maybe you should run!

Anyway these results show a lot of regional problems with Canada. However self righteous whining by Torontonians will not make it better. 

Neither will complaining by someone who has no experience in dealing with government, management, employees, unions, bureaucracies, or business.

[triviachamp]

Perhaps the populace of these cities support the Liberals due to the fact that the Liberals look after their interests.

Well where's that Waterfront then?
Unless you consider "giving them lots of money to make them vote for you" to be having their "interests" in mind then you are right.
Or don't forget making policies to benefit TO and Montreal at the expense of the other parts of the country.

No, they also carried the cities of Montreal and Vancouver, as well as Newfoundland, Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, most of Nova Scotia, a good hunk of Manitoba, and all of the Yukon and Nunavut.

Over half of the Liberal caucus has come from Ontario for the past six elections.
Yukon? Nunavut? The Maritimes? Hardly the Engine of Our Nation!
Good Hunk of Manitoba? 3 seats out of 14.

Neither will complaining by someone who has no experience in dealing with government, management, employees, unions, bureaucracies, or business.

Sigh. No offense Wendy (Canadian Politics really riles me up alas ) but I dislike this attitude. Rather arrogant and counterproductive IMO. Well I haven't been Prime Minister so I guess I can't criticize him right?

Edited by triviachamp, 29 January 2006 - 08:21 AM.

[Dalton's Wendy]

Perhaps the populace of these cities support the Liberals due to the fact that the Liberals look after their interests.

Well where's that Waterfront then?  
Unless you consider "giving them lots of money to make them vote for you" to be having their "interests" in mind then you are right. 
Or don't forget making policies to benefit TO and Montreal at the expense of the other parts of the country.

Again, those two cities as well as Vancouver are the engine that runs and subsidizes the country. Mr. Harper conceded as much in his election night speech, referring to Ontario as the economic heartland of the country.

]No, they also carried the cities of Montreal and Vancouver, as well as Newfoundland, Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, most of Nova Scotia, a good hunk of Manitoba, and all of the Yukon and Nunavut.

Yukon? Nunavut? The Maritimes? Hardly the Engine of Our Nation! 
Good Hunk of Manitoba? 3 seats out of 14. 

Of course they are not the engine of the nation. You were the one who referred to the Liberals as an Ontario party; I merely pointed out that while their base of power may be Ontario, their popularity extends from one end of the country to the other, to areas that are hardly economic goldmines or population centres.

]Neither will complaining by someone who has no experience in dealing with government, management, employees, unions, bureaucracies, or business.

Sigh. No offense Wendy (Canadian Politics really riles me up alas ) but I dislike this attitude. Rather arrogant and counterproductive IMO. Well I haven't been Prime Minister so I guess I can't criticize him right? 

By all means you may criticize him. However, it is a simple thing to be an armchair critic of the guy who is at the top of the heap. Running that heap is one heck of a lot more difficult.

And when I said, "Maybe you should run" in my previous post, perhaps I was not being entirely sarcastic. Perhaps one day you should enter politics. Personally, I have spent enough time in business (to which politics, is, after all, very similar) and I can tell you from those years of experience how difficult it actually is to handle and appease a multitude of warring factions and "special interest" groups, all at the same time. One tends to negotiate first and foremost with the largest and most powerful of these factions and groups, which is, in the case of this thread, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

Nevertheless, attitudes such as this:
"Oh Brother two more years of New Deal for Cities and David Miller bellowing. Anyway these three biggest cities have shown boundless arrogance and mindless adoration for the Liberals so that is their problem."
do little to solve anything.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives won 124 seats with a popular vote of 36.3%, compared to the Liberals carrying 103 seats, and a popular vote of 30.1%. Hardly a mandate for change for the Conservatives; hardly a gross repudiation of the Liberals.

Let's see what the Progressive Conservative Reform Alliance party does.

[Dalton's Wendy]

[quote name='triviachamp' date='29 January 2006 - 03:20']Unless you consider "giving them lots of money to make them vote for you" to be having their "interests" in mind then you are right.

[triviachamp]

It's only the poor people suffering, anyway. 

So me and you, Rosedale and Bay Street are all poor? Can you say "Strawman"?

The Liberals have pledged for 30 years to build the waterfront and what has happened? Nothing.

The city is experiencing what happens when you overspend and expect the federal government to bail you out. Not a very good budgetary policy.

And why should over parts of the country fund the TTC?

Child Care? Why should other people fund the raising of other people's children? Why should the government be the parent? Why can't people decide to raise their children the way they want? Anyway public childcare will always be in perpetual crisis like healthcare.

Anyway one of the reasons Toronto is the "Engine of the Country" is because of government policies since Confederation designed to benefit Toronto. They include Protectionism, railroad rates, NEP, Auto Industry exemption from Kyoto, CanCon, arts, etc.

[Byron]

Child Care? Why should other people fund the raising of other people's children? Why should the government be the parent? Why can't people decide to raise their children the way they want? Anyway public childcare will always be in perpetual crisis like healthcare.

I strongly disagree with your above statement. Why should i fund a war in Iraq? or a completely pointless missile defence shield?

I believe it is the responsibility of all governments to look after the welfare of their citizens and that should include free (or at least subsidised) healthcare, education (inc childcare) and transport amongst other things instead of spending billions killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

My nightmare is waking up and finding myself sick and without health insurance in the US of A. I would die on the street. Or coming from a poor family and not being able to attend university / college. Poverty breeds poverty and without government assistance the cycle is hard to break.

Let's hope that never happens to Canada or other countries were individualism and greed have not completely taken over.

Edited by Byron, 29 January 2006 - 11:53 PM.