Conservative Government wins with minority for Canada

[Wolfcp11]

Well, there you got it

125 Conservative
105 Liberal
51 Bloc Quebecious
29 NDP
1 Other

Yay

[Elu Barcino]

Is it possible to have coalition governments in Canada?

[Wolfcp11]

Aye, there can be.

[Darth Wong]

If only it was possible to do politics a la carte, ie- to pick and choose items from all of the different parties' platforms rather than having to select from a few unpalatable package deals.

Areas where I agree with the Liberals: gay marriage, staying out of Iraq, abortion rights, keep the government's nose out of the sex lives of private citizens, maintain balanced budgets, cut income tax rather than the GST.

Areas where I agree with the Conservatives: revamp the Young Offender's Act, remove the government day-care program and replace it with a child-care tax credit (albeit one considerably larger than the pittance they're talking about), dump the expensive gun registry program.

Areas where I agree with the NDP: put more money into civic infrastructure, public transit in the big cities, and federal subsidies for social programs particularly in underprivileged neighbourhoods so we don't end up with US-style ghettos in our major civic centres.

Areas where I agree with the Bloc Quebecois: none.

[Aristophanes]

If only it was possible to do politics a la carte, ie- to pick and choose items from all of the different parties' platforms rather than having to select from a few unpalatable package deals.

Areas where I agree with the Liberals: gay marriage, staying out of Iraq, abortion rights, keep the government's nose out of the sex lives of private citizens, maintain balanced budgets, cut income tax rather than the GST.

Areas where I agree with the Conservatives: revamp the Young Offender's Act, remove the government day-care program and replace it with a child-care tax credit (albeit one considerably larger than the pittance they're talking about), dump the expensive gun registry program.

Areas where I agree with the NDP: put more money into civic infrastructure, public transit in the big cities, and federal subsidies for social programs particularly in underprivileged neighbourhoods so we don't end up with US-style ghettos in our major civic centres.

Areas where I agree with the Bloc Quebecois: none.

I'm sure you WOULDN'T be fascinated to learn that most American ghettoes, particularly those in the North East, such as the 'projects' of Chicago, Boston, Washington, Phili, Pittsburgh, NYC, etc... are the direct result of government so-called 'social spending', and ironically, spending on 'infrastructure' and public transportation too. Boy, way to strike out!!!

It should be fairly intuitive to most people that when governments build subsidized housing apartment complexes, and then put all the 'disadvantaged'[unemployed, poor, homeless] together in them, the mix is definitely to the detriment of that neighbourhood, nor should we understate the effect the destruction of black neighbourhoods in major cities, to make way for 'infrastructure', had on social 'issues'. To further demonstrate big-government wisdom, the New York City killed Brooklyn's bus service, a black-run private transport company which was extremely successful and operated throughout the black neighbourhoods.

Government construction of bigger and bigger road systems, and more dispersed road patterns have spelt the end of public bus transportation, a system which is inefficient no matter where, but even less efficient where population density is atrophied. Yes public transportation can be 'successful' on a comparative basis: when you compare LA's to Toronto's, Toronto appears 'successful': when you compare Vancouver to Saskatoon, Vancouver appears 'successful', but that merely clouds the problem by ignoring underlying factors such as population density, distribution, and convoluted roads.
Infrastructure is not an end unto itself. Social spending[subsidized housing, welfare, medicaid] tends to perpetuate deep-seated problems, and public transport is more expensive than private means.[arguably far more inefficient as well]

[Darth Wong]

I'm sure you WOULDN'T be fascinated to learn that most American ghettoes, particularly those in the North East, such as the 'projects' of Chicago, Boston, Washington, Phili, Pittsburgh, NYC, etc... are the direct result of government so-called 'social spending', and ironically, spending on 'infrastructure' and public transportation too. Boy, way to strike out!!!

No, they're not. All of those areas have woefully underfunded infrastructure, and right-wingers think that the problem would go away if they gave them even less, with no supporting logic at all.

It should be fairly intuitive to most people that when governments build subsidized housing apartment complexes, and then put all the 'disadvantaged'[unemployed, poor, homeless] together in them, the mix is definitely to the detriment of that neighbourhood, nor should we understate the effect the destruction of black neighbourhoods in major cities, to make way for 'infrastructure', had on social 'issues'.

That's why a more intelligent strategy distributes low-income housing around the city rather than concentrating it into ghetto areas where the inhabitants can be conveniently ignored and forgotten by the rest of society until the area explodes into violence.

To further demonstrate big-government wisdom, the New York City killed Brooklyn's bus service, a black-run private transport company which was extremely successful and operated throughout the black neighbourhoods.

What did it replace it with, and how could it simply "kill" a private company through edict?

Government construction of bigger and bigger road systems, and more dispersed road patterns have spelt the end of public bus transportation, a system which is inefficient no matter where, but even less efficient where population density is atrophied.

And this argument has what to do with major cities? Oh yes, absolutely nothing.

Yes public transportation can be 'successful' on a comparative basis: when you compare LA's to Toronto's, Toronto appears 'successful': when you compare Vancouver to Saskatoon, Vancouver appears 'successful', but that merely clouds the problem by ignoring underlying factors such as population density, distribution, and convoluted roads.

Hardly, since no one is suggesting that these programs be extended to rural areas where population density is low.

Infrastructure is not an end unto itself. Social spending[subsidized housing, welfare, medicaid] tends to perpetuate deep-seated problems, and public transport is more expensive than private means.[arguably far more inefficient as well]

The idea that making the poor even poorer will somehow magically make them all capable of holding full-time jobs is pure right-wing fantasy.

[Aristophanes]

No, they're not. All of those areas have woefully underfunded infrastructure, and right-wingers think that the problem would go away if they gave them even less, with no supporting logic at all.

We'd better be clear on what we mean by infrastructure: I mean roads, highways, bridges, tangible, concrete objects used to facilitate the movement of people and goods.
By my definition, the level of infrastructure in black communities was definitely high enough to not be an impediment to economic growth. It is fallacious to believe that, in an urban environment, one less lane on a street in one particular burb, will have more impact on economic development than widespread subsidy of sedentary lifestyle.

That's why a more intelligent strategy distributes low-income housing around the city rather than concentrating it into ghetto areas where the inhabitants can be conveniently ignored and forgotten by the rest of society until the area explodes into violence.

That extremely 'intelligent' strategy also drives rental prices up city-wide, housing prices down in neighbourhoods where housing is located, and is quite as arbitrary as former policy. Subsidized housing discourages the construction of new tenements by private investors.

What did it replace it with, and how could it simply "kill" a private company through edict?

The New York City transit authority. Oh c'mon, you're fine with taking private property in the form of taxation and inflationary policies, but you shrink at seizing property by other means? Seriously.

And this argument has what to do with major cities? Oh yes, absolutely nothing.

Apparently you've never heard of suburbs. Maybe you don't live in a city, but freeways, highways, and suburban roads all lead to reduced population density and increased convolution. Consider LA for example: People don't walk in that city, they drive.[except in limited parts of downtown]

The idea that making the poor even poorer will somehow magically make them all capable of holding full-time jobs is pure right-wing fantasy.

The poor poorer? No one suggested that. What was suggested is that economic growth stimulated by lower taxes/regulation will decrease the number of people suffering from structural unemployment. In addition, it was also suggested that many people on welfare could work, and that there are jobs available presently. There's a reason why there are 20 000 000 Latinos in the States- it's because there are jobs, you just have to be willing to work.
It was also suggested that charity would take care of the now very much shrunken ranks of the poor.

[Francisco Montana]

I actually watched most of the returns come in on CSPAN last night. It was, umm, educational to say the least.

You should have seen the San Francisco Doom and Gloom Chronicle today. It was burried on the 4th page. You think it would have been on the 4th page had a liberal taken power after 12 years in the wilderness?

[Darth Wong]

We'd better be clear on what we mean by infrastructure: I mean roads, highways, bridges, tangible, concrete objects used to facilitate the movement of people and goods.

I guess schools don't count in your world.

By my definition, the level of infrastructure in black communities was definitely high enough to not be an impediment to economic growth. It is fallacious to believe that, in an urban environment, one less lane on a street in one particular burb, will have more impact on economic development than widespread subsidy of sedentary lifestyle.

Of course, who needs a well-educated populace in order to have a thriving economy? Give them roads and you're done!

That extremely 'intelligent' strategy also drives rental prices up city-wide, housing prices down in neighbourhoods where housing is located, and is quite as arbitrary as former policy. Subsidized housing discourages the construction of new tenements by private investors.

Funny how it works fine in implementation despite your claims to the contrary.

The New York City transit authority. Oh c'mon, you're fine with taking private property in the form of taxation and inflationary policies, but you shrink at seizing property by other means? Seriously.

Why don't you elaborate, since that still doesn't make any sense. How is the NYC transit authority allowed to seize buses away from private companies? Are you saying that they criminalized private busing companies?

Apparently you've never heard of suburbs. Maybe you don't live in a city, but freeways, highways, and suburban roads all lead to reduced population density and increased convolution. Consider LA for example: People don't walk in that city, they drive.[except in limited parts of downtown]

I do live in a city, and I have been to Los Angeles, and better public transit systems make cities better. You have said nothing to contradict this.

The poor poorer? No one suggested that.

Eliminating welfare and "replacing" it with charity (which would produce much less money especially in times of economic depression when it's needed the most) would do that, and that was the subject under discussion. Please try to stay on topic.

What was suggested is that economic growth stimulated by lower taxes/regulation will decrease the number of people suffering from structural unemployment.

Yeah, all those kids in ghettoes who got a worthless education because of crappy schools will suddenly be qualified for good jobs with upward mobility if you lower taxes. That's some special kind of magic you've got there.

In addition, it was also suggested that many people on welfare could work, and that there are jobs available presently. There's a reason why there are 20 000 000 Latinos in the States- it's because there are jobs, you just have to be willing to work.

Menial jobs with zero upward mobility. The creation of a dead-end underclass is a serious problem in society, especially if that underclass is racially correlated because that will generate ethnic tension.

It was also suggested that charity would take care of the now very much shrunken ranks of the poor.

Many things can be "suggested" by those living in fantasyland. But this started because somebody objected to me stating that we need to invest more in social programs and infrastructure for inner-city areas, and I've heard jack squat in terms of people explaining why those ideas would not help. All I've heard is that the same laissez-faire policies which led to the creation of horrendous ghetto areas like the ones in Detroit should be done in Canada, but on an even more extreme level. Because after all, we all know that if a little bit of something causes a catastrophe, then a LOT of that same thing will be EVEN BETTER!

Every sociological study of ambition, success, and achievement in society has indicated that there is an optimum level of opportunity and privilege which makes people work hard to achieve more. And that optimum level is somewhere in the middle class. When people are severely underprivileged, they lose hope. And when you lose hope, you don't bother trying. Taking away even more from these people will not "kick their asses into gear" as so many right-wingers believe; it will only drive them deeper into criminality and despair.

[Freddie]

Is there no Socialist or Communists in Canada? Or is the left only represented by the libreals?

[Darth Wong]

The NDP is more socialistic than the Liberals. There's also a Communist and Marxist party but no one takes them seriously because they're nuts. The NDP actually moved quite a bit to the right after Bob Rae took power in Ontario and almost demolished our economy. They're still "left of centre" but they're not as radical as they used to be. The sweet taste of power soon turned to the bitter taste of reality when they realized that some of their pet ideas just wouldn't work in the real world.

[Admiral Nelson]

I love today's Globe and Mail headline:

Harper's Thin Blue Line

[Fianóglach]

The NDP would like you to think they are communists. I remember going to talk at an NDP fund raiser, they called eachother comrade, and sold t shirts that displayed some pretty soviet looking Union symbols and slogans. And that kind of turned me off the Calgary NDP.

I'm glad Harper got in, maybe now I wont have to go through all these headaches to sell all my guns before I move back to the UK. Also, one of the main reasons I voted for harper is I was a serving member in the Army Reserve, and have had enough of Liberal neglect of our Armed Forces. Canada once had a strong military, and now we have sub-par equipment, not enough money or incentives to attract young men and women to pursue a career in the CF. All the older members are retiring soon, and it will be a bloody mess, unless we can get some more manpower. The Men and women who go overseas deserve the best, and they are not getting it. Hopefully Harper will fix this.

[Eric]

The NDP would like you to think they are communists. I remember going to talk at an NDP fund raiser, they called eachother comrade, and sold t shirts that displayed some pretty soviet looking Union symbols and slogans. And that kind of turned me off the Calgary NDP.

I'm glad Harper got in, maybe now I wont have to go through all these headaches to sell all my guns before I move back to the UK. Also, one of the main reasons I voted for harper is I was a serving member in the Army Reserve, and have had enough of Liberal neglect of our Armed Forces. Canada once had a strong military, and now we have sub-par equipment, not enough money or incentives to attract young men and women to pursue a career in the CF. All the older members are retiring soon, and it will be a bloody mess, unless we can get some more manpower. The Men and women who go overseas deserve the best, and they are not getting it. Hopefully Harper will fix this.

Nah, he's too concerned with making sure those evil homosexuals can't marry :wink: Seriously though, I wouldn't look to the Conservatives to save our military, remember it was a Conservative PM who cancelled the Avro Arrow. But, then again, Harper isn't really a Conservative, he's a Alliance Reformer, the leader of quite possibly the most fundementalist and fanatical of all Christian groups in Canada. He [Stephen Harper] takes the Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts.

[Admiral Nelson]

He [Steven Harper] takes the Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts.

lol! :laughing:

[Fenris]

Nah, he's too concerned with making sure those evil homosexuals can't marry :wink: Seriously though, I wouldn't look to the Conservatives to save our military, remember it was a Conservative PM who cancelled the Avro Arrow. But, then again, Harper isn't really a Conservative, he's a Alliance Reformer, the leader of quite possibly the most fundementalist and fanatical of all Christian groups in Canada. He takes the Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts.

So very very true.

[Mr.Flint]

Well, there you got it

125 Conservative
105 Liberal
51 Bloc Quebecious
29 NDP
1 Other

Yay

Your numbers are wrong
its
124
103
51
29
1

[Fenris]

Bloc in the coalition government... wow that will be pretty interesting

[Last Roman]

Your numbers are wrong
its
124
103
51
29
1

k what do these numbers stand for exactly, does Canada have a electoral college? As for percentages I have seen

Conservatives: 36%, Liberals: 30%, NDP: 17% and the BQ: 10%

[gigagaia]

Canada is a first-past the post Westminster style sytem.
It has a queen (represented by the governer general 5-7 year terms appointed), a government appointed from the house of commons, and a legislature elected from ridings. It works almost exactly like Britain's does, hence the fact that popular vote is not important in deciding the composition of the government.

The poor poorer? No one suggested that. What was suggested is that economic growth stimulated by lower taxes/regulation will decrease the number of people suffering from structural unemployment.

Just lower taxes/regulation has not been proven to achieve the desired affects you so mention. Usually an "unfair" tax cut (favouring the lower and middle classes) tends to help increase consumer spending, but there are many other ways to stimulate the economy as well you know. Government spending is one.