Vote Liberal

Pay, pay, pay but Save the Planet - well not so much.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Manitoba/2008/10/10/7038881-sun.html

What would you have done?

Err - What would I have done when? Now? Err - What would I do next week? We're going to raise taxes because we have to implement our programme to help the environment and give a good life for all...Err, what was the question, again? Ha, ha, please? What's the date? Next week or the first thirty days? You mean two and a half years ago? Let's start again. Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv-5biChVrA

Luke

Actually I mentioned NDP to Libs in the other thread.

My comment above was on the link I provided, which is battleground ridings, and in that article its clear that in those particular ridings the movement is from Cons to Libs.

Frank

"Hitler wasn't a socialist and neither were his policies."

NA-ZI = National-sozialismus (National Socialism)

Next you'll be telling me that the government buying $25B of mortgages isn't socialism.

spark - that's a linguistic anomoly.

You're joking, right?

Hitler was a fascist from the word go.

His chief opponents were German socialists.

I'm not sure what purchasing 25Billion of 'perfectly good healthy' mortgages is...but I know for sure it's NOT socialism.

Corportate welfare? Now that's another matter.

It also goes a long way toward putting the lie to Harper's claim that everything is coming up roses though.

spark

Okay, and the NDP are the only "new" party and the only "democratic" party.

Don't get your history from sound-bites.

G West

Socialism is ultimately a tendancy towards totalitarianism - be it National Socialism or Communism. I agree with you that Hitler was fascist, but that does not immediately rule out socialism.

I've said it before that this banking crisis right now is a big move by the Fed to move towards a socialist one world government - controlled by the banks. True capitalism means individualism and a respect for property rights which is against the banks desire for full power and control. Heck, all of the neo-cons are calling for a one world bank right now. Even the Italian PM is calling for all stock markets to be shut down next week so that they can re-write the banking system.

Even if you own your own home, it will be claimed by the state because hyper-inflation will make the taxes unpayable.

Have you read the fantastic book "The road to Jekyll Island" by any chance?

... sorry, "The creature

... sorry, "The creature from Jekyll Island"

socialist: "the stage

socialist: "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

- The socialization of these mortgages is socialist in that it uses our tax dollars to buy bad debts. It is the complete opposite of free market capitalism whereby a bad debt would be a write off. Instead the debt has been 'socialized', we are told, for the greater good of the collective.

NAZI

"But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

spark

Socialism is not a tendency towards totalitarianism and nor does capitalism and individualism go hand in hand. Where do you get this stuff?

Spanish Civil War : The Republican government supported by socialists, communists, anarchists, liberals etc is destroyed by capitalists, conservatives, monarchists and fascists with direct support from Hitler and Mussolini. The result is a totalitarian state. Can you explain that?

And no I've never heard of Jekyll Island.

spark

You're getting your vies on socialism from Hitler's propaganda minister? Are you a neo-Nazi?

You've been reported as

You've been reported as offensive Frank. That was bang out of order.

If you're short sighted enough to not see where massive tax payer handouts to private institutions is leading us, then you deserve everything you get.

If you lose your house and your retirement money, the government is giving you food stamps and there is a one world socialist dictatorship government, and finally you want to open your mind and understand how it came about, and what was motivating the moves, I suggest you read the book. Until then I suppose you can bask in your own self deluded world.

Luke

The campaign ends in 3 days, what's the point of Mustel doing a poll?

on the other hand, there is

on the other hand, there is a way for even lazy people to learn the truth...

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&q=deluded&cr=countryCA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=jekyll%20island&hl=en&emb=0

spark

You call Hitler a socialist, say socialism leads to totalitarianism, you quote Hitler's minister of propaganda as your source and get offended when I mention it? Ya, whatever.

And thanks for the warning of me getting what I deserve.

On paranoia

Geez, Sparky, I wish you'd stop finding a Commonist hiding behind every door - you're giving Fascism a bad name.

Communists behind every door

What was the old Monty Python skit, "Brezhnev and Kosygin in the kitchen eating my wife's jam"?

Frank

"and get offended when I mention it? "

Im not offended. I do however point out that personal attacks, e.g. implying someone is a neo-nazi, is against the rules in this forum.

Again, if you want to broaden your mind, try watching the video.

spark

I didn't imply anything, I came right out and asked you a direct question based on the fact you were quoting Hitler's propaganda minister.

As the Beatles would say "If you go around carrying pictures of Chairman Mao..."

Frank that is quite

Frank that is quite logically bereft, even by your standards.

On the same rationale, I could imply that since you were talking badly of Harper, that you were a conservative. It doesn't make sense.

Why do both USSR and Nazi have Socialist in their name?

Because they both have socialist roots and are very close to being the same thing in practice. Academics, who like to build perfect model theories, usually place Communism and Fascism at opposite ends of the political scale. But that misrepresents reality.

Fascism grew out of Italian socialism. (Mussolini initially declared it to be a movement of the left.) And Marxism came from German socialism.

There are some deviations. For example, in the Nazi prevision of Fascism, "race" is the dynamic that propels the world while it is "class" in the Stalinist prevision of Communism. Thus, Hitler was able to "justify" murdering millions of "racial enemies" (Jews) and Stalin did the same to millions of "class enemies" (Kulaks).

The eminent scholar Ludwig Von Mises was one of the first to answer your question.

Frank

I think I see where we are getting our wires crossed. Is it the case that you think socialism is a good thing?

I was pointing it out as a bad thing you see.

I agree with Von Mises and the Austrian School of economics rather than socialism. It says that socialism means ultimately taking from someone else and giving to another. Inevitably this type of government can be coopted by special interests, much like we see today, where money is taken from the masses and given to the banks etc. I do not agree with that stance, if you do, that's your own prerogative.

spark

"On the same rationale, I could imply that since you were talking badly of Harper, that you were a conservative. It doesn't make sense."

You weren't talking badly of Nazis, you were quoting one of them as an authority on socialism, an ideology the speaker's country was at war with at the time.

As for academics putting socialism and fascism at opposite ends, why do you think they do that? I think its because they are.

What you're doing is calling anything authoritarian, socialist. Which isn't true. You can have an authoritarian government that is socialist, ie the USSR but you can also have a capitalist government that is authoritarian, ie Chile under Pinochet, Spain under Franco, Nicaragua under Somoza, Haiti under Duvallier, and some would say, China right now.

ME2

"Paranoia" has given me a 28% increase in my investments this month.

How is your realism doing for you?

spark

"Is it the case that you think socialism is a good thing?"

Yes

I assume you are against taxation then as its taking money from people and giving it to others.

So when Harper takes royalties from the tar sands and uses it to reduce the taxes on corporations you call that socialism?

Frank

"You weren't talking badly of Nazis" - yes I was - I was calling them socialists. Which is bad if you think socialism is bad, which I guess you don't. Perhapz it iz you zat has more in common with ze Neo-nazis?

spark

Do you ever read any real history or political philosophy or just unknown loonies with concrete fallout shelters in Idaho?

Frank and G West

This video from Ludwig Von Mises institute is called:

"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&resnum=0&q=prerogative&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=socialism%20totalitarianism&hl=en&emb=0

spark

I know more countries that have had authoritarian capitalist governments than so-called authoritarian socialist governments.

And according to you, Harper is a non-authoritarian socialist.

von Mises

As far as old Ludwig goes, he's so far to the Right that I'm sure everyone looked left-wing. Fortunately nobody in the rest of the world looks to Ludwig for political analysis.

"Do you ever read any real

"Do you ever read any real history or political philosophy or just unknown loonies with concrete fallout shelters in Idaho?"

So you're saying I can't teach an old dog new tricks?

Ok, you're right, I will believe all newspaper stories, as it is common knowledge. I will not research any other possibilities - anything other than common knowledge is 'loonie'.

The economy is fine. It happened by 'accident'. They're calling for a world restructuring of banking by 'accident'. Fiat currencies are great. Banks did not conspire to create the Federal reserve in America in 1913. The weapons of mass distruction existed. We are in Afghanistan because of the 'terrorists'. Henry Paulson wasn't the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Canada and the US didn't sign an agreement on Feb 14th to allow troops on each others soil. FEMA centres don't exist. Congressman Brad Sherman did not announce that representatives were threatened with Nationwide martial law if they didn't pass the $700B bailout. Pension funds haven't lost 30% this year. The government isn't using our money to bail out the banks. The SPP doesn't exist. Nafta is good for the Canadian economy. Privatization is awesome - it represents the best value for taxpayer dollars. Inflation is good.

It's all ok Frank, because I believe in the mainstream.

spark.1234

I disagree - and so do all my socialist friends in Europe.

Whatever keeps you warm at night though!

"As far as old Ludwig goes,

"As far as old Ludwig goes, he's so far to the Right that I'm sure everyone looked left-wing. Fortunately nobody in the rest of the world looks to Ludwig for political analysis."

Your research into the Von Mises institute goes back far does it Frank? Or I suspect as far as Google about 5 minutes ago.

Research

I'd never heard of him. Which means he's a nobody. Would you like me to dig up more obscure political philosophers and present their arguments to you as the unvarnished truth?

And why not check out a book on the history of the Spanish Civil War before you go telling everyone that the fascists were socialists.

"I'd never heard of him."

"I'd never heard of him."

Forgive me if I take your in depth analysis of the Austrian School of economics with a pinch of salt then.

Did you watch the 8 minute video which answers your fascism/socialism question?

Here is the link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkJpnj2op78

Frank

"Which means he's a nobody."

Tell that to the 15% of American that voted for Ron Paul, who by the way is a strong advocate of the Austrian School of economics and happens to be the ranking member of the domestic and International monetary policy in the US. Just a nobody, right Frank.

spark

Ron Paul is supported by 15% of Americans?

As for the Austian school. It was the ideas of people like that that got us into the current mess. Friedman and Hayak and probably your Ludwig.

Glad you asked Frank. It

Glad you asked Frank.

It is pricely the opposite of what the Austrian school proposes that caused this mess. It certainly was not free markets. It certainly wasn't capitalism.

It was the fundamentals of banking in this country. At a basic level, it was the artificial lowering of interest rates by the private central banks, which made credit 'too cheap'. This fueled debt like never before. This would not have happened in a free market, because the interest rate would not be dictated by a private institution and therefore could not be artificially lowered.

The Federal Reserve in the US, is not Federal. It is a group of banks owned by Rockefeller, Warberg, Rothschild and others. As of last week they now have unlimited access to taxpayer funds. This is not capitalism or free markets.

Just as the central bank in this country can do, they can create money out of thin air, which is immediately inflationary. That hurts you and me by the way. Lowering the interest rate pumps more money into the system, which is inflationary. CIBC, RBC etc.. only hold about 2% of the money they have lent out, because of fractional reserve banking. That means if 3% of all people in Canada wanted to take their money out, they wouldn't be able to. The bank would go bust. This is not free markets. It is anything but.

And yes, Ron Paul got 15% of the total vote. He also raised the most donation money of any Republican candidate, and all democrats apart from Hillary and Obama. That was mainly from individuals and not from corporations like the others.

Ron Paul

How do you know he got 15% of the vote since they haven't had the election yet?

ABD.

Neat clip from John Ivison's piece in the Post:

"Mr. Dion even seems to be disconnected from his own platform. Take his contention that he would accelerate investment in infrastructure. “There is no time to waste, we need shovels in the ground... we need to create jobs now. Well paid jobs, good jobs, green jobs, new jobs.”

Does this mean a Rooseveltian New Deal -- a call to arms in which the government would fund a vast new program of public works? That was the impression given but that’s not the reality, according to page 66 of the Liberal platform, in which Mr. Dion pledges to spend $17.6-billion on infrastructure over the next four years -- precisely the same amount as the Conservatives.

Mr. Dion often throws out favourable reference to European countries that have gone green but here again, reality bursts his bubble. The Liberal leader’s stock answers to questions about the wisdom of his Green Shift plan is that countries like Sweden have introduced carbon taxes and prospered. Sweden has indeed prospered but this is due more to the 30% devaluation of the Swedish krona in 1992, which made its exports more competitive, than any green initiatives. In fact, Swedish governments have been trying to reduce their dependence on carbon and excise taxes (the Swedes are more reliant on them than any other country with 2.9% of tax revenues coming from this source). The problem is that if you fund health care and social services with carbon taxes and consumption drops because of economic slowdown, or because of improved fuel efficiency, then your tax revenues drop. Sweden has ended up making up revenue shortfalls by increasing personal income tax rates and employee paid payroll taxes. Mr. Dion might also wish to reflect on this salutary fact: The Swedes threw out their long-standing left-wing government in 2006 in favour of a right-wing coalition precisely because taxes were so high."

"How do you know he got 15%

"How do you know he got 15% of the vote since they haven't had the election yet?"

I programmed the Diebold electronic voting machines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlZTWH7u8w

Just kidding. I was referring to the primaries.

spark

What you're saying is that the markets should be even freer than they are now. But to say that what the Americans have now isn't capitalism, or is socialism, isn't factual.

There's lots of this thinking going around right now. No one wants to believe capitalism failed.

Black is White

Frank, I must applaud you, that you bother to keep this sparky character entertained!

As I see it he is simply writing to stir up a debate and see his own writing in print.

How did that "1984" novel go? "slavery is freedom" and like slogans that people were supposed to eventually accept as fact!

Yup, repeat a stupid statement long enough and someone will think it is a fact!

Frank and alive

"What you're saying is that the markets should be even freer than they are now. But to say that what the Americans have now isn't capitalism, or is socialism, isn't factual."

It isn't a free market or true capitalism in the states. I explained to you why it isn't and you ignore the facts. Capitalism wouldn't allow the government to bail out the banks, which did nothing to help the situation incidentally. It has delayed the inevitable, and arguably made it much worse, potentially locking in hyper inflation. How did the "1984" novel go? "Doublethink". A private central bank controls the money supply, but it is still a free market. Genius.

spark

It isn't a totally free market but it has been a very "free" market.

You're saying that capitalism wouldn't allow gov't to bail out banks? Capitalism requires gov't to bail out banks. Capitalism requires a bit of socialism to clean up the messes it leaves behind. Pure capitalism simply doesn't work and never has.

And those are the facts, its not me that's ignoring them.

As for Ron Paul, 15% in the Republican primary isn't really the same thing at all as "15% of Americans".

Regardless I expect lots more of this type of analysis in order to deflect attention away from the real problems.

In fact I'm expecting Bush to be declared a communist as soon as he leaves office.

"Yup, repeat a stupid

"Yup, repeat a stupid statement long enough and someone will think it is a fact!"

What statement are you talking about Alive? Abusive comments like that, containing no information or contrary facts tells me all I need to know about your intellectual foundation or lack there-of.

"It isn't a totally free

"It isn't a totally free market but it has been a very "free" market. "

I'm assuming from this retort that you have no idea on what the Federal reserve bank is, who created it and why. There's no point continuing this conversation until you learn the basics.

Until then, it seems you're doing a good job of lapping up the usual mainstream media diatribe of blaming free markets and capitalism. Unfortunately it is you that is being deflected from the real truth.

Watch your pension go down the pan Frank, and when it becomes a fixed value, watch the purchasing power of your money dwindle as the inflation required to 'save the banks' kicks in.

"As for Ron Paul, 15% in the Republican primary isn't really the same thing at all as "15% of Americans"."

Ok Frank. He was a nothing. He didn't get the most donations of any Republican, and he isn't the ranking member of the monetary policy committee. Lugwig Von Mises is right wing and a loonie, because you've never heard of him and the Austrian School of Economics, which predicted this entire mess, is phony, also because you haven't heard of them. The Federal Reserve is Federal, it wasn't created by private bankers for their own interests.

I'll leave you with this:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." - Rothschild

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied." — Thomas Jefferson

"The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank." — Curtis Dall (Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son-in-law)

spark

You should read JK Galbraith. He's a lot easier to read than Keynes'. Would provide you some balance.

As for our current system, I took economics, in fact my wife was the head of the economics club at university. There's more to it than youtube videos and thinking Paulsen, Bernanke and Hitler are socialists.

Thank you for the conversation.

I'll read some of that if

I'll read some of that if you watch the videos I posted. Deal?

spark

Sure, I'll watch it

realisticman

How's those Olympics going, buy lots of tickets yet?

sorry

Oh I did not take the bait, eh?
I have seen too many shit disturbers in my life to get involved here!
Oh OH "abusive" again, poor baby, squeeling when the ball is tossed back in your court.

I'm with Jack, Frank

Vroom, vroom! Ferrari, McClaren, BMW. I tried to tell Glen Clark and his NDP entourage that I wasn't interested in the Olympics but they insisted it was good for the province and the city. I'm beginning to think that they were right. You should tell Corrigan to go and take look at The Oval, it's quite a sight. It is big! Gonna be a great legacy.

Sparky

Sparky, capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic system which in modern times is employed in every kind of political system we know today.

Calling it a political system as you do allows you - and everyone else who does - to define it however you wish and thereby avoid any need for internal consistency, a flaw you exhibit in spades.

The various political systems each seek to employ methods of directing the use of capital to achieve their political goals.

In the US (and to a large extent in Canada) , calling capitalism a political system has allowed the wealthy (the Capitalists) to argue that any intervention in the market is Communism - or Socialism at best - and so we have seen massive deregulation in the financial sectors and thus the resulting chaos we see today.

For some five years now I've been following the Gold market, and the analysts on those sites, in plugging for buying Gold, have predicted the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and have described the shell-game that is the derivatives market. The present situation has come as no surprise to a great many people.

Is "The Market" self-regulating? Obviously it isn't, since it is wholly dependant upon the "economic climate" gov'ts provide. Fascist gov'ts such as Bush's which are controlled by the rich, fail to curb the corruption that unrestrained greed entails, today by following Milton Freidman's "market" theories.

The lack of so-called "Socialist" regulations necessary to keep the lid on Capitalist excesses in the US and elsewhere is now universally acknowledged as the root cause of today's problems.

Here is a commentary from a Right-oriented website which in a relatively few words details the regulatory failures of the various US gov't Agencies.

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/cooke_r/cooke_r100808.html

spark.1234: Quote:Why do

spark.1234:

I'm sorry, that's just too stupid not to comment on. So the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic because it's called "democratic"? And it is run in the best interests of its citizens by its citizen because Kim Il Sung called it a "People's Rebublic"? Analogously, because Nazis call themselves socialists, they must be socialists? This really makes sense to you? Really?

Oh, and what about all the socialists the Nazis "purged" and socialist parties they outlawed?

If they nationalise the banks, that could be socialism. If they write what is effectively a blank cheque to those same banks, then that is pretty much the exact opposite of socialism.

Let's have a competition to see who can come up with the glibbest, most ridiculous statement about an economic system! Let's see... how about "Laissez-faire capitalism is ultimately a tendency towards genocide." Stupid? You betcha! Hmm... I think you win, though.

Uh, yeah, it pretty much does.

Mmm... schizophrenia?

Wow. Just because something is not complete laissez-faire capitalism does not mean it is socialism.

You really need to, like, learn something about socialism, so that you know at least a little bit about what you're talking about.

Words have meaning. Think about it.

jimmy_laroux

Jimmy, that guy's just another Rush Limbaugh acolyte who thinks he demonstrates his superior grasp on reality by trolling us Commies.

He's not here to test his theories, he's interested only in spreading misinformation.

Socialism

Not sure, but I think I might have been deleted.

Was it because I talked about some very good socialists we've had in B.C.?

And if so ... sheesh.

Hi Mary

Try posting it again...could just be a problem with the program.

Take my hand Garth

The United Federation of Planets cometh.

No, you drink first.

Oh I need you, Lord, kum ba yah
Oh I need you, Lord, kum ba yah
Oh Lord, kum ba yah

By the way, can you just spot me twenty bucks?

Anytime

Always glad to help a capitalist who has fallen upon hard times.

Just send me your address and I'll send along 20 bucks.

garthwest@hotmail.com

That's great

That is twenty US, right? Can't use those Canuck petro dollars right now, since the price of oil has tanked (no pun intended). Could you just leave it with Maurice at the Club.

I heard a rumor that Joe Six-Pack has changed his name to Joe Four-Pack. Any truth to that? Wow! Tough times now.

Useless yankee bucks?

Nope, you send me your name and address and I'll send along the cash...but you have to do it yourself R/man. I think you'll find the action of actually 'asking' for charity is good for the soul.

At least that's the neo-con spin, isn't it?

Oh and by the way, I heard Maurice lost his job...

The shining future

I think yer on to something, RMan. In the Hungry Thirties when Conservative Prime Minister RB Bennet was making Canada safe for business, farmers who couldn't afford gas hooked horses up to their cars. They called these "Bennet Buggies".

It's not that long ago that beer was so cheap that it was sold only by the dozen. Now it's a six-pack. You can be sure that if Harper helps business get through this coming depression, four-packs will be common and we'll calling them "Harper six-packs".

voteforenvironment.ca is just misinforming us

The website voteforenvironment.ca gets one enthused about doing something about vote splitting, until we understand that it takes the current polling company results for a party in a province, and then divides these votes into each riding based on how many votes each party received in the riding in 2006. This assumes that the quality and efforts of each candidate is identical to what it was in the 2006 election, which unfortunately means that this model is of course flawed.

Like many ridings, the Okanagan-Shuswap riding has a totally different mix of candidates this time around.

The Green Party candidate Huguette Allen is a well known incredibly passionate environmental and local food activist and very well spoken. She is running a fully funded campaign with a large team of volunteers. Her signs are everywhere, her support at debates is wide and enthusiastic, coverage in the media is good and support using website, email lists and online video is very good. Because of Huguette's profile, the Okanagan-Shuswap was the only BC interior riding to receive a visit from Elizabeth May in Vernon on Sept 19th. With virtually no advance notice for media promotion, the rally in Vernon drew 400 people - the biggest rally the Elizabeth has had outside of her own Central Nova riding.

In 2006, the Green Party candidate didn't run a campaign, was an unknown and he lived 100 miles away in Penticton, and he still got 4.1% of the vote.

The incumbent Conservative has some questionable performance issues and was also one of Stephen Harper's selected team of muzzled MPs after various gaffes. The Liberal candidate is new to politics and unknown, whereas last time the candidate was a well-liked mayor of one of our communities. The NDP candidate is running for the third time and seems passionate enough but a little uncomfortable in the role.

If there was a web site which actually had statistically significant polling in the riding, you can rest assured that Green, Liberal and NDP voters would respond to this. But unfortunately this is not it!

You can view their full description of their polling by riding's statistical model at:
http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/about_our_project

GWest

I'll be on the boat.

Warren Gates,
c/o Paradise Harbour Club & Marina,
Paradise Island,
Bahamas

Thanks!

See this on BBC?

" Before the financial crash, the main part of Mr Dion's platform was his revenue-neutral Green Shift plan, which proposed taxing polluting companies, whilst offering tax breaks to individuals.

Since the financial crash, Mr Dion has modified the way he promotes the plan.

He has also had to concede that some of his more ambitious and expensive promises, including increased spending on childcare and on Canada's publicly-funded healthcare system, may have to be delayed because of the financial crisis. "

Classic Liberal promises. At least they are consistent!

Definitely problems for Liberal supporters

Kind of balances the incompetence of pee wee's approach - as everyone now knows.

Classic Liberal promises --- balances by Classic Conservative Bull Shit.

Not much is new.

I predicted after the last election that Canadians would give pee wee a majority in this election...I may have been wrong, but the vote will tell the tale tomorrow.

If pee wee doesn't get his majority, the blame goes to him - despite the pathetic pandering of the press - which should have simply told him... 'Pee Wee, if you don't play by the same rules everyone else does, you get NO interviews.'

That mess with Peter Mansbridge was risible.

Fighting an election against someone like Dion, in a situation where you choose the time and the circumstances, should have been a cakewalk for Harper. The fact is hasn't been should tell all Canadians something fundamental about this man and his 'wrongness' for the role of 'leader'.

BTW, still no email from you, could it be you're actually not that hard up after all.

I guess I'll give the $20 bucks to someone who really knows what it is to live 'rough' in the 21st century.

errata

should be - 'the fact it hasn't been...'

dave77: Who fully funded the campaign?

She is running a fully funded campaign with a large team of volunteers.

I am wondering where the "fully funded" part of Huguette's campaign came from? Is it local donations to the Okanagan-Shuswap Green EDA, or is it transfers from the Green's national office?

There's a third possibility. There may have been donations to Huguette's EDA or to her campaign during the election period coming from environmental leaders and employees of environmental organizations in Vancouver, and perhaps in Toronto as well. Could that have been a major source?

If it is out-of-riding sources, it suggests that a computer analysis of the demographics of the riding caused it to be chosen as a high probability area for some unrealized Green potential to be harvested with a fully funded campaign. IOWs, the demographics look similar to Saanich-Gulf Islands in some way. Could that have been the process involved? If so, who did the computer analysis of demographics?

Budd...

Are ya still sticking with your political prognostication for BC tomorrow:

Con - 37%
NDP - 37%
Lib/Green - the rest??

The final election eve BC numbers have come out:

Ipsos - 500 sample size

Con - 39% [+2% from 2006]
Lib - 24% [-4% from 2006]
NDP - 25% [-4% from 2006]
Grn - 11% [+6% from 2006]

Ekos - 590 sample size

Con - 39% [+2% from 2006]
Lib - 24% [-4% from 2006]
NDP - 22% [-7% from 2006]
Grn - 15% [+10% from 2006]

Nanos

Con - 37% [same as 2006]
Lib - 30% [+2% from 2006]
NDP - 24% [-5% from 2006]
Grn - 11% [+6% from 2006]

Those are the tea leaves for BC.

Methinks that ya are gonna have to pull out a Bud[weiser] from your six-pack and throw same wayyyy far westward into my hands tomorrow. ;)

Don't eat too much crow... errr... turkey. :)

Luke

Remember how I said 5 weeks ago I'd take your prediction and then remind you of it?

Although you didn't want to make a prediction until the final week, here's what you said :

"Right now, I can smell the Conservatives being on the cusp of majority territory.

The Nanos/Ipsos/Mustel numbers in the last week of the campaign will provide me with providing an exact seat outcome.

What will happen, however:

Conservatives: Net seat pickups in BC, Ontario (outer 905 belt), and rural Quebec.

Liberals: Net seat losses in BC and Ontario;

NDP: Net seat losses in BC and Ontario;"

Compared to last election the NDP are doing great

Here's the last election versus each company's polling for today

Ekos

Con 36.5 34 -2.5
Lib 30.1 26 -4.1
New Dem 17.5 19 +1.5

________________________________________

Decima

Con 36.5 35 -1.5
Lib 30.1 26 -4.1
New Dem 17.5 18 +0.5

________________________________________

Nanos

Con 36.5 33 -3.5
Lib 30.1 27 -3.1
New Dem 17.5 22 +4.5

Frank...

I stand by my earlier prediction whereby in BC the Cons will trake a few seats from the Liberals/NDP, and in Ontario the Cons will take a few seats in the 905 belt from the Liberals.

The Cons are no longer polling in the 40% range nationaly as they did pre-dabate and that means the number of Con victories in the 905 belt is diminished.

Obviously the Cons big breakthrough in bleu rural Quebec has been usurped by the BQ do to various internal Quebec politics.

Frank:

Losing popular support and a few seats in BC, and only retaining Mulcair's Outremont seat is not what I call great.

The NDP will have a few pick-ups in Northern Ontario but their overall seat count is only prognosticated to go from 30 seats to ~34 - 36 out of 308 seats and remain a 4th place party nationally.

Democratc Space National Projections

Con - 128 seats
Lib - 92 seats
BQ - 52 seats
NDP - 34 seats
Other - 2 (proto Cons)

http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2008/

Election Prediction Project Projections

Con - 125 seats
Lib - 94 seats
BQ - 51 seats
NDP - 36 seats
Other - 2 (proto Cons)

http://www.electionprediction.org/2007_fed/index.php

The increase in overall NDP popular vote is mainly due to Quebec, where it is inefficent and it will likely only retain the one seat, and to a lesser extent, in Ontario.

Luke

"Losing popular support"

But they aren't losing popular support, they're gaining it. That's far more important than the seat count.

Harper on the other hand is claiming Canadians are becoming more right-wing even as their support declines.

And there's the Libs who's support is also on the decline.

Frank...

in BC!

To reiterate:

Luke

Its not just Quebec where NDP support is up, the NDP would have to be in first place in Quebec to make the national numbers rise that high.

Nanos is your favourite national pollster and they have the NDP up 4% nationally from the last election. That seems pretty great to me.

On the other hand, like I said before, both Con and Lib support is on the decline.

The Greens are doing great too although we'll see if their support shows up on election day.

Frank...

Nope, Nada, No. If the NDP were in first place in Quebec, they would be in first place in Canada!!!

Quebec 2006 - 7.5%; Nanos today 13% - an increase of 5.5 percentage points from 2006 and worth almost two points in the national points.

Ontario 2006 - 19.4%; Nanos today 26% - an increase of 6.6% from 2006 and worth over two points in the national polls.

And there's your 4% national uptick for the NDP in Nanos.

Luke

You just added Ontario in spite of saying the NDP weren't up anywhere except in Quebec.

How high would the NDP have to be in Quebec to make a 4% jump nationally?

Nik on the Numbers

Since we're looking at Nanos polls :

"Second, it is quite likely that the Liberals under Stephane Dion will post among the worst showings in Liberal Party history. The current low water mark is the 1984 Turner loss (28%) and the research points to a potential final Liberal outcome in that range. Of note, on the best Prime Minister measure, for only two days in the complete election did Stephane Dion register higher than Jack Layton. Although the Liberals did narrow that gap last week, the weekend performances of the leaders tipped the advantage back to the Conservatives.

Third, Jack Layton and the NDP, according to the research, had consistent levels of performance and ballot tracking and there will be an expected increase in their aggregate national support."

Quebec

Since Quebec is about 23.9% of the population, if the NDP were to rise to say 40% in Quebec (33% higher than they were last election) that would raise their national numbers by just under 8% over 2006.

So you're wrong, if the NDP was in first place in Quebec they still wouldn't be in first place nationally as their total popular vote would only rise from 17% to 25%

Frank...

Too much turkey last night? :)

Here's what I said:

Which insinuates that the NDP popular vote is up in Ontario.

Come on Frank. If the NDP would be in first place in Quebec they would also be near or at first place in Ontario. Ergo, they would be in first place nationally!

And that 3 percentage point decline results in a bunch of Liberal seat losses... some to the Cons in BC and some to the Libs in Northern Ontario, for the most part. But still... 2nd place nationally and still ahead of the third place BQ by far in terms of the seat count.

Correction...

Should Read:

some to the Cons in BC and some to the NDP in Northern Ontario,

Quebec = Ontario

Sorry luke, even al bundy couldn't get away with that.

Quebec and Ontario are VERY different places and they often, if not always, tend to poll and vote very differently.

Anyone who had actually lived there, or who had studied their electoral history (both federal and provincial) would know that and would, consequently, never make this mistake:

That's the problem with self-described and self-promoted 'experts'.

Gotta Disagree

This time around if there was a Tory surge in Quebec, particularly bleu rural Quebec (perhaps 30 - 40 seats) there would have also been a Tory surge in Ontario's 905 belt.

That did happen earlier in the campaign (pre-debates) as the dynamics of this election are different.

Much of suburban 905'ers and the Quebec rural bleu were in sync in terms of "getting on board" the Tory bandwagon.

Other factors also come into play (Ontario's historical tradition of voting one party at Queen's Park but the other party in Ottawa), but I digress.

C'mon luke

Talking about what 'might' have happened is a mug's game.

You seem to have totally forgotten the Parti Quebecois, the longstanding traditions of the Bloc and the Creditistes in Quebec - without even mentioning the National Union and Duplessis. All of which distinguish Quebec from Ontario.

Pee wee thought he was building a conservative brand in Quebec and it led him to make the fatal error of disrespecting Quebec cultural values...which values and tradtions he seems to understand no better than you do.

In fact, Quebec is much more radical and socialistic than traditional tory Ontario that it's hardly worth pointing it out.

Digress all you want my friend, I think you know the square root of bugger all about La Belle Province.

Au Contraire...

The Tories made their big break-through, from nothing in 2006, in Quebec's bleu heartland of Quebec City and the neighbouring Beauce obtaining 8/10 seats in the region.

The same old Union Nationale/Social Creditiste heartland... the same era when BC also elected Social Crediters federally.

With Quebec's "gold standard" pollster CROP showing the BQ at 30% (-12% from 2006) and the Cons at 30% (+5% from 2006) at the beginning of the campaign, the Cons had a healthy lead in rural bleu Quebec, which could have translated into 30 - 40 Con seats and a Tory majority gov't.

Similar soundings were also occuring in the GTA's suburban 905 belt, which has gone Liberal over the past 15 years.

The BQ is a funny animal. Many socialist-leaning MP's from Montreal and conservative-leaning MP's in rural Quebec.

East End Montreal, Canada's socialist heartland.

BTW, be careful what you wish for. Apparently reports today have New Democrat Mulcair in trouble in Outremont with the strengthing BQ and Liberal vote in Montreal.

Maybe Harper was on to something

when he said there are opportunities in the stock market. Apparently a few others think so too. almost 400 million shares traded on the Dow Jones today!

QUOTE;
Globe & Mail
U.S. stocks soar in biggest one-day gain everComment163

Dow roars back to finish over 900 points higher as Nasdaq and S&P also rise more than 11 per cent 4:43 PM Comment163

* Related: Global stocks in record surge after Europe action..."

Rman

Tommorrow when the TSX opens up,I wonder if the doomsayer liberals will be buying any stock?
Or will Liberal investers stick to their principles of not listening to Harper,because he must be wrong!

Stocks go up,go down,will the Liberals be blaming Harper for the 700 point rally on the TSX tommorrow?

luke

You are a bundle of contradictions.

THIS is what you wrote, remember?

-luke skywalker

I don't hope, or wish, for anything luke - that's your department.

The meaning of your words is as obvious as is your ignorance about Quebec and its political history.

If the 1.95 means that much to you...

give ten bucks to the party you'd like to support, and then vote for the party that placed second to a Conservative, or beat them. Easy.

Change of Voting Method

I have been voting for many years in Canada and I propose a new system based on the way Canadians REALLY vote.

Everyone I know votes against a party or candidate, yet our system is designed for us to cast a vote FOR a candidate.

I believe we should structure a new "Anybody But Them" system. The ABT system would enable voters to choose the party they don't want to win. Strategic voting becomes a thing of the past when the candidate with the most votes looses.

The "first past the post" system would not be effective with ABT as minority parties my not have enough people bothering to vote against them and so may win. This would not reflect the true will of the people any more than the present system.

Voters would have to choose by rating the possible candidates and if enough people chose "None of the above" the parties would be forced to put forward new candidates.

Choices would be from "Anybody but them", "Seems OK", "Might be tolerable" to "Almost believable". The highest accolade possible is, "I elect this one".

With the computer power that we have available today, the nuances of voter choice can be properly interpreted to make sure that voters are represented fairly.

Luke

You said one thing then jumped through 15 hoops trying to make the reality fit.

All I said was NDP support is up nationally and you tried, and failed, to prove me wrong.

Saltery Bay and realisticman

Your stock markets are being bailed out with over $3 TRILLION dollars of public money.

I wonder how many homeless you could house for $3 trillion?

To put that in perspective, that means if all the people of Europe and America were represented by 10 people they'd each be on the hook for $300 billion!

Or to put it another way, that's like the Conservatives giving corporations a $50 billion tax cut, 60 times!

I'm pretty sure actual breathing drunken sailors couldn't spend money like you guys.

Frank

This is just a bear market rally,nothing to do with Harper.
Conservatives/Liberals their both pathetic but Dion,cmon,who could want Dion as a leader?
I would be the first to admit that Layton doesn`t get a fair shake,but the Liberals had 13 years and accomplished nothing,only a fool would want the LIberals back!

In the last 2 decades people have come to the belief that any investments in markets have to go up,they think it their god given right to make money,their wrong.

The bailouts will fail,it will distort all market value,how can you assess a bank or companies value if they receive a big bailout,is that fair play to a bank or company that played it square,with little risk,with no bailout.How will investors know who got,who didn`t.
I am against this bailout.

Frank,if we want to totaly @$#% up the meaning of "money" and its value,lets just issue everyone a cheque for 50.000.00 every year and just add more zero`s to the screen.

This bailout/injection to me means,means the whole world of finance is just a cruel joke,there are no rules left,so if it doesn`t make sense,just hand out oodles to everyone.
Even with oodles of money for everyone,the money will eventualy gather into a few small piles!

The revolution is coming Frank,time to move up to BIG LAKE

I THINK THE PROPHET ED DEAK IS ONTO SOMETHING!

Changing the Climate in Parliament

Canadians have an opportunity to send a clear message to Ottawa tomorrow: we must change the climate of status quo rhetoric in Parliament.

On a personal level, I have the tremendous good fortune to have 1 more reason to vote for the future on this election. My new-born baby daughter, Ruby.

When I look into her fresh face I see hope and reason to care for the future of our country and our planet.

Harper and the Conservatives have shown Canadians and the world that they do not care for the well-being of Canadians and the dire state of the environment. Popularity in such organizations and blogs (like Avaaz.ca and Votefortheenvironment2008.ca, Sierra Club Canada, etc). All worthy sites and opinions if the voters followed the polling of their ridings and followed closely to the issues of the parties and the candidates, but the reality is that this is not the case.

If there is one issue to ride on this election, it’s the environment/Climate Change/energy — and by that I mean the economy. Because it is one in the same. Everything comes from the environment, hence the value we place on it (commodities, resources). When we attempt to separate the 2, we all lose.

Given that the NDP have decided to focus their attacks on the Liberals while the Liberals have attempted to attract the “progressives”, I can only deduce that the NDP strategy team is out to lunch and don not deserve the votes they will receive (count the number of ridings that will go to the Tories as a result of this grand scheme of pouncing on Dion in unison with the Tories (which caused the previous election in the first place!). Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying to vote Liberal here, but at least they understand the importance of pricing carbon — and the economy. So, while I do not endorse the Liberal Party of Canada nor Stéphane Dion, I hope he pulls off a minority government that would enable a strategic alliance of progressive MPs to tackle the Tories in Parliament. Long shot, I know…

So, given that the NDP has taken such a hard stance on the carbon tax and blindly states the possibility of forming opposition while placing all the financial burden on corporations (yes, even small ones) and hard caps on heavy polluters that will pass on the burden back to the consumers, it is clear to me that Canadians should respond with a clear message that focusses on solving the current environmental and economic crises:

My strategy: ABCNDP and Green when it will not mean a possible Tory. In other words, vote for the FUTURE!

Ruby

Congratulations VancouverPointGreen. You may want to include Norman Webster's observations.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=f66582aa-2934-4034-8e4a-3b3677346683

VancouverGreen

Congrats on your new baby daughter. The time that requires explains why you haven't been able to follow what's been going on lately.

The NDP has not spent their time attacking the Libs, Layton opened his campaign on the first day by attacking Harper and ignoring the Libs.

The Libs on the other hand have attacked the NDP. Just as you're doing now.

As for the carbon tax, you should come up with an actual argument as to why its a good thing.

Congratulations

There's a kind of anthem to the future at this singer's website that you might enjoy..

http://www.myspace.com/elizagilkyson

Look for 'The Party's Over'...

concrete proof

It is way past time we abandon

FEDERALISM

This is what has killed the U.S. Economy
and will surely kill ours too.

It is time we all decided that we in the
west must divorce ourselves from the east
we are tired of supporting our illegitimate
children of the east!!!!!

As Ben Harper but (no relation to the other harper)

Excuse me Mr. Do you have the time or
are you so important time stands still
for you

Excuse me Mr. Can you lend me and ear
or are you so blind you cannot hear?

etc, etc...

Happing Thanx Taking!!!

gassy

Since the east was settled first I think your analogy is a little strained...unless you happen to be a First Nations person.

Otherwise, we're their children - not the other way around...as to illegitimacy, I won't go there.

Federalism isn't the problem - either here or south of the border.