[QuickTidal]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 06 April 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

I won't take issue with your judgements, even if I think they're dead wrong and grossly unfair, but this I can't let go:

Blend, on 06 April 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

Liberals are just douche-bags with some sense of entitlement I never quite understood.... and the Conservatives are a bunch of socially inept economists - it's thanks in large part to them that we as a country made it through the financial crisis fairlyc omfortably and stuff, so I trust them with my tax dollars more than I would anyone else.

If you're 27, then you're old enough to remember the Tory response to the financial crisis: "there is no crisis". If they engaged in stimulus spending (incredibly late in the game) and helped to bail out the automakers, it was only because the other three parties--and the public--demanded it and threatened an election otherwise. After a couple weeks of stonewalling, they caved in. Flaherty couldn't get his numbers right, and Harper wanted us to buy up as many stocks as possible. They were singularly out of touch--living in Ottawa, I'm surprised that you don't remember any of this. Every day brought a new round of frustration with the Tory economic policy (or, rather, lack thereof).

More importantly, however, the fact that the country weathered the recession fairly well has nothing to do with policies implemented during those two years of Tory power, and a whole hell of a lot to do with policies they didn't enact, and policies that were enacted by the Chrétien and Martin governments. While governments in power tend to take the blame/credit for economic woe or joy, the reality is that they almost never affect their economies immediately--rather, they inherit the problems/boons created by previous governments. When the Liberals came into power in 1993, we had a third-world debtload; 1/3 tax dollars serviced the debt. We hit the ground running in 2008 because we'd paid off our debt, and because our banks hadn't merged. Under the Liberals, our corporate and personal income taxes went down, the GST was brought in (massive federal revenue stream), provincial transfers were cut, the banks were not allowed to merge (despite a strong desire to do so on their part), and EI started racking up massive surpluses. These are the reason why we weathered the recession better than the US and Europe: we started from a much better position. If you think the Tories did anything significant to avert economic disaster, I challenge you to post what that is.

This is decidedly well put! I agree with everything here.

[cerveza_fiesta]

So the libs have a bit of a scandal

Apparently one of their candidates from QC is known to have made racist remarks on many occasions and had something to do with a "rights for whites" website???

Libs predictably and appropriately dumped him from the team and Ignatieff is heavy on the damage control, but really, I don't get how this happened. Don't they vet the everloving shit out of candidates these days? I mean, you can lie through your teeth on the background checks, but that's a pretty big one to slip through the cracks. I could see if the vetting process missed, say, smoking joints in university. I don't see how it missed public racist remarks and affiliation with white rights groups.

Not really faulting anybody I guess, I'm just really surprised that a candidate made it this far without anybody finding out...regardless of whose party he's in.

[Abyss]

Given what the issues are in the QC side of this election, it may not hurt the Libs too much.

[cerveza_fiesta]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...1-poll-tracker/

That's the current "reliable" polls - ie the ones that report at 95% uncertainty or better.

Not that polls are much of an indicator in the end, but we sure love quoting em!

In all but the ekos poll conservatives are on the way down or holding steady...with the libs making small gains.

I never really know how to take these polls though, I mean, it's always among "decided voters" too, which really fucks the whole thing up. With half the country not voting at all, and probably half of the voting population undecided, it's tough to say how those numbers will swing. I would say a poll result comprised of decided voters right now doesn't report much more than the general proportion of die-hard tories or die-hard liberals who were going to vote that way no matter what. The undecided voters are still susceptible to the charms of the various parties between now and May. I'd like it if they put down the number of undecided voters next to the number of decided voters on those polls to give a little more perspective.

Actually, is my assumption about half the voting public being "undecided" correct? I haven't seen an actual figure - just pulling out a number. I'd expect the proportion of undecideds to decrease and the polls to gain validity toward election time. Kinda weird they wouldn't put that figure down somewhere.

[Abyss]

Last election just under 60% of the voting population actually voted.

Moving any of the the remaining 40% may be key this time.

[Korbal Broach]

A friend of mine just put this link on facebook, I haven't checked out the references the guy has at the bottom but it seems accurate from what i can remember.
http://compellingcom...011/Canada.html

Edit:
Just found out that our french televised debate was moved ahead one day because of NHL playoff hockey.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ts-duceppe.html

This post has been edited by Korbal Broach: 10 April 2011 - 10:37 PM

[cerveza_fiesta]

That's awesome. Shows how much of a shit anybody gives about politics around here.

To be fair though, it was because it was the French language leaders' debate and one of the most important cities for all the parties is Montreal, QC, a french speaking city whose hockey team is in the first round of playoffs vs. Boston this year. Montreal fans are goddamn fanatics too, so there's no way anybody in their regular viewer base would think of switching to the debates unless they held them during one of the zamboni breaks.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Another Tory spending scandal. This time, Sheila Fraser has found that they misled Parliament on G8 spending, and that $50 million of it may have been spent illegally: http://www.theglobea...article1979865/

For a government that's been in power for five years, they sure are racking up the scandals. If they hadn't been found in contempt for the fighter jets and prisons, this finding would have led to the same ruling.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 11 April 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Another Tory spending scandal. This time, Sheila Fraser has found that they misled Parliament on G8 spending, and that $50 million of it may have been spent illegally: http://www.theglobea...article1979865/

For a government that's been in power for five years, they sure are racking up the scandals. If they hadn't been found in contempt for the fighter jets and prisons, this finding would have led to the same ruling.

I still can't comprehend though why nobody is making a massive deal out of it. The liberals should be bringing it up as often as the conservatives bring up coalitions. If not more.

I'm curious to see the next few weeks of the campaign. The media is certainly portraying Harper in a worse and worse light by the day. Not that they're particularly biased, they just seem to be getting fed up with his evasion on questions RE the budget, economy, fighter jets, and basically everything else of any importance. Here's hoping he gets a sound thrashing in the debates.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 11 April 2011 - 04:05 PM

[Abyss]

Spending is always a dicey issue - if the Libs hammer the Tories over it, they can turn around at point out how much the Lib gov spent on similar things in the past. It's safer to stay low and let the media handle it.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Well, I wonder if this debate is going to go anywhere or if it's going to be a 3 on 1 pileup vs Harper.

My guess is the latter, and that everyone including harper will claim victory. Our debates are seriously retarded. Did they get rid of the idiotic round-table format this time? Please?

Last election's debates were sooooooo weak. Here is my recap

Round 1

• Moderator: "lets see what joe retard from Manitoba has to ask"
• Joe Retard: "I live in rural manitoba, and what are you going to do to help out us poor farmers who pay too much for gas / seed / feed / property tax??"
• Politician A: "THat's a VERY GOOD QUESTION Joe! Oh what a fabulous question, I could seriously give you a handjob if I ever saw you based on how awesome that question was.....ok, so yeah.....economy. "

Round 2

• Moderator: "Lets see what stereotypical Sylvain McFrencherson from Quebec has to ask"
• Sylvain McFrencherson: "dis question is for Stephen 'Arper...why you no let us Quebec 'ave our own country??"
• Politician B: "That's a VERY GOOD QUESTION AGAIN SYLVAIN. Holy freakin hell if a question was ever asked in my actual presence I think my heart would stop from the sheer brilliance of your inquiry.....ok, so yeah....childcare"

Round 3 thru the end:

• Rinse
• Repeat.

Insight into the politicians' platforms gained: zero

But all VERY VERY FUCKING GOOD QUESTIONS!!!!


In all seriousness, we need way more american style debates. Put the bastards on stage - with podiums if necessary. Shine bright lights in their eyes and get a tag team of Rick Mercer and Peter Mansbridge to lambaste them with real questions. We give them way too much of a free ride on their question evasion tactics.

[Abyss]

The thing that bugs me most about the last debate is how Elizabeth May is considered to have 'won', essentially because she shouted the loudest. Not missing her in this round.

This debate will be no different. It's always an anti-PM pile-up, with good reason.

The guy to watch is Iggy. This is his first public mano-y-mano against Harper and a lot of the undecided vote is going to swing based on how well he comes across.



As an aside, i'm still giggling over the decision to move the French debate because of hockey.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I'm giggling over how awesome it would be to have Rick Mercer moderating the debates.

have Mansbridge there for the credibility points and Rick there with the quick wit to trap them in lies and redirection tactics.

[D'rek]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 April 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

Well, I wonder if this debate is going to go anywhere or if it's going to be a 3 on 1 pileup vs Harper.

My guess is the latter, and that everyone including harper will claim victory. Our debates are seriously retarded. Did they get rid of the idiotic round-table format this time? Please?

Last election's debates were sooooooo weak. Here is my recap

Round 1

• Moderator: "lets see what joe retard from Manitoba has to ask"
• Joe Retard: "I live in rural manitoba, and what are you going to do to help out us poor farmers who pay too much for gas / seed / feed / property tax??"
• Politician A: "THat's a VERY GOOD QUESTION Joe! Oh what a fabulous question, I could seriously give you a handjob if I ever saw you based on how awesome that question was.....ok, so yeah.....economy. "

Round 2

• Moderator: "Lets see what stereotypical Sylvain McFrencherson from Quebec has to ask"
• Sylvain McFrencherson: "dis question is for Stephen 'Arper...why you no let us Quebec 'ave our own country??"
• Politician B: "That's a VERY GOOD QUESTION AGAIN SYLVAIN. Holy freakin hell if a question was ever asked in my actual presence I think my heart would stop from the sheer brilliance of your inquiry.....ok, so yeah....childcare"

Round 3 thru the end:

• Rinse
• Repeat.

Insight into the politicians' platforms gained: zero

But all VERY VERY FUCKING GOOD QUESTIONS!!!!


In all seriousness, we need way more american style debates. Put the bastards on stage - with podiums if necessary. Shine bright lights in their eyes and get a tag team of Rick Mercer and Peter Mansbridge to lambaste them with real questions. We give them way too much of a free ride on their question evasion tactics.

It is going to be exactly like that again. Six 10-minute segments, each one based on a question from some Canadian stereotype.

[RodeoRanch]

I'm Mike... from Canmore.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 April 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

Insight into the politicians' platforms gained: zero

It's worth noting that the Tories had no election platform in the last election until three days before the general election. All they had on their website was a couple of pithy lines denigrating the other parties. When it finally did come out, it was almost entirely photos of Harper. I contacted various media outlets to point out to them that they should be kicking up a fuss--how are people supposed to make an informed decision (or how is there supposed to be a public debate) if the incumbent party has no platform? Sadly, nobody else cared.

Abyss, on 12 April 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

The thing that bugs me most about the last debate is how Elizabeth May is considered to have 'won', essentially because she shouted the loudest. Not missing her in this round.

Nobody save her supporters thought she'd won--and the same applies to every other leader. That's because it's a debate, and typically someone wins a debate--when there's no impartial set of arbitrators, everyone wins as far as they're concerned. What we want, and what it should be, however, is a discussion. Since it's televised for a national audience, however, that's unlikely to happen, since it's much easier to use it as an opportunity to score points rather than to inform the public. This is what ends up happening every year, you're (and Cerveza's) right.

Quote

The guy to watch is Iggy. This is his first public mano-y-mano against Harper and a lot of the undecided vote is going to swing based on how well he comes across.

Ignatieff should be fun to watch because as a former university professor, he has a great deal of experience talking on the fly, speaking informatively, and participating in discussions (and having his ideas challenged in impromptu ways). I agree that he has a lot to gain or lose over the next two days. On the other hand, he'll probably take the opportunity to score some points rather than to inform--as will everyone else. So it's a useless medium, except for sabre-rattling. I'll watch both debates nonetheless, but I'm really disillusioned and frustrated by them. If you want a good model, forget the local high school or undergrad debating team--they're idiots (or, rather, young and brash and improperly trained). Go to your local university, attend the philosophy department's colloquium (colloquia in polisci and history are probably also decent, but you're likely to get a better model from philosophy), and see how things go down.




Also, as a matter of public record... Peter Mansbridge is a soft dolt (a fact which first became clear to me after his rollover interview with Harper a couple years ago), just like Rex Murphy. If you want a hard-hitting, informed, and serious journalist, look to Pierre Maisonneuve.

[cerveza_fiesta]

D, on 12 April 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 April 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

Well, I wonder if this debate is going to go anywhere or if it's going to be a 3 on 1 pileup vs Harper.

My guess is the latter, and that everyone including harper will claim victory. Our debates are seriously retarded. Did they get rid of the idiotic round-table format this time? Please?

Last election's debates were sooooooo weak. Here is my recap

Round 1

• Moderator: "lets see what joe retard from Manitoba has to ask"
• Joe Retard: "I live in rural manitoba, and what are you going to do to help out us poor farmers who pay too much for gas / seed / feed / property tax??"
• Politician A: "THat's a VERY GOOD QUESTION Joe! Oh what a fabulous question, I could seriously give you a handjob if I ever saw you based on how awesome that question was.....ok, so yeah.....economy. "

Round 2

• Moderator: "Lets see what stereotypical Sylvain McFrencherson from Quebec has to ask"
• Sylvain McFrencherson: "dis question is for Stephen 'Arper...why you no let us Quebec 'ave our own country??"
• Politician B: "That's a VERY GOOD QUESTION AGAIN SYLVAIN. Holy freakin hell if a question was ever asked in my actual presence I think my heart would stop from the sheer brilliance of your inquiry.....ok, so yeah....childcare"

Round 3 thru the end:

• Rinse
• Repeat.

Insight into the politicians' platforms gained: zero

But all VERY VERY FUCKING GOOD QUESTIONS!!!!


In all seriousness, we need way more american style debates. Put the bastards on stage - with podiums if necessary. Shine bright lights in their eyes and get a tag team of Rick Mercer and Peter Mansbridge to lambaste them with real questions. We give them way too much of a free ride on their question evasion tactics.

It is going to be exactly like that again. Six 10-minute segments, each one based on a question from some Canadian stereotype.

For the love of christ.....

That is, well, disappointing. Maybe I won't bother watching at all.

[Una]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 April 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

In all seriousness, we need way more american style debates. Put the bastards on stage - with podiums if necessary. Shine bright lights in their eyes and get a tag team of Rick Mercer and Peter Mansbridge to lambaste them with real questions. We give them way too much of a free ride on their question evasion tactics.

That would be awesome! I think you need to contact CBC with this idea. I wanna see it.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Mainly the rick mercer portion. I think he'd give them a hell of a debate. Call them out on BS and stuff, rather than having a BS-spouting session for 2 frickin hours like we saw last night.

• Duceppe, predictably came off looking like a tard, especially when he was going on and on about how multiculturalism doesn't work for Quebec. WTF....seriously dude? I just can't agree with Goaswerfraijen that the bloc has any place in Canadian federal politics. They vote on things that affect Canada out of necessity, but it's apparent they don't actually care about anything outside Quebec borders - unless they can gain some huge concession or benefit for Quebec by siding with one minority party or the other.
• Layton had some sweet zingers (like the one about crooks in the senate) but his actual statements RE the NDP platform got pretty broken-record-like by the end of it. Even his attacks RE getting troops out of afghanistan were pretty weak, considering the shutdowns he got from harper and Iggy.
• Iggy came off looking intelligent, but lacking the quick wit of Layton. It was hilarious when he forgot the name of the guy from BC that was asking the question. Overall a good presence I thought, but just nothing spectacular.
• Harper's defense vs. the contempt of parliament thing, where he was saying "the other parties saw an opportunity to take down the government" was pretty weak....but I don't see how he could have done better. Harper overall did awesome considering the 3 on 1 pileup, but a lot of his responses just didn't hold much water...especially the ones RE prorogation of parliament, G20 spending and the recent spending scandals.

I'd just really like to see them debate the merits of their own views on a topic, rather than taking turns shitting on how everybody else views a topic. It's a small difference, but the former is an actual debate. The latter is just complaining.

Last night I saw a lot of complaining, and not much of substance. There were little bits here and there, but overall a pretty *meh* display by all parties.

[Abyss]

Iggy gained a tiny bit of credibility by standing his ground and, well, not looking any worse than Harper.

Harper was Harper. You know what you're getting and it works or it doesn't.

Layton had some of the best lines (senate burn!) and some of the lamest. 60something white guy politicians do NOT gain points by using words like 'bling' and 'hashtag fail'.

Duceppe was Duceppe. After doing like 20 of these he knows his role and he does it well, and most of Canada uses his segments to go get a drink or check sports scores.