Typical Day
Today, the Tories showed why they're in front. It's not because of brilliant policy, but because of a brilliant campaign.
The economist who had supposedly "endorsed" their platform has washed his hands of it. But their new commercial highlights the disorganization in the Liberal campaign and is a smart bit of advertising. (And as a Calgary Liberal, let me say, as an aside, that seeing Judy Stewart in a TV commercial was on my list of "things I never thought I'd see").
The economist who had supposedly "endorsed" their platform has washed his hands of it. But their new commercial highlights the disorganization in the Liberal campaign and is a smart bit of advertising. (And as a Calgary Liberal, let me say, as an aside, that seeing Judy Stewart in a TV commercial was on my list of "things I never thought I'd see").
posted by calgarygrit at
8:23 p.m.
16 Comments:
Just an observation and I mean this by way of assistance.
You're deluding yourself if you think you're losing because of the campaign.
Not fundamentally, to paraphrase Paul Martin. You're losing mostly because of how this country has been governed. Oh, and did you get a load of the Mansbridge interview? It was classic Paul Martin, only more so:
www.http://proudtobecanadian.ca
/blog/index/weblog/3499/
By
Anonymous, at 8:59 p.m.
Sorry about the mistyped URL. It is, of course:
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblox/3499/
By
Anonymous, at 9:06 p.m.
Actually, I read the article, and he said everything balances out but that the "Fiscal Imbalance", comoponent, and the healthcare "waittimes" components had not been factored in, therefore he could't judge them... regardless, he did say everything else balanced out and that the CPC suggestion that the fiscal imbalance had yet to be negotiated and therefore couldn't be given an exact number, was a fair asseration, that the "wait times" factor was not going to materially effect the CPC's numbers.
So your a little misleading there CG.
By
Anonymous, at 9:19 p.m.
The SES numbers are 38-30, the Liberal support has probably bottomed out. Chris from Victoria, are you trying to say that a better Liberal campaign wouldn't be good for three points. A three point swing from the Tories to the Liberals would make it 35-33, a horse race. CG is correct, the Liberals have ran a crappy campaign. Any Conservative who thinks that there has been some monumental shift in support based on the country finally coming around to your values or your way of thinking is full of shit. This is a country where 65-70% of the people consistantly do not believe in the Conservative ideology. If the Harper government tries to govern from the hard right, they'll be a one-term footnote. Harper is winning because he's running a nearly flawless, moderate, Mulroney-esque campaign, while this group of Liberals are making Turner look like a genius.
By
Anonymous, at 9:23 p.m.
Anonymous states that 65-70% of Canadians do not believe in Conservative views.
Could he please tell me when the Liberal party ever received 50% of Canadian vote. Trudeau received more than 43% of Canadian vote 3 times but since him no Liberal has receive 43% even once.
Therefore, could we not say the same about the Liberals - 55-65% of Canadian public do not agree with Liberal views.
By
Anonymous, at 9:55 p.m.
Joe; Harper has made the "fiscal imbalance" one of his major issues. And it's going to cost a ton of money to "fix" it.
By
calgarygrit, at 10:04 p.m.
CG,
I understand the questions regarding the fiscal imbalance and it not being addressed in the Conservative platform. I think the problem is that the questions are being raised by a Party that up until a few sleeps ago swore up and down that there was no such thing.
As usual any questions raised by the Liberals in this campaign are easily defused by simply pointing out the Liberals have absolutely no credibility on the subject..... any subject.
By
Anonymous, at 10:15 p.m.
The CPC will be a one term footnote because the family compact is running this f/n dictatorship. Screw Power Corp and the rest of their slap happy buddies.
By
Anonymous, at 10:20 p.m.
So let me see if I understand your logic here, CalgarySW CPC: It shouldn't matter to Canadians that the CPC numbers could be seriously way off the mark because one of the opposition parties has no credibility. Hmmmm. With that kind of logic, I wish all of you guys the best in your 12 months of governing. It's going to be a lot more fun for us than for you, methinks.
And Gary: I think the point about the 60-75% don't support conservative ideology is the small "c", as represented by the number of Canadians voting Conservative/Reform/Canadian Alliance over the years, vs. the small "l", as represented by Canadians voting for the Liberal/NDP/Bloc over the years.
TB
Cerberus
By
Ted Betts, at 11:06 p.m.
It is bizarre for the Liberals to claim the CPC hid something by failing to account for a Liberal promise.
Yes, the Liberals did promise promise additional funds over and above the $5.5B waittime guarantee. (e.g. a $75 million travel fund).
But no, the CPC did not promise any of the additional funds promised Jan. 3rd by the Liberals.
The following cpc statement is easy to check:
"Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources".
The Jan. 3rd CP article is an example:
http://tinyurl.com/b5t9l
"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has also said his government would pay for out-of-province travel costs through the $5.5-billion wait-times guarantee fund"
(cross posted to Coyne)
By
Anonymous, at 11:17 p.m.
Wait a second. Harper himself stated that there is no line item for the fiscal imbalance.
Toronto Sun Jan. 14th
"I'm not saying $23 billion is for the fiscal imbalance. We're not negotiating the fiscal imbalance in the middle of this campaign," he said.
By
Anonymous, at 11:39 p.m.
yyc said...
Wait a second. Harper himself stated that there is no line item for the fiscal imbalance.
Exactly, yyc. How can there be a shortfall in the CPC numbers for an item that hasn't been included?
And cerberus.... Where and when did Harper announce along the campaign trail that he would "solve" the fiscal imbalance in his first budget? I've heard him say he recognizes there is a fiscal imbalance. I've heard him say he'll negotiate with the Provinces to deal with the fiscal imbalance, but I've NEVER heard him put a number to it or suggest he would simply solve it by cutting a cheque for what the "Johnny-Come-Lately" Liberals have decided the fiscal imbalance actually is. So tell me again.... how are the numbers off?
And by the by, if $23 Billion is now the number that the Liberals are floating around as the "fiscal imbalance" shortfall in the CPC Blue Book, have they got a line in their red book for that $23 Billion, or will they decide after the election, if by some miracle they win the election, that they were wrong about the existence of a fiscal imbalance afterall?
By
Anonymous, at 12:21 a.m.
Let's be clear.
Anything that any party talks about doing from within surpluses (after debt payment) cannot appear as a line item outside the surplus.
I am aware of only 2 items in this category: Goodale's rebate cheques and Harpers' fiscal imbalance negotions.
(cross posted to Coyne)
By
Anonymous, at 12:39 a.m.
Gary McHale,
"Therefore, could we not say the same about the Liberals - 55-65% of Canadian public do not agree with Liberal views."
There are maybe 4 or 5 "hard right wing" Liberal MPs... the rest are either centrist or left wing... then you have the left wing NDP + the left wing Bloc... looking back at 2004...
Liberal 36.7%
NDP 15.7%
Bloc 12.4%
TOTAL = 64.8%
And 2000...
Liberal 40.6%
NDP 8.5%
Bloc 10.7%
TOTAL = 59.8%
I should probably include the PC party in my total for 2000... but even without them... we still make it within the 55 to 65% margin.
And 1997
Liberal 38.5%
NDP 11.1%
Bloc 10.7%
TOTAL = 60.3%
And 1993
Liberal 41.2%
NDP 6.9%
Bloc 13.5%
TOTAL = 61.6%
I think it's totally fair to say that 55 to 65% of the Canadian public are most comfortable with a centre / centre left government.
By
Anonymous, at 8:13 a.m.
Andrew:
1. Be cautious about where you put the Bloc. Yes, most of the MP's and activists are left-of-centre, but a lot of folks who voted for them voted Tory in '84-88, and LPC before that. I'm not saying that the BQ should be considered right-of-centre either, but I wouldn't call them centre-left.
2. For '97 and '00 at least, I'm sure some centre-right folks voted LPC b/c they didn't see either the RPC/CA or the PCPC as capable of governing, and they were generally happy with Paul M as Finance Minister. I don't think that % is exceptionally high, mind you, but I think it *does* exist.
3. While it's probably less significant nowadays, local candidates and issues can trump the centre-left-right analysis.
4. Most important, I think most partisan people (me included) tend to see things too much in the left-right-centre spectrum. I'm not convinced that most of the millions of folks who vote see themselves that way.
I won't go on for paragraphs on this, but it's worth remembering that the folks who elected / re-elected Jean Chretien in ON were content, in large #'s, to elect / re-elect Mike Harris.
The point: a significant # of people - not everyone, but a lot - will vote for who they see as the best option in front of them at a particular time & in a particular circumstance, and not think too much about where, or whether, they are fitting into the left-right-centre boxes.
By
Jason Hickman, at 10:33 a.m.
CG... your right it's going to cost tons of money... it already costs tons of money. Remember there is serious money into equalization already, at least one more province drops off this year, namely BC, and it's not unlikely that Manitoba may drop off this year as well. Equalization is not just about giving money, it's about reallocating money, so it's fair to say that it will not really be that enormous a number in relation to overall surplus. My personal belief is that all parties have seriously underestimated the surplus over the next 5 years.
I'll cite as an example the latest CIBC economic outlook, which states Alberta will post a surplus of upwards of 19 billion this year based on current world gas and oil prices, vs the Alberta government stating around 6 to 7 billion.
That means in excess of 9 billion to the Feds, before Tax transfer... they are going to have the money.
By
Anonymous, at 3:58 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home