Jump to content

Election Thread: Canada |TBA or October '09|


Pierre the Great

Recommended Posts

hillary's gone mad.

And she still believes Terrorists came from Canada after being trained how to crash planes in Florida. She also has forgot how she and Bill screwed many Americans with their past scandals. And her attacks on Obama are true blue Republican style when they want to deflect the truth.

I really hope Americans will sway from ever placing a Bush or Clinton in office ever again. That is true torture!

Our torture is Happy Harper and his band of misfits and Dysfunctional Dion and the mighty FIBerals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah what's Harper to do when democrats are in the white house...

watching the afghanistan debate on cspan via cpac

i know this won't be an "election issue" now, but the Liberals and the Tories have to look really stupid on this. Even if you are for or against this mission, the fact is that they both voted in parliament that the mission WOULD END, in '09. Now that the Tories have gotten the Liberals bribed for the 2011 date and when that date gets near (using these "bench marks" which is a lie, all i need to do is look at my own country with Bush and "benchmarks"), of course who ever in charge will say "2015" and so on.

Basically Harper is pulling a McCain in saying by not saying like McCain did that "we'll be there for 100 years".

Economy can't go on this good forever, B.C. is going to collapse most likely after the Olympics, Alberta has peaked, Ontario has economically basically collapsed, Quebec is just like Ontario. Canada can't afford this. To me its not an issue of why Canada is there but an economic issue. When no other country wants to help, Canada does not have unlimited resources. Therefore it is in our best interests to leave southern Afghanistan on the basis of saving the country from bankruptcy.

now if either the NDP or Liberals said something like that, the Tories would have no response because there is a precedent for this scenario and all we have to do is look to the south of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah what's Harper to do when democrats are in the white house...

watching the afghanistan debate on cspan via cpac

i know this won't be an "election issue" now, but the Liberals and the Tories have to look really stupid on this. Even if you are for or against this mission, the fact is that they both voted in parliament that the mission WOULD END, in '09. Now that the Tories have gotten the Liberals bribed for the 2011 date and when that date gets near (using these "bench marks" which is a lie, all i need to do is look at my own country with Bush and "benchmarks"), of course who ever in charge will say "2015" and so on.

Basically Harper is pulling a McCain in saying by not saying like McCain did that "we'll be there for 100 years".

Economy can't go on this good forever, B.C. is going to collapse most likely after the Olympics, Alberta has peaked, Ontario has economically basically collapsed, Quebec is just like Ontario. Canada can't afford this. To me its not an issue of why Canada is there but an economic issue. When no other country wants to help, Canada does not have unlimited resources. Therefore it is in our best interests to leave southern Afghanistan on the basis of saving the country from bankruptcy.

now if either the NDP or Liberals said something like that, the Tories would have no response because there is a precedent for this scenario and all we have to do is look to the south of us.

A couple things:

1) I highly doubt the Conservatives care if it's a Republican or Democrat in the White House...you still don't get it that the Dems are still closer to Canada's version of Conservative politics then they are to the left in Canada?? Don't fall into the media

2) Politicians and firm deadlines are always a joke...on pretty much every issue they've ever set a "deadline" to. Likely because their deadlines are, usually, for votes and typically unrealistic.

3) BC collapses after the Olympics?? Possibly. But that's still a couple years away...the short term economic issues currently in play will likely be a non-issue by then and the North American economy will be working it's way upwards again. Which would help to off-set some of the hurt.

4) Alberta is unlikely to "collapse". They are much more diversified then in the past AND the need for oil is NOT going away any time in the near future...especially since most of their oil is for industrial purposes and both China and India are large, rapidly emerging markets.

5) Ontario has not collapsed...LOL. The auto sector has taken a beating, manufacturing is down but most jobs are in the services sector. Ontario is hurting but it hasn't collapsed...and by 2010/2011 they'll be fine.

The economic argument does NOT make any sense at all. Canada's military doesn't take enough of our GDP expenditures to have a significant impact. The Afgahn mission, with our limited military forces just doesn't cost enough for someone to make the argument. The Conservatives are talking about increasing military spending by half a point...and that's just to get them equipment so they aren't paddling there in canoes(another Liberal fiasco leaving our military weaponless). You can't compare the amount the USA spends on their military to Canada...

Really, the best argument the NDP/Liberals/Bloc can make is: The Americans need to contribute more to this mission...yes, I know they are the most heavily invested in Afgahnistan BUT they should be...the Libs and NDP SHOULD be arguing that we should be in more of a support role rather then a leadership role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple things:

1) I highly doubt the Conservatives care if it's a Republican or Democrat in the White House...you still don't get it that the Dems are still closer to Canada's version of Conservative politics then they are to the left in Canada?? Don't fall into the media

2) Politicians and firm deadlines are always a joke...on pretty much every issue they've ever set a "deadline" to. Likely because their deadlines are, usually, for votes and typically unrealistic.

3) BC collapses after the Olympics?? Possibly. But that's still a couple years away...the short term economic issues currently in play will likely be a non-issue by then and the North American economy will be working it's way upwards again. Which would help to off-set some of the hurt.

4) Alberta is unlikely to "collapse". They are much more diversified then in the past AND the need for oil is NOT going away any time in the near future...especially since most of their oil is for industrial purposes and both China and India are large, rapidly emerging markets.

5) Ontario has not collapsed...LOL. The auto sector has taken a beating, manufacturing is down but most jobs are in the services sector. Ontario is hurting but it hasn't collapsed...and by 2010/2011 they'll be fine.

The economic argument does NOT make any sense at all. Canada's military doesn't take enough of our GDP expenditures to have a significant impact. The Afgahn mission, with our limited military forces just doesn't cost enough for someone to make the argument. The Conservatives are talking about increasing military spending by half a point...and that's just to get them equipment so they aren't paddling there in canoes(another Liberal fiasco leaving our military weaponless). You can't compare the amount the USA spends on their military to Canada...

Really, the best argument the NDP/Liberals/Bloc can make is: The Americans need to contribute more to this mission...yes, I know they are the most heavily invested in Afgahnistan BUT they should be...the Libs and NDP SHOULD be arguing that we should be in more of a support role rather then a leadership role.

1. Uhm, for the last time Harper's conservatives are republicans, Harper apologizing to the United States for not being in the war in Iraq, looking to the republican party for guidance and a guide. This isn't the Ontario P.C. party from the 50's til the 90's, okay? DNC chairpeople do not speak at CPC conventions, they talk at LPC conventions. JFK,LBJ,FDR would never have been in the CPC party. It's your delusion at this "Canada is so more progressive then the U.S. that the Tories are left wingers" is a Canadian Moral superiority idea. I'm sorry but that is the truth. The only card you have is the health care. The CPC would be for privatization just like the Alliance/Reform (fraser institute) etc but... The problem is that the Canadian public would never allow private health care like the United States. It's not like the party is rah rah universal health care, which they are not (and you know that). It's that the canadian public would never allow it (they believe health is a right). I'm sick and tired of trying to get this through to Canadians which is directly related to the "canadians are better people" attitude. Which is the view that binds Canada together, the idea that we're not Americans.

2. you got me here

3. B.C. is construction driven in the lower mainland. It's all Olympic growth. The growth is unsustainable, housing prices and cost of living in both alberta and b.c. are now insane. it's a bubble.

4. Economic argument does work because what is needed to fund wars? money. Canada will be in a deficit by the end of the year. Harper just spends and spends on military expenditures. Wars are expensive, you don't cut taxes during a war either because it drains your pockets. Then there's the war fatigue factor. Canada can't afford afghanistan because the military force is not huge and morale will plummet. When 2011 comes around and whoever says extend the mission to 2015 the Canadian military will be broken.

5. what goes on down here will affect what goes on in Canada, you guys watch too much american programming for something not to happen. Just look at your political history, its all parallelled. The rise of Trudeau with JFK, Reform party with the american right wing Reagan and the relationship with Mulroney, "third way" with Chreitien and Clinton, Harper and Bush.

Edited by Pierre the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Uhm, for the last time Harper's conservatives are republicans, Harper apologizing to the United States for not being in the war in Iraq, looking to the republican party for guidance and a guide. This isn't the Ontario P.C. party from the 50's til the 90's, okay? DNC chairpeople do not speak at CPC conventions, they talk at LPC conventions. JFK,LBJ,FDR would never have been in the CPC party. It's your delusion at this "Canada is so more progressive then the U.S. that the Tories are left wingers" is a Canadian Moral superiority idea. I'm sorry but that is the truth. The only card you have is the health care. The CPC would be for privatization just like the Alliance/Reform (fraser institute) etc but... The problem is that the Canadian public would never allow private health care like the United States. It's not like the party is rah rah universal health care, which they are not (and you know that). It's that the canadian public would never allow it (they believe health is a right). I'm sick and tired of trying to get this through to Canadians which is directly related to the "canadians are better people" attitude. Which is the view that binds Canada together, the idea that we're not Americans.

2. you got me here

3. B.C. is construction driven in the lower mainland. It's all Olympic growth. The growth is unsustainable, housing prices and cost of living in both alberta and b.c. are now insane. it's a bubble.

4. Economic argument does work because what is needed to fund wars? money. Canada will be in a deficit by the end of the year. Harper just spends and spends on military expenditures. Wars are expensive, you don't cut taxes during a war either because it drains your pockets. Then there's the war fatigue factor. Canada can't afford afghanistan because the military force is not huge and morale will plummet. When 2011 comes around and whoever says extend the mission to 2015 the Canadian military will be broken.

5. what goes on down here will affect what goes on in Canada, you guys watch too much american programming for something not to happen. Just look at your political history, its all parallelled. The rise of Trudeau with JFK, Reform party with the american right wing Reagan and the relationship with Mulroney, "third way" with Chreitien and Clinton, Harper and Bush.

The Conservatives differ greatly from the Republicans on many issues...it's purely a lib-left Canadian media slant that they are the "same" as Bush...simply because it fits with the liberal media's concept of trying to keep the Liberals in power...

And for the record...I think that our health care system is largely broken. Health Care in Canada needs a private sector AND needs some additional user fees...and no, I'm not advocating an Amercian style medical system. I'm saying they need to curtail the people who visit hospitals for bloody noses and the people who visit their doctor for a common cold that could be cured over the counter at the pharmacy. A tightly regulated private sector would eleviate pressure and wait times on the public system and keep our top medical minds in the country as opposed to leaving.

I am not disputing that BC will have some economic issues after the Olympics(largely with a mobile work force that is transient to BC anyhow...). My point is that it's 2-3 years away...and by then Ontario and Quebec will have rebounded. Yes, there will be regional pockets that have issues, just as there are now...but on a macro-level Canada will continue to weather economic problems better then the US...as always. Canadian economic "highs" are never as high as the US just as our "lows" are never as low...often because our government doesn't interfere with it's rates and monetary system like the US has done.

How much do you think Canada spends on it's miltary? In volume and as a percentage of GDP?? It is NOT that much.

The Conservatives are set to announce a $13 BILLION surplus and that's after cutting taxes mid-year. Even if they increased spending in a number of areas, AND the economy takes a 1.5 year hit, I just don't see the current level of military spending being any issue at all...

I know a few military people...officers and enlisted...trust me, the "morale" issue has more to do with their craptastic equipment then anything else. The Liberal government has left them with equipment that is 20-30 YEARS behind the rest of the world. I've been in factories that are "fixing" our armour division equipment...and they can't keep pace with the problems due to lack of government funding. There are giant cracks in the bottom of the armoured vehicles...wide enough to shoot through...would you feel safe knowing your government was sending you to war with equipment like that????? They need to re-build the military thanks to 13 years of Liberal dismantling.

I will agree with you on one thing...too many Canadians define themselves as being "not-American". However, to say that the Conservatives are essentially Republican lap-dogs is ridiculous...Canada continues to have diplomatic issues with the US on a number of trade issues, continues to show it's concern over our role in Afghanistan, etc. Read between the lines when you read most Canadian media outlets. I will grant you that the tone of the Conservatives is one that is more diplomatic BUT it also should be when dealing with your ally and biggest trading partner. The Liberals PREYED on the minds of voters who believed that "Canadians staunchly define themselves anything but American". You could argue that their "verbal attacks" on the US government was as much to do with appearances but little more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the record...I think that our health care system is largely broken.

I agree, I've always said the problem with Canadian health is that it always becomes a U.S. vs. Canada debate. We've become so used to the debate that we fail to look at other European countries which our model is based on, then a model which it is not. So we get two parties (federally) that really don't want to touch the issue and one that says more money...

Health Care in Canada needs a private sector AND needs some additional user fees...and no, I'm not advocating an Amercian style medical system.

I'm saying they need to curtail the people who visit hospitals for bloody noses and the people who visit their doctor for a common cold that could be cured over the counter at the pharmacy.

A tightly regulated private sector would eleviate pressure and wait times on the public system and keep our top medical minds in the country as opposed to leaving.

Brain drain has stopped, more scientists are moving away from the states to other countries now. The part of the bloody noses and common colds are more of a reflection of a lazy canadian public more then anything. Open up 24/7 Walk in Clinics, adamantly tell people that emergency rooms are for emergencies and define what an actual emergency is. Yes this sounds silly but simple education on this matter would save a lot of headaches.

I am not disputing that BC will have some economic issues after the Olympics(largely with a mobile work force that is transient to BC anyhow...). My point is that it's 2-3 years away...and by then Ontario and Quebec will have rebounded.

I disagree only because the Canadian economy is so heavily tied to the United States, which it always will be. I've always pushed for diversification. This is a global world now and yes U.S. will always be a major trading partner but it doesn't have to be the sole and only focus for Canada. This isn't anti-american or anything it's just common sense at where we are in the world right now. B.C. is tied to the U.S. because of wood, the pulp mills are closing now on the island, granted this has more to do with b.c. govts then anything with forest deals; but that's another issue.

Yes, there will be regional pockets that have issues, just as there are now...but on a macro-level Canada will continue to weather economic problems better then the US...as always. Canadian economic "highs" are never as high as the US just as our "lows" are never as low...often because our government doesn't interfere with it's rates and monetary system like the US has done.

In the peak of the 90's California wasn't growing as fast as Alberta and B.C. are now. Canada is the most affected country in the world by US rates and monetary decisions. Macdonald was right in his assumption that a free trade deal with the U.S., would effectively put the economic controls of our country (canada) in the hands of people in washington.

How much do you think Canada spends on it's military? In volume and as a percentage of GDP?? It is NOT that much.

The Conservatives are set to announce a $13 BILLION surplus and that's after cutting taxes mid-year. Even if they increased spending in a number of areas, AND the economy takes a 1.5 year hit, I just don't see the current level of military spending being any issue at all...

Its only a surplus because the Tories aren't spending a ton this year. Flaherty keeps saying he was restraining himself, which i find funny as him being a conservative the words restraining don't come to mind. Especially this guys track record with Harris and Co. in Ontario.

I know a few military people...officers and enlisted...trust me, the "morale" issue has more to do with their craptastic equipment then anything else. The Liberal government has left them with equipment that is 20-30 YEARS behind the rest of the world.

I honestly think that has more to do with what the role of the Canadian military in the world stage was designed for then anything else. Afghanistan was a departure from anything Canadian Forces had done in 50+ years. You can't say this is a Liberal only issue. If you want to blame the Liberals for changing the mindset of the Canadian military, you can also go after Diefenbaker for cancelling Avro Arrow. To me that's when the Canadian military changed its outlook. Pearson seeing that Dief cancelled the military jet, then went "we need to be peace keepers and nation builders". So if you want to blame anyone for the way the Canadian Forces have been handled and how the Canadian mindset changed from a military force outlook to a nation building outlook, the person you're looking for was never a Liberal.

I will agree with you on one thing...too many Canadians define themselves as being "not-American". However, to say that the Conservatives are essentially Republican lap-dogs is ridiculous...Canada continues to have diplomatic issues with the US on a number of trade issues, continues to show it's concern over our role in Afghanistan, etc. Read between the lines when you read most Canadian media outlets. I will grant you that the tone of the Conservatives is one that is more diplomatic BUT it also should be when dealing with your ally and biggest trading partner. The Liberals PREYED on the minds of voters who believed that "Canadians staunchly define themselves anything but American". You could argue that their "verbal attacks" on the US government was as much to do with appearances but little more...

It's a problem I have with the Canadian left that used to be a problem with the Canadian Right. Macdonald was the one who started all of this with us vs. them attitude his famous drunken speech about being british. Trudeau was seen as "anti-american" and people use the quote about the elephant as an example. When in reality he was just saying Canada has to do its own thing and not be seen as a lock step hand in hand partner with America. In other words make its on identity other then just being as Macdonald ran on, "we're not americans".

Harper is connected to the Republicans only because of his Reform/Alliance beginnings which was founded on Reaganism. Neo-Conservatism, Social Conservatism, the modern republican party. While the Liberals bitch and moan about Harper being close to Bush and Mulroney being close to Reagan, Chreitien could never control himself in public when he was around Bill.

Same with the Labour Party and the Democratic Party. The two are tied together with common bonds/ideas.

So right now a Bush-Harper is good for both countries while a Harper-Obama will not be because of certain issues. The question for Canada right now is Obama says he wants to re-do NAFTA, this affects Canadian politics, thus the idea of nothing that happens here (U.S.) doesn't affect Canada, thus making an old drunk Macdonald look like a genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had typed a reply earlier and lost it during the deadline overload...technology is the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol no kidding, i almost lost that last post but i copied it before hand.

And not to peck to death the idea of what happens in the U.S. affects Canada.

Watching the last democratic debate right now, both candidates are on record for saying that they will renegotiate NAFTA or they will leave the trade deal.

Canada was a larger trading partner of the US BEFORE NAFTA and has slowly diversified itself more and more...but ultimately, we will NEVER become completely unreliant on the US market. They are 10x our size with a consumer driven economy...clearly our export market, and our resource market, will always be closely linked to US consumers and manufacturers...the demographics and geographic economics simply force this to happen.

The hi-tech, research, services and these types of markets have allowed Canada to diversify away from such reliance but we are still a country rich in resources so we will always be shipping them south of the border in a greater magnitude then elsewhere. Our manufacturing is subject to the same issues. People underestimate the cost of freight charges for manufactured goods and raw resources. You can build something very cheap overseas BUT it still costs a lot of money to ship just a small portion of it to North America...

I think NAFTA has largely been a good thing but I also don't see it as a necessary tool...nor do I think we would suffer greatly without it. They can change the rules but the game will still be the same. All this type of change does is create opportunities for the companies that can find the loopholes and corner some market segments first. Some business will shift north and south to find competitive advantage...but it will all come out in the wash. JMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Harper is finished now. You can't bribe people stevie!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

OTTAWA - Transcript of a portion of author Tom Zytaruk's tape of a 2005 interview with Stephen Harper, then leader of the Opposition, for his biography of the late Chuck Cadman:

Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"

Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

Zytaruk: "This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book."

Harper: "Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that's not, you know, I mean, I, that's not going to change."

Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"

Harper: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."

Zytaruk: "Thank you for that. And when (inaudible)."

Harper: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

Zytaruk: "Oh, OK."

Harper: "OK? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

Zytaruk: "But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren't big on the idea in the first place?"

Harper: "Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view ..."

Zytaruk: "Oh, okay. So, it's not like, he's like, (inaudible)."

Harper: "I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going."

Zytaruk: "Well, thank you very much."

Edited by Pierre the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Another form of bribery occurs when someone contributes to the electoral fund of a member in return for a contract or other benefit. Since all members of the House of Commons are elected, the funding of political parties and candidates is an important aspect of every election. Where contributions are made with the expectation of future advantage, the behaviour is dealt with in the Criminal Code."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/imp_use_pub/page03.html

The responsibility of a to his constituency and to the nation requires a rigorous standard of honesty and behaviour, departure from which should not be tolerated. If, in violation of their responsibilities, the services of [members of the House of Commons] can be bought then justice and freedom cannot survive, nor can this nation long survive as a place where free men can live

Time to resign Stephen.

Edited by Pierre the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Another form of bribery occurs when someone contributes to the electoral fund of a member in return for a contract or other benefit. Since all members of the House of Commons are elected, the funding of political parties and candidates is an important aspect of every election. Where contributions are made with the expectation of future advantage, the behaviour is dealt with in the Criminal Code."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/imp_use_pub/page03.html

The responsibility of a to his constituency and to the nation requires a rigorous standard of honesty and behaviour, departure from which should not be tolerated. If, in violation of their responsibilities, the services of [members of the House of Commons] can be bought then justice and freedom cannot survive, nor can this nation long survive as a place where free men can live

Time to resign Stephen.

When I listened to the audio I could not believe Harper the LIAR. He lied about his bribe and was caught on tape. No way I can vote for this reform/alliance/conservative liar. No wonder he does not talk to the media, HE LIES!!!

Step down Harper, as I have left your party!!!! LOSER.....

Audio File Link - .mp3

Edited by InsaneAVSfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys consider it bribery to offer cabinet positions to people who cross the floor of the house of commons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where's 1mill in "crossing the floor"

harper's answer alone is the most troubling.

My understanding is that he was offered a life insurance policy worth $1 million...which is NOT the same as being offered $1 million. Now, I don't condone any of these political bribes but this isn't a far cry from being offered a benefit package for a job. Frankly, I see NO difference between offering someone a position of stature, like a cabinet minister post, to cross the floor of the House to your rivals...and we've seen almost all parties pull stunts like this over the past few years(at provincial and federal levels...).

I find it greatly amusing that the NDPers in this thread are jumping up and down but weren't when the Liberals pull this same type of stunt...you guys really seem to buy into whatever the Liberal media sells you these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone call security. You mean to tell me their are no Rhino's in here? No Yogic Flyers in here? :P

who knows? lol

its so weird being on a student union board and having the most "moderate" and conservative views of the gang. I hate being the tony blair among the militant tendency folks....

I mean gosh I don't hate capitalism! shocker, omg i'm tony blair run for the hills nanaimo. I think the communist manifesto is boring, i've tried reading it 5 times, had to look up it up on the internet to figure out that the best line in the book is the first sentence.. :wacko:

lol i've basically kinnocked the whole union, in a berating email to the union head, told them i can't work with people who are just reactionary. So our first meeting should be interesting. I want to actually create a backbone in the group and not just sit around getting drunk about how great cuba is.

lol the union head told me to run so i could show the "kids" a different view of socialism. hahaha

like our first meeting.

guy #1: So Pierre who are you're political influences?

Me: Palme, Sweden, European left, democracy

guy #1: Ah you're a social democrat then... Yeah, I went to South America this summer saw Chavez, Bolivia, Cuba

Me: that's great....... i like democracy

lol lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

update as of 1:08pt

Vancouver Quadra -

10,155 Liberal

10,004 Tory

Toronto Centre

14,187 Liberal

3,299 NDP

Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River

4,996 Tory

3,287 Liberal

all 100% reporting so this is final

wow, the liberals almost lost Vancouver Quadra. freaking lol

The Green Party saved Dion's hind again. 10 bucks the Greens took Conservative votes in Quadra. Now with all the environmental tories voting Green, this Lib-Green coalition going on is hysterical. Greens aren't lefties people. hell, this is b.c. the lefties are against the carbon tax, so there's your answer. At least in B.C. we will not be fooled. ha!

Edited by Pierre the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to look at last nights results as anything but bad news for Jack Layton and the NDPs. They struggled to finish ahead of the Green party in 3 of 4 ridings. These results are starting to show what I have expected for the last year. The NDPs monopoly as the 'alternative' party is coming to an end and they are going to have to fight tooth and nail to retain a good chunk of their current seats.

Off the top of my head there are a few NDP toronto seats that are now going to be vulnerable (Olivia Chow's is one off the top of my head) as well as hopefully some seats in the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...