2008 Federal Elections Results

[KoZed]

I see your point Zowpeb. I got a story for you.

[...]

2 options there :

A - Keep as many social programs to help improving the life of a little % of these people.

B- Throw in the garbage all the efforts made by social workers and make life of a very high % of them even tougher.

I only makes 28K before income taxes and I personnaly don't care if 10% of my taxes go there : I choose option A.

And will vote for a governement who chooses option A as well...

I think every tax payer can get irritated when he finds out about all the things his tax dollars pay for people who could work but chose to do nothing. It's only human to feel that somewhere, it's unfair.

However I'll tell you that those social programs are clearly not the biggest waste of tax dollars or the biggest injustice made to tax payers.

The real waste is to pay insane salaries and social benefits to unionized state workers. I dont mind my taxes keeping people alive and off the streets or away from crime. It basic human decency in a wealthy society. What I find completely unfair, however, is when a tax payer busting his ass to survive and who isnt able to save much dollars sees his tax dollars being pumped into retirement funds for states workers. Shit, I can't even save enough money for my retirement but I'm going to pay for one for some lazy ass state-employed janitor who's already making twice my salary?

Want another case of tax dollars waste? In my last year of B.A. in Political Sciences, we had a course on Policies Analysis. Basically, we were taught how to be Policies Consultant, the kinds that get hired by various Government agencies or Private firms to study policies and make recommendations. We were all sceptic about that kind of work, until our teacher told us it was easy money. He then proceeded to show us a document about 2 inches thick of all the consulting contracts and subsidies given by the provincial Government in the previous year. Pages and pages of 10k, 25k, 50k contracts and subsidies that, more often than not, always goes to the same firms (KPMG for example) or people. 10k doesnt seems like much; but all put together we were looking at hundred of millions of dollars of money sprinkled all over the place for documents that often ends up nowhere.

That is real waste, but it's so burried into the daily process of all levels of various agencies, it passes for basic necessary functions of the Government and nobody ever hears or knows about it; except the handful of consultants and experts who bid on every contract offered, often knowing in advance what the allowed budget is so they can ask for as much as possible. They too are living of the States and tax payers; but unlike welfare people who get 500$ per month doing nothing; those guys can make 50,000$ a month doing very little.

[MAK]

it's easy to blame a janitor for asking a decent wage. would you do their job ?? they have the worst jobs in the world yet many people in their confortable air conditionned offices are quick on complaining about the guy that cleans their piss they leave in the toilet seat and empty their garbage cans.

if you want to rant, rant about STM bus driver that make almost double my salary and yet they dare complain every 2-3 years that they're underpaid and have Fu**in balls to go on strike while nurses, cops, firemen don't have that luxury. Rant about hydro quebec trying to raise the rates on any given excuse while they make record profit every year.

Edited October 22, 2008 by marky_and_komi

[JoeLassister]

it's easy to blame a janitor for asking a decent wage. would you do their job ?? they have the worst jobs in the world yet many people in their confortable air conditionned offices are quick on complaining about the guy that cleans their piss they leave in the toilet seat and empty their garbage cans.

if you want to rant, rant about STM bus driver that make almost double my salary and yet they dare complain every 2-3 years that they're underpaid and have Fu**in balls to go on strike while nurses, cops, firemen don't have that luxury. Rant about hydro quebec trying to raise the rates on any given excuse while they make record profit every year.

or simply just rant about the Governments who allow the 5 major banks in Canada to send their money in fiscal paradises and allow them to NOT PAY their fair amount of taxes since a decade and more : BILLIONS of dollars anually !

[Mont Royale]

I also wanted to add in response to a few previous posters about Conservative fiscal policy.

There is this ridiculous misconception in politics (particularly Canadian politics) that conservative (small c not large C) fiscal policy is the most sound, the most responsible. I think though that a simple evaluation of its effects would dispel this myth rather quickly.

After distinguishing between small c and large C conservatism, you then go on to attribute conservative fiscal policy to the Conservatives, and presumably liberal fiscal policy to the Liberals. Wrong on both counts. The Conservatives under Mulroney continued (albeit at a much slower pace) the Trudeau-era tax and spend approach. It was the Liberals under Chretien/Martin who adopted real conservative fiscal policies by slashing spending, and once the deficit was under control, cutting taxes. As for the Liberal surplus, if by saying Harper "spent it all" you mean that he let Canadians keep more of their own money, you are correct.

Also, I don't agree that conservative fiscal policies are what devastated the U.S. economy. Under Bush, spending has been huge, while taxes have been cut substantially, so it's a hybrid, or in other words, a mess; that's the government financial situation. The economic collapse has much to do with deregulation, which is government policy, although not exactly fiscal policy.

You make a good point about the dangers of following conservative fiscal policy as we head into a recession. From an economics perspective, there is no better time to increase spending than when the economy is faltering, even at the risk of modest deficits. The government can act as a counterweight to the bad times, and Canada is in a solid fiscal position to do this. The word 'deficit' has become something of a dirty word in Canada lately (which is mostly a good thing), but there is a time and place for them.

[CerebusClone]

We live in a wonderful society that provides assistance to help those who desperately need it. I am more than happy to pay my share of the tax burden to provide money to these programs. I love that my taxes go to struggling artists trying to inject some culture into our civilization (well I should say used to, since "ordinary people don't support the arts" right Steve?). I love that my tax dollars provide assistance to the poor, to the sick, to the needy. I may not live a luxurious life but I live my life knowing that I have it better than some people. I can only hope that they can one day have the same opportunities that I have had. To have a loving family, to have a roof over their heads, to be educated, to simply have a chance.

I agree with your general point that taxes are necessary to ensure a minimum quality of living for all people in this country. However I disagree with that particular statement regarding struggling artists. While money should be (and is) allocated to create programs and an infrastructure that promote the arts, and ensure that people have the means to become artists, I don’t think we should finance individual artists simply because they are struggling in the pursuit of their dreams.

If we make a parallel to hockey, it is the government’s role (including all levels down to municipal) to have enough arenas to satisfy the demand, to ensure that hockey is accessible to most people (some gifted kids have to quit because their parents can’t afford all the expenses), to provide school programs so that people can get an education while pursuing their dreams … in other words provide the programs and the infrastructure necessary for the well-being of hockey in Canada. However, the government should not be responsible for players who have failed to make it as professionals, for example a player who’s struggling with 1 or 2 jobs in addition to playing in the LNAH, or others who have to either go back to school or find a second career.

After all, a struggling artist is the same as struggling hockey players, accountants, politicians, firemen, sales reps, software developers, business owners, etc.

[JoeLassister]

I agree with your general point that taxes are necessary to ensure a minimum quality of living for all people in this country. However I disagree with that particular statement regarding struggling artists. While money should be (and is) allocated to create programs and an infrastructure that promote the arts, and ensure that people have the means to become artists, I don’t think we should finance individual artists simply because they are struggling in the pursuit of their dreams.

If we make a parallel to hockey, it is the government’s role (including all levels down to municipal) to have enough arenas to satisfy the demand, to ensure that hockey is accessible to most people (some gifted kids have to quit because their parents can’t afford all the expenses), to provide school programs so that people can get an education while pursuing their dreams … in other words provide the programs and the infrastructure necessary for the well-being of hockey in Canada. However, the government should not be responsible for players who have failed to make it as professionals, for example a player who’s struggling with 1 or 2 jobs in addition to playing in the LNAH, or others who have to either go back to school or find a second career.

After all, a struggling artist is the same as struggling hockey players, accountants, politicians, firemen, sales reps, software developers, business owners, etc.

I just think the artists/hockey player parallel is not good. A hockey players who has 1 job + hockey carrer will not make the culture shine in the world as an artist might with a 2nd album.

Do you know how many famous bands or artists failed with their 1rst album ? Without any help, all these bands would be doing something else. It is like sending the message that once you've failed, there is no return because nobody will come to help you out a little.

The government's programms help the artists who are very next to success or "fame". 90% of the bands don't receive any help and have a 2nd job as well as carreer LNAH players.

Professionnal hockey is an industry, while amateur/junior hockey is not and receive help from governments.

Professionnal / famous artists are in an industry of their own, while amateur/rising artists/festivals/theatre group/etc are not really in the big industry and don't receive that much money.

Why couldn't they receive that little 40M$ ???

Cut the funding to U18 Team Canada would be fair ??? I don't think so.

[KoZed]

it's easy to blame a janitor for asking a decent wage. would you do their job ?? they have the worst jobs in the world yet many people in their confortable air conditionned offices are quick on complaining about the guy that cleans their piss they leave in the toilet seat and empty their garbage cans.

25$+/hours with social benefits for a job that requires absolutely zero education is simply unreasonable. I repeat, requires zero education, zero special skills. Anybody could do it. You could ask for people on welfare to do it.

I respect the work they do, but the pay must fit the skills required and the scarcity of candidates for the job. Sure it sucks cleaning after people, but maids in hotels get paid minimum wage for the same job. Yet some janitor working for the government gets paid almost 4 times the minimum wage just because he's employed by the State and is protected by the union? Absolute BS.

[David B]

but maids in hotels get paid minimum wage for the same job. Yet some janitor working for the government gets paid almost 4 times the minimum wage just because he's employed by the State and is protected by the union? Absolute BS.

I find that to be true when comparing Teacher's to childcare workers. Our tax dollars directly fund teacher's salaries and don't really do much for the childcare worker.

Teacher's make astronomical amounts of $$$ & get their summers off & (insert other perks here) while childcare workers educate and have a major role in the development of your child while you go back to work all for minimum wage and no other real holiday's besides the Statutory holidays that most of us get anyway.

It has been mentioned that the biggest impact on your child's development is in their first 2-3 years yet the persons responsible for assisting in this development live at or below the poverty line. Then people wonder why there are no spots for their children at Childcare Centre's, there is a serious shortage of facilities because there are is a serious shortage of workers. The government assists families who send children to daycare while I feel those dollars would be better spent on wages for these workers.

No I am not advocating for someone specific, it's just something that has caught my eye now that I have a child who certainly benefits from the childcare worker. I do my part in paying more monthly for childcare than I do on my mortgage, I certainly won't be doing the same once my daughter enters the school system.

[CerebusClone]

I just think the artists/hockey player parallel is not good. A hockey players who has 1 job + hockey carrer will not make the culture shine in the world as an artist might with a 2nd album.

Do you know how many famous bands or artists failed with their 1rst album ? Without any help, all these bands would be doing something else. It is like sending the message that once you've failed, there is no return because nobody will come to help you out a little.

The government's programms help the artists who are very next to success or "fame". 90% of the bands don't receive any help and have a 2nd job as well as carreer LNAH players.

Professionnal hockey is an industry, while amateur/junior hockey is not and receive help from governments.

Professionnal / famous artists are in an industry of their own, while amateur/rising artists/festivals/theatre group/etc are not really in the big industry and don't receive that much money.

Why couldn't they receive that little 40M$ ???

Cut the funding to U18 Team Canada would be fair ??? I don't think so.

How's a failed singer or artist any different than a failed restaurant owner (or even a hockey player). Both had a dream, both failed, but one should get more assistance because he's artistic? A singer or painter isn't really promoting culture, he's just doing something he likes and letting go of his feelings/emotions through a medium of his choosing; some are just doing this for themselves while others are hoping to make a living out of it... just like cooking or playing hockey.

After all, did Prodigy really make British culture shine with Smack my Bitch Up (which I actually liked by the way, I even bought the album)? There just a group amongst many others that worked hard enough, and was lucky enough to make it big. However, there are thousands of other British bands that never made it (some were probably great), and are struggling because they followed their dreams and failed... it's too bad, but it's just like that... just like it was really too bad that my parents lost quite a bit of money in the last restaurant they opened, but I didn't see any government cheque because they tried hard and provided some jobs to people...

Individuals artists who want to prusue their dreams or ideas have access to the same ressources as other individuals... welfare if they fail, bank loans (ex. to start a restaurant or an art gallery), sometimes a government assistance program if you dig hard enough ...

With all this said, I'm all for the government investing money in arts and culture in many other ways, such as making sure we have schools that teach the various arts, offering loans and bursaries to art students, partly financing a true opera house in Montreal instead of the lousy and uncomfortable venues we have now, adding more art classes in prmiary and high schools, allocating larger budgets for school trips (ex. taking a class to see a play), increasing funding for school orchestras (I actually played the French Horn for my school), etc.

[JLP]

Just returned from 11 days in Mtl-Ott-Tor and thank you Bloc for blocking a majority that would have given Harper carte blanche! Canadians almost made a mistake, fortunately Québec didn't fall for the con.

[Mont Royale]

Just returned from 11 days in Mtl-Ott-Tor and thank you Bloc for blocking a majority that would have given Harper carte blanche! Canadians almost made a mistake, fortunately Québec didn't fall for the con.

You can believe that a Conservative majority would lead to Armageddon if you want, but their worst tendencies would be curbed by the desire to be re-elected. Harper ain't Bush. Also, a significant Quebec contingent would also have had a moderating influence on the rest.

[JLP]

You can believe that a Conservative majority would lead to Armageddon if you want, but their worst tendencies would be curbed by the desire to be re-elected. Harper ain't Bush. Also, a significant Quebec contingent would also have had a moderating influence on the rest.

Wouldn't you agree it's an unproductive way to discuss, putting things in others' mouths?

Anyway what Canadian democracy needs now is either more unity on the left or some fragmentation on the right. Remember, 63% of voters wanted someone other than Harper.

[Zowpeb]

Wouldn't you agree it's an unproductive way to discuss, putting things in others' mouths?

Anyway what Canadian democracy needs now is either more unity on the left or some fragmentation on the right. Remember, 63% of voters wanted someone other than Harper.

Sorry but the 63% of people didn't want Harper argument is pretty thin...especially considering the Liberals had smashing majorities in the 90's with a very similar percentage of the popular vote.

Funny how the "left" is making this argument now that it's not working in their favour...

I suspect that electoral reform would not bode well for Quebec...they could actually stand to lose a lot of their clout in Ottawa.

[Zowpeb]

2 options there :

A - Keep as many social programs to help improving the life of a little % of these people.

B- Throw in the garbage all the efforts made by social workers and make life of a very high % of them even tougher.

I only makes 28K before income taxes and I personnaly don't care if 10% of my taxes go there : I choose option A.

And will vote for a governement who chooses option A as well...

There will always be people who are deserving and in need. Everyone seems ready to think that I want all social programs cut...and it's far from the truth. I believe we NEED social programs. Good programs that are based on facts and evidence and not based on the emotional attachment that many of the causes generate. Many programs are OVERLOADED with inefficiency and incompetence...making it open to abuse. The structure is one that keeps the people at the top overpaid and as such eliminates much of their incentive to run efficient programs.

I have NO PROBLEM with my taxes going to social programs. I just expect them to work...the fact is that most of them aren't working well at all.

[Zowpeb]

There is much of your comments that I disagree with Zow but this one stood out for me. This is the type of comment that I find to be typical of conservatives.

Addiction is a dangerous thing, it puts the user at risk while also puts the people around that person at increased risk. It is also not a thing that can be fixed overnight. There is no easy fix here. I don't live in BC so I don't have any direct interaction with these facilities. However from my understanding when it comes to intravenous drug users one of the largest concerns is the spread of disease.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have drug users, but we don't live in a perfect world. These people are going to use drugs whether you like it or not. Some people may beat it and quit, while others will start, its a sad statement about our society but unfortunately an accurate one. This really is a medical issue. They're going to inject regardless so if that's the case why not provide them with safe needles to help reduce the spread of disease. At the end of the day this decision allows for a reduced burden on the provinces health care system. As a conservative I know I have to speak in money terms to you. By reducing the spread of disease the burden on the health service is thusly reduced as well. Less sick people = less people in hospitals = less money spent on public health care.

Well, debating the concept of injection sites and their merits is probably good for another thread. I see this issue as more then a cost of money but also a cost of society. Injection sites are a band aid solution that simply patches over the root problems of addiction. I agree, there is no easy solution but to simply create accessible programs by a government enabler is not right either. I just believe there has to be a better way.

[Zowpeb]

I also wanted to add in response to a few previous posters about Conservative fiscal policy.

There is this ridiculous misconception in politics (particularly Canadian politics) that conservative (small c not large C) fiscal policy is the most sound, the most responsible. I think though that a simple evaluation of its effects would dispel this myth rather quickly.

Canadians need to remember that it was Brian Mulroney who left this country with a 45 billion dollar deficit. When the liberals came to power in the early 90s they had a huge mess to clean up. However with Martin as finance minister the government made some very painful but necessary cuts to spending and ended up balancing the budget for eight consecutive years. When the liberals turned government over to the Conservatives they left a 13.3 billion dollar surplus. Harper spent it all. Despite knowing that and economic storm was coming from the US he spent his cushion and even ran a deficit budget in January/February of 2008. Now he hasn't ruled out running a deficit for the coming year.

I'm not an idiot I know that Mulroney had to deal with economic issues during his tenure, but the problem with Conservatives is that they are ideologically driven. Whether the time is right for their traditional fiscal approaches or not it doesn't matter. They'll stick with the ideology over logic. We didn't need a 1% cut in the GST this year but Harper did it anyway despite every economist in Canada saying that was an important cushion to have with a potential recession looming. People criticize the liberals for swaying their positions on key issues, I think that's the best part about our party. Fiscally when times are tough we are able to shift to the right to weather the storm, but when the economy is going strong we can shift to the left and provide the country with a boom to investments and social services through increases in spending.

It's frustrating to hear people trumpet the need for conservative fiscal approaches as we enter a pending recession. Just look at how conservative fiscal policy has demolished the US economy over the last eight years. During the great depression there was an excellent saying coined, and it's one that I'm sure we will all be thinking about over the tenure of this new government.

"Tory times are tough times"

/rant

Hey, I'm not one to trumpet a historical Conservative tradition based on their management of the economy. Far from it. I've voted Liberals and, gasp, NDP in my lifetime. Each time I thought their economic plans were best for the country. Mulroney, a PC, and Trudeau, a Liberal, were the 2 worst Prime Ministers in history IMHO. Trudeau left this country mired in debt and Mulroney compounded it tremendously.

I believe the current Conservatives were better equipped to deal with the current economic times.

In everyones effort to villify a Conservative voter it is apparently okay for a left wing person to stereotype them in any way they want...it's actually amusing to see.

If you say: government should only spend on effective social programs...I expect my tax dollars spent wisely.

The left says: you are a heartless callous bastard.

[JLP]

Sorry but the 63% of people didn't want Harper argument is pretty thin...especially considering the Liberals had smashing majorities in the 90's with a very similar percentage of the popular vote.

Actually even when the Liberals were in gov't there were other left-leaning and social democratic parties siphoning their votes, the NDP, Bloc, going back some even the Socreds and assorted commies. Reform / Conservative / Alliance on the other hand solidly unified the right. Very clever, Harper is Machiavelli in a shetland sweater.

[Zowpeb]

Actually even when the Liberals were in gov't there were other left-leaning and social democratic parties siphoning their votes, the NDP, Bloc, going back some even the Socreds and assorted commies. Reform / Conservative / Alliance on the other hand solidly unified the right. Very clever, Harper is Machiavelli in a shetland sweater.

Sorry, but that still doesn't address my comment that no one was complaining loudly for electoral reform when the Liberals were winning majorities with very similar popular vote numbers. Seems to me that now the left of centre vote wants their cake and eat it too. I'm not sold on proportional representation and there are many avenues Canada could take on electoral reform...and changes probably should be made. I just find it funny that now the reasoning is some great concern over the evils of a centre right party...

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Bully

I should add JoeLassister that this "bully" comment was a joke. I wasn't serious. If I offended I apologize...

...and you're still a bully

PS. Kidding twice

Edited October 23, 2008 by Athlétique.Canadien

[JoeLassister]

I should add JoeLassister that this "bully" comment was a joke. I wasn't serious. If I offended I apologize...

...and you're still a bully

PS. Kidding twice

No problem, i'm just a bully when it comes to sports, politic and religion...

[Zowpeb]

Actually even when the Liberals were in gov't there were other left-leaning and social democratic parties siphoning their votes, the NDP, Bloc, going back some even the Socreds and assorted commies. Reform / Conservative / Alliance on the other hand solidly unified the right. Very clever, Harper is Machiavelli in a shetland sweater.

Further to this, the Conservative vote was also split in the 90's across the above mentioned parties. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that the Liberals were a right of centre party in the 90's...I think everyone needs to wake up to the reality that while the Liberals are currently left of centre they tend to change with the wind.

Not only that but the Bloc has also had their moments of right of centre politics. Even the Green Party was pretty right of centre prior to Elizabeth May becoming the party leader and running her party into the ground...lol. People respect May but the more I look back her final couple weeks really started to alienate a lot of Green Party voters...how many people jumped ship after she virtually recommended they do so? At one point, only about 2-3 years ago, The Greens held a lot of ideals that were in line with the Conservatives...May has really driven the party much further to the left.

There really is no way to unite the NDP with the Liberals without seeing a lot of NDPers becoming very disillusioned IMO. The Liberals are the traditional party of Bay Street. Why would the NDP want to join with them? Makes no sense. The NDP have the same problem as the Conservatives in a sense (other then my general disagreement with NDP style policy). Lot's of power held by the party leader because of a few less then stellar candidates that spoil their PR.

People need to realise/remember that the 2 parties with the most in common both idealogically and politically are the Conservatives and Liberals. This country, for most of it's history, was essentially built by these 2 parties slugging it out in elections...the fringe parties grew because of the growing diversity of Canadian culture, because the Liberals haven't dealt with the rest of Canada effectively in the past decade, because Mulroney destroyed the right wing for a decade after he left office and because Chretien has done the same to the Liberals. In 10 years the Greens will be no where and the NDP will be back to their normal 5 - 15 seats. By that time the Liberals will have re-built their party, leadership, grass roots etc. The Conservatives will have settled as a legit contender for the leadership again and shown to be a centrist party. There will be no reason for electoral reform once 80-90% of the popular vote is split between those 2 parties...as has historically been the case.

People can espouse the 63% didn't vote for the government all they want...BUT the reality is that even if this went by popular vote our PM would still be someone who didn't have 63% of the vote...we'd just have a weaker minority. I believe there is validity in the concerns but, like most things, there has to be a fair balance that improves the current system.

I'd like to see a Senate we vote for.

I'd like to see ridings re-done...

Some mix of popular and proportional representaion brought forward...not sure how exactly.

Any way you slice it, the leader of the country will ALWAYS only get about 36-45% of the vote. Whether it's 2 parties running or 5 parties running...it's the same. Always has been, always will be.

[Mont Royale]

This country, for most of it's history, was essentially built by these 2 parties slugging it out in elections...the fringe parties grew because of the growing diversity of Canadian culture, because the Liberals haven't dealt with the rest of Canada effectively in the past decade, because Mulroney destroyed the right wing for a decade after he left office and because Chretien has done the same to the Liberals.

OK, I'm with you on the vast majority of what you say, but not this. The post-Chretien Liberal decline has had more to do with Martin's indecisiveness/pandering after assuming the leadership, and a lack of effective leadership since. Martin won a minority government soon after becoming leader, so it was nothing like the catastrophic loss that Kim Campbell suffered as a backlash after the Mulroney years. It's also not in the same league as Turner's massive defeat after the Trudeau years.

I know you're probably referring to the sponsorship scandal as part of the Chretien legacy, but that effect could have been fairly short-lived (especially outside of Quebec) with better leadership and vision from the Liberals. I don't believe that Ontario is really infatuated with Harper, nor is the BQ really as popular as they appear to be, but in the absence of a palatable alternative from the Liberals, that's where the votes go.

[Colin]

Further to this, the Conservative vote was also split in the 90's across the above mentioned parties. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that the Liberals were a right of centre party in the 90's...I think everyone needs to wake up to the reality that while the Liberals are currently left of centre they tend to change with the wind.

Some very, very good points in your post, however you seem to insinuate that the Liberals changing with the wind is a bad thing. I'd rather see a party adapt to the changing world than see them dig in their heels and take a hard line in something that's rapidly losing relevance. Not that I'm saying the Conservatives have done that, just making a point.

I personally think it's the sign of very good leadership that one recognizes and adapts to the current climate.

And here's a question: how come politics routinely uses weather terms? lol

[Zowpeb]

Some very, very good points in your post, however you seem to insinuate that the Liberals changing with the wind is a bad thing. I'd rather see a party adapt to the changing world than see them dig in their heels and take a hard line in something that's rapidly losing relevance. Not that I'm saying the Conservatives have done that, just making a point.

I personally think it's the sign of very good leadership that one recognizes and adapts to the current climate.

And here's a question: how come politics routinely uses weather terms? lol

I agree...a party should change to reflect the voters wishes. T

his has been the MO of a unified Conservative party for years...same as it has been for the Liberals.

It's only a recent issue where people are this fearful of the Conservatives which I think simply has more to do with a few polarizing issues and the fact that in "fracturing" their vote people saw the fringe elements from the Reform. A similar fringe element exists on the extreme left too...but typically it's not very politically correct to say anything bad about a group fighitng for a cause...which of course allows all sorts of bad policy to be presented without the tough questions.

[Zowpeb]

OK, I'm with you on the vast majority of what you say, but not this. The post-Chretien Liberal decline has had more to do with Martin's indecisiveness/pandering after assuming the leadership, and a lack of effective leadership since. Martin won a minority government soon after becoming leader, so it was nothing like the catastrophic loss that Kim Campbell suffered as a backlash after the Mulroney years. It's also not in the same league as Turner's massive defeat after the Trudeau years.

I know you're probably referring to the sponsorship scandal as part of the Chretien legacy, but that effect could have been fairly short-lived (especially outside of Quebec) with better leadership and vision from the Liberals. I don't believe that Ontario is really infatuated with Harper, nor is the BQ really as popular as they appear to be, but in the absence of a palatable alternative from the Liberals, that's where the votes go.

Well, this is all personal opinion on my part...Chretien stayed on too long and divided the party into 2 groups of supporters.

From what I heard Martin was initially promised the reigns about 1 year into Chretien's last term. He decided to hold on to power and Martin got ticked off. Don't know how true that is but it's what I heard from some Liberal party members.

If Chretien would have stepped down when he was largely expected to...the party would not have been divided. Further, the scandals that followed him were simply fuel on a fire. I think a lot of people really saw a high level of corruption that they didn't fully expect and it disenfranchised much of their voting faithful. Hey, the Liberals still hold a big chunk of the popular vote so it's not a long way to get back...I just don't know if they have the right leadership in the party to really make a significant run in 3 years. Rae and Ignatieff are just terrible IMHO. Manley and McKenna might be better choices to grab some of the more centrist voters who went with the Conservatives this time around...