Poll - How do you intend to vote in the upcoming Fed Election?

[Freeskier]

I thought with all these threads discussing the election it might be nice to get some idea of how beyonders intend to vote. Maybe give some of the reasons, if its not just voting along your own ideals. Personally I will be voting either green or scratching my ballot. IMO The tories don't deserve another government after breaking the law and the libs and NDP are totally ineffective as parties.

[derpderp]

Seems a bit early to decide who you are going to vote for

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by derpderp
Seems a bit early to decide who you are going to vote for

Hadn't thought of that...lol!

[Xtrema]

Meh. It's doesn't matter in Alberta. It'll be all Cs.

Harper will have to choke a bitch on national TV to lose Alberta.

The battleground is always Ontario and Quebec.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by derpderp
Seems a bit early to decide who you are going to vote for Says the person with a cons logo in his avatar... lol!

Seriously though, I think the majority of people in Alberta will vote the same way no matter what issues are landing these days. The die hard conservatives don't care about anything the cons do, illegal, unethical, or anything... Just so long as it isn't the liberals or Ignateiff. The die hard liberals (less of them here than cons of course) couldn't care less if Harper had given every single concession possible to the grits... Just so long as it isn't conservative or Harper. Anybody who is a die hard NDP'er or Green'er won't have their mind changed by anything and prove it by esentially throwing away their vote every year by voting for them and expecting a change that just won't come from either of those parties (at least in this day and age of course). There are those who already know they will scratch their ballots as well in protest because they know that all of them suck ass...

Very few people are truely on any sort of fence about the decision. Some are of course (myself included), but most of you (us) have our minds made up without even considering the issues of the day.

[ChappedLips]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

Do this survey on CBC some of you might be surprised with the results.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by ChappedLips
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

Do this survey on CBC some of you might be surprised with the results.

repost and bias. Stop posting propaganda.

CBC wants Liberals because Conservatives wants to get rid of CBC.

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by ChappedLips
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

Do this survey on CBC some of you might be surprised with the results.

Lol I was surprised that no matter what my answers were I was a liberal. Took the thing 3 times with wildly different answers...same result every time

[derpderp]

I got conservative anyway, but I got a good laugh how far right they have the CPC on that list. :banghead:

The CBC is digging themselves a grave.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Kloubek]

I'm inclined to vote Liberal - but I really wish they had a more likable leader.

(Not that I'm a huge fan of any leader... really)

[slinkie]

See OP's sig


Originally posted by Sugarphreak


That survey is ridiculous, I am getting pretty sick of the fact we can't get news from a source that isn't horribly biased anymore.

+1 man I strongly agree. Global news aka Fox Lite is no better either, they seem bad for fear mongering as well.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Meh. It's doesn't matter in Alberta. It'll be all Cs.

Harper will have to choke a bitch on national TV to lose Alberta.

The battleground is always Ontario and Quebec.

Which is why we get shafted by the federal government. Our voting pattern is so predictable why bother boosting spending to curry favor in Alberta? Sadly it means the money goes to Quebec/Ontario where people actually change their voting patterns...

[Freeskier]

Slinkie, I laughed so hard when you said that. It was sig-worthy cause i thought it was funny, not necessarily cause i disagreed.

[slinkie]

Lol .. Just meant I would be voting conservative this round , having lived in BC it seems like spend-spend-spend policies can really mess up an economy and leave a lot more opportunity for scandal/misuse of taxpayer dollars

[Freeskier]

Yeah...hear that.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
That survey is ridiculous, I am getting pretty sick of the fact we can't get news from a source that isn't horribly biased anymore.

Or perhaps you haven't actually looked at what the conservative party stands for? I mean a LOT of people vote for parties without understanding the position their party of choice takes on certain issues. A lot of people for example in Alberta who are not very well to do will vote conservative without fully grasping they are voting for less social programs which is essentially in direct opposition with what would benefit them the most. I mean I don't care which way you cut it but voting for a party that does not represent your interest and stands to harm them seems a touch inane.

It just reminds me of people in the US who support the tea party yet collect medic aid. They don't seem to grasp that the tea party is in direct opposition to their own benefits.

I just don't buy the whole liberal media scare mongering because frankly it just sounds like American scare tactics. If you want extreme views just turn on talk radio and you will get all sorts of crazy neo conservatism.

Occam's razor would imply if the survey is broken it is likely because someone messed up not some shadowy agenda.

[gstone]

I think we need a new poll every week and then having a daily poll when it comes to 5 days within election day. That way we can get a little more excitement.

However, in the spirit of this thread; looking at what has been promised by the Liberals over the past 3 days, how the fawk will you be able to pay uni students to study amounting to $1billion/year and have accessible day care to more than 1 million toddlers. When comparing it to the closest system in effect, which is currently in Quebec, this would amount to an astounding $16bil/year... but the liberals say that they will promise even more!! Where the fawk will all this money come from???

[RY213]

Staying home that day, not gonna vote...

[slinkie]

Originally posted by gstone
I think we need a new poll every week and then having a daily poll when it comes to 5 days within election day. That way we can get a little more excitement.

However, in the spirit of this thread; looking at what has been promised by the Liberals over the past 3 days, how the fawk will you be able to pay uni students to study amounting to $1billion/year and have accessible day care to more than 1 million toddlers. When comparing it to the closest system in effect, which is currently in Quebec, this would amount to an astounding $16bil/year... but the liberals say that they will promise even more!! Where the fawk will all this money come from???

Carbon tax :bigpimp:

JK that cash is obviously for the drowning polar bears

[frizzlefry]

I'm voting conservative. I took that CBC "poll" and the only way I could get it to say I was conservative was to answer all the questions like a total redneck.

I would switch my vote to a party that planned to ban the Bloc but I don't think any party would have the balls to do that.

Edit: Heh. News just broke that the person who designed the CBC vote quiz used to work for Ignatieff's liberal campaigns. Not surprised.

[1barA4]

Spoiling my ballot...
No viable choices and my riding, guaranteed, will elect the PC candidate.

I love how they always ask "Why don't people in AB vote?"
Well, if you don't support the PC, essentially your vote means nothing, and the PM is determined out east, not here.

[dimi]

1. I do not want the Bloc selling themselves for money again so I think a majority would be a good thing. Fuck Quebec, they can go separate for all I care.

2. The problem with a majority is they get a green light to do whatever they want to. I see a minority government as having checks and balances as one party cannot just do as they please. The problem with that is when you get the Bloc involved it seems like they'll sell their votes for money and that's all they care about.

3. On the other hand I don't want to vote conservative again (I did last time). IT seems that politicians just assume AB always votes PC, as stated by a poster above, so noone really bothers to consider what AB wants.

But in the end, no matter what my vote is, I don't think it matters. Politicians, once elected into power do as they please, no matter which party we are talking about.

[Feruk]

I'm getting pretty annoyed at the Conservative attack ads. So stupid and taken out of context. I also don't appreciate their secrecy, gag orders on scientists, or their MPs actually LYING to the house.

I do like their economic policies though. No worthy opponents, might as well vote for them. As soon as I saw the Liberals promising crazy amounts of money, they lost my vote.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Feruk
As soon as I saw the Liberals promising crazy amounts of money, they lost my vote.

They've already started doing this?

God damnit :nut:

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


They've already started doing this?

God damnit :nut:

All the parties have started doing this.

Just look at the people who think that the CPC tax cut for families will come into effect after they're elected/believe it will come into effect in 2015 without asking how the budget will be balanced.

One side (the Liberals) is promising costly plans to get votes and they can back out in the name of fiscal responsibility if they can't generate the revenue. The other side (the CPC) is promising costly tax cuts to get votes that they don't plan on implementing for at least four years.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by dimi

3. On the other hand I don't want to vote conservative again (I did last time). IT seems that politicians just assume AB always votes PC, as stated by a poster above, so noone really bothers to consider what AB wants.

Fun fact, from Mulroney resigning in 1993 and the right parties merging in 2004 Alberta elected only one PC member.

[Crymson]

I would've voted conservative, but the idea of building for profit prisons and then instituting mandatory miminums for pot possession sickens me to point of absolute rage.

[Vagabond142]

Honestly, the big kicker for me is that Ignatieff is being a complete idiot in his public relations towards Harper. He's going "I'm as much a man as you" when he SHOULD be saying "Here's why I'm a DIFFERENT man than you." He's playing right into Harper's game.

That said, I'm voting Conservative for two reasons: a) the F35 purchase, which NEEDS to happen, and b) the fact that it will be nice to have a majority government for once -_- :P

The fighter purchase is a huge HUGE part of the platform for me, being pro-military. At a time when there is talk of arctic sovereignty, increased patrolling on our borders, and a volatile world situation, we need something that isn't 40 years old and half of our fighter force is grounded due to repair and maintenance issues. Fact of the matter is, we have 119 CF-18's, and of those, at any one time, less than 70 are flight/mission capable. That's sad.

Military spending (including Veterans Affairs), transportation and infrastructure, and some serious talks about health care are big platform stances for this election.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Vagabond142
Fact of the matter is, we have 119 CF-18's, and of those, at any one time, less than 70 are flight/mission capable. That's sad.


And of course if 100% of the F-35s are operational 100% of the time we'll have...less than 70 that are flight/mission capable. :nut:

[ZenOps]

But... The F-35 are more than twice as capable, and have stealth (so we can stealthily protect the country) Sure, they originally cost $9 Billion, and now projected to be $30 Billion, but I don't think anyone would have expected to pay 3x more for Corn either (now almost $8 a bushel up from $2 a bushel in 2006) Honestly - if the US can make them - I'm going to say well over $100B for the 65 planes because we are locked in.

Interesting how Harper now openly mentions that they will spend $6Billion on the Newfoundland Churchill power project - as soon as he gets a majority, lol.

Layton says he will cut all funding for Oilsands.

Psshhh... They just pander to wherever they need more votes and screw over where they already have too many. Harper is the new Newfoundcois Bloq, let the vote buying begin!

[Freeskier]

May be a reaaally stupid question...but the oilsands are government funded???

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Freeskier
May be a reaaally stupid question...but the oilsands are government funded???

Heavily subsidized.

[Crymson]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Heavily subsidized.

Subsidized or is there a royalty break until capital costs have been recovered? Totally different beasts.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Crymson


Subsidized or is there a royalty break until capital costs have been recovered? Totally different beasts.

Its mostly subsidies.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Oilsands+crosshairs+Layton+wants+subsidies+Ignatieff+calls+regulation/4540337/story.html

Layton goes further and says the two billion or so would be used instead for renewable energy and green jobs. Honestly, I think hes stealing the thunder of the Green party.

It is somewhat understandable that the east is disgruntled with the handouts that the oil and gas industry is getting - especially at a time when oil and gas are the only ones really making a profit nowadays.

IMO Harper is much more West protectionist then Duceppe is Quebec protectionist. At $119 BBl (yes, that is todays price) oilsands don't really need subsidies (if it was closer to $35, I'd say maybe)

If oil breaks $200 this year - none of this will matter, the US dollar will collapse. Price is irrelevant to supply, even with heavy subsidies to boost production. And if that happens, you can blame Harper for *only* putting $2Billion worth of handouts to oil and gas, and not closer to $10Billion.

IMO, the US should be paying slightly more than the UK for gasoline just due to debt monetization of the dollar. $11 per gallon would be about right.. At about $4+ the US goes into spasmodic fits as the entire infrastructure and economy is built around cheap gas (and 3 hour commutes)

[Crymson]

From doing some digging, the subsidies are mostly tax and royalt break on the up front capital costs of oil sands investments. There was a really big one that was introduced by the liberals when oil prices were low, but that's since been scrapped for oil sands projects and is not only available to green energy investments called the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance, so at least they're not getting that anymore.

I realize all politics is a stage, but the term subsidy, implies that the goverment is propping up and unsustainable industry or individualizing handouts when the reality is that the oil and gas industry is using the same capital cost writeoffs that are available to any other natural resource corporation in Canada.

I would rather he said "ending tax breaks and royalty holidays" than subsidy because he's still playing to the lowest common denominator and using hyperbole.

However, on the flip side these same tax breaks and royalties are what's turned NFLD from a have-not to a have provice in terms of transfer payments.

I believe that our government does need to keep incentivising large scale investment, but the catch should be that operators need to adhere to a higher environmental and imissions standards.

THORIUM REACTORS IN FT MAC PLEASE!!

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by Crymson
I realize all politics is a stage, but the term subsidy, implies that the goverment is propping up and unsustainable industry or individualizing handouts when the reality is that the oil and gas industry is using the same capital cost writeoffs that are available to any other natural resource corporation in Canada.

I would rather he said "ending tax breaks and royalty holidays" than subsidy because he's still playing to the lowest common denominator and using hyperbole.

This is what I thought it meant too, I always thought the oilsands was a model of private sector economics and profitable enough to never need subsidizing...but i'm not surprised there was funding for startups.

[Feruk]

Oilsands are not subsidized with taxpayer dollars, they merely get tax breaks. It costs billions of dollars to get these plants up, so it only makes sense to give them somewhat of a break to make the projects economically viable.

Zenops: Oil is not at $119, it's at $108 (USD) today. It's only propped up by what's going on in Lybia and the middle east right now. Oil will NOT reach $200/bbl this year.

[Crymson]

Thats texas light oil, I believe Brent Crude hit close to 119 today

[alloroc]

How do I intend to vote?

Head over to my assigned polling station.

Stand in line forever.

Walk to a voting booth.

Mark an X on my choices.

:D

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Feruk
Oilsands are not subsidized with taxpayer dollars, they merely get tax breaks. It costs billions of dollars to get these plants up, so it only makes sense to give them somewhat of a break to make the projects economically viable.

Zenops: Oil is not at $119, it's at $108 (USD) today. It's only propped up by what's going on in Lybia and the middle east right now. Oil will NOT reach $200/bbl this year.

West Texas is $108, but that doesn't matter because the US does not export West Texas. They have to pay extra for Saudi oil that is converted to gasoline mainly, which means Brent.

http://markets.ft.com/markets/commodities.asp

I'm giving a 10% chance of oil hitting $200 by summer, nevermind the end of the year. This may also be the year that the EU demands that the US pay its fair share, which means at least $8 per gallon for gasoline (UK just passed $9 per gallon for gasoline) or at least match Canada at $5 gallon.

[masoncgy]

I'm getting out all of the eligible voters I know to join me in voting for John Koury, the local Conservative in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan, so that we can try and eject the Dipper who currently holds it.

Van Island needs more blue. Waaay too many orange shirts around these parts.

[ZenOps]

I'm just glad we still have a few government types who still *want* to run the country.

More than half of the world has leaders and governments are abandoning their positions (Yes, Wisconsin counts too) either by choice or by force.

I'd assume this is the year that many politicians will quit (there already have been many at the provincial level) especially anyone related to government finance. I'd expect Rob Anders to consider stepping down and leaving politics, just because the job ahead will actually require work.

IE: If you read between the lines, many Monarchies are using this opportunity to remove themselves from power. They don't *want* to be in power if the price of food doubles from where it is now. Too many angry, hungry biting eyes - which means its time to do the Khadafi and exile to some unknown island.

[kertejud2]

The CPC launched their "Here for Canada" campaign but didn't secure the domain names for it. Brilliant.

http://hereforcanada.ca/
http://hereforcanada.com/

[CUG]

^ Says the guy who's probably voting for a war criminal.

[Freeskier]

Whaaaat? Who's a war criminal?

[CUG]

^ IMO, Ignatieff, for not responsibly disclosing the truth about the motive for the invasion of Iraq.

[Freeskier]

Oh right.

Still my favorite thing about the Chretien era. So glad we're not over there.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by CUG
^ Says the guy who's probably voting for a war criminal.
Since it doesn't look like the Pirate Party will have a candidate in my riding I'll probably just go with a less exotic protest vote like the Greens (the Marxist-Leninists didn't have one last time around, and I don't think that Yogic flying party exists anymore).

Rest assured if any of my candidates were war criminals I'd definitely vote for them just to stir the pot a little.

[Gainsbarre]

iPVOhva_cwI

Says the guy who supports the party that would have participated in the invasion of Iraq if they were in power at the time? :dunno:

[kertejud2]

And the guy who will vote for the party who called for a proroguement of parliament when there were questions about potential war crimes committed by the forces so that the PM could go watch the Olympics.

[ZenOps]

There aren't any war criminals in Canada, that are known.

The only alleged war criminal is Bush as determined by Geneva.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-bush-torture-idUSTRE7141CU20110205

Even the Gyatso Dalai Lama the 14th, offically stepped down this week. The bloodline and religious monarchies are on the run.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/03/28/dalai-lama-retirement-accepted-so-now-what-for-china-tibet/

Nope, all the leaders are running for the hills because they know what is coming... And its gonna get worse before it gets better. I think the Lamas' foray into the US and civil brutality like Libya opened his eyes to something he should never have had to seen.

Dun dun duhhhh.

PS: Obama, I need some Stinger missles to take down Rob Anders. Although I do think the $30 Billion price tag for planes is the price Harper would have to pay. Ignatieff would get them for the originally stated $16 Billion. Harper managed to get a head tax put on Canadians entering the US, thats almost as impressive as contempt of parliament, haha.

[CUG]

Originally posted by Gainsbarre
iPVOhva_cwI

Says the guy who supports the party that would have participated in the invasion of Iraq if they were in power at the time? :dunno: Our 150 troops? I don't have time to watch the whole thing. If you were my neighbor and we were friends, I'd work to maintain that friendship... and if you got smoked by an airplane, I wouldn't wait two weeks to offer my condolences. :facepalm:

[kertejud2]

You're either with us or you're against us!

[sabad66]

LOL
http://thingsharperdoestoseemhuman.tumblr.com

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by sabad66
LOL
http://thingsharperdoestoseemhuman.tumblr.com

:rofl: Why is he holding a copy of the New York Times at the newsstand there? Maybe he confused it with the New York Post? Somebody could ask him about that, but I don't think Harper likes being pestered by the people he's supposed to be serving

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/31/stephen-harper-vs-the-media/



Prime Minister Stephen Harper held his news conference Thursday and declined to tell journalists—corralled behind a yellow fence over 12 metres away—why he limits the daily encounters to just five questions. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton place no such limits on questions. When pressed about the dearth of communication with the media, Harper ignored the question. Harper appears intent on limiting his exposure to the public. He has not done any “walkabouts” on city streets; photo-ops have been pre-arranged; and he gives just one news conference per day, where journalists who are travelling with his campaign tour are, as a group, only allowed to ask four questions, with one additional question by a local journalist.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110403/tory-staffer-facebook-110403/20110403?s_name=election2011



Conservative staffer slams his party on Facebook

A Conservative staffer slammed his own party on Facebook, saying it was "stupidity" to have Prime Minister Stephen Harper only accepting five questions a day from the media.

"Can somebody in the (war room) please save the PM's image by allowing him to answer more than (five) questions a day? When Sun Media starts to attack our amazing government, you know stupidity has prevailed amongst communications people," Tony Phillips, a staffer on Conservative candidate Dona Cadman's reelection campaign, wrote on his personal Facebook page.

Harper has been under fire after he announced last week he would only accept five questions from reporters a day while campaigning -- four from the national media and one local question at the Conservatives' chosen campaign stop.

When contacted by The Canadian Press, Phillips would not comment on the matter.

"I can't comment on that because that's a personal Facebook page, and being in the political position that I'm in, that would not be the best career move for me." he said.

Phillips has since taken down the post on Facebook.


Sun Media...BIASED??? No way!

[gstone]

**Please correct me if I am wrong, I appreciate the clarity given**

The headline is that Harper promises adult fitness credit, however only after the books are balanced.

Well these are my feeling (and rant); WTF I have been waiting for this sort of thing since `04, why is this sort of thing being proposed only now? Personally realizing the benefits of regular exercise and the benefits that it has, and will give me, why has this not been pushed before. I think that my healthy lifestyle over the past couple of years has saved the health care system from a couple of hundred bucks in hospital visits (haven't been to one since '05, it was a penetration of this skin with metal and I wanted a tetnus shot just to be safe). I have spent a good $70-90/ month ever since '04 keeping up my healthy lifestyle which keeps my blood pressure low, my body healthy and my mind sane. I want my fitness credit "yesterday"! I do not want to wait until the books are balanced!

cliffs: I'm a healthy active individual who has a faithful gym membership who thinks this program should have been in place years ago.

.edit. but the more I think about it, would health clubs increase their rates drastically to take advantage of such a credit? hmmmm....

[kertejud2]

Accept a tax increase so the books become balanced so you can get a tax credit.

cliffs: How are we going to pay for it?

[gstone]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Accept a tax increase so the books become balanced so you can get a tax credit.

cliffs: How are we going to pay for it?

Well then again I can live a life of hamburgers, fast food and pizza and let YOU subsidize my heart medication, by-pass surgeries and the like. However, I wouldn't want to do that to myself.

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by gstone
I do not want to wait until the books are balanced!

cliffs: I'm a healthy active individual who has a faithful gym membership who thinks this program should have been in place years ago.

.edit. but the more I think about it, would health clubs increase their rates drastically to take advantage of such a credit? hmmmm....

Well spending promises for further corporate tax cuts, fighter jets and prisons seem to be on tap for the next few years, items that'll make the budget difficult to balance. It makes the CPC pledge to have a balanced budget in 4-5 years difficult to believe.

You could almost call this fitness tax credit (along with the income tax splitting pledge earlier) promises for the NEXT federal election, not this one, as governments don't typically last more than 4 years! Even majority governments require an election after a maximum of five years (which are rare...prime ministers typically dissolve parliament after 4, not 5 years)

Politicians seem to have a hard enough time keeping promises for the uncoming session. Are we to trust politicians who are making promises for TWO sessions from now?

[BigMass]

xIraCchPDhk

[CUG]

What I don't understand about the Liberals is why they're launching a platform based on spending. They killed government because there wasn't enough money in it for these fairy-tale programs. Ignatieff, seriously Harvard guy, what do you think happens when there's no money?

Harper will have my eternal respect for his moderate spending proposed in the budget.

Send that suitcase of a politician back to the US (Ignatieff).

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by CUG
What I don't understand about the Liberals is why they're launching a platform based on spending. They killed government because there wasn't enough money in it for these fairy-tale programs. Ignatieff, seriously Harvard guy, what do you think happens when there's no money?

Harper will have my eternal respect for his moderate spending proposed in the budget.

Send that suitcase of a politician back to the US (Ignatieff).

It would be bad form for the Liberals to promise to spend less than the highest spending government in history don't you think?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by gstone


Well then again I can live a life of hamburgers, fast food and pizza and let YOU subsidize my heart medication, by-pass surgeries and the like. However, I wouldn't want to do that to myself.

Wimp.

[Gainsbarre]

The Liberals and CPC have platforms based on spending, it's just that the priorities in each budget are different. The CPC government was brought down for contempt of parliament, mostly the result of not providing sufficient information to discuss their future spending plans -- the most recent budget that they've tabled contain no tables showing a breakdown of income (taxation) and expenditures. The Liberal platform taht was released yesterday contains a more detailed cost breakdown that the most recent budget.

What I don't understand is how a fellow economist can be so misguided (I'm completing an MA in Economics this year, also from the University of Calgary). His policies lack economic sense (e.g. cutting the GST instead of income taxes, spending billions on more jails, blowing all this money on government advertising for this "economic action plan"). Combine this with his prior work experience (mostly lobbying for conservative causes), and it's clear that Harper is not an economist, but rather a career politician who happens to have an economics degree. Why are people so easily fooled into thinking that his policies make any economic sense?

[kertejud2]

Because Liberals! Coalition! Trudeau! Quebec! Ignatieff isn't a Canadian!

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by gstone
**Please correct me if I am wrong, I appreciate the clarity given**

The headline is that Harper promises adult fitness credit, however only after the books are balanced.

cliffs: I'm a healthy active individual who has a faithful gym membership who thinks this program should have been in place years ago.

.edit. but the more I think about it, would health clubs increase their rates drastically to take advantage of such a credit? hmmmm....

Promises are thrown around every election to get votes. Very little actually passed especially with a minority government.

I like the minority government we had. But Jack Layton had to fuck it up and now NDP probably has to most to lose and played right into CPC's hands.

[sabad66]

Serious questions for the 65% here. What do you have to say about the following?

a) Harper's 4 question/day thing? wtf?
b) Being in contempt of parliament for not disclosing info that he was SUPPOSED to?

I get that you're conservative, but do you really trust harper? There's just something about the guy that irks me. Reminds me of a dictator or something.

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by sabad66
Reminds me of a dictator or something.

That and having blackshirts....er....hired goons.....I mean the RCMP eject you from Conservative rallies because you attended NDP and Liberal rallies earlier.

As the opposition is pointing out, attendees at CPC rallies seem to undergo greater scrutiny than employees of the PMO! That's of course assuming that Harper is being truthful when he claims that knew nothing about Bruce Carson's criminal past :rofl: :bullshit:

When you have Sun Media (Toronto Sun broke this iirc), the National Post (big editorial condemning this) and TOM FLANAGAN (lol) unable to justify this, it all amounts to a colossal screw-up by the CPC campaign. I think the prospects for a CPC majority are beginning to evaporate.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html



Harper campaign screening 'un-Canadian': Ignatieff
Conservative leader says staff handle events

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is accusing Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of performing more rigorous background checks on people showing up at his campaign events than advisers he hires in the Prime Minister's Office.

Ignatieff's verbal jab at Harper comes after reports the Conservatives threw two university students out of a Conservative rally in London, Ont., on the weekend.

Awish Aslam, a second-year political science student at the University of Western Ontario, told CBC News she and a friend were trying to attend a Sunday rally with Harper when they were asked to leave by an RCMP officer.

Aslam said they were led to the lobby where the officer told them they were no longer welcome because they had ties to the Liberal party. Aslam said the only explanation was her Facebook profile photo showing her posing for a picture with Ignatieff at a recent Liberal rally in London.

The Liberal leader told reporters during a campaign stop in Newfoundland and Labrador that "you are in a very un-Canadian place" when citizens get tossed from public meetings for having "a certain Facebook friend: me."

Harper sidestepped questions on the ejections at a campaign stop in Quebec on Tuesday morning, saying only his staff manages his events and that he could not comment on a specific situation.

"There are hundreds of people who are coming out to our events. There are hundreds of people I meet with every day and I think the campaign is going very well," Harper said.

Aslam said she had to pre-register for the Conservative event Sunday, which is how the party had her name and that her friend's father, who is a Conservative party member, helped them fill out the online form to get on the list.

Aslam said she wanted to hear directly from all the main party leaders and had also attended a rally with NDP Leader Jack Layton. While Aslam, 19, said she has no political affiliations and has not made up her mind on who she will vote, she did say she did do a few days of volunteering for the provincial NDP when she was 16.

Baird hits back
At a later press conference in Ottawa, Conservative candidate John Baird said Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas is planning on apologizing to Aslam. Contacted earlier Tuesday, Aslam said she hadn't yet heard from Soudas, who has said he was making arrangements for Harper and the student to meet when the campaign next comes through London.

But Baird wouldn't answer repeated questions from reporters about the screening process and why the students were thrown out.

He would only say that there's "not room for everyone" at these events and that they have to manage how many people can attend.

Instead, Baird hit back at Ignatieff, saying the Liberal leader shouldn't be criticizing Harper for un-Canadian actions after spending years outside of Canada and introducing a platform that the Conservative candidate said would raise taxes and kill jobs.

"I just think that Mr. Ignatieff should be the last person in this country, certainly the last person in Canadian politics, to level charges at people and actions of being un-Canadian when he called the United States his country, when he talked down this country," Baird said, in reference to a comment Ignatieff made on U.S. television in 2004.

A series of Conservative ads targeting Ignatieff's years abroad have included video footage of the 2004 comment, in which Ignatieff described America as "as much your country as it is mine."

"In fairness, I think people think it's just a little bit rich for him to be using these kinds of words to describe the prime minister's actions," Baird said.

Campaigns stay on Carson affair
But Ignatieff pulled Harper's former relationship with Bruce Carson into the screenings debate, saying Canadians are in a bad place "when you have got a prime minister who does a background check on his audience at a democratic crowd and doesn't seem to do a background check on the people he hires in his Prime Minister's Office."

Carson is the former Harper adviser who worked in the Prime Minister's Office until 2008. An investigation into Carson's business dealings by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network led the PMO to call in the RCMP in March.

More of Carson's past fraud convictions and bankruptcies have surfaced in the news in recent days.
Harper said during a campaign event in southern Ontario on Monday that if had he known about the past legal troubles surrounding his former aide, he wouldn't have hired him.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe joked at his own campaign event that had Harper invited Carson to a rally, the former adviser would have been screened.

Meanwhile, at an NDP event in Winnipeg, Layton picked up on the attack on Harper for screening out the university students.

Layton said his rallies are open to the public and he encourages people to come out to the NDP events, even if they hold a different perspective on the issues.

"The idea that just because you have a different opinion, you can't walk into room with the prime minister that's wrong and every Canadians should be worried about that," Layton said.

"Especially when the people that he is letting into the room, like Mr. Carson, have the kind of record they have."

'We just wanted to get informed'
Ignatieff did not give up on his criticism of Harper over removing the students from his London campaign event, using Twitter as another platform to take a dig at Harper.

"Stopped by Tim's in Hockeyville, Conception Bay South. Real conversations with real people. We didn't check their Facebook friends first," Ignatieff said on Twitter.

After being told by the RCMP they were no longer welcome at the Harper event, Aslam said she told the officer they had no intention of causing trouble.

"We said, 'We don't want to trouble.' We told him that we just wanted to get informed," Aslam said.

"We told him we were not there to cause the trouble."

Aslam said she has a photo of her and a friend posing with Ignatieff from an earlier campaign event with the Liberal leader.

The university student said she has clicked "Like" on the Facebook pages of each of the three party leaders, so she said she can't figure out why she was excluded.

"First, I was really discouraged. People are always talking about how they want youth to vote and we are disengaged but when we want to go and get informed, this happens," Aslam said.

Others turned away
Other stories are now emerging of Canadians being turned away from Conservative Party rallies across the country.

Izzy Hirji posted on his Facebook page how he and a "handful" of other students were escorted out of a Tory rally in Guelph.

Hirji said he was participating in a "vote mob" that greeted the Conservative leader to the southern Ontario city. He said the impromptu gathering at the Conservative election stop was "non-partisan, non-protesting" and simply wanted to discuss student issues.

The university student said he had pre-registered to attend the Harper rally, so once the "vote mob" had concluded he went inside to listen. Soon after receiving his name tag and sitting down to listen to the speech, he said he was asked to leave.

"They assumed and labelled us as protesters, some thought we were Liberals due to our Canadian attire," Hirji said in his Facebook note.

"The RCMP then rudely said, ‘This is a private event. The organizers want you out.' The organizers said, ‘The RCMP identified you, get out or they’ll take you out’. Completely polite, trying to explain I just got cut off and told to leave."

Hirji later told CBC News that he felt discriminated against.

"I think it's discouraging for youth who want to get involved in politics to see this sort of thing happen and I think we really need to remove the toxic environment from Canadian politics," he said.

It isn't just students who are being turned away from Harper events.

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported on Tuesday that two veterans were also not permitted to enter a Halifax news conference that was held last Friday.

Jim Lowther of the Veterans Emergency Transition Team told the newspaper that he and another veterans advocate were told they could not watch Harper's speech.

The screening controversy also drew criticism from Harper’s outspoken former chief of staff and campaign manager, Tom Flanagan.

“I’m not entirely clear about security requirements once somebody is prime minister. I was not in that position,” Flanagan, who served as a senior adviser to Harper until 2004, said Tuesday during a panel interview on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.

“But rallies are supposed to be for the public. I would think you’d want to let anybody in. If somebody misbehaves, maybe they have to be dealt with, but that’s a different issue. So, you know, I really don’t understand the screening. I can’t defend it.”

[sabad66]

Anyone else drawing up some parallels with the recent civic election? i.e Mciver running a "cocky" campaign assuming an easy win (we all know what happened with that), Nenshi the educated underdog, etc.

I wasn't a huge fan of Ignatieff at first, but he's won me over. Really hope that somehow he comes through. Not expecting anything, but we can hope can't we? Do what you can to encourage the younger people to vote!

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Gainsbarre


That and having blackshirts....er....hired goons.....I mean the RCMP eject you from Conservative rallies because you attended NDP and Liberal rallies earlier.

As the opposition is pointing out, attendees at CPC rallies seem to undergo greater scrutiny than employees of the PMO! That's of course assuming that Harper is being truthful when he claims that knew nothing about Bruce Carson's criminal past :rofl: :bullshit:

When you have Sun Media (Toronto Sun broke this iirc), the National Post (big editorial condemning this) and TOM FLANAGAN (lol) unable to justify this, it all amounts to a colossal screw-up by the CPC campaign. I think the prospects for a CPC majority are beginning to evaporate.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html


EXACTLY! And don't forget the whole G20 debacle... That was unreal. Seriously, when did Canada become Syria?

[ZenOps]

Green party looks good to me.

Its the only near 1 million person supported party that does not get to talk to the general Canadian public. Where is the cartoon with the other parties shoving a gag into the mouth of the Green party? In any other country we would call it censorship or denial of speech.

Frenchies are definitely going to have a hard time voting Green because May does not speak French.

Harper has always quelled dissent, especially verbal questions that he does not like. Every good dictator does it - just like how every dictator changes the government letterhead to *My name here* goverment, even when in a minority government. Harper didn't even have the courtesty to call it the "PC government" it had to be "Harper govt."

As soon as hes out of office - you just know the shrinks are going to have a field day dissecting Harpers brain. There is a condition that rhymes with legomaniac that is appropriate.

[Spoons]

Honestly, I really hope it is a minority government again.

1) It keeps things moderate, which is why I personally believe we are not in such a mess as other places.
2) It keeps the government much much more honest.

I'm voting conservative because I am a huge fan of Harper's moderate spending platform... But I am socially liberal, economically conservative. In the end I hope to see a Conservative minority government.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by sabad66
Anyone else drawing up some parallels with the recent civic election? i.e Mciver running a "cocky" campaign assuming an easy win (we all know what happened with that), Nenshi the educated underdog, etc.

I wasn't a huge fan of Ignatieff at first, but he's won me over. Really hope that somehow he comes through. Not expecting anything, but we can hope can't we? Do what you can to encourage the younger people to vote!

The key difference is that Nenshi didn't run for a party because I'm fairly certain he'd run for the wrong one. And he was essentially a nobody who came out of nowhere to shock us all. Ignatieff has been around long enough to get people to not like him despite his education, and I'm talking about the people on the fence between the Libs and Cons.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Spoons
Honestly, I really hope it is a minority government again.

1) It keeps things moderate, which is why I personally believe we are not in such a mess as other places.
2) It keeps the government much much more honest.

I'm voting conservative because I am a huge fan of Harper's moderate spending platform... But I am socially liberal, economically conservative. In the end I hope to see a Conservative minority government.

I agree with everything you said except for the moderate spending. Harper has the highest spending government in Canadian history and it doesn't look like it will change all that much. Its basically a choice between high spending with a high deficit and high spending with higher taxes.

[Spoons]

Originally posted by kertejud2


I agree with everything you said except for the moderate spending. Harper has the highest spending government in Canadian history and it doesn't look like it will change all that much. Its basically a choice between high spending with a high deficit and high spending with higher taxes.

I'd rather still have a job and pay higher taxes than a huge deficit and get ourselves in the same boat as the US.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Spoons


I'd rather still have a job and pay higher taxes than a huge deficit and get ourselves in the same boat as the US.
Yet you're voting conservative? That doesn't really make much sense to me. It's not like jobs will mysteriously vanish if Liberals were in power, and they definitely aren't planning on spending much more than the Cons.

I agree that people who work hard/make smart decisions should be well off, but when you're paying less taxes on your 10 million than someone who is making 30k (% wise), something isn't right.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[CMW403]

Conservative as fuck!

They better get rid of the long gun registry this time though...

[Canucks3322]

^ lol...but, but, like Iggy said...the cops use it every time they have to go into a house lol it's so useful and saves lives!

I watched a bit of the debate and was impressed with Layton but he's a good talker that's all, I hate his party, they're in la la land as usual, wanting to help everyone and anyone with everything...and what's with Layton and helping small businesses to create jobs? We don't need more minimum wage jobs although I have an inkling these Socialists would love for all of us to be poor together...

Either way, I'm still voting for Harper...yea some things about the party make you wonder wtf but fundamentally I agree with what they want to do and you take the good with the bad, they're all crooks but the Cons will screw us the least.

[kertejud2]

The leaders debate:
Gilles was Gilles. Work Quebec into every answer and take a few jabs. Quebec!

Harper was Harper. Typical douchebag demeanour, didn't look at the other guys 90% of the time but he kept his cool, all he needed to do.

Ignatieff had his ups and downs. Some very eloquent stuff, some meh stuff. Wasn't the world beater he needed to be but didn't lose anything either.

Layton was Layton, the used car salesman. Who gives a shit how well spoken he seems, his product sucks and he can't stay on topic half the time (what does the number of female NDP candidates have to do with crime, Jack)?

The two lines of the night
"I don't know why we need more prisons, all the crooks seem pretty happy in the Senate"--Jack Layton

"You'll be in the opposition forever!"--Michael Ignatieff.




All in all we came out of it no different than we went into it. Nobody did anything good enough to win any support, nobody did anything bad enough to lose ground.

[DRKM]

I wish there was an honest debate about the long gun registry.

One important question for me is why is it that crimes involving fire arms are so much lower than the US?

I think that is an important question to ask. Is it due to the registry? Do we have a different culture then the US?

I have not seen anyone have a reasonable discussion about this at all without bringing in politics.

Some one on here have a reasonable answer?

[gstone]

For me the highlight of the debate were as follows;

-Gilles talking about the future of health care. The federal government does not manage one hospital in this country, why have the federal government deal with provincial matters when it doesn't have the expertise or experience. (I agree with his position, it would just turn into a bureaucratic mess)

-Jack calling out Ignatieff`s attendance in the house of commons. Apparently he is absent 70% of the time.

-When Jack mentioned a list of broken promises by the liberals and Ignatieff's response was "at least we get into government, unlike yours which is always in opposition."

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by gstone
For me the highlight of the debate were as follows;

-Gilles talking about the future of health care. The federal government does not manage one hospital in this country, why have the federal government deal with provincial matters when it doesn't have the expertise or experience. (I agree with his position, it would just turn into a bureaucratic mess)
That was more Gilles trying to make a point about decentralization of power rather than actually adding anything to the discussion at hand. The other three were, and always have been, talking about healthcare as the federal government is able to get in on it. It's never been about the feds running healthcare, simply providing the guidelines for the provinces and the money transfers to create a relatively equal standard of care in each province.

Ignatieff called him out pretty quickly by pointing out that the billions in transfer payments that Quebec gets is because of such federal government mandates. Have the feds stop all healthcare reform and there's no reason for those equalization payments and we can tell Gilles "sorry, but that's a provincial matter."

[Gainsbarre]

On the CBC Newsworld broadcast of the debate, Peter Mansbridge pointed out that Jack Layton's comment on Ignatieff's attendance record was incorrect. I believe Mansbridge said that Ignatieff was absent 58% of the time, which is also about the same absence rate that Harper has from the House of Commons. As party leaders of the two largest parties, they're typically not going to be in the house unless there's a major debate or confidence vote (they’re usually trying to get their message out to voters across the country). For instance, in the final debate before the vote of confidence on the motion that the government was in contempt Harper wasn't there -- he had his pitbull John Baird answering questions instead (which seems to happen very often during question period).

Harper said a few times during the debate that he will not lower corporate taxes further, which seems somewhat inconsistent with his platform and previous announcements of further corporate tax cuts in 2012.



As a result, among major advanced economies Canada now has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment (previously we had one of the highest); and by 2012, we will have the lowest statutory corporate income tax rate.


I :rofl: at Harper mentioning Jack Mintz AGAIN to support his economic policies. You know, the "world renowned tax policy expert" that nobody's heard about? I had no idea who the hell he was until he spoke at a free dinner we got for being grad students in the economics department. Mintz came to the U of C a few years ago when the federal government set up a huge slush fund to open a policy research institute to fund their partisan research (you know...kind of like Bruce Carson and ISEEE). Harper and Flaherty keep calling him a "world renowned tax policy expert" -- I wonder what would happen to Mintz's funding if he churned out research that wasn't consistent with CPC views?

I enjoyed the part when Ignatieff put Harper in his place when Harper was complaining about "squabbling" in the house of commons, and how he could end all that with a majority. Ignatieff rightly pointed out that it's debate, not "squabbling", and that open discussion is a fundamental element of democracy, something that Harper doesn't seem to engage in very often. I sure as hell don't share Gilles Duceppe's view on Quebec sovereignty, but his party holds most of the seats in Quebec, and it's all a part of the democratic process. Ignatieff was also spot on about promoting democracy abroad, something that we really need to sort out at home first, given that we presently have the only prime minister that has twice been found in contempt of parliament, the first time that this has ever happened in commonwealth parliamentary history.

[Tik-Tok]

My boss made an interesting point. He lives in Irricana, and as he said, there's no chance in hell of any party getting in there except CPC, so he's going to vote Green, just so the other parties don't get any money from his vote :rofl:

[Seth1968]

I was able to watch about half of it. Other than policy LOL:

Harper: Kept his cool and acted very professionally.

Iggy: Eyebrows a huffin', one hand on his hip, and the other hand pointing around. Came across as a bitchy old lady.

Layton: Very professional as well when he stayed on topic.

Duce: Looked very uncomfortable. Honestly though, most of the time I couldn't really understand what the fuck he was saying.

May: Listened to the debate at home on her crank radio, as her solar panels couldn't power her 60" plasma.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Even as a hardcore Liberal propagana machine, I have no idea how you could chalk this up as a win for Ignat-stiff, he came off as the least capable debater of all 4.

BTW, if you actually listened to the debate without the rose colored glasses; Layton said that Ignatieff was absent from 70% of the votes, not 70% of the time... which is worse & totally unacceptable, it shows just how much he truely respects democracy.

And if you were paying attention, Peter Mansbridge pointed out that Layton's figures were way off -- Ignatieff and Harper's absentee records for commons votes were both in the 50% range.

[Zewind]

Originally posted by Gainsbarre


And if you were paying attention, Peter Mansbridge pointed out that Layton's figures were way off -- Ignatieff and Harper's absentee records for commons votes were both in the 50% range.


I think the Absentee on vote shouldnt exceede 40% - You're there to represent me.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[whiskas]

The debate makes me want another minority gov't. Gilles and Jack are awesome as opposition, and it's guys like them that force Harper and Iggy to be accountable for their actions. Frankly, if you want to make a decision that screws the Canadian people over the least, it's not about which party gets the majority, it's all about making another minority.

[Gainsbarre]

I could live with a minority government either way. I wasn't fully sold on Ignatieff's views on Afghanistan (which are admittedly similar to Harper's), but his views on handling/tackling crime were far more sensible than Harper's. Harper's usual secrecy and deflection ("that is simply not true"), along with his "fantasy economics" (as Ignatieff put it) makes the prospect of him with a majority frightening. A 16.5% corporate tax rate is already very competitive (second lowest in the G8, and well below that of the US) and given the other party stances I don't think that Harper's proposal of further corporate tax cuts or gargantuan package of crime bills can be pushed through with a minority. But of course the "world renowned" Jack Mintz says that taxes must always be lower in order to be competitive. I was not impressed with the guy when I heard him speak, and I must say that it looks suspicious that he was parachuted into the U of C to start up a public policy institute following a multi-million dollar federal grant not too long ago, given that the PM and Flaherty are constantly dropping Mintz's name to try and legitimize their tax cuts.

But enough on Jack Mintz, after all he's so world renowned that I'm sure 99% of people here haven't got a clue who the hell he is.

In the meantime the CPC are hosting a costume party for ethnics in Toronto (bonus points if you're Arab looking) :rofl:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/974251--conservative-candidate-asks-for-ethnic-costumes-for-harper-photo-op?bn=1

I wonder if the invite is extended to multiracial people like myself? I'm sure I'd look great next to Harper in a rice hat and kilt...

[Canmorite]

I don't like any. Voted Harper last time, but lately I'm losing interest. I'd vote Liberal but Ignatieff doesn't impress me at all...

[Feruk]

I really wish Jack Layton had some views I could actually agree with as I think he's by far the best spoken of the 4. I thought Duceppe came off pathetic trying to push nothing but Quebec being a "sovereign nation" nonsense. Harper had some good points, but his cocky attitude and inability to look at his opponents made me think he was a robot. That and his policies on building more prisons makes little sense to me with crime on the fall.

Sadly, I vote on economic policies, so the Liberals and NDP are not an option.


Originally posted by DRKM
I wish there was an honest debate about the long gun registry.

One important question for me is why is it that crimes involving fire arms are so much lower than the US?

I think that is an important question to ask. Is it due to the registry? Do we have a different culture then the US?

I have not seen anyone have a reasonable discussion about this at all without bringing in politics.

Some one on here have a reasonable answer?

Well, handguns are practically illegal here and we don't have much in the form of race violence like they do down south; two big reasons for less gun crime here. The biggest problem with the gun registry is that it costs billions and really doesn't do anything. What sort of drug dealer or gangster would actually register his illegal firearms?

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Feruk
I thought Duceppe came off pathetic trying to push nothing but Quebec being a "sovereign nation" nonsense.

:facepalm: You do know that's essentially the mandate of his party?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Feruk
That and his policies on building more prisons makes little sense to me with crime on the fall.


FOR THE LAST, FUCKING, TIME!

THE PRISONS ARE OVERCROWDED AS IT IS, DUE TO OLD LIBERAL POLICIES. WE NEED MORE PRISONS.

Jesus. Fuck :banghead: It's not like the population of Canada isn't growing or anything either, so even though % wise crime-rates are dropping, that doesn't mean there are LESS of them. :guns:

[kertejud2]

Didn't watch the french debate but apparently Iggy did very well and Harper did very poorly. This could be big because the Bloc doesn't have a big issue to focus on anymore (Adscam in 04 and 06, culture in 08) but could very well lose 3 or 4 seats to the Libs in Montreal and Gatineau but still take 2 or 3 from the CPC in the Beauce and QC.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Didn't watch the french debate but apparently Iggy did very well and Harper did very poorly. This could be big because the Bloc doesn't have a big issue to focus on anymore (Adscam in 04 and 06, culture in 08) but could very well lose 3 or 4 seats to the Libs in Montreal and Gatineau but still take 2 or 3 from the CPC in the Beauce and QC.

I watched it and I thought that the pecking order of the debate was the following:
1). Duceppe
2). Layton
3). Ignatieff
4). Harper

Layton has been spending a lot of time practicing his French he did better than the rest of the anglophones. Ignatieff had a strong showing as well. However Harper was just floundering in the French debate... Duceppe is well spoken debater in either language(His English is far better than any of the other leaders French.) so it was just no contest in French.

[Gainsbarre]

Only watched some highlights of the French language debate online. Ignatieff did far better here, in addition to targeted attacks, he sold his platform very well.

Was at the all-candidates debate for my riding of Calgary Centre-North. Pleasantly surprised by the large turnout -- there were several hundred people there and most were standing. Every candidate was running for federal office for the first time (I think...the NDP guy may have run before, but not in this riding). Somewhat surprised at the audience reaction as well.

The 31 year old Conservative candidate gave a disastrous speech. Went over about 30 bullet point items that were obviously provided to her from the PMO, yet claims she will be an independent voice in parliament (right...) Some of the senior citizens in the crowd began heckling her (!!) when she kept droning on her bullet point list as mentioned how great of a record the conservatives had with regards to the environment and health care. Only candidate of the four to get heckled by the crowd. Watching this performance I have no idea how she got the CPC nomination, but I did hear a rumour that her being a personal friend of Laureen Teskey/Harper might have had something to do with it.

Liberal candidate had a very polished speech that was targeted towards an Alberta audience (not a one size fits all rah rah rah we're so great canned speech like with the previous candidate). Talked about the previous Liberal government's commitment to keeping our financial institutions strong in the 1990's and not giving in to deregulations so that we could be more like US banks. Talked about protecting the Canada Health Act (mentioning how a certain party leader has publicly said on many occasions that he wishes to abolish it). Talked about the oilsands and how the Liberal party policy is very similar to what Peter Lougheed advocated as Alberta premier. Talked about cap-and-trade, which was also the CPC policy in the last election. The liberal candidate was the only one that had his speech interrupted by applause (and this happened on multiple occasions).

Green candidate seemed nice enough, but her speech, while solid, didn't seem all that memorable or inspiring.

NDP candidate seemed like a nice guy and all, but his speech was also a disaster. Very muddled, got lost, fumbled through his notes that were on loose leaf paper, mentioned things that made little sense ("NDP is run like a business"....ya, maybe if you're a labour union). Mentioned Jack Layton way too often (I respect Jack, but you have to sell yourself too, not just praise the party leader...) NDP certainly won't get the second most votes in Calgary Centre-North this time (as they have in the past two elections) with this new candidate.

Calgary Centre-North (along with Calgary East) could certainly shape up to be two of the most interesting races in Calgary this federal election.