The Liberal share of the popular vote in North Vancouver fell 5% in 2008 and Don Bell suffered his first ever defeat. However, Bell should hold his head high. He faired far better than most Lowermainland Liberal candidates. To wit
Burnaby New West - 14.52
Vancouver Kingsway - 14.43
Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission - 13.63
Burnaby Douglas - 13.61
New West Coquitlam - 12.3
Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam - 12.26
Langley - 11.99
Richmond - 11.98
West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country - 10.89
Delta Richmond East -9.9
South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale - 9.77
Vancouver South - 9.57
Vancouver Center - 9.37
Vancouver East -6.19
Fleetwood-Port Kells -5.5
North Vancouver -5.04
Surrey North -4.58
Vancouver Quarda -3.57
Newton-North Delta 2.17
Abbotsford 3.6
Moreover, one look at a 2008 election map shows North Vancouver to be a real outlier. The Liberals decline was not nearly as marked in Surrey as it was in the ridings close to North Vancouver. It was down 5.5% Fleetwood-Port Kells, 4.58% in Surrey North and up 2.17% in Newton North Delta. By contrast, the Liberal vote was down 13.61% in Burnaby Douglas, 10.89 in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country and 9.37% in Vancouver Center.
It should be noted that the 2008 Abbotsford vote totals are skewed. Unfounded allegations were made against Liberal candidate David Oliver in the 2006 election and rather than fight them Martin and company decided to Dingwall him. (Liberals should not complain that the Prime Minister is loath to dismiss a minister no matter how solid the evidence against him. After all, Stephen Harper learned first hand that whole heatedly embracing scandal, publicizing it and using it as means of undermining various factions within his own party as Paul Martin liked to do, is daft.) A better comparison than 2006 is 2004. The Liberal candidate that year took 19.94% of the vote. That was 3.7 higher than what the Liberals took in 2008.
In sum, Bell lost because the Liberal vote was down 944,350 outside of Quebec.
What happens in North Vancouver in 2011 will also be decided nationally. The question for Liberal supporters is will things return to where they were win 2004 and 2006 or is 2008 the norm. With the later looking more likely and Ignatieff looking set to join Dion, John Turner and Paul Martin as the fourth rider of the Liberal apocalypse, North Vancouver Liberal candidate Taleeb Normohamed could fair rather badly indeed. That, though, will not reflect baldly on Taleeb. He is a good candidate. He is well spoken, and very well educated. Furthermore, he has surrounded himself with competent and confident people. However, he is not a "star candidate", he has virtually no name recognition, and he has few ties outside of the Ismaili community. He is not going to change many minds in a mere 38 days and that is what he needs to do. No one in a similar situation could. Identifying the Liberal vote and pestering them to go to the polls is not going to be enough. (Anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is on identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Comparatively little effort is spent convincing people to vote this way or that. It is yet one more reason why there needs to be mandatory voting.) With Don Bell gone, North Vancouverites are likely to fall in line with voters in near by ridings. There are just not enough self identified Liberal supporters left to pester.
77 comments:
There's just one question to which Iggy has been avoiding giving a reply.
"If necessary to form government, will he or will he not form a coalition with the socialists and the separatists? Yes or no?
If no then the Libs can be safely considered. If yes, then the SS combo running Canada is just not an option and I'll vote for a Con majority.
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
So? All's fair in politics and the voters will exercise their franchise in such a way that takes this into consideration. My feeling is that, given present leadership, anyone who votes NDP or Liberal is not of right mind.
Why is Iggy trying to revise history?
By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency
Last Updated: March 22, 2011 12:00am
The Liberal Party has released new TV ads featuring Michael Ignatieff talking about his family.
It's heart-warming stuff: Ignatieff describes his dad as an immigrant who "came off a boat in 1928 without anything" and worked his way "up the ladder one rung at a time."
"Nothing is ever given to you, everything has to be earned."
Ignatieff told CTV his "family lost everything in the Russian revolution. They started over again in Canada. They came here with nothing."
But according to Ignatieff's own book about his family, The Russian Album, that's just not true. Ignatieff's family weren't regular Russians. They were high-ranking ministers in the government of the czar. They're aristocracy, actually -- Michael Ignatieff himself is a count, a title he will pass on to his son,Theo, and so on.
The Ignatieffs were powerful players in the czar's dictatorship. When the Russian revolution succeeded, the Ignatieffs fled the country.
But like so many, they were able to squirrel away money. The Ignatieffs fled to London in 1919, where they had $25,000 waiting for them in a bank. That's worth more than $2 million in today's currency. The Ignatieffs lived there for nine years before moving to Canada in 1928.
Why is Ignatieff trying to revise his family's history to make them sound like poor working class shlubs?Why did he say his dad came herewith nothing -- when in fact his family were the equivalent of multi-millionaires?
Ignatieff is desperate to come across as a regular Joe. But did he really think no one would notice the contradiction between the new airbrushed story, and the one he described in his family autobiography?
Last year Ignatieff went further, telling reporters "you're looking at a guy whose dad was a political refugee."
A refugee? Really?
Earlier this year, the brother-in-law of the deposed Tunisian dictator applied for refugee status here in Canada -- and was laughed out of town.
Technically, perhaps, he is a refugee -- he'd face persecution back in Tunisia. But to call an aristocratic dictator a "refugee" is to stretch the definition of the term.
Same thing for Ignatieff 's family. Ignatieff's great-grandfather, Nicholas, was personally responsible for some of the most brutal laws inflicted by the Russian czars.
He drafted Russia's May Laws one history book described as "forbidding Jews to move into the countryside, to acquire land, or to open their shops on Sundays."
"When the Jewish leaders asked why they were not entitled to the same protection by the police as other Russian subjects, Ignatieff replied they were not like other Russian subjects ... Jewish shops were smashed and burned ... Delegations of Jewish leaders came to see Ignatieff at the Ministry of the Interior. They told him they were in bondage as under Pharaoh. 'So when is your Exodus, and where is your Moses,' he is supposed to have said in reply."
That history book was written by Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff is not responsible for the anti-Semitism of his great-grandfather or the tyranny of czars. He's his own man.
It's just strange he would throw his family's history down the memory hole to win a few votes. And it's stranger still that, having chosen to use his family as a campaign theme, he is surprised and outraged his opponents would correct the record.
EZRA LEVANT zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/24/selley-ignatieffs-family-history-a-minor-melodrama-best-forgotten/
"If we believe George Ignatieff’s memoirs, the £25,000 was mostly gone by the time he arrived in Montreal in 1928, along with his mother and brother Leonid. He says the family subsisted on “a little over $100 a month” (about $1,300 in 2011 dollars), $45 of which went towards a bedbug-infested apartment in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
Is that “not anything”? No. It’s something. Nowadays we’d call it poverty. If a grocer or farmer or auto mechanic was recounting his family’s arrival in Canada, nobody would object to him describing such means as “nothing.”
From Iggy's own lips on this morning's news, "I will not seek to form a coalition with the NDP and I will not seek to form a coalition with the Block."
Iggy, why insert the words "seek to"? Wriggle room? The sentence has more presence without them.
Would have been more believable without the unnecessary qualifier.
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
"The comments led Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe to accuse Harper of misleading Canadians about his own record on potential coalitions.
Duceppe told reporters Saturday that it was Harper who seemed keen to bring down Paul Martin's minority Liberal government in 2004 and form a Tory government, backed by the Bloc and the NDP. Harper signed a letter, along with Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton, asking the Governor General to "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options" prior to an election call.
"He lied this morning," Duceppe said of Harper.
"He was coming in my office saying, 'If Martin is going to lose confidence, what do you want in the throne speech? What would you like in the budget?"' Duceppe recalled."
A separatist dedicated to the destruction of Canada recalling an unrecorded alleged conversation from 7 years ago.
Yep, you can take it to the bank.
ha ha
Do you really want me to tally up the number of times Stephen Harper has been caught in lie vs the number of times Duceppe has been caught in a lie?
Trust me. You do not want me to do that.
As for Harper and separtism, it is time people give Harper's record a harder look.
After all, this the man he wrote "Separation, Alberta-Style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", declared Beligum, of all places, to be a model and said the following just before the 1995 referendum.
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other king of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
Stephen Harper: "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
Liberal Chances:
PLUS: National campaign will surely do better - this must be worth an extra 5% from last time.
MINUS: Liberal candidate is no longer incumbent. This has to be worth -5% from last time.
MINUS: No one has ever heard of the Liberal candidate this time, -5% again.
I would say it's:
Conservative: 46%
Liberal: 33%
NDP: 12%
Green: 7%
Others: 2%
What would a Liberal government do for our economy? Harper's Conservatives bug me, but they seem to have done a decent job keeping our economy going. Where will we be with a Liberal or coalition government?
"Harper's Conservatives bug me, but they seem to have done a decent job keeping our economy going."
The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 8% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy relatively strong. As for the stimulus package, the opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing it. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan". The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn. Indeed, in their first budget they opened up the mortgage market in Canada. "These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership." More about that below.
All that being said, in order to get a handle on how bad a job Flaherty has done you need to look at what went wrong in Europe.
Prior to the down turn, Spain, Ireland and UK were in fine fiscal shape. All had gross debt levels that were lower -- in the UK's case much lower, than they are here and Spain and Ireland were running surpluses. All 3 though had allowed huge real estate bubbles to inflate.
Once real estate bubbles started deflating all over the western world, the UK and Ireland pumped huge sums of money to prop up their banks and furthermore took responsibility for enormous private debts incurred by their banks. As a result, their debt to GDP ratios sky rocked. In the less than a year Ireland's debt to GDP ratio doubled!
At the same time as governments everywhere were busy saving their banker's bacon, government revenues collapsed and governments were saddled with higher bills for things like unemployment Insurance. Some European countries tired to make up for a huge drop in demand by introducing various fiscal stimulus and this inflated their budget deficits greater still. However, in no case was the fiscal stimulus package particularly large. Indeed, in many cases their was no fiscal stimulus at all. This was the case in Ireland. Not only was there no fiscal stimulus there, the Irish government also made deep cuts to social services and sharply raised taxes.
Needless to say, the kind of Hoover economics now being practiced by all of battered European economies -- with the notable exception of Iceland -- is not addressing the underlying problem, viz., a sharp decline in aggregate demand and an associated decline in government revenues. To further complicate matters is that a common currency has meant that Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Greece have not been able to deflate their currency in attempt to become more competitive and short term interest rates are already at record lows. As such, many still expect the worst. For them, it is not a matter of if Greece and Ireland will default on their debt obligations, but when.
So could such a crisis happen here? Damn skippy it could. Canadian consumer debt, most it related to spike in housing costs, is almost as high as American consumer debt was prior to the crash and in Vancouver it is higher. And again the crisis in Europe and US was brought on by a private debt crisis, associated with various real estate booms, that in turn created a public debt crisis. As for our much lauded banking system, Spain's banks are no less conservative in their lending practices than Canadian banks, but a real estate bubble in Spain inflated and burst nonetheless. And why has the cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006? Well, the dumb ass Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. In their first year in office the Harper government increased the mortgage amortization period from 25 to 40 years, allowed for 0 down mortgages, and reduced the down payment on secondary properties from 20% to 5%. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty and idiots have been scrabbling to undo the damage their actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties. A little over a week ago he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and idiots can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
Yeah, so back to the original question. What would the Liberals or a coalition government do? And would they do it better than the Conservatives did? And can you answer the question without constantly referring to people as idiots?
Jim Flaherty has repeatly said that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do.
For example,
"In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market,"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/01/17/flaherty-mortgage-changes.html
I agree and everything he has said can be used against him
After all, it was the Conservatives that increased the mortgage amortization period from 25 to 40 years, allowed for 0 down mortgages, and reduced the down payment on secondary properties from 20% to 5%.
As to your question, I answered it. There is little anyone can do.
"The problem is it is too little too late."
As our good shepherd Chretien told us as he was fleecing us for millions...“We are not going to change. We are going to continue defending our cause and our socialism.”
Liberal socialism - our millions.
ha ha
You do know that Chretien oversaw the biggest social service cuts in Canadian history and the biggest corporate tax cut in Canadian history.
It looks like Chretien knew the political spectrum as well as most Tories.
We do not have a public debt crisis in this country we have a private debt crisis and this private debt crisis has the potential to grow into public one as well.
Tuition costs, child care costs, and housing costs are all going up way faster than the rate of inflation and on the flip side of things wages for a good chunk of the population have been frozen in real terms for decades.
Now what is true for Canada is true for most of the Western world. However, things are going down hill a lot faster in Canada than most other Western countries. Martin and Chretien deserve a lot of the blame, but however bad Martin and Chretien were Harper is worse. Instead of introducing policies to curb the out of control costs of the aforementioned, Harper has introduced policies that have made things worse. Moreover, the Conservatives decision to allow in a huge number of unskilled guest workers into Canada has hurt workers whose wages have been frozen in real terms of decades. To top it all off, the Conservatives increased spending the most in areas (e.g., the military and corrections) that offer no direct financial benefit at all to Canadians.
Thanks, Kobi for providing Liberal proof.
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.” - Jean Chretien
I think I our new Liberal guy will take it over Saxton. Jack Layton said today that ALL BC Conservative MPs voted in favour of the HST.
This will not bode well with North Van voters.
"Thanks, Kobi for providing Liberal proof."
I do not know if it is possible to to be more opaque.
Anyway, your welcome Mr fortune cookie.
Saxton is perceived to have done a decent enough job for North Vancouver to earn the right to be re-elected. And so has Harper, and that's the facts.
The candidate chosen by the Liberals sounds much too foreign for the North Shore. Sorry to sound bigoted, but despite his glowing resume, that's going to be a big problem for him.
Vote result:
Cons - 26,000
Lib - 18,600
NDP - 6,600*
Green - 5,000*
Voter turnout 65%
* Subject to Local Candidate effect.
Do any of the North Van candidates have social media sites up yet? I vote in North Van but am not actually living there right now so am a bit out of touch
Thanks for any info/links.
http://www.facebook.com/taleebn?sk=info
Just found one....
"The candidate chosen by the Liberals sounds much too foreign for the North Shore. Sorry to sound bigoted, but despite his glowing resume, that's going to be a big problem for him."
Anglo Saxton vs Taleeb Normohamed
Doug Collins is dead and in 2008 Barack Hussein Obama was elected. I am not sure it will have that much of impact.
Tea Party
Sorry, Koby, but I disagree. The Libs chose a good candidate, but not one that most North Shore "swing" voters will relate to.
The Federal Parties are tribes competing for power. They also seem out of touch with the people. If you didn't know the dates of power switches you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between one and another.
It's the same ol' story, hold your nose and pick the least stinky one.
In this election since contempt of parliament (non-disclosure of public fund spending) by the Conservatives was the reason the gov't was defeated plus pro-rogueing, plus lack of cooperation with the opposition parties(they are after all a minority)etc., etc., my hat tips to the Liberals and I hope they win a minority gov't so that they are kept in check. I'm not sure I'd like to see either party with a majority.
Freqent elections are expensive but that can be the cost of a parliamentary democracy. If the Conservatives weren't so hell bent on a majority, I doubt we'd be facing an election today.
"If the Conservatives weren't so hell bent on a majority, I doubt we'd be facing an election today."
Really? You're blaming this election on the only party that voted against an election? Wow.
There was no poison pill and there was a $350 Million attempt to satisfy the NDP. This unwanted election is 100% the responsibility of the Opposition Parties and there is no way around that.
Agreed. Don't forget their own lust for power - I hope that the Liberals and NDP have the poop kicked out of them - ditto the Bloc.
John, you seem to forget that the committee that decided the Conservatives were in contempt of parliament was made up of a majority of opposition members. Of course they voted to find the Conservatives in contempt - it was a pretty sure way of forcing an election. I'm afraid this is blatantly self-serving and it's going to backfire.
What makes you think the Liberals will be any different if they gain the most seats out of this? It most certainly won't be a majority and we'll be right back where we started with a different person driving the bus.
I would bet the ranch that on May 3rd, the Liberals will be in worse shape than they are now, and it will give the party the opportunity to dump another lame-duck leader, no matter how impressive HIS resume is. Iggy is Icky, arrogant and out of touch!
"Agreed. Don't forget their own lust for power - I hope that the Liberals and NDP have the poop kicked out of them - ditto the Bloc."
ha ha.
That was awesome, but next time just grunt.
"John, you seem to forget that the committee that decided the Conservatives were in contempt of parliament was made up of a majority of opposition members. Of course they voted to find the Conservatives in contempt - it was a pretty sure way of forcing an election. I'm afraid this is blatantly self-serving and it's going to backfire."
You would think this happens all time then, but this is the first time that it has. Oda lied. Period end of story.
You rolls the dice, you take your chances.
As I said, they are little more than tribes competing for power.
Having said that, apparently Canadians think that a majority Harper gov't this past five years wouldn't have been the best for thing for Canada.
That was then..this is now. I think people will finally give him a majority because they are sick of the uncertainty and the constant posturing and threats of the opposition parties.
And Koby, if you're asking someone to grunt, it must mean that you'd understand them!
Coalition with the separatists and socialists? When in a squeeze the Liberals can be "flexible".
“It's not an ideal situation, but the show must go on.” - Stephane Dion
Hey, quit making the Liberals look like goofs - they focus on important problems!!
“The problem is whether or not people will still want to buy free-range eggs knowing that the one thing the chickens can't do is range freely. Or, indeed, at all.” - Paul Martin
" ...constant posturing and threats of the opposition parties."
Depends how you view it. Doesn't bother me, that's parliamentary democracy in action. I rather like it.
"Coalition with the separatists and socialists? When in a squeeze the Liberals can be "flexible"."
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
So here it is from the mouths of the horses. Interesting how the tune changes to suit the partner they're dancing with.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMkdXycwDUxA&h=1cae3
"And Koby, if you're asking someone to grunt, it must mean that you'd understand them!"
Context.
For whatever reason there seems to be legions of Conservative bloggers who really do not want to say anything more than "Me Conservative. Me want Conservatives to win. Liberals are bad. Me want to smash them. Coalition. Separatists. Socialists." So rather than saying all that. All they need to do is grunt. Doing so will signal to everyone that they are a Conservative supporter and that they are unwilling or incapable criticizing Dear Leader.
"Tom Flanagan, the federal Conservatives’ former campaign manager and a one-time Harper chief of staff, told Postmedia News on Monday that the deal Mr. Harper described in 2004 as a “co-opposition” accord — but insisted then and insists now was not a formal coalition — was a “perfectly legitimate exercise” aimed at exploring whether there was “common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.”
Ah Koby, "... All they need to do is grunt. Doing so will signal to everyone that they are a Conservative supporter..."
Ad hominem abuse. Personal denigration of your opponent.
Claiming the moral high-ground yet quite content in the mire. How Chretienesque.
Carry on.
"Stephen Harper is facing questions about a 1997 TV interview where he discusses how parties in the Commons could form a “coalition” to oust Liberals as government even if that party won the “largest number of seats” in the House."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/coalition-talk-was-about-uniting-right-not-seizing-power-harper-says/article1961618/
stephen Hypocrite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-4htheexU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTmpXj9vyM&feature=player_embedded
"Ad hominem abuse."
There is nothing there to abuse. A few bald statements strung together to do not an argument make. Yeah team is not an argument. Boo is not an argument.
Of course, if you disagree, lay his "argument" out for me. Here it is.
"I hope that the Liberals and NDP have the poop kicked out of them - ditto the Bloc."
Koby, just say mia culpa and move on.
With so much hot air no wonder we've got global warming.
Koby--whoever s/he is, an obviously intelligent person, is also one of the most arrogant asses around. Where does s/he hide between elections????
Michael Ignatieff was invited to address a major gathering of the Indian Nation in B.C. this summer...
He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every First Nation's present standard of living if he were elected Prime Minister. He assured them he was always urging the Harper government to address more of the native community's concerns.
At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribe presented Mr. Ignatieff with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - "Walking Eagle". The proud Ignatieff then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired of the group of chiefs as to how they came to select the new name given to Ignatieff.
They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.
How much in tax dollars does Iggy want to give to the students?
Doesn't it seem more sensible to continue to reduce the deficit, which was created to help Canada ride through the recession better than any other G8 country, before we start giving stuff away?
I don't think anyone can figure it out, to wit:
The evolution of Ignatieff's education policy blunder:
9:00 am - Michael Ignatieff announces what he and senior Liberals call "a game changer"
11:15 am - Michael Ignatieff's Liberal war room says the key Liberal platform announcement needs "tweaking" after reporters raise questions about whether CEGEP students, who pay less in tuition than Ignatieff's proposed program, would make a profit off Ignatieff’s Liberal program.
1:29 pm - Michael Ignatieff’s war room makes another policy amendment on the fly when it becomes clear his policy would, if implemented, make many students ineligible for Canada Student Loans or Canada Student Grants. They announce that "value of the passport is excluded for the purpose of calculating a STUDENT'S ASSETS", for grants and loans.
3:25 PM - Yet another Michael Ignatieff policy scramble as the Liberals announce the "passport would not count against FAMILY INCOME for student loan calculations." Still no word on what guarantees they can provide that provinces and territories will make the same changes to their student loan and grant programs, or whether Ignatieff’s program will make students involuntarily ineligible for means-tested scholarship programs. Nor has Ignatieff explained how the low-income portion of his policy will be delivered through RESPs, which currently don't require banks to obtain information on family income for the purposes of administering them.
The Liberals are clearly making up policy on the fly to cover his many oversights. There are several other questions that must be answered in this Ignatieff Policy mess:
1) How will their latest policy "tweaks" impact the overall cost of this new program? When will Ignatieff come clean on the true cost of the program? Or doesn't he know?
2) If they are planning to exempt these funds from the asset calculation for student loans and grants, have they consulted with provinces and territories on coordinating the treatment of provincial/territorial loans and grants? Will they repay any provinces and territories which see cost increases as a result of this new policy?
3) Banks already find RESPs to be administratively onerous. If Michael Ignatieff plans to introduce a new income-tested grant for some students administered through RESPs, can he guarantee that no banks will stop offering RESPs altogether due to the greater administrative burden of Ignatieff's policy, which will require them to collect family income information for RESP purposes? Have the Liberals consulted to make sure that banks will continue to offer RESPs with these new, more onerous requirements?
4) How will Passport funds be separated from other funds in an RESP contributed by a student or his/her parent? If the student doesn't go to school, who gets to keep the interest on the entire RESP amount? How does the money get repaid to government?
5) Michael Ignatieff's plan will take away the Education and Textbook tax credits that benefit students and families. Why is Michael Ignatieff choosing to fund his new $1 billion program by raising taxes on students and their families by $700 million?
What a bore. I was falling asleep when a smelt the following. The smell of BS always jolts me awake.
"Michael Ignatieff's plan will take away the Education and Textbook tax credits that benefit students and families. Why is Michael Ignatieff choosing to fund his new $1 billion program by raising taxes on students and their families by $700 million?"
The elimination of a tax deduction is not a tax hike. Income is what is taxed -- hence the the term Income tax. The introduction or elimination of a tax deduction changes the definition of income. If an applicable tax deduction is eliminated, you are taxed more because technically you made more. Calling the elimination of a tax deduction a tax hike is akin to saying your boss raised your taxes because he gave you a raise.
Big deal you say what matters is the bottom line and indeed that is all that matters. So what does this program mean to Canadian families.
"Two Canada Learning Passport replaces two current tax credits that are worth a combined amount of $558 at most. (Those students who can claim them will lose the $480 a year education tax credit as well as the $78 textbook credit.)
Of course, even after the loss of those tax credits, most students will still be ahead by $442 per year. Students from low-income families should do much better because they may not have qualified for all the tax credits in the first place."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/03/the-liberal-learning-passport-it-gives-and-takes-away.html
Let's agree that whoever gets the most votes wins the election....Thanks.
Can I just ask - why is North Van so damn apathetic about politics? Our community has the potential for a massive impact on Canada. We are, whether we like it or not, a civic model of the great Canadian society. Why is it that we can't embrace this identity and demand this type of leadership from our candidates.
Boooooooooo (from the cheap seats)
Picky...picky...Koby.
Look folks, Koby is probably a really nice guy but politically he is the ultra-liberal apologist.
There is nothing that you can ever put forward that he can accept if it doesn't follow the liberal party line.
He exhibited the same lib rhetoric when the hapless Dion was running and even the libs themselves dumped him as hopeless.
So speak your mind but remember that you are butting your head against a brick wall if you expect anything but libspeak in return.
ha ha
Conservative candidate Ronda Thomas famously said "the facts do not matter" and I see you agree.
Koby: "Now what is true for Canada is true for most of the Western world. However, things are going down hill a lot faster in Canada than most other Western countries. Martin and Chretien deserve a lot of the blame, but however bad Martin and Chretien were Harper is worse. ... "
Now I never been a be fan of Freud, but a notion of his applies here. You are projecting.
Might I suggest one thing.A thing that seems so radical that it's been removed from all political discussion.That being the issue of corporate tax rates.They are now hovering around 12-15%.They used to be up in the 30% range in this country.As long as governments of all political stripes deliberately starve themselves of the ability to provide services to their citizens then we'll continue to have budget deficits and excuses from these same governments to cut and privatize services-that's if concern over budget deficits is indeed the real concern here.
Will? or is it Jack?
Koby.
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I rest my case.
Interesting choice to select a Persian heritage candidate, it may pay off in the long run, but I agree he does not have the time to mount a creditable threat. Don benefited from being well known in town and with politics that could allow him to choose either side of the fence.
Since the other parties intend to treat me as a 2nd class citizen I don’t really have any choices other than conservative.
Today’s National Post revealed evidence of Michael Ignatieff’s coalition agenda. In an interview with National Post columnist John Ivision, Michael Ignatieff said that even if he loses the election, he will oppose a Conservative budget and move to defeat the government. Rather than accepting the democratic will of the Canadian people, Michael Ignatieff instead said he would begin clearing the way for a reckless, unstable coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
Want further evidence of Michael Ignatieff's reckless coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois? Yesterday, an NDP candidate in southern Ontario resigned in order to support the Ignatieff Liberals. Former NDP candidate Ryan Dolby admitted he coordinated the move with MPs and officials from his fellow coalition partners, including the Ignatieff Liberals.
This is exactly what the coalition did last time and they will do it again.
Anonymous said "Will,or is it Jack?"-Nope,just Will,but thanks for the compliment!
Who's Jack?
Jack, he represents the NDP. He seems like a fairly nice chap just has an abnormal way of thinking.
"Jack,he represents the NDP.He seems like a fairly nice chap just has an abnormal way of thinking"-Hmm I always thought Stephen Harper has an abnormal way of thinking.Steve didn't think a coalition was such a bad idea back about 05' or so.What's changed?Oops,that's right,he became Prime Minister!Not bad I guess for a guy who hates Canada!
Results talk. BS walks.
What's an easy barometer of the economic health of our country as perceived on a world basis?
Our dollar, currently tickling US$1.04.
The TSX exceeding pre-recesion levels.
Nice going Cons. Keep a steady hand on the tiller.
Socialists and friends keep out.
Couldn't be any simpler. Well said.
I'm a con but unlike the lib poster I am able to criticize my party of choice.
Steve - you threw out the challenge for the 1 on 1 with Iggy. Then you weaseled. That's a lib move unworthy of a con. Come on, put up your dukes and go for it.
"I'm a con but unlike the lib poster I am able to criticize my party of choice."
ha ha
Really!
I call BS.
Prove me wrong.
Jeez Koby, what are you? 12?
No particular liberal poster was named.
Thank you Koby for identifying yourself.
Anyway, Steven step up to the plate and go mano a mano!
I don't see a great chance for an, as yet unkown, candidate in North Van. This is not a 'Throw the bums out!" kind of election (Remember when we elected an NDP mla?)so name recognition is a factor. It could be a watershed election, tho. If, always a big word, the Cons get a majority they may do so at the expense of the Libs and the BQ will be the Official Opposition - again! Then the Lib/NDP coalition will be formal. Harper might be better off playing the other parties against each other than painting them into a corner.
Andrew Saxton has not done anything to cause people to feel he is past his "best by" date, quite the contrary. He has brought all kinds of dough to the riding and spread it out over projects that benefit pretty much everyone (from Cap. Road improvements to the playing field at Windsor). I don't exactly warm to the guy, but voters need a solid reason to feel he no longer merits their support, and that ain't happenin', folks.
Post a Comment