Your strategic voting hook-up spot.
I can see why the Tories are trying so hard to get re-elected now. Half of them are going to face charges once out of power.
Of course, having lived under Ontario under the Harris regime where Clement and Flaherty were ministers, the latest news doesn't surprise me.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I would prefer they bring in mixed proportional (extra seats in the house to give to a party that wins a lot of popular vote but not many seats) or proportional ridings (large ridings of 5 to 7 candidates each, splitting the seats within via proportional vote). I think that is a superior solution to vote swapping.
It is. So let's use vote swapping to elect the guys that will make those reforms happen.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.So... English debate tonight at 7 ET it seems. I think this might be a stream
, but I'm not too sure.
It seems to be starting in about 10 minutes.
Does anybody have anything to say about it?
Edit: I'm watching it on tv now. Posting from portable.
edited 12th Apr '11 4:09:26 PM by Meophist
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.Bah, Harper did nothing but talking points.
Gilles Duceppe as usual was just targeting Harper and I'm not sure if he did very well.
I think for me it goes like this:
- Jack Layton was most sensible, respectful and talked about a wide variety of real policies. He was the only one to mention First Nations and was able to talk about good solid concrete policies and give out sensible educated views.
- Ignatieff really shined when talking about crime, when he focused on preventative measures and attacking the underlying causes. I also liked his focus on youth crime prevention.
- Harper was okay at the beginning but when he started repeating the same five sentences for every question, it started getting annoying.
- I know I'm a guy that dislikes conservative social policy and mad cut-and-spend policies but what Harper really failed on for me was how he was supposed to explain how he was going to pay for his platform. Jails, fighterjets, corporate tax cuts which combined cost at least 60 billion dollars and his answer is "The economy will grow". How?! Money doesn't magically fall from the sky.
^ That's pretty much how I saw it too.
Duceppe is playing the same game the Bloq always plays and while he got maybe one good dig near the beginning it's ridiculous for him to be at the leaders debate. The party shouldn't federal in the first place and he's doesn't provide anything to those debates.
Harper's points are boring, yes, but I know plenty of people who will simply think that he's "well spoken" and continue to ignore the fact that he gave out the same few lines over and over. On the other hand I acknowledge my hatred for everything he stands for runs so deep that nothing could make me vote PC, so I'm biased against him from the start.
I only caught the first half hour ish then left when it became readily apparent that everyone was just throwing talking points around and a few good jabs thrown at Harper. Harper certainly accomplished his goal of not changing the dynamics of the race at all so he'll probably lose a few seats but keep his minority government for another year barring any massive scandal between now and election day.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?For those who missed it, it's watchable again on CBC's website
. There's probably other links to it, but I'm a bit too lazy to find them at the moment.
It's worth watching just to see Jack Layton mention how young people are lured into crime by "Bling."
Breadloaf: Really? Layton seemed the most sensible and mature? I don't know, it is the NDP's schtick, but the entire "I'm stuck between two idiots" thing really grates on me. And the name-dropping of his wife really seemed like he was just doing as a cheap grab for votes, not the way I'd hope someone would treat their spouse.
Harper gazing dead-eyed into the camera made me incredibly uncomfortable, and this was amplified by the fact that all the other leaders were looking at who they argued with. Then again, it almost gave the impression that he was neutral, and all the others were just ganging up on him, an image he would rather like I suspect. It fits with his whole dismissal of the contempt ruling.
It really pains me to see Duceppe as the one who most understands the constitution. And Iggy's flat out denial of a coalition is I think too much. He could just say "coalitions are the winner's prerogative" which silences Harper's "coaltion of losers" bit, and doesn't shoot him in the foot come the time that he might need to do it. And really, I'm against poisoning the mind of the electorate with this non-sense that coalitions are somehow bad.
Profile | Talk to Me | Note: Check your irony detector before replying.Well Harper wanted to cultivate an image of being the Master Debater and so he just stuck to his party platform and gave stale answers and refused to respond to any criticism. That's how you win debates. It's not how you lead a country (I'm just giving my opinion, I'm not clear on your stance on tories).
As for Layton, yeah the whole "bling" comment was so worth it. But his view on focusing on more cops on the street is probably a waste of money. I would agree more with Ignatieff and Duceppe that youth prevention and education are much more key. Uh, I was about to mention personal anecdotes but I'll forget that. In any case, I think it is about giving options to people, real options, where they have real chance of success to get ahead in life to avoid those petty lives of crime. Really, we don't need mandatory sentencing or megajails like Harper suggests when crime has been dropping steadily in the era of "light" sentencing imposed by the Liberals. If jailing doesn't make a difference in crime rate, then I rather not waste money that could be better spent, like on healthcare.
As far as the debate goes, the top winner to me is Layton and I have to grudgingly say that Harper also won. The reason why I grudgingly say that is because he won, not on any merit of argument, but because his body posture and choice of words was superior. He can't explain how he pays for anything, even if we disregard the fighterjet purchase, and proposes corporate tax cuts when Canada has one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
Didn't watch it (tried to look for a stream, but failed), but most comments I see are pretty much all about Mme Paillé's question and ignored the rest of the debate. You'll get more comments later this morning, I think.
All in all, so far, my vote is only there to see which party gets 2 bucks, as the Bloc always wins this riding.
I was at work so I didn't see it. I'll probably look for a site that has the video.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.So today's Gotcha Politics headlines:
A counter rally is planned for Harper's email to "very ethnic" voters to show up in their "ethnic costumes" for a photo op. They intend to dress in the most ridiculously stereotypical way and have a facebook page set up for you to join in.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-ethnic-libs.html
Out of a rapid series of a dozen interviews that Ignatieff conducted with various people, it turns out one of them wrote some rather inflammatory comments as a Sikh extremist against Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh. Ignatieff replied that if there was anything extremist in the interview, he would can it but otherwise he'll leave it be.

I don't know who I'm voting for. I agree with the NDP on pretty much everything but their lack of numbers is an issue. On the other hand the liberals have a track record of big promises amounting to nothing. Might just end up flipping a coin on election day if there isn't any new information.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?