A
afransen TO
Guest
So the Liberals have "collapsed" when their popular support is still higher than the CPC enjoyed for much of the past 10 years.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
At first I thought you were asking a question here, but I re-read your post. Okay, then, I'll agree with you, they have collapsed. They'll regroup and hopefully present a better party, but I think we can agree that if they had an election today, the Liberals would likely come third to the NDP.So the Liberals have "collapsed" when their popular support is still higher than the CPC enjoyed for much of the past 10 years.
A
adma
Guest
Doubtful. First, while there was one poll that put the NDP just a point or so behind the Liberals, another one put them as far down 14%, only half of the Liberals. Secondly, the flaw in the "if an election were held today" argument is that it assumes a same-day snap election sans campaign. Finally, the Liberals still have a 100-seat-plus base to the NDP's 29. "Third to the NDP" might have been more plausible in the Turner/Broadbent years, when the parties were closer together in seat numbers--but today, even under "temporary" leadership, the Grits still have a lot of ballast left...but I think we can agree that if they had an election today, the Liberals would likely come third to the NDP.
A
afransen TO
Guest
The Liberal base is much larger than the conservative base. It is easier for them to win elections... simple as that.
B
bizorky
Guest
What is this about daycare? The Liberals did nothing, absolutely nothing for daycare in over 13 years of national governance.
Over those thirteen years they did manage get rid of the deficit, create a surplus, restructure the debt, pay down some of the debt, make some investments in infrastructure and so on - by no means a perfect record. They did finally start moving on the daycare file, but it has been killed by the Conservatives. It did come into being, it did finally happen, and it was ended by the Conservatives.
The same will be true with the gun registry. There have been wild numbers thrown around about how much was spent. But once that program is cancelled by the Conservatives, that investment will be wasted and lost by the Conservatives. Too much was spent by the previous government, but that spending will be wasted when the program is terminated by the Conservatives.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
A good record, but these accomplishments mean nothing for daycare. Not to mention that the vast majority of the national debt was created by the Liberals; from $18 billion when Trudeau took office in 1968, to a debt of $200 billion in 1984. On daycare, you surely must see that this was a last minute campaign trick. Nothing was killed by the Conservatives, as nothing was brought forth by the Liberals.Over those thirteen years they did manage get rid of the deficit, create a surplus, restructure the debt, pay down some of the debt, make some investments in infrastructure and so on - by no means a perfect record. They did finally start moving on the daycare file, but it has been killed by the Conservatives. It did come into being, it did finally happen, and it was ended by the Conservatives.
So we keep throwing money at an overblown, unworking, cash cow? The Conservatives are eliminating the long gun registry, but keeping tabs on hand guns. That's good enough for me.The same will be true with the gun registry. There have been wild numbers thrown around about how much was spent. But once that program is cancelled by the Conservatives, that investment will be wasted and lost by the Conservatives. Too much was spent by the previous government, but that spending will be wasted when the program is terminated by the Conservatives.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Abeja:
Why stop at 1984, in particular? Interesting that you've conveniently neglected to tell us that between 1985 to 1992, during the Mulroney era (who incidentally is a Conservative Prime Minister), the federal debt doubled from $200B to more than $400B. "Vast majority of the debt can be blamed on the Liberals", eh?
www.fin.gc.ca/budget01/pdf/bkfisce.pdf (p. 11)
Hmm, if nothing was brought forth by the Liberals, what is the agreement signed with provinces with regards to the funding, then? (and why would there be the need for Harper to honour that one year childcare transfer, if there was "nothing"?)
Honestly, what do you take us for? Fools who doesn't know how to do research?
AoD
Not to mention that the vast majority of the national debt was created by the Liberals; from $18 billion when Trudeau took office in 1968, to a debt of $200 billion in 1984. On daycare, you surely must see that this was a last minute campaign trick. Nothing was killed by the Conservatives, as nothing was brought forth by the Liberals.
Why stop at 1984, in particular? Interesting that you've conveniently neglected to tell us that between 1985 to 1992, during the Mulroney era (who incidentally is a Conservative Prime Minister), the federal debt doubled from $200B to more than $400B. "Vast majority of the debt can be blamed on the Liberals", eh?
www.fin.gc.ca/budget01/pdf/bkfisce.pdf (p. 11)
On daycare, you surely must see that this was a last minute campaign trick. Nothing was killed by the Conservatives, as nothing was brought forth by the Liberals.
Hmm, if nothing was brought forth by the Liberals, what is the agreement signed with provinces with regards to the funding, then? (and why would there be the need for Harper to honour that one year childcare transfer, if there was "nothing"?)
Honestly, what do you take us for? Fools who doesn't know how to do research?
AoD
B
bizorky
Guest
So we keep throwing money at an overblown, unworking, cash cow? The Conservatives are eliminating the long gun registry, but keeping tabs on hand guns. That's good enough for me.
You are not getting it. At worst, the exisitng gun registry can be called "excessively expensive." If the Conservatives cancel the program, that means that money will have been wasted.
Be so kind as to tell me how the Conservatives will keep tabs on guns by eliminating the gun registry. The purpose of the gun registry IS to keep tabs on guns. We have a logic-disconnect happening here. Are you telling me they will cancel one program only to start it all over again? Now that sounds wasteful.
A
afransen TO
Guest
"So we keep throwing money at an overblown, unworking, cash cow? The Conservatives are eliminating the long gun registry, but keeping tabs on hand guns. That's good enough for me."
The gun registry is costing less than $2 per registered gun to operate per year, for a total less than that of the passport office (ie, chump change). It was an expensive system to create, but now that it is operational, it is very affordable. Also, it is providing a vital service to police forces across Canada. The registry is accessed 5000 times per day by police. It is also extremely important for when police need to enter a residence for them to know that there are weapons kept there.
It's a fallacy to say that long guns do not need to be registered. They are just as deadly, and some statistics say that a very significant percentage of crimes are committed with shotguns and rifles. There is no reasonable excuse to exclude them from the registry short of attempting to satisfy the gun lobby.
Harper, for all his self-professed respect for law enforcement, is flat-out ignoring the unanimous opinion of police forces across the country: the gun registry is a vital, lifesaving program.
The gun registry is costing less than $2 per registered gun to operate per year, for a total less than that of the passport office (ie, chump change). It was an expensive system to create, but now that it is operational, it is very affordable. Also, it is providing a vital service to police forces across Canada. The registry is accessed 5000 times per day by police. It is also extremely important for when police need to enter a residence for them to know that there are weapons kept there.
It's a fallacy to say that long guns do not need to be registered. They are just as deadly, and some statistics say that a very significant percentage of crimes are committed with shotguns and rifles. There is no reasonable excuse to exclude them from the registry short of attempting to satisfy the gun lobby.
Harper, for all his self-professed respect for law enforcement, is flat-out ignoring the unanimous opinion of police forces across the country: the gun registry is a vital, lifesaving program.
G
ganjavih
Guest
Harper, for all his self-professed respect for law enforcement, is flat-out ignoring the unanimous opinion of police forces across the country: the gun registry is a vital, lifesaving program.
My understanding was that a survey showed that most police officers across the country don't think it's useful, although most police chiefs support it. Regardless, it certainly isn't unanimous. I don't think it was a good use of a billion dollars but now that it has been established, it would be an even greater waste to shut it down.
A
afransen TO
Guest
If it's used 5000 times a day, it seems it is useful.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Is there anyone, besides myself, who sees anything (non-sarcastically) positive in the Conservatives platform and likely policy positions? Unless this group solely represents left leaning folks, there must be someone here besides myself who voted CPC.
A
allabootmatt
Guest
**sound of crickets**
But seriously...a forum dealing specifically with Toronto issues, and particularly issues of urban design, planning, and architecture is hardly the place to come looking for right-wing fellow-travelers. Walk into any architect's office in the city (well, maybe not WZMH) and you'll understand. The sort of people who care about these issues tend to be overwhelmingly left of centre, which is a shame but it's reality.
That said, sure I find certain things about Harper appealing. I think the fact that he is less beholden to a number of special interests than are many Liberals is only a positive thing (though he may yet prove to be beholden to different ones). Additionally, I think he takes the value of our military much more seriously than his predecessor, and hopefully a Harper government will speed up the rebuilding of the Canadian Forces that Martin belatedly started.
Look, I vote Green, and it's not because I'm a leftie. I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Believe it or not they represent the best combination of those traits in my opinion. At the same time, I'm happy that the Liberals are our strongest party, because their tent clearly has room in it for people who think like I do--as well as for a broad range of others.
I would never (well, almost never) support the Tories because their own brand of conservatism seems to owe much more to Karl Rove than to William F. Buckley. What the Tories are obviously NOT is principled, or intellectual.
But seriously...a forum dealing specifically with Toronto issues, and particularly issues of urban design, planning, and architecture is hardly the place to come looking for right-wing fellow-travelers. Walk into any architect's office in the city (well, maybe not WZMH) and you'll understand. The sort of people who care about these issues tend to be overwhelmingly left of centre, which is a shame but it's reality.
That said, sure I find certain things about Harper appealing. I think the fact that he is less beholden to a number of special interests than are many Liberals is only a positive thing (though he may yet prove to be beholden to different ones). Additionally, I think he takes the value of our military much more seriously than his predecessor, and hopefully a Harper government will speed up the rebuilding of the Canadian Forces that Martin belatedly started.
Look, I vote Green, and it's not because I'm a leftie. I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Believe it or not they represent the best combination of those traits in my opinion. At the same time, I'm happy that the Liberals are our strongest party, because their tent clearly has room in it for people who think like I do--as well as for a broad range of others.
I would never (well, almost never) support the Tories because their own brand of conservatism seems to owe much more to Karl Rove than to William F. Buckley. What the Tories are obviously NOT is principled, or intellectual.
B
bizorky
Guest
Is there anyone, besides myself, who sees anything (non-sarcastically) positive in the Conservatives platform and likely policy positions? Unless this group solely represents left leaning folks, there must be someone here besides myself who voted CPC.
Not that it is any of my business (and it certainly is not), what attracted to you to the Conservative platform and policy positions?
A
adma
Guest
But seriously...a forum dealing specifically with Toronto issues, and particularly issues of urban design, planning, and architecture is hardly the place to come looking for right-wing fellow-travelers. Walk into any architect's office in the city (well, maybe not WZMH) and you'll understand. The sort of people who care about these issues tend to be overwhelmingly left of centre, which is a shame but it's reality.
Don't know why WZMH and not a whole lot of other usual-corporate-hackwork-suspects.
Indeed, I'd more likely see a rightward tilt not among corporate firms, but among certain "urban traditionalists" who do, in their eyes, "care about these issues"--but in the sense of "siding with the residents" against Minto at Yonge + Eg, or thinking of the NPS walkways as a hopeless urban error and eyesore demanding removal. Sort of the silent-majority "eeeyewwww" wing of self-styled Jane Jacobs/PPS adherents.
I guess they might subscribe to this
www.city-journal.org/
and I *can* see Harper, or John Tory, or Jane Pitfield trying to woo this sensibility en route to some dreamed-up urban power...