I've posted it before, but...
Computer Science Canada Who won? |
| Author: | Justin_ [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Who won? |
Who are they saying won the election? |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've posted it before, but... |
|
| Author: | MyPistolsIn3D [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks like a Conservative minority so far. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yep, conservative minority, just found out. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They haven't WON.... their leading. Doesn't look like they'll be keeping it for long though. Suprising turn of events though- PQ (or BQ w/e you wanna call it) got 50 seats XD Omgz! Their predictions of CON getting the votes from Quebec were off- though they did gain seats there. |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The polls aren't closed everywhere... so you never know what will happen. Right now the liberals actually have to most elected members, but it does seem like the conservatives will have a minority government. Let's hope they screw up huge so that a respectable party like hte NDP get's elected. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It dose not look like this goverment is going to last long if NDP + LIB > CON |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I dont trust either of them. They all lie. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it could be CON + NDP ^^ but ~8k vote to go.... |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: It dose not look like this goverment is going to last long if NDP + LIB > CON
CON + BQ || CON + NDP is already > LIB + BQ || LIB + NDP |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
LOL, well CON + NDP = hell frezing over and CON + BQ = CON losing the next election. No one whonts to assiote with the block. Hey and lets not for get that on indepent guy, lol. Any how i think martin is consdeding right now, but i still have faith that the LIB + NDP will work out. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
NDPs has been dead against the Liberals through out the campaign.. but.. who knows.. but i don't like the Liberal + NDP idea.. CON + NPD is a good combo. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
it will be a conservative minority and they will ally with either the block and/or the NDP to some extent. It will however be a very very tenuous ballance and I highly doubt that this government will last very long. I think there will probably be another election come spring, if not earlier. At least it's not a conservative majority so they can't totally screw everything up. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
At the moment the seat totals are: Conservative:125 Liberal:103 B.Q.:51 NDP:28 Other:1 with 59% of registered voters counted, so a couple seats may change but the overall situation is rather fixed. So it looks like a Conservative minority government will have to work the other parties on an issue by issue basis. I don't think that there will be another election for another year or so, simply because other parties will be hesitant to bring about another election any time soon. So hopefully the Conservatives can show Canadians that they aren't the devils that the Liberals have made them out to be and win a majority next time. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd like the Conservatives if... -They'd promise to back off of the gay marriage and abortion issues and just let them stand. -They actually cared about the environment. It's all we've got people. Money is nice, but I'd take air over cash any day. Kyoto or bust. -Health care. Poor people get sick too, Mr. Harper. -Religion. Maybe it's just that Bush left me with a bad impression, but I'd love some assurance that they weren't a bunch of fundamentalists. If a religious nut wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old - great, but no way in hell I want them to be running a country. Look at how well it's working out for Iran... I really do like the idea of less government involvement and lower taxes, but we do need social programs where they count. Also, I like the idea of increased military spending. Canada's army does a lot of good in the world - and it could do a lot better. First though, we need to buy our first tank (that's no a joke, by the way - the Canadian army actually doesn't own any tanks). |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: -Religion. Maybe it's just that Bush left me with a bad impression, but I'd love some assurance that they weren't a bunch of fundamentalists. If a religious nut wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old - great, but no way in hell I want them to be running a country. Look at how well it's working out for Iran...
Fat chance. Most of the Conservatives here ran on a platform of "vote for me if you don't want to go to Hell." And at least one of them got soundly defeated for doing so. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: It dose not look like this goverment is going to last long if NDP + LIB > CON
According to CON and NDP it's going to be CON + NDP > all others. Personally, I think that's about the best results we could have expected if we can have a mix of policy from both of those parties. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
and their child care program isnt that bad... 1200 bux a month will open up alot of jobs |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MARTIN wrote: I'd like the Conservatives if... -They'd promise to back off of the gay marriage and abortion issues and just let them stand. -They actually cared about the environment. It's all we've got people. Money is nice, but I'd take air over cash any day. Kyoto or bust. -Health care. Poor people get sick too, Mr. Harper. -Religion. Maybe it's just that Bush left me with a bad impression, but I'd love some assurance that they weren't a bunch of fundamentalists. If a religious nut wants to believe the earth is 6000 years old - great, but no way in hell I want them to be running a country. Look at how well it's working out for Iran... I really do like the idea of less government involvement and lower taxes, but we do need social programs where they count. Also, I like the idea of increased military spending. Canada's army does a lot of good in the world - and it could do a lot better. First though, we need to buy our first tank (that's no a joke, by the way - the Canadian army actually doesn't own any tanks). Me being a fairly extreme left-winger I can agree with most of these points. But I'm really sick and tired of the Canadian military. You want to hear a no-joke? In the Canadian military you have a higher chance of dying due to faulty equipment than enemy attack. I say forget tanks. We already have our big brother (U.S) to do the dirty work. Let's invest in our aircraft, let's engineer the best aircraft in the world and let's be known as the commanders of the sky. By sporting the most technologically advanced aircraft and the most exprienced pilots in the world, I think that is a feet Canadians can accomplish. No sense in trying to beef up all aspects of our military. In doing so we end up with a poorly equipped military that does no good to anyone. Let's at least be of some use to our allies with a great airforce. |
|
| Author: | MyPistolsIn3D [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is that not what the avro arrow was trying to do? |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: You want to hear a no-joke? In the Canadian military you have a higher chance of dying due to faulty equipment than enemy attack.
What's the chance of dying due to enemy attack? Right now, isn't it zero? Therefore... What's everyone talking about CON + NDP? I don't see how that would ever happen. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MyPistolsIn3D wrote: Is that not what the avro arrow was trying to do?
Ouch, yes. And then the spineless government under pressure from the US decided that Canada has no business from that moment henceforth being the world leader in any matters military. Quote: What's everyone talking about CON + NDP? I don't see how that would ever happen.
I think the bitter battle against the Libs has them thinking that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' I don't think (and I sincerely hope that) the Cons aren't as ultra-right-American as they're painted, and the New Democrats have definitely swung a bit to the right in recent years, and sidelined some of their lunatic-fringe qualities. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's just a fact Cervantes, nothing more. Too many Canadian's are dying because we buy second hand crappy technology. And by too many, 1 = too many. And we've had dozens. The avro-arrow was in the 60's, kind of a lot has changed since then. Don't you believe in second chances? And if I'm not mistaken we did succeed in making her the fastest ever built. Just turned out, speed wasn't everything in an aircraft. CON + NDP is a reality. They've been working together to defeat the liberals, they'll be working together to keep the liberals defeated. Believe it. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no its not.. have u watched any of the ads by NDP? they said the liberals are liars, and the conservatives are idiots, they're not gona work together. At the debate, Jack Layton bashed Harper just as much as he bashed Martin. you know what would be interesting tho.... there are 75 seats from quebec, and 182 from the rest of the provinces.. waht if all 75 of those MPs were part of the bloc, and the 182 are split pretty evenly between CON, LIB, NDP, GREEN and independent? we'd have Duceppe as Prime Minister.. that'd be some funny stuff |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
NDP + CON is definity possible. Jack Layton in his speech said so anyway. Infact altough the NDP crowd boo'd when he mentioned "Conservative", he shook his head in disagreement. He instead got the spirits up when he spoke about how the coalition with the Convservative would be a great thing.. etc.. etc.. So really, NDP is aiming for that. It's up to the Conservative to accept it. Obvisoulsy they (the NDP) are a much better choice than the alternative.  |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it seems that Harper and Duceppe were very friendly during the debate... they complimented each other and worked together to bring down Martin.. ahh wells.. the instant they start working together, the liberals will start making up crap again |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
NDP and CON is not going to happen, what hayper was refuring to is that he whould corptatite with the curent goverment in that they whould not causes an election for a bit. If u watched his speah when he conragtualted the consertives for wining his corwed started booing. I think if the NDP every tryed somthing with the CON it whould be a masive hit to them (the NDP) and they whould lose tones of votes. |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: NDP and CON is not going to happen, what hayper was refuring to is that he whould corptatite with the curent goverment in that they whould not causes an election for a bit. If u watched his speah when he conragtualted the consertives for wining his corwed started booing.
I think if the NDP every tryed somthing with the CON it whould be a masive hit to them (the NDP) and they whould lose tones of votes. You're right, NDP + Con is not going to happen, but for a much more practical reason than you stated: the Conservatives don't have enough seats to guarantee a win in a vote in the house if they ally with the NDP. They need the support of a bigger party. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
and that'll be the bloc  |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: and that'll be the bloc
While I think that's likely, the Conservatives may be hesitant simply because it would give them a bad image. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well clearly any formal coalition is out of the question. The Liberals are certainly not going to help the Conservatives govern, since after spending the last 2 elections vilifying them it would mean that next election they would be unable to use the same tactics, plus I think that after losing the electin they won't be thinking too highly of the Conservatives. The NDP is politically oposite to the Conservatives on a lot of issues so a coalition is out of question, plus they just don't have enough seats. Any party which forms a coalition with the Bloc is just opening themselves up for accusations of helping the separatists so thats out of the question. However, the government will be stable for a while. Mainly because the Liberals don't want an election any time soon. They currently need to choose a new leader, clean up their party workings in terms of corruption and are reportedly $30 million in debt. As a result, they'll probably want about a year to regroup and wait for the Conservatives to make some mistake that they can use to paint them as ultra-right wingers or just as corrupt as the Liberals were. Plus a significant part of the elected Liberal party are very close to Conservatives ideology so without a party leader to force them to vote the party line, you will see some Liberal members consistently voting in favour of Conservative bills. The NDP is basically trying to position themselves as the new left of center party in place of the Liberals. As such, they want to accomplish at least a couple things that show that they can influence the governing of the country, just as they did with the Liberal party after the last election. But they need to do this without being seen as helping the Conservatives stay in power. The B.Q. will be somewhat busy with the upcoming Quebec provincial elections and a possible referendum. They won't want to be seen as helping federalist and don't want to allow the Conservatives to make any more inroads into Quebec(the Conservatives received about 25% of the vote). So any coalition government is out of the question, although the Conservatives can be fairly sure of the Liberals preventing the government from falling until the Liberal party gets a new leader. However, on an issue by issue basis the Conservatives can find support for a lot of their ideas. First, cleaning up corruption and increasing transparency. The B.Q. will support this because any new evidence of corruption allows them to continue showing federalists as corrupt. The NDP will support this because they ran on this as well. And the Liberals almost have to support it or they risk being seen as trying to prevent any misdeeds they have done in the past coming to light. However, the risk is that if there were more incidents of corruption in the past the Liberals will naturally suffer as a result, something all other parties are hoping for. Second, the Conservatives approach to childcare. This will probably be opposed by the NDP, I'm not sure about the BQ stance to it(probably in favour since they don't want the federal government directly running social systems in the provinces), some of the Liberals would probably support it. So it will probably be passed, note if it comes down to a vote of confidence then it will certainly pass. Third, tax cuts passed in the budget. The Liberals will support most of these, with the NDP and BQ opposed. But all the parties won't want to bring about another election anytime soon so if Conservatives table it anytime in the spring/summer it will definitely pass. Four, law enforcement. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP's platform on lowering crime in Canada were very similar meaning that Conservative legislation on this will probably easily pass. So don't expect an election anytime soon. The Conservatives face the task of governing in a way that shows Canadians that they are capable of forming a majority government in the future. The NDP will want to show that they have influence in governing the country without triggering an election anytime soon or being tainted by association with the right-wing politics of the Conservaties. The Liberals need to prepare for the next election by getting their party back in order so will be forced to support the government until that happens. The BQ don't want an election until after the Quebec provincial election in 2007 but don't want to be seen supporting the federalists either. The big risk to the other parties is that if the Conservatives can govern effectively and win the trust of Canadians, then they will certainly make gains in the next election. My prediction would be an election in late 2007. If the BQ win the Quebec provincial elections and try to bring about another referendum I could see the Conservatives ask Canadians for a majority to effectively combat the seperatist threat. By then the Liberals should have a new leader and will want an election and the BQ will be trying to show the federal government isn't effective so they will try to bring down the government as well. The wildcard is that noone will want an election while the Conservatives are ahead in the polls(other than the Conservatives of course) so if the Conservatives don't make any mistakes, manage to get some meaningful legislation passed and convince Canadians they aren't the monsters the Liberals have painted them as then I think the government may last for 2-3 years. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's pretty much the summary as I see it. However, unless the Cons do something really, really stupid, or have a major row with one of the other non-Liberal parties, I don't think we'll have an election for at least another 2 years. Any party that forces an election sooner than that can be prepared to face the wrath of the voters. |
|
| Author: | Rasta Fella [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Let me say one thing: Rasta Fella Said wrote: If the United States of America goes to War...Canada under the control of Stephen Harper will also go to war. This is the only part I hope will not happen...because Harper is for "war". I am very opposed to Harper's point of view. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Conservatives now have 125 elected members after David Emerson, elected as a Liberal member, joined the party. He was named the Minister of International Trade this morning. article |
|
| Author: | we64 [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
why can't just give Cons about 4 years to get everything going and we don't have to go to stupid polls again, since that cost money and mostly wasted. You do realize that every election uses our tax money to run, so why can't we just use it for something else that are more meaningful instead of more elections. I actually like the idea of US' 4 year term thing, you get the party to actually show their abilities. Jeez, why so many Liberals' supporters want another election soon. Dudes, YOU GOT NO LEADER, even if you got one after 1 year, you need to time to build your reputation and all that, you know, we dont' want to elect an idiot. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There isn't a limited term on miniority governments, because if they lose the confidence of the other parties, every bill that they introduce will be voted down by the other parties. By having the guillotine hanging over the head of a minority government, the system forces the governing party to work with the other parties in finding policies and bills that can be compromised or agreed upon across the board. That all said, I wouldn't mind a 1.5 to 2-year mandatory minimum. Less than that is ridiculous. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: There isn't a limited term on miniority governments, because if they lose the confidence of the other parties, every bill that they introduce will be voted down by the other parties. By having the guillotine hanging over the head of a minority government, the system forces the governing party to work with the other parties in finding policies and bills that can be compromised or agreed upon across the board.
That all said, I wouldn't mind a 1.5 to 2-year mandatory minimum. Less than that is ridiculous. A minimum would be worse then not having one in some cases. For instance if a majority of the MPs can't agree on anything then basically they would just be sitting there arguing for the minimum term wasting tax payer money. The system we have works, it has some flaws, but it works. And compared to the american system that we64 seems to like it's a lot more democratic and a lot more responsable. Consider that Bush can basically do whatever he wants right now because he can't be elected presedent again, and there is very little restraining him. Martin could not have done the same thing had he known he wasn't going to win the election. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Even with a really short minimum term? It takes a couple of months for ministers to get their portfolios in order. A minority government that only lasts 6 months is a country without any effective government for that period. Another relevant point is that the minimum term in the US counterbalances the maximum of 2 terms served for any leader. Here, if you're voted out, you can run again & again & again... |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Another relevant point is that the minimum term in the US counterbalances the maximum of 2 terms served for any leader. Here, if you're voted out, you can run again & again & again...
That only applies to the Presidency. There are 12+ term representatives in Congress. |
|