Interesting how the Liberals in my riding of Burnaby-Douglas FINALLY decided, after 12 years in power, to decide to put post-secondary education on the election platform.

I see this as a pointless flail in attempt to trick people with their 50/50 plan (pay 50% of 1st year, and 50% of last year's tuition). I don't expect them to follow through with it, and current post-sec students won't benefit at all.

I wish post secondary education were a more important issue for the feds. There's a reason my voter demographic has the lowest turnout of all... They aren't catering to us at all.

actually this is important to me as well. When I was in first year, tuition was $770. that plus residence fees or rent in later years could be earned by working in the summer.

I no longer think it's true that a student can finance his year by working through the summer. My oldest son is in grade 11, after next year, he has to choose a university. I really want him to experience residence or renting with housemates, rather than commuting from home. But with tuition hovering around $6,000 and up, added to room and board, there is no way that he can earn his year during the summer.

Any break that can be eeked out of any party will be appreciated, and may sway my vote. Unfortunately, bottom line considerations have replaced my idealism.

"We want change!"

(But we are doing the best of the G8, the dollar is strong, unemployment is low, interests rates are miniscule, our standard of living is fantastic, we're running surpluses, and we're not involved in the bone-head war)

"uhmmm... we want change!"

:)

Yeah... I have a problem with that as well. Actually, most Conservatives, if you ask them how they are doing ecomomically would have to say that the Liberals have done a lot of good.

I think if we were a 2 party system as with the US, the Liberals would win in a walk, based solely on the economic performance. But the socially left-centre vote is really split between the liberals, NDP, Bloc and even Green now, while the Conservatives have a lock on the 1/3 of the rest of the population.

It'll be a close one!

I am not sure I agree with you on this.

I think it is important to note that the Conservative growth has come directly from the Liberals. If what you suggest is true, we would see the Conservatives number holding steady while the NDP and Bloc numbers grow.

Currently, as with most of the election the Bloc and NDP have held steady.


I do agree that what you suggest may be true for individual ridings but not on the nation as whole.


Here is the latest Globe and Mail/CTV poll: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/speci...2006/poll.html

Conservatives: 37%
Liberals: 29%
NDP: 17%
Bloc: 13%

Here is a Globe and Mail report on the poll:

I think I am going to go with my gut on this one.

I have voted for all of the parties at one time or another in my short but exciting life.

I have no joy with the liberals and their political tactics.
I remember what Brian Mulroney did to this country under the PC flag.
I am not in Quebec.

Therefore, I think I am going to vote NDP on this one. Their social policy stance comes closest to my own.

I am also comforted in knowing (hoping now) that we will have a minority government. I like the idea, where everyone has to work together to make this crazy place work. I think that minority governments more closely represent the citizens, and take away power from the PM and cabinet.

I wish that there was a political party that matched my ideology perfectly, so I wouldn't have to feel so troubled. The good news is that I am not a Sheeple, and I am informed and educated.

Wow. The Conservatives are gaining ground that puts them in potential majority territory. While I am certain I could stomach a Conservative minority if it came down to it, I don't think I would be happy at all with a Conservative majority.

Given the infighting and defeatism that seems to be swirling in the Liberal party things could get worse. This article in today's Globe and Mail shows that the Chretien/Martin camps are still not united. Martin doesn't seem to have any control over his caucus.

Looks like Layton used private healthcare for a minor operation. He says he "wasn't aware" it was a private clinic and besides, everybody was going there.
Funny that the champion of public went private.
http://tinyurl.com/cfe9y

I know that clinic. One of my Mom's boyriends had his hernia done there back in the 70s and my father-in-law went there in the 90s.

I had no idea it was private until a couple of years ago.

It doesn't look good on Jack but so what? It isn't like he's an habitual user of the private system. Additionally, he has stated that it isn't private clinics he is against, just private clinics that use public money. It seems this particular clinic, originally opened to serve veterans, was grandfathered when Universal healthcare was brought in.

I could care less where he goes to get his boils lanced as long as he pays for it himself.

I laughed at that one. The only trump card Layton had to play against the other 3 was his integrity. Said integrity just took a hit.

Meanwhile, Tory candidates are being arrested for smuggling in BC!

Give Jack a break on the clinic thing.

Everyone who has a hernia goes there and it's paid by OHIP, so what.

I am still undecided who I am going to vote for, mind you, it won't be the NDP, that's for sure.

My riding (Parkdale High Park) will most likely switch from Liberal to NDP. The conservatives just don't do well here.

We'll see.

Normally, I would vote liberal, and I do like them when it comes to the economy, but I feel that they are soft on crime, and I don't like the way they parachuted Michael Ignatieff into Etobicoke Lakeshore. The guy has lived in the states for 30 years, but because he's a pretty boy and an "intellectual" (whatever that means) they played dirty pool and would not accept the nomination of two other people who LIVE in the riding (one guy is an engineer with an MBA and has been active in the community for 20 years, but no, we want the "intellectual", the next Trudeau.)

Well, it pisses me off and it's not even my riding.

It's funny, most of the pundits I heard on the CBC, from all sides of the political spectrum, seemed willing to give Layton a pass on this one. I think they'd rather send their time getting their licks in on Paul Martin.

Besides, Liberals aside, they are going to have to work with Layton if there is a minority government. No need to burn bridges.


I heard Ducieppe on CBC Radio this morning saying that if he forms the official opposition he would seek to bring down the govenment in a non-confidence vote the first chance he had.

I have to admit, I am shocked at the surge in the polls for the Conservatives in Quebec of all places. They may actually win some seats.


In the end, if the Conservatives win a majority I will be pissed.

Ah, see, back on my first post on this threat, post 48, I predicted that the bloc would not do as well in Quebec as everyone thought.

Of course, I did predict that they would turn to the liberals, so I guess I am only half right.

Half a star for me.

They are still going to do well. They are still in shape to get more seats than last time. It's just that the Liberals will lose seats to the Conservative rather than the bloc... very few saw this happening.

I still find it hard to believe that people are buying this new Stephen Harper that is being served to us. I don't think he's changes at all from the last election (or even his reform days for that matter).

I guess Canadians are really that ready for change. I guess if you say it enough, people start to believe it.

Stephen has not changed one bit. But he's doing things smarter this time.

He's keeping his cards close to his chest and he's being very careful not to say or do anything stupid. He's taken a page right out of the Jean Chretien school of campaigning actually.

With a week and a half to go, Harper is looking strong.

Still, last time, he was looking just as strong as well. I was shocked when the liberals won a minority.

Frankly I am torn. I am sick of the liberals, but I like Paul Martin.

Sigh.

I wonder if Martin will even be able to hold onto his own seat.

I would imagine that if the Liberals lose, he will resign anyway. His life long ambition realized only for a moment. He's got to be bitter. Especially with Chretien.

Especially with Chretien... and all his suporters that are already weilding the long knives.

They seem ready to conceed defeat and are talking about leadership races and a period of rebuilding...

did anyone hear about Paul Martin's last ditch effort to buy votes? He is pledging $250,000 to families of emergency workers killed in the line of duty. He plans (or promises) if he gets in, a $25-million "hero fund". Is this desperate or what?

What's interesting about that initiative is that it was tabled by the NDP in October as a private member's bill.

The Liberals voted against it.

Maybe they even WANT defeat.

The ultimate last laugh at Martin.

Shame really, It's Martin that I like, the backroom liberals whom I despise.

Kirk... that's exactly what I'm getting at. I think the Chretien back room boys would love nothing better than to see Martin get squashed. It wouldn't surprise me to find that they've been doing things behind the scenes to hinder him in this election.

You know this might work out splendedly for me.

Canadian conservatives regain power, (all those American celebs move back to the USA hah).

Hilary Clinton wins the White House in 2008.

I then move to Canada and spend the rest of my life fishing and straightening just enough teeth to remain fishing.

Hows the high speed internet in Canada in the more rural areas these days? I need something to do in the winters since I'm not a fan of ice fishing.

You do know that Ice Fishing is really just getting drunk in a shack on the lake in the winter, right?

Yea which is why I'm not a big fan of it, you can get drunk at home just as well and its warmer :D

It's going to be very interesting to see if Harper can resist the urge to move the centre.

If he stays true to his roots and holds the far right, I predict his government will suffer the same fate as the Mike Harris Tories. However, if he does slide to the centre, the howls that will arise from Alberta will be heard in Newfoundland.

If he wins a majority, Harper will have some very tough choices to make. If it is a minority, he can always blame the shift to the centre on political neccessity.

The howls from some 3.5 million people shouldn't outweigh the needs of the rest of the nation...


edit.. there... I said it. I'm braced ready for the ripping.

I didn't think you, Charlatan, of all people, would make such a generalization.

I'm about as proud of an Albertan as they come, but a movement towards the centre from Harper and company would make me cheer.

My dad, who began life on a cattle ranch and hay farm and who has made a career in the oil patch is pretty much a sterotypical Albertan. He has rifles, he likes beef, he votes for Ralph. But he hasn't supported the right-wing-god-fearing conservatives since Brian brought the GST. He told me on the phone last night that this is the first election he will not be voting in, for lack of a choice he can get behind.


No, but the ever growing elephant in the room should be given some consideration every once in a while. Especially considering where the balance of wealth will likely lie in the future. Alienation runs stronger than many in the East would think.

Also, and this is my 'asshole albertan' coming out, there should be made a distinction between 'the needs of the nation' and 'socialist wants of a regionally very divided nation'.

The funny thing of all this, is that I agree with you whole-heartedly. Especially with your last statement. As for alienation, I always thought that it ran the other direction. Those of us who live/work in the GTA have always been target of Western scorn. Particularly from a lot of people who have 'gone out west' from here. (in this respect I am referring specifically to my brother who, like every convert, is almost religious in his denouncement of the east).

I don't think that it is 'asshole-ish' to state that some consideration needs to be given, and I would ask that I , and my fellow constituants be given this consideration.

Guilty and busted. :o

You are right. I was implying that the strong Reform base that lives in Alberta would howl. I should have been more specific.

By the way, tell your Dad to vote NDP. It is probably the best choice for someone like your Dad. If there is a Conservative minority, the NDP will be in a great position to puposefully draw the Conservatives to the centre that (nearly) all of desire.


By the way, I too agree that attention needs to be given to the West and I recognize the politics behind why little attention has been paid over the years. I just don't agree that the Reform method of solving this (increased regionalism) is the answer.

I guess I'm just too much of a Federalist for that solution.

My question is - is voting Liberal the only real choice for the Federalist?


Also, did anyone else notice the typo in the thread title?

Why would you say that?

It seems to me that the NDP and the Green Party are quite Federalist.

Even the Conservatives say they are Federalist (though they would rather see a much weaker Federal government and stronger Provinces).


All three of these parties have candidates across the country, as opposed to the Bloc with only candidates in Quebec.

My take on the whole election, for what it's worth is this.

It's most definitly time for the Liberals to clear out their back room. Enough is enough. Paul Martin on the whole seems to me like a decent enough smart guy. He also seems a bit desperate these days and for good reason. Stephen Harper gets a bad rap from a lot of the more left leaning folk in Canada. He is not the devil incarnate nor is he Georgies puppet. The Conservatives in Canada are far from the Cons in the US. In fact, I'd say they more closely match the Dems there. Anyway, Harper's a bright guy and I think he'd be a good PM. Certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if he gets a majority. Probably the best thing that could happen to Canada at this point.

Duceppe strikes me as the most reasonable of the 4 leaders, though for the life of me I can't wrap my head around why we have a seperatest party running in a federal election. And Layton, well he's the only one I don't like in the least. "We're here too", "there's a 3rd option...". Though I'm sure most of my distaste for him comes from my general dislike of the NDP in general.

Either way, it's a pretty amazing Country we live in, the govenment gets overturned and the place doesn't decend into chaos. Pretty minor differences we're debating over when comparing these 4 parties on the grand scheme of things.

Oh okay. I guess you were saying that the Reform Party was in favour of increased regionalism... and by that I thought you were also including the Conservatives because they are a mix of PC's and Reformers. I don't see the NDP as anti-Federalist either, I guess. I just never consider them as a voting option since their left-wingedness is too extreme.

I find that an interesting comment. I've read through their platform and find that while yes, it is left of centre, they are hardly extreme in their policies. The Liberals have adopted many of their policies throughout the years.

I guess I come from the position that we will never see an NDP government. I don't vote NDP so they will be government. I vote for them so they will be a voice in opposition or, in a minority situation, hold the balance of power.

They are the voice that keeps our government from shifting too far right.


No Harper isn't the devil incarnate, but I don't think you are right when you say the Conservative Party of Canada is far from the Cons in the US. While the party was tempered by the absorbtion of the old Progressive Conservative, the fact is that it is the Reform element within this new party is firmly in control.

Their fiscal policy is quite American in its, "give the money to the people and let them fend for themselves" approach. But what are they really offering?

A cut in the GST? They will raise the basic tax rate to pay for it. You would have to spend something like $800 a week in goods and services to get back the tax they are going to raise.

$1200 to family with kids? Doesn't even sratch the surface on childcare costs.


One cannot argue against the fact that the Liberals have brought prosperity and fiscal responsibility to Canada. Their scandals aside, the nation is in a much better place than what Mulroney and his people left us with in the beginning of the 90s. Much better.

This election, Harper has played the PR game like a pro. He has silenced the oddballs in his party, control his own personal ticks that turned people off in the past and managed to convince the nation that his party is the Progressive Conservative party of old. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the Conservatives if they really were the PC party. They are not.

I do understand the desire to wipe of the Liberals that many feel... if anyone is to blame for this state of affairs it is Chretien and his cronies. I truly feel bad for Martin. He has done everything in his power to clean up the Liberal party. He has instituted the strictest financial auditing system of *any* nation in the world. He just couldn't rule effectively with Chretien's knives so deeply placed in his back.

For those who like a centrist position but just can stomach casting a vote for the Liberals, I suggest you seriously consider voting NDP. It looks like the Conservatives are going to win the election. OK. But why put all our eggs in one basket? If we give them a majority, they will have free reign to do what they want. There will be no checks or balances on their actions until the next election. Give them a minority with the balance of power held by the NDP and the tendency will be to pull them closer to the centre.

Give the Conservatives a chance to see what they can do in power but keep that power in check.

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this just for families with kids below the age of 6? If so that cuts out a lot of families (including mine)


I keep saying this. but it seems that people are voting for change, rather than policy. The only really good thing that Chretian did (in my mind) was to keep Canada out of Iraq. The timing of this with the Quebec election probably supported the Liberal cause provincially. But other than that, Chretian lost my respect with the pepper spray incident (what a smart ass). The government didn't tho.

You are right about the $1200, it is only for families with young children. Children need to be in care until at least the age of 10, in my opinion.


The way it looks to me, is that many voters are doing what you suggest, voting for change. They aren't thinking much beyond, "Let's try something new."

Novelty is no way to make a decision about government.

The $1200 thing appeals to families with one income, like mine. My wife stays home with our daughter and future children, and the $1200 is a nice little extra to buy diapers and stuff...

Would this $1200 be in lieu of the $100 Baby Bonus we get per month?

We have a one income family. I have three kids, the youngest being 8. $1200 would come in very very handy. Believe me the costs mount as they get older. I wish we could go back to the diaper days. Even when they were young, baby bonus was only $33/month, and then it was removed (or indexed so to speak).

We found that it is far more important for a parent to be at home when the kids are of the age where they bring home significant homework (about grade 3 onwards) as there is no in-law, or nanny, or daycare that can build the study habits that a parent can.

for this reason I wish that we could income split (without having to incorporate!) in order to relieve the tax burden that a single income family faces. I calculated that if I could income split, I would save just over $400 per month in income tax deductions.

Well, it is for "daycare". After the age of 6, kids are in school F/T and daycare costs go down, even if you have to pay for an hour or two of afterschool care. So I don't agree with extending the $1200.

And yeah, we are fiscally prosperous by any standard and we are leading the world in terms of creating a truly socially liberal society, but a big chunk of the people are voting for change "just because".

While it is cheaper once the kids are in school full time, it implies that parents can drop kids off at 8:40 (or so) and pick them up at 3:30 (or so).

Afternoon care still runs around 300 to 500 per month (depending on the type of care).


As I said earlier, I would like to be able to write off a greater share of childcare expenses on my taxes.

[QUOTE=highthief]Well, it is for "daycare". After the age of 6, kids are in school F/T and daycare costs go down, even if you have to pay for an hour or two of afterschool care. So I don't agree with extending the $1200.

QUOTE]

so.. it is not attractive to this voter. ( have checked into after school daycare, and it's not cheap)

Fiscally, yes, they're closer to the american right, less government involvment. I see that as a good thing, a lot do not. Socially is where the Cons of the North vary a lot from thier conterparts in the US.

I'll agree with you there, the GST tax break is not as atractive as an income tax break.

Since when is it the publics job to offset the entire cost of raising kids?

I'm completly baffled with how many people in this country are willing to look the other way on these issues. Nevermind the scandals for a minute, how about the collasal waste that is the gun registry? This is our money they're pissing away. The attitude, "scandals aside, they've done a good job" doesn't hold water with me. It's like putting up with a chef that steals from the till because he makes a mean curry.

I can't agree with your conclusion that Martin's done everything in his power to clean up the party. If that were the case, Goodale would be gone.

The conservatives cannot really have a true majority anytime soon even if they're vote into the majority this time around. The liberals still have a hold in the senate and the civil service that would prevent a true majority for quite some time.

I for one will not be voting for the Conservatives just because I'd like a change, though I feel that it's a good enough reason all on its own. I tend to be a little bit off to the right fiscally while being pretty centrist on social issues and to me the conservatives are what most closely matches that. I don't agree with everything on their platform but I disagree with less of it than any if the other options so....

No, they are not as socially conservative as the cons in the us... but there are many in the party who are (Stockwell Day for example).

We won't see the Conservatives officially table legislation like killing abortion rights, etc. But I think it is very likely that they will back door this sort of legislation through private members bills. Harper can shrug and say, the government didn't table this, just like we promised, but they will vote the legislation in with their majority in a "free vote".

The thing is, if you were to ask many of the people voting for change they would say they don't want to see this happen.

I predict it will. I suppose time will tell.


They aren't. But I suppose this is a difference we will just have to live with as it is a conservative position vs. a more left centre thing...


I don't disagree entirely. This is why I prefer minority governments.

I don't think it was Goodale who leaked the information, and I don't think anyone else does either. That said, he would have looked better if he'd shifted Goodale out of the cabinet.

The senate can only slow things, they can't really stop them. The civil service isn't going to do much to slow things down. Sure some of the higher ranking civil servants will get shuffled out but the main body of the civil service are not political.

My main difference of opinion on them is that I feel they are going to be more Socially Conservative than they seem to appear at present (that and I don't agree with their being fiscally right of centre... but I can tolerate that).

since, um well... never. I've paid my own way.

The point is that $1200 tidbit doesn't influence my situation.

It doesn't influence my situation either at the moment, but I still think it's a better approach than a nationalized daycare system.

Time will tell. All we can go on is what he's saying which is this: "The Conservative government won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote," Harper said.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2...ion060117.html


My problem with minority governments is that they don't seem to be able to get anything real done.

Perceptions go a long way. Just look at how Harper handled the smuggler out in BC.

I think the fear of them turning out to be radically socially conservative is pretty common. I believe this fear is unfounded and mostly fearmongering done by the liberals. Again, only way to really find out is to see what happens with them in power. I hope that they'll be able to set everyone's mind at ease and prove that they are worthy to hold office and do what's best for the Canadian population.

Given the Liberal's track record managing national programs, I understand the skepticism towards the National Daycare Plan. But the most pressing daycare problem right now, is a lack of spaces. The $1200 does absolutely nothing to address this.

My greater fear is that they'll try to ram through omnibus legislation, in an attempt to indiscriminately demolish existing Liberal programs. Nobody will miss the Gun Registry for example, but I worry for the less glamourous but still necessary funding programs already in place. A mandate for "change" can be dangerous if applied through ideology alone.

This was how the Harris Tories operated in Ontario, and it was incredibly counter-productive. Clumsy funding formulas for Education, Municipal amalgamation and downloading, broadly devisive labour relations... The changes were so broad and far reaching, that it was impossible to evaluate the quality of the legislation, much less predict the fallout. In the end, a ton of energy and time was spent picking up the pieces and refining the legislation for Ontario's diverse regions and their needs. I just hope we're not in for the same crude tactics at the federal level.

[QUOTE=Leto]It's also nowhere near as expensive as infant daycare - there's just no comparison. I pay $1135 for 4 days a week for my 14 month old. My friend pays $235 for 90 minutes per day after school for his 9 year old. Personally, I don't think the government owes us ANYTHING for having kids and fulfilling our own biological mandate. As far as I'm concerned, anything received is a bonus however long it lasts.

I don't think that's accurate. Minority governments take more time to get things done, which isn't always a bad thing.

I wouldn't use this past minority government as benchmark for the effectiveness of minority governments. Not only were the numbers too close (i.e. confidence votes like the sping budget vote) but they also had to deal with the fact that Gomery was revealing some highly problematic information about the Liberals.

Remember, if the Liberals didn't fall in December we still would have been going to the polls in February/March.


I think Fresnelly has put his finger on why the Conservatives won't fare well in Toronto. We are still feeling the sting of Mike Harris. We see many similarities in the two platforms.


From my point of view it has little to do with what the Liberals are saying. I have been following the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party for years and I don't think they have changed their thoughts on their Social Conservatism. They've certainly changed in that they aren't talking about it during this election but many, many of the same characters that were in the party in the early days are still there.

I find it hard to believe that they won't try to instite their agenda once they get a taste of power. Harper may be a man of his word, as he says. Again, time will tell.

By the way... did anyone catch the new Liberal and Conservative TV ads?

The Liberal ad features Paul Martin chatting about Canadian's Hopes, Values and Dreams... is it just me or should this have been what Martin should have been saying all along?

The Conservative ad shows us what Paul Martin's own liberals are saying about the "attack ads" that the Liberals are running. Wow... biting ads that are negative but come off as a positive. This Conservative machine is very slick.

speaking of slick machines, the Big Blue Machine has endorsed Harper. Yes, Bill Davis himself has come forward and thrown his support behind the Conservative party at a speach in Burlington yesterday.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1137538221174


Harper using the soft-sell approach
Nothing to fear from a majority

Senate, courts serve as checks
Jan. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM
SEAN GORDON
OTTAWA BUREAU


LÉVIS, QUE.—Stephen Harper is using the soft sell to push for a majority government, saying there's nothing to fear from a Tory landslide because his party will be hemmed in by a Liberal-dominated Senate and Liberal-appointed courts.

Harper said there would be significant limits on the power of a Conservative government and, if elected, that he would stick to realistic, achievable aims.

"I'm not sure there's such a thing as a true Conservative majority in the sense of a Liberal majority," he said. "The reality is we will have for some time to come a Liberal Senate, a Liberal civil service — at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals — and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals."

The Tory leader added, "There's certainly no absolute power for a Conservative government ... we'll have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face."

The Tories appear to be building steam in the province, especially in the Quebec City region, and Harper made it clear in a pair of speeches that it will be in Quebec's interest to elect MPs — and by extension, cabinet ministers.

At a boisterous rally in Burlington last night that drew about 500 supporters, former Ontario premier Bill Davis introduced Harper saying, "I've come to know him, and I've come to trust him."

Davis lauded Harper's leadership skills and predicted voters will carry him to office next week.

"Suffice it to say that what he is saying to the people of Canada is obviously having an impact," he said. "People are believing him. There's no question people want change, and rightfully so. But what is most encouraging is they now sense to whom they are looking for the change they feel is so essential."

When I heard about the Davis endorsement this morning I couldn't believe it. I just don't believe the Reform Party has changed its stripes enough to actually haul in the big guns from the Progressive Conservative party. Especially a progressive like Davis.

As I said above, time will tell.

The Globe and Mail's latest poll shows that the Conservatives have lost a few points.

LINK

It's interesting, the piece seems to suggest that this drop is due to Harper talking about issues that stray further to the right:

When I heard him going on about these things on the radio the other day, I had a feeling it was going to bite him in the ass. These are the same issues that turned off voters in the last election.


And before anyone claims media bias, you should be aware that the Globe and Mail editorial staff has come out and endorsed Harper as their candidate (which I suppose is media bias in an of itself) and the polls are being done and analyzed by Alan Gregg, a former PC strategist.

I personally don't put a lot of stock in polls. I'm very skeptical about them. I think in a way the polls will work against the Conservatives, as in "oh no, the Conservatives are leading? Man, that has me worried. I think I better vote now, so I can vote against them."

I think if I were winning I'd not want all the publicity that these 'polls' bring. Especially Harper. He doesn't know what to do with a lead when he gets one.

What are some of the good online sites that keep up-to-date report of vote tallying on election night?

I got a class starting 6pm until 10pm and I'd like to keep tabs on what's going on and see if Harper's plan for world domination is working out for him

The Globe and Mail seems to have a pretty good set up this year. They have live results that you can browse by various criteria.

Federal: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/elect...alResults.html

All Ridings: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/elect...ngResults.html


Sadly, for the first time ever, I am going to miss all of the election night coverage (I've been watching since I was a kid). I will be on a plane to Las Vegas. I am flying WestJet and I've been told that many of their planes have satellite TV in the seats... so I might get lucky.

To those of you who get off on the election coverage (you know who you are), have fun!

So the votes are in: Conservative Minority.

Me, I think I'm happy about that. I voted Conservative, assuming they'd have their power checked with a minority gov't.

I think there's a lot of unfounded worry about what the Conservatives can and might do while in power. I think it's fearmongering to say they'll ban gay marriages and make us an American state.... They'll essentially be as neutered as the Liberals were in the last parliament, maybe worse...

What I wish people would do is sit back and wait. See what steps the Harper gov't takes in the next few weeks. See what promises they actually start acting on.

Personally, I can't wait until he scraps the gun registry. I don't know if he's actually going to or not, but it would be great if he did.

It should be an interesting couple of days, Canadians...

So what are your thoughts...

It's hard to say what is going to happen now. If the two main parties remain in opposition to one another, then each needs the Bloc in order to pass or block legislation, which is not a place anyone wanted to be.

I'm happy to see the NDP pick up over 10 seats, they will actually factor into this minority gov't now, which is good.

This government won't be able to do much, I hope... It's their social policy on crime that worries me... They favour a US model... which means harsher crackdowns on assinine laws (fuck) longer sentences for assinine crimes (fuck!) and more prisons to house them all (FUCK!)

I could go into why these things are actually bad... but the conservatives (big AND little C) will just jump on me and claim all the statistics I provide are liberal hogwash...

and we danced and cheered and gave away our freedoms with a smile.

The potential social policy on woman's/gay rights is what scares me. Nonetheless, I voted conservative.

Please provide your arguments; a harsher model combined with addressing root cause problems seems to me to be a sound plan. Which laws are asinine? A new thread may be required. I ask not for a hot headed debate, but because
I don't understand your position.

Much as you probably don't understand why I think that the firearms registry and the potential handgun ban is asine and dangerous for law abiding citizens. I honestly believe that a handgun ban combined with lax laws/enforcment will mean a rise in violent crime.

Further, I am interested in what statistics you can provide. I won't pre-emptively claim them to be liberal hogwash. That said, anything from an obviously biased source would be obviously questionable. I wouldn't accept any animal rights stats from a PETA site, nor would I accept any firearms stats from an NRA site.