Wow, with a last minute NDP surge in popularity in the last two weeks of the election campaign, the election proved to be a nail bitter that did indeed make history. First, it is amazing how the NDP swept Quebec. I think it is remarkable. I have nothing against Duceppe or the Bloc. Seeing Quebecors who previously voted for the Bloc vote for the NDP tells me all of a sudden many Quebecors feel included. In fact I have a French friend in Quebec who has been telling me the feeling in Quebec is changing and that it's more of a global perspective. Helping Quebec feel included is a good thing. That obviously is not something Harper wants to do.
I'm thrilled to see the Green Party finally get a seat and am thrilled it turned out to be Elizabeth May. I think banning her from the leadership debate was shameful. My heart was softening toward Iggy at the end. My initial concern about him was the fact that he wrote a book saying torture is OK. Harper feels the same he's just lest honest about it. He lies and covers it up. Then when a whistle blower leaks it out to the public he fires the whistle blower and slanders him. Not to worry. Justine Trudeau will save the Liberal party. I just wish more Conservative seats went to the NDP not Liberal.
The end result is a disaster. A conservative majority. It's nice the NDP are the official opposition but now that the Conservatives have a majority, the country is worse off. Once again there will be no debate on any issues. The Conservatives will let the NDP speak on a bill while they cover their ears and mockingly say bla bla bla then cram through their unbalanced crime bills just because they can. I do not support closing more schools and hospitals to build more prisons for nonviolent crime or jets to bomb countries for their oil. And I most certainly don't support raising taxes with the HST to pay for them.
It was shocking to see Gordon Campbell and George Bush get elected to second terms. No doubt Harper will also hang himself when given enough rope just as they did. I do support democracy but I will record my dissent. It's the lies that get me angry. We will watch his spending because he already spent Paul Martin's budget surplus. It's kind of sad that the Conservatives only got 39.62% of the vote compared to the NDP's 30.62% yet they got 54.2% of the seats. Indeed, we will watch their spending closely because the lies are no longer believable.
On the brighter side I can say with conviction that I did not vote for Stephen Harper and I do not support him. Donna Cadman lost her seat because a vote for her was a vote for the people that tried to bribe her husband with an insurance fraud. The general public has no idea of all the bizarre things Harper has already done and are just beginning to find out about them. I can in all sincerity extend the hand of brotherhood to Quebec in the spirit of fraternity. After all, it was the French revolution that was built upon Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Harper has none of those qualities.
Stephen Harper did not get 54% of the votes he got less than 40% of the votes. He is not fiscally responsible. He spent Paul Martin's budget surplus. Stephen Harper is no Preston Manning and no Lester Pearson. He's just another Brian Mulroney who I might add committed perjury and defrauded the Canadian people out of $2 million.
Over half of the Canadians citizens, did not want Harper as P.M.. Yet he won??? Impossible.
ReplyDeleteExpect the internet to be controlled. Expect our health care to take a hard hit, or go private. Be prepared, to live in a dictatorship regime. Realize our tax dollars, will not be for the people. Harper gives billions of our tax dollars, to the wealthiest corporations in the world. That motion passed in the House of Commons. Seniors are also going to suffer. They are of no value to Harper, he has to get rid of them.
Expect very dark days, for the average, and the poor Canadian citizens. Because we don't count.
Indeed there are dark days ahead but we will watch him. If he proceeds he will be remembered as fondly as Gordon Campbell, Brian Mulroney and George Bush. No lie can live forever.
ReplyDeleteI love when people try and play the numbers game...
ReplyDeleteThe reason Layton received a high number of votes, is because he swept the province of Quebec. Quebec alone had almost 3.8 million votes. That is more than Alberta, BC and Manitoba combined. Could you imagine how completely unfair it would be to the people of Western Canada if the elections were based on number of votes? Our voice would never be heard!
Instead, Canada basis it's election results on seats won, instead of vote count. I'm not sure about you... but I'm glad my voice gets to be heard and my vote actually makes a difference. I would hate to live in a country, where the 2 most populated provinces get to dictate what the rest of the country has to do.
Harper got 39% of the vote. Ontario and Quebec do usually decide the election. Seats are usually proportionate. If an area has a high population then they have more seats. Very few people in Quebec voted for Harper or any party other than the NDP at all. That means the NDP won by a landslide where in other riding conservatives won the vote was split between other parties. BTW someone really needs to tell Harper you do pronounce the L in election when speaking French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P08sAY1P4
ReplyDeleteHarper also received 167 of the available 308 seats. Just because my riding is 10x smaller than a riding in Quebec, doesn't mean my vote and riding isn't equal!
ReplyDeleteNo one in Quebec may have voted Harper (and hey, since when does Quebec get to decide what's best for Canada?) but look at the rest of the country.
I'll list them seats as Con/NDP/Lib
BC- 21/12/0
AB- 27/1/0
SK- 13/1/0
MB- 11/2/1
ON- 73/22/11
NFD 1/2/4
NS- 4/3/4
NB- 8/1/1
PEI 1/0/3
YK- 1/0/0
NWT 0/1/0
NV- 1/0/0
*Results as per elections Canada website
I'm not really seeing a whole lot of split close voting. I am seeing that the rest of Canada, people who have the equal amount of voting power as people from Quebec... have sent their seat numbers to the Conservatives.
Also... there is one recount going on in Quebec, that could give the Conservatives a set there.
Like I said, Harper got less than 40% of the votes and more than 54% of the seats. You’re claim that your small riding has more value proportionately than a riding in a much more populated area doesn’t make sense. You are bragging about some votes being worth more than others and that is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteOntario has 73 seats. BC has 33. That is proportionate to their population. All votes are equal. The election was decided before the votes in BC were counted. I am not disputing democracy. I simply made a true statement. Harper got less that 40% of the vote and the NDP got over 30% of the vote. That is a true statement.
Here in Surrey, Donna Cadman lost her seat because a vote for her was a vote for the party that tried to bribe her husband with an insurance fraud. No kool aid contest will change that fact. My problem isn’t with democracy, my problem is with dishonesty. Everyone says the NDP will tax and spend yet that is what Harper is doing. He spent Paul Martin’s surplus. We will watch his spending and hold him to his word which he has repeatedly broken already.
Harper fired over a dozen whistleblowers. That is illegal. He fired Richard Colvin for leaking out the fact that Canadian prisoners in Afghanistan were being tortured and Harper knew about it. Instead of addressing the problem Harper fired the whistleblower and slandered him to cover it up.
Harper fired Linda Keen for blowing the whistle on that faulty reactor in Ontario then tried to privatize the nuclear power industry so the public would never hear about that again and so a private company can sell nuclear weapons to India and Pakistan without any public accountability whatsoever.
Harper even fired Paul Kennedy who investigated the taser death at the airport. These are not things to brag about and I would say that the majority of the public simply aren’t aware of them. However, time in on the side of truth. I believe the truth will eventually be revealed about Harper just like it was about Brian Mulroney who committed perjury in court and defrauded the Canadian people out of $2 million with Harpers assistance.
Gloria; from another Planet:
ReplyDelete"Expect the internet to be controlled."
Why? How? The internet is global, no one can "control" its content, which arrives from somewhere else, its speech protected by...oh, yeah, the Canadian Constitution. Why would anyone "expect" the end of free speech in Canada? Who told you free speech is about to end, Gloria? Your fridge...?
"Expect our health care to take a hard hit, or go private."
Huh? Why? Who said health care will be privatised, over the dead bodies of all Canadians? Every Canadian Gov't. HAS TO be totally committed to public health care, or they'd be wiped out at the next election.
"Be prepared, to live in a dictatorship regime."
Why? Did Harper prorogue Parliament and declare a Bolshevik, Leninist Dictatorship? Did he say he will tear up our Constitution? Why should I be "Prepared" for hell to freeze over, Gloria, in all your weird ramblings? You must live on Planet X, but if its going to be a "dictatorship" here, why not go and live in the Cuban one, where at least its sunny and warm? No doubt you'll stay right here, quivering in lunatic paranoia.
Freddy: Be nice. I could go into detail about many ways the Internet is being censored by large corporations but citing examples including court cases I have personally been involved with would expose my identity. Suffice it to say the Patriot act is not patriotic and the Internet is being watched. I have seen lawyers produce huge binders of things I have said in private password protected forums on the internet.
ReplyDeleteAs for medical, the answer is clear. Harper says he won’t privatize medical but he also said he wouldn’t tax income trusts. The National Citizens Coalition wants to privatize medical. Harper was president of that organization for several years. In fact his statement about scraping the Canada Health Act was made right before he was elected president of that organization.
Although I totally oppose Stalin and Lenin and although I firmly believe the Communist Manifesto is inherently flawed, I think there are some very real concerns about Stephen Harper. Time will tell. It always does.
Huh? You are not understanding what I am saying... at all. I am not a fan of Harper, I just think people don't look objectively at the results.
ReplyDeleteBecause my riding is small, doesn't make it any less important. Our family pays tax as well, and we also deserve the right to be heard.
Harper may have only received a certain percentage of votes... but it's a simple game of numbers. One riding may have 100,000 people and another riding may only have 10,000 people. So you believe because the one riding is smaller, it shouldn't hold as much value as a larger one? If that's the case, then maybe smaller ridings shouldn't have to pay the same taxes as the larger ones.
That's where the percentage of votes received comes from. The NDP swept Quebec, which gave them a larger population base to extract their numbers from... Harper swept many smaller areas, which is why his numbers seem so low.
As far as I am concerned... the percentage of votes received is not what is important. In my opinion, it's the seats. If you look back at past elections, you'll find the same trend.
1993 --- Liberal majority, 41.2% of votes
1997 --- Liberal majority, 38.5% of votes
2000 --- Liberal majority, 40.0% of votes
As far back as I can find... Canada has never had a majority government with more than 41% of the votes.
I think if a smaller riding has 10,000 people in it and a larger riding has 100,000 people in it, and if they each only get one MP, then that would be an example of how all votes are clearly not equal. One person one vote. Everyone pays the same tax. Yet 10,000 people in a smaller riding don’t collectively pay nearly the same amount of tax as 100,000 people in a large riding.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless we basically agree “The NDP swept Quebec, which gave them a larger population base to extract their numbers from... Harper swept many smaller areas, which is why his numbers seem so low.”
I do think percent votes is a factor but obviously the number of seats won in an election is the deciding factor. The fact that the green party always took a solid percentage of the votes even though they never previously held a seat tells me many Canadians are concerned about the environment. I wasn’t aware of the percent votes in previous Liberal majorities. That appears to be a reflection of the fact that we don’t have a two party system which in my opinion is a good thing.
My main concern is fiscal responsibility. The right always claims the left will tax and spend and ruin our economy yet historically has shown us that the right has done that even more. Right now I want to watch how much Harpers spends and on what. Privatizing medical is a real concern I have as is privatizing the nuclear industry or any other public service just to circumvent public accountability.
When programs are public they are accountable to the public. When they are private they are not. Hence the dilemma. We can shout Commie / Fascist back and forth until the cows come home. Preston Manning appealed to us to look beyond the left and right and look at the issues. I applaud that. Harper abandoned that when he chose instead to unite the right and just became another Brian Mulroney.
As a whole, you are right about the tax... but you might be shocked to know --- per capita, rural pays more. Generally speaking, people who choose to live rural are in a higher tax bracket (than your average urban dweller).
ReplyDeleteA vote is a vote is a vote. Some cities have multiple ridings... one side of the city might have 2/3rds of the population of the other side... their votes still equal.
Most people aren't aware of the previous votes... it takes a few minutes to research stuff... but instead people just want to complain... no offence.
Personally, I would like to see an option for some people to access private health care. As it stands now, I know a lot of people who have the means (either the money or the medical insurance) that covers full costs of surgery and treatments in other countries. I also know, a lot of people who have left this country to use that option. Just think of the amount of money Canadians are spending out of country on healthcare?
Why can't people have the option? Riiggghhttt... it's not fair to the people who can't afford it. Either way, people with the means to access healthcare outside of Canada are going to get their treatment or surgery before the people who have to wait on the Canadian wait lists.
Why not give them the option to spend their money in Canada? I do not believe that a fully privatized industry is the answer... but one private clinic in each province, isn't going to hurt anyone.
I don’t want to flog a dead horse. I’m tired and disgruntled. Saying that people who live in rural areas tend to earn more and therefore pay more tax is a bit of a strange stereotype. The better jobs are in the city and the cost of housing is higher in the city so claiming that people who live in rural areas earn more is kinda weird. Everyone pays tax relative to their income. If more people live in one riding than in another then they would pay more tax than the smaller riding. Especially if they were in a city where housing and property tax is higher than in rural areas. Look at our bloody gas. Abbotsford’s gas is at least 10 cents a liter cheaper because they don’t have to pay that extra Translink gas tax in the GVRD.
ReplyDeleteYour comments about access to private Health Care is a prime example of what I was meaning. They say oh we don’t want to privatize our medical and do away with health care, but we do think we should be able to access private health care if we can afford to do so. That is a step toward privatization and a con. I agree wait lists are long and need to be fixed. Jack Layton’s answer was to hire more doctors and nurses. Wouldn’t that be novel? I would rather spend money on health care then spend money on bombing Libya or paying off Brian Mulroney for his Kickback mountain scam.
Alberta and Saskatchewan are prime examples... the money is not in the city. A lot of the guys who work in the oil and gas industry, move to smaller rural areas, or become county residents. The housing is cheaper, they have the means to commute, and life becomes that much cheaper.
ReplyDeleteI have to laugh... property tax in rural areas are a lot higher than cities. There is less competition for services, so there aren't competitive prices. I know in Alberta, you don't save money on property tax when you leave the city.
Whichever way you want to spin the coin, if people have the means to access private faster healthcare, they are going to do it... the bigger question is --- where do Canadians want the money to go?
Jack Layton's solution was to hire more doctors and nurses... in-order to do so, wages need to be increased (it's very hard to keep doctors and nurses here when they can head due south and make double the money, and have a lower cost of living). So who pays for the increases? The tax payers. Guess who takes the brunt of it... the 6.4 million tax payers that make over $50,000 a year... that is only 26% of Canadians.
Want another solution to fixing wait lists and such? Healthcare cards that work like debit cards. If you are a no-show for an appointment you have to pay fee... and you cannot access any services (unless you are brought in by ambulance) until you have a zero balance on your card.
Do something for me... call a doctors office, any doctors office in any part of Canada... and ask how many no-shows they had in 1 week. One clinic in Sylvan Lake, Alberta had 300 no shows in one month! The free system is being taken advantage of, big time.
Oil and gas would be one example of someone making more money in a rural area than in a city but that isn’t the overall trend. It’s a jute point. People in a larger riding tend to pay more tax overall than in a riding with less people in it. That doesn’t mean the value of a person’s vote should depend on how much money they make. All votes are worth the same in a democratic system.
ReplyDeleteYes hiring more doctors would cost more tax dollars. Since you have expressed a concern about doing so that would imply to me you don’t really support public health care at all. Hiring police officers cost money. That’s a simple fact. Most offices bill a fee for a no show.
George Bush added trillions to their debt. Guys like Harper, Mulroney and George Bush spend massive amounts of tax dollars. That’s the problem with pork barrel politics. They just spend it on different things. I rather spend money on doctors and police than on prisons for nonviolent crime and on bombing countries for their oil but that’s just me.