I might be a little early with this but whatever.

Predict the number of seats each party will get in the next general election.

Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc

Perhaps Green will get a seat this election?

And hey, there's always that one guy from Marxist-Leninist... :hahaha:

In politics, a second is an eternity - much can happen from now until the elections are called and held.

In politics, a second is an eternity - much can happen from now until the elections are called and held.

This is true but that's no reason why we should not speculate anyway.

As for the Green, I guess anything can happen. But don't they need 12 seats to have any sort of relevance?

As for the Green, I guess anything can happen. But don't they need 12 seats to have any sort of relevance?

No... 1 seat is enough to put them on the map as a party that is going to stay. If there was any fairness to our electoral process though, they'd have a seat already, and more than one -- about 10 to 16, actually.

No... 1 seat is enough to put them on the map as a party that is going to stay. If there was any fairness to our electoral process though, they'd have a seat already, and more than one -- about 10 to 16, actually.
Really? How so? Maybe it's different where you are but don't they have to get the greatest number of votes in their riding to win the riding?

Really? How so? Maybe it's different where you are but don't they have to get the greatest number of votes in their riding to win the riding?
They got 5% of the vote last time, that's how they got official party status last election, and why they should have seats already. 1/20th of the people voted for them, but they have no seats? I call foul.

Really? How so? Maybe it's different where you are but don't they have to get the greatest number of votes in their riding to win the riding?

Well, as I have said, if there was any fairness to our system (i.e. no simple majority in the first past the post), they would have as little as 10 and as many as 16 seats depending on the method of proportional representation, depending on the districting of the system.

I think one of three scenarios could happen:

1. people who do not trust the Liberals but dislike the Conservatives' social policies vote for NDP, Bloc, Green. Very slim minority government run by either the Liberals or Conservatives with strong representation from the other three parties. Very little gets done in parliament because the seats are so dispersed.

2. people who do not trust the Liberals but dislike the Conservatives' social policies stay home, or vote Liberal just so that the Conservatives don't win. The Liberals get a minority, the Conservatives dig up something new and there is another election in a year or so. The other parties get very few seats.

3. The Conservatives win, but the Liberals are re-elected in a few years.

Global asked the Mustel group to do a study and they found out that 61% agree with the PM, no election until Gomery's report is out....however, they don't agree with having his emergency speech to the nation - 49%.

Conservatives 170 (includ. Chuck Cadman)
Liberals 15
Bloc 60
NDP 63

Aprox. guesses... but maybe....

Watch, we'll have an election in late june, the Bloc will bring down gov't, and the conservatives will go along with it...

2. people who do not trust the Liberals but dislike the Conservatives' social policies stay home, or vote Liberal just so that the Conservatives don't win. The Liberals get a minority, the Conservatives dig up something new and there is another election in a year or so. The other parties get very few seats.


yeah, this is probably the most likely of the three scenarios, i think we should have mandatory voting like in australia, we have to participate in student vote in the bc election, i got recruited to falsify results...er... count ballots....

Conservatives 170 (includ. Chuck Cadman)
Liberals 15
Bloc 60
NDP 63



Haha! That's a laugh and a half.

I'll eat my shoes if this happens.

Screw politics. I'm sick of this election mess. Elections should be fixed every four years so we don't end up with this kind of fiasco...total waste of resources, total waste of time. Now politicans are so preoccupied with their own personal futures that they've completely ignored the important issues at hand..& the electorates' priorities. :rant:

An early election will only happen if Paul Martin decides not to side with Jack Layton, which is a very good possibility. It will be close and may come down to the speaker of the house, which is a Liberal at the moment.

I think it's a tough call. I predict a slim minority for either the Conservatives or the Liberals. The polls say the Cs will take it if it was held right now but by the time the Gomery report comes out I wouldn't be too surprised to see a reversal.

As I've said before, I like Martin. It's the Liberal party as a whole that needs the boot. If Martin proves to be innocent of any wrongdoing in this fiasco I still won't vote Liberal this time around simply because I'm not voting for Martin but rather his party. In another time I think Martin would have made a great PM but Chretien knew what he was doing when he stepped down. A little rehash of the Mulroney/Kim Campbell song. He hated Martin and knew he'd take the heat for this. Granted, Chretien didn't appoint Martin as his successor but he knew that's who would get the big chair.

While I personally disagree with people's opinion of the Conservatives (it's very stereotypical) I can't ignore the fact that the people who share it do so based on Harper's persona. With that in mind, if another leader was in charge of the party, I believe it would give them better results. If they do lose this next round, I'm willing to bet that Harper gets the boot right away and he gets replaced by someone with more mass appeal. To me, he's kind of a non-entity as far as his personality goes, but again, I'm not voting Conservative for him...I want a change in the party leading the country.

One thing I think we can all count on though with this next election...we are going to see a very clear regional divide in politics. I see BC leaning heavily towards the Greens (relative to the last election) and NDP. The Prairies will almost certainly go Conservative all the way (although Manitoba tends to be that area where the parties collide historically) Ontario will probably go Liberal still but with a heavy Conservative showing. Bloc in Quebec of course. The Maritimes will likely go Liberal/NDP. Not too sure about them this time around.

Conservatives 170 (includ. Chuck Cadman)
Liberals 15
Bloc 60
NDP 63

Aprox. guesses... but maybe....

Watch, we'll have an election in late june, the Bloc will bring down gov't, and the conservatives will go along with it...


yeah, this is probably the most likely of the three scenarios, i think we should have mandatory voting like in australia, we have to participate in student vote in the bc election, i got recruited to falsify results...er... count ballots....

:lol:

Well, as I have said, if there was any fairness to our system (i.e. no simple majority in the first past the post), they would have as little as 10 and as many as 16 seats depending on the method of proportional representation, depending on the districting of the system.


Just an idea... reform the senate so it becomes an elected proportional representation of the parties.

What Should Happen
Conservative 201
NDP 100
(note the Liberals were not included because every party member was arrested. The Bloc isn't allowed to run because separatist parties are illegal.)

Unfortuanatly air pollution in southern Ontario have caused voters there to become retarted. In light of this my prediction is this.

Conservative 140
Liberal 80
Bloc 60
NDP 21

^Or people in Ontario understand that all politicians crave wealth and power.

It will probably be a slim Conservative majority. Next election, Liberals will win again.

NDP will probably get more seats this time, though, and next time, the Greens will beome more powerful.

Do you have any election maps, to see the spread of support across Canada of different parties?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Can2004.PNG

That's from Wikipedia. Those are the results in the last election (28 June 2004)

Not a single Conservative in Quebec, yet this is a time when the Conservatives are not doing so very badly nationally.

I suppose if Quebec did secede Canada would lurch to the right?

Not a single Conservative in Quebec, yet this is a time when the Conservatives are not doing so very badly nationally.

The conservatives now might have a chance to win 5-6 seats in Quebec, thanks to the downfall of the corrupt Liberal party.

I suppose if Quebec did secede Canada would lurch to the right?

Exactly.

The Conservatives can never get a majority government.
They won't get a single seat in Quebec and ATMOST 50 seats in Ontario. Between the two that's 126 seats as a total right-off. The Libs and NDP will get some votes in the Atlantic provinces and BC, Manitoba, and maybe one or two in Sask. The Conservatives will get all seats in Alberta.
One thing that greatly sways the numbers is that the Cons have 65% support in Alberta. Great, but only 28 seats.
The NDP will get atleast 3 seats in BC, 1 in Sask, 3 in Man, 3 in Atlantic, and 15 in Ontario.
The Libs will still get a few Atlantic and BC seats.
The numbers simply don't add up. There is no way the Cons could get a majority.
The are cliimbing in the polls but it is very concentrated in Alberta and rural BC, praries, Ontario, and Atlantic. They are a rural/small town party.
They will never get significant urban vote.

Why were the Canadian Conservatives divided in the first place? Didn't that end up leaving the official opposition as Bloc Quebecois. Almost unheard of that a seperatist party should be the second biggest in the country they are trying to secede from.

Why were the Canadian Conservatives divided in the first place? Didn't that end up leaving the official opposition as Bloc Quebecois. Almost unheard of that a seperatist party should be the second biggest in the country they are trying to secede from.

You have to look at history to understand what happened. Canada went through a "thatcher-style" government in the 80s with Brian Mulroney like the British did. Mulroney was more socially liberal, though. Still, Mulroney brought us consumption taxes (GST), free trade (NATFTA), and failed constitutional reform (meech lake and charlottown) which at the time left a very bad taste in canadians mouths, but in economic hindsight was mostly better for Canada (which happened after paul martin cut government spending and income taxes later on). They (conservatives) went from the largest majority in Canadian history to 2 seats. Most of the former PCs went to the reform (latter the alliance) in the west and the Bloc in quebec. No maritime alternative surfaced, thier conservatives kept voting that way.

The block, because quebec has a large population, simply was the largest splinter group. They were only the oposition for a little while, then the reform party managed to rise as the official opposition as quebecres started to vote liberal again in the mid-to-late 90s.

The questions that remain are:
1. The conservatives are trying to clamp down on their outspoken hard right elements in an attempt to appear moderate. In terms of party membership, this is a large faction. How long can they last? Harper has said that he will not stop private members bills on abortion, the death penatly, etc. allowing free votes. If this were to pass, what would it to to the party?
2. Harper has some serious baggage from things he has said in the past. If he moves one inch towards something he is campaigning against now, the party will get nailed to the wall alive.
3. Will newer parties (ie green) snap up former liberal votes over the conservatives gaining them? Remember, in the last election the conservatives where neck in neck with the liberals, but at the last minute, people said "i can't do it". Will they vote for a third party as a protest?
4. Is the party going to be able to affect any real change? They're castrated in a huge effort to appear moderate. A lot of people have pointed out that their combination of tax cuts, boost to the military, fix the "fiscal imbalance", and continued support for healthcare and debt reduction don't add up. Other than a few stances with gay marriage, giving head to the americans, and corruption, what the fuck is the difference than with the liberals?

Other than a few stances with gay marriage, giving head to the americans, and corruption, what the fuck is the difference than with the liberals?

Well, spending the money more wisely I guess. Yeah it seems these days the Conservatives are looking a heck of a lot more moderate, which is a good thing, IMO. Canadians want an alternative to the Liberals, especially after the AdScam scandal. The NDP is too far left as a viable alternative, and so a lot of Canadians outside of Quebec obviously at the Conservatives. The conservatives want to appeal to those "swing voters", that can go either Liberal or Conservative. This is just all my opinion, of course.

The Conservatives can never get a majority government.
They won't get a single seat in Quebec and ATMOST 50 seats in Ontario. Between the two that's 126 seats as a total right-off. The Libs and NDP will get some votes in the Atlantic provinces and BC, Manitoba, and maybe one or two in Sask. The Conservatives will get all seats in Alberta.
One thing that greatly sways the numbers is that the Cons have 65% support in Alberta. Great, but only 28 seats.
The NDP will get atleast 3 seats in BC, 1 in Sask, 3 in Man, 3 in Atlantic, and 15 in Ontario.
The Libs will still get a few Atlantic and BC seats.
The numbers simply don't add up. There is no way the Cons could get a majority.
The are cliimbing in the polls but it is very concentrated in Alberta and rural BC, praries, Ontario, and Atlantic. They are a rural/small town party.
They will never get significant urban vote.

Your an idiot. The conservitives have all ready won many majority goverments. They will win at least a minority in the up coming election.

I am so TIRED of hearing about this sponsorship scandal. It really has been blown out of proportion. Now everyone wants to join up with the conservatives!?!?!?!?!?!?
Excuse me, but if Stephen Harper was running this country, we would have been involved in an illegal war with Iraq and we would have paid the consequences much deeper. I'm talking billions deeper.
Lets be happy that with this government we can hear the truth, and get the facts as they come along. How quickly everyone forgot the Mulroney/Harris years.

This sponsorship scandal is honestly the driving force for those who oppose gay marriage plain and simple. I hope the younger generation go out and vote Liberal or NDP. If Harper gets elected I will move to the Amazon jungle.

CRAZYJOE................read my comment, I said they will never get a MAJORITY govt but could get minority.
They might get 15 in Atlantic, none in Quebec, 50 in Ontario,7 in Man, 10 in Sask, 28 in Alberta, and 25 in BC.
Do the math-------135 atmost. Remember that the votes the Liberals lose are probably more likely to head to the NDP as they don't like the Conservative views on social issues.
Also.......and here's the catcher........the Conservatives have no support in Quebec and it is a practical requirment for a majority to have a strong following in Quebec or the "S" word will come along again.
Fair????? Absolutly not but that doesn't change the fact its true.

CRAZYJOE................read my comment, I said they will never get a MAJORITY govt but could get minority.
They might get 15 in Atlantic, none in Quebec, 50 in Ontario,7 in Man, 10 in Sask, 28 in Alberta, and 25 in BC.
Do the math-------135 atmost. Remember that the votes the Liberals lose are probably more likely to head to the NDP as they don't like the Conservative views on social issues.
Also.......and here's the catcher........the Conservatives have no support in Quebec and it is a practical requirment for a majority to have a strong following in Quebec or the "S" word will come along again.
Fair????? Absolutly not but that doesn't change the fact its true.

Conservative 136
Liberal 101
NDP 86
Bloc 68
Green 2

Conservatives 110
Liberals 90
Bloc 55
NDP 50

CONFUSED PHILOSPHER
I think you are more confused than you think......your numbers add upto 393 seats.
I think there are only 308.
My adds up to 305 because I wasn't sure if any independents or Greens would get elected so I just kept to the main parties.
It would be great if even one Green was elected. It would be a slap in all the other parties faces. "A plague on all your houses" so to speak.

It will probably be a slim Conservative majority. Next election, Liberals will win again.

NDP will probably get more seats this time, though, and next time, the Greens will beome more powerful.
I think you're right about the NDP and Greens but I'm not so sure that the Liberals will get an automatic re-election if the Conservatives win this one. After all, if they win they'll have four years to convince people who don't trust them now that they aren't all that bad. Consider this: The Liberal platform basically has to be one of fear mongering in regards to the Conservatives. They want us to believe that the C's will rip the heart out of health care. That's really not likely to happen at all. But once they get in and people see that it isn't the case, they'll be more inclined to vote them in again. That one issue is probably the greatest road block in their way right now (the C's I mean) and the Liberals are betting on it. Alot of people who wouldn't vote C right now would likely reconsider if, in five years or whatever they see that the Liberal's nightmare predictions about healthcare were not very accurate.

I am so TIRED of hearing about this sponsorship scandal. It really has been blown out of proportion. Now everyone wants to join up with the conservatives!?!?!?!?!?!?
Excuse me, but if Stephen Harper was running this country, we would have been involved in an illegal war with Iraq and we would have paid the consequences much deeper. I'm talking billions deeper.
Lets be happy that with this government we can hear the truth, and get the facts as they come along. How quickly everyone forgot the Mulroney/Harris years.

This sponsorship scandal is honestly the driving force for those who oppose gay marriage plain and simple. I hope the younger generation go out and vote Liberal or NDP. If Harper gets elected I will move to the Amazon jungle.

Sounds like someone works at a Quebec ad firm. I don't support the war in Iraq but I do support supporting are allies and or own troops somthing the current goverment doesnt seem to care at all about. The sponcership scandel isnt a big deal just because of the massive amount of money that was involved, hell over 2billon were spent on the gun registry and people are still being shot; the reason this sponcership scandel is such a huge deal is because our money was stolen, you might not care by I sure the fuck do.

I say move to the Amazon because that criminal Liberal party will soon be out of power.

Sounds like someone works at a Quebec ad firm. I don't support the war in Iraq but I do support supporting are allies and or own troops somthing the current goverment doesnt seem to care at all about. The sponcership scandel isnt a big deal just because of the massive amount of money that was involved, hell over 2billon were spent on the gun registry and people are still being shot; the reason this sponcership scandel is such a huge deal is because our money was stolen, you might not care by I sure the fuck do.

I say move to the Amazon because that criminal Liberal party will soon be out of power.
They obviously aren't spending much on education, your post is written rather poorly, hard to read.
I think the Conservatives are screwed whatever happens. Since they will only get a minority government at best, the Libs + NDP could form a coalition majority, bye-bye Conservatives' hopes and dreams of making Canada the 51st U.S. State.

^ I have a life im not some dork who stays at home on friday night reading the dictionary from A-Z if by not taking my time and spellchecking every thing offends you then im sorry.

Obviously you have no idea what your talking about. Even if the conservatives only get a minority and the Liberals team up with the NDP they will still have significanty less seats then the Conservatives and the Bloc combined. I have no idea what you are talking about Canada becoming a 51st state thats way out of left feild, try learning about the world around you instead of correcting other people's posts on a forum.

I hate to agree with crazyjoeda but he is right about spelling , grammar.
I have a degree so I can write, I just never knew we were getting graded..

Your an idiot. The conservitives have all ready won many majority goverments. They will win at least a minority in the up coming election.

There are only three occassions where the conservative party got a majority government since 1900. Once in 1911 with Robert Bordon, once in the 1950s with Deifenbaker and twice in the 80s with mulroney. The rest of the time was a Liberal government. That's about 20 years total of Conservative absolute rule, versus over 60 years of Liberal majorities. The rest was about the same ratio of liberal to conservative minority rule.

Truth be told, the conservatives and liberals before 1950 were very different parties during very different times, but there is a reason that the federal liberals are reffered to as Canada's natural governing party.

Interestingly enough, the Diefenbaker government was the largest majority in history as a percentage of seats, and Mulroney's first term was the largest in terms of number of seats. So Conservatives have often been elected on the guise of Canadians punishing the liberals.

The same party dynasties happen at the provincial level. The Ontario conservatives ruled the province for about 50 years straight up to 1985, when Ontario politics became a lot more polarized. Alberta voted in social credit parties for years, and now is the same for their PC party.

Canadian politics really confuses a lot of political scientists. What country would have people vote the liberal party in at the federal level, but mike harris in their own backyard? How did British columbia have an NDP government and elect so many reform party MPs to Ottawa? Quebec voted in a separatist party for most of the 60s and 70s, but voted in a federalist party in Ottawa.

Canada is a very decentralized federation and regionalism is starting to take force, especially as of late with side deals on equalization and "western alienation". How often does ONTARIO bitch to the federal government, for fuck's sake?

Thanks for that insight hylaride.

^ I have a life im not some dork who stays at home on friday night reading the dictionary from A-Z if by not taking my time and spellchecking every thing offends you then im sorry. .
Haha, this coming from a guy in laid back Vancouver, try life in Tokyo and see how much time you have. I'm not picky about spelling and grammar, only when I have to read sentences more than once to understand what you are trying to say due to the spelling/grammar.

I have no idea what you are talking about Canada becoming a 51st state thats way out of left feild, try learning about the world around you instead of correcting other people's posts on a forum.
The Cons will make Canada the U.S.'s right hand. Harper sucks Bush's dick. This has been demonstrated more than enough times in the House.

The Cons will make Canada the U.S.'s right hand. Harper sucks Bush's dick. This has been demonstrated more than enough times in the House.
That line has been going on since time immemorable. Nobody in Canada wants it to be the 51st US state. What Harper is trying to do is distance himself from the Liberals. Their line over the last ten or twelve years has basically been to thumb their noses at the US. Not only is this bad for diplomacy, it's bad for business. His choice of words may not have been the best but in essence he wants a rapprochement with our southern neighbors. And for the most part I agree with alot of what he has to say. You should support your allies. It doesn't mean you have to send troops to Iraq as Harper suggested necessarily but it also means not hopping on the anti-US bandwagon that is making the rounds recently. Since , thanks to geography, the US is also our closest and most important neighbour for a number of reasons, we don't do ourselves any favours by unleashing the mouths of people like Carolyn Parrish and then making no attempt to muzzle them once they've bitten (so to speak) Harper isn't interested in making Canada a defacto US state, he's interested in this country's integrity. As it stands, it shouldn't be any mystery why we can't get the beef ban lifted or the softwood lumber dispute settled in a timely manner. That's all thanks to our Liberal government's hostility towards America.

That line has been going on since time immemorable. Nobody in Canada wants it to be the 51st US state. What Harper is trying to do is distance himself from the Liberals. Their line over the last ten or twelve years has basically been to thumb their noses at the US. Not only is this bad for diplomacy, it's bad for business. His choice of words may not have been the best but in essence he wants a rapprochement with our southern neighbors. And for the most part I agree with alot of what he has to say. You should support your allies. It doesn't mean you have to send troops to Iraq as Harper suggested necessarily but it also means not hopping on the anti-US bandwagon that is making the rounds recently. Since , thanks to geography, the US is also our closest and most important neighbour for a number of reasons, we don't do ourselves any favours by unleashing the mouths of people like Carolyn Parrish and then making no attempt to muzzle them once they've bitten (so to speak) Harper isn't interested in making Canada a defacto US state, he's interested in this country's integrity. As it stands, it shouldn't be any mystery why we can't get the beef ban lifted or the softwood lumber dispute settled in a timely manner. That's all thanks to our Liberal government's hostility towards America.
Actually the beef ban is due to the Americans, not us, they got a court-order passed in Montana, remember? It's not a political issue, it is out of the government's hands, has been for a while, it's beaurocracy and citizens screwing everything.
I'm all for good business relations, I like people regardless of the country they come from, I'm from Toronto (I have to, or I'd have been forced to move eons ago), but I don't think this country should support bad governments, nor the people that support bad governments. Anybody that supports the current U.S. Government is either uneducated or less than human. That said, the heavy blue areas of the U.S. are not only the biggest money makers but the also most of them are nicely clustered around the border. That makes for a good environment to safely critisize the U.S. government in Canada. Carolyn Parrish should be the next Prime Minister.
Harper can't say no to the U.S.. As such, he's a disaster for Canada.

Remember, Mulroney got a majority but that was because A.........he was a Quebec and B........he got the Quebec vote by getting all the separist MPs in his cabinet.
He was a Quebecer in his soul fair more than being a Canadain.

Actually the beef ban is due to the Americans, not us, they got a court-order passed in Montana, remember? It's not a political issue, it is out of the government's hands, has been for a while, it's beaurocracy and citizens screwing everything.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the reason it still hasn't been lifted is because they are holding a grudge. What else would it be? There's no good reason to ban our beef exports anymore but the Liberals pissed them off so they are just going to take their sweet time with it.
I'm all for good business relations, I like people regardless of the country they come from, I'm from Toronto (I have to, or I'd have been forced to move eons ago), but I don't think this country should support bad governments, nor the people that support bad governments. Anybody that supports the current U.S. Government is either uneducated or less than human.
Okay, now that's just ridiculous. It's also pretty ignorant as statements go. People who don't share your views aren't uneducated or sub-human. They simply don't see things the way you do.
That said, the heavy blue areas of the U.S. are not only the biggest money makers but the also most of them are nicely clustered around the border. That makes for a good environment to safely critisize the U.S. government in Canada. Carolyn Parrish should be the next Prime Minister.
Harper can't say no to the U.S.. As such, he's a disaster for Canada.
Oh? So Texas isn't a big money maker anymore eh? Gee, what with oil prices going through the roof, I guess they just don't pay any taxes then. Good environment to criticize the US ? How do you figure? You think that only the people in upstate New York hear this crap you are so proud of ? Guess again. You think Carolyn Parrish would make a good Prime Minister eh? Sadly, I know there are more people like you out there. That idiot is a big mouth and that's about it. You think the Liberals fired her because she was an asset to their party? Again, you should rethink that one. If Carolyn Parrish was PM tomorrow, with her history it would take about a year before the US found every reason they could and applied them all to starve our economy. Sure, right now YOU agree with that imbecile, but she's headstrong, has no sense of professionalism, and would destroy us diplomatically. But you think she's good for Canada. She might be the only PM in history to be worthy of assasination but that's about it if she were ever to ascend to the big chief's position.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But the reason it still hasn't been lifted is because they are holding a grudge. What else would it be? There's no good reason to ban our beef exports anymore but the Liberals pissed them off so they are just going to take their sweet time with it.

The Americans are easy to be become paranoid. They're isolationists, it's amazing they get any form of world news (which is debatable with a few stations' so-called "news"). They really don't care about the politics, they think anything not homegrown is a threat to national security these days. Afterall, these are the same people that think Saddam Hussein engineered 9/11 or was otherwise involved with it.

Okay, now that's just ridiculous. It's also pretty ignorant as statements go. People who don't share your views aren't uneducated or sub-human. They simply don't see things the way you do.

Ridiculous? How can you not have severe (the severest even?) ethical issues with the Republican Party? Virtually everything that party stands for is vile and they are fabulous liars. This has been well documented by many (to an unprecedented (unPresidented =P) degree). I'm not talking about the Micheal Moore fare either (although Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good example).

Oh? So Texas isn't a big money maker anymore eh? Gee, what with oil prices going through the roof, I guess they just don't pay any taxes then. Good environment to criticize the US ? How do you figure? You think that only the people in upstate New York hear this crap you are so proud of ? Guess again. You think Carolyn Parrish would make a good Prime Minister eh? Sadly, I know there are more people like you out there. That idiot is a big mouth and that's about it. You think the Liberals fired her because she was an asset to their party? Again, you should rethink that one. If Carolyn Parrish was PM tomorrow, with her history it would take about a year before the US found every reason they could and applied them all to starve our economy. Sure, right now YOU agree with that imbecile, but she's headstrong, has no sense of professionalism, and would destroy us diplomatically. But you think she's good for Canada. She might be the only PM in history to be worthy of assasination but that's about it if she were ever to ascend to the big chief's position.
Texas is the one red state that makes money instead of loses, and as such negligible. Outside Texas, every red-state is a money-loser, almost all blue states are money-makers. It pays to be on blue-states' side.
It doesn't matter who hears it. Half the U.S. hates Bush with a passion, safe enough. The Libs fired Parrish because they want to have some chance of stealing some Conservative seats. You must think Yulia Tymoschenko is bad for her country (Ukraine) too? She's of a similar persona, with a dislike of Russia and their dependence on them similar to our situation with the US. You clearly are afraid of people of action and those that will actually speak for the people, something that the federal government in this country is quite poor at. "I can't believe half the country could vote for that idiot", this whole country said the same thing as Parrish, I can tell you that much.

I see the anti-Americanism is out in full force in this thread. But that's okay because it's to be expected.

I see the anti-Americanism is out in full force in this thread. But that's okay because it's to be expected.
There's a world of difference between anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism. When it comes to blue states, there are very few problems. Don't jump to conclusions.

If the shoe fits...

@ TRZ : Look, you're obviously a fan of the NDP or some other socialist type party. I'm a Conservative by this country's standards anyway. I doubt we're going to agree on anything if that's the case. But for the record, most of this country definitely did not agree with Carolyn Parrish. She had some vocal supporters and a sizeable chunk of the population with her but still not the majority. She was/is a buffoon in the eyes of millions of Canadians and whether you think that's true or not, she was biting at the hand that feeds us. That's why many people didn't like her style even if they agreed with her statements. Tymoschenko? That has nothing to do with anything around here so that one is all yours.

And like I said before, YOU don't like what the Republicans stand for. Oh well, sorry to hear that. I don't really buy into everything they claim to represent either but alot of it I do. You talk about action...well, we clearly have different views on what constitutes action so there's no point in arguing about it I suppose. In any case, to repeat myself, just because you don't agree with the Republican stance on many issues doesn't make everyone who voted for them or sympathizes with them brain-dead. I happen to think that people who actually suppport communism in this day and age must be unaware of it's recent history but I'd hardly call them idiots. They just see things differently that way. Likewise, I doubt we'd agree on much as far as Canadian politics go since we are obviously inclined to the opposing sides of Canada's political spectrum.

Tell you what, when we get a specific issue, we'll both come out with guns a blazin. Until then cheers bud. :cheers:

I happen to think that people who actually suppport communism in this day and age must be unaware of it's recent history but I'd hardly call them idiots.

I would, actually. There's been enough examples of communism to show it doesn't work in actual practice, only theory (nice theory, but this is the real world). I do ask one thing of you, which is to not treat communism, socialism, and social democracy as one and the same. Social democracy is what I support, and is what the NDP would be classified as (along with many governments currently in power in prospering European countries).

I doubt we'd agree on much as far as Canadian politics go since we are obviously inclined to the opposing sides of Canada's political spectrum.

Tell you what, when we get a specific issue, we'll both come out with guns a blazin. Until then cheers bud. :cheers:
Deal :cheers:

Yes, I'm aware of that. But the reason it still hasn't been lifted is because they are holding a grudge. What else would it be? There's no good reason to ban our beef exports anymore but the Liberals pissed them off so they are just going to take their sweet time with it.

What else would it be?! The American government is prone to heavy lobbying from well organized and funded groups (my biggest criticism of their system). This has nothing to do with Canada or what we've done in the past. It's an excuse to close the border because many American ranchers and beef producers would rather have Canada shut out because it increases prices in the US and therefore makes them more money. Since judges are very political positions in the US, they fall under this influence. This brings up prices, which is bad for the American consumer. But there are a lot fewer pro consumer groups with the money to donate to elected officials.

If Canada joined Iraq, or whatever, it would have made little difference. This is pure business and they have a way of gaining an upper hand. The Americans do this to the Japanese, the UK, and many other countries.

You must not forget that the United States is very polarized, right now. Most Americans don't hate Canada, the same way most Canadians don't hate the US. There are objections, but outside of a few vocal groups, there is more obliviousness than anything else. This is just Business and people are trying to gain any advantage they can, just like any sane person would.

Ridiculous? How can you not have severe (the severest even?) ethical issues with the Republican Party? Virtually everything that party stands for is vile and they are fabulous liars. This has been well documented by many (to an unprecedented (unPresidented =P) degree). I'm not talking about the Micheal Moore fare either (although Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good example).

My only comment about Moore, is his last movie was created for political reasons, where his other films where more specific attacks on more specific problems (guns, GM laying off thousands in prosperous times). Bowling for Culumbine and Roger and Me were masterpeices, F9/11 was just one big attack ad. While some of the saudi connections were fascinating, it could have been covered in 10 minutes.


Texas is the one red state that makes money instead of loses, and as such negligible. Outside Texas, every red-state is a money-loser, almost all blue states are money-makers. It pays to be on blue-states' side.
It doesn't matter who hears it. Half the U.S. hates Bush with a passion, safe enough. The Libs fired Parrish because they want to have some chance of stealing some Conservative seats. You must think Yulia Tymoschenko is bad for her country (Ukraine) too? She's of a similar persona, with a dislike of Russia and their dependence on them similar to our situation with the US. You clearly are afraid of people of action and those that will actually speak for the people, something that the federal government in this country is quite poor at. "I can't believe half the country could vote for that idiot", this whole country said the same thing as Parrish, I can tell you that much.

There is a large amount of regional wealth redistribution in the United States, though it's a lot more hidden than it is in Canada, because it's the federal government that directly delivers the services or subsidization. In Canada, we transfer large amounts of money directy to the provinces to spend as they see fit. Look at Calfornia, which is wallowing in debt, but is probably living within its economic means if the feds weren't milking so much of it. The same thing his happening to Ontario. The more liberal areas subsidize everything from rural farming to highways.

This is more of a rural-urban divide, though. The more conservative states tend to be more sparsely populated with much of their population living in small towns and medium sized cities. They don't see homelessness or smog first hand, so pollution and poverty is of little concern to them. In small town America, the local church can cover most of the social issues that crop up. The same can't be said for New York City or Los Angelos. When Canadians meet Americans, it tends to be in their large cities where their values tend to border more closely to ours.

What else would it be?! The American government is prone to heavy lobbying from well organized and funded groups (my biggest criticism of their system). This has nothing to do with Canada or what we've done in the past. It's an excuse to close the border because many American ranchers and beef producers would rather have Canada shut out because it increases prices in the US and therefore makes them more money. Since judges are very political positions in the US, they fall under this influence. This brings up prices, which is bad for the American consumer. But there are a lot fewer pro consumer groups with the money to donate to elected officials.

Sorry, you'll have to put my retort in the context of the argument with TRZ. I agree with you completely. What I did was take it a step further in concluding that while everything you say is true, the US government has the power to intervene or at least speed things along. This has not been the case. If it's bad for America (and you pointed out yourself why it's bad for America) then you'd think that they would want to re-open the border. Well, in Bush's world, 'Canada doesn't have anything good to say about us....okay, then let's just consider them out of sight, out of mind'. They have the power to destroy our beef industry by not easing these restrictions. This benefits nobody but since we now have a history of being nothing but hostile and critical of the US, well, what do they care if we can't sell our cattle ? Call it a case of the bloated egos or whatever, but they could end it tomorrow if they wanted to and everyone would be happy except for a few American competitors. Given that from an American's perspective Canada is the nagging wife of North America, I'm not entirely sure I don't blame them for having that attitude. Of course, I'm not implying that we deserve it I'm just trying to point out that this is a symptom of our rather cooled relationship with the US.

The Americans are easy to be become paranoid. They're isolationists, it's amazing they get any form of world news (which is debatable with a few stations' so-called "news"). They really don't care about the politics, they think anything not homegrown is a threat to national security these days. Afterall, these are the same people that think Saddam Hussein engineered 9/11 or was otherwise involved with it.



The generalizations in this post scream of the paranoia you accuse "the Americans" (appsrently some homogenous mutant single-minded creature in your simple perception) of holding.

It's okay though...these uninformed, tunnel-vision observations make me :hahaha:

The generalizations in this post scream of the paranoia you accuse "the Americans" (appsrently some homogenous mutant single-minded creature in your simple perception) of holding.

It's okay though...these uninformed, tunnel-vision observations make me :hahaha:
The real joke is that you are laughing. :yes:

What else can I do? :)

The conservatives now might have a chance to win 5-6 seats in Quebec, thanks to the downfall of the corrupt Liberal party.


you mean a BIG ZERO in Quebec.

Even Harper knows it, he was interviewed on French television a couple of days ago and the lady was saying, " its almost certain that conservatives will not have a single deputy from Quebec, how will you manage this if you form the next governement..."

she repeated the same thing 3 times and not a single time did he ever try to correct her by saying the usual bullshit politicians say.

I don't know that the Conservatives won't get ANY ridings in Quebec but for sure if they do, it will be a close race. Of course, the odds are that they won't.

estimates are ranging from 55 to 63 ridings for the Bloc in Quebec (75 total).

12 ridings will never be won by the Bloc unless the vote gets heavily divided between the PC and PLC.

Have the Conservatives always done so badly in Quebec?

What else can I do? :)
Indeed, because ignorance is indeed bliss to have you laughing so.

Have the Conservatives always done so badly in Quebec?

Mulroney in the 1980s is the only prime minister to make any serious inroads into Quebec in modern history. He gave them a fair bit of favoratism that angered many in western canada, however. One example is giving a quebec firm maintenance contracts for canada's F-18s, despite a western company offering a lower bid.