Where to from here?

[cakadu]

Now that the vote is over for the moment and we are perhaps on the precipice of one of the longest election campaigns ever, where do we go from here? We may not have a budget by the time parliament breaks at the end of June so what then?

What would you like to see from the leaders and the MP's in terms of being able to make informed decisions? For me, instead of hearing the "niggling nabob of negativism" I would like to start hearing Harper talk about what he is going to do to help turn the country around. He shouldn't keep running his platform on what the other guys are doing wrong - talk about what he will do that is different and positive. Wouldn't it be better to make it a clear choice about where to place a vote versus where you don't want to? How about he become a little more personable and actually crack a smile once in a while? It may not be right, but people want to know that they can relate to their leaders. While I may not have liked Trudeau in power and I did not personally see his charisma, he had enough of it to stay in power. People skills are very important and I see many of the current leaders (and sitting MPs) sorely lacking in these skills.

Casting a vote for a person because he or she will get in by a landslide is not the best way to vote, in my opinion.

Right now I don't think I can relate to any of the leaders, so how is one to make an informed decision?

[BWC]

Linda, Layton says that if the budget isn't passed by July 1, his deal with Martin if off.
I agree that Harper and the Consrvatives have got to start laying out what they will do, province to province. If I was Harper I would be on the road every chance I had attending every possible function before there is an election campaign. He has got to get out and concentrate on areas where the Liberals have a strong hold.
Lord knows the Liberals have given Harper a lot to speak negatively about but he needs to start to speak in a positive tone about what electing a Conservative Government would do for Canadians.

[cakadu]

We can all find the negative in things if we want to and we can keep pointing out what is wrong. The more difficult thing is to come up with viable solutions or alternatives so that we can see for ourselves that things will be different.

What checks and balances is Harper going to put in place to ensure that this type of mismanagement doesn't happen under his watch?

What agricultural and environmental policies will he be implementing?

How serious is he about preserving and restoring habitat?

What social policies does he propose?

What ideas does he have towards opening a border, building a packing plant, opening up new markets?

How much of the Agricultural Policy Framework will he retain or will he scrap it?

What are his views on giving more autonomy to the provinces? How does he envision decentralizing the power base in Ontario?

He has a lot of explaining to do, as do those running in the constituencies. I get all the negative stuff, it's time to start to tell us how he is going to deliver a balanced, honest government.

[cakadu]

Linda, as a former director for my own MP, I know that one key issue the Conservative Party wants to address is the representation issue. I am not privy to the discussions that have take place within party ranks since I resigned as a director but it certainly is an issue that Harper needs to speak to Canadians about. Now, if I was in his shoes I wouldn't want to get too carried away suggesting changes until I was elected, any inkling that Ontario may not have as much power sure isn't going to get him votes.

I really wish I knew why the electorate in Ontario are so sold on the Liberal government, I suspect it is greed for the most part and a complete lack of awareness of the corruption. I know from experience at the municipal level that the average person hasn't a clue what elected officials do, and they could care less as long as they get what they want from government. Some people would vote for the devil if he delivered on his promises.

[farmers_son]

I read a book a while back called “The Living Company” by Aries de Gues. His theory was that when two organizations merge the resulting entity is for all intents and purposes sick. The mix of organizational cultures, goals, histories etc. clash not mesh to create a dysfunctional situation which could be compared to the flu in a living person.

So it will be with the Conservatives. I don’t look for the Conservative Party to be a high performing organization for a further period of years. That is not to say they would not, could not win an election but if they did it would be as a result of the Liberals loosing it, rather than the Conservatives winning it.

Rather than offering solid policy positions that the Liberals can pounce upon, Harper would be well advised to try and let the voting public get to know him as someone who can be trusted. Frankly he has got a ways to go in that department. I know, I know, it will be pointed out that the Liberals are lacking in the trust department. But Martin has been in the public eye a lot longer than Harper and people feel they know Martin as someone who as Finance Minister got us out of deficit budgets. Harper just has not built up that level of familiarity with Canadians and there is a suspicion based on his past involvement with groups like the National Citizens Coalition that he is hard line and hawkish.

Harpers lack of any business experience places him at a distinct disadvantage. Harper lacks credibility with Canada’s business community. Both Martin and Stronach definitely have the edge in that department.

[farmers_son]

Oh damn, and here I thought we were going to be able to get through this week without mentioning STRONACH !

[silverback]

My $.02 worth:

1) Toronto and surrounding area is largely pro choice. The "scary" part of the conservatives is that they think they will outlaw abortion. I am under the impression that they will make no changes to the status quo. Their past leader was not in favor of abortion, but that was not the party policy as far as I know. If the media would actually tell people what the party platform is they might have a chance. I think the conservatives do need to spend some money to get that message out though.

2) Recent immigrants to Canada are told that their entire families can come over as well as long as the Liberals are in power. I think the "scary" part of the conservatives is that they would try and make immigration easier for those that can bring good value to our economy as opposed to just allowing anyone to jump off a plane and claim refugee status.

3) Poor seniors are "scared" that the conservatives will strip away their "free" health care, even though the word free could not be any further from the truth. They do not understand that if getting some rich people to pay out of their own pocket while still paying their taxes to support the not so rich, the lineups would be shorter for them.

4) Toronto and area think that the conservatives are "scary" and intolerant because they would outlaw gay marriage. I am pretty sure I heard Steven Harper say that they would still have all the legal rights as married people just like they do now, only they would not be able to use the word Marriage. It would be a civil union. I find it amazing that the media roasted him for being a bigot when his only fault was to suggest that marriage should be left for men and women and that society should strive to protect the traditional "family". What a scary thought.

5) The CBC is scared that they might lose some of their billions that they get right now from us the taxpayers. If the CBC has anything of value other than Hockey Night in Canada they should be able to stand on their own feet.

To me it is plain to see that Ontario and many supporters of the Liberals don't really care about who is getting paid off as long as they might get a piece of the action someday. I would guess that everyone in Ontario knows someone who works for the federal government. Anyone who even thinks about trying to shrink the size of this huge government gets blasted as extremists. When it comes to election time, it seems that lately all the Liberals have to talk about is Abortion, Gay marriage, health care, or immigration and people just follow along like sheep instead of finding facts for themselves.

[cakadu]

You're right emrald, I'm sure Harper doesn't want to give all away, but I'm sure it would help him in the long run if, as farmers_son states, that people feel like they are getting to know him.

I did something that I rarely do and that is to watch the shows on TV like Question Period and that new Global Sunday. I found their perspectives quite interesting and they did make me think about things from a new perspective.

One of the comments made was that Harper and the Conservatives could only generate as much support as a corrupt Liberal party. Now on the surface we know it is because in the West we don't make up half of the seats and Ontario has something like 100 of the 308 seats up for grabs. Add farmers_son's comment about mixing two or more organizations and you might just have some real food for thought.

The other really interesting discussion (and I find it very difficult to listen to Sheila Copps at the best of times) was with Sheila, Josee from the Montreal Gazette and another lady writer from Ottawa. Sheila was just bristling about what Belinda got so I find the Globals choice of a Liberal to comment on what happened in the past week quite interesting.

One comment made during the exchange with these three was that from a global perspective, when people hear about Quebec wanting to separate, they perceive that it is a very real threat. They don't understand like Canadians do that it is something that is unlikely to ever happen, especially when Quebec realizes that it will have to give up all the "free money" that they get, plus pay back their share of the debt. Again, pause for thought.

I'm not saying that any of this is right, factual, fiction or anything in-between. What I am saying is that there are so many ways to look at this. Maybe if we were sitting here with a bunch of "old money" we might look upon things differently too.

[cakadu]

The mere fact that Ontario has 100 seats is wrong , very very wrong. I don't know if the premiers across the country have ever tried to get the representation issue brought onto an agenda at any time but it sure needs to be. I actually think that Duceppe is the best premier that Quebec has had in a long time, and I really don't have a problem with the Conservatives and the Bloc voting together....Lord knows that a Conservative government can't possibley spend more money keeping Quebec in confederation than the Liberals already have.

[cowman]

Part of the reason the Conservatives might not be so keen on announcing any policies too early is the Liberals have a nasty habit of making them policy?
Two come to mind: The Atlantic accord? The sharing of the gas tax with municipalities?...both Conservative ideas.
Whenever the Conservatives come out with an idea that gets a favorable response you can bet it will become Liberal policy! How can you possibly win against a party that is like a chamelion, ready to change at the slightest breeze in the wind?
I suspect Harper will not survive as the party leader in the long run. It is unfortunate because I think he is a man of principle and common sense. The suggestion that he has no business experience, like Stronach or Martin, is not really much of an argument? Stronach was a puppet for daddy and Martin got his money by being a toadie for Power Corporation!
At one time Howard Hughes was considered one of the richest business men in the world. The real facts were he was very incompetent in just about every business venture he ever took part in! His daddies money and some good managers let him portray that he was a "mover and a shaker", when in fact he was a total loser!
Frank Stronach and Power Corporation know how to make a buck...I doubt these two do? I wonder if Franks business went all to hell when the "girl wonder" left to enter politics?

[cowman]

emerald: Why is it wrong that Ontario has 100 seats? I thought with their population they were entitled to even more seats? I wonder how many voters it takes to make up a seat in Toronto? How about in PEI? In a democracy isn't every vote supposed to be equal? How can that be if you don't have an equal vote?
I believe PEI has four seats? Perhaps that should be reduced?
I wonder also if we had equal numbers if the west would have more of a voice or less? In a true democracy we might have even less input?
Our democracy is in fact mob rule. The majority can always vote away the rights and wealth of the minority? Thus we have the mob voting to take our wealth and give it too the likes of Quebec and the Maritimes?
A much better system is a republic where the rights of the individual are more important than the voting power of the mob?

[FarmRanger]

Having checks and balances is also important. We have a senate which is supposed to be a house of sober 2nd thought. In reality it is an appointed bunch of party hacks who rubber stamp whatever the Prime Minister sends to them. When all we hear from them is snoring and rumblings of wanting to legalize marijuana, I think its pretty clear how much actual value we get from them.

Another check and balance should be our media. The problem with having government funded news media is we can be sure they will look after the ones doling out the money. Harper would get a lot better press coverage if one of his platforms was increasing the CBC budget(don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating this!). Unfortunately, this policy would quickly get stolen by the Libs and we’d be back to where we are with an even more “bought” media(with the sanctioning of the opposition in this scenario). I don’t agree with any government money going to news media, as it naturally causes biases toward the ruling party and status quo. Most of Canadian media is biased toward the left and this might change if there were no tax $ going to fund them. We don’t need a propaganda ministry, which I am sorry, but frankly, this is what the CBC appears to have become. They already have a Liberal at the head and I am not so naïve as to think this doesn’t have some influence on what gets broadcast to the masses. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

Does the print media in Canada also get government money? I know there are protections for magazines like MacLeans, but is there direct government money going to them or the large newspaper chains as well?

There was a survey of Canadian media about a year ago (someone correct me on this please) and something like 80% of respondents considered themselves left of center. If this doesn’t have an influence on the way news is reported, I don’t know what does. Who is more likely to get the praise of his superiors, the one who zealously exposes government corruption, or the one who can scoop some ethnic slur, or anti-abortion comment from a right of center opposition member? If the vast majority of media has a left wing bias, then they would also have their own personal reasons for skewing the news. There will be a natural tendency to spin a news item to reflect these biases. Its small wonder that conservative leaders have to be squeaky clean to survive, while watching their liberal and NDP counterparts get away with murder, well, not murder perhaps, but at least theft of $50,000 dollar rings.

Which brings me to the legal system, which is aptly named because it doesn’t seem to bring justice as often as it should. When we are more concerned about registering gopher guns than keeping dangerous offenders behind bars, what does that tell us? How much of that gun registry money could have been spent on better policing and prosecution? Will there be a media exercise to make sure that gopher guns are stored properly, prosecute those who haven’t, and then tell us how many “offenders” the system is catching?

I prattled on too long here perhaps, any comments?

[silverback]

Good points farm ranger. The problem I see is that if you try and be squeeky clean the media hammers you for being out of touch and too clean. If you say you believe in a christian god you quickly become a religous zealot. If you say you like to spend time with your family you are not commited enough to run the country and you don't know anything about the real business world.

Your other point about polls on people's leanings to the left was interesting. Should we really believe that? Or is it more spin to try and convince us that we could not possibly vote for anyone other than those in the "center" or "left". The U.S. media would have had us believe that they wanted a left leaning gov't as well, but when it came to vote, they chose someone who was speaking towards traditional family values and more to the right of center. I wish that the media would have to publish the questions that polls ask instead of just their opinions of what the results are.

[silverback]

FarmRanger, not to mention Senator Tommy Banks having nothing to do but advocate that we should all be riding bicycles to work to conserve energy!!!!!
Cowman, I think that we need representation by region vs population. Don't ask me how it can be accomplished .

[cakadu]

Like it or not, the only two leaders in this mess who have held on to their principles (and I use the term loosely here) are Layton and the one emrald mentioned - Duceppe. They have remained true to their respective party platforms. Both Martin and Harper are teetering on not having much credibility at all - one for looking like he will try and hang on to power at any cost and the other looking like he wants power at any cost. Great choices aren't they.

Cowman, Harper may not want to disclose too much at the outset, but in order to get the votes that he so desperately covets, he has to give us something to go on besides continuing to point out the faults of the other guy.