[Lemmy]

Totally disingenuous, as ALL of those stories are REACTIONS, not "bringing it up".

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

andyt wrote:

If you click on the CPC icon in the graph, you can go thru each question and see how they answered it.

Well, I finally got into the survey today and I took andyt’s advice and clicked on the icons to see what the stated party positions were. I found most of the Conservative markings to be fair for the most part but when I checked the Liberal positions I found what I would deem to be some discrepancies. Maybe if some of the Liberals in the crowd here could comment on them.

*Just a note, my replies weren’t based on my personal beliefs, I was just trying to get the most sever “Conservative” reading I could just to see where would it put me on the graph.

**It is not my intent to bash any party here, I just don’t agree with where some parties have been placed on the graph supplied by the CBC. I’m just looking for discussion on that topic so don’t get your knickers in a knot and go around negging people just because you misinterpreted the point I’m trying to get at (Lemmy).


To me it seems that the Liberals have been advocating for a withdrawal of our forces after the 2011 date. Iggy, who in my mind hasn’t been overly clear on this even stated a while ago that continuing in a training role would be difficult without a proper replacement for Canadian troops by the NATO allies who would stabilize the country enough to carry out that training (something I would have to agree with him on). Now that in no way is an endorsement to pull troops out right away, in fact most calls for an immediate pull out have come from the NDP but the Liberals have been pushing for a firm pull out date and have been for the most part not been overly supportive of a continued role. For that I would say their party position should have been marked as “somewhat” disagree” not “strongly disagree”.

The Liberals have always talked about full withdrawal in 2011. It was a 10 year commitment right from day 1.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

I’m not sure how they scored a “strongly disagree” on the carbon tax question. Did that idea get thrown out with Dion? If it’s a non issue (i.e. its not in the current platform) then why did the conservatives get scored on issues that are not in their platform?

Because the party said no to it, even though the delegates voted for it at the convention.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Ok, this one mystifies me, when your Leader is running around campaigning on a Federal Child Care plan how do you score “neither agree nor disagree”?

Because Family Care which is what the Liberals are talking about in this election, gives money to families. To take care of Children, or disabled seniors.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Again, when your party is advocating lowering the required weeks to access EI how do you score a “neither agree nor disagree”?

Again... You're living in the past man! Waaaaaay back in 2008 when the country was shedding jobs like never before that was an issue. The Liberals wanted it as a temporary measure, which was due to expire already.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Now this one I can kind of reason in my mind but I still don’t feel it is correctly answered to correlate with the parties position. I believe the Liberals position has been that any type of tax they would introduce would be offset by job creation or something to that effect which would nullify any additional costs placed on consumers. Personally I don’t think they should have been scored in the “neither agree nor disagree” but rather the “some what agree” category.

It wasn't to be offset by job creation, the Green Shift (which isn't a new idea, only to Canada) was supposed to shift the tax burden from individuals on to corporations who pollute. It is supposed to be revenue neutral. It's a 2008 policy that died too though.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Curtman wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

To me it seems that the Liberals have been advocating for a withdrawal of our forces after the 2011 date. Iggy, who in my mind hasn’t been overly clear on this even stated a while ago that continuing in a training role would be difficult without a proper replacement for Canadian troops by the NATO allies who would stabilize the country enough to carry out that training (something I would have to agree with him on). Now that in no way is an endorsement to pull troops out right away, in fact most calls for an immediate pull out have come from the NDP but the Liberals have been pushing for a firm pull out date and have been for the most part not been overly supportive of a continued role. For that I would say their party position should have been marked as “somewhat” disagree” not “strongly disagree”.

The Liberals have always talked about full withdrawal in 2011. It was a 10 year commitment right from day 1.

And it’s 2011. I realized they haven’t stated an immediate withdrawal so I’ll give them that one.

Curtman wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

I’m not sure how they scored a “strongly disagree” on the carbon tax question. Did that idea get thrown out with Dion? If it’s a non issue (i.e. its not in the current platform) then why did the conservatives get scored on issues that are not in their platform?

Because the party said no to it, even though the delegates voted for it at the convention.

So why then are the Conservatives been positioned on past beliefs and policies when they are no longer in their new platform?

Curtman wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Ok, this one mystifies me, when your Leader is running around campaigning on a Federal Child Care plan how do you score “neither agree nor disagree”?

Because Family Care which is what the Liberals are talking about in this election, gives money to families. To take care of Children, or disabled seniors. ”

No, that’s not what he said. He said he would continue to give families the $100 they are currently getting but he has firmly committed time and again to creating a national daycare program which will create more spaces for children.

Quote:

HALIFAX — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff stopped at a Halifax daycare centre to underscore his party's commitment to a national early learning and child care strategy.
Ignatieff says a Liberal government would work with the provinces to build a national network of early learning and child care centres.
The commitment includes building more spaces and shouldering operating costs for a social program Ignatieff says would be the most important in Canada in 40 years.
He says the initiative should be seen as a piece of "social infrastructure" that is every bit as important in stimulating the economy as traditional methods involving construction.

Curtman wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Again, when your party is advocating lowering the required weeks to access EI how do you score a “neither agree nor disagree”?

Again... You're living in the past man! Waaaaaay back in 2008 when the country was shedding jobs like never before that was an issue. The Liberals wanted it as a temporary measure, which was due to expire already.

And again why are the Liberals being scored on a current platform when the conservatives are not?

Curtman wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Now this one I can kind of reason in my mind but I still don’t feel it is correctly answered to correlate with the parties position. I believe the Liberals position has been that any type of tax they would introduce would be offset by job creation or something to that effect which would nullify any additional costs placed on consumers. Personally I don’t think they should have been scored in the “neither agree nor disagree” but rather the “some what agree” category.

It wasn't to be offset by job creation, the Green Shift (which isn't a new idea, only to Canada) was supposed to shift the tax burden from individuals on to corporations who pollute. It is supposed to be revenue neutral. It's a 2008 policy that died too though.

So is a carbon tax and or cap and trade off the table completely? I highly doubt that.

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

So why then are the Conservatives been positioned on past beliefs and policies when they are no longer in their new platform?

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

And again why are the Liberals being scored on a current platform when the conservatives are not?

I haven't seen a platform from anybody yet. The Liberals are talking about Family Care, and funding to low income Canadians for post secondary education. Harper talked about tax breaks for families the other day, that's a nice change from the corporate tax cuts. But most of it was just ranting about coalitions, and carbon taxes, and ipod taxes that nobody is talking about except Harper, and every leader seems to be fully against.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

So is a carbon tax and or cap and trade off the table completely? I highly doubt that.

Harper can't rule out carbon tax

Quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he doesn’t want to impose a carbon tax on Canadians — but admits he can’t entirely rule it out.

I doubt it too.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Curtman wrote:

I haven't seen a platform from anybody yet. The Liberals are talking about Family Care, and funding to low income Canadians for post secondary education. Harper talked about tax breaks for families the other day, that's a nice change from the corporate tax cuts. But most of it was just ranting about coalitions, and carbon taxes, and ipod taxes that nobody is talking about except Harper, and every leader seems to be fully against.

Harper's tax break (income splitting) doesn't take effect until after the budget has been ballanced so I don't really consider that a real commitment at this point, it's nothing more than a fluffy promise.

As for rambling I haven't seen anything tangable from any of the parties other than mud slingng so far.

So things that have gone by the wayside since the last election such as carbon taxes don`t count on the Liberal scale but changes to abortion laws which have never been brought up by the Conservatives do count and are registered. Intresting.

[Toro]

About what I thought

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

So things that have gone by the wayside since the last election such as carbon taxes don`t count on the Liberal scale but changes to abortion laws which have never been brought up by the Conservatives do count and are registered. Intresting.

It is interesting.. I think the Green Shift was a great idea, and someone besides Dion should give it a try. But it isn't going to happen. The Liberal Party no longer promotes the idea. The same guy who brought up abortion to begin with is leading the conservatives. Did he change his mind?

[bootlegga]

Out of curiousity, I wonder where the old PC party would fall on this chart...

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

Out of curiousity, I wonder where the old PC party would fall on this chart...

The old PC would be closer to the Libs - more left economically and less socially coservative.

Is that your result? Wow, you're nearly as left as I am. You commie you. And you don't believe in raising the minimum wage - who you kidding?

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Out of curiousity, I wonder where the old PC party would fall on this chart...

The old PC would be closer to the Libs - more left economically and less socially coservative.

Is that your result? Wow, you're nearly as left as I am. You commie you. And you don't believe in raising the minimum wage - who you kidding?

I have to admit I'm surprised by the results, as I am far more concerned with defence than most Liberals and left of centre types. I thought I'd wind up more towards the middle.

And, no, I don't agree with raising the minimum wage. I'd far prefer to see funding spent on more training/education programs so that peopel can acquire the skills needed to become successful, instead of giving them a 50 cent raise every couple of years that basically only covers the increase in inflation.

But that's a whole other discussion and I don't want to be blamed for yanking this thread off topic.