Canadian General Election- May 2, 2011

[Keef]

They're Frenchies. If you want to protest high taxes and universal health care, at least pick that party that's easy to protest against.

 

[AMCNUT]

They're Frenchies. If you want to protest high taxes and universal health care, at least pick that party that's easy to protest against.

But even as a Conservative I like Canada's universal heathcare system; I think it's one of our crowing achievements as a nation. No, it's not perfect, but I find it infinitely preferable to the US system; it's really too bad that Obama couldn't push US healthcare through. Taxes are acceptable (the Conservatives actually lowered it a percent a few years ago), but I'm willing to accept a certain degree of taxation in order to keep essential government services running.

But I'm still not sure I understand what you meant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you want to vote the Bloc Quebecois in so that you can turn around and protest against them? Wouldn't it just be easier to elect a party you don't have to rail against?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I really don't have a problem with the Bloc Quebecois. Why gives us the right to tell a province -who obviously doesn't give a crap about the rest of the country- they can't separate? If they aren't a part of Canada, we really aren't losing much, okay we lose the Montreal Canadiens, but they'll probably have a different name. And for the whole coalition thing, ever hear of opposites attracting? So if they put aside their difference and work for the interests of the citizens. This could actually work.

 

[Joel]

I really don't have a problem with the Bloc Quebecois. Why gives us the right to tell a province -who obviously doesn't give a crap about the rest of the country- they can't separate? If they aren't a part of Canada, we really aren't losing much, okay we lose the Montreal Canadiens, but they'll probably have a different name. And for the whole coalition thing, ever hear of opposites attracting? So if they put aside their difference and work for the interests of the citizens. This could actually work.

Socialists. Separatists. Liberals.

It. will. not. work.

All they'll succeed in doing is getting Harper out of office, and after a few months of that coalition, we'll want him back again. I'm not afraid of change, but socialism, liberalism and separatism being blended together is not the change I'd like to see here.

 

[AMCNUT]

I really don't have a problem with the Bloc Quebecois. Why gives us the right to tell a province -who obviously doesn't give a crap about the rest of the country- they can't separate? If they aren't a part of Canada, we really aren't losing much, okay we lose the Montreal Canadiens, but they'll probably have a different name. And for the whole coalition thing, ever hear of opposites attracting? So if they put aside their difference and work for the interests of the citizens. This could actually work.

Well, whether Canada likes it or not, Quebec is important to Canada in terms of industry, population, and having a land connection with the east coast provinces. Hard as it may be at times to live with Quebec nationalism, neither Canada of Quebec would do as well separate as they are together. Quebec would be without a military, currency, economy (many businesses would relocate into English Canada or the US), etc. etc. Really, it's in no one's interest to see Quebec go even though their government drives me crazy sometimes. But hey, it's gotten better since the '90s! There are just so many intricate complex connections and dependencies that one province (Quebec or anyone else) can't really just get up and leave, fortunately.

However, if Quebec leaves, I bet Alberta would follow, then the east coast, then the prairies, and 'Canada' would probably be just Ontario. We're like a bicycle wheel. If all the spokes are there then it's all good, but if just one spoke breaks....

I think Canadians, Quebecois included, realize this alot better now than 10-15 years ago, which is why the Bloc has gone from ~60 seats per election to ~40 in recent times. Here's to hoping this trend continues!

But, being a Leafs fan, I don't see losing the Habs as any great loss!

 

[Grand Prix]

Let's settle some confusion here.


1) The Bloc Quebecois only run in Quebec.

2 ) Bloc Quebecois would not have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government even IF every Quebec riding was won by them.

3) So, the Bloc Quebecois magically formed a government and every other other party agreed that they can separate from Canada. What happens next? They separate Quebec from Canada with tugboats and leave the rest of the country behind in anarachy?

Ok, so they wouldn't separate physically, but it would create such an awkward situation for trade between Canada and the US, and I don't think that would fly.


Most. Pointless. Party. Ever. Frankly I think the Bloc's existence is bordering on treason. Quebec isn't exactly being oppressed either.

And no, no part of this post is being serious. However I'd thought I'd highlight the ridiculousness of the Bloc Quebecois. All they do with stealing away seats is creating minority governments for both the Liberal and Conservatives, and generally wasting everyone's time.

 

[Omnis]

With all due respect, why would anyone (Canadian, American or otherwise) want to vote for the Bloc Quebecois????? I'm not quite sure what the rational is for that. They don't even pretend to care about Canada! They only care about one province, don't even run in any other areas of the country, and are committed to breaking up said country. I personally don't want these people having seats in Parliament.

Saying you want to vote for the Bloc is like saying you'd support the South trying to secede the Union prior to the US civil war... I personally think national unity is a good thing. If it's right-wing ideology you're after you may as well vote Conservative and sleep sound in the knowledge that Canada will still be in one piece when you wake up the next morning.

Yes, and?

Just name the hockey team the Habnadiens and problem solved.

 

[AMCNUT]

Yes, and?

Just name the hockey team the Habnadiens and problem solved.

Well, I just don't think that voting for one's homeland to be ripped apart is really desirable here! As Grand Prix stated (I totally agree with everything you wrote:tup, we're (thankfully) safe from a Bloc majority, but they always manage to snag enough seats to really 🤬 with everyone else and they have held at least a couple governments hostage. That's not the way Canadian politics should operate if you ask me.

But, as I stated above, I'm a Leafs fan for life, and we'll beat the Montreal team no matter what its name is!

 

[Jawsers]

2 ) Bloc Quebecois would not have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government even IF every Quebec riding was won by them.

I think the Bloc could form a minority government, albeit a weak one.



The separatist movement has stalled since Bouchard left, no leadership at all within the party. I don't think at this present time will there be another referendum that will be as close as in 1995. Maybe that will change in 20 years, who knows.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I think the Bloc could form a minority government, albeit a weak one.



The separatist movement has stalled since Bouchard left, no leadership at all within the party. I don't think at this present time will there be another referendum that will be as close as in 1995. Maybe that will change in 20 years, who knows.

History always repeats itself, so of course it's going to happen.
I am hoping for a Liberal or NDP Majority. I just have a strong hate for the Conservative Party. With the Liberal Party we saw our deficit ELIMINATED, then the Conservative Party comes in, and commits to unnecessary spending. I'm suprised no party has really talked much about the war in Afghanistan. There really is no point in being there. The US started it, so why are we there???

 

[Joel]

I am hoping for a Liberal or NDP Majority. I just have a strong hate for the Conservative Party. With the Liberal Party we saw our deficit ELIMINATED, then the Conservative Party comes in, and commits to unnecessary spending.

You're angry at the Conservatives for unnecessary spending and you want the NDP or Liberals in charge?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

You're angry at the Conservatives for unnecessary spending and you want the NDP or Liberals in charge?

Yes, because you don't need to spend money on a war where we really aren't helping at all. Meanwhile there are low-income families struggling to feed themselves.

 

[AMCNUT]

It's definitely interesting to see the divide in opinion across this thread.

But with regards to Afghanistan I think it's a gross oversimplification to say we aren't helping over there. It's definitely the case that our mission has suffered from a lack of a real military goal as of late, but aside from obvious help - the safety and security that Canadian troops provide to those in Kandahar and other regions - we are fulfilling our international obligations and commitments which will reflect well on us as a nation in the future. We've already been flamed a couple of times on the international stage for stuff like the seal hunt and the tar sands; we should be honouring our UN and NATO commitments in order to maintain Canada's prestige on the world stage.

Although I personally think we should have steered clear of a lengthly operation in the Middle East, the act itself of going into Afghanistan wasn't the problem - it's the improper execution that's endangering the lives of Canadian and other service men and women. We try to administer the place and act like the government even as Taliban suicide bombers walk the streets - we need to totally clear the enemy before we can rebuild. Which brings me to my next point; we should be committed to achieving that goal or turning the mission over to someone who can. This halfsies approach to places like Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be reviewed: either we stay out totally or we mobilize everything and go all-out, totally occupying the country and eradicating foreign terrorists once town at a time. Then we could rebuild for the ground up, go home, and hopefully not have to worry about going back...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Ignatieff's rally last night was plenty over-capacity. And hey, no background Facebook checks and kicking out non-Liberals!

I don't agree with all of the Liberal agenda, but I don't expect most people will ever agree with one party 100%. I don't see the need for the fighter jets, I am fully in support of a gun registry, and I'm not a fan of, how it was worded last night, the Conservative approach of "Ideology over Ideas" in schools. So I'll be voting Red, I'm tired of the Harper Show.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I'll hold my nose and vote NDP to counter Conservative votes.

Iggy has been out of the country too long!

Green's May too schrill

Conservative platform promises are 'subject to'; like a 'trust us, the cheque is in the mail' platform, or the 'I.O.U. once we balance the budget' platform.

Harper has got to go, hey hey, ho ho; he's got to go!

35 billion $ for fighter jets. A lot of good they'll do helping recover from any natural disaster!

 

[Tornado]

Yes, because you don't need to spend money on a war where we really aren't helping at all.

As if any of the parties would actually commit to pulling out of Afghanistan in the first place.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I'd like to see Afghans getting as involved as citizens in Egypt and Libya are!

 

[AMCNUT]

Ignatieff's rally last night was plenty over-capacity. And hey, no background Facebook checks and kicking out non-Liberals!

I don't agree with all of the Liberal agenda, but I don't expect most people will ever agree with one party 100%. I don't see the need for the fighter jets, I am fully in support of a gun registry, and I'm not a fan of, how it was worded last night, the Conservative approach of "Ideology over Ideas" in schools. So I'll be voting Red, I'm tired of the Harper Show.

I was watching CP24 this morning and was listening to what everyone had to say. When they were covering Harper in Vaughn they noted the immense diversity of the crowd... so Harper's message must be striking a chord with its fair share of people as well. But as for background Facebook checks, that's hardly sinister, and anyone dumb enough to try something like that ought to know there's a good chance they'll be asked to leave. Should they have made a scene? Probably not, but it's their right to have whomever they do or don't want at the rally. I'd assume all the parties are like that, just maybe not publicly after this incident!

But i also think the F-35s are a good idea - the Hornets are over 30 years old. Great planes in their day, but I think our Arctic sovereignty assertions will be much better served by them, as well as any other NATO or UN actions that we may be called to effectively and reliably serve in. Our nation's brave fighter pilots deserve the very best!👍

I'd like to see Afghans getting as involved as citizens in Egypt and Libya are!

^This!

 

[alexleighton]

To get the ball rolling, I find it hard to get behind any of the major parties. The only party which closely represents my views is the Libertarian Party, and they don't even have a representative in my riding.

I can't get behind the Liberals, because I'm opposed to raising taxes and taxing the "evil corporations" higher to handout money to others. I can't get behind the Conservatives fully because I don't like how eager they are to handout money to big businesses. I also don't like the party's stance on legalization of marijuana. The NDP are too far left for me, I could never support a party running on a socialist platform. The Greens don't seem to have ways to make their ideas economically viable, and the Bloc aren't an option as I don't live in Québec.


I just find it frustrating that I have to choose between the Conservatives and Liberals if I want a party likely to be elected, because I can't support either fully. If there was a Libertarian candidate, I'd absolutely vote for them, but there is none in my riding. The best of a bad lot in my view is the Conservative party, but Stephen Harper's a knob. I'd probably just turn in a spoiled ballot because I can't in good conscience choose any of these parties.


Note: I'm 16, and won't have a vote anyway

I feel the same way as you, and even though I'm of voting age I don't think I can vote for any candidates running in my riding.

 

[Badger-X-]

Just found this in the Montreal Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/story.html?id=4583415

Being a Canadian artist myself I have to agree. "Harper's government" needs to go!

 

[nine4t4]

Jeez.

Trudeau created a surplus. Mulroney pissed it away.
Martin had a surplus. Harper pissed it away.

Liberals build infrastructure. Infrastructure is what attracts investment. Screw the NDP. Companies want bang for the buck. Lowering taxes only goes so far. All it does is rape the infrastructure. They want to strip it clean, (The REFORM PARTY).

The balance of power is in Alberta. As long as the price of oil is high, they have "hand". Below 80 a barrel, they are losing money. Harper is pushing for Alberta because he knows they are sheep. He's from Toronto, and whores himself to the prairies.

The oil sands can only be economically feasible 100+ a barrel. Don't say that Harper doesn't equal Bush. He's cut from the same cloth and was educated at the same think tank.

Mulroney sold us out, Harper will whore us out. Harper is afraid of questions from the media. Why are our soldiers dying to protect democracy, when our PM is afraid of it?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

👍, Exactly. Above post by nine4t4 is the truth!

 

[Jawsers]

Liberals build infrastructure. Infrastructure is what attracts investment.

During the Liberal years, Saskatchewan's infrastructure went into the crapper. No help what so ever. Once the price of potash went up, then the federal government decides to help out, but most of our roads are still absolutely horrid. Potash, uranium, and oil is the only thing that basically saved Saskatchewan. I think I probably would have moved to Alberta, had the boom not occurred. Even now work is still good here.

Harper is pushing for Alberta because he knows they are sheep.

It takes a sheep to know a sheep.

Don't say that Harper doesn't equal Bush. He's cut from the same cloth and was educated at the same think tank.

Proof?


Iggy is no better than Harper, nor no better than Layton. They don't care about you. If they really cared, they would reduce Parliamentary spending. That upgrade to put a glass ceiling in the temporary house of commons is absolutely useless to us proles. And the old buzzards in the Senate want one as well for their temporary place as well. Most of the big wigs in politics are already well off. As a public servant, who should be serving the people, we shouldn't need to pay for their campaigns, travel expenses, and pensions. Paying taxes would be an easier pill to swallow if it was used properly.

 

[alexleighton]

Iggy is no better than Harper, nor no better than Layton. They don't care about you. If they really cared, they would reduce Parliamentary spending. That upgrade to put a glass ceiling in the temporary house of commons is absolutely useless to us proles. And the old buzzards in the Senate want one as well for their temporary place as well. Most of the big wigs in politics are already well off. As a public servant, who should be serving the people, we shouldn't need to pay for their campaigns, travel expenses, and pensions. Paying taxes would be an easier pill to swallow if it was used properly.

True say friend. The real problem with our system is that we don't have a box labeled "throw the bums out" on our voting cards.. The major parties are 3/4/5 sides of the same coin, which was left on the railroad tracks and thus has gotten more sides.

 

[Joel]

The biggest irony of this whole campaign ha been the attack ads. Everyone roasts Harper for the attack ads, but every NDP ad I've seen has been an attack ad, and I've only seen one Liberal non-attack ad. Harper always takes flak in the media for stuff they all do.

 

[nine4t4]

During the Liberal years, Saskatchewan's infrastructure went into the crapper. No help what so ever. Once the price of potash went up, then the federal government decides to help out, but most of our roads are still absolutely horrid. Potash, uranium, and oil is the only thing that basically saved Saskatchewan. I think I probably would have moved to Alberta, had the boom not occurred. Even now work is still good here.

Are confusing Federal politics with Provincial? Which roads were derelict? The Conservatives have nothing to do with the markets. Potash, Uranium and oil are global commodities. The Conservatives had NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING to do with the Sask. economy turning around. It was the GLOBAL market. The tides turned, and it had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER do do with Ottawa








Proof?


Iggy is no better than Harper, nor no better than Layton. They don't care about you. If they really cared, they would reduce Parliamentary spending. That upgrade to put a glass ceiling in the temporary house of commons is absolutely useless to us proles. And the old buzzards in the Senate want one as well for their temporary place as well. Most of the big wigs in politics are already well off. As a public servant, who should be serving the people, we shouldn't need to pay for their campaigns, travel expenses, and pensions. Paying taxes would be an easier pill to swallow if it was used properly.

Ummm, A billion dollars on a fake lake and pork barreling to COTTAGE COUNTRY? We are talking about the Conservatives sending money to vacation properties, and then cutting tax breaks to the rich bastards that can afford those properties.

The Conservatives have obfuscated (clouded) on ever posible level. It used to be the Progressiver Conservatives. Now they lie, cheat and steal.

Remember the federal surplus, via Martin's management. They pissed it away. Put it another way. Your social expenditures were balanced and the Harperites cut and STILL managed to build the deficit.

I find it strange that in both Canada and the USA it's the left wing that manages to balance the books and the right wing wastes it. History also has shown us that you can be a Blue Liberal, or a Red Tory. And, guess who manages your taxes better?

Need more proof? The tories are making promises 4 years down the road!!! Even if they win they still get to fail.

Need even more proof. Why don't we have a policy on Bahrain or Yemen? Because the Saudis have said to ignore it.

Need still more proof. The F35 is a ground attack fighter. We have been forced into signing a contract to purchase planes that contravene our "world" image. We could have easily purchased F-16s, F-15s. F-14's, hell F-4s and gotten more bang for our buck.

Canada doesn't have a border to worry about. The cold war is over. Jet fighters aren't going to protect us against terrorists or the Chinese cyber attacks. Get with the 21st century, or the 14th. Your tax dollars that you want to see spent correctly have been given to AMERICAN companies.

BTW the potash, uranium and oil is also more profitable for Americans than it is for Saskatchewan.

Progressive is gone from the Conservative party name.

Stop for a minute, look back, and sift through the lies. All parties lie before they screw you. Some, at least buy you dinner or health care first.

Watch what the Harperites do to social programs. It'll make the Republicans look like philanthropists.

What you haven't seen is that they (Harperites) only gives money to communities that vote for the Conservatives. Tony Clement was given millions for parts of his riding which didn't even see the G8 or G20.

The message they are sending is "If you need the money, we'll cut you off, unless you voted for us" The flip side of that is "We're going to throw money at our voters whether they need it or not"

I live in Rosedale. The average house is a few million dollars. Guess what? The conservatives are going to help my billionaire neighbours a lot more than they do you.

And when they cut social funding, it won't me my home that's robbed it'll be close to a less affluent area. When they cut funding to native affairs, it won't affect me. When they cut arts, won't affect me. When they cut health care, it won't affect me.

But, if I allow the government to cut all those programs, it will affect me. We are 1/10th the size of the US. Economies of scale work both ways. The anti-healthcare sentiment of the Teaparty affects 30+ million Americans. That's bloody close to the population of this country.

I don't have a problem with "everyone for themselves". But at some point, I know that some of those "themselves" are going to STEAL a slice of my pie.

I'd rather pay taxes for things like healthcare or welfare, and know a PORTION of my wealth is being distributed, rather than the lot being stolen.

Ironically, it's usually the poor that vote for the right wing. They don't understand that less tax isn't saving money, it's differing expenses. Those with money can afford to vote left wing, it's a savings in the long run. I'd rather pay 6 grand for a junkie's drug treatment than 60 grand to put them in prison.

So if you want your money spent properly, why are you defending a guy that want's to treat children as adults, change the laws and spend your money on prisons when crime is down.

I suppose the conservatives are also responsible for planting all those precious natural resources. If the Chinese were to find a wealth of potash, they would dig it out of the ground for a 1/10th the cost, and control the market

You got lucky, the government of the day has nothing to do with Saskatchewan's economy. Just as it doesn't with Alberta, or Newfoundland or any province!

The difference is that some parties (screw the Bloc) want to balance social spending with our GDP or altruistic intents.

I'll agree Iggy is not the answer. He was a HUGE mistake for the party. But, in his defence, he's not come across as a demagogue. The party represents his values, as opposed to telling the party what to say and who to say it to.

 

[DK]

^ I've typically found that the reasons why poor people may vote for the right are:

• Nationalism - due to a fear that immigrants will take their jobs, or undermine their culture/values. There is also that creeping monster that is Islamophobia to factor in, too.
• Religion - I don't mean to be a snooty liberal for looking down my nose at religious zealots conservatives, but most of the time it's because some conservative parties/organisations (e.g. the "Tea Party" Republicans) are extremely religious. The poor might just want simple answers to their questions, and aren't prepared to question their faith at risk of being shunned by their pious peers.
• Low taxes - Like nine4t4 said above, the poor think low taxes will save them money. Next thing you know - BAM! Their social welfare is cut, and Monty Burns' Canadian counterpart is rolling in even more money thanks to tax breaks.

[/rant]

 

[Jawsers]

Ugh, I think you missed the point.


I don't support Harper, nor any politician.<removed - play the ball not the man>

Potash, uranium, and oil is the only thing that basically saved Saskatchewan, not politicians. In fact I think I might go as far and say that it may have helped Canada during this so called recession.


Let me make this crystal clear to you mr nine4t4. I would rather have my taxes go to social programs, education, health care, military, infrastructure, than some over paid, feeble-minded, immature "adults" who can never agree on anything except when they give themselves raises.


And don't even get me started on the drug treatment/prison thing. If we were taught right drug problems or laws shouldn't exist.



Edit: When I was asking for proof, I was referring to your claim about Harper and Bush being taught at the same think tank. That's all. Your long epic of a post was very unnecessary. Please read more carefully next time.

 

[Vonsinious]

I think one of the most important things that we as a nation can do right now is balance our budget. We cannot let our finances follow the path of our neighbours to the south, who are going to be seeing hyperinflation in the near future if they keep up the QE programs by printing trillions of dollars every year. If this means voting liberal because they are historically the only party able to do it, then so be it. As an Albertan this sounds disgusting to me but I dont see any other options.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Ummm, A billion dollars on a fake lake and pork barreling to COTTAGE COUNTRY? We are talking about the Conservatives sending money to vacation properties, and then cutting tax breaks to the rich bastards that can afford those properties.

The Conservatives have obfuscated (clouded) on ever posible level. It used to be the Progressiver Conservatives. Now they lie, cheat and steal.

Remember the federal surplus, via Martin's management. They pissed it away. Put it another way. Your social expenditures were balanced and the Harperites cut and STILL managed to build the deficit.

I find it strange that in both Canada and the USA it's the left wing that manages to balance the books and the right wing wastes it. History also has shown us that you can be a Blue Liberal, or a Red Tory. And, guess who manages your taxes better?

Need more proof? The tories are making promises 4 years down the road!!! Even if they win they still get to fail.

Need even more proof. Why don't we have a policy on Bahrain or Yemen? Because the Saudis have said to ignore it.

Need still more proof. The F35 is a ground attack fighter. We have been forced into signing a contract to purchase planes that contravene our "world" image. We could have easily purchased F-16s, F-15s. F-14's, hell F-4s and gotten more bang for our buck.

Canada doesn't have a border to worry about. The cold war is over. Jet fighters aren't going to protect us against terrorists or the Chinese cyber attacks. Get with the 21st century, or the 14th. Your tax dollars that you want to see spent correctly have been given to AMERICAN companies.

BTW the potash, uranium and oil is also more profitable for Americans than it is for Saskatchewan.

Progressive is gone from the Conservative party name.

Stop for a minute, look back, and sift through the lies. All parties lie before they screw you. Some, at least buy you dinner or health care first.

Watch what the Harperites do to social programs. It'll make the Republicans look like philanthropists.

What you haven't seen is that they (Harperites) only gives money to communities that vote for the Conservatives. Tony Clement was given millions for parts of his riding which didn't even see the G8 or G20.

The message they are sending is "If you need the money, we'll cut you off, unless you voted for us" The flip side of that is "We're going to throw money at our voters whether they need it or not"

I live in Rosedale. The average house is a few million dollars. Guess what? The conservatives are going to help my billionaire neighbours a lot more than they do you.

And when they cut social funding, it won't me my home that's robbed it'll be close to a less affluent area. When they cut funding to native affairs, it won't affect me. When they cut arts, won't affect me. When they cut health care, it won't affect me.

But, if I allow the government to cut all those programs, it will affect me. We are 1/10th the size of the US. Economies of scale work both ways. The anti-healthcare sentiment of the Teaparty affects 30+ million Americans. That's bloody close to the population of this country.

I don't have a problem with "everyone for themselves". But at some point, I know that some of those "themselves" are going to STEAL a slice of my pie.

I'd rather pay taxes for things like healthcare or welfare, and know a PORTION of my wealth is being distributed, rather than the lot being stolen.

Ironically, it's usually the poor that vote for the right wing. They don't understand that less tax isn't saving money, it's differing expenses. Those with money can afford to vote left wing, it's a savings in the long run. I'd rather pay 6 grand for a junkie's drug treatment than 60 grand to put them in prison.

So if you want your money spent properly, why are you defending a guy that want's to treat children as adults, change the laws and spend your money on prisons when crime is down.

I suppose the conservatives are also responsible for planting all those precious natural resources. If the Chinese were to find a wealth of potash, they would dig it out of the ground for a 1/10th the cost, and control the market

You got lucky, the government of the day has nothing to do with Saskatchewan's economy. Just as it doesn't with Alberta, or Newfoundland or any province!

The difference is that some parties (screw the Bloc) want to balance social spending with our GDP or altruistic intents.

I'll agree Iggy is not the answer. He was a HUGE mistake for the party. But, in his defence, he's not come across as a demagogue. The party represents his values, as opposed to telling the party what to say and who to say it to.

Iggy is the best of the opposition and has the most chance of actually getting rid of the Conservatives. Vote Liberal!