# Coming Federal Election



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Going to stick my neck out and make some predictions on the next federal election.

1. An election will happen this spring (~May);
2. The Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.);
3. The Tory election strategy will focus mostly on tax cuts, enhancing Canada's productivity and a 'New Deal' for the provinces;
4. Dion will have serious difficulty getting traction with the electorate and won't gain momentum till the end of the election.
5. The NDP will be busy fighting the Liberals and Green party to maintain their seats and will for the most part will ignore the Tories.
6. Although we think the Environment will be the primary issue, it will be put to rest early in the campaign (much like the Daycare issue last time around).
7. The Tories will make gains in Ontario and Quebec and hold their seats out West.
8. The Bloc will lose seats to the Liberals and Tories;
9. The Tories will come close to or just get a majority government (150 seats +/- 10).
10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The government of the day can only fall if they lose a vote of non-confidence, or if a budget (or similarly serious bill or set of bills) fail(s) to pass. Your examples don't necessitate an election.

Even then, the prime minister would need to go see the Governor General in order to drop the election writ. If approached by other parties who claim to be able to form a government, she could refuse the election writ and give the others a chance to form the government.

Given the numbers in play for the main parties now, though, and the time since the last election, it seems likely there would be an election if Harper's Tories fall on a non-confidence or budget vote.

And that would be the end of them.



Vandave said:


> Going to stick my neck out and make some predictions on the next federal election.
> 
> 1. An election will happen this spring (~May);
> *2. The Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.);*
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> The government of the day can only fall if they lose a vote of non-confidence, or if a budget (or similarly serious bill or set of bills) fail(s) to pass. Your examples don't necessitate an election.
> 
> Even then, the prime minister would need to go see the Governor General in order to drop the election writ. If approached by other parties who claim to be able to form a government, she could refuse the election writ and give the others a chance to form the government.
> 
> ...


The Tories can declare the vote to be a confidence issue ahead of time.

With respect to the GG, I'm not debating 'Could'. I know what she can and can't do. It is very unlikely that Dion would step up and tell the governor general that they will form an alliance with the other two parties. It simply won't happen.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting path VD. 6. is important in connection with 4. The Liberals should be prepared with a lot more than green. From what I've read about budget rumblings, it could be tough to run against but tough for other parties to support. There are wildcards out there that could change things fast, one of which could be a general shift in voters to go back to a majority. Who knows? 

For ON, a look at the ridings that settled within 10% would add a lot to the speculation. I don't know much about the QC situation, but I suspect it is a lot more volatile than a 10% threshold could help with. The result of their provincial election is up in the air, and more closely tied with Federal politics than other provinces.

Thanks for the thought exercise. Personally, I don't have any strong notions of the outcome (even election timing) but it will be fun for political junkies to watch.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> 1. An election will happen this spring (~May);


While I won't bet on it, I highly doubt the Liberals will let this happen. They are still in the process of rebuilding after the leadership race. No matter what at this point only the Liberals and Conservatives have the votes to make an election call. Unless the Conservatives force an issue like SSM or come up with some Constitutional issue the Liberals are holding all the cards in regards to when the next election gets called. If the Conservatives call it on a whim, the electorate will punish them for that.



Vandave said:


> 2. The Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.);


As I said above it would have to be something Constitutional... honestly I don't see anything on the horizon that they could use by this spring.



Vandave said:


> 5. The NDP will be busy fighting the Liberals and Green party to maintain their seats and will for the most part will ignore the Tories.


This is very likely going to happen. Sadly Jack attempting to make deals with Harper will back fire on him. Those more left will go Green and those more centrist will head to the Liberals. I think the NDP will be in a very tough spot and would do better focusing on keeping the seats they have.



Vandave said:


> 6. Although we think the Environment will be the primary issue, it will be put to rest early in the campaign (much like the Daycare issue last time around).


It may be the primary issue and if it is the Conservative are coming to the shootout completely unarmed. Baird is a loud mouth imbecile who brute forces his opinions for the cameras. What the Conservatives should have done was to put someone like Chuck Strahl, Peter Mckay or Maxime Bernier into the Environment portfolio ahead of an election. By doing that they could at least put on the appearance of being conciliatory and willing to work with the other parties in regards to the environment.

What will kill the the Conservatives is if an election is held this spring will be high gas prices and if that is spun with a tie to the environment it will certain prevent them from getting any more seats in 905.



Vandave said:


> 7. The Tories will make gains in Ontario and Quebec and hold their seats out West.


I see no gains in Ontario. The economy is not shining as brightly in Ontario as it is in Alberta and people here are resentful of that and will vote accordingly. The average person in Ontario will see Albertans getting rich off their backs (ie. high gas prices)

I can't speak for Quebec except to say the the seats which were won by the conservatives was not on the merits of their candidates necessarily, but on the fact that the idealist votes were split between the PQ and Liberals.



Vandave said:


> 9. The Tories will come close to or just get a majority government (150 seats +/- 10).


That is wishful thinking. If an election were called this spring little would change. I see the numbers pretty close to what they are now. The Conservatives have nothing going for them in terms of really popular initiatives. They are a no show in terms of the environment. The war in Afghanistan is becoming tiresome for everyone involved with little hope for success or pull out on the horizon. The economy is great if you live in Alberta. The reduction in the GST resulted in a great big "so what".

That being said. The NDP can only hope to keep what they have (after trying to make deals with the Devil), The Liberals don't have the team to really inspire the rest of the country, but Dion will certainly boost their appeal in Quebec.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> There are wildcards out there that could change things fast, one of which could be a general shift in voters to go back to a majority. Who knows?


People should remember that for the most part Canadians vote parties out, rather than in. They will stick with the party in power as long as there are no major issues.

Worst case scenario the Conservatives return with another minority, but it will be strengthened due to having a new mandate and the need for a reasonable period of time between elections.

Too many things are aligned for them to have an election right now. The Liberals have a new leader. The Green party has the ability to split NDP and Liberal voters. The Bloc is not looking good in the Quebec federal election and their supporters won't be able to give as much time and effort to a second campaign. Seems like a good time for a pre-emptive election. I'm not saying I want that... just looking at it from a neutral perspective.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Seems like a good time for a pre-emptive election. I'm not saying I want that... just looking at it from a *neutral* perspective.


Neutral? :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VD: If the Cons can reduce the enviro issue either through NDP support or successfully maintaining a he said/she said sense of uncertainty then they've got room to attack. 

The timing is quite risky with the QC election, but budget on the 19th. They could simply produce a budget that the others must reject, but they may want to play safer and get the enviro thing organised (C-30 committee?) and/or wait to see Charest back. However, without the budget bludgeon as a nice clear platform, what then? It can still be used, but it's better "hot off the press". 

Even if it passes, the Libs can still attack it during a campaign as long as they have a better option (childcare? what else?). Afghanistan is also a wild card.

Nothing in what I see gives me a sense of certainty. Like watching dice tumble.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I think you're right about the "voting parties out" after successive terms, especially with the same leader.

I don't know about brief terms with a minority government after a change in leader, or a party that wants to come off as "new" like these Conservatives, who pretend to be neither the Progressive Conservatives (that's easy, nothing progressive about them) nor the Reform Party (more difficult here, given the right wing bigots that Harper somehow delightfully muzzles).

Giving these fascists a majority will change this country for decades, given their plans to stack the judiciary. At least the Liberals would draw from both sides and only balanced individuals.




Vandave said:


> People should remember that for the most part Canadians vote parties out, rather than in. They will stick with the party in power as long as there are no major issues.
> 
> Worst case scenario the Conservatives return with another minority, but it will be strengthened due to having a new mandate and the need for a reasonable period of time between elections.
> 
> Too many things are aligned for them to have an election right now. The Liberals have a new leader. The Green party has the ability to split NDP and Liberal voters. The Bloc is not looking good in the Quebec federal election and their supporters won't be able to give as much time and effort to a second campaign. Seems like a good time for a pre-emptive election. I'm not saying I want that... just looking at it from a neutral perspective.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> 1. An election will happen this spring (~May);


Unless something changes dramatically, the three opposition parties would be fools to allow an election this spring. None have any money or favourable polls.

The smart thing to do, imho, is to wait until the fall so that Dion can do the BBQ circuit this summer so people know who he is.



> 2. The Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.);


Without a Speech from the Throne, the budget represents the best chance of this. I expect members of the Liberals to be "otherwise occupied" and not able to make it to this vote.

But if they want to roll the dice...go ahead.

BTW, since the leadership convention, there is now little doubt in my mind that Ignatieff was the one who could have lead the Liberals back to the promised land...maybe next time. I wasn't sure at the time.



> 3. The Tory election strategy will focus mostly on tax cuts, enhancing Canada's productivity and a 'New Deal' for the provinces;


I know you weren't trying to spell out their full platform, but they will need something more than this to build broader appeal...they'll have to see what the polls say people care about closer to the election.



> 4. Dion will have serious difficulty getting traction with the electorate and won't gain momentum till the end of the election.


I agree, I think he is going to have a lot of problems, unless he lets Ignatieff and others take a more active role in the campaign. I wonder how many Canadians even recognize him.



> 5. The NDP will be busy fighting the Liberals and Green party to maintain their seats and will for the most part will ignore the Tories.


I agree. 



> 6. Although we think the Environment will be the primary issue, it will be put to rest early in the campaign (much like the Daycare issue last time around).


I agree.



> 7. The Tories will make gains in Ontario and Quebec and hold their seats out West.


I don't know about that, Harper doesn't seem to be catching on in Ontario as much as he has with other regions of the country. Quebec is still a question mark, imo.



> 8. The Bloc will lose seats to the Liberals and Tories;


I certainly hope so.



> 9. The Tories will come close to or just get a majority government (150 seats +/- 10).


I think they stand a good chance of increasing their seat count and the old Liberal trick of last minute "Harper is scary" ads probably won't be as effective this time.



> 10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Interesting.

All possible, though picking up enough seats to come close to a majority just doesn't seem plausible at all.

Aside from not seeing any sort of swing or movement to the Tories in Ontario, they are stuck at about 35 % in the polls. Because so much of that support is concentrated in Alta. they need to be at least in the low 40s nationally for that kind of breakthrough to occur.

If there was an election, I expect we'd get another minority but I'm not sure which party would have the most seats.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> People should remember that for the most part Canadians vote parties out, rather than in


Yes indeed some of the champagne types should remember that factor is NOT in play.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.[/QUOTE]

this is a given! :clap: always a good read though


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Unless something changes dramatically, the three opposition parties would be fools to allow an election this spring. None have any money or favourable polls.
> 
> The smart thing to do, imho, is to wait until the fall so that Dion can do the BBQ circuit this summer so people know who he is.


I agree it would be stupid of the Liberals to go to the electorate now. But, if they don't take a stand on any issues, they essentially give the Conservatives a majority government anyways. Thus, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will have to draw their lines in the sand before this budget. If the Conservatives want to force an election, all they have to do is push those lines. Either the Liberals will fold or they will lose on the River Card. Either way, the Conservatives win this hand. The next one doesn't get dealt until the Fall.

If the Liberals push it to the Fall, they will also have less credibility because they will have not taken a stand during the spring sitting.

The Liberals also have less to lose than the Conservatives. If they lose seats, it doesn't really change anything since the Conservatives can already govern with any of the 3 parties (the best case minority situation). If they get just a little more traction, it can change the balance of power back to them.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imactheknife said:


> 10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.
> 
> this is a given! :clap: always a good read though


ain't that the beauty of a forum?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

imactheknife said:


> 10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.
> 
> this is a given! :clap: always a good read though


i'm still haven't received one offer of a bet that the cons will win a majority (i predict they won't)
this bet offer has been around on ehmac for at least a couple of months now with nary an email or private message to me

i guess the best bet is after the event, eh?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> But, if they don't take a stand on any issues, they essentially give the Conservatives a majority government anyways.


Not at all. I'm sure that the Conservatives have a full agenda set if they ever get a majority. The Conservatives have lost plenty of votes that I am sure they would have rather won. Case in point SSM, Kyoto and last nights security bill.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm still haven't received one offer of a bet that the cons will win a majority (i predict they won't)


I may take you up on it as a hedge bet. I sincerely hope Harper never gets a majority, because then he'll trot out the hidden agenda in a big hurry, and accelerate the rate at which be become assimilated into the U.S.A. As a minority, he has to govern in a way that most Canadians find acceptable, which is why I like minority governments.

What I'd like to see come out of a spring election is a campaign centred on the environment, resulting in a Liberal minority with a lot of support for the Greens. But what I think we'd see is a narrow Conservative majority, and an ensuing disaster for Canada.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The problem with that scenario is the only place to get seats is in moderate areas - think Garth Turner x 30.

That will swamp the hard liners.
While I have no confidence in the 30% NeoCon core I have lots in the centrist voters.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Not at all. I'm sure that the Conservatives have a full agenda set if they ever get a majority. The Conservatives have lost plenty of votes that I am sure they would have rather won. Case in point SSM, Kyoto and last nights security bill.


Good point on the security bill issue, but I don't agree with you on the first two. I think Harper knew the SSM bill was going to fail and he didn't want to make it a confidence issue. The Kyoto bill was also highly volatile, so they didn't want to push too hard.

I don't see many issues that will scare the Conservatives away from being agressive in the near future.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The problem with that scenario is the only place to get seats is in moderate areas - think Garth Turner x 30.
> 
> That will swamp the hard liners.
> While I have no confidence in the 30% NeoCon core I have lots in the centrist voters.


The core is strong for sure. 30 to 32% I would say.

The $350 million to Quebec from Ottawa is just a start of the 'New Deal'. Harper is going to use a big chunk of the surplus to increase transfer payments, of which Quebec will stand to benefit.

There is a lot of room for growth in Quebec for the Conservatives, especially with the Bloc looking weak at the moment. No more talk of referendums... now it's about consultations... 

I think vote splitting will be a greater issue than ever before. I think the 40% threshold for a majority government is probably a little bit lower now (38 to 39%?). The electorate is fairly decided and consistent with their support levels, but the Conservatives don't need to gain a huge percentage to start making major gains in Ontario and Quebec.

You seem to think the economy issues favour the Liberals. I don't agree. I think voters will look at the Conservative tax cuts and pro business attitude as a positive for the economy.

Like I said before... Canadians vote politicians out. You have to admit that Harper has done a relatively good job of leading. You might not agree with his agenda, but he has done well in implementing his promises. I know long time hard core Liberal supporters who say this to me, no promting needed.

The Liberals are in a tough spot right now. The emergence of the Greens is not positive for them. Typically, the Liberals campaign left, but govern right. But now there is more competition to their left, so they need to shift the party in that direction. Yet, there aren't very many lefty issues to go around right now. Other than the environment, I just don't see any such issues getting traction. By campaigning further to the left than usual, the Liberal will be exposing their right of centre voters to the Conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You keep insisting there is a 30-32% core that impacts the election - it's meaningless - too much Alberta in it.

38% for the Liberals is a very different figure in terms of seats than it is for the Cons.

Progress in swing seats in Ontario and Quebec is the only real measure of potential for gain.
The budget is going to be a HUGE factor.
Useless to speculate without it.

Where did you ever get the idea I think the economy issues favours the Liberals....talk about an out of the blue comment. ....and wrong.

•••

Harpers problem is he's NOT a progressive conservative - he's a regressive NeoCon and that plays a huge role outside Alberta.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Where did you ever get the idea I think the economy issues favours the Liberals....talk about an out of the blue comment. ....and wrong.


Sorry, I mistook the post by DaJonesy as coming from you.

I don't agree that speculation is useless without the budget. Speculation and reading of the political situation is what is going to dictate the budget. If the Conservatives want to force an election, then they will push the Liberal's buttons.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

If we had a Tory majority government it would look and act a lot different than the minority one we have now.

The Tories would never have backtracked on the environment and their original Clean Air Act. They wouldn't have let the Liberal senate kick sand in their faces with so many successful amendments to the accountability act. They've only nibbled at the law and order agenda and we'd see a lot less daylight between Harper and Bush when they meet. 

I suspect that if they had a majority government, they would have alienated enough Ontario voters that there would be no doubt they'd lose the next election. As it goes, I don't think they've really pissed anyone off, but they haven't won anyone over either.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Good thread! Here's what my crystal ball says:


Vandave said:


> 1. An election will happen this spring (~May);


Not till Autumn, at least. The Liberals aren't ready for an election, and the NDP risks becoming irrelevant. Neither one would want to force an election under the current conditions.


Vandave said:


> 2. The Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.);


If the government falls at all in Spring, it will be over the budget. I doubt the Tories will try to push the other parties buttons *too* hard, as they would get spanked if they were seen to be forcing an election rather than working with the opposition.


Vandave said:


> 3. The Tory election strategy will focus mostly on tax cuts, enhancing Canada's productivity and a 'New Deal' for the provinces;


Agreed.


Vandave said:


> 4. Dion will have serious difficulty getting traction with the electorate and won't gain momentum till the end of the election.


Agreed. I have a hard time imagining Dion getting serious traction out here, folks that don't like the Tories are probably just as likely to vote Green or NDP in these parts. The core Liberal supporters in central Canada will have no problem with him, but I can't see him reaching too many swing voters.


Vandave said:


> 5. The NDP will be busy fighting the Liberals and Green party to maintain their seats and will for the most part will ignore the Tories.


Agreed. The NDP risks becoming irrelevant, and the Greens will likely establish themselves as a legitimate political party - and they ~might~ even break through and win a seat.


Vandave said:


> 6. Although we think the Environment will be the primary issue, it will be put to rest early in the campaign (much like the Daycare issue last time around).


The environment will be a big issue, unlike daycare the electorate isn't polarized on this one - almost everyone agrees that we should do something to protect the environment, where they differ is what should be done and at what cost.

If Harper is smart, he will do ~something~ credible on the environment prior to heading into the next election. In this way he can steal Dion's fire by claiming a better track record on the environment. Considering Dion's environmental achievements at this point are pretty much limited to naming his dog "Kyoto", this shouldn't be too hard.


Vandave said:


> 7. The Tories will make gains in Ontario and Quebec and hold their seats out West.


I expect they will hold their seats in Alberta, and possibly the rest of the West. They might make some small gains in rural Ontario and the 905, but I expect they will still be shut out of the 416. The "scary Harper" angle won't work this go round as a lot of mainstream voters probably don't find him scary now that he is actually in power. Some progressive voters probably find him even more scary than ever, but these folks never vote Tory anyhow.


Vandave said:


> 8. The Bloc will lose seats to the Liberals and Tories;


One can only hope. Quebec is hard to predict, they will vote for whoever they figure can get them the best deal for Quebec.


Vandave said:


> 9. The Tories will come close to or just get a majority government (150 seats +/- 10).


I doubt they will get close to a majority, my guess would be a slightly stronger Tory minority. It could go either way, but a minority is pretty much guaranteed.


Vandave said:


> 10. MacDoc, MacSpectrum and AS will each create at least one anti-Tory spam thread each day during the campaign.


Agreed. And it would be a lot more entertaining if there were still some MacNutt posts to counterbalance them...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Harpers problem is he's NOT a progressive conservative - he's a regressive NeoCon and that plays a huge role outside Alberta.


This attitude shows a profound misunderstanding of conservative politics. If they were so-called "progressive" (i.e., socialist light) then they wouldn't be conservative. What point would there be in establishing a "progressive" agenda to attract votes if such an agenda is one they don't want to pursue?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB good post - don't count on 905 unless Harper pulls a well heeled rabbit out of his budget hat.
People are focusing on Dion. Big error.
The Liberals have NEVER had the kind of political firepower that sits on either side of him.
What's hurting right now is some inter-party conflicts. Rae is not there yet.
Come election gonna be a whole new ballgame and I'm not sure Harper has the depth behind him.
Flaherty is a huge negative in Ontario.
There is no weight for Harper in Quebec at all - the senator parachute trick ain't gonna work twice.

Certainly the Dion convention bump is gone - the Libs have settled into their core %.

Whoever said the Libs are more left is correct - the NDP is vulnerable there tho.
Greens may well have a big impact for their size - think Nader - very random factor - uncalleable in my mind.

Nother minority - why bother - frankly what we have now with a bit more active cooperation is fine with me.

The longer this goes on the longer the idjits have to learn how to get things done in a minority gov....in my mind ..that's a good thing.

Budget and Quebec election are enormous factors. Interesting times.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I may take you up on it as a hedge bet. I sincerely hope Harper never gets a majority, because then he'll trot out the hidden agenda in a big hurry, and accelerate the rate at which be become assimilated into the U.S.A. As a minority, he has to govern in a way that most Canadians find acceptable, which is why I like minority governments.
> 
> What I'd like to see come out of a spring election is a campaign centred on the environment, resulting in a Liberal minority with a lot of support for the Greens. But what I think we'd see is a narrow Conservative majority, and an ensuing disaster for Canada.
> 
> Cheers



i don't see the cons making the inroads into quebec that they need
the bloc is still smarting from their spanking last time and the provincial election in quebec will be a good indicator of separatist fever in quebec
if the PQ win, the cons will have a very hard time in QC
even with the bribes harpo is trying to ply the quebeckers with and his little secret deals with charest, the con who went into the closet as a Liberal who is now out of the closet as a con again

i see the NDP losing seats as jacko has been a waste and olivia even worse

also, lets not forget that QC are not happy with harpo's pro war stance and the palestinian/arab population in QC won't forget the "proportional response" when Lebanon was flattened

harpo has many miles to go before he gets a majority

i think he might lose the support he gained in QC in the last federal election and then where does he get the seats for a majority?
unless alberta quintiples in population in the next few months, extra con seats for a majority will be hard to come by

if harpo gets a 2nd minority his position as leader of the cons may be in jeopardy

oil barons don't play 2nd fiddle to anyone
just ask rona ambrose who, from what i hear, is still in therapy from the last tongue lashing she got when she waltzed into calgary to lecture to the oil barons and instead got told off by a klein henchman - rona, you listen, oil barons talk
of course, i paraphrase... but she did get told off and my little bird tells me she was none to happy about it

i chalk it up to napoleon syndrome


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I did a quick scan of the 2006 results and, with a general shift to the Cons (as seen from 2004 to 2006) they could just get into a majority. They've got more to lose than gain, when looking at a general shift back, but if they think something is there... 

This included gains in B.C. VD: there were a number of close (even 3-way) races in B.C. Any sense of a general shift in sentiment there?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej the "vote the Libs out" factor is gone.
Scary Cons factor maybe not so prevalent but stuff like the justice committee changes keeps it simmering.
Have to be a breakthrough in Ontario or Quebec - 31 seats is a HUGE hill.

Aside from Rae - Gerrard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay have yet to be fully engaged. Election time should be interesting.










....bout right.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej the "vote the Libs out" factor is gone.
> Scary Cons factor maybe not so prevalent but stuff like the justice committee changes keeps it simmering.
> Have to be a breakthrough in Ontario or Quebec - 31 seats is a HUGE hill.
> 
> Aside from Rae - Gerrard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay have yet to be fully engaged. Election time should be interesting.


Yep, and it's possible though not likely. 

The polls on the leaders should be worrying the Libs. They provide insight into which direction the votes are likely to go if switched. I agree that Dion is surrounded by strong figures, but that needs to be worked out carefully. Leader identity plays a big role.

So, what odds against a Con majority would you provide if an election is called in 2007 (may occur in 2008)? 3:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1? With the right odds, we could make a bet.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> So, what odds against a Con majority would you provide if an election is called in 2007 (may occur in 2008)? 3:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1? With the right odds, we could make a bet.


Well what odds are you prepared to give a Conservative majority?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Gerrard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay have yet to be fully engaged. Election time should be interesting.


Martha Hall Findlay has...for some reason...created an incredibly negative aura around herself. She just isn't liked by voters or within the party. I'm not sure if this is part of it, but driving around in a red Winnebago plastered with self-congratulatory slogans may be creating a negative impression. She parks it on the street in front of her house.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well what odds are you prepared to give a Conservative majority?


At 20:1, I'd bet for a Con majority. Lib majority too for that matter.

So what odds would you offer?

MD, how about you?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martha Hall Findlay has...for some reason...created an incredibly negative aura around herself. She just isn't liked by voters or within the party.


That's interesting, I thought she seemed quite competent - although as a born and raised Alberta ******* I'm hardly representative of the core Liberal supporters...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i see the NDP losing seats as jacko has been a waste and olivia even worse


Agreed. 

If Jack cuts a deal with the Tories he will alienate some of his supporters and drive them to the newly left wing Liberals, or the newly credible Greens.

If Jack doesn't cut a deal with the Tories he will be seen as not working with the government, and will drive some of his supporters to Liberals or the Greens.

Olivia is out of her depth in federal politics.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> This included gains in B.C. VD: there were a number of close (even 3-way) races in B.C. Any sense of a general shift in sentiment there?


B.C. is one of the most polarized provinces, If the Conservatives benefit from left wing vote splitting, BC is where I would expect it to happen.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The polls on the leaders should be worrying the Libs. They provide insight into which direction the votes are likely to go if switched.


the cons have been hammering away at dion with attack ads, as con coffers are full and they have money to spend

let's see the lib start spending dollars on tv ads and let's see what happens in the televised debates


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The fact that the Cons are using attack ads this early means they have little to say in a positive light about their government now or later.......sounds like a few other Con supporters around here - knee jerk reaction..vitriole ( too bad it's available to power vehicles) ..it's the Liberals fault.

To get respect in the centrist voters mind the Cons need to provide good governance in a minority and BE SEEN to be cooperative by choice.....not FORCED to be cooperative.......aka green plan.
In my view Canadians are fed up with negative ads - look what happened to Martin. They want vision and cooperation TO GET THINGS DONE.

I wonder what the situation with Hugh Segal is?



> Hugh Segal turfed from helm of Senate committee
> Updated Wed. Feb. 21 2007 11:11 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070221/hugh_segal_070221/20070221?hub=Canada

If he's not solidly engaged in the next campaign............huge blunder by Harper.....I've never understood how Segal who I respect, tolerated Harper anyway.
Truth will out....

•••

BC indeed will be important but may only shift balance of power - swing seats everywhere are critical but I doubt there are anywhere near enough up for grabs unless the Bloc suffers a total meltdown.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> This included gains in B.C. VD: there were a number of close (even 3-way) races in B.C. Any sense of a general shift in sentiment there?


I don't sense a shift of sentiment. I don't think most people are paying attention to the federal scene. 

They already have 17 of 36 seats. The ones they didn't get were in the high density areas of Vancouver and Victoria. I think they will hold on to what they have but gains will be tough to make. North Vancouver and West Vancouver went Liberal, but just barely. Some of the tax cut issues could play well for the Conservatives in those two ridings. 

I think they need to appoint high profile candidates in a few ridings where they have a chance. Even my riding of Burnaby North (Svend's old riding) was a three way race. A well known candidate could play well here. The demographics in my riding are shifting very quickly (more young professionals, more asian immigrants) in the 'right' direction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The fact that the Cons are using attack ads this early means they have little to say in a positive light about their government now or later.


No it doesn't mean that at all. It means that they feel this is an effective marketing strategy at this point.

Didn't know you were such a huge Hugh Segal fan.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> At 20:1, I'd bet for a Con majority. Lib majority too for that matter.
> 
> So what odds would you offer?
> 
> MD, how about you?


I would put 4:1 odds of a Conservative Majority.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the cons have been hammering away at dion with attack ads, as con coffers are full and they have money to spend


BTW... For every anti-Tory thread you start I donate $10 to the Conservatives. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Didn't know you were such a huge Hugh Segal fan.


Just add that to the long list of other things you don't know.

•••

Effective......as usual out of step



> OTTAWA — *A new poll suggests Canadians are not impressed by Conservative party TV ads that attempt to discredit new Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.*
> 
> The survey by Decima Research found that 38 per cent of respondents – out of a sample of more than 1,000 – recalled seeing the attack ads.
> 
> ...


Keep up that "effective strategy". :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is that a new poll or a recycling of the old one that was in the news a few weeks back with the obvious flaw: people don't think they're influenced and like to act that way. Later results showed a noticeable drop for the Libs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Is that a new poll or a recycling of the old one that was in the news a few weeks back with the obvious flaw: people don't think they're influenced and like to act that way. Later results showed a noticeable drop for the Libs.


Don't think of a purple unicorn. 

I bet 100% of people imagined this image.

Our minds can't help but process what goes into them. That's why negative advertising works. It doesn't matter if you want to see or hear it, it still goes into your head and leaves an image.

Dion didn't establish an image for himself after being nominated, so the Conservatives did it for him. You can tell it is working because Dion is already on the defensive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - on the opinion of negative ads is not the same as voting intention polls is very volatile - it's a view of the type and effectiveness of the advertising - which sucked....and Canadians noted that in the poll.

••••

This may fly



> Budget to bring provincial payouts, lower taxes
> Updated Sun. Feb. 25 2007 11:31 AM ET
> Andy Johnson, CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070223/budget_feature_070223/20070225/

Not a good idea for the Liberals to vote this down if it's close to the real thing. I'm glad to see the 1% GST cut is likely gone. :clap:

What I'd like to see is Harper table this and listen to the other parties for tweaks.
I'm NOT holding my breath on that.
I find it amusing that after ranting on the Libs for big surpluses........


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> it's a view of the type and effectiveness of the advertising - which sucked....and Canadians noted that in the poll.


That old poll noted the type and sentiment regarding the ads, not the effectiveness. The later polls, while there's always volatility, suggest the ads did something. Remember all the Blink type stuff you mention on occasion. What people say about the ads is not the same as effectiveness. 

A note to the Libs:
http://www.tdhstrategies.com/2007/03/demonizing-harper-isnt-working.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

NeoCon logic



> Dion is already on the defensive.


HARPER feels frightened so launches attack ads to no good result and for no good reason and you say Dion is on the defensive??!!!!!

•••

Unless there is a follow up poll about the ads themselves you have no basis for that conclusion jump.
The voters said they don;t care for the ads.....now you say they do - I'll go with the voters.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The voters said they don;t care for the ads.....now you say they do - I'll go with the voters.


You don't seem to understand. Not caring for the ads and them not being effective are different. I'm not saying voters liked them, I'm saying there's evidence that they moved the polls. Not conclusive, but an objective view would see that it is some evidence. The Libs got a sudden bump after Dion's win and that suddenly disappeared after the ads, not before, from what I've seen.

As Calgary Grit put it in a humourous way, "80% of Canadians think they're above average drivers: poll".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> JKeep up that "effective strategy".


I said that the Conservatives felt the strategy must be effective. I made no predictions about its effectiveness, though VanDave suggests it has already worked some magic for them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An example, albeit in a controlled setting:

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=14&page=1

....................................
An Angus Reid Strategies poll has found that the highly-publicized Conservative Party television commercial campaign—airing during such high-ratings programming as the Super Bowl—had a negligible impact on the perceptions of Canadians on Stéphane Dion.
....................................


But when they got more specific:
....................................
Before watching the ads, 45% of respondents agreed that Dion "has what it takes to lead Canada". Following the ads, the number dropped to 42%. At the same time, the number of respondents who disagree with the statement changed from 38% to 43%.
....................................
Dion’s perceived aptitude to manage taxpayer money in an ethical and wise manner garners the largest negative impact, as the percentage of respondents who doubt his abilities rises 10 points from 36% to 46% after watching the ads. 
....................................
The trustworthiness of the Liberal leader to keep his promises also suffers a slight negative impact, as the number of those who express doubts about Dion rises eight points from 38% to 46%. In both cases, the ad has altered the balance of opinion on these measures from a slightly positive perception to a negative one. 
....................................
The percentage of respondents who do not believe that Dion will improve Canada’s environment increases seven points from 30% to 37% after watching the ads. However, in this case more Canadians (47%) continue to hold a positive view of Dion.
....................................
Regionally, the ads were shown to have the greatest impact on viewers in Eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario. The ads were also shown to have a more significant impact on female respondents—both demographics of special interest for the Conservatives. 

Those with no firm opinion of the Liberal leader are the most susceptible to the Tory campaign. Over time, the Conservative strategy could prove most effective among undecided voters.
....................................



In a controlled test, the ads did exactly what they were supposed to do: characterise Dion, and take a cut at his green credentials.

In an uncontrolled setting, the timing of the sudden Liberal drop coroborates this, as well as the poll that showed Canadians thought the three parties were about the same on environment (or just GHGs?).

But hey, people felt the ads were unfair and that the info didn't matter. Sure.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I don't think that Dion's popularity or lack thereof is particularly significant. A couple of weeks ago Simpson in The Globe pointed out than only rarely is the leader of the opposition more popular or viewed more favourably than the sitting prime minister. Those rare instances did not included the first Mulroney-Turner election or the Chretien-Campbell election. Which, I suppose, underlines what has already been mentioned in this thread, that we don't elect governments, we defeat them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Brainstrained said:


> I don't think that Dion's popularity or lack thereof is particularly significant. A couple of weeks ago Simpson in The Globe pointed out than only rarely is the leader of the opposition more popular or viewed more favourably than the sitting prime minister. Those rare instances did not included the first Mulroney-Turner election or the Chretien-Campbell election. Which, I suppose, underlines what has already been mentioned in this thread, that we don't elect governments, we defeat them.


I agree in general, but the interesting moves in the "leadership index" suggest there's something there. Maybe just a receptiveness in the undecided/swing, maybe nothing. 

With the RCMP announcement (late Dec 2005) and the bump after the debates, it is tough to pick out. But I wouldn't discount the advantage of being able to characterise your opponent's leader, especially on something like the environment.

http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES CPAC January 22 2006E.pdf

The attacks don't always work and can obviously backfire, but there's a reason both parties do it (recall Lib Harper ads from 2006).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Brainstrained said:


> I don't think that Dion's popularity or lack thereof is particularly significant. A couple of weeks ago Simpson in The Globe pointed out than only rarely is the leader of the opposition more popular or viewed more favourably than the sitting prime minister. Those rare instances did not included the first Mulroney-Turner election or the Chretien-Campbell election. Which, I suppose, underlines what has already been mentioned in this thread, that we don't elect governments, we defeat them.


I think it is very significant. 

Not being well known is fine when Canadians are of the mind set to kick a government out of office. The Conservatives are not in that position.

Therefore, it puts more pressure on the opposition to make a credible statement that they can govern. Having a leader with low support levels and somebody who is relatively unknown to Canadians is not a good thing. Canadians will not vote for an 'unknown' when things are going relatively well.

That's why Chretien and Martin called elections right away each time the Conservatives elected a new leader and it is going to be the same reason we go to the polls this spring.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah and look what happened to Martin.

Canadians don't like unneeded elections. You are very misinformed if you think this Vx of the Liberals is hingeing on Dion.

Negative ads just reinforce the perception that the Cons don't have enough positives they are confident in.
Seems about the same around here. Blame the Liberals for _____________________ fill in the blanks.

Harper won a minority on a campaign that
a) saw the Liberals face plant....not the least of which were their negative ads
b) a steady series of policy statements.
c) voting out syndrome - Libs needed a bench rest.

Waiting on b) again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Canadians don't like unneeded elections. You are very misinformed if you think this Vx of the Liberals is hingeing on Dion.



Then relax--you'll get the Conservative minority you were looking to repeat a few weeks ago.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> a) saw the Liberals face plant....not the least of which were their negative ads
> b) a steady series of policy statements.
> c) voting out syndrome - Libs needed a bench rest.
> 
> Waiting on b) again.


The liberals ads may have worked (except the one horrid ad  ).

Aside from that, a nice concise summary. Watch C-30 and Budget time! They're looking for things to make up for losing most of c.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> Canadians will not vote for an 'unknown' when things are going relatively well.


Vandave, that's exactly the point of the post. That Dion's popularity or lack of, doesn't matter a twit (nor does Harper's to split hairs), it's the government's popularity or lack of that matters.

And the government's popularity in Ontario, to my mind anyways, is blah. It's not as bad as many feared, but it hasn't been reassuring either. So why an election now or anytime in the near future is going to change the current standings is beyond me.

Harper and his Tories are the masters of their (and the Liberal's) destiny — they will either make it or break it themselves.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Wow, this is all coming together more quickly than I predicted. The Tories now have a 9 point lead over the Liberals and the Greens are now neck and neck with the NDP. The Bloc are dropping like a stone. The stars are aligning. :lmao: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070301.wsonofpoll0301/BNStory/National/home

Posted AT 5:01 PM EST ON 01/03/07 

OTTAWA — After months of running neck and neck in the polls, the Conservatives appear to have opened up a big lead over the slumping Liberals.

A Decima Research survey, released to The Canadian Press, put Tory support at 36 per cent nationally, back up to where the minority government was just over a year ago when it won power.

The Liberals polled 27 per cent, down from the 30 per cent they earned in the last election and even further from the mid-30s popularity they held shortly after Stéphane Dion became leader in December.

The Green party jumped to 12 per cent, putting it in a virtual dead heat with the NDP, which polled 13 per cent.

Bloc Québécois support in Quebec, meanwhile, dropped to 35 per cent — down from nearly 50 per cent in the run-up to the January 2006 federal election.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VD: You said you'd take 4:1, I'm willing to take that on. 

For others: I'm still looking for someone to take me up on 20:1. I could even go to 10:1, but nobody but VD responded.

MD, DJ, numbers?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Watch those champagne bubbles...the Ontario numbers are interesting but it's all froth until the budget.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So who else will put a probability range to their opinion given all current information? Sort of like if this thing was running now:

http://esm.ubc.ca/

Very fun, by the way. beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> So who else will put a probability range to their opinion given all current information? Sort of like if this thing was running now:
> 
> http://esm.ubc.ca/
> 
> Very fun, by the way. beejacon


I'll take 20:1 odds any day. Anybody interested? :greedy:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VD: You're muscling in on my racket? That will be dealt with.... beejacon

So who else will put numbers behind their opinions? Everybody has vague statements and can talk of champagne. Let's see numbers to back it up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pretty foolish project given the volatility - even the world stock markets have an impact.
Dice are bouncing in many areas.

anyone recall Martin exit - King of the world to minority to opposition to GONE

Mulroney exit - King of the world to two seats tho he hung the burning tire around Kim.

Peterson exit - woke up gone.

worms turn.......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Apparently the concept of probability eludes some.

I see enormous uncertainty. So there's a number at which I'd be interested to compensate for the uncertainty. That's the whole point.

MD: Back up the rhetoric. 100:1? Sadly, that means someone may take you up on it. Is that why there's no number?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Apparently the concept of probability eludes some.
> 
> I see enormous uncertainty. So there's a number at which I'd be interested to compensate for the uncertainty. That's the whole point.
> 
> MD: Back up the rhetoric. 100:1? Sadly, that means someone may take you up on it. Is that why there's no number?


Wow, normally MacDoc sorta gets the whole science thing. If we knew the outcome there wouldn't be odds.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You wanna be a tout's mark go for it....me I I'd rather take the house cut.

We'll just layoff some opposing bets and slip a buck in the middle.

...one born every minute..


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nothing from MD, just rhetoric. Back it up. If someone gave you 100:1 odds, would you take it or not? Narrow it from there. Easy to vent, tougher to back it up.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

From the article posted by VD earlier:


> “It would be a mistake, though, not to note that the Conservatives have been slowly but surely increasing their support — and increasing it particularly among urban voters, among female voters and in Ontario; three groups that they really needed to do better with.”
> 
> The survey of more than 1,000 respondents, taken Feb. 22-26, suggests Liberals lost their long-time edge in Ontario, slipping to 32 per cent while the Tories surged to 40 per cent.


This is significant, as it increases the odds of the Tories picking up more seats in the next election. As others have pointed out, increasing Tory support in Alberta doesn't help them in the next election. This shows that they are picking up support in other areas where they didn't do well last time round, rather than increasing their support in areas where they were already strong.

I would actually be surprised to see any increase in Tory popular support in Alberta, as it probably couldn't get much higher given that even here there is some base level of support for the Liberals and NDs, and the Greens are surprisingly popular. So I expect any further Tory gains to come in areas where they were weaker in the past.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Nothing from MD, just rhetoric. Back it up. If someone gave you 100:1 odds, would you take it or not? Narrow it from there. Easy to vent, tougher to back it up.


He doesn't want to admit there is a chance the Conservatives will win a majority. :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> This is significant, as it increases the odds of the Tories picking up more seats in the next election. As others have pointed out, increasing Tory support in Alberta doesn't help them in the next election. This shows that they are picking up support in other areas where they didn't do well last time round, rather than increasing their support in areas where they were already strong.


I'll be the first to admit that I think this poll is the 1 in 20 outside the margin of error. It's hard to believe the Conservatives could run up this quickly in the polls. I imagine they will give up some of this jump in the next poll. 40% in Ontario versus 32% for the Libs is difficult to believe.

But, no matter how much you dilute it, it is still very favourable for the Conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Idle speculation is of no interest to me. When there is some policies to chew on let me know.

••••

so the Libs were at 40% in December - now it's different.

It didn't mean anything then for an election...... now shoe on the other foot and the oracle has spoken - spare me.

The Ontario numbers are of interest as I said but it's all idle cud chewing until Quebec votes and the budget comes down.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I guess without numbers you can always say, "I told you so" much like your Dion prediction. I respect your foresight, MD.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I called Dion to win even tho I wanted Rae,
There was enough intel to make that call.
You wanna go back and check - be my guest.

so what. 
Just confirms my opinion ...when there's something real in it let me know.,

Even the pros haven't called Ontario right the day before the bloody vote.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah I called Dion to win even tho I wanted Rae,
> There was enough intel to make that call.
> You wanna go back and check - be my guest.
> 
> ...


MD, you had deeply hedged wording for your "call" (like I did) and your "call" occurred later. Go back and check. 

To jog your memory:
.....................................
It took me a while but I think Dion may be the winner if he gets through the first few rounds.

He's second choice for most and with the national debate on the rise Kennedy is too inexperienced.

I'd like to see Rae win but I think Dion might.

I like what I hear about the man and the roomie battle between Iggie and Rae may end with Dion with the prize.

Canada could do with a bit of intellect and energy at the helm...and soon.
.....................................



Yeah, MD, quite the prediction. At least my deeply hedged call also included more detail. 

Still can't back up words with numbers? Not surprising. Uncertainty is there, we all agree. So put some numbers to yours.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I said what I thought would happen on the information I had and it turned out to be the correct call.
..and I waited a long time even to make that observation.

Again - so what..

I have no interest in your speculation - you have nothing to go on and neither do I.
I'll wait until there is some reason to make a call.

What numbers would those be......there are none ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If someone gave you 100:1 odds, would you take it or not?" I did with a friend of mine from Baltimore back in 1969. Bet on the NY Mets at the onset of the season. We bet who would win the World Series. If either team won, we had to pay the other. I bet a quarter and he bet $25. Amazingly, the Mets faced the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. Even more astounding, the 100-1 Amazing Mets beat the favored Orioles in five games.

Thus, the upcoming election is not over, regardless what the polls say, until the voting is in from ALL parts of Canada. Not sure whom I shall vote for just yet. We shall see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: You don't seem to understand what probabilities are. I'd love to play poker with someone like that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

December



> Bricker said the surge in Liberal support appears to be driven by gains in Ontario, where the party has the support of 45 per cent of voters, compared to 35 per cent for the Tories; and in Quebec, where the Liberals stand at 30 per cent, compared to 43 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois and 18 per cent for the Conservatives.


now



> A Decima Research survey, released to The Canadian Press, put Tory support at 36 per cent nationally, back up to where the minority government was just over a year ago when it won power.
> 
> The Liberals polled 27 per cent, down from the 30 per cent they earned in the last election and even further from the mid-30s popularity they held shortly after Stephane Dion became leader in December.
> 
> ...


so what does it mean???..........things change with the political winds at the time.
So what?

When the TIME comes for an election....then there might be some RESULTS from the way the wind is blowing when the voters vote.

Ask me then - be happy to tell you what I think MIGHT happen .....just like with Dion.



> I'd love to play poker with someone like that.


I paid my last year of tuition playing poker..don't bet on winning tho you might like to play.
Me I prefer bridge.....dime a point say.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: But for now, there's just champagne. 

There's always probability in politics. Would you turn down 1000:1 odds? 100:1? 10:1? Hedging statements is all well and good and a staple of my work. Things always change, right up until the only poll that matters. But, by all means, keep ducking and dodging.

Bridge? Quite fun. Face-to-face.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ducking and dodging what ??? C'mon spit it out - specifically

Ask me a specific question about an election upcoming sometime in the future...I'll likely say I have no opinion at all as there is nothing to base it on.

Ask me if I think it's unlikely Alberta will vote 100% Liberal...I'll agree.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Still ducking and dodging MD. There's always probability in politics. Back up your rhetoric (super duper!). I'm at 4:1 to 10:1, and am trying to feel out a narrower range. Not sure yet, but not ducking or dodging, like you.

As a bridge and poker player, I shouldn't have to spell this concept out for you. Unless, of course, you're the type of player I really want to play against. :greedy:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Now they're playing with fire. About time. The politicians have been given plenty of info in committee from experts across the country. I hope they don't come back with the same poop that they went in with. The Cons look like they'd love to make a carbon tax "the" issue, but that would keep the environment as "the" issue. 10:1, any takers?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070302.wxcarbon02/BNStory/National/home

"We have a set of possibilities and it's a possibility," he told reporters when asked whether he is considering supporting such a tax. "This being said, when we will announce something, it will be fair for every province including the province of Alberta, and it will be good for the economy. So we'll announce something that will be very clever and very good."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=25

And from the Prince of Darkness:
March 1, 2007 – Anyone willing to dispute the contention that so-called attack ads work? 

Anyone? 

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm

Time for the Libs to step up and impress, or hope the Cons defeat themselves. They used to be good at that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm proud to see MacDoc continuing his tradition of hemmin', hawin' and fudgin'. C'mon, Beej, play T-ball with him and restate the question again, so he can commit to an answer, instead of reminiscing about his school daze.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/search/label/NDP

These guys are at the top of their game.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I think that if the Conservative's can continue to make inroads into the center of the political spectrum voters, then they have a slight chance at a majority government, or more likely a stronger minority government. With the surge of the Green Party and the decline of the NDP, I don't see the Liberals as picking up votes from this shift. We shall see.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> "This being said, when we will announce something, it will be fair for every province including the province of Alberta, and it will be good for the economy. So we'll announce something that will be very clever and very good."


Where have I heard that before. I'm still smarting from the last bridge they tried to sell to us... 

Clever in the sense that they say they're bringing KY, when all they've actually got is a handful of (oil)sand.

What's good for Alberta is good for the ROC. Period. Not a threat, not arrogance, a simple statement. And, while we may not have the most 'green' plans in place or whatever the hell the ROC figgers we should have going, you don't want to piss off the neighbourhood 900 pound gorilla. He's pretty easy going, but he does have a breaking point.

I'll repeat what I've said before-I don't know a single Albertan who doesn't want to share the wealth. By all means, ask. Sit down at the table, tear into that nice, rare steak. Wash it down with a fresh, cold brew. Parlay some. Finish off with a delicious apple cobbler. We'd be glad to have you.

However, if you're planning to take it, this time we'll see you coming.

One of the advantages of having that nice, flat province next door to us.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> With the surge of the Green Party and the decline of the NDP, I don't see the Liberals as picking up votes from this shift. We shall see.


I'd love to see the Greens make a big gain in this election, so that whoever winds up in government will be held to the environmental promises they will have to make during the campaign. The Conservatives will promise to do more than they have, and point out the appalling record of the Liberals. The Liberals will point out that the Conservative's won't do enough while promising the moon themselves. So whoever winds up in power will have had to make big promises, and I'm hoping the Greens will be in parliament to ensure those promises don't get forgotten.

However, this depends on neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives getting a majority. I don't think there's any danger of a Liberal majority, but the Con's will be close. With a majority government, the Con's can simply ignore their promises, and ignore the opposition, while they eviscerate our social and environmental protections and sign every trade deal the U.S. put in front of them. So a Conservative majority would be a catastrophe, but I'm still optimistic that they'll be held to a minority.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So all was quiet when the Libs had a "bounce" and now the champagne corks are flying. You guys are a bookie's dream.

Fed Budget Mar 19, Ontario Budget Mar 22, Quebec election March 26th.......and a ripple in the global markets...much in play.




> By all accounts, that third week of March will be a perfect political storm in Canada. Not only will the threat of a confidence vote hang over the Commons, but a Quebec election will be entering its crucial final week. Neither Flaherty nor Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan could say whether a first vote on the budget has been planned before Quebecers go to the polls.


Perfect political storm......'bout right.

••••

I'd like to see the Greens make progress but that splinters parliament even further and may slow down even the meager progress being made. If I had a hope that this crew could make coalitions or even compromise that might be a good thing.

Get on with it 

With the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec this year do we really need a national election as well??

You think their just might be a tad "election fatigue.

If the opposition brings the gov down it's their risk and little upside.
If Harper is SEEN to engineer it.......???
Backlash has been known to happen.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Perfect political storm......'bout right.


I'm not sure how much better things will get for the Liberals later this year, starting in April the Accountability Act will allow the Auditor General to start looking into the various boards and foundations that the Liberals had been setting up and funding with tax dollars (The Pierre Trudeau Foundation has received $125 million worth of this and has been kept out of the audit and accountability cycle).

If the Auditor General starts finding misused or unaccounted for transactions within these boards and foundations, it could turn into dozens of mini-adscams that could highlight and underscore the Conservative line that the Liberals are corrupt.

I don't know when the AG would start reporting findings from these audits but once they start coming they could be bad news for the Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Same cats different colour ......



> Harper pays pittance for using jets
> 
> 
> PM's tune has changed from the days when he said planes cost $11,000/hour
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/186974

Who knows what the AG will turn up....and it's all to the good.
I'd love to a see far more oversight and it really be effective and that includes municipalities on up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, and this doesn't even include GHG offsets.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So all was quiet when the Libs had a "bounce" and now the champagne corks are flying. You guys are a bookie's dream.


The bounce was brought up, and these new polls are being brought up. They are news in the sense of a how fast they moved and, more noticeably, the Ontario shift. Is it ok with you if they're discussed?

Keep up the champagne MD. Also good not to back up the derision with anything. Those who can't play are safer on the sidelines. They can always jump out later and say they predicted the outcome (Dion!).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure discuss all you want as will I.
Champagne WAS uncorked on the Con plane - that's a fact.
Talk of a Con majority is as bubblicious as talk of a Liberal one was in December.

Status quo with more good legislation is my preference and nothing has changed there.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sure discuss all you want as will I.
> Champagne WAS uncorked on the Con plane - that's a fact.
> Talk of a Con majority is as bubblicious as talk of a Liberal one was in December.
> 
> Status quo with more good legislation is my preference and nothing has changed there.


MacDoc, that's actually my preference as well. I would rather the Conservatives and Liberals sit down and make a deal to govern.

But, that hasn't stopped me from making predictions. What I think will happen and what I want to happen are two different things. So, would you take 100:1 odds? I'd put $100 on it. That would buy me a lot of champagne, or an hour on a challenger jet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> But, that hasn't stopped me from making predictions. What I think will happen and what I want to happen are two different things. So, would you take 100:1 odds? I'd put $100 on it. That would buy me a lot of champagne, or an hour on a challenger jet.


That's just more champagne. Only make a call after others have and in the final leg of the race. Everything else is just too complex. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html
..................................
It seems as though the Liberal party isn't quite ready to produce a vision or at the very least the precursor to a platform that the public can attach themselves to. The attacks on the Conservative government have not simultaneously given much of an alternative for Canadians to consider, and because there is not a deep-seeded resentment or anger towards Harper's administration, these criticisms are largely falling on deaf ears.

The best tact that Mr. Dion can employ at this point is to give people a better idea of who he is as a leader and as a person, and present the electorate with a Liberal party that is advancing NEW and fresh ideas about governance and public policy. 
..................................


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc's predictions will be edited into today's posts after the election.:lmao: 

Mama always said. "if you don't have anything to predict, don't say anything at all."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I was reading something on Gore Vidal in Wikipedia and came across a fun quote which I have applied a Canadian context to...

_"[t]here is only one party in Canada, the Property Party . . . and it has two right wings: The Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberals. Conservatives are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Liberals, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently... and more willing than the Conservatives to make small adjustments when the poor, the French, the Left get out of hand." _

And just to Beej happy; to make sure we are an even keel here are some quotes from WFB himself put into a Canadian context...

_"Conservatives claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."_

_"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the moral high ground to the Left"_

he he he....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Beej - you still have not asked a specific question despite my numerous requests. Shy?

•••••••••

MF so desperate he needs to laugh at his own puerile humour.
Vitriole tank running low?

••••

I like Vidal.....willing to call it as he sees it.

••










••

oh ad this to the witches brew



> Economy grinds to slowest pace in three years
> By TAVIA GRANT , Globe and Mail Update
> 
> *The Canadian economy limped to its slowest pace in over three years in the fourth quarter as business inventories buckled.*
> ...


http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/ser...302/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business

Better hand out the pork soon......might be leans years ahead.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And Canadians are left of centre despite the majority voting for two right wings? 

"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So Beej - you still have not asked a specific question despite my numerous requests. Shy?


You've been asked for the odds you'd give. Duck Dodgers strikes again!

Oh wait, maybe you want it all spelled out for you. Sorry MD, if you require it on a platter because you just can't figure it out, all you get is my pity.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Beej said:


> ...the majority voting for two right wings?


Doesn't that make you fly in circles?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I would put 4:1 odds of a Conservative Majority.


VD: MacDoc needs your help. Somehow you understood and responded and he's at quite a loss. A little confused, like he was regarding people not liking the ads being different from the ads not being effective. If you can, maybe give him some tips on how you cracked the code for the question that you answered above.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> And Canadians are left of centre despite the majority voting for two right wings?


Hey lets just say that Canadian as a whole are a cut above their politicians.



Beej said:


> "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."


Keep em coming Buckley, I love it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Doesn't that make you fly in circles?


That would explain some of Canada's politics.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> He lets just say that Canadian as a whole are a cut above their politicians.


We can agree on that. But there are still many Canadians that aren't.

Another quote for you: "Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it's doing in the Maritimes."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Finally - sort of a clear question accompanied with lots of nudges and winking and schoolyard snickering 

Answer: I have no opinion on the matter just yet.

which....... to turn your insinuation around....you knew already.

•••

Now where is the poll that says the ads were effective?? You don't have one.
You only have a poll that says there has been a shift in "thoughts of the day" for party support.
You have nothing to support the ads have anything to do with the current polling numbers because that question wasn't asked. Maybe the Cons would have had 45% without the ads. Bottom line you don't know.

When you do have a poll about the ads - let me know.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Beej, at least the man is honest about being unable to form an opinion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Finally - sort of a clear question accompanied with lots of nudges and winking and schoolyard snickering
> ...................................
> Answer: I have no opinion on the matter just yet.
> ...................................
> Now where is the poll that says the ads were effective??


Finally you understood? Good for you. The request for odds was not new.
...................................
Still don't understand probability. Would you take a bet that paid 100:1? 1000:1? 1,000,000:1? Think it through. It really isn't that hard to have a vague notion. Of course, it's even easier to protect oneself by avoiding the concept.
...................................
Still missing the point MD. No it is not certain, but nothing is.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Egads, there's urine all over the cyberfloor. Time out, boys! Regroup and come back with some substance. Pretty please.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> Egads, there's urine all over the cyberfloor. Time out, boys! Regroup and come back with some substance. Pretty please.


Ok Pa, it's Friday so it's time for the beer thread anyway. As for substance: avoid politics.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Egads, there's urine all over the cyberfloor. Time out, boys! Regroup and come back with some substance. Pretty please.


Or at least if you guys are going to have a pissing contest, how about some entertainment, eh?

Don't bet for money - public embarrassment will do - a photo of the loser wearing underwear emblazoned with the logo of the winner's bet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Tories' lead in polls spurs talk of election
Liberal support down 10 points since Dion chosen
Jack Aubry, CanWest News Service, with file from Winnipeg Free Press
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

OTTAWA - Talk of a spring election heated up yesterday with the release of new polling data showing the rising Conservatives holding an almost double-digit lead over the fading Liberals.

A Decima Research survey shows the Conservatives returning to 36% support nationally -- the exact level the party received in the last federal election more than a year ago. This comes with a nine percentage point lead developing over the faltering Grits, who now hold 27% in the national poll released to The Canadian Press.

In a television interview, Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said the Conservatives' attack ads and its repositioning on the environment probably explains its surge ahead of the Liberals.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Don't bet for money - public embarrassment will do - a photo of the loser wearing underwear emblazoned with the logo of the winner's bet.


I have no opinion on that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> I have no opinion on that.


i do
i don't want to see either photo, unless i wish to lose my lunch


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Lawyer hat: the terms did not require that the underwear be exposed.

Other lawyer hat: the intention was clear by the statement regarding the logo. That identified the intent of the logo being visible in the photograph.

Other other lawyer hat: I want $3000 for showing up.

Flirt hat: 'Spec, don't knock it 'til you try it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Lawyer hat: the terms did not require that the underwear be exposed.
> 
> Other lawyer hat: the intention was clear by the statement regarding the logo. That identified the intent of the logo being visible in the photograph.
> 
> ...


setting up a dunking booth with the loser as bait at $2 a ball with money going to charity
prerequisite: no speedos

now we're talking


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't want to see either photo, unless i wish to lose my lunch


OK, less barf inducing that photos of ehMaccers in undies, how about the loser(s) have to keep a signature for a year that says, "I love (Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion)."

The masses demand entertainment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Much blather - little lack of attention.



> Angus Reid Poll: Tories way ahead in Canada, hold double-digit lead
> Governing Conservatives on the brink of majority (40%), Liberals at 26%, and NDP at 14%
> 03.01.07 Thursday
> 
> ...


http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=25&page=1


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Much blather - little lack of attention.


Nope. Wrong again. The lack of attention was the Liberals electing Dion. He will kill the party's chances and propel the Conservatives to power with a majority. Watch it happen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Much blather - little lack of attention.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=25&page=1


I guess that validates the first poll. I still find it hard to believe support is that high.

Those 100:1 odds you placed with my seem better and better every day.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I said champagne fueled blather. You missed my point entirely.
Must be the bubbles.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Interesting that this poll, with a very large sample is an _*online*_ poll. 

Pollsters are having a difficult time getting respondents to traditional phone polls and Angus Reid has started to use online polling, which many are criticizing. You can sign up now to be an Angus Reid poll answerer and you'll get paid too, - $5 a poll. And entered into a big draw for $1500 cash bucks. I got to the point of almost clicking "agree" but decided the detailed info they wanted on me didn't come that cheap.

Online polling likely wrecks a lot of random sampling. I'd also say they might be easy to game too, if enough interested folks sign up for them. F'instance, if the NDP wants to increase their polling numbers, maybe they should get all their members to sign up on Angus Reid, stating that they are Lib supporters, but answering the questions as if they are swinging to the NDP.

A few things about these results, if they bear any relation to reality. 

1. No doubt the Harperites have overloaded support in AB and the West in general. Lots of wasted votes there. Possibly not too much extra gain.
2. While the results might suggest the NDP losing seats, much of their support is concentrated in places where they may not lose too much.
3. Even if the Greens are moving up, I don't think they'll get enough support in any one riding to swing a seat for themselves. My riding is one of their biggest responses and they still don't stand a chance here. They may swing some NDP seats to the Libs or suck away some Lib seat support to whoever is second. They may even carve away at the Cons in some ridings.
4.I'm not too convinced about Quebecers moving to Harper, - Charest win, PQ loss or not. I think they'll still mostly stick with the BQ and Libs second.
5. Probably non-downtown Ontario is the place where the Libs could lose the most to Harper - enough to get a majority? Hmmmm ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here are the swing seat potentials.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/swingridings.html

31 seats for the Cons??......very tough. Interesting spring we are going to have


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Here are the swing seat potentials.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/swingridings.html
> 
> 31 seats for the Cons??......very tough. Interesting spring we are going to have


Those are a bit old now. But first past the post makes it all a big crapshoot translating percentages into actual seats. Certainly the Libs have managed undeserved yet comfortable majorities with less than 40%. Harper's crew might need more than this, given the overabundance of concentrated support in AB and other Western ridings.

My, you're up late Doc, or getting up early. Me, I'm about to hit the hay in Pacific Zone.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Nope. Wrong again. The lack of attention was the Liberals electing Dion. He will kill the party's chances and propel the Conservatives to power with a majority. Watch it happen.



funny how i still haven't had one con supporter take me up on my be that the cons won't win a majority
by the way, it's been months since i offered

the only gambling cons supporters seem interested in is with our social programs


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Online polling likely wrecks a lot of random sampling.


There has been some interesting discussion on Jason Cherniak's blog in the comments section of a few posts on this topic. Watching the soap opera is funny, but the technical comments are helpful.

It begins:
http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/02/give-me-break.html#links

I'm still not certain of their accuracy, relative to traditional telephone, but I wouldn't ignore them. They're quite a different beast than the free-for-all online "polls" that many sites use for fun.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070303.wxoilsands03/BNStory/Business/home

If they've learned their lesson from the 2006 environmental plan fiasco, they'll cut the special treatment for new projects, or make it subject to certain "green" requirements. That would go a long way in ON and QC, where such gestures pay handsomely (see: history of Canada's Kyoto-politics). Enough voters are ok with a Con majority to make it possible. 

The opposition needs to take the initiative (full policy, not just environment): Dion is going on tour, so we'll see. Otherwise they can fight to keep the government alive until the summer, in which case you've got something very close to a Con majority budget anyways. There's always waiting for a face-plant, too.

Can the Cons resist such an easy vote-buying opportunity? Maybe they'll keep it back for timing (campaign, Fall or 2008 election goody if needed).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How are potential swing seats a "bit old"? 
My point is 31 seats is a big hill to tackle.

••••
I'm not sure what budget proposals would be a deal breaker given what was outlined earlier. It's pretty vanilla and I think neithere Libs nor Bloc would be better off by blocking it.

Are there not some intermediate stages - ie amendment procedures so they can be seen to be the Loyal Opposition with variations without a confidence issue arising.

What role does the Senate play in the budget??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A bit of pork to go around......



> *697M seals subway deal*
> 
> Harper and McGuinty to announce federal funding next week for long-awaited extension of Spadina line into York Region
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187860

Don't get me wrong......this is good and if we had more results from the minority gov along these lines then it just reinforces my view about status quo being a good thing.

More please....

Clearly the 416/905 has become "of interest"

•••

Good article by Hebert in the same issue














> French kiss, but will love last?
> 
> ILLUSTRATION BY RAFFI ANDERIAN/TORONTO STAR
> Star national affairs columnist Chantal Hébert's new book examines Stephen Harper's relationship with Quebec.
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187761


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> funny how i still haven't had one con supporter take me up on my be that the cons won't win a majority
> by the way, it's been months since i offered


What was the bet again?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Parliamentary procedure is quite complex, so I'm going off what I think it is, not what I know: The Budget is the government's document; I don't think the standing committee on finance can alter it, they can just recommend things.

There may be a delay tactic whereby the opposition could force it to a committee with a broader mandate to be revised, but I'm not sure (I think this is what the C-30 deal was). That still requires agreement.

Amendments can be tabled (such as the Lib-NDP deal) but, again, they need to be passed by the commons, not the committee, I think. So I don't think the opposition can force anything unless they have the guts. 

Maybe a few MPs have tummy troubles, maybe something else is worked out. Save face and fight again another day... 

Senate can do a lot to delay or streamline the process, so the Libs could play games in there. That's quite dangerous to do for a number of reasons.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When does this session of Parliment end?

I suspect dragging out the budget woould be a bad thing for the opposition unless Harper tangles it with the Green legislation which i think would be very foolish.

To "disarm" that ticking bomb he should be seen to have a Green bill that is a reasonable compromise and has input from other parties.
Take it off the table and put the burden on the provinces for innovation.
Biggest hurdle is making the oil sands look "progressive".

Better slice the pork now - those fat surpluses may drift away next year/later this year.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> When does this session of Parliment end?
> .................................
> I suspect dragging out the budget woould be a bad thing for the opposition unless Harper tangles it with the Green legislation which i think would be very foolish.
> 
> ...


June 23, for now.
.................................
Or put out a bill that the people think is enough and damn the other parties. That could be the point. [Edit: blended with a little Jack  ]

One which gets nitpicked but, when a lot more is proposed, is clung to as enough. In other words, just talk directly to the people. 

That's back to the oil sands change. There are tweaks here and there to turn the tables on this one, if the Cons are aggressive about getting their majority. But then the opposition can disperse into the mist. So the game could be interesting: A Con majority budget (plus green tweaks) or an election?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Martin tried the pork routine unsuccessfully but the conditions were different.
I'm not sure the Cons have enough to brag about as yet to be seen to engineer an election.
The situation may well lend itself to bring up rifts that still are evident in the Liberal stronghold.
One problem with having a strong team is too many chiefs and clearly Dion has yet to settle them down to rowing to same drum beat.

I really don't see the Liberals coalescing until the like of Kennedy and Rae are actually in gov.
An election that sees the status quo but with the rest of the Lib team elected might actually be a negative for the Cons.
Careful governance in a minority for another year would be a positive move in my mind.

The economy has a play in this as well. 

••

One of the better analysis I've seen in a short article.



> Canada may not be the winner
> 
> Harper-Charest coalition poses risks
> Mar 03, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/187759

good read.

Best paragraph for me....



> Big cities are this country's Young Turks and they won't be content forever to accept the backroom deals cut by the old men of Canadian politics – federal prime ministers and provincial premiers


ain't THAT the truth. :clap:

'nother good article on the "imbalance"....provincial/city this time



> *
> Scent of a solution on help for cities*
> 
> Disability assistance program could be candidate for future uploading
> Some downloading of provincial costs could be reversed


http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/187760

Lots of forces at play...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The prior occupant of this house was a Liberal supporter and I receive the mailings from the party. Often, the writing is quite abysmal--a little worse than usual this time.

It calls the "three pillars" of the Liberal party Economic Prosperity, Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability--certainly a grand set of amorphous principles.



> The home-grown solution has a great appeal both here and abroad. We are already seeing that our program is exciting for Canadians.


I'm sure those abroad are very interested, but they can't vote in Canadian elections.

Quite lugubrious.



> The Liberal Party's program is based on the organic unity of our national economy, our naural environment and our human community. The well-being of each depends on the others. What a beautiful--and logical--idea! We are eager to share it with everyone in the country.


The letter is supposedly written by Stephane Dion himself and it reads very much like a document by someone who has a good grasp of English, but lacks the ability to convey the feeling of the language.

I'm not a grapho-analyst but I found the signature a little disturbing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

wow, attacking a man for his signature

have neo cons nothing left to sell?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: Only Conservatives can be criticised for superficial reasons. It's in the rules somewhere. So sayeth 'Spec.

Now, about his hair...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: I happen to think that Dion is a perfect leader for the Liberal Party.

You have to admit the signature is a little unusual though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Given all the champagne about I surprised the Cons aren't quoting old Alfred E










What, Me worry?
Alfred E Newman

Spending inordinate amounts of invaluable vitriol on non-threats.
Strange that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

When VD offered 4:1, was that champagne or just a nice beer?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Spec: I happen to think that Dion is a perfect leader for the Liberal Party.
> 
> You have to admit the signature is a little unusual though.



MFer, no more than most Rx written by most physicians

and as for "disturbing" how about this?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems to me if the trend is towards fixed election dates we are setting ourselves up to an ongoing series of "perfect storm" situations.
What a way to run a country....not


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> How are potential swing seats a "bit old"?
> My point is 31 seats is a big hill to tackle.


I don't know how hard that hill would be now but that analysis you linked to was done prior to the 2006 election and based on close ridings in the 2004 election, some of which don't even exist now. A better analysis for present day would be to look at the close ridings from the 2006 election results.


> 1.52 per cent - Trinity-Spadina (Ontario) - Liberal incumbent Tony Ianno defeated the NDP's Olivia Chow by 805 votes.
> 
> 1.37 per cent - Newmarket-Aurora (Ontario) - Conservative Belinda Stronach defeated Liberal Martha Hall Findlay by 689 votes.
> 
> 9.98 per cent - Ottawa Centre (Ontario) - NDP Ed Broadbent defeated Liberal Richard Mahoney by 6,256 votes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:



> Seems to me if the trend is towards fixed election dates we are setting ourselves up to an ongoing series of "perfect storm" situations.
> What a way to run a country....not



fixed election dates, if we look across the border to the south, only means that electioneering starts about a year in advance and gov't moves more slowly than it usually does and the people get screwed again


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I doubt very much that demographics of voting patterns change a whole lot over time.( 3-4 years )

If a Federal election were not held now and some decent legislation passed.
If Ontario re-elects the Liberals.

THEN a Con breakthrough might be available in Ontario.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I favour governments that move slowly--they usually spend less.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The prior occupant of this house was a Liberal supporter and I receive the mailings from the party. Often, the writing is quite abysmal--a little worse than usual this time.


Congrats on the multi-sentence posting MF. 

I don't get a choice in receiving Con propaganda. My MP, greasy little weasel the Honourable Gary Lunn, sends out "The Lunn Report", a waste of good paper showing big photo-ops with him Cap'n Steve posing at the taxpayers expense. After I read the first little bit about what amazing things Canada's New Government is doing for me I drop it in the recycling bin as I run get something to wash out the taste of vomit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF world we'd be portaging the rapids on the St. Lawrence and the oxcart franchise for the prairie leg would worth a mint.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> MF world we'd be portaging the rapids on the St. Lawrence and the oxcart franchise for the prairie leg would worth a mint.


Just where would we be without government to take care of us, huh MacHippy...uh, I mean MacDoc?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: I particularly like the flashbulb in the window.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where would we be ..oh somewhere around here most likely.










give or take a few revolutions.

Large scale long term projects take gov and industry and some vision.
Much lacking lately.

Next project requiring visin and effort from BOTH



> UN's Ban Says Climate Change As Dangerous As War
> 
> 
> March 2, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- In a speech on March 1 in New York, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said climate change poses as much danger to the world as war,.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/ec3f5428-2984-4bd0-ba12-846b3f1b093d.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Where would we be ..oh somewhere around here most likely.


'bout what I expect from you Doc. Government and industry in perfect harmony:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

this just released from PMO;
stockwell day has announced the "new" Cdn. Gov't;

will adjust school books to show that the run revolves around the Earth
Earth created in 6 days and Earth is just over 6,000 years old
Fred and Wilma Flintstone to replace evidence of earliest human beings on Earth

left handed people to be re-educated to become right handed as the gov't attempts to weed out left leaning, pinko, tree hugging peaceniks


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: Those are pretty old gags. Grab some Zs and go at it again tomorrow.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, enough about Day, Macspectrum. _Sheesh_. We know the guy's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You're mounting a freakin' campaign... it smacks of something acutely vindictive. You don't have to like him but neither do you need to flog him constantly. Please give it a rest and find some fresh targets.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Governments go bad when they adopt the "popcorn and beer" attitude. Then they're not about redistribution or helping the most vulnerable people, but using, as a central assumption, the idea that they can spend for you better than you can. Those are vampire governments. 

On a related note, my local "greasy weasel" sends flyers out too. I don't even read them once I've identified what they are. GA: this reduces sudden accidents that occur with political-partisan pamphlets. I developed this methodolgy as an apartment-dweller. If I read the pamphlet while waiting for or on an elevator, things would get messy. Even if I didn't read it, someone in the elevator may glance at it and spew. So I find it best to immediately toss it into the recycling bin by the mailboxes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Governments go bad when they adopt the "popcorn and beer" attitude. Then they're not about redistribution or helping the most vulnerable people, but using, as a central assumption, the idea that they can spend for you better than you can. Those are vampire governments.



Beej, that was pretty goofy... even for you. So When was the last time you paid for an engineering assessment for a federally funded highway improvement program? Or the last time you personally paid for a Health Canada immunization program?

For certain things, yeah the government can spend better than most individuals. I always considered you a centrist, however the right winger in you just got exposed with this post. Quick hide before the children see it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> So When was the last time you paid for an engineering assessment for a federally funded highway improvement program? Or the last time you personally paid for a Health Canada immunization program?


That's right D.J.--when the money is extracted from you without your consent, then pooled and used to purchase these services at a price higher than market value--these services become free...free I tell you!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: tho DJ I suspect it's more the contrarian in Beej you are seeing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Beej, that was pretty goofy... even for you. So When was the last time you paid for an engineering assessment for a federally funded highway improvement program? Or the last time you personally paid for a Health Canada immunization program?
> 
> For certain things, yeah the government can spend better than most individuals. I always considered you a centrist, however the right winger in you just got exposed with this post. Quick hide before the children see it.


"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."

Yes, you wanted to jump up and point out the "right winger", and yes you jumped before finding out if you understood. And no, I'm not surprised. Aww heck, it's Sunday, I'll take you seriously anyway. 

Yes, DJ, I understand about the assessments and health care etc. Look closer at some, though...sometimes it needs to be handled by gov't because gov't decided they wanted to control it; but that's a discussion for someone else. 

These programs, starting with the assumption that they must be within the public realm, operate most often for things that have deep free-rider problems (see: "public" goods) and also strong aspects of transferring wealth (e.g. health care) and sometimes both.

Many governments don't like to give back taxes and politicians can make up all sorts of excuses about why taking in less revenue is bad. It isn't that they should or shouldn't, it is about each idea put forward. However, complaining that parents will spend their money on, "popcorn and beer", while most likely the result of sleep deprivation, nicely encapsulated the point at which, across ideologies, there is a problem.

I'm generally surprised that lefties have not figured out their winning ticket: push their parties to run on platforms of tightly monitored spending and ruthlessly well-managed programs, continuously being evaluated for cost-effectiveness as well as a constant eye to cutting what is not working. This would be instead of jumping up and down regarding "cuts" and bragging about any spending they push for. 

For many lefty program ideas, it's not that Canadians are against the program, it's that the handler shows little to no respect for other people's money. Even less so than the other two handlers, themselves not having great reputations. They, too often, consider getting the money spent a victory and become interested on effectiveness if some other party is spending it. 

There are, in my opinion based on a "feeling", many voters out there who'd like to have such a party. The Federal NDP is not that party, and the Liberals just bounce back and forth, depending on the other parties and the winds of change. There is no Federal party ideologically bound to careful, responsible and continually challenged social program spending.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Beej show us a right wing government that spends "tightly and controlled".
THAT's what has been missing.

Good theory....no practice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So Beej show us a right wing government that spends "tightly and controlled".
> THAT's what has been missing.
> 
> Good theory....no practice.


"There is no Federal party ideologically bound to careful, responsible and continually challenged social program spending."

"Even less so than the other two handlers, themselves not having great reputations." 

Don't you often deride others' reading comprehension? Still befuddled over the odds?

Never said there was one (Federally). Nice straw man though. Does that make it easier for you? Or maybe it's always with us or agin' us. 

I proposed a "lefty" ideology that could get wide support because it's largely open territory. Libs and Cons will step into the careful spender role, but many Cons just don't like social programs and Libs just react (they'll be careful after something's wrong).

Provincially there may have been across any of the parties. SK NDP right now may be a reasonable example. MB PCs, maybe the old ON PCs. It isn't a clear cut measure and, to one who likes assembling straw man arguments, you always could.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So Beej show us a right wing government that spends "tightly and controlled".
> THAT's what has been missing.
> 
> Good theory....no practice.


The BC Liberal Party. They are a right of centre party and have done a very good job of 'tight and controlled' spending. We have reduced our provincial debt, have been running surpluses, while creating the lowest level of provincial taxes in the country.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The BC Liberal Party. They are a right of centre party and have done a very good job of 'tight and controlled' spending. We have reduced our provincial debt, have been running surpluses, while creating the lowest level of provincial taxes in the country.


That shook the hornet's nest. B.C. was the NDP's shangri-la (turned it into a have not province) and the usurpers, unless lead by the resurrected Tommy Douglas himself, are, as not-NDP, neocons. Have you learned nothing?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And even a libertarian such as myself can't but help be impressed by their attitude toward publice-private-partnerships that focus on taxpayer value and private sector know-how in building the Sea-to-Sky Highway, the Brittania mine water purification plant, the Golden Ears Bridge and the Kicking Horse Canyon Project among others.

The federal Liberals are in the Dark Ages here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

B C Liberals..... Funny name for "right wing party".
What it points out is vision, financial acumen, oversight and accomplishment is not inherent in political dogma or positioning or names for that matter.
The "right" has not "owned" fiscal responsibility for sometime....just look south for ample evidence of that nonsense.

McCallion is a small c conservative and has my whole hearted support. Tony Blair is hardly your iconic leftie.
Nor is John Howard's Liberal Party in Australia.

Arnie got it correct ...extreme centrists.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even stupid ideas aren't a big problem if they're handled in a cost-effective manner. But the positions you're describing aren't "centrist" either. That's a rather sad old term for "no apparent beliefs." 

What you ARE seeing is people running more and more often on programs, rather than platforms. Choose Menu A or Menu B, then pay for the meal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Even stupid ideas aren't a big problem if they're handled in a cost-effective manner. But the positions you're describing aren't "centrist" either. That's a rather sad old term for "no apparent beliefs."
> 
> What you ARE seeing is people running more and more often on programs, rather than platforms. Choose Menu A or Menu B, then pay for the meal.


Good point. And...

I'll order a steady expansion of broad-based universal (non-monopoly) social programs, with a side of cutbacks in narrow special-interest funding and some small cuts to the most economically destructive taxes. Oh, and can you throw in some extra streamlining of the bureaucracy and coordination of welfare programs? I'm thinking I want to order a basic income, but will go with that today. That would great.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You have yet to provide an example of a fiscally responsible right wing party.

Just the usual schoolyard chortles and squirming.
Where are your exemplary "righties"?? since you use the word "lefties" with such apparent distain.

if anything there are more exemplary "lefties" about as I've pointed out.



> There is no Federal party ideologically bound to careful, responsible and continually challenged social program spending.


No - not ideologically bound but politically constrained - constituents are fed up with gov excess and lack of progress.
The waste is in the hesitation to execute.
One thing overlooked is the hide bound aspect of the bureaucracy that after all runs the country regardless of the notational party of the day.

When "cover your ass" becomes Prime Directive - nothing gets done 

There was a very interesting analysis of hospital performance which I'd like to find that addressed doing as little as possible for as long as possible because funding was never based on services rendered.
Goes back to my embedded privileged brahmin class.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You have yet to provide an example of a fiscally responsible right wing party.


I already did. There are only two viable parties in BC. The NDP are left of centre and the BC Liberals are right of centre. Don't let the name confuse you... long story...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You have yet to provide an example of a fiscally responsible right wing party.
> 
> Just the usual schoolyard chortles and squirming.
> Where are your exemplary "righties"?? since you use the word "lefties" with such apparent distain.


What on earth are you talking about? My point was that "lefties" could get a lot of their social programs done with a different approach. What you've read into it, through poor comprehension, is your problem.

Furthermore, BC Libs and MB PCs have both been mentioned. Now, of course, any number of links can be provided simply proving that every political party that has ever had power can be criticised. On the whole, as with the SK NDP, there's some good stuff there. Calm down MD. Or not, your choice.

But back to your rage, briefly. You read in what you wanted and now you're enraged that I didn't address what you made up. Tough. Stop acting like the spoiled child who doesn't get what they want, MD. It's one of your favourite acts, so I'm not suggesting you give it up. Just refine it and diversify to other acts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The waste is in the hesitation to execute.


This is pure nonsense. Given no description of the action itself, we're to assume that "hesitation to execute" is the "waste?" If we're to use your prior examples--not building a hydrogen grid (expensive, unproven, no cost-benefit analysis) right now--as an example of waste, it redefines the term so as to make it meaningless.

Waste occurs in execution.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

To help you MD, in your time of trouble:
..............................
"I'm generally surprised that lefties have not figured out their winning ticket"

"For many lefty program ideas, it's not that Canadians are against the program, it's that the handler shows little to no respect for other people's money. Even less so than the other two handlers, themselves not having great reputations."

"There are, in my opinion based on a "feeling", many voters out there who'd like to have such a party."
..............................


I'm talking about winning the politics. The "winning ticket". And, as I specifically mentioned, federally. The reputation of the federal NDP is not good, and it is enforced by how they criticise (never been in power). They, far too often, just oppose cuts and support spending. The how and why don't matter as much as they grandstand.

Get a grip MD. Federally, all parties have reason to be shamed and, for the party never in power, look at what they have, historically supported and opposed (the details, not the "big" stuff). Some good ideas in there, but far too often against a lot of good decisions (e.g. Chretien's 2000 tax cut package, CPP investments).

I understand that you're pushing one of your life theses (fiscal responsibility or "right" parties) but, in attempting to do so, you simply read into my posts what you wanted to introduce your thesis. 

Have some tea, read it all again and come back with the useful insights I'm sure you have in you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You have yet to answer the question and you point fingers at "lefties"

Easy question Beej - show me the right wing gov that exists and shows respect for the peoples money that you crave??

I'll take the current crop of fiscally responsible "lefties" than the guns n law and order right wingers that want to devolve to the 50s socially - spend a billion dollars on border guards having guns and many billions more on war making gear.

I'm all ears about this responsible right wing gov..........that exists.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You mean aside from the "right wing" ones already mentioned? They're not perfect (no government ever will be) but they get a reasonable job done, along with the SK NDP, according to what I've read. 

MD, when you've reattached your brain, tell me. And, better yet, when you can acknowledge that you understood my point, tell me. Not sure what you're about with "guns n law and order right wingers that want to devolve to the 50s socially." You seem to be making up more straw men to argue against because...

For now, you're just covering for the usual problem: someone pointed out that you made a mistake. You hate that and can't handle it.

Get over MD (no missing "it"; get over yourself). Read my posts versus what you've inferred. Obvious gap there. For examples, VD and myself have provided some. Obvious gap there with your understanding. 

Then show me where I talked of, " the right wing gov that exists and shows respect for the peoples money that you crave??" beyond some provincial examples worth looking at.

In short: you're embarrassing yourself. Your desire to never admit a minor 'flub' (misinterpreting a post) is well known. Get over it.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Personally, I don't think we will be seeing a spring election. Harper needs to wait until the dust has settled in Quebec, then he has to wait to see what will happen in Ontario. Tory has a much better chance of picking up Urban votes than Harper does, so if Harper is bright, he will try to "coat tail" on Tory's success (if he is successful).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Britnell where you been hiding?? Good to see you back. :clap:

I think Tory has a play in this as well tho Ontario tends to go contrarian and keep one of each flavour available. 

Traditionally if Tory won the Libs might look better for Ottawa.

•••

Beej if you are referring to the BC Liberals as a mistake then perhaps you should ask the BC Liberals if they think they are a right wing party. 
As a mater of fact I asked them.
Odd right wing agenda
http://www.bcliberals.com/EN/308/

My point is that the "right wing" in this era has no claim on fiscal responsibility to counterbalance your "lefties" disparaging.

Perhaps the term - "irresponsible government" might be used more correctly. Lots of examples of those....on both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--some pork doesn't define one's political spectrum. (I've never seen anyone so prone to linking as a defence mechanism).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej if you are referring to the BC Liberals as a mistake then perhaps you should ask the BC Liberals if they think they are a right wing party.
> As a mater of fact I asked them.
> Odd right wing agenda
> http://www.bcliberals.com/EN/308/


Define 'right wing'. 

I'm not stuck on labels. For some reason you seem to be. The BC Liberal government is right of centre and they are a free enterprise party. They do not support big government and big social programs like their federal brethren. 

I am actively involved with the BC Liberal party and have worked campaigns for them. My sister also worked in the Premier's office. I would say that about half of the party and people I meet would support the federal Liberals while the other half support the Federal Conservatives. It's not coincidence that they are not as left wing as the federal Liberals or as right wing as the federal Conservatives. They would fit somewhere in between, which is still right of centre. So, you can either trust me, or not. But, the fact is that this is an example of a fiscally responsible 'right wing' or 'right of centre' government.

Ah ya... still waiting on that NeoCon definition that you label me with.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That would be called centrist which is what many Canadians including myself are looking for in a government.
I'm quite sure the BC Liberals would not describe themselves as right wing.
That a party is more centrist than the clearly left wing NDP does not put them into the right wing category.
By US standards EVERY party in Canada is left wing.

Once more my point is responsible government is not defined by it's political positioning but by it's actions.
Poor leadership, poor judgement, poor vision, corruption is not confined to any political part of the spectrum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> That would be called centrist which is what many Canadians including myself are looking for in a government.


That might be called the "new centre," which is last year's-right-of-centre. A direction the country is moving in now matter how one tries to delude one's self.

Do you support deep tax cuts while a province is in a deficit situation? B.C.'s Campbell did. 

I like the rightish flavour of this type of "centrism" you and most Canadians support.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> I'll order a steady expansion of broad-based universal (non-monopoly) social programs, with a side of cutbacks in narrow special-interest funding and some small cuts to the most economically destructive taxes. Oh, and can you throw in some extra streamlining of the bureaucracy and coordination of welfare programs? I'm thinking I want to order a basic income, but will go with that today.


Depending on how you define 'narrow special-interest funding'* I think I like your platform. Despite our long-standing disagreement over many issues, I'll certainly concede that you seem to have a better idea about how to run the economy than any currently sitting politician.

What I'd really like to see, with respect to a streamlining mechanism is some implementation of a natural-selection/genetic algorithm-like system, whereby efficiency is objectively measured (tough, but should be do-able in principle) and programs demonstrating greater efficiency get bigger budgets in the next round (rather than small budgets as is the current common practice).

Cheers

*e.g. do publicly-funded research agencies like NSERC, SSERC, CHIR, and NRC count as 'special-interest' programs, or are these sorts of things 'broad-based' social investments?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I'll certainly concede that you seem to have a better idea about how to run the economy than any currently sitting politician.


I think the jury is still out on that... Specifically in regards to *broad-based universal (non-monopoly)*. In a government setting a broad based monopolistic approach often is the more efficient means to provide services.

We can illustrate case after case of where artificial markets aimed at providing services have not only failed but only exacerbated cases of corporate greed, fleecing the public in a government sanctioned endeavor.

I personally think there is a happy medium and in certain cases a non monopolistic approach is warranted, however in others it is not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: I think I find myself in agreement here as well regarding serious attempts at creating government efficiencies and eliminating programs that are woefully inefficient in delivering a small payload for mucho dinero. Even extreme social conservatives who didn't actually support many of the programs offered could probably be mollified at some magic place on the graph where it appeared that the government was actually treating other people's money with respect for programs that had a demonstrable positive outcome.

I would also argue that a move toward consumption tax and away from income tax would also be beneficial. That way, government efficiencies would leave more money in the economy, and government revenues would grow only as a function of economic growth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> What I'd really like to see, with respect to a streamlining mechanism is some implementation of a natural-selection/genetic algorithm-like system, whereby efficiency is objectively measured (tough, but should be do-able in principle) and programs demonstrating greater efficiency get bigger budgets in the next round (rather than small budgets as is the current common practice).
> .....................
> *e.g. do publicly-funded research agencies like NSERC, SSERC, CHIR, and NRC count as 'special-interest' programs, or are these sorts of things 'broad-based' social investments?


The holy grail of public administration. Armslength Crown corporations can help with some things (they already do). More benchmarking and scoring can help in other places, but can go too far. It ain't easy, but it's worth it. Freeing up billions more (or getting more done for the same amount).
.....................
Research I'm fine with, but delivery and determination of funding needs a lot of work, from what I've heard. I'm not an expert in this area, but I've heard it needs more research-based decisions on funding and less top-down political anointing of chosen technologies. At some point, the biz guys need to have a say to get economic views in the process.

Canada is also, apparently, not too hot at bridging the basic-research to commercialization gap. Lots of good basic research, but turning it into more needs work. The U.S. has some excellent stuff in that area. Dion's technology platform referred repeatedly to their practices.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Canada is also, apparently, not too hot at bridging the basic-research to commercialization gap. Lots of good basic research, but turning it into more needs work. The U.S. has some excellent stuff in that area. Dion's technology platform referred repeatedly to their practices.


This is getting way off-topic, but it's an issue near-and-dear to my heart, so I can't resist going on a little rant.

The big problem here, IMNSHO, is that there is this fantasy that there is some kind of linear relationship between research and development. 99% of basic research won't be relevant to any technology development for 30-40 years, and probably about 90% of it will never be directly relevant at all. A small percentage will turn out to be exploitable, and that small percentage is often extremely valuable from an economic standpoint, but it's effectively impossible to predict where those applicable discoveries will arise in advance. On top of this is the fact that science is done in a *necessarily* open process, so there's nothing stopping other countries from benefiting from Canada's research advances, and visa versa.

From a business perspective, it's very difficult to make the case that we should be spending money on basic research at all. It's a very inefficient way of generating wealth. Fundamentally, we need to be doing science for the same reasons we need to be doing art: it gives our existence value. We are explorers, and we love to learn. Happily, it turns out that many of the things we learn have useful applications, but that's just a bonus... we shouldn't allow that to become the reason we pursue our natural curiosity.

The primary value of research is in the understanding of nature it builds, not in the applications of that understanding that allow us to develop technologies.

However, our current research funding systems are now dominated by medical doctors, who are fundamentally engineers, not scientists, and who understandably focus myopically on clinically, or otherwise applicable projects at the expense of basic studies. This would not be such a significant problem, were it not for the chronic and worsening underfunding suffered by Canadian research agencies over the past few decades.

Given the almost limitless economic value of applicable scientific discoveries, I suggest that the financing of applied research should be supplied by the corporations that will profit from their exploitation (this is obviously already the case, to an extent, but I suggest it should be expanded). That would free more public funding for the basic research from which the exploitable discoveries emerge.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The big problem here, IMNSHO, is that there is this fantasy that there is some kind of linear relationship between research and development.
> ...................................
> I suggest that the financing of applied research should be supplied by the corporations that will profit from their exploitation


It's a really tricky continuum (process-wise) requiring complete research control at the one end (the scientists choose priorities) and, if a particular pursuit warrants it, moving along to eventual business control at the other (go forth and profit!). Each step in between is murkier as policy interferes and the connection to the business world enters. There is generally no single point at which business steps in and government steps out (fully out? maintain some patent values?). 

Even then, at the extremes, things can blur as businesses donate to universities or [Edit: arrr] have particular interest in certain basic research or universities get better at helping their students commercialise ideas.

Pilot programs are a good example. These are quite late in the process but often offer a good role for government and business: but on what basis and with what residual value kept by government?

I've heard good things coming out of Alberta (particularly U of A) but, generally, hear that Canada lags other countries despite some generous programs. That suggests design problems.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The National Institute for Nanotechnology in Alberta, for example, tries to remedy this by placing the facility on a campus (attracts lots of interesting academic input) and rents offices to venture capitalists and technology companies as well in the hope of creating some sort of business synergy. The NRC is notorious for coming up with great ideas that are not exploited economically.

Toronto's MaRS Centre hopes to work the same way.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The National Institute for Nanotechnology in Alberta, for example, tries to remedy this by placing the facility on a campus (attracts lots of interesting academic input) and rents offices to venture capitalists and technology companies as well in the hope of creating some sort of business synergy.


Although I have no problem with this sort of idea, in principle, I know people at NINT, and it sounds like a complete boondogle so far.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They only moved the research equipment into NINT about a year ago, so who knows? I'm not judging the concept, just noting that this is what they hope to achieve.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The overview is that Canada is underspending on basic R&D compared to nations we compete with.
By all means monitor the implementation closely but the funds have to be made available and they are not at the levels our competitors provide.

Excellence centres like MARS show promise but why do I get the impression that so much is lost in the bureaucratic sludge that is costly and an impediment to those wishing to DO.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is government itself underspending?

The R&D tax credit system is quite generous, but industries are underspending. This strongly suggests a program problem. One potential problem is that the place where governments direct their spending acts to crowd out private R&D instead of leverage it (multiply). Another is that the tax credit system is poorly done.

[Edit: http://www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca/gol/innovation/site.nsf/en/in05210.html found it in a quick search. Looking for other links that compare Canada to the world, but distinguish between gov't and private R&D as well as difference in program design. Also Fed/Prov distinction would be nice.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/Figures2005-2006_e.PPT

Interesting stuff. Lots of comparisons after slide 80.


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/05/ann301_e.asp

Search for "GERD". A quick intro to some of the lingo to use in searches and some performance indicators.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A little pork for Ontario. :clap:



> Ottawa injects funds into GTA transit and power
> Updated Tue. Mar. 6 2007 1:02 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ansit_strategy_070306/20070306?hub=TopStories

Nothing to argue with here.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the election cometh


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey, if the pork is coming, we may as well get a taste of it. Sounds like a good recipe too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

7 years out but what the hell, photo op is a photo op

proposed 400 series expansion PDF


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey MACSPECTRUM,

Counter offer on your bet:

-If the Conservatives get a majority (as I think they might), you buy me a bottle of port.
-If anyone else gets a majority (not by coalition) I'll buy you a bottle of your choosing... or the equivalent.
-Any other result... we'll call it a draw.

Cheers!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Harper just said an election could come at any time. It sounds like the Conservatives are going to be very aggressive with the budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070317.wharper17/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: Some political predictions? If the Conservatives engineer a "posion pill" that infuriates the opposition to forcing an election--what issue do you suppose they will choose?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Vandave: Some political predictions? If the Conservatives engineer a "posion pill" that infuriates the opposition to forcing an election--what issue do you suppose they will choose?


The second prediction in the first post of this thread was that the Tories will try to pass a bill the other parties can't idiologically pass (e.g. crime, judges, minimum sentences, elected senators, etc.). My third prediction was that the Tory election strategy will focus mostly on tax cuts, enhancing Canada's productivity and a 'New Deal' for the provinces;

Harper's speech suggests it will be taxes and crime.

He said interest savings on the debt should go to tax cuts. That will be tough for the Liberals and NDP to swallow.

With respect to crime he said, “We took action to introduce mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes, a crackdown on violent, dangerous offenders and reverse onus on bail applications involving firearms offences,” he said. “Our opponents continue to obstruct these bills. They do so at their own political peril.”

We will know by the end of week if we are heading to the polls.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think that cutting taxes on the back of interest savings could be the poison pill. 

I suspect it will be Crime. There's nothing the NDP and Liberals seem to enjoy more than a good Hug-a-Thug session. It also positions them at their most haughty in that they usually present their views on this issue from a lofty position indicating that they just know better than the voters about what is really going on inside the heads of wanton killers.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Harper is entirely within his rights to ask the Governor General to drop the writ now, and doesn't need to have a bill voted down in parliament.

The fact is that all kinds of bills are voted down, and it's only those that require the confidence of the house that necessitate a trip to the GG's mansion: budgets, motions of no confidence.

Of course, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean could refuse to call the election, and can instead invite other parties to govern, but that is unlikely at the moment.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Are we really going to have an election this spring? The Conservatives don't have the polls for a majority government and getting to the 40% mark won't be easy at all, the rest of the parties are short on cash and down in the polls.

Not that politics always make sense, but it still seems a stretch to me despite what the media is reporting.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Are we really going to have an election this spring? The Conservatives don't have the polls for a majority government and getting to the 40% mark won't be easy at all, the rest of the parties are short on cash and down in the polls.


Yes, I am now 95% convinced we are going to the polls. The only thing that will stop it are the Liberals should they get scared to take a stand on the issue(s) the Conservatives are about to challenge them on.

The stars are aligned for the Conservatives right now. They have lots of money (relative to the other 3), the Liberals have a new leader who is relatively unknown at present, the Quebec election will drain Bloc resources and finally, they are doing well in the polls. The 'Green' factor plays to their benefit as well as it keeps the Liberals and NDP looking left as well as to the right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I sense a spring election as well. It seems as if Harper and the Conservatives are going to reneg on their written promise to NL and NS re equalization payments excluding much of the oil and gas revenues, as is the case in Alberta. Two of the three current Conservative MPs here in NL (in St.John's East and St.John's South) are both not going to run for re-election. The third conservative MP in the Avalon district is a "sitting duck" should the written promise made by Harper in the last election, which helped to get them this seat, not be kept. Still, I think that if Harper uses this money in Quebec and urban Ontario he will more than make up for the loss of three seats in NL. I can't speak for NS, NB or PEI, but I feel that the Conservatives have written off Atlantic Canada.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I see a spring/summer election as 80% likely.*

I agree with Vandave's analysis - the Conservatives have about the best chance they're going to get at a majority right now, and I think the duct-tape Harper's been using to keep the core of his party from talking is starting to fray, so he's got to act fast.

The Greens don't have enough support to be relevant yet, but they've grown into something that can hurt the NDP and even the Liberals significantly, which makes them an advantage for the Conservatives this election. The Bloc is focused on provincial matters and won't move much in the polls either way, so they're a constant. The Liberals are starting their recovery, but they're still weak, so now's the time for the Conservatives to call an election.

However, Harper's smart enough to know that most Canadians don't want another election, so he'll have to manoeuvre the opposition into bringing down the government, so it's 'not our fault'. I predict the budget will be where they will do this... it'll be pretty easy to put a few poison pills into it that the opposition simply won't be able to support and force them to vote against it.

An alternative, and more subtle strategy would be to use this budget to push the conservative agenda (tax cuts, etc.) but not to the extent that the opposition will have no choice but to vote it down and force an election. That would give the Conservatives the essential power of a majority government, without having to go to the polls and fight an election to get it.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"An alternative, and more subtle strategy would be to use this budget to push the conservative agenda (tax cuts, etc.) but not to the extent that the opposition will have no choice but to vote it down and force an election. That would give the Conservatives the essential power of a majority government, without having to go to the polls and fight an election to get it." Very astute, bryanc. This might just happen.

What is the feeling towards the Conservatives in NB?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> The national survey by Ipsos-Reid, conducted earlier this week for CanWest News Service and Global News, showed almost one-third - 31 per cent - of voters said they might switch their support to the Conservatives depending on whether they like what they hear when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivers on Monday his financial plan.
> 
> "There is a lot riding on Monday's budget and the pay-off for the Conservatives could be huge. Canadians anticipate there will be an election this spring and this budget could put the Harper government over the top," said Ipsos-Reid President Darrell Bricker.
> 
> The poll found the Conservative government's second budget could convince one-third of Liberal voters, about one-quarter of NDP supporters, three in 10 Green party voters and 15 per cent of Bloc Quebecois supporters to switch their choice to the Conservatives in the next election because of what's delivered in the budget.


Ok, maybe the talk is correct.

Link

Something else interesting in this poll:



> *In Alberta*, the Conservatives are strongest with a whopping 61 per cent backing from respondents, while *the Greens hold their largest bloc of voters at 12 per cent*. The Liberals and NDP flounder with 22 per cent and five per cent, respectively.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I'm going to make a bold prediction against the grain here:

The Bloc will support tomorrow's budget and we won't have an election this spring.

I've been saying for a year that there won't be an election until at least this fall and I am sticking with that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the trap may be laid in the environment bill V2 later in the month. Opposition parties will have to take a stand whereas the existing budget info we see shows little they can argue with. Sure there may be surprises, keeping the environmentalists out of the preview lends some credence that the "line in the oil sands....err sand" may be on the environment.

Also would it not make sense to know the outcome of the Quebec election AND the Ontario budget both of which come shortly after the Fed budget??

That allows fine tuning.
Anyone know what the "dragged out" version of a budget ( ie amendment calls, second reading , Senate involvement ) could entail.

Is it possible parliament stalls out? Hmmmm not likely looking at the calendar which allows sitting out to June 22nd.

But what are the summer election rules?? How late can an election be called??

•••

Z anyone of the opposition parties could pass the budget I believe.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> But what are the summer election rules?? How late can an election be called??


Any later than the end of June would not be a good thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah so IF procedure dragged it out it might be a fizzle.
I think it has to be a minimum of 6 weeks for the election.
So that backs the call into mid April - 4 weeks give or take - could a budget wrangle be dragged out that long??

With 3 opposition parties and amendment procedures .....maybe.
I suspect that might not sit well with Canadians tho.

I tend to agree with your assessment ( Hebert does as well I think ) but I'm not sure the Cons can resist the waving lollipop.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Z anyone of the opposition parties could pass the budget I believe.


That is correct, for the time being, and it sounds like the transfer payments to Quebec will be substantial enough to win Bloc support.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper CAN in theory resign the gov - wonder how that would play??


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> What is the feeling towards the Conservatives in NB?


I'm not really sure... the Liberals just one the provincial election, and everyone I know has nothing but disdain for the Conservatives, but I'm surrounded by academics.

cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc, as an academic myself (and surrounded by seven doxies), I think the NDP and the Green party have a chance to pick up seats in the Atlantic Provinces. I am not sure why Elizabeth May is choosing to run in the Central Nova riding currently held by Peter MacKay. Of course, if the change in the signed deal between Harper, NL and NS is as drastic as it seems to be, then being a Conservative in these two provinces just got more difficult especially when it comes to getting elected.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I see a spring/summer election as 80% likely.


Good analysis bryanc!
_______________________________


zoziw said:


> Something else interesting in this poll:
> 
> 
> > In Alberta, the Conservatives are strongest with a whopping 61 per cent backing from respondents, while the Greens hold their largest bloc of voters at 12 per cent. The Liberals and NDP flounder with 22 per cent and five per cent, respectively.


Interesting, but not surprising. The Greens did relatively well in Alberta in the last election, and there is considerable grass roots support for the environment here.
_______________________________


MacDoc said:


> anyone know what the "dragged out" version of a budget ( ie amendment calls, second reading , Senate involvement ) could entail.


I can't see any reason to "drag out" the budget, any party that tried to do this would be seen as "not trying to make the parliament work", and would be spanked in the polls for it.


MacDoc said:


> Harper CAN in theory resign the gov - wonder how that would play??


Not very well, see "not trying to make the parliament work" above - especially since -


> three out of five Canadians made it clear in the survey they believe the government is working fine for now and they don't see the need for a federal election.


_______________________________


Dr.G. said:


> I think the NDP and the Green party have a chance to pick up seats in the Atlantic Provinces.


I can see the Greens picking up support in the Atlantic provinces, but I can't see this translating into seats for either the Greens or the NDP - quite the opposite in fact, as I would expect the Greens and NDP to split the "left wing" vote.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PenguinBoy, I also see at least two seats in Parliament being taken from NL and given to AB, specifically in and around Calgary. Calgary now has twice the population as the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not sure when they will redistrict based on the new census results. We shall see.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Are you *won* of the academics?




bryanc said:


> I'm not really sure... the Liberals just *one* the provincial election, and everyone I know has nothing but disdain for the Conservatives, but I'm surrounded by academics.
> 
> cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Harper CAN in theory resign the gov - wonder how that would play??


I think that would play really badly, if he wants an election it would be better to go down in defeat over popular legislation.

Some interesting comments from Dion and Layton on the budget:



> Liberal Leader Stephane Dion told Question Period the budget didn't have to be perfect.
> 
> "If it is a budget not as good as we would like it but it's say acceptable - not detrimental to the Canadian people - we may vote for it," he said.
> 
> ...


CTV

That is a far cry from early February when the Liberals were promising to defeat the budget before even seeing it.

I reiterate, no election this spring.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> PenguinBoy, I also see at least two seats in Parliament being taken from NL and given to AB, specifically in and around Calgary. Calgary now has twice the population as the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not sure when they will redistrict based on the new census results. We shall see.


I've heard the combined population of Alberta and BC is now larger than the population of Quebec.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Star''s take


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

zoziw said:


> I've heard the combined population of Alberta and BC is now larger than the population of Quebec.


Not quite just yet:

Alberta (3,290,350) and British Columbia (4,113,487) combined in the 2006 census total 7,403,837 to Quebec’s 7,546,131.

But Quebec can no longer claim to speak for 25% of Canadians. That has now slipped to 23.8% and will likely continue to fall as the country grows.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wimps - we wannnnnntttssssss our own provincccccccceeee









GTA population 5,555,912


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I think we are larger now:

CBC



> For the first time, the combined population of British Columbia and Alberta has surpassed the number of people living in Quebec, growth that could translate into more Western political influence.
> 
> A report released Wednesday by Statistics Canada estimates that B.C. and Alberta have 7,686,215 people between them. Quebec had slightly less, at 7,651,531.
> 
> The report examines the period between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The census is followed up with other surveys to adjust it upward because of it generally underestimates. If that underestimate is not proportional accross provinces, as Statscan's 2006 estimates suggest, we'll see. For now the trend is quite clear: Alberta and B.C. either have or will soon have more people than Quebec.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I foresee taking 2 or 3 seats in the House away from NL and maybe 2 from PEI and sending them out west or to the GTA. We shall see.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Are you *won* of the academics?


Arrgh! I hate it when I do that. Spell-checkers don't help when you use the wrong word.

At any rate, with respect to the burgeoning population in the west, I wonder what proportion of them are migrant workers from the east? Every Newfoundlander I ever met was 'going home' as soon as they made enough money. 

Being a (displaced) westerner myself, and still sympathizing with 'western alienation', I can understand how the current political climate looks like an opportune time to correct some of the political and fiscal imbalances in confederation. I hope the Conservatives can resist the temptation to 'settle the score' by over compensating for historical slights suffered by the west.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I hope the Conservatives can resist the temptation to 'settle the score' by over compensating for historical slights suffered by the west.


My great-grandpa was frightened when a shot rang out from Montgomery's tavern. Surely the feds can redress this by cutting me a cheque?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not worrying about a so-called 'settling of the score- if indeed it results in greater balances and a general increase in fairness regarding regions. I would however worry more about new imbalances being created... mostly arising from over-compensating the West, thereby swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> My great-grandpa was frightened when a shot rang out from Montgomery's tavern. Surely the feds can redress this by cutting me a cheque?


Hey! Over here! Over here! I'm a victim too!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I'm not worrying about a so-called 'settling of the score...


Here! Here! Where's my cheque?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I hope the Conservatives can resist the temptation to 'settle the score' by over compensating for historical slights suffered by the west.


I don't sense that anybody in the West wants to 'settle the score'. I think most people just want to see more equality and greater recognition of the West rather than being ignored.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Here! Here! Where's my cheque?


Socialist...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Socialist...


I'm saving them the court costs...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I foresee taking 2 or 3 seats in the House away from NL and maybe 2 from PEI and sending them out west or to the GTA. We shall see.


I believe PEI is guaranteed its four seats in the constitution. I'm not sure if NL has anything similar. At 500,000 people, it should lose about 2 seats.

[Edit: Did some reading on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_parliament interesting stuff.]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, the guarantees that were promised to Newfoundland and Labrador in the Terms of Confederation have now all been broken with the closing of the cod fishery and the taking away of the railroad based on federal, rather than provincial mandates. Still, I can see how we would lose two seats in the House. It is only fair. I can't see how PEI could maintain four seats, in that the population of St.John's, which has two federal ridings taking up the city limits, has a larger population than all of PEI.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.elections.ca/SCRIPTS/FEDREP/federal_e/red/representation_e.htm

Better info and without the martyr complex.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very informative, Beej. I still think that NL and PEI have two too many seats each based on their population.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I don't sense that anybody in the West wants to 'settle the score'. I think most people just want to see more equality and greater recognition of the West rather than being ignored.


gee, i recall something about "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark"

is that "want to see more equality?"

gun racks, oil barons, cowboys, rodeos, no recognition of golbal warming = texas north

more and more my idea of selling AB to the US makes more and more sense and cents before the Amerikans just take it all over

i figure 3 trillion in gold bullion would be fair
no cheques (checks) please


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, i recall something about "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark"
> 
> is that "want to see more equality?"
> 
> ...


The West is very patriotic and wants to be a part of Canada. It is really simple... 'The West Wants In'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: If itcomes to a vote, I would support the entry of the west into Confederation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Vandave: If itcomes to a vote, I would support the entry of the west into Confederation.



if it comes to a vote, support the sale of AB to the U.S.
once again, no check, gold boullion only please
3 trillion sounds like a good number


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if it comes to a vote, support the sale of AB to the U.S.
> once again, no check, gold boullion only please
> 3 trillion sounds like a good number


Bigot.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, enough of this hideous "gun racks, oil barons, cowboys, rodeos" generalizing, Spec. It serves no purpose other than to illuminate your own issues. It certainly doesn't further any meaningful conversation in here.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> I hope the Conservatives can resist the temptation to 'settle the score' by over compensating for historical slights suffered by the west.


Nah, Harper was born in Toronto and raised in Ontario, he didn't come out here until he was an adult and already attending the University of Toronto (he gets more excited at Leafs' games than Flames...tsk...tsk...).

Come to think of it, Stockwell Day is an Ontario boy as well.

Now, if Manning had ever been PM, well....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When it comes to Confederation, I'm still as dazzled and impressed by it all as when I was a student in elementary school: _Fair Domain_ and _One Dominion_. 

Any efforts to belittle one part of it out of meanness serves no purpose.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Steve Harper* did not stay long at UofT

* not an insult, as this is the name that he ran under during an election.

As for hockey loyalties, this is debated. Only did his "like" of Toronto become a conversation piece when he cheered after Toronto scored a goal (October 4, 2006) and his son wearing a Leaf's jersey.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061005/harper_hockey_0610/20061005/


> Harper, a hard-core hockey fan, has been careful to keep his allegiances to himself.
> 
> But that hasn't prevented hockey fans from speculating whether the Toronto-born Harper, who studied in Calgary and now lives at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa, has any favourites only his inner circle knows about.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Be a very foolish opposition that votes against this budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070319.wbudgetmainstory19/BNStory/Front/home


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Be a very foolish opposition that votes against this budget.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070319.wbudgetmainstory19/BNStory/Front/home


Yes I am very surprised by it. I can't see any poison pills. I guess the Conservatives will present a new law and order bill later in the week to get the party started.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That is a sweet and very well thought-out budget. I'm happy to see that Flaherty also addressed the fact that buck-passing from one level of government to the next isn't an appropriate use of the GST.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Both Libs and NDP say they will not support but of course that may be maneuvering until the debate.
Puts Duceppe in a tough position.

The only slither factor was letting the oil sands keep their welfare cheque for 3 more years.
Bit sucky.
What that might be tho is to soften the hit coming on the environment bill.

The Bloc is supporting the budget - I wonder if there was a little backroom chatting between the opposition parties. A little too convenient and speedy a response.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> That is a sweet and very well thought-out budget. I'm happy to see that Flaherty also addressed the fact that buck-passing from one level of government to the next isn't an appropriate use of the GST.


It's telling that the two wingers applaud a very Liberal budget....

I'd hope for tax relief all around and not primarily aimed at the middle class - you know "all around" tax cuts, reduced government spending and less vote buying....

MF, since when do you like the government spending so much?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> MF, since when do you like the government spending so much?


I don't--but I think the strategy is sweetly thought out. I'm applauding their political aplomb.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's actually not a bad anti-recession budget as well as it's clearly stimulative.

I found it highly ironic about the reflected credit Flaherty took given the lIbs had put him in this position - he clearly tried to take credit...which is not due.

That said it's a decent spending budget and well thought out from appearances. 
I wonder how the provinces will react.

NL not happy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't--but I think the strategy is sweetly thought out. I'm applauding their political aplomb.


So you applaud a budget designed to win a majority over one that is right for the country? Uhmmm you sure you are not a card carrying Conservative?

I'm _supposed _to the Liberal leaning one here and am arguing for reduced government spending, all around tax cuts - maybe you are a socialist


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I have to be somewhat pragamatic. Taxes are lower now than they were before. I am happy to see that trend continue with whichever party wants to take ownership of that issue. I historically vote for whichever party is likely to govern least and spend least.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Another scattered budget. Many good ideas, no real focus. Better than the last budget, though. A centrist's compromise budget.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I hate agreeing with the Beej....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Another scattered budget. Many good ideas, no real focus. Better than the last budget, though. A centrist's compromise budget.


It's a 416 / 905 budget.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I hate agreeing with the Beej....


...and Jerry Mathers...as "the Beej."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Coyne not happy - Flaherty now the biggest spending finance minister in history.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It's a 416 / 905 budget.


Hogtown?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm according to Coyne he increased the provincial transfers by $1.5 billion and $1.6 went to Quebec. trésor public


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The whole "fiscal imbalance" treatment was extremely confusing. I think part of the QC change was related to a recalculation from before the budget. Politicised or formulaic, or both, I don't know. 

Hogtown did get feed too, though, especially in pre-budget announcements. That's politics, for better or worse. I'd have to look more closely at how the programs are designed to say which.

The commitment to shift federal transfers to per capita equality for AB and ON was a good move. It was a relic from 1970s tax point transfers and didn't fit in the current mess.

The approach to resource revenue inclusion was clever, as was property tax treatment. Too bad there was no market adjustment for hydro, but that would be horribly divisive, particularly in QC.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The $2,000 rebate on fuel efficient cars and $4,000 penalty on guzzlers is pretty bold. Glad I already own my Jeep. 

$2,000 more per child is equivalent to the day care subsidy. Hopefully, the lefties will complain half as much now.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> The $2,000 rebate on fuel efficient cars and $4,000 penalty on guzzlers is pretty bold. Glad I already own my Jeep.
> 
> $2,000 more per child is equivalent to the day care subsidy. Hopefully, the lefties will complain half as much now.


from the Globe & Mail article;



> Families will receive a $2,000 tax credit for each child, which will result in a maximum tax benefit of $310 per child


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Flaherty now the* biggest spending finance minister* in history.


And yet MF still like it...
But then again, what do you expect from "Conservatives"?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The $2,000 rebate on fuel efficient cars and $4,000 penalty on guzzlers is pretty bold. Glad I already own my Jeep.


Nothing like the government imposing on our freedoms?
If the Liberals or NDP had tried this, you'd likely be storming parliament by now.


Vandave said:


> $2,000 more per child is equivalent to the day care subsidy. Hopefully, the lefties will complain half as much now.


Why? It's a subsidy directed to whom Harper is trying to attract as voters - why not an across the board tax cut? It would be fairer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> And yet MF still like it...


I think the budget is politically clever. I appreciate that my taxes are lower than they were under the previous government. I don't agree with the spending. Can I be any clearer?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I think the budget is politically clever. I appreciate that my taxes are lower than they were under the previous government. I don't agree with the spending. Can I be any clearer?


harper could have offered a tax credit for killing puppies and you'd still vote for the cons


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I love it. :lmao: 

The lefties still complain when they get some of the things they want.

Can't win either way. If they were tight with spending instead, you would say they should have done all the things they just did.

I wonder if the Liberals and NDP will be dumb enough to vote against it. It looks like they already put their foots in the mouths. The Conservatives are only a couple moves away from check mate. The next move is introducing the poison pill to cause Parliament to fail.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh, nice VD, weren't you the one saying that "we should all work together" and now you find the "poison pill" to be clever. 

Since when is a spending spree a "Conservative" trait? 
I find it odd, no farcical, that those who criticized Paul Martin for his last minute spending spree to applaud Flaherty who has outspend any minister before him.
So how exactly are those Conservatives fiscally responsible again?


Of course MF will vote Con - and yes MS is right in his assessment.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh, nice VD, weren't you the one saying that "we should all work together" and now you find the "poison pill" to be clever.


Don't mistake what I think will happen, appreciation for political gamemanship and what I WANT to happen.

I think the Conservatives will introduce a poison pill and I appreciate that Harper is playing a good political game. However, I WANT the Conservatives and Liberals to work together.



ArtistSeries said:


> So how exactly are those Conservatives fiscally responsible again?


Balanced budget, debt reduction, tax relief, business incentives.... Still seems Conservative to me, just a little more 'small c' in structure and a little more populist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your description could have been of any one of Martin's budgets over the last decade and somehow the Cons "own:" it.
I don't usually agree with Coyne but this was terrific *Liberal* budget which for the Martin era was indeed small c conservative.

Perhaps VD you should consider that the Cons had little choice BUT to get into the middle if they want to make any progress.
Lots of pork and what was needed....but hardly clever.

That said the environment bill might be a trap as none of the opposition can backtrack on that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so let's see now....

cdn. troops in afghanistan with no end in sight
gov't spending on a high
military spending jumps dramatically
tax cuts
global warming is "good" for Canada (start planting those lemon trees)

sound familiar?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The Conservatives had to know that transferring that much cash to Quebec would win Bloc support.

I hear their crime bill will be a confidence issue, although the Liberals have indicated some support for some of it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Your description could have been of any one of Martin's budgets over the last decade and somehow the Cons "own:" it.


More like Martin's budgets as PM. The "hell or high water" and 2000 budgets showed much more purpose. There was always plenty of scattered spending stuff (good, bad, unknown) but this budget looks to be in that special category: everything is very very important.

Still, it beats focussing on cutting the GST and does have some good ideas (old and new), so it's better than last year.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

zoziw said:


> The Conservatives had to know that transferring that much cash to Quebec would win Bloc support.
> 
> I hear their crime bill will be a confidence issue, although the Liberals have indicated some support for some of it.


if this were a Liberal budget, the cons on this board would accuse the Liberals of pandering to Quebec, again

now it's just "good politics"

oye


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> and yes MS is right in his assessment.


Yes...his avatar is a picture of his cat, Bogey.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> everything is very very important


 ...why how Martinesque 
Yeah I agree it was a typical Martin as PM budget - not Martin as deficit slayer.

I also agree better than the last one. The "buying of Quebec votes" goes unabated.
Not sure it will make a big diff in the GTA.
The flip side of something for everyone is too little for anyone. ( Quebec excepted ).
McGuinty liked it - Miller did not. saw off there.

No GST cut - good. Lame effort at the national childcare/early education issue. 

What are other provincial heads saying???/ - I know NL is bitter.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Miller has just finished beaming about getting some giant porky TTC cash infusion, and now he's screaming like an angry toddler. It's Miller's birthday and he needs a steady stream of presents or he's gonna get mighty angry!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What are other provincial heads saying???


"EDMONTON - Premier Ed Stelmach had a $353-million smile on his face Monday when he said he was "elated" with a federal budget that delivered extra cash Alberta has long been asking for.
The provincial government will now get the same amount in per-person transfers from Ottawa that other provinces get for post-secondary education and social funding, after years of being underpaid through what the government has lately called "double equalization."
Asked how his government will spend its new-found wealth, Stelmach offered no details. "It will go back to services for people," the premier said."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=b7ac5914-b569-4aff-b2b5-30a113a22ba8


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> if this were a Liberal budget, the cons on this board would accuse the Liberals of pandering to Quebec, again
> 
> now it's just "good politics"
> 
> oye


I've heard it said that only the Liberals could have gotten away with Paul Martin's 1995 budget.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

zoziw said:


> I've heard it said that only the Liberals could have gotten away with Paul Martin's 1995 budget.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This applies to the Conservatives as well. Can you imagine the outcry from Alberta if the Liberals had started taxing income trusts and eliminated the oilsands tax break in yesterday's budget?

According to the most recent poll, the Conservatives have 61% support in Alberta.

The Liberals can pass far more conservative budgets than the Conservatives can and the Conservatives can target Alberta much more successfully than the Liberals can and both will get away with it while the other can't.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah lucky he did too.....otherwise Harper would have had empty pockets yesterday. 

I notice Dion is paralleling the deficit slaying success with the carbon reduction task.
Might not be a bad tactic to associate the two.

•••

Z - you've made a great case for minority govs :clap:


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

*Lesson Learned?*

All in all the federal budget seems a pretty good one. Given it's authors, it is very middle of the road. A little bit here, a little there....with decent balance and some innovations. 

On the down side it is clearly an effort to try and buy the conditions for a majority in the next election. Which is where and when we will find out if Canadians have learned a lesson from our own history - present budget included.

The lesson Harper and associates hopes Canadians take away is that he and the Reform/Conservative Alliance are a safe middle of the road bunch that can be trusted with a majority and should be given the chance. 

However the real lesson for the electorate is that a minority government serves the nation best. Arrogance and extremist tendencies are kept in check. 

Eight years of Liberal majority in Ottawa and 8 of Common Sense Conservatives in Toronto help illustrate this point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think this budget, as well as the past few minority budgets are good examples of what's wrong with minority-based permanent electioneering. Maybe if there wasn't always that majority prize dangling out there it would be different, but these budgets more resemble U.S.-style free-for-alls than achieving national priorities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would certainly have liked to see harsher deficit slashing--within the confines of what is actually payable at this point. Admittedly, I don't know how much of the deficit can be paid off by the feds at this point without invoking a penalty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But Beej the fiscal imbalance was reasonably addressed and some other "priorities" at least paid lip service to.

The problem with majorities is it's the specific govs priorities that get addressed and others ignored.

I agree a majority may be more efficient when the priorities are clear ( ie the deficit fight ) but when there are conflicting areas - in my mind the minority proves it's worth.

We MAY be up for THREE minorities at the same time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The fiscal imbalance, as a creation of politicians, will never be addressed. It can be handled in a politically advantageous manner and be out of the news for a bit. But, yes, some tweaks to transfer payments were well chosen.

As for priorities...I can think of one or two. 

Taking the last few budgets together, I think the minority governments have gone through about, what, $25B in annual surpluses? We are not getting nearly enough done for that kind of money. Maybe it would have been even worse with a majority. Who knows?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> As for priorities...I can think of one or two.


Where is that income splitting and cut in GST?

I'm surprised that the tribal cons here have not decried that with the massive spending, it must mean we are overtaxed...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm surprised that the tribal cons here have not decried that with the massive spending, it must mean we are overtaxed...


AS: Why don't you name the "tribal cons" first? Then we'll have a starting point for your thesis.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What I'd like to see is a whole bunch of Rae days applied to Ottawa and Queens Park 

How is Harper doing at reducing gov size in Ottawa?? He surely is not reducing the power of the PM....seems he has a fetish for Chretien as politician guru.

Looks like the city complaints are going to be deflected onto the provinces - ie no progress at all.
If Ottawa sucks out more than it gives back just where are the cities to raise funds?

How about a capital gains tax on property flips in the GTA collected BY the GTA in the form of a percentage of the flip differential with a 7 year scale to zero. - Solve housing prices and give the GTA a nice boost in revenue. 
Easy to track, takes the towns off the property tax addiction, removes incentive to speculate. 

Maybe just collect like the real estate industry from both sides of the transaction....realtors seem to be able to afford all those billboards.......

Let see there was turnover of $1.5 billion in real estate transactions in the GTA ......IN DECEMBER!!!!!!

I wonder how much it cost the cities to support the realty industries own largesse.

1% transaction tax on each side of the deal - $3 million a month. :clap:


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

This may not be popular but I don't agree with scrapping the GST. Sure its a pain but honestly its a fair tax as the more you spend the more you pay. I'da rather see that income go to the debt though like it was supposed too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Andrew Pratt said:


> This may not be popular but I don't agree with scrapping the GST. Sure its a pain but honestly its a fair tax as the more you spend the more you pay. I'da rather see that income go to the debt though like it was supposed too.


I'd like to see the GST be raised by 1% and have an across the board reduction in income tax....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spending cut by 1% and across the board reduction in income tax...you socialist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

50% reduction in Federal bureaucracy, program spending based on GST revenue only and income tax at city/provincial level.  ...you big gov con.

GTA- the next province. Hazel for premiere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The hypothetical howls from a hypothetical 50% reduction in "bureaucracy" are almost deafening, when considering the real howls that occur for other cost-cutting initiatives. 

The politics of being innovative to cut governments costs is difficult. Generally, it's best to make sure government only does things that are very (very?) important and try to make that as efficient as possible, rather than having its fingers in every pie and wishing it behaved as something that it is not. 

Essentially, get the big important social things done and focus on cost-efficiency from deep expertise in each program. That's much more likely than spending for every little idea that, due to a friendly mission statement, MUST be funded and then layering on the politics of punishing anything but zero-failure and removing managerial decisions ("accountability by numbers").


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean like 5,000 people for education......which is a provincial responsibility??

Seems CFIB has been campaigning for lower cost bureaucracy for quite a while....and the howls of indignation from the unions seems they may have hit a tender spot.

The bureaucrats don't want to look at overall comparative wages/security benefit across the citzenry.
Only against their equivalent brahmin class in "large industry mostly unionized".

Wonder why.......

Then add in the lack of risk.......course we COULD see a Rae Day equivalent float by.......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: I'd like to see deep cuts, despite the implications for me. But there are two things: 1) there are structural reasons why such cuts don't get done "intelligently" and, 2) The howling about similar, but tiny, initiatives has been deafening. Cuts, apparently, must not touch a special interest or risk not working. That's a recipe for the status quo.

People like the idea of less "bureaucracy", but when it happens they are very loud when their pet interests get hit. It's one of those things where people just say "why aren't politicians more clear and honest", and then turn around and respond to fairy dust and dishonesty.

Also, cutting wages is not a good long-term answer. The civil service (this magic theoretical efficient one) should have top-notch people. The problem is that the benefits are not really observable except maybe over very long timeframes. But raising wages doesn't work because then the poop gets raises too. It's not easy, but a small civil service is good, while a below-average civil service, of any size, is not good.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> People like the idea of less "bureaucracy", but when it happens they are very loud when their pet interests get hit. It's one of those things where people just say why aren't politicians more clear and honest, and then turn around and respond to fairy dust and dishonesty.


Bingo.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Smaller - effective and equivalent to RISK - reward in private sector.
Not equivalent to private sector no risk.

I suspect it's the same as in Britain where private pensions are in decline and public pensions rising. The gap is enormous. Too many brahmins.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: I've looked at UK jobs and, for one, there is a different approach to them (civil service as a pursuit, not politics) but the pay is challenging. It is easy to staff jobs at salary X, but not staff them well. And with the stakes, they should be staffed well, no matter how much people like to see civil servants make less.

The public service unions have created trouble by leveling the differences between the those who excel and those who don't. But, there are other problems (basic job satisfaction). It is not so easy as "Rae Days" or "Cut 50%" unless the only result that matters is cost-cutting. In that case, we're back to the howling, as experienced in many places, including Ottawa. The people want "cuts" and, because they don't understand what it means, get either an axe-man or fake cuts. Don't fall into that trap.

People seem to think it's just a matter of cutting "stuff" but have problems when "stuff" is (not) done, including whining for years afterwards when it doesn't go right. "Past government initiative X didn't work, new initiative Y sounds the same, so I'll loudly complain about it." That works well to cement the good ol' SQ.

Part of innovation is failure and learning from the failure, not using it as a talisman against all such similar endeavors. Think Wile E. Coyote: why not try again? Politics/entertainment. They're not that different.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You must realize I'm somewhat tongue in cheek on 50% but where is the fear of failure that exists in the private sector.

BTW I'm including crown corps and edu in this diatribe.

It's bloat like the 5000 edu staff that annoys me. Why does it take a recession or some such to reduce staff.
Beej - you say need good people BUT where is the risk factor that exists for private and if private pensions are scarce why are public so prevalent.
Are govs that gutless???

Blunt..public service unions in my mind should have a very very restrictive mandate related to work safety and complaint resolution...period.

I do decry the loss of organizational structure that occurs when major efforts like the national childcare program are unwound at political whim but it seems there are not enough sunset clauses in programs that require a review.

In your view what is a model department?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Blunt..public service unions in my mind should have a very very restrictive mandate related to work safety and complaint resolution...period.


Drop the words "public service" and you have pegged all unions . . . period.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I wonder how much it cost the cities to support the realty industries own largesse.
> 
> 1% transaction tax on each side of the deal - $3 million a month. :clap:


Transactional costs for real estate are too high already. I don't like government taxing the transfer of a primary home. Ordinary working Canadians don't just move for the fun of it. They generally move for major life decisions. For example, I recently had to sell my 1 BR condo and buy a townhouse because I am a soon to be father. Yet, I had to pay a HUGE amount of money to the government for little reason.

If you want to tax property flippers and investors, then fine.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes property flippers. and claw back some from the real estate industry which in my view is far too well heeled for the work they do.
I'd rather see lower property taxes and higher transaction taxes and a scale out where after 7 years the home owner is realizes all capital gains tax free.
Just an idea but spiralling land values is a terrible thing for societies and there needs to be a brake on it and a method for cities to raise revenues...personally I think a good portion can come from realtors.

( I agree they are too high but I put that at the feet of the realtors 0- too many protected vested interests ).

••

Sinc - there is a real risk in private enterprise that a union's action will result in failure of the company or most often it leaving the area so a union for a private concern must bear that in mind for negotiating.
There is no such risk in the public sector.
The dynamic between unon and management in private sector is very different than in the public sector as there is no bankruptcy- close up shop risk.

Generally governments will adhere to good business practice in dealing with employees whereas unscrupulous corporations have no such qualms.
To offset that tendency to exploit unions are needed...but they must be responsible in THEIR practice as businesses need be.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yes property flippers. and claw back some from the real estate industry which in my view is far too well heeled for the work they do.
> I'd rather see lower property taxes and higher transaction taxes and a scale out where after 7 years the home owner is realizes all capital gains tax free.
> Just an idea but spiralling land values is a terrible thing for societies and there needs to be a brake on it and a method for cities to raise revenues...personally I think a good portion can come from realtors.
> 
> ( I agree they are too high but I put that at the feet of the realtors 0- too many protected vested interests ).


Nobody forces anybody to use a traditional realtor.

You can sell a home privately or you can go with one of the new discount realty firms that charge lower commissions.

I would rather the government stay out of the free market.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now there is a point MacDoc and I can agree upon.

I have always maintained that real estate agents are nothing more than used car salesmen with houses.

Granted, they don't usually wear the plaid jackets though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm with VanDave on this as well. 

I also feel land transfer taxes are horrific tax grabs. 

But why should I be angry if someone "flips: properties? I won't buy from a "flipper." If someone wants to, it's up to them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I figure I'll buy from whoever I want to, provided I want the house or land badly enough. In the end I don't care if someone is flipping properties or not. If I want to get into the game of paying top dollar, that's my business - or foolishness. That's about as free market as you can get... and I prefer it that way.

I'm betting that attempting to somehow regulate property 'flipping' (through legislation) would result in yet another government department producing more yards of red tape. It works against the freedom of movement of goods and money. It's not great for the economy, that's for sure.

If you don't like real estate speculation, don't get into the game. Certainly it's a risky one. Real estate is one way of making money - perhaps not the best one but it's an avenue all the same. Let's avoid the nastiness of more central planning... it kills incentive.

On the other hand it's interesting to see what the effects of unchecked real estate inflation can be. Certainly it's helped encourage the growth of urban sprawl, with all of the inefficiencies of service/infrastructure that entails. Cheap fuel, a pivotal element on which sprawl depends, is now threatened. That's why we are bound to see increases of population density in our cities. Unless you are fortunate enough to be a telecommuter, in which case you can live in the country and partake of cheap land and lower taxes. I wonder how many Canadians telecommute now, as opposed to, say, five years ago; I may be wrong but I have a feeling it's not become as popular as it was once predicted to be.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> The Liberals can pass far more conservative budgets than the Conservatives can and the Conservatives can target Alberta much more successfully than the Liberals can and both will get away with it while the other can't.


Yes, I feel like I am in bizzaroworld. This is an Ontario and Quebec budget. Quebec is getting 3 times the amount per capita that BC is getting. BC needs investment in the Gateway project and the feds have short-changed this project, which is vital to Canada.

If the Liberals proposed this budget, I think the West would not be happy. 

And now MacDoc is talking about slashing the civil service and AS says there is too much public spending.

Everything has flipped around.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Yes, I feel like I am in bizzaroworld. This is an Ontario and Quebec budget. Quebec is getting 3 times the amount per capita that BC is getting. BC needs investment in the Gateway project and the feds have short-changed this project, which is vital to Canada.
> 
> If the Liberals proposed this budget, I think the West would not be happy.
> 
> ...


if this budget were put forth by a Liberal gov't the howls from the con crowd would be loud and constant

"damn fiberals"
"west wants in"
"liberals only support ontario and quebec"

etc.

be careful of what you wish (and vote) for


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> I'm betting that attempting to somehow regulate property 'flipping' (through legislation) would result in yet another government department producing more yards of red tape. It works against the freedom of movement of goods and money. It's not great for the economy, that's for sure.


Actually, the US system of keeping this in check is not bad. (Actually, I'm not sure if this is all of the US or just California.)

If you don't live in the house for at least 2 years, you get hit with capital gains tax. Otherwise, you don't.

It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's a simple way to keep property flipping somewhat in check.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You must realize I'm somewhat tongue in cheek on 50%
> ...................................
> Beej - you say need good people BUT where is the risk factor that exists for private
> ...................................
> In your view what is a model department?


50%: I would hope so, but even lower numbers are tough. If I recall correctly, of all the big "cutter" governments (Harris, Campbell, Chretien, Klein) only Klein's numbers matched the rhetoric. The other one's did not come close. But remember the complaining?
...................................
For recruiting and keeping good young talent, things like "defined benefit pension" and "job stability for life" mean near-squat (my opinion), relative to large companies that rarely fire competent people and offer matched contributions as well as bonuses.

As for senior management talent, unless you really feel the need to serve the public, why would you put up with less money, more s**t and less job certainty? 

So what, exactly, is government offering that's so valuable to keep the good employees? 
...................................
It's not by department but by function. When you can clearly see that the public good is being delivered, then it's easier to keep that held high while cutting costs (someone still has to demand cost-cutting). Without that, how do you know when you've cut too much: When the department's tears run red? beejacon

"Good" cost-cutting is easier said than done: the political system rewards "no news", which favours ensuring that every i is dotted etc. 

You can tell a manager to "be innovative", but if he knows he'll get $2,000 for success or run out of town for failure, guess which one he picks? This is, of course, after he swears that they're cut to the bone. How do you know if he's right or not? Thus: hire a man (or woman) with an axe.

I don't think that's the only way but, politically, it's a lot more votable than "continuous improvement". Yet, Charest and Campbell are trying this in different ways. Newsflash: Government FTE count per capita down 1%!!! Red tape slashed 10%!!! A government needs to have a longer time horizon to reap the real benefits of this stuff. In a minority? Cut $1B and watch the fur fly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny you don't mention Rae Beej. I wold guess by numbers no one reduced the size/cost of Gov like he HAD to.
You also fail to mention public service unions.
In both cases lack of risk distorts structures.

•••

Sonal - got anymore info on that - France has ( had ) a similar system to keep inflation in check. It was over 10 years counting down to zero.

•••

Max that is one aspect you touch on - housing inflation encourages sprawl and it also severely hampers a city's ability to PLAN for higher density, better transport.

For the downsides of spiralling land costs look no further than Japan - one of THE major factors in the economic doldrums they suffered for the last 15 years was insane land values.

http://bayarearealestatebubble.blogspot.com/2006/01/history-of-japans-housing-bubble.html

Even local spirals are damaging - society ends up searching and paying for "low cost housing", fighting wages demands, provding more transport for people commuting in from "affordable" regions. The list goes on.

Because city spending is based on property tax alone with no access to income based taxes a sale by your neighbor ends up costing YOU money. It costs our kids in trying to find a decent cost place to live, the workers that are critical to a city demand more to be able to live there....up it goes.
Now if the same capital is encouraged by tax structure to convert say a largish old home into a high density 6 plex. All win.
••

Land is nowhere close to a free market.( been discussed elsewhere ) Gold might be, craigslist might be - city real estate is not even close.

Tax policy can divert focus on "no value added" flips to real development. ie if capital gains take 10 years to be realized 100% on flips but two years say on developing a higher density housing development results in say 50% -70% tax free gains then a city could partner their planning for high density with capital for development. ( St. Lawrence market ).

Cities need to be able to plan carefully and rely on the structures ON the land to serve the citizens well.
Instead an enormous amount of money is spent on land not structures and planning goals for say mixed income affordable housing, inproved transport systems become incredibly difficult to achieve and city income does not track income prosperity but becomes locked stepped to spiralling land values which are not value added.

There is interesting information on Canberra and Hong Kong where land is owned by the city and leased so structures become the focus of value. It's not without it's issues either.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=363

Gotta run but if city income were geared differently away from rising property values and based more on the prosperity the STRUCTURES of a city produce - I suspect we'd do better as a society in achieving certain goals.

Arguing about those goals is another issue.
There are cautionary tales elsewhere in the world about spiralling land costs and the associated damage.

There needs be a better way than having cities depend on rising real property values for income rather than an income based taxation put in the mix.

Harper says cities need to live within their means but when available tax dollars are flowing outside instead of being tapped first by the city - tthe city has no control and there are limits to what additional can be raised.

I thought 1% GST back to the cities - perhaps matched by 1% PST at least reflects spending/prosperity levels instead of relying wholly on real estate values.

Slowing specualtion down by tax policy also provides an income stream - and allows the city to point development along certain lines in keeping with it's planning goals.

Sure vague ideas but right now the structure for cities is not working and we've seen in many areas the damage spiralling housing costs inflicts.

Ottawa housing seems not as volatile...what goes on there differently ( it sure sprawls is one thing ). I suspect the Capital planning commmision also has enrmously greater power than in most municipalities.

It's one reason Canberra as capital of Australia was palnned from empty ground that no one but the city could freehold.
They wanted the planning control.
There is a lesson there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It's one reason Canberra as capital of Australia was palnned from empty ground that no one but the city could freehold.
> They wanted the planning control.
> There is a lesson there.


in some quarters there would be cries of "socialism !!" and of course that's the next step to "communism !!!" and masses of godless citizens gathering for sexual orgies....

of course, that might mean that your Lexus won't get washed as quickly and those Bay St. types need their Lexus washed NOW....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Case in point - $204,900 - the least expensive house in Toronto.










http://www.thestar.com/article/194213

*and in other news.....*












> *Minimum wage to rise*
> 
> CHARLA JONES / TORONTO STAR
> Activists demonstrate outside of Queen’s Park yesterday afternoon for an immediate raise in the province’s minimum wage to $10 an hour.
> ...




...round and round

http://www.thestar.com/article/194288


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Funny you don't mention Rae Beej. I wold guess by numbers no one reduced the size/cost of Gov like he HAD to.
> You also fail to mention public service unions.
> In both cases lack of risk distorts structures.


Had to is a flexible term for governments until they're bankrupt. It would have been grotesquely stupid for him not to. But, sure, add him in too. Filmon also maintaned a good control on spending for years. Add him too? 

I was talking about the "headline" cutters that ran on the platform or, in the case of Chretien, as a nationally known benchmark because not everybody knows about other province's premiers. I'm sorry I omitted your favour leadership candidate. 

None of them (the ones I've named, including Rae, just for you) came close to Klein, yet the howls in, for example, Ontario were and still are loud, even from those that would like cheaper government. Cutting "bureaucracy" is easier said than voted for.

Unions, including public sector, distort structures and favour risk-aversity (e.g. slow changes to job descriptions and duties) and flatten the performance/pay curves through more rigid structures for giving raises and rewards. I didn't think that needed to be mentioned. Government's having deeper pockets is balanced with their legislative power, so unions face an interesting negotiation there: read the politics right, or get steamrolled. I'd rather negotiate with someone whereby mutual interests could be found than someone waiting for the right poll to take away my bargaining position.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that (even without unions) government, by its nature, is not built to be cost-efficient...not the least of which is because there's no measure of output for what they do except the act itself (presumption of adequate value). 

It takes a lot of effort (or just random hacking) to squeeze efficiency out of the difficult-to-measure stuff, and there will be failures in the attempt. Voters remember exposed failures but generally seem to reward nicely packaged (ie. Spending and Tax Cut announcements) successes. So a government needs time to build up enough from little efficiency victories. Unless they were hired as lumberjacks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, please, please, please don't tell me that putting up those two photos was supposed to create some sort of lesson about rising land values causing an increase in minimum wage. I'll just reverse them--voila, minimum wage increase leads to higher land land values!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Location, location, location. It's not that complicated.

For around $250k you can buy a hobby farm outside Ottawa. So what?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So simple MF - what trash. Let them eat cake eh
Japans situation means nothing right. 

Inflation spirals are straight forward and damaging unless kept in check and cities will find it harder and harder to meet density development goals without putting disincentives for land speculation and incentives for structure development.
Your laissez faire daydream is long gone.

Cities are looking for tax streams that are reflect business and individual prosperity not land prices.
Realtors, lawyers, banks, insurance companies and unfortunately municipalities the way their income flow is structured have vested interest in seeing land values rise.
That conflicts with planning goals and affordable housing initiatives.
Tapping a bit of that realty "churn" on both sides plus nicking fast flips I see as a viable alternative as an partial income stream and perhaps slowing speculation while encouraging development of higher density housing.

Costa Rica takes an interesting mixed approach keeping waterfront away from speculation entirely while encouraging development of structure while leaving relatively easily available land farther back in freehold.

British Virgin Islands has an similar set up but all the land is held in family trusts - can be developed not sold so once more structure is the focus and an income stream flows to the permanent residents from the trusts.

In mind setting up conditions that rewards structure and services to the community above rising land values is a needed goal for cities - especially given the decarbonization changes that are coming where density planning is even more critical.
How to achieve it requires some creative thinking and leadership.

Here's a case of property tax spiral/addiction gone insane.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/20/1100838277853.html?from=storylhs


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, comparing Toronto to Japan or Hong Kong is a stretch. Totally different topographies involved... cities hemmed in by mountains and water. The more rugged the land, the more costly it is to spread yet more city over it. We in the GTA suffer no such constraints... we are free to gobble up as much (farm!)land as we think we need - East, West and North. 

Besides, the notion of the city owning the land and free-holding banned within the city limits is utterly repugnant to me. An institution (I'm thinking the city council here) as prone to politicking, and the stupid decisions often arising from it, being my landlord? No thanks.

That noted you do point out some of the downsides to spiraling land values and some of the modifications that could be implemented in terms of capital gains and other rules meant to discourage wanton flipping. However, I'm still not convinced that flipping in and of itself is the bane of everything. What's going to happen is that, as long as our cities can uphold reasonable levels of services and the local and zone economies they serve remain healthy, we can expect the price of land ownership to steadily rise... because the cities, love 'em or hate 'em, will still be very popular destinations.

I have an old friend from my Homelands days who just moved back to Canada after 15 years abroad working in London, Paris and Berlin, then back to London. He said he had to leave London because the cost of living was sucking him dry. He and his wife and infant son came over here because he thinks he can do much more for his family in Canada. He's talking optimistically of buying a house in the central GTA within the next year or two. I asked him over a pint the other night if he ever thought of getting a flat in London and staying put. He said he might have been able to manage it but he'd be sweating blood and there'd be a premium on space... here he's looking at an entire house, not just a measly flat. He looks at this city and he's _optimistic_. He sees opportunities and services, not festering problems and expanding dread.

So things are relative. I do agree that cities must get better at planning for the future. Alas, the big Achilles heel there is that city structures, being political entities, have a very hard time concentrating on anything beyond the next election horizon. We need leadership as never before.

What we get is political character assassination of anyone who threatens to actually become a leader... such is the nature of this era. The media is the tool with which we slay our would-be leaders. If you can't cleave 'em in two in the arena, a good smear is always a handy backup. But that's another topic altogether.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ...cities will find it harder and harder to meet density development goals..


Excellent. The over-crowded city model is a disaster designed to feed failing transit systems and citiy adminstrations' addiction to spending money. Never saw the glory in this.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Meanwhile, the State Government will face increasing political pressure from the 160,000 Victorians who will pay an estimated $916 million in land taxes this financial year. In 2001 they paid just a little over $500 million. "

That's a government spending problem. Giving them access to more streams of revenue won't help that problem. I have no problem with the concept of land transfer-type taxes (ON has them) but don't see the need to promote them as anything but just another tax. No magic results, fixed planning or government restraint.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course, if we support an artifical "intensification" program to encourage people to move to city centres, we also get--TA-DAH!--spiralling property price increases as more people compete for scarcer properties and rental units.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

True, but demand for that same finite amount of property is offset by building vertically, thereby increasing density. To a certain point, as density rises so too does the efficiency levels and related economic savings.

Go too far of course, and there's introduced profound disparities (in terms of personal income levels of the citizenry and abundance of opportunities). It could amount to a recipe for blossoming urban problems.

If anything, people living in denser cities have to be more civil than ever if things are to work. But many fear that the opposite would occur... that we'd all turn on one another like rats in a cage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Building upward is actually an extremely inefficient way of operating past a fairly low rise of building. Works great for condo developers because the tall ones are cheaper to build per floor--then more expensive to maintain. Also, the thought of living in a sea of high rise condo towers--plus the rat in a cage factor--makes for a great recipe for urban decay.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Building upward is actually an extremely inefficient way of operating past a fairly low rise of building. Works great for condo developers because the tall ones are cheaper to build per floor--then more expensive to maintain. Also, the thought of living in a sea of high rise condo towers--plus the rat in a cage factor--makes for a great recipe for urban decay.


Point taken but perhaps you are missing my point. Multiply middle-rise buildings per given size lot and you don't have to go much beyond 4 or 5 stories for attractive economies of scale to take effect. In my view, that can only be a good thing; too, the scale of such mid-rise structures is much less daunting, much more human and conductive to a bustling village effect. Cities need not be cold homogenous blobs mindlessly serving thier inhabitants; much of their charm lies in them being in fact multiple entities under one broad umbrella - in other words, a host of separate neighborhoods, each with his own flavour.

Nor do I believe that a profusion of tall residential buildings necessarily equates to crime and urban decay. There's a big condo market in Van and it's pretty intensive, and I don't see people crying in alarm about soaring crime rates... people are more apt to complain about gridlock. Toronto too has a good deal of cranes downtown; they're putting up condo towers at a brisk pace. They would not be doing so if people were staying away, citing crime or decay.

You do not need hundreds of 30 to 5- story buildings. You need thousands of 4 and 5 story buildings... requiring notably less energy to run services to the upper floors. Think multiple use buildings where ground floors are largely commercial spaces and everything above is residential. This is where I suspect we in Toronto are headed; I do not view this direction with any trepidation. In fact, I welcome it. Anything which brings more positive people into the city centre is good by me... keeps it vital and we avoid the dreaded hole in the donut syndrome.

I don't know what part of town you are in, but in my hood it's just starting to catch on as a cool destination place for first-time home buyers and young hipsters alike. I salute more moves to bring more people into what has essentially been a sleepy patch of low-density housing and old-school light industrial use for many decades. Time for the area to change. Change, too, reflects the health of cities. Even when we least expect the outcomes of such change to be good ones.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One only needs to look at Paris with a smaller footprint and 13 million people.
4-5 apartments vertical on every street a similar look mandated gorgeous people friendly city......with too many dogs.

Where's a Canadian Napoleon when needed.

Density developments that are also highly energy efficient should be fast tracked.

•••

If you follow the tax money generated by realtor churning you'll see that while th activityy is in te GTA the profits are taxed at corporate and personal levlels which flow to Ottawa first. There is no city access to that.

Even things like signage and advertising generated while staying in the region for jobs does not provide a tax flow increase to the region.
A one billion churn a month in activity with little ( transfer tax ) to the municipality.

Correctly residuals should go to the Province and Feds with the muncipalities having first dibs on the enonomic activity generated taxes.

City state first....where people work and live.....then regional then Fed. It's bassackwards now.

Maybe Singapore is the coming model for an urban dominated world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, four to five storey is economically advantageous. The Minto Towers at Yonge and Egg are not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Highrises are preferable in many respects, including environmental and efficiency of city services, as well as being better for "liveable" communities because they have the population mass to fully support nearby (even in-building) retail.

Fully recognising that would involve a shift in property taxes for full cost allocation (some cities have partial). True polluter-pay and full marginal cost taxation would be unlikely to garner support amongst the sprawl. Best to look for band-aids for now.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Yes, four to five storey is economically advantageous. The Minto Towers at Yonge and Egg are not.


You have to wonder why that is so... local councils unwilling to stand up to rapacious developers? Local pols already in the pocket of those same developers? I suspect something along those lines. One of my brothers lives at Yonge and Lawrence and I'm fairly familiar with the area... once upon a time, back in the early 80s, I worked maintenance at a graceful old townhome complex on Broadway. The whole neighbourhood has been charmingly low-rise and I sympathize with those whose homes will fall into the shadow zone cast by the new complex. Similar projects have been successfully fought off elsewhere; I wonder what happened here.

We will be seeing more clashes of this nature as time goes on and the city pols are going to have to find some spine to stand up to the constant torque maintained by more aggressive development interests. I'm afraid that urban densification is going to be plagued by a lot of bad development before we start to get things right.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

While increasing density in urban areas undoubtedly has some benefits, it would be nice to see things like telecommuting live up to their promise as well.

Increasing density alone doesn't do much for people that live at one end of an urban area and work on the other. It could also help out folks who would prefer to live in a low density community out in the sticks - not everyone wants to live in a small apartment above a retail development.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah for sure - I do think it is pretty prevalent but not up to what it could be.
I have a hard time with high rises - much of Toronto waterfront is awful.

St. Lawrence is about as highas I'd like to see tho the occasional luxury tower has it's place.
I detest light industrial single story units - waste of space and services - should be affordable housin 3 deep on top of EVERY unit.

There used to be some in the Etobicoke area.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> While increasing density in urban areas undoubtedly has some benefits, it would be nice to see things like telecommuting live up to their promise as well.
> 
> Increasing density alone doesn't do much for people that live at one end of an urban area and work on the other. It could also help out folks who would prefer to live in a low density community out in the sticks - not everyone wants to live in a small apartment above a retail development.


Which is why I posed the question about how deeply telecommuting has taken. I wonder what factors contribute to the resistance companies have for this... probably there are some quality control issues involved. Certainly telecommuting does not appeal to those who like to micro-manage their employees.

Some days I begin to think that the promise of telecommuting went into the same black hole into which has long disappeared the utopian promise of greater leisure hours for the common individual, and graceful whizzing hovercars. But I hope those are simply pessimistic moments.

No, not everyone wants to live above a retail development. Those who can - who are ambitious and hungry enough to work for it - will buy into existing semis and detached homes - after all, there will always be a cachet for that sort of property. But as for the rest, since densification is going up anyway, it leaves little for them in the way of prospects for those who need to work but abhor cities... and commuting in them, on already-choked road and transit-ways. In time it will become apparent to all how advantageous (and sanity-granting) it can be to minimize distance between the workplace and home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I'm intimately familiar with Yonge Lawrence The development problems in that area are largely the result of _encouragemen_t by Toronto Council. Developer says "I want to build 25 storeys" and the city says "Wait, only 15," so they compromise at 20. The citizens watch a game of Good Cop/Bad Cop and assume they have witnessed community consultation at its finest.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Why am I not surprised by the Toronto Council's shenanigans? Perhaps it's time it was seriously overhauled orscrapped altogether.

Alas, that could merely amount to a bandaid solution... unless we get some new thinking happening, the pattern would merely repeat itself under a new regime. Amazing how quickly these bodies calcify and attract corruption.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There are some councillors who are less into wanton development, but even they have to face up to the outmoded Ontario Municipal Board which frequently overturns hard-won victories in favour of the developer--although not always.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed that the OMB is even worse. A bunch of shiftless no-accounts, most of the time. Reminds me of that opaque, arrogant group, the Port Authority. _Meh_.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> Which is why I posed the question about how deeply telecommuting has taken. I wonder what factors contribute to the resistance companies have for this... probably there are some quality control issues involved. Certainly telecommuting does not appeal to those who like to micro-manage their employees.


From what I've seen, it has barely taken. A lot of jobs could be done by telecommute the majority of the time. But, as is often the case, a lot of the real value comes from being available in person. 

My guess is that, aside from the usual suspect of change being difficult, there are not enough cost savings for many places. An office would have to invest in better communications technology and still not save much office space, plus it would face the reduced time-responsiveness when someone is suddenly needed in the office. This doesn't apply to all jobs, just the types of work I've done or worked closely with.

I'd take the opportunity (have asked for it with various employers) but, knowing the jobs I've had, can see why it is not done as much as it seems it should be. I think its use will increase, just not to the revolutionary levels that were hoped for (until Apple releases iPerson).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even the efficient telecommuter can be met with suspicion. Even if he produces twice as much work as the next employee, someone will be angry if they see said telecommuter at Starbucks or walking the dog during the work day because he might have produced three times as much if he stayed home.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Even the efficient telecommuter can be met with suspicion. Even if he produces twice as much work as the next employee, someone will be angry if they see said telecommuter at Starbucks or walking the dog during the work day because he might have produced three times as much if he stayed home.


I have asserted a strict, "Input is not your business." policy in my last couple jobs. beejacon

Essentially, I'll tell my boss if I can't handle my work load and my boss will tell me if I'm not earning my pay but my input is no one's business (unless I'm bored and feel like looking for work). I don't intend to be punished just because I can work faster (a common nuisance from primary and secondary school).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> From what I've seen, it has barely taken. A lot of jobs could be done by telecommute the majority of the time. But, as is often the case, a lot of the real value comes from being available in person.


I believe that this remains the single most striking reason it has not taken off. Face time remains very important.

Agreed, though, that your 'input' schedules and strategies are of no one's business but your own; as long as you make stipulated deadlines, that's the way it should be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One consulting firm in the US has realized enormous savings by introducing the "hotelier" concept where their staff on the road "book" office space when they are in the office and their gear is moved in and out as needed.

They reduced their real estate needs by some 30%.

I'm not sure face time is that useful - it's just "the old way of doing things".

Certainly some situations call for it but I'm sure there are many that can be eliminated.

That is one aspect I was pleased with the Liberals - they had decent programs that spread gov facilities around the nation instead of concentrating them.

Yeah there is a bit of make work in that but also better a facility in smaller town than jammed up with the rest.
That's almost as good as a telecommute solution - maybe better.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

This just in:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070322.wpoll23/BNStory/National/home

I wonder if the clean air act will become a confidence vote now?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> This just in:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070322.wpoll23/BNStory/National/home
> 
> I wonder if the clean air act will become a confidence vote now?


Conservatives 39%
Liberals 31%
NDP 13%
Green 9%
Bloc - down

I guess this budget went over well with voters.

The Conservatives are ready to go into this election. They have already laid out the necessary logistics and will hit the ground running should it happen. Meanwhile the opposition is not anywhere near as ready as the Conservatives. You can't underestimate how this translates into votes over the campaign. 

Anybody want to update their take on odds? 4:1 is starting to look pretty good to me right now.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Don't go counting your chickens just yet... The Stockwell issue is just about to blow up in their face. While the Conservatives seem strong in the polls I am not sure they can maintain that momentum. What I will concede is that if an election is called now, the Conservatives will maintain their minority government position.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..nothin new.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ..nothin new.


You give me no credit for being able to present a neutral assessment. I am very capable of separating what I want and what I think.

You will probably recall that in the last election I was not calling for a majority government. I said they had too many obstacles for getting there.

I also just said above that the odds are still against them, say 3:1. But, I do believe there is a reasonable probability that they can get a majority government. 

How is that champagne? Seems pretty rationale to me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ..nothin new.


Nope. I thought you would have figured out the concept of probabilities by now. I'm not talking about advanced statistics, just the basics. But, nothing new.

VD: If you'd accept 3:1, I'll bet against a Con majority at that. Something meaningful but not too large (x3 could hurt me  ). I'm willing to bet for a Con majority, but would want about 9:1. 

Is it champagne to use 3, 9, some other number or just the audacity to even discuss probabilities? MD's a bright guy, he'll figure it out yet. Of course, it could just be a way to figure out how to act like he predicted something (e.g. Dion -- the stock market may go up tomorrow; if it does then I predicted that).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

WHEN an election is called and campaign underway........that's something to chew on and maybe make a call.

Currently???........bubbles.

Quebec election is going to have a big impact.
Quebec backlash is yet to be measured.
Contrived suicide or opposition intransigence??

Hey buy them lottery tickets...love voluntary taxes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hey buy them lottery tickets...love voluntary taxes.


"you really don't get it do you....just stupid comment after stupid comment 
Grow up."

Seriously MD, this is not that complex to understand. I'm surprised you still don't get it as demonstrated by the lottery comparison (think about it, it shouldn't take too long to figure it out). You seem to understand some aspect of probability, but not enough to "get it" yet. Keep trying. Yes probabilities change and do right up to the final poll. No news there, MD.

And yes, your continued "bubbles" type comments not only display a lack of understanding but are quite hilarious after:

"you really don't get it do you....just stupid comment after stupid comment 
Grow up."

So nice, I used it twice.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It's not as nice being on the receiving end, is it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Currently???........bubbles.


How so? Im what way have I been too optimistic? Be specific. In fact, try to be numerical. If possible, please try to use a probability ratio.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> VD: If you'd accept 3:1, I'll bet against a Con majority at that. Something meaningful but not too large (x3 could hurt me  ). I'm willing to bet for a Con majority, but would want about 9:1.


3:1 was a typo... I meant to say 4:1, which was my comment in the prior post (i.e. 4:1 looks good).

So, how about 3.5:1 ?

How much?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Awww poor JJ - caught with the graffiti can. If you don't like it- don't engage in it.
I respond in kind.

••

Beej - I'll make my call, maybe, when there's a writ dropped. No puerile needling will change that.

••

Eagerness to go to the electorate when the electorate isn't interested has cost many a promising political run to fail.
I admire Harper for so far sticking to governing.
These guys might collectively start to learn how one of these days.
Some signs at least.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> 3:1 was a typo... I meant to say 4:1, which was my comment in the prior post (i.e. 4:1 looks good).
> 
> So, how about 3.5:1 ?
> 
> How much?


Sure. $20? I win, I've got enough for some beer. You win, you get enough for pizza, beer and a movie.

Spring/Summer election only or called anytime in 2007?

As for results, exclude floor-crossing and such so we can just use the official Elections Canada results. And, no need to wait for them if the election night results show a big enough gap either way (ie. recounts won't change the bet's result).

MD: I'm treating you that way because you've earned it. You toss out the snide little "bubbles" comments and, now playing into the lack of probability schtick, the lottery thing. You are commenting on people openly discussing probabilities (yes, probabilities do exist before a writ is dropped!  ) but when directly asked about it, just duck and dodge. You talk about, "Eagerness to go to the electorate when the electorate isn't interested has cost many a promising political run to fail." but not about why ehmacers discussing probabilities (yes, probabilities do exist before a writ is dropped!  ... get it yet?) are given the "bubbles" response. So, of course, I treat you as you act: like the teenager in the corner who only bothers to speak up to throw in some snide irrelevant statement.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah Beej on his white charger to the rescue.

The Cons are champing on the bit for an election including clearly VD.

The comment I responded wasn't "neutral" - it was hi five.

THIS was reasonably neutral



> You give me no credit for being able to present a neutral assessment. I am very capable of separating what I want and what I think.
> 
> You will probably recall that in the last election I was not calling for a majority government. I said they had too many obstacles for getting there.
> 
> I also just said above that the odds are still against them, say 3:1. But, I do believe there is a reasonable probability that they can get a majority government.


••••

THIS on the other hand was champing at the bit. ..."ready to go...hit the ground running.....can't underestimate..........yada yada....
Champagne talk.



> The Conservatives are ready to go into this election. They have already laid out the necessary logistics and will hit the ground running should it happen. Meanwhile the opposition is not anywhere near as ready as the Conservatives. You can't *underestimate* how this translates into votes over the campaign


Now had VD said "you can't *estimate* how this translates into votes over the campaign"....I likely would not have uttered a peep.

Got another windmill you want to tackle?......


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Sure. $20? I win, I've got enough for some beer. You win, you get enough for pizza, beer and a movie.
> 
> Spring/Summer election only or called anytime in 2007?
> 
> ...


Beej I have to say that over time you have become less the pragmatic soul I once saw in you and more the pompous conservative you try so desperately to hide. You should (as any grown up) know that when the writ is dropped many things can happen. Macdoc is absolutely accurate in pointing out that "popping" the champagne is premature. That being said, unless Dion starts calling for alternative fuel based on blended kittens we are staring down the barrel of another conservative minority.

The more interesting question that everyone is missing is why is it so important that the Conservatives get a majority? What is so high on their agenda that they want absolute control over parliament? What do they want to do that they can't do now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think Canada is getting to be well served with minority govs since there are some pretty deep ideological splits that need compromise.

A parliament that is actively reaching a centre position on those issues while actually getting legislation passed is a good thing in my mind.

The Environment bill will be a big test.

The Cons are playing politics on the Law & Order bill by refusing to fast track it despite the willingness of the opposition parties to do so.
It's that kind of obstructive partisan nonsense that is despicable.

In my view Harper is desperate for a majority as

a) his job is on the line
b) he inherently has to be forced to compromise - it's not in his nature - he's an ideologue

That he SAYS, and his finance minister confirms there is no hurry for an election speaks well.
How much of that is optics is the question.

Personally given the divisions in the country minority govs are just fine by me even in Ontario and Quebec.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> A parliament that is actively reaching a centre position on those issues while actually getting legislation passed is a good thing in my mind.


I find the "centre" a rather offensive place. I'd rather see a majority government do its thing, then get hoofed out if nobody likes it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I believe that concept called aptly "drunkards walk".

Governments have checks and balances to prevent the wild swings - minority govs are a natural fit with that concept.

Policy implemented and then reversed is generally very costly.

Ideologues generally resent compromise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose that timid unadventurous souls appreciate minority governments. I'm glad they get to enjoy them from time to time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Beej I have to say that over time you have become less the pragmatic soul I once saw in you and more the pompous conservative you try so desperately to hide. You should (as any grown up) know that when the writ is dropped many things can happen. Macdoc is absolutely accurate in pointing out that "popping" the champagne is premature. That being said, unless Dion starts calling for alternative fuel based on blended kittens we are staring down the barrel of another conservative minority.
> 
> The more interesting question that everyone is missing is why is it so important that the Conservatives get a majority? What is so high on their agenda that they want absolute control over parliament? What do they want to do that they can't do now?


Poor DJ, a little slower than the rest but doesn't realise it. 

It's ok though, because I learned a while ago not to take you seriously.

Just for you:
http://www.despair.com/humiliation.html

BTW: I know you need to rely on your fallback critique (when you don't get it, compare it to conservative), but I'm a pompous liberal. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That he SAYS, and his finance minister confirms there is no hurry for an election speaks well.
> How much of that is optics is the question.


All of it? 

The opposition would topple them on the budget given the right timing (as tried against Martin) and Harper looks for a "good" fall, given the right timing.

Interesting hypothetical raised by Newman: If Boisclair wins, would the Bloc vote against the budget (either bringing down government or forcing the Libs to wobble)?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I'm certainly not attributing common sense to the opposition either. They'd certainly play politics instead of governing as well.
Layton continues to disappoint and what's with May's move??

••••••










Star made me laugh this morning.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Who actually thought that he'd "fix" the imbalance? You can't fix what is created by personal politics with no true foundation (access to tax bases), you can only spin it right. 

Getting QC onboard and ON mumbling somewhat positively seems to be the right spin for his wants (ON and QC voters). With luck (from Harper's perspective), Williams will make an arse of himself and lessen the credibility of other complaints. 

N.S. just faced the tough choice of the clever twist in Harper's fix. 

Overall, this "fix" was intended as major part of a "fix" to the balance in parliament. It just happened to have some good changes it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mmmmm - there are some pretty clear inequities Beej.
What possible justification is there that Ontario gets less per capita for health care than other provinces.....costing Ontario some $700 million.
That's hardly "spin".

Indeed changing the underlying of who gets to impose taxes and how they flow is a monumental undertaking but with all the factors coming into play with increasing urbanization of Canada, the need to both supress sprawl and increase density and energy efficiency......forces demanding change are climbing.
80% of Canadians are in urban centres -and it's a growing percentage. That demands attention.

I do applaud the current budget for steps in the right direction tho.
For a starters I'd say define "fix" as transfers applied equally.

Beyond that yep it's an ongoing wrestling match and I'm for the gov that reduces Ottawa and puts more power in local hands.
And puts more oversight in place everywhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Mmmmm - there are some pretty clear inequities Beej.
> What possible justification is there that Ontario gets less per capita for health care than other provinces.....costing Ontario some $700 million.
> That's hardly "spin".


A previous "fix" (Trudeau, I think) was to transfer tax points (part of the reason the Feds don't pay for half of health care) whereby AB and ON per capita funding was reduced because the tax points they received were worth more than others' got (they were richer provinces). 

That gap was a relic and, as I've said, should have been "fixed" because too much has changed. But it did have a basis and, in the world of fiscal imbalance, can be defended either way depending on which side you want. It's not some blatant and baseless grab like it may have been promoted in ON. 

I just want a decent formula for the future, so that's a "fix" to me. Others, seeing the whole historical evolution of this mess, may see that as a relevant fixture. I say just think up the best way to do it from a clean slate, and transition to that. To heck with which provinces whines during which season.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> THIS on the other hand was champing at the bit. ..."ready to go...hit the ground running.....can't underestimate..........yada yada....
> Champagne talk.
> 
> Now had VD said "you can't *estimate* how this translates into votes over the campaign"....I likely would not have uttered a peep.


MacDoc if you had read my earlier posts you would see that I don't actually want an election this spring. Predicting something and wanting something are two different things. It's looking less likely than what I felt in my first post, but probable nonetheless (not that you would understand probability).

I have been clear that I would rather the parties work together rather than constantly going back to the electorate.

Do you dispute that the Conservatives are ready for the election? The offices are rented, the bank accounts are flush with cash and the jets are fueled and ready to go. Again, facts and opinions are two different creatures. These are facts.

Liberal finances are not as good as the Conservatives and I believe they still are in a debt situation. The Bloc are not in a good position given the Quebec provincial election. The NDP are floundering trying to get their support base back from the Greens.

My OPINION is that these facts matter. It seems obvious to me the party who is best prepared and has the most to spend is at an advantage. The Conservatives also have the advantage of being able to develop a strategy ahead of time. This budget could be just one piece of the larger strategy for an election this spring. The Liberals are left to react to their moves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: I think what MacDoc is getting at is that if he's capable of making a solid prediction, it isn't anything he feels is worth betting on.

More images of champagne glasses available here:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=champagne&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Sure. $20? I win, I've got enough for some beer. You win, you get enough for pizza, beer and a movie.
> 
> Spring/Summer election only or called anytime in 2007?
> 
> As for results, exclude floor-crossing and such so we can just use the official Elections Canada results. And, no need to wait for them if the election night results show a big enough gap either way (ie. recounts won't change the bet's result).


Done. 

Your call on election timing. If an election doesn't happen this spring, I think the probability of a Conservative majority improve. I think this plays to their benefit because over time Harper will become more and more established in his reputation as PM. I don't see any major issues on the horizon that would generate the voter anger required for people to feel a change is needed.

So, I leave it to you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: I think what MacDoc is getting at is that if he's capable of making a solid prediction, it isn't anything he feels is worth betting on.
> 
> More images of champagne glasses available here:


He just doesn't want to admit that there is a chance they will win a majority. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Done.
> 
> Your call on election timing. If an election doesn't happen this spring, I think the probability of a Conservative majority improve. I think this plays to their benefit because over time Harper will become more and more established in his reputation as PM. I don't see any major issues on the horizon that would generate the voter anger required for people to feel a change is needed.
> 
> So, I leave it to you.


Ok, to keep it simple let's just say it has to be called in 2007, but can take place in 2008. While Harper's chances may get better in the fall, you're more likely to have forgotten about the bet. beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

VD do you understand you sound like a locker room coach for the Cons even when you TRY not to.

I tend to agree that the longer Harper governs in minority the better chance of making himself acceptable but there are many in the country that are and will remain very leery of a majority with this crew. Losing Ontario centrists like he did is just indicative of the ideology problem.

As I've expressed for myself better this situation with a Con minority than with them in opposition. I suspect many feel that.

The "no majority" sentiment tho may be a lot stronger than appears in any poll.

Quebec might indeed be a key area if Harper plays ball seriously on climate. That may piss off some of his more dinosaurian compatriots but he can afford to do that ( hence the Liberal budget).

The Libs are squeezed as any move right loses the left and Dion is more left than Martin.

Not sure how the Greens are going to play in this. If Harper was convincing on Green and had less NeoCon and more small c component it would go a long way towards a renewed conservative centrist option ala John Tory.
I'm not sure if Harper's ever the correct guy - but a top notch candidate from elsewhere than Alberta - say down east or BC might play very well.
Interesting times.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So we're hedging. Got it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF
No....... observing...something ideologues have trouble with the concept.

•••

Beej - not making this up - honest ***** - guess what just hit the Star today.



> City land transfer tax Moved.
> 
> The city's discussion paper is based on a study of potential new tax measures conducted for the city by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The study suggests that a city land transfer tax pegged at 0.5 per cent has the potential to raise $102.7 million assuming 2006 transaction levels and sales prices.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/194722

Now I wonder why the real estate guy might think it's a bad idea.

Funny Paris seems to get away with it.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/03/23/2438294.htm

With density concerns almost mandatory now - I suspect this aspect will be more prevalent as single dwellings are replaced with multiple units.

I see Paris has adopted my transaction fee idea I'd like to see for Toronto.



> You may be rather surprised at the extra +/- 8% on the purchase price that you have to pay to the Notaire. Only a small portion of this goes to the Notaire for his fee.* The bulk of the rest is a one time state property purchase tax.*
> 
> *The consolation is that thereafter, the annual property tax is a relatively low sum, usually only a few hundred euros.*


 :clap:

Paris thinks 6-7% is fine - and this guy balks at 2%


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> honest *****


?????


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Noted - not a good choice of phrase.

Moved the thread elsewhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Connecting the "sustainability" challenge and taxes isn't about just raising taxes. It is about a cold hard look at marginal costs and assigning taxes appropriately. Above is a potential tax grab (better that then begging another level of government). 

What they have not done is demonstrate a true measure of polluter-pay principles or that they are not adequately funded now (versus wasteful governance). So, yeah, less begging off the Feds is nice, but really addressing what is underlying how our tax system favours sprawl is tough.

Now if we had some of Europe's approach to booze, then we would be enlightened.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Put that in the other thread - don't want to derail this one..


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

But the issue was ok in a thread about coffee shops? 

Fair enough, I'm on my way...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey it's a thread....winds all over.
That had it's day - election threads are fun and apparently eternal all on their own.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> BTW: I know you need to rely on your fallback critique (when you don't get it, compare it to conservative), but I'm a pompous liberal.


Actually my only critique will be provide in the manner of Beej himself...

_"So, of course, I treat you as you act: like the teenager in the corner who only bothers to speak up to throw in some snide irrelevant statement."_

And how was that barb directed at Macdoc ultimately useful in debating whether or not the Conservatives should be "popping" champagne at the thought of majority government come next election? 

Sir, thou horse is exceptionally lofty, thou should come down and join the peasants once and a while.

FYI... LIberals are the new Conservatives... Just like 60 is the new 40.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> FYI... LIberals are the new Conservatives...


Elements of truth in that especially in the Martin and Chretien/Martin period.
I suspect Dion is moving left a bit and the Cons for moment forced to move to the centre to try and get up the steep 30 seat hill.

Now if Harper went and say John Tory ran - or even better a good small c from one of the coasts............


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

:lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Conservatives just announced a deal with the provinces to reduce health care waiting times. The last election was run on 5 key priorities:

1. Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act; 
2. Provide real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST; 
3. Make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime; 
4. Help parents with the cost of raising their children; and 
5. Work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee.

The Conservatives have now addressed all 5 key issues.

Get ready for the next election.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

They have lined up their marketing quite well. Is that enough for a campaign (implicit message of we got it done; they did not; more of us is good)? That approach could work, but it would be more open to problems popping up during the election (happens when all you run on is what you've done and slagging the others) and it does not address the alternatives' platform (looking forward).

I think the Cons need some new stuff to promote to significantly bolster their chance of getting a majority, but there's not a lot of money left (also applies to alternatives' platform). So, new forecast or cuts + new stuff? The losing position is that if they don't have an election, they have more power within the minority as long as the other parties are afraid. That's a pretty good losing position, given the circumstances.

Either way, the current position has been well-engineered, but in a vacuum due to lack of Liberal strategy (reminds me a little of Chretien). The Libs really do seem disorganised but, in Canadian politics, they're a dangerous party to ease up on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I thought this a well thought out article. Covered off the volatility in Quebec and Ontario.



> Tories gaining but voters volatile, poll suggests
> 
> Apr 05, 2007 03:48 PM
> Joan Bryden
> ...


key of the article



> "At the same time, it would be a mistake to underestimate how competitive the Liberals are in Quebec and Ontario."
> 
> The unstable numbers in Ontario, home to more than a third of the seats in the House of Commons, should make all parties cautious about the prospect of a spring election, he added.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com - News - Tories gaining but voters volatile, poll suggests

Quebecs polls not quite as indicative but hell look what happened with the ADQ so ....volatile electorate.....you bet 

Me??...keep governing - I'm status quo happy.

••

Good post Beej - I guess all I could add is that the Cons focus seems to be to do what's needed to win a majority rather than on governing.

I and I think others would see doing a good job of governing rather than positioning to be the path more likely to succeed.

Right now it seems decisions are being made more on popular vote getting than solely on good governance grounds ( tho the income trust decision I found an admirable exception ).

Circling around the concept rather awkwardly but the governing going on seems to be subservient to the political positioning for an election....rather than vice versa.

I'd prefer all the parties get skilled in minority compromise and leave off the continual posturing.

I'd like them to earn their keep for a while as governors/legislators instead of scratching about for seat count.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Good post Beej - I guess all I could add is that the Cons focus seems to be to do what's needed to win a majority rather than on governing.
> 
> I and I think others would see doing a good job of governing rather than positioning to be the path more likely to succeed.
> 
> ...


Do you have any recent examples of decisions made solely for "popular vote getting" as opposed to "good governance grounds"?

You gave the income trust decision as an example of "good governance" - and I'd be inclined to agree, even though many of my neighbours might not. What recent would you consider to be "bread and circuses" aimed purely at gaining popular support?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Right now it seems decisions are being made more on popular vote getting than solely on good governance grounds ( tho the income trust decision I found an admirable exception ).


That is what minority governments are all about in Canada.



> I'd prefer all the parties get skilled in minority compromise and leave off the continual posturing.


I wonder how long we would have to have minority governments before they realized things have changed and start cooperating with each other?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd say most of that budget was positioning given some of the 'right wing" reaction to it in the press ( Coyne for one ) noting it was quite a good example of a Liberal budget 

The game playing with the Law & Order Bill as well - not allowing the fast tracking,


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I'd say most of that budget was positioning given some of the 'right wing" reaction to it in the press ( Coyne for one ) noting it was quite a good example of a Liberal budget


A minority Liberal budget, if Paul Martin had won a majority I think we would have seen some very conservative budgets.

You are right about this budget, Conservative Party members didn't vote for this kind of thing.

If Harper doesn't win a majority in the next election, his third "kick at the can", it sounds like he could be out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Z you make me laugh. :clap: and I mean that as a compliment. Very astute AND funny.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

zoziw said:


> A minority Liberal budget, if Paul Martin had won a majority I think we would have seen some very conservative budgets.
> 
> You are right about this budget, Conservative Party members didn't vote for this kind of thing.
> 
> If Harper doesn't win a majority in the next election, his third "kick at the can", it sounds like he could be out.



oil patch barons don't like paying for minority gov't
#1 or bust
harpo may be out of a job with knives coming from behind him

"Et tu Peter MacKay?"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Et tu Peter MacKay?" Unless Elizabeth May defeats him in his riding. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "Et tu Peter MacKay?" Unless Elizabeth May defeats him in his riding. We shall see.



losing his seat may not prevent him from running for con leader
peter mackay is not a man who's signature (i.e. legal bond) means much to him


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"peter mackay is not a man who's signature (i.e. legal bond) means much to him". Macspectrum, NL Prem. Danny Williams has a signed letter, and a Conservative campaign brochure which was used in the last election, signed/endorsed by Stephen Harper, that our resources would not be included in any equalization payments.

"A promise made is a promise kept."


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Jim Prentice is someone who could also challenge for the leadership. He has less baggage than MacKay and would probably have more appeal to central Canadian voters than Harper.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Maybe Michael I. would cross the floor and take the Conservatives to a majority government?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G you may be an "early indicator"



> *Harper flip-flops like a Liberal*
> ...........
> Why? Because at the very centre of Harper's political persona is an enigma wrapped in an illusion. This Prime Minister's swift growth into a demanding job is best measured not by his determination to impose preferred policies but by his willingness to break promises.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com - columnists - Harper flip-flops like a Liberal

I actually admire a politician that will break a campaign promise when it's clearly in the constituents interest - that speaks of pragmatic governance and that pol will have to face the consequences on the next round of voting.

Breaking a promise to cater to one set of voters over another.....yuck.
I want governors...not pols leading this country.

Status quo minority suits me fine - would suit me for Ontario too. I think both Tory and Hampton are fine leaders and have much to contribute to the province.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> TheStar.com - columnists - Harper flip-flops like a Liberal[/url]
> 
> I actually admire a politician that will break a campaign promise when it's clearly in the constituents interest - that speaks of pragmatic governance and that pol will have to face the consequences on the next round of voting.
> 
> ...


Funny how they left out the Income Trust reversal. It was a flip flop, but it was a good decision and a tough one to make. I think it shows leadership.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And it's equally certain that some of his flip-flops are in the national interest.


What would you think THIS is referring to????


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Dr. G you may be an "early indicator"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if a Liberal pulled the kind of flip flops (regardless of their impact on joe canadian) the cons on this board would be howling things like; "Mr. Dithers !!!" or "Fiberals"

yet they remain oddly silent when their boy does the same


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if a Liberal pulled the kind of flip flops (regardless of their impact on joe canadian) the cons on this board would be howling things like; "Mr. Dithers !!!" or "Fiberals"
> 
> yet they remain oddly silent when their boy does the same


Spec, the difference between you and me is that I am willing to say what party I support. It doesn't bother me that other people criticize the Conservatives. My opinions have differed with them on many issues and I have made such opinions clear and open in the past. Hardly, oddly silent. Just recently, I said that I didn't like the budget. 

It's very easy to be a critic, sit on the sidelines and complain about everything. 

In the meantime, our politicians have to deal with reality and reality involves compromise. Sometimes you can't get everything you want. That's why Harper has to flip flop on some issues. For the most part, he has done what he said he would do. The Conservatives have accomplished their five major objectives. Let's contrast that with Paul Martin who made everything a major objective and accomplished few of them because of it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What would you think THIS is referring to????


Why not say it? Why make a passive reference?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> For the most part, he has done what he said he would do


 ......you're hilarious..... what do you think the article is about.??

Martin paid his price for talking and not acting. What POSSIBLE point are you making in referring to Martin who is not even in gov when discussing Harper who is PM.

Harper in general has acted, but not all that often on what "he said he would do"....which it the point of the article in the first place.
I much prefer a pragmatic PM instead of an ideologue.

My only problem with the Cons is the effort to get a majority is a higher priority than good governance. 
THAT smacks of the ol' "hidden agenda" which I suspect lurks in his mind if not in the party as a whole.

Govern with an eye to all the diverse interests of the nation and let the populace judge on the governance - not the political game playing which goes on and on ad nauseum.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ......you're hilarious..... what do you think the article is about.??
> 
> Martin paid his price for talking and not acting. What POSSIBLE point are you making in referring to Martin who is not even in gov when discussing Harper who is PM.


MacDoc... get a grip...

All I said is that the author omitted a pretty big reference in his analysis. I never said I disagreed with the whole premise of his commentary. I would prefer that you ask for my opinions before assigning them to me. My response was purely towards Spec who criticized Conservative members of this board. He is the one who brought Martin into the discussion. BTW... Martin is still in government.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G you may be an "early indicator"." MacDoc, as they say here in St.John's, "Beware the Ides of March, for they bring two more months of Winter and unexpected happenings." We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Spec, the difference between you and me is that I am willing to say what party I support. It doesn't bother me that other people criticize the Conservatives. My opinions have differed with them on many issues and I have made such opinions clear and open in the past. Hardly, oddly silent. Just recently, I said that I didn't like the budget.
> 
> It's very easy to be a critic, sit on the sidelines and complain about everything.
> 
> In the meantime, our politicians have to deal with reality and reality involves compromise. Sometimes you can't get everything you want. That's why Harper has to flip flop on some issues. For the most part, he has done what he said he would do. The Conservatives have accomplished their five major objectives. Let's contrast that with Paul Martin who made everything a major objective and accomplished few of them because of it.


this is the same paul martin that put canada's fiscal house in order while harpo, a conservative, spends like a drunken sailor?

"Harper has to flip flop on some issues"?
that's gotta be the joke du jour

i am not an idealogue, but instead a pragmatist and wait for what a party stands for before committing my vote
unlike yourself that votes conservative/reform/alliance just because

i wonder how you would feel if your income trust investment had plumetted by 20% or more after the leader of the part you voted for promised not to touch them?

things that make one go "hmmmmmmm"

oh, and paul martin would have had canada out of afghanistan and our troops safe and sound as of feb 2007
instead we're gonna be there for years to come as evidence by the new lease of air conditioned tanks by our "new" gov't

if harpo doesn't get a majority next time out, and i don't see where he's gonna pick up 36 seats, he may be out of a job, tossed out by the oil patch barons that wrote big checks (note spelling) that put him there


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if harpo doesn't get a majority next time out, and i don't see where he's gonna pick up 36 seats, he may be out of a job, tossed out by the oil patch barons that wrote big checks (note spelling) that put him there


Michael, show me one shred of evidence for that statement. Propagating a lie, or the truth? Your call.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Funny how *they left out the Income Trust reversal.* It was a flip flop,


Umm the article mentioned the income trust specifically.



> It's a habit that began early with his appointment of Michael Fortier to the unaccountable Senate as well as to the big-spending, corruption-prone public works portfolio. And it's continued since with, just for example, recognizing Quebecers as a nation* and closing the income trust loophole.*


 ????

Martin has retired - he's not an active foil to set Harper against beyond the lesson of his defeat for inaction.

What is this continual "bring up the Liberals" when the warts on Cons are examined??
Too many years in opposition is my guess.

A new leader for the Cons from the coasts or Ontario or Quebec??......hey - good in my books.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Michael, show me one shred of evidence for that statement. Propagating a lie, or the truth? Your call.


oh, you show me where harpo is gonna get his 36 seats for a majority?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh, you show me where harpo is gonna get his 36 seats for a majority?


Changing the subject doesn't cut it. I asked for proof that US residents wrote checks to Harper's campaign. Want to try again?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Changing the subject doesn't cut it. I asked for proof that US residents wrote checks to Harper's campaign. Want to try again?


you asked a general question after quoting multiple statements i had made

i suggest you hone your copy and past skills or learn to use the underline function if you want to ask generic questions after quoting multiple statements
(next, you're gonna ask me for proof of global warming since your lemon tree in your backyard just died)

to refresh your memory this is the post and your question


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and as for oil patch money and harpo/cons;



> Calgary Foundation, University of Calgary Launder Oil Industry Donations
> 
> 12 Aug 06
> A report in the Globe and Mail (Canada's reputable national newspaper), reports today on the slick funnelling of oil industry money into an astroturf campaign to attack climate change science
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and more crow to dine on for the harpocrites;


> Background:
> Stephen Harper began the election campaign with a promise to get big money out of Canadian politics. He pledged to pass the Federal Accountability Act, "... a sweeping reform plan to clean up government." The act would end "the influence of big money in politics by banning corporate and union political donations, and limiting individual donations to $1000..."
> 
> There is some irony in this because Harper had spent the previous fifteen years in politics actively promoting corporate money and influence in politics.
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you asked a general question after quoting multiple statements i had made


Now that you understand the question, you continue to dodge it. Show me proof of Harper accepting check from US citizens or groups towards his election campaign.

I know it will be difficult, since it didn't happen.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Now that you understand the question, you continue to dodge it. Show me proof of Harper accepting check from US citizens or groups towards his election campaign.
> 
> I know it will be difficult, since it didn't happen.


just like global warming?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just like global warming?


Still stick handling I see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Still stick handling I see.


you don't believe in global warming regardless of the mountains of proof
why would you believe any proof i would have?

now, if i was accusing jean chretien of doing the same, you'd be applauding


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you don't believe in global warming regardless of the mountains of proof
> why would you believe any proof i would have?
> 
> now, if i was accusing jean chretien of doing the same, you'd be applauding


Oh I believe that global warming is an issue, but not nearly as dire as big business would have us believe. They and their scientists are fear mongers.

Now show me the checks. I bet you can't because you know your statement is false.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Oh I believe that global warming is an issue, but not nearly as dire as big business would have us believe. They and their scientists are fear mongers.
> 
> Now show me the checks. I bet you can't because you know your statement is false.


i do know of conversations between the once powerful, but still very short and now very quiet, former env. min. rona ambrose and the oil barons in calgary, where she was, if you excuse the phrase, "dressed down" before her audience with said oil barons

lots of discussions of checks and cheques and lack thereof for certain politicians and their party

little Alberta birds chirp quite a bit if you know what kind of seed to offer them


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Interesting read from Sheila

Big cheques from the oil patch? I don't think so. It would appear the Liberals are hurting from their loss of big cheques from the banks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

adagio said:


> Big cheques from the oil patch? I don't think so. It would appear the Liberals are hurting from their loss of big cheques from the banks.


Especially this Marg:

"While Grits got large cheques from small groups, the Tories did the reverse. As Opposition leader, Harper was out doing the barbecue circuit for small change from many people. Ridiculed by some, he spent summers flipping burgers and building political capital. The Tories inherited Reform’s populist approach to money and membership, a grassroots drive to propel their leader to the prime minister’s chair."

Sure doesn't sound like US "checks" to me either!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Federal Tories are certainly not the provincial ones. As the article points out, the Feds get lots of small donations under the tight financing rules (not surprising because they started out as a 'grassroots' party).

Furthermore, the income trust and oil sands capital tax decisions were against "oil", something the Libs were afraid to do while trying to cling to their AB and SK seats. The oil CEOs can rant and rave all they want, but until the MPs threaten to re-split the party, they can't do much. Harper's majority is in QC and ON (help in Atlantic Canada and B.C. would ease pressure), not in getting even more votes in AB. 'Spec can make all sorts of stories have greater meaning (he likes his theories to mean more than just, "Some people threatened not to donate"...it makes him feel important), but the end result was two key decisions that went against the oil companies. Go figure...it's about ON and QC populism.

Political party financing rules: another great Chretien legacy.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> The Federal Tories are certainly not the provincial ones...


Good post Beej!

I believe this bit, quoted by SINC from the article referenced above, explains why the Tories could go ahead with something like the "accountability act" - which is a positive thing IMHO.


SINC said:


> While Grits got large cheques from small groups, the Tories did the reverse. As Opposition leader, Harper was out doing the barbecue circuit for small change from many people.


~~~~~~~


MacDoc said:


> A new leader for the Cons from the coasts or Ontario or Quebec??......hey - good in my books.


If you don't like the current Conservative leader, why do you assume that a new leader from "the coasts or Ontario or Quebec" would appeal to you any more?

Shouldn't a leader be judged on his or her policies, as opposed to where they came from?

If ensuring representation from the different regions is important, I would think that we do *not* want another leader from Quebec for a while, as they have less than 25% of the population of Canada yet have produced 50% of the Prime Ministers over the last 30 - 40 years.
______________
edit: corrected typo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PenguinBoy said:


> If ensuring representation from the different regions is important, I would think that we do *not* want another leader from Quebec for a while, as they have less than 25% of the population of Canada yet have produced 50% of the Prime Ministers over the last 30 - 40 years.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Shouldn't a leader be judged on his or her policies, as opposed to where they came from?


They should.


PenguinBoy said:


> If ensuring representation from the different regions is important, I would think that we do *not* want another leader from Quebec for a while, as they have less than 25% of the population of Canada yet have produced 50% of the Prime Ministers over the last 30 - 40 years.


So why do you add this? 


(Nice cheering SINC - your prejudice is showing again)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Not_ electing a dynamic leader simply because of his province/region of origin strikes me as about the stupidest idea I've come across in some time. Whatever happened to may the best man win? This reminds me of the nonsense behind affirmative action... the same pitfalls await.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> (Nice cheering SINC - your prejudice is showing again)


No prejudice whatsoever AS. Just the fact that if we are to be truly representative, there are many other provinces and territories left out in the cold by Liberals constantly electing Quebecers as PM. Enough is enough.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

You are implying that someone from Quebec can't represent all Canadians...

Even more absurd, Harper was born in Toronto but is really a Westerner.
Martin was born in Ontario, Campbell in BC, Turner in England - hardly that Quebec menace you are so afraid of... but of course anyone from Quebec is not a Canadian to you (as you have demonstrated and implied many times...)


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Max, I agree. That's why I find Dion's idea of wanting 33% of the ridings represented by females to be VERY offensive. That's a HUGE turn off for me.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Too low?



adagio said:


> Max, I agree. That's why I find Dion's idea of wanting 33% of the ridings represented by females to be VERY offensive. That's a HUGE turn off for me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Liberals constantly electing Quebecers as PM


Canadians elect PMs. Judge the character, experience, intelligence and leadership. 

Their province, their colour, their income etc. Meh. If Canadians keep electing QC PMs, so what? It may speak to some underlying cultural and/or socio-economic forces; it may have to do with how many Canadians prefer bilingual PMs who can talk to them; it may have to do with the internal machinations of the Liberal party or it may just have happened (small sample for stats). 

Does any of that matter? You still get to vote for your choice; and, join the party of your choice or start your own party if you want. What bothers me is how Canadians keep electing politicians. beejacon


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You are implying that someone from Quebec can't represent all Canadians...


I said nothing of the kind.

As usual, you keep reading your own particular insecurities into something I say.

Any Canadian can represent Canadians. Simple as that.

I along with many others, just point out that statistically speaking, Quebec seems to hold an historical advantage and perhaps it's time to even the playing field.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I along with many others, just point out that statistically speaking, Quebec seems to hold an historical advantage and perhaps it's time to even the playing field.


What ludicrous statements - 
"Hey I'm not an anti-Quebec bigot but let's even the playing filed 'cause they are too many Frenchies from there that have been elected as PM..."

Once again, the PM should represent ALL canadiens (sic), not just the ones you like...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> What ludicrous statements -
> "Hey I'm not an anti-Quebec bigot but let's even the playing filed 'cause they are too many Frenchies from there that have been elected as PM..."
> .


You just don't get it do you? How paranoid can you be?

My point is there are not enough Canadians from provinces other than Quebec that have been elected PM to be truly representative.

I never said a word about "Frenchies" and I consider the term racist, by the way.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Perhaps what SINC is trying to say is some PM's from Quebec have not necessarily represented the views of other regions. They are human and I can understand why that would be.

We have a big, very diverse country with many differing views. I welcome a view from the west for a change as I would from a PM from either coast. Ideally I'd like to see a leader from each of the provinces over a period of time.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

However, best person for the job. Keep gender out of it.

If I got a job on the basis of being female I'd be mortified.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

adagio said:


> Perhaps what SINC is trying to say is some PM's from Quebec have not necessarily represented the views of other regions. They are human and I can understand why that would be.
> 
> We have a big, very diverse country with many differing views. I welcome a view from the west for a change as I would from a PM from either coast. Ideally I'd like to see a leader from each of the provinces over a period of time.



john turner as PM, having taken over from PET at a Liberal leadership convention, ran from Vancouver Quadra, if memory serves, and summarily lost the election

fact is that ont. and quebec together have over 1/2 of the federal seats
unless Albertans stop using condoms this isn't about to change any time soon
even if the entire population of NL moves to AB for work


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So why do you add this?


MacDoc suggested "A new leader for the Cons (sic) from the coasts or Ontario or Quebec". I was asking if leaders should be judged solely by their policies, or if it is important to ensure representation from different areas of the country as well.

If ensuring representation from all areas is important than it makes sense to have leaders from areas other than Quebec, as they have produced a disproportionate number of Prime Ministers in the last 30 - 40 years. Note that this is not restricted to the Liberals, the last fellow who won a Conservative majority came from Quebec as well. I'm not suggesting that leaders from Quebec are inherently less desirable, just that if ensuring representation for all regions is a consideration Quebec should produce a bit less than 25% of the leaders over time, and it seems that they are running at a bit over twice that rate over the last generation or so.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> fact is that ont. and quebec together have over 1/2 of the federal seats
> unless Albertans stop using condoms this isn't about to change any time soon
> even if the entire population of NL moves to AB for work


Even if "Albertans stop using condoms" this won't change soon. Some areas have a disproportionate number of seats for their population, and it would be *very* difficult to change this now.

Prince Edward Island is an extreme example, a vote there is worth about four times as much as my vote as they have four seats yet the entire province has a population not much more than that of my urban Calgary riding. The situation with the senate is even worse, as PEI has four senate seats as compared to six for all of Alberta. Changing would require a constitutional amendment, so it is not likely to happen any time soon.

While PEI is an extreme case, I believe that there are other areas that have more representation than is warranted by their population, such as rural areas, parts of Quebec, etc.

Representation in the Commons and the Senate certainly hasn't kept pace with the rapid growth in population and economic output in Alberta.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the senate, elected or otherwise, is just a big waste of money and another target for lobbyists preying on the greed of politicians

get rid of the queen (aka "crown") as head of state and get rid of the senate

both serve no purpose except to eat up tax payer dollars and keep Canada from becoming a truly free and independent country


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> get rid of the queen (aka "crown") as head of state


She does serve one useful purpose - to remind people that the government is not the same as the current ruling party. This is an important distinction.

Since there is no monarch in the US, they need to pledge allegiance to the "flag" - which is kind of goofy IMHO, but serves the same purpose.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> She does serve one useful purpose - to remind people that the government is not the same as the current ruling party. This is an important distinction.
> 
> Since there is no monarch in the US, they need to pledge allegiance to the "flag" - which is kind of goofy IMHO, but serves the same purpose.


pledging allegiance to a foreinger is better ?
not to mention that her family is sullied by horrors of abuse of many country's peoples

let's get off the teat of the monarchy that only pleases little blue haired old laides sipping tea and pining of a different time when everyone spoke the queen's english and ethnics knew their place 
the ethnics were good workers but you had to hide the liquor and count the silverware

time for that outmoded monarchy to be part of history and nothing more
it's stupid that in a day and age of democracy we still have a foreigner as head of state and a foreigner that is unelected and is only the leader by birthright

it goes against any and all democratic theory


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Me too.



adagio said:


> However, best person for the job. Keep gender out of it.
> 
> If I got a job on the basis of being female I'd be mortified.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> If ensuring representation from all areas is important than it makes sense to have leaders from areas other than Quebec, as they have produced a disproportionate number of Prime Ministers in the last 30 - 40 years.


Diefenbaker - Born Ontario but was from out West
Pearson - Born Ontario
Trudeau - Born PQ
Joe Clark - Born Alberta
John Turner - Born England, 
Mulroney - Born PQ
Kim Clark - Born BC
Chretien - PQ
Martin - Ontario
Harper - Ontario 

So care to tell me how Quebec has produced a disproportionate number of PM.
And if you really want to get into the details, lets have a look at the % of the population that Quebec has had over the years and the relationship between the number of PMs it's produced....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Diefenbaker - Born Ontario but was from out West
> Pearson - Born Ontario
> Trudeau - Born PQ
> Joe Clark - Born Alberta
> ...


shhhh, you're letting facts get in the way of a good Albertan rant


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> shhhh, you're letting facts get in the way of a good Albertan rant


To be fair, the "Quebec issue" does take up a fair amount of political space....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> shhhh, you're letting facts get in the way of a good Albertan rant


Now now, there's that pot and kettle thing...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Now now, there's that pot and kettle thing...


1. i'm not an albertan
2. i rarely let facts get in the way of one of my rants


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So care to tell me how Quebec has produced a disproportionate number of PM.


I counted a Prime Minister as being "from" the province which contains the riding in which he (or in the case of Kim Cambell, she) was elected. By this measure Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) counts as an "Alberta PM", even though he was born and raised in Ontario.

I also was considering trends over the last 30 - 40 years, so I started the count at PET.

Pierre Trudeau (Mount Royal, QC)
Joe Clark (Yellowhead, AB)
John Turner (non-MP, I'll count as "not from Quebec")
Brian Mulroney (Manicouagan, QC & Charlevoix, QC)
Kim Campbell (Vancouver Centre, BC)
Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, QC)
Paul Martin (Lasalle-Émard, QC)
Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, AB)

So by my reckoning, Quebec has produced 4 of the last 8 Prime Ministers, or 50%. I haven't googled for historical Quebec population data - but there is no way that Quebec has averaged 50% of Canada's population over the last 30 - 40 years.

There are other ways to compute this - for example, considering the amount of time "Quebec PMs" have been in office over the past 30 - 40 years. By this measure the "disproportionate number of PM" looks even worse as "Quebec PMs" have represented Canada for all but two or three of the last 30 - 40 years.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Diefenbaker - Born Ontario but was from out West
> Pearson - Born Ontario
> Trudeau - Born PQ
> Joe Clark - Born Alberta
> ...


Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien? A pretty darned good record on leadership for all the controversy. Pearson, Martin, Harper; and, Ontario's next best chance looked to be Rae. One in four leaders ain't bad, eh?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> 1. i'm not an albertan


Fair enough.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> 2. i rarely let facts get in the way of one of my rants


Agreed! And the fact that you admit as much freely (and even seem to have a sense of humour sometimes) raises my opinion of you considerably.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Of the PM's listed only three were elected to a majority, all of whom were from Quebec.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Of the PM's listed only three were elected to a majority, all of whom were from Quebec.


Does that make them better politicians?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Does that make them better politicians?


It doesn't make them anything necessarily. I posted it to help explain why many Canadians feel our PM's are always from Quebec.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I heard a clip on the radio this morning that Mount Royal College political scientist Keith Brownsey has heard from reputable inside sources that an election will be called within days.

He has been wrong before though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I heard a similar timeline a few weeks ago, but it was a side-event in the conversation and I was not sure about the certainty. Could have just been guesstigossip for all I know.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

as I was saying - yo yo politics.



> Conservatives now in tie with Liberals, poll finds
> Updated Wed. Apr. 25 2007 11:39 AM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


Status quo is just fine for me and if they all get tired of politicking, figure that not much is going to change and start working together to GOVERN.....so much the better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I still want Harper and Layton gone, so both of them doing worse in an election would be a great way to achieve that. I don't think they're nearly up to the challenge (wanted Martin gone too; 1 down) and judging by this bunch working together, I think they need to be gone more than I did before.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I'm not sure what I want but am leaning towards a Liberal minority that doesn't cooperate with the NDP.

The current make-up has me concerned that a private member's bill that could be really bad for the country could pass with the support of the three opposition parties based on nothing more than a chance to take a political cheap shot at the Conservatives.

I'm also beginning to question these polls. Are Canadians this fickle about things right now to have the Liberals up in January, the Conservatives in majority territory in March and then in a dead heat again in April?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Are Canadians this fickle about things right now to have the Liberals up in January, the Conservatives in majority territory in March and then in a dead heat again in April?


Yes. The parties are not all that different once in power. Interpret that as you wish, but one factor is a country that has 99% of its stuff in order, in my opinion.

Also, numbers move fast during a campaign, why not during the perpetual campaign that is minority governments?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pollsters and pundits have noted that the electorate - mainly Ontario and Quebec are very volatile - Ontario's has shown that in both previous elections.

I sincerely wish the politicking would go to a lower level and the governing gotten on with.

Cons sans Harper and few of the worst case ex Harrisites would be nicely positioned a year out.

I concur on Layton.

Dion is sure rocking the boat - election reform now too as well as his Green deal.. Not sure if it will gain him much but at least it's a differently striped cat.

I find the current dynamic in parliament actually acceptable and now the poll numbers might discourage the politicking and we can see legislation get passed.

A woman speaker is a good idea too.....anything to shake up the entrenched combat zone headspace is good in my books.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Beej said:


> Yes. The parties are not all that different once in power. Interpret that as you wish, but one factor is a country that has 99% of its stuff in order, in my opinion.


Agreed.



> Also, numbers move fast during a campaign, why not during the perpetual campaign that is minority governments?


I question if people are paying as much attention now as they would be if an election had been called. It is spring (finally) and I suspect many people's attention is elsewhere.

I could see Tory support falling back to 35% after the budget buzz, but to have a swing of 10% in just over 3 weeks seems remarkable given how unremarkable all of the parties have been in April.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Pollsters and pundits have noted that the electorate - mainly Ontario and Quebec are very volatile - Ontario's has shown that in both previous elections.


If that is the case, maybe it is just my perception from the west that is skewing things.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even THAT may not last



> *Liberals, Conservatives swapping core traits*
> 
> Apr 19, 2007 04:30 AM
> James Travers
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/204661

Sure to cause some "volatility"


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Well, we'll see what Baird's announcement tomorrow brings but I can't see the oil patch or the government of Alberta being very pleased. They'll all still vote Conservative though...it is the Liberals who are out to get us afterall.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I question if people are paying as much attention now as they would be if an election had been called. It is spring (finally) and I suspect many people's attention is elsewhere.
> 
> I could see Tory support falling back to 35% after the budget buzz, but to have a swing of 10% in just over 3 weeks seems remarkable given how unremarkable all of the parties have been in April.


As much, no, but sentiments change a lot nonetheless.

As for 10%, there's the margin of error and different pollsters. 5% seems to be well within reason and well within the territory of electioneering. 5% before the call could mean momentum to more, when handled well.

Afghanistan news/spin is underestimated, in my opinion and the environment needs to be handled carefully. The Cons' job is to turn it into a he said/she said issue to neutralise it. We'll learn more soon, but have seen the pre-emptives.

The Libs should try to maintain/establish superiority on the environment , but I'm not confident that they can carry a whole campaign on it. Even the deficit was not put down that way. It was a badge of honour after the Libs were a majority.

NDP is a poopshoot. They could be devastatingly squeezed (thus attacks on Greens as "right wing") or could try to take on the Libs. Risky. Right now, more than any other party, they need to carefully consider their strategy lest their tactics lead them to the wrong place.

The bottom line problem remains: what room is there to promise without defending cuts? The Con budget was deeply political. Not necessarily to gain popularity (technically what they're there for), but to disarm the opposition.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Afghanistan news/spin is underestimated, in my opinion and the environment needs to be handled carefully. The Cons' job is to turn it into a he said/she said issue to neutralise it. We'll learn more soon, but have seen the pre-emptives.


I don't think so. The latest poll showed that 55% of Canadians support the current mission, but a clear majority also want to see an end date. This was a Liberal mission to begin with so the Liberals can only go so far with any criticism towards the Conservatives. They also need to be aware that this is a NATO mission under NATO leadership and that the Conservative party has little influence on the day to day activities and operations being undertaken there.

So, I would call it an issue, but not a pressing issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> So, I would call it an issue, but not a pressing issue.


I do not see it as a question of total support or geopolitical basis. Think about the swing voters.

Politically, timing is quite powerful as is just the right spin. During an election, I see mostly downside to the issue for any government. Sitting government talks of broad values, opposition talks of "we would have saved lives." In a war, the hypothetical dream sounds better because these are "our" troops versus a concept of "them."

The Cons could try a patriotic appeal during an election, but it would be risky.

I agree that it is not a pressing issue, but I think that it is one with generally negative consequences for the Cons that could appear suddenly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When Quebec soldiers start dying look for it to be a pressing issue.

One Dutch soldier got killed and now a big hullabaloo.

That said Afghanistan is not the hinge issue - it's one factor.

My sense is ..as it has been that not enough voters are confident of any party in a majority any time soon.....if ever.

Learn to govern without it.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This Strategic Counsel poll on CTV's website is more in line with where I expected the numbers to be at the present time (not that I'm an expert on these things):



> The poll, conducted between April 21-24 for CTV and The Globe and Mail, gives the Conservatives a six-point lead (percentage-point change from a March 20-21 poll in brackets):
> 
> Conservatives: 36 per cent (-3)
> Liberals: 30 per cent (-1)
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...c_poll_070425/20070425?hub=TopStories&s_name=


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

another poll
apologies if already posted
oops, already posted, but one can never have too much good news
 

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=37d10180-acb3-4ce1-96c0-4353333a86c9&k=37499



> Tory support dives, now in tie with Liberals: poll
> The Canadian Press
> 
> Published: Wednesday, April 25, 2007
> ...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

That was the initial poll we were discussing today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah the CTV/Globe poll appears more likely.

Status quo seems quite satisfactory.... maybe they'll take the hint and start governing.

The Kyoto rethink was encouraging.










Still the fact that the two polls are different points up the kind of odd responces to some of the online questions..one day swinging in one direction and one day swinging it seems almost diametrically the opposite on a similar question.

What I think is that people are willing to undertake a fair degree of change if the economy remains reasonably solid ( aside from Kyoto impacts ) but less eager if the US pulls us into a dip.
The polls do not allow that qualifier to come into play and that's a serious consideration for Ontarians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

damn double hits. Network lost but it posts one time- then doesn't the next


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

These polls were taken before the recent Kyoto/environment dustup and the torture/detention debate that has brought the question of Tory honesty to the fore again. 

Neither of these reflect well on the government with swing voters in Ontario, and likely not Quebec either. With summer coming on and the lack of potential confidence issues, maybe this thread should be renamed?

Say Waiting for Godot?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well the 24th was part of the Kyoto switch tactics and the poll covered that period.
Admittedly the Afghan prisoner issue had not fully blossomed.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Today's environment announcement will likely push the Afghanistan issue off the front and middle pages for at least the weekend. With the recent announcement of a detainee monitoring deal in Afghanistan, this one might be put to bed before it can cause much damage.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Auto job cuts feared
> Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said thousands of jobs could be lost in the auto industry if the government moves too quickly on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> He also said he's concerned about the way Stephen Harper's government is handling the environment issue.
> ...


If Hargrove is concerned about the Conservative plan on the environment, which we haven't seen but know won't meet Kyoto targets, what does he think he would get with a Liberal plan?

CBC


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hargrove should be looking to the poor planning of the Big Three not trying to make up for it on the back of the atmosphere.

Maybe he should get his members to start retraining for eco-retrorfitting work.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> If Hargrove is concerned about the Conservative plan on the environment, which we haven't seen but know won't meet Kyoto targets, what does he think he would get with a Liberal plan?


The union leadership in this country obviously don't care about any issues other than maintaining their special interest 'racket'.

Why should anybody take Hargrove seriously?

If Dion is smart, he will distance himself from Hargrove as soon as he can. Layton would be wise not to take him back as well.

MacDoc, I agree that Layton should be telling the Big 3 to start innovating and get with being environmentally friendly. He should also start thinking about ways of making union members more efficient and dynamic in the work force. If he is really worried about union jobs, there is a lot of low lying fruit to pick there.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Getting back to election talk...

The CTV poll seems to be more believable to me. If you look at polling over the last year, there haven't been huge shifts in support for any given party. The trends have been gradual. A 9 point drop over a month isn't very convincing.

The Conservatives are likely sitting around 36% support right now and would probably need around 39 to 40% to win a majority. 

I think this is still a good time for them to strike from a strategic perspective. The recent Afghanistan and Virginia gun issues are unlikely to have traction. 

The Liberals are still floundering and Dion is still a big unknown. 

I still put the odds greater than 50% that we are going to the polls before summer.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Perhaps Hargrove knows something the rest of us don't. Perhaps he's under the impression that the Liberals are still all yap and no go like they've been since they signed on with Kyoto. Maybe that's why Buzz switched allegiance to the Liberals because he knew the NDP were serious about green issues and the Libs were not.

Heck, our Ontario premiere has come out and said it's business as usual for the automakers.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

adagio said:


> Perhaps Hargrove knows something the rest of us don't. Perhaps he's under the impression that the Liberals are still all yap and no go like they've been since they signed on with Kyoto. Maybe that's why Buzz switched allegiance to the Liberals because he knew the NDP were serious about green issues and the Libs were not.
> 
> Heck, our Ontario premiere has come out and said it's business as usual for the automakers.


Or maybe the Liberal plan would strike harder at Alberta in order to spare Ontario...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Or maybe the Liberal plan would strike harder at Alberta in order to spare Ontario...


Isn't that already covered in the Liberal Party constitution?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Isn't that already covered in the Liberal Party constitution?


No, that's part of the tinfoil crowd and Harperite manifesto....


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

AS, what's your explanation? Why is Buzz terrified of the Cons and not the Libs?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Or maybe the Liberal plan would strike harder at Alberta in order to spare Ontario...


Perhaps a mathematician with more economic skills will enter 24 Sussex Drive realizing that more people live in Ontario and might be recompensed with federal funding on a per capita basis--for a change.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> AS, what's your explanation? Why is Buzz terrified of the Cons and not the Libs?


Not sure - 
I'd hope that Buzz is looking out for the best interest of his employers (the union members)


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not sure -
> I'd hope that Buzz is looking out for the best interest of his employers (the union members)


I think his jump to the Liberals under Paul Martin made a certain amount of sense (more business friendly than the NDP but more left than the Conservatives).

With Dion running things their agendas may no longer line up as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Conservatives abandon Kyoto for own climate plan
> Updated Thu. Apr. 26 2007 5:15 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Can someone illuminate me on how the Cons will

a) meet the Kyoto target they agreed to last week UNANIMOUSLY

b) get this piece of junk passed.....or are they simply going to ignore parliament??

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...tories_climate_070426/20070426?hub=TopStories

Unreal these guys.......somebody show Baird the door.....along with a few others like Doris.
Surely there are some sane small c conservatives about 

This would appear to be a train wreck in not so slow motion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This is the plan that they should have released last year. Now the spin game starts for real, from all parties and interest groups. Interesting times.

Cons: Scare-monger and push their plan as a middle ground.

Libs/NDP/Green: Protect the virtue of Lady Kyoto, including gestures of obeisance.

Enviros: We're all gonna die! This is evil, people are evil. For shame.

Biz: Oh the pain! It's just barely tolerable, except to some us who may like this brand of pain or to others that find it intolerable.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Beej....

:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Can someone illuminate me on how the Cons will
> 
> a) meet the Kyoto target they agreed to last week UNANIMOUSLY


They won't. It is NOT possible. The LIBERALS were responsible by doing NOTHING for 13 years.

Get used to it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What was agreed to last week unanimously? Also, UNANIMOUSLY, in case they're different things.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah that is so lame and tiresome - nothing better to do than point fingers when your boyos faceplant. BIG TIME - what a total cop out - this Con crew is a wreck and unfortunately we ARE having to get used to it.

The Liberals aren't in power -----wake up. Knock knock anyone home. The Libs were turfed for good reason. No more scape goats for Harpo - et al. It's his watch.

The Con party voted unanimously last week to honour Kyoto.

Clear the NDP critic was correct....these guys had no idea what they just voted for.....they still clearly don't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> these guys had no idea what they just voted for.....they still clearly don't.


Nor should they, it is NOT possible you know.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The Con party voted unanimously last week to honour Kyoto.


There are different ways to honour it. What did the Cons actually vote for (bill #)?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

This seems like a pretty aggressive program for reducing CO2 gas.

Nobody has taken this level of action on GHG this till now, including the provinces, municipalities and business. I think the Conservatives deserve some serious credit for having the guts to do it.

I don't care about Kyoto in itself. It is a means to an end. The end here is to reduce GHG. An 18% reduction by 2010 is VERY VERY VERY aggressive. You can't escape this reality. We are dealing with an issue that has long term impacts, measured in centuries, not years. Thinking that knee jerk reactions are going to make the difference is missing the bigger picture.

At least now we have a roadmap, we have targets and we have a direction. 

We are moving in the right direction and that is the most important point.

Give credit where it is due. :clap:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I'm happy with the direction towards what I call "real" pollution. It's a good start towards cleaner air.

Maybe there is hope for the automakers to smarten up?

Fuel milage targets

If the big 3 are smart they'll be all over themselves to be first to roll out the fuel efficient cars. There WILL be demand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> An 18% reduction by 2010 is VERY VERY VERY aggressive.
> ...
> We are moving in the right direction and that is the most important point.


It's 18% intensity, but that's still quite aggressive. There is a softening mechanisms to credit for past action (to a limit)...those applications could turn into a gong show the way it is structured, but they have capped the total. 
...
Yes, and this should have been the minimum baseline last year. So moving on, as the new minimum, this is progress from past government proposals (Lib and Con). There are some odd bits and some good bits; I hope it gets strengthened.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> The LIBERALS were responsible by doing NOTHING for 13 years.


And now we will be hitting our GHG targets 13 years late - funny how that works.


Vandave said:


> I don't care about Kyoto in itself. It is a means to an end. The end here is to reduce GHG.


Well put!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The plan aims to:
> 
> Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 per cent from for existing industry by 2010 (based on 2006 levels);
> Reach a reduction target of 26 per cent by 2015;
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../baird_climate_070427/20070427?hub=TopStories

Given the windfall income associated with the oilsands....which are responsible for a huge amount of the GHGs....this plan is a disgrace.

BTW it was a Con gov in place in Alberta....they did less than nothing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is there anyone out here shocked that MacDoc is now stamping his little footy over real progress on the agenda he's been bitching about in 25 different threads simultaneously? 

"B-b-b-b-but, I wanted more. Sob...sniffff."


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> BTW it was a Con gov in place in Alberta....they did less than nothing.


Perhaps they didn't do much but when Chretien signed onto Kyoto, Alberta was the only government that did anything.

Link

IIRC (from a previous thread where I posted this), the targets in this legislation were intensity based, which isn't what a lot of people were looking for. Still, they did something.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: Did you find the reference to what the Cons unanimously voted on?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> MD: Did you find the reference to what the Cons unanimously voted on?


Since they're not going to do it anyway, why bother finding the reference?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> They won't. It is NOT possible. The LIBERALS were responsible by doing NOTHING for 13 years.


Wow SINC still blaming the Libs? 
We are talking about the Con plan and your bleating gets a little old (it's all the Liberals fault).

So unwise one, how is it that the Libs are responsible for a Con plan that worse than that one Ambrose presented?

You have a mishmash of intensity (these do not reduce emissions) and overall targets (sometime in 2020).
Let's put it this way, the 18% would apply to the production of an oil barrel but if production goes up (it's projected to double) then the total emissions will be increasing.
Let's not forget that with Ambrose the targets started from 2003, Baird is starting from the higher numbers of 2006.

As for air pollution there are been some decreases - for example No levels were 50% below 1991 numbers. 

Of course SINC, you have stated that you prefer packaging (I'll call it koolaid drinking) over the facts and truth...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nothing like a little Liberal skewering to get AS to the scene, coughing and panting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF before spewing garbage - care to comment on specifics in Baird's presentation? You'll have to look pretty hard for details....

Attack the Libs all you want - we are talking about a Connie plan. So stop living in the past...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Here is my comment on Baird: I hope he does as little as he can get away with and still be re-elected. I don't want to see Dion--and his little dog Kyoto too--mess things up with some revved up piece of insanity designed to expiate past Liberal failings.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't want to see Dion--and his little dog Kyoto too--*mess things up* with some revved up piece of insanity designed to expiate past Liberal failings.


I'm assuming that you are praising Paul Martin for the great job he did on the economy and how well we are doing in spite of the Harporite government...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm assuming that you are praising Paul Martin for the great job he did on the economy and how well we are doing in spite of the Harporite government...


I would expect a statist such as yourself to see economic growth as the responsibility of the federal government.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm assuming that you are praising Paul Martin for the great job he did on the economy and how well we are doing in spite of the Harporite government...


Didn't they pretty much put things on cruise control when they took office? Wouldn't that have meant the things the previous gov't implemented actually worked to straighten out Canada, i.e. GST? I seem to remember a lot of broken promises, doing nothing and scandal after scandal, and not really a lot for the average Canadian.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah sure - when one of the Harpo dozos gets chosen to head the G8 Finance group by his peers let us know 

he was a terrific finance guy - lousy PM.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You gotta admit.....at least we're being entertained. 



> Williams refers to prime minister as 'Steve'
> Updated Fri. Apr. 27 2007 5:14 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...27/danny_steve_070427/20070427?hub=TopStories

Anyone want to start a "best political crack o' the day" thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would expect a statist such as yourself to see economic growth as the responsibility of the federal government.


Economic growth is not the responsibility of the government.
Unlike yourself, I don't want *any corporate welfare*. 
I believe in minimal government intervention to protect the rights of individuals - 'effing up the environment for profits is one. 
In other words, it's about time companies reduce/eliminate the pollution they cause to all of us. 

Only a neo-corporatist would favour the rights of corporations over that of individuals....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Economic growth is not the responsibility of the government.


And yet you credited Martin with it...interesting.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somebody else thinking about cork popping :XX):



> *Liberals ponder forcing election*
> 
> `Worst week' for Tories shows their vulnerability, Ignatieff says
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/208328


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> He said an election now would cost the opposition parties an opportunity to introduce tougher environmental legislation and have a vote on it soon in the Commons. "To call an election and lose our opportunities ... would be irresponsible," Cullen said.


Why would it lose them this opportunity? Because he fears the Liberals might win?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Somebody else thinking about cork popping :XX):
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/208328


I don't see what the Liberals expect to gain from this sort of saber rattling - my sense is that if the Liberals force an election now, they will get spanked for it.

You have repeatedly said that you prefer the status quo and would like to see the government get on with governing - I expect that many Canadians from all parts of the political spectrum feel the same.

I can't see the Liberals getting any real traction on the Afghan POW issue, except among folks who wouldn't vote Tory anyway. They might get some traction on the environment, but they would have to defend their own somewhat underwhelming record of inaction, their current platform may be viewed as too extreme and potentially economically damaging, and the "extreme green" vote may well be split between the Liberals, NDP, and Greens.

The Conservatives also have a well funded campaign machine that shouldn't be underestimated.

I expect that if the Liberals forced an election, the most likely outcome would be a slightly stronger Conservative minority. A weak Conservative minority is a remote possibility, and a Liberal minority is a real long shot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy: MacDoc is running on a very flexible platform. He both supports the status quo and wants to see the current government dumped.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And yet you credited Martin with it...interesting.


The only thing I have credited Martin with is fiscal responsibility. You know, the word that Conservatives always use but seem allergic to implement. So how are the spend drift Cons doing? Have they set another record setting spending spree again?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

ArtistSeries wrote:


> The only thing I have credited Martin with is fiscal responsibility.


If an individual or family earns more money than they spend, you could call that fiscally responsible. However, if a government taxes more money than it spends for no reason, that is fiscally irresponsible. There is no credit in taking money from the population for no reason... and even less credit in boasting about it. And as has already been pointed out, it was only the GST (which Chretien promised to kill) which allowed Martin to set fiscal policy to 'cruise control'.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am always amused when the conerabals and the liberatives fling "j'accuse!"- type invective at one another. Black is white and white is black. _As seen on TV!_ Oy, what a circus.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I am always amused when the conerabals and the liberatives fling "j'accuse!"- type invective at one another. Black is white and white is black. _As seen on TV!_ Oy, what a circus.


"Shame on you!"
"No, shame on YOU!!!!"
"Shame!!"
"Shame!!!!!"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep... exactly. All replayed on TV... sometimes I think training videocams on these jokers was the worst thing we could ever have done to the political process. They are like performing animals for we the rabble crowd. What an ontolerable load of posturing and chest-puffing.

[sigh]


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Cue Foghorn Leghorn. Cut to commercial.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We think we have a mess of politicos to deal with ...... 



> Around 10,000 local council seats were contested in Thursday's vote in areas of England outside London. In Scotland, voters chose their local representation as well as the Scottish Parliament, which sits in Edinburgh and deals with Scotland-only issues. And in Wales, voters elected their national assembly, located in Cardiff.
> 
> Mr. Blair, who is expected to formally announce next week he will resign as prime minister, has claimed three national poll victories since 1997. Some activists concede the unpopular Iraq war and a domestic cash-for-honors scandal have made him an liability.
> 
> ...


and those are just mid terms!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe is ready to jump to the Parti Québécois as the roadblocks that kept him in Ottawa in 2005 have all been cleared, sources said Friday.


globeandmail.com: Duceppe said ready to jump to Parti Québécois

I'm not sure I would like this to happen. Duceppe, is smart, charismatic and experienced, and any push for sovereignty is going to come from the NA, not Ottawa.

As interesting as that is I found this comment further down the article as well:



> If Mr. Boisclair does fall, a candidacy from Mr. Duceppe will be facilitated by the fact that no federal election is imminent.


You would think one would have to be called by the middle of May to avoid a "summer backlash" that the media seems to believe in.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He might be a spark plug.

I guess we better not let Sinc know his fellow Scots think it's quite okay to elect a bunch of separatists.



> May. 4, 2007 20:45 | Updated May. 4, 2007 20:55
> Scottish separatists win 47 seats to Labor's 46
> By ASSOCIATED PRESS
> EDINBURGH
> ...


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178198612822&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

It seems learning to govern in minority situations is having quite a field day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I guess we better not let Sinc know his fellow Scots think it's quite okay to elect a bunch of separatists.


Whatever the Scots choose is fine with me. Same with Quebec. I would prefer they both stay, but if either choose to go, so be it. Just as long as they are prepared to pay their own way in either case.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Whatever the Scots choose is fine with me. Same with Quebec. I would prefer they both stay, but if either choose to go, so be it. Just as long as they are prepared to pay their own way in either case.


In the case of Quebec, some of the First Nations in the province might have something to say about that. From what I've heard most want nothing to do with an independent Quebec. Something the separatists tend to gloss over. 

I also think that if Quebec were to ever leave, you could kiss Canada good-bye as a place that remains independent from the USA. A disaster all around I would say, I hope it never happens.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I also think that if Quebec were to ever leave, you could kiss Canada good-bye as a place that remains independent from the USA. .


I want to make sure that Ontario gets enough representation in the Elecotoral College.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, Ontario would have 19 or 20 electoral votes, just behind Ohio, depending upon how many people leave ON rather than become a US state. The would probably move to AlbertaLand or Newfoundland and Labrador, the former for the wealth and jobs, the latter for the freedom, fresh air and mild summers.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I confess I was wrong earlier in saying that the environment plan would wipe the detainee issue from the pages. 2 weeks later and still going strong.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Beset by heavy criticism and embroiled in a feud, Andre Boisclair announced today that he is stepping down as leader of the Parti Quebecois, effective immediately.


CTV.ca | Andre Boisclair steps down as PQ leader

Make way for king Duceppe.


----------

