2011 Federal election polls, demographics, predictions

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If you want to see the NDP obliterated from the map politically and have everything go back to Conservative vs. Liberal than all you have to do is elect the NDP to a Majority government. It seems to have worked wonders in Ontario as the NDP has been reduced to third party status there ever since Rae got elected.

Ontario, Sask and Manitoba in the future as well.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Please explain.

At it's root, the core value of conservativsm seems to be selfishness. That is the conclusion I've come to.

Liberals/socialists have more compassionate, sharing views.

On the one hand you have people who believe that sharing wealth from the fortunate to the less fortunate is a good idea, and then on the other hand you have those don't. This seems to apply at many levels. You have Conservative Albertans who don't want to share Alberta's financial success with other provinces. You have Conservatives who don't want to share their personal financial success with other people, some of whom grew up in horrible situations and never had the chance to succeed that many more fortunate did.

At least that is my take on financial positions of conservatives vs liberals/socialists in general. I boil it down to selfish vs willing to share. Social issues are bit of a different animal and can't be boiled down in the same way as the fiscal stances.

I have to agree that the more moral viewpoint is the compassionate one, not the selfish one.

[edn88]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

At it's root, the core value of conservativsm seems to be selfishness. That is the conclusion I've come to.

I'd say more like conservatives want to allow individuals to make decisions with less interference from government. So, happy to donate to charity of their choice, does not want government to just give to all homeless people.

Thinks that private interests are a better mechanism for distributing wealth than government mechanisms.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

At it's root, the core value of conservativsm seems to be selfishness. That is the conclusion I've come to.

Liberals/socialists have more compassionate, sharing views.

On the one hand you have people who believe that sharing wealth from the fortunate to the less fortunate is a good idea, and then on the other hand you have those don't. This seems to apply at many levels. You have Conservative Albertans who don't want to share Alberta's financial success with other provinces. You have Conservatives who don't want to share their personal financial success with other people, some of whom grew up in horrible situations and never had the chance to succeed that many more fortunate did.

At least that is my take on financial positions of conservatives vs liberals/socialists in general. I boil it down to selfish vs willing to share. Social issues are bit of a different animal and can't be boiled down in the same way as the fiscal stances.

I have to agree that the more moral viewpoint is the compassionate one, not the selfish one.

Wow I completely disagree with your entire statement. I know many many people with conservative viewpoints who are extremely generous.

I look at it as socialists and Liberals don't believe that people are capable of handling their own lives so they have to create a social system to take care of peoples every need and circumstance.

I look at your statement about Alberta, Alberta has paid money into equalization, where the resentment comes from is not the fact that they're sending money to other provinces, but that provinces like Quebec believe that they're allowed to put lavish social programs in place and run a deficit budget on the back of equalization with no intention of every balancing their budget.

I'm tired of my political viewpoint which is conservative being portrayed as evil or selfish. Just like Liberal's are tired of their political viewpoints being described as an exercise in social experimentation of the most gullible kind.

[SeeBass]

^^The one thing in politics that bothers me, is the people who sign the back of cheques are always trying to tell the people who sign the front of cheques what to do with the money.

[transplant99]

As the Iron Lady herself one said...

and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow I completely disagree with your entire statement. I know many many people with conservative viewpoints who are extremely generous.



I'm tired of my political viewpoint which is conservative being portrayed as evil or selfish. Just like Liberal's are tired of their political viewpoints being described as an exercise in social experimentation of the most gullible kind.

Me too. I would consider myself a conservative through and through and I'm about as unselfish as they come.

Good post CC

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow I completely disagree with your entire statement. I know many many people with conservative viewpoints who are extremely generous.

Yep, there are generous Conservatives. Which begs the question why they aren't interested in generous social policies. If people are happy to donate money to less fortunate on their own, why would they have a problem with gov't doing it in a more organized fashion.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I look at it as socialists and Liberals don't believe that people are capable of handling their own lives so they have to create a social system to take care of peoples every need and circumstance.

Certain people can't handle their own lives without help and support. Support usually comes from family but some people don't have a family with the means to help them. People with mental illnesses, people with drug problems, people with severe illnesses are all examples. Those people can be abandoned by society without compassionate social programs.

Socialist and Liberals don't believe that people are capable of handling their own lives? That's a load of crap and an over-generalization. Most people can. The people who can't are mostly abandoned by extremely Conservative policies.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I look at your statement about Alberta, Alberta has paid money into equalization, where the resentment comes from is not the fact that they're sending money to other provinces, but that provinces like Quebec believe that they're allowed to put lavish social programs in place and run a deficit budget on the back of equalization with no intention of every balancing their budget.

So you only want to share with other Conservatives? I've read threads on this board. Lots of Albertans resent having to share at all. Lots of Albertans are approaching this election with the viewpoint of, "How will this affect oil and gas wealth?" That is a selfish stance and it is represented quite heavily in the election thread. There are greater issues for the standard of living for Canadians than whether Alberta becomes a little richer or a little poorer.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm tired of my political viewpoint which is conservative being portrayed as evil or selfish. Just like Liberal's are tired of their political viewpoints being described as an exercise in social experimentation of the most gullible kind.

I don't see why any Conservative supporter should be offended by the description, I think it quite apt and representative of the viewpoint. There are lots of negative statements applied to socialists in this thread that are less fair IMO.

Maybe some background would help. I am not a lifelong Socialist. I grew up in Calgary, considered myself a Conservative growing up. Upon looking more into the issues, getting myself a University education, having met lots of people and worked in various jobs, my impression is that the Conservative viewpoint is a selfish one. I am sorry if that offends Conservatives.

Obviously Conservatives is Canada are not quite as right-wing as Conservatives in other countries. I don't think the CPC could get away with scrapping all of our valuable social programs like Universal Health Care. But if we're generalizing about Conservatives vs Liberals/Socialists, I think the generalization fits.

[SeeBass]

I think too many times the low informed voter is a victim of the US media and just lumps the CPC=Rep together.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

At least that is my take on financial positions of conservatives vs liberals/socialists in general. I boil it down to selfish vs willing to share. Social issues are bit of a different animal and can't be boiled down in the same way as the fiscal stances.

To oversimplify the "financial/charitable" angle, in my view:

Conservatism: I decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Liberalism: You decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Problem is, you have no f*ing clue what I am capable of spending and sharing.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Jagger

Me too. I would consider myself a conservative through and through and I'm about as unselfish as they come.

Good post CC

Which begs the question, why exactly are you a Conservative through and through? If you are as unselfish as they come then it would seem liberal/socialist economic policies that help others would be attractive to you, no?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To oversimplify the "financial/charitable" angle, in my view:

Conservatism: I decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Liberalism: You decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Problem is, you have no f*ing clue what I am capable of spending and sharing.

But he still wants to tell you what YOU should be doing with YOUR money.

So basically, he is the selfish one, since he doesn't want to let YOU keep YOUR money, but wants to take it away to fund HIS socialist wetdream.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Which begs the question, why exactly are you a Conservative through and through? If you are as unselfish as they come then it would seem liberal/socialist economic policies that help others would be attractive to you, no?

Well, I find the government quite possibly the most inefficient entities in our society so forgive me if I want them "handling" my money.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To oversimplify the "financial/charitable" angle, in my view:

Conservatism: I decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Liberalism: You decide what is appropriate for me to spend and share.

Problem is, you have no f*ing clue what I am capable of spending and sharing.

The problem is, most rich people don't want to share significantly with those less fortunate or don't allocate the money wisely to the right organizations in the right ratio. If the gov't leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves how much to share, a lot of people won't share and that means a lot of people with mental illnesses, physical illnesses, drug addicitons, kids from abusive homes, etc suffer.

I'm not calling every Conservative supporter selfish although I know many are. I'm calling the viewpoint about social policies a selfish one.

But of course the caveat is that our Conservatives are more liberal than in some countries.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Well, I find the government quite possibly the most inefficient entities in our society so forgive me if I want them "handling" my money.

Well if social programs are to be run somebody has to handle it. Either a non-profit organization or a gov't program. I think you find corruption and problems with any large entity be it gov't, corporations, non-profits, etc.

I think it a bit of a myth that gov't is the only form of large organization that experiences inefficiencies.

Are healthcare, education, etc worthless because the inefficient gov't is running them? I sure hope not, those are some of the best things about our country.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Which begs the question, why exactly are you a Conservative through and through? If you are as unselfish as they come then it would seem liberal/socialist economic policies that help others would be attractive to you, no?

More and more it seems you have no clue what conservatism is. I don't even think you know what you're talking about here.

There is nothing wrong with a strong welfare program to support low-income earners, or the 'poor' amongst us, because the fact is, not all of us GET the same chance to succeed in life. I support that, and I support a health care program that provides solid basic coverage for everyone, rich or poor. What I don't support is a $6 billion dollar child care policy, that basically comes with no strings attached. Nor do I support increased taxation against corporations simply because they make a lot of money. They do make a lot of money, but they also provide a lot of jobs for Canadians.

I support the right for people to make their own decisions, to live their own life, to marry who THEY want to marry, and to spend THEIR money, the way THEY feel fit to spend it. I don't support a government that wants to constantly take away that right.

Socialist policies have never, ever worked. Not here, not in the US, not in Russia, not in China, not anywhere. Ultimately, socialism is all about the belief that the government knows best, which is ultimately a belief that we shouldn't be free to make our own decisions, and that is a freedom that is crucial to the health of our democracy.

You can argue day and night about Harper and HIS brand of conservatism. I have said many times that this election is about economic policy, and the NDP is quite frankly uneducated when it comes to dictating how our country operates in that regard. Layton has been exposed numerous times backtracking when it comes to tough economic questions, and in my opinion, people are voting for him not because of what he promises, but because he can talk the smoothest.

I'll go with the devil I know, and not the devil that doesn't even understand how to guide this country economically.

And yes, I would still give the Liberals 170 seats if it meant the NDP would go away forever.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The problem is, most rich people don't want to share significantly with those less fortunate or don't allocate the money wisely to the right organizations in the right ratio. If the gov't leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves how much to share, a lot of people won't share and that means a lot of people with mental illnesses, physical illnesses, drug addicitons, kids from abusive homes, etc suffer.

I'm not calling every Conservative supporter selfish although I know many are. I'm calling the viewpoint about social policies a selfish one.

But of course the caveat is that our Conservatives are more liberal than in some countries.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well if social programs are to be run somebody has to handle it. Either a non-profit organization or a gov't program. I think you find corruption and problems with any large entity be it gov't, corporations, non-profits, etc.

I think it a bit of a myth that gov't is the only form of large organization that experiences inefficiencies.

Why does government subsidized daycare need to be a social program. To me that something that the private sector seems capable of handling. You make sound as though conservatives want to eliminate all social programs. I agree, some social programs need to be handled by the state, the NDP thinks most PROGRAMS should be handled by the state.

[Matty81]

Definately can't lump all conservative voters in together - some people I know genuinely want to live in a better society and they feel those kind of fiscal policies are the way there.

That said I for sure have a few buddies who basically do not want to share their money in any way shape or form though - it's not about them wanting to decide how to spend their money, it's that they don't want to give any of it to poorer people who they perceive as "bums".

[jammies]

There is a cost to living in a society based on the rule of law and the funding of public institutions that are difficult to justify on purely economic grounds. It's not as simple as "I should decide how to spend MY money", because that ignores the role that social infrastructure plays in giving you the opportunity to make any money at all.

There are two ridiculous positions that characterize North American political debate: in one, the government can and should always be made smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive; in the second, government should always be looking to reduce social and economic inequities. Both are biased towards sloganeering instead of rational argument - neither shows much imagination.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I should also mention that you make it sound as if the Conservatives would privatize everything and eliminiate all social spending. I fail to see how not agreeing with government subsidized daycare makes you less caring.

It makes you a evil baby killer actually.

But, good point. I think FDW fails to realize, as always, that a strong 'welfare' program should only go so far. The US has a LOT of problems with their food stamp program simply because its easier for people to just take the stamps and get food, then to go out and get a job and PAY for their food.

I have no problem paying for EI when someone loses their job, but I shouldn't be doing that constantly.

There are numerous different ways to provide help to low-income families or those in need, but I think we have a problem sitting down and talking about them because people like FDW are constantly crying and screaming about how the rich are making too much money.

Health care reform is a big problem but because people bitch so much about a private system, health care reform is constantly ignored.

Same with the rest of the 'welfare' programs.