New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cana...tute-1.2734146

42% seems excessive to me.

Or to some of us, not nearly enough:
http://www.thelocal.se/20121018/43900

[evman150]

Fraser Institute lol. What a horrible "study".

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cana...tute-1.2734146

42% seems excessive to me.

Canada’s booming oil and gas industry over the past 50 years is also a factor. "Included in those government revenues are royalties on oil and gas, which were not nearly as high then," said Dungan. He added that in addition to taking inflation into consideration, analysts must also consider the relative price of oil and gas as well as the sheer amount that Canada exports today. "The Fraser Institute counts those as taxes."

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That'll teach me to read the entire article.

[driveway]

I'd love to see a coalition government formed. I don't understand why Canadians reacted so negatively when the idea was first floated. We're a parliamentary democracy, coalition governments are perfectly acceptable under the paradigm.

I get that people don't like the idea of the Bloc, but they were democratically elected, therefore they are just as legitimate a political party as any other.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

<snip, but your quotes are below>

I'll bite. Libertarian here. You know... fiscally responsible, socially liberal. Should actually sound familiar with many here, yet few claim to be.

Out of curiosity, why is socialism a bad thing?

It isn't. As a concept it CAN work, until you start to include anyone that has not volunteered to take part. It is at that moment that it breaks down due to the imposition of will from one or many over one or many.

Q: What is the difference between Capitalism and Socialism?
A: Capitalism is the exploitation of one person by another person. Socialism is the exact opposite.

Jokes aside, capitalism is voluntary, socialism isn't. The former can be tainted BY socialism and the end result is crony-capitalism, or crapitalism as we now have.

Why do people look at any sane political stance and think bad of the people affiliated with it?

Sane.... political.... stance.... Three interesting words.

Sane, one definition is "reasonable, sensible". Question is... to whom? Another definition is: "able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions" Now this definition is where I believe one person's sanity becomes another's insanity. If someone has been educated in a manner that they believe yields sane opinions, they still can be insane as they have failed to anticipate nor appraised the effect of those opinions.

Political, love this one and you can pick your poison here. Merriam's has what I think it the most accurate definition (for politics): "the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government " 'Nuf said.

Stance: "The attitude of a person or organization towards something; a standpoint". Standpoint can be further defined as: "The position from which someone is able to view a scene or an object"

Attitude and position. Neither of these are factually based, they are learned (or more likely, taught).
____

Facts and data. I will argue those every time over "sane political stance".

...people get so painfully focused on money, and low taxes, and individual needs. What's wrong with higher taxes? Free education and day care?

Individual needs are CENTRAL. Somewhere, out there, SOMEONE needs a heart transplant. That person is an individual and it is a critical need. He/she may have a common need to others, however it is individual in nature.

Everything comes down to the individual, and their needs. Although their needs may be categorized or grouped into sections, each one is unique.

Had Robin Williams had his unique needs met, he would be with us here today.

As for "free education and day care", this is a massive topic.

First off... nothing is "free". It's simply a trade off.

Redirecting resources in an inefficient manner will quite likely result in negative unintended consequences.

I'm going to vote for the person who cares a little more about the Canadian people, and a little less about what he thinks the Canadian people should be.

Socialism... what one group thinks the others "should be".

Your post screams "hypocrite!".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'd love to see a coalition government formed. I don't understand why Canadians reacted so negatively when the idea was first floated. We're a parliamentary democracy, coalition governments are perfectly acceptable under the paradigm.

I get that people don't like the idea of the Bloc, but they were democratically elected, therefore they are just as legitimate a political party as any other.

The problem with every coilition government is it just results in more spending and less taxes.

A NDP, Liberal, Bloc coilition would mean more money for Quebec, a national daycare plan, a national pharmacare plan, and no tax increases to pay for it so the liberals can say they didnt increase taxes.

Coilitions are about buying loyaty, the stimulus pushed by the libs/ndp/bloc last time just cost Canadians money but did little to help. Strategic spending ike the auto bailout or adding liquidity to ans made sense but the general blowing money on projects that werent shove ready until the recession was done was a waste of dollars brought on by coilitions and majority governments.

In proportional rep states small extreme left or right grous re abe to ger their ideas on the table because they can hold the balamce of power between the two main parties.

I dont see the benefit of a coilition, the elected dictatorship of the ajority government is better even if the party you support did not get in.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Jokes aside, capitalism is voluntary, socialism isn't.

The naivety of this statement encapsulates everything mistaken about libertarianism: those who work for wages under capitalism do not do so because it is "voluntary", they do so because in such a system there is no other way to survive. Those with economic advantage can and will coerce those at an economic disadvantage, because coercion and hierarchy of power is inherent in any system that manages human beings.

The perfect libertarian state is about as likely as the perfect Marxist state, and for exactly the same reason - people game every system and find the ways to exploit others within it. The only way to truly ameliorate this truth is to have a system that evolves alongside and against its parasites, which a theocracy of money is far to simple to succeed at doing.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'd love to see a coalition government formed. I don't understand why Canadians reacted so negatively when the idea was first floated. We're a parliamentary democracy, coalition governments are perfectly acceptable under the paradigm.

I get that people don't like the idea of the Bloc, but they were democratically elected, therefore they are just as legitimate a political party as any other.

Mainly because a vast majority of the country really doesn't get the concept of a parliamentary democracy and the parliamentary democracy we do have has morphed into a quasi-parliamentary-quasi-american democracy. Technically there's nothing wrong with a coalition government, but the average Canadian would never buy into as a legitimate form of government. The biggest slag that was tossed around during the rumours of a coalition was that it was undemocratic to have the country run by a coalition of losers. It would take a massive reversal of the collective mindset of most Canadians to understand a coalition government.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by SebC

Never!

I won't rest until we have to pay 75% income tax!

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Fire

Don't worry, Trudeau will open his mouth again and flush the Liberals chances of winning the election down the drain.

I find this pretty funny, because many hardcore Conservative supporters keep saying this and even though Justin has spent the past two years providing AMPLE examples of saying stupid things, or providing long winded explanations that can be taken out of context and are prime for attack ads he still has very strong polling numbers and the Liberals have gone from third place to the front runners.

The biggest issue for the Conservatives isn't really Trudeau, but themselves and being in power for too long. If Trudeau saying dumb things is the biggest boogey man that the CPC have to win the next election, then they're in trouble. It also doesn't help that ebb and flow of Canadian politics pretty much guarantees the Conservatives are on the way out after 9 years of being in power.

[Freeway]

The single biggest problem with the Conservatives right now is that Harper stopped trying to hold the tenuous Christian/neo-conservative/libertarian coalition together after he got his majority government. Now getting another government PERIOD depends entirely on him putting the genie back in the bottle.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

However, the GST and free trade were instituted by a Conservative Government, refuting your claim regarding fiscal conservatives.

Why not leave the US out of the discussion as their politics are definitely on a different spectrum than ours? In Alberta, the more 'progressive' the PC's have become the larger our spending and subsequent deficits and debts have been.

In Saskatchewan, the election of a fiscally conservative party has led to a much improved fiscal situation and economic growth where 'liberal' governments in the past had racked up large debts and poor economic growth.

I think your assertions are entirely off base.

No, Mulroney deserves credit for those as good overarching policies, but also remember that debt ballooned massively under his leadership - to close to half a trillion before Chretien and Martin brought it under control. Mulroney did not operate government efficiently.

With Wall, he to me defines centrism.

[Freeway]

I wonder how much of the debt accumulation is the realities of being a government that tries to be national; the Tories under Mulroney and Harper had to spend money in their base regions to maintain legitimacy and in Central Canada to appease that region, while Liberal governments for practicalities' sake only really need to carry Central Canada.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by jammies

The naivety of this statement encapsulates everything mistaken about libertarianism: those who work for wages under capitalism do not do so because it is "voluntary", they do so because in such a system there is no other way to survive. Those with economic advantage can and will coerce those at an economic disadvantage, because coercion and hierarchy of power is inherent in any system that manages human beings.

The perfect libertarian state is about as likely as the perfect Marxist state, and for exactly the same reason - people game every system and find the ways to exploit others within it. The only way to truly ameliorate this truth is to have a system that evolves alongside and against its parasites, which a theocracy of money is far to simple to succeed at doing.

Ho Lee Fuk....

those who work for wages under capitalism do not do so because it is "voluntary", they do so because in such a system there is no other way to survive.

They voluntarily choose and agree to, WHERE, WHEN, WHAT, WHO and HOW they will work. It is all a matter of choice.

Your key word is "wages". In a free society you can choose to work for wages or not. It is YOUR choice.

As for that survivability issue, here is where the rubber meets the road.

People have "survived" for millennia. What the hell are you talking about "no other way"? For the truly needy, for example, a volunteerist society is far more likely to be able to not only identify the needs of an individual but address them. That is what a voluntary community does.

And other groups, i.e. like the Hutterites seem to do very well on their own.

I am not ignoring the rest of your post, I am just tired and must go to bed.

At least I have tried to address more of YOUR post than you did from one line of MINE.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Ho Lee Fuk....



They voluntarily choose and agree to, WHERE, WHEN, WHAT, WHO and HOW they will work. It is all a matter of choice.

Your key word is "wages". In a free society you can choose to work for wages or not. It is YOUR choice.

As for that survivability issue, here is where the rubber meets the road.

People have "survived" for millennia. What the hell are you talking about "no other way"? For the truly needy, for example, a volunteerist society is far more likely to be able to not only identify the needs of an individual but address them. That is what a voluntary community does.

And other groups, i.e. like the Hutterites seem to do very well on their own.

I am not ignoring the rest of your post, I am just tired and must go to bed.

At least I have tried to address more of YOUR post than you did from one line of MINE.

Do you really believe this nonsense?

"Hey, I'm a single mother with two kids and a high school diploma, I'm going to work where, when, for who I want. And if that doesn't work for me, the "volunteerist society" that some guy made up will help me out".

[Devils'Advocate]

Why not believe it? It has been working perfectly fine in Somalia for decades!!

[SebC]

Aren't Hutterites socialist?

======================================

Originally Posted by Freeway

I wonder how much of the debt accumulation is the realities of being a government that tries to be national; the Tories under Mulroney and Harper had to spend money in their base regions to maintain legitimacy and in Central Canada to appease that region, while Liberal governments for practicalities' sake only really need to carry Central Canada.

Not exactly, the Liberals' governing coalition typically includes at least some of Atlantic Canada/Quebec/BC. And the Conservatives can effectively ignore Alberta at least because we're going to vote for them anyways.

[Tinordi]

I love the dispatches from the Libertarian abstraction. Just so fundamentally untethered from the realities of nation-states and modern governments. It's even more hopelessly utopian and dangerous than Marxism.

Major practical issues are simply buffed out of what such a reality would lead to. It's like libertarians have never read a history book and remain willfully ignorant of 7000 years of human civilization.

It bellies belief that such an intellectually, historically, psychologically bankrupt ideology has such currency.

[Thor]

For me its easy, I cannot in good conscience vote for Harper's conservatives for their policies that have gutted Science in Canada, this is the key to future success for Canada investing and putting more money into research and development.