Rovik

Sorry to let you know but the NDP are not communists; though you and many others tend to mistakenly try to make that comparsion (typical scaremonger tactic.) So much hatred toward Layton; did he ever do anything personal to you in the past?

Really no blue collar jobs left in Canada?. Well let me tell that to the electrician that lives next to me ot the welder who lives a few doors down. Let time I checked there was an NDP, unless there's a hugh conspiracy to make the people believe in a phantom party. Maybe Layton is a figment of imagination. Perhaps the guy you see on tv is really an actor (perhaps Harper's cousin who needed the gig.) Yes, you may have seen the horse that left the barn but you forgot to look in the barn to see the 10 that were still there.

In my mind, any company that doing well and making profits should not be getting a subsidy. If they are in trouble (ie..in a recession), they should pay back the subsidies (with interest) when they return to profitibility (no matter if the company is in Quebec or Alberta.) I really like to see the numbers in regards to monies going into the oil companies (subsidies, tax breaks, etc.) compared to monies that come back into the coffers. Until I see these numbers from an official source, I reserve judgement.

Really? So what do these subsidies pay for. Tell you what; for any profitable company that uses these subsidies, then they should open the books and show actually what the CEOs and other executive staff get paid (including bonuses and stock options). I don't know about you but I don't want to see my (taxpayer's monies) go toward these big salaries and bonuses of these fat cats. One could almost justify it if Canada did not need the money to be spend elsewhere. But this is not the case; municipalities can't afford to maintain infrastructre, healthcare is falling apart, students are graduating with huge debt loads, poverty is more widespread then people know and so on and so on. Tell me how these subsidies help a taxi driver in Montreal or a grocery clerk in St. John's or a single mom in Winnipeg? Ask any of these people if it's worth the coin.

What? His announcement on cutting subsidies to the oil sands companies? These companies are making big profits and don't need any help from the Feds. The monies from the subsidies would be better served going toward companies developing clean energy solutions. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps the monies should go to supporting small business or to companies that are having a hard time of it (such as forestry companies.) I can't see how Albertans would be against that.

I disagree. Even at prime +5, the credit card companies and the banks make money. These banks/credit card companies need to be reined in. They charge interest up into the 20 percentage range and yet, if you have a money master account, you're lucky to have 1-2 % interest going to you. If the banks start to prohibit low income earners access to credit cards or enact user fees they should be charged and penaltized. Let's also see them show us the books to prove that they are actually losing money. I'm sorry, but if a company is making 1 billion instead of 3 billion in profits, I have no sympathy. The banks/credit card companies have been gouging the public too long and need to be stopped. I would suggest that if an individual is a low income earner then the credit allowed should be lowered as well...say $3000 instead of $10000. A friend of mine saw the bank issuer of his credit card raise the credit limit twice during a time he was unemployed (and was not using the card). As well, the minimum monthly payment should be raised. That would hopefully provide a disincentive from maxxing out a credit card.

The Feds did not offer Newfoundland 100% royalties to Newfoundland in re: to Hibernia and Terra Nova. Strange that they are offering it to Quebec. Could this be a slimy way to payoff Quebec in order to wins more seats in the upcoming election. Well, we're talking about the Conservatives here, so I wouldn't be shocked (and sadly following in the Liberals footsteps of years past.) And if one would think that Newfoundland and Labrador will let Quebec have Old Harry without a fight then one would be sadly mistaken. Newfoundland will fight tooth and nail (as they should). Just another chapter in the war between Quebec and Newfoundland over energy resources.

The Conservatives will try every trick in the book to stay in power. And by mentioning "coalition" a million times, they are hoping that the average Canadian brain will succumb and believe this foolishness, a sort of brain washing if you will. This "trick' is really quite childish and i hope it backfires on them.

That is something I have noticed re: poll numbers. The so called main stream media "experts" tend to focus on polls that lowball the NDP. They say things like "well the NDP have the most to lose in an election..." and so on. Of course, the MSM tend to be bias towards either the Liberals or the Conservatives and bias against the NDP (there are some exceptions but they are in a tiny minority). It's too bad really; I've always believed that the media should be neutral but sadly it's not the case. And what makes it really sad is the uninformed Canadian who may watch a portion of a "roundtable" (perhaps in the midst of channel surfing) could believe what these so called "experts" say to be true.

I'm of two minds in regards to nuclear reactors. I can see both sides of the story. But I do know one thing. The future of nuclear power may very well depend on what happens with the result of what happens in Japan. If they can recover with little damage then nuclear power won't be impacted much (a bit more safety conscious, and that's a good thing, but that's about it.) Now if things go badly over there, well that could be a different story.

Please cite where the NDP actually praise Hamas and Hezbollah. If you can't, well this would be another example of a wild statement about the NDP with no basis in fact and meant to scaremonger. As far as I know, the NDP are looking for a more balanced approach in regards to the Israelis and the Palestians, compared to what the Conservatives approach is.

Oh well...I have to disagree with the obvious spin that is going on. I believe that this is a smart move by Layton. First, the four issues that the NDP want in return for not voting against the tax cuts are relevant to many within Canada. For example, cutting the taxes off home heating could save a lot of money for Canada's families. Let's say one's heating bill is $500; well the taxes would be $65. Multiply this by the 12 months a year and this would be quite the savings (and yes I know that the bill wouldn't be as expensive in the Summertime but this is just an example). This is a tangible saving that families and individuals can see and would allow savings to go into such things as groceries, or gas. The other issues would benefit seniors, people having a hard time finding a fmamily doctor and pensioners. This shows the ordinary Canadian (not the diehard Conservative or Liberal supporters that one sees in these forums) that the NDP is trying to help them. Second, in any negotiation there has to be give and take. To get these issues to possibly become law, they have to accept the corporate tax cuts (as unsavory as they are). If not then we definately won't see the taxes cut off home heating oil. And to all those Liberals who say that Layton sacrificed his principles for this potential agreement with the Conservatives, it was the liberals up until very recently supported and often pushed corporate tax cuts. It seems to be they saw that the average Canadian was against corporate cuts so they became opportunistic (with a potential election around the corner) and changed their tune. And funny how these same Liberal supporters won't say anything about how the Liberals change of heart on the Afghanistan deployment. And thirdly, if the Conservatives refuse to go along with the four issues, then the NDP can say they tried to be civil and come to an agreement. Compare this to the Liberals who childishly say it's either their way or the highway (I may end up saying the same about the Conservatives all depending on what happens.)

All this talk of Copenhagen, or Emissions control or whatever is all a waste of time because nothing will ever come out of it. In my opinion, we will pay the price; maybe 50, 100 or 200 years down the road, our descendents will pay the price but that's just the way it will be; there's no stopping it. There are two reasons for this. First, there is too much money being made by govts, corporations and individuals. Let's face it when you have people in oil and gas rich places such as Alberta and the Middle East making huge money; they don't want anything to interrupt the money flow. Just imagine, if most of Alberta's oil production, or anywhere else for that matter, was shut down to cut emissions, then many jobs would be lost and the jobs that remained would not be as high-paying. So nobody working and making good money off the oil wants to hear of this. Second, people live for the now, the present that effects them right now, not about what happens 50 or 100 years down the road. They may hear about the potential damage to the Earth's atmosphere and its effects on the people in the future but they don't care since it is not impacting them right now. So there you have it, we are going down a road of no return due to inherent human greed and shortsightedness so there is no point in trying to stop it. I will feed bad for these people in the future living in less then ideal conditions who wonder why nothing was ever done to stop it. And for those who say it's not going to happen because of a minority of scientists who say so, consider this; up until the 80s, the tobacco industry also had scientists come out and said that there was no proof that smoking hurts people.

One can't compare provinical and federal parties as the same. For example, the Conservatives lead federally and also provincially in Newfoundland, but no way can you say they are similiar. This comparing the federal NDP with the Ontario NDP of the 90s has always been a blatant scare tactic to prevent people from voting for the NDP.

Bloc MPs seeking answers in closed Cinar probe The bad news out of Quebec for the Liberals never seems to end.

This notion that The NDP is a far left socialist party is just scare tactics that their opponents have used to try to scare people from voting for the NDP. The NDP are a social democratic (not socialist) party that would be considered centre-left. The liberals would be somewhere in the centre while the Conservatives come across as a centre-right party. I am not denying that there may be a fringe element within the NDP that may be further left then the majority but the same can be said for the Conservatives who have an element which would be considered far right.

I'm shocked at the amount of posters that are condoning the use of torture as a means to a ends. One has to look at the big picture here. If Canada, a signatory of the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoners from such treatment, is willing to cast aside all of that and torture away than what's to stop less extreme elements from saying "well since Canada, once considered one of the world's foremost peacekeeping nations is willing to torture, well i guess it's ok for us to do as well. In otherwords, what this is telling hostile groups around the world that might have been iffy about torture, that if the so called Western civilized countries with their Geneva Conventions have no qualms about torture, then why should we. Second, how do we know that a prisoner is absolutely guilty. Who knows? Perhaps the prisoner was captured due to the word of an questionable informant. And what if after torturing, we find out that the individual was indeed innocent. What then? Do we tell him, "sorry old boy, our mistake, you can go home now." It's a sad reflection on ourselves if we are willing to torture, to inflict often extreme physical and emotional pain without remorse. I guess we are just as bad as the extremists.

If I was poisoned enough not to vote NDP, one thing i would not do is vote Liberal. How many harmful bills have passed during Harper's run because the Liberals did not think they could win an election during these times. As much as i dislike the Cons and personally believe that Harper's govt. is one of the worst in history, I could never vote for the arrogant Liberals who believe they should be in power as a divine right. If it ever came down that I couldn't vote for the NDP, then I would either vote for no one or spoil my ballot (and as for the Greens; once they decided they were against the seal hunt; then I couldn't vote for them.)

Let's see; how many times the libs ended up propping up the Cons (even voting or abstaining against bills they were against) -73 the NDP for something they support - 1. Let's face it, the Liberals are the ones that have kept the Cons in power; not the NDP for most of Harper's run as PM. I can't see the NDP voting 73 times in a row to keep the Cons in power and I can't see them voting for something that they are against, so this will be short-lived. I see incrediable animosity toward the NDP from Liberal supports and their friends in the MSM because they know that to have any chance to win; they need to grab some of that NDP support. So we will hear it all from the Liberals and their supporters about how bad the NDP and how irrelevant they are. They will spin like you have never seen; in fact after hearing all the spin, you would think that horns grew out of Layton's head. I hope the Canadian public will see through this and punish the Liberals for it. For a supposedly irrelevant party, they are getting quite the attention from their detractors and the MSM.

This threat of NDP support sinking is something that we have heard a countless number of times in the past. How many times in the past, have I heard that the NDP will be decimated or wiped out and guess what, it never happens. And I have seen polls change from week to week or from poll to poll (ie. 12% to 18% to 13 to 17%.) Therefore, one must take these polls with a grain of salt. The reason that the NDP never voted him before is because he hasn't put anything forward that they support. This time, EI changes is something they can support but that doesn't mean they now trust Harper, as they want go over the proposals with a fine tooth comb before they will accept it.

The difference is this. The NDP will be voting on something (EI changes) that they support. On the other hand in the last few years, the Liberals would support the Cons or abstain against bills they said they were against. Therefore, there is no comparsion and in fact any comparsion would be Liberal spin. I don't believe the NDP would keep the Con govt going, if the Cons put up a bill that the NDP were against, so even if the Cons survive this vote, I don't believe they would survive many more (unless they are willing to compromise to the NDP, which unless Steve changes his stripes, is not going to happen.)

Perhaps the Tories have never been cooperative in return?? And perhaps the NDP know there will be no overtures or compromise from the Tories, so why even bother with saying that they will work with a party that will not work with them in return. I believe that if the Tories have been willing to truly work with the NDP and that includes compromises with what policies the NDP support , than the NDP would be more than happy to work with them. This spin about "the NDP always saying no" is just that, spin, and tends to come primarily from Liberal supporters. Let's face it, the NDP has not seen anyhting that they like even remotely. And when their suggestions are brushed aside by an arrogant Tory govt., than they have every right to say no.

I disagree. If the Tories came around and agreed with the NDP on much of their platform, the NDP would definately go for it. I like to know your rationale that the NDP would vote against everything, even things they support. In fact, i believe it would be the Liberals who would vote against anything that might paint the NDP in a good light

I doubt that a Fall confidence vote will hurt the Tories, unless the economy turns back into a tailspin or some other scandal occurs. They are pretty vulnerable now, so anything Harper can do to delay (which he has) is good in their eyes. Now why should the NDP compromise when the Tories themselves will not compromise with the NDP. As far as I can see, the Tories have not listened to any of the NDP suggestions in regards to the economy so why could the NDP relent. In this environment, why should the NDP agree with something that is against their principles and also with a govt. who is not willing to compromise in return. In fact, if they did relent without any concessions on the Tories part, it would be like betraying your supporters. The Liberals, on the other hand, will vote in way that is most advantegeous to the party not their supporters. Therefore, they are willing to support something they are supposedly against if they believe it is for the good of the party. You are missing the point when I mention people's reference to Rae's NDP Ontario govt. Of all the subpar provincial's govt., in the past, Tories and especially liberal's supporters will focus on Rae's govt. in an act to display all NDP govts (present and future) are going to be exactly the same as Rae's govt. I heard many lately saying that the NS NDP govt. will be exactly like rae's govt (scaremongering at it's worst.) But at the same time when a Conservative govt. wins provinically, you don't hear people say that they will act like Devine's 80s Conservative.