apollo19

Are you trying to imply that people should only vote for who is in the government so that they can get things they want done? I think the only thing that will get either the Liberals or Conservatives a majority will be to get out of this boring stalemate. Both parties are afraid to try new policies or advocate reforming things. Why doesn't any party come out and offer to put together an electoral reform package (like in Ontario and BC with citizen's assemblies), or offer to start building high-speed rail in populated corridors (Montreal-Toronto, Edmonton-Calgary), or reform health care using Paul Martin's "generation fix" of funding of proof that dumping more money into the system doesn't get better results. Any of these positions would be something "different" for Canadians, and I think would resound with voters -- but the way things are now, it's a circle of getting nothing done and being cautious that I think will be exacerbated with Dion and Harper facing off.

Analogous questions: Do the Conservatives go back to using the sponsorship scandal as a bogeyman? Will they claim that Dion is somehow linked to it and knew or should have known? Will they do this so that the voters ignore the Conservative record, the Emerson appointment, the Fortier appointment, the Darrel Reid appointment, the "Clean Air Act", the income trust broken promise, the increase in the personal income tax rate on July 1, 2006? I think both of you have too high an opinion of the average voter's memory. It seems most people will forget politically what happened more than a few weeks ago, unless it personally involved them (like losing money on income trusts).

I think Dion will be the PM in under a year. Harper and his crew aren't too bright about running things so far, and I'm not sure if they will figure it out in time. As it was mentioned, all the Liberals really need is 12 seats to be in government. I'm quite sure they will be able to pick them up in Ontario alone. It seems we are in for another period of minority governments, as both Dion and Harper are patient and aren't willing to rock the boat. Add to that the BQ holding relatively constant, and I think things will stay in minority position until the next Quebec provincial election, with maybe a few seats jostling between the CPC and LPC, allowing the government to change.

The CPC will make gains in Ontario. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that Toronto and it's suburbs are somewhat "corporate" in feel. For once, Harper is the man who is most similar to them now, as opposed to Dion. You may think to bring up Chretien and his victories in this, but the only reason he won was because there were really no other alternatives. If Harper plays his cards right, he will be able to break into the Mississauga area (and other suburbs) and maybe even into some seats in Toronto itself. All he has to do is get the marriage vote out of the way ASAP, declare it over, then move onto tax cuts and feel-good news. Now that I think about it, this may have been his plan all along -- do the marriage vote before Christmas, wait until the Budget, get defeated on it, and be "nice" between the two.

I think that by choosing Dion as their leader, the Liberals are giving the next election to Harper. All he has to do is make feel-good announcements and get the gay marriage fake-vote out of the way before Christmas, and then he is home free to a majority with help from Ontario. I actually felt really bad for Ignatieff -- it was nearly 15 minutes straight of his face beside Dion's on TV, and he knew he lost and was holding back tears. I think Kennedy has assured himself a position of importance in Dion's circle of people, but the question I have now is what will Ignatieff do -- he had good policy but it just seemed he wasn't part of the establishment.

I want either Kennedy or Ignatieff, but I don't really think either of them will win, and both are somewhat less than what I had hoped. Kennedy sounds like someone who is more focused on the economy, but from his race to be leader of the Ontario Liberals (where he was the "left" candidate), I'm not sure if I can believe it. Ignatieff really has no concrete plans, and he seems like a person who has intentionally taken ambiguous positions so that they can be changed on a whim. However, I'm interested in seeing where Ignatieff's support is coming from... Rae's seems to be from the Chretien side, and Dion's from the "old guard", but Ignatieff's allegiances aren't exactly clear. I do hope that, if he is chosen, he could change Canadian's views on things like tolls on highways and a carbon tax (while lowering income taxes).

As far as I could tell, the age of consent is 14, yet this requires people (who would likely be gay) to be 18. It is discrimination, and should be streamlined along with all the other sex laws/ages.

I think the problem Harper is having is that he is unable to reclaim all of the PC vote. My guess is that a lot of that 32% is the Alliance vote, and a lot of that is due to social conservative positions (or proposed ones). I don't really think it is Harper's fault that he is hit with Afghanistan and the environment, but a lot of that is of his own doing because of his relationship with the media. For the Afghanistan problem, I think the biggest issue is O'Connor and Harper -- they are always talking about it to the media. That makes it seem as if they are the reasons behind Afghanistan.. notice how Martin and Graham never really talked about it, they just let the military do their job. What Harper has to do is make inroads into the GTA and Vancouver. He is probably maxed out in Quebec for the current time, but he can win seats in urban areas -- as long as he changes the way he does things. I think a good example of a riding he could win if he changed some things is Vancouver Centre -- fiscally conservative but socially liberal. But, it seems that Harper is arrogant and is unwilling to change.. that is what drives me away from voting for him. I don't see what him being a protestant from Alberta has to do with anything other than semantics, but I think there are some very credible people out there who could lead Canada -- and from outside Ontario/Quebec. People like Bernard Lord and Gordon Campbell come to mind here. We need to get away from the whole "Alberta is so good and rich", "Quebec is a nation", and "Ontario is full of liberal immigrants" arguments which keep Canada busy with useless things.

I think what got to Martin was not that he didn't have good ideas, it was that his supporters in the party, after doing the work to push out Chretien, felt they were owed something. One look at Martin's cabinet shows this, with all these ranks of "Minister of State" and just bloat in general. I think if Martin had listened to himself instead of his advisors whispering about polls and such to him, he would have done very well... possibly winning the "record" majority that was talked about before the sponsorship mess.

I think August has hit the nail on the head here with regards to the feeling of Canadians. There is a large pool of social liberal/fiscal conservative people in the big cities (read: Toronto and Vancouver) that Harper and the CPC just cannot tap into. Instead of trying to grow into this area of people with moderate tax cuts and leaving social issues at the status quo, Harper is being a clown and stirring things up, thereby letting people default back to (or remain at) the Liberals. I think that he could take some, but not all, of the things Harris and Manning said and implement them, such as halving the corporate tax rate, with support coming from Toronto. But he should stop being naive about his positions on everything, or else all the non-religious voters I know will be voting Liberal again.

I think this issue is showing Harper's inexperience with matters larger than fighting against the Liberals. If you want to deal with China in any positive way relating to human rights or such, you can't make defiant statements in public. It seems that is Harper's way -- he is just too blunt about things, and blurts things out in public. It wouldn't be in Canada's interest to get into a "I don't need your cheap goods" versus "I don't need your oilsands" argument with the Chinese. My guess is Gordon Campbell isn't going to be too pleased about this.. look for Harper to either backpedal on this issue or lose even more support among people in BC.

That was a one-time payment which wasn't even from the CPC. Why should Toronto have to go and beg to the province and feds every year? It has tasks which no other city in Canada has on any comparable level, yet it is expected to pay for these things without additional revenue? While I think that there is lots of wasteful spending and such in Toronto which could go a little towards making the problem better, that doesn't address the inequity of the system.

I actually think Toronto deserves some extra revenue from the Feds. Toronto has to put up with a larger share of immigrants, who typically are not too wealthy -- these people then use the social services the city provides, and it has much larger costs compared to places where international immigration is not large. On top of that, the city needs more money for transit and such -- Vancouver got funding for the RAV line, so why can't the TTC get more funding? That is one area where the CPC has done horribly -- managing relations with the cities. They smacked the TTC and Toronto in the face when they announced the transit security money with the TTC getting peanuts. I think its about time Toronto starts getting it's fair share.

You don't need to cut the GST specifically to achieve a $40 billion hole in the budget, so that forced spending cuts would be implemented. With respect to the original question, I am of the view that the GST should be raised, with income and corporate taxes cut accordingly. There is not a lack of spending in the economy, yet there is a problem with productivity and efficiency -- these should be the priorities in the time period looking towards 2010, not looking at how to increase spending in a country where so many young people are living off of credit and so many old boomers are sitting on mountains of savings.

I only watched the debate for a bit because of time constraints, but I got the following impressions about some of the candidates: Ignatieff sounds good, but if you listen to him closely you can see that he has no substance -- he just has a nice first line to draw people in, but after that any critical thinker will realize he is full of it. He may be picked for his ability to turn on a dime with regards to his positions, but I don't think that would work against Harper. Rae sounds somewhat passionate in a debate, but he still seems like somewhat of an outsider -- the example here is when Dion was defending the Liberals record in the '90s and Rae was on the other side. Rae may win, but I don't think he will have the support of the Martin wing of the party (it seems the Chretien/Martin split still exists, although muted for this race so far). Kennedy and Dion both have large weaknesses -- their ability to speak in the other national language. I think the two could come together at the convention, with Kennedy being Dion's right-hand man, which would likely draw enough support to win the leadership. I don't know what to think of Dion's policies -- his seem like spending plans, but then he throws in a random "fiscal discipline" so I don't know which one to believe. The one candidate who I wish would win is Brison -- he really has good ideas, but I don't think he has enough (if any) roots in the party. Maybe in another 10 years or so when the Liberal "establishment" decides he is loyal enough and speaks good enough French he will be picked. I was very disappointed with the lack of talk about economic issues, as in the end everything comes down to the balance sheet. Oh well, maybe in another 5 years...

I don't think this discussion is what Ontario is doing wrong, so I won't bring that into it (although McGuinty shutting down the coal plants does help... although it is delayed). Also, by looking at that chart Alberta emits more than just the most CO2 in the country... it also emits the most methane and HFCs. The smog is also a red herring, because it isn't exactly related to global warming. It is also not a problem in Ontario alone, as it is also in New York, Detroit, Montreal, etc. Albertans in Edmonton and Calgary may not "feel" or "see" the affects of the pollution caused by the oil sands, but driving out of Edmonton looking at the "reclaimed land" sure is an experience. No, I don't want to shut the oil sands down. However, I would like to see some form of a revenue neutral carbon tax (like what Ignatieff proposed) so that companies reaping the benefits of the resource are inclined to do so in the most environmentally friendly way, along with more tax credits for hybrid cars and slightly higher gas taxes which are raised a few cents each year, which would force people to look at alternatives.

I don't understand how people in Alberta can claim they are "green" in the way they do things when as a whole the province is the highest contributer to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. See this map for emissions intensity. This chart shows that Alberta emits more greenhouse gases then all of Ontario, even though it has 1/4 of the population. Alberta also emits close to 40% of all GHG's in Canada, even though it has 10% of the population. I think its time for people to face up to the facts that Alberta is the biggest emitter of GHG's in Canada, and it is mainly driven not by people driving cars and other city items, but mainly from the oil sands. Sure, things like the C-Train may run off renewable energy sources, but the oil sands are the largest polluters in Canada. On top of the emissions they give out, you have to destroy landscape and "reclaim" it over a period of years, which is the main point I think Gore was getting at.

I think when people talk about the GTA being the fifth largest area in North America, they are actually refering to the Golden Horseshoe area. This stretches from the eastern 'burbs of Toronto through Hamilton to Niagara. Wikipedia says the population of this area is 7.4 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe). The Extended Golden Horseshoe could also be the area, which extends the GH to include Guelph/Kitchener/Waterloo, with an estimated pop. of 8.5 million.

I'll give them between 2.5 and 3 stars. Originally I thought Harper et al would be different in the way they played politics as a government, but they are worse partisans than the Liberals. Every opportunity they get, they compare something to the Liberals or sneak in a jab at the other parties. The tax cuts were not even proper ones, and in the end the income tax rate was RAISED half a point. Then there is the matter of the environment, where the CPC has managed to do nothing while the oil sands increase greenhouse gas emissions without worry because Harper won't let his home province and oil lobbyists be "harmed" economically. Another big point I dislike is ignoring Ontario while giving Quebec everything it wants -- I understand the political strategy here, but it is just a bad thing for a government to do. I do like what they have done with this immediate spending on the military, although I wish they would have looked seriously at the Russian military equipment that was offered, instead of just jumping to a deal with Boeing. All in all, I actually liked Martin better, but I guess we have to start getting used to Harper since he will be here for atleast another year.

I think most people here have the "guts" to say what they really think, it is just that their views are different from yours. In response to your original question, I think the CPC is a mix of what the parties before the merger were -- both blue tory and red tory. I hate to break it to you, but when you talk about neoconservatism you should know what economically it and neoliberalism are one and the same (did you shudder hearing the word liberal?). If you had your "way", the Conservative party would be back to being a party which would be unable to govern Canada because of it's specific regional biases.

The people I would like to see in the race, disregarding the parties, would be Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee (Governor of Arkansas). Clinton has had some problems lately IMV with her stance on things like censorship and "national security" (ports deal). I just hope the 2008 election doesn't have its lame duck like Kerry was in '04.

Kiraly, is there a regional breakdown? I assume CPC support is particularly low in BC where more people disapproved than approved of the federal budget. Apparently Quebecers loved the budget but this is not surprising. They already get subsidized child daycare throughout Quebec, thanks to their provincial government, and another $1200 a year per child on top of that from Harper. I wonder if this is a fiscal imbalance that Harper will address? Looking at the original poll, I think we can all safely toss this one out the window. Any poll that shows the Greens at 9% clearly has some issues, and I just don't think the NDP and CPC would have gone down so much. With regard to what Norman was talking about, I must question why you would think CPC support is low in BC? If anything, I suspect due to this budget they would have most of the support of the ~45% of the people in the province who are historical tax cut supporters (traditional Socred/BCLib support level).

This is what I don't understand about partisan politics -- people never see things for what they are. How is this Quebec situation different? Mulroney is a Quebecer and offered things to Quebec, so people disliked that. Harper is an Albertan and is offering things to Quebec, but people somehow think it is different because he is from Alberta? I never said anything about another right-wing party uprising and I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort, but Harper is indeed offering special treatment to Quebec. Also, from what has been shown so far, Harper himself has given up on Ontario. Some of the higher level Ontario people (like Flaherty) obviously care about Ontario, but in Harper's mind I have a feeling Ontario is off the radar compared to other regional concerns.

I agree with you here, and would point out to Tory (the person) supporters that he is very likely more liberal than McGuinty. McGuinty has done a competent job so far, and I will vote for him if he continues to do so. He's doing the job noone else would dare in a business environment -- charging people more for less. One of the bad things about McGuinty though is that he is using the deficit for political reasons -- blaming it on the previous government in order to get votes. Getting back to Tory -- he has laid out no policies so far, he has just complained about McGuinty not keeping his promises. That suggests that Tory is a puppet who will do whatever someone writes on his cheque, similar in a way to Belinda Stronach.

No, it doesn't entitle McGuinty to anything special compared to the other provinces. But does Quebec get entitled to special things compared to other provinces? Harper is doing the exact same thing which caused the Reformers to split from the PCs (that is pandering to Quebec), all the while ignoring Ontario since he has given up on further political gains in the province. No matter how anyone looks at this, Ontario is essentially half of Canada -- and there is no way any politician with a shred of dignity would ignore it like Harper has. WRT Harper treating McGuinty without respect -- I was expecting something different from Harper like professional treatment, not the same old stuff Martin did with bashing people.