TTM

And neither occurred. If Harper won't do it, it is the oppositions duty to press for this. This scandal was not manufactured by the opposition, and it would be a forgotten incident if Harper had acted properly. The only conclusion is that this was not incompetence, but deliberate deceit by a party without the balls to implement its beliefs in the open. It is a small and petty affair, representative of a small and petty government.

Right, I understand that point, but what you said in that paragraph was (to paraphrase): "the type of measures in Harper's crime bill have been shown not to be a deterrent ... the results of these measures are a deterrent"; you agree that these measures are ineffective as deterrents but should rather be seen punishments, but then you say these punishments are a deterrent. You can't have it both ways.

The unsustainability in our system, and in most systems around the world, is due to rising drug costs more than any other factor. Rejigging the private/public portions of the system isn't going to help that.

You realize this entire paragraph contradicts itself, don't you?

Please don't post things about Saskatchewan, it makes you look ignorant. Let me reword your post slightly Let's take a look at the Federal government. Many years of Liberal government = surpluses A couple years of Harper's Conservative government = deficits Both my post and yours are equally true.

The anti-Hedy Fry vote has allegedly coalesced around Adriane Carr in Vancouver Centre. It's a long shot, but what fun is making predictions if you don't stick your neck out every now and then.

Cons: 141 NDP: 81 Lib: 59 BQ: 24 Green: 2 Ind: 1

Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41 Not sure what happened but I've done this test every couple of years, and this one is much further left/libertarian than previous (by about 3 points each)

I voted against the Conservatives federally in the 2006 election, although I was generally supportive of some of their policies. Because of how they performed in government I will never vote Conservative until they purge their leadership and refocus their policies. I voted against the Sask Party (provincial conservatives) provincially last election. However, because of how they have governed I eagerly anticipate voting for them this time around. Your general conclusion, though not directed at me, is flawed.

He's had 5 years to prove himself. A Harper Conservative government is a well known quantity. That is why they have hit a ceiling in the high thirties. Every one of the parties platforms costing is questionable. Thanks as much to the Liberal/NDP proposed recovery package, existing banking rules, and a solid financial basis provided by the former Liberal government, as to anything the Conservatives did. Change is scary therefore we should never change. Is this the NDP hysteria refered to in this thread? Thats a blatant lie, unless you include the developing and third world nations. We are nowhere near the highest tax-paying people in the developed world.

More benefits of FPTP in a party system.

A year or so before the collapse in the US due to too loose mortgauge lending practices, the Conservatives changed the rules from min. 10% down over 25 years (a level it had been at for decades) to 0% down over 40 years. They have since mucked with the lending rules several times to try to reduce the Canadian housing bubble caused in part by their own initial interference (and exacerbated by low interest rates).

Persecution complex. It allows them to wrap themselves in victimhood, so that their righteous anger doesn't ring quite so hollow in their own ears.

Agreed, but they are giving me indigestion

Right, but we also have to consider the fact that party numbers often change by a couple of percent on election day. The Conservatives are very good at getting their vote out, especially when threatened, there were a large number of voters at advanced polls, when the Conservatives were doing better, and with the Liberal ship sinking, what will the Blue Grits do? I think a Conservative majority is unlikely, but still not outside the realm of possibility (and more likely than an NDP minority).

Yes, I think a Conservative majority, or at the least a strong minority, is still very much in play. I will not be comfortable until I see the Conservatives in the low thirties.

No, the Wild Rose (Wildrose?) party has no intentions of going federal. What I was trying to get at is that baring a breakup of the not necessarily comfortable coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives on the right, it appears that the Liberals in the future are going to be faced with a credible and unified national option on the right, and a credible and unified national option on the left. They are already bleeding the leftist portion of their support to the NDP, and given that the NDP will now be seen as a credible alternative (and they were not very successful against them when the NDP was not seen as credible), it is not a good strategy to head left. The NDP are more monolithic than the Conservatives, so the best bet for the Liberals is to attempt to woo the fiscal conservatives, while at the same time appealing to their socially liberal and centrist base.

Yes, over the long term I see parallels with what happened to the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. Barring catastrophe, I don't see Quebec abandoning the NDP any time soon, and unless Wild Rose goes federal, I don't see much chance of vote splitting to the right of the Conservatives. This leaves a real danger of them getting squeezed out. I think the best option for the Liberals is to move right (more "Paul Martin Liberals"). There is strong support out there for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party.

There are rumours of the Greens possibly winning Vancouver Centre as well. I don't know how credible they are, but this article is interesting: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/238/cg238_Fry.shtml

Centuries of economic growth, combined with mechanisms for ensuring that wealth does not simply accumulate in the hands of a few. It is no coincidence that this growth in prosperity was accompanied by strengthened workers rights (unions, labour laws), progressive taxation, and government programs (health care, pensions, welfare, etc.) In a world of scarce resources, concentration of these resources in a few by definition withholds them from the masses. Can some concentration "make the pie larger" and thereby "float all boats"? Sure, but it doesn't necessarily follow that more concentration will make the pie enormous. You could, for example, pay a CEO $10,000,000, or could pay them $1,00,000 and hire 180 employees at $50,000 each. Which is a better use of that money? An admirable sentiment, but not what the quote was illustrating. We all benefit from the society that we live under; we prosper (or not) in relation to the Peace, Order, and Good Government provided by the State. As such, we should contribute to maintaining the State, in proportion to how well we have flourished under it. You may consider it "your money', but how much of it you would have accumulated without the services of the State (education, infrastructure, laws and law enforcement, defense, etc, etc)

Speaking of quotes, I will allow the father of capitalism to defend the modern welfare state: "No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. " — Adam Smith "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions." — Adam Smith "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." — Adam Smith "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." — Adam Smith

I'm sorry, but I can't quite follow the logic. The corporate taxes we are talking about, AFAIK, are on profit. A higher tax is an added cost, but on net income only, i.e. after expenses. I think you overstate the impact significantly This has little to no relation to corporate taxes, it has to do with reducing payroll costs. Reducing corporate taxes will not reverse this, increasing corporate taxes will not accelerate it. It is however an example of the benefits of weakening unions.

But the PC voters still view themselves as largely right wing. If it was the Liberals surging I would say the PC base was mid twenties. With the NDP, I think the best they can reduce the Conservatives to is around 30%.

Yes, the soft Conservative vote. I would be surprised if it continues much further--perhaps to the low thirties. I don't think they can cut too far into the Conservatives any more than that, given that the NDP is seen by many Conservatives as too far left. Their best bet is if Conservative voters stay home.

Don't count your chickens yet. Harper is still polling in the mid thirties, with a base support of probably around 30%. If the NDP is not able to eat into the Conservative numbers, there will still be a strong Conservative minority, esp. due to vote splitting in Ontario. And remember, something like 2 million people voted, before the "Orange Surge".