blueblood

I see your point. This election is essentially a referendum on harper and the tea leaves say his time is up. I think its good for the voters to be aware of the possibility that leaders can get turfed quite easily. The problem is with the cpc being branded as the harper party and not the conservative party.

Irs not even a scandal. As much as im team blue, a scandal this does not make. Unless there is brown envelopes stuffed with taxpayer money being exchanged on the hush hush, ill hold my breath for that.

If you believe that minority govts are a way to keep the insiders at bay (all parties). I have a bridge to sell you.

The tories delivered on balancing the budget as promised in the 2011 election. By drawing a line on spending it should keep taxes down over the long term. As far as spending to deal with the financial crisis, it was the lesser of three evils.

I call it a dog whistle that harpers time is up. Its not being a pathetic sucker, its hilding your nose and voting for the party that is most in line with your views. Who knows the next leader might be warm and fuzzy and the next one might not be I vote cpc based on their fundamentals of low tax, low deficit, tougher on crime, and things like that, not because harper is the leader. I think thats what the editor is trying to get tory voters to think in that mindset.

A big reason why a lot of business people are doung a lot better these days has been the significant rise in wealth of emerging markets. For what i do, that is tge case as well. The problem is that people dont realize that this isnt the 1950s anymore and that canada and the usa arent the only game in town. There has been a significant amount of people worldwide that have lifted themselves out of poverty and are entering the middle class. They are producing things essentially for north american customers and hopefully down the road for themselves. The reason why our middle class is "failing" is that our factory workers have prices themselves out of a job and people are now debt financing their increasing consumption. Thats how you have a lot of prices going up while incomes staying the same. The middle class in canada have to help themselves by not taking on so much debt which inflates prices and have to realize that putting a car together might not be worth a 6 digit salary. The agriculture sector is at a crisis for finding workers as the middle class in canada thinks that that kind if work is beneath them, yet people are complaining about being so hard done by? As for business people not being important, no entrepreneurs taking risk means that likely we would be in the dark ages. Case in point emerginf markets around the world.

First of all its not bull. 1) every little bit helps. Small tax increases is the slippery slope to gradually over time people paying a lit more tax than necessary. I like to draw a line. I know switching to the corporate structure when the cash flow was in place greatly assisted me. But every business is different. 2). It may be immaterial now, but its a matter of principal and drawing a line to stop the slippery slope. 3). Like i say business people are invaluable in society and should be rewarded, not punished. If you feel the need to send a sizeable portion if your income to charity or the government due to your beliefs, then have at it. However, not everyone has the same social beliefs you do. Once again a matter of principle. I think its a far better message to send that people who do well in business should be role models, not vilified as the 1% fatcats who should pay their "fair share". To channel my inner august1991, steve jobs created apple which has made him rich and at the same time made investors some being retired people a lit of money, made products that benefit our lives, and employed a lot of people, and paid taxes. In my opinion hes paying his fair share and society would have been a leaser place without him. Hes still paying a lot in taxes, why should his rates be different because hes making more money. Again a matter of principle and beliefs may vary. 4). The civilization works both ways. Going after the rich too much makes for a poorer society. An example is venezuela and the rich fleeing that place. Not a country id like to live in nor visit. Taxes have to be paid yes, but i think changing the rates just because of an increase in income is unfair in principle given what a wealthy person already contributes to society. Just because we arent a non for profit doesnt mean we dont contribute. 5). Ive had misfortune come my way and i know its not good. Having to take a second job while commodity prices are in the toilet isnt a good time. Ill gladly help my neighbours with their work if they need it as thats how things are done out in the country. I find it more helpful to people to help them directly by providing a job or a hand with their work than having my income taken from me and going through govt waste and in the end not making much of a difference.

But every business is different and yours is significantly different than mine as your overhead is a fraction of mine. For me to expand costs a lot of money and is more labour intensive. In that regard switching to a corporation and enjoying the lower tax bracket has benefitted me greatly and i have hired part time people to help out in the busy season. Its not nonsense that your giving back. By doing what your doing and taking that risk you are contributing more to society than the average person as it is. The top two percent should be getting a tax break as not everyone is an accountant and having taxes reduced does make a difference. Its a matter of principle, the top 2 percent take a lot of risk, pay the most tax, hire people, invest, spend more. Its a message that if you do well you should be rewarded, not punished.

That depends on your goals. If you dont want to expand then your not hirinf even if the rate is zero. However, you are providing a service for someone and maybe employing someone and i believe you should be paying a lower tax based on how much you are giving back by the economic activity you generate. I think letting all people keep more if what they make is ideal. Either way the money that uour company makes most likely isnt being stuffed into a mattress.

As of yet...

That as you know is determined by the quality of policies, the "face if the franchise", economic conditions, world events, etc.

Well none of us are privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but i can imagine in chretiens case party brass basically told him time was up. Harper may have had a lot of chips on the table as far as tory brass goes as far as party direction (steady improving election results), but the pendulum has shifted and harper no longer has as much chips. I take it youve played poker before. On a side note its why i love the game of thrones tv show as it is essentially about power and getting said power. I was just addressing reefermadness when i said i prefer that mps elect pms and not those tacky leadership conventions that party hacks essentially pick pms.

The party wont cleave in two, but usually youll have like in the lpc for example the chretienites and the martinites. The party didnt cleave in two, but there was a battle over the party's future. Picking a new leader typically brings out the worst in the party behind closed doors.

Perception isnt necessarily reality, you know that. Theres always been the team.

Yup and in theory of the pm doesnt have the confidence of the mps in his party he wont be pm for longI would prefer the pm to be picked by mps instead of those ridiculous party leadership conventions.

If harper was getting consistently better election results from 04 to 11, of course party brass is going to allow him power as harpers vision was working at the time. There have been numerous mutinies in the reform movement since the 90s. Thats how these things go. To think harper has significant power over party brass is a bit of a stretch.

That was his selling point to the powers that be. Harper. Party brass ultimately calls the shots. How do you think trudeau rose to prominence so fast? Thats loc party brass. All politicians answer to party brass. Tory party brass for almost 10 yrs gave harper their blessing to clean up the wingnuts and put in place discipline to show a united right. That worked for a decade and the tory party is pretty much cleaned up in that sense of the word. I can assure you a number of party brass were in the pmo. Its like the ceo of a company. Hes given a mandate to provide a vision of where things go but if the board of directors disapprove, thats when the ceo is done. The same thing happened to chretien. Politics is a very cut throat world. You have to remember that people are only as powerful as others let them. As toadbrother says, with the tory fortunes going the way they are, its very likely that tory brass is going to take some of that power away from harper.

Unfortunately they felt that cog was still good.

The signs were there when high ranking tories jumped ship prior to the election. I think they tried showing him the door and were stymied by harpers side of the caucus. The senior tories leaving have been in the game for a while and knew the writing was on the wall.

We are voting for the party. Leaders are just a cog in the machine and are quite expendable.

Harper is just one guy. Remember that in 06 he had to essentially attempt a makeover to be palatable to canadians and is for all accounts a back room guy out in the open. The tories will find another and put all sorts of pomp and curcumstance to make him or her look palatable as a leader.

Something similar happened to chretien...

Harper is only given as much power as caucus lets him have. If caucus decides harper has had enough, then hes out of there

They may be able to do a give and take with the ndp on balanced budgets in exchange for something. However, the ndp hitched their horse to the TPP. Mulcair would look pretty bad to his supporters by caving on that biggie. Even though everybody knows the TPP is in the benefit of the country. I cant see ambrose being leader even though she was there a while, shes been sacked from multiple cabinet posts.

You are thinking harper has more power than he actually has. If caucus says hes done, harper has no choice but to throw in the towel or completely lose the confidence of mps. Ask chretien about that one