Claudius

Clue: That's actually pretty meaningless. A single poll is anyone's guess. Successive polls will show you a trend, the only thing worth paying attention to.

"Alberta is Canada's Sausagefest" Did you, you know, actually read the story? Did anyone?

....and the 'public mandate' given to the Bloc. Yeah everyone was shaken up. Some say the NDP can't hold it, especially if 'it' is Quebec. Thing is,imo (lol) the NDP have been doing a better job as a neutered opposition than the Liberals were doing when the CPC was a minority. I don't mean the polls, I mean in the house. ...if they get Ontario....

Pretty sure that is just what the Conservatives are doing. "BACK TO WORK UNIONS! YOU DON'T HELP ALBERTA AT ALL! WE NEED TO SHIP OUR OIL BACK TO WORK" Strange. I don't recall saying "Conservatives". I gave an example of other provinces telling Ontario how to operate in order to illustrate the point that it always sounds good to nationalize someone else's industry, but the provinces in the example were irrelevant to the point. One assumes the conservatives won't be in office forever but a 'national energy' policy would remain. I hope you're not one of those people who like to tell themselves that Alberta is the reason the CPC are in power or that Alberta is their "power base". It sounds nice but the whole thing always comes down to Ontario and in most cases Quebec. Without running to check.... Alberta gave the CPC 26 seats? Ontario gave them 73, more seats than they got from all the Western provinces combined (72). The truth in this country is very simple: The power base for every single party besides the Bloc is Ontario and then Quebec. That's the reality of Canadian politics. If you're not one of those people then pardon me for bringing it up and please disregard. If you are then I believe you are ignoring the simple math of it. Parties play for Ontario and Quebec. The last election results were pretty tame or unexciting, except the significant example of majority that is most likely the first in Canadian history that was won almost entirely without Quebec. That in of itself causes a little more discord in the country without the CPC really doing anything to sew it besides win.

Maybe I was misunderstanding you.

(shrugs) If you say so. Obviously which political rhetoric is more rhetoric than fact will be up to personal opinion and we can only argue that for so long.

Never denied something should be done about it. A national energy strategy sounds great for provinces not playing the energy game. Provinces hold dominion over their perspective resources. This is a fundamental glue that holds the country together. No province will put up with being forced to produce energy the way Ottawa feels it should and give up their rights to it, nor should they. You could turn that around: why should Ontario be told how to run their manufacturing sector by Alberta or Newfoundland? If the entire country decided, for example, that Ontario labour unions were a bad idea and wanted to get rid of them or minimize their power how well do you think that would play in Ontario?

I never said it didn't but that factor plays better to the central provinces than the others. That's why it's being highlighted. I'm not being purposely obtuse. My reply was perfectly valid. The "Dutch Disease" scenario plays well to the Ontario/Quebec audiences which is why it's being hyped. Consider it may (probably) isn't even the easiest factor to target and do something about, but the other factors are more mundane and don't insinuate the message: "I'll fight for jobs in Ontario and Quebec", which is the political motive in focusing on that one factor specifically.Oh and worse for everyone except Alberta? There's no evidence of that, but thanks for illustrating the bias at hand here. Earlier you said: And that's simply not true. There is not 30% job losses across the country, simple as that. And even if there are in Ontario "Dutch Disease" wouldn't account for even half of those losses. Snide, maybe a little funny, but not remotely the same. A better analogy would be anti-tobacco lobbiests concentrating on yellow fingers or impotence to divert attention from a cancer risk because they think their audience will respond better to that..

Yeah but it's not democracy. Democracy someone wins and someone loses. This species of "direct democracy" is just code for "not accepting a loss." Nothing wrong with trying to convince people, which is what the protest is partly designed to do, but they use the phrase to imply a majority would be behind them in a vote. That's how you see it. A lot of people see using that phrase as a desperation. It's political rhetoric plain and simple, and it's level of accuracy is questionable at best.

Right back atchew: Why are people so willing to tunnel view on something when there are a host of other factors to consider?:-)

Where does it say across the country? It certainly isn't contributing to job losses in BC, Sask, or Alberta where gas, coal and oil are king. Pardon me, of course you're correct there, typing too fast. That's what I meant.Edit:That it's a higher percentage in Ontario (and Quebec as well, non?) bolsters my belief that a lot of this is politics playing for votes in those two provinces. Naturally that doesn't mean something shouldnt be done to correct that pattern, but any party could promise that.

exactly: Ontario. That's why it plays well there. What was the other 70% of the reason? One might consider that natural resources are still floating this county, even if they have contributed to bringing down the dollar.

I voted NDP last federal election and I'm likely to do it again in the next election but these stories that constantly come out claiming that the country is tilting left/right are an exercise in madness. Complete bunk. I mean even if we read the first sentence there: Are we to assume the entire fabric of the country tilts left or right with every new poll? Total bunk. Canada in terms of social politics is a nation more liberal than ABBA. It has been inching left (socially) for 50 years regardless of which government is in power, while hanging on to more conservative economic policies (bank regulations conservative in nature despite what any party with the name says). As Canadians we generally consider this status quo to be "central", most consider themselves central and then there are just those we consider to be to the left or the right of our political leanings, but in a relative sense to other nations we are pretty liberal, liberal but not "too liberal". As a result whatever government ends up winning is usually pretty close to the status quo. If it isn't they don't win, and if they do win the party changes itself or it won't last. Don't believe me? Okay, consider the current, "neocon, ultra-right wing, religiously fundamentalist extremist" government (hardy-har-har). That characterization sounds really cool, especially to their opponents but on paper it's BS. Are we to maintain that this is the same "neocon-ultra-right wing-religiously-fundamentalist-extremist" government that stood up in front of the entire nation only 3 months ago to validate all gay marriages past present and future in Canada in a way no previous party ever did? That makes them slightly left of Obama, not "neocon-ultra-right wing-religiously-fundamentalist-extremist". That's how the conservatives played it. Like every party that wins they toned down their more extreme elements and concentrated on being more "centralist". The Liberal party on the other hand isn't(wasn't?) even a "liberal" party at all but that brand name carries a lot of weight with Canadians. Many simply consider themselves liberal people so voting for whatever party has the word 'liberal' in it is good enough for many of them. They are the party of lipservicing to populist demands. King Donolo and the rest of the puppet masters scan the polls tirelessly then decide how they're going to convince us that they are doing what the majority of us say we want. No doubt you don't believe that either. Okay, remember: -"What? You don't like the GST? Why we'll scrap it then! No questions asked or thought to it." -"Looks like Canadians want to join Kyoto. OKay we'll sign even though we admit ourselves we haven't the foggiest notion how to meet our commitments - we'll leave that to some other government for later -- and if that turns out to be us why we'll just make it look like we're scraping together some policies/programs towards that end even though those policies still have no hope of meeting our commitments, it'll look good." -"Looks like (initially) Canadians want to join the mission in Afghanistan. Okay without really thinking about or planning it it we'll jump on board and see where it goes" -"Looks like Canadians hate George Bush and the impending Iraq war. Okay I'll bad mouth him in Parliament, make a big stink about not sending troops to Iraq....but then secretly send troops and ships anyways to keep them happy." Lip service. And it works too because most of us are too busy or lazy to follow up. When it came to gay marriage the Liberals didn't know what to do, because the polls we extremely mixed across the land. Of course if you were a truly 'socially liberal' party there would be no question right? But hey, you gotta win the next election or else. They voted down Sven Robertsons (NDP) private member bill - because the polls weren't entirely in favour at the time - they certainly didn't vote it down because the LPC are truly "liberal" obviously. However in a very short time Canadians attitudes changes to the point that gay marriage received majority support instead of minority and in 2003(?)they drafted a bill for the supreme court to decide with. 3 Liberal MP's crossed the floor on that one. These instances of shallow lip service to public desires finally over time became evident and imo this as well as the scandals made Canada hungry to vote for any remotely reasonable looking "anti-LPC" party. The conservatives were lucky enough to nail down some cohesion to their party (the reform party would turn on each other like Roman senators) and reaped the reward. The game the LPC were playing finally outlived itself and that's a major part of the reason they have 34 seats today. In terms of toning down the more "extreme" members in their party as well as their more "socialist" rhetoric of previous decades we can expect the NDP to do exactly the same thing both during the election and if/when they win. We've already seen it. One can make any promises they like - they can promise sunshine and puppydogs and constant tailwinds for cyclists if they are perpetually in 3rd place, but once they have a legitimate chance at winning we see them immediately tone everything down and become more "realistic". They will conform to the status quo. What they have going for them is now they are in a position to reap the rewards of being neither Conservatives or Liberals. There's a very good chance people who are tired of the Conservatives and still distrustful of the LPC might very well flock to them. This is at least party the politics behind the current "Dutch Disease" drive. Anyone who thinks the NDP aren't trying their best to play for Ontario and Quebec votes doesn't understand the history of this country or maybe they can't count. Playing for Ontario and Quebec works: the two provinces combined have 174 seats, 70 more than the rest of the entire nation combined. The parties talk and talk and talk. They promise and denounce and posture and insinuate even more promises. However at the end of the day if a party has a good chance of winning, or if they find themselves in government, they immediately conform to the status quo in Canada or they won't be re-elected. That status quo moves, but it moves very slowly and historically for Canada only in one direction. My advice to Canadians is to not tie yourself to one party. That's a fools game. Vote strategically for every new election. I voted Tory when I was tired of the LPC. I voted LPC when I was tired of Mulroney. I voted CPC when I was tired of Chretien, (shame about Martin though, he was caught behind the 8-ball), and I voted NDP now and next election because it's their time, their chance. I just feel bad Broadbent isn't around to see it. If the NDP win and the LPC get their act together or the CPC has a complete MP upheaval I will probably change again. Never let them get too comfortable.

Probably. I don't think it's been all that bad. It certainly has limited itself to destruction of some property. The "storming" of the campuses actually concerns me a little more than the smasehd windows. The destruction so far has been less than your average hockey riot from what I've seen. I won't argue with that either. Riot police are not known for their discretion, in fact I kinda hate them. They know they are more likely impervious to punishment and that tends to turn them into dogs pretty quick. I think most people who joined a riot squad did so specifically because they kinda enjoy beating people. And as you say they will do it to anyone. Old, crippled, even children. I doubt it. I don't personally get swept up in the temporal romance of protest. It's a fire that you should use, not play with. To me it is an means to an end, but ultimately I distrust a mob much more than the State. The Mob will destroy your rights and liberties, perhaps even take your life faster than any government can. Again, peaceful protest fine. Riots, intimidation, destruction - completely counter to the objectives of a protest. Also the students need to be a homogenous body before they can negotiate themselves. Their statements and actions at times have made them look a little neurotic. Hard to negotiate with that.

And the uneducated never understand they are the State. They also seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of peaceful protest over a riot. It is after all always the dullards that move to violence first.

Dre I said the increase total was around $8/school day. This is not horseshit no matter how many times you stamp your feet and insist it is. I am correct and I just proved it so either quit saying it's horseshit or more accurately pinpoint some other factor you don't like and call it what you please. Strange. The graph you link to doesn't say this so one wonders why you put it there as proof of your assertion. No other story out there says it. The student protest sites don't say that. No one says that but you. Sounds like "horseshit".Perhaps it would help if you can provide a link that shows there will be in increase beyond the $1625 or that the increases will go beyond that amount and carry on into 2020, because that's certainly not what your graphic says, nor is that what the story you didn't link us to say, (where the graphic came from). Instead it says, "increase tuition by $325 annually for five years" which is still $1625. So your graphic says it's set to increase $1625 total over 5 years, the story it came from says $1625 total over 5 years and every other story out there says $1625 over 5 years. http://higheredstrategy.com/on-sticker-price-net-price-and-red-squares/ The story also says...: ...No wonder you didn't want to link us to it.I am correct in my assessment of what the total increase actually amounts to: $8/school day, or about the price of pint of beer. This is the truth, no matter how many times you call it horseshit, it's right there in black and white. Shall we read it again from the students themselves? http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/ That is a 70+% increase, yet it still amounts to only $8/per school day, that is after it is completely totaled in 5 years. Once again: $1625 (the total) / 200 (approx) days school year = $8.125 / school day. That's not horseshit no matter how many times you screech it. It's the facts. Your 75% increase amounts to $8/school day. The fact that it's increasing 75% is much less compelling when one realizes just how little that is. Finally, none of this has anything to do with what I earlier said was a fib: the insinuation that the students are protesting for free education, which they aren't - that's what I said was a fib and it is. Please endeavor to control your emotion or perhaps hone your ability to understand exactly what it is you're replying to before replying to me again. And if you provide a link to prove something you say please be sure it actually does that.

Opps! You're right.

Well I'm glad that makes you happy but you did read the rest of what I said correct? I never said the students had no right to protest I've only been arguing their manner of protest is wrong, both morally and in some cases legally. Well you're certainly free to view renewed negotiations any way you like but the truth is the gov. has been willing to negotiate all this time, the stories Ive been reading show that it's the students more willing to negotiate now than before and have been struggling to nail down their message and demands: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/student-leaders-talk-turns-to-compromise-in-quebec-tuition-fee-battle/article2444574/ ...and it still sounds as though they're not really sure what they all agree on, something that makes it impossible to negotiate with.

Funny. I don't support the conservatives but we've heard this for 8 years now and every election they just get more seats.

Yep. And then they have the nerve to call it "direct democracy".

Fair enough, I misunderstood or misread. In my defence that point is made a lot. However a (popular) majority of the people haven't backed any government I can remember since WWII (as per election results, not talking a momentary opinion poll here or there).

Not a total loss. Your willingness to admit a point means a lot to me in forum terms. I suppose I wouldn't like it. However liking it or not liking it doesn't really factor into what I would be willing to do about it. For example even if I hated it I wouldn't be willing to hang out at gas pumps getting into people faces and hurling insults at them simply because they are willing to pay that much, and I sure as H-E-Double Hockey sticks wouldn't be pretending that it was George Orwells 1984. Further, the knowledge that I had been paying far-and-away the lowest gas prices in the land for quite a long time and that the increase was going to result in my gas prices still being lower than most would temper my reaction quite a bit. But I would be willing to join a peaceful march or demonstration on the Hill.

How would you like it if your gas costs went up that much? Think about it ... I've found my own link, from one of the Students own 'truth' sites: http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/ That is a total of a $1,625 increase in increments over 5 years (not 7 years). $1625 (the total) / 200 (approx) days school year = $8.125 / school day. Sorry, my estimate of $7/per school day was off by $1. I believe my point stands: Tuition is projected to more than double over the next few years. We arent talking about just one minor increase here. NOT "horseshit" or a fib at all. Sorry.

"Are we thwarting Darwin by keeping losers alive?" Probably:

Is that the current tabled offer? Do you have a link?