August1991

Jack it up? As in, Jack up taxes?

I thinking she's running in Sherbrooke against an impressive Liberal candidate who will probably lose. Her candidacy is something of a PR joke (but not in Quebec). (Who is Bill Blaikie?) Neither the NDP nor Tories will get any seats in Quebec. There are about 20 safe Liberal, hard-core federalist seats - the kind where Daffy Duck could run for the Liberals and get 87%. The rest will go BQ.

Very interesting Slavik. Those numbers are proof of the +/-3 % margin of error. The true population numbers could have stayed constant during this whole time: Lib 38 CPC 28 NDP 28 ... and all we're seeing is the sampling error. This is almost a textbook case. The rise of the Greens in BC strikes me as much more important than where the NDP/CPC are in Quebec. The Greens may well supplant the NDP in the long run future.

They would look reallyy dumb if they didn't call the election. I guess they could wait another week and hope something turns up... G&M On election call But who calls an unneccessary election when going down in the polls? PM PM seems to be all blather.

Who ultimately holds the power in a democracy? Politicians or the people? If we the people hold the power, how can we be a victim? In practical terms though, this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of - or at least vaguely American. Who is going to charge the "lying" politician? The RCMP? Who is going to judge the "lying" politician? The Supreme Court? You don't think that the effect of this law would be to make the RCMP extremely political. Do you think the Supreme Court would ever send a Liberal politician to jail? In the US, it is possible to impeach an elected official. And some places have the callback procedure (eg. California). In Canada, we rely on the Crown and elected officials (parliament) to judge whether a politician has committed an "impeachable" offense. If someone were to suggest we have a callback procedure, the ant-American left would immediately say this more evidence of how Cnada is becoming American.... Finally, think of Clinton. Do you want politricians spending all their time defending themselves against special prosecutors and such? (Maybe that's not a bad idea! They'll have less time to dcause problems for the rest of us!)

Hey, MS, you missed this: These polls are all showing the same numbers. That is the sample results are bouncing around the population numbers which are likely still steady. But the regional breakdowns are critical. This means the Libs will get 20-25 seats and the BQ 50-55. This has been consistent for several months. It appears certain now that Lib support in Ontario has dropped. It's premature to say it has gone to the NDP. (Although that's perfectly plausible.) I would wait and see if this is confirmed in another poll. Can anyone explain why PM PM is calling an election? Does he have some kind of death wish?

NZ Labour Party Some 20 years later, it's not surprising that certain apparent "social" measures might be taken. They are a far cry from the Muldoon years though. As to the Gay Pride debate, IMV, these should be for local jurisdictions to decide. Some towns like Santa Claus parades and some don't. What's the big deal? And lastly: Geez BD. You're not only a socialist. You're a frustrated socialist.

Jack Layton seems to have walked out of a Frank Capra movie: Hudson Daily News Hudson is a very anglo type of place on the way to Ottawa.

Would you choose a doctor who always told you good news even if it was wrong? The newspapers hire the pollsters. The newspapers don't want spin (unless it will sell more papers or generate more advertising revenue). Rather, a sample of 1000 people, if wisely chosen, should give a good measure of the whole electorate. A preoblem in Canada is that we don't really have one election. We've got more or less three: Quebec/West/Ontario + Atlantic. They should really have samples iof 1000 in each. The results is that this Compas poll of 1500 has about 600 or so in Ontario. The Ontario predictions are not "precise". Another poll in a day might show the Tories/Liberals elsewhere.

That's one of the dumber things you have said, BD. In fact, the socialist regime in NZ literally ran out of money. They had no choice but to deregulate. It took time, but eventually it was possible to put things back on track. NZ is a very bad example for socialist/regulator types. The quote below is from the Reserve Bank's web site. It's written specifically for children so I'm sure you'll be able to understand it. RBNZ Web Site

National Post Compas Poll I think this is too much of a jump for the Tories. The margin of error for Ontario is probably +/- 6% or so so this is likelthe top end. On the other hand, it makes sense that rural Ontario is beginning to pay attention. And they well may feel comfortable with Harper.

Not hard. Ontario is the 106 question mark. Quebec and BC have more or less decided. The others are "Canada". Bro, that will happen in 2015 when Jean Lapierre aims for PM PM, and Quebec will be the EU to Canada's Belgium. Ontario? How about "I'm Canadian". For a long time, and in this election, Quebecers will say who they are. Why can't voters outside Quebec say the same? (Martin aims to get his Quebec vote by getting a reformed separatist Lapierre's support.) What do you guys say? "Time out"? I think English Canada should stand up, and speak - but politely.

What about the government paying for "home-schooling"? How about paying private schools (as happens in Quebec)? What about schools hiring non-union teachers? (Teachers that haven't met certification?) What about school districts negotiating salaries on a case-by-case basis? I think young kids deserve the best protection/the best chance we all can offer. Older, they'll manage on their own. IMV, Canada should start this as a base line - and make it happen. There are young kids in Canada with alcoholic parents. Who should help those kids? Civil servants? Union teachers? I don't know. But I suspect the best is someone who cares about people; not someone who cares about public service union negotiations.

Why should a government have an "obligation" to pay down debt? To pay down debt, the government must raise taxes higher than they otherwise would be. I have friends who borrow at 10% to payt tax bills when the government can borrow at 3%. Which is better? The litmus test of fiscal prudence is not whether there is a budget surplus or deficit. That's a myth PM PM would love you to believe but American economists know to be false. The test of wise government is what resources the government takes from a country and what resources it manages. The government should not be buying ads or buying flags. It should not be setting up complex bureaucracies to decide whether someone is advertising during an election campaign. On the other hand, something lost in this Ontario budget is the fact that elementary school classes might be smaller. Now, that's a legitimate debate IMV about how a government should use a country's resourses. Whaddya think?

When discussing politicians, left, right, economic policies, foreign affairs, this is the key question in the States: "Are you and your family better off now than four years ago?" Reagan won in 1980 with that single question posed during a debate with Carter. Reagan was re-elected in 1984 by asking the exact same question during a debate with Mondale. Canadian politics are different. But it seems to me Ontario voters are pas mal American in their way of deciding who to vote for avec un brin de nationalisme sur le bord.

I don't mean to confuse matters but a little bit of reality might help here. At least since Ronald Reagan, politicians have learned that it is possible to define a government deficit almost anyway you want. Here in Quebec, the PQ claimed to have a surplus by the simple tactic of redefining "government expenditure" and "government revenue". (One way is to place many borrowing into government agencies and then claim these agencies are not part of government.) Does BC Hydro borrow? Manitoba Hydro is a big borrower. But it gets worse. Most modern economists would argue that it makes no difference whether the government borrows or raises taxes. Sound strange? Read this: Cut taxes or pay debt? (Needless to say, PM PM would not want most Canadians to understand this.) General conclusion? The issue should not be whether the government has a deficit or balanced budget. The sole issue should be the size of government purchases. The problem here is that these too can be shunted off to various agencies. And what about promises of future purchases? Another approach would be to look at the number of government employees - but politicians have figured that one out too. They don't count contract employees. I'm not aware of a simple way to know whether a politician has made government larger or smaller. But it is absolutely wrong to claim that balancing the government books is evidence of fiscal prudence. Fiscal prudence means having government do the things it should do - no more, no less. A better measure of fiscal prudence is finding some government purchase or service and saying, the government should not be doing that. In my boo, the adscam thingy is terrible not because there was theft but because PM PM approved $250 million for needless government purchases. So, Layton is right to say we don't need to pay down the debt. But IMV, he's wrong to say that the government should create all manner of agencies to enforce Kyoto. I ain't votin' for Layton.

I agree. This is a publicity stunt of the CTF. I suspect they are still in a state of shock about the Supreme Court decision and they are seeking ways around the spending curb.

This happened five years ago. He was limited to a budget of $25,500 and he spent apparently $33,000 (not taxpayers' money). Based on the equivalent federal form, the calculation is not obvious. I have a suspicion we will see more stories like this in the next few weeks. This campaign will be ugly on all sides.

Can they do that? Can they spend money organizing meetings? Renting halls? How will they advertise their meetings? G & M CTF Plans A bad law is one that invites non-compliance.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Harper is shrewd. And at least it won't be the Liberals setting up the system. But frankly, the bureaucracy all this would create would be horrific. This is a road nobody in their right mind should want to go down. But we've started down it already. It's the natural conclusion.

"They have the usual socialist disease; they have run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher, speech to a Conservative Party Conference (October 10, 1975)

That's a very good point BD. By chance, there were 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And that's why Bush is Pres. But listen, the 2000 election really was a toss-up. A mature democracy says "let's decide quickly and move on". In such cases, any decision is better than endless discussion. In basket case countries, there are endless coups, fights and arguments. (BD, you blame their poverty on Western imperialism. In fact, it's such things as the immaturity of their political leaders.) Gore, to his credit, accepted the Supreme Court's decision. As to the popular vote story, the existing method - right -or wrong - uses the electoral college. Underneath it all, mature people accept the rules as they are and tries to change them peacefully if they disagree. I think Mahatma Gandhi would agree with that.

The three dissenters were all appointed by Mulroney. The six of the majority were Chretien appointees. In fairness though, the dissent was not on principle but rather that the sum ($150,000) was too small. What is happening here is that the State is becoming closely involved in the political process. The State now solely finances parties (amounts based on past electoral success). With this decision, the State will exclude all forms of non-Party advertising (defined as Elections Canada wants). The next step will be for the State to get involved in the operations of political parties. (e.g. how leaders or candidates at riding level are selected). This will be justified to ensure transparency, equal opportunity and "diversity". Many Canadians may well agree with the noble intent. But in effect, this will remove all originality from the electoral process. This is Soviet bureaucratic boring. And this is precisely what the Liberals want: the status quo.

True, but during an election, the expression of those ideas can be outlawed.

What the Bank raised was the nominal interest rate. No single power on Earth, and certainly not the Bank of Canada, can control the real interest rate. The confusion about this is what caused the problem in the first place. Fortunately, Central Banks in the western world are now independent of the government.