August1991

Maybe, but not obvious. What a misunderstanding of Quebec. Jacques Parizeau? Left? The BQ is much more afraid than the Tories.The Tories will likely get the most seats in parliament. Harper will be asked to form a government. After several months (September, October) when he faces a confidence vote, who will vote in favour? On a case-by-case basis, Harper will have the choice of the BQ, NDP or Liberals. Any one of these parties will provide a majority vote in the House - and they will. My Point? The Tories CANNOT be social conservatives. (They will get no House support.) But depending on the issue, the Tories will be able to be fiscal conservatives because they'll find a party to support their spending or taxing measure. Ontario (English-Canadian?) voters understand this perfectly. The BQ is the insurance. And Charest is double insurance. Last point: Someone should ask the GG - a CBC journalist, after all - how she'll decide who to ask on 29 June to form a government. (Note: She was a TV 'head' appointed by Chretien. IOW, she'll say off mike but still desiring promotion (?), "Stevie here got the most seats. Sorry Paul, but your NDP dealies don't count.")

You mean you invoice $110,000 and you keep $100,000? (You claimed an 8% rate. If you said you invoiced $60,000 and kept $55,000 - I might possibly believe if you've got dependent wife and kids. But not $110,000.)Sorry, don't believe it. Unless you've got a "push-the-envelope" accountant, or you are doing deals in a special sector with tax relief. What business are you in?

I have no idea. But a good writer would have prepared it in advance for use at the next scrum. I have only met Harper once. Six months ago, he was only a name to me. One reason I am on this forum is because I was curious about him and wanted a way to get back into this There are several things that impress me about Harper. First, he's shrewd. Second, he lines up his ducks. Third, he gets people to agree. Fourth, he's reasonable - no hype. People forget that Ontario had a Tory government for 40 some odd years. Frost, Davis, Robarts... I think this is Harper. He is good English-Canada.

With your millions, cgarret, why are you posting here? And if you're a small business person, and you're fooling around with numbers, wait and see what happens. In any case, no person I know who fools around on taxes would ever, under any circumstance, post to a forum about it. I agree the tax system has numerous flaws. One of the minor examples is self-employed individuals. But any such tax advantage just attracts more people into the business and you wind up with the same at the end of the day. You tell us your tax rate. You don't tell us your take home.

Harper's got good writers. Almost Jay Leno.

I might get into this thread but first, I must add another comment. Idealist, I checked that link. The magazine cover lists articles by Peter Newman, John McMurtry, Paul Hellyer and Sinclair Stevens! Sorry, but that list is simply too comical. Then I dioscover this Ralston Saul quote inside: Asking Saul about the market is like asking Milton Friedman about existentialism - no, it's more like asking Brittany Spears about differential calculus. We live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. People buy Saul's books. Fine. *Giggle*, Sinc Stevens! *Giggle*

DAC, which test? Politopia (I find this test too obvious. They also ask for your e-mail to spam you.) Political Compass (This one I find genuinely intriguing.) If you do the Political Compass test, post your numbers here. I'll put everyone on a chart (with more famous worthies) and get Greg to post (!) an image file.

Truly embarrassing that McCallum got drawn into this. The guy was a Royal Bank VP and could have been Governor of the Bank of Canada. And then Martin defends the whole thing. Bizarre.

Maybe. But let's make plain what the equality refers to. Bad health is a lottery. It could happen to anyone of us. How to share this risk? State health insurance is an obvious way to equally share this risk. Now, how to organize this? Good question. How to ensure the dishonest don't take advantage?

WTF? Not at all. OMG! Dead wrong. IMV, we'll talk again.

Please, Idealist, NOT. My first effort was good but not absolutely clear. I changed the numbers simply to make the divisions unequal and obvious. Mathematics (arithmetics) is a precise language - but it's just another language with its own style. Nothing of substance changed. I'll repeat me example (with a word addition): The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples." Should I agree?

I'll go with a word-for-word translation:If the Conservative Party forms a minority government, it risks having all kinds of difficulties in the world to seduce the Bloc Québécois. La Presse on BQ with CPC This is a news item but not a forum item. (Now, there's a new idea. What's the media talking about - and what are forums talking about. See below.) The La Presse article goes on to say that the BQ will not compromise on certain basic points. Reading it, honest to God, many socially Liberal Canadians would be happy to have a BQ standing on guard over the Tories. (If your French is distant, avortement = abortion.) Canada, what a country! ---- My French Forum top five threads now: 1. A BQ candidate who ripped off the system (thread on track, sort of) 2. Sharia law in Canada (generally anti- multi-culti) 3. Call for Marijuana Party votes (posts are a joke) 4. Religious orders getting special treatment (thread turned into anti-religion then how the tax system gives special favours...) 5. "Not Easy" (this long thread started with US actuaries (hein?) and has morphed into the general, never public Quebec conversation of la question nationale.) Some journalist is going to pick up on what I just did and make it into a regular feature. You read it first here.

I can't help myself. Another point. Argus, the world does not work that way. If it did, we would still be living in caves fighting over access to the waterhole. The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples."

The problem with both of these arguments is that we generally don't buy health care this way. We don't buy health care the way we buy food; we buy health care the way we pay damages to someone after a car accident - or the way we buy car repairs after an accident. Most people do not self-insure a new car. The risk is too great. Health care is the same. Even in the US, most people have health insurance. (The very wealthy may self-insure but I doubt it. The risk is too great.) IOW, it is impossible to talk of health care without talking about insurance. (The equivalent would be discussing car repairs without noting that insurance companies write the cheques for the garages.) The next step is to ask: who should operate the insurance scheme? Private HMOs or the State? In the case of health insurance where virtually everyon wants it, a very strong case can be made for universal, obligatory State insurance. How the premiums are determined, whether there's a deductible (a small user fee) or what is included in the "coverage" are good questions that have been raised at various times in Canada. None of this requires State provision of health services. In fact, there is many reasons the State should not be involved at all in producing health care. As to the question of two-tier, I have a vague suspicion that if the State left entirely the area of producing health services, and introduced an intelligent array of health policies - with different premiums starting from a basic policy with premium paid from general revenues - the two tier issue wouldn't be a problem. (Sorry for the long sentence; maybe I'm naive.) People don't take their smashed cars to the States for repairs.

G&M Martin Wants Votes While driving to day, I heard this on the news. I couldn't believe it. The Liberals wil use absolutely any strategem to get a vote. These are the same crew that would do in any opponent who shows the slightest error. This would be pathetic except it's so duplicitous.

Note that the SES poll was conducted between 26 and 30 May (provincial Lib budget was 18 May) with a sample of 237 people. The MOE is +/- 6.5% 19 times out of 20, as they say. This SES poll is not significantly different from the Ipsos poll.

I'll insert this here to TakeNumber. I read through your Argus rant. Quite something! War Room type of stuff. We have exactly what you are proposing now. It's called the federal budget. It has all kinds of various taxes and subsidies inserted for various reasons. Of course, you would probably say that the incentives are all wrong. And I would answer, what makes you think taxes are set by God? As soon as God (i.e. you) tried to design a "good" tax system, He (you) would immediately be subject to all kinds of lobbying - and we'd be back where we are now. That doesn't mean that I think our democracy is bad and we should change it. My point is the same criticism of socialists - they want socialism as long as they get to be the one making decisions. It doesn't work that way. The world has too many (and has had too many) "system builders". You cannot take people for granted. They will outsmart you every time.

Here it is here: SES Research 30 May Regional Comparison I frankly would not put a lot of credence in this particular poll. (Take a look at the sample sizes in the regions. Be careful about the outliers, or that one weird case in 20.)

What I don't understand is why the Liberals don't run on the economy. By historical standards, interest rates are low, inflation is low, unemployment is low, debt-to-GDP ratio is low and GDP is growing. If this were a US election, the incumbent would be certain to win. It's the economy, stupid. Instead, PM PM has gone off on all kinds of tangents - and now he's appealing for our sympathy! He's ADD.

WTF? WTF? OMG!This thread reads like Laurel and Hardy discussing brain surgery. I don't like to stymy discussion but I just had to post this comment.

The Montreal Economic Institute is well known as a market-oriented think tank. It was created recently. They are heavily into PR. Quebec's left wing largely dismisses much that they do. For myself, I would like to see the exact wording of the question that Leger asked in the survey. BTW, one of the directors of the institute is the wife of Paul Desmarais's son. If you go to the site and flip down, you'll see her pic and bio. A good PR job. Desmarais Jnr's wife

Thank you, MS. This poll result is key. It confirms a Tory minority. In 1979, the Tories (Clark) won with such poll results. Watch for a small lift pro-Tory and then a stop. Bottom line Liberal support in Ontario is about 30-40 seats. There is no question we'll have a Tory minority. The question is how close to 154 Harper will get it.

After all, how does the Toronto Star portray Ralph Klein? How do Toronto journalists basically view BC politics? And how do the Bay Street people view those Saskatchewan NDP types? Rubes, loose cannons, nutbars. Wild, naive. No weight.English Canada is more normal than you suggest. When I've been to Toronto and asked questions, people in Toronto do think about the "hinterland". They're certainly more open than Parisians about France. But then in France, like Montréal and Québec, the provincials disdain but take pride in the métropole. I think English Canada is an interesting place.

On the contrary, it means that if the Tories or NDP passed a certain threshold, they would have some members elected from Quebec by party list. And Liberals would have some Albertan MPs.Whichever party wins, the Cabinet would have a "regional" voice. Now, in addition, imagine the poltical significance of announcing the party list. When Harper announces his CPC list for Quebec, believe me, everyone would be curious to see the names. (There are many web sites in Europe with such lists. Here's an example. These names are irrelevant to you. But the names and their order mean something to the people in the community.)

Thanks Idealist, I'll check the web sites. (And I'm actually going to flip through another Richard Gwyn book because of your recommendation). There are two candidates I know running in Quebec who deserve watching. One is Serge Ménard running as a BQ in a riding north of Montreal and the other is Bruno-Marie Béchard running as a Lib in Sherbrooke. Both are very interesting people I have no doubt that both would become household names in Canada if elected. Ménard will win (and despite his age, he may well become BQ leader). Béchard will probably lose. My point is that with PR and party lists, Béchard would win and be an MP without riding. Under the current system, he'll "lose" and go back to being an engineer-rector. But think what that means: First, the party bureaucracy becomes very powerful in deciding the party list. Second, party list winners lose touch with something important: ordinary people. One reason Bill Clinton became president is because he met a lot of ordinary people in New Hampshire. On the other hand, Israel is fascinating because it does it strictly by votes and lists. In France, members of the National Assembly are mayors of their local cities/towns/villages. (Imagine a parliament with our mayors!) If we had some version of PR in Canada, it would have to be provincial and respect the current relative weights of provinces. I think Quebecers would support the idea. I'll post it on my French forum and see what the response is.