BigGunner

There are merits to the American system, but we shouldn't copy them. To make our system fair, we should have the HOC elected on a real representation-by-population basis. If that means expanding the HOC to hold more seats so that every province can elect a fair number of MP's then so be it...as long as the average population per seat is equal. If the average seat was 50,000 then you'd have a 600 seat HOC...and it would mean that some of the lower population provinces would lose a seat or two, but other, larger provinces would gain seats thanks to the artificial and arbitrary seat system the gov't now uses. The counter balance would then be a real triple-E senate. perhaps 6 senators from each province - yes that means 6 from PEI and 6 from Ontario - as a balancing factor for federal politics, and 3 per territory. A real senate would have senators with the same electoral powers and responsibilies as their MP kinfolk. I'd have PR to elect the main HOC MP's to better reflect the diversity of Canadian voters. The only ones who oppose PR are parties that are afraid of losing power. They rely on vote-splitting and other stunts to win seats..while it might be a techincal victory to win on those rules, it doesn't reflect on the true wishes of Canadian voters. *footnote My 50,000 per seat is just an example. If that number was chosen, BC would have 80 seats, Ontario 220 seats, etc. It might not change the way westerners complain about how elections are decided in the east before polls close in the west, but at least the west would have a proper share of the federal seats. My senate idea would reduce the number of senators to 69 from the 104 (or so) that it is now...but make them far more responsible than today.

Its wishful thinking, a brave departure from the defeatest attitude that Alexa had when she was gunning for 2nd or third...

100,000 Canadians fought and died in wars to protect our freedoms and rights, including democracy and freedom of speech. This means that they fought for the right of Canadians to have view and opinions that you might agree with, and those that you do not. You might think that Layton's policies are out of whack, but then you do not speak for every Canadian either. It might be that Canadians are open and receptive to the policies of Layton and the federal NDP. As for momentum, the NDP does have it. - In 2000, the combined federal vote of the Alliance and PC's was 37%...Ipos-Reid puts the Conservatives at 26% which is a half a point higher than the Alliance vote itself was from 2000. - In 2000, the Liberals won 41% of the vote. Ipsos-Reid puts them at 35%. They are losing it. - In 2000, the NDP won 11% of the vote. Today, Ipsos-Reid puts them at 18%...this is a full 7 points ahead of before, and 2 points away from their record 20% share in the 1988 election... You do the math.

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. Home Schooling.. I'd be in favour of gov't support of home schooling. This makes sense for two reasons...One, if the student lives in a remote area, then it saves $$$ in transportation, etc. and second, if the family has serious objections to some aspects of the officially secular education and wish their child to have religious instruction on non-core subjects, then I think that is acceptable. By support, I mean of course that the gov't should provide books and materials and a parental teaching guide too. Gov't could then assign an out-reach instructor to touch base and monitor progress of the student...but this is somewhat established already through provincial correspondent systems and would need little tinkering to facilitate it. Teachers without Certificates ...are not teachers. Would you trust that your child is getting a quality education from an unqualified teacher? And attacking the unions that teachers belong to is not productive. The teachers have gone from virtual slaves in wages/benefits, to a decent middle class income. What would you pay them? Certainly not minimum wage...you'd probably offer them a salary that is attractive and is compensation for the hundreds of extra hours they put in on a volunteer basis with extra curricular activities. Kids at risk Most teachers have training to identify kids at risk. Teachers become surrogate parents in many occasions and kids turn to them when in need. Teachers, administrators are in close contact with police, child protection services, and other org's for that reason. I know where you are going with this, but attacking teachers unions and collective agreements and such is not productive and not fair. The teachers that are in my family work from sunrise to sunset and beyond preparing classes, marking exams, talking to (occasionally unfit) parents, and trying to teach an always changing provincially mandated curriculum. There are bad apples in every group, but casting this shadow on an entire profession is a sickening stereotype bordering on bigotry. With all their responsibilities and obligations, they get paid a salary. What do you think is fair?

The class size debate shouldn't be a debate really. Smaller classes means higher quality education - especially at the critical elementary stage of learning. Whether it should be set inside collective agreements, mandated by government policy, or averaged out, that is debatable, and I'd be open to ideas. But as a principle, class sizes should be lowered. This might mean a dramatic expansion of school construction, hiring more teachers, or reconfiguring the school calendar to accomodate more classrooms, but if the plan is to lower class size, then taxpayers *should* be ok with the expenditures it requires to facilitate such a plan.

A fairly reasoned response but I do not agree with it.. Tax cuts and debt reduction are not bad words for the left either. Done irresponsibly, they often backfire and create more problems than they solve. Massive tax cuts right away - Will create a huge gap in public accounts, which has to be made up quickly by spending cuts, borrowing, and other tax increases. - Campbell did this and promptly created the two largest deficits in BC's history. - Reagan did this and created the highest deficits in USA history. - Bush did this and broke Reagans record. Phased in tax cuts - Are more affordable since a growing economy can absorb the cuts to provincial revenue. BC NDP Premier Glen Clark did this and actually realised a revenue increase, of which was identified in BC Liberal election platform documents in their justification for an even more dramatic tax cut. - Almost nothing has to be cut to afford this, except by attrition. - Jack Layton talks about this when he speaks of increasing exemtions for certain essential usage products from the GST. Its a small decrease, but affordable. Debt payments Every government, every party in government has an obligation to pay down its debt. Increasing it will take more money away from essential areas like healthcare and education...such as the federal liberals have done. Reading that article though makes me wonder a few things about the scale of tax breaks that the conservatives talk about. If they offer 25% across the board but take most of it back through offloading to the provinces and local governments, who really wins and keeps most of their tax cut? In BC, the BC Liberals did a 25% cut but 75% of British Columbians are today paying more in taxes and user fees than beforehand. Pay some debt off, balance the budget responsibly, THEN offer an affordable tax cut that everyone can enjoy.

If you are going to criticize Ernie and the conservatives, do more than read one newspaper which you know will support your left leaning philosophy. As for Dalton,8 years as opposition LEADER and he didn't know the financial state of the province?Even after his hired team of auditors{taxpayers expense],told him the real figures. He lied to get in power.Each day the lies continue, and the deficit he was left with escalates on a daily basia,depending on which promise he wants to break on a particular day. I could care less about Dalton McGuinty, but I can appreciate the rage of alot of Ontarians for it. You get what you vote for, and if Ontario voters chose one liar because they were tired of the lies of the other guy, then they still elected a liar. Brilliant.... One lied to stay in power, the other lied to gain it. Who's lies are better? If Eves had won, he'd be red-faced over the sudden disappearance of his fairy-tale surplus and be forced into even more cuts in health and education or tax increases, to fund a surplus that was never there. Breaking promises and telling lies to get elected is a trademark of the Liberal party.. Chretien: Kill the GST McGuilty: No tax increases Campbell: We won't sell BC Rail ***** Like the Freudian slip?

Stats taken from the budget documents themselves...unless you find those warped too.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Ontario's "Taxpayer Protection Act" is provincial legislation and as such can be repealed by the legislature...I suspect McGuinty will do that....making his tax increases perfectly legal. Changing laws to make previously illegal acts perfecly legal is nothing new with Liberals...we have discovered that the hard way in BC.

BC's so-called "have not" status is debatable, since the formula is a floating variable. While liberal apologists claim this happened under the NDP, the NDP never recieved one federal welfare cheque from Ottawa. This unique stigma goes to the BC Liberals. For cuts, the Liberals cut $803 million from 14 ministries this year alone. Since most of the right-wing think tanks refer to service fee increases as a tax increase, it is fair to include MSP premium increases, school tax increases, sales tax increases, license fee increases, which have added to at least over $1.5 billion.. All the while that revenue from personal and corporate taxes are nearly $1.5 billion less today than before the liberals 'dramatic tax cut' that was supposed to pay for itself. They have managed to lay off thousands of public sector workers including almost 10,000 healthcare workers. "Balanced" indeed. PS - "billion of dollars in cuts to provincial cuts" was a reference to the cuts to ministries.

Do the taxpayers get to sue Ernie Eves for leaving the province with a $5.6 billion deficit while proclaiming a surplus? Liars are Liars, and lies told by your enemies don't make the lies told by your friends any less wrong.

If the 'war' was againt Osama Bin Laden, then why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia? After all, he is a Saudi citizen, and most of the funding for his group came from the Saudi government. Instead, America has become the kind of tyrant that they supposedly toppled. Is this the 'war' you think Canada should join? If so, please ask your Conservative party to make this position known so that at least we know what their real view is. As for social issues like gay rights, abortion, the NDP has taken a more social-libertarian view in that the state has no business in regulating interpersonal relationships and should not interfere with the private affairs of citizens as consenting adults. The Taliban did that however. Are you anti-immirgrant? Please state your view. Give us some good links and information that shows up that you and your Conservative party think alike on this. And what the hell is your problem with environmental sustainability? There are far more jobs in protecting the environment than destroying it. Will you be happy with bald mountainsides or Los Angeles smog?

Please name any person that has been forced to print out gay rights literature..

Gordon Campbell's "balanced" budget is relying on $1.5 billion in tax increases, $400 million in federal equilization payments, massive increases in crown corporation revenue and billion of dollars in cuts to provincial cuts. Hardly the tax-cuts-will-pay-for-themselves mantra that they were elected upon. It seems that its easier to be a conservative these days by blaming others for their own faults, and campaigning on bogus agendas that have been a proven failure in a past age. Campbell's Liberals pledged a modern version of Trickle-Down economics that performed just as terribly in America and UK in the 1980's...but it was nice to be bribed with ones own money. The only saving grace for the Americans was the massive deficit spending of Reagan that cost them dearly...it was finally Bill Clinton that managed to balance their books. Funny though, the massive (and worse) deficit spending of conservative Geroge Bush doesn't seem to be helping his economy. The reality of that is the taxes actually increased for 75% of BC (the lower 75% of the income scale) while those with extreme wealth are still laughing all the way to the bank. For the 1st time since possibly before 1991, Ipsos-Reid has reported that the NDP now has a lead in ALL income brackets of BC's citizens - including the above $60k per year range...they also report that the NDP has a lead in ALL education levels too. The people are waking up and realising the lies and hate told by conservatives are useless and harm the economy. If Harper wants to run on a platform of massive tax cuts, GREAT!!! That message will be more than welcomed here in BC where the agenda has yet again been proven a miserable failure.

Don't forget that you have to extoll the virtues of personal responsibility while doing it. That would fit in perfectly with Gordon Campbell's rant against the HEU's "illegal job action" from a convicted criminal of a premier. Nice..

It's Trudeau's fault!! It's Rae's fault! It's Glen Clark's fault! See, isn't being a right winger easy? It's always someone elses's fault. Oh, that explains it all....its always someone elses fault. Now everyone can be a conservative and blame the other guy. That is probably why the Repug's blame Clinton for 9/11. Maybe I'll be a conservative too, so that I can blame everyone else for my own shortcomings then line my pockets with taxpayers cash.

Usual rhetoric from the conservative apologists out there. No big suprise really. Speaking of the taxpayers cupboards, it was the PC's last government under Mulroney that added $300 billion to Canada's debt in less than nine years, and that is even with imposing the hated GST that takes money from hard earned Canadians. They never did balance the budget. Wasn't it the Eves PC government that left a $5.6 billion deficit for Ontario? McGuinty is an asshat for raiding taxpayers cupboards, but the ontario conservatives put him in that terrible position. And I seem to remember the humbled BC NDP leaving a $1.5 billion surplus for the newly elected BC Liberal government....and they turned that into the biggest deficts in BC's history. The Liberals (conservative) in BC racked up $10 billion in debt less than 3 years. I understand the red-baiting and lies told by conservatives about the NDP...it sounds better than the exposed lies and propaganda, bankrupt and failed policies of their own legacy. Election 2004: BRING IT ON!

I have some lingering questions about the seat projection model that Ipsos-Reid is using. I don't think its accurate, and it seems as though it is applying 2000 voting trends to 2004...all of which are not applicable.

Economic Left/Right: -5.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

I don't think they have that much support in B.C . (NDP) They have only 2 in the House. hahahahaha The Okanagan is not liberal country either. hahahaha . Its Tory country, like Alberta. I live there! To help you a little, I was referring to the BC Liberal party under the hated Gordon Campbell....which still have massive support in the Okanagan area. You are correct in identifying that the NDP has 2 seats, but today it leads the BC Liberals in all polls that have been done in the recent past. FEDERALLY speaking, BC is a toss up, and yes the Okanagan area is likely to vote conservative...but polls have put the conservatives in third place in BC, which means they will lose seats elsewhere. But then, this was a discussion about Ontario.

I do find it odd that it does not have the standard set of tables and such. Its format is far different than normal.

I don't know Ontario that well either (but I know it much better than BC...) Your usage of "bastions of support" is medieval. Is a modern election siege warfare?I understand the same thing: the NDP is concentrated in pockets making some seats possible. But this doesn't mean new NDP supporters are similarly concentrated. Compare the recent 2003 provincial election and the 1979 federal election. The extra votes don't translate into seats. I suspect that many people opt for the NDP in ridings where the NDP candidate can't win. Where are the Tory "bastions"? Do they exist? Dunno. And what's the "905" region? It strikes me as a lot of people busy with life and vaguely aware there is an election. They prefer the status quo. Am I wrong? Do these people even vote? Incidentally, I thought the 1979 Federal Election a good baseline. Newcomer, Western, untried Tory leader against older, Quebec, tired Liberal leader. If Martin goes into free fall (very unlikely), the story changes considerably. In my travels to various parts of Canada, I have found southern Ontario people to be the most fad-obsessed. But I don't think Martin will be tagged with "uncool". To qualify my comments a little better, the "905" belt is the area code of Ontario that rings the outside environs of Toronto. Semi-rural, small and medium sized towns, etc. Bastions/pockets of support, or "regional concentrations" is a better term. Sorta like BC, where the NDP has massive support on the Island, and the Liberals clean up in the Okanagan (birthplace of BC Social Credit party). If there is any indication, the party support in Ontario might follow the trend of the provincial election, and polls seem to indicate that thus far.

I don't know Ontario well, but from what I have been told, the NDP and Conservatives have bastions of support. Since the NDP has returned to more traditional levels of support, this will inevitibly lead to a seat gain. The NDP and Cons. have support concentrations that would make their votes far more efficient than the liberals - which tend to be spread more evenly. If the NDP has support concentrated in the big citices and the north and the Cons. have support concentrated in the "905" belt, you *might* see a result that mirrors kinda the provincial result from last year. but then, I don't live there.

Poll results almost the same as the Alliance Party before the last election. Final result on election day -- Alliance win all but 6 seats [ 3 Lib and 3 NDP]. That is not true.. The Alliance had always had a lead in the polls in BC or tangled with the Liberals for the lead, but the NDP was clearly off the map thanks to the hated provincial government....not the 30% plus rating the NDP enjoys today.

Ipsos-Reid uses a funny seat distribution model. It seems that they are applying 2000 voting trends for 2004 and its just not applicable. The conservatives are behind in BC. There is no reason to expect that they can possibly hold 27 seats in BC (of 36) when they have 30% of the vote...or less