KeyStone

A poll like that does the Conservatives a favour. Generally, if they are a threat to win a majority people don't want to vote for them, whereas they are not nearly as scared of them as a minority government.

Well, you seem to believe that many of the NDP candidates are both separatist and Anglophone which is an odd combination. Aside from your general hysteria, the fact of the matter is that there are a large number of MP's from Quebec who are completely unqualified. I don't think that the NDP is going to divide into two separate caucuses, I think that the NDP veterans will work with the new candidates to get them up to speed in a hurry. Regardless, they will be selective about who their cabinet is, and will likely not take a representative number from Quebec. This election serves the country well in showing how incredibly foolish the party system is. We don't even vote for a Prime Minister, and yet people don't care who their local candidate is. While at the same time, the PM who we didn't vote for has the power to force all the MP's to vote a certain way on a bill. The whole electoral system is a mess and needs a complete overhaul.

Seriously, Digging up a "scandal" from 15 years ago, is considered breaking news? Sun News has shown that they really have no class, and no taste. This is a new low for Canadian politics. No wonder people are sick of Conservatives.

I think you're missing the point with over-generalization. While in theory, the idea of the votes being split between Libs and NDP allows the Cons to win, if you look at the individual polls, you'll see that there really isn't much in the way of polls to gain. They aren't getting a single seat in Toronto, but will repeat in much of 905 and other Ontario. They'll get shut out in Hamilton, and have some success in Ottawa. It doesn't matter if you win by 15 votes of 20,000. It's still just one seat. But you're free to prove us all wrong by pointing out which Toronto seats the Cons are going to win. They have a shot in Eglington Lawrence and York Centre.In 905, there are about 5 seats in play for the Cons to pick up. That doesn't come close to making up for all the seats they are going to lose in Quebec, BC, and the Prairies.

I don't think there would be a coalition. They'll let the Cons form government, but they will be on a tight leash.

Polling is very inaccurate, because many people won't answer their phones if they don't recognize certain numbers - and it follows along age and income lines.

No wonder Sun TV is dying. There is no shortage of corporate controlled media pandering to big business and the right in Canada.

So, it would seem that you believe the greatest country in the world can be determined by the number of immigration applications? Well, there are a few problems with that theory. Imagine this scenario: I post two jobs, one has 500 positions to fill at the post office for $25/hour and one is for chief economist at RBC. The post office jobs receive 12,000 applications, and the economist job receives 14 applications. Can we therefore deduce that the postal worker jobs are better? Obviously not. People apply to a country based on many criteria: - The likelihood of getting accepted - The requirements of being accepted - The application process (length, effort, money) - 3rd party organizations that facilitate the application process If America is letting in 5 million immigrants a year, and Denmark is letting in 5 thousand - then it stands to reason that more people will apply to enter the US. Also, if you are looking at 200 years, you have to recognize that the US started off relatively empty, so it needed people to fill it, as opposed to Europe etc. Furthermore, applying to enter a country arguably makes that country the best country to live in, which is not the same thing as the best country. Nazi Germany might have been quite a good country to live in ( if you were Aryan), while they were winning their wars. That does not make them the best country. But if the only thing that matters is the way Americans are treated in America, and not your country's external effect on other citizens, then perhaps.

Coyne would do well. He's somewhere between the Liberals and the Conservatives, but is a straight-shooter who isn't afraid to call BS,regardless of his alliances. He was the only one supporting electoral reform when he was at the NP, and actually called out the editors there. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons for this departure to Maclean's. However, Coyne strikes me as a man of integrity. Generally, moving from journalism to politics is a dubious move, especially when it's a patronage appointment. He's far above the likes of Mike Duffy, Sue-Ann Levy and Peter Kent, who mix politics and journalism. I don't think he would ever run.

So, you think that the US needs yet another politician to proclaim that America is the greatest, most free, most succesful, most democratic country in the world, without any need to substantiate those claims. For the record George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all owned a decent number of slaves in your greatest country in the world. You seem to be making the argument that America is the greatest country in the word because it's American. That sort of navel-gazing approach to international relations, generally means that America refuses to change and adopt best practices. If we did it 100 years ago, that makes it American. And if it's American, then that makes it the best. America is a good country for many reasons, but is it the best country? Perhaps for some things - baseball, and George Lucas come to mind. But America has shortcomings. I've been to Detroit, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and I've seen all the people begging on the street. I've read all the accounts of people dying because they couldn't afford healtcare or had a pre-existing condition. Is that something you want to change, or something you want to embrace because it's the American way? Your electoral system (much the same as Canada's FPTP) is archaic. There is something wrong when a third party with no chance of winning, determines the outcome of the election.(Perot, Nader) But Americans believe that because it's American, it's the best. Patriotism is great for getting young people to throw away their lives in wars, but not always so good at facilitating badly needed change. One can not improve, until one recognizes one's shortcomings. Many Americans already believe that the US is the greatest nation on Earth. Obama is trying to make their belief a reality.

I'm amazed at the PR machine. Most people think that a Conservative or Republican government is best at managing the economy and lowering government spending. But in actual practice, we see that Conservative and Republican governments are generally the ones that create huge deficits and increase government spending to unprecedented levels. Furthermore, looking at numbers like GDP is only indicator of economic success. The other indicator is the Gini coefficient which gives us an idea of how well divided that wealth is. What different does it make to most Canadians if our GDP goes up 4 percent a year, if the lion's share of that wealth is going to the top five percent of income earners? This trickle down effect which never made sense in the first place, makes even less sense now that we have such porous borders where the wealthiest five percent are just as likely to buy their goods and services from other countries, and invest in other countries. There are no guarantees that the crumbs that the wealthy drop will be gobbled up by the Canadian poor. So, in other words, if we want to focus on the economy, we should not be asking who has the best chance of increasing GDP, but who has the best chance of ensuring that the jobs we have in Canada are good jobs, and that those without jobs are properly provided for, and that those not yet in the job force, have the opportunities to educate themselves affordably so that they can compete for the good jobs.

Great, so they won't mind sharing their oil with the rest of the country, since their wealth has nothing to do with that oil? Next time an NEP type policy comes around, I'm sure Albertans won't put up much of a fuss. Right. Because under the previous leadership, they were doing so well. Taking more money from foreign companies to pay for education, healthcare, and developing infrastructure was a terrible idea - as evidenced by Venezuela continuing to vote Chavez in time and time again, and the recent Gallup poll indicating Venezuelans being the 6th happiest people on the planet. Semantics. If you don't pay taxes because you are too poor, and your children get to go to school without paying, then it's free. If you have no money, and don't pay taxes, but you still get surgery, then it's free. It's certainly the model we're familiar with here. But here's what you don't seem to understand. Throughout most of Latin America, the West has always attempted to ensure that they don't educate their people. They didn't want them to have an educated workforce, because they wanted LA to be dependent on Western technology for extracting oil and minerals, as well as for technology goods. Meanwhile, we get their labour, foods, and resources for next to nothing. So, they could have continued to have a free economy, and allow foreigners to control pretty much everything, and take all the profits, or they could take control, keep most of that wealth to reinvest, and start educating their people. Well, there is plenty of oil still coming out, although not as much as before. But now, Venezuels actually benefit from the oil, as opposed to before, when foreign companies took the bulk of the profits. If I owned a company, and I needed $100,000 to expand, wouldn't it be better if I came up with that money myself, as opposed to go the Dragons, who would want 40% of my company for $100,000? Why share the profits if you don't have to? Foreign investment is for companies and countries that can't raise the money themselves.

Socialism has a very broad definition, so it's difficult to define precisely which nations are socialist and which aren't. Measures such as universal health care, CPP, social assistance and free education, are considered to be socialist.

I don't think he would try to form a coalition with the Liberals. It just doesn't make sense. Besides which, we're still going to see a Conservative minority - the NDP are picking up percentanges where it doesn't matter. In many ridings, they're going to finish second instead of third, or finish 5,000 votes behind instead of 10,000. The Liberals and Conservatives know which ridings to focus on that are close, and have their resources invested there. In many cases, the NDP have little to no campaign team in the riding. What I'm curious about, is whether or not the Conservatives would keep their pledge to abolish the Senate, now that they are abusing it as much, if not more than the Liberals did. Harper has already stacked the Senate with cronies, made it apparent that biased reporting and journalism could land you a Senate seat, and used the Senate to defeat motions that he didn't like. So, it would have been interesting to see the Senate abolished if Harper had a majority. I don't remember them launching a motion on it. They started one on gay marriage, because they had promised it, but somehow Senate reform was forgotten about. Perhaps one of the other parties can start a motion on it.

You obviously aren't aware of all of the options. Proportional representation isn't the only alternative to FPTP.

Well, I'm sure your anecdotal story is much more credible than the internationally renowned Gallup organization's poll.

You understand how investment works, don't you Tim? If you are unable to provide the capital yourself, you look for investors. This allows you to have the capital immediately for expansion but limits your future profits. If you have enough money, you finance it yourself, which means you don't need investors, which means your future profit is maximized. Chavez figured out that if he just kept most of the oil money for Venezuela, they could just use that money to finance their operations instead of being reliant on the demands of foreign investors.

While it is true that Alberta is a better place to live than Venezuela in most regards, it can not be directly attributed to their free trade and pro-capitalism policies. Oil is not the only factor in determining wealth and success. There are many Middle East, and Central American nations with oil that have not prospered. In the case of Alberta, they are fortunate to be in a socialist country, that has provided all of its citizens have access to free education and health care, thus ensuring an educated work force, and healthy citizens.

What would you rather do: Produce three million barrels a day and keep 10% of the revenues or Produce two million five hundred thousand barrels a day and keep 40% of the revenues. Yes, they aren't as efficient with the exodus of some of the oil producing companies who refused to make less profit, but the additional revenues that they take in, from the increased rate, more than offset the decline in capacity. Furthermore, Venezuela's leadership in OPEC is one of the major reasons why the price of oil went as high as it did. His predecessor constantly flouted and undermined OPEC's quoatas.

Or even worse, a bunch of complete idiots vote for their favorite actors from the movies.

Current levels of happiness are usually determined by one's previous state. Given how bad Venezuela was before Chavez took over, it's no surprise. Employment is up Poverty is down Free education is offered Free health care is offered Minimum wage is the highest in Latin America The work week is one of the shortest in the world Maternity leave is offered Literacy rates have soared Anyways, enough hijacking of this thread, if you want to talk about Venezuela start a new thread.

Yeah, Venezuela has two major problems: crime and inflation. Despite that, they are one of the happiest nations on Earth. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/gallery?section=news/bizarre&id=8086691&photo=7 Most of the crime in Venezuela comes from Colombian paramilitaries trying to undermine Venezuela's success.

Yeah, we did alright, but that's largely because of our sound banking industry, not because of tax breaks, and huge government spending (particularly in Conservative ridings). I don't think that we have to go from seven consecutive years of surplus, to Harper's government ensuring we'll be running deficits until 2015. It's funny that the right always complains about tax and spend governments, yet when times get tough, they spend far more than the Liberals. The only difference is that the Liberals can pay for their spending instead of racking up massive deficits. We already have free health care, secondary education, and pension plans. Yes, adding dental and improving those other programs will cost, but look at the advantages: Free education - means better educated work force. This is good for businesses who need skilled employees. This means we can compete for the good jobs not shitty assembly line minimum wage jobs with no benefits. Medical and Basic Dental - again this is a cost that employers won't need to worry about. Do you know how much Ford, and GM pay in health care costs for their employees in the US. Again, this is a way to attract good jobs, not krap ones. Pension - aside from being great for everyone, this will also alleviate some of the burden from employers - GM was almost crippled from the pension plans. We have CPP already, but it could be boosted, so that our elderly aren't struggling to pay their basic bills. Well clearly, you don't know this, because you don't seem to understand what an income tax is. It's a tax on profit. So, after all expenses are paid for, after all the dinners, alcohol, and rents are written off as business expenses, after the owner, and his family all draw big salaries, after then do the depreciation, and CCA, and after they reinvest into the company and figure out ways to defer, then they pay tax on what money is left. So, yes, businesses can afford it. No one has ever had to lay off employees because income tax went up. Now, it is possible that some businesses may decide to relocate to a more tax-friendly environment. It's absolutely astounding how taxes keep going down and down, but the right shrieks about being taxed to death. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor just keeps growing. The whining needs to stop. It's preposterous. Well Jack is saying that he will LOWER small business tax, so I'm not sure how you have come to that stunning conclusion. Well, if the NDP win, it will be a minority government that will have to get either Liberal or Conservative support to get anything passed. But, let's wait and see. Sweden has had governments as socialist as the NDP, and they didn't run up massive deficits, go bankrupt or have 25% unemployment. I don't think we need to double it. But, an increase wouldn't hurt, especially if it is spent on the right things (ie not war planes from Lockheed Martin).

Oops, somehow my response to this got missed. Anyways, you know very well that Harper would have signed up to all of those wars. Plus, Harper made it pretty obvious that he would have put us into Iraq as well, the most costly of them all. And it's a pretty safe bet, that Harper would make the 'we don't want our Canadian boys dying in vain' speech to justify keeping Canadian troops dying indefinitely in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cut our losses, and admit we f'ed up.

Well perhaps the best indicator, is whether or not people think that they are happy. And Venezuelans are very happy. But let's not go off on a tangent. Well, businesses are paying for payroll taxes. And in some cases they are paying for the healthcare and pensions. If national healthcare and pensions were better, businesses wouldn't have to pay them at all, giving them a huge savings. And unlike giving money directly to businesses, this wouldn't be considered a subsidy and therefore not in violation of WTO. That's the idea. But we're asking the companies responsible to put the money towards dealing with those problems.