Dave_ON

Bad news for May. Court won't hear Greens' challenge before debates Debates will 'go ahead as planned,' broadcast consortium says http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-greens-court.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/05/cv-election-harper-ignatieff-rally-923.html This is an interesting story. Not surprising, this is rather consistent with Mr. Harper's modus operandi. There's apparently no room for disparaging opinions. What is interesting about the article is these were students who were trying to get more informed about the election, but because there was a facebook picture of one of them with Ignatieff from the LPC rally in London, they were asked to leave. I quite liked this quote from Jack Layton

Agreed steady as she goes is a tough sell against classic liberal spending promises. I however, was referring to Mr. Harper's flare for putting his foot directly in his mouth at the worst possible time. Harping on the coalition thing is a classic example of how he just can't help himself or resist trying to "stick it" to the opposition. It happened in both of the previous elections, and they've only recently recovered in Quebec from the Arts funding cut debacle.

This is very good actually. If this coalition BS harper is trying to sell actually worked I'd have been severely disappointed in this country. This isn't a surprise though, many people have been making a big deal of the Conservatives breaking the 40% mark mainly because that is generally indicative of a majority. That is if you're a liberal and you enjoy the majority of your support in the big two, Ontario and Quebec. The Liberal support is traditionally far more efficient then the CPC. Their support comes from the sparsely populated prairies and BC. LPC was always in geographically smaller but more densely populated areas. I'm trying to find it, but I read an analysis that in order for the CPC to gain a majority based on where there support comes from, they'd need to have closer to 44% support to form a majority. I'll hunt for it and post it if I can find it. The other thing to keep in mind is that it's still quite early in the election. If past elections with Harper are any indication that's more than enough time for Mr. Harper to mess things up and drop well below majority territory again. At this point I'm betting on another CPC minority.

Noe you're just being silly. Do the banks have access to the bank of Canada of course they do, and yes they do borrow at a cheap rate but as I've already addressed, they're backing their loans up with substantial capital, and other liquid and fixed assets. That's besides the point however, it's not just the BoC money they are lending it's my money. It's my RRSP's, my money in my Savings account, the capital from my mortgage, the money I pay on car loan. All of this comes from me, not the BoC, a large degree of the banks capital is from the public, they already have assets that are backed and insured and THAT is why they get such a good interest rate. So you are only telling half the story punked, perhaps you don't have any investments, perhaps with your union job your company is setting your retirement nest egg aside for you with no contribution require from you. If even if that is the case you should be hoping and praying that the banks continue to make huge profits because your company's RRSP is invested in a, you guessed it, bank. It's your money and everyone else who has any amount of money that isn't stuffed in the mattress sitting in an account. It's not "The bank" making a profit, it's all their investors, which are people, who worked hard for the money they invested and rightly so expect to see a decent return on it. If joe off the street can't pay his bills that's sad for him, but honestly it's not my problem.

Ahh but you still fail to see the point. Who is paying for this help? Is it the bank, some dehumanized amorphous entintiy that won't miss a few hundered thousand? Or is it me, a hard working, financialy responsible Canadian who invests heavily and wants to see a good return for that? Why is it MY responsibility to pay for others mistakes? I'm sorry to hear Joe off the street is down on his luck, but I take care of myself and it's his responsibility to do the same. That doesn't mean it should happen on my dime. Bottom line the government has no place regulating such an industry without a full in depth analysis of how this affect other lending products, as well as investors in the bank. Nothing gets you nothing, taking money from me to give to joe off the street cause he's down on his luck or a deadbeat isn't fair to me. I'm glad the bank is posting huge profits, it means my RRSP's and other investments will continue to grow. I don't plan on working until my dying day and I'll be depending on those investments during my autumn years.

Well fact is that's the reality of it. People are deluding themselves if they think we will ever have a PM that is not of the CPC or the LPC. The other parties aren't choices for PM, Bloc doesn't even run canidates in all ridings yet they get a seat at the table. Granted I wouldn't want it any other way as I find Duceppe to be a never ending sources of entertainment. He's quite savvy, witty, and probably the strongest leader of the big four. I don't see why Harper would decline this, it just looks like poor form for him. If people start buying this "leader of the coalition" tripe that I will lose a great deal of respect for my fellow Canadians. Be that as it may who wouldn't be interested in a classic Mulroney/Turner style debate? I was quite young at the time but I still remember the whole thing and commentary that followed, criticizing Turner's posture and how he didn't appear to be relaxed. Mulroney was declared the winner of the debate by the commentators and later the electorate. I don't think this gives the impression at all that these are the only two choices, even though to anyone who is paying attention these are the only two choices. If they had this debate on top of the all leaders debate I think it would just add a whole new layer. As it stands Harper come off as looking incredibly weak as a result of declining this debate. I think his real fear is the CPC plan is extremely long term based, and he's in a position now where he has to stand on his record and play the stay the course card. That's a tough sell when the other guy is promising to ramp up spending. Even still, I feel it was a poor judgement call on team harper's part. Hrmmm I beg to differ, many folks, such as myself identify themselves as liberal for social issues, one area the conservatives have been found wanting. If they'd take the live and let live approach, I'd likely support them. As it stands there have been too many instances where they had a chance to shine and failed on social issues. Some might think it small but the whole backing out of funding for Diversite, the CPC's avid opposition to Gay marriage and a number of other social issues has kept me from voting for them. Economic I have no issues with them but the same holds true of the LPC. I can count on the fact that the LPC will promise universal child care and underdeliver. All I can count on the CPC for is, utilizing parliamentary procedures to skirt democracy, insult my intelligence by insisting a coalition exists that does not, and spread misinformation to the nation at large as to how our democracy works in the interest of obtaining and maintaining power. As far as I can see there is little difference between the CPC and LPC, both are truly corrupt, but at least the LPC's didn't try and stop me from marrying who I wanted to.

I understand what you're saying but I can't agree with you. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis, and a law of averages. Secured loans are not at issue, as a lot of credit checking goes on before it is issues. Sure you can still default on your mortgage but guess what the bank gets your house, or the bank takes the car back. Assets can be recovered and losses can be minimized if not eliminated entirely. Such is not the case with Credit Card debt. There's nothing backing it so all revenue must be made in interest and fees. This is the only real guarantee the bank has on the loan which is why it is so high. I think many of the objections people have to credit cards is two fold. The fundamental belief that to varying degrees banks are "evil and greedy" and the second is that they have "limitless resources" so they're not going to miss a penny here or there. These fees are in place so that the bank does in fact make money off of the product. It's a business is a product is revenue neutral, or worse a contra-asset why would they continue to offer it? That's the realm of charity organizations.

Yet time and time again the common refrain among conservative supporters is "But the liberals are just as bad." I think its funny that a party that touts itself as transparent and accountable has been anything but and their excuse is always, "the liberals did it." Hypocrisy abounds.

Indeed, and more revenue, leads to more growth and more job creation. Whereas increased taxes simply forces the company to run leaner and "get by" on the current staff they have. Tax incentives to hire people are useless if you don't have sufficient revenue or work to justify those workers.

Ok here we go again. We've had this debate many times and it's still a ridiculous idea. You can't can't compare a bank, with secure assets, insurance and multinational resources, joe off of the street, who lives pay cheque to pay cheque. The Bank can't default on those low interest loans from the government, their assets would be ceased, and sold to make up the money or it would be covered by insurance. Joe off the street could say "F You" bank and not pay his credit card. Sure they can send it to collections, but if he declared bankruptcy the bank is SOL. Further you vulunter to sign up for a credit card, nobody forces you to, and nobody forces you to use it. It's NOT your money, it's the banks, and if you wish to use it, then you have to abide by the terms set out. First off we're looking only at the small picture here; there are a number of facts are being missed. What is the fundamental purpose of any business? To make money, of course. It's no secret that banks do very well for themselves and we should all be glad that they do. Look what happened down south when banks went under, it causes ripples throughout the entire economy. After all we are dependent on banks whether we realize it or not. Do you have a pension? RRSP? Savings or checking account? Would you invest any of the above in a bank that wasn't posting good profit margins? Even if you only have a checking account for your pay check, you'd want to ensure it was in a bank that was going to have those funds available to you whenever you wanted to withdraw them. What's the effect of capping credit cards really? Does it just "help" those poor, misunderstood need to feed the family people or does it also cut into the return on my RRSP and other investments? My partner works for TD in the credit department so I'm aware of how credit cards truly affect a lending institution. As others have already mentioned, Credit cards are extremely High risk, unsecured loans. If those poor hungry people who can't afford to eat, max their card and then default guess what, that's not just the bank that suffers, that's me and my investments that are affected by this. Fact is if you have good credit you can get a good interest rate. Only about 10% of credit card users actually carry a balance on their credit card, do you honestly think the bank is making money hand over fist on 10% of their clients carrying a balance? Where banks truly make their money on credit cards is merchant fees, this gets charged EVERY time a credit card is used. Fact is banks want you to have a credit card not because of the interest they make off the 10% of clients that carry a balance, but because of other fees. That's why banks offer so many different products, that have different rewards, cash back, travel points, money towards the purchase of a new vehicle etc. This is to encourage people to use it, and continue using the card, as the more the card is used the more money the bank makes off the merchant fees. It's in the banks best interest to have as many clients in good standing with cards as possible. Credit Cards are designed for people who don't need them, they are a convenience and that's the bottom line. Convenience has a cost, in the form of interest and fees. I would like to see an analysis of the NDP's plan and how it would truly affect the banks profitability. I don't know what it is about the NDP that they simply cannot grasp that Banks and big business for that matter do not have bottomless pockets. You can't simply use the logic of "well big business x can afford it they made billions" what's the broader picture? Big business is made up of every day employees, who's benefits, salaries, bonuses will all be affected, just as much as the CEO's. It's all to easy to hate on big business and banks. Fact is many of us in this country are employed by these business's and our raises, bonuses, benefits, and chances for promotion are all dependent on profitability. We're all responsible for ensuring our departmental and individual costs remain low so that we can ensure when the company posts a good profit, we too benefit from this. I'm truly tired of how the NDP demonizes big business and banks, it's an old, tired and low hanging fruit argument that simply doesn't wash and needs to go away.

Latest Harris Decima CPC 31% LPC 29% NDP 15% GREEN 11% No National number for the BLOC however they are in the same general area in Quebec at 44% Margin for Error is 2.2% http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/federal-tories-liberals-locked-in-statistical-tie-poll-suggests-111935134.html?viewAllComments=y

Margin of error on this one is quite high, overall 3.6% and the regional breakdown is worse, with all regions other than BC and Prairies the lead does not exceed the margin for error. I also find it hard to believe that the LPC has 33.6% support in the Prairies. I'm thinking this is an outlier, but we'll have to see if the trend continues after Christmas.

Well The British inherited it from the Romans, who consequently derived it from the Greeks, who borrowed much from Egypt/Northern Africa, the middle and far east. Utilitarianism is hardly peculiar to the British. Really much of our current culture is of Greek origin, which as another poster pointed out, was preserved by the Islamic nations. If the Christians had, had their way, all that knowledge would have been destroyed. As for accelerated advancement, we have the Phoenicians to thank for that, after all they invented the alphabet that our current one is based upon, this is quite possibly the single most important invention in the Ancient world. This paved the way for the printing press which is arguably still the greatest leap forward in modern times. This lead to the ability to spread knowledge cheaply and quickly. No more need for slow and costly scribes. Of course Gutenberg couldn't have done it if the Chinese hadn't first invented paper. Papyrus and Vellum just wouldn't cut it now a days. My point? The British only picked up where the numerous cultures that preceded them left off, and the US continued that trend. Knowledge is cumulative, and the successful cultures, ie. the ones that history remembers, are the ones that make use of advancements and continue to advance. The British are no better than the Romans that came before them, they just happened to come later and benefited from their hard work. I think this further serves to prove TB's original point. Cultures evolve constantly, this does not equate to improve. Christianity kept Europe far behind the Muslim nations for centuries. This is not because Christianity is inherently inferior to Islam as your modern examples prove. What it does demonstrate is that religion, regardless of which one it is, is often used as a form of control by those in power, the opiate of the masses as Marx so aptly observed. Religion can be used to shape social policy, laws etc. This however does not diminish the historical contributions of those cultures that made our current level of knowledge/accomplishment possible.

Also a great deal of mathamatics and numeral system, music, our time keeping system.

Simple solution if this is a real concern for you, start breeding more. How many kids do you have? How many kids do your buddies have? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Umm nope, I'm observing a historical trend. As mentioned if the trend holds true, not that it will, but if it does then this is in fact bad news for the CPC not good news as the OP is attempting to posit.

Ridiculous, the tumble in the greenback was not "planned" or some brilliant economic stroke of genius. It was the housing market, and bank issues. As well as several "too big to fail" companies failing that affected it so much. Bush had nothing to do with it. Umm everyone, especially Americans, if you can get a skilled and educated worker for 38 cents less an hour you're going to take it. Why do you think Manufacturing is so big in Ontario? The Canadian dollar vis a vis the greenback was great for the Ontario, and consequently the Canadian economy as a whole. Up until last year Ontario was the only province in Confederation to never have been listed as a "have not" province. Several reasons, this is somewhat of an apples to oranges discussion. Suffice to say the economy of the 1800's was significantly different from that of modern times. We were largely tied to the UK during the time and less dependant on trade with the US. Also you would be referring to the Canadian pound unless you're talking about 1858 when the Province of Canada adopted the dollar. However, any discussion of the Canadian dollar is irrelevant until post confederation 1867. Suffice to say throughout most of modern history, roughly 1950 onward our dollar has been worth less than the greenback, with some spikes in the 70's due to, you guessed it higher energy prices. Our dollar is a petro dollar, as the price of oil goes, so goes the loonie. Oddly enough the reason we converted to the decimal over the sterling system is in the interest of trading with the US. Do you have a link to support this position? This seems to run counterman to basic inflation principles. I haven't checked the figures myself, but I find that difficult to believe, a link would be appreciated.

I see the sample size but am I missing the margin of error? I didn't see that listed. It seems that 11% is a little on the high side for the Greens especially from AR.

It always amuses me when folks attempt to draw parallels between provincial and federal politics, when truly neither have anything to do with other in terms of party association. Especially in NB which has a unique cultural divide, namely French/English that doesn't really exist anywhere else in Canada. NB has traditionally always had the opposite government in provincially that is present federally. PC Lord during the Chretien years, LPC McKenna during the Mulroney years, etc. In fact if anything this would indicate bad news for the CPC if the trend holds true. On a side note, when I lived in NB the only truly "hard line partisans" were of a linguistic nature. In the cases that existed French tend to be LPC and English tend PC. The only real hardcore partisans that come to mind in NB would have been the CORE party, now that was an interesting party.

I think it demonstrates the point that Canadians aren't as opposed to the idea of a coalition as many would have us believe. After all given our current political situation, I think people would rather a coalition than term after term of successive minority parliaments.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/29/ekos-voter-intention-poll.html Latest EKOS poll CPC 33.1 LPC 29.9 NDP 13.5 Green 10.9 BLOC 10.1 Other 2.5 Margin of error is 2.1% Also noted in the article is this interesting tidbit. Also

I guess we'll just have to see if it impacts the next poll to make that determination. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the elusive CPC bounce in support though.

I'm not a fan of lables, I find them to be too limiting. In all sincerity when was the last time the BLOC even raised the specter of separatism? Sure it's on the books officially, but if there is no active pursuit of it, it's just words. Honestly if they can be faulted for anything it's that they are a regionally specific party, they're just trying to put their region in the best possible position possible. You and I both know, and I suspect most of Quebec does as well, we're both better off together than we are apart. This is the same reason I don't like it when people call the CPC "The Tories" or the LPC "Grits" these labels may have been accurate at the time of their inception but they have long since passed out of the realm of accurate. The CPC's are not the Tories of Sir John A MacDonald's day and LPC's has lacked "Grit" for the better part of 3 decades.

Hmmm I doubt the CPC will win seats in NF anytime soon. Most Newfs are still smarting from the equalization fiasco Harper generated. Not to mention Danny Williams is very well liked in NF and is quite vocally anti-Harper, it is after all the birth place of the ABC campaign. This combined with the lack of response in NF from the Feds on the Hurricane Igor.