Dave_ON

The LPC performs better than most other parties in almost all cities especially Ontario. London included, my particular riding of North Centre has been LPC for close to 25 years. All of London was red in fact until this last election when the encumbent Sue Barnes was beaten by fewer than 2000 votes by the CPC canidate, to everyone's surprise. I don't recall what happened in London Fanshawe but I know it didn't go to the CPC. Ontario has a very distinct Rural/Urban divide. Due to the under representation in urban areas there are more Rural ridings. This last election was an anomoly and I think we will see many LPC gains in Ontario and Quebec.

Nope my bad it's 51 38 17 sorry bout that!

I have to disagree. There are 106 seats in Ontario. 51 are CPC 38 are LPC and 18 are NDP. In 2006 it was CPC 40 LPC 54 NDP 12. So largely JBG is correct. Traditionally Ontario is a LPC stronghold. Who knows what this next election will bring.

Then make sure you write to Mr. Harper and ensure he makes this a major plank in his platform, given the late nature of their last platform they're more then likely open to anything they can toss in there. Good luck with winning an election on ad scam Mr. Canada.

Wow good one, Ad Scam jibe. Seriously if the only reason you don't vote for a particular party is because they aren't embroiled in some type of scandal you're better off not voting, or perhaps voting for the Neo-Rhino party, word has it they're scandal free. The CPC has their share of scandal, and in terms of elections what's not current is a non starter. Want to bring up some dirt on Trudeau while we're hitting these things at the height of their relevance?

No I somehow doubt the CPC will be able to run an election without a concrete deficit reduction plan. Their typicaly airy fairy sometime in the future we'll return to surplus won't cut it. You can be sure that the opposition will be hammering the CPC on this point. Without Dion to distract the electorate, the CPC will actually have to come up with a plan prior to election day.

Either way your reply doesn't address the post you quoted which is minority governments mean frequent elections. Do you dispute that fact? I suppose since you're feeling particularly pugnacious this morning, I'll bite. Much like the NDP were criticizing the LPC for propping up the CPC, but now that they have a kick at King Makers they're strongly considering it? What happened to voting against the CPC on principle at all cost? Not so easy to vote "No" when that vote might actually bite you in the butt is it? Free ride is over, you can't give a protest vote and blame the LPC for maintaining the status quo anymore.

Fourth time’s the charm perhaps? Granted the leaders have gotten progressively better. The CPC would be nowhere near forming the government if Day or Manning were still running the show. Harper's been the only one that could distance the CPC from their deep Christian Right roots. He's managed to bring the party more to the centre to the clear benefit of the party.

That's the nature of minority governments. They generally don't last too much longer than a year, the exception being Harper's term from 2006-2008, to date in our history that's the longest surviving minority government.

Sure it was. Sure Dion was a dud, through no fault of his own really. It's a shame really, he was quite a smart, honest and well intentioned man, just not particularly articulate, in English at least nor the least bit inspiring. Be that as it may we both know the CPC didn't run on a platform that "was playing in the background" they ran on a campaign that was "Harper isn't Dion" and nothing more. They were the only party with no plan for the tanking economy that their apparent background platform was not addressing. What I found to be truly ironic is that Harper's multi-point plan on the economy, when he got around to acknowledging there was in fact an issue that is, was so similar to Dion's multi-point strategy it was almost uncanny. Regardless this is the best possible time for an election for the LPC; it antecedes the Olympics and the economic recovery that will come following them. I'll be interested to see what kind of a campaign tack the CPC takes this time around. They have a huge deficit to defend and explain how they plan to pay it down; they’ll have to do better than a “background platform” this time round.

So when you're proven wrong about your majority call we have license to remind you and remind you and remind you until you disappear into the ether? A CPC majority is a wild speculative dream that isn't possible in the current political environment in Canada. The Polarization of the electorate has never been so pronounced. Seriously the CPC couldn't even pull off a majority against Dion and the Green Shift.

That's a cop out. If they've had the same platform since day one why didn't they release it in an official capacity on day one of the election? You know full well that the CPC platform last election was "Dion not a leader". Anti-platform is no platform at all.

The NDP really are trying to be the LPC. They’re not running for government they’re running for opposition. They vote against every key Tory bill that if voted down would trigger an election, then criticize the LPC and the CPC for not going to the people. Now suddenly that they get to be the King makers it's ok? Suddenly the people don’t matter? Appetite for the election gone now that a “No” vote on their part would actually be relevant for a change? Where are those principles now? Where's that fighting spirit that prompts them to vote "no" before they've even reviewed the bill? I think Capricorn is wrong on this one, if the NDP back Harper it'll be to their detriment not their benefit.

Dobbin started a thread on this http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14848

Too soon is relative to what political party you support. Honestly when was the last time there was ever any voter backlash because of an election? I can't think of one. Minority governments are unstable by nature, Canadians are aware of this fact. Of course most Canadians don't want an election, they don't want an election even if it's been 5 years and the government holds a majority. People will vote regardless and they won't change their vote based on who called the election. The LPC is going to make gains this election and the CPC will suffer losses, or at least the polls suggest as much so far. In the end the only poll that matters is Election Day. I somehow doubt that Harper and the CPC will manage to pull off another campaign without any major gaffe's but then again he may surprise me. Regardless of the outcome we're very likely in for yet another minority. Whether it's a CPC or an LPC minority remains to be seen.

I would also contend that despite JBG's protestations Americans are still very much divided along the mason-dixon line as well. It has been my experience that the southerners still refer to many northerners as yankees. A term that Canadians often inaccurately use to refer to all Americans. The cultural disparity between north and south and even east and west is palpable.

I don't think we can quite compare the current minority situation to the political environment of the 70's. The circumstances surrounding the Joe Clark minority were vastly different and let's be honest the liberals had a fresh petro tax to campaign against. The charismatic and vastly popular Trudeau was a shoe in. Canada quickly went from majority to minority back to majority. We're talking about 3 successive minority governments and already 3 elections in the last 4 years which will very likely turn to 4 come fall. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. People are tired of elections and as it stands now were in for yet another minority as per the polls. The CPC will lose ground to the opposition parties but in all likelihood were in for another CPC minority, possibly an LPC minority depending on the campaign. We’re currently in a holding pattern and until it breaks we will be seeing a lot more political maneuvering by all parties. It’s quite easy for the NDP and the BLOC to criticize the LPC on voting with the CPC as they’re in a very safe position. They can safely vote against the CPC on every single bill they propose and not have to deal with the consequences of that. The LPC does, and if they hope to gain ground or form the government they need another issue, like the golden egg of a gas tax Clark proposed to gain ground. It’s all well and good to stand on “principle” when your vote in the commons doesn’t make the difference between triggering an election or not. The LPC and the CPC are the contenders to form the government. Both are treading carefully, and neither wants to make a misstep at this juncture, the polls are too tight for either to screw up as it would inevitably mean their defeat. Both are trying to buy time and make sure the election comes at their highest political advantage. For the LPC this will mean fall, for the CPC it would mean winter or early spring.

Quite to the contrary, it's the social conservatives that wish to tell us all what we can or cannot do, or in your case what the gender of my spouse has to be.

I'm not crediting the numbers to the liberals in the least. Statistically speaking only the number that excedes the margin of error is considered a lead. That is why consistantly in EKOS polls the CPC and the LPC have been "statistically" tied even though in all technicality the CPC has been "leading".

Correction the town is not out of work, the town is refusing to work due to a labour dispute, their is a difference. Their lack of income is self inflicted.

As you have already pointed out only 20% of workers in this country are unionized. I'm not certain if this figure is accurate or not but I'll assume for the moment it is. That means that 80% of the tax payers in this country aren't unionized and I'm fairly certain they don't want their tax dollars going to people who refuse to work either. Generally the only folks that are pro-union are in a union. The 80% of the rest of us who work in non-unionized private sector jobs feel very differently about the labour market. The line that big corporations don't care, are inherently selfish and evil, etc. etc. is a lie that union activist use to support their often unreasonable demands. For the rest of us supply and demand dictate our wages. Advancement is based; at least for the most part on merit not seniority. Those that work hard deserve to get ahead, those who refuse to work or perform their jobs poorly shouldn't.

I'm afraid you're quite incorrect in you assumption that unions are the sole defenders of workers rights. I'll grant you that during the time of the industrial revolution they served a purpose, before there were labor laws, and they were even instrumental in the implementation. Now that there are labor laws the union is entirely unnecessary. You don't need a union to ensure that companies are following the labour laws, that's what the labour board is for. Employees always have recourse against their employer if they feel the labour laws have been contravened. A union is not needed for this, the government monitors and investigates all submissions to the labour board and acts accordingly to their findings. I’m afraid I can’t feel sorry for people who aren’t getting paid because they refuse to work. All that unions do now is to create a culture of entitlement that is not in sync with the way the real world works. This country was not built on the principles that whoever has lived here the longest should get the most benefit, as a strong advocate of native rights I’m sure you can agree this is certainly not the case. It was built on those who work hardest reap the greatest rewards. Unions do not encourage this line of thinking, it’s about seniority rather than merit. Sure the guy who’s only been here 2 years is more productive and effective then the guy that’s been here 25 but seniority rules so let’s turf the junior guy. That’s not effective business management and it doesn’t encourage workers to do their best.

Representation does not equal assistance because you refuse to do the job you were hired to do. You're operating from the premise that representation equals direct interference in a labor dispute. It doesn't. Nothing gets you nothing and you still haven't answered my question. The government is supported by my tax dollars punked. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to do their job? Why is the corporation in the wrong and the workers in the right? Is it not the right of the corporation to run its business as it sees fit? If the workers don't like this situation they should seek employment elsewhere, if they're unwilling or unable to find employment elsewhere they should do the job they have and be grateful for it. There are many private sector jobs that have disappeared over the past few months, and I'm certain the company would have no trouble finding replacement workers to fill the vacancies.

Absolutely I'm anti-union, a fact I don't hide. You still have failed to answer why I or anyone else SHOULD pay for someone else or assist them in any way shape or form if they refuse to work. Please explain why this is my personal responsibility or even the responsibility of the government.

Why should the government have to help people who are gainfully employed yet refuse to work? It's their own fault they only have strike pay coming in. Why should I or anyone else have to pay them for not working? Guess what would happen if I refused to do my job due to a wage dispute? I'd be replaced by someone willing to do the work and I'd have to find a new job. That's the way the real world works, the sooner union workers figure this out the sooner they're self inflicted problems will be resolved.