Dave_ON

Why not eliminate it entirely, I don't really see this as all that different from the direct vote subsidy.

I'd further say that the Maritimes (NB, NS and PEI) also have a unique culture about them. NB specifically is the only province that has a large English/French mix. Acadians are really their own culture. Alberta is also unique as is BC. I'd say that only Ontario, isn't particularly distinct, which I suppose in and of itself makes it a special case too hah. On a side note I always find it funny that those from Quebec think themselves so unique because they are french, yet their are many distinct french cultures outside of Quebec, especially in N NB and S NS.

The government does not set what I'm paid, I'm not a minimum wage worker nor am I a public servant. Therefore, the government has zero say in what I'm paid. I'm paid in direct relation to my skill/training. My raise/bonus are totally dependent, on the revenue generated by my department, division and the company as a whole. If we lose money in a year, we do not get a raise/bonus, if we make money or grow we do, it's that simple. My annual compensation is based on my skill level and the general availability of those skills in society. Joe off the street could not simply walk in and replace me if I were to up and quit today. The same thing of doctors and lawyers, it takes years of training, and several degrees to become sufficiently qualified for these jobs. That's why Doctors, and many medical professionals are so well paid. Their skills are in high "demand" and low "supply" therefore they can demand a higher compensation package. The government has nothing to do with this in the least. As explained in my previous post the minimum wage has nothing to do with government making wages fair, they are setting a minimum living standard. I don't know about you, but it would be very difficult to live on minimum wage, and it can barely considered subsistence living.

Firstly let's keep this civil, if you can't have an intelligent discussion without resorting to insults and condescension I really do not wish to discuss the matter further with you. Do you feel that minimum wage makes things fair? Is this the equitable share of profits you are referring to? I ask you again who determines what is fair? Who shall be the arbiter of these matters? Minimum wage is simply a minimum standard. I question the wisdom of minimum wage as I don't really feel it serves it's intended purpose. As the supply of money goes up so does the cost of goods, that's called inflation. While I can appreciate the well meaning intention behind minimum wage, I'm not convinced of it's effectiveness in achieving it's goal. If nothing else I suppose it does prevent the abuses we saw early on in the industrial revolution, but little else. Actually it has always been thus. Those of a certain skill level, will always rise to different heights in a society. Those who can understand the rules of the society they live in, and can use them to their advantage will more often than not do well. If it's a might is right society, then the strong excel and the weak do not. The government decides what is "fair" or did you miss the minumum wage point above? On top of that then, unions are also fair. Including public sector ones. I am glad we agree on this. Generally if someone asks you a question you don't respond with a smart ass remark. Perhaps your point isn't as self evident as you think. All you've established is that corporations are different than individuals and therefore the government taxes, and exempts, them differently. Do you have a point beyond this, it is a sincere question. This is a generalization at best, it implies that all CEO's, and all corporations are ipso facto the same, and managed the same. Do large corporations get themselves into trouble financially due to greed, most definitely, but there are many that do not. The same can be said of individuals that saddle themselves with too much debt due to greed, they get government bailouts in the form of bankruptcy. I'm not certain what you are specifically referring to I suppose. What waste is generated and who cleans it up? Further are you suggesting that the corporations should not be able to use public infrastructure? Are you further suggesting that individuals do not have equal use of that same infrastructure or do not derive the same benefit? Specifically I take issue with public transit workers, and ironically it is the most disenfranchised in our society that are affected by their greed. My perspective, I pay for these services but I don't require the use of them. That's not to say I cannot avail myself of them, and I understand that is my choice. However, there are many that are dependent on them, and it bothers me a great deal that during labor disputes, they use these people as leverage. Public transit is funded almost entirely by tax dollars. The fair does curtail it a bit, but in a sense it is a tax on it's own and still comes from the public purse. They do make money off of advertising but by far and in large they are working off my dime. What truly burned me was the Ottawa transit strike. It happened at a time when those of us in the private sector had no prospect of a raise due to the looming recession. Therefore, those in Ottawa had to pay more of their hard earned pay check to give someone else a raise when they would not receive one themselves. Then the union actually had the audacity to get upset that they weren't receiving public sympathy/support. Public servants are by far and in large funded by the public, hence the name. This is not to say the services are not required, but they are in fact more of a direct drain than a private sector worker. The government doesn't generate revenue of it's own, so it doesn't have the same constraints that a private corporation does. The private sector, can only pay their employees what they can afford, based on their income. They cannot simply raise their prices and increase their revenue on a whim. By contrast the government need only raise taxes to cover the wage expense short fall. This is a gross inequity between the public and private sectors imnho. Having said that, I think that because essentially it is me that is paying the bill, as a tax payer I should have a say in what is fair compensation. Do I think that 100k a year is fair compensation to drive a bus? No, in fact I do not.

I agree with you, but the market affords good compensation for actual usefull skill as well. Your examples are extreme but illustrative. In fairness the the pro athletes, the actors, and rock stars, they do have skills/features/training not widely available in the general population. This increases the value of the services they can provide. Such is the case with those of us who have trained specifically for their career, we have focused our energy on gaining skills and specialities that set us apart from the masses, therefore we have our pick of employment and can demand a higher wage than your run of the mill burger flipper. This is not to say that the burger flipper doesn't work hard, I know first hand it's how I put myself through university doing it, but the skills are widely available. The availability of a commodity or skill determines it's value. The less of it there is or the supply if you will the more people will pay for it, if there is a demand for it. Something that is rare and no one wants is of course worthless. So I agree, that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, but the general availability of said item also factors a great deal into it's value. Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair. We can't all make 100k a year, if we did, the supply of money would increase and it's value would decrease. It's really quite that simple.

Can you cite specific examples of bias by specific news agencies or news casters? I don't want the standard Conservative blanket drivel of the MSN is Liberal, real examples please. I don't think you realize what biased media is like. I travel a great deal in the US, roughtly 30 weeks or so a year. I simply cannot abide listening to any radio or, news station there as they are rampantly biased. Fox is terrible, NBC is just as bad, as is ABC, the only one that is kind of ok is CNN and even they are clearly slanted. You want to see vicious media attacks, tune into FOX when the talk about Obama, you'll see wildly unfounded propaganda. Further, do you think that the government has executive priviledge? Is it the right of government to with hold information from Parliament? Now many of the issues that existed in the past are exactly that past and are non issues now that we have a majority situation however, the fact remains. You are right, we do have a right to know, we have a right to know how much of our tax dollars will be invested in military spending, on prisons on any number of other government projects. This is the issue many take, and many hyperbolize on. This is not peculiar to those who oppose Harper. You should well remember the "anti-democratic" drivel the CPC was serving up during the coaltion talks and it held as much weight as the current non-sense does. If we're going to have a serious discussion about this, let's put to rest the illusion right this minut that Mr. Harper and the CPC are blameless in all matters, let's put to rest that they didn't do anything "wrong" or remotely liberal style underhanded. The people have a right to know, if you truly believe this than why are you not equally upset at being deceived by Mr. Harper and the CPC on numerous spending projects?

Are you suggesting direct government management of profit distribution? Employees are paid what the market will bare. If you have skills that are commonly available in the general public you shouldn't expect to paid more than a common wage. IF your skills are more rare, require additional training, experience and are harder to find you can expect a wage that reflects that. CEO's are not stupid people, or even average joes that were in the right place at the right time. It takes a certain type of drive, and personality and a great deal of brains to run a successful and profitable business, as a result they can demand a very high compensation package. Who determines what is fair? You are suggesting that all employees do an equal share of the work or are of equal importance in the corporation, this is not the case, the guy with higher skill/education/experience should not get an equal share to the new guy, or the fellow that works the mail room. There are special tax exemptions that are available to individuals only and not corporations also, what's your point? No argument there, monopolies are terrible for the consumer, and Microsoft is one of the worst, fortunately things are changing, and Apple is coming into their own, there are also corporations like RIM that have corned markets that Microsoft will never come even remotely close to touching. I don't quite understand this I suppose, could you elaborate? What specific public servants are you referring too? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're referring to.

First of all I can't believe I'm agreeing with someone who's tag is CPCFTW that's (CPC For The Win) for those of you who aren't familiar with FTW. I feel I should disagree with you on this principle alone, but I suppose if you keep your "woots" and "pwns" to a minimum we'll get along just fine I actually agree with most of your points. I have felt for far too long that it is far too easy to paint corporation as the bad guy, this is especially true of banks. This is not peculiar to the "left" however. Much of it comes from lack of understanding I suppose. I happen to be employed by a very large corporation and I'm quite happy with taxes approximately where they are right now. As the corporation does well I also reap the benefits, in the form of a bonus and a raise. I'm certainly no advocate of raising corporate taxes at this point, but neither am I convinced that lowering corporate taxes will have the desired effect at this juncture. I'm more of a fan of the status quo, there are many services that we still need to provide and we are already in a deficit situation. Lowering revenue is likely not the smartest idea, considering we are looking to pony up some pretty hefty cash for military and prison spending. I still haven't figured out how we're going to tax less and spend more. I suppose the easy, and most likely answer, is there will be cuts elsewhere. One thing you listed as a plus I have to disagree with, I don't think outsourcing is at all a positive, at least not for the country the corporation exists in. This drives dollars away from our economy in that we no longer have those wages cycling directly back into our economy. Yes they may cycle by proxy, but that assumes that the outsourced areas have the same standard of living that we do and can demand foreign products. The truth is they generally do not, and much of that income is put into their local economy to cover their basic needs, food, shelter, clothing etc. I personally feel that outsourcing really only serves to increase profit margins, while this is good for the company and their share and bond holders, there is precious little net benefit to the domestic employees, or the local economy. It also creates the danger of increased outsourcing and reduced local employment which then creates the opposite effect. The company than continues to funnel dollars in increased numbers out of our economy to the outsourced locations. As for public servants, they are necessary no matter how you slice it. They do curtain some of their own expense in the form of their own taxes, however its far from a wash. Where I take issue, is what I feel is the often unwarranted level of compensation that government workers are apparently entitled to. I specifically am thinking of the strike in Ottawa a few years back by the Transit commission. There is no way a publicly funded bus driver should be making anywhere near 6 figures, yet there were a few on the payroll that were.

Regardless of the situation, he failed to gain another mandate by doing what he wanted, minority or majority are quite immaterial, it simply meant his uppence came early. It was particularly foolish to do so in a minority situation however. Mulroney and the PC's suffered from the GST and Free Trade, Trudeau also had his share of setbacks. Point remains, the electorate always has their say on election day. Hence the LPC landslide of 93 and the successive minorities we've had for the better part of the past decade. Had adscam not broken do you believe that the LPC's would have been booted?

Indeed just ask Joe Clark how well "doing anything you want" works.

So honestly I'm looking to get feedback from Quebec specifically, but anyone is free to answer. I think it's definitely premature to say that sovereignty is dead in Quebec, though I'm certainly glad to see the BLOC go. Have Federalist parties in every corner of the country will only benefit us all. It's my hope that one of the first items in the new budget is the removal of the vote subsidy. This would eliminate the BLOC entirely, not that they were due very much money this time around anyway. However, it would also ensure that never again could a regional party get it's funding from federal coffers. I'm especially interested to hear August's take on this whole affair.

So again I ask you the same question the original post states. What will Harper change? He won, now's not the time to insult the opposition, it's all on the Tories now. There is no more AdScam scape goat, no more "the opposition forced his hand" drivel. Plain and simple Tory mandate, what will it be? What will they do?

That may be so but he's taken it further to the centre than a great deal of his folks are comfortable with and to their benefit, they won a majority. The march to the centre is inevitable if you wish to occupy the middle ground, and that my friend is the only way he will maintain his majority. You can't depend on vote splitting on every election, it worked in their favor this time, but next time if the NDP moderate successfully and LPC disappear, there will be no splitting. I think the CPC and Mr. Harper are about to discover that a majority is a double edged sword. The temptation to make all your hopes and dreams come true could in the end turn enough soft support away that you lose your majority going forward. If Mr. Harper has demonstrated nothing else in his time as PM is that he's not stupid, impetuous at times, but certainly not stupid. He won't do anything to truly endanger his hard fought majority.

I agree but I do understand why many of them don't vote. Many of the folk I talk to are apolitical actually. They don't follow politics at all and feel they don't understand it and therefore don't vote. They're also don't feel there is much difference between political parties and one is as good as the other. I also suspect many that don't vote are somewhat disenfranchised with democracy in general.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he'll be a good winner, but I wouldn't think he'd be silly enough to endanger his hard fought majority. Governing has a tendancy to pull one toward the center. If he wants to keep his Majority he MUST keep Ontario happy since he has all but written off Quebec. He cannot maintain hs tenuous majority whithout Ontario, that is the fact of the matter. Ontario is ripe for the plucking right now, if he were to send the F35 Contracts our way that would score him huge political points and would be in keeping with his "job creation" promise. As I said in another thread most def subisdies and gun registry are on the outs. I don't think he'll go too crazy, I honestly don't. Many of his major policy adjustments have many roadblocks, specifically electoral reform, that is if he still wants this now that he has a majority, and senate reform. On a side note August, I would like you insight on the BLOC situation in Quebec, by all accounts they appear to be dead in the water, that is not to be confused with the sovereingtist movement being dead. Do you think another party will rise to replace them or is a BQ revival forth coming?

Agreed, I'll be interested to see what Harper actually does this time around. He must be as giddy as a kid on Christmas day, so many gifts to open it's hard to choose.

Touche, the feathers provide extra roughage however. Excellent guess btw within 4 seats fairly impressive. However, it appears most, including me far underestimated the NDP count. I never would have pegged them to break 100. The vote splitting they caused in Ontario was further reaching than I though possible. It even affected the very popular incumbant Glen Pearson in my riding. It was a margin of about 1.5k votes. It was literally NDP 9k, LPC 10 CPC 11. That's just crazy. The amount of support the NDP received in Ontario over last election is somewhat staggering. Ontario was on the tail end of the surge so the vote splitting was most severe here. It will be interesting to see what happens next election, how the NDP/CPC dynamic will play out.

So answer the question, what's on the chopping block first? What changes will he bring? Also to everyone else, let's keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

lol well played sir.

I'm inclined to believe he'll avoid the hot button issues, I don't think he'll want to endanger his long sought after majority and moving further to the right would only threaten that rather tenuous hold he has on many Ontario ridings.

Well I'm inclined to go with Kinsella on this, a merger between the LPC and NDP would have created a very different Parliament last night, espeically in Ontario. However, doubtful that will happen, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the Grits can bounce back from this historical record low for them.

Ok so the CPC managed to pull off a majority, I'm still stunned and perhaps even a little bit awed. I still can't believe what a nail biter it was to the bitter end! The way some of those seats were flipping back and forth in many cases with fewer than 100 vote leads. So the election is done for at least 4 years, though 5 wouldn't surprise me so now what? Now the CPC can finally make all their hopes and dreams come true! It'll be a varitable Toriopia! My guess for immediate actions items they will tackle. Long Gun Registery (No big loss) Party vote subsidy (This will all but ensure the demise of the BLOC) What else do you think? Certainly senate reform will be up there especially considering with the NDP in opposition, the parliamentary will exists to get the ball rolling. I think this is a far steeper hill to climb than either of them yet realizes however. Will the CPC go further with electoral reform now that they are enjoying their long sought after majority? One final note, the CPC were all but shut out of Quebec, seriously they barely beat out the BLOC. Will they extend a hand to Quebec or is this the beginning of shutting Quebec out entirely? Will Mr. Harper avoid the hot button social issues or steam roll right over them? So many questions at this point. I will say this, I was very surprised by his speech this morning, I don't think I've ever seen Harper so open and almost, dare I say it, human. He seemed more than willing to work with the opposition but those words come easily when you have a majority I suppose. Be that as it may it'll definitely be an interesting 4-5 years. I for one will be interested to see how the Tory/NDP support firms up and takes shape.

I think it's definitely a blow to the BLOC, and likely they won't recover, however we shouldn't mistake the likely death of the bloc with the death of sovereignty in Quebec.

I actually hope the consorium makes the decision to only have the leaders of those with official party status in the debates. As for Gilles I'm sad to see him go, he was amusing at least, who knows what the next BLOC leader will be like? Though perhaps the party will be completely gone by then.

According to Mansbridge it was higher than 2008 at around 61% but lower than what we traditionally see in the high 60's.