idealisttotheend

I don't see that a loss on June 28th would mean Martin is obliged to resign. In fact I would be very suprised if he did, he doens't have Trudeau's ego. I think he will stay on, if he lost two in a row he might be pushed but I don't think he'll resign over 1, in fact some time in opposition might be just what he needs to get back in form, the scandals behind him and retake a majority. You never know, but after waiting this long to get the PM I can't see him giving up on it this easily. Not his style.

I agree with takeanumber that daycare is a market failure, but I think the issue is larger than even that. A society that makes it too expensive to have children is a society that will fail to reproduce itself and a society that will die. With the ever declining birth rate we are already seeing this and it must be corrected. All of society has an interest in both the ability for two parents to be able to work if that is in societies best interests and all of society has an interest in the success of children. Furthermore we need opportunities to have programs that will bind us together as a nation and this is a good opportunity since the need is coast to coast.

So August since the rate of inflation for 1999-2003 was 10.58% and the growth your own figures show is 14.25 that leaves a real net increase of 3.67% or some 15 billion dollars, 3 billion a year. Martin says Harper has a 50B black hole which Harper doesn't disagree with he just says that he can make it up without cutting. SInce he's only got 3B a year to "cut" without cutting services AND he's gonna put more into the military AND more into Health Care AND a large tax cut I think Martin makes a whole lot more since on the math side than Harper does n'est pas? Plus he's only got the federal share of that number to play with anyway. Your own figures, adjusted for inflation clearly show that real growth is fairly stable. Consider also that the US is heading for a recession almost guarenteed and will drag us down with them. Consider that interest rates can't go much lower and again they look like they are going up in the US very soon meaning a higher cost of borrowing on the public debt. And finally, consider that demands on government services (health and retirement) are going to continue to climb as the population grows older. Harper is practicing vodoo economics if he thinks he can do everything he wants without cutting services. BOC inflation calculator -- Very Handy (and I think that I did the math wrong I think that I should have done 1999-2004 which would have given a number in the high 12% range reducing the "growth" further.)

The wesite at the top of the thread is clearly sponsred by the Heritage front as Black Dog suggested somewhere else.

Here is your evidence I can't believe I found the exact quote on the internet but there it is. It covers your generation questions also. It's a great book, I read the whole thing and it's a great portrait of how the new capitalism works. Very eye opening. Huh? Kindly source the connection between SGIs non profit status, your wild assertion that it is subsidised by the federal government and your even wilder assumption that it had something to do with the sposorship scandal. Either that or make a movie with Oliver Stone along the lines of JFK. The Ontario blackout was caused by a private company that didn't bother to keep itself up to standards. The US is in a whole lost of trouble economically and it is only begining.

i think it is a great idea to get paid for what individual citizen's put into the grid. It's large corporate interests that I am suspicious of. Public utilites are more likely to support green power than private concerns. In fact there was talk that if we went to feul cell cars than each car could act as a power generating unit so each person would generate a very small amount of the total energy needed and you wouldn't need the massive distribution network. Solar panels on every house would be great if it was economical (and if everyone did it it might be).

Mr. Harper has won nothing. I think he will get his minority but won't be able to govern because no one will support him. In fact if the NDP get enough seats the Libs and NDP will get a coalition going and may be able to govern that way since the Bloc can probably deal with the Liberals better than the Cons (Duceppe didn't seem very interested in working with Harper during the debate). But Mr. Martin will have lost and that will shake his confidence profoundly and that of his party in him.

Chretien is an interesting subject. I predicted (not here) that when he left everything that the media hated about Chretien would be what is seen to be lacking in Martin. It turned out that way I think. Chretien would have done much better in the debate. Everyone would have complained about his arrogance but he would have won. 1. I agree with Slavik. Martin raised expectations too high and could not live up to them. Chretien knew how to lower expectations but then meet those expectations and manage to govern fairly adequetly. Never excellently, never with much innovation but well enough to keep everything together and running smootly in a country where that is never easy. King would have been proud. 2. I agree with playfull, Chretien's party discipline was seen as undemocratic but it worked. 3. I agree with August. People tend to believe what you tell them. The sponsorship scandal was backround noise to most people until both parties agreed that it was a big problem. When Martin said that the sponsorship scandal was a major problem the average voter believed him and that led to part of his problems. Chretien would've waved his hand and dismissed it as a couple of dollars here and there, and while some people still would have seen it as a major problem, I think the majority would have blown it off too. 4. No matter how bad things got, Chretien never would've looked like he was losing. He would brushed it all off and said, "you know, I have seen a lot of the polls in my thirty years and I never believed them then and I won't start now." Martin has looked vaguely defeated for a long time now. Confidence breeds confidence in politics as with all things. 5. Chretien brought the party together in 1990 and Martin never did. Chretien ran against Martin and Copps and Copps was deputy PM and Martin finance minister in his government. Martin ran against Copps and Manely. Neither is with the party anymore and there is no good reason why not. Martin's advisors no doubt thought that either would do to Martin what Martin (or rather the advisors themselves) did to Chretien and never really made the effort to reunite the party. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What other big name is there in the Liberal party but Martin now? 6. Chretien always had decent advisors, Martin's are clearly incompetant. Martin seems like a decent man and would probably make a half decent PM. He is intellectually honest and capable. But what he didn't learn about politics is killing him and Chretien is laughing.

This is irrelevant to our debate. Taxation rates relate to Crowns only insofar as profits/losses go into/from general revenues and in most sectors profits far outweigh the losses. I am thinking of the Raptor "vehicals" that Enron created. I am thinking that the CBC is reporting today that the private insurance companies no longer disclose even something as simple as their profits. I am thinking that I can get the SGI numbers in 30 seconds on the internet. I agree with August that people vote for their elected officials on things other than the performance of the Crowns even if they are concerned with Crowns. But... the NDP won the election in Saskatchewan on protection of the Crowns. The solution, the boards of significant Crown corporations should be elected seperately at all levels of government. This would also get rid of allowing governments to appoint their good friends to these positions based only on patronage concerns and strengthen these organization. My Lord. The private interests in California pushed the prices up by intentionally overloading weak points of the grid to create a false emergency and tripling prices. I've never heard of a government doing that. Any first year economics student will tell you that surpluss capacity is not in the interests of private companies delivering power so they don't build new capacity (same with oil refineries for example). How?!?!? SGI is a break even 'fund,' it sets it's rates to be revenue neutral with the revenues it takes from it's customers. Tax money is only 'borrowed' when their is a loss and then is paid back. SGI invests money like any private company to make up part of it's revenues. You may be assured that you do not in any way shape or form subsidise car insurance rates in Saskatchewan and I don't know where you would get such an impression. Really. I haven't noticed our economy failing, but perhaps you have information I don't have? In any case if you look at utilities or health care part of the reason it is largely delivered by publically owned companies is because the private sector wouldn't touch them. Once the systems are built and people are dependant on them the private sector is happy to move in and reap the rewards. In any case none of the state run utlities or insurance plans have failed and I thought that is what we were discussing since the thread is on power.

I think that Mr. Martin did okay actually. He has to fight the fact that he is the "too long incumbent" but he looked Prime Ministerial. Harper lacked passion and looked slightly flustered but he held his own. Layton looked goofy sometimes but also did okay when he was sincere. Duceppe made a lot of sense on most issues but then we can't vote for him now can we? I think Martin will rebound slightly in the polls, everyone else will hold steady. But I am now thinking that there will be a Con minority. Personally I hope not but that is my prediction unless someone of the old Allinace-Conservative group open their mouths too wide.

That was funny. But what is the deeper meaning? LOL

What unsubstantiated "poppycock" on Hugo's part, if I may. Infinite supply's of taxpayers cash only exist in a dreamworld. Taxpayers get mad if too much of their money is spent or if any given Crown posts a loss too many years in a row. This is bad for elected official's careers. SaskTel is recognized as a leader in fiberoptic technology around the world. Enmax (power company owned by citizens of Calgary) has techhnology just as good as TransAlta's (private company). Until very recently the telecoms were almost exclusively public in this country and we got all the new technology advances (like call display etc.) well before the Americans did, and there is a lot more country per customer to lay all that fiber optic wire in. HydroOne made a stupid deal. Happens all the time to public and private companies alike. But public companies are accountable to the public so we tend to know about their stupid deals. If the banks had an official opposition to track down their failings would we know more or less about the silly things that they do? You must live in Alberta. In any case even if this is true surely there are more variables than whether or not the company is public or private? More/less enviromentally produced power, more/less people in any given area leading to efficiencies, more/less access to cheaper feuls/ power sources. If you do live in Alberta you may have noticed that since deregulation your bill has almost doubled and you pay the highest rates in the country. What is the advantage to you? Do you like paying more to the private companies than you did under a regulated regieme? Can you afford it? In all cases and at all times? Why is car insurance half the cost of a private system, in Saskatchewan? What part of the private part is better or how can you possibly argue it is lower priced? What was better about the private electricity in California that made it so much more expensive than surrounding states? How was is lower priced when it was setting record highs for prices? They were talking about privatizing Epcor (the power company owned by the citizen's of Edmonton) awile back. Turns out that if they did property taxes would have to go up by an average of 1% a year to make up for the lost revenues (dividends payed to the city). Do you like paying higher taxes? Epcor's service and prices are easily on par with anyone else in Alberta if not better. Publicly owened companies make profits more often than they take losses and that means the only subsidization is of lower tax rates to citizens. Even Canada Post made 75 million in profit in a time of vastly lower mail volumes, that's 75 million we don't have to pay in taxes. So says who? The bright lights at the Fraser Institute? They are the only ones I can think of that would make such a silly and unsubstantiated assertion. And they'd be wrong as ususal.

I think that Martin would do well to show some of his passion in the next debate. He did look sort of old and tired at times in the last debate and I think he has appeared so since the start of the campaign. He should stick to Harper's past statements, the social issues and use of the notwithstanding clause (where he scored points in the french debate) and the back into debt point where he also had Harper on the defensive. He should avoid losing his temper but he should try for some thunder and lightning in the english debate. He should ignore the NDP and Bloc as much as possible, even using the one on one's with Layton or Duceppe to attack the Cons policy. Layton does smile too much. He wants to appear trustworthy and fatherly and all, something he manages but there is such a thing as trying too hard and appearing insincere. He should save the smile for the opening and closing remarks and look sincerely serious for the rest. He should attack the Cons but mostly the Liberals and stick as much as possible to issues significant and exclusive to the NDP. His "We don't agree at all" line kicked ass and he would do well to push the Libs on not keeping their childcare and democratic reform promises if he wants seats. Duceppe did very well with his facts and arguments even if he was high strung. I remember his retort to Harper about whether or not Harper wanted power only for the sake of power or whether he believed in Democracy when Harper pushed him on whether people wanted Cabinent ministers from Quebec. Very good very unscripted. Unfortunately he is irrelevant in the English debate which is a damn shame and perhaps points out the tradgedy of seperation in this country. Harper can be confident and witty. He looks a bit weasilish for some reason I can't quite pin down but I don't know what he can do to change it. He looks very uncomftorable on abortion and social issues so he'll have to work on being "very clear" with more confidence. He is easily the intellectual equal of anyone there so can use that to his advantage. He would do well to tie Martin to the bad parts of the Liberal record and not appear too arrogant when dealing with the NDP. Just some thoughts.

I have a problem with what I see as a trend towards the balkanization of Canada, especially in BC. I have not the slightest problem with immigrants or immigrants running for office or being involved politically, I think it is great. What I do have a problem with is the trend towards one ethnic group getting together to support one of "their own" soley based on the nominee's ethnicity. If the nominee was white they'd never ever get away with it, they'd be labeled racist in no time at all. But it is apparently okay if the nominee is anything but white. Diefenbaker's unhyphenated Canadianism may be a forgotten dream but we must deal with the dark side of Tredeau's multiculturalism. Tredeau himself had absolutely no use for people who saw things based on ethnicity and that's why he was such a strong federalist. But many of his policies had the opposite effect of that he intended in some instances. We have in this country groups of people who have nothing in common other than their racial or ethnic group. Schools catering to one ethnicity towards the trend towards soley ethnic criminal gangs. Letting people keep their "beliefs" and "customs" is well and good and I fully support it. However when people start choosing their school, the place they shop and their politician based on whether or not they have a similiar ethnicity above all else, it becomes problematic in the extreme and dangerous to the ultimate survival of our country. The history of this country is that people of different ethnicities lived together, worked together and found ways to integrate not segregate themselves. People retained their own culture but they also became part of a larger Canadian culture. We are losing that larger culture and we can't effectively live together in the long term without it. It is the hardest thing about this country, creating that pan-Canadian culture, but it must be done. People of any given race cannot simply segregrate themselves and move, shop and vote in blocks. They must find common ground with their neighbours of different ethnicity as well. Don't think it's important. Look at the former Yugolslavia. Look at Rwanda. Look at Indonesia. Tell me integration of different ethnicities is not essential towards our surviva as a cohesive nation.

Please explain what you mean by this August. I got only the translation but Harper looked hesitant, unconvinced, hedging his position on social issues and only really confident on taxes where Martin and Layton did get on him well enough.

It looked to me like Harper was having trouble with his French. Even if he was speaking it okay I think that he was having touble thinking en francais. The english debate will be whole new ball game.

Watching the english translation I think that Duceppe clearly won and knew what he was talking about it. It is a tragedy that this man is head of seperatist party and not head of a federal party. Looks like Harper is backing away from a free vote on abortion but standing firm on Bombardier subsidies.

Just a reminder that the French language debate is on at 6 MT 8 EST and is on Newsworld (en anglais) for those of us in the infamous ROC. Any predictions?

That's the number of public sector workers in 2001 according to Stats Can. Seems low but that's what they say. I completely agree and didn't mean to suggest otherwise, I meant only to suggest that taxes do pay for the people government's do hire. This bothered me at first too. But when you consider that the feds paid 36 Billion (20%) of our taxes as interest charges (an expense some buisnesses have as well I know), 29 Billion (16%) in transfers to the provinces and 58 billion (32%) in "Social services" on a budget of 183B it's not that cut and dried. I mean a lot of government expenses are direct transfers of funds to people (say Welfare, Veteran's benefits and such) that aren't considered considered employees. In fact a true number would have to include all these people as being "employed" by the government for it to be possible to compare the two. Stats can federal budget summary last 5 years

AF you are really peed off about towns having to have parades aren't you? Are you on a city/town council or something that has been forced to have a parade? You don't have to watch the parade, in fact you can pay attention to when and where it is occuring, and stay away from it all together. That is why municipalities can be forced to have them. That way gays are not automatically excluded from having parades but the rest of the society is not necessarily included because they can just ignore the parade. The thinking is that gay people have as much right to a parade as do shriners or Christians or tall men who like ballet. There is no valid reason to exclude them because again, the rest of the community can simply ignore the said parade at no cost to them.

Or we can pay no taxes and lay off more than 2.8 million people. Either extreme will fail, it's gotta be more in the middle. But we have to acknowledge that a little more or a little less will not be the end of the world.

I don't think this would ever work. I mean a minority government is sort of like a constant election campaign in this country. Each side constantly jockeys for position until one side thinks they have enough of an advantage to go to the polls and get a majority. Plus we have something of a two party system (with the BQ and Alliance having been offshoots of the old PCs) in this country whether we like it or not. In a parlimentary system (unlike the American system) cooperation between the 'big two' is not practical at all. It disturbs the 'brand' of the party which is what most people vote for. For the Liberals to vote with the Cons would be to give their government credibility and that would be the last thing the Liberals would want. Totally impractical. I agree but only if the Cons get more seats than the Liberals and don't form a coalition with the Bloc. From what I've seen the NDP and the Liberals have almost agreed to work together already so we can count NDP and Liberal votes in the same column. Furthermore I don't think there is any chance of the Liberals working with the Cons on much of anything or having Liberal backbenchers back up the Cons at the expense of their own party. Therefore with a Conservative government having more seats than the Liberals but not a majority all it would be able to pass would be bills the Bloc agreed with, creating a de facto coalition if not a real one and the Bloc would probably defeat the Cons on the first bill they disagreed with. The Liberals (with NDP support) however could also pass anything the Bloc agreed with but would be vieing to defeat the Cons on the first confidence motion they could find so they could get back a majority. Only in a coalition would the government survive unless the BQ just wants to walk between the Libs and the Cons and pick which bills they like and that would be what was passed. The same would hold true for a Liberal minority though unless the NDP can pull off enough seats to make the combined total higher than the Cons and BQ. SInce the Liberals can't work with the Bloc for the reasons August stated then either would be unstable and we'll probably be having elections until we can get a majority one or the other. Solution: amend the Clarity act to make it possible to hold a referendum on soverignty only once every x number of years. That might keep the issue quiet for awhile and let us get on to more productive pursuiits vis a vie making the county work.

I find myself defending NDP/LIberal policies more and more and almost automatically attacking the Con's policy. THis was not what I wanted to do but I don't seems to be able to honestly do anything else. Oh well, at least I've learned to be brief. Mr. Layton's tax hike is intended to go to childcare, health care and 'enviromentalization.'. To my knowledge, all those fields are intensive on the human labour side and could therefore either create jobs or push salaries up. People with more money buy more things. It's demand side vs. supply side economics but I think we could perhaps agree that tax policy is largely neutral job wise.

The more I think about it the more sense a Bloc Con alliance makes. A few years ago it would be unthinkable but now under Harper it is quite thinkable. The Cons are all for "provincial rights." This sounds simple enough but as we are already almost the most decentralized federation in the world there aren't any more rights the federal government can give up without making the country itself totally irrelevant. The Bloc is tacitly for seperation but as that is clearly not possible any time soon they will settle just as easily for simply more rights and proctecting Quebec from any more federal incursions. Really Stephan Harper has shown previously that he had as much use for a federal government as the Bloc does. The question remains, is a vote for the Cons a vote for "Refederation" (Orwellian term for seperation or near seperation) especially given their easy willingness to team up with le Bloc?

I think a statistical summary would show that takeanumber gets by far the most responses, as everyone rushes to get in a pissing match with everyone else. I like most of his posts but if anyone has a problem with personal attacks (including if not especially takeanumber) I agree with Michael, report it to Greg and if all else fails ignore it.