Evening Star

So there are real issues, then? He's not just trumping them up as an "political tactic"? The OP did not shy away from criticising the Liberals either (and nor do I ftm).

Although these things are true, I was responding to a post that claimed "This entire 'Harper is corrupt' narrative is a political tactic used by people opposed to Conservative policies. They use this narrative to avoid actually debating the merits of the policy. It is largely a fiction because by any objective measure the Harper government is no worse than any other government". Coyne was been one of Harper's biggest critics on ethical issues in the media. I really don't think that he is making up these issues because he actually doesn't find Harper conservative enough (or the right kind of conservative) and doesn't want to debate the real issues. (As you note, he has no problem criticising CPC policy as well.)

Why is Andrew Coyne so bent on spreading this narrative, then, for example? On economic issues, he is about as right-wing as someone can get (right of Harper if anything). He is in favour of military action against ISIS. He is no politically correct bleeding heart on social/cultural issues. He even endorsed Harper and the Conservatives in their first term. He is certainly not spinning this yarn because he is a leftist who is trying to avoid an ideological debate.

I remember many things but I definitely remember the most fundamental concepts, such as the one we are talking about. I'm not even sure that the Parliamentary system is more complex than the American system. Edit: I tend to agree with ToadBrother. I'd like to see stats that show that most Canadians would consider a coalition illegitimate, unlawful, or unconstitutional. The Liberal-NDP Accord in Ontario in the 80s was certainly not a failure, politically.

If this is true, then why is it the case? Doesn't everyone take a basic civics class in Grade 10?

Oxford fwiw: Someone who sells his or her labour (to the highest bidder or otherwise) is not a capitalist.

Yes, that's true, and innovation is absolutely valuable and should be promoted. My only point here, and I think cc's as well, is just that there's a difference between invention and production (which was the original topic) and the production of the goods is done by the workers.

These are two different issues, in my eyes. Major reforms do need to be made to PSE and May is at least looking in the right direction. Still, you can have all the school in the world but actual workforce experience is still going to make a huge difference and is often more direct and practical preparation for a career. In fact, I think it is a problem when too many people sign up for university just because they have been told that this is requisite to a get a good job, even when they don't always have the academic skills or interest. Apprenticeship and paid internship programmes might well be a better option for some people.

Cite?

Well, it's literally true. If you want to argue that capitalists produce the conditions that allow for better or more efficient innovation and production to take place, that's one thing, but I don't see how you can deny that iPhones are ultimately produced by the workers who, um, produce them. Presumably, if the Apple Corporation were to be nationalized or collectivized, workers would still be able to produce iPhones.

I always thought that was a strange tactic, since it seems to imply that he WILL be ready after a term or two.

People who are praising Martin are probably not leftists in any real sense.

Yep, i.e. it has never gone to the Tories during my lifetime (and probably during the preceding few decades).

I don't think either Windsor riding has gone to the Tories during my lifetime?

I thought the Lib Dems would have self-destructed on their own. The voters who had voted for free tuition got quite the opposite. You could just vote Tory if you wanted the coalition's agenda to continue.

I doubt that most voters pay attention to which strategists political parties hire.

Maybe this would be a less unhinged way for 'the left' to express its disagreement with Harper's policies? See, this is why I have a hard time with the whole 'Harper Derangement Syndrome' argument. As far as I can tell, he has faced rather little opposition compared to other leaders: he has not been pelted with things like PET or Lloyd Axworthy, he has not faced terrorists who have called him abusive names on national TV, a national humour magazine has not run a contest to deflower his daughter, I don't even remember any really huge protests against him. When the Liberals were Official Opposition, they rarely opposed; even the NDP has not exactly been the Rat Pack. Virtually every major English-language newspaper has endorsed his party in the last couple of elections. And yet, the persecution complex of his supporters is never abated.

This is starting to win me back a little:

Did they choose the NDP completely at random then? Why have they stuck with them? In any case, the polarization issue takes two to tango. The completely unhinged response of the left to policies which they disagree with is a big part of the problem. What would be a more appropriate, less unhinged response to policies with which 'the left' disagrees? Would it be more like the responses of people who dislike the Alberta NDP (which has been in power for all of four months) or the Ontario Liberals? Maybe more like the Sun's or Conrad Black's responses to Bob Rae's provincial government in the 90s?

I honestly don't see much socialism in the current federal NDP.

The first idea is interesting to me, and might work, but I have misgivings about the second. I'm not sure I see why provincial Premiers should have such a major role in the composition of a federal House.

Why? We have had many PMs who were born in the UK, including John A. Macdonald and one as recent as John Turner (1984).

I haven't decided how I will vote but I am keeping the Greens in strong consideration and this is exactly what I did on this thread (edit: see 8, 14, 36): I criticized their policies on these issues (although I'm somewhat undecided on nuclear energy) but said that I might vote for them despite this.

What is your opinion of these provisions?

Which were...?