Canadian Political Polls

[jdobbin]

I hope you are right about that, but I really fear it will never happen. Harper is just nowhere near as socially conservative as that. If anything, he's gone out of his way to alienate the social right in this country.

Harper is interested in obtaining power first. He still has to keep a caucus happy and if it comes in a private member's bill, he can say it is the will of Parliament but also know that it is the the will of the Conservative party.

In dribs and drabs, they can bring back the death penalty in full, put abortion into the criminal code, remove same sex marriage from the legal definition of marriage.

I know I'd support it. That would push me from just saying I support the CPC, to to actually funding the party and actively campaigning for them.

I know many on the right would support it.

I couldn't though and if it came a choice between only the NDP or the Conservatives, I'd probably just wouldn't and couldn't vote.

[Bryan]

In dribs and drabs, they can bring back the death penalty in full, put abortion into the criminal code, remove same sex marriage from the legal definition of marriage.

I could only dream of such a utopia.

[M.Dancer]

As well, as long as capitol punishment was n't positioned as a deterent. I think there are those who revile us so much, it offends decent people to share the same air as they do. And deterent effect would be secondary.

[blueblood]

Harper is interested in obtaining power first. He still has to keep a caucus happy and if it comes in a private member's bill, he can say it is the will of Parliament but also know that it is the the will of the Conservative party.

In dribs and drabs, they can bring back the death penalty in full, put abortion into the criminal code, remove same sex marriage from the legal definition of marriage.

I know many on the right would support it.

I couldn't though and if it came a choice between only the NDP or the Conservatives, I'd probably just wouldn't and couldn't vote.

So it would be like what Trudeau did in the 70's. Incremental Socialism. He only lasted so long and then the people got fed up and gave Mulroney one of the biggest majorities ever.

[Canadian Blue]

I doubt Harper will bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, or peel back same sex marriage. More or less because theirs already support for social moderation in most corners of the Conservatives, and embracing social conservatism would basically defeat any chance the Tories have of building a long lasting coalition.

In this case people simply like to believe things that aren't true, more or less due to their partisan hackery.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[M.Dancer]

I doubt Harper will bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, or reneg of same sex marriage. More or less because theirs already support for it in some corners of the Conservatives, and embracing social conservatism would basically defeat any chance the Tories have of building a long lasting coalition.

In this case people simply like to believe things that aren't true, more or less due to their partisan hackery.

Not Scary Scary?

[jbg]

So it would be like what Trudeau did in the 70's. Incremental Socialism. He only lasted so long and then the people got fed up and gave Mulroney one of the biggest majorities ever.

And he continued incremental socialism and French expansion.

[August1991]

In dribs and drabs, they can bring back the death penalty in full, put abortion into the criminal code, remove same sex marriage from the legal definition of marriage.

Dobbin, you are only talking about the extreme social conservative agenda.

The Conservative Party is a big tent with sapce for many people. Harper is a great prime minister because he has managed to cross Canada's linguistic divide. He has created a comfortable place inside the Conservative tent for Quebecers. He is the first WASP PM to do that on his own, without any Quebec lieutenant. Harper must give credit to Mulroney for having been able to resurrect les bleus in Quebec.

So it would be like what Trudeau did in the 70's. Incremental Socialism. He only lasted so long and then the people got fed up and gave Mulroney one of the biggest majorities ever.

I don't think that Trudeau was a socialist or that he wanted to implement "incremental socialism". In any case, socialism doesn't work and the Soviet Union is graphic proof in case you need it.

What Harper prones - free market capitalism - has stood the test of time. It works.

This is a fundamental point that Leftists around the world have had difficulty digesting over the past 20 years or so.

Edited September 6, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

So it would be like what Trudeau did in the 70's. Incremental Socialism. He only lasted so long and then the people got fed up and gave Mulroney one of the biggest majorities ever.

And ultimately destroyed the Tories who tried to do transformative politics.

[jdobbin]

I doubt Harper will bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, or peel back same sex marriage. More or less because theirs already support for social moderation in most corners of the Conservatives, and embracing social conservatism would basically defeat any chance the Tories have of building a long lasting coalition.

In this case people simply like to believe things that aren't true, more or less due to their partisan hackery.

If it doesn't happen, I'd be fine with it. However, we have seen in these very forums support for the things that I mentioned.

Many Conservative MPs still believe in a more social conservative agenda as well. Tom Flanagan has repeatedly said that incrementalism will achieve what Tories couldn't achieve in large steps.

We always think that Harper acts based on what he thinks the electorate will accept. However, he also has a caucus champing at the bit ready to push through things that Harper has said won't be a priority. In a majority, his caucus will push harder on those things.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you are only talking about the extreme social conservative agenda.

Am I? I am talking about incremental changes. People would possibly accept the death penalty for cops. That would be a start. Is that extreme?

Dial it back if you want and I will say that the Tory plan to act harshly on marijuana is a socially conservative stance. I have never used marijuana and have no ax to grind because I use it. I simply think it is a waste of resources to criminalize it.

The Conservative Party is a big tent with sapce for many people. Harper is a great prime minister because he has managed to cross Canada's linguistic divide. He has created a comfortable place inside the Conservative tent for Quebecers. He is the first WASP PM to do that on his own, without any Quebec lieutenant. Harper must give credit to Mulroney for having been able to resurrect les bleus in Quebec.

I doubt there would be any room for someone like me. In the absence of a centrist party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I probably would have no one to vote for.

I know most people say that the parties crowd the center but they are pulled in certain directions as well. The NDP one way, the Tories the other. I was content with the pulling back and forth with the Liberals.

As I said, the trend right now indicates a massive Tory victory. It is possible the Liberals would not ever come back from something like that.

There has been some indication in various analysis of Harper that he just doesn't want the Liberals defeated but ended as a force in Canada. It is better for him if things are just left/right. Better if that is reflected in just two parties.

Call it big tent but I don't know if it really would be. I'd probably just withdraw from the process.

Edited September 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Fortunata]

Latest Ipsos Reid poll:

Nationally, the survey shows the Conservatives with the support of 34 per cent of Canadians, compared with 31 per cent for the Liberals. The NDP are at 14 per cent, followed by the Greens at 10 per cent.

Ipsos interviewed 4,013 people nationwide from July 8 to Aug. 28. Nationally, the poll is accurate within 1.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...1a-5b0e535d3384

[jdobbin]

Latest Ipsos Reid poll:

It a large sample over the period of nearly 2 months and ended August 28.

I think we won't have a clear idea until the first rolling polls and see how the first week of the campaign goes. I still think the trend looks very bad.

[Canadian Blue]

Many Conservative MPs still believe in a more social conservative agenda as well. Tom Flanagan has repeatedly said that incrementalism will achieve what Tories couldn't achieve in large steps.

As do many Liberals, and if it's any indication the most ardently "pro-life" legislation over the past two years was brought forward by a Liberal MP. However I'm still unsure why the Liberals so strongly believe that we should have no abortion law, considering the fact that most of western Europe does.

Am I? I am talking about incremental changes. People would possibly accept the death penalty for cops. That would be a start. Is that extreme?

Not really, in our current justice system people can get away with killing police officers. I'd hope the Conservatives would start to change the justice system. It won't mean the reintroduction of the death penalty, but it'll beat the hug a thug approach which has been used under the previous regime.

I doubt there would be any room for someone like me. In the absence of a centrist party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I probably would have no one to vote for.

I've become weary of this designation. Because it usually doesn't even encompass what the definition actually is. If you're a fiscal conservative, would that mean you support more private healthcare, cutting government spending, and supporting a flat tax. On the social front does that mean you oppose drug laws, prostitution laws, and hate speech laws.

That sounds like more of a libertarian or classical liberal stance, and might I remind you the latter has very little to do with Stephane Dion's version of Liberalism which believes the state is the answer to all of lifes little problems.

There has been some indication in various analysis of Harper that he just doesn't want the Liberals defeated but ended as a force in Canada. It is better for him if things are just left/right. Better if that is reflected in just two parties.

I'd prefer the Liberals be destroyed, and then built back up. The party should return to it's roots and start embracing classical liberal ideals instead of welfare statism.

[jdobbin]

As do many Liberals, and if it's any indication the most ardently "pro-life" legislation over the past two years was brought forward by a Liberal MP. However I'm still unsure why the Liberals so strongly believe that we should have no abortion law, considering the fact that most of western Europe does.

There have certainly Liberals who have believed in abortion laws, most don't.

I believe abortion is a health matter between a woman and her doctor. I don't think it is a legal matter. I don't believe ascribing rights to the fetus over that of the mother.

I don't know what abortion law Conservatives are willing to be satisfied with that wouldn't ascribe rights to the fetus that wouldn't make a woman's decision over her body a criminal offence.

Not really, in our current justice system people can get away with killing police officers. I'd hope the Conservatives would start to change the justice system. It won't mean the reintroduction of the death penalty, but it'll beat the hug a thug approach which has been used under the previous regime.

The idea that the Liberal government is responsible for murderers of police getting light sentences is just not correct.

The idea that the Tories wouldn't consider a death penalty private member's bill is up in the air. You don't think they would let it get that far?

I've become weary of this designation. Because it usually doesn't even encompass what the definition actually is. If you're a fiscal conservative, would that mean you support more private healthcare, cutting government spending, and supporting a flat tax. On the social front does that mean you oppose drug laws, prostitution laws, and hate speech laws.

I believe public health care is less expensive than the private option in general. Still, I think more diagnostics should be allowed in the private sector. I think there is room for debate on the subject and perhaps more private surgical options. I have said cutting spending is a priority. I support low taxes. I don't believe flat taxes are the correct answer. I believe sales taxes are better.

On the social front, I think decriminalizing marijuana is better option. I think that the harm of cocaine and other drugs is a public health and well as legal issue due to the harm they cause. Prostitution is legal under the criminal code, soliciting is not. Since prostitution has never been eradicated, I think other options should be looked at. As far as hate speech legislation goes, I support the Supreme Court's most recent definition.

That sounds like more of a libertarian or classical liberal stance, and might I remind you the latter has very little to do with Stephane Dion's version of Liberalism which believes the state is the answer to all of lifes little problems.

Many of the issues outlined are supported by the Liberals.

I'd prefer the Liberals be destroyed, and then built back up. The party should return to it's roots and start embracing classical liberal ideals instead of welfare statism.

Once broken I don't think it would be built back up. The present Conservatives would survive, the Liberals would disappear into the NDP/Greens or whatever.

I don't think the option that I want would exist in a meaningful way.

It would be like all those PCs who rejected the merger and have cast about for something else. I've often wondered if some just gave up on the political process.

[Canadian Blue]

I believe abortion is a health matter between a woman and her doctor. I don't think it is a legal matter. I don't believe ascribing rights to the fetus over that of the mother.

Just to be clear then, you believe a woman should have an abortion up to pregnancy, even though a fetus can survive outside of the womb at the 22nd week.

I don't know what abortion law Conservatives are willing to be satisfied with that wouldn't ascribe rights to the fetus that wouldn't make a woman's decision over her body a criminal offence.

Probably because the abortion issue is much more complex than you are willing to think. By the way my view on abortion has been shaped by both Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens, who aren't social conservatives but atheists.

The idea that the Liberal government is responsible for murderers of police getting light sentences is just not correct.

Actually I think they oppose pretty well any initiatives which will create harsher sentences for violent criminals such as the three strikes legislation.

The idea that the Tories wouldn't consider a death penalty private member's bill is up in the air. You don't think they would let it get that far?

Probably not, I remember before the last election people were saying we would go to Iraq with Harper in power. It still hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen as it's based on hype.

Many of the issues outlined are supported by the Liberals.

Hardly, the Liberal Party supports restricting speech deemed offensive, support the idea of a centralized bureaucracy running the country, and are opposed to the provinces having a say in who represents them in the Senate. Any person who believes the Liberals are sympathetic to the classical liberal and libertarian movements is delusional.

Not to mention that their carbon tax is essentially about wealth redistribution from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the poorer regions of the country.

It would be like all those PCs who rejected the merger and have cast about for something else. I've often wondered if some just gave up on the political process.

Funny you say that, as it seems the red tories from the old PC's are coming back to the Conservatives. Look up Andre Bachand.

[jdobbin]

Just to be clear then, you believe a woman should have an abortion up to pregnancy, even though a fetus can survive outside of the womb at the 22nd week.

I believe it should not be criminal. Most women seek abortion in the first trimester and the rates fall off dramatically after that. Most doctors won't perform abortions in the third trimester unless the the woman's life is in danger. I think it is a health issue.

How many abortions are performed in the third trimester when the woman's health was not in danger? If this is the only stumbling point, I'd like to hear statistics offered rather than hypothetical situations.

Probably because the abortion issue is much more complex than you are willing to think. By the way my view on abortion has been shaped by both Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens, who aren't social conservatives but atheists.

They want certain rights ascribed to the fetus over the woman's and to make abortion a criminal offence?

Actually I think they oppose pretty well any initiatives which will create harsher sentences for violent criminals such as the three strikes legislation.

The three strikes legislation has had the side effect of increasing costs for housing prisoners so that it competes with other programs. As ABC News reported earlier this summer, some states in the U.S. are facing a situation of a "prisoners versus pupils."

Did Harper propose a three strikes legislation here?

Seems like most aspects of the crime bills went through Parliament this year. Harper just didn't want to hear any criticism of what problems might result from taking sentencing out of judge's hands completely would be. It was a one size fits all solution.

Crime is down across the country and most experts says it is a combination of sentencing, policing, education and social services that helped.

Harper has taken a stand that it is better to put addicts in jail as a primary treatment and his minister has been railing against the medical community for harm reduction and treatment. Jail is certainly not drug free.

Probably not, I remember before the last election people were saying we would go to Iraq with Harper in power. It still hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen as it's based on hype.

Harper climbed down from that position as the war didn't go well. He did say Canada should be over there. He did. It was only after that he said we might not have the resources. And that came way after.

People were questioning his judgment as they should have.

Hardly, the Liberal Party supports restricting speech deemed offensive, support the idea of a centralized bureaucracy running the country, and are opposed to the provinces having a say in who represents them in the Senate. Any person who believes the Liberals are sympathetic to the classical liberal and libertarian movements is delusional.

The Liberals support hate crime legislation. Some Tories wanted struck down but they don't seem to be in cabinet. You think Harper will remove the law with a majority or is that just wishful thinking?

The Liberals believe in federalism. For all Harper's talk, he has been the one to increase transfer payments to rein in increased powers in Ottawa.

As for the Senate, the Liberals say changes should be made with constitutional amendments. As much as Harper believes he has consensus from the provinces, he doesn't. He doesn't have the legal power to make binding legislation on the matter.

He might get some provinces to sign on to elections but not others. And even if he does, he cannot create equality in the Senate or make it more effective without an amendment.

I personally think the Senate should be dropped but I know that would also require an amendment. Any attempt to open the constitution would bring out every other individual or group who wanted to entrench their own amendments. If Harper could get Quebec to agree to only talk about the Senate, he might have some success but they are interested in equality.

My belief is that an elected Senate would be totally dysfunctional, unbalanced and would challenge the authority of the Commons in ways that would make even Harper wonder what the heck he was thinking when he proposed it.

Not to mention that their carbon tax is essentially about wealth redistribution from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the poorer regions of the country.

That is how the Harper Tories have parsed it although it is also income tax cuts as well. And the primary reason for the plan is to reduce carbon emissions.

The Tory cap and trade plan hit Alberta and Saskatchewan even harder.

Funny you say that, as it seems the red tories from the old PC's are coming back to the Conservatives. Look up Andre Bachand.

Many joined the Liberals too as we have seen in various links on the subject posted here. Many of the Harper supporters here mocked the decision or said good riddance to the old PCs. Some PCs have joined neither party and are trying to reconstitute somehow. It doesn't seem hopeful for them.

In any event, if this conversation was to convince me that there was a home for my beliefs in the Conservative party, it didn't work. I still find myself agreeing more with Liberal policies than Tory or NDP ones (which we didn't go over here).

[Canadian Blue]

How many abortions are performed in the third trimester when the woman's health was not in danger? If this is the only stumbling point, I'd like to hear statistics offered rather than hypothetical situations.

The point being that it actually is legal to kill a fetus at the 35th week in Canada due to the lack of a law.

They want certain rights ascribed to the fetus over the woman's and to make abortion a criminal offence?

Yes because they view it as a seperate entity with a completley new strand of DNA.

The three strikes legislation has had the side effect of increasing costs for housing prisoners so that it competes with other programs. As ABC News reported earlier this summer, some states in the U.S. are facing a situation of a "prisoners versus pupils."

Actually, the three strikes rule here in Canada is for violent criminals. I've got no problem putting a violent criminal behind bars for life after a third offense.

Crime is down across the country and most experts says it is a combination of sentencing, policing, education and social services that helped.

Oddly enough it's probably more likely due to abortion than it is any of those things. It was already discussed in "Freakonomics."

Harper has taken a stand that it is better to put addicts in jail as a primary treatment and his minister has been railing against the medical community for harm reduction and treatment. Jail is certainly not drug free.

Difference being that taxpayers aren't paying people to break the law.

Harper climbed down from that position as the war didn't go well. He did say Canada should be over there. He did. It was only after that he said we might not have the resources. And that came way after.

I believe he stated that we should be providing moral support to our allies. Which is a far cry from the neutral position of the Liberal Party.

The Liberals support hate crime legislation. Some Tories wanted struck down but they don't seem to be in cabinet. You think Harper will remove the law with a majority or is that just wishful thinking?

Exactly, they support restricting freedom of speech if they feel it has the chance to offend people.

Restricting the freedom of someone to speak their mind isn't exactly in line with libertarian or classical liberal principles.

The Liberals believe in federalism. For all Harper's talk, he has been the one to increase transfer payments to rein in increased powers in Ottawa.

I hope that's a joke. The Liberals are ideologically committed to the belief that Ottawa knows what works best in Edmonton and Quebec City. They are only centred around a version of Canada which usually only include Ontario and Quebec, with lip service paid to the western provinces.

As for the Senate, the Liberals say changes should be made with constitutional amendments.

Excuse me, but the Liberals have never supported reforming the senate, as they still strongly believe that the PMO knows better than the citizens of each respective province when it comes to representation in the senate.

By the way the Senator that Paul Martin selected from Alberta was once again a political hack that no Albertan would want representing them.

My belief is that an elected Senate would be totally dysfunctional, unbalanced and would challenge the authority of the Commons in ways that would make even Harper wonder what the heck he was thinking when he proposed it.

Which is quite frankly a good thing, as it would ensure that the two most populous provinces can be countered if they support legislation which would in essence be punishing to the other less populous provinces.

That is how the Harper Tories have parsed it although it is also income tax cuts as well.

Hardly, the income tax cuts are a joke and only seek to create more wealth redistribution. Especially when the supposed carbon tax is being touted as a way to fund universal daycare and other Liberal pork barrel projects.

The Tory cap and trade plan hit Alberta and Saskatchewan even harder.

Mind telling me more about this, as it seems the governments of both provinces are strongly opposed not to Harper but Stephane Dion's viewpoint that Ottawa should steal their wealth and fund daycare in Toronto.

In any event, if this conversation was to convince me that there was a home for my beliefs in the Conservative party, it didn't work. I still find myself agreeing more with Liberal policies than Tory or NDP ones (which we didn't go over here).

Well if you're a welfare statist than of course Conservative policies wouldn't go over well. If you think the government is the solution to the problem, and that the collective is more important than the individual, the Liberal Party is definitely for you.

[jdobbin]

The point being that it actually is legal to kill a fetus at the 35th week in Canada due to the lack of a law.

Yes. However, it is a lot more rare than abortion opponents indicate and usually does involve the safety of the mother.

Yes because they view it as a seperate entity with a completley new strand of DNA.

Which if ascribed rights would mean the mother has almost none except if her own life was in danger.

Actually, the three strikes rule here in Canada is for violent criminals. I've got no problem putting a violent criminal behind bars for life after a third offense.

It seems to me that Liberals were not opposed to the violent offenders portion. They opposed doing this with all felony offenders.

Oddly enough it's probably more likely due to abortion than it is any of those things. It was already discussed in "Freakonomics."

Seems to me that conservatives might support abortion if that was true. I think the book, which I read, has an interesting angle but it is just that, an angle.

Difference being that taxpayers aren't paying people to break the law.

Doesn't solve the problem.

I believe he stated that we should be providing moral support to our allies. Which is a far cry from the neutral position of the Liberal Party.

We have gone over this before. The Liberal position was not neutral. They said they supported the U.S. but would not commit to sending troops to Iraq. Harper was not just talking about moral support because that is already what the Liberals gave.

Exactly, they support restricting freedom of speech if they feel it has the chance to offend people.

Coincidentally, this is what the Tories support too. They plan no change to the laws.

I support the Supreme Court's recent decision.

Restricting the freedom of someone to speak their mind isn't exactly in line with libertarian or classical liberal principles.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean inciting violence or shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre.

The Supreme Court brought some clarity to the whole process this year.

I hope that's a joke. The Liberals are ideologically committed to the belief that Ottawa knows what works best in Edmonton and Quebec City. They are only centred around a version of Canada which usually only include Ontario and Quebec, with lip service paid to the western provinces.

It's no joke that Harper increased transfers dramatically.

Excuse me, but the Liberals have never supported reforming the senate, as they still strongly believe that the PMO knows better than the citizens of each respective province when it comes to representation in the senate.

Actually, the Liberals have said that opening the Constitution would open a can of worms. They've opposed incremental changes that could face a challenge in court.

The Conservative changes would bring chaos to an institution they don't like already. Elected won't necessarily be better. It certainly doesn't make it equal and if it becomes too effective, ask Australia how they like their Senate.

By the way the Senator that Paul Martin selected from Alberta was once again a political hack that no Albertan would want representing them.

Fortier was a political hack too. We'll see if he can be elected.

Which is quite frankly a good thing, as it would ensure that the two most populous provinces can be countered if they support legislation which would in essence be punishing to the other less populous provinces.

I don't think it is a good thing. It is probably why Manitoba got rid of its upper house. It bogs things down.

Hardly, the income tax cuts are a joke and only seek to create more wealth redistribution. Especially when the supposed carbon tax is being touted as a way to fund universal daycare and other Liberal pork barrel projects.

The only pork barrel going on right now is the $9 billion the Tories are spending like drunken sailors.

Mind telling me more about this, as it seems the governments of both provinces are strongly opposed not to Harper but Stephane Dion's viewpoint that Ottawa should steal their wealth and fund daycare in Toronto.

They are opposed to the cap and trade too.

Well if you're a welfare statist than of course Conservative policies wouldn't go over well. If you think the government is the solution to the problem, and that the collective is more important than the individual, the Liberal Party is definitely for you.

The fact that the Harper Tories think the government is the problem worries me. Probably why people don't want a privatized safety process for things like meat.

Edited September 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Canadian Blue]

It seems to me that Liberals were not opposed to the violent offenders portion. They opposed doing this with all felony offenders.

No the original bill dealt only with violent offenders.

Seems to me that conservatives might support abortion if that was true. I think the book, which I read, has an interesting angle but it is just that, an angle.

As compared to the opinion of those who are pro-abortion that the procedure is necessary to rid society of unwanted children.

We have gone over this before. The Liberal position was not neutral. They said they supported the U.S. but would not commit to sending troops to Iraq. Harper was not just talking about moral support because that is already what the Liberals gave.

Actually the Liberal position was neutral, they never stated their support. If you'll remember Carolyne Bennett compared the actions of the US to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in World War 2.

Doesn't solve the problem.

Neither does taxpayer funded harm reduction facilities. We might as well create separate lanes on the highway for drunk drivers.

Coincidentally, this is what the Tories support too. They plan no change to the laws.

That is true, however it seems to me that the Tories are much more receptive to it than the Liberals, who simply believe that speech which offends any sensibility should be banned.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean inciting violence or shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre.

Kind of like publishing some cartoons or having a banner that says "Jesus Sucks."

It's no joke that Harper increased transfers dramatically.

Transfers are a different matter from increased federal power. It seems that thus far the current government tends to support provincial rights, that is as compared to the Liberal Party which threatened provinces that deviated from their thinking when it came to healthcare.

Actually, the Liberals have said that opening the Constitution would open a can of worms. They've opposed incremental changes that could face a challenge in court.

So you'd argue that Liberals don't believe in making any changes to institutions which are at the core in opposition to the central tenants of representative democracy.

Elected won't necessarily be better. It certainly doesn't make it equal and if it becomes too effective, ask Australia how they like their Senate.

Actually it will be better, as compared to the alternative which is a house meant soley to reward partisan hacks and subvert the will of the people.

By the way for some reason I doubt Australians are pissed off that they can elect their representatives. I'm sure some dictatorships run smoothly however it doesn't make it any better.

The only pork barrel going on right now is the $9 billion the Tories are spending like drunken sailors.

First of all, you're saying the Tories are bad, therefore we must go to a worse option. A party which more strongly believes that the state is required to keep individuals in line throughout their lives whether through social engineering or in economic decision making. A party which will increase taxes on the general population, but then use those funds for wealth redistribution. To argue that is a better alternative is laughable.

They are opposed to the cap and trade too.

No doubt about it. But I think they prefer it over the obvious wealth distribution plan that the Liberals are supporting which seeks to punish economically successful provinces.

The fact that the Harper Tories think the government is the problem worries me. Probably why people don't want a privatized safety process for things like meat.

That's ridiculous, the difference is that one is absolutely necessary in society and isn't some tool for social engineering. Whether you like it or not your core beliefs are that individuals should lose more and more liberty to the government as long as it's for the greater good.

To call those beliefs classical liberal or libertarian is absurd.

I still don't see how someone who supports massive state intervention into the economy and social engineering is a "fiscal conservative." Not to mention arguing that one is a social liberal yet supports the government restricting unpopular political speech through the HRC's.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Bryan]

Which if ascribed rights would mean the mother has almost none except if her own life was in danger.

She'd have plenty of rights, just not the right to kill her child. Nor should she.

[jdobbin]

She'd have plenty of rights, just not the right to kill her child. Nor should she.

And on this issue, it is why I would never really see eye to eye with conservatives.

Edited September 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

No the original bill dealt only with violent offenders.

Which is what the Liberals supported. What the Tories didn't want was any amendments to their omnibus bill even when it was pointed out the logistics problem that some of the mandatory sentencing would cause on prison populations.

As compared to the opinion of those who are pro-abortion that the procedure is necessary to rid society of unwanted children.

If your argument is that I should support the Tories because they will criminalize abortion, it just shows a major reason why I'm not about to sign a membership card.

Actually the Liberal position was neutral, they never stated their support. If you'll remember Carolyne Bennett compared the actions of the US to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in World War 2.

Untrue and we have gone over this many times before.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate..."

Chretien said Canada would not participate in the attack but would continue with multilateral anti-terrorism work with our allies. We were not neutral.

Harper made it pretty clear he believed Canada should be participating in the war.

Neither does taxpayer funded harm reduction facilities. We might as well create separate lanes on the highway for drunk drivers.

That is your opinion. It isn't one supported by the majority of doctors. And if this is another point as to why I should support the Tories, it isn't one I'm comfortable with. The attacks by the Tories on doctors for immorality is not one that I like seeing.

That is true, however it seems to me that the Tories are much more receptive to it than the Liberals, who simply believe that speech which offends any sensibility should be banned.

Wish fulfillment. You won't see Harper touch it if he wants to keep the Jewish vote which mostly think it is important to have.

Kind of like publishing some cartoons or having a banner that says "Jesus Sucks."

I think the Supreme Court was fairly clear with their legal opinion in this area.

Transfers are a different matter from increased federal power. It seems that thus far the current government tends to support provincial rights, that is as compared to the Liberal Party which threatened provinces that deviated from their thinking when it came to healthcare.

Transfers are all about federal power to "redistribute money" as you say.

So you'd argue that Liberals don't believe in making any changes to institutions which are at the core in opposition to the central tenants of representative democracy.

I support the Liberals who say that the provinces have to be consulted on such important issues and according to the amending formula of the Constitution, it can't be done with unilateral legislation. It won't be the federal Opposition that goes to court over forced elections where a province disagree. It will be the provinces. Quebec does not support any change. How will the Tories force them?

The Senate will be a mix of elected and unelected members.

Actually it will be better, as compared to the alternative which is a house meant soley to reward partisan hacks and subvert the will of the people.

As opposed to elected hacks who can and will probably try to thwart the will of the Commons, the primary representative body of the people.

By the way for some reason I doubt Australians are pissed off that they can elect their representatives. I'm sure some dictatorships run smoothly however it doesn't make it any better.

The people are often pissed at the gridlock the elected Senate renders on legislation. You can read up all you like on it.

I support the end of the Senate. It has hurt places like Manitoba to end their upper house.

First of all, you're saying the Tories are bad, therefore we must go to a worse option. A party which more strongly believes that the state is required to keep individuals in line throughout their lives whether through social engineering or in economic decision making. A party which will increase taxes on the general population, but then use those funds for wealth redistribution. To argue that is a better alternative is laughable.

I'm saying that Harper can't control his spending habits. He has reduced taxes but most economists say it was the wrong taxes. We have gone over this many times.

The Liberals both reduced taxes and spending. I had several issues with the big spending that preceded the election but Harper has shown he can one up on that. How can I support that?

No doubt about it. But I think they prefer it over the obvious wealth distribution plan that the Liberals are supporting which seeks to punish economically successful provinces.

They do not support it over any plan. They are opposed across the board. It will hit Alberta the hardest so don't think that province is going to thank you.

That's ridiculous, the difference is that one is absolutely necessary in society and isn't some tool for social engineering. Whether you like it or not your core beliefs are that individuals should lose more and more liberty to the government as long as it's for the greater good.

If one is necessary, you have to wonder why the Tories are trying to dismantle the safety system. Maybe they think it is social engineering.

To call those beliefs classical liberal or libertarian is absurd.

I still don't see how someone who supports massive state intervention into the economy and social engineering is a "fiscal conservative." Not to mention arguing that one is a social liberal yet supports the government restricting unpopular political speech through the HRC's.

Actually, I support cuts in spending and tax cuts. I have seen the Liberals do both.

As I said though, if this argument was to convince me that the Conservatives were a big tent party open to my ideas, it has failed.

[Canadian Blue]

Which is what the Liberals supported. What the Tories didn't want was any amendments to their omnibus bill even when it was pointed out the logistics problem that some of the mandatory sentencing would cause on prison populations.

So they basically want criminals out of prison quicker, no matter how many violent crimes they've committed.

If your argument is that I should support the Tories because they will criminalize abortion, it just shows a major reason why I'm not about to sign a membership card.

No, I was simply pointing out the idiocy of your comment which was the Tories would support abortion if it meant reductions in crime. My point was that you support abortion because you want fewer unwanted children in Canada.

Untrue and we have gone over this many times before.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Which simply shows that the Liberals were to weak kneed to say they morally supported the US.

Wish fulfillment. You won't see Harper touch it if he wants to keep the Jewish vote which mostly think it is important to have.

Hahahahahaha...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/j...unals-on-trial/

It seems the tribunals have targetted Jewish newspapers for hate speech, so I doubt support is that strong.

I support the Liberals who say that the provinces have to be consulted on such important issues and according to the amending formula of the Constitution, it can't be done with unilateral legislation.

They've never stated they would consult Alberta when it came to who represents them in the Senate, and usually the Liberals for obvious reasons tell the western provinces to fuck off and let Ontario choose who represents them.

As opposed to elected hacks who can and will probably try to thwart the will of the Commons, the primary representative body of the people.

Yes, elected is the keyword. If I have to choose between someone who is elected and accountable or someone who isn't, I'll always choose the former.

The House of Commons is made up of elected hacks, it doesn't mean I want to get rid of parliamentary elections.

The people are often pissed at the gridlock the elected Senate renders on legislation. You can read up all you like on it.

Probably because it forces the more populous regions to compromise with other provinces. It's unfortunate, but you have to understand that to some people they prefer an elected body that forces compromise for the regions.

I'm saying that Harper can't control his spending habits. He has reduced taxes but most economists say it was the wrong taxes. We have gone over this many times.

Difference being that he cuts taxes, that is unlike the Liberals who want to put a tax on pretty well every product in Canada and create a more "progressive" tax system which punishes people for working harder.

They do not support it over any plan. They are opposed across the board. It will hit Alberta the hardest so don't think that province is going to thank you.

The difference being that the Liberals will make side deals with other provinces, except for Alberta as they don't have a chance of winning any seats there.

If one is necessary, you have to wonder why the Tories are trying to dismantle the safety system.

Actually they aren't, can you please tell me when all our regulatory bodies were privatized. Either way it seems that your fears are based more on assumptions and fear than anything else.

Actually, I support cuts in spending and tax cuts. I have seen the Liberals do both.

Yes, and we're all gratified that the current crop of Liberals such as yourself want to tax working Canadian's to help fund pet projects like universal daycare and pump more and more money into crappy artwork.

As I said though, if this argument was to convince me that the Conservatives were a big tent party open to my ideas, it has failed.

Well it is a big tent party, it's just that since your extremely partisan and will vote Liberal no matter what, I doubt you'd ever support a different party.

As well you seem to be opposed to any discussion on hot button issues, so I'm not sure how anybody is supposed to convince someone who is close minded.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

As well Jdobbin, when it comes to the question of abortion the CPC has no policy on it, and their are currently prominent pro-choice MP's. Harper himself was known to be pro-choice when he was a Reform MP, so I doubt he'll really hoping for recriminalization.

However I'm tiring of people who always have knee jerk reactions when it comes to abortion, and will refuse to listen to any argument that contradicts their view. Currently most European nations have some restrictions on abortion, and a majority of Canadian's support some restrictions. To say that because their are pro-lifers in the CPC, it automatically means they'll outlaw it is absurd.

Not even the Republican Party was able to do that with all the years they controlled the levers of power in Washington.