Will lower crime rate hurt Conservatives?

[jdobbin]

The grass is greener, Saskatchewan is a have province and Manitoba is a have not. SK has resources and so does MB. Welcome to how the NDP runs things.

The NDP were the ones who pulled Saskatchewan out of the huge debt that the right wing, including the present conservative premier put it in. The NDP are the ones who ended Saskatchewan's deficit and put in on the track to fiscal health.

Saskatchewan just didn't become a have province the moment an election happened. It has been experiencing good growth for a number of years now.

The NDP were voted out in part because people in Saskatchewan were feeling confident and wanted change. It wasn't because they were running the province into the ground. That was what the old PC government did.

Oil and postash are two of the most sought after products now and Saskatchewan has both. Would Saskatchewan be a have province with just hydro? Probably not. Oil has a value that simply surpasses hydro. That might not always be the case but it certainly is the case now.

[Oleg Bach]

The NDP were the ones who pulled Saskatchewan out of the huge debt that the right wing, including the present conservative premier put it in. The NDP are the ones who ended Saskatchewan's deficit and put in on the track to fiscal health.

Saskatchewan just didn't become a have province the moment an election happened. It has been experiencing good growth for a number of years now.

The NDP were voted out in part because people in Saskatchewan were feeling confident and wanted change. It wasn't because they were running the province into the ground. That was what the old PC government did.

Oil and postash are two of the most sought after products now and Saskatchewan has both. Would Saskatchewan be a have province with just hydro? Probably not. Oil has a value that simply surpasses hydro. That might not always be the case but it certainly is the case now.

Back on track boys and girls! Reguarding whether the supposed reported lower crime rate will harm the well being of conservatives. Seems that the question itself is stating that so-called conservatives are addicted and generally dependent on crime. Some one seems to have an accute knowledge of what conservatives may have become - seeing lots of them are lawyers and judges...and connecting industry...it makes sense if the unwashed masses behaved themselves that this elite group would prosper less. Reminds me of the weapons trade...conservatives would not fair well if a lasting peace would break out in the middle east...Heaven forbid if orders for 1000 Hell Fire missles were canceled to to pesky peace....Afghanistan is a great example - lots of support is needed and great sales are made...IF you look at the concerns and general field of investment of certain established old families you will see in tiny letters - hidden away WAR SUPPLIES...need I say more?

[eyeball]

I agree with the thread titles premise that Conservatives promote fear and loathing to galvanize public support. I don't know if a lower crime rate will hurt them that much though. They'd just as likely try to take credit for it.

[Alta4ever]

I agree with the thread titles premise that Conservatives promote fear and loathing to galvanize public support. I don't know if a lower crime rate will hurt them that much though. They'd just as likely try to take credit for it.

Could the crime rate be lower because people are reporting fewing crimes because of a loss of confidence in the system?

Really what do call the global warming fearmongering that the socialists are pushing?

[eyeball]

Could the crime rate be lower because people are reporting fewing crimes because of a loss of confidence in the system?

I wouldn't doubt some is due to this but speaking for myself, I'm more afraid of being implicated in someone's death by Taser. I don't want that on my conscience thanks.

Really what do call the global warming fearmongering that the socialists are pushing?

I call most of it common sense.

[Alta4ever]

I wouldn't doubt some is due to this but speaking for myself, I'm more afraid of being implicated in someone's death by Taser. I don't want that on my conscience thanks.

I call most of it common sense.

Really to a lot of other people its fear mongering, there is no common sense in it as their is no difinitive proof.

It is a faith, faith in the Gorical, and faith in the IPCC. Both of which are being picked apart day after day. In fact the IPCC report is based on unproven data from just 2, yes two papers. Where is the common sense in taking at face value to papers that haven't even been proven.

Where is the common sense in blindly following someone who won't accept challenges to his ideas, won't debate the otherside, and uses false data to further their agendas? That is not common sense, that my friend is will full ignorance.

[eyeball]

Where is the common sense in blindly following someone who won't accept challenges to his ideas, won't debate the otherside, and uses false data to further their agendas? That is not common sense, that my friend is will full ignorance.

I know, I just wish Conservatives would stop acting this way towards crime. It just makes it that much harder to take anything they say about other issues (like GW) very seriously either.

[Argus]

Nope, I'm surely not.

Ah yes, ... but the Liberals. Muck is muck. When you wade in it you stink just as bad as those who wallow.

Do tell? Well I'll throw some at your shoes, then stuff some down your throat and see which you find to be more disgusting.

[Argus]

I am in no way seeking to defend Chrétien with this reply but…

The experiences of Linda Keen show that they are capable of coming in a close and reprehensible second.

How is that a close second? How much money did Harper get out of her for his criminal business associates?

[jdobbin]

Could the crime rate be lower because people are reporting fewing crimes because of a loss of confidence in the system?

You think people have been reporting fewer crimes each year since 1990?

[jdobbin]

It is a faith, faith in the Gorical, and faith in the IPCC. Both of which are being picked apart day after day. In fact the IPCC report is based on unproven data from just 2, yes two papers. Where is the common sense in taking at face value to papers that haven't even been proven.

And yet you support ethanol to help fight emissions. It certainly doesn't end energy dependence. It certainly doesn't cost less since the World Bank estimates it is causing food prices to rise 75%. It doesn't help the taxpayer much since we get dinged to the building of ethanol plants. It doesn't reduce emissions because it requires just as much energy to produce ethanol and has less fuel efficiency than gas. And lastly, we can't opt out because it is mandatory that gas be blended with ethanol.

Harper has sold this as an emissions program. You must be furious.

[blueblood]

And yet you support ethanol to help fight emissions. It certainly doesn't end energy dependence. It certainly doesn't cost less since the World Bank estimates it is causing food prices to rise 75%. It doesn't help the taxpayer much since we get dinged to the building of ethanol plants. It doesn't reduce emissions because it requires just as much energy to produce ethanol and has less fuel efficiency than gas. And lastly, we can't opt out because it is mandatory that gas be blended with ethanol.

Harper has sold this as an emissions program. You must be furious.

The American's have just opened up 10 million acres of land to be used for production. The price of corn has also dropped three dollars a bushell. I'll bet you the price of tortilla chips is still where it was a month ago. Saying ethanol jacks up food prices is a hoax. High transport costs are to blame.

The Americans are in an energy crisis and need all the energy they can get. If we produce a paltry 5% ethanol, that's more oil going to them.

[jdobbin]

The American's have just opened up 10 million acres of land to be used for production. The price of corn has also dropped three dollars a bushell. I'll bet you the price of tortilla chips is still where it was a month ago. Saying ethanol jacks up food prices is a hoax. High transport costs are to blame.

The World Bank doesn't generally joke around. They say it is ethanol that has raised prices 75%. They have broken down other costs including transportation.

The Americans are in an energy crisis and need all the energy they can get. If we produce a paltry 5% ethanol, that's more oil going to them.

And causing starvation around the world according to the World Bank.

The ethanol biz is in full fury over things right.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/466265

Public support for the renewable fuel has been falling as a result.

The latest study was a World Bank report holding biofuels responsible for 75 per cent of food-price increases.

Earlier this month, biofuels associations around the world took aim at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after its president, Chakib Khelil, blamed 40 per cent of the price of a barrel of oil on biofuels.

The associations sent OPEC an open letter, which was published as an advertisement in the Financial Times newspaper.

Another report in Britain is expected to be released this week as well about how food prices are going up because of ethanol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.

[blueblood]

The World Bank doesn't generally joke around. They say it is ethanol that has raised prices 75%. They have broken down other costs including transportation.

And causing starvation around the world according to the World Bank.

The ethanol biz is in full fury over things right.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/466265

Another report in Britain is expected to be released this week as well about how food prices are going up because of ethanol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

If starvation is such a problem now, why aren't the Europeans opening the floodgates on all their set aside farmland?

Food prices are always on the rise. High transport costs ding the consumer more than high grain prices, due to sheer volumes of grain produced.

People have been starving for years all over the world. The developed world needs oil to function, it has its food supply secure. Ethanol is helping to fill the void. People would still be starving today if there wasn't a drop of ethanol produced.

People of developed countries would rather have the poorer countries go without dumped food than give up our lifestyle. Food supply secure, energy supply not secure. Without ethanol there would be gasoline shortages, to have gasoline shortages when there is an overabundance of grain to be used for energy would be political suicide in the developed world. The starving people of Africa and Asia do not vote for our politicians.

More and more people can afford to pay the actual price for grain. Canadians are benefitting, there is no gasoline and no food shortages in Canada. Capping food prices is like proposing the NEP, it screws over the economy. If starving people are of such a concern to you, I suggest you can live on spam and kraft dinner and donate the rest of your grocery bill to charity.

[jdobbin]

If starvation is such a problem now, why aren't the Europeans opening the floodgates on all their set aside farmland?

Food prices are always on the rise. High transport costs ding the consumer more than high grain prices, due to sheer volumes of grain produced.

People have been starving for years all over the world. The developed world needs oil to function, it has its food supply secure. Ethanol is helping to fill the void. People would still be starving today if there wasn't a drop of ethanol produced.

This is not what the World Bank leaked report shows.

I'm sure farmers will support ethanol no matter what.

[Argus]

You think people have been reporting fewer crimes each year since 1990?

How bad is crime? Bad enough that store owners don't even bother to report armed robberies, much less break ins - in Toronto.

He has called the police on some occasions, but gave up after no one was apprehended. Also, blaring sirens mean bad publicity.

"I didn't call the police. Nothing happens, it's a waste of time," he said. "If they (police) come, then the customers don't come."

Just a block east, at the Table Convenience Store, Sue Shin and Kwanggool Lee agree. After moving here from South Korea in 2001, they opened their store in July 2004. Four months later, they were robbed. They called the police, who took 40 minutes to come.

Despite later break-ins, they never dialled 911.

Store closing due to crime

[jdobbin]

How bad is crime? Bad enough that store owners don't even bother to report armed robberies, much less break ins - in Toronto.

I realize there have always been people who don't report crime. My question still stands though: is it more than what we have seen since 1990?

[Keepitsimple]

I realize there have always been people who don't report crime. My question still stands though: is it more than what we have seen since 1990?

Crime peaked in the early 1990's, and although generally speaking it's been falling since then, it’s a matter of perspective, since it is still far higher than the mid 1960's.

[jdobbin]

Crime peaked in the early 1990's, and although generally speaking it's been falling since then, it’s a matter of perspective, since it is still far higher than the mid 1960's.

The last Statscan report that came out said that overall crime has fallen every year since 1991 but that in some areas such as murder was as low as what was reported in the 1970s.

It still means that the government will not really be able to drum up fears about crime spiraling upwards. Nor can they blame the Liberals since crime went down every year they were in power.

[Keepitsimple]

The last Statscan report that came out said that overall crime has fallen every year since 1991 but that in some areas such as murder was as low as what was reported in the 1970s.

It still means that the government will not really be able to drum up fears about crime spiraling upwards. Nor can they blame the Liberals since crime went down every year they were in power.

They don't have to "drum up fears". Every poll or survey taken - no matter how they phrase the questions - show that a large majority of the public have serious concerns about violent crime and want to put violent offenders away. Statistics don't take away the public's fears. Do you honestly believe there is less violence in today's society that there was in the 60's and 70's? If so, you're in Liberal denial. What used to be a fistfight outside of school is now a stabbing or a shooting. TV programs, computer games all espouse violence. It's not surprising that society has so many people needing anger management. In the real world, it's as plain as day.....get the violent offenders off the street and protect society. Put the multiple-repeat offenders away longer so they can no longer use the Justice System as "the cost of doing business".

Edited July 30, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

They don't have to "drum up fears". Every poll or survey taken - no matter how they phrase the questions - show that a large majority of the public have serious concerns about violent crime and want to put violent offenders away. Statistics don't take away the public's fears. Do you honestly believe there is less violence in today's society that there was in the 60's and 70's? If so, you're in Liberal denial. What used to be a fistfight outside of school is now a stabbing or a shooting. TV programs, computer games all espouse violence. It's not surprising that society has so many people needing anger management. In the real world, it's as plain as day.....get the violent offenders off the street and protect society. Put the multiple-repeat offenders away longer so they can no longer use the Justice System as "the cost of doing business".

The PC party in Manitoba tried to drum up those fears in the election and were widely derided for such scare tactics. If it was going to work in any province, it should have been Manitoba. The ad campaign was aimed at women and showed a woman about to be attacked in a carpark. Women were turned off by the politics of fear in that instance.

So, go ahead and see if that sort of tactic works now. Harper already has women distrustful of him.