Conservative Majority

[Dave_ON]

An alternate reality Joe Clark with a majority government, perhaps, and not the minority that Joe Clark here on Earth Prime had?

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

[Scotty]

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

I don't disagree here. But we must remember that there are a certain number of areas the Tories could not go near before due to their minority status, but which their base - and frankly, their voters, will welcome intervention. Just because doing so sets a number of people howling, that's not necessarily a reason not to, so long as the howlers are made up of people who never voted Tory and are never likely to vote Tory. Almost everyone who voted Tory this time around is, at least, a fiscal conservative, or leans that way. No one who wanted big government intervention was likely to be voting for Harper. So on fiscal issues they should have an all-clear - except where that conflicts with the support many fiscal conservatives have for social support networks.

But there are a lot of ways to appease their base without turning off the centre. The gun registry is history, and its elimination is not going to cost him any of the people who supported him this time around. The vote subsidy was always opposed by the majority of Canadians, and certainly by all those who voted Tory. I saw Kenney interviewed the other day and he was reminded that something like 99% of the Tories at their last convention voted to repeal the censorship provisions of the human rights act, and Kenney admitted that's an area they will be taking a look at. I doubt mainstream Canada would be very upset at a curtailing of the powers of human rights commissions. Tougher laws and parole are supported by every person I know, including the Harper haters. So there is lots of room for them to please the right without upsetting the centre.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Scotty

[Kiraly]

Your rights and freedoms.

I hope all the idiots who voted for Harper will enjoy life living in a religious police state.

That reminds me:

Remember, remember....

...the fifth of November.

Great movie.

[Kiraly]

First on the chopping block will be the necks of most of the kittens in Canada, the Tory feasting will go on for months.

Harper likes kittens...

...how about cute little bunnies.

I actually like a good rabbit stew now and then.

[ToadBrother]

But there are a lot of ways to appease their base without turning off the centre. The gun registry is history, and its elimination is not going to cost him any of the people who supported him this time around. The vote subsidy was always opposed by the majority of Canadians, and certainly by all those who voted Tory. I saw Kenney interviewed the other day and he was reminded that something like 99% of the Tories at their last convention voted to repeal the censorship provisions of the human rights act, and Kenney admitted that's an area they will be taking a look at. I doubt mainstream Canada would be very upset at a curtailing of the powers of human rights commissions. Tougher laws and parole are supported by every person I know, including the Harper haters. So there is lots of room for them to please the right without upsetting the centre.

The Tories will certainly do some things I approve of:

- Long gun registry is dead dead dead

- Federal human rights tribunals are going to be castrated

- They'll kill party financing, which ought to kill the Bloc. Of course, they won't wean parties from the public teat fully, as I'm sure the nice party donation on your tax return will remain, and if they were really dedicated to making parties pay their way, they wouldn't be grabbing a backdoor subsidy.

[capricorn]

- They'll kill party financing, which ought to kill the Bloc. Of course, they won't wean parties from the public teat fully, as I'm sure the nice party donation on your tax return will remain, and if they were really dedicated to making parties pay their way, they wouldn't be grabbing a backdoor subsidy.

All ideas I agree with Toad.

About that tax deduction. It's presently a 75% credit. For starters, why not lower it to 50%? I doubt that would result in too many Canadians cancelling their donations.

[xul]

#2.We need the new plane and yes they will have engines.

#3. Wher other than in prisons does one put a prisoner, let them all out on bail???

#4. If the taxes aren't kept down for corporations they will move to china, india, mexicoa and that's a fact.

#5. Two tier health car has been around for years, I guess you wouldn't notice living up in the aric.

Maybe you are right but #4.

The oil companies which Harper's dad worked for when young Stephen was a liberal-supporting student of U of T will not be able to move to China or anywhere...and those Walmart Canadian factories, if there are still some left, will move to China, India, Mexico... anyway unless the ex-"Reform" boss reforms the mininum wage of Canadian down to ￥8/h....

Back to the topic---I'm sure that the first victim of this conservative majority will not be those right-wing liberals who voted conservative to stop NDP, though Iggy had been so desired to represent them all the time...

Edited May 5, 2011 by xul

[TTM]

- They'll kill party financing, which ought to kill the Bloc. Of course, they won't wean parties from the public teat fully, as I'm sure the nice party donation on your tax return will remain, and if they were really dedicated to making parties pay their way, they wouldn't be grabbing a backdoor subsidy.

End of the voter subsidy kills BQ and the Liberals, forcing the left to unite under the sole remaining party, thereby reestablishing left-wing dominance in government. That would be ironic.

[icman]

Apparently, though, they're smart enough to tell the difference between wiretapping and online information gathering. There is a difference, y'know. All this will require is that an ISP tell them who someone is if they see they've made some sort of radical comment or threat, ie give them your name and address, which is not much different than looking up your phone number, really.

Yes, Scotty. And what is a "radical" comment? Why should the police have instant access to every anonymous blogger's personal information at their whim? It's not like the police have a pristine history of self-restraint. Without some kind of oversight, I guarentee that this power will be abused. Regularly. Regular folk will run afoul of the law simply for expressing opinions not shared by the police apparatus, and you won't care because you'll never hear about it except in the most outlandishly eggregious cases.

The notion of freedom that many on the right espouse as unassailable is predecated on the ability for people to criticize the government or the police or any public or private institution without fear of being persecuted for that criticism. So, while it is important to provide police with the tools to find real criminals, it is MORE important to ensure that the average person can criticize institutions without feeling afraid to do so. THAT is the balance that is disrupted with this kind of legislation, and this balance is exactly what Benjamin Franklin was referring to when he said "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."

I find it incredible that the people who most strongly shout "freedom or die" are the ones that most often support changes in our laws that will reduce everyone's freedoms.

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[icman]

That's really not true. To this point, from a statistical point of view, they haven't shown to be an effective measure in lowering the crime rate. At the same time, saying they can't play an important role is a little short-sighted. They can be an effective tool against gun crimes and help police to in get gang members off the streets. For example, if you commit a serious crime in possession of a gun, you get 5 years. Putting gang members back on the streets though a revolving door is not only a danger to society, but to our police officers.

Mandatory minimums express, in my opinion, the jettisoning of any belief that criminals can be rehabilitated and made productive members of society. We might as well change the name of the Ministry from Corrections to Punishment.

[Bonam]

Mandatory minimums express, in my opinion, the jettisoning of any belief that criminals can be rehabilitated and made productive members of society.

A belief that is in many cases indeed best jettisoned.

We might as well change the name of the Ministry from Corrections to Punishment.

Motion seconded.

[icman]

The Tories will certainly do some things I approve of:

- Long gun registry is dead dead dead

- Federal human rights tribunals are going to be castrated

- They'll kill party financing, which ought to kill the Bloc. Of course, they won't wean parties from the public teat fully, as I'm sure the nice party donation on your tax return will remain, and if they were really dedicated to making parties pay their way, they wouldn't be grabbing a backdoor subsidy.

The voter subsidy is the only method of party financing that even attempts to keep the playing field level and prevent monied interests from taking over the political process. Removing it encourages a reduction in the number of parties available (and therefore ideas available) to vote for on election day.

I don't know anyone who thinks about democracy beyond the thinnest surface glance, and truly believes in "one person, one vote" who would place private donations above voter subsidy on an ordered list of how to most equitably fund political parties. Unless your goal is to destroy parties in general and remove them from the political process. But that's a different discussion.

[icman]

Mandatory minimums express, in my opinion, the jettisoning of any belief that criminals can be rehabilitated and made productive members of society.

A belief that is in many cases indeed best jettisoned.

Really? Many cases, or most cases? Because we shouldn't be jettisoning the idea of criminal rehabilitation because in "many" cases it doesn't work. I would point out, as well, that we don't exactly devote significant resources or effort to rehabilitating criminals, even though the investment to do it right pays huge dividends. So, those "many" cases you speak of, which isn't even "most" cases, are not because criminals can't be rehabilitated - they are because we haven't even tried.

[Handsome Rob]

The Tories will certainly do some things I approve of:

- Long gun registry is dead dead dead

- Federal human rights tribunals are going to be castrated

- They'll kill party financing, which ought to kill the Bloc. Of course, they won't wean parties from the public teat fully, as I'm sure the nice party donation on your tax return will remain, and if they were really dedicated to making parties pay their way, they wouldn't be grabbing a backdoor subsidy.

I would like to see them continue to give the little guys a chance. IE: For the first 10,000 votes you get subsidized, beyond that your cut off.

[TimG]

The voter subsidy is the only method of party financing that even attempts to keep the playing field level and prevent monied interests from taking over the political process.

Nonsense. Most of the donations to the CPC and the NDP are less than $400. People are not going to buy much influnce with that.

[TimG]

So, those "many" cases you speak of, which isn't even "most" cases, are not because criminals can't be rehabilitated - they are because we haven't even tried.

So you are bascially saying Harper is right: the current system simply slaps people on the wrist and dumps them back on the street to re-offend.

We have mandatory minimums all of the time. Murder 1 has a 25 year mandatory minimum. Murder 2 is 10 years. Most people have no issue with this. I fail to see why people are getting so exercised about mandatory minimums for other sentences.

What many people forget is the justice system has 3 goals: rehabilitation, deterrent and retribution. The last one is important because people who do not commit crimes want to see that people who do commit them are punished. The current system does a horrible job of this.

[icman]

Nonsense. Most of the donations to the CPC and the NDP are less than $400. People are not going to buy much influnce with that.

Nonsense? Not everyone has $400 lying around to donate to their prefered political party. If you believe in "one person, one vote", then no-one should have more influence on elections just because they have more money in their pocket. And money is influence, if only because it buys air-time and other marketing techniques. Frankly, we should disallow all private donations and go entirely with a funding model based on the number of ridings in which a party fields a candidate. Each candidate would be handed exactly the same amount of money with which to run their campaign, and parties would receive an additional amound based on the number of candidates fielded.

The other option is to limit party campaign spending to a reasonable cap in order to level the playing field.

Why does the playing field need to be leveled? That should be obvious, but I will make an example. A popular party which represents the interests of the poor can be supported by 5 million voters and still not be able to raise enough money to battle the marketing machine of a party funded by a few hundred thousand people who have donated $400 each. Should those 5 million people have a softer voice in their polity than a few hundred thousand because they don't have so much disposable income and can't find the money to donate to their party?

[icman]

So you are bascially saying Harper is right: the current system simply slaps people on the wrist and dumps them back on the street to re-offend.

We have mandatory minimums all of the time. Murder 1 has a 25 year mandatory minimum. Murder 2 is 10 years. Most people have no issue with this. I fail to see why people are getting so exercised about mandatory minimums for other sentences.

What many people forget is the justice system has 3 goals: rehabilitation, deterrent and retribution. The last one is important because people who do not commit crimes want to see that people who do commit them are punished. The current system does a horrible job of this.

Actually, the justice system has ONE goal - to transform chaos into order, constrained by the maintainance of individual freedoms. The balance between the activities of rehabilitation, deterrance and retribution should be oft tuned to maximize the goal of transforming chaos into order. Alas, it is typically tuned on the basis of voter passions rather than the expertise of knowledgable professionals.

I don't have a problem with the idea of mandatory minimums where professionals tell us it makes sense. My issue is with many of its proponents, whose desire is to punish people they don't like, rather than to find a balanced set of activities that will maximize order.

And I am not saying that the current system slaps people on the wrist and sends them on their way. I am saying that Harper and his supporters say that rehabilitation is a failure even when they haven't tried it. Harper and his supporters prefer punishment to rehabilitation because they like to punish people they don't like, whereas we should all prefer rehabilitation to punishment because it costs less in the long run. (I accept that some rehabilitiation can come in the form of punishment, but rehabilitation should be the goal, not punishment for its own sake.)

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[jacee]

So instead of house arrest at their own expense, we pay $40,000+ a year to house petty criminals in jails ... and this is supposed to make us all feel better?

It has occurred to me that Harper's plan for long term care for seniors is to jail all the damn old hippies for growing and smoking pot. Kind of a two birds with one 'stone' policy. ;-)

[fellowtraveller]

What many people forget is the justice system has 3 goals: rehabilitation, deterrent and retribution.

You have made the most common mistake- a primary goal of the justice system, the primary goal, is protection of non-criminals from those that would harm them. I consider security of the populace to be the first objective of our govt, or it shoul;d be.

[icman]

You have made the most common mistake- a primary goal of the justice system, the primary goal, is protection of non-criminals from those that would harm them. I consider security of the populace to be the first objective of our govt, or it shoul;d be.

If security of the populace should be the first objective of our government, then lets jail everyone, and only let out those who can produce, and only during production hours. Then we'll all be safe. Or make everyone join the military, and all production will go toward military objectives. The military will then take on the objectives of building wealth and allocating resources.

Government's job is more than to secure a population, my friend. In our western society, its primary job is to protect our freedoms and rights, a list of which includes (but is not limited to) our right to life and security from harm. But there are a whole bunch of additional rights and freedoms, like http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaws-lois.justice.gc.ca%2Feng%2Fcharter%2F&rct=j&q=charter%20of%20rights%20and%20freedoms&ei=LknCTazWEcWWtwfB3qGxBQ&usg=AFQjCNEUtYNO0WCydIds-RmZNAi4ccVWFg&cad=rja

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[Molly]

We have mandatory minimums all of the time. Murder 1 has a 25 year mandatory minimum. Murder 2 is 10 years. Most people have no issue with this. I fail to see why people are getting so exercised about mandatory minimums for other sentences.

Interesting that you would choose 2nd degree murder, the Latimer 10 years-- 10 years, when the jury that convicted him thought that one tenth of that sentence would be fair and appropriate.

The only thing that mandatory minimum sentences guarantee is miscarriages of justice.

[Dave_ON]

All ideas I agree with Toad.

About that tax deduction. It's presently a 75% credit. For starters, why not lower it to 50%? I doubt that would result in too many Canadians cancelling their donations.

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

[Molly]

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

I would think that it (rather than the direct vote subsidy) is the place to start!

No more tax deduction. If you are going to give money to a political party, let it at least be your own money, and not mine.

[Pliny]

The long gun registry is first.