Can Harper beat the odds?

[Topaz]

One opinion by a reporter says its up to the voters, mainly male, westerns, to help he achieve another majority but I wonder could he? Ontario is the largest of his MP's and by reading many "comments" under any story about the Tories and especially Harper many don't care for him as PM. Harper has messed around with social programs, creating a large deficit for his scheme of getting more voters with the income-splitting, which will probably make some of those receiving it pay more taxes, later. Harper wanted to go to war in Iraq and he has his wish, with our bombers there. Unless he has another Pierre Poutine in a bag, I can't see him , at least getting a majority, even with his help from the US Republican party, directly or indirectly. Voters do tire of their leader after so many years and it may be time for him to go. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-gears-up-to-run-against-history/article22194314/%C2'>

Edited December 27, 2014 by Topaz

[Topaz]

Sorry, the link on the computer doesn't want to work again and I'll try here. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-gears-up-to-run-against-history/article22194314/

[TimG]

The election of Wynne in Ontario shows that voters will forgive a lot of things if the alternative is not palatable. Everything rest on Trudeau convincing voters he would be a credible PM.

[Michael Hardner]

The election of Wynne in Ontario shows that voters will forgive a lot of things if the alternative is not palatable.

I think the great leap forward in Canadian politics could come if left-of-centre voters realize that our economy has limited capacity to devote resources to problems, and if right-of-centre voters realize that some social spending is actually an investment in the future. Unfortunately, it takes far less attention and energy to articulate a mass-media message than to bring people to the table to discuss social policy in a productive and empathetic way.

[eyeball]

I think the great leap forward in Canadian politics could come if left-of-centre voters realize that our economy has limited capacity to devote resources to problems

What is there not to get? Left of center people have been pointing out how unsustainable our economy is for decades now.

, and if right-of-centre voters realize that some social spending is actually an investment in the future.

First you have to overcome their sense it's a drag on the present. Good luck with that.

In any case we'll need to decentralize authority to area-based management boards so that people can see how their issues with one another actually relate to problems they all face day to day on the same ground they walk on and have to share.

The only way forward is to become way more responsible for or own governance. Unfortunately we're going in the opposite direction where governments are building and concentrating authority and power.

[Smallc]

Most right wingers in the Canadian context are already there.

[Shady]

One opinion by a reporter says its up to the voters, mainly male, westerns, to help he achieve another majority but I wonder could he? Ontario is the largest of his MP's and by reading many "comments" under any story about the Tories and especially Harper many don't care for him as PM. Harper has messed around with social programs, creating a large deficit for his scheme of getting more voters with the income-splitting, which will probably make some of those receiving it pay more taxes, later. Harper wanted to go to war in Iraq and he has his wish, with our bombers there. Unless he has another Pierre Poutine in a bag, I can't see him , at least getting a majority, even with his help from the US Republican party, directly or indirectly. Voters do tire of their leader after so many years and it may be time for him to go.

You're seriously judging things by reading the comments on stories about Harper? That's absurd.

[Bryan]

I think the great leap forward in Canadian politics could come if left-of-centre voters realize that our economy has limited capacity to devote resources to problems, and if right-of-centre voters realize that some social spending is actually an investment in the future.

That's precisely where the Conservative party sits. A lot more social spending than most right wingers would like, a lot more attention to fiscal practicality than most left wingers would like.

The "leap forward" you speak of happened in 2006.

[overthere]

One opinion by a reporter says its up to the voters, mainly male, westerns, to help he achieve another majority but I wonder could he?

Must be one of those Onatario reporters.

He may not have noticed that Harper already has all the seats in two provinces in the West. He is right that having those seats helps achieve a majority, by some quirk in the Constitution those Western seats are part of the total. And contrary to rumour, there are several women in the West that vote, and by golly they vote for all the parties!

[Boges]

Poll numbers show that JTs honeymoon period is over.

It's JT that will have to convince voters he's worthy of the PM role.

As much as people like to try and predict outcomes far in advance, this election will be won or loat in the campaign period after the writ is dropped. That's when JT will have to distinguish himself.

[hitops]

I think the great leap forward in Canadian politics could come if left-of-centre voters realize that our economy has limited capacity to devote resources to problems,

This is a plain, verifiable fact that anyone can access. It doesn't require opinion, it's available to all in black and white in the budgets.

and if right-of-centre voters realize that some social spending is actually an investment in the future.

This however is philosophical statement, which requires independent evidence. That evidence is far from clear, and often contradictory. It's furthermore not clear that this social spending is better accomplished by government or private citizens on their own behalf.

Edited December 29, 2014 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

This is a plain, verifiable fact that anyone can access. It doesn't require opinion, it's available to all in black and white in the budgets.

Facts still have to be realized, and some - even on here - still don't worry about deficits... at all it seems.

This however is philosophical statement, which requires independent evidence. That evidence is far from clear, and often contradictory.

Some social spending IS a investment. Do you think that it never is ?

It's furthermore not clear that this social spending is better accomplished by government or private citizens on their own behalf.

What is 'this' social spending ?

[hitops]

Some social spending IS a investment. Do you think that it never is ?

Depends on what you mean by investment. My mom calls buying a new couch "investing in furniture'. Just spending money on something that depreciates, is not an investment. An investment is something with a potential return. You can spend money from government coffers easily. What's not so easy, is demonstrating a return. There is little clear evidence beyond basic infrastructure, that much spending provides any kind of measurable return.

To give 2 examples; Building a road makes it possible for everyone to use it, which most would agree gives a net economic benefit to all. Providing government backed mortgage insurance does not, and in fact has made it more unaffordable than ever, to own a home.

What is 'this' social spending ?

Spending on things like education. It's clear that education is good. It's not clear that government providing it is any better than the individual seeking it out on their own. IMO the evidence, in particularity the last few years, is that success with education has little to do with the method of provision, and much to do with the individual seeking it. Even students who get accepted to Ivy league schools, but don't go, do as well as those that go, and better than those who were not accepted. This is a commentary on what that kind of student goes to Ivy league schools, not on what kind of student Ivy League schools create.

Edited December 29, 2014 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

Just spending money on something that depreciates, is not an investment. An investment is something with a potential return.

Agreed.

There is little clear evidence beyond basic infrastructure, that much spending provides any kind of measurable return.

Depending on how you measure 'return' though. What are the returns from infrastructure for example ? Reduced future costs would be one and social spending can most definitely demonstrate returns in that way.

It's clear that education is good. It's not clear that government providing it is any better than the individual seeking it out on their own.

I don't think that's true. Equal access to education provides for a meritocracy, wherein the best can ascend and lead. Education as a means to secure wealth for the wealthy doesn't provide for a meritocracy, as the best are prevented from succeeding.

Even students who get accepted to Ivy league schools, but don't go, do as well as those that go, and better than those who were not accepted. This is a commentary on what that kind of student goes to Ivy league schools, not on what kind of student Ivy League schools create.

Ok, but I'm not sure what that means for public education.

[Moonbox]

What is there not to get? Left of center people have been pointing out how unsustainable our economy is for decades now.

He was saying that left-of-centre voters need to be more mindful of the budget when discussing social spending.

First you have to overcome their sense it's a drag on the present. Good luck with that.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. There's such a thing as wasteful and incompetent spending and each example of this diminishes the capacity for productive social programs. It also gives the Right something to rally around/against.

[hitops]

Depending on how you measure 'return' though. What are the returns from infrastructure for example ? Reduced future costs would be one and social spending can most definitely demonstrate returns in that way.

We can make pretty reliable estimates for example, of the costs of getting something from point A to B with or without roads, and the net benefit of having that road vs the cost of building it. All would agree, in most cases, a huge benefit. A way to test this is simply to look at how much more expensive it is to get goods to places without roads.

I don't think that's true. Equal access to education provides for a meritocracy, wherein the best can ascend and lead. Education as a means to secure wealth for the wealthy doesn't provide for a meritocracy, as the best are prevented from succeeding.

I can't disagree, but again that's a philosophical statement. We can argue about how far we need to go redistributing people's money to call ourselves meritocratic. However that's besides the point, I was responding specifically to the idea of an investment. Just because something is philosophically attractive, does not mean it provides a return on an investment. Becoming meritocratic in intent, also, does not necessarily mean your policy to accomplish that actually results in more meritocracy, in fact in could result in less. By definition almost, redistribution works against meritocracy. The definition implies merit is involved, rather than handouts. Merit means what you do, not what somebody else does for or to you.

Ok, but I'm not sure what that means for public education.

Perhaps it means we should spend less on it. The US spends on the most per student in the world, and few would argue that the average student is even above average vs the OECD nations. But the greater point is that there are many areas we spend a lot of money on, that we cannot demonstrate a return. A classic example would be the huge amounts of spending on first nations programs and benefits, which have arguably not moved the overall status of native people anywhere. Meanwhile immigrants arrive with nothing, and far outperform them without the benefit of that spending.

Edited December 29, 2014 by hitops

[PIK]

I thi k ONT just might go with harper ,because of the hell we have been thru in this province, a liberal PM and a liberal Preimer together is enough to make people sick.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't disagree, but again that's a philosophical statement. We can argue about how far we need to go redistributing people's money to call ourselves meritocratic.

It's no more 'philosophic' than talking about infrastructure. If you don't have the best people ascending to positions of leadership then your society will fall behind.

'Meritocracy' doesn't mean the same as 'egalitarian'.

Becoming meritocratic in intent, also, does not necessarily mean your policy to accomplish that actually results in more meritocracy, in fact in could result in less.

Yes, you can read up on something called the Gini coefficient with regards to that. A society that is too equal provides less incentive to excel.

But the greater point is that there are many areas we spend a lot of money on, that we cannot demonstrate a return. A classic example would be the huge amounts of spending on first nations programs and benefits, which have arguably not moved the overall status of native people anywhere. Meanwhile immigrants arrive with nothing, and far outperform them without the benefit of that spending.

There is also a baseline of humane support that we, as a society, agree to give to all people. Out of context, it would seem that some people simply don't make the best use of that support but of course there are reasons for that. The idea that cutting a welfare cheque should solve problems for all groups is incorrect, as you will agree.

Not everything can be quantified, or shown to be worthwhile but much can. If a project provides only a break-even return but doesn't cost more, then the intangible benefits could make it worthwhile.

[PIK]

Lets look at Ottawa. almost 50 shootings this yr. Harper wanted the minimum to be 3 yrs in jail for using or possessing a restricted weapon and 5 for the 2nd time and the left fought it all the way to the SC. Even the ONT court said it was cruel punishment. Well the people in Ottawa are getting sick and tired of these gangs running around shooting others, and then the victims will not talk. That will be coming up in the next election. And of course all the women and kids being raped and killed by ISIS and the left will not even stand up to them. Could be a bigger majority.

[eyeball]

He was saying that left-of-centre voters need to be more mindful of the budget when discussing social spending.

No, he clearly said economy not budget.

The world is not a bottomless Cornucopian horn of plenty. There are very real physical and ecological limits to how much we can expect our economy to produce with it. Some people realize this and some don't. Governments behave like they don't get it.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. There's such a thing as wasteful and incompetent spending and each example of this diminishes the capacity for productive social programs. It also gives the Right something to rally around/against.

There's just as much wasteful spending the right would commit us to for the left to rally against.

[Moonbox]

No, he clearly said economy not budget.

Yes, I said budget to clarify his point, since you misinterpreted it. He was saying that many on the left have unrealistic views on how and where to spend money, not understanding that overspending has consequences.

There's just as much wasteful spending the right would commit us to for the left to rally against.

Maybe, but it depends on where you are and what you consider wasteful spending.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe, but it depends on where you are and what you consider wasteful spending.

Very often, it comes down to values it's true. The idea I have is that there are such things as 'common values'. Rewarding investment that has tangible results doesn't just mean social spending, it also refers to perks given to capital investment.

[Moonbox]

Very often, it comes down to values it's true. The idea I have is that there are such things as 'common values'. Rewarding investment that has tangible results doesn't just mean social spending, it also refers to perks given to capital investment.

Common values are what keep a society together. Even those, however, are things people will argue about and use to fuel their rhetoric. Most people would probably agree the government should provide security for their people. Depending on their angle, however, some might say the extremely modest 1% of GDP that Canada spends on its armed forces is totally inadequate, while others consider every procurement a waste and/or proof of war-mongering imperialism.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[overthere]

Common values are what keep a society together. Even those, however, are things people will argue about and use to fuel their rhetoric. Most people would probably agree the government should provide security for their people. Depending on their angle, however, some might say the extremely modest 1% of GDP that Canada spends on its armed forces is totally inadequate, while others consider every procurement a waste and/or proof of war-mongering imperialism.

security of citizens is or should be the #1 priority of any government.

The 1% spent on the armed forces is only one of many expenditures on security. Police and the entire justice system consume much more than that. And common values are secondary to rule of law, unless you consider rule of law a value.

I don't, I see it as far more fundamental than that.

Rule of law is what many, many immigrants to this country actively seek and what many residents take for granted.

eta to remove major typo

Edited December 29, 2014 by overthere

[Michael Hardner]

...some might say the extremely modest 1% of GDP that Canada spends on its armed forces is totally inadequate, while others consider every procurement a waste and/or proof of war-mongering imperialism.

If we can get it down to that level of discussion then it's just haggling, really...