So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, he was free to express his opinion and to introduce a private members bill. He would not have been free to do either had he been a Liberal or NDP.

He was stopped from bringing his motion because of Harper's previous statement that he had not intention to reopen the abortion debate.

[Argus]

C'mon now. How would the press NOT know a former Harper front bencher, ethics committee chair, was being transported to jail after his conviction. You must have just not watched that night.

There's a garage at the court house, as you might expect. As far as I know people being transported are normally driven into the garage, then out again, with the media not allowed inside. I've never seen a 'perp walk' here before.

[Argus]

He was stopped from bringing his motion because of Harper's previous statement that he had not intention to reopen the abortion debate.

No, he introduced the bill, one of several he's introduced, but couldn't get it through committee. So he dropped it in favour of another bill he introduced.

And what would happen to an NDP or Liberal MP who proposed introducing such a bill? Come on. You know. They'd be invited to leave the party.

[On Guard for Thee]

There's a garage at the court house, as you might expect. As far as I know people being transported are normally driven into the garage, then out again, with the media not allowed inside. I've never seen a 'perp walk' here before.

Some courthouses have secluded garages, some don't.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, he introduced the bill, one of several he's introduced, but couldn't get it through committee. So he dropped it in favour of another bill he introduced.

And what would happen to an NDP or Liberal MP who proposed introducing such a bill? Come on. You know. They'd be invited to leave the party.

When the boss says he doesn't want to reopen a particular issue, best not to try to reopen it. Especially if Harper is your boss.

[-1=e^ipi]

Minority governments are inherently less stable than majority governments.

That still doesn't imply an election every two years.

Party 1 has 34 seats in a 100 seat house. Party 2 is going to support them with their 15. Ah, but they're still short. Party 3 has 3% of the popular votes and thus 3 seats in the House. It's willing to support the coalition in exchange for its issue being pushed and supported. Even though 97% of the population either doesn't want it or doesn't care about it, the new government has to push that issue to gain those three final seats.

1. The resulting coalition will at least represent the majority of the population, unlike the less than 40% which we seem to get with the first-past-the-post system.

2. That is one possible election outcome out of many. There are many outcomes where the party with 3% of the popular vote may end up being irrelevant in all coalitions. Indices of measuring party power to influence decisions in parliament such as the Banzhaf power index or the Shapley-Shubik index generally increase more than proportionately with representation.

See Israel, where the little religious parties manage to wield enormous power in their pizza parliament, getting laws passed which the majority of the population don't like.

Again, that is one outcome out of many, both in terms of distribution of seats and in terms of possibilities of coalitions. If the other parties didn't like the religious parties, why don't they offer better coalition deals to the ruling party in order to not get those laws passed?

So is it better for us to make it nationwide and increase power and gas prices for everyone?

I'm just saying we are screwed either way, and I don't see how the federal liberals or NDP can make it much worse given that they already control the vast majority of provincial governments.

[Topaz]

The noon news said that Harper is saying he's going to increase the apprenticeship to 2500.00 from 2000. and there's a big announcement coming Tuesday. More spending and I wonder what the total of taxpayers money he's spending and is he also loose on the party's money??

[Argus]

When the boss says he doesn't want to reopen a particular issue, best not to try to reopen it. Especially if Harper is your boss.

And you think Trudeau and Mulcair would be different!?

[Argus]

The noon news said that Harper is saying he's going to increase the apprenticeship to 2500.00 from 2000. and there's a big announcement coming Tuesday. More spending and I wonder what the total of taxpayers money he's spending and is he also loose on the party's money??

Not all spending is bed. I support increasing apprenticeships.

[On Guard for Thee]

And you think Trudeau and Mulcair would be different!?

So finally you get it. Parties have policies.

[Argus]

So finally you get it. Parties have policies.

Hey, you're the one who is using such examples to support your thesis that Harper is a tyrant who allows no freedom for his caucus.

Or uh, did you forget what you were arguing?

[On Guard for Thee]

Hey, you're the one who is using such examples to support your thesis that Harper is a tyrant who allows no freedom for his caucus.

Or uh, did you forget what you were arguing?

Harper's the one with the reputation.

[Vancouver King]

So those are all the reasons you will be voting Conservative. Apparently you are one of the few intending to vote that way - today's Forum sounding taken within hours of Harper lying to Canadians at the GG, gives the NDP 39% national support - majority territory.

[Smallc]

So those are all the reasons you will be voting Conservative. Apparently you are one of the few intending to vote that way - today's Forum sounding taken within hours of Harper lying to Canadians at the GG, gives the NDP 39% national support - majority territory.

Until that poll is verified, it's an outlier, just like the main street poll.

[WIP]

What we have is bad. It's horrible.

The system is designed such that the PM is supposed to be accountable to parliament and implement the will of parliament. However, what actually happens is the PM and the PMO control the government's MP's.

The problem with parliamentary systems of government (assuming first-past-the-post representation) is that majority governments mean Prime Ministerial dictatorships. So whether it's provincial or federal, minority governments are more inclined to focus on the people's interests and be less inclined to overreach...Joe Clark being one glaring exception of note.

The trend towards concentrating more and more power in the PMO has been going on covertly for a long time...it was one of the big complaints against Jean Chretien. But Stephen Harper.....he's raised the bar and cleared it several times, as even ministers in the 'important' cabinet posts like foreign affairs, finance, trade and commerce, are taking orders from experts working out of the Prime Minister's office. Add in the changes to regulatory agencies and muzzling scientists, and he has to go as soon as possible!

I'm glad there is a distinct public mood that seems to be across the Country that Harper has been around too long and is too dangerous to keep around because he is trying to change the way we do government to something along the lines of the American system of working for corporate lobbyists. With the economy tanking, people in swing ridings (like my former hometown) are talking about which opposition party to pick, not keeping the Conservatives in power.

[WIP]

I don't believe it to be a colossal failed policy. Here is why.

Without the capacity to produce our own oil, we are at the mercy of OPEC.

That means they could decide to completely stop selling to us and our whole economy would crash in 30 days.

Millions could potentially die.

Now that we are energy independent, We are protected from them.

You are being even more short sighted then Harper. I agree I didn't anticipate blowback from our energy independence policy. But we are still better off in the grand scheme of things.

Most nations of the world were energy-independent before the coal and oil age began! They're a finite resource that...when it comes to "tight oil" is becoming too expensive to run the kind of energy-wasting economies we've developed, so we either get used to the post-petroleum era now when there is enough capital to make the infrastructure changes needed...or wait to the bitter end and fight over the last oil reserves like in the first two Mad Max movies. Of course those movies were made before awareness of present climate impacts were known, so a Mad Max scenario would be even worse in real life.

What we can't do, is expect oil-based economies to keep running along like they do today (because of declining reserves that are cheap to extract); but neither can we power the same kinds of economies we have today on "Green Renewable Energy" like the mainstream environmentalists keep trying to tell the public.

Certainly we need to build windmills and solar panels etc., but one of the reasons why the message isn't getting through to enough people is that too many politically and business-oriented environmentalists aren't honest with the public (or probably themselves either) about the sacrifices that will need to be made now to provide a decent future for our children and grandchildren and so on.

If we look at one important example of modern life - the private automobile...which really only took off after WWII when three carmakers, the oil industry and government leaders decided to tear down mass public transit in most places and build free highways for new generations of car-buyers; that was a deliberate long-term strategy that was being planned out during the War. But, though the auto age fueled economic growth for several decades, the long term costs of resource depletion and carbon added to the atmosphere, are sending the bills to us today. And making electric cars is a questionable solution on any level for reasons I'll get into if anyone really wants to discuss it.

Where we are heading...one way or another is the kind of world my father was growing up on, on a farm on the South Shore of the Gaspe back in the 1920's. Cars were becoming common in unprepared major cities at the time; but where he was living, there were only two people who owned their own cars: the priest and the village doctor. Everyone else had to either walk to wherever they were going, ride a bicycle, or go by horse-drawn wagon, which were still common.

If we don't do a serious job of putting back the streetcars and light rail systems that were abandoned after the War, those three will end up as the transportation options for most people in a declining world. The problem is nobody is really taking the future seriously...even the people who make a play at being environmentally conscious, so it's almost impossible to present these sorts of options in a political campaign. All of the parties will just continue tinkering around the edges by arguing over how much to invest in tar sands, not bring it to an end as fast as possible...as James Hansen advises us in his latest study, 2 degrees C of added average temperatures will already be catastrophic for the kind of civilization we have today, and even staying with the politically chosen 2 degree target requires a quick halt to the petroleum age on a global scale.

As for our foreign policy strait out of Washington. As we don't spend anywhere close on military as our U.S. Allies and protectors would like, I believe that as long as we are as dependent on their military strength as we are, we should be as helpful to them as we can.

If you want your own foreign policy, let's spend accordingly on military. Until we do, Harper plan is the best.

If we were in danger of a Soviet invasion during the Cold War, we were even more dependent on the US during the long reign of mostly Liberal Prime Ministers, and yet they flew an independent path from the Americans...especially when it came to the Vietnam War!

I'm surprised it hasn't become an issue yet, but Harper's decision to tag along on the US decision to buy Lockheed-Martin's latest white elephant...the F-35 fighter jets is one that has already cost us billions and will continue to do so years into the future! In the US, is plainly obvious that...among the oligarchs of business, the weapons contractors own the most politicians. That's the only thing that explains a monstrosity like the F-35 which is increasing in costs, is unstable and dangerous to fly, and has been beaten in war games even by the US's own F-16's! Not only is it expensive garbage, it is also obsolete garbage, as the rapid increase of much lower cost remotely piloted planes and bombs makes the F-35 the equivalent of France building the Maginot Line at the start of WWI.

Lockheed and most of the US weapons makers could come out with any piece of crap and sell it to the Government because they always own enough votes in Congress to do so. But what about Canada? What is Harper's rewards and his future rewards for buying in and pushing so hard on this F-35 fiasco?

[Argus]

Harper's the one with the reputation.

Only among extremists. And I gather you're giving up trying to make any sort of point.

[Argus]

The problem with parliamentary systems of government (assuming first-past-the-post representation) is that majority governments mean Prime Ministerial dictatorships. So whether it's provincial or federal, minority governments are more inclined to focus on the people's interests and be less inclined to overreach...Joe Clark being one glaring exception of note.

Clark being an exception because he was ever so slightly conservative on fiscal issues, you mean? He was brought down because he said we needed a 7c gas tax to help fund roads and lower our deficit. The entire election was over that. After the Liberals won they imposed a 12c gas tax. But they had a majority so they could make a tough decision. Clark tried to make a rough decision with a minority and the opposition, political opportunists all, pounced.

[-1=e^ipi]

They're a finite resource that...when it comes to "tight oil" is becoming too expensive to run the kind of energy-wasting economies we've developed, so we either get used to the post-petroleum era now when there is enough capital to make the infrastructure changes needed...

So your position is that if there exists a finite resource, we should never use the resource because it will eventually run out? How does that make sense? All resources are finite. Even the sun won't last forever. Why not use those resources to increase standards of living and the speed of technological progress?

about the sacrifices that will need to be made now to provide a decent future for our children and grandchildren and so on.

Increasing energy prices drastically in order to lower the jobs available to our children and grand children and slow the rate of technological progress. How is that helping?

I also find it ironic that you have such a pessimistic view of the future yet assume children and grandchildren as a given. If people don't have economic stability due to high energy prices, they might not bother to have children.

Also, sacrifices? How about not traveling around the world in jets going to South Asia? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24717-where-have-you-travelled-going-to-travel-open-thread/?p=1072253

Where we are heading...one way or another is the kind of world my father was growing up on, on a farm on the South Shore of the Gaspe back in the 1920's.

There are sufficient fossil fuel reserves to last us several decades and there are sufficient uranium 235 reserves to last us like 200 years. Then you have thorium, which is several times as abundant as uranium 235, and then you have fast breeder technology. So humanity can last several centuries on fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

as James Hansen advises us in his latest study, 2 degrees C of added average temperatures will already be catastrophic for the kind of civilization we have today, and even staying with the politically chosen 2 degree target requires a quick halt to the petroleum age on a global scale.

You mean his latest study where he skips the peer review purpose for political purposes? Where he assumes sea levels will rise exponentially, which has no basis in physical reality, especially since greenhouse gas radiative forcing is only rising roughly quadratically? Where he gets sea level predictions that not only are well outside the confidence intervals of the IPCC's predictions, but also disagree with paleoclimate data about the Eemian and make even Michael Mann highly critical? Where he doesn't even fit his faulty model to empirical evidence, but arbitrarily chooses parameters that 'feel right' and then rather than doing a properly uncertainty analysis, just handwaved a value of uncertainty that subjectively feels right?

The 2C target has no scientific basis.

Edited August 4, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Keepitsimple]

Clark being an exception because he was ever so slightly conservative on fiscal issues, you mean? He was brought down because he said we needed a 7c gas tax to help fund roads and lower our deficit. The entire election was over that. After the Liberals won they imposed a 12c gas tax. But they had a majority so they could make a tough decision. Clark tried to make a rough decision with a minority and the opposition, political opportunists all, pounced.

Yep. Absolutely true - and that's what happens when an honourable man tries to be straight with Canadians in a minority government......but it doesn't fit with the narrative of the Left.

[Argus]

Most nations of the world were energy-independent before the coal and oil age began! They're a finite resource that...

when it comes to "tight oil" is becoming too expensive to run the kind of energy-wasting economies we've developed,

Total nonsense. Gas and oil are still far cheaper and more reliable than any of the renewables, which is why everyone is still using them.The Germans are building coal power plants, for Gods sakes. The Japanese are, despite being afraid of them, re-opening nuclear plants. And there's enough fossil fuel to run our economies for generations to come.

I'm surprised it hasn't become an issue yet, but Harper's decision to tag along on the US decision to buy Lockheed-Martin's latest white elephant...the F-35 fighter jets is one that has already cost us billions

No, we actually haven't.

That's the only thing that explains a monstrosity like the F-35 which is increasing in costs, is unstable and

dangerous to fly, and has been beaten in war games even by the US's own F-16's!

I don't think you actually know much about it, but I'll leave that to others.

[Argus]

Yep. Absolutely true - and that's what happens when an honourable man tries to be straight with Canadians in a minority government......but it doesn't fit with the narrative of the Left.

No, and Clark was the softest of lefties, your prototypical progressive conservative that the Lefties all want back, and yet they still denigrate him.

[Freddy]

Most nations of the world were energy-independent before the coal and oil age began! They're a finite resource that...when it comes to "tight oil" is becoming too expensive to run the kind of energy-wasting economies we've developed, so we either get used to the post-petroleum era now when there is enough capital to make the infrastructure changes needed...or wait to the bitter end and fight over the last oil reserves like in the first two Mad Max movies. Of course those movies were made before awareness of present climate impacts were known, so a Mad Max scenario would be even worse in real life.

What we can't do, is expect oil-based economies to keep running along like they do today (because of declining reserves that are cheap to extract); but neither can we power the same kinds of economies we have today on "Green Renewable Energy" like the mainstream environmentalists keep trying to tell the public.

Certainly we need to build windmills and solar panels etc., but one of the reasons why the message isn't getting through to enough people is that too many politically and business-oriented environmentalists aren't honest with the public (or probably themselves either) about the sacrifices that will need to be made now to provide a decent future for our children and grandchildren and so on.

If we look at one important example of modern life - the private automobile...which really only took off after WWII when three carmakers, the oil industry and government leaders decided to tear down mass public transit in most places and build free highways for new generations of car-buyers; that was a deliberate long-term strategy that was being planned out during the War. But, though the auto age fueled economic growth for several decades, the long term costs of resource depletion and carbon added to the atmosphere, are sending the bills to us today. And making electric cars is a questionable solution on any level for reasons I'll get into if anyone really wants to discuss it.

Where we are heading...one way or another is the kind of world my father was growing up on, on a farm on the South Shore of the Gaspe back in the 1920's. Cars were becoming common in unprepared major cities at the time; but where he was living, there were only two people who owned their own cars: the priest and the village doctor. Everyone else had to either walk to wherever they were going, ride a bicycle, or go by horse-drawn wagon, which were still common.

If we don't do a serious job of putting back the streetcars and light rail systems that were abandoned after the War, those three will end up as the transportation options for most people in a declining world. The problem is nobody is really taking the future seriously...even the people who make a play at being environmentally conscious, so it's almost impossible to present these sorts of options in a political campaign. All of the parties will just continue tinkering around the edges by arguing over how much to invest in tar sands, not bring it to an end as fast as possible...as James Hansen advises us in his latest study, 2 degrees C of added average temperatures will already be catastrophic for the kind of civilization we have today, and even staying with the politically chosen 2 degree target requires a quick halt to the petroleum age on a global scale.

If we were in danger of a Soviet invasion during the Cold War, we were even more dependent on the US during the long reign of mostly Liberal Prime Ministers, and yet they flew an independent path from the Americans...especially when it came to the Vietnam War!

I'm surprised it hasn't become an issue yet, but Harper's decision to tag along on the US decision to buy Lockheed-Martin's latest white elephant...the F-35 fighter jets is one that has already cost us billions and will continue to do so years into the future! In the US, is plainly obvious that...among the oligarchs of business, the weapons contractors own the most politicians. That's the only thing that explains a monstrosity like the F-35 which is increasing in costs, is unstable and dangerous to fly, and has been beaten in war games even by the US's own F-16's! Not only is it expensive garbage, it is also obsolete garbage, as the rapid increase of much lower cost remotely piloted planes and bombs makes the F-35 the equivalent of France building the Maginot Line at the start of WWI.

Lockheed and most of the US weapons makers could come out with any piece of crap and sell it to the Government because they always own enough votes in Congress to do so. But what about Canada? What is Harper's rewards and his future rewards for buying in and pushing so hard on this F-35 fiasco?

I can see the future you talk about. The words I use to explain the problem, is we no longer produce anything real. Our whole economy is compromised Because we only are shipping and handling and retail based. I feel This consumer based economy will slowly die with the baby boomers.

The f-35 is wasted. I agree.

[Freddy]

And since both Trudeau and Mulcair want to raise my taxes, well... that certainly has an impact.As does the fact they've both announced a ream of expensive programs for which they have no funds available...

I'm with you, I'd rather sink with Harper then sink with Justin or Tom.

[Derek 2.0]

The desire for change comes upon every government after a time. People get tired of whoever is in charge, unless he's extremely personable, likeable and charismatic. Harper is none of those things. He's benefited from having a series of unlikeable and unappealing Liberal opponents to the point that Canadians are now seriously considering the NDP. He might squeak through this time, but it will definitely be the last. If the party doesn't get him out before the next election it will be hammered down to bare bones.

Explain the longevity of PET.......the man was more of a prick introvert than Harper.......come to think of it, I can't think of one Canadian Prime Minster that one would peg as personable....Canadians elect Nixons, not Reagans.