Why I might vote Conservative or Libertarian.

[Topaz]

If anyone didn't know but the surplus the liberals left, yes it was from EI BUT, they weren't the ones to spend it, it was the Tories and now too, they have taken 1 billion out of a emergency fund to pay for the income splitting, which isn't national emergency. The fires out West will be though costing millions and who knows what other national disaster will happen. Harper's gang has made a really mess of Canada's financially sector and social programs.

[PIK]

The Conservatives already blew through the surpluses before Harper even recognized that there was a recession. It wasn't until October of 2008 that the markets crashed and they didn't bottom out until March 2009. By then the Tories already blew through the surpluses handed to them by the Liberals and were into deficit spending already, in spite of the warnings about the markets. Two and a half years ago the Dow Jones recovered to an all-time high and continues to climb. Meanwhile, Harper has had a majority government since 2011, able to pass whatever legislation he chooses and still can't balance the books. He's had 8 years of deficit spending, added more to the debt than any other government in history, and has one of the largest cabinets this country has ever seen. Meanwhile, he's cut services to veterans, food inspections, rail safety, Stats Canada, and the list goes on. The mismanagement under the Tories is seriously off the charts.

And how would the liberals react if they faced the same world recessions as harper did. I would bet a lot worse.

[Topaz]

Ever wonder what kind of person supports Harper, well here one person who told it like he feels and later Kory had to say "I Sorry for those remarks". http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-duffy-questions-1.3194754

[Machjo]

I also see a few other problems, including the NDP's lack of respect for the science and laws of economics. It wants to raise the minimum wage, which can only legislate the unskilled out of the workforce.

The Green Party proposes to circumvent this problem by introducing a guaranteed income. Though clever in its ability to circumvent the problem that a minimum wage presents us with, it faces its own problems. For example, though a guaranteed wage might benefit a hard worker who is just down on his luck so as to reassure him as he decides, should he fail to find employment, to venture into business for example, it could only hurt the drug addict by feeding his addiction. One solution might be to issue each resident with a Government debit card that can be used only in participating shops in Canada to buy healthy food, shelter and clothing. Applying it to all Canadians from the poorest to the richest could remove stigma around it. To prevent people from collecting it while abroad, it could be set up so that this debit card could be used only from within Canada and must be used at least once a week to buy food or something else for that week's payment to go through. We'd also have to determine the right amount to prevent destitution while still motivating someone to go out and find work. The onus would be on the Green Party to sell me on a well thought out plan, though it has potential.

German-style codetermination laws could allow workers to sit on the board of directors of major companies

Also, we can't look only at giving the poor more money, but also at reducing the cost of goods and services to them. For example, allowing monolingual packaging and labeling in the dominant language of a province could save some companies some money in overhead costs that they could then pass on to consumers while also giving consumers more choice.

Another problem has to do with playing favourites between industries without a valid public policy rationale. For example, the NDP wants to increase funding for the promotion of the Canadian tourism industry. This investment will either fail if Americans are just not interested in visiting Canada, or succeed at the cost of other industries by putting upward pressure on the Canadian dollar.

What makes tourism a more worthwhile industry than the automotive, agricultural, or any other industry? Unless the NDP can make a public policy case for it, it should fund the advertizing of all of Canada's industries or none at all. If all of them, then why not just make a company's advertizing budget tax deductible? Alternatively, why not just lower corporate taxes and let the businesses decide whether advertizing is their best investment?

Of course the Conservative Party is equally guilty of playing favourites between industries. To universally lower corporate taxes is one thing, but to give a tax credit that only the oil industry can claim unfairly benefits that industry at the expense of other industries. Either the credit applies to all industries equally, or none at all. I think the Libertarian Party holds to this principle too.

If the goal is to help the unemployed, then why not just do so directly by increasing funding for trades and professional education for the unemployed for any trade or profession that is in short supply? An increasingly qualified workforce would naturally attract more businesses. Establishing a common labour market with other states could increase labour mobility. Promoting common educational standards for various trades and professions between member states in the common labour market could increase the value of diplomas, degrees, and other certifications internationally. Linguistic deregulating of the market could give indigenous, Chinese, and other Canadians more access to jobs that are now reserved for English-French bilinguals.

Advertising the travel industry is just beating around the bush of the problem. Plus, though I support cap and trade in principle as a more user-pay tax, why would I then want to actively promote an industry that consumes much oil so as to push oil prices up even higher?

Some might argue that the NDP is likely to provide the most funding for the least advantaged, but I look at it this way:

If I must choose between:

1. Paying ten dollars more in taxes with five dollars going to help the least advantaged and five dollars towards the special interests of the middle class that doesn't need my help, or

2. Pay ten dollars less in tax the entirety of which I could direct towards the least advantaged,

which is the most just option?

As an example of a public policy objective, I could see the Government promoting the sign-language media industry. Whereas the CBC is completely redundant due to the private sector providing plenty of English and French media, sign-language media is likely not sustainable in the private sector alone yet a case can be made for making public media more accessible to the Deaf, any profit from the export of such media being just an added bonus above and beyond its public policy objectives. Another added bonus would be the creation of jobs for the Deaf to produce Deaf media rather than just throwing unproductive money at the Deaf.

The Liberal Party has promised increased funding for education on reserves. I applaud that as a short-term solution, but not as a long term one. The Libertarian Party proposes just giving much land back to indigenous peoples so that they can exploit their own resources.

One problem I see with both the Conservative and Libertarian Parties is their fanatical drive to reduce taxes at all cost. One good thing with the Libertarian Party is that while it might win seats, it is not likely to form a Government, thus forcing it to work together with other parties and so moderate its policies somewhat. One good thing with the NDP is its lack of fear if raising taxes if necessary.

The Conservative Party also wants to expand the army reserves even though Canada is really not seriously threatened by anyone. Maybe, maybe Russia, but then the case would be for expanding regular forces, not the reserves.

I'm leaning towards the Libertarian Party at present (maybe Conservative in its absence), but other parties might win my vote if their rhetoric of helping the least advantaged should come to mirror their policy proposals.

[Machjo]

if, as you say, "you like to see balanced budgets"... don't fall into the myth of Harper Conservative "fiscal conservatism"! The following graphic per the Marc Garneau twitter feed... graphic includes source data reference to 'Finance Canada - Fiscal Reference Tables 2014; again... Harper Conservatives inherited a $13.8 billion surplus from the Liberal party... and turned it into... this:

I'm not denying that. I think part of the reason for this is the Conservative Party's ideologically driven and fanatical drive to lower taxes at all costs. that still does not give the other parties a free pass though. I don't want to vote for the best of bad options, but the best of good options.

[PIK]

Times were great and the liberals still had to take from the PS pension fund and the UI fund. Interesting.

[-1=e^ipi]

As an example of a public policy objective, I could see the Government promoting the sign-language media industry. Whereas the CBC is completely redundant due to the private sector providing plenty of English and French media, sign-language media is likely not sustainable in the private sector alone yet a case can be made for making public media more accessible to the Deaf, any profit from the export of such media being just an added bonus above and beyond its public policy objectives. Another added bonus would be the creation of jobs for the Deaf to produce Deaf media rather than just throwing unproductive money at the Deaf.

This makes sense. Support for the CBC made sense 80 years ago when the market for English media was essentially a natural monopoly, but not today. Sign language is arguably a natural monopoly.

[Machjo]

This makes sense. Support for the CBC made sense 80 years ago when the market for English media was essentially a natural monopoly, but not today. Sign language is arguably a natural monopoly.

But if the NDP, Liberal Party, or Green Party is going to spend my money on redundancies for those who don't need it, then I'd be better off they just reduced my taxes or at least made them charity deductible so that I could direct my charitable contribution to society in a more rational manner.

[Machjo]

Media vouchers might be an option worth considering too possibly.

[-1=e^ipi]

What we ultimately need are new political parties because all our options suck.

To bad these people don't form a party:

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/02/02/whats-the-economist-partys-platform/

Edited August 18, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Machjo]

Or they all run as independents to free up new ideas.

[Evening Star]

What we ultimately need are new political parties because all our options suck.

To bad these people don't form a party:

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/02/02/whats-the-economist-partys-platform/

What would this mean in practice?:

subject new social policy programs to randomized controlled experiments

[-1=e^ipi]

What would this mean in practice?:

Maybe it's best to explain this with an example.

Suppose you want to test 2 different types of health care services to see which is more effective: one has users register all their appointments with an online app, and one that has people come in person to register.

You might have 2 clinics in Canada try each of these two methods. However, it could be that one clinic had better results because it was in a town with a healthier demographic, or because the weather in one clinic was unusually mild that year, etc.

To eliminate these alternate explanations for the difference in outcomes between the two methods, you might want to try to test these two methods across many clinics and randomize which clinic does which method (so that alternative explanatory factors are not correlated with which clinic gets which method). As a result, you eliminate alternate explanations and can conclude with a degree of confidence which method is better.

[socialist]

What we ultimately need are new political parties because all our options suck.

To bad these people don't form a party:

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/02/02/whats-the-economist-partys-platform/

Difference is Harper knows how he is going to pay for the promises. The other guys have no clue. However, I do know they will impose a carbon tax, raise corporate taxes, introduce a $15.00 per day daycare plan. Do you think a union operated daycare can make it on $15.00 per day per kid. Not likely. Higher taxes? You bet. Of course lets tax the rich. That’s called class warfare my friend. Trudeau is going to spend $200 million creating schools on reserves that have no teachers or school houses. Need I say more.

[Machjo]

I'm increasingly leaning towards Libertarian or bust. I've handed blank ballots in the past and it's looking increasingly like I might do so again this election unless someone presents something good.

[kraychik]

Difference is Harper knows how he is going to pay for the promises. The other guys have no clue. However, I do know they will impose a carbon tax, raise corporate taxes, introduce a $15.00 per day daycare plan. Do you think a union operated daycare can make it on $15.00 per day per kid. Not likely. Higher taxes? You bet. Of course lets tax the rich. That’s called class warfare my friend. Trudeau is going to spend $200 million creating schools on reserves that have no teachers or school houses. Need I say more.

Not only is there no way for a free enterprise daycare operation in a competitive marketplace to be profitable at a $15 a day rate, but imagine how it's going to be with a bloated bureaucracy of governmental managers above them? There is no question that if such a program were implemented, the real cost would easily be over $150 a day in true total costs (if not more).

[Machjo]

I have neither conservative nor Libertarian candidate in my riding yet. I can choose between Green, Liberal, and NDP at present, the Green candidate appearing to be the most 'conservative' in relative terms.

I'm definitely leaning towards a blank ballot unless of these three can present something good.

[Machjo]

Still no Libertarian candidate in my riding. But unless my local CPC candidate is exceptionally competent and independent-minded, I'm exploring the possibility of the local Bloc candidate, not because I'm a sovereignist but because the Bloc does have some good ideas. For example, making all Federal offices in Quebec monolingual would save much money on bilingual services and might even prompt other provinces to follow suit by proposing that Federal offices in their provinces operate monolingually too.

I have yet to find out where the block stands on the rights of foreign nationals to due process and the presumption of innocence though.