Youth vote

[BC_chick]

Economic issues become a much bigger concern for people as they move from being students to professionals. While people's views on economics might become more conservative overtime I doubt many people's social values - abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. - will change when they get older.

People don't change, society does and people end up in a time warp of their youth and hold the standards of those days as the ideal.

Edited June 16, 2016 by BC_chick

[Guest]

Over my dead body.

I hope I can remain relevent until death....but I'm willing to be most of our conservative members felt that way at one point as well.

[kimmy]

As I was discussing with Argus in another thread recently, it doesn't seem like conservatism has any message to offer younger voters.

"Pro-business" might have been an easier sell back in a time when "pro-business" policies would lead to businesses hiring young Canadian workers, rather than cheap Chinese workers or Temporary Foreign Workers.

"Fiscal responsibility" now just looks like the generation that had a golden ladder put up for them is pulling the ladder up behind them now that they're at the top.

-k

[Bonam]

As I was discussing with Argus in another thread recently, it doesn't seem like conservatism has any message to offer younger voters.

"Pro-business" might have been an easier sell back in a time when "pro-business" policies would lead to businesses hiring young Canadian workers, rather than cheap Chinese workers or Temporary Foreign Workers.

"Fiscal responsibility" now just looks like the generation that had a golden ladder put up for them is pulling the ladder up behind them now that they're at the top.

-k

I don't know... I'm a "younger voter" and "fiscal responsibility" appeals to me. There are plenty of young voters who make enough money and pay enough tax that the prospect of higher taxation and deeper debt is unappealing to them and so they would be receptive to the message of fiscal responsibility.

Pro-business... may be appealing depending on what they actually mean by it. If they mean reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses so that a startup doesn't have to spend half its time and energy on tax compliance when they aren't making any money yet anyway, I'd support that. If pro-business means making it easier for big banks to make risky bets with other people's money, then no, I wouldn't support that.

[Smoke]

"Fiscal responsibility" now just looks like the generation that had a golden ladder put up for them is pulling the ladder up behind them now that they're at the top.

-k

There's those comments again that seem to imply that older Canadians have had some sort of "free ride" that is not available for the younger generation of today. First, I would like to see you provide a list of benefits that my generation received in their "golden ladder" that the younger generation did not. I asked you for this once before and, as I suspected, no answer came. So let's hear it Kimmy, back up your claim.

Second, think about whom you are blaming for this. Conservatives over the years have advocated for less government and less spending, but it's the Liberals who want to blow the deficit up to 30B and damn the cost to future generations (see Right Honorable Justin Trudeau and his fawning followers for a perfect example). And you want to blame aging conservatives for this???

BTW, who is it that is "at the top" and can you provide a link of some sort to back up your bs. Thanks!!

[kimmy]

There's those comments again that seem to imply that older Canadians have had some sort of "free ride" that is not available for the younger generation of today. First, I would like to see you provide a list of benefits that my generation received in their "golden ladder" that the younger generation did not. I asked you for this once before and, as I suspected, no answer came. So let's hear it Kimmy, back up your claim.

Second, think about whom you are blaming for this. Conservatives over the years have advocated for less government and less spending, but it's the Liberals who want to blow the deficit up to 30B and damn the cost to future generations

yeah yeah yeah, the "Conservatives" want to yank the golden ladder, and the Liberals want to kick the can further down the road. So damned if we do and damned if we don't, right?

Between the early 1970sand the mid 1990s the Liberal and Progressive Conservatives racked up a half trillion dollar debt. What'd they spend it on? Infrastructure programs! Youth employment strategies! Subsidizing education! Government jobs!

When Paul Martin Jr started running the country's books in the mid 1990s, things changed. Party over. One of the most obvious things we say was that inflation-adjusted Canadian college tuition fees have gone up by a factor of 5 since the mid 1990s. Tens of thousands of government jobs slashed. Our infrustratured has crumbled-- although the economic stimulus by the Harper gov't after the 2008 GlobalEconomicMeltDown did inject a lot of capital into infrastructure for a couple of years. The hallmark of the Paul Martin budgets was cutting provincial transfer payments, and every year here in BC more rural schools are being closed down as there just isn't money to keep them open. Every year tuition fees increase by the maximum the law allows. Rent is going through the roof. Tuition is going through the roof. Every year my BC Healthcare medical services premiums get boosted by the maximum, because I'm not a boomer and don't qualify for the old-people subsidies you guys get.

"Guys! We can't afford to keep subsidizing education to the degree we used to. Also, we need to spend more money on hip replacements and seniors care!"

-k

[Smoke]

Thanks for the civil response, I guess my last comment was out of line....I am sorry. It was under Mulroney that the phrase "everyone will need to tighten their belts" first started being uttered by politicians, and they have been telling us that ever since. College tuition fees are set by the institutions themselves, not government so I don't think you have an argument there. The original costs of infrastructure are far greater than the cost of maintaining infrastructure. Yes some politicians have kicked that can down the road, but it isn't because of a lack of tax revenue. It's because of the myriad of useless programs and ever increasing wages and benefits for government employees that chokes the system. Schools are being closed because enrollment is down, yet the cost to taxpayers continues to rise. I am a bit confused with your second reference to tuition fees. Do you mean for secondary? I thought we didn't pay tuition fees for secondary. If you're referring to post secondary, then see above. In Ontario the McGuinty government added the healthcare tax...$600/year for an average family, yet many healthcare services were de-listed during the same time. Yes us oldtimers are paying that tax as well.

In addition to tuition fees, other things have increased in cost at a rate that outpaces inflation. Gas, insurance, many household goods included. Even the cost of food has skyrocketed. But those things are not provided by taxpayers, so I do not agree with your assessment. In fact I have seen many programs and services added or increased in the last several years. Programs and services that were NOT available to my generation. I can remember while my wife had just started back to work after her 6 month maternity leave and watched the Chretien government change it to one year maternity leave. That is one anecdotal example that I can think of off the top of my head.

I will agree that ever since I can remember, taxes have continued to increase, yet services are continually being cut or clawed back. I blame that on the burgeoning cost of government employees and their benefits. So yeah, we had more things covered by healthcare back in the day, but us boomers didn't need those services then. Now that we do, things are being cut to pay for programs for the "younger" generation who has more votes to offer.

I guess everyone believes "their" generation has it (or had it) tougher than anyone else. It's not like we enjoyed some kind of "golden ladder". My family struggled for many years, but both of us working (for over 40 years) has made it more comfortable for us. Maybe you were expecting to have what we now have at 30 yrs old.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Smoke

[TTM]

Most post secondary institutions receive government funding (ex. for most universities tuition is less than half of the actual costs). As gov'ts cut back tuition increases. There is a direct relation

[taxme]

Canadian youth voted in "unprecedented numbers" in the 2015 federal election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-youth-turnout-2015-1.3636290

This doesn't bode well for the CPC and this is exactly why they need to get with the times and ditch a lot of their backwards policies. Trudeau caused enough of a sensation and ran an excellent campaign that got the youth vote out in force to support him.

If they keep coming out in elections, the CPC are going to be relegated to perpetual opposition. I think this also helps the NDP, as long as they select a good leader. If the Liberals need removing, the youth vote are not going to turn to the CPC as their 2nd choice, especially given their recent history. The CPC can do something about this.... and his name is Michael Chong... or perhaps Michelle Rempel.

Elect another stodgy old guy with the same failed policies and borderline bigotted campaign (barbaric cultural practices snitch line) and they don't have a chance.

Just tell the youth that if they vote for the PC's in the next election they will all be given new computers and new cell phones, and free University tuition, that should work. And if the working and older generation vote for the PC's, they will get rid of the GST, and raise the old age pension. That should really work for them They should get a huge majority. Give something to get something.

Edited June 27, 2016 by taxme