Do you want an election now?

[cybercoma]

I've seen varying opinions on going to the polls and it would seem that most Liberal supporters are saying the people don't want to go to the polls yet.

What's your opinion? When do you want to go to the polls and why?

[August1991]

I've seen varying opinions on going to the polls and it would seem that most Liberal supporters are saying the people don't want to go to the polls yet.

What's your opinion?  When do you want to go to the polls and why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About 40% of eligible Canadians don't vote and I would expect these people to say they don't want an election now. NDP voters and hard-core Liberal voters don't want an election now. So, it is not surprising that polls show a majority of Canadians against an election now.

On a related point, it seems to me too that many left wing English Canadians define themselves by what they are not (rather than what they are) and are motivated by fear. For some reason, they believe a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would be the apocalypse.

[cybercoma]

About 40% of eligible Canadians don't vote and I would expect these people to say they don't want an election now.  NDP voters and hard-core Liberal voters don't want an election now.  So, it is not surprising that polls show a majority of Canadians against an election now.

On a related point, it seems to me too that many left wing English Canadians define themselves by what they are not (rather than what they are) and are motivated by fear.  For some reason, they believe a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would be the apocalypse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess those goes to show that about 40% of eligible Canadians don't really care either way. If they don't vote, I can't see it making a difference to them when the vote occurs.

I'm just wondering what the opinion is of those who actually pay attention to what's going on.

Paul Martin could potentially WIN an election should one be called right now, that's the other thing people aren't talking about. If you'll recall, during the last election they forcasted the Conservatives to win more seats than they actually did. So, just because the Conservatives get their election, they won't necessarily win.

If the conservatives do win and it's a minority government, we could potentially have another election by the end of the year/beginning of 2006.

Joy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

I guess those goes to show that about 40% of eligible Canadians don't really care either way

I vote, but don't really care as there is very little to choose from in any practical sense. I won't vote for the Liberals, though I am 'left of centre' I think the NDP is misguided, the CPC candidate in my neighborhood is The Villiage Idiot, so it doesn't give me much to choose from. Last time around i voted Green, but I have not heard anything to make me think it was a wise expentiture. Brian Mulroney took the Progressive Conservative Party (now there's an oxymoron) to the biggest downfall any political party has ever seen due to his personal 'alleged' corruption, among a few other reasons, so it makes me think that the liberals are only 'the crooks in residence', and the CPC's are merely 'the crooks in exile'.

As to looking forward to an election, that would imply some sort of hope. What I would really like to see is a 'srtong Canadian' get elected as dictator, for a tenure of some 20-30 years, who would offer different 'bills and laws' to vote on, and have that person live on only an expense account, publicly approved of, and would only receive their salary upon retirement.

[Shakeyhands]

I say wait but must agree that the more Harper pushes the more I like my mans chances....

[fracan]

I'm so sick of hearing Canadians don't want an election...

[The Terrible Sweal]

And yet, Canadians don't want an election.

[Conservative1]

As to looking forward to an election, that would imply some sort of hope. What I would really like to see is a 'srtong Canadian' get elected as dictator, for a tenure of some 20-30 years, who would offer different 'bills and laws' to vote on, and have that person live on only an expense account, publicly approved of, and would only receive their salary upon retirement.

What? That better not be a serious comment...if it is, you need your head examined!

[Melanie_]

OK folks, go easy on me, as this is my first post. I have been lurking for a few days, but am ready to come out of the shadows.

I am not ready to go to an election. The Liberals do not have a monopoly on political scandals, and I have no faith in Steven Harper. I think a minority government is an opportunity for all parties to have their say, and we need to get on with the business of governing this country. An election now would likely result in another minority, and we would find ourselves at the polls again this time next year. There are much better ways to spend our time and money than in continual jockeying for first place.

[Pateris]

Melanie,

Why don't you have any faith in Harper?

[Melanie_]

I don't have faith in Harper because I see him pushing an agenda that would take women back 50 years in time. I understand the Conservative value that women are responsible for caring for their children at home, but unfortunately that is not the reality for many women. Tax breaks are not going to allow me to stay at home; replacing my income will, and I don't see that happening. Nor do I want it to. I think I still have something to offer as a working taxpayer despite the fact that I have children. I am not looking for a free ride, I am willing to pay for my child care, but I want it available in a setting that is safe, nurturing, and respectful of my children and my needs as a working mother. Harper's idea that giving the money to families will give them more choice is false - I am not interested in finding patchwork child care that is vulnerable to caregiver's illnesses and their own changing lives. Centre based well funded child care is really the only option, and I don't see Harper as someone who will buy in to this. Luckily, I live in Manitoba, where child care is given good supports already, but I am very much in favour of a national program that will be available to families who need it, when they need it. This is not to say every child should be in care, just that good care is available when it is needed.

[Pateris]

Melanie,

On the child care issue - my big problem is that whenever government runs a big program like this is gets to be ridiculously expensive for the taxpayer. I also don't like the idea of "universal childcare" because that means that parents won't have the choice to take care of their children at home. Tax breaks will give people the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE whether they take care of their own children or pay someone else to do it. Some government assistance and government quality control of these centers is important - but they shouldn't be government run.

Also - if the government is going to run these centers, how much money do you think they should budget for the lawsuits when some "government employee" abuses a child? Think of the residential schools and the natives. If you think that WON'T happen again you are fooling yourself.

[Newfie Canadian]

Well Melanie, it do seem to be a time when minority government will be the norm rather than the exception.

If I may answer your question Pateris, in regards to Harper, I personally can't think of one politician active in politics right now that I trust or believe in or have faith in. There are a few that I would vote for, but I wouldn't give them the keys to my house or car.

The problem in the government right now isn't just the politicians, but the bureaucracy as well, and unfortunately, that doesn't change with an election.

So, add the politicians with the bureaucrats and how can you have much faith in anything plitical?

[willy]

Melanie,

The question I would ask you is, what should the federal government provide and what should your provincial government provide?

Professional women can benefit from tax cuts, but that is not the only answer. The provinces are in the best position to determine the most effective ways of delivering or facilitating more child care options.

The federal government is responsible for enabling the provinces to provide these services by fixing the fiscal imbalance.

It is not for the government to decide if women should be at home with the kids or in the workforce, it is the individual’s choice. That being said the structures can be in place to ensure the choice.

The Manitoba deal announced was $176 million for five years. They expect to create 5000 new child care spaces. That is $35,200.00 per child. The demand is for 20000 new spaces in Manitoba. Is the approach of the current government really going to deliver the system that will enable more women the choice to follow in a career or is it an overly expensive system that will only reach a small portion of people who knew someone to navigate the system to access one of the few spaces available. The cost then being passed on to the rest with little to no societal benefit.

[Melanie_]

Pateris - Universal child care does not mean that every child is in care; it just means that it is available if families need it. I really don't see tax breaks as a viable alternative to working - if I stay at home, that is one less taxpayer in the economy; if my husband then gets a tax break because I am at home, that is less tax being paid again. If every woman chooses this option, and every husband gets the tax break, who will be paying taxes? Those not taking advantage of this will be up in arms at the increased burden placed on them. And as I stated before, a tax break does not replace my income, so the freedom to choose argument is false. Also, imagine our workforce if every woman with a child under the age of 6 chose not to work. Look around your workplace and imagine how you would replace your coworkers.

I agree that there could potentially be issues related to abuse, but we run that risk in public schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Safeguards are in place there, and could easily be adapted to the child care field.

[Melanie_]

Wow, I jumped in with both feet, didn't I? My understanding is the 176 million will not all go towards opening new spaces; there will be training initiatives, one time capital costs associated with building new centres, and increases to wages for the people who work in the field. Parents will continue to pay their daily fees as usual; in Manitoba, it is $18.80 per day for a child between the ages of 2 - 6, and $27.40 per day for a child under the age of two. Those rates haven't changed in years, and my understanding is that they are low in comparison to BC and Ontario (perhaps one of you knows more about this). Private centres of course charge much more, and are only used by the highest income earners or those who are desperate for any care they can find. I am not suggesting that the government absorb all the costs of child care, just that they give enough support to make it affordable for parents to use, and still attractive to workers to stay in the field and provide long term stability to the children.

[Guest eureka]

Check your math, Willy! Also check your ideology!

There is no fiscal imbalance. "Fiscal imbalance" is part of the propaganda tool of the separatists. As you have been told time and time again, the provinces have the Constitutional jurisdiction to raise the money they require. They simply want the federal government to be seen as the tax collector while giving the money to the provinces.

That way, provincial governments are perceived to be Santa and the feds as the Grinch. It is despicable deception by several provincial leaders and a support for the Separatist movement in Quebec.

Melanie is completely correct in her approach to childcare. There have been many studies demonstrating the social need and the economic benefits that would outweigh the cost. The idea that it should be delivered by the provinces is just one more popgun for the provinces in the arsenal for their assault on federalism.

I don't want an election now because it would be destructive for Canada. It could result in an increased presence for these "Conservatives"-a misnomer and the Bloq and a boost for the PQ. Together they are the most destructive force in Canadian history.

And all for a storm in a teacup: for the actions of a few crooks.

[Pateris]

Melanie,

Less taxes to the government would be a good thing in my view - then they would stop wasting it.  My problem with your scheme is that ONLY parents who send their children to the government funded daycare get benefit from the taxpayer, while those who don't are paying for something they get NO benefit from.  It isn't fair and it creates a disincentive for people to raise their own children.

[cybercoma]

Has everyone lost their mind?

Every working person should be charged for government funded babysitters? Are you kidding me?

What a great place Canada would be if we gave our entire checks to the government, so they could give us everything we need....universally. Everyone would have equal access to (unequal) goods and services. Heck, we could even ration out food--no one would starve. They could even dictate what we eat so no one is unhealthy. This would relieve the burden on healthcare, which the government will also continue to provide. The government could confiscate all of our property and make sure everyone has a place to live--no one would be homeless. Post-secondary education would be free for everyone, we'd have the smartest country in the world.

What a great place to live.

[Melanie_]

Pateris, I think it is important that the money only go to regulated child care venues, be they home based or centre based. If no one is regulating the centres, no one is accountable for the money. Your earlier concern about the potential for abuse is only magnified in an unregulated system, and there would be a hue and cry about public money going into a black pit. As for incentive to "raise their own children", parents are doing so, whether they work or not. Having supports does not mean abdicating one's responsibility as a parent, and the reality is that our economy depends on having women in the workforce. For women to do so, they must have the peace of mind of knowing that their children are well cared for during their working hours.

Cybercoma, I can see you and I will have differences of opinion on many subjects! Let the games begin!

[scribblet]

And yet, Canadians don't want an election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't want funerals either but they go. I would prefer to wait until the Fall, if Gomery can produce a report earlier . Even so I don't think it hinges on a final report, don't we know enough now to know that they have lost the moral authority to govern?

A mid winter election is a no go and Martin knows that it will have to in the spring. Voters won't go out in bad weather, polls could be closed due to storms and many polls in the far north cannot be opened or accessed. There are good reasons for not having winter elections (when did we last have one in winter?) But Martin is aware of all of that and is counting on voter amnesia by the spring. (it doesn't take that long, they will have forgotten a week after Gomery is out of the news). cheers

[Argus]

I don't have faith in Harper because I see him pushing an agenda that would take women back 50 years in time.

Please expand upon this "agenda" the tory leader is pushing. It's the first I have heard of it and I would have expected to have heard at least something.

[last_niceguy]

I was ready for an election the day Martin moved his calculator (which is not good at adding) into the Office of the Prime Minister...

[August1991]

I will start a separate thread on national day care.

[willy]

We should not wait any longer for an election. I want to enjoy the BBQ season so lets get it on.

Waiting for the Gomery report will not prove useful. His mandate is such that the testimony will be more insightful. What do we expect him to deliver that will add more clarity?

k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;