Harper's Tories spend like taxes are their own personal money.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Your "debate" is well below the level of anything that could possibly be called a "debate". Now that you've lost any credibility and it is clear that you are here to yell, you get the same in return. You get whatever you ask for.

How have I lost credibility?

You claimed US health care costs are 60% higher than Canada's. I said they weren't. You dumped a bunch of random figures, insulted me then finally waded through the data to try and *prove* your point.

I elegantly refuted your point using the figures you provided.

Please explain what the level of *debate* necessary is.

Seems like I lost credibility because I questioned your unproven fact.

[Saturn]

Your "debate" is well below the level of anything that could possibly be called a "debate". Now that you've lost any credibility and it is clear that you are here to yell, you get the same in return. You get whatever you ask for.

How have I lost credibility?

You claimed US health care costs are 60% higher than Canada's. I said they weren't. You dumped a bunch of random figures, insulted me then finally waded through the data to try and *prove* your point.

I elegantly refuted your point using the figures you provided.

Please explain what the level of *debate* necessary is.

Seems like I lost credibility because I questioned your unproven fact.

Pathetic. I gave you authoritative sources, not "random" sources. You ignored them, then said you couldn't calculate a simple figure based on them. Finally, you claimed that PPP is 1.03, a number which you allegedly read in The Economist. Not true, not possible, The Economist wouldn't claim it's true. You then proceeded to use this number and my "random" numbers to show that US health-care costs are only 55% higher than Canadian costs. Just pathetic.

You get what you ask for!

[Wilber]

Bring on the election and we'll save money by doing it!!

The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates.

Wilber, very good points but...

You are wasting your effort. The Liberals know that part of the reason they lost last January was their fiscal irresponsibility and blatant theft via Adscam.

So the less-analytical types, like Topaz, turn into *attack on money* mode.

Your logic and reason are lost on them.

Since 1993 we have had four elections. If fixed dates had been in effect we would have had two with the third not due till 2008. Every one of those mandates was cut short by the party in power to try and secure a political advantage, not due to losing a confidence vote in Parliament. This is not a partisan comment, until Harper committed himself to a fixed date, it has been the policy of both Liberals and Conservatives.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Since 1993 we have had four elections. If fixed dates had been in effect we would have had two with the third not due till 2008. Every one of those mandates was cut short by the party in power to try and secure a political advantage, not due to losing a confidence vote in Parliament. This is not a partisan comment, until Harper committed himself to a fixed date, it has been the policy of both Liberals and Conservatives.

Speaking purely non-partisanly that isn't true.

The timing of the January election was not cut short by the Liberals to try and secure a political advantage.

The Conservatives haven't done that in a long, long time. Given that four years is the benchmark for a normal majority Parliament. (As set out in Prime Minister Harper's proposed reforms aimed at fixed election dates.)

Despite conspiracy theories about Joe Clark "engineering" his defeat in 1980 over the budget, it clearly was not a mandate cut short by the PCs to secure political advantage.

The last Conservative who could be accused of that ploy was Diefenbaker in calling the 1958 election.

So to say cutting short their mandate to secure a political advantage is a policy the Conservatives haven't employed in nearly 50 years.

[Wilber]

I stand corrected, Martin did lose a confidence vote 2006 but he called an election in 2004 with a majority, as Chretien called elections in 1997 and 2000 with majorities. Four years may be the benchmark but five years is the legal maximum between elections.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I stand corrected, Martin did lose a confidence vote 2006 but he called an election in 2004 with a majority, as Chretien called elections in 1997 and 2000 with majorities. Four years may be the benchmark but five years is the legal maximum between elections.

The 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections were definitely for political advantage. But going back to 84, 88 and 93 those governments had all run a reasonable length of time.

Calling an election at the four year mark a move for political advantage is pretty weak. The four year standard exists for a number of reasons. That is why Harper proposed four years.

[Wilber]

Calling an election at the four year mark a move for political advantage is pretty weak. The four year standard exists for a number of reasons. That is why Harper proposed four years.

Not really, governments have readily waited five years when they were sure they would lose. That is self serving and for political advantage (or at least to stave off disaster) so why not wait five all the time? Still, a fixed four is better than on a whim.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Not really, governments have readily waited five years when they were sure they would lose. That is self serving and for political advantage (or at least to stave off disaster) so why not wait five all the time? Still, a fixed four is better than on a whim.

Readily?

It's happened three times in the last 120 years.

In one of the three Governments that have waited until a fifth year the governing party won a majority in the succeeding election.

So if I get you correctly a majority Government of less than four years is self-serving, a majority Government of four years is self-serving and a majority Government of five years is self-serving.

Is there any way for a majority Government not to be self-serving?

[Wilber]

Is there any way for a majority Government not to be self-serving?

Yes, stick to fixed dates regardless of their political fortunes.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yes, stick to fixed dates regardless of their political fortunes.

But no other way under the current system?

[mikedavid00]

Come on, Argus, you are one of the biggest ideologues I've seen around.

Laughable.

[Wilber]

Yes, stick to fixed dates regardless of their political fortunes.

But no other way under the current system?

Only if they lose the confidence of the house, then they have no choice.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Only if they lose the confidence of the house, then they have no choice.

So the Government definitely should not have a say in election dates? Only the opposition party's in a minority siutation? Under the current situation.

[Wilber]

Only if they lose the confidence of the house, then they have no choice.

So the Government definitely should not have a say in election dates? Only the opposition party's in a minority siutation? Under the current situation.

Yes, because it takes more than one party to do so. Being in government and having the ability to call an election whenever you want is like having home ice advantage and always getting the last change.

[jbg]

The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates.

I don't mind fixed election dates, but trust me, they're no panacea. The US is already in election mode, for 2008!

As far as legislation that dies when Commons prorogues, the same situation applies in the US. In fact, with fixed election dates, more legislation dies, since there is a clock staring at you, and the opponents of legislation can easily keep the parliamentary procedure shuffle going until the next "session" of Congress begins. Then it's back to square one, as it is in Canada.

[Argus]

Politics is never about perfect answers. Politics is often about picking the least-worse choice. In either event, it is certainly about choosing. If you don't choose then you're not part of the process, just an observer on the sidelines.

Don't lecture me or get on your higher than thou horse because some don't "choose" your brand of politics or parties.

Why shouldn't I? My "brand" of parties and politics is about choosing honest people who. You have other motivations?

I have "chosen" in every election at every level since I have been old enough to vote; I would bet that you would ridicule my decision "processes" because it wouldn't match yours.

If your decision processes involved voting for corrupt, incompetent lying thieves who put their own interests ahead of the country's welfare then I would indeed.

[Argus]

My dislike of Liberals and of today's version of liberalism has more to do with observation, common sense, and disdain for hypocrisy than commitment to a conservative ideology.

That's the problem - you are so biased by your "dislike of Liberals and of today's version of liberalism" that you seem to be loosing your clear judgement. Whether it is conservative ideology or dislike of liberalism, it is still inflexible and biased view, not logic.

I don't believe that a "bias" against lying crooks is necessarily a bad thing.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I have "chosen" in every election at every level since I have been old enough to vote; I would bet that you would ridicule my decision "processes" because it wouldn't match yours.

If your decision processes involved voting for corrupt, incompetent lying thieves who put their own interests ahead of the country's welfare then I would indeed.

LMAO

Power to you Fortunata.

I have skipped a number of municipal elections. Can't really be arsed to put in the time and effort to research the candidates, attend fora yada yada.

[Wilber]

The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates.

I don't mind fixed election dates, but trust me, they're no panacea. The US is already in election mode, for 2008!

As far as legislation that dies when Commons prorogues, the same situation applies in the US. In fact, with fixed election dates, more legislation dies, since there is a clock staring at you, and the opponents of legislation can easily keep the parliamentary procedure shuffle going until the next "session" of Congress begins. Then it's back to square one, as it is in Canada.

I don't say they are a panacea but of the two, I prefer fixed dates. You guys have elections of one kind or another every fall so you are always in election mode.

[Saturn]

I don't say they are a panacea but of the two, I prefer fixed dates. You guys have elections of one kind or another every fall so you are always in election mode.

The beauty of fixed dates is that it will force the politicians to learn how to work with each other instead of being in election mode all the time and causing an election whenever one side feels its numbers will go up.

[Fortunata]

Why shouldn't I? My "brand" of parties and politics is about choosing honest people who. You have other motivations?

I have the same motivation. However, I see no straight out honesty in either major party. If you would take the blinders off you might see the same as I do. Then you'd be voting out corruption and self serving power hungry politicians who would sell their own country down the drain to stay in power.

If your decision processes involved voting for corrupt, incompetent lying thieves who put their own interests ahead of the country's welfare then I would indeed.

Nice spin. You learn from our leaders and leader wannabees well.

[geoffrey]

I don't say they are a panacea but of the two, I prefer fixed dates. You guys have elections of one kind or another every fall so you are always in election mode.

The beauty of fixed dates is that it will force the politicians to learn how to work with each other instead of being in election mode all the time and causing an election whenever one side feels its numbers will go up.

Fixed dates cannot work in our system of government. It'd have to be a massively complete overhal towards a republican system in order for it to work.

The government must resign when it loses the confidence of the house for our system to work. Otherwise there is simply no ministerial accountability. If we take that out, we need to make other sweeping changes to modernize our system.

[hiti]

All told, that's a contingent of 10 politicos (five MPs, five political staffers) attending one conference at a cost of $60,743.19 just for air fare, an average of $6074.32.

Check Travel Web Sites:

*Air Canada (economy) $984.15

*Air Canada (executive) $3973.53

*Continental (economy) $978.98

*British Airways (economy) $2104.84

There were some comments that government officials should not be traveling in economy class. Well what about Air Canada executive for a saving of $21,007.89? That is the average annual wages for a very large number of Canadians and more than many seniors receive on their pension, especially due to the losses in their income trust folios.

I was really disappointed to read the comments supporting the excess spending by Steve's people when they had self-righteous fits while in opposition due to a Liberal Minister having a working dinner or lunch and spending $100.

[Saturn]

The beauty of fixed dates is that it will force the politicians to learn how to work with each other instead of being in election mode all the time and causing an election whenever one side feels its numbers will go up.

Fixed dates cannot work in our system of government. It'd have to be a massively complete overhal towards a republican system in order for it to work.

The government must resign when it loses the confidence of the house for our system to work. Otherwise there is simply no ministerial accountability. If we take that out, we need to make other sweeping changes to modernize our system.

Fixed dates work quite well around the world. Governments do resign when they lose the confidence of the house because it becomes impossible to put legislation through - a fixed date does not prevent them from resigning when they have to. However, under fixed dates a government cannot resign when it feels that it can get more seats (like 2 years into its term) and the government and opposition do not play cat and mouse games for months or years when that wide election window is open. In addition, the government does not get an unfair advantage due to the ability to choose the timing of an election. Fixed dates do not in any way affect ministerial responsibility - they just provide more certainty and make it more difficult for politicians to exploit/affect election timing.

[hiti]

Let's forget about the USA system and stay with our own. Fixed-date election measures are hollow and impotent. The Opposition could still bring down the government or the government could set up it's own fall in order to have an election.

Right now everything in the US is gearing up for the 2008 elections and the rest is shuffled into the backgrounds.

We are Canadians and we like it that way.