The trouble with electoral predictions is that they come from a poll of one.

   

"I think it's high time for a Majority Conservative government to come in, clean up parliament and allow the provinces more freedom/flexibility into the way they see best how to run their lives.<br /> <br /> "clean up parliament" -- one has to wonder what is meant by this. I know that Conservatives want to get rid of government and privatize everything so that those in power don't have to go to the trouble of getting elected. Is that what this post means?<br /> <br /> The Conservatives have no intention of making anything easier for provinces. Harper himself said at an Ottawa rally on January 2 that he did not trust provincial or municipal politicians and that is why he directed his "day care" money to parents and corporations. No one has bothered to add up the costs he is planning to download to provinces yet but his health care, crime, and senate election policies alone will cost provinces a bundle.<br /> <br /> Given the costs of his priorities the tax points transferred to provinces will have to be small unless he plans to run deficits. Since the party he has put together is an economic and socially conservative party but not a fiscally conservative party it appears that he will have to run big deficits to implement such radical changes or make big cuts to other programs.<br />

   

If somebody came in with designs to REALLY change the federal government, the first thing they'd do is change the tax structure. Many regions and 'have not provinces' make HUGE contributions to the feds, and get absolutely nothing (relatively). Saskatchewan has been arguing for years to get the same benefits for their energy as Alberta and the Atlantic Accord provinces get. Yet ALL provinces and ALL poor people contributed to the mad cow bailout and to paying Toyota to bring more jobs to southern ontario. If have not provinces even got two years worth of the protections and investments Quebec and Ontario get, they wouldn't be 'have not' provinces long.<br /> <br /> This is unrelated but I've been reading the books in the "underground commission", these are the western based 'studies' which essentially bash government. THere's lots of good stuff in there, however, it is unfortunately quite biased, for example 'public private partnerships' completely escapes their notice. Anyway, it was funny because one of the books, written years ago was about government 'protections' and how the beef industry out west had 'escaped government notice and hopefully can keep it that way'. Well, we know what happened, 'mad cow' came along and all of a sudden these 'free marketers' were lined up at the trough!<br /> <br /> Of course we KNOW that Harper doesn't want to 'decrease government', he wants more police, more military, more lawyers for all the court challenges, etc.<br /> <br /> If a party actually really DID want less government they'd win in a cakewalk. Of course we know generally what this is, each person aligns themselves on a 'team' so government becomes a game. I find it hard to believe that people actually believe that there will be less corruption and pork barreling than there is now-just different pigs at the trough.

   

Marcarc, I have no idea of what you would define as "less government." The concept of "less government" means different things to different people. To many Conservatives "less government" means only no social safety net for those who run into hard times. To them security is a bad thing and society needs to be under constant stress because everybody else is lazy and good for nothing.<br /> <br /> I suspect that the way they plan to "cut government" is simply to privatize current government responsibilities as they have done in the US. If you privatize the delivery of health care, prisons, certain parts of military operations, national infrastructure, etc. you can claim to have "cut government." It is more costly and generally to pay for this new system you have to cut social spending so that most tax money goes directly to the corporate clients of the government. <br /> <br /> The other thing is that none of this spending addresses the problems. Their so-called "child care" policy is merely an expensive vote buying scheme. The tax cuts for corporate day cares are a joke. Most socially responsible, progressive, large corporations already provide day care for their employees children. Tax cuts are not going to have any impact on the rest and small business cannot afford to take part. Instead of focusing on the problem of gun violence in Toronto, they have adopted broadbased, expensive punishment programs. It is almost as if they think they have to use a nuclear bomb to break up a street riot.

   

To give an idea of what I'd call 'less government' is exactly that-fewer bureaucrats. This is essentially at the federal level, as was stated elsewhere, the feds have absolutely nothing to do with implementation of health, yet there are hundreds of health bureaucrats in Ottawa who do nothing. <br /> <br /> 'Less government' means fewer departments. In the last session alone THREE entirely new departments were 'dreamt up' which will accomplish no more than what other departments were doing -and all three were endorsed by the conservatives.<br /> <br /> The department of indian and northern affairs should employ nobody who is not native. Billions a year go into the native bureaucracy and natives get very little of it. Most of the staff would not even be necessary if the feds did their job and settled land claims that they are dragging out for eternity.<br /> <br /> Even those who argue for 'big government' like the NDP certainly don't argue for 'big bureaucracy' and more pigs at the trough, that's what I mean by 'less government'.

   

[QUOTE BY= Innes]"clean up parliament" -- one has to wonder what is meant by this. I know that Conservatives want to get rid of government and privatize everything so that those in power don't have to go to the trouble of getting elected. Is that what this post means?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Ever ate at a restaurant you didn't like?<br /> <br /> What did you do? Go back there again?<br /> <br /> No. You wen't elsewhere, and that restaurant lost business.<br /> <br /> The almighty dollar and an ensured free-market, in which government will ensure against monopolisitic practices will keep businessmen honest.<br /> <br /> You want to talk about voting? How about the most powerful votes of all?<br /> <br /> PEOPLE VOTING WITH THEIR DOLLARS.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Innes]The Conservatives have no intention of making anything easier for provinces. Harper himself said at an Ottawa rally on January 2 that he did not trust provincial or municipal politicians and that is why he directed his "day care" money to parents and corporations. No one has bothered to add up the costs he is planning to download to provinces yet but his health care, crime, and senate election policies alone will cost provinces a bundle. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Harper wants to give incentives for private companies to offer daycare. That doesn't sound like more government to me, sounds like Harper is asking the private sector to help out.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Innes]Given the costs of his priorities the tax points transferred to provinces will have to be small unless he plans to run deficits. Since the party he has put together is an economic and socially conservative party but not a fiscally conservative party it appears that he will have to run big deficits to implement such radical changes or make big cuts to other programs.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Harper knows that if he does do this, his election win will turn into a very quick defeat at the next election.<br /> <br /> Harper's going to have to run a tight ship.<br /> <br /> (I know none of you believe that, but do you seriously believe that Layton or Martin would do better)?

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Even those who argue for 'big government' like the NDP certainly don't argue for 'big bureaucracy' and more pigs at the trough, that's what I mean by 'less government'. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The NDP was all for big bureaucracy!!! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?<br /> <br /> Right, like as if Bob Rae was a master at small government! The guy basically almost destroyed Canada by wrecking Ontario.<br /> <br /> People may have issues over Mulroney...but Bob Rae ensured that the NDP party won't win ANY majority governments.<br /> <br /> *forever*

   

"Do you want ANOTHER Minority government that will be under the constant threat of an election call???<br /> <br /> Or do you want a MAJORITY government that can get things done?"<br /> <br /> I want a MINORITY, I just cannot trust any major party with a majority, they have all proven that they rapidly become arragont dictators once they have a majority hold upon our governing body. They ram their ideas through with little regard for decenting opinion. Minority governments CAN work if all sides try and find common goals and concensus, but our major parties simply do not want to consider that the other side may have good ideas also, if the other lot came up with it it must be wrong is their attitude. Add to this the ever increasing power and control that is invested in the PMs office and a majority Canadian Parliment looks more and more like a dictatorship every day.<br /> Put very simply I do not trust a majority government to do what is best for the country but only what is best for the party, their cronies, and the lobbyists. Sad comment, but thats how I feel.

   

[QUOTE]Harper wants to give incentives for private companies to offer daycare. That doesn't sound like more government to me, sounds like Harper is asking the private sector to help out.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is obviously an ideological difference. You have no problem with transferring your tax dollars to large profitable corporations rather than non-profit community groups that provide most of the daycare now because it is not profitable to do so for the private sector.<br /> <br /> Publicly responsible large corporations already provide day care for the children of their employees. Tax reductions are not going to provide enough incentives for small companies to participate. Who will? <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]The almighty dollar and an ensured free-market, in which government will ensure against monopolisitic practices will keep businessmen honest.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> There is no such thing as a "free" market. Someone always controls markets. The new Conservatives are not opposed to "free market" monopolies only government or regulated monopolies. Their theory is that once a "natural" monopoly occurs the "free" market will encourage someone else to enter the field. With the control over capital so concentrated (if you want I can give you the data) control over the marketplace is in the hands of a small group of people and everyone else must operate within narrow parameters defined by those individuals acting in their own-self interest to control the market.<br /> <br /> Your restaurant example is a good one. In small and less affluent centers large "fast food" multinationals control the entire market. Because they are so large they can buy in bulk and undersell everyone else. Since the market is not large or rich enough to sustain a good quality restaurant they can easily put them out of business. People who want good food are out of luck if they need to eat out. Good restaurants start up but go out of business quickly because they cannot compete in price. <br /> <br /> Because so many people are eating junk the cost of health care goes up. Obesity levels increase. Heart and strokes are more common. By this time the damage is done and people are dying prematurely. <br /> <br /> What about all of those people with lung problems forced to work in places like Toronto? Do they have the freedom to find jobs elsewhere since the "free market" finds it cheaper to centralize everything in one concentrated region?<br /> <br /> You may find "free" which are really privately controlled markets the answer to everything but in my mind they are just as often the problem. We need a more balanced approach.<br /> <br /> In this election I am considering voting for a more positive choice not for the lesser of two evils.<br /> <br />

   

Again, we don't have proportional rep., so its a good practise to check the votes in your riding. In my riding the liberal guy was ahead by 15,000 votes, and the tories were second. So it really makes no real difference WHAT I do and certainly no room for 'strategic voting'. If politicians can represent ridings they don't live in-why can't I vote in a riding I don't live in?<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br /> <br /> As for other comments, Ontario under Rae was positively blissful compared to Harris. Following that logic, Harris made sure nobody would ever elect a tory government-ever. That, of course, is completely silly and everyone knows it. Provincial politics are nothing like federal politics, and provincially there are two NDP governments, almost three. Southern Ontario KNOWS that they decide which party will be PM, and KNOWS that NDP can't even hope to win, so there actually isn't much point in even voting for them. I'm always surprised so many people DO vote for them when they know that in the vast majority of ridings they can't win.<br /> <br /> The NDP didn't add any more layers of bureaucracy to Ontario's government than the previous liberals, except the OMB, which was largely voluntary under their watch, but turned into a cash cow for the tories and their 'friends'. Harris simply cut all the frontline workers who actually DID anything, which is why we ended up with poisoned water drinkers.<br /> <br /> That has nothing to do with the party though, that's our unfortunate electoral system which has almost half the population completely ignoring the entire system altogether.<br /> <br /> Finally, I quite agree with Harper that money SHOULD be able to get to parents who home school kids, and anybody who knows anything about the liberal plan knows that it is FAR from being a 'government program'. The money DOES go to private companies, although some richer cities have municipal programs at their YMCA or other places. However, Harper doesn't plan on giving those parents much.<br /> <br /> Combining the plans of ALL three parties clearly makes the most sense-since each has a different market focus. Combining all three would do what I think every government program would do-which is to look at the needs of the people using them. This is something our governments NEVER do, because they've always had majorities. The only real hope would be a minority government.<br /> <br /> People talk about the threat of 'another election', this, I believe, is unfounded except under very special circumstances. What is very seldom discussed, if ever, is that IF the NDP really have no traction this time, how much of it is from the irate public who KNOW that the NDP forced the election. Of the voting public a good half didn't want to see an election. If another election were called quickly then people would be absolutely violent against whichever party forced it.<br /> <br /> Also, since it would be the first time two consecutive minority governments were in place, then it would force them to work together, I don't think canadians would tolerate any less. The unfortunate thing is that canada has such a history of anti politics that nobody ever knows anything about the vast majority of legislation that the government is passing. Again, I suggest 'howdtheyvote.ca' and take a look at voting patterns.<br /> <br /> One final point I can't resist-why is Harper planning ANY child care rebates for anybody? Why isn't he just cutting their taxes like any good conservative would?

   

[QUOTE]Combining the plans of ALL three parties clearly makes the most sense-since each has a different market focus. Combining all three would do what I think every government program would do-which is to look at the needs of the people using them.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I agree that the plan should be directed to the needs of the market but you will never get an ideologically right or left wing government to do this. I was actually hopeful that the Liberal plan would do exactly that by looking at the needs of each market and tailoring it to needs. Some of the problems that seem to have arisen is that the federal negotiators again tried to make the plan a "one size fits all plan."<br /> <br /> At one level a "one size fits all" system makes it easier to enforce accountability at a lower cost but on another level it creates unfairness because of differing market circumstances. The Harper plan is biased towards larger centers with large corporate employers. Tax breaks do nothing for the non-profit centers that dominate the market in my region.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]One final point I can't resist-why is Harper planning ANY child care rebates for anybody? Why isn't he just cutting their taxes like any good conservative would? [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The obvious answer that it would not buy as many votes!<br /> <br /> Working parents already get tax breaks for child care. I don't know whether the $1200 will replace the current tax breaks. If it does it is possible that some parents might be worse off under the Harper plan. The whole issue is that the new Conservative concept of society is that the rich must benefit from any universal program as much as the poor. Since it is only the more affluent who can afford to make the choice to say at home Conservatives want to make sure they get their share of tax money even when higher income earners benefit more from other tax cuts. It is interesting that in 1994 Harper was totally opposed to universal programs and was applauding the ending of family allowances.<br /> <br /> Before the family allowance system ended under the Mulroney government the tax system was such that some families of four, with a stay at home parent, receiving family allowance would pay would pay more income tax than a family with the same income and no children. In other words, all the family allowance was taxed back plus more. There have been considerable changes to the tax system since then but it may be that this will be the case with the Conservative plan. <br /> <br /> The new Conservative philosophy entitles the affluent in ways that are meant to enforce the current socio-economic order while empowering the top 10-20 per cent through private, publicly unregulated markets, or what they call "free markets."<br /> <br /> If people did not like the Mulroney government because it moved somewhat to the right I cannot understand why they think that they will like a more extreme version of the Mulroney Government any better.<br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Rural] I want a MINORITY, I just cannot trust any major party with a majority,[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Hey, if you want Stephen Harper to be telling Martin/Layton what to do 'or else' everytime Martin/Layton wants to do something, sure.<br /> <br /> Go ahead.<br /> <br /> Minority governments are bullshit.