# Politics in 2015



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

David Perkins, in the _Globe and Mail_ starts us off for a discussion of politics in what's left of 2015:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Oct 2015)

Look, Ma! No safety net.

I wonder how long it will take for Margaret to come out of the woodwork and defend "her baby" after the first serious negative media report on how he is doing, or the first attack by Sun media's infotainers?


----------



## dimsum (22 Oct 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look, Ma! No safety net.
> 
> I wonder how long it will take for Margaret to come out of the woodwork and defend "her baby" after the first serious negative media report on how he is doing, or the first attack by Sun media's infotainers?



I wouldn't be surprised if she has been nicely asked not to do just that - it would then bring up all sorts of ammo for snipes about needing Mom to defend him, etc.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Oct 2015)

If Pierre-Elliot Trudeau could not control her, do you think any of the current Liberal political hacks can  ;D.


----------



## Privateer (22 Oct 2015)

CBC article by Neil Macdonald: "Let's give Margaret Trudeau the respect she deserves"

link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-politics-margaret-trudeau-neil-macdonald-1.3282894

Excerpts:


> Margaret Trudeau is now several times a grandmother; a retiring figure not terribly well known anymore to most Canadians.
> 
> There was a time, though, when she was one of the most famous women alive. Not just national fame, but consuming, global, Angelina Jolie fame.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

I skimmed that this morning.  Since I don't think she deserves much respect, I foresee no problem fulfilling MacDonald's wish.

"When she ran off to party with the Rolling Stones (who of us wouldn't have if we'd had the chance?)"

That's easy to answer - people who merit respect would not.  When you get a wild hair up your *** and desert your family to be a groupie, you don't merit respect.  At least the GTOs were entertaining and tried to find some purpose.

[Add: maybe he could write another article explaining why Stephen Harper deserved no respect.]


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on "unrest" in the first Conservative caucus and notes that defeated MPs have not been invited to the Conservative caucus meeting in Ottawa.

Paul Wells says that this action "is a highly unusual step for any party to take. As a rule, both newly-elected and returning MPs, and incumbent MPs who ran but were defeated, are invited to the first meeting after caucus. Defeated MPs still have flight privileges on for a short time after an election, so they can return to Ottawa to clean out their offices. As a result, they are usually able to come back for one final caucus meeting with their former colleagues.

Those meetings can sometimes get hot for a leader, and a party apparatus, that failed to secure re-election. Defeated MPs have just spent months knocking on doors, and become conduits for the anger they heard from voters. It is apparently for that reason that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s allies in the party leadership, including Party President John Walsh and Harper’s chief of staff Ray Novak, are not inviting defeated candidates for the first post-election caucus meeting, apparently in mid-November: They want to contain a rising tide of anger against Harper and his campaign."

And he adds that "The attempt to shield the Conservative Party leadership from criticism is consistent with patterns that set in during the campaign itself. Sources said Novak was so defensive of Harper that he angrily rejected reports that the leader had become a personal liability for the Conservatives on the campaign trail. And there is growing concern in the party over Harper’s apparent plan to stay on as an MP.

“We can’t have the frank discussions that are necessary for renewal if Mr. Harper is there in the room, like Diefenbaker after he stopped being Tory leader,” one MP said."

But, as one member suggested, in another thread, Prime Minister Harper may welcome the legal immunity that Parliament affords to its members.


----------



## Privateer (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on "unrest" in the first Conservative caucus and notes that defeated MPs have not been invited to the Conservative caucus meeting in Ottawa.
> 
> Paul Wells says that this action [size=12pt]"is a highly unusual step for any party to take. As a rule, both newly-elected and returning MPs, and incumbent MPs who ran but were defeated, are invited to the first meeting after caucus. Defeated MPs still have flight privileges on for a short time after an election, so they can return to Ottawa to clean out their offices. As a result, they are usually able to come back for one final caucus meeting with their former colleagues.




It would be interesting to see what would happen if they just took it upon themselves to show up anyway.  

Would the meeting happen before the new Parliament convenes?  If so, would they not still be part of the existing caucus?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on "unrest" in the first Conservative caucus and notes that defeated MPs have not been invited to the Conservative caucus meeting in Ottawa.
> 
> Paul Wells says that this action [size=12pt]"is a highly unusual step for any party to take. As a rule, both newly-elected and returning MPs, and incumbent MPs who ran but were defeated, are invited to the first meeting after caucus. Defeated MPs still have flight privileges on for a short time after an election, so they can return to Ottawa to clean out their offices. As a result, they are usually able to come back for one final caucus meeting with their former colleagues. ....



That strikes me as more than a bit mean spirited to people who've worked their butts off.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

Brian Gable, in the _Globe and Mail_, reminds us that, back when Stéphane Dion Dion was leader there was talk of an _alliance_ between the Greens and the Liberals and Ms May was, back then, angling for a seat at (or near) the cabinet table ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/

               ... so there is some weight behind Mr Gable's speculation. It's not the Prime Minister designate Trudeau has a shortage of seats or of qualified women or of greenies, for that matter. But there might be some merit, to paraphrase
                   the late US President Lyndon Johnson, in having Ms May "on the inside, pissing out, rather than on the outside, pissing in."


----------



## Underway (25 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on "unrest" in the first Conservative caucus and notes that defeated MPs have not been invited to the Conservative caucus meeting in Ottawa.
> 
> Paul Wells says that this action "is a highly unusual step for any party to take. As a rule, both newly-elected and returning MPs, and incumbent MPs who ran but were defeated, are invited to the first meeting after caucus. Defeated MPs still have flight privileges on for a short time after an election, so they can return to Ottawa to clean out their offices. As a result, they are usually able to come back for one final caucus meeting with their former colleagues.
> 
> ...



This makes me very worried for the Blue.  The main issue for the Conservatives is that they could never get along internally, Harper dealt with that by crushing all dissent.  The main problem with the Conservatives is that they are self righteous and "nasty" and unlike the self righteous and "nice" on the left (tough love is a harder sell than big hugs for everyone).  The Conservatives are at their best when they treat everyone as an equal ( a core principal in conservative philosophy).  Only making things worse.  Hopefully a new interim leader can crack some heads together and get the ball rolling despite problematical egos.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> This makes me very worried for the Blue.  The main issue for the Conservatives is that they could never get along internally, Harper dealt with that by crushing all dissent.  The main problem with the Conservatives is that they are self righteous and "nasty" and unlike the self righteous and "nice" on the left (tough love is a harder sell than big hugs for everyone).  The Conservatives are at their best when they treat everyone as an equal ( a core principal in conservative philosophy).  Only making things worse.  Hopefully a new interim leader can crack some heads together and get the ball rolling despite problematical egos.




There is some speculation that the reason for part of this is that the _new caucus_ must elect the interim leader; but it's not as though we're dealing with a "cast of thousands," it cannot be beyond the wit of man to have two sessions: one to say "hail and farewell" and do the "depart with dignity" thing for defeat caucus members, and the other for those in the new caucus to elect the interim leader.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Oct 2015)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/trudeau-beats-harper-but-canada-could-prove-hard-to-change/story-e6frg6z6-1227580473286

*Trudeau beats Harper but Canada could prove hard to change*

The Australian, Henry Ergas, Columnist, Sydney

As he prepares to leave 24 Sussex Drive, the large, somewhat dilapidated, limestone house in the New Edinburgh neighbourhood of ­Ottawa that is the official residence of Canada’s prime ministers, Stephen Harper remains an enigmatic figure.

He proved far more successful than Canada’s political pundits predicted, becoming Canada’s sixth longest serving prime minister by transforming the seemingly fragile minority governments he led after the 2006 and 2008 elections into a solid Conservative Party majority in 2011. And although he had been caricatured as a right-wing extremist, he showed himself to be a cautious reformer who — in the words of Canadian journalist Paul Wells — operated “not by revolution or even really by evolution, but by erosion”.

Now, with the charismatic Justin Trudeau leading a reinvigorated Liberal Party to a convincing victory, Harper’s goal of entrenching a conservative ascendancy lies in tatters. But Harper’s studied incrementalism doesn’t mean his legacy is insignificant, nor does his defeat mean it will be readily reversed. And despite its resounding win, it will not be easy for the new Trudeau government to deliver on even its relatively restrained election promises, especially as Canada’s economy, which contracted for a second consecutive quarter between April and June, continues to suffer from low prices for the crude oil and minerals that are the country’s largest exports.

Lacking both the long experience and the rigorous academic training his father, Pierre Trudeau, had when he swept to office in 1968, Justin Trudeau may therefore find it hard to manage the conflict between high expectations and harsh realities, with the risks made all the greater by the complex and volatile features of Canadian political life.

It is natural for Australians to assume those features essentially parallel our own. And yes, there are similarities in the trends at work, and lessons to be drawn from the Canadian experience. But it is important to understand that the dynamics of Canadian politics differ in important respects from those in Australia, giving the trends a distinct form.

At the heart of the differences is the fact Canada’s federalism, which vests far-reaching powers in the provinces, is immeasurably more vigorous than Australia’s has ever been. No doubt, that is partly due to the linguistic diversity Quebec brings to the federation, a diversity historian Garth Stevenson describes as the “dominant fact” in Canada’s history. But it would be an error to think Canadian federalism merely serves to accommodate the Quebecois’ demands.

Rather, the decentralised nature of Canadian government reflects and perpetuates deep-seated differences between the provinces in terms of political cultures and traditions. For example, even in Canada’s west, the Left-Right split does not appear in the same form: on the Left, the populism of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with its agrarian roots, is not the same as the union-dominated radicalism of British Columbia, while the Right has long been more libertarian in British Columbia and Alberta than the “Red Tories” of the midwest.

As those differences crystallised, forces that in other countries encouraged centralisation did not do so in Canada. In particular, the Canadian welfare state developed largely at a provincial level, with Pierre Trudeau writing that Canadian social democracy had been built from the provinces up, instead of raining from Ottawa down. Quite contrary to what happened in Australia, the rise in social spending therefore led to a dramatic expansion in the remit of the provinces, rather than of the national government.

But Canada’s enduring federalism, and the diversity that underpins it, not only affects the allocation of powers, it also shapes political competition at a federal level. More specifically, because of that diversity the political contest does not merely involve a Left-Right dimension but also a clash between centralism and federalism in all their varieties. Periodically, those two aspects of party choice have come into conflict, disrupting, and at times restructuring, the political landscape.

Until the 1920s, for example, elections were fought between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with each major party representing highly heterogeneous interests. But those catch-all movements could not absorb the social tensions of the period, causing a proliferation of regional parties that mobilised interests the main parties had tended to ignore. Once those parties secured a firm, even if localised, base, party politics in the provinces came to ­diverge from that at the federal level. As a result, the federal parties developed only relatively shallow roots in the provinces, particularly where parties that did not operate federally, such as the social credit parties of the far west and Maurice Duplessis’s Union Nationale in Quebec, dominated the scene.

In itself, the disjuncture between the provincial and federal layer did not destabilise national politics. But that was primarily because the Liberal Party managed to acquire a hegemonic role, largely by sticking to a script Quebec Liberal Wilfrid Laurier, who served as Canada’s first francophone prime minister from 1896 to 1911, had developed.

The essence of Laurier’s script was that the Liberal Party accepted a relatively weak role for Canada’s executive branch, mainly keeping peace between French and English Canadians, while leaving responsibility for policymaking to parliament, and especially to the separate provincial governments.

By thus casting itself as the protector of provincial prerogatives, including, crucially, those of Quebec, the Liberal Party was able to win nearly two-thirds of Quebec’s seats throughout the period from 1900 to 1980, giving it almost half the seats it needed to form a majority government in the federal parliament. With the party hewing rigidly to the centre on the Left-Right dimension of politics, it could then always secure enough seats in the other provinces to get over the line.

Thanks to that grasp on Quebec’s federal votes, the Liberal Party was not seriously threatened when the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a socialist movement that was formed in Alberta but acquired prominence in Saskatchewan, emerged as a national party, eventually transforming itself, with backing from the Canadian unions, into the New Democratic Party.

Unlike the situation in Australia, the rise of a labour party did not therefore lead the forces that opposed labour to consolidate, creating a two-party system; instead, Canadian federal politics evolved into a three-party system, with a centrist party flanked by parties on its left and its right. Nor did the fact that the centre party so overwhelmingly dominated federal politics cause its weaker rivals to reposition themselves, as their stance was sufficiently attractive in particular provinces to allow them to control those provinces for lengthy periods.

There was, however, an inherent tension between a three-party structure and Canada’s strict first-past-the-post electoral system. As was apparent in the provinces, the effect of having both could be to entrench governments that had a relatively narrow electoral base: for example, thanks to competition between their opponents, the Conservatives held office continuously in Ontario from 1943 to 1985, despite never securing a majority of votes. But as was also clear in the provinces, the combination of a three-party system with first-past-the-post could lead to dramatic instability, both because voters did not need to move very far along the Left-Right continuum when they changed their vote and because small shifts in voting behaviour could induce large changes in the seat count.

The seeming stability of the Canadian political system was therefore somewhat illusory, with political scientist CES Franks estimating in 1987 that “only 20 per cent of Canadian MPs at most can reasonably feel assured they, and their party, will hold their seat in the next election, whereas nearly 80 per cent of British and US members can have this confidence”. Moreover, the instability became more acute over time.

A number of factors were at work. To begin with, in Quebec, which had long been intensely socially conservative, the “quiet revolution” of the 60s drastically weakened historic elites, shifting public opinion both to the left and towards Quebecois separatism. As that happened, voters who had reliably voted for the Liberals in federal elections became increasingly volatile. At the same time, the development of energy sources in the west gave rise to new rows over fiscal federalism, reigniting the sense that Canada’s west got a raw deal.

Faced with those tensions, Pierre Trudeau made the situation worse, with his constitutional centralism alienating the Liberal voting base in Quebec, while his move to the left aggravated the hostility the Liberals had long encountered in the west. Trudeau was, in effect, trapped: to retain Quebec he needed to move to the left and in the direction of giving Quebec greater powers; to retain any support in the west he needed to do the exact opposite; and the policies he had in train undermined his grasp on the shrinking middle ground.

He thereby created an opening for Brian Mulroney, whose Progressive Conservatives forged an alliance between Quebec nationalists and conservative voters in western Canada. But while Mulroney triumphed in the federal election of 1984, the alliance on which his power rested was as unstable as it was unnatural. Unsurprisingly, it collapsed when Mulroney tried to cement the structure of Canadian federalism in new constitutional agreements; in the process, the Progressive Conservatives shattered, with a new, right-of-centre Reform Party forming in the west, while the Bloc Quebecois, the first Quebec-based party to contest federal elections, gathered the province’s disaffected centrist leaders.

The result was to fragment the conservative vote, leading to the disastrous election result of 1993, in which the former majority party saw its share of the vote fall from 42 per cent to 16 per cent while it went from a 151-seat majority to holding just two seats. The unprecedented rout gave the Liberals a new, lengthy, term in government; but the forces that had produced the instability did not go away.

On the contrary, as the Liberals, mindful of Trudeau’s errors, tried to recapture the middle ground, powerful challengers emerged. On their left, the NDP, under the highly effective leadership of Jack Layton, patiently developed a national footprint, securing a presence in social-democratic Quebec; while on the right Harper had managed, by 2003, to consolidate the conservative forces into a new Conservative Party, strongly anchored in the country’s west. With the Liberals caught up in an ugly corruption scandal, the ground was set for the Conservatives to claim government in 2006.

Subsequent elections only underscored the volatility that by 2006 was already apparent. Especially startling were the outcomes in 2011, when the Liberals, who had so completely dominated Canadian politics in the 20th century, got barely 10 per cent of the vote, and the party’s leader, Michael Ignatieff, lost his own riding (as electorates are called in Canada) to a little-known management consultant.

In contrast, the NDP doubled its share of the vote, as nearly a third of those who had voted Liberal in 2008 moved to the NDP.

It was an appreciation of that volatility, and of the risks it posed, that underpinned Harper’s gradualism. Attempted revolutions, he knew, are soon enough undone, as had happened to Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution in Ontario, with its laudable emphasis on slashing public spending and restoring fiscal discipline; rather, Harper’s goal was to change Canada in ways that are difficult to reverse. For that, he needed the time to take many small decisions, whose cumulative impact would be felt only in the longer run; and as the Conservatives, even in 2011, had secured only 40 per cent of the vote, it would not take much for his party to lose government.

Harper consequently shunned high-profile initiatives far removed from Canadians’ everyday concerns, such as the constitutional reforms Pierre Trudeau and Mulroney had attempted. He also avoided overblown rhetoric and, after winning a majority, emphasised the dangers of hubris. His strategy was to seek ownership by the Conservatives of the issues the electorate truly regarded as crucial.

At least in 2011, that strategy proved highly effective. According to Canadian Election Study, which surveys voters at each federal election, until 2000 Canadians rated the Liberals as the best at creating jobs, managing the economy, fighting crime and improving healthcare. By 2008 and 2011, the situation had almost completely reversed, with the Conservatives leading in economic competence and the commitment to law and order.

Harper’s careful management of the stimulus spending, where Canada’s auditor general even congratulated him on the care his government had taken in ensuring proper rules were followed, helped cement the perception of competence.

But the strategy was hardly without risks. Lying low might blunt voters’ hostility, but it did not endear Harper to them, or bridge the gap that separated him from the 60 per cent of the electorate that had not voted Conservative; rather, it increased his vulnerability to a competitor who had greater public appeal. Moreover, having veered to the left in 2011, there was always a danger the Liberals would edge back towards the centre, combining a plausible economic platform with a more socially progressive message than Harper could or would adopt.

And once Layton died, to be replaced by the much less popular Tom Mulcair, the NDP might prove less effective at taking the Liberals’ votes, strengthening their chances directly and by reducing the flow to the Conservatives of Liberal voters intent on preventing the NDP from securing government.

As it turned out, all those risks eventuated this year. Not only was Justin Trudeau more charismatic than Harper, he managed to seem more centrist than his platform actually is, while his social progressivism contrasts with Harper’s avowedly socially conservative views. Moreover, the ethnic vote, which Harper had cultivated and secured in 2011, proved far more fickle than conservative strategists had expected. And instead of the inexperienced Trudeau crashing in the course of the long election campaign, its casualty was Mulcair, with the NDP losing two-thirds of the Quebec seats it had gained in 2011.

The outcome, by Australian standards, seems catastrophic for the Conservatives, whose share of the vote is now back to where it stood in 2004, immediately after the new party was formed. And equally, it seems like an triumph for the Liberals, who, it may be thought, are positioned to reclaim their historic hegemonic role.

But Harper will cast a long shadow. As the Conservatives slashed the GST and federal income taxes, the kitty is bare. Even if they raise income taxes on top earners, as they have promised to do, the Liberals will struggle to meet their commitments to cut taxes on middle-income households and increase infrastructure spending, while nonetheless meeting their fiscal targets.

And a slowing economy will make it even harder for Trudeau to square that circle. With the fiscal noose being among Harper’s most constraining legacies, there is every likelihood that the budget performance of Trudeau fils will come to resemble that of Trudeau pere, exposing the new government to a chorus of criticism.

Moreover, as with Pierre Trudeau’s national energy strategy, Justin Trudeau’s climate change policies and his reluctance to confront the US on the Keystone XL pipeline extension will touch raw nerves in Canada’s west. And however large its loss, the Conservative Party, which is now firmly implanted in the west, will find those sensitivities easy to exploit.

Finally, although Quebec has swung solidly Liberal, the serried ranks of novice Quebec MPs can prove a poisoned chalice, pushing the Liberals away from the centre.

The difficulties of managing electoral volatility are therefore as great as they have ever been. And if there is a lesson to be drawn from the Canadian experience it is that there are no magic bullets that can bring it under control.

Where voters are inherently footloose, failures may be fleeting, but triumphs are too. And tactical and strategic errors are punished sooner, and more severely, than in earlier, less competitive, days — perhaps making politicians more risk averse than the gravity of the nation’s problems would warrant.

None of that may much worry Trudeau; nor could it console Harper.

As Tony Benn wrote in his diary when Margaret Thatcher resigned, prime ministers, on losing office, “drop into the darkest of all worlds between the headlines and the history books”. Like his close friend Tony Abbott, that world awaits Harper at the exit to Sussex Drive.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2015)

Well world reaction didn't take too long to manifest:

http://www.therebel.media/dollar_plunges_after_trudeau_s_win



> *"It's like every Canadian just got a pay cut" as dollar plunges after Trudeau's win*
> Ezra Levant
> Rebel Commander
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

Ezra Levant from the rebel.

Now a economist.

Of course he would cite justin trudeaus win, because it's not like the bank of Canada decides to leave the interest rate where it was or that commodity prices dropped, especially the price of oil.

Nope nope nope.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2015)

How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? If Mr Harper can be responsible for every bad thing that happened to people when he was in charge, why not Mr Trudeau? That's a rhetorical question by the way... I'm not really expecting an answer.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? If Mr Harper can be responsible for every bad thing that happened to people when he was in charge, why not Mr Trudeau? That's a rhetorical question by the way... I'm not really expecting an answer.


I'll let you know how it feels when

A) He's actually Prime Minister and 

B) When it comes from a credible media source, not the Ezra the troll.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2015)

1. Ezra is reporting an objective fact (the Canadian Dollar dropped incredibly fast right after the election results were in), so even if you don't like the style, you should pay attention to the substance.

2. I actually found this looking at the American site "Instapundit", which indicates that some Americans are also paying attention to the issue

3. I doubt international currency traders in "The City" (London, England) pay much attention to Ezra Levant, but they are most certainly paying attention to Canadian politics as well......

The people who voted for "Change" are certainly getting it hard and fast, and probably much faster than they expected....
For those of you who bought the ticket, enjoy the ride.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1. Ezra is reporting an objective fact (the Canadian Dollar dropped incredibly fast right after the election results were in), so even if you don't like the style, you should pay attention to the substance.
> 
> 2. I actually found this looking at the American site "Instapundit", which indicates that some Americans are also paying attention to the issue
> 
> ...


How much would you attribute that to the LPC win, the drop in oil prices in recent days and the bank of Canada decision to leave interest rates where they are?

I would tell you how much weight each one carries in my opinion, but I'm biased.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1. Ezra is reporting an objective fact (the Canadian Dollar dropped incredibly fast right after the election results were in), so even if you don't like the style, you should pay attention to the substance.


1)  Ezra is reporting two points on a graph - and not even getting the math right (looks more like 0.9 cents drop than 2 cents - see first attached graph).  He didn't say much about "everyone taking a pay cut" in 2008/09 or so during a far bigger dip, or how it's been dropping since mid-2012 (see second attached graph), and linking it all to one single event.  At that level, he's no different than any other reporter cranking up the heat without much meat.
2)  Then you won't object to someone saying any subsequent rise in the dollar is because of Trudeau's election?  Or are too many other factors at play to make that connection?

It's been said elsewhere around these threads that _all_ media are biased - at least we know where Ezra's coming from.  It's all in the eye of the beholder ....


----------



## chanman (25 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/trudeau-beats-harper-but-canada-could-prove-hard-to-change/story-e6frg6z6-1227580473286
> 
> *Trudeau beats Harper but Canada could prove hard to change*
> 
> The Australian, Henry Ergas, Columnist, Sydney



That's a more perceptive analysis than I've seen in any Canadian media outlets yet.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How much would you attribute that to the LPC win, the drop in oil prices in recent days and the bank of Canada decision to leave interest rates where they are?
> 
> I would tell you how much weight each one carries in my opinion, but I'm biased.



That you are, and in spades.  But then, aren't well all to one shade or another.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How much would you attribute that to the LPC win, the drop in oil prices in recent days and the bank of Canada decision to leave interest rates where they are?
> 
> I would tell you how much weight each one carries in my opinion, but I'm biased.





> During that period, only one thing has changed on the national scene:


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

Well, there's your first problem, you're believing something said by Ezra levant :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Oct 2015)

He is not different from the spinners on the left.  They all have their version of the "truth" they want the masses to believe.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> He is not different from the spinners on the left.  They all have their version of the "truth" they want the masses to believe.


You're right, he's not much different.

It's just hard to have a debate when Ezra Levant is used as the baseline for discussion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They all have their version of the "truth" they want the masses to believe.


True - that's why it's good to read/listen to a range of outlets.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Oct 2015)

Unfortunately you have to use him, because you're not going to get honest reporting from a lot of the big media firms. They're still on the honeymoon, interviewing Trudeau's mom, and gloating over the impending Tory leadership race.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately you have to use him, because you're not going to get honest reporting from a lot of the big media firms. They're still on the honeymoon, interviewing Trudeau's mom, and gloating over the impending Tory leadership race.



No

True


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> You're right, he's not much different.
> 
> It's just hard to have a debate when Ezra Levant is used as the baseline for discussion.



No different for those of us whom are on the opposite side of the discussion when the rabid left media types are trotted out as the baseline either.  Each of the loonies on the right and left are equally loonie.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Of course he would cite justin trudeaus win, because it's not like the bank of Canada decides to leave the interest rate where it was or that commodity prices dropped, especially the price of oil.



Wait a minute.  Were you not blaming Harper for all these things?


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.  Were you not blaming Harper for all these things?


No.

My attacks on Harper were largely limited to style of government, not his economic record. On his economic record, the most I remember attacking him on was the impression he gave out that he, and only he, could manage it.

I think you are mistaking me with mainstream media.


----------



## dimsum (25 Oct 2015)

From Rex Murphy in the National Post:



> He was, variously Machiavelli, Mussolini, Mao and Hitler. Harper Canada’s image in the forums of the world, and purged all our “Canadian values” here at home. He was the Sauron of Mount Doom-on-the-Rideau waving his terrible arms from the towers of fear and hate. He was tepid on global warming and down on selfies. He liked hockey.
> 
> Well, who can fill that vital role? Who can be the magnet of our great discontent now that he is going and soon to be gone? Can we abide a country that is now all sunshine and butterflies, all summer holidays and hootenanys? I predict a Canada invective-deprived, all honey and harmony. Post-Harper, all is calm, all is bright. Can we live with that? Can Twitter survive? Will Raffi hang up the mandolin?



http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-who-can-be-the-magnet-of-our-great-national-discontent-now-that-harper-is-on-his-way-out


----------



## George Wallace (25 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> My attacks on Harper were largely limited to style of government, not his economic record. On his economic record, the most I remember attacking him on was the impression he gave out that he, and only he, could manage it.
> 
> I think you are mistaking me with mainstream media.



Not only the MSM; but the ABC crowd, the unions, and all the other "Hate Harper" crowd.  

Sorry.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Brian Gable, in the _Globe and Mail_, reminds us that, back when Stéphane Dion Dion was leader there was talk of an _alliance_ between the Greens and the Liberals and Ms May was, back then, angling for a seat at (or near) the cabinet table ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting situation. I believe that Mr. Trudeau would do this only to show how "inclusive" his party is without actually leveraging anything of value to the CPC or the NDP.

However, I wonder what happens if Mr. Trudeau cannot control/tries to over-control Mrs May or what happens if Mrs May takes the opportunity to push a green party environmental agenda (of which 3.5% of the populace voted for). Also, what does it say for the LPC if they cannot find an environmental minister from within their own party?

From the green party perspective, I wonder if Mrs May signing on as environmental minister for the liberals would be the last straw in her being demoted from her role as the party leader? There's grumblings that she is on the outs with the party and is seen as a publicity seeker who is furthering her own agenda vice the parties (only 3.5% this election is lowest in awhile for them).

Finally, I wonder what the long term effect would be of Mrs May being set out against the oil sands/pipelines. The liberals, to some extent, support oil pipelines and the oil sands which ostensibly Mrs May and the greens do not. 

I fear such a move could see the young Dauphin sacrifice long term pain for short term gain... IMHO, it would be better to have her as an advisor, let her be seen showing up to meetings, but not having any direct influence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Interesting situation. I believe that Mr. Trudeau would do this only to show how "inclusive" his party is without actually leveraging anything of value to the CPC or the NDP.
> 
> However, I wonder what happens if Mr. Trudeau cannot control/tries to over-control Mrs May or what happens if Mrs May takes the opportunity to push a green party environmental agenda (of which 3.5% of the populace voted for). Also, what does it say for the LPC if they cannot find an environmental minister from within their own party?
> 
> ...




I'm inclined to agree ...

There was real fear, in  some political circles, back around 2005, that the Green Party of Canada might take off, like many of its European counterparts, but, fortunately for the "Big Three" in Canada (CPC, LPC, NDP) the Greens chose Ms May as their leader and she is, to be very charitable, a _flake_ ... and a drunk, and a blithering f'ing idiot, too. The Greens can go nowhere so long as she is leader and that ought to serve everyone's best interests very well ... if the Greens were more like the Boy Scouts ~ had adult supervision ~ they might have a real impact on politics in Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Oct 2015)

Very charitable indeed.  Much nicer, kinder words than I use in my mind when I think of Ms. May.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

Here is one of Prime Minister designate Trudeau's early decisions which I can (and we all should) applaud: he will move in to Rideau Cottage, on the grounds of Rideau Hall, until repairs to 24 Sussex Drive can be accomplished.






I don't know how much work Prime Minister designate Trudeau will authorize ~ _*all*_ that is necessary, I hope, but spending on things like official residences is notoriously unpopular with Canadians (they would, by and large, rather that the property which they own falls into disrepair, but ...  :dunno: ... that's our fellow citizens) so, perhaps the work will be limited, i.e. money (and opportunity) will be wasted.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2015)

...and if there is asbestos in 24 Sussex, remediation will balloon the cost of doing anything.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2015)

With proper messaging, he can hoist the previous resident on his own petard.

"This is preserving a piece of our national heritage for future generations.  The cost has now increased to (ridiculous) million dollars; had the prior PM addressed it when he had the chance, it would have cost only $10M.  It's clear that you need to invest in infrastructure before things deteriorate too much, something my government has committed to do."


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...and if there is asbestos in 24 Sussex, remediation will balloon the cost of doing anything.




Fair enough ... Prime Minister designate Trudeau can then make some decisions:

     1. Do what is necessary to restore and maintain the property as the official residence of Canada's prime ministers;

     2. Let is rot ... until it falls down or we sell it to a gullible American or Arab; or

     3. Knock it down and build a new, better official residence.

We could ask (yet again) the Brits to sell us Earnscliffe, but they aren't that dumb.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With proper messaging, he can hoist the previous resident on his own petard.
> 
> "This is preserving a piece of our national heritage for future generations.  The cost has now increased to (ridiculous) million dollars; had the prior PM addressed it when he had the chance, it would have cost only $10M.  It's clear that you need to invest in infrastructure before things deteriorate too much, something my government has committed to do."



That issue has been around for at least 20 years if not more....no PM did much, Liberal or CPC


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> That issue has been around for at least 20 years if not more....no PM did much, Liberal or CPC



Other than new carpets and wall hangings, I don't think much else was done; and I believe that was Chretien's regime.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2015)

Cost is meaningless when doing work on government buildings. The government tenders ridiculous and needless extras, the bidders inflate the prices hugely, because it's a government project. Substandard work and minimum requirement materials are used to maximize profits. Built in obsolescence is instilled to ensure the project remains ongoing. Other than taking the taxpayer to the cleaners, as much as possible, the dollar figure *and blame* belong to no one but Public Works.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With proper messaging, he can hoist the previous resident on his own petard.
> 
> "This is preserving a piece of our national heritage for future generations.  The cost has now increased to (ridiculous) million dollars; had the prior PM addressed it when he had the chance, it would have cost only $10M.  It's clear that you need to invest in infrastructure before things deteriorate too much, something my government has committed to do."




Ask any landlord and they will tell you; "The best time to do maintenance is between tenants"!



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2015)

Any prior estimate of cost is bound to be less almost by definition: there is almost always inflation, and there is almost always something new every year.  I own a home.  I've never been simple enough to believe that if I fix everything this year I will enjoy cost-free residence for years to come.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Any prior estimate of cost is bound to be less almost by definition: there is almost always inflation, and there is almost always something new every year.  I own a home.  I've never been simple enough to believe that if I fix everything this year I will enjoy cost-free residence for years to come.



On the other hand, you've done necessary repairs and upgrades along the way, and not relied on plastic sheets over the windows for insulation during the winter... for a decade or more.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2015)

On Twitter, David Akin is reporting on vote totals.

#1 vote getter this election?  Kevin Sorenson in Battle River-Crowfoot, with 47.5K votes.  #2?  Andrew Leslie with 46.5K.  (Together, they got more votes than were cast in all of PEI (excluding Kanata)).

For the party leaders:

@pmharper 37 263 votes
@JustinTrudeau 26 391 votes
@ThomasMulcair 19 242 votes

EDIT:
And here's the ultimate dis: The top NDP vote getter in all of Ontario was Paul Dewar, who lost Ottawa Centre.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2015)

Those that liked him liked him a lot.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2015)

NDP during recent election campaign - We're the party of balanced budgets.  [A claim resting entirely on performance at the provincial level.]

Peter Stoffer, yesterday - Separate the federal and provincial wings of the NDP.  [?]

AB NDP, today - Not just a deficit, but borrowing to cover operations; indeed, perhaps a quadrupling of AB debt by 2019-20.  [Now I understand.]

In other potentially good news, the federal government will help ON collect for the latter's pension plan.  So maybe the payroll tax increase can be confined to ON.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> NDP during recent election campaign - We're the party of balanced budgets.  [A claim resting entirely on performance at the provincial level.]
> 
> Peter Stoffer, yesterday - Separate the federal and provincial wings of the NDP.  [?]
> 
> ...



Do these people never venture outside or read the news? While Greece may be on another continent and Detroit and California are in a different country, Ontario isn't that far away from Alberta...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2015)

An interesting "Thank You" to Prime Minister Harper (that many of the "Harper Haters" in the MSM and other organizations totally ignored in their damning of the PM and Conservative Government.) from  Hillel Neuer - Executive Director of UN Watch:

https://www.facebook.com/hillelcneuer



> Hillel Neuer with Stephen Harper
> October 20 at 8:02pm · Edited ·
> 
> Justin Trudeau: Congratulations on your election as Canada's next Prime Minister. UN Watch will look forward to working with your new government to ensure UN accountability and defend human rights worldwide.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2015)

Another eye opener to all those who doubted what the Conservative Government was doing for Syrian Refugees over the past years:

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalNews/videos/912987755415657/?pnref=story


----------



## GAP (29 Oct 2015)

excellent interview


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2015)

Brian Gable, drawing in the _Globe and Mail_ on the biggest _threat_ to Canada right now ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





               ... unless and until Canada gets some adult leadership we are in real trouble.


----------



## Altair (29 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Brian Gable, drawing in the _Globe and Mail_ on the biggest _threat_ to Canada right now ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quebec has a balanced budget under liberal leader Philippe Couillard. 

Does that count?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Quebec has a balanced budget under liberal leader Philippe Couillard.
> 
> Does that count?




Premier Couillard is a refreshing change after so many, many years of mismanagement (things have gone from bad to worse since Paul Sauvé in 1959/60.)  (Jean Charest's tax cuts were good, but he really, Really needed _spending cuts_.)

Balancing the budget is a good thing ... turning the Quebec economy around and making it _productive_ is a HUGE challenge.


----------



## Altair (29 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Premier Couillard is a refreshing change after so many, many years of mismanagement (things have gone from bad to worse since Paul Sauvé in 1959/60.)  (Jean Charest's tax cuts were good, but he really, Really needed _spending cuts_.)
> 
> Balancing the budget is a good thing ... turning the Quebec economy around and making it _productive_ is a HUGE challenge.


Baby Rome.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Oct 2015)

As we head into a leadership review for the Conservatives, it's informative to look cross the pond and see what's happening in the UK and wonder about Mr Mulcair's future.



> Tony Blair’s former adviser John McTernan has been arguing for weeks that MPs should put the interests of Labour voters before Labour members and dump Corbyn in 2016. The left would go wild; Labour members would scream that MPs were backstabbing bastards who had overridden party democracy. But so what? Politicians are meant to be backstabbing bastards. There are moments of crisis when their party and their country’s interests demand backstabbing bastards. If today’s Labour MPs can’t bring themselves to be backstabbing bastards, they should step aside and make way for proper politicians who can.




http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/how-does-labour-solve-a-problem-like-jeremy-corbyn/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Premier Couillard is a refreshing change after so many, many years of mismanagement (things have gone from bad to worse since Paul Sauvé in 1959/60.)  (Jean Charest's tax cuts were good, but he really, Really needed _spending cuts_.)
> 
> Balancing the budget is a good thing ... turning the Quebec economy around and making it _productive_ is a HUGE challenge.



 It makes one wonder where we are headed in Canada, when Quebec is being touted as the paragon of fiscal responsibility....


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2015)

Sadly, although this should be in the Radio Chatter Joke Thread, it is probably more relevant here.


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
> 
> By Andy Borowitz
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


Verified by several recent Provincial and Federal Elections.

From a little bit better known publication: The New Yorker:

Many in Nation Tired of Explaining Things to Idiots


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2015)

David Akin, a sometimes poster on this site, presents his guesses analysis of who will get what seats at the cabinet table:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/obligatory-cabinet-speculation-post/


----------



## Altair (2 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> David Akin, a sometimes poster on this site, presents his guesses analysis of who will get what seats at the cabinet table:
> 
> http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/obligatory-cabinet-speculation-post/


I'm interested in seeing where Leslie ends up and how gender parity would play out.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm interested in seeing where Leslie ends up and how gender parity would play out.



I love it when people are sexist in order to show that they aren't sexist.  

(The incoming PM has stated that he will have a 50/50 split between men and women in cabinet.  That's nice.  What if all the women were better suited for positions?  That would mean that he would appoint people based on their gender rather than capability, bypassing capable women in order to have a nice photo op instead of an effective cabinet)


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Nov 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I love it when people are sexist in order to show that they aren't sexist.
> 
> (The incoming PM has stated that he will have a 50/50 split between men and women in cabinet.  That's nice.  What if all the women were better suited for positions?  That would mean that he would appoint people based on their gender rather than capability, bypassing capable women in order to have a nice photo op instead of an effective cabinet)



Equality of outcomes...


----------



## Altair (2 Nov 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I love it when people are sexist in order to show that they aren't sexist.
> 
> (The incoming PM has stated that he will have a 50/50 split between men and women in cabinet.  That's nice.  What if all the women were better suited for positions?  That would mean that he would appoint people based on their gender rather than capability, bypassing capable women in order to have a nice photo op instead of an effective cabinet)


When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.


----------



## JesseWZ (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.



That's a logical fallacy. People *volunteer* to join the Canadian Forces. They are *appointed* to the cabinet. In one scenario, we make do with whom applies. In the other, a pre-stated promise becomes a weight about the ankles when making decisions about the *best* person for the job. I would really rather the *best* person for the job get the job, you know, in order to govern the country effectively and what not.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.



Don't go there.

Why do you feel the need to personalize discussions?  Just stick to the issues.


----------



## cavalryman (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.



So you're advocating style over substance?


----------



## Remius (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian ARMED forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.



Altair, apples and oranges.  The CAF is more a reflexion of society than you think.  Many in Canadian society don't think that service to country is a viable or even worthwhile endeavour or it is an after thought.  So you only get that portion that see it as something worthwhile.  Also factor in the types of trades that certain groups are traditionally attracted.  Just like construction work or driving trucks, women are not largely attracted to things like combat arms or even "the uniform".  The CAF is a reflexion of those attitudes.

Politics might be different but I suspect that not as many women ran as men did.  As well, why does cabinet HAVE to be 50% women or even representative of our country's make up?  Would not the best people or best suited for the job be a better proposition?  If one third of the LPC caucus are women, would not one third of cabinet be acceptable as a benchmark? 

While I think that having equality accross the board should be what we strive for, trying to create some sort of reflexion of society in organisations that are fundamentaly different in their make up can be foolish at times.  Societal trends will work against those plans despite the best of intentions.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Nov 2015)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> That's a logical fallacy. People *volunteer* to join the Canadian Forces. They are *appointed* to the cabinet. In one scenario, we make do with whom applies. In the other, a pre-stated promise becomes a weight about the ankles when making decisions about the *best* person for the job. I would really rather the *best* person for the job get the job, you know, in order to govern the country effectively and what not.



Now that would be a first for any Government in Canada. IMHO, cabinets are always selected on the basis of what is the best team to get me re-elected next time. Politics, not competence in the subject matter of the portfolio, is the primary driver for selection of ministers of the crown.


----------



## JesseWZ (2 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now that would be a first for any Government in Canada.



Call me a dreamer...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2015)

I don't care about, race, gender, language, etc. I just want the most qualified, capable person in the job.

Governments are limited in who they can appoint due to who gets elected.

Whatever the combination of male\female\race\whatever works the best, that's what we should go with.

The Trudeau Liberals are hamstringing themselves and short changing the taxpayer by splitting the cabinet along gender lines instead of the best, qualified, person for the job.

JT is basically saying "We have an imbalance in cabinet. There are more x than y. In order to balance that we are going to replace 3x with 3y. They are not as good at the job, but we'll have a gender balance. That's what counts."


----------



## Jed (2 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't care about, race, gender, language, etc. I just want the most qualified, capable person in the job.
> 
> Governments are limited in who they can appoint due to who gets elected.
> 
> ...



Hey, far too real for lefty thinkers to hoist aboard.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't care about, race, gender, language, etc. I just want the most qualified, capable person in the job.
> 
> Governments are limited in who they can appoint due to who gets elected.
> 
> ...



From "Not Ready" to "Never Ready". the narrative just writes itself....


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.


I think that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to defend Canada, and not meet some arbitrary quota.
And I also suppose you think that the roll of the dead is a travesty in that it's too male and too white? :/


----------



## GAP (2 Nov 2015)

Well, they were the ones who stood up and volunteered.......the others were "busy".....


----------



## cavalryman (2 Nov 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to defend Canada, and not meet some arbitrary quota.
> And I also suppose you think that the roll of the dead is a travesty in that it's too male and too white? :/



See, here's your mistake.  Diversity never applies when it comes to sacrifice, or to the dirty, tough jobs (coal mining or lineman during an ice storm, anyone?), or to conscription or, or, or...  This is the fallacy of the bien-pensants inhabiting the left side of the political spectrum.  They want equality when it comes to goodies, never when it comes to paying the bill.   :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> See, here's your mistake.  Diversity never applies when it comes to sacrifice, or to the dirty, tough jobs (coal mining or lineman during an ice storm, anyone?), or to conscription or, or, or...  This is the fallacy of the bien-pensants inhabiting the left side of the political spectrum.  They want equality when it comes to goodies, never when it comes to paying the bill.   :nod:



For the win! And by the way, I am stealing that line from you  :nod:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When one considers that for a very long time this country has been run by middle aged white men, having a cabinet that actually reflects canada as a whole is going to be a breath of fresh air.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are one of the people who think the current gender/ethnic makeup of the Canadian forces is just fine and reflects society perfectly as it is.



This had to be one of the dumbest comments I've read on here.  We are really hurting at the pointy end if you're a representation of the latest generation of soldier.  

Stay in your lane and seeing as how you're fresh out of basic that lane probably exists somewhere between the latrines and bathroom sink.  Seems like more porcelain scrubbing is required.


----------



## Altair (3 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This had to be one of the dumbest comments I've read on here.  We are really hurting at the pointy end if you're a representation of the latest generation of soldier.
> 
> Stay in your lane and seeing as how you're fresh out of basic that lane probably exists somewhere between the latrines and bathroom sink.  Seems like more porcelain scrubbing is required.


I last updated my profile 5 1/2 years ago, so continue being wrong.

Stay in my lane. Rich...


----------



## Altair (3 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> See, here's your mistake.  Diversity never applies when it comes to sacrifice, or to the dirty, tough jobs (coal mining or lineman during an ice storm, anyone?), or to conscription or, or, or...  This is the fallacy of the bien-pensants inhabiting the left side of the political spectrum.  They want equality when it comes to goodies, never when it comes to paying the bill.   :nod:


As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.

I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.

I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Nov 2015)

Well you go ahead youngster (yes, youngster, as you're relatively wet behind the years as many of us here have *decades* of service behind us), filling positions by quota isn't always the best way to go as you don't necessarily get the right person for the right job.  Didn't work too well for the Soviet Union either.  I want to have the person whom is best suited beside me at work instead of someone parachuted in, just because they're (insert race/religion/sex/politics/whatever..  : here) and it's all Kumbaya huggy wuggy and fills that need by committee.

And as an aside, if you don't want to be called a recruit, then do please update your profile as it's been 5 years and you're apparently getting crusty...


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Nov 2015)

All we can do is open the doors to the recruiting center, and provide an environment where any race, creed, or gender is welcomed. If certain groups don't walk in the door, is that an issue with us, or with them for not volunteering? We should be taking the best candidate available without a check box for visible minority/gender/race and let the chips fall where they may. The CAF has been desperately trying to recruit women for years, without much success. You will never see 50% women in the CAF much due to old world stigmas regardless of how we work, unless you just stop recruiting everyone else. When you start cherry-picking people based on arbitrary items such as race/gender/religion, which have no rightful bearing on how well someone can soldier just to fill quotas, you are turning away excellent candidates to fill in a reverse racism quota. You're too male/white/Christian is just as wrong to say as you're a woman/minority/Muslim.


----------



## cavalryman (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.
> 
> I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.
> 
> I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.



Good for you, but it still remains that until I see gender balance on the pointy end of any job, especially the hard ones, I'll consider the attempt to force gender balance in the luxury and comfort of the boardroom/cabinet room/centres of power as a way of getting something for nothing.  I don't really care about someone's genitalia.  All I care about is their ability and character, and I know the folks who are able would rather get to the top by their own hard work.  Sadly, there are way too many people who'd rather not do what it takes, just take what they want.  How would  you feel if you were the affirmative action appointee, the one named to the table in order to fill a quota and not because you were the best at something?  Or if you were shunted aside to allow someone of lesser ability a step up because of what they are, not who they are?  Identity politics is what revolts me the most about the modern left.  It's retrograde, divisive and fosters the kind of conflict that previous generations tried to move away from.  When I see discussions like this, I'm invariably reminded of Reverend Martin Luther King and his famous line about the content of someone's character.  What does peddling identity politics say about someone's character?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.
> 
> I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.
> 
> I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.



Ok, so you've been in for 5 1/2 years and where have you served during that time?  What different portfolios have you been involved with managing over that timeframe?  Oh wait, none!

If you had half a lick about anything related to pers management within the military, you'd realize that CMP has quietly done away with recruiting goals for women/minorities, etc... The reason has already been mentioned earlier, we are a volunteer organization and no amount of affirmative action is going to change that.
The military doesn't get to choose it's members, they choose us.

There are a variety of reasons why this is so.  Many immigrants/minorities don't want to join the military because they don't hold the military in very high regard mostly from past experiences in the old country.

A lot of women end up stalling their careers in order to have children.  Is this the military's problem? Why should the military give promotions to someone who has taken, in some cases, years off their career and missed all sorts of experiences, courses, etc. that her peers would have received.  It was her choice to have a child and we are a profession that promotes based on experience.  We also have certain professional standards to uphold.

These are just a few examples of some of the difficulties that any affirmative action plan would have in being implemented.  We aren't the civil-service, we are the government's last line of Defence and mistakes we make cost lives.  We cannot afford to cow tow to certain groups to satisfy a political agenda as the stakes are just too high.

I'm all for letting anyone in to the force, not at the expense of professional standards though.  We have already let them slip considerably.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Nov 2015)

Personally, I think we have a serious shortage of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses in Infantry and should institute a quota immediately.  :nod:

All joking aside, true equality is not that any given organization reflects exactly its societal make-up in numbers, but that any member of that society that meets the requirements of the organization and wishes to pursue participation in that organization can freely do so without his/her individual characteristics being an impediment in any way. I think we have pretty well achieved that, parliament included, to not require any "quota" system.

Under a "quota" system BTW, we could currently push the universities in Canada to positively discriminate in favour of white male, because lets face it, right now, the Canadian Law faculties, Medical Schools, in particular the Nursing Schools, and the Literature Schools of those university are majority women. They should be forced to have a 50/50 male/female ratio.

Meeting all of the job requirements should be the only criterium, and it is in the CF right now. As was said before: You cannot force people to apply for a job they don't want. Wanting such job has more to do with parents and society than the recruiting organization and it's not our job to change people or society.


----------



## Altair (3 Nov 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well you go ahead youngster (yes, youngster, as you're relatively wet behind the years as many of us here have *decades* of service behind us), filling positions by quota isn't always the best way to go as you don't necessarily get the right person for the right job.  Didn't work too well for the Soviet Union either.  I want to have the person whom is best suited beside me at work instead of someone parachuted in, just because they're (insert race/religion/sex/politics/whatever..  : here) and it's all Kumbaya huggy wuggy and fills that need by committee.
> 
> And as an aside, if you don't want to be called a recruit, then do please update your profile as it's been 5 years and you're apparently getting crusty...


I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.



Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one.  Nobody is dismissing your comments you just fail to elaborate and back up anything you say with facts.  Use facts and we won't dismiss you.  If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.



Actually, Altair, I will comment on this:

You appear to be a tech in the communication world based on your MOSID. In that world, concision and precision of language is important. So I suggest you look up your own profile.

You will note that nowhere does it indicate what year you joined the CAF. The "2010" date there indicates when you "registered" in these fora. These fora are public and anyone can join them. In fact, you may have noticed that many people join them well before even entering a recruiting centre, or even without ever joining the military. So your "registering" in 2010 and still leaving "just out of basic" for military experience means absolutely nothing. There is no connection between the two facts.

So, if you are using that as an indicator of the "type" of people who are those that read your profile and reach the "wrong" (in your mind) conclusion, I strongly suggest that you first read, understand and master the information in your own profile.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Altair, I will comment on this:
> 
> You appear to be a tech in the communication world based on your MOSID. In that world, concision and precision of language is important. So I suggest you look up your own profile.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with this.  Don't blame others for assuming anything just because you haven't updated your profile.  When i look at it I assume you are fresh out of basic.  I also assume that you joined the forum in 2010.  I make no asumptions about when you actually joined the CAF because your profile doesn't point to that.  All I see is fresh out of basic and joined the forums in 2010.

Either way, we seem to have derailed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.



You want to keep it that way, that's fine.  It's your introduction to the forum on who you are etc.  Just don't get pissy with anyone who reads said profile and calls you recruit.  And by the way, I don't necessarily judge your comments by your TI, but by the content of your comments.  I'm afraid that on the whole, you and I shall remain at odds with each other.  And as HB say's, everyone has their opinion.  I just don't share yours, as I am sure, you don't mine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Nov 2015)

One of the problems in getting diversity is that even if you do everything to make them welcome, they may still choose not to come. A lot of immigrants come from countries where the army was a dumping ground for idiots, corruption or sadists. They see the army as a economic deadend and having just gotten established here they are likely all about becoming economically stable. As for women, it will appeal to some and good on them, but women are up against the biological reality that their peak career climbing period concedes with the prime child raising years. Very few Moms want to be sent overseas when they have a 2 year old back home. It’s just a reality and lot of hard choices. Woman used to face a bias that they could not do X and Y. Now they face living up to some mythical woman that has a fabulous career, perfect home life and takes part in the community and still has time for herself.

The military can do everything asked of it and still people will not walk through the doors and the chattering class will blame the military rather than deal with reality.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A lot of immigrants come from countries where the army was a dumping ground for idiots



I've met people in our military who almost certainly could not hold down civilian employment. It's not just one or two, either. Plenty of welfare cases.


----------



## Lumber (3 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> One of the problems in getting diversity is that even if you do everything to make them welcome, they may still choose not to come.



While this picture is horribly incorrect (women enrolled in STEMs vs Gender studies at a rate of 90:1), I still find it amusing, and it backs up the point your making, at least:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2015)

_*Back on track please people. We're not here to discuss individual membership or diversity in the CAF. We're here to discuss the politics of the sitting government in 2015.*_

---Staff---


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Nov 2015)

After the "my way or the highway" routine on candidate selection and abortion beliefs for candidates, does anyone believe the media hype that Shiny Pony is going to be the great democrat allowing the caucus and cabinet to rule the day.  So far he steps a little more goosier than Harper.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> After the "my way or the highway" routine on candidate selection and abortion beliefs for candidates, does anyone believe the media hype that Shiny Pony is going to be the great democrat allowing the caucus and cabinet to rule the day.  So far he steps a little more goosier than Harper.



I don't believe it was his idea. Ownership belongs to his handlers........as so much of his policy is and will be. With Chretien and others (Power Corp, Laurentian Elitists) back and working in the shadows, all he'll have to do is read his lines as they were written for him.

Of course, in true liberal fashion, when things go off the rails, they will burn him to the ground.


----------



## Altair (3 Nov 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to defend Canada, and not meet some arbitrary quota.
> And I also suppose you think that the roll of the dead is a travesty in that it's too male and too white? :/


Haha, a quota.

A quota wouldn't even work. In my experience, not enough visible minorities walk into recruiting centers.

I've done community outreach for 5 years now in my home town community center.It was suppose to be one time, but I guess they liked me enough to have me speak every time I'm home on leave. My community is composed of one minority group, more or less. 

I don't go there to try to push or sell the military, I just give an update on what I do, what I did, the good, the bad, and everything in between. I do this by myself, because as far as I can tell, I am the only soldier from my community as far as they can remember and definitely the only one who takes the time to talk to people in the community. 

The feedback I get a lot is that the army is not a friendly place for minorities. They look at the army and they don't see themselves reflected in it. I've talked to about 300 people, from the ages of 14 to 35, and 2 of them had ever even thought of the army as an option, 1 had walked through the doors of a recruiting center.

I think 11 or 12 looked into the army as a career after I talked to them, and I know 4 who have joined either the reg force or reserves.

I'm doing this on my own, nothing too organized. If the Canadian forces did this on a larger scale  (I'm not sure if they are, but I've seen no evidence of it where I'm from) it would make a much bigger difference than any silly pointless quota.

Because right now, the cf is missing out on a huge pool of potential. If the forces continues to be manned by rural, largely white,  largely male, the disconnect with immigrants,  and worst, the children of those immigrants while canada continues to become more urban and multicultural, eventually there will be more problems in the future other than manning. 

If people don't know any soldiers, do know of what we are, what we do, then who is going to care if the budget is cut, if our vehicles, planes, equipment is junk? They will not. People are shocked when I tell them about some of the equipment we use. If people think that support for the military is a mile wide but a inch thick now,  wait a few years. We won't even have the mile.

P.S. Sorry, didn't see Reeceman's post


----------



## dimsum (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Haha, a quota.
> 
> A quota wouldn't even work. In my experience, not enough visible minorities walk into recruiting centers.
> 
> ...



All fair points, but as the old saying goes, "give solutions, not problems."  What would you suggest in terms of concrete ideas to remedy this, understanding that moving garrisons/airbases/naval bases to cities with large minority populations aren't realistic?  

Mods:  I think this is worthy of discussion but split/merge into some other topic as you see fit.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The feedback I get a lot is that the army is not a friendly place for minorities. They look at the army and they don't see themselves reflected in it. I've talked to about 300 people, from the ages of 14 to 35, and 2 of them had ever even thought of the army as an option, 1 had walked through the doors of a recruiting center.



Plenty of people don't "see themselves reflected in it" becasue our values *do not* reflect theirs, not because we are [insert ethnic/religion/gender here]. We are about doing things, not virtue signalling. We are about taking a stand, not achieving consensus. We are about going in and getting our hands dirty, not discussing the best way to achieve an end (and we are pretty willing to go to amazing lengths to get the job done, regardless of the inconveinience, physical danger or even threat to life, rather than complain that it dosn't work becasue "it hasn't been done properly").

And there are plenty of white males who would rather do navel gazing/virtue signalling/consensus building rather than joining us.

So by all means, go tell your story and get the word out (you are not the only one), but remember that the ones you should want are there _becasue they want to be there_, they want to take on a challenge and they want to achieve real, tangable and quantifiable goals, not because of the exterior shell.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> All fair points, but as the old saying goes, "give solutions, not problems."  What would you suggest in terms of concrete ideas to remedy this, understanding that moving garrisons/airbases/naval bases to cities with large minority populations aren't realistic?
> 
> Mods:  I think this is worthy of discussion but split/merge into some other topic as you see fit.


There is already a huge thread on the subject. (On mobile no time to search it out)

Please follow the Mod direction and get back on track. Further tangents may be deleted. 

---Staff---


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2015)

A few things I've noticed so far.

The CPC members that are appearing on news or being interviewed seem much more relaxed and outgoing.  I saw Michele Remple on the teletube yesterday and she was very well spoken and presented herself quite well.  The same with Rona Ambrose.  I couldn't stand watching Ms. Remple during the campaign with her robotic talking points.

I hope there is a lesson learned there.  The CPC have talent.  Letting that show is a good thing.  Muzzle the idiots by all means but I think the real talent needs more freedom to speak candidly and use their judgement. 

I suspect that the LPC/Trudeau honeymoon will be short lived.  Already they seem to be pressured to act on things they can act on as promised.  We'll see what reality brings them.


----------



## Jed (3 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> A few things I've noticed so far.
> 
> The CPC members that are appearing on news or being interviewed seem much more relaxed and outgoing.  I saw Michele Remple on the teletube yesterday and she was very well spoken and presented herself quite well.  The same with Rona Ambrose.  I couldn't stand watching Ms. Remple during the campaign with her robotic talking points.
> 
> ...




You could possibly be seeing various candidates not having quite so much of the Media Party 'Harper Hater' default position poisoning the well before they can even get started. Of course, that would never be acknowledged by those 'professional journalists' that have an anti Harper persuasion.


----------



## Altair (3 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> All fair points, but as the old saying goes, "give solutions, not problems."  What would you suggest in terms of concrete ideas to remedy this, understanding that moving garrisons/airbases/naval bases to cities with large minority populations aren't realistic?
> 
> Mods:  I think this is worthy of discussion but split/merge into some other topic as you see fit.


I do have some answers, don't know the proper thread in which to place then,  and I'll avoid angering the powers that be on this board more than I already do.

So, first day of the LPC rule of Canada tomorrow. I'm pretty excited. Andrew Leslie as defence minister? Wouldn't bet on it,  it would be a very big file for a rookie MP.

Marc Garneau maybe.


----------



## dimsum (3 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do have some answers, don't know the proper thread in which to place then,  and I'll avoid angering the powers that be on this board more than I already do.
> 
> So, first day of the LPC rule of Canada tomorrow. I'm pretty excited. Andrew Leslie as defence minister? Wouldn't bet on it,  it would be a very big file for a rookie MP.
> 
> Marc Garneau maybe.



Feel free to post on the thread below:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/315/post-1347229.html#msg1347229

I also don't think Andrew Leslie will be MND, but I guess we'll see tomorrow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

Brian Gable, drawing in the _Globe and Mail_, says ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




     Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-november-2015/article27007657/

          ... which might remind some of us of this ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    
                    ... just a bit. It is wrong to ascribe the sins of the father to the son; it is equally wrong to pin false hopes, especially of things that never were, on him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson has two very recent columns in the  _Globe and Mail_ that will bear on politics for the next four years:

     The first, titled The Liberals' taxing challenge is a plea to restore two points, arguably even more, to the HST/GST; and

     The second, headlined as, Quebec’s red wave carries a tide of expectations is reproduced, below, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, so that we can discuss and debate it here since it is available only to paid subscribers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-quebecs-red-wave-carries-a-tide-of-expectations/article27238105/


> Quebec’s red wave carries a tide of expectations
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I believe the reason Mr Simpson, and the so-called _Laurentian Elites_, want the HST/GST returned to 7% or higher is not because it is good economics ~ although I agree that consumption taxes are always better than income taxes ~ but, rather, for what I believe is exactly the reason prime Minister Harper wanted to cut them: because they allow for free-spending, _activist_ (intrusive) government.

I am also returning to a familiar theme, Prof Michael Bliss' notion of _New Canada_ ~ everything West of the Ottawa River vs. _Old Canada_ ~ everything East of it. 

     (Now some members here argue that Ontario is more like Quebec and Atlantic Canada, in its voting patterns than it is like Alberta and BC. Not so. I think urban Toronto is more like urban Montreal and urban Calgary and urban Vancouver than it is like the_ Beauce_
      or Orangeville, Red Deer or Richmond, BC: younger, less likely to be facing mortgage payments and kids hockey fees and piano lessons, and, and, and ... I also think that Ontario voters are extraordinarily _centrist_, firmly in the "mushy middle" on social and
      economic issues and I suspect they are, actually, tired of the Liberals but they could not bring themselves to vote for a PC Party led by Tim Hudak. If Patrick Brown has even half the brains the gods gave to green peppers then he will understand that and he will offer
      Ontario a _moderate_ PC alternative to the old, tired Liberals and they, Ontario voters, will accept it.)

My thesis is that Quebec and Atlantic Canada (_Old Canada_) want, because they think they need big, free spending, activist governments. They believe in statist enterprises, in government supported _Bombardiers_. The folks in Orangeville and Red Deer and Richmond have different economic philosophies. They want lower taxes, more money in their own pockets, and so on.

I'm not arguing that the folks in Brampton and Burnaby want to ends the welfare state ~ far from it ~ but they do want to to pay less for it.

My guess is that a majority of Prime Minister Trudeau's advisors share my view ~ not all, maybe not even most, but enough to convince him to leave the HST/GST where it is and look for other ways to raise revenue and, then, live within those 'new means.' In other words my guess is that _Old Canada_ will be disappointed ... again.

Here's the problem:
     
     Now
     House of Commons: 338 seats
     _Old Canada_:                110 seats
     _New Canada_:              228 seats

     After the Next Redistribution
     House of Commons: about 375 seats
     _Old Canada_:                    "     115 seats
     _New Canada_:                  "      260 seats

And so it will go until we have something like a properly distributed House with, say, about 475 seats divided ¼ (_Old Canada_) vs ¾ (_New Canada_) which will, more accurately, reflect the makeup of the country.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Nov 2015)

If I may, let me add here little piece of news that probably went unnoticed in the rest of Canada (as we call the other provinces here in Quebec  ).

We currently have a "three-party" system in the province (Liberal, PQ and CAQ), but as usual the "national" question is never far off politician's mind. The Liberals, to get elected, will constantly harp on the "separation" issue at the lightest intimation it may surface again in order to get elected. This is what happened for instance in the last election after P.K. Peladeau's now famous fist pump "We want a country".

The CAQ, a fiscally conservative party (the provincial Libs here are centre-left) but socially progressive party wanted to steer the whole population away from such debate and as a result, they had adopted a policy that they would not pronounce themselves on the issue nor bring it up for at least ten years. That let them attract more right-leaning people from all parties.

This last week-end, the CAQ held its latest policy convention and has now officially taken the position that "They will not raise the national question - ever - as the idea has been clearly and definitely decided by the people of the province."

After more than thirty years since the repatriation of the Constitution, without the world coming to an end or the Quebec "Nation" disappearing from absorption into the North American English culture, and with the younger generations being much more open to the world than their parents ever were, I think we are finally seeing this debate slowly but inexorably disappearing in the background (it will never disappear completely), which will free Quebec politics to go back into a Centre-right or Centre-left two party system like most other provinces and finally be able to progress again.

This I think links into Mr. Simpson's story very usefully.

P.s.: As regards the GST tax matter, I think it is rather funny to see these reversals happen:

You may recall that  when Mulroney's Conservatives introduced the measure, the Chretien Liberals were up in arms and campaigned on the abolition of the GST. They of course then maintained it after taking power (and realizing that it is one of the most efficient Keynesian tax: In bad times, revenue from it decline as consumption is cut - forcing the government to have deficits. In good times, as consumption balloons, revenue pour in and erase the deficits. How do you think the liberals erased the deficit under Chretien/Martin? Not by good management but because Mulroney's tax worked as predicted in that good economic period).

Enter then Harper's Conservatives, who promised to reduce the GST in the good times as the deficit was erased (A mistake in my mind. He should have taken the opportunity to cut more drastically into the Income Taxes and left the stabilizing GST intact). He carried out his promise and now the Trudeau Liberals want to raise it again? Total reversal. However, I think Mr. Trudeau would be wise to act on this and raise it again to 7%. That, more than increasing the Income taxes of the top 1% of Canadians, will put him in position to carry out his promise of reducing the Income taxes of the middle class.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Nov 2015)

Except, they will find a way to not lower income taxes.

Government spending will outstrip the available money (from whatever source), because there are never any shortages of "good ideas"...


----------



## Altair (13 Nov 2015)

308.com continues to entertain me greatly.

Post election poll which are utterly pointless shows

LPC 55

CPC 25

NDP 12

BQ 4

GRN 3

Trudeau should drop the writ and try this again.

In more serious news, appearantly Canadians think MacKay is the best choice for leader followed by Baird.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2015)

Promising to "tax the rich" is a nice populist nostrum, but in every place they have actually tired it, from France to Maryland, it never worked. The "rich" are that way because they are smart and have the resources to discover ways to shelter their wealth and income from the taxman in ways you or I do not. When various American States tried to impose a "Millionaire Tax" post 2008, they suddenly discovered that the millionaires had somehow disappeared.

In some cases, this was literally true, as millionaires took themselves and their capital and left for Texas or similarly "friendly" States. In other cases, they rearranged their financial affairs so that technically, they were no longer millionaires by whatever definition the State tax office had decreed.

Anyone thinking that wealthy Canadian's are not equally smart and driven are obviously missing out on both human nature and the peculiarity that one of Canada's founding cultures is Scottish. Governments might be free spending, but if the "rich" taxpayers are busy penny pointing at every opportunity. there will be far less to tax. (Any Rand's book Atlas Shrugged took this idea to the ultimate extreme, where the rich and productive literally went on strike and refused to work to create new wealth. "Going Galt" has a real life counterpart as well; the 1938 "Capital Strike" which was the worst year of the Great Depression). So don't look for more wealth being extracted from the "rich"; they will find non taxable ways to hold it or shelter it in trust funds, leaving the burden back on us.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Nov 2015)

All the stuff the Liberals want to turn back on will cost money.  When the fiscal tables are published next fall, we'll know where things stand.

Increasing GST will increase revenues, but trim back GDP growth and employment.  A genuine - not "technical" - recession is a possible outcome.  I continue to believe - due to the same litany of weak factors I've written down here before - that Canada's economy can be easily destabilized into a less favourable state (and that we lack fiscal "freedom of manoeuvre" to mitigate it), which will be hardest on people who are young, or retired, or carrying a large debt load.  If you are middle aged, employed, and debt-free, you are in the sweet spot.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Nov 2015)

And former "Harper aide" not guilty of influence peddling according to this story reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Former Harper aide not guilty of influence-peddling

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Nov 17 2015

OTTAWA - A former top aide to Stephen Harper has been found not guilty of influence- peddling.

Bruce Carson was charged in connection with his attempts to promote the sale of water purification systems for First Nations communities by a company that employed his former escort girlfriend.

Carson's lawyer, Patrick McCann, acknowledged during the trial that his client tried to help H2O Pros sell water treatment equipment to indigenous communities.

But he argued there was nothing in law that prohibited Carson from lobbying First Nations communities.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Bonnie Warkentin has ruled that while it was clear that Carson was trying to use his influence to benefit his former girlfriend, the Crown failed to show the federal government had a direct say over what kind of water purification equipment First Nations communities can purchase.

Carson was a senior adviser to the former prime minister from the time the Conservatives took office in 2006, until he left the post in 2008.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2015)

"No excuses!" is the standard to which, the _Globe and Mail_'s Lawrence Martin suggests we ought to hold the new, Trudeau government in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/trudeaus-liberals-a-government-without-excuses/article27444965/


> Trudeau’s Liberals a government without excuses
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's not often that I agree with Lawrence Martin, but I think his analyses of both the current situation (domestic political peace and (relative) prosperity) and the historical record (this is the best situation facing any new prime minister since Pierre Trudeau in 1967) are accurate.

Now, the question is will Liberal supporters* and the _Laurentian Elites_ agree? Will they say "no excuses" when, inevitably, the Liberals fail.

____
* The 15% to 20% of Canadian voters who are not part of the secure Liberal "base" but who voted Liberal because they were tired of Prime Minister Harper and his CPC?


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Nov 2015)

ERC, I wouldn't agree completely with the above in that I'm of the opinion that recessionary/deflationary risk is greater than described, and the entire world economy remains in a weak growth period even with China running at 5-7%. I think Canada like a lot of countries have trapped themselves into a declining pool of revenue based on their dependence on personal income taxes but that might be a whole other issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> ERC, I wouldn't agree completely with the above in that I'm of the opinion that recessionary/deflationary risk is greater than described, and the entire world economy remains in a weak growth period even with China running at 5-7%. I think Canada like a lot of countries have trapped themselves into a declining pool of revenue based on their dependence on personal income taxes but that might be a whole other issue.



And Lawrence Martin concluded by saying that "Justin Trudeau has a low-growth economy, a low revenue stream, depressed commodity prices. No cakewalk is in store, but compared to the others, he has so little to lament, so much to build on." I agree with that: on balance, the domestic political situation and global and national economic situation is better than anything any PM since Pierre Trudeau inherited.


Edit: format


----------



## Altair (25 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "No excuses!" is the standard to which, the _Globe and Mail_'s Lawrence Martin suggests we ought to hold the new, Trudeau government in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/trudeaus-liberals-a-government-without-excuses/article27444965/
> 
> ...


I'm more curious if he does great things, will the right recognize it.


----------



## Remius (25 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm more curious if he does great things, will the right recognize it.



Like this:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/brad-wall-michael-fougere-react-syrian-refugee-targets-1.3335740


----------



## Altair (25 Nov 2015)

A good start


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm more curious if he does great things, will the right recognize it.



What's more important is if he does bad things (or things badly), will the left recognize it. You don't need your opposition's approval when you have a majority.


----------



## Altair (1 Dec 2015)

And just like that, there are no more governing conservative parties in Canada. 

Minus Brad wall and his conservatives by another name.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm more curious if he does great things, will the right recognize it.



I'm more curious if the Liberals will give credit to the strong foundation they inherited from Prime Minister Harper?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm more curious if the Liberals will give credit to the strong foundation they inherited from Prime Minister Harper?




Of course not, and why should they? I don't recall prime Minister Harper thanking the Chrétien-Martin team for leaving the federal books in good shape.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Dec 2015)

Funny how Liberals like Trudeau are like cleptomaniacs.  They have a pathological need to steal.  Me and you are paying for Trudeau's nannies (plural)

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-childrens-nannies-being-paid-025617491.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Funny how Liberals like Trudeau are like cleptomaniacs.  They have a pathological need to steal.  Me and you are paying for Trudeau's nannies (plural)
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-childrens-nannies-being-paid-025617491.html


Funny, it sounds like we've paid for help that look after the kids other times, too - later in the same article ....


> .... Section 7.1 of the Official Residence Act says cabinet may appoint "a steward or housekeeper and such other employees" deemed necessary for the management of the prime minister's residence.
> 
> This isn't the first time questions have been raised about whether taxpayers were footing the bill for child care.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2015)

Just like we pay for every public servant's child care when they're away for extended periods, or for CAF member's child care when they're away for extended periods.  See CBI 209.335 - Family Care Assistance (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-209-transportation-expenses.page) or 3.3.5 Dependent Care (http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=93&hl=1&lang=eng#tc-tm_3_5)


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Dec 2015)

As long as they're not doing child care when they're home, or when Sophie is at work (I think she has a private sector job), who cares? And if they are doing that, Trudeau should just reimburse the hourly rate for the times required, problem solved. Same gotcha journalism that plagued the Tories.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As long as they're not doing child care when they're home, or when Sophie is at work (I think she has a private sector job), who cares? And if they are doing that, Trudeau should just reimburse the hourly rate for the times required, problem solved. Same gotcha journalism that plagued the Tories.



I forgot to apply for the free nannies when I had kids.  I didn't know they existed.  This is a prime minister who believes himself to be entitled to his entitlements.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Comes with growing up in a wealthy family in Westmount, Quebec.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Comes with growing up in a wealthy family in Westmount, Quebec.


He could have just as easily come out of Baie-Comeau, too, based on the other example in the story


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Dec 2015)

They do seem to like their childcare benefits, those guys from la belle province.  Angry Tom was all for it too...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They do seem to like their childcare benefits, those guys from la belle province.  Angry Tom was all for it too...



Why can't they do like any proper Englishman and send them off to Boarding School? Or Residential School if you prefer.  >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Just like we pay for every public servant's child care when they're away for extended periods, or for CAF member's child care when they're away for extended periods.  See CBI 209.335 - Family Care Assistance (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-209-transportation-expenses.page) or 3.3.5 Dependent Care (http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=93&hl=1&lang=eng#tc-tm_3_5)



Not so fast. The problem here is that Trudeau campaigned precisely against "subsidized childcare for the wealthy".  Except for him, apparently. 

I have no issue (normally) with PMs having child care staff. Except this PM made child care somewhat of an election issue.

I have no sympathy if he now gets hoisted on the same petard that Harper would have also been hoisted upon, had the situation been reversed. And especially since my wife and I will loose the 2k we were getting under the UCCB.  Welcome to the big leagues.


----------



## cavalryman (1 Dec 2015)

To quote one of my favorite bloggers: rules are for little people.  PMJT isn't one of the little people.  You are.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not so fast. The problem here is that Trudeau campaigned precisely against "subsidized childcare for the wealthy".  Except for him, apparently.
> 
> I have no issue (normally) with PMs having child care staff. Except this PM made child care somewhat of an election issue.
> 
> I have no sympathy if he now gets hoisted on the same petard that Harper would have also been hoisted upon, had the situation been reversed. And especially since my wife and I will loose the 2k we were getting under the UCCB.  Welcome to the big leagues.




I'm in exactly the same boat ... if we are going to grouse about giving the leader of a G7 country some, even many, perquisites of office then our own petty greed and jealousy, never far from the surface in most human beings, has the upper hand ... but he did make it an issue and I, too, whilst not giving a damn about the merits of it ~ I cannot rouse myself to false outrage ~ and not displeased to see PMJT twist in the ideological winds.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem here is that Trudeau campaigned precisely against "subsidized childcare for the wealthy".  Except for him, apparently.


That.  Right.  There.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2015)

I have mentioned, several times, my worry that the Liberals will slip back into their "bad old habits," the _Globe and Mail_, in an editorial, worries too. It suspects that hypocrisy is the first misstep ...

Remember:












               Jacques Corriveau                                      Chuck Guité                           Alphonso Gagliano

     ... it was hypocrisy and and a sense of ingrained political _entitlement_, a sense that "we're the government, we can do as we want,"  that led to those fellows.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not so fast. The problem here is that Trudeau campaigned precisely against "subsidized childcare for the wealthy".  Except for him, apparently.
> 
> I have no issue (normally) with PMs having child care staff. Except this PM made child care somewhat of an election issue.
> 
> I have no sympathy if he now gets hoisted on the same petard that Harper would have also been hoisted upon, had the situation been reversed. And especially since my wife and I will loose the 2k we were getting under the UCCB.  Welcome to the big leagues.



My original perspective on this was that providing incremental care to meet the demands of a job that was in line with what anyone else would be offered, so I was less concerned.

Now, my understanding is that the nannies were previously paid by the Trudeaus (or someone else), and have seen their pay shifted to the public.  That's not acceptable, in my opinion.  Certainly, if there is overtime required because of the duties of the PM, expense that.  But if you were paying them before (a choice) you can continue to pay them now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2015)

He could make it all go away by hiring Syrian refugees as his nannies. 8)


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He could make it all go away by hiring Syrian refugees as his nannies. 8)



I was going to suggest the same!


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Dec 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My original perspective on this was that providing incremental care to meet the demands of a job that was in line with what anyone else would be offered, so I was less concerned.
> 
> Now, my understanding is that the nannies were previously paid by the Trudeaus (or someone else), and have seen their pay shifted to the public.  That's not acceptable, in my opinion.  Certainly, if there is overtime required because of the duties of the PM, expense that.  But if you were paying them before (a choice) you can continue to pay them now.



Hello Mike Duffie's (among others) housing allowance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2015)

Speech from the Throne 2015, attached in English & French - discuss  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2015)

I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Dec 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.


Based on previous Liberal governments, I share your fear.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Dec 2015)

Listening between the lines as the Liberal was interviewed on the panel about the ship building shortfalls this week it's exactly how it sounded.   They're going to cut back on the CSC in both numbers and capabilities as it gets closer, mark my words.  Liberals of olde.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Listening between the lines as the Liberal was interviewed on the panel about the ship building shortfalls this week it's exactly how it sounded.   They're going to cut back on the CSC in both numbers and capabilities as it gets closer, mark my words.  Liberals of olde.



And I fear that your V-Adm Norman has played right into their hands.  "The Conservatives underestimated".  "We are already running deficits". "Canada is a Peaceable Kingdom with no obvious threats".  "Koombayah".


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Dec 2015)

>an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities...

Why, yes, we'll hear the submission from your lobby group dedicated to re-purposing funds regardless of actual needs.

>...and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military.

Choose any 1.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2015)

A single line about Veterans. An ominous sentence about gun control, tying handguns and 'assault' rifles to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Being one of the shortest Throne speeches in history, they could have cut it in half again had they not tried to slam the Tories every chance they had.

Methinks the honeymoon is completely over for the Trudeau Liberals. Even the partisan press that got them elected is starting to question WTF they were thinking when they fell in love with some hair.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Dec 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.



So, you're all saying that we are *not *currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?

*We* are the bad guys here.  *We* gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  *We* bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  *We* pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  *We* preferred new ranks over boots for troops.

If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

My fear is that we will keep all the things you just listed...and there will be nothing else.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So, you're all saying that we are *not *currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?
> 
> *We* are the bad guys here.  *We* gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  *We* bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  *We* pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  *We* preferred new ranks over boots for troops.
> 
> If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....



In my experience, and I lived through the never-ending stream of force reductions in the 1960s, the Canadian Armed Forces when faced with a need to become a lighter, more-agile force cuts from the field force in all three services while protecting the spider's web of headquarters. Remember that the headquarters are the places where the decisions are made on what has to go, and experience has shown bureaucracies protect their own at all costs. Maybe the CDS and the DM, given proper direction and authority from the MND, can get it right this time. Or maybe the bureaucracy will just wait them out, once again.


----------



## Altair (5 Dec 2015)

I wouldn't worry too much about the HQs avoiding attention this time around. Leslie is on team trudeau after all.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So, you're all saying that we are *not *currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?
> 
> *We* are the bad guys here.  *We* gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  *We* bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  *We* pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  *We* preferred new ranks over boots for troops.
> 
> If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....



WE also have constantly fought force change because of the need to protect the regimental system. 

The basics of cutting fat and creating a more agile force are definately where we need to be going. However, there has to be cynicism since it's the same song and dance every time a new government comes in. Perhaps this one will be different, who knows. 

The question then is HOW do we become more agile is the real question. Simply saying "cut HQs" isn't the only answer. Higher HQS are required but need to be rationalized. How do we cut the logistics train? Second/third/fourth line made up if civilians with 1st line being fully military? Close bases to save on operating costs? Get rid of the regimental system? Go back to the direct fire squadron concepts to be lighter? 

The throne speech was a lot of platitudes, so we ALL need to give it some time before criticizing or championing and base it off what tge liberals do vice what they say


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> WE also have constantly fought force change because of the need to protect the regimental system.
> 
> The basics of cutting fat and creating a more agile force are definately where we need to be going. However, there has to be cynicism since it's the same song and dance every time a new government comes in. Perhaps this one will be different, who knows.
> 
> ...



I had a very good discussion about this very topic the other day.  Having spent a bit of time working in the "braintrust" of CALWC, Doctrine and Army Lessons Learned, I think I can bring a bit of a different perspective on this issue.

I won't speak to the Navy or Air Force although I can't imagine they are much better off.  My feeling is that the Army hasn't made the right investments in its brain to truly be a leaner, more effective fighting force.  What do I mean when I say brain though?

If we personify the Army to reflect the composition of a human body, the brain in this case is the institutional Army, concentrated in Ottawa and Kingston.  The central nervous system are the numerous Division HQs while the field force is the body composed of different muscles and organs.

Picture for reference and because it paints a thousand words:







Somewhere along the line, long before my time, the Army had a stroke and the damage done to the brain and central nervous system has never been repaired.  The Army has continuously ignored investing in its brain and it's hurting the organization.  Organizations like CALWC, ADC and ALLC are widely considered career stoppers and a place where the leftovers go.  We don't, as a matter of principle, place our best officers in the brain and our force suffers as a result.  I'll just say it, our Army is not a learning organization, although it does a great job through smoke and mirrors pretending to be.  

On paper, we have a field force with three regular brigades and 10 reserve brigades.  Everyone knows the one thing all those brigades have in common is that they are chronically short of actual soldiers but always have a large number of officers kicking around.  Identify the smart ones with half a lick as to what's actually going on and move them in to the institution with a clear mandate, proper governance and lines of communication.  

Why do we insist on maintaining paper Battalions and Regiments with more officers than actual soldiers?  Get rid of all the dead weight in Army HQ and CADTC and get some actual brain power in the place and not just a bunch of RRBs.  To add, there are some capable people in those organizations but none of them have been given the proper mandate to move the eight ball and they have to step over a bunch of zombies to get anything done most of the time.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2015)

But who will bell the cat?


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Dec 2015)

After the Liberals attempted to paint Tory income splitting as benefiting the rich, it seems like that middle class tax cut they championed will benefit the richest 1%ers, more than the middle class they wanted.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06/middle-class-tax-cut-not-what-it-appears



> Ten days before the election, Justin Trudeau pledged his government would introduce “as its very first bill in Parliament, a tax cut for the middle class.”
> 
> But strangely, Trudeau’s “middle class” tax cut doesn’t much benefit the middle class. The biggest tax cut goes to people earning $89,000 to $200,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2015)

Why is this a surprise to anyone? The Young Dauphin could to even define who the Middle Class were (despite two or perhaps three attempts by different journalists on different occasions), and Gerald Butts most certainly know that the true "middle class" are not Liberal voters; the tax cuts are for those who are more inclined to support the LPC.

And of course people in even higher tax brackets are quite capable of sheltering their income in vehicles like trust funds to avoid the tax man's reach.....


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After the Liberals attempted to paint Tory income splitting as benefiting the rich, it seems like that middle class tax cut they championed will benefit the richest 1%ers, more than the middle class they wanted.
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06/middle-class-tax-cut-not-what-it-appears


Oh please. 

While those making 89000 plus will get some benefits from the tax cut, it will still help those making between 45 and 89k a year.

The only other way to do it would be to offset the gains made by those in the 89 to 200k bracket would be to raise taxes on them by the same amount.

For goodness sake, giving the liberals grief for lowering taxes on those making between 45k and 200k. Oh the humanity!


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Dec 2015)

You missed the point. It's the hypocrisy of campaigning against income splitting, and then introducing a tax cut that works the exact same way. He's done nothing other than pull sleight of hand on the electorate, and you've bought it.

Also, I'll be giving up $2000 a year from income splitting to make that $670 (if I even get to $89k). Net loss of $1300.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (7 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Oh please.
> 
> While those making 89000 plus will get some benefits from the tax cut, it will still help those making between 45 and 89k a year.
> 
> ...



Both income splitting and the liberals tax relief for the middle class are really and truly BOTH inconsequential. The liberals tax cut of $670/year is equal to the princely sum of $55.83/month and the conservatives income splitting comes out to $166.67/month. Neither is exactly bolstering the "middle class", whatever that might be. 

Unless any party is willing to cut income taxes on the middle class is some sort of meaningful way than it's all just window dressing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Dec 2015)

And with talk of "carbon pricing" (basically, a tax) and phasing out of coal electricity generation, everything is about to get way more expensive. That tax cut is going to get swamped in the daily cost of living.

Inconsequential if you are a limousine liberal (partisans- note the the use of the small "l").

Not so much, for the rest of us.


----------



## cavalryman (7 Dec 2015)

The left hates poor people.  That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the evidence, i.e. the policies enacted by the NDP in Alberta, the Liberals in Ontario, etc, etc, that make everything more expensive and impact the working poor disproportionately, and for what?  I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but I miss the left that used to stand up for the little guy instead of pandering to the exquisite sensibilities of the latte socialists.


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You missed the point. It's the hypocrisy of campaigning against income splitting, and then introducing a tax cut that works the exact same way. He's done nothing other than pull sleight of hand on the electorate, and you've bought it.
> 
> Also, I'll be giving up $2000 a year from income splitting to make that $670 (if I even get to $89k). Net loss of $1300.


income splitting helps families that have a single high income earner. The spouse that makes 400k a year while the other sits at home.

Sure, there are many variations of this, but it doesn't help much when both partners make roughly the same amount, and it doesn't help single people.

Trudeau's tax cut reaches far more individuals than income splitting could ever hope to.

I still cannot believe it. People moaning about a liberal prime minister lowering taxes. Hilarious.


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The left hates poor people.  That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the evidence, i.e. the policies enacted by the NDP in Alberta, the Liberals in Ontario, etc, etc, that make everything more expensive and impact the working poor disproportionately, and for what?  I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but I miss the left that used to stand up for the little guy instead of pandering to the exquisite sensibilities of the latte socialists.


The only conclusion I can come to us that after years of trying to force pipeline projects down the American presidents throat by calling them no brainers and such have been a complete failure. 

The current president, and the potential future president( hillary) will be climate hawks so it's best to get back onside and try to tackle climate change so all our energy sources are not labeled as dirty. 

Also, BC, quebec and ontario all have a carbon tax, and their economies have not collapsed and the poor are not starting bread riots. I get the fear mongering, but carbon pricing is already in effect for most of the country and most don't even notice it's there.

 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2015)

The only way to ensure that the working poor and middle class are going to get a benefit is to make some pretty massive cuts to government spending. Since the average Canadian family of four pays between 40-45% of their income to taxes and government fees, there is a lot of room for cutting.

A 10-15% cut in government spending and a consequent reduction in taxes and fees will be like giving Canadians a 10% raise, rather than the $50/month pittance being offered as a "tax cut" (which is, as noted, less than half of what was on the table from the previous government).


----------



## cavalryman (7 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The only conclusion I can come to us that after years of trying to force pipeline projects down the American presidents throat by calling them no brainers and such have been a complete failure.
> 
> The current president, and the potential future president( hillary) will be climate hawks so it's best to get back onside and try to tackle climate change so all our energy sources are not labeled as dirty.
> 
> ...


Oh?  I suppose you haven't been living in Ontario in the last few years, where we've all seen our electricity costs skyrocket thanks to liberal policies favouring renewables at costs way above market for very little in terms of returns. Businesses are closing because the electricity they need to operate pushes their costs up so high they lose whatever profitability they may have had, which means people are losing their jobs and of course everyone is paying an increasingly huge amount of their after tax income to light and heat the home.  Who does this impact the most?   :facepalm:  Sadly, the people who this impacts the most have little to no voice when it comes to influencing government policy.

That's what I mean when I say the left hates poor people.  A carbon tax has got nothing to do with it.  Alberta will face the same as Ontario when it shuts down its coal plants.  If the left actually gave a damn about the climate, it would be pushing for more nuclear reactors and hydro dams, not bird choppers and solar panels who are neither efficient nor environmentally friendly, but since politicians don't actually care about the environment other than using it as an excuse to expand government...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The only conclusion I can come to us that after years of trying to force pipeline projects down the American presidents throat by calling them no brainers and such have been a complete failure.
> 
> The current president, and the potential future president( hillary) will be climate hawks so it's best to get back onside and try to tackle climate change so all our energy sources are not labeled as dirty.
> 
> ...



Don't know about B.C., which I believe has a carbon tax, but Quebec, and as far as I know Ontario, don't have such tax - they have a Cap and Trade system with a Carbon Exchange located in Montreal.


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't know about B.C., which I believe has a carbon tax, but Quebec, and as far as I know Ontario, don't have such tax - they have a Cap and Trade system with a Carbon Exchange located in Montreal.


I've always wondered about the pros and cons of each system, but thanks, good to know.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> income splitting helps families that have a single high income earner. The spouse that makes 400k a year while the other sits at home.



Completely wrong. Max rebate was $2000, math worked out that single income was capped at $80k to gain full benefit. I almost max it out every year, and I'm a Snr NCO in a non-spec trade. Am I high income and rich?

My spouse also doesn't just sit at home, she raises our children instead of letting the state do it.


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely wrong. Max rebate was $2000, math worked out that single income was capped at $80k to gain full benefit. I almost max it out every year, and I'm a Snr NCO in a non-spec trade. Am I high income and rich?
> 
> My spouse also doesn't just sit at home, she raises our children instead of letting the state do it.


Good to know, the system is set up far better than I though it was.

Still doesn't help people who make the same amount of money or who are single though, so at the end of the day we're just nitpicking what tax system is better when they are both decent in their own way.

I would call it a wash and I'll stop going on about it at all as an issue.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (7 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> income splitting helps families that have a single high income earner. The spouse that makes 400k a year while the other sits at home.
> 
> Sure, there are many variations of this, but it doesn't help much when both partners make roughly the same amount, and it doesn't help single people.
> 
> ...



Your example of income splitting is ridiculous. I made just under $80,000/year and benefitted from income splitting. So I, middle class person, should be punished? Why does it matter if the cut doesn't help everyone equally? No tax cut does..


----------



## Altair (7 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Your example of income splitting is ridiculous. I made just under $80,000/year and benefitted from income splitting. So I, middle class person, should be punished? Why does it matter if the cut doesn't help everyone equally? No tax cut does..


I can say the same about the liberal tax cut. Why do people care? 

As for my example, yes, thank you. You and puckchaser have explained how it works and I'll withdraw that example. I still don't support it, but it's not as bad as I thought it was.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Dec 2015)

I've never income split, however, I suppose I could have and wish I had now.  Can you back date things with CRA?


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Dec 2015)

Income splitting was intended to benefit families with children by treating total family income more generously.

I thought maybe the damage from Wynne's "One Ring" pension scheme (not to be dipped into by government except at the utmost end of need...right) would be confined to ON, but I have seen recent discussion about CPP expansion again.  So people didn't raise enough kids, so the solution is to tax the younger generations more heavily.  Great policy.

>Both income splitting and the liberals tax relief for the middle class are really and truly BOTH inconsequential. The liberals tax cut of $670/year is equal to the princely sum of $55.83/month....

Every time tax cuts have come up for the past couple of decades, they are always presented in terms designed to show how inconsequential they are.  But they add up.  In the past 20 years, federally: 2% points off the lowest PIT bracket, 4% points off the next (soon to be 5.5), the highest bracket split and the lower portion reduced by 3% points; and 2% points off the GST.  $3,865 full value for PIT cuts (without the pending Liberal cut and increase), plus whatever 2% of your annual GST-eligible purchases amount to.

Mitigation of anticipated policy changes began at roughly the time the networks called the election (and probably for a few people, earlier).  Measurement of effects of policy changes on the Canadian economy has to start from that point, not from 01 Jan 2016 or the date of enabling legislation.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> income splitting helps families that have a single high income earner. The spouse that makes 400k a year while the other sits at home.


Income splitting helps military families.  You know, the ones where one spouse cannot keep stable employment because the other spouse keeps moving around the country at the government's whim; those families that are often tucked away in relatively small communities with limited employment options (Petawawa, Bagotville, Shilo, etc).  You do not need a $400k earner in the household to have benefit from income splitting (that was a strawman argument that you bought); military families were benefiting and now they will not.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Income splitting helps military families.  You know, the ones where one spouse cannot keep stable employment because the other spouse keeps moving around the country at the government's whim; those families that are often tucked away in relatively small communities with limited employment options (Petawawa, Bagotville, Shilo, etc).  You do not need a $400k earner in the household to have benefit from income splitting (that was a strawman argument that you bought); military families were benefiting and now they will not.


And military members who aren't married will now benefit, as well as military families who will also benifits from that tax break, granted, not as much.

So I'm calling it a wash. As for the other point, screw it, I'm only apologizing once for everyone, not repeatedly for individuals.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2015)

It benefitted my family to the tune of 2000$ last year. (My wife chose to raise our kids, rather than work full time).

That money was our family vacation this past summer.

So yes, we will notice it.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It benefitted my family to the tune of 2000$ last year. (My wife chose to raise our kids, rather than work full time).
> 
> That money was our family vacation this past summer.
> 
> So yes, we will notice it.


And those single people and couples who earn similar amounts of money will enjoy a nice tax cut now, and you will still get the benifits of a tax cut.

Seems fair to me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2015)

I will report back after tax time and let you know if I am better off...


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> ... you will still get the benifits of a tax cut.


A lot of military families should expect to pay more this year as opposed to seeing a cut.  See again:


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also, I'll be giving up $2000 a year from income splitting to make that $670 (if I even get to $89k). Net loss of $1300.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely wrong. Max rebate was $2000, math worked out that single income was capped at $80k to gain full benefit. I almost max it out every year, and I'm a Snr NCO in a non-spec trade. Am I high income and rich?
> 
> My spouse also doesn't just sit at home, she raises our children instead of letting the state do it.


Income splitting kept more money in the military family with max benefit being seen at a lower income level.  It is not a wash.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I will report back after tax time and let you know if I am better off...


This isn't about you. 

Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> A lot of military families should expect to pay more this year as opposed to seeing a cut.  See again:Income splitting kept more money in the military family with max benefit being seen at a lower income level.  It is not a wash.


Somehow I don't see income splitting helping the all the single members.

Again, why are single people and those who earn similar amounts of money subsidizing married people?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?


Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?  Do you feel entitled to everybody's paycheck?

Let's look at it this way, every form of child benefit system proposed by any political party looks at household income and not each parent individually.  If household income is the fair benchmark to determine where to send more money, then why is household income not the fair benchmarck when taxing money out of those same households?

Yes, this does not fairly answer the single parent conundrum.  So, maybe single parents can split their income with one dependent.  Now everybody is happy.

Going back again.  Before laying claim to other people's money, you claimed the change was "a wash" and it all evens out.  You have since been presented with arguments to show that is not necessarily the case and military families may very well find themselves paying a lot more this year.  Are you trying to avoid addressing that you may have made a second inaccurate statement with "calling it a wash"?


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?  Do you feel entitled to everybody's paycheck?
> 
> Let's look at it this way, every form of child benefit system proposed by any political party looks at household income and not each parent individually.  If household income is the fair benchmark to determine where to send more money, then why is household income not the fair benchmarck when taxing money out of those same households?
> 
> ...


I'm calling it a wash because while married military families may end up pay more (saving less) there are many other members who will benifit from a tax cut. Single members especially. What does income splitting get them?Are they less deserving of getting money they earned back from the government? 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but does income splitting have anything to do with children? From what I understood it could be used by any married couple,  kids or no kids. 

So while it may not be a wash for everybody in every individual scenario, it does on a whole since everyone who earns between 45 and 200k qualifies for the tax cut. The income splitting mainly benifits married people who have one person who earns more than the other.


----------



## Remius (8 Dec 2015)

I'm a single parent.  Income splitting does nothing for me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> This isn't about you.
> 
> Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?



Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children. 

I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but does income splitting have anything to do with children? From what I understood it could be used by any married couple, kids or no kids.


It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Dec 2015)

There has always been a concept in taxation matters that everyone is entitled to legally arrange their affairs so as to minimize the amount of taxes they pay.

So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There has always been a concept in taxation matters that everyone is entitled to legally arrange their affairs so as to minimize the amount of expenses and taxes they pay.
> 
> So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:



Hmmmm......so you replace taxes with the expense of having children......one does equate with the other....taxes are cheaper......

mind....taxes don't bring the joy of children, so maybe that's not correct....


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So everybody: Get married and have children.  :subbies:



It's what the government wants, so why not incentivize it? More children = larger tax base in the future, something we're going to need to cover pension costs of retiring baby boomers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.



 :brickwall:


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2015)

The larger meta issue is *we* collectively pay far too much in terms of taxes, and get generally shoddy results for the massive prices we pay for education, health care, defense etc.

Rather than splitting hairs on various boutique tax cuts designed to pander to particular demographics, lets just agree to a broad based government spending cut (say 20% of the 2014 baseline) and a corresponding broad based tax cut for everyone (bring tax expenditures for Canadian families of four from the current 40-45% of income to 30-35% of income).

There is plenty of fat to cut; Edward has a list of thousands of "small" programs and offices which the vast majority of Canadians would never notice if eliminated, I can point to over 700 overlapping government grant programs, and there are government offices and departments doing things not mandated in the BNA or Constitution act, or doing things which are Provincial responsibilities. Eliminating this overlap could save billions (I read an estimate some time ago which suggested the elimination of overlapping government departments alone would save @ $19 billion). There are many other places for fat cutting as well.

However, since modern politics seems to be based on massive applications of pork rather than the best interests of the taxpayers, then politics will continue to resemble clear cutting of forests rather than the cultivation and development of a broad based economy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Dec 2015)

Unfortunately, Thuc. when it comes to the Federal government intruding into provincial fields of responsibility (on the basis of what is known, get this, as the "federal spending power"), the only two provinces that ever protest are Alberta and Quebec, even if for different reasons.

P.s.: Few people realize that when it comes to how the Canadian constitution is meant to work, Alberta and Quebec's views are closer to one another than any other two provinces and err to the side of Provincial primacy over Federal one.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2015)

Perhaps we need to take a look back in history for the REAL answers.  Perhaps JKF had it most right in December 1962 and had a much simpler explanation than all the modern day economists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU


----------



## c_canuk (8 Dec 2015)

Altair,

You and the liberals seem to be missing the big picture.

Child care is subsidized. If more families keep one person at home to raise the children several things happen.

1) The amount of your income spent on daycare for other people's kids drops.
2) The labour pool shrinks causing the price per unit of work to go up, meaning you get paid more.
3) Incentivises children so our taxable population maintains stability, so all the other social programs can be funded.

Income splitting helps everyone. The conservatives got blasted on income splitting because it didn't help the poor, then got blasted because UCCB changes didn't help the middle class, and now the liberals are undoing those changes that helped the poor and middle class to fund tax cuts that benefit the upper middle and upper-class.

Another reason families with single incomes should be able to keep a bit more money is because flat fees hit them harder than anyone else. If you have a double income, you don't need a break. If you're single you don't need a break.

Underfunding children's needs cause knock on socio economic problems that cost everyone more money.

If the kids of today are not nurtured to become productive, they become drains on the system in the future. When you're old and grey you will need to rely on today's children to keep the lights on. You short them now for pennies you'll be paying in dollars or worse later.

This plan hurts everyone, but you are championing it because you'll get an extra 55 a month for yourself and take 110 a month away from people struggling to raise the children that will keep the system going when you need to rely on it the most. I’m spending that 110 a month making sure my children are educated and get meaningful extra-curricular. What are you going to spend your 55 dollars on while my kids go without?

167 dollars goes a long way for me. a week's healthy groceries, new shoes and clothes or a snow suit for both my kids etc. We're talking 5% of our household income here. This is a significant issue.

If the liberals want to help everyone, raise the basic personal amount from 10 to 20K. That will do more to help than anything else.

How about outlaw flat fees for services? How about outlaw service charges to deliver services? my power usage was $36 dollars last month, but the bill was 147 after fees. How the hell is that fair for those of us not in the upper middle to upper class?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2015)

Were the Public more aware than the Liberals?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> John Ivison: Who could have predicted these problems for the Liberals? Absolutely everyone
> John Ivison
> December 7, 2015 - Last Updated: Dec 7 8:33 PM ET
> 
> ...



More on LINK.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Dollar is taking a beating.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It has everything to do with children.  Like your earlier suggestion that income splitting only benefit households with an individual earning over $400k, you are again wrong.  Households must have children to be eligible for income splitting.  You hold surprisingly strong opinions on a topic about which you are demonstrating yourself to be ignorant.


 I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong(even though I started off by saying I might be, skewer me anyways) and completely ignore the rest of my post.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children.
> 
> I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.


i am married and have kids.

I just feel that the state helps me out enough for those personal choices while those who work hard and pay taxes but have sinned because they haven't married and gotten kids are receiving very little of their hard earned money back


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> You and the liberals seem to be missing the big picture.
> 
> ...


Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents. 

As for those with kids, it's not like they will going without. With the new Liberal child benefit a lot of people making less than 200k a year will be walking away with more, tax free.

So I don't think the liberals don't get it. Looks like they balanced it our fairly well. 

How many here have calculated their new child benefits payments into the tax cut vs income splitting math?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong....


It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.

Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?   :dunno:


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.
> 
> Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?   :dunno:


i don't mind that you corrected, I welcomed it in fact. 

But I did write more than just that paragraph, which you ignored. So was I right, wrong? How will I know if you don't enlighten me?


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> i don't mind that you corrected, I welcomed it in fact.
> 
> But I did write more than just that paragraph, which you ignored. So was I right, wrong? How will I know if you don't enlighten me?





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.
> 
> Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?   :dunno:



 :slapfight:


----------



## c_canuk (8 Dec 2015)

> Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents.



single parents didn't benifit from the income splitting, they benifited from the UCCB changes, they also have a lot of other programs they can apply for that I don't have access to. We didn't have to take away from single income families to give to single parents. False equivalency.




> As for those with kids, it's not like they will going without. With the new Liberal child benefit a lot of people making less than 200k a year will be walking away with more, tax free.



No they won't, they will recieve 1300 less this year from last. You are claiming that they are getting something back because you are comparing the new program to  no program. The old program exists. Ignoring it to make your numbers look good is false equivalency. 

The basic truth is that less was taken from me last year under the conservative program than will be taken away by the liberals this year. 

No matter how you try to spin it, the liberals are responsible for program changes that will take more from me. Taking more of my money then claiming they are giving me more is dishonest.

On top of that, ignoring the rest of my post that illustrates why it is good economic sense to let parents (single or otherwise) keep a few more dollars is also dishonest, and exactly what you are accusing others of above.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> single parents didn't benifit from the income splitting, they benifited from the UCCB changes, they also have a lot of other programs they can apply for that I don't have access to. We didn't have to take away from single income families to give to single parents. False equivalency.
> 
> 
> No they won't, they will recieve 1300 less this year from last. You are claiming that they are getting something back because you are comparing the new program to  no program. The old program exists. Ignoring it to make your numbers look good is false equivalency.
> ...


I never said that one had to take money away from one to give to the other.

I merely gave an example of one group who will benefit. I could have said single people for example.

As for the new canada child benefit  (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/) I know many who will get a lot more. Especially those making less than 45k a year. Especially since it's tax free. As it shows in the link, CPC plan beside LPC plan, it shows that those with children will be getting more.

So with the liberal plan single income families with children will lose out on income splitting but get more CCB and lower taxes, while singles and will benefit from a tax break. Couples who earn similar amounts will benifit from both.

Will it help you specifically,  no, but it will help a large amount of Canadian families and single people.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I love how you harp on where I am in fact wrong(even though I started off by saying I might be, skewer me anyways) and completely ignore the rest of my post.


When you reach conclusions from a position of ignorance and defend those conclusions with premises that are wrong, the n you should expect to have your false premises called out.  When you choose not to review your conclusion on learning of the factually erroneous foundations, then you leave yourself open to continued challenging on those points.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Its 55 extra for a lot of people who wouldn't have qualified for income splitting, like single parents.


If you go back up a few posts then you might notice that, while you were imagining income splitting had nothing to do with children, I suggested an option for the single parents.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> How many here have calculated …


On the topic of math, let’s revisit this thought of yours:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Why do .... couples who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people [where one person earns more]?



In two households earning $180k each, there is one family where the income is split evenly at $90K between each parent and the other family where the income is carried entirely by one parent.  Guess which family pays more taxes?  It is not the couple who earn similar amounts that “subsidizes” the other.


----------



## Altair (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> When you reach conclusions from a position of ignorance and defend those conclusions with premises that are wrong, the n you should expect to have your false premises called out.  When you choose not to review your conclusion on learning of the factually erroneous foundations, then you leave yourself open to continued challenging on those points.
> If you go back up a few posts then you might notice that, while you were imagining income splitting had nothing to do with children, I suggested an option for the single parents.
> On the topic of math, let’s revisit this thought of yours:In two households earning $180k each, there is one family where the income is split evenly at $90K between each parent and the other family where the income is carried entirely by one parent.  Guess which family pays more taxes?  It is not the couple who earn similar amounts that “subsidizes” the other.


 I will always welcome corrects if what I'm saying is incorrect. I welcome them and appreciate the more accurate information.

Very good. The fact that no party, including the CPC had recommended that makes the point rather moot though.  I'm talking about policies proposed by the actual parties, not good ideas that should be implemented but never would be.

True, however my point was that couple who earn similar amounts would not benefit from income splitting whereas now they will benefit from a tax cut, and increased CCB. Although maybe not the family earnings 180k a year.anything less that 150k probably.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How many here have calculated their new child benefits payments into the tax cut vs income splitting math?



The Liberals never really provided full costing, or a calculator on how much each person would get. Smoke and mirrors I guess. I did find this calculator: http://lepinski.net/lib-childcare-calc/, based on math from a news article. The Liberals want to pay me $12500 a year, tax free, for my kids. That's a monthly mortgage payment in some areas of Canada. My concern here is less about the money I'm going to get, but how fast it will bankrupt the country. If 100,000 families have 3 kids under 6 like me, that's $1.24B a year, and I'm middle of the road. There was also no mention of capping the amount of children claimable (like welfare does). So if I crank out 6 kids, and decide to live on welfare, the Liberal goverment is going to pay me $38,400 a year tax free. Where is the incentive to work? Where do we get this money? Remember Harper apparently completely screwed the finances of the country, so there's no money left. Do we just throw entitlements on top of entitlements until we turn into the UAE, where we have to import workers to do all of our jobs, because the government will just pay us to sit on our ass?

You're completely crazy if you think Trudeau's Child Care Benefit will A. Ever see the light of day, B. Won't bankrupt the country in 2 years. Trudeau's going to pay your mortgage if you have kids. I also have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> True, however my point was that couple who earn similar amounts would not benefit from income splitting whereas now ...


You said "Why do .... couples who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people [where one person earns more]?"  That is not a suggestion that one household does not benefit, that is a suggestion that one household (the one actually paying less taxes without income splitting) is carrying a burden for the other household (the one actually paying more taxes without income spliting) when both households earn the same and would pay the same tax under income splitting.  With the math done correctly, how do you answer your own question as applied to a tax system without income splitting?


			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Why do .... [married] couples who earn dissimilar amounts need to subsidize married couples who earn similar amounts?


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It just seems like harping if one keeps repeating variations of the same falsehood, which draws repeated condemnations.
> 
> Perhaps if you posted something different it would garner a different response?   :dunno:



My wife has a saying about an old Polish proverb.  "If one man calls you an Ass, you can ignore him.  If more than one call you an Ass, you better buy a saddle"

Of course, Asses usually don't listen anyhow.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2015)

I see everyone is enjoying themselves over here.   [


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> This isn't about you.
> 
> Why do single people and couple who earn similar amounts need to subsidize married people?



Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.


----------



## ballz (8 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Letting families with kids keep the money they earned is subsiding them?



Yes, it most certainly is. The tax burden is raised on those that do not fit this description. Income splitting is the government actively supporting certain lifestyle choices over others. It is that simple.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Now everybody is happy.



No, no they are not. Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden? When did the government become the authority to decide which lifestyles are worthy of being subsidized and which ones should have to pay a higher portion of their income for the others?



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Going back again.  Before laying claim to other people's money



You have it very backwards. Income splitting is a family with kids laying claim to the money paid by others to the government to procure services.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Your example of income splitting is ridiculous. I made just under $80,000/year and benefitted from income splitting. So I, middle class person, should be punished? _*Why does it matter if the cut doesn't help everyone equally? No tax cut does.*_



I like how you think making you pay the same amount of taxes as someone else that makes 80,000 is a "punishment." How quickly do we become entitled....

You are right, none of these targeted tax cuts benefit everyone equally, that is what matters, and that is why they should be done away with. It is not the government's role to pick and choose which lifestyles it supports and which ones it doesn't.

The fairer solution is a flat tax. Would that help everyone equally? No. But that's because our current system helps some people out _unequally_ and a flat tax would be moving much more towards "fair."



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why ?  Because as Orwellian as it sound it is in the states best interest to encourage people to have children to keep the population stable or growing.  And it is in the states best interest to provide as good of a QOL as is possible for those children.
> 
> I know creepy eh.  Get married, have a kid and you get the benefit(s) but piss off if you're jealous because you don't.



This is statement is a result of many many years of our society losing its way... You happily accept the government making these decisions and forcing it upon others, simply because you agree with them *in this instance.* Will you be so happy to "piss off" when the state is making decisions that are "in its best interest" that affect you negatively? Will you be so ready to yield to "the state's" higher knowledge?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.



And what reason is that?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> And what reason is that?



Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.

The "I shouldn't have to pay for your kids" line is rich, because those DINKs that end up in old-age homes and using the healthcare system are being solely subsidized by someone else's kids. Having kids creates tax payers in the future, to further the tax base and ensure there's workers to keep the economy going.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2015)

>Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden?

Because he is unlikely to choose to go without health and assisted living care in his declining years, and that care will have to be provided by someone, and the providers will only be available if someone has borne the cost of bearing and raising them.

Taxes are the price we pay for services.  Subsidies to people who raise children are the price we pay to have a future generation to provide some of those services.

[Missed reading PC's post, which made the point.]


----------



## ballz (8 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.
> 
> The "I shouldn't have to pay for your kids" line is rich, because those DINKs that end up in old-age homes and using the healthcare system are being solely subsidized by someone else's kids. Having kids creates tax payers in the future, to further the tax base and ensure there's workers to keep the economy going.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Why should someone who chooses to be single have a higher tax burden?
> 
> Because he is unlikely to choose to go without health and assisted living care in his declining years, and that care will have to be provided by someone, and the providers will only be available if someone has borne the cost of bearing and raising them.



What a wonderful system that's been set up. Society has basically made anything but public healthcare illegal, yet one is chastised once forced to us it. Not to mention I would have thought someone who pays ~50% of their income for 49 years would have paid enough into it to live out his remaining 20. If not, perhaps his money would have been better invested somewhere else. If only he weren't forced to donate all his money to big government, perhaps he could have done so.

And how did people ever manage to have children from 1700 - 1910 when we experienced the great economic growth in human history without using the government to take other people's money to help raise their kids?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Taxes are the price we pay for services.



That's funny, I thought we paid money for services.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Subsidies to people who raise children are the price we pay to have a future generation to provide some of those services.



This whole idea is ludicrous and a very new concept. If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us. The government created this entire scenario, and yet you all have so much faith that the government has the solution to it despite its poor track record.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because as a society, we tend to believe (in varying levels), that we are only as strong as our weakest members.



I believe we have a moral obligation to help those weakest members. I do not believe the government does and I certainly don't believe its moral for me to force that moral obligation upon you. If I can't do it voluntarily, why would I expect it to be moral to make you do it involuntarily?

FWIW, I intend to have kids within 10 years. I just don't see how you all owe me anything for voluntarily making that decision. Yes, I know kids cost more money, yes, I know they will eat up a lot of my time, yes, it will be very challenging. It's not government subsidies that makes me want kids and without government subsidies I am not going to not have kids.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> > Quote from: Good2Golf on Today at 20:34:47
> > Probably for the same reason that people who earn more must subsidize those who earn less.
> 
> 
> ...



Because the Government says so.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

Its not about owing anyone anything. Its about using incentives to encourage behaviour that benefits society. You're looking at it from a glass half empty "Why do I have to pay for you", when most look at it as "If I pay for you, does it make us stronger".


----------



## ballz (8 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not about owing anyone anything. Its about using incentives to encourage behaviour that benefits society. You're looking at it from a glass half empty "Why do I have to pay for you", when most look at it as "If I pay for you, does it make us stronger".



Nope. I am looking at it from a "most individuals can decide what's best for themselves" perspective and most people look at it from a "the government knows what's best."

I do not agree *at all* with the *government* playing an active role in providing incentives for people to behave a certain way. That is not the proper role of the government. You (and by extension, the government) don't know what benefits society most. You *believe* x, y, or z does. Your belief does not give you the moral grounds to use other people's money.

If you believe so sincerely that the greater good is in encouraging more people to have children, and that the best way to make that happen is to create incentives, then go donate to a private charity that does that and if one doesn't exist, perhaps you should start one (and I do not say that in a hostile manner... I mean that sincerely).


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

There's a reason there's no Libertarian governments around the world. Their economies would collapse and if you thought we had an issue with the 1%ers now...

Even with massive incentives, rich people don't donate to charity. In fact, if there was that much money flowing into charities, you'd start seeing massive CEO salaries and money not going where its needed. You follow the Rousseau philosophies of Civilization = bad, Human Nature = good. I think time and time again, we have huge examples where Human Nature = Bad, and needs civilization to bring them back from killing each other.


----------



## ballz (8 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a reason there's no Libertarian governments around the world. Their economies would collapse and if you thought we had an issue with the 1%ers now...



History suggests otherwise. The American economy from 1700 - 1910 was largely unregulated with open borders. It was the greatest expansion of productivity ever. Money deflated every year for 200 years, because each year they became much more efficient at producing than they were the last year, so you could buy more with less money. Deflation is a sign of a strong economy and something we haven't experienced since. Income disparities (not that those are actually a problem, but since you seem to think they are) were not nearly as wide as they are now.

Things really took a turn for the worse when the government got involved. We've had numerous crashes since then and inflation has evaporated the value out of everything. Those harmed the worse by inflation are the poor and middle class. Despite all the government involvement since 1910, over 100 years of government solutions and "expertise" and people looking out for the "greater good," they still haven't been able to recreate that kind of economic performance.

The Swiss have no public healthcare, no minimum wage, no standing army, some of the lowest taxes in the world, and a high level of unequal wealth distribution. Yet they are probably the most stable and prosperous economy in the world right now. They also finished 3rd on the UN Human Development Index list.




			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think time and time again, we have huge examples where Human Nature = Bad, and needs civilization to bring them back from killing each other.



Like where? What brought us "responsible" government? It sure wasn't authoritarians. Throughout the course of human history, humans realized more and more the need to constrain the government's powers through constitutions, because each and every time the same result happened... the government grows out of control and ends up being a bigger problem than anything else. Unfortunately, no one has written a constitution well enough yet to keep government constrained, although the Swiss seem to have done it pretty well this time around.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Dec 2015)

Every taxation choice a government(society) makes influences personal decisions, there is no way to avoid that, to argue otherwise is ridiculous.   A lot of western social democracies have focused on encouraging reproduction for two obvious reasons economic growth and societal maintenance. Any one individual can choose to be childless but if everyone did or too many than economic decay is inevitable and rapid.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

1700-1910 does not hold a candle to today's complex, global economy. They weren't even their own country for the first 76 years of your timeframe.

The US has very limited (until recently) healthcare, social supports, etc.

Your Swiss example doesn't hold water. They're a super small economy, a country of only 8 million people, naturally defended by mountains and untouched by a whole lot of immigration. They also have conscription, so don't require a standing army. You can't possibly try to extrapolate a country of 8 million that has half the land mass of New Brunswick into 35+ million and the second largest landmass with a melting pot of cultures and socioeconomic ideas.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> History suggests otherwise. The American economy from 1700 - 1910 was largely unregulated with open borders. It was the greatest expansion of productivity ever. Money deflated every year for 200 years, because each year they became much more efficient at producing than they were the last year, so you could buy more with less money. ... Despite all the government involvement since 1910, over 100 years of government solutions and "expertise" and people looking out for the "greater good," they still haven't been able to recreate that kind of economic performance.


Do you think, maybe, the industrial revolution (applied technology) had something to do with the productivity growth while heavy immigration further contributed to economic growth?  Pointing to a silver bullet in history seems to oversimplify history and erode the value of history's lessons.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2015)

Why not make a study as to how the constant rise in taxation on Canadians has not increased productivity, but stiffled the economy?  Perhaps some should turn the wheel back a few spokes to the 1960's and listen to John F. Kennedy's views on taxes:

John F. Kennedy on Tax Reform

6 lessons from JFK on tax policy

or John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York on 14 December 1962.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Dec 2015)

Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals. 

It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation


----------



## YZT580 (9 Dec 2015)

it seems to me that government just uses more of my money to bribe me to keep them in office and collecting perks.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> it seems to me that government just uses more of my money to bribe me to keep them in office and collecting perks.



Seems like that is what everyone is complaining about. The policy that didn't benefit them the most is being changed/not being enacted


----------



## ballz (9 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you think, maybe, the industrial revolution (applied technology) had something to do with the productivity growth while heavy immigration further contributed to economic growth?  Pointing to a silver bullet in history seems to oversimplify history and erode the value of history's lessons.



The industrial revolution was a *result* of entrepreneurship, of free markets. All that technology was created to increase production so that people could further their own self-interests (make profit). In doing so, they made the entire western world more prosperous. Our "poor" today are much richer and much less plentiful than the poor 400 years ago, and our middle class lives like kings compared to pre-industrial revolution. So yes, all that productivity growth did have something to do with the IR and that's my point.

I'm not sure why you mentioned heavy immigration... I clearly said "open borders" in my post. Free markets + open borders = 2x libertarian policies.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 1700-1910 does not hold a candle to today's complex, global economy.



The economy is not complex. A very smart man with some very dumb ideas named John Maynard Keynes convinced the world that it is, and we have been suffering for it ever since. Those who stuck to old school fundamental Austrian economics, such as Peter Schiff, predicted the 2008 recession with ridiculous accuracy. Despite the fact that the evidence was in front of their faces, most economists couldn't see it as they live in this "complex, global economy" like yourself.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They weren't even their own country for the first 76 years of your timeframe.



What in the flying saucers does that have to do with it? It was a very libertarian-esque country, regardless of who claimed ownership of it. Contrary to your claim that libertarianism would "doom" the economy, they were prosperous.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Your Swiss example doesn't hold water. They're a super small economy, a country of only 8 million people, naturally defended by mountains and untouched by a whole lot of immigration. They also have conscription, so don't require a standing army. You can't possibly try to extrapolate a country of 8 million that has half the land mass of New Brunswick into 35+ million and the second largest landmass with a melting pot of cultures and socioeconomic ideas.



I'm not sure why you are so focussed on the standing army part. I only threw that in there because it is a very libertarian-esque policy. Again, what does that have to do with anything? So they have better terrain for defence... and that trumps the fact that they are a low-tax, low-regulation economy with high income inequality but is one of the most prosperous in the world... how exactly?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2015)

8 million is one large city in the US, and you want to run the whole country like that. You conveniently ignored that part, and you chose to focus on the standing army piece which was already refuted.

That Libertarian-esque economy you extol the virtues of, made a lot of its money on raw materials produced via slavery until the mid 1800s. Still a good example on how we should run things?


----------



## ballz (9 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 8 million is one large city in the US, and you want to run the whole country like that. You conveniently ignored that part, and you chose to focus on the standing army piece which was already refuted.
> 
> That Libertarian-esque economy you extol the virtues of, made a lot of its money on raw materials produced via slavery until the mid 1800s. Still a good example on how we should run things?



Oh dear god, you are unbearable. Slavery being legal was a result of the government's failure to do its one legitimate job (protection of life, liberty, and property). Some of the biggest anti-slavery people were Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. Look at how they wrote the US constitution for God's sake... "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and all that jazz. While libertarianism wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, for all intents and purposes they were libertarians.

The population size of Switzerland is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you think the fundamentals of economics don't apply to bigger countries.

I'm not sure why you are still talking about the standing army thing, you didn't refute anything, and I didn't argue with your point that it is easier to defend. I will concede that their terrain is easier to defend... that has nothing to do with their stellar economic performance. You didn't "refute" anything, you wasted a lot of time talking about the one thing you thought you could debate.

And speaking of wasting a lot of time, I'm out for the night. Good night.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

I think a big part of the American economic/political landscape owes itself to the nature of American expansion and the frontier- Frederick Jackson Turner; The significance of the frontier in American history


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2015)

LOL!


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Oh dear god, you are unbearable. Slavery being legal was a result of the government's failure to do its one legitimate job (protection of life, liberty, and property). Some of the biggest anti-slavery people were Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. Look at how they wrote the US constitution for God's sake... "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and all that jazz. While libertarianism wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, for all intents and purposes they were libertarians.



While you say "libertarianism" wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, nor was the concept that slaves were not property.  

PS:  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

Applying the values we hold today to events of two centuries or more in the past, even a couple decades ago, hold little credibility to this type of argument.  Even applying the values that our Western society holds to those of non-Western societies is not a credible argument.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals.
> 
> It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation



I see you did not comprehend, perhaps not even read, what JFK had said.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see you did not comprehend, perhaps not even read, what JFK had said.



probably did not comprehend?


----------



## ballz (9 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!
> While you say "libertarianism" wasn't really a word or a philosophy at that time, nor was the concept that slaves were not property.
> 
> PS:  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.
> ...



While its a fairly complicated manner, Thomas Jefferson was no doubt one of the leaders of the anti-slavery movement. Unfortunately, you are right, in his world, it was a radical idea during that time period since free labour was so abundant. His reasons for keeping his slaves were financial. He may have been pragmatic in his approach, but he effective.

As the governor of Virginia, he passed legislation that banned importing slaves in Virginia, *one of the first places in the world to do so.*
As a member of congress (I believe), he introduced a bill to congress to end slavery that ended up not passing by one vote. As President, he led the charge on the bill that did end up passing congress to make the international slave trade illegal, which curtailed the slave trade.


I assume your last bit is speaking to the one who seems to be trying to blame the free market for the slave trade, since I am not the one bringing this ridiculous argument forward, only pointing out how silly it is myself.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Dec 2015)

>If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us.

Having them support us (financially) is not the issue - we could easily fix that; all we lack is will.  We would be relying on future generations to be present in enough numbers to run things.  No amount of money can make someone materialize in your room when you press a call button.


----------



## McG (10 Dec 2015)

And now the tax changes have been passed.



> Liberals' middle class income tax cut passes House vote
> CTV News
> 09 Dec 2015
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-middle-class-income-tax-cut-passes-house-vote-1.2693674


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Without a doubt taxes are a burden, but its been a conscious decision by the government to switch the tax burden from corporations to individuals.
> 
> It's not government policy to support full employment but rather to rein in inflation



Just to throw a few things in the mix:

Governments used to be far more Keynesian than they are now, and I actually took economics at a time when Keynes was still "king". Oddly, while I struggled with things likethe Phillips Curve and the IS/LM model, which showed how one could trade inflation for employment, in the real world "Stagflation" was tearing economies apart, despite the fact it was explicitly impossible in _any_ Keynesian construct. Reality took another bite out of my instructors, who rabidly predicted the Reagan Revolution would fail, even as the US economy began growing at the fastest rate since the Kennedy tax cuts (strange coincidence there).

Milton Freidman nailed in when he said "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon ". Central bankers _had_ been keeping inflation under control from the Reagan Revolution in the 1980's until the Financial meltdown in 2008; tricks like QE, negative interest rates and running deficits again are all working to bring inflation back (and look at food and energy prices since 2008, I'm sure it is also a coincidence that food and energy prices somehow don't figure in the calculations of the inflation rate).

Governments around the world are still trying to pump air into various inflationary bubbles, rather than attack the root cause of the global financial crisis, the massive debt overhang. The central bankers have learned just enough since the last massive debt overhang at the end of the Great War triggered the global Great Depression to keep the economy from becoming openly depressed; our "best case" scenario will probably look like the lost decade in Japan.

Canadian politics in 2015 and for the next several years seems to be built on more hiding of heads in the sand. While we *should* be deleveraging, instead we are promised more deficits. While we *should* be working with our allies to neutralize rapidly growing threats to our peace and saftey (not to mention the free passage of goods and services which underpin our place in the global economy and source of our wealth), we are rapidly retreating from engaging the world on any sort of realistic basis, retreating again into platitudes and virtue signalling behaviours (the signs of "Little Canada" in a memorable Ruxstead Group article "One Nation: Two visions" published on 4 Jul 2007). And of course the tax changes which set off the acrimonious debate will be exposed as smoke and mirrors (well, they already have, but don't look for lots of media coverage of that) as "rich" people find new ways to shelter their income and poor people get whatever potential benefits from tax cuts clawed back by higher fees and the rest devalued by continuing deflation and devaluation of the dollar.

I mentioned in another thread that the ever growing signs of "weak and ineffectual and dishonest" government and bureucratic political elites prompts the growth of populist resentment and the rise of the Donald Trumps and Marie Le Pen's of the world; there is no reason to suspect that *we* are somehow immune to this, and my big prediction is Canada is going to see our own versions of the Trumps and LePens rising at both the Federal and Provincial levels. The Ford brothers might have seemed funny at the time, now I'm thinking they were just a few years too early....


----------



## ballz (11 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> and poor people get whatever potential benefits from tax cuts clawed back by higher fees and the rest devalued by continuing deflation and devaluation of the dollar.



You meant inflation, not deflation, right?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Dec 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If we lived within our means, we wouldn't be relying upon future generations to support us.
> 
> Having them support us (financially) is not the issue - we could easily fix that; all we lack is will.  We would be relying on future generations to be present in enough numbers to run things.  No amount of money can make someone materialize in your room when you press a call button.



Each generation tries to add to the mix, my parents generation earned a free ride, but didn't get it, they buckled down and kept on building. I benefited by getting a decent education. Then I spent 20 years paying to the education system with no stake in it. Then I had kids who are moving through that education. I'm pretty healthy, so i pay more for healthcare than I use for now. But in a decade that may change. for a society to function your supposed to think beyond your own wants and needs and try to give more than you receive. If everyone or most people plays by those rules then things work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> .... I spent 20 years paying to the education system with no stake in it. Then I had kids who are moving through that education ....


I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying taxes for education because it helps the next cohort do better***, thus being able to pay taxes into the future.

*** - At least potentially, anyway - whether it's doing that or not is a different question _very much_ open to debate.


----------



## ballz (11 Dec 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Each generation tries to add to the mix, my parents generation earned a free ride, but didn't get it, they buckled down and kept on building. I benefited by getting a decent education. Then I spent 20 years paying to the education system with no stake in it. Then I had kids who are moving through that education. I'm pretty healthy, so i pay more for healthcare than I use for now. But in a decade that may change. for a society to function your supposed to think beyond your own wants and needs and try to give more than you receive. If everyone or most people plays by those rules then things work.



This is all completely irrelevant from the idea of "we're not having enough kids to pay the bills when we aren't taxpayers." There is absolutely no reason we can't manage our tax money in a manner that, if everyone stopped having kids tomorrow, by the time the last Canadian died off of old-age, there would still be money in the pot. It's called living within your means and everyone seems to be able to do it fairly well when its their own money but not when it's someone else's.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> for a society to function your supposed to think beyond your own wants and needs and try to give more than you receive. If everyone or most people plays by those rules then things work.



But that is not what people do. What people do is take other people's money and donate it to whatever "wants" they have, in many cases it is regardless of its utility. There is no moral high ground in using the government to donate other people's money when most people aren't willing to donate their own money or time.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> We would be relying on future generations to be present in enough numbers to run things.  No amount of money can make someone materialize in your room when you press a call button.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If we had less Canadians, we'd need less to "run things." The argument is always (and has been so far in this thread) that without more young people, the current taxpayers won't have enough people to pay taxes when they are too old to work. This is only a problem because of the crap job we have done at governing.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> You meant inflation, not deflation, right?



Yes, sausage fingers at work again.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2015)

>I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If we had less Canadians, we'd need less to "run things."

I'm saying that until we achieve that magical "less Canadians" future, there is going to be a huge cohort of old people - the "baby boomers" - moving through their "need lots of health care and assisted living" phase, and that will taper off gradually.  If the number of service providers is too few, who gets first dibs: the people with the most money (those who did not pay the costs of raising children would generally have an advantage), or the people who contributed to the pool of service providers?

The Liberals are going to keep backing away from their election promises - no surprise there.  I have speculated before about the federal government getting caught moving in the wrong direction with its fiscal policy when "events" transpire to really knock the pins out from under the economy.  It's still too early to tell, though.

The fundamental problem is the return to an earlier mode of thinking: a debt-to-GDP ratio below a certain level is viewed by some as "room to spend".  Balancing a budget isn't even on the radar for either the new federal government or the AB government.


----------



## dimsum (26 Dec 2015)

Rex Murphy in the National Post:



> Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change our voting system
> 
> The Liberal government does not have the right to change Canada’s voting system without first holding a referendum. The notion that we can fundamentally alter our democracy without subjecting the change to a full public consultation is simply wrong, as voting is not a privilege granted by a political party to the people — it is the people who vest power, for a limited time, in a political party. It is up to the voters to decide how they shall choose which party to give that power to.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-liberal-government-does-not-have-the-right-to-unilaterally-change-our-voting-system

The best line, and it was only a caption on one of the pictures, was that Harper would have been labelled a tyrant if he were to propose the same thing - why is the MSM giving the Liberals a pass on this?


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Dec 2015)

Quite right. The chosen do not get to determine the method of their choosing.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2015)

The Globe and Mail is now reporting (can't link to the page, as you need an account) the Liberals will not hold a referendum on electoral reform, and will let Parliament (Liberal Majority is only 39.62% of popular vote) decide how we should run our next election. This is literally giving the inmates the key to the asylum. This one time, I hope the Tory majority in the Senate kills/kicks this bill back to the Commons with a requirement for a referendum. Political parties should not have a choice in how elections are run.

Also very telling, is that CBC and CTV are not carrying the story. This would have been plastered all over the front page, with the percentage of Harper's majority in bold font had the Tories tried to do it. This is how despots and dictators are installed, they change the rules of elections so that no one else can win.


----------



## Remius (28 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also very telling, is that CBC and CTV are not carrying the story. This would have been plastered all over the front page, with the percentage of Harper's majority in bold font had the Tories tried to do it. This is how despots and dictators are installed, they change the rules of elections so that no one else can win.



I suspect it isn't much of a story yet because they never promised a referendum.  They always stated they would make the changes through an all party consensus process.  I guess it will depend on how smoothly that goes. As well it will likely be story when we get to it.  Right now the MSM is focussed on year end reviews and what's ahead as is the case every year.

The conservatives were accused of the same thing with their changes to elections act.  I think it's a bit hyperbolic on all sides when they cry dictatorship.  The fact is that our system is designed to be an elected dictatorship if a party gets a majority, so nothing new.

If the public cares enough they might make an about face and go to the people but who knows.  I'll be curious to see what they come up with first.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I suspect it isn't much of a story yet because they never promised a referendum.  They always stated they would make the changes through an all party consensus process.  I guess it will depend on how smoothly that goes. As well it will likely be story when we get to it.  Right now the MSM is focussed on year end reviews and what's ahead as is the case every year.
> 
> The conservatives were accused of the same thing with their changes to elections act.  I think it's a bit hyperbolic on all sides when they cry dictatorship.  The fact is that our system is designed to be an elected dictatorship if a party gets a majority, so nothing new.
> 
> If the public cares enough they might make an about face and go to the people but who knows.  I'll be curious to see what they come up with first.



The Conservatives never cooked the books on how we elect members, so they would stay elected indefinitely. They required people to prove they were eligible to vote, instead of the other way around. Asking for more ID is not an attack on democracy. Changing the way we vote without asking the populace of the country is, especially when you hold the power to ram bills through the house.

The Liberals are also not promising an all-party consensus. Putting a vote through the House where they have a majority and will be whipped into support for the bill is not all-party support.


----------



## Remius (28 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Conservatives never cooked the books on how we elect members, so they would stay elected indefinitely. They required people to prove they were eligible to vote, instead of the other way around. Asking for more ID is not an attack on democracy. Changing the way we vote without asking the populace of the country is, especially when you hold the power to ram bills through the house.
> 
> The Liberals are also not promising an all-party consensus. Putting a vote through the House where they have a majority and will be whipped into support for the bill is not all-party support.



No they did promise that.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/

Now how they achieve that and whether they keep the promise is while other ball of wax.

The fair elections act did more than just change the ID requirements.  The CPC also rammed it through the house by using time allocation, skipping committee, limiting debate and ramroded it through the senate.  The sort of thing you are saying the liberals will do.  If they do that, I'll cry foul along with you.

A referendum will really get what proportion of the population out? Most people outside of Ottawa aren't really that interested one way or the other.  I suspect you'd get a 40-50 percent turnout for this and that's being optimistic.  Not too mention the cost.  

Many countries, that far from dictatorships have adopted alternative voting systems.  I tend to think that ouR FPTP system needs some changes and updating.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> A referendum will really get what proportion of the population out? Most people outside of Ottawa aren't really that interested one way or the other.  I suspect you'd get a 40-50 percent turnout for this and that's being optimistic.  Not too mention the cost.



So because you don't think there will be voter turnout, we just toss democratic process out the window? No government has the right to change how we elect members when they're in power and can force legislation through.

You're honestly content with a party claiming they speak for a majority of Canadians WRT a new electoral process when they only had 39.62% of 68.49% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for them? 27% of Canadians get to decide on the next electoral process, when they don't even know what it is? People who voted Liberal voted for electoral reform. Not a specific type. "Real change" doesn't mean carte blanche to do whatever the $@#! he wants.


----------



## McG (29 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So because you don't think there will be voter turnout, we just toss democratic process out the window? No government has the right to change how we elect members when they're in power and can force legislation through.
> 
> You're honestly content with a party claiming they speak for a majority of Canadians WRT a new electoral process when they only had 39.62% of 68.49% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for them? 27% of Canadians get to decide ...


Well, that is how our democratic process works.  The Conservatives did not need a referendum for anything they did in power, and now neither do the Liberals need o use referendums?  Don't like it?  Then I guess you actually are a supporter for a reform.


----------



## ballz (29 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, that is how our democratic process works.  The Conservatives did not need a referendum for anything they did in power, and now neither do the Liberals need o use referendums?  Don't like it?  Then I guess you actually are a supporter for a reform.



I think there is a fair difference between electoral reform vs normal legislation. As was already said, our system basically allows us to elect somewhat of a dictatorship, I'm relatively okay with this because whoever is at the helm needs to be able to get s**t done, so I don't care a whole lot about bashing bills through. I fully expect the Liberals to bash bills through the process that screw me over (such as firearms legislation), but it will be the content of the bill that I criticize, not the getting things done part. 

But electoral reform is a different thing. To be honest, I am kind of baffled that the constitution doesn't make it harder than this to make such a fundamental change. I would have thought how governments gets elected would have been written into the constitution somewhere (it is for pretty much every constitution I've ever seen), and it would require an amendment to the constitution if you wanted to mess around with that.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2015)

Completely agree.

The way some are arguing here, is that we should have let Quebec separate if a majority of their MPPs voted to do so. I expect a similar Supreme Court challenge if the Liberals try to change something so fundamental to our society. Multiple provinces realized they should not change voting systems without a referendum, and to address the cost aspect, very easy to add a question on the ballot of the next federal election, cost almost neutral.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Dec 2015)

While discussing electoral reform, it is critical to keep two ideas in mind: input legitimacy, and output legitimacy.

Remius defends the Liberals using only input legitimacy as a measure.  They didn't promise a referendum; they hold a majority in the House; they can pass whatever legislation they please.

Ignoring output legitimacy (practical outcomes and perception thereof), however, will have adverse consequences and is likely to strain the nation.

There is no dressing the issue up in terms of "fairness", "reform", "making all votes count", etc - those are all polite noises and rationalizations to deflect attention from what is intended.  It is a political manoeuvre to create a long-term advantage which heavily favours the Liberals.  They don't want a PR scheme; they want a vote ranking scheme.  The reasoning is straightforward: the LPC, roughly occupying the ideological ground between NDP and CPC in what is essentially a three-party system, expect to be the beneficiary of more second votes than the other parties.  That is all.

If the 30-40% of Canadians who prefer a CPC government do not experience one often enough, social cohesion will be reduced, ill feelings will accumulate, and the nation will fail.  I expect the magnitude of the eventual crisis to be greater than anything we have experienced due to Quebec nationalism.

Add: From an article Andrew Potter wrote at macleans.ca Two Concepts of Legitimacy about the 2008 coalition.  

"...the requirement, ultimately, that the output of an institution be acceptable to the people. Both forms of legitimacy are important, but there is the question of priority. Normally, we tend to think that IL [input legitimacy] determines OL [output legitimacy]: That is, we accept the outcome of an election, or a vote in parliament, or what have you, because it has high input legitimacy. To put it another way, as long as the rules are followed we accept the result. 

But it is not that simple, and in the end, I’m inclined to think that output legitimacy has priority. That is, a certain institutional design will only be (input) legitimate to the extent to which it tends on the whole  (note the hedging here) to produce acceptable (that is, output-legitimate) outcomes."


----------



## Remius (29 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree.
> 
> The way some are arguing here, is that we should have let Quebec separate if a majority of their MPPs voted to do so. I expect a similar Supreme Court challenge if the Liberals try to change something so fundamental to our society. Multiple provinces realized they should not change voting systems without a referendum, and to address the cost aspect, very easy to add a question on the ballot of the next federal election, cost almost neutral.



And it may very well come to that. As we've seen with badly crafted legislation in the last mandate.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Dec 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Many countries, that far from dictatorships have adopted alternative voting systems.  I tend to think that ouR FPTP system needs some changes and updating.



Ok and do you think changing and updating means giving one party sole power without the will of the people?

By the logic you have written, you basically argue because they have a majority they can do whatever they want even if it is against the will of the people (that sounds very similar to a Mr. Hitler). You have completely forgotten what the purpose of a democracy is, which is to represent the will of the people. By not holding this change to a referendum it shows the Liberal Party of Canada has no respect for our democratic traditions, and the people it rules. If they are so confident in this being the best system why not hold a referendum unless they are afraid that the people will see through the lies. 

The Liberals argue the current system is unfair because parties can have a majority with only 39ish percent of the vote (Conservatives had 38%, Liberals 39.5%). Their solution is to make it so only one party can have a majority with 39% of the vote, their party. If they were truly serious about creating a equal voting system we would be looking at something like percentage based voting or some other system similar to that. 

How does changing the system to one which would have given the Liberals MORE seats for the same number of votes seem fair to you?

Personally I like FPTP as it gives regional representation. The problems with this 'shared voting/multiple voting' system is it is even less representative of what the people want/voted for. Basically it gives some people two votes and tells others your vote doesn't matter. The problems with percentage based voting is you lose the regional representation, and it also can create tons of fringe parties, which can be a good or bad thing. Not to mention that since you only vote for a party, the party decides who gets to represent you, not you yourself (like with FPTP). 

To me this proposed change scares me. It could truly be the death of democracy in our country, and it will be done under the guise of good governance.


----------



## Remius (29 Dec 2015)

I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Hitler...


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Dec 2015)

One of the things I like about the FPTP system is that politicians, particularly Liberal and NDP types, don't like it.  Apparently it doesn't produce a predictable outcome.

I like that.

Something should always be left to chance.  Even if it meant a chunk of Parliament was decided on a throw of the dice.

The rules are the rules and they should not change the character of the game.  In Canada we expect our politicians to play Rugby.  I don't want them deciding they would rather play Badminton instead.


----------



## Loachman (29 Dec 2015)

I have never liked the concept of proportional representation. I used to like the idea of ranked ballots (first/second/third choice), but no longer do.

Our current system is not perfect. No system is.

There is one reason why I now prefer to keep it is because it ensures a change of government every few years.

And governments, even ones for which I vote, need changing every few years.

That is the only way to keep them at least pseudo-honest.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Dec 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In Canada we expect our politicians to play Rugby.


Well, we don't _expect_  it, but it's always nice when they do he did... even showing up at the Garrison Ball afterwards with a scraped face.   ;D


----------



## Remius (29 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have never liked the concept of proportional representation. I used to like the idea of ranked ballots (first/second/third choice), but no longer do.
> 
> Our current system is not perfect. No system is.
> 
> ...



I agree.  I don't like proportional rep either.  I do like the concept of a preferential ballot system though.

I'm more of a red Tory, and I think a system like that would force the right to move back to its PC roots and be less regional in nature.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Dec 2015)

Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons ..."

And the 1867 Constitution Act, where it institutes the Upper House styled the Senate and a House of Commons, indicates, funny enough, that it shall have the power to decide its own rules and privileges, but that they cannot exceed those of the UK Parliament.

Anyway, the thing is, here, that we are a British Parliamentary system and our constitution, as the Supreme Court has reminded us, includes unwritten parliamentary traditions. Now, funny enough, we have never had any other system for selecting our members of the House of Commons than FPTP, and that system is the one in effect in ALL British Parliamentary systems. 

So there is certainly a valid argument to be made that how my vote will count towards electing my member of the House of Commons was crystallized as a fundamental constitutional right in 1982, based on the British system that had always been in place and was in place at the time. If so, (and unlike the PC bill that aimed at preventing electoral fraud and imposing a need to identify yourself to the electoral personnel, but did not affect the actual right to vote for my member or how that vote would be counted/used towards electing the said member - it remained FPTP as before) going to a different system could be considered an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court may impose a more complex way of effecting such change than merely a simple majority vote in Parliament and Royal Assent.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2015)

Anything that allows people to vote for a party, and not a specific candidate, keeps the partisan politics at an acceptable level. It's bad enough we have parachute candidates into party stronghold ridings, some of the systems proposed allow the party to stuff patronage appointments into MP positions because they got X amount of votes.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Dec 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One of the things I like about the FPTP system is that politicians, particularly Liberal and NDP types, don't like it.  Apparently it doesn't produce a predictable outcome.
> 
> I like that.
> 
> ...



This is about enhancing democracy.  The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives. Our system, like all democracies is designed to keep power with elites while maintaining an illusion of choice. That illusion is rapidly dissolving as we're seeing in the US.

 Now, the Liberal idea of preferential ballots is BS. just like FPTP. It would help them the most. It's still a step in the right direction however.

 The NDP is for proportional representation, probably because it would help THEM the most. But, in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table. If you are against it, you are against further democratization.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives.



 :  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.



It's best to keep him on ignore, although you have to scroll quickly on Tapatalk (ignore doesn't work there) so you don't lose brain cells.

Also notice democratic reform only came about because the Liberals lost 3 elections in a row. Tories didn't complain about FPTP during the Chretien/Martin years.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.



What a great contribution. I hate to break it you, but "conservatism" and "conservative thought" are inherently undemocratic. Always have been. When successful, this philosophy holds society back. Change cannot happen. Not all change is good (I would argue that much of the recent emphasis on consumerism as a primary way of identifying yourself has been disastrous for civil society, including some traditionally conservative institutions like the church which have often been a net good), but there's a very good reason why conservatives are against proportional representation. It's a threat to the elite consensus that only certain people are fit to make decisions that guide a nation. This is a very conservative idea. The Liberals sure as shit believe it too. Which is why we won't see much in the way of Senate reform. 

BUT the Liberals, in being left of the Conservatives are more democratic than the latter. This is what left and right is all about. It was progressives and progressive thinking that saw women, blacks get the vote. It was progressives who thought, "hey maybe people shouldn't be forced to work 7 days a week for little pay" or "maybe we should have some safety standards?" The Liberal Party is inherently conservative as well ( I know, the name is so damn confusing!) in that they also represent an elite consensus. But they understand that for our system to work, the average Joe needs to get something out of it. Trudeau made a telling speech to Canadian business community before the election. He said something like "If we don't give the average Canadian more, our system is at risk. And you won't like what the lefties will do." This is what the Liberal Party is all about. 

In the end, proportional representation is continuing the long process of democratization. It's a journey, not a destination. People who are against it must come to terms with the fact that by definition they are against more democracy. This is fine, but accept it, and explain why.


----------



## McG (29 Dec 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> By the logic you have written, you basically argue because they have a majority they can do whatever they want even if it is against the will of the people ...


That is how the Canadian democratic system works.  Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have had their turns running the country under the power monopoly that the current system offers to majority governments.



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Personally I like FPTP as it gives regional representation.


But, that is a not a characteristic unique to FPTP.  It is a characteristic common to all single representative systems.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives.


At best, that is unsubstantiated opinion that you have inflammatorily presented as fact.  More likely, you seek to poison the well.  Either way, you are not helping your position. 



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ... in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table.


Garbage.  Proportional representation empowers parties to select the Members of Parliament; those members are beholden to the parties and not to the population.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If you are against it, you are against further democratization.


I see you take some of your queues from the right.  You are channeling George Bush the junior.  The real world is not such extremes of absolutes.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's best to keep him on ignore, although you have to scroll quickly on Tapatalk (ignore doesn't work there) so you don't lose brain cells.
> 
> Also notice democratic reform only came about because the Liberals lost 3 elections in a row. Tories didn't complain about FPTP during the Chretien/Martin years.



Yes, we can't allow discussion to ruin our discussion. Reactionary much?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is about enhancing democracy.  The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives. Our system, like all democracies is designed to keep power with elites while maintaining an illusion of choice. That illusion is rapidly dissolving as we're seeing in the US.
> 
> Now, the Liberal idea of preferential ballots is BS. just like FPTP. It would help them the most. It's still a step in the right direction however.
> 
> The NDP is for proportional representation, probably because it would help THEM the most. But, in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table. If you are against it, you are against further democratization.



Kilo,

Do you EVER consider the possibility that you do not have a clue?

Seriously. Think.

The Liberals are proposing the most significant change in how Canadians will elect governments since Confederation. But it probably won't be put to a referendum, if the Liberals get their way.

You screamed bloody murder on Bill C51. And this gets a "meh" from you? The most polite thing I can say is that you are blindly partisan.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is how the Canadian democratic system works.  Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have had their turns running the country under the power monopoly that the current system offers to majority governments.
> But, that is a not a characteristic unique to FPTP.  It is a characteristic common to all single representative systems.
> At best, that is unsubstantiated opinion that you have inflammatorily presented as fact.  More likely, you seek to poison the well.  Either way, you are not helping your position.
> Garbage.  Proportional representation empowers parties to select the Members of Parliament; those members are beholden to the parties and not to the population.
> I see you take some of your queues from the right.  You are channeling George Bush the junior.  The real world is not such extremes of absolutes.



Disagree. We can have a rational disagreement on how MUCH democracy is too much, but there is NO question that proportional representation is more democratic than our current system, and of the three ideas being tabled (our current system, preferential ballots and proportional representation) it IS the most democratic. I don't seek to poison the well, I seek to broaden the discussion and put all the cards on the table. Again, rational people can disagree about how much democracy we need, but you cannot deny that conservative thinking in every society in every iteration has always fought further democratization. Now there could be a point where that makes sense, and perhaps we are approaching it. But conservatives in the US in the 50s and 60s were largely FOR segregation for example. They were also against women voting decades prior to that. This doesn't make conservatives racist or sexist, because we're all beyond that. But you should understand the roots of your philosophy.


----------



## Remius (29 Dec 2015)

A good article on this exact debate here by Andrew Coyne.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-let-the-endless-debates-over-electoral-reform-begin


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Dec 2015)

>I hate to break it you, but "conservatism" and "conservative thought" are inherently undemocratic.

Less democratic, but not undemocratic.  And understand: this facet of conservativism is desirable.  The "most democratic" position would be all electors voting on every issue - everything decided by majority vote.  And that would take us to some very dark places.  The conservative position and thought on this issue is essentially status quo (as it should be for a "conservative").  There is no way to game FPTP on a ballot by playing "anybody but" games.  We have a representative system.  We have a healthy exchange of power between political parties.  And we don't have so many checks and balances that our elected government is paralyzed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Dec 2015)

>but you cannot deny that conservative thinking in every society in every iteration has always fought further democratization.

That is a patently false statement.  Modern conservativism is the closest inheritor of traditional classical liberalism, which is the font of universal suffrage.  You have misidentified a particular flavour of conservativism - reactionary conservativism - to represent all conservative thinking.  The difference between conservative and progressive is not "no change" and "change".


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Dec 2015)

It should be remembered that we don't actually have one election each cycle, we have 338 separate elections. The results determine the Government. Those arguing against the current system should bear in mind that we only vote for the person who represents us at the local level. We cast no other vote. Direct democracy is just that - direct, and IMHO quite secure under the current approach. Prop rep and preferential ballot both remove the direct component from the voter's hands.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Dec 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Hitler...



Why, it is similar circumstances, except instead of just abolishing right to vote, this change makes it so your vote is next to worthless. If you are unwilling to even look at what I wrote then it shows that you have accepted essentially a dictatorship. My argument is that if a change like this is to be made then the people should have a referendum to decide. If they decide this is the best system, so be it. Forcing it on the people is not how a democracy is meant to work.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Dec 2015)

So, anyone disagreeing with you means that they are clearly "against further democratization."  Notwithstanding the best example you can come up with to contradict those who prefer smaller government whose hands are not constantly in our wallets, is to cite segregation and women voting about a century and a half to a century ago.

And saying this as a means to _encourage_  discussion?  I'm afraid you haven't even a basic clue as to the tenets of a real discussion.

Thank you PuckChaser, I'll take your advice.   <ignore>


----------



## Remius (29 Dec 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Why, it is similar circumstances, except instead of just abolishing right to vote, this change makes it so your vote is next to worthless. If you are unwilling to even look at what I wrote then it shows that you have accepted essentially a dictatorship. My argument is that if a change like this is to be made then the people should have a referendum to decide. If they decide this is the best system, so be it. Forcing it on the people is not how a democracy is meant to work.



You are really comparing this to what Hitler did? Still? Really?  Just stop.  You are no better than those on the left claiming Stephen Harper was a dictator for what he did.  I stopped listening to them to.

Read what Andrew Coyne wrote.  It's actually a good synopsis of the debate and hitler isn't mentioned once.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Dec 2015)

Here's a simpler thought.

Ditch the "General Election".

Revert to 338 staggered local elections with the representative for the district going to engage the "work in progress" that is parliament.

And hold the Prime Minister accountable to the House with frequent votes of confidence.

In other words let the place work as it was designed to work before the Party Machines took over.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2015)

So where are all those people who screamed that 39% was not a mandate since 2011? Why are they not plastering "Stop Trudeau" stickers and posters everywhere?

If it were not for double standards, Progressives would have no standards at all.....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Dec 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> You are really comparing this to what Hitler did? Still? Really?  Just stop.  You are no better than those on the left claiming Stephen Harper was a dictator for what he did.  I stopped listening to them to.


Yes I am still comparing this to Hitler as this type of change is exactly what dictators do (a good portion of the dictatorships of the 20th century were all elected). I am not saying the Liberals are dictators, just that if they made this type of change without a referendum, it is a very authoritarian move on their part, and goes against the principals of a democracy.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Read what Andrew Coyne wrote.  It's actually a good synopsis of the debate and hitler isn't mentioned once.



I have read this, and I understand the principles of the debate. One party who gained 39.5% of the vote wants to change the voting system so it will benefit them, without consulting the people it governs. If they were so 'progressive' and accepting to change, why not allow the people to have a direct say in what they want. 

You seem to have the role of government confused. The government is not there to tell the people what to do against there wishes, they are there to enact the peoples wishes. A referendum is asking the people directly what they want, and considering this will actively effect them for every future election it should be their decision.


----------



## Altair (30 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's best to keep him on ignore, although you have to scroll quickly on Tapatalk (ignore doesn't work there) so you don't lose brain cells.
> 
> Also notice democratic reform only came about because the Liberals lost 3 elections in a row. Tories didn't complain about FPTP during the Chretien/Martin years.


 I guess I'm not so bad in comparison.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I guess I'm not so bad in comparison.


No, you can put a coherent thought together. Whether I agree or not isn't a reason to ignore someone.


----------



## quadrapiper (30 Dec 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Here's a simpler thought.
> 
> Ditch the "General Election".
> 
> ...


Rather like that idea.

Running with it, any "Westminster V2" measures to keep parties from amassing their current influence, beyond staggering elections?


----------



## Altair (30 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So where are all those people who screamed that 39% was not a mandate since 2011? Why are they not plastering "Stop Trudeau" stickers and posters everywhere?
> 
> If it were not for double standards, Progressives would have no standards at all.....


You find me someone who said that and I'll find you a moron. 

Not all progressives are that stupid.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, you can put a coherent thought together. Whether I agree or not isn't a reason to ignore someone.



I'll take it.

As for this current hot topic, I'm not a fan of the no referendum idea, but the man did campaign on bi partisan committee deciding this so I cannot say I'm surprised.

What I am curious to see is what model comes out of that. I think it's fair to say that FPTP is dead but whether ranked ballot or PR is decided on will be the clincher for me. If RB is the decision it's clear trudeau is going for the jugular of the CPC. If PR is the decision it's clear that the liberals didn't influence the decision making at all, making them weaker.

I do have a feeling though, that should RB be the decision, the liberals won't be the first or second choice of many Canadians after the CPC spends the next few years raising hell about the change.

But I guess we will see.


----------



## Remius (30 Dec 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I have read this, and I understand the principles of the debate. One party who gained 39.5% of the vote wants to change the voting system so it will benefit them, without consulting the people it governs. If they were so 'progressive' and accepting to change, why not allow the people to have a direct say in what they want.
> 
> You seem to have the role of government confused. The government is not there to tell the people what to do against there wishes, they are there to enact the peoples wishes. A referendum is asking the people directly what they want, and considering this will actively effect them for every future election it should be their decision.



Show me where it says that, anywhere.  There is nothing in our system that states that government is there to enact the people's wishes. I'll let you figure out who the PM and cabinet are responsible to and who they answer to.  It isn't us. And if it was, given that both the NDP and the LPC campaigned on changing the system then by your logic they do have a mandate from the people to do this.  

We are not a country that traditionally governs through referendums.  If in 18 months,Mage LPC comes up with somethings so outlandish, then I suspect they will hear about it and constitutional challenges will be brought forward.  We saw this with some conservative legislation.  And maybe the state will actually be of use.  But if an all party consensus can be reached (I personally doubt that it will be) then the system will work the way it should.

If the electoral system changes then, as Mr Coyne has mentioned, then parties need to adapt.  Clearly you are worried that your party whichever it is, will not be able to win under any other system except first past the post.  I would rather see a reinvented Conservative under a preferential system myself.  I suspect the CPC will be again any changes and the NDP will be pro proportional.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Kilo,
> 
> Do you EVER consider the possibility that you do not have a clue?
> 
> ...



Well the simple reason that I'm not too concerned with what they are proposing is that both preferential ballots and proportional representation ARE steps in the right direction. They both put more power in the hands of voters when compared to our current system. However, I agree that a referendum should take place. The reason they won't put it to a vote is that proportional representation would then have to be an option, and this doesn't help the Liberals. They want a ranked ballot system. This isn't surprising, as the Liberals are just as corrupt as the Conservatives. They just do it with more class, and get more people on board by being pleasant about it. 

 Again, I put forward the apparently controversial idea that democracy is a process. Having full democracy obviously makes no sense, but I fail to see how it's offensive to suggest that the Conservatives are traditionally "less democratic" than other parties. This is what politics is. A conversation about how much democracy we want/need. I'll repeat that rational people can have a rational discussion about this, but the fact that remains that conservative thought is at best cautionary, and at its worst reactionary when it comes to these questions.

Journeyman: There were segregationist conservative politicians serving in the US (Strom Thurmond) until 2003. Segregation only ended in the 1960s. It was conservative thinking that allowed it to linger so long. This doesn't mean all conservatives are racist (far from it), but it DOES mean that you'll see more resistance to further democratization on the right than you will see on the left. These are simple facts. Now the left taken to its extreme becomes very undemocratic indeed. But we've never been at risk in Canada of going that far. 

Over democratizing is risky too, I'm not saying it isn't. We need conservative thinking to reign in the more radical ideas on the left, but this is only if you agree that we should be satisfied with the democracy we have. The fact that such a large proportion of Canadians want to change FPTP suggests we are not.

I have been accused of being partisan (again). I'll reiterate that I am no Liberal supporter, and I am not an NDP supporter either. There isn't a party in mainstream politics in Canada that I think is prepared to address what I view as the real issues. I just happen to think the Conservatives are the worst of the lot, which, outside of this forum is hardly a controversial idea. In fact a vast majority of Canadians agree if we look at how many voted NDP/Liberal in the last election. 

Apparently my last comments on this thread have got me on some sort of "watch-list." I can only imagine someone got their panties in a twist over my comments on how conservative thinking is inherently undemocratic (Brad Swallows corrected me and said I should have used the term "less-democratic", I agree this is more accurate). And I also agree that this is desirable to some extent.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> What I am curious to see is what model comes out of that. I think it's fair to say that FPTP is dead but whether ranked ballot or PR is decided on will be the clincher for me. If RB is the decision it's clear trudeau is going for the jugular of the CPC. If PR is the decision it's clear that the liberals didn't influence the decision making at all, making them weaker.



I don't know why you make that statement Altair.

I know that government, especially this one apparently, have the constant delusion that they were elected to do exactly everything that is in their program, but in reality, that is not the case. They can be elected merely because they have a charismatic leader, or because people want to vote against something proposed by the other parties, or because the people have had enough of a given government, etc. etc.

On thing remains, however, and it is that the people then have other ways of telling the elected government that some things they don't want touched, regardless of the elected party's program.

And here, I think this may be one of those things: While there is a certain unhappiness in the Canadian population with the way the Senate is appointed or its usefulness, there is absolutely no big ongoing uneasiness in the same population with the way we elect our Members of Parliament. Outside some political commentators that did not like the Harper majority on 39%, and outside Liberal political circles, who dislike being in opposition at all and see it as an affront, and outside the third parties political circles, who find it hard to get attention in our parliamentary democracy which is aimed at working best as a two party system, the Canadian population has no interest whatever in changing how we vote. They understand the system and they have no problem with it, which explains that changing it has been rejected in all provinces that attempted referendum on the issue.

So, when the current government starts to really address the issue and seeks the view of the people (there are other ways than referenda), they may very well find out (and my personal suspicion is they will find out) that the population doesn't give a shit about changing anything in the current system and wants good enough left alone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well the simple reason that I'm not too concerned with what they are proposing is that both preferential ballots and proportional representation ARE steps in the right direction. They both put more power in the hands of voters when compared to our current system. However, I agree that a referendum should take place. The reason they won't put it to a vote is that proportional representation would then have to be an option, and this doesn't help the Liberals. They want a ranked ballot system. This isn't surprising, as the Liberals are just as corrupt as the Conservatives. They just do it with more class, and get more people on board by being pleasant about it.
> 
> Again, I put forward the apparently controversial idea that democracy is a process. Having full democracy obviously makes no sense, but I fail to see how it's offensive to suggest that the Conservatives are traditionally "less democratic" than other parties. This is what politics is. A conversation about how much democracy we want/need. I'll repeat that rational people can have a rational discussion about this, but the fact that remains that conservative thought is at best cautionary, and at its worst reactionary when it comes to these questions.
> 
> ...



Why do you continually use US examples of Conservativism in a Canadian context? A discussion of US segregationalists is about as useful as a comparison of the NDP to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union- it in no way informs the debate. 

The current iteration of Conservatives in Canada have strong roots in the Reform movement from the 1990s. Believe me when I say that that was grassroots democracy in action. I have only to compare the records of the the previous conservative (Harper) and liberal governments (Chrétien) to see that the recent Conservatives were not anti-democratic and were significantly less corrupt. And like OGBD, I still fail to see any great ground swell of excitement in the Canadian populous for a change in voting methods. A significant bloc of voters in the last election wanted change; they got change; the system works.

As for your "watched" status- I doubt that that was given to you by any Mod here. What is more likely is the a significant number of the membership here did not like your posting style (which can be incredibly sanctimonious and intolerant of other points of view) and voted against you on mil points. Kind of democracy in action,  would you not say?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2015)

Even some Americans think the Liberals are wrong in proceeding without a referendum on the issue:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-30/canada-s-new-government-makes-its-first-big-mistake



> Canada's two-month-old Liberal government is facing its first controversy, one that highlights an enduring dilemma in public policy: When is it worth going ahead with a good idea that the public doesn't like?
> 
> Among the many campaign promises of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a commitment to change the way Canadians elect their federal government. As in the U.S., the candidate with the most votes in a district (Canadians call them ridings) gets a seat in the legislature (what Canadians call first-past-the-post). But in Canada, the winner usually gets fewer than half the votes, because of an increasingly fractured multiparty system.
> 
> The Liberals are considering several options that would better allocate parliamentary seats based on voters' preferences. But Canadians are a conservative bunch, reluctant to change even the traditions they don't especially like. Since 2005, two of the country's three largest provinces have held referendums on electoral reform, and both failed. So the Liberal government, which had left the door open to a similar vote nationwide, said over the weekend that none would take place, all but conceding that its proposals wouldn't survive a plebiscite.



As it points out in the article, the Liberals would not hold a majority if a PR system is used, so we can automatically count that out of their electoral reform recommendation right off the bat.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2015)

I am always amazed when I hear people advocate for PR and PR derived systems, especially when it is very clear that they take power away from the individual voters and local riding associations. and hide it away in murky back rooms where deals need to be made to put the "right" people on the voting list for the electorate to choose from, and to hammer out back room deals to create semi functioning coalitions after the election.

People I've spoken to from Israel and Italy, who live under true PR systems, uniformly loath it because marginal parties become the kingmakers, and very extreme legislation can be written and passed to appease these tiny splinter parities so the coalition can get that last critical vote to stay in power.

Altair, Kilo and others refuse to see this since they are in the thrall of the Progressive narrative that only technocratic specialists from the political class can make decisions for the rest of us, and tell us how to use our own resources. If they believe they will benefit from this state of affairs, I invite them to look at Ontario, or track the changes in Alberta since the NDP was elected, or check out the results from other centralized states run by fiat like Cuba, Zimbabwe or the former USSR, or perhaps the Arab nations. Or even the US "Blue States" as they struggle with bankruptcy and massive unfunded liabilities. Or explain how European nations with long traditions of technocratic leadership have per capita incomes lower than virtually any US State (even the Blue ones).

How they do expect to prosper in this new order is not clear to me.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How they do expect to prosper in this new order is not clear to me.



They expect to prosper because they expect to be in charge. Once in charge, they can manipulate the rules to their own benefit.

As Orwell said in Animal Farm "All animals are equal, some are more equal than others."


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2015)

DPR might not be bad, but I would be very concerned with "pure" PR systems that were based of a list that each party prepared, prior to the election.  One could only imagine the back-stabbing that would go on trying to climb one's way up the party list, and what kind of sycophantic structure such a system (list-based pure-PR) would result in.   :-\

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> DPR might not be bad ...


I don't know that acronym.


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I am always amazed when I hear people advocate for PR and PR derived systems, especially when it is very clear that they take power away from the individual voters and local riding associations. and hide it away in murky back rooms where deals need to be made to put the "right" people on the voting list for the electorate to choose from, and to hammer out back room deals to create semi functioning coalitions after the election.
> 
> People I've spoken to from Israel and Italy, who live under true PR systems, uniformly loath it because marginal parties become the kingmakers, and very extreme legislation can be written and passed to appease these tiny splinter parities so the coalition can get that last critical vote to stay in power.
> 
> ...



Whoa whoa whoa. Please explain how PR definitively means that_ "only technocratic specialists from the political class can make decisions for the rest of us, and tell us how to use our own resources."_ 

The actual net effect of PR in Canada is to reduce the power of the big two parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and making it easier for smaller parties to send successful candidates to parliament. 

Here's a look at what our last election results would have been with PR:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/what-the-federal-election-would-have-looked-like-with-proportional-representation

You can see that FPTP system helped the Liberal Party win a "landslide" in the fall. Is this what you want? PR is about shifting power downwards, not upwards. You're a smart guy, but you're not making honest arguments. As I have mentioned, we can debate how much democracy is too much, or whether or not PR would result in chaos in the government with no clear result. But NO ONE actually thinks it's part of ensuring technocrats get to tell us all what to do. This is pure ideological rhetoric. 

Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?

Now for a list of countries that are currently using PR. Funny how you focus on Cuba and Zimbabwe, neither of which are actual democracies. I mean, how are they even relevant in this discussion? And how does anyone with even a passing knowledge of our electoral system (as I believe you have) think your comment has any bearing on what we're talking about? You may have spoken to people, but it looks to me like the vast majority of advanced democracies (key word: democracy) are using some form of PR. 

Albania 	Party list, 4% national threshold or 2.5% in a district
Algeria 	Party list
Angola 	Party list
Argentina 	Party list
Aruba 	Party list
Australia 	For Senate only, Single transferable vote
Austria 	Party list, 4% threshold
Belgium 	Party list, 5% threshold
Bénin 	Party list
Bhutan 	Party list
Bolivia 	Mixed-member proportional representation, 3% threshold
Bosnia and Herzegovina 	Party list
Brazil 	Party list
Bulgaria 	Party list, 4% threshold
Burkina Faso 	Party list
Burundi 	Party list, 2% threshold
Cambodia 	Party list
Cape Verde 	Party list
Chile 	Binomial system
Colombia 	Party list
Costa Rica 	Party list
Croatia 	Party list, 5% threshold
Cyprus 	Party list
Czech Republic 	Party list, 5% threshold
Denmark 	Party list, 2% threshold
Dominican Republic 	Party list
El Salvador 	Party list
Equatorial Guinea 	Party list
Estonia 	Party list, 5% threshold
European Union 	Varies between Member States
Finland 	Party list
Germany 	Mixed-member proportional representation, 5% (or 3 district winners) threshold
Greece 	Reinforced proportionality, 3% threshold
Guatemala 	Party list
Guinea-Bissau 	Party list
Guyana 	Party list
Honduras 	Party list
Hungary 	Mixed-member proportional representation, 5% threshold or higher
Iceland 	Party list
Indonesia 	Party list, 3.5% threshold
Iraq 	Party list
Ireland 	Single transferable vote (For Dáil only)
Israel 	Party list, 3.25% threshold
Italy 	Party list, 10% threshold for coalitions, and 4% for individual parties
Kazakhstan 	Party list
Kosovo 	Party list
Kyrgyzstan 	Party list, 5% threshold
Latvia 	Party list, 5% threshold
Lesotho 	Mixed-member proportional representation
Liechtenstein 	Party list, 8% threshold
Luxembourg 	Party list
Macedonia 	Party list
Malta 	Single transferable vote
Mexico 	Mixed-member proportional representation
Moldova 	Party list, 6% threshold
Mongolia 	Party list
Montenegro 	Party list
Morocco 	Party list
Namibia 	Party list
Nepal 	Parallel voting
Netherlands 	Party list
New Zealand 	Mixed-member proportional representation
Nicaragua 	Party list
Northern Ireland 	Single transferable vote
Norway 	Party list, 4% national threshold
Paraguay 	Party list
Peru 	Party list
Philippines 	Parallel voting
Poland 	Party list, 5% threshold or more
Portugal 	Party list
Romania 	Mixed-member proportional representation
Russia 	Mixed-member proportional representation
Rwanda 	Party list
San Marino 	Semi-proportional representation, 3.5% threshold
São Tomé and Príncipe 	Party list
Serbia 	Party list, 5% threshold or less
Sint Maarten 	Party list
Slovakia 	Party list, 5% threshold
Slovenia 	Party list, 4% threshold
South Africa 	Party list
Spain 	Party list, 3% threshold in small constituencies
Sri Lanka 	Party list
Suriname 	Party list
Sweden 	Party list, 4% national threshold or 12% in a district
Switzerland 	Party list
Tunisia 	Party list
Turkey 	Party list, 10% threshold
Uruguay 	Party list
Venezuela 	Mixed-member proportional representation


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

I had to look it up. Unfortunately the only info I could find is a website extolling its virtues, so take this as a one-sided description: 

http://www.dprvoting.org/PDFs/Description.pdf

It looks interesting, but I really think it'll create perpetual minority governments where nothing will ever get done. Its also similar to PR, in which marginal parties with far left/right ideas will get to push amendments in order to sell their vote. Look at this last election, we'd have the Liberals and Tories deadlocked with roughly 80% of the popular vote (and therefore 80% of the votes in the house), so to pass legislation, the Liberals start offering concessions to the Greens (loony left) or to the NDP (marginally better with Muclair holding them at centrist).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Dec 2015)

What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have? 

FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result. 

In every case I have seen (so far) as as "solution", it either appears to me as change for change sake or the cure would be worse than the disease.

What really needs fixing in Canada is the Senate, as a regional counterbalance to the HoC. The mandated overweighting of the East vs the West is a continual source of tension and a real fault line in Confederation, that, if you have never lived west of Manitoba, is not fully understood.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have?
> 
> FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result.
> 
> ...



Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.

I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have?
> 
> FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result.
> 
> ...



I think the problem is that you have a Liberal Party with less than 40% of the vote running the country with a significant majority. And before that it was the Conservatives. A lot of Canadians don't feel as though they actually have a voice. You might not agree with them, but in many ridings people felt they had to vote Liberal or Conservative, just to keep the other guys out. Being able to vote for the party that you feel reflects your values most accurately would be an improvement I should think. And more democratic.

As a member of the "looney left" it means I have to accept the possibility of a far right party having seats in Parliament, as some European nations do. But it also means that voting NDP or Green becomes more viable, so things would balance out. Who knows, maybe the NDP would stay more centrist and a truly socialist party would arise from its left wing? And maybe the right wing of the Conservative Party would break off and resemble something more like the Reform movement. Maybe the Wild Rose Party would go federal. Or maybe one of those crazy Christian parties would win a seat. Having all of these ideas debated publicly in Parliament could only be a good thing for Canada. Otherwise it's a revolving door between two parties, with all of the inherent corruption that brings. 

Look at the US (yes I know we are in Canada, but realistically they have just a tiny bit of influence on us). Both parties are essentially in the pockets of Wall Street. We're approaching that if you look at how impotent the NDP usually is.  If you had 3-4 or even 5 parties all able to have more seats in Canadian Parliament you would hear things we never hear today. I'd love to see a PM being called out for catering to Bay Street for example. Trudeau sure could use that, but it's not going to happen because the Cons need Bay Street too. I would imagine no one here is a fan of the Greens, but Elizabeth May was quite effective at pointing out hypocrisy in all 4 parties that were actually able to attend the debates. Trudeau got nearly as much as Harper. _This is a net good._


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.
> 
> I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your problem with PR is that it might indeed give the "progressive left" more of a voice. If you're defining the "progressive left" as anyone who votes Liberal, NDP or Green, well, that's the majority of Canadians. It's clear that PR represents a more democratic alternative than FPTP, if that means more "progressive" governments because more Canadians are "progressive" then that's just the country we live in.

As I mentioned above, PR would also benefit the right side of politics. Those who don't think they have a voice either. If you're against PR because you believe "nothing will get done" or because you think we are democratic enough, those are fair positions. But it means you are inherently against giving more people more of a say in our political system. Now I hope that this again doesn't offend someone, but I'm having a hard time squaring how one can be pro-democratic and simultaneously against broadening the political discussion in Canada, _in both directions._


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What problem are you all trying to solve?


Maybe it's time for a separate thread;  call it "Repetitive, Refusal-to-Listen Views from Both Ends of the Spectrum."

In it, folks like Kilo_302,  Altair,  cld617 could play :argument: with the likes of  Thucydides and  George Wallace until the end of time.  
Maybe have a separate corner for Tier 2 :deadhorse:  like Eaglelord17 and Remius.



Hell, we could even have a referendum to decide if this would be a good idea.....or absolutely no referendum, ever, depending.   ;D


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hell, we could even have a referendum to decide if this would be a good idea.....or absolutely no referendum, ever, depending.   ;D


We have a poll open.  That is like a referendum, right?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html


----------



## GAP (31 Dec 2015)

Constituency based Commons & Elected Senate seems to lead......must be a retrobate poll......


----------



## YZT580 (31 Dec 2015)

Seems to me that an elected senate with elections offset from those of the Commons would counteract most of the perceived problems with our current system.  I personally do not want to vote for a party with absolutely no say in who represents me.  I like voting for someone local.  

Perhaps a ban on parachuting party favourites into 'safe' ridings would resolve another host of difficulties.  Having lived in several countries in Europe I am dead against proportional voting.  Belgium went a year with no government because of such a system.  Those who say it ends up catering to the fringes are absolutely correct.  Also, consider this:  what effect would it have if a concentrated effort by a radical group i.e. an I.S.I.S. isotope garnered 10%  of your HoC seats through proportional voting?  It could easily happen because they don't need to capture a single riding seat to qualify.  Our system isn't even close to perfect but it is better than the options


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.
> 
> I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.



Concur.  I think the concept of FPTP for direct election of one's representative in HoC is not broken per se, but DPR or MMP for the Senate with the 66% to veto House Bills would give Canadians a greater sense of overall control to their representation.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (31 Dec 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Seems to me that an elected senate with elections offset from those of the Commons would counteract most of the perceived problems with our current system.  I personally do not want to vote for a party with absolutely no say in who represents me.  I like voting for someone local.
> 
> Perhaps a ban on parachuting party favourites into 'safe' ridings would resolve another host of difficulties.  Having lived in several countries in Europe I am dead against proportional voting.  Belgium went a year with no government because of such a system.  Those who say it ends up catering to the fringes are absolutely correct.  Also, consider this:  what effect would it have if a concentrated effort by a radical group i.e. an I.S.I.S. isotope garnered 10%  of your HoC seats through proportional voting?  It could easily happen because they don't need to capture a single riding seat to qualify.  Our system isn't even close to perfect but it is better than the options


Isil  political operations?

Got to say, it would be funny to see.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Isil  political operations?
> 
> Got to say, it would be funny to see.



After some of the recent reports of radicalization of individuals in Toronto and Montreal, I honestly think they would garner some votes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jan 2016)

>Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?

It is "more democratic" (using "no voting at all" and "voting on everything" as the anchors of the spectrum).

But so what?

"More democratic" is a meaningless selling point.  Do you mean others should assume that it is an improvement?  You must explain that, not assume it.  You have to explain why it is even relevant in a representative system (hint: the total popular vote share is irrelevant when each riding has its own distinct set of candidates and electors).

The first thing to do when discussing electoral reform is to clear away the notion that popular vote share should bear on anything, unless you plan to dissolve riding-based representative government and replace it with something else.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...unless you plan to dissolve riding-based representative government and replace it with something else.



I continue to maintain that is precisely what PR and RB both seek to do. Both systems ultimately take the decision out of voters hands. The only exception would be in an RB scenario where one candidate gets an outright majority of 1st choice votes.


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?
> 
> It is "more democratic" (using "no voting at all" and "voting on everything" as the anchors of the spectrum).
> 
> ...



I've explained this in several posts above. PR will broaden the political debate and more Canadians will have a party that reflects their values able to have seats in Parliament. If I have to explain why this is a good thing, then we're back to an actual discussion of how much democracy is too much. 

Can you explain why more democracy would be a bad thing? It seems to me the onus for an explanation lies on that side of the argument, as in effect it involves a reduced franchise in comparison to FPTP.

Many here have said "our system is good enough" or something along those lines. That explanation is NOT good enough, if we're talking about a reason to not democratize further in a way that many nations we are allies with, we identify with, have done. "FPTP works so we should leave it alone" isn't a real explanation of why we shouldn't broaden the debate to better reflect the Canadian voter in the same way that the vast majority of the advanced democracies have.

To be clear, I think we should have a referendum. I agree that the Liberals are being extremely undemocratic, and will likely choose a preferential ballot system that they know will benefit them exclusively. I think when presented with the options, given the success that PR campaigns had during the last election, most Canadians would vote for an iteration of a PR system.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I've explained this in several posts above. PR will broaden the political debate and more Canadians will have a party that reflects their values able to have seats in Parliament. If I have to explain why this is a good thing, then we're back to an actual discussion of how much democracy is too much.



Garbage, list-based (especially) PR takes the individual voter's power and over-rides it with each party's own internalized preferential prioritization of who should represent the party.  It is not focused on representation of the individual citizen.  At the very least, MMP is a relatively tested method to balance the individual citizen's right to representation with some objective structure.

All one need do to see the cracks in pure PR's way of doing business by having proponents describe how a specific party's representatives would be sequenced according to how much share of the popular vote they received.  I'm willing to bet that "fair, open and transparent" wouldn't be a true descriptor for many parties...

G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2016)

Recommend we lock this up and carry on in the new thread, 2015 is so last year!


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jan 2016)

Good call - happy new year, all, and locked.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

