Apolitical Staples

Lefties now have 4 parties to choose from. Liberals, Dippers, Bloc, Greens. It’s a cafeteria for lefties.

However, the Conservatives are the only party for people that are multi issue. Single-issue people tend to pick one of these topics as their priority:

“Equality’” brought about by redistribution of hard earned income

Kyoto redistribution of wealth to third world despots to fund terrorism

Appeasement and “peacekeeping” with Taliban terrorists

Multiculti and its weapon of political correctness

Big Daddy and his CUPE union members to run Day Care at above market wages

But hopefully enough of the population outside of Quebec will go into the voting booth and cast a vote for the Conservatives who have an all encompassing agenda for Canada in this highly competitive world. A world with surges in Jihadists and surges in oil prices to pay the Jihadists. Dion and Taliban Jack and Duceppe can’t grasp these issues. Hopefully enough Canadians in the ROC will vote for the only Party that doesn’t live in a utopian dream world.

But how people will vote in Quebec, which has 75 seats and depends upon more “equalization” funds from Ottawa to support Quebec’s disastrous Dipper-like ways .. I just don’t know.

So once again, it all comes down to Quebec. I know Liberals who are finally getting tired of this. I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

Isn’t it interesting that when the Conservatives are ahead - it is a “dead heat” but when the Libs are up, they are “ahead” or “surging” or whatever postive term the MSM decides will tell their readers - “We are back on top!!”.

Hypocrasy….. Me thinks so…

“However, the Conservatives are the only party for people that are multi issue. Single-issue people tend to pick one of these topics as their priority:

“Equality’” brought about by redistribution of hard earned income

Kyoto redistribution of wealth to third world despots to fund terrorism

Appeasement and “peacekeeping” with Taliban terrorists

Multiculti and its weapon of political correctness

Big Daddy and his CUPE union members to run Day Care at above market wages

But hopefully enough of the population outside of Quebec will go into the voting booth and cast a vote for the Conservatives who have an all encompassing agenda for Canada in this highly competitive world. A world with surges in Jihadists and surges in oil prices to pay the Jihadists.”

It’s funny, I am a multi-issue person (the environment, eduction, and productivity are my major policy concerns while the rise of cultural relavism and illiberalism are my ideological concerns) but yet I don’t see the conservatives as having the right policies on these issues. Be as sarcastic as you want but intelligent people who care about Canada as a whole actually do vote for parties other than yours and those parties (well party, the Liberal party) has done the most good for Canada of any party (that isn’t to say the Tories and Conservatives haven’t done good things).

To address some of your points: I find multiculturalism highly problematic as we currently interpret it, I am one of the staunchest supporters of the mission in Afghanistan, and I do not favour income redistribution (I favour limited, effective social spending that works). As for child care I am for a mixed provision of childcare that must all meet the same standard and provide early education (I firmly oppose the conservative tax break policy). I do not think these are conservative views by any stretch of the imagination nor do the conservatives actually offer what I am looking for in a future Canada.
To me a future Canada needs to have the most education, well-trained population that invests strongly in research and development and new technology. We need to take advantage of new and growing areas of economic opportunity by starting to fund it now (environmental technology and nano technology for example). And we need an environmental policy that focuses on fuel efficiency, a green power supply (including nuclear power), new environmental technology, and industrial resource and power efficiency through a carbon market and tax credits investments in and the reduction of waste and emissions.

I’ll be honest, neither party is living up to what I want to see in a Canada but I will continue to support the Liberals because they do not discount the fact that government does have a role to play in society. To me, the conservative obsession to reduce government interference wherever possible reduces the capabilities of government to effect important change.

Michael where did I say, “ the government doesn’t have a role to play in society”? The role is currently 42% of GDP, if Conservatives have a majority government and really worked hard on it over the next 25 years maybe…maybe we could drop that to 33%. I’ll bet that 33% will be a higher number in the only competitive countries that count in 25 years … the USA, China and India.

However I do agree with you that the issue is how do we get “investment in more R&D, technology and education”? Plus Health Care.

I think that a more robust entrepreneurial society would provide needed innovation faster than by Liberals overtaxing individuals and corporations to give the money to 308 MPs with questionable economic credentials to make choices in a highly competitive world.

But I certainly think the government has a role to play in creating a climate where investment in Canada is the most attractive on the planet so we can get the productivity gains to improve:

Education, Environment, Health

That begs the question of which government? The Feds? Provinces? Municipal? So I conclude that fiscal imbalance is a massive problem and Harper/Flaherty are working on that.

But if you think yet another PM from socialist Quebec is the answer, then we’ll see you at the polls. Even Liberals that I’m talking to have had enough of that game. You have confidence in big government, I don’t, that’s fight worth pursuing with the voters.

This poll shows that an election now would result in a Liberal minority - gains for Libs in Quebec and Ontario. Losses for Cons in Quebec for sure. Cons may still be very strong in Alberta but no extra seats

“We need to take advantage of new and growing areas of economic opportunity by starting to fund it now”

And there I stop. Good God.

Rule of polling #1: Any poll with ‘national’ numbers for the Bloc Quebecois is meaningless.

Rule of polling #2: Any Quebec-only poll with MoE +/- 6.3% is meaningless.

Lefties now have 4 parties to choose from. Liberals, Dippers, Bloc, Greens. It’s a cafeteria for lefties.

However, the Conservatives are the only party for people that are multi issue. Single-issue people tend to pick one of these topics as their priority:

Except that your view of the voting public is too simplistic. You have the lefties, and the righties, but you ignore the centrists, who comprise the bulk of the voters, and whose vote will ultimately decide whether the advantage goes to any one political party, or not.

Every party is down from their 2006 election results, I believe, when the Conservatives set a record for gaining the lowest percentage of the popular vote by the most popular party in an election. The economic outlook of the country is generally good, but the outlook for intelligent politicians would seem to be dire. The Liberals were tired and corrupt and still need more time on the opposition benches to be punished, but we’re not seeing evidence that the Conservatives are markedly better.

Some centrists are probably even hoping that the minority situation continues for the foreseeable future. A Harper majority would be as bad as a Martin or Dion majority; it’s only because the parties are in such a precarious balance that this parliament seems as responsive as it is. We voters have been given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make politicians of all stripes dance, and we’re not yet ready to let that go.

“but you ignore the centrists, who comprise the bulk of the voters”

Assuming centrist means slow incremental change, then Harper is a centrist. What has to happen now is to give Harper enough time to overcome the “hard right” misrepresentation the Liberals and the MSM have tried to make stick.

“the outlook for intelligent politicians would seem to be dire.”

Exactly. So I’m surprised you’re not a Conservative wanting to shrink government and let the entrepreneurs drive the economy and the adults take more responsibility for their own affairs. Having politicians run things in an agricultural age where they at least knew how to drive a horse and buggy perhaps made sense. But in a globally connected, competitive economy in a digital age, it simply won’t work to have these guys in charge of 42% of the economy. They can’t adapt to changing conditions fast enough.

So I’m surprised you’re not a Conservative wanting to shrink government and let the entrepreneurs drive the economy and the adults take more responsibility for their own affairs

In my experience, businesses have proven to be as inept in dealing with me, and my recourse against them has been as limited, as any government service I’ve relied upon. And just as I’ve had plenty of good business dealings, I’ve also had plenty of good experience with government services, so I see both business and government on the same level. Their means of accountability are different, but they are still accountable to those who put in the work to make these organizations accountable. Belief that the marketplace is inherently better than government is as much an article of faith as the socialists’ belief that government is inherently better than business. In my opinion, each has their place and their advantages, but I’m not about to toss out one over the other.

That’s what being a centrist means to me: an understanding that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; an understanding that, day to day, both conservatives and socialists do get it right, and it’s a matter of listening to the arguments and deciding for yourself who has thought things through the best, and siding with that decision.

Yes, Harper ran to the centre in his campaign, and I welcome that. I also welcome many of his centrist approaches to government, but there are things I just don’t agree with. I’m still leery of his social conservative support base (I operate more comfortably with Libertarians, but that’s just me), and there are aspects of his governing that strike me as if he doesn’t believe in the decisions he’s making; that he’s taking the centrist approach not out of a sense of genuine pragmatism, but as a means to an end to grant him a free hand to govern this country as he (not we) see fit.

Which is almost exactly the same relationship I had with the Liberals. They tried to straddle the centre, but I always had a lingering sense that they did so out of opportunism rather than pragmatism. Centrism is about choosing the best options offered by either the left or the right — not the ones that just happen to be popular with the electorate.

James I think we’re getting to the meat of the debate here.

“That’s what being a centrist means to me: an understanding that nobody has a monopoly on the truth”

There’s one thing worse then a monopoly. That’s a government monopoly. E.G. Health Care. Because you can’t switch when they treat you badly, like from Telus mobility to Rogers. I agree with you that precisely because nobody has the right answer we need competition, E.G. between Apple and Microsoft to allow the invisible hand of capitalism to find the best solution. Then to continuously improve upon that solution by fighting it out in the market place.

“Centrism is about choosing the best options offered by either the left or the right — not the ones that just happen to be popular with the electorate.”

Exactly. You are saying it should not be simply a matter of compromising down the center.. Instead there is a right answer and wrong answer and we should seek out the right answer. But IMO the left doesn’t like to go through the necessary debate and conflict to get to the right answer. They would rather compromise down the middle, even if the middle is a worse choice that the solution on the left or right. The left is utopian, looking for the perfect solution before they act. They won’t risk making a mistake then simply try to fix it. But Capitalism is like biology, constant experimentation and adapting to changing conditions. Utopians such as the left and Islamofascists want to hold onto the status quo and freeze us in a time warp .

Another way to look at a centrist approach is that it has more to do with timing than with left and right solutions. I’m beginning to think people use centrist to simple mean …don’t rock the boat, avoid painful debate and conflict. So don’t bring about change too fast. The public can only handle so much change at once. For example, Mulroney’s GST and NAFTA were the right ideas but too much change all at once for the public to handle and the rest is history.

“I’m still leery of his (Harper’s) social conservative support base (I operate more comfortably with Libertarians, but that’s just me”

Me too, I used to be pretty close to being a Libertarian, until 9/11. Now I think we need focused government and strong national sovereignty as opposed to Moe Strong transnationlism.

There’s one thing worse then a monopoly. That’s a government monopoly. E.G. Health Care. Because you can’t switch when they treat you badly, like from Telus mobility to Rogers.

Funny you should mention this. I’m now two months into an attempt to switch from Rogers to Primus, and one of these two companies is dinking me around in terms of changing over my local phone number. For about a week, I was able to make phone calls, but not receive them, and neither company was able to tell me much about what was going wrong or who was responsible. I had no idea who to hold accountable.

On the other hand, I’ve had a lot of recent experience with the public health care system, some very positive, and some negative, although the negative was out of the hospital’s control, and I seriously doubt it would be fixed by private competition. On the other hand, I was not out of pocket when my daughter was born (the positive experience) or when we took her in because we were worried about her fever (the negative experience).

There are lines of accountability in government services. It’s called elections. So to say that a government monopoly always produces worse service is an article of faith. This is simply not the case now, and certainly not in the past. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence, of course, of inept officials ruining our day, but they’re dwarfed by the day-to-day operations that go smoothly.

And I would argue that there is a strong interest in operating certain sectors of the economy in a manner other than what the free market entertains. Bottom line: if you and I are sick, you should get medical treatment. I know that you are concerned over the fact that you might have to go onto a lengthy waiting list to get an MRI. You might be willing to pay to jump the queue, but I say to you that maintaining the quality of your health is a pretty significant right. You deserve that MRI right now and, moreover, if it is a medical condition you are investigating, you deserve to have that MRI for free.

Health care, quite simply, should be provided on the basis of need, and not in terms of who has more money.

There are also sectors of the economy where the marketplace has failed. Take public transportation. You might argue that government monopolies are providing this service, but I put it to you that there is competition to public transit: the private automobile. And the private automobile has been kicking public transit’s ass up and down the continent since the end of the Second World War. In 1946, most public transit agencies were private companies; by 1966 they were publicly owned. It wasn’t a rush of socialist fervour that did this, but the simple fact that almost every public transit agency in North America either went bankrupt, or sold off its interest. The cities had to take over the moribund agencies, or decide against having any public transit whatsoever.

In terms of providing mobility for those unable to drive, either through poverty or medical conditions, not to mention providing a less polluting alternative to driving, the free marketplace has spoken: serving these riders has no value — i.e. isn’t profitable. But we do know that providing this service is valuable. And since the marketplace won’t provide it, the government has no choice but to step in.

It’s only a lack of political will among the voters that government doesn’t operate as efficiently as most businesses. To say it’s an inherent problem is an article of faith — one which ironically contributes to the problem by encouraging people to throw up their hands and give up on government. In a democracy, government is theoretically the one agency where everybody has some influence, regardless of their economic status. The marketplace allows you to vote with your feet and is a powerful tool that should be respected, but too many people are disenfranchised, and I think it is in our interest to try and correct that.

“To say that a government monopoly always produces worse service is an article of faith.”

But James I didn’t say that, because if it’s a monopoly we don’t know if it’s worst or best because we can’t compare.

Also, we don’t know what to pay the employees in a monopoly. We can’t pay market wages because there is no market. So we let them unionize and hold us to ransom.

I just changed my TV from Look to Rogers. It wasn’t a perfect transition. But it’s better. I know it’s better because I can compare. It’s not a monopoly.

re transportation, agree, let’s have a mix .. I used to live in Chicago, excellent transportation there. Some was privatized, like the railroads. Some was Chicago Transit Authority (not the rock group). The “Loop” is terrific.

I’m all in favour of Mayor Miller and Harper and McGuinty building a monorail to the Airport because my office building in Chicago had rail run under it to O’HARE. It was excellent service that roared past the limos on the throughway. Plus the obvious advantages re the environment.

So I agree with you that we need certain government involvement in the economy like transportation and health …. As long as it’s not a monopoly.

The reality is we don’t even have a monopoly in Health. I’ve been going to a Bay St private Clinic for 20 years, like Paul Martin does with Medisys in Montreal, we just haven’t dared to talk about it, it seems elitist to do so, actually it’s hypocritical to not talk about it.

A friend just got diagnosed with prostrate cancer. He was going to have to go on a 3-month wait list here plus he couldn’t get the latest non-invasive procedure in Canada that he wanted because Health is rationed. So he hopped on a plane to the Mayo. He was in and out in less than 24 hours. It cost him plenty and that money went to the USA.That money could have stayed in Canada and those profits would have helped fund improvements in our health industry, but we’re still ideologically against that. But as our baby boomer bodies keep falling apart, that’s all going to change rapidly because us boomers are very selfish.

Fair enough. I think we basically agree that there is a role for government, and a need to leave the free market alone, for the most part. We simply disagree on the details.