[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

The main issue I have with the equality argument is that it is the government picking the equality winners to suit an ideological premise - that one parent (lets be honest the mother) should stay home.

But why pick that winner.  Why not pick families with lots of children so that they can income split with the whole household.  Why not pick grown children who are looking after a parent dependant. The list can go on but you get the point.

Way I'd put it is not that the Cons. equality argument is wrong, but that there are equality policies out there that are better, as in not so regressive.

It is wrong if you are a conservative type who believes that government shouldnt be picking winners and losers.

Government picks winners and losers all the time with tax policy. It is sort of an inevitable aspect of tax policy, as having a tax policy that was the same for everyone would, in itself, pick winners and losers with a vengence - and be horribly regressive in the bargain.

[Josephus]

What would be easier for you?

The short list for why a reasonable intelligent person would vote Conservative:

1) They are not the NDP and so one need not be concerned about the socialists in that party who would would affect public policy;

2) They are not the Liberals - yet*.  And so one need not be overly concerned about corruption.

3) Harper removed the radical reformers one way or another and so to the extent one needed to worry about the radical right (read social conservatives) that was pretty much removed.  So when looking at the extreme wing of the NDP and the extreme wing of the Conservatives it becomes a much better choice.

4) Leadership.  Like him or not with Harper you pretty much get what you see.  Its safe and predictable - which is not particuarly surprising since he is a Conservative's conservative.  Incrimentalism has been his watchword and it works well.  Ironically Layton was beginning to achieve the status of being a safe predictable leader who was bringing the radical elements within his party under control. Unfortunately we lost him all too early.  It would have been interesting to see how he would have changed Canadian politics.  I had hopes for Trudeau but everytime he opens his mouth I feel foolish for my lack of judgment.  I trust Mulcair not at all.

5) The Conservatives have done a good job managing the budget but lately and particularly with the latest budget they are beginning to look like the Liberals of old.  This budget was actually in surplus but it is being dressed down to deliver really good news in an election year.  Also, it is in surplus through the magic of bringing EI surpluses into general revenue.

I realize that I have raised points why one would not vote Conservative but you run a newspaper so I thought I should be balanced. 


*I predict that will be their biggest problem in the next election

Fairly well balanced. I appreaciate the effort it took to bring up point 5.

Point two though, I have issue with. Corruption within the Liberals didn't happen right away. It happens to any party that's in power for long periods. It will happen to the Cons., in fact we are beginning to see some of that already.
Point Three. Fair enough...and I agree about the fringe elements of the Conservatives. That said, the NDP has been making inroads with the fringe loonie lefts within their party. I mean has anyone mentioned Marx lately?
Point Four. I agree harper comes across as safe. He does have a nice, stately image. And that's why people who don't know anything else would vote for him. "He's such a nice guy,". It's only if you actually follow the ins and outs of the caucus and the party (which most people don't) that you see his other side.

[crazy canuck]

The main issue I have with the equality argument is that it is the government picking the equality winners to suit an ideological premise - that one parent (lets be honest the mother) should stay home.

But why pick that winner.  Why not pick families with lots of children so that they can income split with the whole household.  Why not pick grown children who are looking after a parent dependant. The list can go on but you get the point.

Way I'd put it is not that the Cons. equality argument is wrong, but that there are equality policies out there that are better, as in not so regressive.

It is wrong if you are a conservative type who believes that government shouldnt be picking winners and losers.

Government picks winners and losers all the time with tax policy. It is sort of an inevitable aspect of tax policy, as having a tax policy that was the same for everyone would, in itself, pick winners and losers with a vengence - and be horribly regressive in the bargain.

That is a good point.  But it goes to the equality argument.  Our current system is essentially blind to outcome.  It does not pick a particular group for advantage.  The more you make the more you pay.  Creating a system which is more "equal" for some groups at the expense of others makes little sense to me especially when the method used is this regressive.

[Malthus]

Point Four. I agree harper comes across as safe. He does have a nice, stately image. And that's why people who don't know anything else would vote for him. "He's such a nice guy,". It's only if you actually follow the ins and outs of the caucus and the party (which most people don't) that you see his other side.

I don't think anyone thinks Harper is "nice". In fact, the Con's attempts to dress him up as just this regular nice guy have been more laughable than anything (remember when they made him wear a sweater?  ).

On the contrary, he's seen as more of a nasty bully (by his enemies) and 'tough and decisive' (by his friends). The reason he gets votes, despite his rather bullying nature, is that he is able (rightly or wrongly) to project the image of having grip.

Canadians don't want leaders who are nice. They want leaders who are in charge. That's something Trudeau-the-younger is going to have trouble with.

[crazy canuck]

What would be easier for you?

The short list for why a reasonable intelligent person would vote Conservative:

1) They are not the NDP and so one need not be concerned about the socialists in that party who would would affect public policy;

2) They are not the Liberals - yet*.  And so one need not be overly concerned about corruption.

3) Harper removed the radical reformers one way or another and so to the extent one needed to worry about the radical right (read social conservatives) that was pretty much removed.  So when looking at the extreme wing of the NDP and the extreme wing of the Conservatives it becomes a much better choice.

4) Leadership.  Like him or not with Harper you pretty much get what you see.  Its safe and predictable - which is not particuarly surprising since he is a Conservative's conservative.  Incrimentalism has been his watchword and it works well.  Ironically Layton was beginning to achieve the status of being a safe predictable leader who was bringing the radical elements within his party under control. Unfortunately we lost him all too early.  It would have been interesting to see how he would have changed Canadian politics.  I had hopes for Trudeau but everytime he opens his mouth I feel foolish for my lack of judgment.  I trust Mulcair not at all.

5) The Conservatives have done a good job managing the budget but lately and particularly with the latest budget they are beginning to look like the Liberals of old.  This budget was actually in surplus but it is being dressed down to deliver really good news in an election year.  Also, it is in surplus through the magic of bringing EI surpluses into general revenue.

I realize that I have raised points why one would not vote Conservative but you run a newspaper so I thought I should be balanced. 


*I predict that will be their biggest problem in the next election

Fairly well balanced. I appreaciate the effort it took to bring up point 5.

Point two though, I have issue with. Corruption within the Liberals didn't happen right away. It happens to any party that's in power for long periods. It will happen to the Cons., in fact we are beginning to see some of that already.
Point Three. Fair enough...and I agree about the fringe elements of the Conservatives. That said, the NDP has been making inroads with the fringe loonie lefts within their party. I mean has anyone mentioned Marx lately?
Point Four. I agree harper comes across as safe. He does have a nice, stately image. And that's why people who don't know anything else would vote for him. "He's such a nice guy,". It's only if you actually follow the ins and outs of the caucus and the party (which most people don't) that you see his other side.

I agree with your point 2 rebuttle and it is the point which concerns me the most.

Re: point 3 - fair enough.  But Libby Davies seems to have a stronger voice now - and that is troubling to me.

Re point 4.  It doesnt trouble me too much because that is the price that must be paid to keep the existing social conservatives under control.  If he loses that fight the Conservatives are unelectable. 

[Grey Fox]

So the question is, on what grounds is income splitting good policy?

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

That's like the exact opposite of the Quebec family policy of the past 15 years.

[Neil]

So the question is, on what grounds is income splitting good policy?

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

That's like the exact opposite of the Quebec family policy of the past 15 years.

Maybe Quebec shouldn't have adopted an incorrect family policy.

[Josephus]

Point Four. I agree harper comes across as safe. He does have a nice, stately image. And that's why people who don't know anything else would vote for him. "He's such a nice guy,". It's only if you actually follow the ins and outs of the caucus and the party (which most people don't) that you see his other side.

I don't think anyone thinks Harper is "nice". In fact, the Con's attempts to dress him up as just this regular nice guy have been more laughable than anything (remember when they made him wear a sweater?  ).

On the contrary, he's seen as more of a nasty bully (by his enemies) and 'tough and decisive' (by his friends). The reason he gets votes, despite his rather bullying nature, is that he is able (rightly or wrongly) to project the image of having grip.

Canadians don't want leaders who are nice. They want leaders who are in charge. That's something Trudeau-the-younger is going to have trouble with.

Disagree. You and I, and a small proportion of Canadains that follow news, know all this...but you underestimate the grey-haired, rural old ladies, who see a "nice young man with a good haircut."

[Barrister]

So the question is, on what grounds is income splitting good policy?

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

That's like the exact opposite of the Quebec family policy of the past 15 years.

And take a look at the demographics and marriage rates in Quebec...

[Jacob]

And take a look at the demographics and marriage rates in Quebec...

Are you suggesting that the primary objective of family policy should be to increase the birth rate?

[Barrister]

And take a look at the demographics and marriage rates in Quebec...

Are you suggesting that the primary objective of family policy should be to increase the birth rate?

If, like all of Canada, your birth rate is significantly below replacement level, I think increasing the birth rate should be a major (but not necessarily primary) objective.

[Neil]

I disagree that maintaining population levels is desirable, but even if you wished to so so, there's always immigration.  Sure, immigration is suboptimal, but it's a means to an end.

[Grey Fox]

So the question is, on what grounds is income splitting good policy?

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

That's like the exact opposite of the Quebec family policy of the past 15 years.

And take a look at the demographics and marriage rates in Quebec...

Our marriage rate is obviously at near 0 but we have had a babyboom for almost 8 years now while keeping the numbers of women in the workforce growing.

[crazy canuck]

I had hopes for Trudeau but everytime he opens his mouth I feel foolish for my lack of judgment. 

My shame continues

When a Tout le Monde en Parle panelist asked Mr. Trudeau about Canada's response to the events in Ukraine, the Liberal Leader said Ottawa should do more and that his party has for several weeks pressed the Conservatives to take further action, including targeted sanctions against the now-ousted president. He then added the situation is "even more worrying now that Russia lost in hockey and will be in a bad mood. We fear some involvement of the Russian government in Ukraine."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-apologizes-to-ukrainian-community-leader-over-hockey-joke/article17082602/

[Grey Fox]

but he's right.