01/23/2006 Archived Entry: "whether or not, or not"
I choose the second "or not" in this case. Today's election is very screwed up. I do not want either of the two major parties in power and a vote for any of the other minor ones is a lost cause anyways. Normally, I would most certainly vote for the type of warm oatmeal, but they need to be taken down a peg. Twelve years in power is just too long.
The only viable alternative is to go with the conservatives but when the only thing you've got going for you is "We're not the Liberals!", that's not going to be good enough, really. During the last American election, I was firmly of the stance that they should have done all that they could to get rid of the republicans, including for voting for a party they didn't believe in. I guess a lot of people are currently feeling this way about our own corrupt government since it's all about voting for or against the Liberals, but I just can't bring myself to care enough to cast a vote against them.
One thing I enjoyed about this campaign was all the criticism thrown at Stephen Harper and his apparently inability to crack a smile or show any kind of emotion. I can actually relate to that as I did spend many of my years being somewhat of an emotional cypher. I feel bad for the guy having to constantly be told to show anger, passion, joy, etc. Expect a stone cold poker face when he wins tonight.
Replies: 41 comments
I am also fed up with both the Liberals, who are corrupt/ or worse incompetent, and the Conservatives, whose platform seems to be "we're not Liberal!" However, I don't think that voting for the smaller parties is throwing away your vote. Is it going to make a difference? Probably not, but I want to be justified when I disagree with how my country is being run. I participated in the vote, and that entitles me to judge how the government is doing. If you don't participate, you shouldn't be allow to complain about how things turn out, since you had your chance to change them. This being said, I wouldn't be against adding a section to the ballot that says "I choose to support none of these canadidates on the grounds that they do not represent me as a Canadian." And if that got the majority of the vote, I would send them all back out on the campaign trail with a mandate to create a new platform. That way, if you don't like either of the big parties, and don't want to throw away your vote on the smaller parties, you can still participate.
Posted by Darryl @ 01/23/2006 08:42 PM EST
Voting for the alternatives is always a good idea. Follow your heart instead of your head and you'll never be led wrong.
(Vote NDP :)
Posted by Joe @ 01/23/2006 10:14 PM EST
I'm moving to Sweden, that's the end of it! What I don't get though, is why cut an investigation off at the knees? I'd put in a reasonable bet that, with the whiplash-reaction by the entire political arena, there are a few people who should be charged with corruption who just got off scot-free under the change of attention. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the Conservatives will be completely uncorrupt is off their rocker. It's politics, there's always back-scratching going on. It's just with the Conservatives, it probably won't be a Canadian ad company, it will be "Big Tobacco" or the States.... anyone else wondered why they wouldn't release their sponsers this election?
Alright, so enough of that, what's done is done. All I can say is, stay idealistic, it's what makes Canada Canada. I'm seriously considering joining the Liberal party, just so I can throw in a vote for Micheal Ignatieff for party leader, now that Paul Martin is out. He's intelligent, idealistic, well-spoken and it was time for some new blood (that goes for the NDP as well, get rid of the used car salesman and I'll love you again, even if you are just a public interest group now)....
... Well, I suppose all that depends on if I have the right to vote next election after Harper has "redefined the women's role in politics" like he's promised.
Last thought, you are no longer throwing away your vote if you vote for a smaller party. No, they won't get into power, but popular vote instead of number of seats now determines how much money they have to play with next time. More money consistantly means more votes.
Posted by Kathleen @ 01/24/2006 11:37 AM EST
There was a point around 2 months ago where I was seeing blue (not the Bloc variety, mind you). I was really intent on voting Conservative. I had enough of the corruption and poor leadership brought forth by the Liberal party. Being brainwashed in the mornings by Lowell Green didn't help the Liberal case either.
But Thai, we're in the same boat, I did not cast a ballot yesterday. I had an urge to vote, but just didn't like my options (and I tend to see democracy as an illusion, but that's for another debate). The Conservative party seems to be too much of an American ass-kisser. I'm also haunted by images of Mulroney and Harris when I think Conservative. Meanwhile, both the Bloc and NDP are a joke in my eyes. Two months gave me enough time to realize that I'm truly Liberal at heart, but I'm just not fond of their current leadership.
It sucks to have another minority, but here's hoping our "little" Canada can prosper under such a regime (little in terms of populace).
Posted by dAN @ 01/24/2006 12:23 PM EST
I voted yesterday even though I didn't really appreciate either major parties, I voted because it was my civic duty.
Everyone talks about the scandels and corruption from the Liberals, but the fact of the matter is no political party ever goes straight by the book. Not that I'm defending them (i didnt even vote liberals) im just saying it could have been worse.
If anything, im just glad the scandal wasn't anything whack -- just look at the states, they're being accused of having torture jails in other countries and wild stuff like that :/
Posted by Dave @ 01/24/2006 05:33 PM EST
Of course it's ok Dave...there's nothing wrong with having millions of our dollars disappear...not whack at all...
Posted by dAN @ 01/24/2006 07:23 PM EST
oh our dollars didn't disappear ... they were out there, funding the liberals so that they could get around the contribution limits they set. funny that.
(i have some issues with the scandal .. but then on the other hand, i have huge issues with conservative tax policy ... luckily i live in bill graham's riding, who won last night by a good 15k or so, so what i did or did not decide to do was rather irrelevant, other than the doing my civic duty thing)
Posted by melpie @ 01/24/2006 07:34 PM EST
Like I said though, it could have been a lot worse compared to other governments out there :/
The scandal barely made international news -- no party ever goes straight by the books.
Posted by Dave @ 01/24/2006 07:35 PM EST
I would love to see someone work out the logistics of a gst cut of 1% Where is the funding going to come from for the national daycare or any other conservative action plan? Less money coming in = less money for something. So where are the cuts going to come? A gst tax cut is a tax on people who are bad at math - you save a little money on one hand and will pay it out of pocket for services that were once subsidized. The liberals didn't cut the gst because after they proposed it, they found out there was no way it was going to work, and they were busy trying to balance budgets. I would love to see how Harper the economist is going to make this work out mathmatically. What do you think?
Posted by Darryl @ 01/24/2006 08:41 PM EST
Agreed whole-heartedly, Darryl.... except election promises are a farse. If anything that they promised during the election actually comes into being, I'll be surprised. Hell, even the law knows that nothing ever comes of campaign promises, it's illegal to have them written down because then it would be considered a contract of sorts.
Posted by Kathleen @ 01/24/2006 11:10 PM EST
I have nothing to add to this conversation. Carry on!
Posted by Rayne @ 01/25/2006 12:13 AM EST
The NDP is a joke? It got 17.5% of the vote and 29 seats. That's 5 1/2 million people who support the NDP.
The Bloc is a joke? It got 50 seats (but only 10.5% of the vote).
Winning isn't everything, as anyone who ever used the Canadian medicare system will tell you. It was introduced by a minority government due to Tommy Douglas' (NDP) work in Saskatchewan. In fact, majority governments tend to favour the rich & corporations, while minority governments have done a lot for the common Canadian.
And, as noted earlier, every political party gets $1.75 each year for each vote they receive. Voting Green will *definitely* help in the future.
Posted by Joe @ 01/25/2006 01:14 AM EST
I'm definitely blue at heart but definitely struggled with this election. In the end I went with the tories, as they most represent things I stand for (2 tier health care, and I'm very socially conservative). The problem is I'm in a city that is completely filled by liberals (this really surprised me considering the high earners Toronto plays home to) but I'll have to keep my capitalism alive by going out and getting involved with my local tory party for the next election.
As for the minority gov't doing a lot for the common Canadian sure it's all well and good that we care about the little guy, but what about what really affects us. I'm not too far off by saying that the majority (if not all) of us who are commenting here aren't really the common Canadian. We're all university grads (or soon to be) and in the next few years will become upper middle class citizens. Sure we're still fairly young now and still coming off the university student mentality but it'll be interesting to see what we all think in a few years when we've got completely different priorities.
just my 2 pennies.
Posted by Mike @ 01/25/2006 03:10 AM EST
Of course if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the results or what the government does when they are in power. If you vote, even if your vote is intentionally voiding the ballot, you expressed your opinion that none of the candidates were acceptable to you. By not voting, you have made no statement of any kind, and are entirely willing to accept anything that goes on.
Now, about the parties being a joke or not. The number of seats they win and the percentage of the common vote they get has nothing to do with how good they are or whether they presented a reasonable platform. If you disagree with a party's platform, or consider a party's platform entirely unreasonable in terms of fiscal policy, social policy, balancing costs with income, etc, then yes it is reasonable to call them a joke.
That is a determination to be made by each voter independently and while it can be debated, the party's voting results and seats make no representation of how good they are.
Posted by sbdep @ 01/25/2006 01:22 PM EST
Darryl:
The GST cuts were one aspect of the Conservative fiscal plan. They were also scrapping the income tax cut implmented by the liberals last November. That is on part of where the money is coming from.
The decision to cut the gst instead of income tax was based on the idea that the very poor (who don't pay income tax anyways) would benefit more from gst cuts instead. The overall distribution of the "extra money in your pocket" across the range of poor to rich people is one area where the liberals and conservatives disagreed.
The conservatives have also named various other programs etc that they will cut in order to transfer government money to their new programs. These decisions were never really highlighted though unless you read through the full platform booklet they published.
Plus each party is working with the updated end of year economic summary which as has been typical for the last few years, has a large surplus that has been unallocated since it was not budgeted for.
Personally for me, I would have preferred the liberal income tax cut, over the conservative gst cut, because it means more money for me. However, we'll see what actually happens now that the election is over and the conservatives actually have a minority.
Posted by sbdep @ 01/25/2006 01:31 PM EST
Stephen, thanks for the intelligent rebuttle on Joe's comments. Saves me the time...:)!!
Posted by dAN @ 01/25/2006 01:44 PM EST
There's a big fucking difference between a party being a joke and its platform being one.
Posted by Joe @ 01/25/2006 09:38 PM EST
Really?...do tell?
Posted by dAN @ 01/25/2006 10:41 PM EST
re: gst cut
the funniest thing about the gst cut is the fact that quebec will have to raise their sales tax to remain revenue neutral because of the cut (the cut will cost them about $75M because they apply their qst on the gst) ... i'm still amazed that the bloc never brought that one up nor the liberals (but maybe they had strategic reasons for it?)
anyway, i seriously can't believe that the tories, the darlings of the fraser institute are going to cut the gst. it's common advice from economists these days that consumption taxes are much fairer taxes than income taxes (consumption taxes with exemptions for some basic goods) ... many right wing think tanks and even the oecd have noted that the movement should be towards increasing consumption taxes and decreasing personal and corporate income taxes. i believe it was the institute for competitiveness and prosperity that last year did a study that showed that the most benefit accrued to economy and therefore the government by cutting personal income taxes ... and the least benefit was from consumption taxes.
but in the end, politics and economics rarely agree. alas.
Posted by melpie @ 01/26/2006 12:01 AM EST
The difference is that a joke party is one that can effect no change, while a joke platform is one you don't agree with.
The Conservatives have a joke platform which will set the country back 50 years socially. How anyone can think a two-tier health care system is a good idea is beyond me. (The alternative is improving the system we've got, which I'm all for. Long wait times are a bad idea. Treating people who have money differently than everyone else is a way, way worse idea.)
My fundamental principle is very simple: treat everybody the same. That's why I'm for gay marriage, against capital punishment, and for a health system which not only covers all the treatments we need (like optometry, dentistry, and so on) but also the things that those things spawn off (like glasses/optical coverage and prescription coverage). Anything else artifically segments the population. No Canadian citizen should be without these fundamentals of life.
Uh, so that's a bit off-topic. No political party will ever conform *exactly* to my personal beliefs, but there's a reason I am officially a New Democrat.
Posted by Joe @ 01/26/2006 12:42 AM EST
By the way, a smart man once told me the following:
Having to pay for health insurance is like paying for Christmas insurance. Hey, there's an idea. I'll pay you $10 a month, and when Christmas comes around, you can pay me $100. How is this insurance again?
Posted by Joe @ 01/26/2006 12:44 AM EST
melpie:
Quebec applies their provincial sales tax on top of the GST? Sucks to be them. But that isn't something we can help now is it. All the other provinces apply their sales tax on the base price AFAICS.
deciding whether to cut the gst or income tax depends on which economists you listen to. The liberals claim that cutting income tax benefits the lower middle class the most, while also helping the higher class / higher income people. However, the very poor, are not affected at all, since they don't pay income tax. For these people, cutting the gst helps them at least a bit.
The balance of how much money goes into which pockets is where the liberals and conservatives disagreed based on their economic advisors.
Of course the conservatives can get a little bit of a political boost by cutting the hated gst, even though I think it has been in place long enough now that people accept it and deal with it. And it is therefore less of a political boost. IMO
Posted by sbdep @ 01/26/2006 10:36 AM EST
Joe:
your opinion on the conservatives having a joke platform is the difference between the left orange heart in you and the stone cold blue heart in Mike. What colour heart dAN has I don't know. :)
Incidentally, I an socially left leaning and fiscally conservative. As a result, I tend to support the liberals, due to their middle of the road, common ground, make everyone feel happy policies :)
Posted by sbdep @ 01/26/2006 10:40 AM EST
If 2 tier health care is so terrible then explain why it works in the places that have implemented it? Someone needs a procedure and it's not needed immediately so they get put on a waiting list that will take a year, but some other guy has the same thing but wants to shell out cash to have it done tomorrow. How is this bad? Someone else takes money from the guy who's crazy enough to pay right away and the other guy will still get his when he needs it. Plus if it's private it wouldn't be gov't funded so there is no extra cost, this doesn't have to exclude doing a bit of good for the already provided healthcare that will still be there for the people who need it.
The problem with the liberal party and the NDP is that they won't let you think there is any option between the US style healthcare and the Canadian style...but there is.
And I agree with your fundamental principle, Joe, to an extent. People should be on a common ground for something things, but not for everything. Why shouldn't what you get back from your taxes reflect your income? People make more money for a reason, to me it doesn't make sense to give back more to the guy who makes less. If you want everything to be funded (ie, glasses for example) then the guy who makes 100K a year should be able to get some determined amount, and the guy making 25K should get 1/4 of that. But hey, that's just me.
I've been on the Liberal boat before, trying to find a good ground to stand on but they just don't have enough conservative in them for my liking. The other parties are way too socialist for my liking.
Posted by Mike @ 01/26/2006 02:33 PM EST
Mike: many places that have two tiered health care (britain, and other european countries) have lots of problems with it, it isn't as good as it is made out to be by the conservatives. And it will not avoid being government funding. Since we provide some level of funding for people training to be doctors, when they go to a private clinin, do they have to repay the government back? or is that a sunk cost? (same issue with doctors going to the US etc of course) In addition, having a 2 tier helth care system also will cause doctors to move from serving inthe public system to working for the much more profitable private clinics. Which means either the number good doctors in the public system decline, and therefore people using the public system get worse care, or we have to increase salaries etc to keep the doctors in the public system. Which directly affects the cost of health care. Adding a competetive aspect to the market for employing doctors within our country, will not in general be good for the public health care system.
Or at least that is my opinion on 2-tier health care
Posted by sbdep @ 01/26/2006 03:17 PM EST
equal access to services:
so if an MRI costs $1000 to do, for example, does that mean that the low income person making $25000/year is only allowed one MRI per lifetime, while the person making $2500000/year is allowed 100 / lifetime?
Public health care should not distinguish between the services given to the different people.
This is the same as the so-called Fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government. Depending on who you are talking to, the Fiscal imbalance refers the the federal government generating large surpluses, while provinces barely break even or run deficits.
Other people (Ontario) complain about it meaning that Ontario sends X amount the the federal government in taxes etc, and only receiving some small percentage in transfers back. A smaller percentage than other provinces like PEI, or Newfoundland. I think this second idea of fiscal imbalance is crap. There are realities involved like the small maritime provinces cannot afford to run the same quality of health care etc because their economy is based on fishing which is shut down, or other lower income industries. One of the core ideas of canada, is that we can as a nation pull together and while the economy is good for one reqion, be able to help out the other regions so that we all benefit and have common levels of service for health care, child care, . THis is why I am annoyed by the Albertans bitching that they should not have to share any of their new found oil revenues with any of the other provinces. To some degree, sure they can use their money for services in Alberta, like eliminating taxes, but they should also send some of it towards the provinces that have no such magic revenue growth and are struggling in the meantime.
/me ends idealistic rant of the day
Posted by sbdep @ 01/26/2006 03:29 PM EST
but why should alberta not get to keep their increased oil revenues while other provinces don't have to count theirs towards their equalization payments (i know this isn't the right terminology ... but that's the right sentiment)
however, i've gotta agree that the whole second idea of fiscal imbalance (i.e. ontario deserves as much back from the feds as it send sin taxes) is rather ludicrous ... if you follow through that logic, then our progressive tax system is wrong - everyone should get as much benefit from the government as they pay in taxes ...
in comments to the whole which tax cut (income or gst) will benefit the consumer best - i was more referring to which tax cut generates the most economic benefit and which tax in and of itself is fairer. general consensus amongst economists (worldwide) is that the consumption tax (i.e. vat - in our case the gst) is the fairest type of tax that you can have and distorts ppl's decision making the least - if it makes ppl not consume, at least they'll be saving/investing their money ... so it still contributes to the economy. an income tax on the other hand discourages ppl from earning more (through investment or wages) because you don't get to keep all the extra you earn (part goes to income tax).
ah well, who cares ... i vote we go to war with denmark to make sure that everyone knows that little piece of rock up in the arctic is ours!
Posted by melpie @ 01/26/2006 09:55 PM EST
oh yeah - wanted to talk about health care.
did you know that only three countries in the world have public health care with no allowance for private ... canada, cuba and north korea ... i'd say we're in good company!
i'm for public payment of health care, but i think there is room to explore the private provision of health care - when you think about it, a degree of it already does exist in canada (doctors aren't employees or the province, the province just pays their salaries)
but say the province gave $x for x procedure/check up or whatever - and it wouldn't matter if it was in a provincially funded hospital or a privately funded hospital. what if a consortium of nurses could run a hospital (e.g., sweden)? what if a private company ran the hospital, but paid the province rent to be in the building itself? there are many variations.
we keep throwing more and more money at the health care system, hoping that the problems will fix themselves ... we set goals to achieve, but do we have use of the tools to achieve them.
i just wish there was more flexibility in even discussing ideas without the fear of being accused of pursuing sweeping privatization. this isn't a discussion about how we aren't american and don't want to be american... it's a discussion of how we can best serve our canadians or ontarians (seeing as it's a provincial jurisdiction).
Posted by melpie @ 01/26/2006 10:06 PM EST
Mel: very well spoken on the healthcare issue, at least you see the option of exploring, the general thought to most Canadians is that as soon as we explore private at all that we'll just turn into the US. I'm really hoping that this change in gov't will be the start of a new leaf for Canada =)
Posted by Mike @ 01/26/2006 11:09 PM EST
Joe: Actually I just looked at the results and it's 2,590,663 people who support the NDP, not the 5.5M you said. You got the percent right though, but only 63% of Canada voted so it's not a straight transfer to percentage of the population =). 5.5M is about what the Tories got (5,369,827 to be exact). But I don't think the NDP (the party or the platform) is a joke, it just doesn't reflect my values. The Green party (despite their love of the environment) is a joke.
Posted by Mike @ 01/26/2006 11:25 PM EST
Well, given that we're going to elect a prime minister based on 63% of the population's vote and pretend that he's what the majority of Canadians want, I think it's safe to say that 17% of Canada like the NDP enough to vote for them (if they were forced to vote, I guess).
In other words, I extrapolated the election numbers to apply to the whole population. There's no particular reason to think that the numbers in the election would be *that far* off from the numbers in the real population. Yay stat 230.
Posted by Joe @ 01/26/2006 11:37 PM EST
By the way, Mike and melpie, that's the way the system works currently. Seriously.
My girlfriend works in an X-ray clinic, and it's run by a private company. They bill OHIP for the procedures (or the person if they're not covered by OHIP). I can see no problem in trying to make a profit off the public system, since Medicare would pay for the operation anyways, and billing amounts are fixed.
What I do see a problem with is setting up a separate, parallel private health system that will suck doctors and resources away from the public system. If the population can only sustain N doctors, and N/2 of them decide that private practice is for them -- and say that 25% of the population can afford private health insurance, which might be low, but let's run with it -- then now we only have N/2 public doctors. Wait times increase exponentially. The gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots increases. Suddenly my grandfather has to wait 2 years for new knees instead of just 4 months.
I just can't see any way they can coexist without hurting the public system in some way.
Posted by Joe @ 01/26/2006 11:44 PM EST
Joe: wouldn't you just extrapolate to the voting population (ie 18 and above), I'd accept that as reasonable, but applying it to the parts of the population not old enough to cast a vote (and some not old enough to know what voting is) wouldn't be correct. And I assume you mean stat 231 and not 230 :p
Posted by Mike @ 01/27/2006 01:53 AM EST
Yeah, whatever. Let's just use percentages from now on.
Posted by Joe @ 01/27/2006 09:21 AM EST
Agreed =)
Posted by Mike @ 01/27/2006 12:36 PM EST
nbabasketballtickets.org
Posted by NBA Tickets @ 03/09/2006 10:36 PM EST
qMJmao3Nk0m4 FpnotIefdZxJ3 KfVNiwQRH3Sq
Posted by gSgYxbxG1l @ 03/11/2006 12:56 AM EST
Champions On Ice Tickets for all events try it and see yourself
Posted by Champions On Ice Tickets @ 03/19/2006 05:23 PM EST
Posted by health01 @ 03/24/2006 04:13 PM EST
Posted by Earth @ 03/24/2006 09:16 PM EST
Posted by health01 @ 03/25/2006 10:35 AM EST