Bizud

The one dimension where public will should not reign supreme is human rights, but that's a different debate. Yeah, dude, they can only "not pay them" if the govenment allows it. Layoffs are one way the business class lashes out when the people get too uppity - that's why the government should step in and take a more active role creating employment. Don't tell me this can't happen, there are too many examples of it to ignore.

That's actually the point, we can afford them, if we pay more in taxes (and by "we," I probably don't mean you and me). We can afford to pay more in taxes; look at other countries that do and tell me we can't.

Elections are held when either the government loses a vote of confidence or the Prime Minister decides to call one, to a maximum of five years after the previous election. Four years is the standard term, but the average minority government in Canada lasts one and a half years. Coalitions are much less common in Canada because the (unfortunate) nature of the electoral system makes majority parliaments (where one party has more than half the seats) common; parties are not used to having to cooperate.

Most Canadians who post here are probably either left-leaning Liberals or NDP supporters. The Liberals are the party of the Centre, the NDP are on the left and the Conservatives are on the right. The Bloc Quebecois are a mostly left-leaning separatist party from Quebec. The Liberals have governed Canada since 1993.

I apologize for .pdf format. http://www.thestar.com/static/PDF/050411_fed_vote.pdf Latest poll results. Liberals are trailing all over the country, behind the NDP in all four western provinces. Conservatives lead even in Ontario. Bloc are ahead in Quebec. NDP lead in BC and Sask/Man.

Thanks for the merge. My board, which has no mods, has seen a spamming attempt of the type you're describing exactly one time. This board has so many mods that in the unlikely event this spamming did occur, it would very easily be locked almost right away. The rule is hardly necessary, and there are many cases where it's better to post again than to edit your last one - for instance, when the post being edited is several days old, just editing it won't tell anyone that new information has been added to the post, so most people won't check the thread. A new post in a thread brings with it a "Hey, look here!"

Here's one. http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html

When you can't pay for everything, you raise taxes or you borrow money. Under no circumstances should services be cut. Priorities. Decent social programs are human rights; low taxes are a luxury. The fastcat fiasco was a dumb move, but really, look at the economic records of parties besides the NDP, and you'll see that they're all about the same; it's just that the media holds the NDP to a greater standard, for obvious reasons; the people who own the media vote for who again? Finally, the Liberals have yet to make a single payment towards the debt, they've only forecasted to do that this year - and that's after running the biggest deficit budget in modern BC history (2001-02). Most of that has nothing to do with anything I said, so I'll just say this: The debt could have been long paid off if we'd crank taxes. Look at Norway. They have much higher taxes, much less in the way of natural resources, a prosperous economy, zero debt, and the highest quality of life according to the UN.

I never commented on the 2001 election, so I don't know what that's about. I said that they became unpopular - in a democracy, this is the definition of "bad" - almost as soon as they entered office. No, I don't believe it's a government's duty to "do unpopular things" that "need to be done." That's not democracy, that's oligarchy. And Canada has some of the lowest tax rates in the first world, the idea that the rich can't pay any more is just absurd. ...so? When did I say anything about voting for people rather than parties? Either Paul Martin knew what was happening, in which case he's a crook, or he didn't know, which is almost as bad because it means he's incompetent. Either way, thank god for the minority parliament, which may give the voters a chance to rethink their support for the liberals. We wouldn't have that option in a majority situation. Whether they're guilty or not isn't the point; the point is that the collective opposition ought to be able to dissolve parliament if the public wants it enough (I don't mind frequent elections at all; I think we should have annual elections - this was something leftists were fighting for back in the 19th century and I think it's a terrible shame they've forgotten about it), and only in a minority parliament is that possible.

Nurses are probably the most sinfully overworked employees in the province. Yeah, lower taxes a smidge for the poor, a lot for the rich, and use the lack of funds to justify cutting services that benefit most people, especially the poor, a lot more than a cheque for $300. As for teachers, I can't speak for all of them, and there are always exceptions, but teachers in general are underpaid and overworked, especially considering the stressful nature of their jobs.

"But there's already a thread about this!" Yeah, but I happened to be the last person to post in it, and the board rules are gay and won't let me edit that post or post again. And I just (actually like two weeks ago, I just kept forgetting until now) realized something completely obvious that was apparently missed by at least one person and is important enough to be repeated for clarity - So, new thread it is! Ecnarf posted: and That's incorrect; if you'd said 17 year old grade 12 student you'd be right, but not 18. Also, a 40-year old can have sex with a 14-year old, issues of trust/dependency notwithstanding; the age of consent for non-anal sexual activity, issues of trust/dependency notwithstanding is 14, unless the older person involved is sixteen or younger, in which case the age of consent is two years younger than the age of the older partner and is never less than 12. So 40 and 15 is fine, 40 and 14 is fine, 40 and 13 is no good, but 15 and 13 is fine; 14 and 12 is fine, but 13 and 11, or 15 and 12, are no good, etc. The relevant law is mentioned by ToadMan exactly two posts above that first one of yours I quoted.

I don't know how I forgot about this thread. There's "more money being put into health care" because facilities were closed, jobs were eliminated, wages lowered, and work hours increased. Remember how this almost caused a province-wide general strike not so long ago (something I think should have happened, and would have if the bastard union leaders hadn't sold the union members out)? Hey, I know how we can have tons of money to fix the education system too, just stop paying the teachers and close all the schools! But really the federal Liberals are to blame for the health care system's woes - to "slay the deficit dragon," Martin & Chretien cut transfer payments to the provinces. Now, there are three ways for a provincial government to respond to this. One is raise taxes to compensate. Two is run deficits to compensate. Three is provide worse service, stick your thumb up your ass and whine about the feds. Personally I think number one is the obvious choice. The NDP went with a mix of options one and two - mostly two, though they had reduced the deficit to zero by the time they were voted out. We're lucky the SoCreds or Liberals weren't in power at the time, though, because they would have gone with good ol' option number three - user pay, fuck the poor, every man for himself.

It's a rap-off between "Terry, the law abider," who likes to get drunk and fight, and "Tim, the criminal," a student who smokes weed and enjoys playstation and philosophical discussion. [Terry] Hello, Hello My name's Terry and I'm a law-abider There's nothing I like more than getting fired up on beer And when the weekend's here I exercise my right to get paralytic and fight Good bloke fairly But I get well leery when geezers look at me funny Bounce 'em round like bunnies I'm likely to cause mischief Good clean grief you must believe And I ain't no thief, law-abiding and all, all legal And who cares about my liver when it feels good? What you need is some real manhood Rasher, Rasher, burning cash up Putting people's backs up Public disorder, I'll give you public disorder I down eight pints and run all over the place Spit in the face of an officer See if that bothers ya 'Cause I never broke a law in my life Some day I'm gonna settle down with a wife Come on lads let's have another fight [Tim] Um, Hello My name's Tim and I'm a criminal In the eyes of society I need to be in jail For the choice of herbs I inhale This ain't no wholesale operation Just a few eighths and some Playstation's my vocation I pose a threat to the nation And down at the station the police hold no patience Let's talk space and time I like to get deep sometimes And think about Einstein and Carl Jung And old Kung Fu movies I like to see Pass the hydrator please Yeah, I'm floating on thin air Going to Amsterdam in the New Year - top gear there 'Cause I take pride in my hobby Home-made bongs using my engineering degree "Dear leaders, please legalize weed for these reasons." [Terry] Like I was saying to him I told him, "F**k with me and you won't live." So I smacked him in the head and downed another Carling Bada Bada Bing For the lad's like, mad fight His face a sad sight, Vodka and Snake Bite Going on like a right geez He's a twat! Shouldn't have looked at me like that Anyway, I'm an upstanding citizen If a war came along I'd be on the front line with 'em Can't stand crime either, them hooligans on heroin Drugs and criminals Those thugs are the pinnacle of the downfall of society I've got all the anger pent up inside of me [Tim] You know, I don't see why I should be the criminal How can something with no recorded fatalities be illegal? And how many deaths are there per year from alcohol? I just completed Gran Turismo on the hardest setting We pose no threat on my settee Ooh the pizza's here, will someone let him in please? We didn't order chicken Not a problem, we'll pick it out I doubt they meant to mess us about After all we're all adults, not louts As I was saying, we're friendly peaceful people We're not the ones out there causing trouble We just sit in this hazy bubble with our quarters Discussing how beautiful Gail Porter is MTV, BBC 2, Channel 4 is on until six in the morning Then at six in the morning the sun dawns and it's my bedtime [Terry] Causing trouble?! Your stinking rabble boys Saying I'm the lad who's spoiling it You're on drugs It really bugs me when people try and tell me I'm a thug Just for getting drunk I like getting drunk 'Cause I'm an upstanding citizen If a war came along I'd be on the front line with 'em [Tim] Now Terry, you're repeating yourself But that's okay, drunk people can't help that A chemical reaction happening inside your brain causes you to forget what you're saying [Terry] What? I know exactly what I'm saying I'm perfectly sane You stinking student lame-o Go get a job and stop robbing us of our taxes [Tim] Um, well actually according to research Government funding for further education pales in insignificance When compared to how much they spend on repairing leery drunk people at the weekend In casualty wards all over the land [Terry] Why you cheeky little swine, come here! I'm gonna batter ya! Come here!

Here's the best reason marijuana should be at least decriminalized. Fun stat time: 47% of Canadians support full legalization. Another 27% support decriminalization. That means a total of 70% agree on decriminalization. Another 22% support permitting medicinal use beyond what is currently permitted. That leaves about 8%, at most, who support the status quo. If this sounds stonerish I apoligize, but I sincerely believe the world would be a better place if marijuana usage was much higher.

Download the song "The Irony of it All" by The Streets.

Free market is a joke, dude. If there was any truth to your statements the economy of, for example, Norway would be in the hole instead of booming, and the United States wouldn't have more debt than any other nation. You can have high taxes without "wrecking the economy," most of Europe does. Yeah, way to name two examples of NDP regimes that experienced economic hardship, don't mention any other NDP governments that didn't experience similar hardship, and don't even comment on other parties' records at all. In fact, every party has more or less the same record in that department, actually - the only party with any serious "bad" economic record is Liberals (across the board, federally and most provinces), who have generally run more deficits and higher deficits. The NDP/CCF, provincially, have generally the best record of reducing debt (esp. Saskatchewan). The health of the economy other than that has very little to do with who's in power at the time (if anything, it probably has more to do with who was in power two or three years prior, but even that's pretty minimal). The whole "Socialists can't manage economy!!!" thing is just the obvious and predictable reaction of the business class to a credible leftist/labour-based party having the nerve to stick their nose where they don't belong. Look outside this continent for examples disproving it, they're not hard to find. Despite how progressive we all like to think we are, it's only compared to the US that Canada doesn't look like the business-controlled society it is, and the falsehoods the media is all too happy to circulate about the NDP ("fudge-it budgets," etc) are just part of that. Finally, though the Conservatives and Bloc will clearly make the most gains out of this, I think a lot of votes will swing to the NDP, especially if the Liberals are disgraced enough and Harper comes out strongly against same-sex marriage. Especially if the NDP do well in BC's upcoming election.

Plenty of majority governments have become unpopular almost from the day they entered office. Gordon Campbell's Liberals are one excellent example. They defeated the incumbent NDP, winning 77 seats to 2 - one year later, polls had support for the NDP higher than support for the Liberals in most of BC. Majority governments go against the will of the public all the time. Minority governments rarely do. You know damn well that majority governments are harder to be forced out of office, that's just so blindingly obvious. That's why they last longer. And look at the current situation. The Liberals have just been seriously implicated in a major political scandal, and it's quite possible the opposition will force another election soon. This is good; the government has done something bad and now the public will get to rethink their support for them (though, of course, the majority of the public voted anti-Liberal in '93, '97, and 2000 anyway, which is the whole point - FPTP makes it impossible to hold government to account, since a party can be re-elected to a majority without a majority [or even a plurality] of the votes - we got extremely lucky this time and got a minority parliament). If we were in a majority situation we'd be waiting another three years at least to hold these criminals to account. Finally, I don't understand why you seem to be distateful of the idea that politicians want to be re-elected. Government doing what's popular is the essence of democracy. Government doing things that are unpopular is antidemocratic.

I don't care either way, minorities and coalitions are both far preferable to majorities, because they make the cabinet actually responsible to the Parliament.

Actually, no difference. Do your homework; a coalition is when the government (cabinet) is composed of MPs from more than one party. That's what "coalition government" means, period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government It's not hard at all for people to work together. We're not talking about confederalism here, we're talking about multiple parties within the same country working together. It's obviously possible, it happens all the time, just not in Canada - but there's no reason that has to be the case. It's hardly exclusive to continental Europe - look at the New Zealand example. Or Britain or Canada during the first world war. If Labour, Liberal, and Conservative ministers can sit at the same table and govern the country together during wartime, they can certainly do it in peacetime. But you're right, people work together when they have to. So let's change the electoral system so that they'll have to, and then they'll be able to. Right?

I'm a poli sci student, I know how STV works. I wrote an explanation of it on Matt Good's blog a while back. As for Layton's request to the PM, I can't see how it's relevant. Jack Layton asked Paul Martin if he'd be interested in a coalition; Martin said no thanks. What's the problem here? Is it just another "coalitions are bad, Jack Layton shouldn't have the audacity to ask to be part of a coalition?" The fact is, coalition governments are the norm in most western democracies. Canada had a coalition government during the first world war, as did Britain. To say they can't work is just idiotic, there's so much evidence to refute this it's hard to know where to begin.

The joke is, what's the first thing they teach in the French army? How to say "I surrender" in German.

To say that coalitions do not work is just patently false; they work for most democracies. Finally, something worthwhile to talk about. Israel has no threshold, I agree, it's a problem. You win .5% of the votes, you win .5% of the seats - this means you get a lot of 1 and 2 seat parties. This can be easily avoided with threshold requirements, which most PR systems use. New Zealand has a threshold of 5% - to be considered for additional list seats (the seats that are added to a party's seat count to bring their seat percentage up to their vote percentage), a party must receive either 5% of the votes or at least one constituency seat. Does it work? Yes. Countries with this kind of threshold do not experience the same problems that Israel's political system does. I don't even know what you're saying here. Every vote in STV has the same value, some votes are just split. Each single vote is transferable. Get it? Somehow I doubt it. I don't even know what you're talking about; fringe parties, what? Consider the two countries which use it: No fringe parties (except maybe Sinn Fein, which I wouldn't call a fringe party given their level of support) have any seats in Ireland, and Malta basically has a two-party system. As for its proportionality, that depends on the district magnitude; the more members per district, the more proportional it is. Elections in Ireland have been shown to produce parliaments that are actually pretty close to proportional to the votes.

If the transfer payments were adjusted there would be no point in them keeping revenue from offshore oil. Newfoundland is a province that has seen its natural resources completely raped since joining Canada. They need all the money they can get.

Coalitions are the norm in modern democracies. Canada, Britain, and the US are a bunch of straglers in this respect. There's absolutely no reason a coalition government can't be stable and efficient. Look at New Zealand, which used our electoral system until 1996; some people there were afraid that coalitions and minorities would never be able to get anything done, but those fears have proven totally baseless. The current governing Labour/Progressive coalition doesn't even have a combined majority in the house; they have to rely on support from other parties, mostly the Greens and the centrist United Future party, to pass various bills. And it's working just fine.

Coalitions work in most countries; why not ours? If the Liberals have done such a great job, why do the majority of Canadians continue to vote against them?