In the upcoming Provincial election.....

Forum Sponsor
I'll vote green before I decline my ballot. "Sustainability" is a concept that applies to the budget as much as any other aspect of their platform, and they aren't beholden to big business like the Libs and Cons.

As for lying, or buying votes, I really don't care. I view it as part of the machination of politics, mostly a result of the electorate being so stupid and gullible. As long as the right decisions are made and the budget is kept under control then they say what they want. Actions speak louder than words.

Or to put it another way, if a party promised free drivers licenses for everyone, but you know that the right thing to do is to test all applicants and charge them the cost, then when the party gets elected they do the right thing why hold a grudge? They have to get elected to do the right thing, and if people need to be lied to and bought to elect them, then so be it.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
What I mean is that it sometimes seems to me strategists are deliberately disaffecting voters, by taking more and more polarized positions, meaning that only the people on the extremes ultimately end up electing the government. They play to an ever narrowing audience, as is shown by the abysmal numbers in the last Provincial election.
Click to expand...

Agreed.... although if you look at the numbers for the past 15 or so years, the percentages haven't changed much. Political strategists are indeed polarizing issues because they are influencing a Hollywood driven world. It is a terrible way to run a country. We are all in this together and regardless who wins, we should all be pulling together for the public good.

Rob MacLennan said:
Taking the short term view hasn't served anyone very well. We need to take a longer view. My statement is that you don't need to get out and vote for someone, in order to have an effect on the process. If you're really going to "get involved" then you'd better actually join a party, and steer it the way that you want it to go. Anything less, in the short term, is pointless.
Click to expand...

Agreed... we need a long term view of the kind of society we wish to build as Canadians. Unfortunately, the electorate (and the politicians who are driven by them) seems to have lost the "dream" of how great we could be as a nation. This is an unfortunate outcome of the greedy 80's where people seemed to quit caring about one another and focussed more on themselves.

Rob MacLennan said:
I hope that you're being facetious, because otherwise your comments are grossly insulting.
Click to expand...

Rob, how can one help but be facetious in the face of politicians who do what they want, and an uncaring, unmotivated electorate? If you found that grossly insulting, please accept my apology. I must have confused the small "c" conservative with the capital "C" conservative. I just want people to wake up, take an interest, and help build this country into the shining star of the world.

Rob MacLennan said:
Being a fiscal conservative isn't a political affiliation, it's a way of viewing disbursement of funds. To put it in the most simple, personal terms you don't buy a new TV if the old one works fine, and you can't afford food. You don't just throw money at a problem, hoping that it'll fix it. You monitor how the funds are used and make sure that they aren't being wasted. At this point Canada does not have a fiscally conservative party. It has three spendthrift parties, one of which just happens to be socially conservative. Don't mistake one for the other. Social conservatives expand prisons and push for harsher sentencing, which increases spending in ways that are unnecessary. Fiscal conservatives look at things like needle exchanges realizing that just two or three people, who don't become infected with AIDS, pay for the entire programme in saved health care costs.

You tax those who can best bear the load. Look at the tax rates from back in the 1950s. Somehow the rich still managed to be rich, back then, despite paying multiples of their current percentages.

As Canadians we have a commitment to state funded education, universal health care, and a basic social safety net. When people become comfortable enough in that safety net that they see no need to go back to work, despite being healthy and capable, then that safety net has bloated beyond reason. It needs to be properly monitored and those who abuse it, need to be punished for it. I favour "Workfare" over "Welfare", where it's practical in application. No one in Canada should starve. No one in Canada should get a free ride either.

Fiscal conservatism is about APPROPRIATE spending.
Click to expand...

Gee Rob.... I think I might fit into your definition of fiscal conservative as well - the devil is in the details, as always. You've made some excellent points and I appreciate your taking the time to share them with me. We should go out for a ride some day... then we'll talk fiscal and political policy over a post-ride coffee ... now THAT would be fun!

BTW... had a look at your website... great photos!!
 
Last edited:
This has to be the dumbest strategy I have every heard. Anyone that declines their ballot, has no right to whine about the party that forms the government. You want to make a different, vote for the candidate you feel is best. Out of all the choices one has to be a head of the others, even if it's by the smallest margins. You want to make a difference, not a statement.
 
I don't vote. Its an informed choice

I'll vote when I can see fiscal responsibility in a candidate that doesn't also come with a ridiculous brand of social "conservatism".
while I am dreaming. I would also like the country to move more towards a sensible tax policy towards consumption tax and away from income tax.
I personally would like to see a flat tax rate with a way higher tax on luxuries, less so on necessities. Capital gains shouldn't get special treatment, dividend tax credits should just be removed with a lower corporate tax rate.

now that I think about this, I think is totally the wrong forum. ha

PS there was a comment about Canadian Banks vs American Banks. we weren't better regulated at all, we just learned the lesson a year eariler.. Feel free to look up the ABCP (asset backed commercial paper) crisis in Canada.
 
Last edited:
oilycreek said:
This has to be the dumbest strategy I have every heard. Anyone that declines their ballot, has no right to whine about the party that forms the government. You want to make a different, vote for the candidate you feel is best. Out of all the choices one has to be a head of the others, even if it's by the smallest margins. You want to make a difference, not a statement.
Click to expand...

fastar1 said:
I'll vote green before I decline my ballot. "Sustainability" is a concept that applies to the budget as much as any other aspect of their platform, and they aren't beholden to big business like the Libs and Cons.

As for lying, or buying votes, I really don't care. I view it as part of the machination of politics, mostly a result of the electorate being so stupid and gullible. As long as the right decisions are made and the budget is kept under control then they say what they want. Actions speak louder than words.

Or to put it another way, if a party promised free drivers licenses for everyone, but you know that the right thing to do is to test all applicants and charge them the cost, then when the party gets elected they do the right thing why hold a grudge? They have to get elected to do the right thing, and if people need to be lied to and bought to elect them, then so be it.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. People, who do not take part in the process, have no right to whine about it. Declining your ballot is a means of taking part in the process, by registering a vote of protest, in a way that is specifically mandated in the Elections Act.

More than 47%, of eligible voters, failed to vote in the last Provincial election. How is it a bad thing, to try and bring them into the process?

How are we improving the situation, by rewarding the bad behaviour of politicians? There are very few real differences between the politicals parties, these days, when it comes to the mechanics of government. They only disagree on how they want to spend your money other than one basic metric; "badly." If we continue to reward politicians, for lying, then we have no one but ourselves to blame for bad government. If you let them get away with having no real platform, other than casting aspersions against their opponents, same-same. If you trust someone who lied to you in order to get into government, to 'do the right thing', then you're playing a fool's game. That person has already shown himself incapable of 'doing the right thing.'

So if you can't stomach the 'machinations' of politicians, decline your ballot. Show them that you're not part of the 'stupid and gullible' electorate. You aren't buying it. If you can legitimately support the polices of a party, this post isn't for you.
 
ike said:
Agreed.... although if you look at the numbers for the past 15 or so years, the percentages haven't changed much. Political strategists are indeed polarizing issues because they are influencing a Hollywood driven world. It is a terrible way to run a country. We are all in this together and regardless who wins, we should all be pulling together for the public good.

Agreed... we need a long term view of the kind of society we wish to build as Canadians. Unfortunately, the electorate (and the politicians who are driven by them) seems to have lost the "dream" of how great we could be as a nation. This is an unfortunate outcome of the greedy 80's where people seemed to quit caring about one another and focussed more on themselves.

Rob, how can one help but be facetious in the face of politicians who do what they want, and an uncaring, unmotivated electorate? If you found that grossly insulting, please accept my apology. I must have confused the small "c" conservative with the capital "C" conservative. I just want people to wake up, take an interest, and help build this country into the shining star of the world.

Gee Rob.... I think I might fit into your definition of fiscal conservative as well - the devil is in the details, as always. You've made some excellent points and I appreciate your taking the time to share them with me. We should go out for a ride some day... then we'll talk fiscal and political policy over a post-ride coffee ... now THAT would be fun!
Click to expand...

Political terminology might make for useful shorthand, but it certainly doesn't replace discourse. They're finding that out, to their dteriment, in the United States. Our Federal Conservatives are pushing things the same way. It has to stop.

Glad for the discussion.

ike said:
BTW... had a look at your website... great photos!!
Click to expand...

Thanks. Every year I do it, I learn something new.
 
OpenGambit said:
I don't vote. Its an informed choice

I'll vote when I can see fiscal responsibility in a candidate that doesn't also come with a ridiculous brand of social "conservatism".
while I am dreaming. I would also like the country to move more towards a sensible tax policy towards consumption tax and away from income tax.
I personally would like to see a flat tax rate with a way higher tax on luxuries, less so on necessities. Capital gains shouldn't get special treatment, dividend tax credits should just be removed with a lower corporate tax rate.

now that I think about this, I think is totally the wrong forum. ha

PS there was a comment about Canadian Banks vs American Banks. we weren't better regulated at all, we just learned the lesson a year eariler.. Feel free to look up the ABCP (asset backed commercial paper) crisis in Canada.
Click to expand...

laugh if you want, but the last government of any stripe in ontario or federally that actually practised fiscal conservatism with social liberalism (which is, btw, most likely the mainstream of canadian political leaning) was the liberals under paul martin.

the federal cons stopped being socially liberal when they ousted the progressives and harper took over.

mike harris and mike harris lite/jr. (hudak) are clearly socially conservative, and while talking the talk of fiscal conservatism, didn't/won't walk the walk.

rob ford and harper have bbq's together, that pretty much tells you what you need to know.

small c conservatism, or small l liberalism defines the centrist politics of most canadians.
 
I think the only choice for ON is Liberal. I'd rather have a government that sides with the middle class -unions- than big corporations any day. Fiscal Conservatism advocates against deficit spending, not necessarily appropriate spending. Neither the Left nor Right in this country are fiscally conservative. I'd rather accumulate a deficit fostering and growing the middle class than fostering and growing, say, Rogers Communication. I think as long as politicians are 'backed' by special interest groups, they'll spend redundantly just to please their constituents. It's not going to end until we address that problem.
 
paulf2k said:
Its the perfect stop for the GRAVY TRAINNNNNN!!!!!!!!11111
Click to expand...

The one that it takes 15 Left Wing Engineers to run? Yes, I'd like to see it get back on track. I wonder how long it will take. Probably not before someone decides it just needs more Left Wing Engineers.

Anyway I always vote. What I hope to do different is to get on my representatives' cases about the important issues, and see which way they are voting for me.
 
ariesmars said:
I think the only choice for ON is Liberal. I'd rather have a government that sides with the middle class -unions- than big corporations any day. Fiscal Conservatism advocates against deficit spending, not necessarily appropriate spending. Neither the Left nor Right in this country are fiscally conservative. I'd rather accumulate a deficit fostering and growing the middle class than fostering and growing, say, Rogers Communication. I think as long as politicians are 'backed' by special interest groups, they'll spend redundantly just to please their constituents. It's not going to end until we address that problem.
Click to expand...

Corporations claim to want to live and die by the Open Market. Let them. Corporate welfare is not fiscally responsible, in the vast majority of cases.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Corporations claim to want to live and die by the Open Market. Let them. Corporate welfare is not fiscally responsible, in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

With respect, I don't agree with this. I think the Canadian Govt did the right thing ( as did all the financial institutions involved ) when we avoided our credit market collapsing a year before the US with the ABCP crisis.

I also think that not letting Chrysler just blow up was a good idea.

While it does complicate matters a lot, I think the idea that corporations are in some kind of fight against the middle class is kind of a dated concept. I don't think that is true anymore.

Personally, I do think that letting companies rise and fall is a healthy thing from a principled point of view. But sometimes when those companies reach a certain size the shock is just too much for indivduals to have to live with. If one believes that govt is meant to smooth the highs and the lows of the economy, sometimes we just have to bail companies out, we aren't really bailing out the "company". its really more about the jobs/pensioners/lack of replacement/lost of industry that we are bailing out.

History has shown, especially in the last few years, that letting smaller companies rise and fall is just fine. but the wisdom of letting lehman brothers blow up... that is a different story.
 
OpenGambit said:
With respect, I don't agree with this. I think the Canadian Govt did the right thing ( as did all the financial institutions involved ) when we avoided our credit market collapsing a year before the US with the ABCP crisis.

I also think that not letting Chrysler just blow up was a good idea.

While it does complicate matters a lot, I think the idea that corporations are in some kind of fight against the middle class is kind of a dated concept. I don't think that is true anymore.

Personally, I do think that letting companies rise and fall is a healthy thing from a principled point of view. But sometimes when those companies reach a certain size the shock is just too much for indivduals to have to live with. If one believes that govt is meant to smooth the highs and the lows of the economy, sometimes we just have to bail companies out, we aren't really bailing out the "company". its really more about the jobs/pensioners/lack of replacement/lost of industry that we are bailing out.

History has shown, especially in the last few years, that letting smaller companies rise and fall is just fine. but the wisdom of letting lehman brothers blow up... that is a different story.
Click to expand...

Hence why I added, "... in the vast majority of cases" ;)

Bombardier, Nortel, and De Havilland are names that should have gone away, so long ago, that they'd be out of the collective consciousness by now.
 
haha I didn't miss the "vast majority of cases" qualification. I was just giving examples of what I thought were deserving cases. After all, we are just talking.

I would still vote for the person who will come up with some sensible changes to our tax policies tho. Unfortunately, its almost impossible to sell *changes*, all you can get away with is *lower*. which just completely paralyzes any changes that are fiscally neutral but economically sound.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Hence why I added, "... in the vast majority of cases" ;)

Bombardier, Nortel, and De Havilland are names that should have gone away, so long ago, that they'd be out of the collective consciousness by now.
Click to expand...

Add Air Canada to that list too.

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail yesterday that really got my interest....although it was a US based story it's not for want of trying by greedy SOBs that we don't have the same situation in Canada...the top 5 US companies spent more on compensation for their CEO than they paid in taxes to the country. That's a shameful, greedy situation.

Any suggestion that corporate welfare benefits the country is laughable.
 
Baggsy said:
Anyway I always vote. What I hope to do different is to get on my representatives' cases about the important issues, and see which way they are voting for me.
Click to expand...

Bravo, Baggsy! That is one of the most sensible solutions I have seen on this thread! Gotta hold those politicians' feet to the fire to make sure they are aware of the wishes of those they represent.

BTW... to all participants in this thread.... GREAT DISCUSSION! Obviously there are a number of very knowledgeable and politically engaged people on the forum. Maybe we should turn our attention to how to get that other 50% of the population engaged in the running of this amazing and wonderful country in which we live. How about a thread on that one?
 
Rob, your option is definitely something for me to think about because I don't like any of the choices available but I always vote. In the municipal elections last year, I didn't like the choices for mayor for my town and actually declined my vote (for the first time) for mayor while making my vote for councillor and deputy mayor. I got the strangest look from the person who took my ballot to put into one of those automated counting machines. I was actually asked if I forgot to vote and I said that 'no', I'm declining my vote for mayor. Actually felt good about that rather than voting against someone instead.

You would think that with this election that declining your ballot would suit best with a large part of the undecided vote because they are most likely undecided because they don't like their choices. You would have to wonder how it would be possible to get a media campaign going to get out the message for declining your ballot as another option. The reaction from the parties from such a campaign would be something to watch and probably even from the media as well.

Definitely something to consider ...
 
zeecat, your comments go directly in responding to ike's comments, about getting the other 50% involved. It's an option for those who are fed up with the system, to the point of removing themselves from it, to still have some sort of impact on the process. Get into the habit, of going to the polling station on election day, and sooner or later it'll become a vote.
 
The other side to the voting story is to vote against the party whose platform you dislike the most - you cast your vote in favour of the party who is most likely to prevail over the party you dislike. At least you will be standing up for something. It seems to me that the idea of declining your vote is one of those notions to appease those who would rather sit on the fence than make a decision and take some concrete action. Practically speaking - a declined vote has the same effect as a non vote - it is a vote in favour of the party in power (and I am sure they are very happy for your non-vote!)

Why not get involved to make change? Learn the issues, learn the party platforms - then get off the fence, make a decision and VOTE!
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom