Why Stephen Harper is unfit to be prime-minister

For those of you who say Stephen Harper is a safe moderate alternative try riding this

I find this downright scary and I hope this will make some who are planning to vote Stephen Harper re-consider. I have a tough time believing his views have really changed that much since 2003. And if they have, how can we trust that he won't change his views again. Either way, Stephen Harper is unfit to be prime-minister.

BC Federal Election Predictions

As someone who lives in BC, I thought I would like BC Tory has done try and predict the outcome for the various BC ridings. I doubt my actual percentages will be perfect, but they are my best guesses. I have divided each riding into solid, which means the party listed is almost guaranteed to win unless some unforseen event happens. Likely means the party listed would win based on the current poll numbers, but not by a huge margin and should the polling numbers shift in BC, the winner would likely be different. Too close to call means it would be really tight race and either of the parties listed could win this based on the current numbers, but should one of those parties gain the momentum, they will likely win. Beside each riding I will list, which parties I think could potentially win the riding. While it is possible other parties could win, I am going based on the campaign so far, so any party not listed for a riding means a huge change would have to occur in the campaign to win the riding.

Abbotsford - Solid Conservative
Con 55% Lib 24% NDP 13% - Edwart Fast Elected

British Columbia Southern Interior - Likely NDP (NDP/Conservative)

NDP 37% Con 32% Lib 21% - Alex Atamanenko Elected

Burnaby-Douglas - Too close to call (Liberal/NDP)

Lib 35% NDP 35% Con 24% - Bill Cunningham Elected (judicial recount conducted)

Burnaby-New Westminster - Likely Liberal (Liberal/NDP)

Lib 36% NDP 34% Con 24% - Mary Pynenburg Elected

Cariboo-Prince George - Solid Conservative

Con 42% NDP 28% Lib 17% - Dick Harris Re-elected

Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon - Solid Conservative

Con 51% NDP 21% Lib 16% - Chuck Strahl Re-elected

Delta-Richmond East - Solid Conservative

Con 43% Lib 37% NDP 13% - John Cummins re-elected

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca - Likely Liberal (Liberal/NDP)

Lib 33% NDP 30% Con 26% - Keith Martin re-elected

Fleetwood-Port Kells - (Liberal/Conservative)

Lib 33% Con 31% NDP 27% - Brenda Locke elected

Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo - Solid Conservative

Con 37% Lib 32% NDP 25% - Betty Hinton re-elected

Kelowna-Lake Country - Solid Conservative

Con 42% Lib 32% NDP 16% - Ronald Cannan elected

Kootenay-Columbia - Solid Conservative

Con 48% NDP 28% Lib 15% - Jim Abbott re-elected

Langley - Solid Conservative

Con 45% Lib 26% NDP 17% - Mark Warawa re-elected

Nanaimo-Alberni - Likely Conservative (Conservative/NDP)

Con 36% NDP 34% Lib 21% - James Lunney re-elected

Nanaimo-Cowichan - Solid NDP

NDP 45% Con 29% Lib 19% - Jean Crowder re-elected

Newton-North Delta - Likely Liberal (Liberal/NDP/Conservative)

Lib 38% NDP 31% Con 24% - Sukh Dhaliwal elected

New Westminster-Coquitlam - Too close to call (NDP/Liberal/Conservative)

NDP 33% Lib 33% Con 28% - Dawn Black elected (Judicial recount conducted)

North Vancouver - likely Liberal (Liberal/Conservative)

Lib 44% Con 33% NDP 14% - Don Bell re-elected

Okanagan-Coquihalla - solid Conservative

Con 47% Lib 25% NDP 19% - Stockwell Day re-elected

Okanagan-Shuswap - solid Conservative

Con 40% Lib 28% NDP 26% - Colin Mayes elected

Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission - likely Conservative (Conservative/NDP)

Con 35% NDP 34% Lib 23% - Randy Kamp re-elected

Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam - solid Conservative

Con 37% Lib 31% NDP 23% - James Moore re-elected

Prince George-Peace River - solid Conservative

Con 56% NDP 21% Lib 11% - Jay Hill re-elected

Richmond - solid Liberal

Lib 50% Con 31% NDP 14% - Raymond Chan re-elected

Saanich-Gulf Islands - likely Conservative (Conservative/Liberal)

Con 32% Lib 28% NDP 25% - Gary Lunn re-elected

Skeena-Bulkley Valley - likely NDP (NDP/Conservative)

NDP 40% Con 30% Lib 18% - Nathan Cullen re-elected

South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale - likely Conservative (Conservative/Liberal)

Con 39% Lib 38% NDP 15% - Russ Hiebert re-elected

Surrey North - solid NDP

NDP 38% Lib 28% Con 22% - Penny Priddy elected

Vancouver Centre - likely Liberal (Liberal/NDP)

Lib 37% NDP 35% Con 19% - Hedy Fry re-elected

Vancouver East - solid NDP

NDP 60% Lib 22% Con 8% - Libby Davies re-elected

Vancouver Island North - likely Liberal (NDP/Conservative)

NDP 35% Con 32% Lib 22% - Catharine Bell elected

Vancouver-Kingsway - likely Liberal (Liberal/NDP)

Lib 44% NDP 40% Con 13% - David Emerson re-elected

Vancouver-Quadra - solid Liberal

Lib 57% Con 22% NDP 14% - Stephen Owen re-elected

Vancouver South - solid Liberal

Lib 49% NDP 24% Con 22% - Ujjal Dosanjh re-elected

Victoria - likely NDP (NDP/Liberal)

NDP 36% Lib 31% Con 19% - Denise Savoie elected

West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country - likely Liberal (Liberal/Conservative)

Lib 40% Con 27% NDP 20% - Blair Wilson elected

Total: Con 16 seats (31%) Lib 12 seats (33%) NDP 8 seats (28%)

Lets see how close I am here. I won't go through this exercise for other provinces, but I will try to predict all the ridings, which will change hands some time in the New Year.

Campaign update

Last night I was at Brenda Locke's campaign office opening in Fleetwood-Port Kells. As someone who worked with her when she was a provincial Liberal MLA, I believe she would be a far superior person in dealing with issues that matter to Surrey as opposed to the embarassing and useless Nina Grewal. She brought SFU to Surrey, played a lead role along with Dave Hayer in convincing the government to upgrade Surrey Memorial Hospital. She worked with Chuck Cadman on a street racing bill, so I know that she will take the crime issue seriously, which is definitely one of the top issues in Surrey. She also stands for twinning the Port Mann Bridge, which is unpopular where I live in Vancouver, but definitely popular in Surrey. David Emerson, the Minister of Industry was there and gave a good speech on what the Liberals have done for BC such as the Pacific Gateway and even mentioned that contrary to popular opinion they are not soft a crime and outlined some of the things they have done. He also talked about British Columbian's values and Liberal values and I fully agree here. I believe the Liberal Party is definitely the party closest to where most British Columbians are even if they don't vote for them. They understand the importance of a strong economy while having a strong social safety net and clean environment. Many of the people I met there were active with the BC Liberals much like they were on Joyce Murray's campaign. I even met a woman who absolutely hated the BCTF, like myself, and thought Margaret Thatcher was a great prime-minister, which I generally agree with, yet planned to vote Liberal for the first time since she saw Harper as Bush lackey. When you consider how many right leaning people besides myself are coming over to the Liberals, I think this really says something about the Tories. I also met Sukh Dhaliwal, the candidate and soon to be MP for Newton-North Delta. Harry Bloy, MLA for Burquitlam was also there to help out Brenda despite being a Tory himself, although a former PC type. Like Brenda Locke was, he is a very hard working MLA who shows up at almost every event unlike Nina Grewal who goes to anti-Gay marriage rallies but refuses to meet with people who don't share her views. A few years back, I would have never thought about going to a Liberal rally, yet from meeting the people at the Liberal Party as well as in the past meeting people from the Conservative Party, I clearly believe my values are closer to that of the Liberal Party than Conservative Party. And don't let people fool you this election is solely about corruption. This is an election about values, that is why I am voting Liberal in spite of the corruption. I don't believe in just throwing out a government without considering what the alternatives stand for. I also think people need to look at the bigger picture and while the Liberal record has its flaws, I believe Canada is better off than in 1993 and I am very optimistic about our future unlike many Conservatives I know who are always talking about Canada going to Hell and how wonderful the United States is. It also looks like the Liberals paying more attention to BC is paying off. Almost every poll shows them leading in BC, so those thinking the Liberals are going to take a pounding in BC are in for one ugly surprise come election day. The Conservatives well get a well deserved slap in the face from BC. David Emerson was saying the party's goal is to pick up another 5 to 6 seats and I think they can do it. Ridings like West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, the two Burnaby ridings, Newton-North Delta, and Fleetwood-Port Kells are all in good shape for a liberal pick-up. Also Victoria is the only riding I think they are likely to lose. Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, North Vancouver, Richmond, Vancouver Centre, and Vancouver-Kingsway are not in as a bad shape as many like to think. In fact I think the Liberals have an excellent chance at picking up South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale and New Westminster-Coquitlam. Finally all those who bash the Liberals and say only crooks will vote for them, I then ask them what they think of George W. Bush. And when considering about 90% of the Conservatives I talk to like George W. Bush and his extreme right wing policies, it is clear just how out of touch the party is with mainstream Canadians and why despite the corruption they will lose again. Hopefully, they will finally get the message that American neo-conservatism has no place in Canada, not now, not tomorrow, not ever!!

Week III Wrap Up

The big issue in the past week was the debates, which I have already posted on below, so instead I will focus on other events.

There was the beer and popcorn comment but Liberal strategist Scott Reid, which attracted much controversy. This will no doubt play into the hands of those who believe the Liberals have the attitude Government knows best while the Tories trust individual Canadians. I'll admit I am not a big fan of the Liberal childcare plan, but like most Canadians I vote on many issues, not just one issue. Besides Scott Reid apologized for this and Paul Martin made clear that he did trust parents. Even during the debates he said Stephen Harper's $1200 a year for parents was better than nothing, but still not good enough.

The next big news was Ambassador Wilkins' (or is it Williams) comments on Canada bringing the US into the election. I happen to for once agree with Harper that the ambassador should stay out of our election. Also I fully support Martin on the softwood file. He has not attacked the American people directly, but rather gone after the US government for illegally slapping tariffs on our softwood lumber, which has cost many jobs, especially here in BC. Any prime-minister has the duty to stand up to another country, when Canadian jobs are being threatened over another country not honouring their part of the agreement. If the Americans don't like it, then tough. On the Softwood Lumber file, we are right and they are wrong and therefore we should not back down until they remove the tariffs and return the $5 billion in illegal duties collected. As a supporter of free trade, free trade means free trade for all products, not cherry picking, which areas you want free trade in or not. I do think however, they we need to strenghthen our ties with other countries as our values seem to be diverging with the Americans. I also think from a purely economic view that being so dependent on one trading partner is not wise and therefore we should diversify our trade. I would never invest 87% in one stock, so having 87% of our trade with one country is a bad idea.

While in Alberta over the past few weeks, there were few lawn signs so difficult to gage the public mood, but from the few people I talked to, most seemed to be very angry at the Liberals. The only riding I can really see them holding is Anne McLellan's since even some who dislike the Liberals personally like her and will vote Liberal simply to ensure Alberta has at least one strong voice on the side of government.

This past weekend I went to Joyce Murray's campaign office opening who will hopefully after January 23rd be the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. Stephen Owen was there as a special guest who gave a strong introduction to Joyce Murray. Even though I don't always agree with him, he is not doubt a strong MP and I was quite impressed with his talk about how we can have a clean environment and a strong economy at the same time. I fully agree here and I believe none other than Joyce Murray would be an excellent MP due to her strong record on the environment while provincial minister of Land, Air and Water. It was really too bad New Westminster turfed Joyce Murray last provincial election, but hopefully she can bring her talents to the federal scene. She brought far more to New Westminster in 4 years as an MLA than Paul Forseth has done in the last twelve years. This wednesday I will going to Brenda Locke's campaign office opening where David Emerson will be the special guest. Hopefully she can unseat the embarassing and useless Nina Grewal while hopefully Vancouver-Kingsway will elect a strong cabinet minister who can bring much to BC over someone who will languish in the opposition, and in this case I mean the NDP.

Prediction: Lib 137 Con 88 BQ 61 NDP 22

The English Debate

If I had to choose a winner, I would probably like Brandon choose Layton, although I would give Martin a close second, not because of an outstanding performance, but because of his knockout punch he delivered against Gilles Duceppe when discussing National Unity. Below is my take on each of the leaders.

Martin: A good opening speech, I especially think his decision to emphasize the strong economy and balanced budgets as opposed to health care or childcare was wise as those are the areas he is strongest in. Besides governments rarely lose elections when the economy is doing well. Although he had many good points, I found him a little over aggressive and even though I know he feels very passionate about many issues, he might want to be a little bit calmer. His one liner against Gilles Duceppe on the national unity file was definitely the high point of the debate. If there is anything in the debate that will help Martin, this one liner may just be it. Most people in Ontario and even the West rightly or wrongly think the Liberals are best to deal with national unity so if he can make the election about national unity, it will certainly help him, especially in Ontario where the gap between the Liberals and Tories is narrowing.

Harper: Not a bad job as he was calm most of the debate and focused more on what he would do rather than attacking the Liberals. He has often been accused of being too angry and focusing too much on the sponsorship scandal, so I think he was wise to leave the attacking to Duceppe and Layton. It also made it harder for Martin to attack him since if Martin went after Harper aggressively while Harper stayed calm, this would have hurt Martin since he would look too negative and aggressive. On the other hand if Harper was too negative and aggressive, this would open him up to attacks by Martin and whenever the two get into an argument, Martin always comes out on top. On the whole, I think he accomplished what he needed to.

Duceppe: He did a reasonably good job of attacking Martin on the sponsorship scandal and making it clear this election was about adscam, not a referendum on Quebec separation. When Martin delivered his knockout punch against Duceppe, he was wise not to fire back as he couldn't win on this point. I agreed with his statement that gay marriage was already decided by a free vote and we shouldn't re-visit it, yet I find it ironic he doesn't apply this to a referendum in Quebec, where he wants another one despite Quebecers saying no twice in a free vote.

Layton: He was assertive, but not as aggressive as last time so I think he accomplished what he wanted. The NDP numbers having been falling in the polls as they are seen as irrelevant, so what Layton needed to do was make himself relevant again, which he did. I also think his decision to focus on Martin rather than Harper was smart. Attacking Harper would only help Martin as it would encourage many NDP voters to strategically vote Liberal to stop Harper. On the other hand by attacking Martin, he clearly give a compelling reason for progressive voters to go NDP not Liberal. I thought his accusation on Martin's hypocricy of attacking the US on not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol when our emissions have increased by almost double was definitely his high point. A word of advice to Martin: attacking the Americans is a good strategy, but don't attack them when we've done worse, only when we've done better. At least the Europeans have the right to lecture the US on not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, whereas we don't.

On the whole I don't think the debate will change much as it seems to have simply re-enforced people's decisions already, although if anyone is to gain, I would bet Layton, but we will have to see in the next little while based on the polls.

Les debats en Francais

I would have to say that I found the French debates a yawner, although part of it maybe due to French not being my native language. Listening to a translator doesn't have the same effect as hearing the candidates speak directly since it is not just what the leaders say, but how they say it. I would say there wasn't a clear winner, but if I had to choose one, I would choose Gilles Duceppe. Here is my take on each leader's performance

Martin: He was reasonably well composed and did a good job of emphasizing the Liberal record as well as the importance of national unity. At the same time I don't think he did a great job of countering Gilles Duceppe's attacks.

Duceppe: He was well composed and did a good job of putting Martin on the spot. I also think his emphasis on this being an election about the scandal rather than sovereignty, while still admitting he was in favour of sovereignty was the best way to handle it.

Harper: Didn't do a particularly good job considering he asked for a couple of questions to be repeated. I do think his answer on that he would still love his children if one turned out to be gay showed his human side and I am glad he said he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marriages.

Layton: An okay job in explaining why people should send more New Democrats. This was really a warmup for him as he is not likely to win any seats in Quebec.

This debate was really between the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois as neither the NDP or Tories are likely to win seats in Quebec. It is for that reason Martin seemed to focus on attacking Gilles Duceppe rather than Harper as he needs to get as many federalist votes as he can so attacking the NDP and Conservatives would be counter-productive for Quebec. On the other hand, I expect Martin to focus on Harper in tonight's English debate and I hope he puts him on the spot.

Childcare Policies?

Check this one out on the childcare policies of the parties. http://www.cbc.ca/news/photogalleries/flash/elexcartoons051209.html?gallery=elexcartoons051209

Week 2 Election Wrap up

I'll be away next week in Edmonton for the weekend to visit some family and then I will be in Calgary to turn in my report for Western Financial Group, while I also have a few interviews. When I get back, I hope to be able to give an idea of how things are viewed in Alberta. So far here is my take on a host of major issues.

First on the polls, despite the attention being on Stephen Harper and most of his announcements receiving positive feedback, the Liberals still appear to be widening their lead. The Tories seem to be stuck in the high 20s to low 30s, so there numbers aren't really changing much suggesting they have a good base locked up, but the remaining swing voters won't vote Conservative no matter what Stephen Harper does or says. On the other hand many NDP voters appear to be going over to the Liberals out of fear the recent announcements could lead to a Conservative victory. It is early on, but I think a Liberal majority, although not likely is definitely possible.

The childcare debate has certainly heated up. While I still plan to vote Liberal, I would have to say that on this issue, I happen to agree with the Tories. I like most Canadians never agree wholly with any one party, but vote for which party I agree with on the greatest number of issues. According to a political test I agree with the Liberals on 9 issues, Conservatives 8 issues, and NDP 7 issues. My reason for preferring the Conservative plan is generally don't support the idea of the state knows best. As someone who often didn't fit in, I know they each child has their own unique learning circumstances so letting the parents decide makes more sense than the govenrnment. In addition there are increasing numbers of shift workers who don't work 9-5, so I think having greater flexibility. However, it is important to remember childcare is provincial jurisdiction so provinces can opt-out if they wish. I think the major problem here is the day care lobby who are an odd alliance of business and unions have pushed hard for institutionalized day care, which benefits them. That is not to say I think Harper's plan is great. I think $100/month will do nothing for low-income families, so a better system would be a voucher system where low-income people are fully re-imbursed for childcare expenses, while higher income people have to pay the full cost.

Other big news is the handgun ban announced today by Paul Martin. Certainly something needs to be done about gun crimes, but I am not so sure a ban on handguns is the best way to go. Already it is extremely difficult to purchase a hand gun legally in Canada, so as many others have pointed out most criminals get their hand guns illegally and will continue to do so regardless of hand gun laws. Besides provinces can opt out, which I am sure ones like the Prairies where it won't be popular will choose to do so and target shooters will be exempt from the ban. That is not to say there isn't merit in the Liberal plan. Their plan to beef up border security and give tougher sentences for illegal use of firearms is definitely a step in the right direction. Another side issue is the NRA has offered to help elect a Conservative government. Besides the fact I don't like American lobby groups regardless of political persuasion sticking their nose in Canadian affairs, the fact Harper hasn't tried to distance himself from them should be of concern. If I were the Liberals I would point out all the right wing American groups be it the religious right, NRA, and neo-con newspapers like the Washington Post endorsing Harper. Most Canadians despise George W. Bush so the more Martin can do to connnect Harper to Bush the better the chance of him winning a majority.

Finally there is the climate change conference. I agree climate change is an important issue and unlike the Conservatives I do accept the science behind global warming. That being said I don't believe global warming is caused solely by man, rather it is a combination of the natural cycle in temperatures as well as man made. Also another misconception is global warming means warmer temperatures everywhere, which is also false. In fact in Europe, global warming would mean colder winters as the Arctic snowpacks melt, the Gulf Stream would weaken, therefore meaning less of a moderating influence from the ocean, which allows for the mild winters in Europe. I do agree we have to do something about climate change, but goals must be realistic in balancing environmental protection and a strong economy. If goals are unrealistic we will fail. As for Martin's comments about the United States, while I think attacking the US is quite popular in Canada (I fully understand, I hate Bush myself and I am very unhappy about the direction the US is going in), I don't know how productive it is. That being said, the Bush administration has an atrocious record on the environment so trying to get them on side is really a waste of time.

Predictions: Liberals 143, Conservatives 82 Bloc Quebecois 61 NDP 25

Surprise! I actually partially agree with Layton on Health Care

As someone who has been a strong advocate of a parallel private health system, you would think I would be the last person to agree with Jack Layton on health care http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051203/layton_private_clinics_051204/20051204?s_name=election2006&no_ads=. Interestingly enough when pressed on the health care issue, Jack Layton said he would cut off all funding to private clinics, but would not try to shut them down. He further went on to say that private clinics have been around since the time of Tommy Douglas. On the whole I don't think that is too unreasonable a position as I am generally against subsidizing businesses so arguing that private clinics must rely solely on private funding is not totally unreasonable. The only disagreement I have with Layton is I believe governments should be allowed to contract with private clinics if they can provide quicker, cheaper, and better service. I also believe doctors working in the public system should be allowed to work in the private system once they have reached their quota in the public system. I guess this means that after all, none of the three parties are totally opposed to the European system, it is just that all of them are afraid of using the term parallel private system or two tiered health care. After all what Layton is advocating is not to much different than what exists in Sweden and Netherlands who both have a parallel private system, but prohibit cross-subsidization and require doctors to work in one or the other, not both.

Week 1 of Election Wrap Up

Well lots has happened in the first week of the election. During the post I will summarize the various events and give my opinion on each of them. At the very bottom is my election prediction, which is not based on the most recent polls, but rather my gut instinct on how the election will turn out.

Except for the one Ipsos-Reid Poll, it looks like the Liberals are maintaining their lead although somewhat weaker than in the Summer, though the fact they are ahead now puts them in good position to possibly gain seats. The reason for this is when they roll out the attack ads in January, this will likely drive some soft NDP supporter over to the Liberals as well as moderates who were planning to go Conservative. I do hope the temporary Conservative re-bound in BC is temporary. Four terms of Reform/Alliance/Conservative members representing the majority of ridings in BC has done absolutely nothing for our province. If anything it has hurt our province as more people down east see as a bunch right wing rednecks, which clearly British Columbia isn't. The eight Liberal members we have, have done far more in helping the province then the 22 Reform/Alliance/Conservative MPs have over the past twelve years.

Stephen Harper just can't let go of the whole same-sex issue. While I realize he was asked the question, so in some ways he really had no choice, I think this just proves my point that he should have never opposed same-sex marriage in the first place. While Canadians were divided on the issue, like abortion and capital punishment, most Canadians have accepted the decision and want to move onto other issues. His decision to re-open the whole issue certainly won't help him make gains in Ontario and could even cost him seats in British Columbia, which is generally sociall progressive. Even though he may claim the vote was illegitimate since it wasn't a "true free vote", it was a free vote for all Liberals except the cabinet and it was a free vote for Bloc members. Of the cabinet minister, 14 would have had to gone against same-sex marriage, when in reality, it probably only would have been another five had it been a true free vote. Interestingly enough one cabinet minister, Joe Commuzzi resigned over it so if no other cabinet minister resigned over it, I suspect none of the others felt too strong about it. The point I am making is no matter how one spins it, it would have passed parliament. Also 8 out 10 provincial courts have ruled it violates the charter of rights and freedoms, so any bill re-instating the traditional definition of marriage would only take effect in Alberta, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Prince Edward Island unless the notwithstanding clause was invoked, something I like most Canadians clearly oppose.

Gilles Duceppe talks about Quebec having its own sports team. Despite how silly this sounds, I think it goes against the whole idea of Canada being one nation. While he is right England, Scotland, and Wales have their own sports teams at the commonwealth games and World Cup Soccer, at the olympics they all compete under the British banner. In fact there has been talk about North and South Korea competing under one banner in the 2008 olympics in Beijing.

Stephen Harper's plan on the GST will probably be popular and sounds good, although I prefer the Liberal tax cuts. I am certainly not opposed to reducing the GST, but I would prefer an income tax cut as cutting GST only affects those who spend their money. If one wishes to save or invest, they get no benefit from a reduction in the GST. Also considering the amount of revenue it brings in, I am not sure how affordable it is. I think cutting it to 6% is doable, but cutting to 5% could risk going into deficit unless there are spending cuts elsewhere, which I am not opposed to, but Harper should say where he is going to cut and why.

There was a lot of talk of strategic voting. In Saskatchewan, Layton emphasized voting Liberal only means electing Tories. While I generally agree with this statement from a statiscal point of view that had people who were intending to vote NDP had stuck with their vote and not voted Liberal, the NDP likely would have won seats in Saskatchewan. However, as someone who is centre-right, I could never vote NDP in good conscious. On the other hand in Ontario, Buzz Hargove urged those to vote Liberal in ridings where the NDP has no chance at winning, but the Conservatives could win. I am no fan of Buzz Hargove, but as someone who wants to keep the Conservatives out, I have no problem with NDP supporters going Liberal, but in turn I would not vote NDP in a riding the Liberals had no chance at winning, but a Conservative could win as I still prefer the Conservatives over the NDP.

Kim Campbell has stated that the Conservatives are too far to the right on social issues to form government even if people agree with them on economic issues. All I can say is that I couldn't agree more with her. I too support many of the Conservative economic positions, but the reason I am voting Liberal is I cannot stomach their social policies as well as I don't like Stephen Harper. I wouldn't want to have him representing Canada as our prime-minister.

Stephen Harper says he wanted to hire a special prosecutor only to be contradicted by his deputy leader that this cannot be done since it is under provincial jurisdiction. Doesn't surprise me since I know all along that Peter MacKay was kept out of the loop. The only people in Harper's inner circle are members from the Calgary School who have very little real life experience and are bound to give him bad advice. The fact that he doesn't understand the law, not just on this issue, but also on the same-sex issue, clearly shows why he is unfit to be prime-minister

Last but not least is the Health Care issue. I like the idea of setting maximum wait times and agreeing to pay for individuals who go out of the province or even out of the country if they cannot be received in a timely manner. This was actually originally an idea recommended in the Kirby Report, so not exactly a new Conservative idea, although one I support. It certainly would make future supreme court challenges more difficult. At the same time as explained below, I believe individuals should be allowed to pay for medically necessary services if they so choose. The good news is Quebec plans to go ahead and permit the purchase of private health insurance so no matter who wins the election, we will likely to see the development of a parallel private system in Quebec and hopefully in other provinces once Canadians realize the sky won't fall if we allow competition between the public and private systems.

PREDICTION
Lib 136 Con 85 BQ 61 NDP 26