Yes, By All Means, Eliminate the Voter Tax

PM Stephen Harper has promised a Conservative majority would move to gradually eliminate the voter subsidy.

OTTAWA — A majority Conservative government would turn off the per-vote subsidy tap, saving taxpayers nearly $30 million a year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.
Harper said it’s time for political parties to be weaned off taxpayer dependence and raise money on their own without drinking from the public trough.
In 2010, political parties sucked $27 million from public coffers. The Conservatives received the most ($10.4 million), followed by the Liberals ($7.3 million), NDP ($5 million) and the separatist Bloc ($2.8 million).
Taxpayers handed $1.9 million to the Green Party and it has no seats in Parliament.
In 2008, the Harper Conservatives planned to end the subsidy, but that sent the opposition parties into a frenzy and sparked the coalition partnership between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP.
Parties are eligible for the subsidy, provided they win at least 2% of the national popular vote.

I agree. Why should we be forced to donate to parties that we don't agree with?  It simply isn't fair. Political parties should learn to fund raise on their own. Sink or swim. Above all why should we be forced to fund a party that that hates the ROC and want's to separate? 

If we want to this tax to end we have to vote for a Conservative majority government on voting day.

Today's Campaign Promises

You got the Count with the deja vu Liberal universal daycare redux  reduced (for now).  In other words more big nanny state taking money from you to pay for others childrens daycare.  No doubt with this expensive unionized bureaucracy your children and grand children will be taught how to be good little liberals.

Next you have Jack Layton declaring war on the Alberta oilsands.  Good job  Jack, you just increased Linda Duncan's re-election chances.(not).  That'll do wonders for our recovery.

On the other hand.a re-elected Conservative government will continue and finish free trade agreements with the EU and India within the next couple of years. and make the Halifax Harbour an international trading hub
That's a common sense approach to expanding our economy which we need.

It's obvious who has the most common sense program that will enhance and improve our country.  You have a choice. Do you want a coalition of the losers who will take your money to spend on  bigger nanny state programs in that will go mostly to Quebec, (Greece anyone) or do you want a stable, prudent government that will seek to make sure our economic recovery goes forward and that we continue to be the envy of the world.

The only choice is in in this election my opinion is a Conservative majority government that will be a stable prudent government who get things done and we wouldn't have to go to the polls for four years. That is a plus.  The other choice,a coalition of the losers which would give us instability, spend us into oblivion. It would be chaotic and never get anything done expect what is good for Quebec and. we'd probably be back to the polls in another eighteen months or so anyway. What do you choose?

Sign of Impending Coalition?

The NDP candidate in London just dropped out of the race and puts his support behind the Liberal candidate.  Coaltion at work?  You decide.

An NDP candidate in London has surprised everyone, including his own party, by withdrawing from the election race and throwing his support behind a Liberal rival.
Ryan Dolby, who was running in Elgin-Middlesex-London, made the sudden announcement through a news release emailed to the media, party officials and others Wednesday morning.
"I am worried if Stephen Harper gets a majority. I made a strategic decision," Dolby said.
He was running against Liberal Graham Warwick and Conservative Joe Preston, who held the seat before the election.
Asked if he had warned NDP officials either locally or nationally, Dolby said he thought it would be best to let everyone know at the same time.

Media Manipulation

I want to urge some caution when dealing with the media this federal election. Be aware of media manipulation.  Here's what to watch for.

1. Using Anecdotal evidence  
This is the method where reporters use a single example as "evidence".
2.Providing only one side of stories Most journalists seem to forget there are two sides to EVERY controversial issue, otherwise it wouldn't be controversial!
3.Choosing only certain stories to run or emphasize A media source shows it's bias not only by how it presents it's stories, but also in what stories it chooses to run.
4.Cherry-picking research & statistics
5.Using biased polls or selectively reporting results If you're a regular watcher of cable news shows, can you remember a day when some new poll wasn't presented? Polls open a whole new set of possible biases and manipulations. Polls can use leading questions, a small or unrepresentive sample size, sloppy recording methods, and dishonest poll-takers.
6.Using out-of-context quotes and clips
7.Choosing other poor sources as "evidence"
    a) "Anonymous" or unnamed "expert" sources 
    b) Remote sources or those with questionable credibility
    c) Citing secondary sources that use one or more of the other manipulations techniques
8. Controlling the timing of stories to do maximum political damage  
9.Using "critics say" to express their own beliefs Beware whenever you read or hear the words "critics say". A reporter will often use these words to stir up controversy or to express their own beliefs.  


So when watching the main news channels or reading the papers keep these points in mind.. When you have journalists and news outlets out there who want to set the agenda, you have to examine their reporting closely.  Check other sources.  Listen directly to the words of the candidates and make up your own mind based on those words. Take the media's interpretations with a grain of salt. It's all about how be an informed voter.

Coalition Wiggle Room

Ezra Levant says that even if Michael Ignatieff if loses the election he can still seize power. All Ignatieff needs to do is take a page from the 1985 Ontario election.

 Asking Michael Ignatieff if he’s going to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc is the wrong question.
Because even if Ignatieff loses the election (as early polls suggest), he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.
The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power.
They didn’t make a formal coalition. A coalition is a specific deal where cabinet seats are divided up and more than one party becomes an integral part of the government.
The Liberals and NDP just agreed that, as soon as Ontario’s legislature met, they’d join forces to vote non-confidence in the Conservatives and propose the Liberals should rule with the NDP’s support.
Being lawyers, they called it an accord, not a coalition. But it was a deal. The Liberals promised to implement a series of NDP policies. And in return, the NDP agreed to sink the Conservatives, and keep the Liberals in power for two years.

So there you have it. The question that should be asked of Ignatieff is whether he would do what the Liberals and the NDP did in Ontario in 1985 by agreeing to an accord like Bob Rae and David Peterson did

Remember this too regarding the coalition between the Libs/Dippers/Bloc,it would exclude everyone from the winning party  which would be the Conservatives. Since most of the Conservative seats come from the west, the west would be shut out.  Can you say western separation anyone?

Update: H/T Kate at SDA,  Why Michael Ignatieff Won't Form A Coalition