# Possible Christmas Election



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

Jack Layton it seems is rejecting the liberal health plan and is hinting that he will vote for a non-confidence vote in the next parlimentary session. I cannot decide whether this is good. Liberals are corrupt but conservatives are not much better and NDP unfortunately just isn't getting the support it needs...yet. It would be interesting to have an election on boxing day .


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bad for the NDP - they will be the fall guys.

He's bucking voter wishes as well

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ow_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

Bad for Libs too

Harper.......cat with cream on whiskers.......not that it's likely to do him much good.

Layton= idiot. 
Even Buzz Hargrave said it was the wrong thing to do.......it will be Jack's end as leader....Now all three of the bums need a rush 

We'll see what Duceppe does tho it's hardly likely he'll support the Libs.

Stupid waste of money and time and will not change a damn thing most likely.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Boxing Day is also the first night of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. That would be an interesting combination of events for an election. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Everybody calm down, I think that the chance is low that we will be going to an election. Layton has initiated a game of chicken that is a feature of minority governments under first-past-the-post systems.

Look for a last minute accord that gives Layton some of what he is asking for. He will, of course, settle for less than what he wants and spin it as doing that to meet the desires of the electorate not to have an election.

Of course, in games of chicken, there is always the chance of the Rebel Without A Cause scenario, where someone screws up and needlessly sails right over the cliff.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

James Dean for Prime Minister???

I am not sure who would do well, other than the Bloc, in an election next month. Of course, a great deal can happen between now and the spring. I have reached a point when I am just about ready for an election. As I have said before, the Liberals losing my support will be devastating, in that I have voted for the NDP and the Conservatives in previous elections, but chose to vote Liberal in the last election. Lose voters like me across this great country of ours, and they shall not be able to form a minority government, in that I feel there are many voters like myself in Ontario, which shall be the main battleground for the Liberals. If they lose there, they are doomed. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> James Dean for Prime Minister???


Well at least James Dean didn't lose the game of chicken ... not in the movie anyway.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

The chicken quotes are apt, I just read on CBC that Harper and Duceppe will not initiate a non-confidence motion, they want Layton to do it lest he makes an eleventh-hour deal with the Liberals. Makes the Greens seem more palatable, if for no other reason than the fact that they weren't involved in this current parliament.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

highapostle said:


> The chicken quotes are apt, I just read on CBC that Harper and Duceppe will not initiate a non-confidence motion, they want Layton to do it lest he makes an eleventh-hour deal with the Liberals. Makes the Greens seem more palatable, if for no other reason than the fact that they weren't involved in this current parliament.


Well said, Harper and Duceppe can see right through Layton. We all know he's bluffing and he wants to make himself look like the hero at the last minute. 

Layton does not want an election. They are not polling well right now and most of the Liberal support has gone to the Conservatives. 

Layton knows that the Liberals and NDP are going to lose seats and so the NDP will lose the balance of power.

Sorry Jack, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are against a corrupt government, or you prop them up. The choice is yours. Either way, the voters will get to judge soon enough.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Layton does not want an election. They are not polling well right now and most of the Liberal support has gone to the Conservatives.


Most? The Angus Reid poll says the Libs are down 10%, the Cons are up 6%, the NDP is up 5% and the Bloc is down 1%.

With margins of error etc., I don't think that any party, especially the Cons can take much comfort in those numbers. Harper isn't anywhere close to majority government numbers and probably never would get that high. Interestingly the poll says that in BC, NDP numbers are up 10% and Con numbers are down.

I think they only ones wanting an election right now are some Bloc and Con supporters, and likely a minority of those as well.

Layton is playing chicken, because he's seeing it as a strategy to extract concessions from frightened Liberals. He's seeking to push his agenda in a way that he thinks will work. The inference that Harper and Duceppe would never stoop to such tactics to further their agenda and that their only interest in defeating the Liberals is to defeat corruption is just simplistic spin for the naive. Their only interest is in pushing their own agendas and everyone knows it. The sponsorship scandal is simply a convenient tool for them to accomplish that.

Harper's moral high-horse is a fiction and the buckets of Grewal affair showed that up pretty clearly. It's all politics, in all it's ugly glory.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, an interesting play on words ("Harper's moral high-horse is a fiction and the buckets of Grewal affair showed that up pretty clearly.")


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Layton's tactics seemed much weaker this time around. Last time it was a fairly quick announcement and he did what the NDP is voted in to do -- push the Liberals left. 

This time, playing the waiting game and mulling over a proposal made him look bad, in my opinion. Indecisive and publicly manipulative...last time that was behind closed doors. 

It's only optics versus the spring, but I think the Liberals outmaneouvered him in that he will look bad if he helps bring the government down now, but also looks bad keeping the government around for just the one deal.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Layton's tactics seemed much weaker this time around. Last time it was a fairly quick announcement and he did what the NDP is voted in to do -- push the Liberals left.
> 
> This time, playing the waiting game and mulling over a proposal made him look bad, in my opinion. Indecisive and publicly manipulative...last time that was behind closed doors.
> 
> It's only optics versus the spring, but I think the Liberals outmaneouvered him in that he will look bad if he helps bring the government down now, but also looks bad keeping the government around for just the one deal.


Beej, I agree with that assessment. I think that the NDP must be doing this because the Libs had become unresponsive in their closed-door dealings. No doubt the Libs thought he wouldn't dare use the threat of non-confidence, so had started to take Layton's support for granted. But in using it, he now loses his above-the-fray, doing-what's-good-for-the-country image.

Of the real agendas that the major parties are pushing, beyond all the political positioning, Layton's is still the one I agree with the most. It's too bad that so many people don't really recognize that this is the way politics is done and that no single party is above the fray, but they all like to pretend they are.

Dr. G., I can't take credit for the buckets of Grewal wordplay. Here is the site Buckets of Grewal
that did major work last spring in detailing and investigating the whole ugly affair, as well as the Conservative party's part in it. This is the sausage-making that the public isn't used to seeing, although much of this bordered on, or possibly was, criminal and certainly took some of the wind out the Cons sails.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, is Grewal going to again run in Newton North Delta? What about his wife?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Most? The Angus Reid poll says the Libs are down 10%, the Cons are up 6%, the NDP is up 5% and the Bloc is down 1%.
> 
> With margins of error etc., I don't think that any party, especially the Cons can take much comfort in those numbers. Harper isn't anywhere close to majority government numbers and probably never would get that high. Interestingly the poll says that in BC, NDP numbers are up 10% and Con numbers are down.
> 
> ...


The first poll that came out showed the NDP up on 1%, while the Conservatives were up more than that. The poll you have obviously favours the NDP much more than the first one, so Layton's recent statements are no surprise since he sees some benefit to taking the government down.

At least Harper has been consistent about taking the government down regardless of where they were in the polls. Personally, I like leaders who stand for what they believe in and not sit on the fence.

I believe that Harper truly wants to fight corruption. He has a lot of credibility on this issue and the Conservatives are the only party to have pressed this issue in the last ten years. They are not just jumping on the bandwagon like every other party. 

There is a massive difference between the Sponsorship Scandal and Grewal. The Liberals have now been proven guilty while Grewal was exonerated (from what I recall). I am not a big fan of Grewal and I would have turfed him had I been leader, but I don't see the parallel here, nor do I think Harper is being hypocritical. In any case, Grewal is one individual, while the entire Liberal Party is a corrupt mess.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Bring on the election!! If need be I'll vote Christmas Day. 

I want the Liberal party out NOW !!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, is Grewal going to again run in Newton North Delta? What about his wife?


I don't know, Dr. G., but the Cons would be foolish to keep him in the caucus. Their chances of winning re-election can't be good and investigation has shown that Mr. Grewal has a long history of slimy dealings. If Harper had been smart he would have distanced himself from the whole thing from the very beginning instead of defending the guy and giving his authorization for the ill-fated sting operation to continue. It just shows that he is not above the gutter politics that he claims that only Liberals engage in.

According to the site, Harper and his party still haven't said who in their party doctored the tapes, in their attempts to make Libs look bad and Grewal not look like the liar that he is, or whether Harper was aware of the doctoring. They are still claiming that it was just editing glitches, glitches that just happened to show the Libs in a better light and Grewal in a bad one, than what they initially released.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> There is a massive difference between the Sponsorship Scandal and Grewal. The Liberals have now been proven guilty while Grewal was exonerated (from what I recall). I am not a big fan of Grewal and I would have turfed him had I been leader, but I don't see the parallel here, nor do I think Harper is being hypocritical. In any case, Grewal is one individual, while the entire Liberal Party is a corrupt mess.


Dave, I don't believe that there has been any exoneration, I think it has just faded from the news. I don't know if there is still an ongoing RCMP investigation, but if that has ended it would be because they could find nothing to prosecute Grewal and the Libs, or other Cons on. As I said in post above, the Conservative Party still hasn't told who doctored the tapes, so it's more than just one man. Whether it goes to Harper or not, we don't know, but he obviously approved of the tactic, authorized it and defended it.

While there is obviously much corruption within the Liberal Party, and I wouldn't dream of defending them, the majority of Canadians don't trust that Harper's moral high horse is any more than spin designed at furthering his agenda. The Grewal incident points to this.

As has been mentioned quite a few times here in recent days, a plurality of Canadians have obviously seen the Liberals as the lesser of two evils, they don't trust Harpers neo-Conservative agenda and because of this are even willing to put up with a party in power that is tainted with corruption.

Maybe the recent polls show that this has changed, but I don't think it shows the Cons as very electable yet. If the Cons want to elect a government that does better than a ham-strung minority they'll need to find someone who can stake out the middle ground. Harper ain't that guy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just to expand on my point above - you know, the right wing in Canada has the opportunity of a generation, with the Liberal scandals and they've got the wrong guy at the helm. Where's a credible red Tory when they need one?

If Harper fails in the next election, whenever that is, they may have missed their window. People will start to forget about the sponsorship scandal if Martin can hang on for another year or two.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If any party believes that just before Christmas is the right time to call an election, they are all dumber than a bag of hammers. Gee whiz, gimme a brake already. Do it in February.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Dave, I don't believe that there has been any exoneration, I think it has just faded from the news. I don't know if there is still an ongoing RCMP investigation, but if that has ended it would be because they could find nothing to prosecute Grewal and the Libs, or other Cons on. As I said in post above, the Conservative Party still hasn't told who doctored the tapes, so it's more than just one man. Whether it goes to Harper or not, we don't know, but he obviously approved of the tactic, authorized it and defended it.
> 
> While there is obviously much corruption within the Liberal Party, and I wouldn't dream of defending them, the majority of Canadians don't trust that Harper's moral high horse is any more than spin designed at furthering his agenda. The Grewal incident points to this.
> 
> ...


I never heard anything about the Grewal tapes being linked to Harper. Maybe I haven't been playing close enough attention or maybe you are dreaming. I doubt Harper would be involved in anything like this. I agree with you, Grewal seems to be a slimeball. When there is that much smoke, there is obviously fire. I say turf the guy.

You speak of an 'agenda' like its a bad thing. Of course the Conservatives have an agenda. That's why they are trying to win government. It seems that you are insinuating they have a hidden agenda. 

Nobody is going to win a majority government anytime soon. When you factor in the Bloc in Quebec, its almost impossible for a party to win - too many parties and too many regional differences. I don't see a change for quite a while. At the end of the day, its about sending a message to Ottawa - Enough corruption and patronage already!!!!

Let's face it, the most likely situation is a Liberal-Conservative coalition. The NDP and Liberals aren't going to win enough to govern again. The Bloc won't be reliable for an extended period. That leaves the Liberals and Conservatives to govern. The next election is a race to see who gets the most seats and hence the position of PM.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

An election before the end of the fist fiscal quarter let alone Christmas Day of Boxing Day is just pure bunk.

My guess is a call for an election in March for next July or August at the earliest; the holidays and tax season is the worst time to call an election or have an election.

I wish someone would bring back the Rhino Party, personally I can't stand the idea of picking someone from the clowns in Ottawa. All party politics is only for big business and has no care for the voters.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, my wife, who is from Calgary, said the same thing as you last night ("Where's a credible red Tory when they need one?").


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I never heard anything about the Grewal tapes being linked to Harper. Maybe I haven't been playing close enough attention or maybe you are dreaming. I doubt Harper would be involved in anything like this. I agree with you, Grewal seems to be a slimeball. When there is that much smoke, there is obviously fire. I say turf the guy.
> 
> You speak of an 'agenda' like its a bad thing. Of course the Conservatives have an agenda. That's why they are trying to win government. It seems that you are insinuating they have a hidden agenda.


The whole affair is linked to Harper in that he was aware that Grewal was making the tapes and gave his blessing to the attempted sting. After the tapes came out he defended the guy, which it seems we both agree was a mistake. After it was shown that tapes were doctored Harper did not volunteer the name of who did the obviously prejudicial editing job, that he had still denies was an editing job. Harper is connected to this, although it's likely that trusted staff were involved in the editing. It's not a dream, but I'm sure Harper wishes it was. 

I never said an agenda was a bad thing, I just don't like Harper's, and I believe that many Canadians recognize that corruption is not Harper's main or real agenda, just a convenient tool to smash the Liberals over the head with. I specifically said, a few posts ago that of all the federal parties agendas, I most closely agree with the NDP's. 

I was attempting to say, in these posts in this thread that while accusing Layton of "playing politics" is correct and it is what he is doing, all them are also doing it - they're politicians after all. What amazes me, is that some people refuse to see how their favourite guy or girl is not doing the same. This is why I and many others find Harper's moral high horse just a bit grating, does he think we are idiots with no idea of his game? Does he think that even though we may disagree with his policies, we will vote for him because he claims to be Mr. Clean?

Some like Grewal or some members of the Liberal party will go to very slimy lengths to push their political agenda. There's probably a certain point where dealing with the devil to push one's agenda involves the actual selling of one's soul, but I doubt if it's a hard and fast line. Most who have gained political power have probably come quite close to it with some racing gleefully over it. 

I have always believed that to become a successful politician you probably have to have a huge ego and a slightly sociopathic personality. Following the daily news often seems to prove that point.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

There are no "Red Tories" now because a Red Tory would be indistinguishable from a Liberal.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> There are no "Red Tories" now because a Red Tory would be indistinguishable from a Liberal.


How true. Campaign on the left, govern on the right, the secret to the Libs success.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> If any party believes that just before Christmas is the right time to call an election, they are all dumber than a bag of hammers. Gee whiz, gimme a brake already. Do it in February.


Right now, I think the three opposition parties are all thinking they'd rather be a hammer than a nail.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was attempting to say, in these posts in this thread that while accusing Layton of "playing politics" is correct and it is what he is doing, all them are also doing it - they're politicians after all. What amazes me, is that some people refuse to see how their favourite guy or girl is not doing the same. This is why I and many others find Harper's moral high horse just a bit grating, does he think we are idiots with no idea of his game? Does he think that even though we may disagree with his policies, we will vote for him because he claims to be Mr. Clean?


I agree, they are all playing politics. That's what they are there for. The difference is that the Conservatives have credibility on the corruption issue and they have badgered this point for the last ten years. Harper has been consistent while he has been up and down in the polls. The NDP meanwhile haven't taken a stance and are sitting on the fence. I think that's weak. Either you are against corruption and the Liberals, or you prop them up. Getting a 'deal' should be secondary to ethics.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Corruption knows no political boundaries.

Or maybe I'm just jaded...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*No credible "red" tories*



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> the right wing in Canada has the opportunity of a generation, with the Liberal scandals and they've got the wrong guy at the helm. Where's a credible red Tory when they need one?


Simply their are no progressive tories anymore. Like McKay, they've sold their own party out. Other progressives have realized this and and switched to the liberals... who are far more conservative now than then they have been. The Liberals now are the progressives of yesteryear.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

When I saw the thread's headlines I thought there might be a vote for a new Santa. Is there a scandal brewing in the North Pole? Talks about kickbacks from toy vendors, the elves are in a bad mood over the working conditions, or is Santa himself just too progressive, giving toys away for free?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> , or is Santa himself just too progressive, giving toys away for free?


Oh my God, that would make Santa a,( Wait for it, it's gonna hurt) Left leaning LIBERAL!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Playing Devil's advocate here... but *what's wrong with an election near Christmas anyway?*

Excericizing democracy is in no way a unwanted distraction or hinderance in my daily life. Voting is no great inconvenience.

For people who will be away at the time there are mail-in ballots. I've used mail-in ballots for most elections in my life as I'm usually in another jurisdiction at the time.


For some people there will always be a bad time to vote... it's the dead of winter, it's snowing, it's summer vacation season, it's raining, etc.

Really, how hard is it for people to vote? Have to vote during the Christmas season? Suck it up. I can think of worse gifts for Christmas than the excercise of democracy in a free country and an election of a potential new governmernt.

Devil's advocacy ended.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Paul this is likely to be a tight election and thre are many distractions in the coming 6 weeks. I think it throws a "wild card" into an election already fraught with pitfalls and I think many of the public are fed up with the polticial posturing and would like to see continued governance until the announced election timing in the spring.

The Globe poll certainly showed that.
How smart is it to spend the millions on an election at this point when it seems clear to be another closely deadlocked result.
Throwing it into the holiday just seems senseless given the situation.

YOU tell ME what harm in waiting for the full report and the announced timing and doing some governing in the meantime.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> YOU tell ME what harm in waiting for the full report and the announced timing and doing some governing in the meantime.


Propagating a corrupt regime that will do anything to stay in power.

Look for an NDP deal with the Liberals that will handcuff our health care system. No worries though. We have an endless amount of money to through at the system. Go to sleep, nothing to see here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I predict that pompous little twit Layton will back down and find a way to retain his self appointed watchdog roll in Canadian politics until after Christmas.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Propagating a corrupt regime that will do anything to stay in power.


Interesting choice of words. First of all, it's not a regime, it's a democratically elected government.

Second, there was a report recently, produced by a Judge Gomery, which cleared the current PM of any wrongdoing. 

Clearly you have other evidence of this government's corruption. Share it.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Devil's advocate aside.

I'll I'm saying is that I'm ready and able to exercise my vote wherever that time comes... snow, rain, sleet, sun, holidays, or no holidays, in person or by mail-in.

I'm not saying I want an election around Christmas... though I admit I am curious to what a Christmas election would look like.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Clearly you have other evidence of this government's corruption. Share it.


Read the Gomery Report. The Liberal Party has been implicated.

You don't have to look far to see other examples of Liberal corruption and government mismanagement.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Read the Gomery Report. The Liberal Party has been implicated.


Since you have read it so closely, please quote in full the parts that declare the Liberal party to be corrupt. 

In doing so you may skip the parts that declare certain members of the party to be suspected of corruption, which is clearly a different matter from an entire party.

Glad to see you mention implication. An important word.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

In my opinion they can wait a few extra months, till Spring, to call an election. All that's going to happen in a new election is that we vote in another minority government which will be there for aproximately 18 months (the average lifespan of a minority government) that won't be able to do anything, which is no different from the current government.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Pelao,

So what are you looking for? Minutes of a Liberal caucus meeting in which they all voted to stack dollar bills in front of a giant fan which they pointed toward friendly ad agencies in Quebec? People doing corrupt things rarely leave a paper trail. 

Gomery has clearly shown that the Prime Minister and senior officials in the PMO and the party knew what was happening. I'm sure there are other Liberals who are not to blame, and some who suspected malfeasance but couldn't prove it. It doesn't really matter... the Federal Liberal party has to take responsibility for what happened. About all the Liberals can claim now is that every party has some corruption... probably true, but I'll still vote for a party that hasn't yet been proven rotten.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> So what are you looking for? Minutes of a Liberal caucus meeting in which they all voted to stack dollar bills in front of a giant fan which they pointed toward friendly ad agencies in Quebec? People doing corrupt things rarely leave a paper trail.


I suppose I should make it clear that what occurred angers me too.The individuals need to be held accountable, and so does the system - as I understand it Gomery's second report will deal with preventing future mismanagement.

What I object to is the broad brush approach to any serious issue. Some cops are caught taking bribes - a whole force is corrupt etc. This attitude belittles the work of Gomery's team. They made it clear where the fault lies, and they certainly did not name the government is corrupt.

There are those that believe the governement to be corrupt. Of course it's fine to hold the belief. But to issue it as a statement of fact without evidence is just plain silly. Here we have a statement about a corrupt regime. Well, fine - what exactly does that mean? Where's the evidence? What did Gomery miss, or is he part of the "regime'?

Let's stick to the facts as we know them. While Chretien was at the helm some unforgiveable mismanagement, and some unforgiveable corruption occurred. Those responsible have been named, and the the RCMP has been instructed to investigate and prosecute.

This does not a corrupt regime make. 

Of course, it is up to individual voters to decide if the Liberal party needs to be punished at the polls.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

While your at it Vandave share it with the world reporting agencies on corruption who happen to think Canada quite a good place to do business.......relatively corruption free.

If it's "anything to get into power" Harper's list of flip flops is hilarious and one reason he's lost respect not only in the opposition camp but his own flock.
Comtemptuous comes to mind.
Something that people would not characterize say Preston Manning as being.

Harper has unsuccessfully tried to hide his neoCon social conservative views to appear centrist. It didn't wash, doesn't wash now.

John Tory CAN claim to be a moderate conservative, Stronach can, Joe Clark can, FinkNottle can ( he should run for leadership ), Harper et all cannot and and THAT, as in Preston Mannings time relegates them to a regional rump party, much like the Bloc but with a different agenda set.

This byplay with the NDP cost Layton big time.....critized even by Buzz Halgrave for the stance you can be damn sure it hardened up some red Liberals that MIGHT have voted NDP.

Jack had the high ground for a while.....no longer.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Now I'm going to contradict myself from what I said yesterday. Glad I didn't bet any money.









I've just been listening to Layton interviewed on CKNW (Vancouver talk radio station) and my gut now tells me that he isn't backing off the non-confidence vote. This is just reading the tea leaves kind of stuff, but I think he's using the kind of language that says he is serious and doesn't leave an option for backing off. Or at least he's convinced me that he's serious. What do I know?  Anyway, now I'm of the opinion that there will be an election, although I don't think it will interfere with the holiday season.

Harper said he will wait until Layton calls non-confidence, but from what I've read the first opportunity to do this is Harper's. The NDP's opportunity to do this doesn't come until Nov. 24th. I don't know why this is because I'm not sure how these House rules work around this kind of stuff work, but I wonder if we could see the interesting scenario where Harper ends up voting with the government, while Layton opposes.

I don't think a Christmas election is in the cards, though. If Layton votes to end it on the 24th, the Prime Minister has minimum time of 36 or 39 days (I've seen both figures) before an election can happen, but there is no maximum, from what I've heard and read. Layton speculated on this himself today. Because of set times for advance polls, it could be possible for mid to late January or early February.

In the 1979 - 1980 campaign, the parties agreed to take a campaign hiatus of a week around Christmas and New Years. This would be likely if an election campaign were to be going on over the holidays.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My perception is that Layton will not support a non confidence vote - not that he will iniate one.

The Bloc has little to lose by putting one on the table tho the Bloc may want some of the upcoming legislation. 
Harper and Layton could then just shrug and say...wasn't me pulled the plug, I just didn't stuff it back in the drain.......something to the tune of oh sorry we just did not have enough members present.

I reallllllly don't like the posturing and if Hargrave doesn't either Jack should watch his back.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I just read that there is a government spending vote scheduled for December 8th, which would be an automatic confidence vote, if lost. This may be an option since no party would then have to explicitly raise a non-confidence motion and take the blame for bringing on the election.

The NDP partisan Rabble - Babble discussion forum is bursting with commentary speculating on and supporting an election. They claim that Bill Blaikie and Ed Broadbent are both in favour of an election.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> There are those that believe the governement to be corrupt. Of course it's fine to hold the belief. But to issue it as a statement of fact without evidence is just plain silly. Here we have a statement about a corrupt regime. Well, fine - what exactly does that mean? Where's the evidence? What did Gomery miss, or is he part of the "regime'?
> 
> Let's stick to the facts as we know them. While Chretien was at the helm some unforgiveable mismanagement, and some unforgiveable corruption occurred. Those responsible have been named, and the the RCMP has been instructed to investigate and prosecute.
> 
> This does not a corrupt regime make.


Here are the quotes from Gomery:

- clear evidence of *political *  involvement in the Sponsorship Program;
- deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation and
policies, including the Canada Elections Act, Lobbyists Registration Act,
the Access to Information Act and Financial Administration Act, as well
as federal contracting policy and the Treasury Board Transfer
Payments Policy;
- a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and
Government Services Canada (PWGSC), Crown Corporations and
communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal
contributions to a *political party* in the context of the Sponsorship Program;
- five agencies that received large sponsorship contracts regularly
channelling money, via legitimate donations or unrecorded cash
gifts, to political fundraising activities in Quebec, with the
expectation of receiving lucrative government contracts;
certain agencies carrying on their payrolls individuals who were,
in effect, working on *Liberal Party* matters;
- the existence of a “culture of entitlement” among *political
officials and bureaucrats * involved with the Sponsorship Program,
including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits;

This is only one government program BTW. Have a look behind some of the others and I bet you will find the same thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> While your at it Vandave share it with the world reporting agencies on corruption who happen to think Canada quite a good place to do business.......relatively corruption free.


I agree. Relative to most of the world, we are considered to have low corruption. But that's a poor bar to compare ourselves against considering the current world situation where corruption is rife.

I think you have to be careful in how you define corruption. It's easy to paint 3rd world countries as being corrupt because their political and government programs are not as sophisticated as ours. We have all sorts of 'legalized' corruption in Canada. What is lobbying and patronage other than a form of a bribe?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I just read that there is a government spending vote scheduled for December 8th, which would be an automatic confidence vote, if lost. This may be an option since no party would then have to explicitly raise a non-confidence motion and take the blame for bringing on the election.
> 
> The NDP partisan Rabble - Babble discussion forum is bursting with commentary speculating on and supporting an election. They claim that Bill Blaikie and Ed Broadbent are both in favour of an election.


That sounds like an opportune time. I am guessing we will have an early February election. I doubt the Conservatives or NDP will table legislation to take the government down.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Here are the quotes from Gomery:
> 
> - clear evidence of political involvement in the Sponsorship Program;
> - deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation and
> ...


Well, thanks for posting this - have you actually read any of it, or better yet understood it? It's exactly as I said, some people abused a government programme and funneled the funds to their own pockets and / or to the Liberal party. The individuals have been named - both those who should have been better managers, and those who abused the public trust and purse.

So, er, where is the corrupt regime?

As to your last point, well, perhaps you are right. Perhaps every single government programme is rife with abuse and corruption. Also, perhaps not. Your wild suppositions and strange conclusions are certainly displaying some interesting and entertaining ways to interpret Judge Gomery's report.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So we have a variable view of "corruption" up to and including lobbying. Pretty broad brush.

What pray tell is your "ideal country" or existent political party that has none and that the bar should be set to emulate.

Even ol "Call me a puritan" Preston took the parliamentary pension.

The question asked is has Martin gone as far as he can to find out the extent of the impropriety and taken steps to prevent a similar occurrence.

He moved very quickly to yank Galiano and unlike the Teflon man did not bury the report.
He also instituted comptroller positions for major departments and HE called a Public Inquiry on the report...Chretien did not...for obvious reasons now the report is released.

The second half of the Gomery report contains the recommendations to prevent similiar occurrences.

Now what more would you have Martin do?? - the report does not implicate him in any way.
He called the inquiry
He took steps to provide oversight in the major departments.
He says he will implement the report recommendations and has agreed to an election upon the release of the final report.

Reasonable actions.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Now what more would you have Martin do?? - the report does not implicate him in any way.
> He called the inquiry
> He took steps to provide oversight in the major departments.
> He says he will implement the report recommendations and has agreed to an election upon the release of the final report.
> ...


Indeed. In addition, the Mounties were instructed to prosecute.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Well, thanks for posting this - have you actually read any of it, or better yet understood it? It's exactly as I said, some people abused a government programme and funneled the funds to their own pockets and / or to the Liberal party. The individuals have been named - both those who should have been better managers, and those who abused the public trust and purse.
> 
> So, er, where is the corrupt regime?
> 
> As to your last point, well, perhaps you are right. Perhaps every single government programme is rife with abuse and corruption. Also, perhaps not. Your wild suppositions and strange conclusions are certainly displaying some interesting and entertaining ways to interpret Judge Gomery's report.


What evidence are you looking for? Do you think they are going to implicate every single person in the Liberal Party? Of course not. I can't imagine something being more damning than this report.

The findings of Gomery are consistent with a corrupt regime. It went all the way to the top of all places!!!! 

One could take your arguments and conclude the Hell's Angels and the mafia aren't corrupt either.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> One could take your arguments and conclude the Hell's Angels and the mafia aren't corrupt either.


Of course one could, but that would be silly too.

I am just saying that the Gomery report was clear and direct in it's findings. One of which specifically cleared the current PM of any wrongdoing. So why do you accept some of the report and not other parts? This is naturally your right, but it would be interesting to hear why the current government is a "corrupt regime" and what specific evidence you have to support this, since clearly you cannot use Gomery to do so.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Now what more would you have Martin do?? - the report does not implicate him in any way.


And you believe the number two guy in power (and finance minister) wasn't involved or didn't know what was going on?

Hogwash.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Even ol "Call me a puritan" Preston took the parliamentary pension.


So what's your point? I don't have a problem with government pensions.



MacDoc said:


> Now what more would you have Martin do?? - the report does not implicate him in any way.
> He called the inquiry
> He took steps to provide oversight in the major departments.
> He says he will implement the report recommendations and has agreed to an election upon the release of the final report.


It doesn't implicate him directly and I am actually glad for that. I don't wish to see corruption in any of our public officials, whether or not I agree with their politics.

The Gomery report implicated the Liberal Party and the former PM. Martin was the seniormost Liberal Party member after the PM and the top Liberal in Quebec. So, he has some level of responsibility for this having occurred, regardless of the Gomery report not implicating him directly.

Either Martin was asleep at the wheel, or he was incompetent for not having known this was occurring. Personally, I think he knew about the program and turned a blind eye.

I would have liked Martin to step down while Gomery was conducting his investigation, but I guess I am old school when it comes to taking responsibility. Nobody seems to accept it anymore and fewer politicians step down during scandals and inquiries than before.

He didn't just call this inquiry out of thin air. He did it after the Auditor General made her comments about her audit. He didn't have a choice but to call it. And then he calls an election before the Gomery starts so that the public remained in the dark.

Why did he agree to call an election after the report? What a coincidence that it happened while the Liberals were plumetting in the polls and about to be defeated in Parliament. 

Do you really think Martin has done a good job with this whole affair, or do you think his actions are more consistent with covering his ass? I think the later.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> And you believe the number two guy in power (and finance minister) wasn't involved or didn't know what was going on?
> 
> Hogwash.


You may well be right. Do you feel that Gomery did not do a thorough job? Why would he specifically exonerate Martin? Are we not to trust the Judge?

Personally, I feel that Gomery was clear and thorough on this point. While I accept that Martin did not know, and that no finance minister ever has or ever will know about every dollar, it raises concerns about his choices and our system of government. Probably about our society too.

Chretien and he were at loggerheads and co-existed rather than cooperated. Martin accepted the leadership style in place, although he did indeed eventually resign.

Our system leaves too much unchecked and unsupervised. Let's hope Gomery's second report is as thoprough as his first.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> It doesn't implicate him directly and I am actually glad for that. I don't wish to see corruption in any of our public officials, whether or not I agree with their politics.
> 
> The Gomery report implicated the Liberal Party and the former PM. Martin was the seniormost Liberal Party member after the PM and the top Liberal in Quebec. So, he has some level of responsibility for this having occurred, regardless of the Gomery report not implicating him directly.
> 
> ...


Crucial questions. Indeed it soes seem that politicians will call an investigation and then hang on while this is undertaken - the truth will out as the public's interest has faded. 

I think he has taken his actions for both reasons: the right thing to do and to cover his ass.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Gomery report is questionable, as was the whole process design. In my opinion Martin didn't partake, but that he turned a blind eye for plausible deniability early in the process, after which the Chretien-Martin rift kept him out. But that's just my opinion.

Either way, Gomery's analysis had some odd quirks that raised some eyebrows.

Excerpt from a Lysiane Gagon article...

And so, after having trashed former long-time bureaucrat Chuck Guité as "a man without scruples," Judge Gomery, on a key point, chose to believe Mr. Guité rather than Jean Pelletier, Mr. Chrétien's former chief of staff - as if Mr. Pelletier, a man with a long and honourable career, shouldn't have been more credible than Mr. Guité, who has been charged with fraud.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> And so, after having trashed former long-time bureaucrat Chuck Guité as "a man without scruples," Judge Gomery, on a key point, chose to believe Mr. Guité rather than Jean Pelletier, Mr. Chrétien's former chief of staff - as if Mr. Pelletier, a man with a long and honourable career, shouldn't have been more credible than Mr. Guité, who has been charged with fraud.


I noticed that too - but then read reports stating that Gomery did not accept anyone's evidence unless he had other evidence to support it. The outcome of various legal challenges will be interesting.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How long and intense was the war between Martin and Teflon man???

Unattributed Article Removed

You did not answer>.......what else could he have done beyond call the inquiry, put in comptrollers and wait and act on the inquiry??

One thing to remember ....he needs the job like a hole in the head......he has the praise and respect of finance ministers around the world and a personal fortune he could comfortably live on forever. People around the world look at Canada and wonder "What the bleedin" hell are you guys complaining about???" 

Let's take a look at the 2004 Budget highlights for some perspective on Adscam

Unattributed Article Removed

Now you think that some $300 million over a number of years directed by the PMO and Chretiens Chief of Staff in particular and obviously Chretien's pet project are going to jump out of that size of a budget to handle.?? That's NOT the role of the Finance Minister - he handle's the nation's finances not the specifics of any one dept or program. That's WHY comptrollers and auditor generals are needed ......for specific oversight.

11 Billion in cost cutting at Ottawa, 1.6 billion for Heritage, 12 billion for defence.

Get your bloody thinking in perspective. 

You want to talk policy then do so - don't look idiotic railing at some imagined *inestimable depths of corruption*- it' has made and continues to make the Cons look like fools.

The economic record and legacy is Martin's and one to be proud of and acknowledged by his peers around the world. 

The political record, both good and ill is Chretien's.....a canny politician no doubt....an honest one???.......I doubt it.....Gomery laid blame there, rightfully in my mind and Chretien's own frantic attempts at defence are as ludicrous as the Cons "shoe on the table" thumping about massive corruption....hiding their own paucity of ideas that appeal to the wider Canadian public beyond the right wing fringe.

Respect where it's due. I don't like Duceppe's vision but I can respect him for what he has achieved.

Martin is due that respect too. He inherited a horrible political situation from Chretien and it was just about outright war.

Did he handle it well - I don't think so - he's not a "politician" and in my mind that's to his credit.
The Liberal party was in an internal war, the country was looking for change after too much Liberal dominance, Adscam was a focal point, Martin called an unnecessary election......... but no one stepped up to the table.

THAT's not Martin's problem......it's the Cons.
Still is.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> So what's your point? I don't have a problem with government pensions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How in the world would Martin have had any knowledge of this. The PMO had exclusive control over the funds for the Sponsorship Program. Contrary to popular belief, the finance minister does not oversee the payments of funds to or from any department. Given the level of distrust between Chretien and Martin, it is more than probable he had no direct knowledge of how the PMO was spending the money.

During this period, it needs to be remembered that Martin and Chretien were in a mighty struggle for the hearts and minds of the Liberal Party. Who is to say that the wiping out of Chretienites by Martin was not in part motivated by the rumours about corruption which were surfacing at the time of Martin's rise to power.

Reality is today as we speak, that Harper has gotten cold feet insofar as a motion of confidence is concerned. Therefore, unless Layton introduces a motion, there will be no XMas election. This is the most inteligent decision Harper has ever made. The backlash of an election call right now would have burried him for sure. He also avoids the possibility of Layton going back to the Liberals with a definate confidence vote for an eleventh hour deal to further the NDP agenda.

As of now, Layton has been outsmarted by a Conservative. he has lost all power to achieve any objective in this parliament by publicly withdrawing support for the Liberals. Not to bright.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc: some good points in there, even though I didn't agree with them all. Unfortunately the good points for discussion included unneccessarily insulting language. You're points are worthy of discussion and add to this thread, what does some of the language add?

The respect/wealth argument doesn't fly, in my opinion. Many wealthy people want the top job, that's not unusual at all. Respect as a great Minister of Finance just isn't the same. No one forced him into, and there were 1 or 2 decent alternatives. He wanted it.

The budget argument has merit for perspective, but $300 million over a number of years would be relevant for a Finance minister which is why he did know of the program's creation. I tend to agree with the idea of the details being intentionally kept from Martin (who was willing not to dig into it, in my opinion). But $300 million is relevant, even though almost $200 billion flow through the books.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> One thing to remember ....he needs the job like a hole in the head......he has the praise and respect of finance ministers around the world and a personal fortune he could comfortably live on forever. People around the world look at Canada and wonder "What the bleedin" hell are you guys complaining about???"
> 
> THAT's not Martin's problem......it's the Cons.
> Still is.


Or put another way, and I know this is going against His opinion:

He had little respect for His own peers or most of the public. In my opinion, He knew and simply turned a blind eye to what was going on for His own future political gain.

Sorry for so many capitol "H's" but everyone thinks they are God these days.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You did not answer>.......what else could he have done beyond call the inquiry, put in comptrollers and wait and act on the inquiry??


Yes I did. I said he could have stepped aside. He could have also increased the budget of the Auditor General. He could also have changed the whole concept of patronage appointments.



MacDoc said:


> One thing to remember ....he needs the job like a hole in the head......he has the praise and respect of finance ministers around the world and a personal fortune he could comfortably live on forever. People around the world look at Canada and wonder "What the bleedin" hell are you guys complaining about???" ??


The same can be said of Bush and Cheney. They are both wealthy and don't need their current jobs. 

We are in a decent financial position, but it isn't a rosey as one might think. As I said earlier, our debt to GDP ratio is only average and is behind the US. Our health care costs are spirling upwards and I believe Canada has the largest percentage of baby boomers in the G8. We should be leading the way with health care reform, but we can't have a good debate in this country because any contrary thinking is labeled as wanting to have the US system.



MacDoc said:


> Get your bloody thinking in perspective.


Three things:

1. It is a large amount of money and is a significant percentage and is something that should show up on the books. We're not talking about nickels and dimes;
2. It has broader implications beyond the Sponsorship money itself. This was only one department that was audited; and,
3. Martin was the second highest Liberal in power. He was the top Liberal in Quebec. You don't think he knows who his donors are and where that money went into the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party? You don't think he knew about Chretien's little pet project? We'll see over time about that. Just because Gomery didn't find direct evidence of his involvement does not mean he was not knowledgeable about the program. 



MacDoc said:


> You want to talk policy then do so - don't look idiotic railing at some imagined *inestimable depths of corruption*- it' has made and continues to make the Cons look like fools.


Government accountability is policy. This is a choice we make. My choice is to have accountability in government and not have corruption. What's yours? More of the same? No thanks.



MacDoc said:


> THAT's not Martin's problem......it's the Cons.
> Still is.


Oh really. He called an election just after the Conservative Party was formed and before they even had a chance to vote on policy. He then turns to scare tactics to say the Cons have a hidden agenda. If this wasn't playing politics and being opportunistic, what is?

And finally, get off your stupid high horse. Why must you denegrate my opinion? If you like, I can play that game as well, but I'd rather not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Our health care costs are spirling upwards and I believe Canada has the largest percentage of baby boomers in the G8. We should be leading the way with health care reform, but we can't have a good debate in this country because any contrary thinking is labeled as wanting to have the US system.


The baby boomer thing interested me because I don't know much about the data, I found this:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpa3e.htm

Our % change is second only to Japan's, but the total share of 'elderly' is not expected to get as bad as in the EU and Japan (thank you immigration). I'm not sure what that means with regards to largest percentage of baby boomers, but I think the elderly to working age ratio is probably the best quick number for policy implications. This has long-term policy implications (although I think they are often overstated) which is something that will probably not be handled well if our government works on a daily policy schedule. 

Regarding your comments on the healthcare debate...amen. This is simultaneously the most important and worst policy discusson issue in Canada. No ideas, comparisons or analysis seems allowed, aside from U.S. bad, Canada good. Although I am more favourable (less unfavourable?) towards the Liberals than you, I find their treatment of the healthcare debate to be truly demeaning to all Canadians.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, I guess this is it then:

Layton promises Harper to topple Liberals


> OTTAWA -- Jack Layton sent the Conservatives the clarion signal they have been demanding, stating unequivocally Tuesday that he is committed to helping them bring down the government at the next available opportunity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mmmm not so quick on that - WHO will pull the plug??? - whoever does gets the backlash.



> *But so far none of the Opposition parties have come forward to say they plan to introduce a vote of no-confidence in Parliament in the immediate future.*
> 
> In Ottawa earlier, Prime Minister Paul Martin dismissed any suggestion that the Liberals would go back to the table on health-care.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051108.wconfid1108/BNStory/National/

If you read the entire article in the Globe it's still a lot of "let Mikey try it"........Layton likely has little to lose at this point as he's annoyed his constituency but I still think it's unlikely he will introduce a non-confidence motion.
And that's where the difficulty arises for the opposition parties.

Historically those engineering the fall of a government get hammered and the polls show that now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Yes I did. I said he could have stepped aside. He could have also increased the budget of the Auditor General. He could also have changed the whole concept of patronage appointments.


....and leaped tall buildings at a single bound. Don't be a naif. 
He's the Prime Minister dealing with a problematic program under his predecessors mandate and he took clear steps to deal with it.
It's ludicrous to even contemplate his stepping down over a situation like that.

It's tiny amount of money in a $200 billion budget and you make yourself look silly stating otherwise as you are implying the entire program budget was somehow "stolen". Even the ENTIRE program budget is tiny in comparison to the overall government spending.
The human resources and gun control boondoggles were of far greater magnitude and spoke to really endemic issues which the appointment of comptrollers and stronger better funded oversight hopefully will alleviate.
THOSE are significant numbers.

Yes the "broader implications" are what the second half of the Gomery report are about and how to prevent similar malfeasance. Martin has taken steps in strengthening oversight and has committed to take more based on the report and that may indeed deal with some of the patronage issues. If he does NOT implement the recommendations then he deserves to be turfed as leader.....I suggest any party leader tread carefully in that respect.

Martin has shown signs of acknowledging multiparty contributions by his Senate appointments



> Martin appointed nine new Senators. They include retired General Romeo Dallaire and Art Eggleton one time major of Toronto. Of the nine six are Liberals, two are Progressive Conservatives and one NDP.


but no question I and many others would like to see more done on the sinecure angle and certainly a change in the democratic structure in some way - but that's a huge undertaking and certainly not undertaken with an inherited mandate rather than an elected mandate.

THIS parliament could have undertaken it and did not. Pearson minority undertook major changes and brought them about - this has been a lame duck in comparison tho given the incredibly tight numbers its hard to imagine a really strong program. I thought the compromise with the NDP on the tax cuts showed some promise....martin didn't like it but that's the art of compromise.

I said Martin was not a "smart" politician = I didn't say he was not political. 
Stronach was a bold move and effective - the election call was just plain stupid and ill conceived..just as Harper's "champagne on the plane was".

Strange in my post I did not mention your name once and it would appear from your "sensitivity" you've taken on the mantle as Con spokesperson. The shoe thumping is pretty obvious.

I'll take Beej's approach over your's anyday.
It's fine to have an opinion....different to have an informed one. 



> Vandave wrote
> or do you think his actions are more consistent with covering his ass? I think the later.


 sic
pardon me your agenda is showing.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Nice to see a reasoned debate. The polling figures are jumping around so much that no one can predict the outcome of an election. A strong possibility is that an election would produce yet another Liberal minority. The only party sure to gain is the PQ. If the liberals did win a minority, then I think Stephen Harper would be jettisoned with skid marks on his rear end. The NDP may pick up a few seats but that would simply put them back into bed with the Liberals. So nothing would change. If the Conservatives picked up enough seats, they could also form a minority government but it would last only weeks - if that - since no one will work with them. The only possible change would be for a massive swing against the Liberals. Such swings have happened before but given that there was a test of the same government seemingly yesterday, its unlikely unless Harper is able to speak positively instead of spending every ounce of his waking spittle on shouting about the Adscam debacle. It's the future, stupid!

Meanwhile the actual political efforts and much of the government empowered work of the country is on auto-pilot - at the very time we need to be pushing forward.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ....and leaped tall buildings at a single bound. Don't be a naif.
> He's the Prime Minister dealing with a problematic program under his predecessors mandate and he took clear steps to deal with it.
> It's ludicrous to even contemplate his stepping down over a situation like that.


Not when you are from BC it isn't. 

1. Heard of Glen Clark? He stepped down because there was the appearance he got a benefit (a hunting knife and possibly a cheap house deck) from a casino applicant.
2. Heard of Mike Harcourt? He stepped down because his party may have received money illegally from a Bingo charity. We're talking about 100's and at worse 1000's of dollars.
3. Heard of Vanderzalm? He stepped down because he may have mentioned he was selling a piece of land in BC while on a government trip.

That's the last three elected Premiers of BC. All of them did the right thing and stepped down when at a point when there was only slight evidence of a scandal. Like Martin, each one of them was exonerated.

I don't think doing the right thing is ludicrous. If anything, I expect it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's tiny amount of money in a $200 billion budget and you make yourself look silly stating otherwise as you are implying the entire program budget was somehow "stolen". Even the ENTIRE program budget is tiny in comparison to the overall government spending.


Tip of the iceberg. Of all the 'skim' programs the Liberals have created, what percentage do they get caught on? I wouldn't assume 100%. 

If you can't look beyond the scandals the Liberals get caught on and see the broader implications, then I suggest you take the blinders off.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Tip of the iceberg. Of all the 'skim' programs the Liberals have created, what percentage do they get caught on? I wouldn't assume 100%.
> 
> If you can't look beyond the scandals the Liberals get caught on and see the broader implications, then I suggest you take the blinders off.


Well that is just a baseless accusation.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Tip of the iceberg. Of all the 'skim' programs the Liberals have created, what percentage do they get caught on? I wouldn't assume 100%.
> 
> If you can't look beyond the scandals the Liberals get caught on and see the broader implications, then I suggest you take the blinders off.


Riiight, and no conservative would ever do anything like this either. *cough* Grant Devine *cough*

Look, I'm no fan of the Liberals and have never voted for a Liberal party at any level of government. But this sort of incessant, irrational bleating will only turn people away from your point of view.

Conservatives throughout the country would be far better off pulling voters towards them instead of trying to push the Liberal party away from the voters.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> But this sort of* incessant, irrational bleating will only turn people away from your point of view.*
> 
> *Conservatives throughout the country would be far better off pulling voters towards them* instead of trying to push the Liberal party away from the voters.


Exactly :clap:

as to


> "Why must you denegrate my opinion?",


...... you're doing a fine job yourself....you need no help from me.
Just recall the correct spelling and root of the word before YOU start claiming oppression 

•••••



> Meanwhile the actual political efforts and much of the government empowered work of the country is on auto-pilot - at the very time we need to be pushing forward.


That's exactly what ALL the parties need to be doing, governing not posturing, let the Public Inquiry stay the course and have the election as promised upon its completion.

Harper has done nothing during this minority government to persuade voters of his competency and good judgement.

Layton WAS doing a reasonable job levering a undeservedly small block of seats to get some modest changes to legislation. He HAD the high ground on policy over politicking and now has lost it even in the eyes of one of his major constituents.

and the Bloc benefits.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Layton, Harper shy away from leading election charge*
> Opposition leaders not talking strategy
> Harper hints at voting with Liberals
> Nov. 9, 2005. 01:00 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968793972154&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

_After you Gaston, no I insist after you, after you, after you_........ad infinitum ad nauseum.  

SCTV should do a Layton Harper skit...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mbaldwin said:


> Riiight, and no conservative would ever do anything like this either. *cough* Grant Devine *cough*
> 
> Look, I'm no fan of the Liberals and have never voted for a Liberal party at any level of government. But this sort of incessant, irrational bleating will only turn people away from your point of view.
> 
> Conservatives throughout the country would be far better off pulling voters towards them instead of trying to push the Liberal party away from the voters.


And what does he have to do with current the federal Conservative Party? Nothing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ...... you're doing a fine job yourself....you need no help from me.
> Just recall the correct spelling and root of the word before YOU start claiming oppression


You know somebody isn't confident in their own point of view when:

1. They resort to name calling; and,
2. Turn the discussion into a spelling bee.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

mbaldwin said:


> Riiight, and no conservative would ever do anything like this either. *cough* Grant Devine *cough*
> 
> Look, I'm no fan of the Liberals and have never voted for a Liberal party at any level of government. But this sort of incessant, irrational bleating will only turn people away from your point of view.
> 
> Conservatives throughout the country would be far better off pulling voters towards them instead of trying to push the Liberal party away from the voters.


I have to agree with this, although I don't think if I'd use the term "incessant, irrational bleating".

Again I ask Conservatives and their supporters, does Harper really think he's going to get people to vote for him because he _claims_ to be cleaner than the Liberals?

Claims is the operative word here, many voters are cynical about all politicians and that is what Grant Devine and Mulroney's pigs at the trough have to do with this. Grant Devine could easily fit in with the Reform/Alliance crew at the core of the Conservative Party and many think that the party could easily be hiding Grant Devine types within it, who could become cabinet ministers if the Cons gain power. The Grewal scandal was more than one person, involving support at the highest level of the party and many apply the same tip of the iceberg type of thinking to Conservatives too. This is why Harper's Mr. Clean act rings hollow with many.

I don't think you'll find any Liberal supporter or anyone else on the left who doesn't think that the sponsorship scandal is disgusting. The point here is that they don't automatically think that Harper will be a breath of fresh air, because they aren't buying the act. Add to that the fact that he has an obvious right of centre agenda that the majority of Canadians can't countenance, then you will understand why his act isn't selling well.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

'The Report' only proves that our leaders are following the modern definition of 'politician.'

I personally thought Martin would be smarter but in the end he just shows that party politics has no concern for the voters, just for themselves and their cronies.

Remember the big railway scandal that toppled MacDonald? Classic left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Politicians tell you to vote your conscience but in the end it really comes done to the lesser of all evils for people who truly work for a living.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Vandave said:


> You know somebody isn't confident in their own point of view when:
> 
> 1. They resort to name calling; and,
> 2. Turn the discussion into a spelling bee.


You know, a lesser person could always point out his punctuation, if they were inclined to do so.

Ellipses unite!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

*Prime Minister Harper - Next Week?*

A long shot I know, but if Harper could get the support of the BQ and a couple of disaffected Liberals who want to cling to power, he could form a government. This could make sense for a lot of reasons:

-A lot of people don't want a winter election.
-The BQ have nothing to gain by another election.
-Six months of a moderate Harper government might allow him to convince Ontario voters he's not the boogeyman... and position him to go for a majority next year.

A possibility? Michaele Jean, are you ready?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> A long shot I know, but if Harper could get the support of the BQ and a couple of disaffected Liberals who want to cling to power, he could form a government. This could make sense for a lot of reasons:
> 
> -A lot of people don't want a winter election.
> -The BQ have nothing to gain by another election.
> ...


Is this actually a possibility within parliamentary rules?

If so, would we then have the spectacle of having Bloc MP's serving as Canadian Cabinet Ministers in a coalition government? The Right Honourable Gilles Duceppe, Minister of the Crown. I can't see how that could be moderate.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Is this actually a possibility within parliamentary rules?
> 
> If so, would we then have the spectacle of having Bloc MP's serving as Canadian Cabinet Ministers in a coalition government? The Right Honourable Gilles Duceppe, Minister of the Crown. I can't see how that could be moderate.


Yes it is. I could be PM if I could 'command the commons'. In order to take the title of PM, Harper would have to prove to the GG that he commands the commons. Either the rouge Liberals would have to step forward or he would have to prove it in Parliament by way of a vote.

But what would be in it for those Liberal members? Would they run as Conservatives after?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"But what would be in it for those Liberal members? Would they run as Conservatives after?" Watch Belinda Stronach switch back to the Conservative Party. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Either the rouge Liberals


Wouldn't the pinkish Liberals be with us socialists? I think you meant "blue" liberals, or "purple", if you were going for a blended colour. 

Sorry, couldn't help it. This is a possibility, except that the Bloc would never go along. They will work together to kill the libs, but never ally to give the reform power. Quebec is a pretty leftwing place, after all.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "But what would be in it for those Liberal members? Would they run as Conservatives after?" Watch Belinda Stronach switch back to the Conservative Party. Stranger things have happened.


I think that the Federal Liberals are completely SPENT as a political power in this country. They will never again acheve a signifigant majority...at least in their current form. They are too closely associated with massive long-term corruption and "do-nothing" policies that cost taxpayers BILLIONS. While accomplishing pretty much NOTHING!

Will "Belinda the Bimbo" suddenly switch sides and run with the Conservatives again, when she realises that the Liberals are finally doomed to obscurity?

Possibly. Probably.

But who will really CARE??

I wouldn't vote for her at this point. Personally...I wouldn't even stop to talk to her on the street. Even if she begged me. Would you?

If so...why?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> I think that the Federal Liberals are completely SPENT as a political power in this country. They will never again acheve a signifigant majority...at least in their current form.



You know, I've been a member of this forum for nearly four years now, and you've been saying this the <em>entire</em> time.

Are you trying to achieve the "If you repeat it enough, it will eventually become true" thing?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

PosterBoy said:


> You know, I've been a member of this forum for nearly four years now, and you've been saying this the <em>entire</em> time.
> 
> Are you trying to achieve the "If you repeat it enough, it will eventually become true" thing?


Let's bookmark this page for future reference.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacNutt and I still have our "gentleman's bet" that the next election shall be either a Liberal majority/minority government (my contention) or a Conservative majority/minority government (Gerry's contention). I might not be voting for the Liberals, but unless their support in Ontario collapses totally, or the Conservatives make a dramatic gain, Quebec holds the key. Too many Bloc members, rather than those Liberals that won last time, might just throw it to the Conservatives. Thus, I would admit I was wrong in my speculation. 

Keep in mind, I am not saying who I want to win just yet, nor who I shall vote for here in St.John's East. We shall see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

With things as close as they are, B.C. could be very important. A lot of ridings were close last election, a couple even close three-way splits. It's also not a coincidence that Martin has given a lot of attention to B.C. since last election...Western Alienation matters if you have lots of seats up for grabs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The opposition is now talking about a non-confidence motion that isn't a nonconfidence motion despite having no confidence in the government. I think they will effectively instigate a debate where all politicians look bad, instead of letting Martin choose the election call to tailor his marketing and vote buying.

Classic prisoner's dilemma.

This could be funny if it was someone else's country or maybe with a few years hindsight, but right now it's all just maddening. Unless one of the big parties comes up with a visionary and brave platform, I don't see a reason to vote for any of them. Who looks genuinely dedicated to a reasonable vision of Canada? Go Rhino Party!


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Not when you are from BC it isn't.
> 2. Heard of Mike Harcourt? He stepped down because his party may have received money illegally from a Bingo charity. We're talking about 100's and at worse 1000's of dollars.


Harcourt was clean as a whistle and should never have stepped down. All you got there was being deprived of the principled, scrupulous politician you claim you want, and what do you have now? A convicted drunk driver (but also a right wing, budget cutter which, I take it, suits you OK), who disgraced himself and his province and doesn't have the principles to resign. 

Mike Harcourt did nothing wrong and Gomery says Paul Martin did nothing wrong. Maybe you should write to Gordon Campbell.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

His bad social behaviour should result in resignation...sounds familiar.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Harcourt was clean as a whistle and should never have stepped down. All you got there was being deprived of the principled, scrupulous politician you claim you want, and what do you have now? A convicted drunk driver (but also a right wing, budget cutter which, I take it, suits you OK), who disgraced himself and his province and doesn't have the principles to resign.
> 
> Mike Harcourt did nothing wrong and Gomery says Paul Martin did nothing wrong. Maybe you should write to Gordon Campbell.


That ‘right wing budget cutter’ just got re-elected. That’s a pretty strong feat out here in BC. Nobody has achieved that for a long time. The BC economy is doing better than ever before. Please tell me where he cut the budget. It wasn’t to Health Care or Education, your two favourite issues. These budgets went up every year.

Campbell is one of the best leaders we have in Canada. He isn’t as right wing as you think. Don’t believe the hype. Look at his recent election priorities:

- Being the top in education in NA;
- Being the fittest province in Canada (which we already are, but he wants to increase the lead);
- Settling outstanding native issues;

There has been less labour strife in BC than under any other government, including the NDP. One of the biggest issues in BC has been Fish Farming and the Liberals got criticized on this issue heavily. Guess what Campbell does? He set up a task force to create standards and best practices of the industry, which will essentially be binding. He put the NDP in charge of the task force. How many politicians in Canada are this progressive to give control of some issues to other parties?

As far as being a drunk driver, that isn’t a public trust issue. It was done on his own private time. It was a big mistake and he owned up to it. He quit drinking and won’t touch another drink again. In contrast, Martin won’t own up to anything or take responsibility for his lack of actions on a public trust issue. 

Harcourt is a good person and I have a lot of respect for him. Everybody I know that has met him says they really like him. It’s too bad he was an NDPer because I think he is more centrist at heart. He has recently made some very pro-free market statements in contrast to the anti-capitalist NDP. Even Glen Clark of all people has made similar statements recently. The last NDP leader, Dosangh, jumped ship and joined the Liberals. Makes you wonder if any NDP leaders actually believe in their platforms or if they are just catering the looney left.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I think that the Federal Liberals are completely SPENT as a political power in this country....


Or perhaps even "overspent".... A-hahahahahaa....



MacNutt said:


> Will "Belinda the Bimbo" suddenly switch sides and run with the Conservatives again, when she realises that the Liberals are finally doomed to obscurity? Possibly. Probably. But who will really CARE?? I wouldn't vote for her at this point. Personally...I wouldn't even stop to talk to her on the street. Even if she begged me. Would you? If so...why?


Because she's been a very naughty politician and in need of a good... um.... dressing down? Surely even you, MacNutt, could recognize this at 12:33 in the a.m.?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Makes you wonder if any NDP leaders actually believe in their platforms or if they are just catering the looney left.


Their vision is shrinking. One example: in electricity, now the Green Party, Bouchard and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance are all talking about unsubsidized electricity prices, and the damage that the current regimes (especially QC, MB, BC, but in other provinces too) do to Canada. Layton still talks about things like Hydro Quebec being the backbone of the economy.

Much of the NDP's traditional policies have been demostrated to be damaging, and some of what was useful was stolen by the Liberals and has contributed to creating Canada as we know it. They've been picked almost clean of good ideas. The NDP needs an ideas revolution even more than the Conservatives, who sort of have some that they seem to drop at the first sniff of power.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> a Conservative majority/minority government (Gerry's contention).


The question then is, who else would be in the coalition? I don't think we will get a majority unless something hugely unexpected happens. I agree that a minority reform result is possible. But who would ally with them?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

OK, this is a long post, but I couldn't let this pass without a response. 



Vandave said:


> That ‘right wing budget cutter’ just got re-elected. That’s a pretty strong feat out here in BC. Nobody has achieved that for a long time.


Losing 31 seats from one election to the next -- going from 77/2 to 46/33, or losing more than half -- especially to the reviled NDP, can hardly be called a "pretty strong feat"... a more appropriate phrase would be "embarrassing failure." 



Vandave said:


> The BC economy is doing better than ever before.


But not because of any of Gordon Campbell's policies. Prices for natural resources are at an all-time high, and the bucks are rolling in from that and from federal transfer payments -- not because of any fiscal acumen on the part of the Campbell government. That's like attributing all of Alberta's wealth to the genius (?) of Ralph Klein instead of all the oil bucks. Let's get real here.



Vandave said:


> Please tell me where he cut the budget. It wasn’t to Health Care or Education, your two favourite issues. These budgets went up every year.


You're wrong about education. The B.C. Libs cut education spending each year except the election year. Here's an article by a school trustee you might find interesting:

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_schoolspending.htm 

As for health care, the premium went up by 50 per cent, accompanied by hundreds of cuts to services, including closing cancer beds, and falling thousands short in their promise to have 6,000 more beds open by 2006:

http://www.caledoninst.org/PDF/553820231.pdf (WARNING: Lengthy document!)



Vandave said:


> Campbell is one of the best leaders we have in Canada. He isn’t as right wing as you think. Don’t believe the hype. Look at his recent election priorities:
> - Being the top in education in NA;
> - Being the fittest province in Canada (which we already are, but he wants to increase the lead);


It's nice to have goals -- especially ones that are easily attained. 



Vandave said:


> - Settling outstanding native issues


Really? Care to back this up?



Vandave said:


> There has been less labour strife in BC than under any other government, including the NDP.


In the last 12 months, we have had Crown prosecutors, ferry workers, health-care workers and teachers ALL taking job action because the B.C. Liberals either tore up their contracts or using the power of the Legislature against them instead of negotiating in good faith. So you're not quite accurate there, either. 



Vandave said:


> One of the biggest issues in BC has been Fish Farming and the Liberals got criticized on this issue heavily. Guess what Campbell does? He set up a task force to create standards and best practices of the industry, which will essentially be binding. He put the NDP in charge of the task force. How many politicians in Canada are this progressive to give control of some issues to other parties?


The redoubtable Rafe Mair is no fan of the Campbell government's handling of the fish farm issue:

"October 10, 2005: I’ve not burdened readers with the fish farm issue but I can restrain myself no longer. Here’s the deal - thanks to the Campbell government, the farms are killing huge numbers of wild salmon smolts and the carnage will be deliberately increased." 

http://www.rafeonline.com/showthread.php?p=61265#post61265



Vandave said:


> As far as being a drunk driver, that isn’t a public trust issue. It was done on his own private time. It was a big mistake and he owned up to it. He quit drinking and won’t touch another drink again. In contrast, Martin won’t own up to anything or take responsibility for his lack of actions on a public trust issue.


Gordon Campbell is a convicted drunk driver -- of course it's a public trust issue. He made the wrong choice, and making good choices is central to trust, in private or in public. He knew it himself when he said at a public news conference: "I let you down: I'm sorry." This was *after* he told the people of B.C. quite loudly on Election Night in 2001: "We will not let you down." In fact, BCTV played the two clips back-to-back on the news when he apologized. In contrast, a judicial inquiry has exonerated Paul Martin and he has referred the file to the RCMP for further investigation, so he's ducking nothing. Your comparison is not valid.



Vandave said:


> Harcourt is a good person and I have a lot of respect for him. Everybody I know that has met him says they really like him. It’s too bad he was an NDPer because I think he is more centrist at heart. He has recently made some very pro-free market statements in contrast to the anti-capitalist NDP.


Demonizing the NDP is as stupid and regressive as demonizing the Tories, isn't it? "Too bad he was an NDPer"... as though Harcourt somehow had no choice and moving him to "the centre" makes him less of an "NDPer". That's just nonsensical.



Vandave said:


> Even Glen Clark of all people has made similar statements recently.


Care to provide a link or anything, or is that just something you half-remember?



Vandave said:


> The last NDP leader, Dosangh, jumped ship and joined the Liberals. Makes you wonder if any NDP leaders actually believe in their platforms or if they are just catering the looney left.


Good work on the "name-calling," dave, and good luck with that credibility gap you've got there. So is it OK to start using the term "the retarded right"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why is this no surprise 



> *Trust in government hits new low: poll*
> By MIKE OLIVEIRA
> Thursday, November 10, 2005 Posted at 8:54 PM EST
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051110.wpolll1110/BNStory/National/

Time for change....HEY OTTAWA ........LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

All well said, Mac Yak. Let me just add that I consider drunk driving to be pretty reprehensible behaviour, and quite unsuitable for a leader. If ones standards require a "a good person", honest, principled and untainted like Harcourt to fall on his sword for *someone elses* sins, the West Coast Mike Harris is certainly unfit to be a provincial premier.

A double standard if I ever saw one.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The Campbell Government also just made (or is making? not sure, read it in the paper several hours ago) changes to the freedom of information laws in BC which will make them more restrictive.

Funny, since when they were in opposition one of the things they went on and on about was transparency in government. IIRC, they said they'd be more, not less, transparent than the NDP if elected.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> The Campbell Government also just made (or is making? not sure, read it in the paper several hours ago) changes to the freedom of information laws in BC which will make them more restrictive.
> 
> Funny, since when they were in opposition one of the things they went on and on about was transparency in government. IIRC, they said they'd be more, not less, transparent than the NDP if elected.


Just more of Campbell's lies, PB.

It's an all too familiar pattern for Campbell and his government.


Vandave said:


> As far as being a drunk driver, that isn’t a public trust issue. It was done on his own private time. It was a big mistake and he owned up to it. He quit drinking and won’t touch another drink again. In contrast, Martin won’t own up to anything or take responsibility for his lack of actions on a public trust issue.


I'm really tired of hearing this one. He never owned up to up, but he managed to cynically and cleverly appear to be owning up to it.

So as not to derail this thread on this issue any further, I have added to the Premier Gordon Campbell arrested for DUI thread from January 2003. My long post clearing up the details on this sorry incident is here.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> The Campbell Government also just made (or is making? not sure, read it in the paper several hours ago) changes to the freedom of information laws in BC which will make them more restrictive.
> 
> Funny, since when they were in opposition one of the things they went on and on about was transparency in government. IIRC, they said they'd be more, not less, transparent than the NDP if elected.


Do you happen to remember where you read this? I tried to find an online source for this, but I couldn't find anything.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm seems Jack's sabre rattling is doing no harm tho note the last line :eeK



> *NDP's gain the newest headache for Martin*
> Layton's New Democrats move ahead
> as Liberals remain in minority territory
> Nov. 12, 2005. 04:43 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968793972154&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I am not displeased by gains seemingly made by the NDP, but I wonder if this will hold true on election day? I still think that it shall come down to voters in Ontario going into the polls and making their decisions between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We in the east and those in the west shall be an afterthought once the results come in fron Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals are seemingly convinced that their five seats here in NL are secure and that they even have a chance to pick up one, or both, of the two Conservative seats in St.John's East and West. I think that their overconfidence is NOT well placed, and they ignore NL and Atlantic Canada at their peril. Ontario is very important, but if they lose seats here in NL and Atlantic Canada, they have to make them up in either Quebec or the west, which shall be difficult. There are just so many seats in Ontario, but not enough so that they can be secure in "Fortress Ontario". We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's a good reason to see some sort of PR vote system in place.
Many in Ontario would likely have voted NDP last election but held their nose and voted Harper OUT rather than risk a split between NDP/Liberal support with the Cons up the middle. ( as happened in many areas when the there were two right of centre parties. )

I don't see a solution to this.
The Con core support at 25% is NOT going to shift.

If the Core Lib is at 32-35% and the core NDP at 18-21% nationally it makes it very difficult to see any near future majority and there is a risk of an "up the centre" in Ontario giving the Cons a slim minority but I also cannot see a minority Con being able to govern.

What a mess


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I wonder what a Conservative minority, supported by the Bloc, would do for the country? I feel that there would be a decentralization of power, with more power going to the west and Quebec, with Ontario and the four Atlantic Provinces being left out of this new power arrangement. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I can't see them agreeing on a budget or social programs enough to govern.
Libs and Cons are more natural allies - Harper erred badly in not creating common ground and showing he could govern in a minority.

There is some common ground indeed in regional power extension for Bloc and Con but the social program clash would be a huge barrier to overcome and I can't see a fundamental change of federal structure arising from a minority government.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, to gain power, I think that Harper would offer the Bloc certain "distinct society" rights that he might also offer to Alberta, which would help to soften the blow of the Conservatives getting into a coalition with the Bloc. Just my thought on this matter. Unless they make a breakthrough in Ontario, I see no other way for them to gain power.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Cons and the Bloc in government - what an ugly possibility. A marriage made in hell.

I guess it's pretty certain that there will now be an election before Martin's timetable, which was to call one after the Gomery report release, by the end of February, putting the election in April.

I haven't heard any word yet about whether the opposition party's meeting today, came up with a strategy. I heard something about a Harper strategy of calling for a non-confidence vote on Tuesday, with the idea that an election could be called 36 days later on December 21st. But apparently that is a constitutional impossibility because the election has to be on a Monday, meaning December 27th. But that would be the Christmas stat holiday, so that's not a real possibility, I believe.

Another possibility is a motion that designed for all the opposition party's to support, calling for the House to re-convene on January 4th, where a motion of non-confidence would be voted on. That would put the election day only a week or so after the Gomery report release, I'm sure not a scenario that the Liberal's would like, because their popularity is bound to do a nose dive right after the report is released. But if this is actually possible within parliamentary rules, I don't know if there is much Martin could do about it.

We might know more later today.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It seems as if the Conservatives may take the lead to make a motion to bring down the government, and the NDP and the Bloc will side with them. Thus, we shall go to the polls on Dec.20th, or early Jan. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the Conservatives lead a charge to force an election December 20, even I will not vote for them.

When will they get it that Canadians do NOT want a Christmas election?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Harper is trying to get the Liberals to agree to an early Jan. election, but I think the 20th of Dec. is the earliest we could go to the polls. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Harper may have announced this ultimatum in his news conference, but it will look bad if they Gomrey Commission's report comes out after the election and they make another big deal about its findings, demanding yet another election. I feel that the best the Liberals can do in a Dec. or Jan. election is another minority government. If the Conservatives can demonstrate that they have specific policies in place for when (and IF) they take over, they have a chance. Still, I think people in Ontario, where the election shall be won or lost, would rather see the Liberals stay in power, with a known platform, than the Conservatives with an unknown platform. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Harper is trying to get the Liberals to agree to an early Jan. election, but I think the 20th of Dec. is the earliest we could go to the polls. We shall see.


From what I've read I don't think a pre-Christmas election is possible at all, even with a confidence vote on Tuesday. What I read was that the minimum time was 36 days from the election call. Looking at my calendar, that means Wed. December 21st. The other thing I read was that it has to be on a Monday, which means Mon. December 26th. That day is Boxing Day, a stat holiday. I don't know if the election legislation says anything about what to do if the election day is a stat holiday. The following Monday is Jan. 2nd, which also would be the New Years day stat holiday, since New Years day is on a Sunday. The next non-holiday Monday would be Jan. 9th.

I think the opposition parties would have to be idiots to indulge in any plan that puts the election campaign over the holiday season, even with an agreed campaign hiatus, like the parties did in 1979 - '80. The re-convening on Janauary 4th option would seem to be best, if it is actually a workable option. Barring that they should just wait until April.

Ooops, looks like the news came out while I was typing this and just maybe the opposition leaders are idiots. They're going to try to get Martin to agree in writing on making an election call in January for an early Feb. election and if he doesn't they'll vote non-confidence this week.


> The Elections Act calls for a campaign of at least 36 days and the vote to be held on a Monday, unless the Monday is a holiday. - from the CBC story on the announcement


So my calculation of January 9th must be right. 

Man, I think they've painted themselves into a corner. Why would Martin go along with this plan if he can make the opposition look bad by forcing a Christmas campaign? Idiots. I wonder if the option of re-convening was ever a workable possibility?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> OK, this is a long post, but I couldn't let this pass without a response.


Same here. You'll see my response in a few days. I have been busy laying tile in my kitchen and bathroom all weekend and I am off to the hockey game tonight.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, I was just passing on info re the potential for the government to fall on Tuesday, and 36 days from then, Dec. 20th, we would be going to the polls. It was a threat that was seemingly withdrawn at the meeting of the three leaders.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, I think people in Ontario, where the election shall be won or lost, would rather see the Liberals stay in power, with a known platform, than the Conservatives with an unknown platform. We shall see.


Why do you say the Conservatives have an unknown platform?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I am off to the hockey game tonight.


I'm jealous!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Conservatives have not done an effective job in telling Canadians specifically what they might do with the economy, the environment, the Senate, health, education, people of the First Nations, etc. They have come out stronly against the Liberals and their corruption. Fair enough. Still, they have to win votes on what they stand for, rather than what they are against. Harper has been to St. John's twice in the past few months, and we still don't know his views about various important things that are relevant to Atlantic Canadians.

Full Disclosure -- Right now, I am voting for the Conservatives because of the honest candidate they have running here in St. John's East. Norm Doyle has won the past three elections, but each time, he has lost votes making the margin of victory less and less solid.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Why do you say the Conservatives have an unknown platform?


Of course I can't speak for Dr.G., but I agree that their platform could be characterized as unknown. Most of what they've done since the last election is scream about the sponsorship scandal 24/7. They seem to work it into everything they say publicly.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, in part, this is my point. One needs to know what a party stands for and is willing to do if elected into power, rather than what they are against.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Conservatives have 7 MPs from the four Atlantic Canadian provinces. The Liberals have 19 MPs in Quebec. If the Liberals lose a dozen of these Quebec MPs, which is highly possible, the 7 Conservative MPs could all lose to the NDP or the Liberals and the Conservatives would still have a chance at forming a minority government if they gain support in Ontario, another possibility. Thus, Atlantic Canada is of no great significance to the Conservatives. Harper has already contended that the East is a drain on the overall economy, although he has since retracted this statement. 

However, he has failed to demonstrate how a Conservative government might represent Atlantic Canada. We might not be of any great electoral significance, but we ARE still Canadians. The one thing Harper might have to consider if he forms an alliance with the Bloc, is that Quebec CANNOT separate from Canada without Churchill Falls hydroelectric power. It is worth over a billion dollars a year to their economy, and is even more important as the price of oil is still quite high. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the deal arranged years ago must stand for the next 41 years. Thus, NL gets $31 million a year, which decreases each year since we have to pay for the upkeep of Churchill Falls, which is getting more expensive each year, while Quebec's share is worth more since they are selling this electricity to New York State and even Ontario in the summertime. Still, the power plant and the river is here in NL. Thus, when Harper is asked, as he has time and time again when he comes to NL, what would be his stance re Churchill Falls should Quebec separate, he has NEVER answered this question. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> ' "This is not a sincere gesture on the part of the opposition. It's a game of hot potato where they attempt to frantically hand off responsibility for forcing a Christmas election," an aide to the PM's office said.'
> 
> ' "If the opposition wish to force an earlier election, that is their choice. They can bring forward a motion of non-confidence. They will win that vote and there will be a Christmas election," the aide said.'
> 
> from a Reuters news feed


Well there it is. Corner painted into. Martin will refuse to sign their deal and dare them to call a Christmas election, that the Liberals will then blame them for and that the voters will punish them for. Or they can completely back off their word and look like fools. 

Did the opposition leaders all get drunk at this meeting they had today or what?

Idiots.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, I agree. I think Martin said he would not accept this sort of parliamentary shell game, so they knew that he would be daring them to bring down the government. They should have said that they would do this on a certain date in Jan. or Feb. and then force an election that way. This way, they have to do this pre-Christmas election or, as you say, look like fools.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

GA, Dr. G.--I agree. The perception I have is from the Conservative party is that they are largely running on a platform of "Liberals are evil" with a dash of "Gay marriage is bad."

I think those who already vote Conservative are well aware of their policies, but the rest of us are less clear of their plans. They have done a poor job of promoting what their party stands for and what their plans are. The bulk of the media coverage on their party has focused on why the Liberals should be voted out.

They need a far better PR strategy if they hope to win.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you for your perspective, Sonal. This is what I thought, but it is good to hear others agree, especially someone from ON. As I have said, we are an afterthought here in Atlantic Canada. We only count if the Liberals can hold their own in Quebec and Ontario. Then we become an open battleground for all three of the major national parties.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Full Disclosure -- Right now, I am voting for the Conservatives because of the honest candidate they have running here in St. John's East. Norm Doyle has won the past three elections, but each time, he has lost votes making the margin of victory less and less solid.


Dr. G,

Do you still support Norm Doyle even though he voted against the interests of Newfoundland when he stood up against the federal government's budget bill with the Atlantic Accord tied to it?

Maybe he would have obstained from the vote, but as it turned out the government had enough support and he voted against Newfoundland when it was clear that his voting either way or his not voting wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Phil, Martin should have kept his promise to NL and NS and not attached the Atlantic Accord to that bill. I supported the Accord, but did not want to see it played like a political football or a poker chip. Norm Doyle might have abstained from voting, but he did take a courageous stand by voting as he did.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Right now, I'm lining up how I can contribute to the NDP campaign here in Guelph. I have a choice to vote in Jack's riding, or in an "underdog" NDPer in Guelph. I also heard that my MPP Marylin Churly, who has served our neighbourhood for many years now, is running federally in the riding next to us. I think I'm nothing but uplifted by the incredible team being set up. I'm ready for an election over the holidays, I'm looking forward to have the issues discussed widely.

I want this one to be more about the issues, than tax cuts. I've been clear that I would never vote Liberal (never have, never will), and I'm pretty clear that I'm not voting for a Conservative party who:

- has a view on poverty stemming from the notion that "poor people are lazy"
- believes in continued tax cuts, even though Canada's tax's are already too low
- has taken a stand (or dare I say a "stand up") to support the war in Iraq.
- has a questionable ability to defend the interests of PEOPLE and not corporations. Here is a poster which outlines the mess that a government now has to clean up. I can't imagine Harper doing it. http://www.socialjustice.org/posterpdf/CSJPosterLg.pdf
- will not oversee any substantial switch to renewable energy.
- what about Kyoto?! These are the folks that "question the science" behind that!

Although they are in the right direction, I don't agree with all the Green party's conclusions, there are no Bloc candidates near me , and the NDP are simply the most devoted to the issues over any other party.

random thought: Do you think that people either making a X a check on their ballot means anything with respect to there opinion? X = better of evils, Check = "positive choice"???? Just a thought


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Mac Yak said:


> Do you happen to remember where you read this? I tried to find an online source for this, but I couldn't find anything.


In the Province newspaper.

You can read the column here if you subscribe (bugmenot doesn't seem to have a login that works).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I've just listened to Paul Martin live on the radio, taking his stand. He's clearly said he's not going for any opposition deal for a January or February election and has dared the opposition to call a Christmas election.

He's outflanked them. I think that the opposition's only intelligent choice would be to find a way to back out of this, if there is one. I don't really know if there is one, because of what they said yesterday, they will look like fools if they don't go through with what they said. If they call an election tomorrow or next week the public will turn on them, maybe not enough to give the Liberals a majority, but probably a stronger minority. I think a lot of those votes will come out of Harper's and Layton's party, not Duceppe's.

They're screwed.

Now I'm listening to Harper's reaction live. Sounds like he's trying to weasel out a bit. I didn't hear him say, unless the French translation was off, that he would definitely introduce a non-confidence motion tomorrow, as he said he would yesterday if Martin didn't go along with the deal.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I hate it that we are so unsure as to when there shall be an election. This is one aspect of the US system that I like, in that the first Tuesday of Nov. EVERY four years will be the date of the presidential election.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The downside of the U.S. system is the 1 year+ election campaign. Of course, at the moment we have the worst of both worlds -- no certainty, 1 year of campaigning.

Now they're playing chicken. We'll see what the economic update/platform is like later today.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The opposition parties knew before today that there was no way that the Liberals would go for a February election. Why? Because during the election, part two of the Gomery report would be released, possibly with more Liberal shinanigans included. At the very least the opposition could say "Why the hell didn't you do what Gomery suggested before you went and wasted a quarter billion dollars?". Obviously the opposition has some sort of (possibly half-baked) plan to deal with a Christmas election. There was a Christmas election when Joe Clark was toppled, why not now?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, yes, but the primary "season" helps to keep the nomination out of the back room with a handful of people, usually men, making the decision as to who might be the candidate.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Everybody says they don't want a Christmas election, but once it is called, I think people will focus on the real issues.

Big deal, you take 15 minutes out of your day.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Everybody says they don't want a Christmas election, but once it is called, I think people will focus on the real issues.
> 
> Big deal, you take 15 minutes out of your day.


Don't you mean people spend an average of 15 minutes paying attention during the entire election? Enough time to go to the polling station, pick which name can be reworded into somthing rude and go home.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Since I became a Canadian citizen, rather than being born a Canadian citizen, I take my constitutional responsibility very seriously and vote whenever I get the chance.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Having worked for Elections Canada I know what long hours are spent getting things done and it is not at all fair to those who work behind the scenes. You cannot switch what time of the year Christmas falls on. 24/7 are the hours for some.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Cameo, the sad thing is that while an election is a political action, some of the political parties are playing politics with this date. Martin can now say that he had a specific month (i.e., April) for the election and it is not his fault for an early election. We shall see.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> Of course, at the moment we have the worst of both worlds -- no certainty, 1 year of campaigning.


Actually, it feels like they are <em>always</em> campaigning, doesn't it?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Freaking morons. The lot of them. And the budget that's not really a budget today is deliberately crafted to insult the opposition. Idiots. I REALLY wish there were some alternative, but right now even Jack is ticking me off.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

RevMatt, there is always the Green Party.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Freaking morons. The lot of them. And the budget that's not really a budget today is deliberately crafted to insult the opposition. Idiots. I REALLY wish there were some alternative, but right now even Jack is ticking me off.


that's politics


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amazingly, it is if we, the electorate, did not exist. The various parties are all in a arguemenative mode of action, and they forget that at some point, we are going to be asked for our votes. Political commentators will lament why so many people did not bother to vote in this election. I shall if I have to crawl to the polling booth, but I have spoken to many who say they will NOT be voting in THIS election, regardless of when it is held.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*No matter who you vote for, you wind up with government.*

I can't see the outcome of any election being worth the bother from anyone's perspective (apart from the Bloc, who are clear winners here no matter what happens).

I predict one of two outcomes:
1) another liberal minority, in which case the significant time and expense of an election will have been completely wasted.

2) a conservative minority, which will be completely unstable, as they have no-one to ally with, and will therefore quickly fall to a non-confidence vote, in which case the significant time and expense of an election will have been completely wasted.

The conservatives and the NDP both have significant power in the current parliament, and they should be working to get their agendas on the table. To be fair, I think the the NDP have been doing this and have gotten frustrated enough with the liberals to pull their support. But I think a non-confidence vote is a bad move.

As bad as it will be to have a Christmas election, I think we might also have a spring election.

Cheers


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

bryanc said:


> The conservatives and the NDP both have significant power in the current parliament, and they should be working to get their agendas on the table. To be fair, I think the the NDP have been doing this and have gotten frustrated enough with the liberals to pull their support. But I think a non-confidence vote is a bad move.
> 
> As bad as it will be to have a Christmas election, I think we might also have a spring election.
> Cheers


I firstly want to say that as someone who is horrendously dissatisfied with the liberal government, I see every urgency to do the things they are doing. I think it's actually a statement of co-operation to see what the three Oparties are doing, not a political game... folks! they are AGREEING on something!

The other thing is to remember that it's really the Liberals who are forcing this. They are a minority government which inherently means they are supposed to rally support/co-operation so we don't get into this mess in the first place... then when 2/3 of parliament wants something done (a post holiday election on their terms)... they are supposed to co-operate! This is the Liberals being macho, and "defiant"... oh and guess what... they are buying votes again with stuff that they have been promising for 12 years. 

Finally I want to mention that it's important to control the election as the opposition, because the Liberals have a budget scheduled before the election timing that THEY want. That is: if the opposition doesn't control the election, we can forsee further "governance through pacification" from the liberals and their spring budget.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

12 years later or not
as long as we get something, it really doesn't matter who gives it to me
as an electorate we need to be pragmatic


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"as an electorate we need to be pragmatic". Michael, throw in "principled" and I am in agreement with your statement.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Interesting thing I just heard on the radio. According to this person, in a minority parliament, the governing party does not control the setting of the election date when an election is called.

I was just walking in the room when I heard this, so I don't know what the details are. There are so many wrinkles involved here to do with parliamentary procedure that it's difficult to know what's going on.

But if the Liberals don't control the election date, how is it decided? If it can be decided collectively by the House, then the Opposition's desire to have the election date later should win out. Maybe they were banking on this when they had their Sunday meeting and they aren't as dumb as I thought.

If anyone knows more about this, please post.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'd be interested in that too. From what I've heard, much of Canadian parliamentary 'rules' are really traditions, and not required anywhere but in the court of public opinion and personal honour.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Interesting thing I just heard on the radio. According to this person, in a minority parliament, the governing party does not control the setting of the election date when an election is called.
> 
> I was just walking in the room when I heard this, so I don't know what the details are. There are so many wrinkles involved here to do with parliamentary procedure that it's difficult to know what's going on.
> 
> ...


Technically we don't need an election to have a change of government. If the other three parties agree to form a government, or pass legislation, they can do it. I imagine they could legislate an election date of their chosing should they wish to do so. I think the catch is an election can call has a maximum timeline to it.

Why not call Parliament back the first week of January and then call a vote of no confidence at that time? The opposition parties then get their desired election date.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Technically we don't need an election to have a change of government. If the other three parties agree to form a government, or pass legislation, they can do it. I imagine they could legislate an election date of their chosing should they wish to do so. I think the catch is an election can call has a maximum timeline to it.


Lots of questions and I can't find definitive answers on news web sites. In fact I've found things printed that I know are not even factual. Some of these newspapers need to get a few constitutional experts on iChat. 

Dave, I can't see the three parties agree to form a government, so that's out of the question. I've also read (not sure if this is actually accurate) that there is no mandated maximum time. There of course would be a practical maximum, a party dissolving the government and announcing an election one year from today, might find they would be in trouble at the polls.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If a vote of no confidence passes (or, as often happens, a vote of confidence fails to pass), there does not need to be an election if the other parties can convince the governor general that they can form a stable government.

Usually, we end up with an election though.

AFAIK, there is no limit to how long an election period can be other than it must be <em>at least</em> 36 or more days. The last 3 elections (1997, 2000, and 2004) were all the minimum 36 days in length, which has lead to a fairly common misconception that 36 days is the maximum, or some kind of set time period.

FWIW, When Joe Clark's government fell (Dec 1979), the Tories recommended a 66 day election period, and IIRC that is what we ended up with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> If a vote of no confidence passes (or, as often happens, a vote of confidence fails to pass), there does not need to be an election if the other parties can convince the governor general that they can form a stable government.
> 
> Usually, we end up with an election though.
> 
> ...


i figured out AFAIK and FWIW, but darned if I can figure what IIRC means.

Has english been set aside for acronyms now? Seems to me if one has something to say, why not say it so we can all understand it.

Other than that, an interesting post and I learned something from it I did not know, other than IIRC that is.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I had to look them up. If I recall/remember correctly.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Personally, I would rather be ROTFPWTD than to trudge off to the polls in January, but I shall nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how a difficult winter's day, snow-wise, will influence the vote. This may not be a factor out in Lotusland, but in Atlantic Canada many January snow storms dump 35+cm of snow.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Has english been set aside for acronyms now?


It sure has on the internet 

IIRC == If I Recall Correctly
AFAIK== As Far As I Know

If you think I am bad though, you should talk to some of the people in the age group just below mine.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't think it is bad for those who understand it PB.

I might add that I always find your posts informative and interesting.

It's just that an old fart like me tends to write in real words and likely will until the day I die.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Protect the English language!!!!!!!!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I was looking forward to a worldwide mutt-language that draws from everything (sort of like English, but more so). However, if it's just going to be crammed with acronym-slang, maybe I'll join the movement. Now, what is an appropriately pretentious latin slogan for this movement...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr. G., I have to ask:

Does "ROTFPWTD" mean Rolling On The Floor Playing With The Doxies?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, Sonal, you are correct. Still, an election is looming as the four main political parties play a game of chicken. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Back on topic here...

A christmas election? Certainly looks like it might happen at this point.

Will the voters "punish" the opposition parties for causing an election during the holidays? Especially when the opposition parties have tried their level best to postpone the inevitable till january and the LIBERALS have forced their hand on this?

Will the Liberals retain ANY of their currently held seats in vote rich Quebec after the revelations of the Gormery Inquiry on Liberal corruption? Or will the polls be right and will they lose almost everything they have in that pivotal privince?

Will the Liberals manage to retain what they still have in Ontario, during this upcoming election? Or will there be a slight shift of five per cent or so downward (as many pundits have predicted) that will result in a thirty seat loss for them in this very important area that is their only real seat of power these days.

Rage against Liberal corruption and the mismanagement is running very high these days out here in the west. Will the Liberals be wiped out in the west...the area that is rapidly becoming the economic engine of this whole country?

Will Atlantic Canada finally see that this party is a spent force and can NOT form any sort of an effective government...and then switch sides to back the logical heirs to power in this country? Or will they shift to the NDP in order to counterbalance the inevitable?

Stay tuned folks...it's just about to get really interesting.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, the Conservatives have 7 MPs from the four Atlantic Canadian provinces. The Liberals have 19 MPs in Quebec. If the Liberals lose a dozen of these Quebec MPs, which is highly possible, the 7 Conservative MPs could all lose to the NDP or the Liberals and the Conservatives would still have a chance at forming a minority government if they gain support in Ontario, another possibility. Thus, Atlantic Canada is of no great significance to the Conservatives. Harper has already contended that the East is a drain on the overall economy, although he has since retracted this statement.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Deal with the whole post Marc...not just a tiny portion of it.

Then tell me again how the corrupt and wasted Liberals who are hated by a majority of the citizens of this country could, yet again, manage to squeak out a tiny minority government.

THEN tell me who would help to prop them up in power? The NDP? Doesn't sound like they have much stomach for another Liberal minority to me...but I may be hearing the wrong things out of smilin Jack Layton on the recent newscasts .He's been referring to the Liberals as "Corrupt and Unfit to Govern" rather a lot these days, as you may have noticed.

But, who knows...maybe he'll change his mind and side with them. Again. he's done this before, after all.

And Marc....while you are at it...you might want to tell me and all the REST of us here in your adopted land of Canada just what might be gained by yet another tiny minority Liberal government that spends all of it's time dealing with scandals and struggling to stay in power. While wasting BILLIONS of our tax dollars on do-nothing programs.

Even if they do manage to sqeak back in for one last big skim...it won't last. They are a totally spent force.

It's high time we gave them a ten year vactation from power in this country. In fact...it's LONG OVERDUE.

I say use this opportunity to pull the plug and let em die. The incoming government will actively investigate just how deeply the corruption in the Liberal Party went, and then penalise or arrest the most guilty of them. Clean house, so to speak.This will be a rebirth from the ashes for what's left of the Liberal Party of Canada. Then they can begin to heal.

Electing this same tired old batch of crooks to yet another tiny minority will just be prolonging the pain. For them and for US. If they are re-elected, they will be defeated again very soon...probably after the next big scandal (and the Liberals seem to be dealing with a new scandal every few weeks or so).

Put then out of their misery. Then we can all move on.

Until then, parliament is locked in squabbles and the country is in neutral. It's time we stopped looking like a first world nation with third world crooks running it.

Like I said...time to move on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gerry, Dr. G.'s post cuts to the quick of the matter in that it outlines a possible scenario. The balance of your post seems to me simply a personal rant against the Liberals.

While I have no love for the Liberals and would like to see a change in government, no amount of ranting will change the minds of Central Canadian voters. Rather it will only be changed by outlining a solid platform that is appealing to those areas of the country.

That and getting rid of Harper, sooner than later for the only chance of a Conservative surge of any kind.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Harper is perhaps the best weapon the Liberals have for forming another gov't, albeit a minority.

Gerry, one could also say that the CONs are hated by a (even larger) majority of Canadians.
Look for Peter McKay to lose his seat. After all his word and signature on a deal mean nothing.
Atlantic Canadians should send him a message and get him out of office after he, and he alone, destoryed the PC party of Canada.
Hell, even Belinda dumped him.

Je me souviens, Mon. Mckay, je me souviens.

Jack Layton is a very, very poor leader of the NDP when contrasted with the style, wit and honesty of Ed Broadbent.
Layton just shows that NDPers can be political whores like the others.
So much for being the political concience of Canada.

NDP supporters should vote Green and send Jack a message.
His look and style are as cartoonish as "Yosemite Sam."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good quote from Simpson at the Globe and Mail today, relating to productivity and yesterday's announcement:

Conservatives, who predictably scorned the mini-budget, should have been pounding away at these productivity themes ever since losing the 2004 election. This ought to have been their agenda — tax cuts and human capital investments — but, by virtue of timidity and a fixation on "corruption," they let the Liberals steal the issues.

Conservatives dribbled out itsy-bitsy policies instead of branding themselves the party of policy change. So they have no one to blame but themselves for allowing the Liberals to move into a vacuum that should never have existed.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> While I have no love for the Liberals and would like to see a change in government, no amount of ranting will change the minds of Central Canadian voters. Rather it will only be changed by outlining a solid platform that is appealing to those areas of the country.
> 
> That and getting rid of Harper, sooner than later for the only chance of a Conservative surge of any kind.


This is a strong summary of a dangerous situation for Canada. I am not a supporter of the Conservatives, and likely never will be - but we really need a powerful, effective opposition. The strategic outcome I hope for in this election is the toppling of Harper and the maturing of the Conservatives into a national party concerned with policy the benefits all Canadians.

Then they will stand a chance, then we may even see the forming of a majority under a different party. That would be a healthy thing for our democracy.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Jack Layton is a very, very poor leader of the NDP when contrasted with the style, wit and honesty of Ed Broadbent.
> Layton just shows that NDPers can be political whores like the others.
> So much for being the political concience of Canada.
> 
> ...


I'm not at all suggesting that Ed Broadbent wasn't an awesome leader, and still is! (though not the designated one)

Firstly, I can't defend that Jack Layton may speak in simple terms (arguably it's so Liberals and Conservatives can understand  ), but I've seen him break that barrier when the press ask him about the issues... he'll say it right and good. 

I've had Jack as my City councillor for longer than I can imagine, he is now of course my MP, and I have no evidence at all that he's "whoring" out the NDP. In fact I think that's ridiculous, because all Canadians typically talk about is having their politicians focussing on getting things done, and not bickering on small issues. The NDP have tried to extend their support to those who will co-operate with them on key issues (healthcare, aboriginal issues, environment, elections, ethics, etc.). Don't shabbily blame Jack because he's making changes to a system which is otherwise stagnant! If it's any question about his genuineness, he is genuine! He listens to his constituents, he answers my emails personally (and responds to the specifics), he participates in the community, and he backs up his "talk" about things like poverty when he is always working with advocacy groups and attending protests in solidarity. If you want to hack someone up, start with those who are asking to cut taxes, they need it!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ravijo said:


> If you want to hack someone up, start with those who are asking to cut taxes, they need it!


Are tax cuts now inherently bad, subject to no support or debate?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Are tax cuts now inherently bad, subject to no support or debate?


Exactly. If the hard pressed low and middle income Canadians can receive a tax cut without cost to services dear to them, where is the harm?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When Ed Broadbent was leader of the NDP I met him on a swing through St.John's. I really would have liked to have seen him as Prime Minister of Canada back then.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Tax cuts, are an attempt to accomplish two things:

- provide money to citizens so they can use it to better sustain themselves re: social essentials.
- provide money to citizens/corporations/businesses to invest in jobs, and pass on their profit to those lower down on the "pyramid"

An example of both is that a tax cut will go to a family, call them the Jones, because the father is an owner of a business, Jones Chemical Co.. The theory is that they are going to be able to now use that money to pay for their children's university tuition (that's the first one), and then go more frequently to the convenience store and buy more stuff from Rowina, or take more taxis with Herald as the driver (that's the second one).

This is the THEORY at least. Tax cuts however are subject to several flaws. Firstly, it reinforces inequality and stratification in our society. Primarily because if you have a large income, and you get a tax break, you are getting more back than someone who is living under the poverty line. Those people living under the poverty line, who depend on the social commons, are now deprived of the money that just got passed on to the Jones'. 

Secondly, with such rediculous control of development, the corporations, like the big box stores, control the market, and reap the benefits of increased spending. In other words, money isn't trickling down (and I"m NOT suggesting trickle down economics is an condonable action) but it's trickling down breifly, then up quickly to the big guys (and sometimes, often, whatever... out of our country into the states!)

That money would have been better spent investing into lower tuition rates (for example) so that education is available to those based on brains, not wallets.

Secondly, it openly de-democritizes the use of citizens money. Such is the case with the large corporations, and the Liberals $4.5 billion cut, that is providing $4.5 b to corporations who now have all the decision making power for that money, with no democratic responsibility to citizens. Furthermore, this doesn't only mean that things like childcare or dental-care aren't getting their funding, it also means that they might also invest in things which are directly harmful to the citizens such as nuclear power!

I know that this may come across to some as a leftist trendy rant, but the fact is that we have the 'commons' for a reason, and we have a duty as those with money to support one another through the 'commons'. If there are people living under the poverty line in Canada, we have no excuses or should not be lax in bolstering our social services to see them through. If there is poverty in the world, which there is (gee really?), we have no excuses to ask for another few thousands to cover gas for a car, when we could be participating in doctor training for foreign aid... no excuse. If we treasure human rights and honesty as Canadians, lets prioritize it, and tax cuts do not help in that regard.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Pelao said:


> Exactly. If the hard pressed low and middle income Canadians can receive a tax cut without cost to services dear to them, where is the harm?


It's a question of "services dear to them" because there are so many services which aren't offered to support "you", but someone else. Not to mention, as a country we can never invest too much into the social commons. We are still not resolving child poverty folks! There are still a significant number of our population living in poverty, and we still have a crisis with underfunded/misalocated health care system, we still have a dire need for more public transportation, and there are still dozens of toxic hazardous sites that the government/corporations involved are responsible (and astonishingly, most of those sites are on/near aboriginal land!).

THESE are the issues that we need to prioritize above getting tax cuts. That is unless of course, we don't cherish human rights and honesty... so says the stereotype.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Pelao said:


> Exactly. If the hard pressed low and middle income Canadians can receive a tax cut without cost to services dear to them, where is the harm?


Here's the harm:

There are things we NEED to spend money on. For instance, 
- municipal infrastructure is crumbling all over the country;
- public transit is starved and needs to be massively upgraded to lure people out of their cars. Transportation is the largest source of pollution and greenhouse gasses;
- The cost of university education in certain fields has skyrocketed, creating barriers to education;
- Health care needs money. Although spending has increased, it is not keeping pace with the aging demographic;
- Infrastructure on reserves, so native people are not being poisoned by their drinking water;
- Debt reduction - there will be rainy days ahead when deficit spending will be needed again, so reduce the debt while we can afford to.

I could go on. 

We are in the midst of a booming economy. Now is the time to fix things that are broken and reduce the debt. There is money to do it now. In a few years, things may not be so flush, and it will be too late.

So, instead, the government spends $30 billion on tax cuts?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, I am with you on this one. The few hundred dollars that I might save on my next Federal tax bill could be put to better use overall on health/education/environmental/etc issues. Of course, everyone would have to participate to maintain the pool of funds. My personal tax-reduction "give back" might fill a pot hole or two.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

And what Dr. G is mentioning relates to the leadership that I like to see within a political leader. A true leader is one who fosters leadership within her/his peers. I think it's great to see politicians inspiring citizens to step up and think about others and the country. With respect to the money, the power of 36 million people's $100 refund together is stronger than the $100 alone.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The word "corrupt" sure is used a lot these days. You'd think Paul Martin was subverting democracy, murdering political opponents, and so on. From what I can tell, most Canadians have a fairly objective view of the sponsorship scandal, and do not believe that it renders the current government unfit for office. The vitriol comes from people with an axe to grind. There are much bigger issues that face us.

From where I sit, the most corrupt thing in Parliament is Stephen Harper's heart.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well put, ravijo, especially your contention that "A true leader is one who fosters leadership within her/his peers. I think it's great to see politicians inspiring citizens to step up and think about others and the country." Maybe we should get behing nxnw for Prime Minister of the ehMacLand Party.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

This is the blog of my NDP candidate. It's exactly what I expect of my politicians; that they are involved responsive, and engaging. Democracy is about constant involvement of the citizens, be it through letters or meetings or whatever, and I feel Phil is the best choice to fit this:

http://www.philallt.blogspot.com/


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting, our local MP here in St.John's East, Norm Doyle, is a Conservative, but a red Tory. He is honest and lacks any political ambition other than serving our district with honor. He has been elected three times, but each time the margin of victory has slipped with each change in the Conservative leadership.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> here are things we NEED to spend money on. For instance,
> - municipal infrastructure is crumbling all over the country;
> - public transit is starved and needs to be massively upgraded to lure people out of their cars. Transportation is the largest source of pollution and greenhouse gasses;
> - The cost of university education in certain fields has skyrocketed, creating barriers to education;
> ...


Valid points all.
I would contend that the Fedral government, and some provincial governments, are indeed investing more in these items. It's a question of balance. You note that the economy is doing quite well - then surely the governement has a duty to work towards sustaining that growth? I believe the cuts will make a contribution towards keeping the economy strong.

I would not take away from any of these items to fund the tax cuts. I feel the government has focused on productivity and a fairer tax system. Dr G makes a valid point about his $100 - but for others, even half that amount is significant if added to their spending power. According to the Globe and Mail:



> individuals making $20,000 or less will experience a 16-per-cent cut in their taxes thanks to yesterday's announcement. Someone making $30,000 or less will experience an 11-per-cent cut. Consider also that yesterday's economic statement would make the cuts retroactive to the beginning of this year.


These are the people that need more disposable income with which to manage their lives.

I really don't think it's an either / or situation regarding the tax situation. There are areas where we need more spending, and there are many in Canada paying taxes that are, in my view, way too high.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I've been planning on sending an extra cheque in with my tax return paper-clipped to a note saying "give this to the CBC".

I'd happily pay more taxes if I felt that the wealthy people and corporations in this country were paying their share. Sadly, over the past 80 years our tax system has become so complex (this is what happens when you allow tax lawyers to make the tax laws... you wind up needing more tax lawyers to navigate through them) and full of tax-breaks and loop-holes that wealthy people and corporations can pay vastly less, and middle/low income people pay more. Long time friends of our family run a profitable communications corporation. They do very well financially, but, because of all of the tax shelters this business affords them, they pay less taxes than I do (I'm a research scientist, and I make a very modest salary, on which I'm struggling to support my family). Every year I wince at my tax bill, but I pay it, and wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the fact that I know rich people aren't paying their share. Corporations pay even less (the proportion of government income from corporate income tax vs. personal income tax has dropped dramatically over the past several decades).

This is what I call the 'Catholic Lesson": you can always make more money collecting a little bit from poor people than you can collecting a lot from rich people, because there are so many more poor people. Apparently our governments have realized this and focused on collecting taxes from the poor and middle income citizens (people without tax shelters), while giving breaks to the rich and powerful who will, in turn finance their bids for re-election.

It seems obvious to me that this is unfair and undesirable to most Canadians, but it is the 'modern way' and Canada is certainly not the worst offender. But, as we reconsider who were going to send to the trough in Ottawa this time, we should think a little about what their priorities are: more tax breaks for the rich, or spending equitable taxes on a social commons that benefits everyone?

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, you make a valid point. I was not really thinking of cutting out the tax breaks for people earning $25,000 or less, in that they DO need help and less tax to be paid is helpful. I grew up very poor so I know first hand what it would mean to a family. However, if you tell me that the country would be better off with people in my tax bracket, or those earning more than I do, to receive this break, or to have it used for the good of the country, I say use it for those really in need, or to help the environment/education/health care/etc. It is not that I am not in debt, but there are those with far greater needs than I have just now.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> While I have no love for the Liberals and would like to see a change in government, no amount of ranting will change the minds of Central Canadian voters. Rather it will only be changed by outlining a solid platform that is appealing to those areas of the country.


I'm glad someone besides me understands what needs to happen. I've been asking for an actual platform to vote for since before the last election and as yet have not received it. All we get are "the Liberals need to go!" rants and raves. It gets tiresome.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, I said basically the same thing a few days ago, so we are in agreement. I feel that the Conservatives have to supply specific things that they are for, or would do in specific terms. The Liberals have provided a specific economic package with this "economic update". The Conservatives and the NDP will have to do the same. I know where the Conservatives stand of same-sex marriage legislation (I don't agree with their position), but I am not sure of their views on other issues (e.g., education and the environment).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> This is what I call the 'Catholic Lesson": you can always make more money collecting a little bit from poor people than you can collecting a lot from rich people, because there are so many more poor people. Apparently our governments have realized this and focused on collecting taxes from the poor and middle income citizens (people without tax shelters), while giving breaks to the rich and powerful who will, in turn finance their bids for re-election.


How true, bryanc.

I remember reading about a Revenue Canada memo that came to light a decade or so ago. It basically instructed its auditors to focus on middle class audits and to not waste their time on the wealthy. Their return on investment was far better.

The reasoning was that if you threaten a middle class person to pay up or they may lose their house, they will likely find a way to pay up. If you go after a wealthy person and demand that they pay up, they will tell you to go to hell and to contact their tax lawyer.

This has always bothered me too. There was a high profile case several years ago where Revenue Canada let a huge trust fund, in the billion dollar neighbourhood, move to the US and go untaxed. That was around the same time that I remember hearing about the Royal Bank making a billion dollar profit one year and paying $0 in taxes, because of various loopholes that were available to them that year. I remember grumbling that year, as I budgeted to pay my relatively tiny, but for me relatively large, tax bill.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Will the voters "punish" the opposition parties for causing an election during the holidays? Especially when the opposition parties have tried their level best to postpone the inevitable till january and the LIBERALS have forced their hand on this?


Last I checked, the Liberal timeline for an election was after Gomery was finished and after Christmas (ie: call in January/February and vote in late February/March/early April). How have the Liberals forced the hand of the opposition? The NDP feels that their demands weren't met? Oh, boo hoo, can't wait another month or two when every paper I've read this week has an article about how polls show no one wants a Christmas election.

Think of it this way: A christmas election will likely punish every party, whereas a new year election will likely punish just one (or maybe two, who knows).



MacNutt said:


> Will the Liberals retain ANY of their currently held seats in vote rich Quebec after the revelations of the Gormery Inquiry on Liberal corruption? Or will the polls be right and will they lose almost everything they have in that pivotal privince?


I think a better question will be who will pick up the seats that the Liberals lose? I'd be willing to bet Bloc Quebecois, not Conservative.



MacNutt said:


> Will the Liberals manage to retain what they still have in Ontario, during this upcoming election? Or will there be a slight shift of five per cent or so downward (as many pundits have predicted) that will result in a thirty seat loss for them in this very important area that is their only real seat of power these days.


How do you figure that a 5% loss of votes will translate to a loss of 30 seats? There are 107 seats in Ontario and the Liberals control 75 of them as of the 2004 election. They also commanded ~45% of the popular vote, vs. 32% of the popular vote for the Conservatives (who won 24 seats).

It would have to be a lot more than 5% loss to result in a 30 seat loss in Ontario.

Also, pundits are often just that: pundits, not experts. Most of them are just blowhards.



MacNutt said:


> Rage against Liberal corruption and the mismanagement is running very high these days out here in the west. Will the Liberals be wiped out in the west...the area that is rapidly becoming the economic engine of this whole country?


I don't beleive the west is becoming Canada's primary economic engine any time soon. In fact, the only reason we're anything at all right now is that resource prices are at all time highs. As soon as they drop, so do we.

And really, considering that of the 92 odd seats there are in the western provinces the Conservatves hold nearly 70, I'm not sure how much difference it'll make. I doubt the Conservatives will form a majority government, if only because they seem to be one of the most unpoplular parties around. 

Of course, if they actually start campaigning for themselves (as opposed to aagainst the liberals) that could change.



MacNutt said:


> Will Atlantic Canada finally see that this party is a spent force and can NOT form any sort of an effective government...and then switch sides to back the logical heirs to power in this country? Or will they shift to the NDP in order to counterbalance the inevitable?


I have no idea.



My personal thoughts? No matter who wins the next election we'll likely end up with another minority government. I think that the house will be more evenly divided, so we'll end up with another grudging Liberal-NDP government or a new, nobody-wants-to-see-it-happen Conservative-Bloc government. 

I could be wrong, but the country seems so divided at the moment. Most people don't seem to like the Liberals, it's true, but at the same time fewer still think that the Conservatives are a better alternative. The NDP has pretty much always been too far to the left to attract enough voters to form a government of their own and the Bloc is restricted to Quebec.

All in all, I think that the next election will likely be a waste of time, because I think we'll end up with another minority that will only last another 18 months or so. It may sound cynical, but I also think that no matter when it happens, the next election will likely fuel more voter apathy. As strange as it sounds, people don't seem to like to vote. They seem to resent it, which is a shame, but I think it'll take a strong government to pull the country out of it and it doesn't look like we're getting that any time soon.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

Ok, here are my two predictions for this election.

1) At least one independent will be elected, and likely more.

I'm not predicting any specific candidates, though there are a couple of current independent MP's who may run for re-election. If this Parliament has shown us anything, is that independents can find themselves having a lot of power all of a sudden. Also, voters fed up with the current political parties may find a popular independent candidate more appealing.





PosterBoy said:


> It may sound cynical, but I also think that no matter when it happens, the next election will likely fuel more voter apathy. As strange as it sounds, people don't seem to like to vote. They seem to resent it, which is a shame, but I think it'll take a strong government to pull the country out of it and it doesn't look like we're getting that any time soon.


2) In line with PosterBoy's comment, voter turnout will fall below the meager 60% of the last election. Personally, I think it's getting close to the point where a turnout greater than 50% would be amazing. Hell, even my father (who I consider a bastion of Canadian democracy - always votes, encourages me to do the same, and he's worked as an elections official in a number of elections and said he would do so even if he wasn't paid) doesn't plan to vote given the current circumstances. To me, that says it all - I'm quite sure there are a lot of people less dedicated than him who would say screw the whole thing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I still have my "gentleman's bet" on with MacNutt, in which I predicted that the Liberals would win with a majority or minority government (even if I don't vote for them) and he said that the Conservatives would win with a majority or minority government. No money is riding on this bet, only the loser has to admit that he was incorrect in their prediction. We shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I still have my "gentleman's bet" on with MacNutt, in which I predicted that the Liberals would win with a majority or minority government (even if I don't vote for them) and he said that the Conservatives would win with a majority or minority government. No money is riding on this bet, only the loser has to admit that he was incorrect in their prediction. We shall see.


I think you need to define minority government versus winning. What happens with your bet if the Conservatives win more seats, but the NDP + Liberals still form a minority government?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vandave, the bet I had with MacNutt was in reaction to his going on that Martin could never form any sort of government after the next election. So, I told him that after the next election, if the Liberals (I assume Martin will still be their leader) are asked to form the government, be it a majority or minority government, I win the bet. If the Conservatives (I assume that Harper will still be their leader) are asked to form the government, be it a majority or minority government, he wins the bet. The loser has to say that they were wrong. Many have gone on and on about how MacNutt never admits when he was wrong in a prediction, so this is a simple way for him to end that stereotype. I have no problem admitting that I am wrong, in that it goes with the territory of my profession (teaching). Only fools will state that they are always right and never wrong, and I don't consider myself a fool. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ravijo said:


> I know that this may come across to some as a leftist trendy rant, but the fact is that we have the 'commons' for a reason, and we have a duty as those with money to support one another through the 'commons'.


I wouldn't call it a rant, but my understanding of how the economy functions and how wealth is generated and redistributed to successfully achieve social goals is very different from yours. 

Most (not all) of the basic social problems (poverty, housing, etc.) are not due to a lack of funds. There is a poor allocation of funds and inefficient attempts to address the problems. More money won't solve it, better governance will. 

If a party says they'll end social ills, don't vote for them unless they have specific ideas on how to accomplish this, especially the federal vs provincial jurisdictional issues. If they don't know how to do it, we often get higher taxes, less economic prosperity and larger social problems. 

As for the various postings by some about the wealthy, corporations, taxes etc...I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have. A thread could be started on specific issues. Some of the statements are assumptions based on political ideologies and personal axes to grind, but often not facts or non-political interpretations of facts.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I have no problem admitting that I am wrong, in that it goes with the territory of my profession (teaching).


Sir, you have shattered all my childhood impressions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, sorry to be the person to shatter your illusions about teachers. Those that admit being all-knowing and always correct are not real teachers, in that to teach is to help students learn to think critically, to question, to search and to find the various paths to truth.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, you might want to try and teach someone about something you know well. Then you shall realize that you don't know all of the answers. Teachers need to be humble.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Dr. G said:


> Teachers need to be humble.


Too bad so few are.....


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Beej said:


> I wouldn't call it a rant, but my understanding of how the economy functions and how wealth is generated and redistributed to successfully achieve social goals is very different from yours.
> 
> Most (not all) of the basic social problems (poverty, housing, etc.) are not due to a lack of funds. There is a poor allocation of funds and inefficient attempts to address the problems. More money won't solve it, better governance will.
> 
> If a party says they'll end social ills, don't vote for them unless they have specific ideas on how to accomplish this, especially the federal vs provincial jurisdictional issues. If they don't know how to do it, we often get higher taxes, less economic prosperity and larger social problems.


I can agree with that, in many cases. However, this is the untruth of the Liberal rap: not only are they not moving/moving too slowly on so many issues; they are cutting slowly the funding behind everyone's back. In certain areas it's sometimes (and I suggest sparingly because our social problems are getting bigger) to cut, but that should be specifically geared to limit the bureaucracy, not the service itself, this implies a reform strategy. Reform is the Liberal faux-pas, so we can't expect it from them. 

I can see the conservatives saving money in some sense by cutting here and there... but they will also destroy the service itself (if healthcare rings a bell, it should). They also have no commitment to EXPAND social service (I want dentalcare!). Furthermore I think the efficiency and proper use of funds that we seek, is demonstrated in places like Cuba, Venezuela, and some parts of India. In such places, things specifically work because they have decentralized their power to smaller constituents and funded local communities to do it. I think this requires of a government that they have a solid report with local groups, and that their ideology includes empowerment of marginalized groups.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ravijo: We may agree on quite a bit, if not the exact spending balance. 

I don't know much about the example country's social program success examples you provided but, India for example, has a notoriously inept government. Maybe they deliver social programs effectively and efficiently, but they have many other problems. That doesn't mean that Canada could not learn a few things. Even within Canada there are good and bad examples of programs.

I also agree that the Conservatives have not demostrated the ideas to do an overall better job on the social front. The devil is in the details, and politicians benefit from vague statements of feel good policies, such as Canada's whole approach to the environment. 

This is probably a major reason why, given the choices, many people prefer tax cuts -- they don't think government will use their money responsibly to achieve generally agreed upon social goals.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> Most (not all) of the basic social problems (poverty, housing, etc.) are not due to a lack of funds. There is a poor allocation of funds and inefficient attempts to address the problems. More money won't solve it, better governance will.


Is there any place in the known universe where "better governance" alone solved poverty or homelessness?

You need money too. There's no avoiding it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You definitely need money, and much is already being spent with few results. I question spending more until we know we're spending current funds well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, you would be surprised at how many of my students over the past few years have been surprised when I told them that teachers must be humble.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, my wife works for Stella Burry Community Services and is their fundraiser and Director of New Beginnings. The stories she tells me about the people they help each day makes me want to cry.

http://www.stellaburry.ca/


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> You definitely need money, and much is already being spent with few results. I question spending more until we know we're spending current funds well.


That's what we used to call a cop-out. (I wonder what the etymology of that term is, anyway?)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, the Webster definition refers to a much older form of the verb "to cop out", which has had a variety of senses in American slang. 

It’s first recorded about the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, meaning to take something for oneself. This was based on one of the many standard English senses of cop (i.e., to snatch, steal or grab). Around the 1930s, cop out began to take on another of the senses of cop—to catch or apprehend (which is what a cop in the sense of a policeman does, a slang term which came from the same source but rather earlier). To cop out here meant to plead guilty, especially to a lesser charge as the result of plea bargaining.

The big change came in the 1950s. To cop out evolved to refer to making a full confession of some crime or misdemeanour, usually but not necessarily to the police. From this it moved to mean backing down or surrendering, or giving up your criminal or unconventional lifestyle; in the 1960s it developed still further to mean that a person was evading an issue by making excuses or taking the easy way out.

In parallel with this, the noun form, a cop-out, developed from the late 1950s onwards until it, too, became nationally known in the mid-1960s to mean an excuse, a pretext, a going back on your responsibilities to avoid trouble, a cowardly or feeble evasion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If we used to call expecting results for spending a cop-out, that would explain a lot about the financial mess the country put itself in. Announce, spend, feel good, who cares about results: a Canadian tradition.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Pelao, you might want to try and teach someone about something you know well. Then you shall realize that you don't know all of the answers. Teachers need to be humble.


That's so true. I spent so many years studying history, economics and politics, with truly wonderful teachers at several universities. I even understood some of it...  

But when my teenage daughter asks about something from a different angle, it reveals how much there is still to learn.

I had some great teachrs - all humble.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, as the old saying goes, "You can lead a child to knowledge, but the trick is to make him/her think"...........................or does that saying have something to do about horses???? Still, we need an electorate that will be critical thinkers comes election time, and who take the time to vote.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Pelao, as the old saying goes, "You can lead a child to knowledge, but the trick is to make him/her think"...........................or does that saying have something to do about horses???? Still, we need an electorate that will be critical thinkers comes election time, and who take the time to vote.


I've never seen that horse/water person/knowledge analogy before... and the famous quote

"You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it himself. " - Galileo Galilei

is one of my favourites.

Relating to this topic, and as a developmental biologist, here is another great quote:

"Our real teacher has been and still is the embryo, who is, incidentally, the only teacher who is always right" 

-Viktor Hamburger

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc, I have heard the Galileo quote before, and it is a classic in education. Merci, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I, on the other hand have not heard this quote before, but it is indeed profound. Thanks for the enlightenment!


----------

