# A Challenge for Macnutt



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

We all know you are a stanch supporter of the Conservative party and the political right in general. You are advocating a change in Ottawa, and I can respect that.

So here is what I want you to do. 

Do your best to convince me that I should vote Conservative.

But here's the challenge part, convince me to vote conservative based on the strengths of the Conservative party, not the weaknesses of the Liberal party.

That's right, you have to convince me not that the Liberals are bad, but that the Conservatives would be a good replacement.

Think you're up for it? I'll wait here.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I would sincerely like to here your thoughts on this as well Macnut.







Or anyone supporting the Conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Me too - I've been asking for a rational explanation from a non "foam at the mouth" Conservative.

Unfortunately I don't think the right guy is being asked in this thread.

The very best analysis was on cross country check up. I could not tell which party he was voting for as he went across each platform.

Turned out he was voting NDP but HE knew why he was voting that why and why he WASN'T voting for the other parties.

Martin is very correct in this. It's fundamental to the nature of Canada.......Harper knows it and is trying the velvet fog approach.

If Harper's vision is truly what Canadians want this is the way to get there but I really suspect few realize how different it will be.  

US clone ....no thanks.
Big deficits...no thanks.
Big military ..no thanks.
1950s social structure..no thanks.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You Know Posterboy et al asking MacNutt to persuade you of the positives of the Conservatives without maligning the Liberals is like asking the Trailer Park Boys to explain something without swearing.
















It can be done but it is going to take a long time and be done with great difficulty.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I think Sinc could do it, but not Macnutt.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm sure that Sinc could answer the challenge, but I'm more interested in hearing Macnutt's thoughts as he's the one who's been "foaming at the mouth" in Macdoc's words.

All I want to hear is why I should vote Conservative, not why I shouldn't vote Liberal.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

It's a fair challenge, but hey guys.....be nice to macnutt.  He's opiniated and not afraid to speak what he thinks, be it right or wrong in everyone elses mind. His opinion is a s valid as anyone else's, so don't be so eager to gang up on him for being controversial. He's not the only one around here with such intersting traits, you know.  "Liberals lucky to survive as a recognized party"?? Conservative majority??...that's pretty extreme, even for macnutt. OK, buddy, convince us...I know it'll be intersting.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

All right... as a person who favours progressive social policies and conservative economic ones (similar to Macnutt in that regard I think) I'm going to throw out some good reasons to vote Conservative.

1. They want to create an elected Senate. The current system is an anachronism and should go. Practically any way of choosing senators is better than appointment by the PM.

2. They do not want to put our health system in a 'public only' strait-jacket. I know this is a hot button issue and part of the problem is that we too often use the United States as our only comparison. Most of the countries of western Europe have far better, more comprehensive and more accessible health systems than we do and they do it with a mix of public and private facilities. We should be looking to the Germans or French as a model rather than at the Americans as the model to avoid.

3. They want to cut taxes, especially to people raising children. To my mind, this is a preferable option to creating a new, public day care system. I'd rather have the money and make my own choices.

4. They want to rebuild our military. One of the reason we don't get a lot of respect in the world right now is that our armed forces are very weak for a country of our size and stature. Instead, we seem content to let the United States defend us. We don't need a large armed forces... but we need the capability to move our troops overseas when needed, something we currently rely on our allies to do. We also need to be able to defend our sovereignty in the North... or we'll effectively lose it.

5. They believe in the soverignty of parliament over the judiciary. The House of Commons is elected by the people of Canada. The judges are appointed by the Prime Minister. If we consider ourselves to be a democracy, then Parliament is the place to decide issues. The next time someone warns about the "tyranny of the majority", remind them that the opposite of this is the "tyranny of the minority".

Of course, the main issue in which this has been a factor lately is with same sex marriages. The official position of the three major parties on this issue is interesting:

Paul Martin - Wishes to leave the matter to the Supreme Court
Jack Layton - Supports same sex marriage
Stephen Harper - No offical position, but would allow a free vote

In short, the NDP are the only national party who have taken a stand... so credit to them on this. (Maybe the Greens have too? I'm not sure.)

One's vote is a powerful but blunt instrument. Imagine trying to keep a car on a winding road where the steering wheel only has three positions - straight ahead, far left or far right - and nothing in between. I may not agree with all of the conservative policies, and certainly not with all of its members, but I still feel the need to jam the wheel to the right for this election.

Cheer all... and let's be greatful for an exciting campaign. Roll on the leaders' debate!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*His opinion is a s valid as anyone else's, so don't be so eager to gang up on him for being controversial.*

For the record, I am not questioning the validity of Macnutt's opinion, nor am I attempting to get everyone to gang up on him.

I set this challenge specifically to Macnutt because he is so fervent in his postings on the subject, yet hasn't really said anything about why I should vote for the Conservatives besides that the Liberals are bad (I have the same problem with the Conservative campaign actually). 

I'm tired of hearing that the Liberals are bad, I want to hear why the Conservatives are good, and I want to hear it from their stanchest supporter here on ehMac.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Fink-Nottle, that's all good, but I wanted to hear it from Macnutt.

You're giving him the answers to the test, man!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Sorry Posterboy,

I wasn't meaning to speak out of turn or steal Macnutt's thunder. I just felt the thread had a 'Waiting for Godot' quality so I thought I'd jump in as Godot's understudy...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well I must say that I am flattered Brainstrained and PosterBoy that you think I could rise to the challenge.

And I do enjoy a good challenge.

But in this case, I will leave the reply to Gerry who can handle himself quite well on any issue.

As a matter of fact, I predict he will rise to the challenge and give you an honest assessment from his point of view on the wisdom of voting Conservative.

I am so sure of this that I also predict he can do it without ever mentioning a Liberal.

So, go get 'em macnutt, and don't disappoint me!

Cheers


----------



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

Finknottle: thanks for inspiring some debate. I support point 1 although I don't think the issue of the Senate is going to change anyones minds about voting.

Points 2-5 are important and provide clear policy distinctions between the Conservatives and Liberals.

"2. They do not want to put our health system in a 'public only' strait-jacket. I know this is a hot button issue and part of the problem is that we too often use the United States as our only comparison. Most of the countries of western Europe have far better, more comprehensive and more accessible health systems than we do and they do it with a mix of public and private facilities. We should be looking to the Germans or French as a model rather than at the Americans as the model to avoid."

I take serious issue with the quality of our health system versus any mixed system. "Far better" is simply not true. Indeed, these systems typically cost more than single systems and cause major inequities. This stance is the primary reason I could not vote Conservative. I believe in equal access as a societal right. We can improve our system but allowing privatization would be an irreversible mistake. The US system is in a terrible mess with cost escalations that make the Canadian system look frugal. Throwing money at the issue is not the remedy, nor is expecting privateers to save money. This issue is simply too important to get wrong.

"3. They want to cut taxes, especially to people raising children. To my mind, this is a preferable option to creating a new, public day care system. I'd rather have the money and make my own choices."

Ummm...... The Conservatives propose to cut taxes and raise spending. The tax system in Canada is there to support the principle of social safety nets. Its the reason we do not have anywhere near the amount of abject poverty as the US. We are a more carign society. The tax breaks will preferentially benefit those of us who can most afford to continue to pay taxes. This makes no sense to me. We have a collective responsibility to help those who are better off. Of course people prefer to retain more of their income but who will then provide the critical services, public transit, low cost housing, etc? 

"4. They want to rebuild our military. One of the reason we don't get a lot of respect in the world right now is that our armed forces are very weak for a country of our size and stature. Instead, we seem content to let the United States defend us. We don't need a large armed forces... but we need the capability to move our troops overseas when needed, something we currently rely on our allies to do. We also need to be able to defend our sovereignty in the North... or we'll effectively lose it."

I find this to be another example of misinformation on the part of the Conservatives. The US spends 47% of the worlds total military budget. Next is Japan at 5%. Who are we seriously defending ourselves against? Canada has a great deal more global respect than the US. Who are we trying to impress? I do think we need to re-invest in our, military but not to greatly expand it. We need to ensure our troops are properly equipped (the helicopter debacle is obscene). 

"5. They believe in the soverignty of parliament over the judiciary. The House of Commons is elected by the people of Canada. The judges are appointed by the Prime Minister. If we consider ourselves to be a democracy, then Parliament is the place to decide issues. The next time someone warns about the "tyranny of the majority", remind them that the opposite of this is the "tyranny of the minority"."

This is a fundamental issue. Our politicians are not elected for their intellectual prowess, their objectiveness, their open-mindedness. Our politicians are opinionated, often irrational, usually unprofessional and quite often biased. These traits work well in creating debate, questioning values, etc. They do not work well in protecting the weak, underprivileged or those whom are discriminated against.

Judges are not elected, they are appointed. But they are appointed from a professional base. We use our judges to provide unbiased perspectives that are not blurred by political expediency. To have parliament tell us what is right or fair is upside down. Parliament is meant to criticize and debate points of law, not to dictate them.

Each of these four points represent clear differences in view between the Conservatives and the Liberals. They illustrate why this decision will deeply impact Canada. I hope Canadians realise that protesting the complacently and fiscal abuses of the Liberals by voting Conservative could have fundamental consequences.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Well answered jwoodget.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Judges are not elected, they are appointed. But they are appointed from a professional base. We use our judges to provide unbiased perspectives that are not blurred by political expediency. To have parliament tell us what is right or fair is upside down. Parliament is meant to criticize and debate points of law, not to dictate them.


That is exactly what is WRONG. 

Judges are simply lawyers and to be frank I wouldn't want a lawyers reputation in today's world. Our elected members should make laws. 

Laws should come from the common man, elected by his peers and not the elite group of appointed judges on any issue IMHO. Frankly I find the Liberal view of putting appointed judges on a pedestal as somehow superior to us all rather repugnant.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks for good replies. I was going to go point by point you answered most.

Another issue is Senate and it hooks into the overall governing structure with the judiciary.

There are flaws in the checks and balances in Canada that often let the "ruling party" have too much leeway and too quickly. Hence the "dictatorship" appellation often thrown about.

The checks and balances SHOULD be, the Charter, an independent judiciary interpreting legislation in light of the Charter, parliament drafting laws in accordance with the Charter and a "second body or upper house" providing sober second thoughts or a different diversity of opinion which is what the Senate SHOULD be but really is not in many cases.

Making the judiciary a "rubber stamp" is fracturing one of the pillars of a democratic state. ( BTW a free press is the fifth estate in this concept).

In the case of the Senate we have a "weak pillar" and in the case of the PMOs office we have too much strength due to the "whip" system of block voting. Give the Seante too much power and it can handcuff effective governance. Too little and "what's the point of it. No one yet has a useful formula.

This is in part what "democratic reform" is all about but damaging the power of the judiciary is about undermining a key pillar in democracy in favour of full control by "elected officials".

Hitler was elected too. Then simply set about dismantling the German democratic structure. Making major structural changes unhindered by the courts can have devastating long term consequences.

One point on the medicare issue - because of NAFTA the government has to tread very carefully just as with water resources. Open the door a little bit and the free trade clauses about unfettered access kick in. This is not the case in Europe.

And a reminder - Europe is far more restrictive in enforcing employee benefits, restricted working hours and enforced vacation and maternal leaves - all government sanctioned.
Taxes are generally higher to support these measures.
Anyone who has been to France knows how heavily the 37 hours work week is enforced and overtime.....forget it - the cost is punitive to the company that tries.

Here's an interesting and timely analysis of the major impact just one of the very minor Tory goals would have.
Ask those here in film and television what the impact would be.

Why is Harper bent on gutting the CRTC 
'
If anything clearly shows the "Americanization" agenda this does. 



> uppose the Conservatives get elected and "reducing" the CRTC is put into motion. This would mean that all foreign channels would have unfettered access to Canada. The competition needle would fly off the dial. The Conservatives might think CTV and Global are big and efficient enough to hold their own against the onslaught, but the reality is they would have trouble competing against the world's biggest broadcasters and their economies of scale.
> 
> So the Canadian broadcasters would demand a trade-off: Okay, let the foreigners in but don't burden us with costly Canadian content rules (the rules say 60 per cent of the broadcasters' programming between 6 a.m. and midnight must qualify as Canadian). Some local news and sports would survive. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. Absolved of the Canadian content obligations, the broadcasters would essentially become rebroadcasters of American programs.
> 
> ...


And what do you think will happen to the CBC already likely Enemy Number One.









More later but my hands are killing me.  

We all want better cleaner mopre responsible and transparent government but we also want I believe more of being the "best country in the world".

Holding the Liberals to account is indeed appropriate, letting the wolf through the door to dismantle what has made us "the best" is perhaps very unwise....especially given the total inexperience of those wanting to rule.

It's a delicate task sleeping next to the elephant. Electing someone who wants more.... umm 'intimate relations".......  well you know what happens....we all get..............


----------



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

Sinc,

I know judges are not perfect but they are a better alternative than politicians. I also think it is rather unfair to paint our supreme court as being comprised of mere "lawyers". Points of law do not swing from Left to Right and back again. The judiciary interprets the law and works to ensure new laws are enforcable. If parliament was the primary setter of new laws, we'd rapidly descend into a quagmire of interpretation, cast out cases and supercedent laws (as one government strikes down the laws of the prior government). Just liek the charter of rights and the Constitution, law is an incremental process that should not be at the mercy of the expediency of whomever happens to be in power.

I'd also note that our Supreme Court tends not to be a lapdog to The Hill (unlike in Washington).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I know judges are not perfect but they are a better alternative than politicians. I also think it is rather unfair to paint our supreme court as being comprised of mere "lawyers". Points of law do not swing from Left to Right and back again. The judiciary interprets the law and works to ensure new laws are enforcable.


How about this one? 

Is he one of your "better than us average Canadians"?

I think not UTBJ. Give me a politician every time over scum appointed judges like this.

And the fact remains, Supreme Court or not, they were once lawyers. Period. End of story.

Cheers


----------



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

Oh come on Sinc, you cannot tar all lawyers with the same brush. The sad fact is that many politicians, judges, police officers, MDs, priests, etc, etc are found guilty of breaking the law in despicable ways. It's an unfortunate fact of life. I don't think there is any sector of society that is immune from dishonesty, corruption and abuse- simply demonstrating that we are all human.

Our politicians are a pretty unremarkable lot, all in all. Occasionally, someone of true merit and selflessness emerges but typically we elect people whose motivations are more to do with power and influence (and who have perfected the art of looking at you in the eye while stating a known fallacy) than making a difference.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I'm with you SINC. Judges put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. To think they are free of the biases and beliefs that every human on the planet possesses is naive.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You could say EXACTLY the same about politicians and probably get more people to agree with you about THEIR propensity for being scamps.

*Thats why BOTH institutions are needed* - that's what checks and balances are about. Oversight in both directions serves to weed out wild and damaging swings of policy.

Parliament has certain rights and responisbilities.
The Judiciary also has rights and responsibilties.

A modern democracy strives to balance the powers amongst the key pillars so no one element in the power structure can be arbitrary or overriding in it's exercise of power.

What you propose in subrogating the judiciary powers to parliament removes a key check on parliaments power. Given our monolithic party voting style and lack of an effective Senate that's even more of a danger in Canada.

Bottom line.........seriously stupid idea.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

So what's the difference between that scum judge and any of the number politicians who have faced sex charges?

Let's see, there's Gerald Regan, the former premier of Nova Scotia, who was acquitted and former Reform MP Jack Ramsay who was found guilty. And there's a case going on right now in the Yukon.

I suspect a little research will turn up a whole lot more unsavory politicians than judges in Canada.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Er... so where's MacNutt through all this??

*Grabs popcorn and settles back in chair. Awaits fireworks**


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hello jwwodget et al,

I'm a little heartbroken from the soccer game today but let me fire off a quick rebuttal.

1. Health Care:
You write "I take serious issue with the quality of our health system versus any mixed system. "Far better" is simply not true."
My statements were based on the coverage they get in Europe (which usually includes drugs, eye care, dental care etc) and on the United Nations WHO rankings. I couldn't find the actual UN Page but you can see the rankings here:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
As you can see, pretty much all of western Europe is above us... and the USA is below. Note that I don't advocate this approach to save money (many European countries spend more than we do as a percentage of GNP) but to get better health care.

3. Concerning taxes, wealth distribution and our social safety net:
Obviously this is a continuum... no party wants to destroy the safety net and no party wants to tax us at 85% and provide everything for us. Everyone comes somewhere in between and right now, as part of a two parent family with a kid (and more expected), I would like a tax break very much... more so than a government run daycare system.

4.Rebuilding our Military:
This has nothing to do with what the Conservatives are saying now. If we can't transport our own troops to and from peacekeeping missions, we have a serious problem. Besides, countries that let their military forces run down because there was not a current threat have very often regretted it... there are many examples littered through history. We don't need to be a feared superpower but we should be able to defend our own shores... that's pretty fundamental.

5. Judiciary vs Parliament:
I completely disagree with you... if we are a democracy then power should rest with the people we choose to govern. I agree that our MPs are not always the wise, thoughtful, disinterested legislators we want them to be... but I'd rather they decided our future than a small group of men and women who answer to no one.

Off to bed now... Cheers!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

One thing I would like to say is I support the idea of making the Sentate elected, and wonder why the Supreme Court Judges couldn't be, also.

They do have different areas of responsibility, regardless.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No Conservative ever said we have to rebuild our military to defend our shores!

Geez, get real.

What the Conservatives are saying, is give our military back their dignity.

The Fiberals have done an excellent job of destroying the military. And then trying to claim credit when they send them abroad on peacekeeping missions woefully unequipped.

For those who do not live in areas with military garrisons, you have no idea of the morale of these soldiers who try to represent our country.

Too many of you appear to live in ignorance of what they go through. Oddly enough, you would rather take from them to enhance health care yet again. 

A bit of "user pay" would save the system millions per year on the overuse by hypochondriacs who routinely abuse the system. It would provide some checks and balances missing from the system today.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just got back from a VERY intense weekend of dragracing. The weather was disgusting....an arctic front blew through just as we were starting to race and we had to deal with icy cold driving rain and wind. I was up in a travel hoist with some guys from Speedvision, tracking the drags from a high vantage point right over the strip, when the big nasty hit real good. We got stuck up there for ages because the controls in the sky basket shorted out from the deluge of cold water. Yuckola!

My trusty Panasonic camera and myself got truly soaked. But GOOD.

Consequently, I am rather tired today. Totally exhausted would be closer to the truth (climbing down like a monkey from that hung up lift was an excersize better suited for a much younger man than myself. Trust me on this).

And we were camping out for two days. Amid ground shaking Top Fuel Bikes (that were being started at regular intervals all night long) and crazy drag race crews that were partying (like the whacko bikers that they really are) until the early dawn hours. In those conditions, sleep comes in twenty minute intervals. If you can sleep at all.

As soon as I got home today and unpacked all of the gear, naturally I sat down and checked out ehmac. 

Imagine my shock and surprise to see my name "mentioned in dispatches". I am...once again...a title name in a thread on ehmac. (Too bad they got the spelling wrong. They always do. (It's "Mac Nutt" BTW...my real last name.)

Nonetheless...I have read all of the posts on this thread.  

Too beat to reply right now. And I have to be up at five AM for a trip to the mainland tomorrow morning. My in-depth replies will have to wait until late monday or tuesday. At the earliest. (Can't think right now. Too tired)

But Fink Nottle and SINC seem to have already stated the same facts that I would have posted. Quite eloquently too. (Somehow this doesn't surprise me. I've read and admired what these two have had to say in the past. I've also admired the way that they stated their cases in the past. Good stuff, indeed.)  

One quick thought here for PosterBoy, before I pass out from exhaustion...

-Do you honestly think that Paul Martin and Co. will actually investigate the massive Liberal Party theft of taxpayer dollars if his party gets elected? If so...why?

And...if not...what sort of message will this send to future Canadian Governments?

-Do you honestly believe that Paul Martin is really serious about shortening the long lineups for medical care that we seem to be cursed with here in Canada? These lineups have grown longer, and free services have dissappeared, during the decade that he and his government were in power. What makes you think that this would change, if we re-elect his party? (Or legitimise his unelected status as leader?) If so...why?

-Do you honestly believe the Liberal attack ads that claim Stephen Harper would "spend billions to buy tanks and aircraft carriers" if elected? (_AIRCRAFT CARRIERS??!!??_)

THIS is what the desperate Liberal campaign ads are saying right now about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Aircraft carriers?? 
















Do you belive this nonsense?? If so...why?

If not...then please feel free to explain why a political party that has been safely in power for more than a decade, and has presided over the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in the history of this country...not to mention the biggest THEFT of taxpayer dollars in our Canadian history...and has driven ALL of the Provinces into debt while "balancing the books"...and has presided over the biggest decline in health care services in Canadian history....not to mention the severe decline of the Canadian Military, which has threatened our very soverignty...is actually WORTHY of re-election? On ANY terms?

If so...why? (please explain in detail)

The whole country is ready for a change at the top. ALL the polls say this, without exception.There are only two parties that have a chance at running the show, once the elections are over. One is sinking fast in the polls. One is rising fast. Has been, since day one of the election call. The Liberals are unelectable. the Consevatives are the only logical alternative. Pretty much ALL Canadians are coming to this conclusion, according to the polls.

What makes you think that the Liberals have even a ghost of a chance of _WINNING_ ? Anything??

Please explain, in detail. 

See you late monday or tuesday. 

[ June 14, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

You were supposed to tell me why I should vote conservative, not why I shouldn't vote Liberal.

Also, your questions make it sound like you think I've decided to vote Liberal when this is not the case: I've not yet decided who to vote for.

What I want you to do, is tell me why I should vote for your party of choice. Positive things about Conservative policy, not negative things about Liberal.

If you need a couple days to think that's fine, I'll continue to wait here, but there's no need to dodge the challenge in the mean time. In fact, I'd say it takes away from any points you are yet to make.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I am like the walking dead right now. I am tired beyond exhaustion.

Talk to you in two days or so.

In the meantime...you might want to review Fink-Nottle's post on the first page of this thread. It is pretty much what I would have said. 

But I think that he has said it better than I could have. And a bit more thoroughly as well.

He's laid out the very best reasons to vote FOR the Conservatives. I agree with him.

I've laid out the very best reasons to vote AGAINST the ruling Liberals. According to the polls...the majority of Canadians agree with me, and this imbalance is still growing.

Make your own choice. It's up to YOU who you choose to vote for.

Just VOTE! For any party! It's important.

Especially this time around.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*sigh*

I already read Fink-Nottle's argument. I am asking you to mount your own. I know the Conservatives policies, explain why you think I should support them.

As I said, I don't want to hear why I should vote against the Liberals.

As I said, I'll continue to wait here.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc,

Let me rebut:

"against who!!!!!!"

Firstly, even if there was no obvious enemy, that's a terrible reason to close up the armed forces. I can't see any fires burning from my office window either but I still want to fund the fire department.

Secondly, there are many potential enemies and just as importantly, rivals. Enemies include terrorist groups and countries who sympathize. They are not likely to invade us but they might attempt an action which would require a military response. For example, if airplanes are hijacked again do we have fighter jets close enough to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or any other major city to defend the buildings there on short notice? By rivals, I'm talking about countries who for example, might want to illegally fish in our waters but would think twice if we had a gunboat or two roaming around them. Sadly our status has 'responsible contributing world citizen' hasn't deterred them so far.

Thirdly, by "defending" our shores I'm including all manner of situations in which the military could be used. An invasion is pretty unlikely but as mentioned above, there may be a situation (major terrorist attack etc) where the military would be needed to restore order. They are also there to assist in natural disasters (as they did in the floods or in the ice storm) or sometimes just to keep a city working... remember Mel Lastman asking them to get rid of the snow! 

Finally, we admirably are often eager to send our troops on peacekeeping missions. I'd like them to be well equipped... unlike the poor soldiers who had to drive around Afghanistan in a light SUV.

---

"You need to do a lot of reading on democratic governments if you think they can work without checks and balances of which the judiciary is a central one. 
It's a ludicrous and naive position."

That's rather patronizing Macdoc. From your knowledge, could you tell me what the check is on our supreme court... because I don't see it. As I mentioned before, the Supreme Court has extended Section 15 of the charter to protect against discrimination due to sexual orientation. I agree with this sentiment and I would like to see it in the charter too... but it's not. In a few years time a less progressive supreme court could decide that their previous reasoning was flawed and reverse this decision. They might even decided to reinterpret other parts of the charter... and we would have no recourse. The House of Commons could pass legislation to force the issue but the Supreme Court could then refer back to the constitution and not enforce the law. This would force a constitutional amendment which would probably take years and might not even pass, due to our complex amending formula. Canada is unique I think in creating a charter that is above the law and then placing it in the control of a tiny group of unelected officials. Again, what is the check on their power?

Take a look at this site for more information on this problem:
http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca 

••••••

"European health care is more extensive but comes with a whole load of other governmental baggage. And they do not have NAFTA to be concerned about.....we do."

I don't follow your point. What baggage do you mean? Europeans are part of the EC and they have to be concerned about their competiveness with respect to other members too.

[ June 14, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Fink-Nottle ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Exactly Fink-Nottle!

You got it right.

An excellent post.

Cheers


----------



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

Sinc,

There have been 21 Canadian prime ministers. 16 of whom were lawyers. I don't know how many politicians are lawyers but it's a substantial number. And your point was?

Fink-nottle,

With respect to the military, I was responding to your point about Canada's place in the world. I don't think jacking up military spending is seen by the world as something to be proud of. I do think our military needs equipping well as they put their lives on the line for us.

The ranking of healthcare is interesting but does not support the argument that private medicine improves delivery. IT DOES SHOW THAT WE CAN AND SHOULD BE DOING MUCH BETTER.

At least we've gotten out of the rhetoric of the parties and some useful discussion has occurred.

Whoops, forgot about Macnutt.....

If you cut out the jabs at the Liberals and the psycophantic support of anyone who happens to agree with you, you might have time to contribute something original to this discussion. Just a suggestion.....


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Our Military is a disgrace. While it would cost billions to bring our Military up to the standards of the US is unfathomable, at least bring back some of the respect and the ability to defend our nation. For God sakes, we have green uniforms in the desert!!! Talk about an embarrassment. So yes, pump up Military spending. Give the troops proper equipment to defend us against an unknown threat. We CANNOT continue to rely on the US for support. They have their own problems.

The CRTC is another issue. I am not for dismantling the CRTC, however, I am against a board that forces us to abide to their agenda. A good example is the Superbowl. Most people watch the Ssuperbowl to see the advertisements. As Canadians we cannot receive the ads. The CRTC dictates that we can only watch Canadian content. What's the alternative? Illegal Satellite Dishes?

To me, Canadian content is fine, but the last time I checked we lived in a free country. So if that means I want to watch any programming on a US based station, I feel that is my choice. I do not need some governing body forcing me to watch a Canadian feed over the US based feed. However the proposed solution that has been discussed already seems a bit extreme. Just allow us to have a choice. I think that for the most part Canadians will support our Canadian Stations, programming, artists, etc.

I'm not thrilled to paying more taxes for health care - something that was once free, but there has to be a better solution to improve our health care system.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Fink... you seem to be implying that the Liberals will "close up the military." I'm not sure where you're getting that. Liberal platform is:

• Committing to provide the military with the equipment they need to do the job by:
o accelerating the process to procure new Maritime Helicopters for the Canadian Navy;
o approving a $2.1 billion project to acquire three new navy support ships, providing Canada with a significantly enhanced maritime capability, both at home and abroad, and
o fast-tracking the purchase of a $700 million mobile gun system for the Army.
• Increasing the budget for National Defense to $13.7 billion in 2004, a 30 per cent increase since 1999; 
• Improving pay and benefits for members of the Forces, including an exemption from paying income tax for soldiers on money earned while serving in high-risk international missions;
• Providing an additional $250 million over two years to cover the costs of Canada’s participation in a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism, and an additional $50 million for Canada’s participation in the peacekeeping force in Haiti; 
• Currently deploying more than 3,800 military and civilian personnel on 13 overseas peacekeeping and peace support missions, and 
• Increasing our international assistance by $248 million, or 8 per cent, for 2005–06. This continues our commitment to double the international assistance budget by 2010-11.


THE PLAN

The Liberal government will launch a Peace and Nation Building Initiative with four principal elements:

• Increase the Canadian Forces by 5,000 members, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada’s capacity for peace support. This will boost our ability to participate in and lead multilateral missions consistent with our interests and values;

• Strengthen our reserves, increasing the size of the Army Reserves to 18,500 from 15,500. Canada’s Reserves are a vital component of our regular forces, and they will contribute to our Peace and Nation-Building Initiative; 

• Deploy the Canada Corps to harness the expertise and idealism of Canadian civilians, with a special emphasis on harnessing the energy of Canadian experts, volunteers and young professionals. The Canada Corps’ primary mission will be to provide help and advice to fragile and failed states to build the institutions of good government, rule of law and respect for human rights, and 

• Reduce or forgive debts owed by poor and deserving countries to help get crisis-torn states on the road to recovery. Under the Canadian Debt Initiative, Canada has written off the debts of five of the world’s poorest countries and we have stopped collecting on the debts of nine other states.

The Liberal government has also dedicated $100 million – half the funding required by the World Health Organization – to provide technical support to the WHO’s “3 by 5” plan – an ambitious international effort to ensure three million people suffering from HIV/AIDS in poor countries receive urgently needed drug treatment by 2005.


---

The last point is really important to me as well... Sometimes its better to prevent fires than try to put them out. 

---

I believe the Liberals will keep a balanced budget with no deficit and will actually pay down debt, which will allow for more money and more surplus to continue to build a peace keeping forces. Had Harper been in power, we would of been spending Billions on a war in Iraq standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder and probably sending many body bags for Canadian soldiers. 

I think the Conservatives are too anxious to whip out the credit cards and spend money we don't have to create a US style military. Then, when we're in a huge deficit, cuts will have to be made to social programs. 

--

An interesting note... my brother-in-law who has been in the Canadian Military for almost 15 years with a significant rank is voting Liberal. His viewpoint was it was the Tories who put Canada into a huge deficit and left no money for the military. Just when the Liberals are putting Canada on excellent financial footing to responsibly re-invest, he's afraid the Tories are going to go on a spending spree again and put us in the red again. 

--


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*For God sakes, we have green uniforms in the desert!!!* 

Where did you get this information? I read a story how this was a problem with US military forces, but I've never heard or seen this with the Canadian military. In fact, every photo I've seen has been with them wearing sand fatigues:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *the ability to defend our nation."* 

against what??? Once more. Vague bogeymen.

Military is NOT security, police, SAR, coast guad tho they may have some miltary elements.

What's needed, and if you check the other thread Canada's forces to their credit see it as well, is a very different sort of Canadian forces that is not traditional military.

Opting into Star Wars II and buying into the the "threatening world" scenario the US wants to cower it's citizens with is NOT my idea of what Canada is about.

Get the coast guard, SAR, fire fighting and emergency response structure funded and trained and equipped first.
We are far more secure as trust world citzens ready to help out quickly where ever in the world than tagging along with the idiocy that the US calls it's foreign policy.



> Dear Mr President:
> 
> We former US diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States.
> 
> ...


[/url] 

We are not subject to physical attack other than by a nation we cannot defend against.
Our role in world affairs has been successful as a nation willing to support multilateral peacekeeping efforts.
Trade, aid, support in times of crisis.
That's where funds need be spent and a rethingking of the "traditional" military....just as they are doing themselves.

••

Laws NEVER come from the judiciary. That's the check on the Supreme court they do not make the laws.
They come from Parliament.

Having the ball tossed back and forth on contentious issues is the purpose of checks and balances.

You want to be ruled by Parlimentary whim alone???


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Mayor,

I'm not implying anything about the Liberals... in fact I was trying to avoid mentioning them as this thread was originally a challenge to present reasons to vote Conservative that didn't involve rubbishing the Liberals. The state of the military is now obvious to them too and they have a plan, and it's not bad. I have to disagree with your brother though... the Liberals have enjoyed three terms in government and had plenty of money and opportunity to address this issue. They didn't, so I favour the Conservatives on this issue. 

Macdoc,

I wasn't conjuring up vague bogeymen!
-There HAVE been terrorist attacks on New York, Java and Spain in the past few years, as well all know.
-We DID call in the army to help with the floods. And the ice storm. And the snow in Toronto.
-Foreign fleets ARE fishing illegally in our waters.
-We DO need better equipment for our forces.

Also, as I stated, the ruling that added protection from 'sexual orientation discrimination' came from a supreme court ruling... NOT from Parliament. They give and can take away with impunity. The Supreme Court doesn't need to toss things back and forth... the only way to force them to accept a ruling is to ammend the constitution... which takes a very long time.

Finally, you ask: "You want to be ruled by parliamentary whim alone". 
Yes... that is exactly what I want! That's a democracy. It's not a radical unicamera (one room) democracy - a reformed Senate has a part to play - but that is what I want. It's the court's job to interpret the rules... not to make them. I want the population of Canada to decide the rules. You?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

* the Liberals have enjoyed three terms in government and had plenty of money and opportunity to address this issue. They didn't, so I favour the Conservatives on this issue. * 

Plenty of money?!? We, as a nation have a 510 BILLION dollar debt!!! That's half a TRILLION dollars. A third of all of our taxes goes to paying interest on our debt. 

What kind of position are we in to go into a 90 Billion dollar spending spree? Harper's going to increase spending and lower taxes?







 

Hmmm... voting for a party that would deliver a 9th consecutive balanced budget sounds better to me and use any surplus to pay off our debt, as they paid 1.9 Billion the last budget. This way we can invest more and more instead of constantly being a slave to our "national credit card loans".


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Well, Mr Mayor.

This is the FIRST I have ever seen proper Sand Camouflage. However, In my defense, when we first went to Afghanistan, I distinctly remember our troops wearing GREEN military uniforms. You have proven otherwise. I respectfully take back my comment on the green fatigues. I am not so embarrassed now.

Macdoc,

You asked to protect against what? There may not be a current threat, or there might be, terrorism is quite real - CSIS announced that there is going to be an attack on Canadian soil in 2004, they just don't know when or where. The question is do you want to be proactive or reactive?

We have submarines that are in dry-dock, helicopters that are in dire need of replacement and a dwindling infantry. Let's try to get these things up to par.

You also mentioned to protect our coast line. Absolutely! We have to protect our natural resources. Yes, dump money into the Coast Guard. I'm all for it. I believe that we should look after our own first, then worry about the others.

Dumping millions into the WHO, is not my idea of smart spending. Yes I sympathize to the cause, but again look out for our own needs first. Put that money into research for SARS here, then share our findings.

ehMax stated:



> The Liberal government has also dedicated $100 million – half the funding required by the World Health Organization – to provide technical support to the WHO’s “3 by 5” plan – an ambitious international effort to ensure three million people suffering from HIV/AIDS in poor countries receive urgently needed drug treatment by 2005.


And then in the next post:



> Plenty of money?!? We, as a nation have a 510 BILLION dollar debt!!! That's half a TRILLION dollars. A third of all of our taxes goes to paying interest on our debt.
> 
> What kind of position are we in to go into a 90 Billion dollar spending spree?


That kind of sums it up for me. Enough said.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*"we should be able to defend our own shores... that's pretty fundamental."
* 

against who!!!!!! 
......there is a good long debate on this elsewhere. We can't defend against the US, there is no one else Being an admired responsible contributing world citizen is our best approach. Friends with all = no enemies and lots of support.

What IS needed is effective SAR and patrol staff and craft for fishery, illegal immigration, smuggling and ecological protection of the coast line.
That means coast guard cutters, helicopters, long range patrol aircraft..,......NOT fighter aircraft, missiles frigates etc.

Contributing our share to a multi-lateral UN peacekeeping force is an excellent goal but the SAR/coast guard/fire fighting/disaster rapid response should be first priority.

Relief to an earthquake first over guns to conduct war.

••••••
You need to do a lot of reading on democratic governments if you think they can work without checks and balances of which the judiciary is a central one. 
It's a ludicrous and naive position.

••••
European health care is more extensive but comes with a whole load of other governmental baggage. And they do not have NAFTA to be concerned about.....we do.


----------



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

Perhaps those of us who advocate spending money on HIV drugs and humanitarian aid feel that is a better use of our funds than bullets, Humvees and warships? Indeed, it is the selfish behaviour of the US (and other rich countries) that has increased the need for "defense" spending by repeatedly ignoring or hampering the needs of the poorest nations and fostering instability. We spend over $10 billion currently on defense and less than 5% of that on humanitarian aid (including charities). Is that too much to ask?

We should be exporting our humanity not our guns.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Humanitarian aid is a worthwhile cause, but my point is this 100 million could be better allocated to help out our country first.

As ehMax pointed out, we are 510 Billion in debt! Perhaps try to reduce that before spending 100 million. There is the issue of the homeless in our major cities. This is what I meant by looking after our own.

Perhaps when we as a nation can afford it, maybe we can then take a look outside the country and provide extra aid. We should continue as we are to provide the aid, then bump it up once we reduce the national debt.

Although I do agree with improving our military, please keep in mind that I was not referring spending the 100 million in the military. They were intended to be two separate comments.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You want to spend BILLIONS on a MILITARY hardware positioning against terrorism that would be 100% certain to be undertaken in order to do damage to the US because of THEIR idiotic foreign policy.  
You want to follow Harper into warring around the world with the US - now THAT will make us a target.

Welcome to 1984 - the faceless enemy is out to get us.....BOO!

Yet the WHO, the organization that is most likely to prevent a BILLION deaths world wide you want to eviscerate support for.  

We are in the process of creating, have for a long time and the traditional military knows this, a very different kind of force that provides excellent SAR, support, long range communications, fire fighting, policing and peacekeeping.

Submarines!!!! Infantry!!!!! how 1950s

Protect the natural resources from WHO!!!!!
We WANT others to come and work with us to make our natural resources available to the world.

The ONLY physical threat to the resources is the US and if they truly want it there is not one damn thing in the world we could do about it physically.
The ONLY thing would be the strength of our alliances around the world to keep the elephant from jumping the fence at will - fence - there's not even that - how about strolling in to browse at it's leisure.

The world's only current superpower is blowing it's own brains out over fear from a guy in a tent.








And you wanna play along.

80 doctors and nurses sent to Iran to help with an earthquake did more for relations with that nation than ALL the billions spent on armament.
Trade, aid, respect........we've done well, we can do better.
Those undertaking these challenges DO need better equipment and support, NOT better weapons.

as to the judiciary
This is from India



> The success of a democracy, especially one based on a federal system, depends largely on an impartial and independent judiciary endowed with sufficient powers to administer justice. The framers of the Constitution, therefore, thought it fit to entrust the judiciary with vast powers.
> 
> A judge has to render justice according to the law, interpreting and applying it as established by custom or as made by the legislature. But in doing so, he should not become frozen to traditional attitudes, and must constantly remind himself that the purpose of his office is to satisfy public needs and these needs are liable to change. By a process of creative interpretation, great judges have, without reversing established principles, modified or extended them. But this is not to say judges can import their personal views in interpreting a statute. They must not assume the role of guardians of public morality and should not play god.
> 
> A distinction must be drawn between personal idiosyncrasy and incorporation of new social policies in the administration of law. There may be several cases in which different views are possible. While a judge should be above the political arena, he should not hesitate to interfere with the tyranny of the executive or the excesses of the legislature. In enforcing fundamental rights, he must have regard for the balance to be achieved in a free society between individual rights and government power


and this from an overview very much worth reading



> Disputes are an inevitable consequence of social interaction in every society. As an alternative to violence, governments have established judicial systems for the purpose of dispute resolution. Before resolving conflicts, courts must first determine what the law is. This role is especially important in a constitutional democracy where laws are made by popularly elected representatives who are required to express the will of the majority while at the same time respecting the rights of the minority.
> 
> Impartiality is certainly one of the major goals of law courts. Most democratic governments try to maintain their judicial systems' objectivity by deliberately insulating courts from external influence, either from other governmental sources such as legislative, executive, or administrative authorities, or from private interests attempting to exert economic, social, ethnic, religious or regional pressure on judges. Judicial independence is essential to the courts' integrity and credibility within a political system. That independence has two key components: decisional independence, defined as respect for and compliance with the courts' decisions, and structural independence, which means freedom from political leaders' interference in the selection, promotion, compensation, and daily operations of judicial personnel.* Independent organizations such as Amnesty International and Freedom House confirm that in modern governments, a high degree of judicial independence correlates closely with political stability, respect for human rights, and the vitality of other democratic institutions.*
> 
> ...


*Judicial power overview 

Balance of powers

The supreme rule of parliament was generally tossed as a concept in the 18th century and an independent judiciary is seen as a mark of a just and stable modern democracy.

Sort of what we'd like to continue to be. *


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MaxPower, let's put this into perspective.  This is not just "Humanitarian Aid"... just throwing some money away. This is a huge global program that can change the course of history, and Canada, is taking a leadership role under the direction of Paul Martin. 

THIS, is what garners respect in the global community and makes Canada a loved and respected nation... not building up a military with bombs and warships. 

We are talking about 100 Million dollars to help change history, versus spending Billions and Billions for a more US style, protect against the "big fear" military.

Canada: A loved and respected nation that tries to export its values of tolerant social values, respect for international rule of law, and the envy of other nations in regards to our economy...

To me, this is a 10x better defense against some country hating us and wanting to invade us - than building up a military, siding with the US "shoulder to shoulder", and running up a huge debt. 

--

I truly believe Paul Martin has a vision for a great Canada that I can really identify with. I think its best stated in this letter:

A Liberal vision for a 21st century economy sees:

[snip]

A ROLE OF PRIDE AND INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD


A Liberal government will work to build Canada's influence in the world. Our nation is admired as a successful society with sound democratic institutions and a tolerant, multi-cultural population. And the world needs the peace, order and good government that Canada exemplifies. This means that Canada can make a difference. We can carry more than our share of the weight.


The Liberal vision calls for:


A world where Canada speaks with an independent voice for the values of freedom, social justice, tolerance and the rule of law.


A world where the benefits of global interdependence are spread more fairly, thus alleviating hunger, poverty and disease. *These ills are not only moral affronts; they form a breeding ground for despair and desperation.* (ehMax emphasis)


A world where this growing interdependence - whether from trade, from security threats, or from global environmental challenges like climate change and overfishing - is managed by truly effective international cooperation and problem solving.


A world where the international community accepts an obligation to protect people from deadly oppression by their own government. What happened in Rwanda and Bosnia, and in other dark instances throughout history, is simply unacceptable. We need new rules to make it clear when international intervention is justified to protect citizens from tyranny.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc, Mayor,

There are some wonderful ironies here:

-The Mayor is advising me to vote Liberal because of their fiscal responsiblity.
-Having spent the first half of his posting warning us not to follow the American example, Macdoc then backs his position with a lengthy citation from papers published by the US Dept of State.









Back to the issues though, one of the oldest political tricks in the book is to play causes against each other. It's very easy to say because person X wants to spend more on the military, he therefore wants to spend less helping the third world, on AIDS research, aid for street people etc. Unless someone wants to look at our whole budget and debate it, these comparisons are unfair. We should be aiming for a balanced approach to spending that includes these things and is sustainable and progressive in the long term. Clearly our military spending is too little to sustain it, thus the rush now.

Macdoc, with regard to the judiciary I think you missed mypoint. I completely agree that an independent judiciary is essential to democratic government and should serve as a check on the power of the legislature and the executive by interpreting the law. Our problem in Canada though is twofold: the Canadian Supreme Court is now, in effect, creating law... and there is no check on its power. This is different than the American Supreme Court where a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress can impeach a Supreme Court Judge.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

American example????? - that was India and the second overview looked at a number of nations.
The US balance of power has it's own problems ( the Executive Office ) but it DOES have a strong judiciary and in the 1960s they were very instrumental in bringing change to civil rights.

There are many things I detest about the US. especially currently but not all. There are many institutions I admire. PBS and the American Public Library system to name a couple.

How is the judiciary "making law" in Canada ?????
The Charter is designed to have flexibility - it's a guideline in "how" to approach a controversial subject. Minority protection is a huge cornerstone that some here seem to not like.

•••••
As to military it's the order of priorities and the use of Canadian forces where the issue lies.
Especially the use of it.

Star wars, subs, frigrates, battlefield weapons???

The devil is in the details and the intended use.


----------



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

All this concern over the Supreme Court simply because it had the audacity to propose same-sex marriage as a legitimate option? The sky is hardly falling! No one is forcing churches to conduct same-sex weddings (although some are very willing).

The Supreme Court is meant to be apolitical. It makes decisions based on issues of human rights and current law. It does not have to worry about expediencies and promises to the electorate. The reason so few MPs are willing to back same-sex marriage is because they know a substantial number of Canadians are against it, not because it is inherently wrong or likely to unravel the precious institution of marriage. With divorce rates around 50%, heterosexuals have done a pretty good job of that by themselves (he says as a very happily married person of 20 years). All politicians seem to care about is garnering the most votes. They take the path of least resistance and avoid commitment and controversy whenever possible. Getting a straight answer from a candidate in a room of people is painfully difficult but they'll tell you whatever you want to hear in a one-on-one encounter.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Fink-Nottle, the check on the Judiciary in Canada is the notwithstanding clause.

Don't like a lower court decision? Appeal it until you get to the Supreme Court. Just like in the States.

Don't like the Supreme Court's decision, get Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause.

The check to the Supreme Court's power is there. It's just not used.

By the way, how is the ability of the Congress in the U.S. to impeach a Supreme Court justice a check on the judiciary's power?

One Supreme doesn't have much, if any, power. It takes a majority of sitting justices, usually five, to make a decision.

Do you honestly think Congress could attempt to impeach more than one justice at a time?


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

> A third of all of our taxes goes to paying interest on our debt.


Hello,

Are your reading the newspapers again? How do you define all our taxes? Income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, other taxes, or what? Are we talking about the Federal government or all levels of government?

When you spout off numbers, you need to be pretty clear about what it is, exactly, that you are describing.

In 2003, total revenue of the Federal government was approximately $ 193 billion. Almost 90% of that comes from various taxes, while the remaining comes from social security payments, investments, and sales of goods and services. Of that $ 193 billion, about $ 24 billion was spent on debt servicing, which amounts to just over 12%. If we take that $ 24 billion and divide that into income taxes only, we get about 21%.

Anyway, this is significantly lower than what we see in in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Source: CANSIM Table 385-0001.

Also, we need to ask ourselves who is receiving the interest on these debt payments? Is it Canadians who have purchased various types of savings bonds? Or, is it foreigners? If it is Canadians, then the only real issue is that large debt payments represent a transfer of income from the poor to the rich as the rich are the ones who can afford to save. Also, bonds can be transferred from one generation to the next through wills and estates. So, the future generation may end up receiving some of the income from the borrowing of current generations. However, if it is foreigners, then income is leaving Canada, which is not desirable.

Also, who receives the benefit of the goods and services purchased by the governments when they were running deficits? Canadians, of course. Now, is the benefit of being able consume something today greater than the costs associated with debt charges? I'm not too sure. I do know that people have a positive time preference, meaning they prefer to consume today rather than tomorrow.

James


----------



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

$24 billion per year is a wad of cash (but less than the Liberals inherited from Brian Mulroney). Double our military budget.....

Only Republicans argue that national debt is good. But they are the masters of increasing debt loads (both personal and national).


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Brainstrained,

I agree... the 'Notwithstanding Clause' does serve as a check in that it allows legislation to escape the perusal and review of the Court. However, 

1. It does nothing to make the judges accountable... it just bypasses them.
2. The Liberals are loathe to use it. In several cases they have prefered to leave the matter to the courts rather than the electorate. That's a copout. If you agree with the court's decisions and you believe in democracy, then you should be out there trying to convince the people rather than disingenuously claiming that the matter is 'out of your hands'.

Would the US Congress impeach multiple judges? Probably not... but it has the power to do so and the threat is there. It keep them more in less in line, as it should.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The check exists, that the Grits are loathe to use it doesn't make it less so. Perhaps the Conservatives will be likely to use it.

Personally, I think it a stronger check than the power to impeach Justices. Impeachment is a long, drawn out process and I doubt it would have the result of overturning a Supreme Court decision.

I also doubt the power of the Congress to impeach Justices has much to do with them staying in line. If they are.

Just out of curiosity, has it ever been used and, if so, for what reason? Political or behavioural?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

James - you bring up an interesting point that I was thinking about earlier.

Who does the benefits of government fumbling go to in say the Adscam or even the Gun registry?
In general Canadians - flows back into the economy - unlike say a weapons purchase where it goes to US coffers.

I'm not condoning it - I'm just saying in the great scheme of things it has done little harm other than to the Lib reputation.
The greater task WAS reducing debt to a very good ratio to gdp level.

Canada was close to technical bankruptcy as was NZ. Martin's done the better job, not without disruption that is still going on but the corner was turned a while back.

But the interesting concept.....
*DID THE ADSCAM MONEY ACTUALLY BUY A UNITED CANADA???* 

I've not seen one media outlet speculate on that but that vote was very very narrow.

If the "lavish" funding did in any way strengthen the vote to stay together then it was the bargain of the century.


----------



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

DID THE ADSCAM MONEY ACTUALLY BUY A UNITED CANADA???

This is Chretien's view and the reason he (and Gagliano) appears so unremorseful. He thinks it was a necessary fudge. I don't. The end does not justify the means, even if one does subscribe to the view that the scam benefitted the unity question. The fact remains that a variety of people (primarily owners of the advertising agencies) pocketed tax payers money for doing nothing. Some of the money went into "legitimate" sponsorship (whatever that means) but much was simply pocketed for no services.

I think Martin is entirely correct to distance himself from any defense of the funds and the old-school Liberals. It is indefensible to squander money in this way even though just about every government/council does it (to various degrees). At least we weren't funding the Contras with the proceeds....

Public accountability for public funds has to be secured.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I think Martin is entirely correct to distance himself from any defense of the funds and the old-school Liberals.


Hmmmmmm, lemme see.

It's so long ago I've nearly forgotten but wasn't Martin the Minister of Finance during that time?

Seems to me that fully qualifies him to not only be an old-school Liberal, but a dishonest thief along with the rest of them, does it not? Unless of course stealing taxpayers money is not theft.

Given the Fiberals track record, it probably says in their Red Book that theft or lies are OK. It is likely right beside the "we'll abolish the GST" page.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect you are right but I'm also jaded enough to think that when one little pocket of siphons gets cut off another will raise it's head.
••••••••

We come in 10th in the World Audit for corruption, behind the Scandinavians but ahead of Germany, the US and UK and of course the bulk of the world.

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

So best economy of G8 and very high ranking in other key areas and way up in the Best places to live.

And people want a wholesale change to an unknown and completely untested party and leader - the entire organization has been in place for what 3 or 4 months









Are you guys totally









Maybe there is something to the theory that Canada chokes when it comes to being world class.

"Well we're a tad tired of being the envy of the world so we'll just go off into a corner and shoot ourselves."  

Now we have this guy with this history, never having been the leader of anything prior to the last couple months wanting to spend HOW MUCH MONEY and do exactly WHAT to Canada?????? 

Perhaps a bit of "experience" on the resume would help.



> Harper became involved in politics in the mid-80s but became disillusioned with the government of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada; he was especially critical on issues of fiscal policy.
> 
> Harper was recommended to Preston Manning, the founder of the Reform Party by one of Harper's professors. Manning was impressed by the young man and Harper was invited to participate in the founding of the party. At age 28 he gave an important speech at Reform's founding convention in Winnipeg, and is credited with creating the Party's 1993 election platform.
> 
> ...


Next please......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Given the Liberals track record under Martin as Finance Minister eh Sinc......yeah, *that's EXACTLY what should be looked at*. The G8 appointed him chair for his "track record".

Wanna compare it to Mulooney's or maybe Harris


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> And people want a wholesale change to an unknown and completely untested party and leader - the entire organization has been in place for what 3 or 4 months?


Yep. Now you got it right! That is exactly what many Canadians want. Whether a majority or not, remains to be seen on June 28th.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee the Greens will really love your vote Sinc, six of one, half dozen of the other.....doesn't really matter inexperience is inexperience after all, let's just put names in a hat


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> let's just put names in a hat


Nope, we just want to boot out a corrupt government.

Any way we can.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah that's what it appears, no policies, no experience, no thought that Canada is in extremely good shape fiscally and internationally, jobs and interest rates, housing, surpluses all in terrific shape. You choose to ignore that the controls have been put in place to create more transparency

So instead what.............ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.......just "We're mad and want them out".

Rational way to run a country or choose a leader.......NOT.  

"We just want them out".......what a profound enlightened vision for the country that is .


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

I find it interesting how Canada operates with the issue on Humanitarian. Wherever the US is fighting a war, we are right behind them with the aid. Honestly our military is weak for taking on big battles with guns and tanks. However, I don't believe Canada should be out there cleaning up the US's **** everywhere on this planet either. I also would like to see Canada back off a little on being the only one going around and providing aid and relief to any country that requires it. Just like the US sticks its nose in everything for war, Canada does the same by trying to help everyone. We Canadians can barely take care of OUR own people like the poor, jobs, housing etc.. and yet we have the money for any and all countries who require food, shelter, jobs and education. I find that we are doing too much for others and not enough for our own kind living right here in Canada. 

We need a government who can stand up to the US when they decide to control the powers across our borders like the lumber or beef issue. There is no way in hell President Bush would have stood for **** like that from Canada if our Prime Minister pulled stuff like that. We can still hold a good relationship, but we need to be more firm and show them we mean business when it comes right down to it. If we don't start now, Canada will be in trouble in the future. Times are changing and they don't look like for the good in the long term. We need to start making changes now and for the future.

I want a government who will invest in a proper Coast Guard for Canada so that we can take control of our waters on both coasts and start kicking some **** out there to the illegal international fisherman with their big ass ships. Not only do they fish illegally but also dump their toxic **** into our parts of the ocean. We as a country should not be taking that crap from anyone. Which government is going to invest in such a force?

Which government is going to give priority to all of the West and East Coast to secure them and take care of the people living there? I don't feel that the government pays too much attention to B.C. and it's people. We need a government that will provide more attention to these provinces and strengthen the East and West borders. 

Taxes and wages? Lets face it, each province is like its own country in Canada when it comes to that stuff. I think that is total crap and that we should look to a more unified system across a country of ONLY 30 million people and some change. Why should we have a different minimum wage in each province? Why should the taxes be so different in each province? If you ask me Canada has it ass backwards with taxes. The poor out on the East coast pay the most taxes provincially, where the rich in Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and possibly A.B. pay a lot less provincially ie. Ontario 15%, B.C. 14.5%, A.B. 7% etc. You must also think of the wages per province in the above example to understand what I mean. I don't see any government tackling this challenge or idea. Perhaps I am the only one who thinks like this and perhaps it would not be such a great idea, but I think it could possibly make Canada better off and much stronger in the long run.

I would like to see health care become standardized to the point of the system we have in Ontario. It is a bloody mess to figure out when you move to a new province how the hell the health care system is set up. Do I need to pay out of my own pocket per month by sending in cheques? Does my employer pay 50% of it? Or do I just see it come off my taxes on my pay cheque? I tell you what a pain in the ass that is when you move out of Ontario in this country. 

I could go on, but the point is because we have so many bloody different systems for each province it is costing the Canadian government billions of dollars each year. We are not efficient in how we do things, there is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much paper work for EVERYTHING and it adds up when each province does it differently. Also there are provinces that are not looked upon as much as others and that needs to change. The government needs to pay attention to them a lot more and include them with the rest of the country.

I have only touched on a few items I would like to see from a Canadian government, I could go on, but it is late and time for bed. My only question is, which party is even close to anything I have said?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

We're crazy to elect a party with no experience. Not one other party has any experience running the show be they Green, NDP or Conservative. A vote for anyone of them would be political suicide. Better not rock the boat and elect a bunch of newbies to parliament and spoil our Canadian Utopia. 

The one with the 2 billion dollar gun registry, rampant government scandal and corruption, failing healthcare system, vulnerable military and among the highest personal taxes in the industrialized world. We are the envy of the world according to the UN slipping from 3rd to 8th place in 2003 somewhere behind our neighbors to the south. 

Are we going to jeopardize all this? The choice is obvious.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc:


> "We just want them out".......what a profound enlightened vision for the country that is .


MacGuiver 


> We're crazy to elect a party with no experience. Not one other party has any experience running the show be they Green, NDP or Conservative. A vote for anyone of them would be political suicide. Better not rock the boat and elect a bunch of newbies to parliament and spoil our Canadian Utopia.
> The one with the 2 billion dollar gun registry, rampant government scandal and corruption, failing healthcare system, vulnerable military and among the highest personal taxes in the industrialized world. We are the envy of the world according to the UN slipping from 3rd to 8th place in 2003 somewhere behind our neighbors to the south.
> Are we going to jeopardize all this? The choice is obvious.


Yep again. MacGuiver got it right.

They are an immoral and corrupt government. They need to be gone.

Canadians know that and if they don't toss them, they will surely bring the Fiberals to their knees in this election.

And I might add, it is about time.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *the highest personal taxes in the industrialized world"* 

That's a total crock. Take into account health care and we on a PAR with the US in fact we do better because ALL Canadians are covered



> _First is the myth of high corporate taxes in Canada. OECD figures show that Canada's corporate tax regime is in the middle of the pack of 29 industrialized nations. The international business consulting firm KPMG has also done several studies that show Canada's effective corporate income tax rate (the actual rate of taxes paid) is very competitive. *In one such study, comparing Canada with Britain, the U.S., Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden, Canada had the lowest tax rate of all seven countries--27.4% versus 40% for the U.S.*_
> 
> http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/comment11.html
> 
> ...


Does the government need to be cleaned up yep.
It's in process. Liberal toes need to held to the fire and Quebec has changed the nature of the election entirely.
Give the Conservatives a bit of time to rebuild as a national party then there will be some rational choice and we'll see if it's anything more than a rebranded Alliance..

Give Harper a run in parliament with HIS caucus visible and their ideas on display, then we'll see how they play in mainstream Canada.
Right now it's smoke and mirrors.
Had Harper NOT done the tax cut dance he might have had some respect.
Right now it's recycled Mike Harris.

Some people don't know when they've got it good.









Just look south for an example of where that thinking goes.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Canadian taxes are low relative to almost anywhere in Europe with indoor plumbing.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Right now it's recycled Mike Harris.


Exactly I prefer a system that puts the people before the dollar the conservative system that existed under Harris/Eves always put the dollar before the people all you have to do is look at Ontario Hydro and you'll see what’s in store for a CON majority, they also cut water inspectors and we had ecoli outbreak, the long and expensive refurbishing of the Pickering nuclear station also started under the Harris/Eves government and now falls on the ruling Ontario Liberals to clean up that mess as well. You don't have to look far on the CON platform to see that they are already putting their corporate friends and dollars ahead of the health of Canadians and the global environment by threatening to scrap the Kyoto protocol.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Wow. A lot happens when you don't check back often.

Any way as a rebuttal to ehMax and Macdoc I would just like to simplify my position:

• Military spending: Yes we have to pay down the debt, but our military budget needs some more funding. I'm not proposing that we become a superpower like our neighbours to the south, but rather bring our Military up to a respectable level that is worthy of defending our nation. We can't have the mentality that we will rely on the US for defense.

• Humanitarian spending: While I do believe that providing aid to third world nations to help with the HIV/SARS crisis is a worthwhile cause, I find the amount of money the Liberals promised is ludicrous. Especially considering our National Debt.

I just have a hard time supporting a party that is so corrupt from the bottom to the top. Sure the Mulroney government was jsut as corrupt, but that was in the past. Let's look to the future.

The Conservatives platform is one that makes the most sense to me. The points are too many to list here, but there are a few key issues that would clean up some of the mess the Liberals made.

• An independent Ethics Commissioner
• Fixed Dates for Elections
• Reducing the federal Tax Rate on Middle-Income families
• Introducing a $2000 per child tax credit
• Reduce EI premiums to eliminate the surplus
• Registered Lifetime Savings Plan - You can withdraw money tax free
• Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers.
• Hold the federal and provincial governments accountable for Health Accord promises.
• Protect our communities from crime by instituting truth in sentencing, tightening parole, and holding young offenders accountable.
• Protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography.
• Fight crime by scrapping the firearms registry and redirecting the money to law enforcement.
• Give our Canadian Forces the equipment they need to do the difficult and demanding work we ask of them.

These all look like positive things to me.

[ June 15, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: MaxPower ]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Good points MaxPower. Sounds good to me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good post MaxPower.

Those are the types of changes we need.

Oh, and add a couple more to the list to make it complete.

Honesty and integrity.

Cheers


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

We ought to be ashamed of what we give in humanitarian aid. It is paltry by any standards.

Twenty years ago when I was working in Africa, there was a clear Canadian presence, both in Canadian aid workers with Canadian organizations and in Canadian funded projects. When I went back last year, the only Canadians I could find worked for UN agencies and there were virtually no Canadian funded projects.

Decades ago we pledged to give one per cent of of GDP in foreign aid. We never came close. In the Mulroney years, it was about the only budget item that was cut. 

When the Liberals were elected in 1993, foreign aid was .44 per cent of GDP and they pledged to raise it to .7 per cent by 2000 (.7 per cent is considered by the OECD to be an appropriate level for an industrialize nation). 

But Martin cut it more, it's now down to .27 per cent (actually it's up slightly from a low of .24 in 2002). That puts Canada in the bottom half of OECD countries in terms of foreign aid.

Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, all give more than .9 per cent of their GDP in foreign aid. Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and another half-dozen give more than we do.

You want to hold the line or cut foreign aid more Maxpower?

Fine, just be aware we already are one cheap &%^$#*$ of a country.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Brainstrained ,

Please show me where I said that I wanted to cut foreign aid?

All I said that it was ludicrous that we spend 100 million given our current debt load. That's a truck load of cash. Probably the majority better spent by putting it into our failing healthcare system that the Liberals are currently screwing up.

5 maybe 10 million would be acceptable. Or better yet how about putting the money that the Liberals squandered from the sponsorship fiasco into humanitarian aid?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> • Give our Canadian Forces the equipment they need to do the difficult and demanding work we ask of them.


from Canadiandriver.com


> In early March, Army units stationed in Afghanistan took delivery of the first 60 Mercedes-Benz G Wagons, while another 40 were delivered to Canada. They are the first of 802 military G Wagons to be built on the Magna-Steyer assembly line for Canada as part of a $130.4 million contract to replace the aging and often-criticised Iltis.


































I don't know about you but $130.4 million is allot of money, it's not a total solution to our military's problems but it is a start to solving them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *We're feeling comfy, so it's payback time?*
> 
> By MARGARET WENTE
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


We're feeling comfy so it's payback time 

funny neither do I


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

New vehicles for Canadian Forces.

Why are we not buying vehicles that keep jobs here??
Is there a trade offset perhaps.
Be nice to know.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Maxpower, my question was rhetorical and not intended to imply that you said you would cut foreign aid.

But saying it is ludicrous to spend $100 million on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in the Third World is ludicrous in itself.

Aside from the humanitarian aspect, put the spending in this perspective:

The debt is about $510 billion. $100 million is less than 0.02 per cent of that.

Canada's budget is about $184 billion. $100 million is 0.054 per cent of that.

Over the past four years defence spending has increase on average almost $900 million annually.

Canada's debt to GDP ratio is the lowest of the G8 countries, yet many of those countries contribute a greater percentage of their GDP to foreign aid.

If spending $100 million on HIV/AIDS in the Third Word is ludicrous, it is ludicrous because it is so little in respect to the size of the problem and our ability to give more.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Didn't Canada have a hand is getting low cost drugs for AIDs into play. Thought I read that somewhere.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Fink Nottle said:


> "against who!!!!!!"
> Firstly, even if there was no obvious enemy, that's a terrible reason to close up the armed forces.
> [...]
> Finally, we admirably are often eager to send our troops on peacekeeping missions. I'd like them to be well equipped... unlike the poor soldiers who had to drive around Afghanistan in a light SUV.


You forgot:

Forthly, we need the military to make sure that our golfing greens are ever expanding. We wanna play some real golf, dammit! Who cares about old mouldering bones! Birdie! Hole in one! Those are the sounds of freedom! Yeah!

Golf war. We won that, right?

iG/<

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-99/conflict_war/oka/


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> New vehicles for Canadian Forces.
> 
> Why are we not buying vehicles that keep jobs here??
> Is there a trade offset perhaps.
> Be nice to know.


Unfortunately there isn't an alternative to the G-Wagon built in NA. The only thing that comes close is the HumVee built in the US and the price for the HumVee is way to high for Canada right now so the only 2 choices left were the G-Wagon built in Austria by Magna and the Range Rover built in England by Ford, when you look at it this way at least some of the money that they paid for the G-Wagon's will end up back in Canada in some way or another I hope.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Magna is Canadian correct.
So they must buy the vehicles as chassis and then modify them to spec for Canadian forces. That then makes sense.

I don't have a problem with that other than Belinduh.


----------



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

The Self-servatives are playing the moral card! Where the heck is the moral righteousness in denying the paltry amount of foreign aid Canada provides? Charity begins at home?

"I'm all right Jack" would be an appropriate logo for the Conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I like Cons better as a short form since calling them PCs it does disserve to the Progressive Conservatives.

If the foam at the mouthers want to use cute pejoratives I figure *Cons* works very well on a number of levels and is easy to type.


----------



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

Is David Orchard an ex-Con?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I just read that  I think it's worth posting in whole for those that are "click challenged with the bolding added for the skimmers  



> David Orchard
> 
> *Why I won't vote Conservative*
> 
> ...


the fat lady sure ain't sung yet by any means


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

> If the foam at the mouthers want to use cute pejoratives I figure Cons works very well on a number of levels and is easy to type.


Regressive Conservatives, Regs, or Reggies. ;_)

They are down right cute!









iG/<


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

The local Liberal candidates and Paul martin held the first of a Canada-wide series of rallies today at the Waterloo Regional Children's Museum, where I work. I was part of a greeting party when Martin entered and had a handshake and very brief encounter with the PM. I wanted to hand him a copy of the dialogue of this forum, but, of course, didn't. I am typing this post with the same unwashed hand that shook the PM's hand. Do I dare wash it before the election?...do I charge for the privilege of someone else shaking it?... would Macnutt shake it? Oh!,.... the decisions and repercussions of such an innocent encounter. What am I to do?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Peter agonizes over handshake:



> I am typing this post with the same unwashed hand that shook the PM's hand. Do I dare wash it before the election?...do I charge for the privilege of someone else shaking it?... would Macnutt shake it? Oh!,.... the decisions and repercussions of such an innocent encounter. What am I to do?


I suggest Lee Valley's "Body parts" molding kit:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=32812&category=1,250,43298

You will be able to immortalize the hand that shook the other hand, and if you are lucky, preserve a few molecules from that liberal contact. };¬)

Cheers,

iG/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect Sinc amongst other would expect you to perform a Class 4 DeCon treatment on the "Martinized" hand.  

Course that's kinda appropriate.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*still waiting*


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Looks like the ball is in HIS court, and he's just playing with it and not returning it. What a tease!!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

With this challenge and another thread challenging him in this forum to which MacNutt refuses response to any challenges, in my mind, he is starting to look *"Verrry Challenged."*


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*_Still Waiting_*


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Actually I'm very BUSY living my real life...And have precious few minutes to respond or reply here at ehmac*

Funny, considering you've managed several hundred words (probably more like a thousand or two) in other threads.

* I would just be repeating what has already been said here [...] if the past six months and several hundred posts from myself and many others here at ehmac haven't managed to sway you away from the old corrupt Liberals, then nothing will*

I am going to let you in on a secret. The point of this wasn't to convince me of anything, it was to get you to put your money where you mouth is and explain exactly why the Conservatives are the "big positive change" you keep telling us they are. If I was convinced, well, that'd just be gravy for you.

So far you've only been able to say "Liberals BAD!" when you were supposed to say "Conservatives GOOD!"

Fink-Nottle posted some good points, but as I said before I was interested in hearing it from you. I kind of figured that you'd just hide behind his post as soon as i read it though.

So as it stands, you lose. Advance directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

All you've managed to convince me of to this point is that you are one of the ones that have been so eloquently called "foaming at the mouth", and everything you say on the subject should be disregarded. Continue to post all the rhetoric you want, I am going to ignore it.

If you want, I'll give you another shot at coming up with a real argument. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'll wait here.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Plenty of time and wind for other threads. . .


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

It really ticks me off to hear some of the comments made about macnutt because of his political views.

People say he is going off, foaming at the mouth, when it appears that these individuals are doing exactly the same thing. But because the majority on this board share the same political views, this is not considered foaming. A double standard.

Yes, I share the same views as macnutt, I will NOT be voting Liberal and I will vote Conservative. The Liberals have been in power far too long and they are quite comfortable in their position in Ottawa. It is time for a a change.

I read some interesting points about the Liberals that most are so eagerly supporting:

• The $250 million wasted in Adscam could buy 62 MRI Machines for Canadian Hospitals.
• The $2 Billion mismanagement of the federal gun registry could have paid for 25 years of the annual salary of at least 1356 Ontario Nurses.
• The over $7 Billion in Liberal waste scandal and mismanagement over the past decade could have funded over 21,000 long term care facility beds in Ontario for 10 years.....or paid tuition for every university student in the provence in 4 years.
•$100 million the Liberals spent on luxury jets for cabinet ministers would be enough to pay the annual salary of over 1400 more police officers.
• For the cost of Paul Martin's pre-campaign flights around the country at taxpayers' expense, Canada could have sent 160 more veterans to D-Day anniversary celebrations in Europe.

Mismanagement.
Frivolous Spending.

If Canada were a business, we would be bankrupt by now.

Think about it.

Don't worry macnutt, you are not alone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maxpower - a number of have been waiting for and asking for serious debate. Instead we get "foam at the mouth kneejerk" hate the liberals spew.

Fink-Nottle shares conservative views and I do too but they are not Harper's and certainly not the "we wanna be like the shrub" version.

There has not been one serious discussion about whether as a Federation Canada should look to the provinces to exercise more power and to reduce the Federal Government role to a much smaller role. 
We've used the Feds a method to equalize wealth in Canada and they've absconded with increasing power especially with regards to roles the provinces maybe should have more say in.

Part of the problem is disparity in political structures with Toronto having little say and not even on a level with PEI.

It needs fixing and moderate c's have things to contribute.
Martin stole most of their turf and the poor fiscal performance and projection by emphasing tax cuts of PC governments here and down south and wannabe by Harper instead of good responsible governing simply means traditional small c support - like the editor of the Globe - say the Libs are the better choice.

We had a decent discussion about defence priorities and part of the issue is that Gerry CAN be thoughtful but blathers and exaggerates and simply point blank refuses to back up his claims. He tosses off "poor world economy" and he's wrong - so any valid points get lost in the horse pucky pile.

That's where the respect is lost and quite frankly that has happened time and time again listening to the current crop of Cons.

We're listening, asking,....... not hearing a lot of sane, thought out and backed up discussion.  

I'd love to hear Charest on a moderator Tory platform. He WAS heir apparent for the PCs, now he is for the Libs.
Harper may not be the right guy but a moderate small c party is long overdue....even Joe Who knows.

[ June 23, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well put MaxPower.

I too will vote Conservative.

The Liberals have given me enough reasons to hate them for the rest of my life.

The Conservatives deserve a chance to restore honesty and integrity to our country. We must rid ourselves of this corrupt and dishonest Liberal government.

Cheers


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

MacDoc,

Your point is well taken. I do agree that macnutt has somewhat evaded the issue as to why we should vote Conservative.

I just wen t back and skimmed through this thread and I respectfully retract my comment made about individuals slamming macnutt. I must have been confused with another thread. Sometimes I open my mouth without thinking first. My apologies.

But the fact still remains that the Liberals have been in power far too long and are quite comfortable in their position. We need to stir up the pot and get rid of the Liberal cancer that is plaguing our Country.

At any rate, anything is better than the Liberals.

And don't worry macnutt, I am still on your side.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

It's great to see open discussion on political matters. I'm trying to remember a federal government, Conservative or Liberal that hasn't bungled any major issues or wasted money. The Liberal team has a number of changes, particularly the leader and, putting aside the small percentage of total revenue that was wasted (as opposed to spent) on controversial matters, how bad a job did they actually do compared to their Consrvative predecessors? It seems to me that nothing will ever be perfect , much less pleasing to the armchair observers out there. It's a never-ending rotation of "kick the bums out" regardless of which party is in power. I'd vote for a Joe Clark type of "real" Conservative government, but these Alliance guys calling themselves "New Conservatives" certainly have given me no good reason to throw out what I know we have for their unknown ability or agenda. I don't like the "I'll take what's behind curtain number two" approach to determining the country's future. I like Layton, but given that the crucial issue is which party will win the most seats and form the government, I've got to go with Martin. Call it gut feeling, but I think we'll all be wailing a lot louder down the road if Harper should win. My 2 cents worth. (No rebuttal required)


----------



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

There's the problem. "Anything is better than the Liberals" is clearly not only untrue but is like handing over the keys to your house to a stranger (who's references do not concur with the words being scripted out of his mouth).

The Globe and Mail is backing the Liberals and the National Post the Conservatives. Make you own choice (I already did in advance polls and am glad the Globe has the same opinion).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *But the fact still remains that the Liberals have been in power far too long and are quite comfortable in their position. * 

Yes and you'd get little argument from most Canadians

*We need to stir up the pot and get rid of the Liberal cancer that is plaguing our Country.

At any rate, anything is better than the Liberals.
* 
This is where you stumble and sound no better than the "FatMs".
They are not a plague - Canada is in very good shape and as the guy in the Globe says "do no harm".
Martin took steps immediately upon becoming PM to start cleaning house including some dusty Libs and as he said he could have swept it under the rug the way Teflon boy did. Exposing it likely cost him Quebec - hardly a brilliant political move but a good governance approach.
He's a better manager than he is a politician and as far as I'm concerned he's got a good vision but lacks follow through.

Anything is NOT better than what we have or the Liberals.
Look down south.

Peter summed it up nicely - more of the same results, better run and choices that encompass the moderate centrist vision that the great majority of Canadians share.

Martin should have governed for 18 months and executed his vision while he had a majority.
Rushing to the polls angered Canadians and poor political judgement. He's paying for it.

What is good is dialogue and a minority situation where all leaders and visions and policies can be evaluated.

Most polls have shown Canadians want a minority and Martin's track record on the economy should continue with input from the other views. It will get him moving on things overdue while providing a forum for real debate and prhaps compromise.

I'll give Harper this - he is a deal maker. Lose the gorilla's on the far right, lose the "we'll change everything rant" and he may get a chance at power.

Too many of his supporters fall into the same trap he is. And it turns away moderate thoughtful Canadians on both sides of the centre and even many in the Tory and PC camp.

We ALL know the Liberals have problems, most of us also know we've got a pretty good Canada right now if not a sterling government.
We want to keep what we've got and get better value for money, more open and clean government and follow through on plans.

I never considered McGuinty much of a leader but he's earned my grudging respect by putting into place programs that are long term and have clear goals. That's good management and he's made tough decisions early in his mandate. That earns my admiration. We want services we have to pay for them.

Any national politician that listens to Hazel's formula will win much of Canada's approval.

When she and voices like the Globe and moderate voices like Peter tell Harper he's on the wrong track..........LISTEN!  

or lose.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

> Martin took steps immediately upon becoming PM to start cleaning house including some dusty Libs and as he said he could have swept it under the rug the way Teflon boy did.


You'll get no argument from me on that one. When Martin started cleaning house, i was praying Copps would get the axe. When she did, I was literally jumping for joy.

However, The fact still remains that there are HUGE scandals that we seem to have forgotten about. Adscam, The Gun Registry, The Luxury Jets. To name a few. How much did that cost the Canadian people? Believe me MacDoc, as a business owner, if someone screwed you out of money, you would be pretty upset about it and not support them.

I just can't forgive and forget like that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually I'm very _BUSY_ living my real life...and have precious few minutes to respond or reply here at ehmac these days.

This is how it is when you have a bottled water business and there is a thirty degree extended heatwave in your area.









Besides...from what I can see...many of you have already made all of my arguments for me. I would just be repeating what has already been said here. ad nauseum.

No point in that.

Fink Nottle has been particularly eloquent in his replies. Much of what he said is what I would have said, had I been here over the last week. Go back and read his posts, if you'd like. 

Vote however you want to. Don't let any one person (myself included) influence your choice.

Want more of the same old crap? Then vote Liberal.

Want a big positive change? Then vote Conservative.

Want to register a protest vote? Then you have about a dozen other no-names on the list. Pick any of them. It won't matter which one.

Or, you could purposely spoil your ballot, if you so choose.

Or don't vote at all. Your choice.

Fly at it. If the past six months and several hundred posts from myself and many others here at ehmac haven't managed to sway you away from the old corrupt Liberals, then nothing will.

If the Auditor Generals Report and the eighteen seperate investigations into massive fraud and theft don't make you think twice about endorsing these clowns once again...then nothing will.

If more than a decade of broken campaign promises and failed programs don't convince you to choose another alternative, then nothing I could say here will ever persuade you to back someone other than the old tired and corrupt Liberals.

You want to actually believe them when they loudly claim that _THIS_ time they will actually reduce health care waiting lineups...instead of increasing them? That _THIS_ time they will actually deliver on their ten year old promise to provide a national daycare program?

You want to actually believe them when they promise NOT to steal any more money from you? And when they promise to try to get to the bottom of the whole sponsorship scandal? Among many others?























Even if it means that some of their top officials end up getting charged for their crimes? (somebody STOP me...I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off right now!)









Like I said...YOUR choice. Look at all the facts and then make it a good choice. This is an important election. Possibly the MOST important one in two and a half decades.

Choose well.

[ June 23, 2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If I have been foaming at the mouth about anything, I'd like to apologize right now. I've been doing my best to not foam about anything, especially because I haven't decided who to vote for as of right now. Also, I'm not sure I can foam about anything as I doubt my personal views really mesh with anyone else's here, most (with due respect) are far too polarized, too partisan for my tastes.

All I wanted to hear was why the Conservatives are the "big, positive change" that Macnutt says they are, and since he's the most "enthusiastic" about the Conservatives, I thought I'd tap him. I'd like to hear it in the words of their staunchest supporter. If he could do it, then great. If he couldn't, then that would just prove he's a bit of a blow hard.

But rather than respond to the challenge, he's just hidden behind others posts and done the expressed opposite of what I asked. All I want to read, in his own words, is why Macnutt thinks the Conservatives are a better choice based on Conservative policies, not based on Liberal history. It shouldn't be that hard.

What I am left wondering is, if he can't come up with his own argument in favour of the Conservatives, is he really voting for the right party?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB you've been a very balanced voice in your questions and comments tho perhaps have more patience than MacNutt deserves.
You've got your answer already


----------



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

So Ralph Klein has backed down on revealing his plans for healthcare "reform" in Alberta. Anyone else think the plans would have blown further holes into Stephen Harpers heath platform? If he'd have kept his mouth shut for 10 more days I wonder what Albertans would have seen?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was away from this forum when my name was used to start this thread. When I checked in I found that several pages had already been consumed by the "Challenge for MacNutt".

I enjoyed reading them. Some good stuff in there.

Fink Nottle, in particular, seemed to clearly state the very same reasons that I have for choosing the Conservatives in this next election. In my opinion, he expressed the collective views of ALL of us who are looking for, and demanding, a better government than we have had for the last decade. He did this rather eloquently. 

So I decided to just sit back and see what would happen next.  

Sure enough...the many rabid liberal types around here began to "foam at the mouth" (YOUR term...not mine) while demanding a timely reply from poor little moi.

But I just wouldn't give it to you. I made you wait. ( _FOAM ON_ thought I...get yourselves REALLY worked into a lather. Let the blood pressure go deep into the vein-pulsing red zone. Look into the mirror and see your bloodshot eyeballs popping right out of their sockets, while I happily replied to almost EVERY other thread on this forum.)

While all this angst was busily manifesting itself right across this vast country...I yawned and went out for a beer with my buddies. I had a great meal, met a lady, got laid, got sloshed and slept well. I even went dragracing. I did this several times, while the ehmac pot boiled on.









But now it's time to step up and make a serious reply to PB's original challenge. We are down to the short strokes in this election...and the proper moment is finally at hand (wouldn't want to peak too early, after all.)

The tired old Liberal Party is making it's last few circles around the drain hole right now...and it will only take one more flush to make them vanish from sight forever.  (about time, too)  

I will divide this into two parts. Just so's it doesn't run too long in any single post. (you guys all know how I can ramble on).

Part one will deal with my personal reasons for voting Conservative. Part two will deal with my reasons for NOT voting Liberal.

Okay...here goes....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Part one:

"MacNutt answers the challenge and states his personal opinions on WHY we should ALL vote for a fresh new Conservative Government."

1) Canada is NOT a true democracy. In it's current form, it is an elected dictatorship. We Canadians have NO say in how our country is run, except on election day...this is our "one true day of democracy".

Our sober second body...the Senate...is made up of people who are NOT elected. They are APPOINTED! By the sitting Prime Minister, no less! They have no real say in how the country is run. They simply look at this assignment as a well-paid retirement home for spent Liberals. Many do not even bother to attend to their powerless posts. Many of them spend the time on tropical beaches...while collecting fat paychecks that are paid for by our scarce tax dollars.

This is a joke. On US!

WE really NEED an Elected, Effective, and Equal second body to watch over our regional interests in Ottawa. A second part to our Government that could...and WOULD...be an effective and powerful watchdog over the PMO. 

THEY would be the ones who would actively investigate the sort of theft and mismanagement and waste that has become standard operating procedure during the Chretien/Martin era.

They could ALSO remove any Prime Minister from office who truly screwed us around. They would answer only to us...and be elected to set four year terms BY us.

Their elections would be staggered to happen at the midpoint of our Federal elections. Which would ALSO happen at set four year intervals.

NOT when the sitting dictator...er Prime minster...actually _DECIDED_ it was time for a new mandate.

Which brings me to my next point.

2) We need to have pre set dates for elections here in Canada. We need to KNOW how long we will be saddled with a government we no longer like and respect. THEY need to KNOW how long they've got to make good, in order to get themselves back into power.

British Columbia was the very first Province to proclaim set election dates into law. The Provincial Liberals did this early in their mandate...as a point of trust with the people of this province. If we residents of BC don't like what they're doing...then we know EXACTLY when we can turf em out. Right down to the day.

This is as it SHOULD be. THIS is what they call a true democracy.

Paul Martin will never give us this right. No way. He wants to have the same sort of total and absolute power that Jean Chretien enjoyed for so many years. (but he has to be super-nice to all of us for about six weeks out of every five years in order to accomplish this. After that...he will do exactly what he WANTS to do...and to HECK with what the rest of us think about it)

Stephen Harper will not only give us set election dates (every four years)...he will also willingly split his power with a second elected body. One that WE Canadians will elect in order to more fairly represent our particular area. He will change Canada into a true democracy, for the very first time in it's history.

This _ALONE_ should be more than enough to make any thinking human want to vote OUT the Liberals...and vote IN the Conservatives.

(Unless, for some strange reason, some of you don't actually want a true democracy here in Canada).  

BTW...None other than Paul Martin himself has said, publicly, that he wants to "democratise" Canada. Even HE knows that we are still a few steps away from a true democracy at this point in our development. Too bad that he will never do it. No chance that he will EVER willingly split his absolute power with a seperately elected group who could remove him from power if he got way out of line.

3) Our Canadian HealthCare system is NOT working. Lineups are growing into months and years. Fancy technical equipment is sitting idle while people suffer in pain. Hospital beds are closing. The big hospital support Unions (who wash the sheets and sweep the floors and reheat the prepackaged food) are striking for big increases in their already lucrative pay and benefit packages. They can do this because there is only one employer and a monolithic system that they can shut down any time they want to.

Rich people are flying off to foreign countries to get their medical procedures done in a timely fashion. Tens of thousands of Canadians regularly visit the States to get their operations. Thosuands more go as far away as India, instead of waiting in line for months and years here in Canada.

Jean Chretien actually used Canadian Government jets to fly himself and his family to the Mayo Clinic for treatment. Paul Martin has all of his medical procedures done at a private for-profit clinic right in Ontario. He writes large personal cheques for this treatment. He does NOT use the standard Canadian health care system.

But both of them have stood before us and loudly CONDEMNED the private-for-profit medical clinics. Both inside Canada, and in other countries. They proffess to be solidly AGAINST any of this in the Canadian Health Care System.

Just so long as THEY don't have to wait in line like all of the rest of us, that is.  

What hypocracy!

Stephen Harper is totally committed to reforming our public health care system so that it actually WORKS! For ALL Canadians. Not just the filthy rich Liberals and their chosen cronies.

Note: Unlike the multi-millionaire Liberal Quebec lawyers that have been in power for more than a decade (three decades, actually)...Stephen Harper actually USES the standard Canadian health care system for all his, and his families, medical needs. And he is not any happier with it than any of the rest of us are.

4) The only real accomplishment that Paul Martin can point to is his magical "balancing the budget and eliminating the Federal Deficit" from several years back.

He did not do this by eliminating government waste and duplication (in fact...the size of the Canadian government has grown faster than the Canadian economy while Paul Martin was in charge of finances)

He eliminated the massive Federal deficit by offloading the problem onto the _PROVINCES_.

Each and every Province now shoulders the lions share of the health care costs of it's citizens...even though it does NOT get the lions share of tax revenues.

It used to be a fifty-fifty relationship. Now, under Paul Martin, it is a 86-14 relationship. The Provinces pay 86 per cent and the Feds pay about 14%.

WOW! Pop the champagne corks and serve up the caviar all around! PROBLEM SOLVED!!

But...the Provinces are now deeply into deficit territory as a result of this. And there is really only ONE taxpayer who is footing the bills. No matter WHAT level of government is in debt...we Canadians will have to pay for it all. And suffer the cuts in social programs that will come (already HAVE come) as a result of this. 

Paul Martin has just shuffled the problem off to another level. He hasn't solved a single thing.

Stephen Harper is totally committed to changing how our Canadian Government works. He is planning to cut waste and duplication and trash any massive spending blunders that he finds, once he takes over control of the PMO.

The multi-billion dollar Liberal boondoggles will be the very FIRST to go. The horridly expensive, and totally useless, duck-hunters shotgun registry will be axed in the first days of the new Government. It's a total waste of taxpayers dollars. Everyone agrees on this.

THEN he will get down to some SERIOUS cutting of wasteful Liberal programs. Ones that are expensive, totally ineffective, and do NOTHING...while enriching the many friends of the former governing Liberals.

THAT should free up a few BILLION dollars. To say the least!

Or...you could vote to go back to the OLD ways. Your choice.

5) Canada is about to lose soverignty over a vast portion of our northern territory. Several other northern hemisphere countries have expressed the opinion that the "Northern Passage" is a part of international waters....even though it passes directly through what we have always thought of as OUR country.

Denmark has actually planted a flag on one of our northern islands...claiming it for their own.

There is vast mineral and oil wealth in this distant part of Canada. I have worked up there for extended periods. Trust me when I say that others are looking VERY closely at this almost untouched resource area.

But...since the Liberals have been in power...our ability to even _PATROL_ this region has withered and died. We are no longer masters of our own land.

It is up for grabs right now. And we can't do a DAMN thing about it. Thanks Paul. Thanks Jean.  

Stephen Harper would bring our military commitment up to par with the rest of the NATO countries. Equip and pay our starved military personnell so that they could actually carry out the tasks that we put before them.

Including defending our own soverignty.

What a concept.

(this is running WAYYY too long. There is just SO much material to work with here. Time to cut it short and move onto part two)

[ June 24, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Part two:

(part two has been cancelled due to lack of interest by the original author of this thread. see above and below.)

[ June 24, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The point of this thread was to have the staunchest defender of the RIGHT provide a case for the right that didn’t involve bashing the liberals (small case intended.)

He failed the challenge, this means the “Challenged One” must now take the short yellow bus to EhMac Land.









As for this election the real problem with the conservatives (small case intended) is you have a choice of the group lead by Martin or the group led by Harper.

I think many Canadians are afraid of Conservatives (remember this is the party of Sir John A. it was later that they merged with the Progressives) since Brian Mulroney destroyed the PC Party after he cuddled up to Rotten Ronnie and Uncle Sam. Harper & Martin are making the same kind of noises. 

I think the sounds, that the majority of Canadians are hearing, from Martin and Harper are the sceeches of fighting cats and the little mice are fearful. (due respect to Tommy Douglas.)  

The westerners hated the PC’s because of Mulroney and went off to form a regional party (Reform) like the PC’s in Quebec formed the Bloc however the Reform were arguably less effective than the Bloc.

The Ontario PC’s were stuck in as much that even if every seat in Atlantic Canada went PC they didn’t have enough seats to take power. Big business had to get that Republican agenda going in Northern North America.

The only solution, have Reform, complete a hostile take over of the PC Party. 

However most Canadians on Main Street do not want the Bay Street agenda. This is the reason for the great numbers of undecided and the potential for close races across this country.

The only positive for the West, in this election, is knowing that the election will not be decide before the votes are counted in the West and North.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Part one will deal with my personal reasons for voting Conservative. Part two will deal with my reasons for NOT voting Liberal.*

You can feel free to skip part two Macnutt, I wont be reading it. You've been posting the "Liberals are BAD" vitriol long enough that I think we all know what you're going to say. Besides, if you can't say why the Conservatives are good without saying why the Liberals are bad, you fail the challenge, remember?

*many rabid liberal types around here began to "foam at the mouth" while demanding a timely reply from poor little moi. But I just wouldn't give it to you. I made you wait. *

I fail to see the point of this as not only have I gone out of my way to not "foam at the mouth" (not my term either, I just borrowed it), it's just made you look kind of dumb in the interim.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is it any wonder why they're NOT listening.
Neither are the great majority of Canadians.
60-70% of Canadians don't support Harper's program and your's is so far out of touch....... I'll quote your own eloquence






































This from a guy who supports a ......ummm series of right wing parties that over the last 10 years were indistiguishable from the "Gang who couldn't shoot straight".

Your prudent Harperites were hosting a very premature celebration with "expensive Drappier Carte d'Or Brut champagne" on a "paid by taxpayers" aircraft.
Meanwhile getting toasted in the polls particularly in Ontario and getting rejected by the Globe *OFFICIALLY!!!* - hardly a left wing voice in this country.

You've got a very limited repertoire Gerry - better go back to fixing motorcycles.....and fighting off the Green challenge in SSI.
Perhaps the locals have also been listening to you......and run screaming to other end of the teeter totter.
Excellent irony should SSI be the first Green MP


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi all,

Macdoc, even assuming that 70% of the people disagree with Harper, that still leaves him with enough support to get a majority govt, given that around 50% or less of the country will vote on Monday. You can bet that myself and Macnutt will vote... but I wonder how many former Liberal supporters might be tempted to sit this one out. You can bet I'll be glued to the TV on Monday night...

Also, I found this comment rather poor:

"You've got a very limited repertoire Gerry - better go back to fixing motorcycles"

Ridiculing ideas is very healthy and helps people test their assumptions. Ridiculing people who hold those ideas is not... it's just insulting.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps you missed this - I respond in kind always have.



> I'm just sitting back here listening to a guy who is rather bright...but who's ideas and ideals are wayyyy beyond the "best before date".
> 
> By about four decades!
> 
> Time to grow up and leave all of that silly childhood nonsense behind, David. In case you hadn't noticed...the world has moved on while you were flailing around in that wonderful little fantasyland that was left over from your youthful days..


http://www.ehmac.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002210;p=16

•••••

As to majority PC that's an extremely unlikely scenario. Without Quebec and only even elsewhere and falling badly in Ontario I don't and the polls don't see any majority for anyone.

It's deal time.
30% is NOT a mandate.

I've already voted and the advance stations seem to be busy. One thing the Libs have is local organization - they'll get the vote out - so will the NDP.
We'll see about the Cons whether a new inexperienced party can actually get it to the ballot box...or perhaps they'll sit around swigging champagne.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Point taken Macdoc... I didn't see that original posting. Although rising above stuff like that should always be the first choice for everyone.

Sadly, if only 50% of the population votes then 30% of the population could well be a mandate for whatever party receives it. That's the way the system works... 

I know we don't see it in Toronto (and certainly not in my Danforth riding) but the Conservatives are quite well organized in other parts of the country. My family is in Ottawa and the word is they will sweep the city, with the exception of Ed Broadbent's new riding.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah too little too late MacNutt - go back to the beer you've done the Libs proud.









••••

"However most Canadians on Main Street do not want the Bay Street agenda."

Big DL business is quite happy with Martin - one reason the Globe is supporting him and dissing harper.
Business has recognised a stable politi and work force has large benefits to them.
A good government credit history keeps rates low as well. Canada is doing very well and business quite rightly is not rocking the boat. Martin has threaded a fine line tho perhaps not delivered all he could to the medical sector and the cities.

It's amusing to see the far left take on Martin's budget. 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/can-m31.shtml

This also confirms a political test we were fooling around with. It's surprising - I encourage everyone to take it honestly and publish their results

http://www.politicswatch.com/VoteSelectorQuiz2004.html

Might be worth another thread.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...fair enough Matt. 

I have just spent more than two hours writing my detailed "Part One" reply to your challenge. I put my heart and soul into it. Just for you, old buddy.

Personally, I couldn't give two hoots WHO you end up voting for. Just so long as you vote.

And I could easily triple the amount of time and the amount of words that I have devoted to this subject so far, if I thought it might make one whit of difference to anyone who is actually reading it. (NOT "skimming it"...this means YOU, David.)

PB...you have said that I sound "dumb" and that you are determined to "ignore me in the future".

Again...fair enough. Your choice.

Now...explain to me why I should devote any more time to this seemingly futile excersize?

Especially since the Conservatives are going to sweep the corrupt Martin Liberals into the wastebasket of history about five days from now?

You want an explanation of WHY this is going to happen? Especially _BEFORE_ it does? Then I am there for you, my friend and fellow islander. I'll lay it out for you...chapter and verse.

And you can feel quite free to call me on any errors in prediction that I may have made here at ehmac...AFTER the election.

You want me to spend an inordinate amount of my scarce spare time flailing at artificial brick walls? For people who aren't even listening?

Bugger THAT.

Watch the election results. THEN talk to me again. Tell me how wrong I was.

See you on june 28th.

[ June 24, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Awesome post macnutt.

I applaud you.

And for your information, I am still voting Conservative on Monday.

PB, 

I hope you are not offended by the other thread I started. I just thought we should see the other side of things.

[ June 24, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: MaxPower ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> And for your information, I am still voting Conservative on Monday.


Me too, MaxPower, me too.

Cheers


----------



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

Dang, I'd already voted before reading Macnutts post. Lucky Paul Martin









(from Stockholm...)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I already sent this to Macnutt last night while ehMac was having some disk space related issues, but it should probably be here, also.


*PB...you have said that I sound "dumb" and that you are determined to "ignore me in the future".*

The first half of that sentence is entirely out of context and the second half is just plain wrong. If that's what you got out of my post then, well, not really sure what to say.

*You want me to spend an inordinate amount of my scarce spare time flailing at artificial brick walls? For people who aren't even listening?*

I am listening. Or rather, reading.

*Now...explain to me why I should devote any more time to this seemingly futile excersize?*

I haven't read what you've written yet because I just got back to my computer, but if you answered the challenge as it was put to you, then you can expect some feedback on it, further questioning and so on.

I do appreciate that you finally came around and made your post. I'll read and check back in a while.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - I have and will continue to respond in kind. 
You may exercise your choice of response as you see fit, mine has been consistent.

Ottawa is what....... 5 ridings of which 3 are newly configured so that's a iffy call.
Monday will tell the tale. 

[ June 24, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macnutt,

You can't win buddy! For 8 pages they've been calling for your views but now they don't want to know. Are rebuttals being prepared as I type or have you stumped em? 

Great post! Cheers!


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

How about the young offender's act? No one has mentioned this issue yet.

Isn't it about time that these kids are made more responsible for their actions? Instead of getting a slap on the wrist?

Kids these days are more advanced (I don't want to say mature here - they are not mature) and they know full well what they are doing. They commit these crimes knowing full well that they are protected by the YOA.

Do you think a 17 year old is less aware of their actions than an 18 year old? Where do you draw the line?

I for one support a revamp of the young offender's act. I've been saying it for years.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Fink-nottle, 30 per cent support in the pre-election polls gets no party a majority government in the poll that counts on election day.

Pre-election polls count decided supporters, who are those people most likely to vote. You'll notice they usually add up to about 100 per cent. Though polls note the overall percentage of undecided voters, they do not lump them in a separate category, in part because they are less likely to vote.

So if the Conservative or Liberals have 30 per cent of decided voters, and only 50 per cent of all voters vote, that means probably about 15 per cent of all eligible voters voted for them. 

It's all rather confusing, suffice to say that a party needs a popular vote in the high 30s or better to form a majority government.

In the past 40 years, only Chretien in 1997 formed a majority with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote, 38.5 per cent actually. With a united right that might have been a minority government. 

Both the Conservatives in 1979 and the Liberals in 1972 got about 36 per cent of the vote and the best they could do was a minority government. 

There may be a Conservative government Monday, but it's not going to be a majority.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Maxpower, maybe no one's mentioned the Young Offenders Act because the issue has been addressed.

The Young Offenders Act was replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act last year. The YCJA increased the maximum prison term for youth and lowered the age at which youth can be transferred to adult court.

The new legislation also gives police, Crowns, Judges, correctional services and probation services far more discretion and more options in how youth are treated.

It encourages restorative justice measures, which divert youth from court and possible custody sentences. Alta. has probably led the way on this with community justice committees, followed by Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.

These are very effective alternatives to court and custody. First offenders and those facing minor charges meet with community volunteers and their victims to sort out what happened, why and what's to be done about it. The whole process is done in a fraction of the time (days instead of months), a fraction of the cost, and the real involvement of the community and the victim.

By the way, youth weren't having an easy time of it under the YOA. We had (maybe still do) the highest rate of youth incarceration in the western and developed world, and for the pettyist of offences.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And it's going to depend on Adrienne






























PLUS making a deal with one or both of the two furthest left parties. Couldn't happen to a nicer country.  

I expect a lot of squirming in the Liberal and Cons camp Monday night.

Germany has had many coalition governments even with the two largest that held 95%  of the seats between them.

In fact in modern Germany



> * No party in the country’s 53-year history has ever won enough votes to gain a singular majority in the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament.*


How'd ya like dem apples.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Thanks Brainstrained, but we weren't talking about a pre-election poll. I was commenting on Macdoc's assertion that only 30-40% of the population agree with Harper. 

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where did you get 40% ???- another "fudge" on the numbers????
Try 28-33%.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macdoc's assertion doesn't change the math, as opinion polls are suppose to reflect who we support.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc,

If it was a fudge it was yours... you wrote:

"60-70% of Canadians don't support Harper's program..."

I just turned the number around... 

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

why......you're right.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Canada is NOT a true democracy. In it's current form, it is an elected dictatorship. We Canadians have NO say in how our country is run, except on election day...this is our "one true day of democracy"*

Oh? You think so? Last time I checked something like 70% of all the votes in the HoC since Martin got in were free votes (I don't have figures here for the Chretien days, or Mulroney for that matter). In a free vote, the MP doesn't have to vote the party line, so as long as his or her constituents make it known what they want then that's how the MP will vote.

Granted, the Conservative policy is to have free votes on everything except, as far as I know, the budget, but as it stands they are heading into a minority if they are heading into anything, so free votes may be their downfall.

On the other hand, what would you call a "True Democracy"?

*Our sober second body...the Senate...is made up of people who are NOT elected.*

You wont get any argument from me that the Senate is a joke, but you have to remember that when Chretien first got into power the Senate was full of PCs from Mulroneys 8 year run. Hell, there are still Senators appointed by Turner still hanging in there.

Realistically though, while I support the idea of an elected senate, these days I am more concerned with converting the HoC to a system where our votes are more accurately reflected, such as proportional representation, which I don't believe either of the 2 big parties are considering.

*British Columbia was the very first Province to proclaim set election dates into law.*

I support this idea too, but it is also fairly minor in my eyes because AFAIK, there is a limit of ~5 years on any sitting government. So even if we don't know exactly when we'd be rid of them, we are neither confined to having anyone forever.

*Paul Martin will never give us this right. No way.*

Ah ah ah! Remember, you're supposed to be talking up the Conservatives. Though, this one is on topic so I wont make a huge deal out of it.

*No chance that [Paul Martin] will EVER willingly split his absolute power with a seperately elected group who could remove him from power if he got way out of line.*

How do you know? Has he said that? He's already been allowing mostly free votes in the HoC, maybe if someone actually brought it up for debate/voting.

There is another thing to consider, that if any given party controlled both the HoC and the Senate, would we not be back to square one?

*Our Canadian HealthCare system is NOT working.*

So what would you suggest? A parallel private system? Two tier is not something that anyone should want to support, unless you want to end up with an American style caters-to-the-rich style system. Universally Accessible Private Delivery? Medicare still has to pay for that one, so where is the benefit?

The Liberals have a plan to re-structure and increase funding to the Health Care system, the Conservatives want to rip it apart. Personally, I find the former a more appealing situation.

I believe that Romanow (sp?) looked into alternatives to public health care and stated that there was no compelling evidence that would lead him to believe a private system would actually be helpful.

*The only real accomplishment that Paul Martin can point to is his magical "balancing the budget and eliminating the Federal Deficit" from several years back.*

For the last seven years in a row, actually. Harper and the Conservatives want to make broad tax cuts and increase spending, nearly across the board, and yet they still promise to keep the budget balanced and keep paying down debt. Care to elaborate on how they plan to accomplish this with the subsequent drop in revenue and increase in expenditure?

*[Health Care] used to be a fifty-fifty relationship. Now, under Paul Martin, it is a 86-14 relationship. The Provinces pay 86 per cent and the Feds pay about 14%.*

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this is not the entire story. Sorry I don't remember the specifics, but something about the Provinces wanting to allocate where the federal funding went instead of having it dictated to them by Ottawa. Surprise surprise that right after that it started looking like the Feds weren't funding the system enough.

Not that it is entirely the Provinces fault, the fed shouldn't have let them dictate anything to do with national funds.

Of course, I could be wrong on that point, but even if I am the Liberals have committed 9 Bilion dollars to health care, so isn't that somewhat of a moot point?

*Provinces are now deeply into deficit territory as a result of this.*

I can't speak for all the provinces, but BC's MASSIVE deficits are due to more than just health care costs. There is also the initial tax cuts, the pay outs to health care district big-wigs they let go, and lots of other things.

*Stephen Harper would bring our military commitment up to par with the rest of the NATO countries.*

We're actually spending, as a percentage of GDP, quite a bit on our military. More than most, when last I looked, and with less people to pay. I'd like to see our military re-equipped, it's a good idea. But there's just one question to ask:

Again, where are Harper and the Conservatives going to get all the money to pay for this?

----
Say what you will about the Liberals, but Conservative fiscal policy makes little sense. Increased spending and decreased taxes does not pay for itself, unless you're willing to eat a big tax increase when the economy is on the upswing (which I sincerely doubt that the Conservatives are willing to do).

That's the biggest reason that I am still leaning away from the Conservatives (though still undecided). Hows about addressing that one.

Ball's in your court.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

White is a Con MP and the former justice critic for the Reform....

In a May 19 interview for a documentary on same-sex marriage by Alexis Mackintosh called Let No One Put Asunder, White speaks frankly about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and suggests many in his party feel as he does:


"The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'The politicians make the laws and the courts do not.' The courts interpret that law. And if we don't like that interpretation, there's the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal government has never invoked and said they will not use. I believe we'll see that with us in the House of Commons because enough is enough of this stuff…

"I think most people are getting sick and tired of judges writing the law to suit themselves and to suit the current Liberal government, in fact.

"It's time that we started to exert our responsibility as politicians in the country. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be for us conservatives out there a way to put checks and balances in there."

No hidden agenda, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum...

Given the fact that the Liberals have broken pretty much ALL of their solemn campaign promises for the past decade...and given the fact that their own Health Minister (Pierre Pettigrew) openly stated that "there is room for private delivery of publicly funded health care in Canada" just before the election was called...and given the fact that both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin use ONLY 'private-for-profit' medical clinics themselves...

And given the fact that numerous Liberal MPs have publicly expressed their digust at same sex marriages...

And given the fact that pretty much ALL of the truly good policy ideas that the Liberals have put into place for the last decade were lifted directly out of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative playbook...

Policy ideas that they loudly ridiculed during each election campaign...then rapidly adopted as their own, once elected...

And given the fact that the Federal Liberals are more closely associated with lies and theft than they are with anything else...

Then this begs the question:

What sort of "hidden agenda" does Paul Martin have in mind, should he somehow manage to retain power?

We know from every previous election that the Liberals will NOT do what they say they will...and may even lie and steal a lot while doing just EXACTLY what they WANT to do, once they have been safely re-elected. This is a matter of historical record. So is their large scale theft of tax dollars. (in fact, they're under investigation for this right now. Eighteen seperate investigations, if memory serves).

So...what do you think they WILL do, if they manage to squeak back in?

And what data are you using to make this assumption?

Or...sorry, I'm laughing too hard to type...are you just going _take their WORD on it_ ??






























Too funny. 









[ June 28, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This Offtime political message brought to you by:

...............*Why not to elect the Cons - Voice of the Islands.*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice try, macdoc. Attempt to minimalise the obvious fury that a majority of Canadians feel toward the corrupt Liberals by making it sound like it's one lone voice from a distant island.

Watch the election results to see just how pi**sed off the Canadian electorate is at the so-called "natural ruling party of Canada" this time around. Then come back here and tell me I am one lone voice.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

*Nice try, macdoc. Attempt to minimalise the obvious fury that a majority of Canadians feel toward the corrupt Liberals by making it sound like it's one lone voice from a distant island.

Watch the election results to see just how pi**sed off the Canadian electorate is at the so-called "natural ruling party of Canada" this time around. Then come back here and tell me I am one lone voice.*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yep...a formerly powerful political party that has held a clear majority for more than a decade reduced to complete desperation and hoping against all hope that they will somehow be able to lash together a shaky minority government after todays vote.

All because of the widespread corruption of a now disgraced previous leader. Quite a yawner.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just cast my ballot and polling station has been very very busy....
good to see canadians coming out and voting

vive le canada libre !


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> * reduced to complete desperation and hoping against all hope that they will somehow be able to lash together a shaky minority government after todays vote.
> *


Well, at least you've upgraded your prediction from "TOTAL DECIMATION" to "HOPING FOR A MINORITY GOV'T". Does that mean you were originally quite wrong?   I suspect a Liberal minority will be the result, with the (non NDP) vote being split 55/44 in favour of the Liberals. It will be interesting to watch the results roll in.


----------



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

I was one of the first to vote in the actual polls in all of Canada. Our polling station in St. John's North opened up 5 minutes early, and I was third in line, but the only one with my voters card in hand. #1 and #2 were still being sworn in as I was leaving the polling station. 
The Dr.G. landslide has begun...........except the person I voted for is losing.  Still, this is why I became a Canadian citizen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm Newfoundland/Labrador - 
Pop vote
Liberals up 2%
NDP up 6%
Cons down 8% <<<<<<









some fury.  
Perhaps at the Cons - I noticed Scott Brison was elected. Going to Cabinet likely too. 

Now here's where proportional representation would really help the NDP - they polled 18% - no seats.  

Libs up 2 seats from prediction in Nova Scotia....oh the fury, the fury.  

Oh my late update - the Cons are down - way down right across the board. 7% was the LEAST amount. 13% or more down in the other three Atlantic provinces









Oh my are the Con commentators squirming at this point.

Duceppe commented today he though he might only be 35 seats tho prediction are 50+.
Now that may be good gamesmanship to make sure his supporters don't relax...but if he happens to be correct.
Then the NDP or the Bloc could be a partner.

I'd be incredibly interested in the explanation for the "surging Con" support in Quebec where the voters are falling all over themselves to buy into the glorious *Con*..........oh did I say that. eek: Of course I meant New Conservative platform.  :

[ June 28, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

interesting popular vote numbers in Atlantic Canada

LIB up 3.5%
CON down over 11%
LIB seats +5 compared to election call

CON incumbents down an avg. 11-16%
Peter "My signature means nothing" Mackay, I hope you are watching.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *.oh the fury, the fury.  *


Easy....don't be too cocky yet. "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings", "don't count your chickens before they hatch", and (this is best one) "he who laughs last, laughs best" 
I think macnutt should be buying a round if the Liberals win the minority position. I'll drink to THAT!


----------



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

Glad to see Scott Brison was elected. Not sure whether this can be extrapolated but here's hoping. One things for sure, the advance polls for the east were wayyyy off. It could go any which way. 

That said, with only 33 polls closed, the Liberals have 10X more seats NOW than the Progressive Conservatives had in 1993......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No one is counting anything -just debunking one myth of this all consuming anti Liberal tsunami that is "sweeping the nation" and the Liberals off the political map...you know that stuff.

I don't WANT another Lib majority. Just tired of the baseless, thoughtless rhetoric coming from the shaky coast.

Even Mother Nature showed her displeasure at it today by rattling the crockery.

Maybe reminding them all to vote Green. Go Green BC

Libs are going to get their come uppance in Quebec. Talk about a face plant there  

Ontario should be tres interesting


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bryson is touted to hold a cabinet post if the Liberals form the next gov't. He crossed the floor from the PC to Lib. He is also openly gay.

His acceptance speech was squarely aimed at voters across the country where the polls had not closed.

"The people of [his riding] have voted to not support those that use 'family values' as code words for bigotry." - paraphrased from memory


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Canada is the real big winner in this election as turn out is heavy right across the country. Congrats to all who took the time to think about things and vote.

One electoral officer out east said in 40 years he had never seen anything like it.
Bout time there was an engaged politi.

I'd never worked for a candidate before. It was fun driving voters in, even one wheelchair voter well into his 80s who said he'd never live it down with his daughter if he didn't vote.

New era, an engaged public. Good on us.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just curious... what happens if the leader of a party looses in their riding?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

HOLY SH*T !! It's a 2 to 1 advantage for the Liberals over the Conservatives so far. The west is still to be counted, but it looks good for the Martin Team. I guess the voters are more angry with the alternative than with the Liberal shortcomings. Macnutt will be eating crow pretty soon if the numbers don't swing around dramatically.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's the 126 Lib 18 NDP that's look very interesting carrying into the west.

[ June 28, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Anyone knows what happens if Jack Layton loses? 

Martin is in a very tight race.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Party Leaders

Party
Leader
Riding
Status
Margin

NDP
Jack Layton
Toronto-Danforth
trailing
-349

LIB
Paul Martin
LaSalle-Émard
trailing
-56

BQ
Gilles Duceppe
Laurier
elected
606

CON
Stephen J. Harper
Calgary Southwest
elected
1199


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

CTV projects a Liberal Minority


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Liberal - NDP goverment is looking like it might be a reality.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Current results according to Elections.ca

Party: # of seats
Liberal: 127
Conservative: 84 
NDP: 53
Bloc: 19
Other: 0 

Time: 20:30


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The election prediction project

http://www.electionprediction.org/2004_fed/p_35on.html 

showed 33 for the Cons in Ontario - it's nowhere near that. 22 only at this point, only 14 elected.
Belinda losing
Tony Clement defeated - what a rejection.  

Well done Ontario - voted policy. Ed Broadbent elected - happy day for Canadians.

They got it pretty much right in Quebec
The Libs did better in the East than they called.

BC should be interesting as it may make the NDP full partners. C'mon BC get a voice.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Liberal NDP combined vote sitting at 157.  Stronach is losing. T. Clement defeated.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

164 Combined.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Olivia Chou lost to Ianno. Ontario sure went Liberal.


----------



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

Although its a Liberal minority, its pretty clear that the Conservatives are a very distant second. The surveys were all way off (except the EhMac exit poll!!).

The Canadian public has spoken......


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

My initial reaction is yahooooooooo

Now after that, what is important for the Cons is that they underestimated the electorate. They campaigned on anti-Liberal feeling. 

The electorate has values. They can understand policies relevant to their interests. They know that Canada is doing well, and they don't want to risk that.

There is going to be so much discuss about this election, and perhaps another one soon. In the meantime, I am very grateful that I live in a democracy. Let's just take a few moments to consider those who are literally dying to achieve the gift we have.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not a chance for another one soon.

The electorate would severely punish any party authoring an early election.

With THREE parties to dance with Martin has no reason to not go 3-4 years and get a lot done.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Keep in mind that this is pretty early, and the Conservatives are going to pick up a bunch of seats in BC.

Still, I don't think they'll be able to catch up to the Liberals at this point.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yes... totally besides the point of the results, I got a real sense of pride and thankfulness just placing my X on my vote. Walked out of the school down the road and saw a Canadian flag hanging and I felt pretty darn happy to be in this country.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc,
I agree a party could be punished for bringing on instability. However, that doesn't mean it won't happen.

I am confident that this result is good for Canada. I was a bit concerned that the Bloc would hold the balance of power. I am happier with the NDP in general, although their economic sense concerns me.

This is going to make the politicians work very hard, negotiate in faith and look at their policies in great detail.

The real winners hear are the electorate. They will have a well run Parliament, with an absence of arrogance. There are a lot of really bright people in Parliament, and now they will get to use their brains and experience rather than hide behind a comfy majority.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's already factored in PB.

The NDP look to do very well in BC.

Cons are right now are 44 seats behind the Libs in elected and Libs are leading in 17 to Cons 14. That total national.
It's over.

Ontario, the Maritimes AND Quebec sent strong messages to both parties.

BC slammed it home with strong support for the NDP. 

•••
Pelao it would be political suicide....period full stop.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The big losers tonight are the pollsters!

One thing about tonight that pleases me is that the results mean this could be our last 'first past the post' election. The NDP have always said that supporting PR was a precondition to getting their support in a coalition. I hope they stick to that pledge.

I'm disappointed the Conservatives didn't have a better result, but they still have some work to do to properly create a full platform. They have still managed significant progress.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> They [cons] have still managed significant progress.


oh? +8 seats?
peter mackay's gamble has failed
history will remember him as a sell out


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*BC slammed it home with strong support for the NDP. *

How do you figure that? I don't even think that any of our ridings have declared anyone elected yet.

Also, according to Elections Canada, the Conservatives have 40% of the popular vote in BC, thus far. (NDP and Liberals both have ~20%)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*The big losers tonight are the pollsters!* 

It's not inconceivable that the Liberals simply went up 5 points in the polls over the weekend.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*BRITISH COLUMBIA*

Party
Elected
Leading
Vote Count
Vote Share

CON
16
3
158198
39.44%

LIB
4
4
111659
27.84%

NDP
3
5
97176
24.23%

NA
1
0
3656
0.91%


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Conservatives would only get 89 seats on a proportional basis.
They also can't complain about vote splitting - they picked up a few seats on that basis and the Libs lost a few with NDP/Lib splitting.

You'll not likely to see proportional as both the Libs and the Bloc would suffer - the Bloc the most.

You can take that one off the table for a while. The NDP can't force it.

The New Conservatives have some serious work to do - the opportunity is there but it's uphill with the shifting demographics.

NDP did very very well. 
They and the Bloc the winners.
The NDP doubled their popular vote and doubled their parliamentary seats.

Martin has his toes to the flame but they let him keep his socks on


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macspectrum,

Good to see you here!

No argument about Peter Mackay... he was the duplicitous leader of a moribund party that no longer stood for anything. It is Harper's accomplishment that he merged that party into his, rebranded the result, and managed to be a credible force in an election only months later. Some time in opposition will allow the party to actually build a platform... something they have not had a chance to do yet.

Cheers!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

Why can't the NDP force it (PR)? It has always been their policy that they would force it... you think they would reverse that policy now that actually do have the power?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

24% of the vote in BC - that's a BIG statement.

Currently 
Elected leading
Con 17 1
Lib 4 4
NDP 3 6

With that layout even if it shifts a bit there is no material change inthe parliamentary structure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Because the Bloc will support Martin to defeat it. 
It's not in the interest of the Liberals or the Bloc and the NDP would be suicidal to overlook the opportunity to get the other really important planks in play.

Remember it's only a request for a referendum. Not a high priority.
He stated tonight his priorities. They are very good ones.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It's a big statement that they have ~22% of the pop. vote, but considering that the NDP is going to take votes away from the Liberals if they are going to take it away from anyone, I don't see how you can say that they "slammed it home."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Nice speech by Jack Layton.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc,

The Liberals need the support of another party to have a majority. It won't be the Conservatives and it is unlikely to be the Bloc... it is likely to be the NDP. However, the NDP have said for many years, that passing PR legislation is a precondition for their support. If the NDP don't support the Liberal government, they either get Bloc support or they fall. At which point the Governor General would ask Stephen Harper to attempt to form a government. He too would seek BQ and/or NDP support... and if he fails then we would likely have another election. 

Jack Layton has a lot of power tonight. That's the nature of a minority govt.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Layton did mention PR in his speech tonight.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi EhMac,

I missed Layton's speech. Is he not gungho on PR then? My opinion of him has sunk even lower. That's really too bad...

Off to bed now... Yawn. Good night all.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

He seemed to mention it as a priority.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ANY party that would cause a government to fall on a referendum would disappear on the next election. The lash back would be enormous.

Totally irresponsible.

The NDP would put forth a Bill on the referendum.

Likely ALL of the rest would vote it down.
End of issue.

If they threatened to defeat a key item in the Liberal program - say daycare, healthcare, the budget over a referendum they would be lynched.

Martin can team up with any one of the other parties to govern.
All three would have to defeat the government and the one that initiated would be gassed in the resulting election.

This is a good flexible parliament that will keep everybody disciplined.
We've had tremendous improvements in Canada under minorities.

This is a strong minority in its flexibility, not a fragile one. That augurs well for the next few years.

There is no reason not to think the Cons and Libs might work together on a military budget with some give and take.
Parties cannot NOT work cooperatively under these circumstances without risking huge defeat in the next election.  

Remember Germany has NEVER had a majority government.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

best spin line of the night goes to....
Stephen Harper saying he will accept the vote of Canadians

Very big of you Stephen
No notwithstanding clause to use to oveturn the election, eh?
Damn electorate !!!


----------



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

Lest we forget Macnutt's fine words of June 14th --

"The Liberals are unelectable. the Consevatives are the only logical alternative. Pretty much ALL Canadians are coming to this conclusion, according to the polls.

What makes you think that the Liberals have even a ghost of a chance of WINNING ? Anything??"

Ghosts have a tendancy of coming back to haunt us all at one time or the other. As well, in Life, we must expect the unexpected. Trust me on this one. Paix.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Breakfast, anyone?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Thanx The Doug for providing breakfast good thing it's only for one  

COME AND GET IT Macnutt!!!!!!!!!


----------



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

Now, now, let's be fair to Macnutt. I am sure he will come back and provide us with his view of this current situation. "Trust me on this one". We shall see.............................


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Interesting change!

When I went to bed last night the NDP held the balance of power. When I woke up, they no longer did... it now belong to Bloc. This means two things:

1. The Liberals need Bloc or Conservative support to get anything through the house.

2. If the Conservatives and Bloc form a coalition, they could bring down the government.

The Liberals have a mandate for now but if they run into trouble (more scandals, divisive issues etc) they could find themselves in opposition. Very interesting times ahead, full of deal making and jockeying for position; this election was just the beginning...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not quite Lib + NDP + Independent = 155

Once more the party that causes a defeat will get decimated.
Duceppe's not stupid.


----------



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

Chuck Cadman, the Independent from Surry North, BC takes on greater significance now. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good observation Macdoc. 

For a minute there I thought Fink-Nottle woke up south of the border!  

Cheers


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

You wrote:
"Not quite Lib + NDP + Independent = 155"

-minus the independent who's a former member of the Alliance (and only ran as an independent because they selected another candidate... nothing ideological)

-minus someone to be the speaker (who only gets to vote in the event of a tie)

=153 out of 308

Very close... but no majority!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know you bring up an interesting point. The Independent could be used as a stalking horse by the Conservatives. Deflect criticism from them if a vote gets narrowly defeated. They would just shrug and say "Who me"??.

Remember too not all votes are confidence votes.
The Speaker will likely be Liberal but maybe Ed Broadbent would be a brilliant choice - well respected in Parliament.

Wonder what the Cabinet vacancies will be and if there are any other changes.
I'd love to see Carolyn Parrish as defence Minister


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

If the opposition defeats a vote they shouldn't need to deflect criticism...

Anyway, Paul Martin will NEVER make Parrish the Defence Secretary, and likely not anything else either. Firstly, she is an avowed Chretienite and has always been critical of Martin... even during this last campaign. (She referred to the campaign as "comedy of errors" being run by the "keystone cops".)

Secondly, Martin has already agreed to missile defence talks with the US and appointing her would be seen as a snub. I would be most surprised if she is anything but a backbencher in the new goverment. 

On a partisan note, I think that's all she deserves as well. Her comments about the US were indisputably juvenile... and to say them at a media scrum showed an distinct lack of judgment. I'm glad you like her as an MP though, and I'll deduce from your enthusiasm (and her reelection of course) that she must have some redeeming qualities. 

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I didn't say he would I said I would expect him to, I said I'd like him to. That's MY preference.
I'm not US fan with this administration and more the snubs the better.
Not like Bush hasn't been assinine to us.

I'd prefer a "tell it like it is" politician sometimes.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I wanted Martin to be 2-3 seats short of a majority to teach him some humility... Now he could be 1 seat short of a coillition...

Hmmmm.... very interesting... Where's that Conservative surge in Ontario.... Clement? Nice concession... "It must have been those negative attack ads... Not your failure in 4 votes in 2 years..."

Harris' Cronies... Rejected again by Ontario...

The election was Martins to lose... and He did not overwhelmingly win, he will be very luck to survive a leadership review once his minority fails.

Harper failed to get win Ontario and did nothing in Quebec.
Someone on the CBC lastnight remarked correctly, "You don't get to be Prime Minister without representation in Quebec {or Southern Ontario}


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Well these results have surprised a lot of people, including me (yeah, I'm the one who thought after the first week of the campaign that the Conservatives might be poised to win big).

A few thoughts: there's certainly something very interesting going on with the left vote in Canada, as evidenced in the NDP's growth. I'll be interested to see the final percentages for the Greens as well. As for the right...a few things come to mind. Next time, they need a far more substantial policy platform...demand better is a nice tagline, but it left too many unanswered questions about how these guys would behave in power. More important, they must do something about their tact on social issues otherwise 24 Sussex is going to remain far out of reach.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Popular vote tells the tale. 

" Predictions that voters would desert the Liberals in droves over the sponsorship scandal were proven wrong on election night, judging by the popular vote numbers.

Though Paul Martin's party lost 40 seats compared to its showing in the 2000 election, picking up 137 seats this time, voter support dropped by only three percentage points. About 38 per cent of Canadians who voted today cast ballots for the Liberals, compared to almost 41 per cent four years ago.

By comparison, the united-right Conservatives won the support of 29.2 per cent of voters, compared to the 37.8 per cent who voted for either the Alliance or the Progressive Conservatives in 2000. The merged party gained only seven seats for a total of 93. "

I know a particular member on this board will be eating a huge heaping helping of crow.







(And go on to foam at the mouth how we're now doomed)

The people have clearly spoken. 

G'night all. Was a fun day!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Break down popular vote.
38% Lib
29% Con
18% NDP
12% Bloc
4% Green

Yeah yeah it's 101 - there were some fractions - deal with it.  

Ther Conservatives were well below their popular vote in the last election ( combined PC/Alliance ) but the consolidated party picked up more seats.

The conservative element in Canada has an uphill battle due to demographics.
Smaller rural population
Increasing urban and super urban population

Hence the jump in the NDP support. It's just going to get harder to convince more voters to move right - heck Martin IS right wing for a sizeable portion of the population.

It's a needed voice on the small c conservative - it's stuck in a rut that gets deeper as time goes by.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper's speech was okay BUT claiming they were responsible for depriving the Libs of a majority just plain untrue.

They only got 10 more seats.

The Bloc deprived the Libs, not the Cons.  Same old spin crops up. Why not call it like it is.

Other than that not a bad speech and a pledge to work in a minority.

it's simply not a national Party - the tepid applause in certain areas shows it clearly. Work to do indeed. The Voice of the West - yep - NOT the voice of Canada.


----------



## Kardnal (Feb 5, 2003)

> The Liberals need the support of another party to have a majority. It won't be the Conservatives and it is unlikely to be the Bloc...


I don't know about that. 

When Gilles Duceppe outlined what the 4 or 5 things were that he wouldn't compromise on, should there be a minority government, he and Martin agreed on most of them. (Same sex marriage, gun control, universal health car etc). I think that the Librals will be able to count on a bunch of votes from the Bloc...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep right on. They have a very common agenda and even Harper agreed to work on common areas like health care.

••

Martin looked and sounded very human tonight and I wish we had seen the kind of "fire in the belly" throughout the campaign that he showed tonight.

I wonder when parliament will be recalled?? Get on with it guys and gals - we're payin your salary - party time is over -GET BACK TO WORK....NOW!  

Ohhh the final treat....Annie "get your gun" McClelland wins her seat in the heart of Harperland. You listenin Sinc.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Don't know if Chuck Cadman will be so keen to help out the Conservatives. After all, they did knife him in the back, in the midst of his battle with cancer, by allowing another person to get the party's nomination in his riding. So much for family values, eh?

Many of the voters in Surrey-North were incensed by this disloyalty and voted Cadman in as an independent, with a large majority.

I don't know where he stands on the ideological scale. He originally ran on a law and order platform in the '90's after his son was murdered. He impresses me, when I've heard him speak as a more pragmatic type than as an ideologue. 

He runs around in a denim shirt and jeans, sporting a beard and long pony-tail, not your typical *C*onservative-*R*eform-*A*lliance-*P*arty horse-pucky, eh?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I never did understand where he was seeing this Conservative momentum, the polls were locked in a dead heat for weeks.

Maybe he can explain that one too?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> quote: by MacNutt
> ....... Get ready to welcome the Right Honorable Stephen Harper as our brand new Prime Minister .......
> It won't be a minority. It'll be a majority Conservative win. ................... I'll be roundly criticised for this prediction by all the usual players. Later on, I'll be called "smug" by those same bitterly dissappointed pundits when the predictions come true.
> 
> ...


Okay I did. How are the feathers tasting.....a bit bitter I suspect.
We were talking about cred a while back I believe.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

MacDoc, you did a better job than the so-called expert pollsters. Congratulations, I suppose.

James


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Where's Macnutt? On a bender maybe? There's a serving of crow, with his name on it, getting cold    

Some of his recent quotes for your reading pleasure:

"Yes...if the Liberals manage to squeak out a minority government I will stand before all of you and admit that I was wrong. Big time. count on it."

"... if the Conservatives win a minority or a majority government (I think it will be a clear majority, BTW) ..."

"The Martin Liberals are on a high-speed express elevator to total oblivion! No doubt about it."

"A Conservative minority might be a problem...good thing they are headed for a clear majority on june 28th instead."

"The Conservatives are still climbing, and are headed for a big win. ... The momentum is clear. The whole country wants a change at the top."

"One of the reasons that I've been so confident of a Conservative majority is because of the momentum that the Conservative party seems to have. It is pretty clear to all but those who still have their ideological blinders on."

... "THAT is what will make this upcoming election into a landslide win for the Conservatives.

And will spell an end to the Federal Liberals as a party.

Watch and see."

There were tons more, this is just what I found on a few pages of one thread.

I'd say it's about time for some entertaining acts of contrition.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Well you lot are certainly doing enough crowing to provide meals for everybody... 

[ June 30, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Fink-Nottle ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice pun....as ever I only respond in kind.
••••
I can't take credit for the prediction - it was a poll at the time which turned out more accurate than the later ones.

I'd love to see Charest jump to the Cons or Lord take a crack at it - THEN we'd have a horserace....as long as the bleating edge got muzzled.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if Charest jumped to the Cons he would lose ALL credibility and a possible chance to succeed Martin as PM

Charest has problems in Quebec, especially in light of strong rumours that Duceppes wants to jump to the PQ to become leader of a new nation and all

Charest is trying very hard to make Quebec an economically feasible province, but Quebecers have tossed leaders aside when such attempts have been made in the past, to wit, the most unceremonial dumping of Levesque, a favourite son, after he tried to hold back promised pay raises to Quebec workers. I think it was Quebec Hydro or civil servants.

remember that Charest jumped across the aisle once already and that was not a big a leap coming from the Progressive Conservatives as it would be going to the very right wing Convervative Party of Canada (note: not the "Tories")


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And that's exactly what they need. Someone with some credibility as a moderate. The long shadow of Teflon boy over the entire political landscape....still.

But realistically Lord is a better candidate.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

anyone think MacNutt will show his face around here again?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Yeah, he will. Only if to tell us what Liberal-lovin' traitors we all are here in Ontario.  

iG/<


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

it wasn't just ontario that screwed over macnutt's predictions.

he's going to have some harsh words for quebec and the eastern provinces too.

i can't wait. this is going to be fun.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Yeah, he will. Only if to tell us what Liberal-lovin' traitors we all are here in Ontario.


albertans seem to be already doing a good job of that


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> But realistically Lord is a better candidate.


MacDoc if you were from New Brunswick you couldn’t make that comment with a straight face.  but true


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

TMR wrote:

*it wasn't just ontario that screwed over macnutt's predictions.
*

Yes, but Ontario gets blamed for everything and is the favourite target for foamies. Not that I'd ever, *ever* call our Nutt a "foamy".  

Macspectrum scripsit:

*albertans seem to be already doing a good job of that*

The vote was not yet fully counted and the whining already began. On a number of call in shows a few people actually used the "traitor" epithet. 

If we are traitors to the ConWest-tunnel-vision, so be it. Boo hoody boo. 

Next time Albertans should vote more for NDP if they don't want the adLibs around.  


iG/<


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Boo hoody boo.


Ah yes, I remember it well.

The wisdom of youth.

Cheers


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I'm on the road this week (thank you, hoteliers, for free Internet). Today on the TransCanada, I passed a fleet of Stephen Harper campaign buses heading back to the ranch from out West. Sure looked like an unhappy group. 

I waved, just to be nice.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As some of the more observant amongst you may have noticed over the past few weeks, I have been VERY busy with my bottled water business ( we have been living with an extended heatwave out here). I've had only a scarce few opportunities to add my comments to this forum in the final weeks of the election campaign, and I don't have much time right now. I have been off-island since midday monday and will be off-island (and away from my beloved Macintosh) until later in the day this coming monday.

First off...I must apolgise to everyone here for making confident predictions about the outcome of this election that never materialised. During the final week of the campaign, I began to get the feeling that some of the "fear and smear" tactics that Paul Martin had deperately resorted to were beginning to have an effect. But no one...not even I...ever expected this sleazy tactic to have such a profound effect on the Canadian electorate.

Low-road "fright" campaigns like this often have a negative effect. Mostly, they backfire on the perpetrators and most thinking people see them for what they are...a totally desperate act on the part of a group that has run out of new ideas and is facing total ruin at the hands of the voters.

In this case, a long-term and terribly corrupt political party that has been publicly accused of theft and lying on a massive scale, decided to try and demonise a leader and a party that was so new that they hadn't even had their very first policy convention yet. (They have barely had enough time to print up their first set of business cards.)

The unelected leader of this long-term and terribly corrupt political party...who is a multi-millionaire Quebec lawyer who NEVER uses Canada's public health care system himself...actually managed to convince a signifigant percentage of Canadian voters that HE was the very best man to "protect" that same health care system from the unspeakable ravages of the new party's leader, who is NOT A multi-millionaire, and who DOES use the Canadian health care system exclusively!

Unbelievable. (truth IS stranger than fiction, after all)









Wait...it gets worse.

The brand new Conservative party leader has sworn to turn Canada from a conditional democracy into a REAL one...for the very first time in our country's history. He has publicly promised to allow free members votes on all sorts of issues...and to abide by the majority outcome. He promised to turn the Senate into an Elected and Effective and totally Equal body that he would then share power with. This would be an incredible leap into total democracy for ALL Canadians. One that were are LONG overdue for! (This IS the twenty-first century...after all!)

But the leader of the old corrupt Liberal party managed to turn this potential leap towards true democracy into a looming threat to certain specific minority groups. He characterised it as EVIL and un-Canadian....even though the resultant decisions would be made with the input from a far greater portion of the Canadian population, and their chosen representatives, than any political decisions Canada have EVER enjoyed in the past.

He focused and attacked and smeared the new and untried leader, using improbable scenarios that frightened some of the ill-informed. He inundated us with terrible images and publicly demonised both the brand new party and its leader. It was a cheap tactic from a desperate man who saw all the power he had lusted after for so many years slipping away from him.

It was a last-ditch move for a rich Liberal who was facing certain defeat. It was last minute gutter politics at it's very WORST.

But it WORKED!   

This old corrupt party that has lied to us at every turn...and mismanaged our money....and is currently the subject of a Royal Commision for stealing hundreds of millions of our tax dollars for more than a decade, has somehow managed to convince the undecided voters to re-elect THEM, instead of the brand new party that has NEVER EVER lied to us or stolen from us.

A fresh new party leader who (unlike Paul Martin) has promised to turn Canada into a real democracy for the very first time in history. 

A newly minted leader of a newly minted Conservative Party who (unlike Jean Chretien and Paul Martin) actually USES the Canadian health care system, and wants to reform it into something that will be around for his own children and the children of ALL Canadians in the future....

And who DOESN"T want to see the whole thing collapse into an insurmountable mountain of debt. as the massive baby boomer generation begins to age and make huge new demands on this already failing system....

And who was defeated by a cheap and desperate campaign of fear by a man and a party that is currently under no less than eighteen seperate investigations by all levels of our justice system. For Fraud and Theft and influence peddling, among other crimes.

Congratulations to those who somehow think that this is has been some sort of a roaring succcess. Champagne and caviar all around to those who honestly consider this to be a moment of twisted victory for "their side".

To those of you who voted for the corrupt old Liberals....I hope you're all proud of yourselves. You've done them a great service. You've temporarily taken them off the hook for their many crimes and legitimised their many bad decisions.

By default, you've practically guaranteed that the documented criminals in our national government will go free and that taxes will rise. 

-Hospital lineups will increase in length and Canada will be no closer to a real democracy than it has been for at least the past decade. 

-The elected politicians will continue to defer important decisions that affect ALL of us to the politically appointed hacks who currently populate our courts. 

-The military will continue to wither away to nothing, and we will be dependant on the goodwill of a foreign neighbor to maintain our own national soverignty. 

-Violent criminal acts that involve handguns will continue to rise in our cities while the Liberal government spends billions of tax dollars to register a small percentage of the duckhunters shotguns.

And you have already sent a very clear message to all future contenders for absolute power here in Canada that cheesy fear and smear attacks on any and all challengers actually WORK!!

Some victory.

This is a two-part play. The First Act has just ended. The curtain is about to go up for the Second Act. With a tiny and fragile minority government that requires the approval of the NDP, AND at least one more vote, to get anything done...Paul Martin's reign will likely be one of the shortest in Canadian history. And one of the least effective.

And we have...on public record...Paul Martin's iron clad promise that he will resign if he breaks ANY of his many solemn campaign promises. (and he made MANY of them, if you recall). He has also promised to resign if he is found to be in any way a part of the massive sponsorship scandal. Or even KNEW about it. 

Shouldn't be long now. I'm just counting the days. This particular house of cards is already quivering under the light of day. It could collapse into cruel reality and leave us all looking for a brand new set of leaders at any moment. A new election is not far off. New public revelations into the depth of the Liberal scandals are just around the corner. A conservative-thinking, pragmatic, and very honest guy, like the west coast's Chuck Cadman may just wield enough power with his one lone independant vote to bring the whole nasty mess down in a single day.

This shaky mess that some people are claiming to be a great victory is based on some pretty fragile foundations. It could collapse at any moment.

And Canadians will not likely be fooled so easily again. Especially once the Royal Comissions have revealed just how deep the corruption actually ran in the Liberal party. And who actually KNEW About it. And who did NOTHING.

The politics of fear can only last for a limited time. Even amongst the most timid and easily frightened central Canadians. (Or amongst the most smog-addled Vancouverites, for that matter.)

Change...BIG change...has not been defeated. It's just been delayed by a few months. Cruel reality is inevitable. The Liberals are STILL facing the scary scenario of seeing their top people in court for major crimes against the Canadian people. Their leader is going to be held to his many campaign promises...and will be unable to deliver on ANY of them, due to his newly reduced power. The press and the now-awakened Candian electorate will be calling for someone's head on a stick, only a short time from now.

Especially once they all realise how badly hornswaggled they were in this recent election campaign. And realise that the very SAME political party that has been LYING to them for so many years is just doing...once again...what they do BEST.

So...I just GOTTA ask....

How DO you like your crow to be served, macdoc? On a silver platter? With some tender fava beans, and a nice Chianti? 









The future...after all...is almost upon us. The past is fading fast.









[ July 01, 2004, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mr. MacNutt, sir,

Gee, after your thousands of fiery words on the certain and complete destruction of the Liberal party and the predictions of a massive Harper landslide, and full-blast ridicule of all those who questioned whether it might all go as swimmingly as you predicted, all we get is a short, "Sorry, I didn't know that those evil Liberal campaign tactics might actually work." What, - you never thought a politician might seek to impugn the reputation of their competitors? Why ... that's ... that's ... just dirty pool!  

And then you continue on for many paragraphs to make a whole bunch of new predictions. Should we "trust you on those", too? Pardon me if I'm a wee bit skeptical.

So, it was all that "Fear and smear", eh?

Where's there's smoke, there's fire.

The fact that Harper wouldn't categorically state that his government would not repeal abortion laws, seek to further privatize Medicare or strongly repudiate the ignorant statements from his knuckle-dragging Reform fringe, made most Canadians very nervous. The fact of his trying to weasel out of his previously made, very strong statements on Iraq, that *everyone* knew meant that he wanted Canada to join Bush's reckless crusade, made most of us even more nervous.

Everyone's has an agenda. But the fact that Harper was so busy during the election campaign keeping the gags tightly tied on his ultra-right pals and wouldn't come out and answer the charges directly, made most correctly assume the his agenda must be hidden.

Sorry, the fear and smear thing is nothing but pure BS. Harper hoped to do what Bush did with his fake election campaign of 2000, whispering "compassionate conservatism" while keeping quiet about his real values. 

If the charges were not true, why didn't he just stand up and deny it all, instead of splitting hairs? Because he knew that his real agenda, the one he has promoted for his whole political career, is one that is very unpalatable to most Canadians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt .. Apology accepted.
Otherwise.........YAWN. 
Summary of your post. 70% of your fellow Canadians are too stupid to "see the light".

Stick to the water bottling....I hope you're better at that than assessing your fellow Canadians....or election prospects.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> decided to try and demonise a leader and a party that was so new that they hadn't even had their very first policy convention yet. (They have barely had enough time to print up their first set of business cards.


1) they are only technically new. the main players have been on the public stage for a long time now - long enough for us to who they are and what their agenda is.
2) if by demonize you mean 'point out who these guys really are, ie, not the old conservatives party they are masquerading about as', then you correct.

i didn't want right wing christian zealots like yourself, macnutt, running the country, and that's why i didn't vote reform. harper was the friendly face the Reform party trotted out in front of the cameras. it was almost as if he didn't represent his party's views as he rushed about trying to cover up the stupid things the members of this party were saying.

i also didn't want harper rigging the electoral system so that right wing christian zealots could stay in power forever.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Macnutt if you want to charge anybody with fearmongering try going after Ralph Klein, you want dirty tactics why don't you get an answer from Harper why on June 17th he turned the brutal murder of a innocent 10 year old girl into a move to garner more votes from the electorate.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macnutt, you ARE unique and I like you. You are also a good writer. You seem to have a skill at writing propoganda and unsubstantiated "facts".....almost like a "fiction based on real people" You may actually be doing a better job of "fear mongering" than Martin did. I can see many holes in you arguments, but there are more skilled members here who will be glad to shoot them up. Bottom line is that the larger percentage of the population decided to elect a less-than-perfect Liberal Party over a suspicious, unproven right wing Conservative Party. We've been burned too many times before in thinking that the grass would be greener on the other side. Our country is in overall better shape now than with many previous governments....and our kids are not dying in Iraq.....maybe not so bad after all!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh damned with faint praise.  Marc Anthony would be proud of you Pete..
"We come here not to........." 
Well crafted


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Hey Macnutt...

All gloating aside, you raised some valid points, the liberals are not squeeky clean, never were... a 4th continuous mandate {even a minority one} is rare enough, and it is probably undeseaved... 

Except for the lack of a credible opposition. The right is finally united {such as it is, probably as good as can be} but the far right agenda is waining world-wide. It is a tough sell, and Harper et al, did not sell it to central and eastern Canada.

Fear mongering and scare tactics, while an effective tool with marginal voters was not the major factor in not electing a Conservative government. The ghosts of Muldoon, Harris and Klien were more than enough. Ontario has been there and does not want to go back. Quebec was never going to buy it either.

In fact the only time there was a significant Tory vote in "La Belle Provence" was when Muldoon was offering to rewrite the constitution to get back at Trudeau for being more popular.

When he didn't deliver, that Quebec Tory Block became the Bloc Quebecois....


How a minority of west coast ******** can blame Ontario and the east for daring to vote against their self rightious and divine agenda just shows that the Conservative/Reform/Alliance/Party is still not capable of convincing the majority of Canadians that they are ready and able to govern.

Harper has done a good job of rebuilding the Tory framework, better than Stockwell or Preston or what-his-name who rolled over and let Harper lead.

The new Conservative party is just that NEW... and Canadians have never just handed power to a new entity. Time for Harper to sit in opposition and the legitimate leader of "Her Majest's Loyal opposition" and prove that he {or his successor} is capable of appealling to the rest of the country.

Martin is bravely refusing a formal coalition, mainly because it will not give him majority control anyway. He might as well soldier on and hope that when the opposition brings down his government that there is enough of a public backlash against the opposistion, that he can regain a majority parliment.

All that assumes he survives a leadership challange from within the Liberal caucus. Kicking out the old guard and failing to control the house does not strengthen his position.

No party wants another quick election, they know the public doesn't either. I think this is a good thing as politicians will have to learn how to bargin and play politics rather than just shoving thier agenda down the public throught.


Long live democrasy in actions...


As for gloating... "Call me when you can form a government..."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> heading back to the ranch from out West.


Does that mean they are headed EAST? If so, last I looked there were no ranches in that part of Canada.

Cheers


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

SINC wrote:

*Ah yes, I remember it well.The wisdom of youth.*

Oh, we are gonna take out the big guns now, eh?

"Alberta geezers are so much smarter than young Ontario whippersnappers." KABOOM! KABOOM!

Too bad you are only _remembering_ the wisdom of youth.  

iG/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaking of fearmongering and other "punditing" about the America saving the world.

Today's result for the shrub 



> *War in Iraq Increased Terrorism Threat, Poll Says *(Update1)
> 
> July 1 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of U.S. voters said the threat of terrorism against the U.S. has increased because of the war in Iraq, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters.
> 
> ...


more 



> Prior to the United States turning over control of Iraq to the Iraqi leaders, the Harris Poll captured President Bush's approval rating of his handling of Iraq. The findings show public approval was at its lowest and had been steadily declining since January of this year. *A clear majority (58%) gave him negative marks (only fair or poor) worsening slightly from a month earlier. Only four in ten (41%) adult Americans rated the president positively* (excellent or pretty good) as compared to about half (51%) who gave him good marks in January.





> CBS Poll June 30th
> 
> Forty-two percent of those polled said they approve of the job the president is doing. Pollsters say that in the last 25 years, presidents with job approval ratings below 50 percent in the spring of election years have lost the upcoming election. Bush’s father had a 34 percent approval rating at this time in 1992.
> 
> ...


Much crying in the neoCon camp.

Good for you America, throw the bums out


----------



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

Macnutt you really should be in politics. You share the one important characteristic with the majority of our politicians - the ability to speak interminably from one perspective without any appreciation of the real world.

Indeed, if your Conservative colleagues in Ottawa persist in a similar degree of acrimonious misconception of why they failed during the next government, Sussex Drive will not be seeing the likes of Stephen Harper any time soon. Where is the credibility!

Happy Canada Day!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I suddenly understand why MacNutt chose this name: he has SJ's "Reality Distortion Field" thing.


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

> How a minority of west coast ******** can blame Ontario and the east for daring to vote against their self rightious and divine agenda just shows that the Conservative/Reform/Alliance/Party is still not capable of convincing the majority of Canadians that they are ready and able to govern.


WEST COAST ********!!  
Now we're getting into an east versus west bash JAMG. This is just the sort of thing that frustrates me about our country. Darn easterners have no clue about the west. I find it so interesting that all of these comments are coming from one part of the country. Yes... we may be a minority but I'd love to see how well the rest of the country would do without Alberta's and BC's resources.

Macnutt, bravo. I'm with you on everything you said.I like many out here in the west am a proud Conservative supporter. I'm proud to say that I've voted Reform/Alliance/Conservative in the past 3 elections.

I like you Macnutt am extremely dissapointed in the results of the election. It seems that once again the whole thing was decided by you all out east. What confuses me is that we all heard the same ridiculous campaign put on by the Liberals. "He's bad, he's bad... vote for us". How does that even state their platform? Unfortunately all of you out east thought their history was acceptable. You sent the message. It's okay to steal our money. It's okay to drop a crapload more of that money in the gun registry. It's okay to be deceitful in an election campaign. You said it was okay when you handed the power back to them.

I myself am fed up with the liberals but what difference does it make. My voice doesn't matter. I'm part of a minority of "West coast ********". 

All I want is a government that will open its eyes to our vast nation from East to West. It seems like too often they have a tunnel vision pointed at Central Canada. I've voted Reform/ Alliance/Conservative consistently because I believe they would be able to give everyone an equal voice in Canada. Not to mention make a truer democracy like Macnutt said. Would it have been so horrible had Harper been handed the mantle. Certainly better than that the lying Liberals, minrity or not. 

There's my rant. I suppose there is still hope as a minority government is only temporary.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A voice in Edmonton seems to reflect the same stance as many in Ontario



> *Ugly Albertans*
> 
> By IAN COLEMAN
> Friday, July 2, 2004 - Page A18
> ...


and he stated a lot blunter than any of us from Ontario have.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *WEST COAST ********!!  *
> 
> "Darn easterners have no clue about the west"
> ..... I'll agrere with that:and visa versa
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah and a lot of westerners have no clue about the west, either. They seem to think that because they happen to be in a pocket of neo-conservative support and their local right-wing media bleats and whines about damn easterners, that *everyone* in the west agrees with them.

Well, surprise, 2/3 of British Columbians voted against Harper, just slightly less than the percentage of anti-Harper voters in Ontario. But our electoral system distorts that number and vote-splitting between Liberal, NDP and Greens gave the Cons 2/3 of BC's seats for 1/3 of it's total votes. 

And even in Alberta, the supposed bastion of support for the neo-con agenda, 40% of the electorate disagreed with Harper. The Cons 60% of the vote won them 92% of the provinces seats, making it look like Harpers support there was almost unanimous. It weren't, cowpoke.

The west doesn't unanimously support the right-wing hidden agenda of Harper and his pals and *the majority* of the voters in BC and Alberta, 1,586,983 of the 2,995,433 people who voted in these two provinces, are quite pleased that Harper is not our PM.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*our electoral system distorts that number and vote-splitting between Liberal, NDP and Greens gave the Cons 2/3 of BC's seats for 1/3 of it's total votes.*

And it's for that reason exactly that I (and many others I know) would like to see a change to a system where our votes are more accurately reflected.

An elected, proportional senate would be nice, too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*" Would it have been so horrible had Harper been handed the mantle"* 

Yes just have a look south for your answer.

The current Conservatives are NOT a pan-Canadian party and the popular vote shows it clearly.
8% LESS than the last election when the right was split.

You want a small hint.
*The percentage of women candidates for the Cons was LESS THAN HALF that of the other parties.*  

11% Con versus 24% for the Liberals, 25% for the Greens and 31% for the NDP.
You haven't even got the gender issue starting to resolve let alone a PanCanada party.









Much much work to do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" *An elected, proportional senate would be nice, too."
* 

That's way too simple a proposition. A second house is very unwieldy with our provincial set up.
WHO are they going to represent.
The US has enough states to make it work. 
You going to put PEI on an equal footing with Ontario  

It's just plain hard to find a workable use for a second house in Canada.

Second choice voting structures to eliminate vote splitting I can agree with and maybe even some proportional "top ups" based on that same concept.

But analyse that in detail - we pride ourselves on electing good people for our ridings, who/what do the "top ups" represent??

The Senate is a huge expense with very little to show for it.

I'd far rather see some sort of Provincial Council which is NOT whip based.
Toronto has that - while there are vague political lines the council has to work out each issue based on free votes. 

How to give a council like that power I can't see.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*You going to put PEI on an equal footing with Ontario *

PEI has 4 MPs and 4 Senators. The city of Richmond B.C., which is on an Island, has a roughly comparable population to PEI yet only has 1.5 MPs and no senators of their own.

Why, exactly, should I be worried about Ontario?

*The Senate is a huge expense with very little to show for it.*

Perhaps if they were elected, they would actually show up every once in a while.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> PEI has 4 MPs and 4 Senators. The city of Richmond B.C., which is on an Island, has a roughly comparable population to PEI yet only has 1.5 MPs and no senators of their own.


PE Island waited to get into Confederation just because of that kind of rational. PE I wanted a guarantee of a balancing of power before it gave up its independence. 134 years later NOW! Let's $hit on the little fellers?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Just arrived home after a weeklong whirlwind visit of friends and family in Sask. and Man. Definitely far more of them were relieved, than pissed off, at a Liberal minority, though I have to say that those who were angry were definitely steamed.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw Jeffery Simpson's column on PR in today's Globe this discussion.

I'm definitely in favor of introducing a measure of PR into our system but I agree with Simpson that PR too often results in increased regionalism, single-issue parties and a failure to set and meet long term national goals, which are sacrificed for the short term and politically expedient.

I want to moderate the first past the post system, but I don't want to eliminate the probability of a majority government if it only receives 45 per cent of the vote.

It's a topic that needs to be discussed more without the kneejerk reaction of political parties, provinces or regions fearful of losing a measure of power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> You going to put PEI on an equal footing with Ontario
> 
> PEI has 4 MPs and 4 Senators. The city of Richmond B.C., which is on an Island, has a roughly comparable population to PEI yet only has 1.5 MPs and no senators of their own.
> 
> Why, exactly, should I be worried about Ontario


Your point being??









Who is the senate to represent??
What is it's power??

It's all fine to wave vaguely and make pronouncements but bodies have to do something and have the power to legislate.

I'm listening.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

How exactly am I "pooping on the little fellers"?

Is that what asking why PEI has to much representation compared to BC now equates to?


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

I think that a PR system would bring more problems than it would solve.
1. More fringe parties would be created in the knowledge that they would have at least one seat in Parlament.
2. Most elections would result in minorities.
3. It would remove the ability of the electorate to send a message to the government by giving them only a minority.
4. Have a look at countries with a similar system. Shifting coalitions, frequent elections, religious parties, single theme parties.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You gotta remember folks, that when that crowd from Upper and Lower Canada came sailing around in the summer of 1864 wineing and dinning the leaders from the Colonies of PE Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia those Maritime leaders were at a conference to discuss the union of the Maritime Colonies.
After the Canadians got them drunk the Canadians said chuck that Maritime Union thing. Through your lot in with us. Will give you some neat powers to balance things up.
Toronto, Richmond, Calgary were never sovereign colonies. The Prairie Provinces were never sovereign colonies. Upper and Lower Canada got together as a result of a shotgun wedding. 
That is why the issue of Quebec sovereignty linger till this day. 
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PE Island and finally Newfoundland were all independent Colonies (Newfoundland was even a sovereign country at some points) They were given some things in exchange for some other things.
The changing out of structures like Parliament and the Senate are not going to be easy nor for the faint of heart. 
And believe me when I say that the Confederation of Regions thing “ain’t gonna to cut it.”


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The most important exercise is to look for common ground.

I'm disgusted with the deal the farmer get and there is no control ont he profits of the conglomerates like Weston and McCain who get rich regardless of the crop results.

There is so much to do in Canada that we do agree on - that's where the focus should be.

Turning natural riches into real wealth, not paper wealth.

A peaceable society with clean air, water, a diverse set of industries and opportunities and a safety net in keeping with our ability to pay for it.

There's lots to keep us occupied for a generation just realizing those goals let alone also helping others around the planet realize the same.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

PEI has ~110,000 Electors
BC has ~2.7 Million Electors
Ontario has ~8.2 Million Electors

PEI has 4 MPs and 4 Senators
BC has 36 MPs and 6 Senators
Ontario has 106 MPs and 24 Senators

Something just doesn't add up there. Maybe proportional representation isn't the answer, but we need to switch to some system that evens out how the people are represented, and in both houses too.

Personally, I think the Senate should also be elected. How and when is a different story, I am not sure what is the right answer. What if the Senate was elected in Provincial elections? It might work. Who knows? The only thing that's clear right now is that some provinces are over represented and some are under represented (more so in the Senate).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Simpson's column was a vast load of steaming dung.

He brings out the old bogeyman that minority governments are weak and ineffective and are quickly scuttled. Not true, not true, not true.

First lets compare apples to apples. Minority governments under FPP (first-past-the-post) are often quickly scuttled. That's because the first chance one of the parties thinks they have to grab a majority government, they go for it. This will probably happen with the next government, if the Liberal backroom boys think that they have improved enough in the polls they will let the government be defeated and blame the election on the other parties, hoping to go on to a majority.

Under PR, yes, minority governments are the rule. But outside of the usual erroneous examples given of Israel and Italy, the governments last and can be effective. Most of the world uses some form of PR, except for the US, the UK and Canada, but Simpson is saying that all those other governments don't work.

Even under FPP, some of the minority governments Canada has had, have been some of our best. These weak minorities, according to Simpson, have brought us Medicare, the CPP and our own Maple Leaf flag, ditching our colonial Red Ensign.

The real strength of minority governments and coalition governments is that it forces the politicians to be accountable to more than just their own narrow interests. Since they have to compromise to hold power, the resulting legislation that a minority produces is more representative of broader interests. We've seen what happens when strong governments get elected with artificial landslides, such as in BC. The right gets in, throws out everything that the left put in, gets voted out then the left gets in and does the reverse. And so on and so on. 

When a government gets a landslide majority, with 40% of the popular vote, they don't have to think about the other 60%, they just have to keep their power base happy. That was Chretien's recipe.

Simpson says that the NDP and the Greens love PR, because their relatively small percentage of the popular vote, will give them some share of power in the government even though they have no hope of ever forming government under FPP. Crap! First, if a party represents the viewpoints of 15 or 20 percent of the electorate, is it fair to have that percentage remain voiceless and completely powerless? And secondly, part of the reason that the NDP has no hope of ever forming government or even becoming the opposition is because FPP encourages strategic voting. How many of the Liberal votes were cast by people who would rather be voting NDP, but were afraid that they might enable the Cons to win? It is likely that under PR, the NDP's percentage of the popular vote would rise significantly. The idiot even shows the numbers that prove how unfair FPP is:


> The Bloc Québécois won one seat for every 31,000 votes, the Liberals one for every 37,000, the Conservatives one for every 40,000, the NDP one for every 110,000. The Greens won more than 500,000 votes but no seats.


Then Simpson goes on to make this ridiculous statement:


> So if you like the BQ, and want more of parties like it, and if you like minority government, you're going to absolutely love PR.


That's a total crock because, if any party is against the implementation of PR, it's the Bloc. Under PR, they would have only received 38 seats, with their highest ever share of the popular vote in Quebec. Their party is completely reliant on the artificial distortions of FPP to have the kind of numbers in the house that they do. PR could be tweaked in Canada to ensure that all the parties that rely on a regional base would need more support throughout the country to gain seats.

For instance, while the Cons might lose some of the over-representation of seats they have in the west, under PR their significant share of the votes in Ontario, the Maritimes and possibly even Quebec might make them a more national party, by giving them some representation in those areas, commensurate with their popular vote. I think "western alienation" is mostly fiction and is exacerbated by FPP. PR would go a long way to reducing that problem.

As PR gets more attention on the national stage, we're going to see more and more fear-mongering nonsense printed, primarily by those who represent the corporate status quo, such as Simpson. It happened in New Zealand, when they first moved to implement PR, after a particularly right-wing government swept to power and privatised most of the country. The large monied interests were savage in opposing it. 

The corporate elite don't like democracy, they want to continue being the ones calling the shots, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative. They don't want the politicians being forced to actually represent the concerns of those who elected them, heavan forbid!

Educate yourself on PR, because there are many who will try to tell you, in the next while, that the system that most of the world's democracies is based on, is dangerously flawed, and that we should just put our heads back in the sand and stick with a system that throws the majority of ballots in the dumpster, every election. The same system that allowed the Liberals to get fat, arrogant and lazy, daring to call themselves Canada's "natural ruling party".

To start with, check out Fair Vote Canada. There's a lot to read there.

[ July 03, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: GratuitousApplesauce ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB first.
Deploring the Senate "imbalance" does nothing to give the Senate something to DO.
That first









••••
I like the idea of second choice as method. I think we need to keep representatives associated with ridings.
It's important in a large and diverse land to have a person associated with your vote.
Yet the system should allow the representative to represent the general political orientation of the bulk of it's riding even if the support is comprised of two parties.

In the case of Ontario in the 2000 election that likely would have deprived the Liberals of a majority as it would have defused the vote split Alliance and PC.
So traditionally conservative ridings could confidently vote for either party - thus showing their view on the policies of each while still maintaining one or the other conservative candidates to represent them.

In this parliament it likely would mean a less difficult minority for the Liberals as the NDP and Libs in BC in particular split votes almost dead even holding 50% or more of the vote but not electing either Lib or NDP.

The Greens would also likely have shown a stronger support as they would be second choice for many.

I suspect it would lead to a more accurate assessment of true comfort with your party of choice and lead each party to better identity where their platfrom differes from voters wishes. They would have an insight into that.

For instance for a Con voting Green second choice it would show perhaps more focus needed on environment while sticking to fiscal conservative values or even indicate discontent with the Kyoto stance.

Some pairings are obvious and indicate not a lot but any vote of primary party plus Green second should be an indicator even if as a protest vote.

ie in Quebec Liberal + Green may equal Federalist and not happy with Bloc separatist tendencies.

Bloc + Cons = unhappy with Libs etc


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Deploring the Senate "imbalance" does nothing to give the Senate something to DO.*

I have to wonder why you keep changing the focus. But since you have, think about it this way.

First, the Senate and it's functions, as you seem to be unaware.

<blockquote>
The Senate was created to be weaker than the House of Commons and in some respects to mirror the House of Lords of the United Kingdom.

The Senate was given two major functions in the constitution. First, it was to be the chamber of "sober second thought". Such a limit should prevent the elected House of Commons from turning Canada into a "mobocracy", as the Fathers of Confederation saw the United States. The Senate was thus given the power to overturn many types of legislation introduced by the Commons and also to delay any changes to the constitution, thus preventing the Commons from committing any rash actions. This ability quickly proved itself illusory as even the conservative Canadians of the nineteenth century saw the Senate as a sinecure for patronage without the electoral legitimacy of the Commons, a view which persists to this day.

As Canada became more liberal and democratic since Confederation, the idea of an appointed Senate that merely rubber-stamps bills approved by the House of Commons became unpalatable to Canadian sensibilities. On the rare occasion where the Senate rejects a bill passed by the Commons, the same argument is used to question its authority to act. It is to be noted that a long-serving prime minister establishes over time a strong favourable majority in the Senate that makes it easier for her or him to pass bills s/he supports and more difficult for her/his successors from other parties.

The second original function of the Senate was to provide regional representation. This is technically still the case, with representation in the Senate allotted on a provincial basis. Unfortunately, this regional representation is more consistent with 1867 demographics than with today's and cannot easily cope with recent demographic changes. The ability of senators to represent their regions is also muted by the appointive process where a prime minister can choose senators that will best reflect her or his centralizing views.
</blockquote>

In other words, the senate has lots to do, but in it's current state it doesn't do any of it. If it were elected, perhaps the senate could better do its job because the representatives would be chosen by the people to support their views, not appointed by the Prime Minister to support his.

If representation in the senate was more equal, the senate could do it's job better as the three million people in BC would have more than just two senators compared to the 100,000 people in PEI who have 4.

Why, exactly, are you so opposed to changing senate representation to more accurately reflect current demographics, and to more accurately reflect the populations views?

Here is another passage from the same page I liked above detailing why senate needs to change to an elected system at the very least:

<blockquote>
The Senate tends to only exercise its power when the House of Commons is dominated by a rival party, such as the period during the infamous GST debate in the late-1980s to 1990s. At the time, the Senate was controlled by the Liberal Party and the House by the Progressive Conservatives. The GST bill was very important to then-Prime Minister Mulroney and he was determined to prevent the Senate from rejecting his party's motion. Rather than face certain defeat, he quickly began a flurry of Senate appointments, filling all vacant seats with Progressive Conservative supporters and invoking a clause in the Constitution (Secton 26 of The Constitution Act, 1867) allowing him to increase the Senate's size and appoint eight more senators than normal. In a few short weeks, Mulroney was able to create a Progressive Conservative majority in the Senate and the GST bill was easily passed. This episode has since served as the most prominent example of the Senate's weak nature and its general subordination to the will of the prime minister.
</blockquote>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm very aware of what the Senate is "supposed to do", second houses are traditionally a check on the lower house.
Our provincial structure with very large to tiny both in space and population plus few in numbers make a US style second house impractical as it would tend to mirror the lower house if you elected representatives by Province/population.

That just adds another election and another level of political bureaucracy without benefit.
In the US NY and Rhode Island are equally represented in the Senate....but there are 50 states - you have some diversity.

So that dog don't hunt here and it falls back to appointment which as you've shown above ends up with posturing and "packing the Senate' and lots of unnecessary costs.

Traditionally Upper Houses have been there to protect "vested interests" - the Lords and gentry in England, often the wealthy in the US from the "rabble" that is the lower house.

My argument is not against a proportional Senate but that there is no good method of having a second body in Canada that balances out the lower house.

Either it has too much power or too little for our political demographic and it can be and has been in the past a tremendous drag on the productivity of the political process.
Especially as traditionally the upper houses have tended to preserve the vested interests and resist change to protect the elite.

Really in my mind where we should be looking is how the power of the provinces is expressed. Ontario traditionally votes counter the Federal trend...that's why Harper's rejection was a double slap in the face.

The dynamic has been for much of Canadian history regionalism and the Senate structure was a compromise to give some regional clout
But the party whip system and voting in blocks turns it into a lower house mirror

This summary is pretty good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

and reflects the distaste over the entire thing. Wasteful, ineffective and very hard to turn into something that is beneficial to Canada as a whole.

Right now the "committee" system with teh Seante supposedly doing in depth research and not being under political pressure ( appointed for along term ) to move quickly at least gives a nod to the "second thought" concept.
How "sober " it is, is another question entirely as if does have "country club" atmosphere.

The underlying problem seems to be Alberta with 10% of the population wants an EQUAL voice with Ontario Quebec with 50% between them and is unwilling to elect sufficient top notch people to represent their interests in the house majority party.
Whose fault is that??

BC at least gives the Liberals SOME good choice for Cabinet posts and that's where second choice coming into play would help. BC would have more representation as a result of avoiding vote splitting.
If Alberta CHOOSES to elect politicians who do not represent the mainstream then it marginalizes itself.
That's a CHOICE, not something imposed.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Been awayt for a few days....

Re: "the Few West Coast ********" comment...

I'll admit I have never had the occasion to visit out west, and I only knows whats I reads... 

But...

Frothing at the mouth ******** on TV the morning after the election Damning Ontarians was much too similar to the self rigthious indignation of "Les vria Quebecois" after the night of the long knives...

Regional hatred and self seclusion will never form a federal government... The for right agenda is the will of angry old white men with money... and every year there are fewer and fewer angry old white men with money, in canada.

Electoral representation is determined by population... population is centred in urban areas, 
urban areas recieve the majority of immigration {both from rural areas of Canada and from the rest of the planet.}
The majority of people in dense urban areas are not angry old white men with money.
Neither are most recent immigrants or 2nd generation Canadians.

If the west wants representation in the federal government, it must find leaders that can appeal to the rest of the country, not just angry old white men with money...


Not all conservatives are "angry old white men with money" but that is the appearance the conservative give to non-conservatives. They can be angry and indignant about that or they can work to give a better impression.

I have no control over how you percieve my comments, and so I can't complain if you don't look at me kindly... but the fact that I said " a few west coast *******" should have clearly implied that I don't paint all westerners with the same brush...


Pssst... I even have a few friends who were born in Calgary, {although they all moved east for Work or School, My mom's sister's family is in BC and I will drop everything and go see Captain Tractor whenever they play near me...

Assume what you will, I can't stop you, but protesting that You will take your oil and go home if you don't get what you want , will get you as much sympathy as the Bloc gets.


----------



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

Perhaps there is more to the Alberta reaction than being disillusioned by the election result? While the oil sands currently only represent 14% of the provinces oil exports, the reserves of 300 billion barrels of extractable oil compare favourably with the 685 billion barrels in the entire middle east (it does cost 3X less to extract the desert crude than the oil sands). But the cost of extraction of the heavy oil from the sands has dropped significantly over the past decade to about $10 a barrel. Moreover, there are a trillion barrels of oil sand "reserves" that are currently not counted as they are too far below the surface for Syncrude's technology. As prices rise and the need for "oil independence" from the middle east becomes clearer, , the economics and technological developments will make more of this massive resource reachable.

Does anyone imagine that Alberta would not wish to become fiscally independent of the rest of the country should Edmonton become the next Riyadh? The country is just being primed....

[Edit, some of these data are from an article in the current issue of Wired]

[ July 04, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: used to be jwoodget ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*This summary is pretty good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate[/b]

I know, that's the same article I linked.

*Really in my mind where we should be looking is how the power of the provinces is expressed. Ontario traditionally votes counter the Federal trend...*

So do most of the provinces. From the same article I linked before:

<blockquote>The accord also allowed the members of the Senate to be selected by provincial governments. This last measure could have had a drastic effect, as Canadian provincial elections are traditionally in opposition to federal ones. Thus, a Senate appointed by the provincial governments would almost always be in opposition to the House of Commons.</blockquote>

Which you could argue isn't a bad thing, but for the most part I can see _nothing_ getting done in this case.

*Either it has too much power or too little for our political demographic and it can be and has been in the past a tremendous drag on the productivity of the political process.
Especially as traditionally the upper houses have tended to preserve the vested interests and resist change to protect the elite.*

If senators were elected and actually represented the peoples interests (instead of the PMs) I don't believe this would remain the case, at least not to the same extreme.

*How "sober " it is, is another question entirely as if does have "country club" atmosphere.*

Again, the country club atmosphere would be gone if the appointment system was gone. If they actually had to work to get there and work while they were there.

*The underlying problem seems to be Alberta with 10% of the population wants an EQUAL voice with Ontario Quebec with 50% between them ...*

There is a lot more to "western alienation" than the fact that many believe representation is not equal.

I read once that the federal government pays for the Anne of Green Gables goings on every year in PEI, but they wont pay for the Richmond Tall ships festival. More people pass through the Richmond Tall Ships festival in a single day than live in PEI, yet the Province/Municipality are made to pay for it.

In terms of cultural spending, BC gets something like 34$ per person per annum, Quebec gets something like 150$ per person per annum, I don't remember how much PEI was getting, but it was 100+$ per person per annum.

Now, there are lots of arguments for and against this, but it's hard to deny that it always seems as if the west is second banana to the east.

*...and is unwilling to elect sufficient top notch people to represent their interests in the house majority party.*

Define top-notch? I'd say that for the most part the Conservatives represent Alberta pretty well. The only reason that they can't make a majority is that even if BC, Alberta, Sask., and Manitoba all voted all their seats to the Conservatives they wouldn't have as many seats as Ontario does.

As I said, some provinces are over represented, others are under represented (especially in the senate). Clearly, something needs to change as our system is pretty antiquated.

So I'd like to see representation by population in both houses. I don't see why that is such a problem.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BC would be well represented with potential Liberal Cabinet members if the FPP was fixed.

Of course areas that vote the winning party in tend to get the goodies. They aren't saints they represent their ridings.

A second house just adds complexity with little improvement.
If the kick it back once and then a 3rd reading makes it pass anyway what's the point.

If BC had handed the Liberals a clear alliance with the NDP you can bet goodies would have flowed.

If Albertans want to promote a party who's views are not mainstream enough to form a government - then they choose their role.
Look at their lack of women candidates - hey women are more than half the country yet the Cons have 11% representation i their ranks.  

BC with the voting system we have now is getting a raw deal.
The fix I believe is not a stronger Senate but a "second choice" ballot structure so that the two closest parties in overall choice can govern effectively. 

Martin may surprise us yet - he started out looking to win approval in the West and he has at least some Cabinet positions to fill from there.

Alberta has isolated itself, if it shows the same isolation in this parliament look out next round.  

BTW over the last few years 76-80% of new immigrants landed in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver with Toronto staying constant about 50% of all new immigrants.

*3.6% went to Calgary. just over 6% to Alberta*.........is there a message there???

.......Alberta has 10% of the population of Canada and is arguably the richest province per capita - something odd there.... ya think eh.


[ July 04, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *hey women are more than half the country yet the Cons have 11% representation i their ranks.  *


Would that be because they prefer a "men's club" or are women perhaps not inclined to that type of political thinking.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The fix I believe is not a stronger Senate but a "second choice" ballot structure so that the two closest parties in overall choice can govern effectively.*

Clarify, by "second choice ballot structure" are you talking about Instant Run-Off voting (aka Preferential Voting)?

If you do, it's a good idea, but a PR system would better represent how the people vote. Either way though, as long as we get away from this system where 1/3 of the votes can equate to 2/3 of the seats.

I'd like to see some change in the way we elect MPs as well as the way the senate is set up. I'd like them to be able to do their job. The only workable alternative I can see is to dismantle the senate, which I am not sure is a good idea.

*If BC had handed the Liberals a clear alliance with the NDP you can bet goodies would have flowed.*

Are you referring to my mentioning of the AoGG festival vs. the Tall Ships festival? If so, it should be noted that the funding difference is a result of historical inequality in cultural spending, not who has elects whom. 

*If Albertans want to promote a party who's views are not mainstream enough to form a government - then they choose their role.*

Um. I just don't know what to say to that. Are you suggesting that they would be better to vote for a party that doesn't represent their views but is "mainstream enough"? The majority of the seats in the west are Conservative, I'd say their views are fairly mainstream.

*BTW over the last few years 76-80% of new immigrants landed in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver with Toronto staying constant about 50% of all new immigrants.*

Break it down for all provinces. Is it really that surprising that the majority of new immigrants end up in three of the busiest ports in the entire country? Is it really that surprising that the majority of them stay in those cities? No, not really. How many go to Saskatchewan? How many to Manitoba? How many to Nunavut?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No, second choice simply indicates from what I understand that absent a majority by any candidate ie a plurality, then the sum of the first choice and second choice determines the winner.

So a lot of NDP/Lib/Con close races would likely have gone to ether Lib or NDP better representing the riding.

Third parties even if a distant third but still the second choice of many could determine a tight race giving them a say in the results.
I like the idea that if there is NOT a majority in an area then all voices help determine the outcome so there is less drive to alienate the opposition as they may well get you elected if you can't swing a majority.

••
Specifics don't matter in funding - all politicians will strive to win goodies for their area - that's one thing that PR does nto do well, represent a particular area.

•••
Albertans have two choices 
a) vote for a party likely to be in power - Quebec has done that very well and so is highly represented in the power corridors.

b) vote for moderates in the dominate party in their area and clearly understand that to BE in power extreme views will not get them there. If they choose to stay extreme then they cannot whine about being powerless.

••
Immigrants aren't stupid - they go to rich centres where there is opportunity for them.
Being a seaport is NOT a recipe for immigration these days with massive air travel.
Perception of opportunity is.
Alberta's population growth was very high with Calgary leading the urban growth ( above Toronto ) yet immigration rates low relative to % of national population.










Provinces/communities have to actively encourage immigration.
The main centres of Canada BC coast, GTA and Montreal are multicutural, urbane and welcome immigration. Urban centres above 10k population represent 80% of the population of Canada.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

BC is in need of a better voting structure ( Ontario too and the Maritimes where vote splitting caused problems ) to get it's diverse population better represented in Ottawa.

Alberta has it's own decisions to make about tolerance and opportunity and where they sit in the relation to the mainstream of Canada.

BC does not have the same issues - they DO have power representation issues because of the FPP situation.

The election WAS about what kind of Canada do we want.
Canadians spoke quite clearly to the neoCon movement as represented by the Conservative Party of Canada..
It's up to that party to listen........or not.

They have an uphill battle against demographics so the centering needs to come quickly or it never will have a chance at national power


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Instant run off voting goes like this:

Say there are four candidates. The voter enter the booth and ranks the candidates from their first choice to last. When the votes are counted, if there is no clear majority among the first choices, the candidate with the least amount of first choices is eliminated and count the second choices on those ballots. Repeat as necessary until one candidate has a majority of votes.

Yes, it would solve a few problems, especially where the voting is typically very close (like my riding for example), but it wont do anything to equal out representation, which is the issue I originally brought up.

*Specifics don't matter in funding - all politicians will strive to win goodies for their area*

You just don't get it do you, this is not a new thing. Cultural events in the west have been underfunded for a long, long time. I guess specifics don't matter as much in Ontario, where cultural spending (last time I heard) was more than 3x cultural spending in BC (per capita).

*Albertans have two choices: a) vote for a party likely to be in power [...] b) vote for moderates in the dominate party in their [...] If they choose to stay extreme then they cannot whine about being powerless.*

So it's either with us or against us? You know, it's exactly that kind of BS that makes the west resent the east. We can vote 75% of our seats to one party and not be taken seriously.

*Being a seaport is NOT a recipe for immigration these days with massive air travel.*

We still get lots of people off boats here in BC. Being one of the largest seaports on the west coast is a recipe for immigration as it guarantees the city will be economically sound.

*Alberta has it's own decisions to make about tolerance and opportunity and where they sit in the relation to the mainstream of Canada.*

Are you trying to imply that Alberta is a culturally intolerant province? Because that is what it reads like.

*Canadians spoke quite clearly to the neoCon movement as represented by the Conservative Party of Canada.*

75% of western Canadian seats went to the Conservatives (which, admittedly, is lower than I was expecting). I think you meant to say that Eastern Canadians didn't want the Conservatives in power, because Western Canadians obviously did.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

*a) vote for a party likely to be in power - Quebec has done that very well and so is highly represented in the power corridors.*

Like the Bloc?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*75% of western Canadian seats went to the Conservatives (which, admittedly, is lower than I was expecting). I think you meant to say that Eastern Canadians didn't want the Conservatives in power, because Western Canadians obviously did.*

Western Canadians obviously did not. Look at the numbers besides the distortions caused by first-past-the-post.

In BC only 1/3 voted for the Cons, yet they got 2/3 of our seats. In Alberta 40% did not vote for the Cons yet they got 92% of the seats, making it look like they had just about everybody convinced of their agenda. Simply not true.

Overall, in BC and Alberta, the majority, 1,589,983 of the two provinces 2,995,433 votes cast, were not for the Conservatives.

Elections Canada - Election night results by province

I've been banging this drum here for the last few days, but I'll keep saying it. Until, we abandon first-past-the-post, it's distortions will be used to prop up the fiction of "Western Alienation". This is important for both Easterners *and* Westerners to understand.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"equal out representation"?? Ontario has less representation per capita than most areas.
If you are talking Senate that's a indeterminate.

••

Events get funded by people in the government making the case for the event. Strong representation gets money. 

•••
For or against - you sound like Bush.
There is a good case for a small c conservative Pan national party. That's not what was offered to Canadians in the opinion of voters many of whom WOULD have voted for that.
Being taken seriously and forming a national government are two entirely different things.

•••
Montreal was hardly economically sound - still is marginal tho much better. Calgary is rich- should be a magnet - isn't. Neither is Alberta. Sounds like there is someting going on doesn't it?

70% of Canadians which includes 8% of conservatives that voted for the combined parties last time didn't want this version in power.

A majority of BC didn't either.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Western Canadians obviously did not. Look at the numbers besides the distortions caused by first-past-the-post.*

I know that, I'll be the first to push for a switch away from FPP elections. Their dumb. Look at Ontario, where the Liberals gained ~70% of the seats with less than 45% of the vote. It's screwed up everywhere, I don't believe that Canadians anywhere got what they truly wanted.

The fact remains, though, that more people voted for the Liberals than any ofher single party in the Ontario and more people voted for the Conservatives than any other single party in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

*"equal out representation"?? Ontario has less representation per capita than most areas.*

Yes, I know. It needs to be evened out. Haven't you been reading what I've been saying? Some provinces are over represented and some are under represented.

*If you are talking Senate that's a indeterminate.*

It's not an indeterminate in the senate at all. BC has <del>two</del> 6 senators, Ontario has 24. Things need to change, preferably sooner than later.

*Events get funded by people in the government making the case for the event. Strong representation gets money. *

You are obviously not paying attention to what I'm saying, unless by "strong representation" you mean that our MPs are not good at whining. PEI (and Quebec) get special treatment because they are the squeaky wheels in the country.

If you look back over the history of the nation, you'll see that the Federal government not funding the Tall Ships festival in Richmond is just the latest result of a continuing trend.

Also, if strong representation is what gets money, that could explain it, too. Remember that PEI, with a comparable number of people to Richmond has 4 MPs and 4 senators compared to Richmond 1.5 MPs and no senators.

*For or against - you sound like Bush.*

And I was paraphrasing you. Funny, that.

*Being taken seriously and forming a national government are two entirely different things.*

The Conservatives win 75% of the seats in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and you wont take them seriously. The Bloc wins 72% of the seats in Quebec and they are taken seriously. Why is that?

*Calgary is rich- should be a magnet - isn't.*

Calgary is a small city. Calgary doesn't have much advertising. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal have big populations, are closer to the coasts, and have long-standing international reputations. Calgary had the Olympics, and still gets tourists because of it, but is that enough?

More people immigrate to areas along ours (and the US) coasts, whether they are coming by boat or plane. I've never seen numbers to the contrary.

But now we're miles away from my original point that we need to get away from FPP elections and the senate needs to be rejiggered to better represent their regions.

[edit: fixed the senate number, I was thinking city instead of province]

[ July 06, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I answered this and it's lost in the ram of a crashed G4 dual  
Last time I invest time writing on a test box.
Perhaps I'll have time for a reprise later.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

BC has six senators, The four western provinces together have 24 as senate seats are divided on a regional, not a provincial basis. The regions being the west, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

That aside, French/English minorities in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are given by unwritten rule a minimum number of senate seats.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The four western provinces together have 24 as senate seats are divided on a regional, not a provincial basis.*

As noted above, I was thinking about two things at once.

Dividing up by region, though, is still a dumb system when you end up with a province of ~110,000 voters having 4 senators and a province of ~2.7 million voters having 6.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Hmm, California has about 33 million people and two senators in the U.S. Senate.

Rhode Island has about a million people and two senators in the U.S. Senate.

And Alaska has about 600,000 people and two senators.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes the Senate in the US has some function as it has enough states to represent a useful body. Here it does not.
It's "indeterminate".

Strong representation means giving the party in power good people from your area to represent your interests and keep the money flowing.
It's not accidental that the Deputy PM is from Calgary. That's being Pan National.
It's not whining - it's doing a good job for your constituents and your designate has more power if they are cabinet.
Martin is going to have some difficulty filling Cabinet posts from BC and that's unfortunate.
Senators are immaterial they have no real power.
The "represent your constituents" is an argument against PR but for second choice.

Observing from a third person standpoint the choice Albertans are faced with is not a "for or against" -it's an observation. The Conservatives either adhere to Alberta's version and therefore lose credibility in the rest of the country or broaden the appeal to include a more moderate conservatism that may not play well at home in Alberta.
It's their choice. 
Neo-Con = regional appeal very unlikely ever to form a national government but playing well at home.

moderate Conservative - national appeal but may NOT play well at home.

This is an observation, neither condemnation or approbation.

In the same vein I'll reiterate - being taken seriously and forming a national government are two different things. 

Regarding immigration.
Montreal or Toronto are not on the coast, neither is Ottawa. Alberta for all it's riches doesn't seem to have open arms to the level of international immigration that it's population or wealth would lead one to expect.
You combine that with attempting to be pan National and represent a NATIONAL group of Canadian constituents many of whom are urban and visible minority.
Add that to a way below acceptable number of woman and it's not hard to see a pattern that acts as a barrier to "government forming support levels" for the current Conservatives.

The patterns are quite straight forward to see nationally and globally and historically. Isolated rural areas tend to a classical conservative notion of the world.

That notion doesn't play well in an increasingly urbanized and "not your grandfather's Canada" population.
Bridging the disparities enough to form a national government is a hard task.

By occupying the fiscal responsibility Blue Liberal zone, the current Liberals leave the conservative movement in Canada not a lot of manuveuring room. 
The current Conservatives had a real shot at it with very favourable circumstances but could not put together a pan national appeal even to keep their own moderates let alone draw significant Liberals aboard.

The Liberals ARE open to erosion on the left but the voting structure dampened that effect.

Demographics and Liberal positioning - especially with Charest in the wings for the Liberals makes a moderate conservative movement very hard to bind into a national party.
Keeping the far right quiet offers another challenge.

No easy task and continuing to get more difficult as years go by.  

Martin has his own challenges

Building a New Cabinet

[ July 08, 2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I have no particular interest in whether the senate is reformed or not, as I don't believe a triple-e senate would address Alta.'s complaints any better or any worse than the current situation.

For a Western (read Alta.) separatist's point of view, check out today's National Post. 

As a Manitoban living in Ontario, I don't consider westerners or Albertans whiners, but this guy is a whiner.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An excellent and encouraging article in the Globe today



> *Western separatists: Go firewall yourselves*
> 
> By SATYA DAS and KEN CHAPMAN
> Thursday, July 8, 2004 - Page A15
> ...


"He found Albertans are more interested in playing a leading role in the country, rather than hiding behind a firewall. Albertans are passionate Canadians.

*The urban centres of the West, like other Canadian metro cities, bring together many streams of human experience, under our Constitution and the values it represents. There's little patience for firewalls and conflict, and a huge appetite for moving forward with the creativity and vigour diversity breeds.* This New West needs and deserves more responsive governance"

Exactly!!!!!!! Get THIS vision across with the conservative movement and a pan national party with Alberta as a leader, not viewed as a whiner could truly be achieved.


----------

