# Martin Quits



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul Martin is no longer!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Martin will call for a leadership change ASAP.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

He did the right thing. Good for him.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I thank him for serving our country. 

I think he did a good job as Finance Minister.

I think he failed as a Prime Minister. He acted too much like a traditional politician and less like a leader. He simply flip flopped and way too many issues and didn't seem to have enough conviction.

John Manley next? I like him.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I think this is a good thing.

Martin wasn't a terrible PM, but he's not much of a leader--no charisma.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yes, the Mr. Dithers thing stuck and never let go.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

now what would be fantastic is if Harper quit tonight as well!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That is not going to happen.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is not going to happen.


duh?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

I liked Martin. Good leader and definitely good at managing our economy. It is unfortunate that it was a minority government, though.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> I liked Martin. Good leader and definitely good at managing our economy. It is unfortunate that it was a minority government, though.


i agree, if people would only understand there is only so much a minority gov't can do...now I really would like to see Harper's tories make a go at the budget...oh, and I am pretty sure we can all look forward to army elinstments and missing babies from Harper eating them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

For the Liberals this move is politically brilliant. Rather than being pushed into opposition and letting the Conservatives have complete control of the media agenda... now everyone will be talking about who will be the new Liberal leader, and not talking about Harper as PM.

Talk about pulling the steam out of the Conservative engine... brilliant move. see you all in 18-24 months.

Lets see if Harper can continue to muzzle his crowd until then.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> For the Liberals this move is politically brilliant. Rather than being pushed into opposition and letting the Conservatives have complete control of the media agenda... now everyone will be talking about who will be the new Liberal leader, and not talking about Harper as PM.
> 
> Talk about pulling the steam out of the Conservative engine... brilliant move. see you all in 18-24 months.
> 
> Lets see if Harper can continue to muzzle his crowd until then.


hah!

couldn't agree more.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think he did a good job as Finance Minister.
> 
> I think he failed as a Prime Minister. He acted too much like a traditional politician and less like a leader. He simply flip flopped and way too many issues and didn't seem to have enough conviction.


I think you nailed it. Flip-flop


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> For the Liberals this move is politically brilliant. Rather than being pushed into opposition and letting the Conservatives have complete control of the media agenda... now everyone will be talking about who will be the new Liberal leader, and not talking about Harper as PM.
> 
> Talk about pulling the steam out of the Conservative engine... brilliant move. see you all in 18-24 months.
> 
> Lets see if Harper can continue to muzzle his crowd until then.


Just said goodbye to the last guest at my election party. 

It was a good night. The Liberals were defeated, Paul Martin has announced his imminent retirement. Stephen Harper will be the next Prime Minister of Canada. A tiny grassroots western party that was originally started almost twenty years ago with a commitment to clean up the corruption and dirty dealing in Ottawa...and that was loudly laughed at by both of the major parties that used to swap power and take turns stealing from all the rest of us, a new political party that was dismissed as a joke...is now about to form the elected government of Canada.:clap: 

Like I said...it was a good night.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

digitalmatty said:


> i agree, if people would only understand there is only so much a minority gov't can do...now I really would like to see Harper's tories make a go at the budget...oh, and I am pretty sure we can all look forward to army elinstments and missing babies from Harper eating them.


You liberal/NDP guys are sooo out to lunch with your conceptions of the Conservatives. There are few weird backbenchers, but they are not representative of the party. 

The Liberal's scare campaign was all smoke and mirrors, I think a lot of you will be pleasantly surprised with the Conservatives. (probably won't ever admit though, you just won't have that much to complain about)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

*TOOO COOOL!!*:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Conservative victory. Paul Martin announces his resignation....

Just kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A fine moment. The Quebec results are particularly gratifying.

Again...TOO COOL!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Like I said...it was a good night.


not as good a night as was hoped for though... lol

liberals still got over 100 seats.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

groovetube said:


> not as good a night as was hoped for though... lol
> 
> liberals still got over 100 seats.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


To any of the last few city types who are not completely clear about what this giant political shift REALLY means....I should like to point out the following factoid:

Stephen Harper needs to make some profound and fundamental difference to ordinary Canadians in order to get a larger mandate in the next election. Which will likely come sooner, rather than later. (two or three years at the most. perhaps less).

How can Harper do this? He certainly won't have an easy road to get some of his more conservative policies passed because he may not have the votes to do it.

But one thing he wants to do, WILL get passed! And it was already at the very top of his list long, even before tonight. Guess what it is:

#1)-Accountability in Government. Harper plans to change the rules forever so that no party in power will ever again be able to run huge scams out of the PMO without any supervision. Scams that allowed them to steal hundreds of millions of our tax dollars and funnel them into their own pockets.

And the Conservatives will also be actively investigating all activities like this that took place under the now defeated Liberals. Watch for multiple arrests in the very near future. The Bloc (and probably the NDP) will be very happy to sign off on this...so it will be done ASAP.

The inevitable result? Goodbye former Liberal party of Canada. 

Still think that the Libs will "be back" after a short time in the wilderness?

Think again.  :lmao:


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

two words: Lame Duck







(in 6 months)


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macnutt - Why then does this remind me of Pearson?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

thejst said:


> two words: Lame Duck
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Soooo, thejst...what parties will we Canadians be able to choose from in the next elections? The ones that you seem to think will happen within six months? 

The Liberals will be in deep dissaray. No leader, and deeply in debt. Most likely still under multiple RCMP investigations for long term corruption. No doubt a whole BUNCH of the former Liberal "bright lights" will be under arrest by then. Or under such scrutiny that they dare not run.  

Soooo, in the absence of the usual Liberals...who ya gonna vote for? NDP? The Bloc? Greens?

The Rhino party??:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

jdurston said:


> You liberal/NDP guys are sooo out to lunch with your conceptions of the Conservatives. There are few weird backbenchers, but they are not representative of the party.
> 
> The Liberal's scare campaign was all smoke and mirrors, I think a lot of you will be pleasantly surprised with the Conservatives. (probably won't ever admit though, you just won't have that much to complain about)


oh, I have no problem with the party or it's backbenchers, I'm just saying...it's a fact that Harper eats babies. Certifiable and proven fact. Tories are alright or whatevs...I'll wait for a Liberal majority in 4 years though before I think politics again.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

digitalmatty said:


> oh, I have no problem with the party or it's backbenchers, I'm just saying...it's a fact that Harper eats babies. Certifiable and proven fact. Tories are alright or whatevs...I'll wait for a Liberal majority in 4 years though before I think politics again.


You are imagining a world where the Liberals have NOT been investigated by an incoming hostile government for deep long term corruption...

A world where the Liberal party of Canada ISN'T already under a multitude of investigations already by the RCMP and even the Securities Exchange Commission...

One where most of the major Liberal players have managed to survive tonight's defeat at the polls, and are NOT under investigation by the RCMP. Or worse.

This stuff could (and most likely WILL, ultimately destroy the Liberal party).

Hey.....Let me know how it goes, okay? :lmao:


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

So... is it going to be a Con/NDP co-illition with Jack wearing the pants in the family...


or...

a Con/Bloq co-illition with Gille in charge....




no wait... The Cons will go it allone and just hope the public insist on no new elections...

Yea, lets run that up the flag poll. 

I'll give Harper a year, then all bets are off...

Tobin looked happy tonight...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Timeline for you:

Conservatives under Harper will immediately begin to play out their mandate...which is to root out ALL of the deep corruption that is now present in Ottawa. They will be able to do this with ease because the Bloc and the NDP will be on their side for this one outstanding issue. Two hundred PLUS votes for this one issue. No question about it. (everyone wants to be seen as "different from the Liberal's" these days, it seems) 

Fast forward a year or so.

The former Liberal party of Canada is now a shattered mess. Many (most?) of it's faded stars are now in jail, or up on corruption charges. The party is decimated.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried to pass legislation that will result in set election dates for Canada...but he has been blocked by self-interested political parties that he needs to get this through Commons....

Soooo...he throws up his hands and calls an election on this or some other worthwhile issue that he can't get through a minority government. Or, any combination of the above.

With NO Liberal opposition (they are either in jail or under investigation. and their own party is deeply in debt after the loss of the 2006 elections).

Now. What happens _NEXT????_


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You figure it out....


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Timeline for you:
> 
> Conservatives under Harper will immediately begin to play out their mandate...which is to root out ALL of the deep corruption that is now present in Ottawa.


Great...Just what the Canadian public needs, A digger looking for bones,
I imagine if this is the factual agenda then we'll never see the economy expand and
grow with the Tory minority, They'll just be lazing around complaining and voting
to stuff their pockets with a big fat raise.

D


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Timeline for you:
> ...The former Liberal party of Canada is now a shattered mess. Many (most?) of it's faded stars are now in jail, or up on corruption charges. The party is decimated.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried to pass legislation that will result in set election dates for Canada...but he has been blocked by self-interested political parties that he needs to get this through Commons....
> ...


I hope you are not this delusional in daily life. You'll hurt yourself.

Ironically, it looks like the candidate (Conservative or Liberal) who is most likely to be prosecuted for anything is your own BC Conservative booze smuggler.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

jdurston said:


> You liberal/NDP guys are sooo out to lunch with your conceptions of the Conservatives. There are few weird backbenchers, but they are not representative of the party.
> 
> The Liberal's scare campaign was all smoke and mirrors, I think a lot of you will be pleasantly surprised with the Conservatives. (probably won't ever admit though, you just won't have that much to complain about)


Its called a minority government... I'm absolutely sure there will be LOTS to complain about... from all voters/non-voters: Inaction on part of our government. The PQ now decides whether Conservative legislation gets past the House.

The election was won in Quebec, because voters were either very angry about the Gommrey scandal, or they really do want to see a Team Quebec hockey team. Elsewhere, I don't think people really skewed from their traditional party. Eight years without a deficit was a pretty good record.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jicon said:


> Its called a minority government... I'm absolutely sure there will be LOTS to complain about... from all voters/non-voters: Inaction on part of our government. The PQ now decides whether Conservative legislation gets past the House.
> 
> The election was won in Quebec, because voters were either very angry about the Gommrey scandal, or they really do want to see a Team Quebec hockey team. Elsewhere, I don't think people really skewed from their traditional party. Eight years without a deficit was a pretty good record.


Small correction - it's the Bloc Quebecois. The "Parti Quebecois" is provincial.

The provincial Liberals are expecting the Cons to help out here. Our premier Jean Charest is an old PC and gave his support to the Cons.
The Cons also courted the ADQ (another provincial party). In the ridings where the ADQ does well provincially, the Cons did well - this is due to using ADQ to help organize them. Wonder what this unholy alliance will bring about.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> You liberal/NDP guys are sooo out to lunch with your conceptions of the Conservatives. There are few weird backbenchers, but they are not representative of the party.


stockwell day was once leader of the alliance/reform
hardly a "back bencher" and he believes dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as did man - not a "wacko?"

and let's see of stockwell "call me doris" day gets a cabinet post
that will show me if harpo has any real intent of truly representing Canada and canadians


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> You are imagining a world where the Liberals have NOT been investigated by an incoming hostile government for deep long term corruption...
> 
> A world where the Liberal party of Canada ISN'T already under a multitude of investigations already by the RCMP and even the Securities Exchange Commission...
> 
> ...


The conservatives have never had issues either? Ok, for a second there, I thought they were perfect...my bad.

The Liberals have given Canada it's strongest economy and best budget to date...Harper is already projected to spend more than what the budget can handle, this is fact. Don't preach to me about politics when your blinding conservative convictions don't allow you to see the big picture.

Hey.....we'll all know how it goes when Canada is a 3rd world country in 5 years.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

digitalmatty said:


> Harper is already projected to spend more than what the budget can handle, this is fact.


No it isn't. Look up the numbers, not warped editorials or Liberal spin. 

Their numbers played the vague-game for 'fiscal imbalance' and the capital gains tax cut, but they do work. The vague-game is generally for the Liberals (think Kyoto), but the Conservatives learned how to market to Canadians too. Why it took them so long to learn is another matter.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> No it isn't. Look up the numbers, not warped editorials or Liberal spin.
> 
> Their numbers played the vague-game for 'fiscal imbalance' and the capital gains tax cut, but they do work. The vague-game is generally for the Liberals (think Kyoto), but the Conservatives learned how to market to Canadians too. Why it took them so long to learn is another matter.


CBC television showed a comparison about 2 weeks back and the Liberal and Conservative campaign promises were quite close in price tags

if harpo really has learned his lesson and has become more of a red tory he may have success
if he bows to the wills of his Fraser Inst. taskmasters it will be a very different story


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Paul Martin could have survived. He could have probably won the election too. He didn't act fast enough, smart enough. As soon as the first scandal broke, he should have launched a full investigation. He should have turned every stone. He needed to start dumping corrupt Liberals left, right, and centre. Show that he is a man of action.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

Beej said:


> No it isn't. Look up the numbers, not warped editorials or Liberal spin.
> 
> Their numbers played the vague-game for 'fiscal imbalance' and the capital gains tax cut, but they do work. The vague-game is generally for the Liberals (think Kyoto), but the Conservatives learned how to market to Canadians too. Why it took them so long to learn is another matter.


I am getting this from the CBC...Facts and Figures...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Paul Martin could have survived. He could have probably won the election too. He didn't act fast enough, smart enough. As soon as the first scandal broke, he should have launched a full investigation. He should have turned every stone. He needed to start dumping corrupt Liberals left, right, and centre. Show that he is a man of action.



he was also missing the passion he showed in last night's concession speech which was received with a big smile and lots of clapping by martin's wife - if your wife is happy you quit, you know it's time you did


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

digitalmatty said:


> I am getting this from the CBC...Facts and Figures...


Like I said, look up the numbers.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

Beej said:


> Like I said, look up the numbers.


well the numbers are all crunched by the liberals, so I guess they are all wrong.

it seems every forgets how strong the liberals have made the economy...now it is their turn to step down and rebuild...we'll see how long it takes for canadian's to get sick of the conservatives, my guess is come next election, you'll see a liberal majority...until that time I am hoping the direction the country takes is a good one, but it seems it will be a floundering and unsure future to be certain.

as for being better friends with the US, that's cool, we just have to make sure we maintain our identity, I don't have a problem with the entire platform, just the uber right wing policies harper has kicking about...doesn't matter though, he won't get to field them with their underwhelming minority.


----------



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

Just read this on the CBC website "Prime Minister Paul Martin called Governor General Michaëlle Jean on Tuesday morning to tell her he would resign following his party's election loss on Monday." I wonder if legally GG Jean could have declined to accept his resignation and asked him to try and form a coalition government?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Just read this on the CBC website "Prime Minister Paul Martin called Governor General Michaëlle Jean on Tuesday morning to tell her he would resign following his party's election loss on Monday." I wonder if legally GG Jean could have declined to accept his resignation and asked him to try and form a coalition government?


she is supposed to entertain an offer to form a gov't from the party with the most seats first

since martin offered his resignation as PM she is bound to accept

she can only accept a counter offer to form a gov't, not suggest to a party leader that they do so


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Chretien must be fairly pleased with the situation, Gommery was likely his fault. Martin paid for it.

Not to mention his dislike for Martin and Martin's popularity as finance minister.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

chretien's place in history should be that of judas to the Liberal party and Paul Martin


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

I'm no where near as educated about politics as some of the others in this thread but one point has bugged me about the so-called corruption. 

One of the complaints about either the federal or Ontario provincial Liberal governments was the awarding of a public relations and/or advertising contract to the same firm that represented the Liberals during their most recent election. I believe it was the provincials but I may be wrong.

As a business owner, common sense tells me that if I had already worked with a company who helped me succeed at something (like winning an election), then that firm must be pretty good. Therefore give them more work. 

But wait, maybe the opponents to this method of thinking are correct. Let's award the contracts to those firms who did work for the parties that LOST the election. <grin>

It's too bad that most of the readers are too young to remember the Bill Davis years and the Brian Mulroney years. Heck by the sounds of it, some are too young to remember the Mike Harris/Ernie Eves years. 

There was no corruption in any of those governments. No awarding of contracts to friends. Nope, none of that. No siree!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> As a business owner, common sense tells me that if I had already worked with a company who helped me succeed at something (like winning an election), then that firm must be pretty good. Therefore give them more work.


This is going to be a very tough issue, whose cost will never be measured. If the contracting process is so poisoned and bureaucratic in the guise of 'accountability', an institution (government) that isn't known for its efficiency will become even less efficient. 

I hope any accountability changes are done very carefully so as not to stifle good managerial decision making in the name of 100% mechanised decision making.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

should real honest bidding on contracts ever come to reality the cons and libs would see a drastic reduction in corporate donations

after all, if your business can't get a return on it's investment, why invest?

and business is business

you think the big oil companies would support harpo if he didn't suport canada's withdrawl from kyoto?

i watched a 60 minutes piece last sunday on the alberta oil sands boom in ft. mcmurry, AB and they said that air pollution is way up in the region because of oil sands refinement processing

on the flip side a young 22 yr. old kid working there was going to be making 100-120K / yr.

u.s. investors are keenly watching as are chinese who want their slice of alberta oil - the almost saudi arabia level of oil in the sands is only on the surface - they say that there could be many times more buried deeper below

u.s. wants the oil sands to feed their increasing need for oil and to reduce their dependancy on arab oil - a source much closer to home and a country where they can have much more influence fits much better into their plans

cue macnutt and his gas guzzling machines


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The checks and balances and proliferation of overseers and auditors, being proposed by everyone to stop corruption in its tracks, is worse than the disease. It will cost us many times the amount pilfered by the ad agencies.

I think the most sensible thing, still, is be careful who you hire, encourage public servants to speak up, fire people who exploit their positions and prosecute people who break the law. No so much different from what we do now, but a reasonable approach.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

And the oil sands is idiotic. 

Environmental - The process is hugely polluting and the amount of energy used to extract and refine the oil exceeds the energy the oil will provide. 

Political - The revenues from this perverse venture provide have created the illusion that Ralph Klein is competent.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> And the oil sands is idiotic.
> 
> Environmental - The process is hugely polluting and the amount of energy used to extract and refine the oil exceeds the energy the oil will provide.
> 
> Political - The revenues from this perverse venture provide have created the illusion that Ralph Klein is competent.


and keeps feeding the oil hungry economies without any reason to migrate to cleaner/renewable energies


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> And the oil sands is idiotic.
> 
> Environmental - The process is hugely polluting and the amount of energy used to extract and refine the oil exceeds the energy the oil will provide.
> 
> Political - The revenues from this perverse venture provide have created the illusion that Ralph Klein is competent.


Nice to dismiss another province's industry. Maybe Ontario's large hydro and nuclear should be shut-down? Maybe there's room for pollution controls and charges instead of just condemnation? 

The energy balance is positive, I'm not sure where you got the idea it isn't.

A CERI study showed how much of the revenues go to non-Alberta governments. Also, the main source of royalty revenues in Alberta is natural gas, not oil sands.

Overall, your post shows a lack of knowledge, but a general willingness to damn the pursuit nonetheless.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Maybe there's room for pollution controls and charges instead of just condemnation?


Sure, if they intended to keep them - Kyoto was a start, now let's see if Harper's "made in Canada" solution will be tougher....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Yet preservation isn't the biggest issue. Oil companies are moving away from open-pit mines. Instead, they are starting to inject steam into the ground in an effort to reach deeper deposits of bitumen.
> 
> The steam melts the tar enough for it to be pumped up to the surface.
> 
> ...


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5031024


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> And the oil sands is idiotic.
> 
> Environmental - The process is hugely polluting and the amount of energy used to extract and refine the oil exceeds the energy the oil will provide.
> 
> Political - The revenues from this perverse venture provide have created the illusion that Ralph Klein is competent.


As one who lived and worked in Fort McMurray for eight years, I can assure you this post shows ignorance of the entire process, not to mention the Alberta government's competence. The oil sands will be our only source of energy for future generations as conventional supplies are exhausted.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sure, if they intended to keep them - Kyoto was a start, now let's see if Harper's "made in Canada" solution will be tougher....


We'll see if it's tougher than the next-to-nothing charges the Liberals had.

Still, where in any framework are the oil sands just condemned? Nowhere in any reasonable or informed framework.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> We'll see if it's tougher than the next-to-nothing charges the Liberals had.


I have a suspicion that it won't - if Kyoto target are too hard to attain (or so Harper says) - I don't have much hope that a Con solution will.



Beej said:


> Still, where in any framework are the oil sands just condemned? Nowhere in any reasonable or informed framework.


The environmental cost should be considered - often it is glossed over.
http://www.oilsandswatch.org/docs/osf-book.pdf


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> As one who lived and worked in Fort McMurray for eight years, I can assure you this post shows ignorance of the entire process, not to mention the Alberta government's competence. The oil sands will be our only source of energy for future generations as conventional supplies are exhausted.


sinc, don't you think that we as human beings should at try to wean ourselves off the petro-teat?

you speak of future generations
what of the environmental impact of more cars on the road and more air pollution?

tax incentives should be given out to car buyers that buy/make hybrid/alternative fuel cars

with socialized medicine we all pay the increasing costs of health care for people stricken with ailments related to pollution

moving to alternative fuels will be a long road and we need to start now - not just keep finding more oil - it may be good for alberta and the oil companies in the short run but will be devastating for the health of canadians in the long run

so whose futre conerns you most?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The environmental cost should be considered - often it is glossed over.


Definitely. Environmental costs should be very carefully examined and included (carbon tax, land use tax, etc.) with a long-term and local health view.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> moving to alternative fuels will be a long road and we need to start now - not just keep finding more oil - it may be good for alberta and the oil companies in the short run but will be devastating for the health of canadians in the long run
> 
> so whose futre conerns you most?


Moving to alternative fuels and producing from the oil sands are not exclusive. In fact, the tax revenues from corporations and high-paid employees (as well as enviro taxes were a government brave enough to implement them) could accelerate our journey to alternative fuels.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> should real honest bidding on contracts ever come to reality the cons and libs would see a drastic reduction in corporate donations


Which would be a good thing in my books! Corporate and Union contributions to political parties seem like they put politicians in a conflict of interest situation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sinc, don't you think that we as human beings should at try to wean ourselves off the petro-teat?
> 
> 
> moving to alternative fuels will be a long road and we need to start now - not just keep finding more oil - it may be good for alberta and the oil companies in the short run but will be devastating for the health of canadians in the long run
> ...


There will always be a need for fossil fuels. Consider what will lubricate the moving parts in non fossil fuel powered energy sources. As Beej points out, revenue from the mining will accelerate the movement towards alternative fuels. 

The future will be brighter if we can assure our children can use fossil fuels sparingly to assist the widespread use of alternative fuels in new engine types.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> As one who lived and worked in Fort McMurray for eight years, I can assure you this post shows ignorance of the entire process...


Good for you. You "lived and worked" in Fort McMurray. That may make you an expert on where the restaurants, drug stores, etc. are, but don't see how that makes you an expert on energy economics.

A few words about Fort McMurray:


> In the North, a frontier town called Fort MacMurray is the center of one of the most staggering engineering and mining exploits ever seen on planet Earth. Foreign-owned companies, mostly America, are engaged in strip mining and drilling 54,000 square miles - ripping away the surface of the earth in an area the size of Florida, just to keep those Hummers going for the commute.
> …
> But getting the oil out of the sticky sand isn't cheap, or good for the environment. The oil is locked in, requiring a complex system to "crack" it away. That process needs whole rivers of water, and entire natural gas fields, just to get the oil ready for refineries.
> 
> ...


A few more words about the wisdom of the oil sands:


> The most common method, which uses steam to force the heavy, black bitumen to the surface, requires copious quantities of natural gas.
> 
> It takes 1,000 cubic feet of gas to convert a barrel of bitumen into light crude, according to George Crookshank, chief financial officer of OPTI Canada Inc. (A typical Canadian home with natural gas heat uses about 9,000 cubic feet of gas a month, on average.)
> 
> ...


And, funny, somebody mentioned nuclear power:


> CALGARY -- Alberta is contemplating the use of nuclear reactors to feed its power-hungry oil sands megaprojects.
> The province's Energy Ministry and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the federal Crown corporation that sells reactors, have already had preliminary discussions about how nuclear power might be used in the oil patch.
> 
> Alberta mulls nuclear plants to power oil sands extraction


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> That may make you an expert on where the restaurants, drug stores, etc. are, but don't see how that makes you an expert on energy economics.


Nor do a bunch of links mean you are an expert. It just means that it's very easy to post links to any sources that back up your feelings. Thank you for verifying that.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...don't you think that we as human beings should at try to wean ourselves off the petro-teat?


I know there are some large wind farms in the South Western corner of Alberta, which represents a small step in the right direction.

What other sorts of alternative energy projects are there in this or other provinces?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Most provinces are developing wind energy, but Alberta is one of the leaders.

There are other small initiatives all over the place, but no big-bang energy plan. I'm not advocating a big-bang plan (especially to do with energy  ), but right now it's all a little scattered/inadequate.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Definitely. Environmental costs should be very carefully examined and included (carbon tax, land use tax, etc.) with a long-term and local health view.


If we ever get to the point where we are depending on oil sands for our main fossil fuel supplies, we will be living in a time where we have become desperate to use anything to keep our industrial society running. We will have ceased to worry about environmental costs or climate costs. Depending on oil from oil sands is a last choice option for our world, somewhere in the realm of going back to coal burning for our main energy needs.

In terms of energy return, oil sands only produce slightly more energy than the amount used to extract the oil. As opposed to light crude flowing out of the ground that produces presently around 30 times the energy for every unit used to obtain it. Even for conventional oil that energy return figure is rapidly going down, but that is another discussion.

Since the energy used to extract the oil is going to be fossil fuel energy, that means that those vast reserves of oil are not anywhere near as vast as we think. Currently natural gas is used, whose price is steadily rising and world supply is getting much tighter. Major LNG terminals are being planned and built to import it in liquid form from elsewhere because of tight North American supply and projected future supply problems. So the cost of producing this oil is going to be huge both in economic and energy terms.

In terms of carbon issues oil from oil sands is a disaster. If we use the equivalent of a barrel of oil to produce 1.1 to 1.5 barrels, then the carbon released in using oil sands oil becomes almost double that of conventional. With natural gas that carbon will be less than double but still much higher than conventional. Some have speculated that if natural gas use becomes prohibitive because of cost that coal could be used. This shoots the carbon release profile of oil sands oil much higher.

In terms of the environmental and pollution costs oil sands oil is again a disaster. Along with the larger amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, there is also the air pollution caused by that larger amount of energy burned in the production and use of oil sands oil. Very large quantities of hot water are used in the processes to extract the oil. The polluted waste water disposal is a very big problem and one that hasn't been answered successfully. For every barrel of oil produced 3 - 5 barrels of polluted waste water are dumped into tailing ponds, destroying the environment in the vicinity of the open pit oil sands operations. Oil sands producers assure us that they are working on improved techniques for the future. I remain skeptical.

If costs of air and other environmental pollution and the resulting health and cleanup costs and climate change costs are added to the insanely cheap oil we now use, it has been estimated that a litre of gas should cost as much as $4. I would be in favour of this right now. I don't think that we should be contemplating moving to an energy source that might have double the environmental cost. Much of those costs will never be mitigated by using cash. Once an environment has been degraded, no matter how much we spend, we can never make it fully what it once was.

To bring this somewhat back to the topic of this thread, if we start producing crude from Alberta's oil sands in any kind of massive quantities I think we can kiss good-bye any hopes of ever reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions or coming close to meeting our targets. 

This seems to be something that our new PM isn't too concerned about anyway.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Nor do a bunch of links mean you are an expert. It just means that it's very easy to post links to any sources that back up your feelings. Thank you for verifying that.


So Beej, do you disagree with the information in those links? Or are you just trying to enforce your idea of forum etiquette? 

You seemed to be saying earlier that you thought that using the oil sands were one reasonable option. Myself and nxnw are saying it is not. I don't think there is anything reasonable about mining oil out of the ground in Alberta, at least not as an energy source (possibly mining it for other use in smaller quantities may be acceptable).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In terms of energy return, oil sands only produce slightly more energy than the amount used to extract the oil.
> ...
> Since the energy used to extract the oil is going to be fossil fuel energy, that means that those vast reserves of oil are not anywhere near as vast as we think.
> ...
> ...


Not sure what you mean by slightly. Clarify?
...
OPTI/Nexen is developing a process to gasify bitumen bottoms to burn to produce more bitumen -- minimal input from other energy sources. This, of course, has environmenal implications.
...
Talking about the mining operation now. They use less energy per barrel (not counting up and coming technologies). Just making sure people don't get the impression all the comments apply to all oil sands production to the same extent.
...
There are many estimates out there, with a wide range of reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. $4 sounds vastly overstated unless you include a lot of taxes. For example: what is the environmental cost of a pit mine? Lots of scary empty statements fly around, but they're quite manageable when one takes a long view instead of a sound-bite approach. I'm not accusing you of this, but I've seen enough media-poop on the topic.
...
The last two didn't seem concerned either. The economy-environment balance is tough, especially when everybody is too scared to implement simple tax solutions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So Beej, do you disagree with the information in those links? Or are you just trying to enforce your idea of forum etiquette?
> 
> You seemed to be saying earlier that you thought that using the oil sands were one reasonable option. Myself and nxnw are saying it is not. I don't think there is anything reasonable about mining oil out of the ground in Alberta, at least not as an energy source (possibly mining it for other use in smaller quantities may be acceptable).


My opinion: It's baseless fearmongering with no perspective added or consideration of the kind of economy-environment balances we have or commonly aspire to. 

If you don't think it's a reasonable energy source, that's an opinion. If you lay out your reasoning and it's just based on rhetoric (big bad mine, big like Florida!) don't expect positive feedback. 

I think your post was much better reasoned, but still comes down to oil sands being beyond a very unclear standard and, presumably, accepting the economic consequences as ok. That's fine as an opinion. It does not, as laid out, qualify as expert. Unlike nxnw, you didn't chastise someone else for not being an expert.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> There are many estimates out there, with a wide range of reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. $4 sounds vastly overstated unless you include a lot of taxes. For example: what is the environmental cost of a pit mine? Lots of scary empty statements fly around, but they're quite manageable when one takes a long view instead of a sound-bite approach. I'm not accusing you of this, but I've seen enough media-poop on the topic.
> ...
> The last two didn't seem concerned either. The economy-environment balance is tough, especially when everybody is too scared to implement simple tax solutions.


$4 is an estimate, yes. It came from an American study that I can't find the link to presently. It may be more, it may be less, but it of course would be a tax, that is applied to clean up and pay for the externalities that the oil producers and oil users do not pay for. We already pay a lot of tax on gas to presumable pay for roads and highway maintenance, but that doesn't nearly cover the total costs that burning fossil fuel has to our local and world-wide environment.

Some think that Katrina and the huge hurricane damage last year was caused by climate change. Debatable for sure, but if it was, or even if climate change was a contributing factor, then that is a huge cost of our fossil fuel use. Some think that the reduction in the Gulf Stream is a direct result of man made caused global warming. If so the costs there will be incalculable but surely very huge. Even if you consider fossil fuel use only partial responsible for these costs, then some of the costs should be tax-shifted.

We charge a large tax on cigarettes, presumably to pay for the costs that smoking imposes on our health system. While I don't know how those costs are arrived at or if they come close to compensating us, governments suing tobacco companies don't seem to think so.

If it happens that $4 is too high, then we might happily have a surplus for much needed government programs or alt energy research, while possibly causing people to re-think the economics of their auto use. There are some costs that can never be compensated for with money, so my instinct would be to go higher to prevent needless death and irreversible environmental change.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There are some costs that can never be compensated for with money, so my instinct would be to go higher to prevent needless death and irreversible environmental change.


$4 may already be starting from an unreasonable point. I don't know, but 'go higher' doesn't apply in that case. 

Either way, the economics behind consumption taxes is great compared to profit and income taxes. Completely outside environmental considerations, this should be looked at. Lack of progressivity is easy to adjust for. Add in environmental considerations and there's even more reason to use them.

Funny thing is, once you toss out the 'never build this' enviro-quacks, and get into an externality tax framework you can have more economy and more environment, but not how the enviros argue ('Green collar jobs', as the Green party put it). 

The 'more economy' comes from more efficient taxation (very low corporate and personal income taxes) and the more environment comes from people and companies working to reduce their consumption taxes. Right now you can reduce taxes by: working less and investing less. Revamp the tax regime and you could reduce taxes by using up less environment. 

We can have our cake and eat it too, but it requires a brave government and public trust that the new taxes won't be a tax grab -- they should be revenue neutral. This introduces a very manageable problem of declining government revenue sources. Between economic gains (more revenue), ratcheting up consumption taxes, and the built-in surplus growth (a few factors behind this) it would just take a little brain-work to manage the whole thing.

I should stop day-dreaming now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The University of Alberta has a study to put 800 self powered autonomous barges in the Arctic Ocean to "refuel" the North Atlantic current cycle. Windpowered to spray water on the remaining ice to increase the ice cover on the ocean.
Cost $800 billion US.

$4 I'd say is low as a projected "real cost" long term. The effects of both warm water saying in the south and not moving to the north are being felt big time this year. Katrina and catastrophic cold.

Nuclear in the oil sands makes all kinds of sense especially when power can also be used to sequester CO2. The oil sands companies generally have been progressive in looking to reduce green house gases especially as the carbon trading market is opening up.
Nuclear allows a potential double reduction in CO2 for sequestration of unavoidable CO2 emmissions and a clean source for the steam. It transforms unstorable power into storable transportable power as a bridge to hydrogen economy.

Wind and alternative sources are important but will only ever supply about a 1/5 at best. A combination of alternative fuels and conservation are hugely important but still not even close to the heavy lifting needed for transport.

Quebec is likely far and away the furthest along in renewables.



> Wind energy project - SkyPower Corporation Announces Plans to Develop a $300 Million Project in Rivière-du-Loup Region
> 
> SkyPower Announces Plans to Build Canada's Largest Wind Energy
> "SuperPark"
> ...


That represents 1/5 of Ontario peak needs.
http://www.canadanewswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2004/25/c7777.html

Now if Ontario will bloody well get on with both nuclear and conservation at least the power sources for electricity will be clean and efficient.
Transport will continue to be the toughest issue facing the world.

Personally I think it's NOT the energy companies where the problem lays - it's with the will power of governments to undertake the programs needed for the switch - both in applying real cost taxation and mega infrastructure funding plus long term funding for efficieny improvements and other incentives.

Quebec is.

Ontario is doing a lot of talking.

Many oil sands companies are acting.

But I suspect it will be too little too late and allwe can hope for is to soften the the impact of what is to come in the next 50 years


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Unlike nxnw, you didn't chastise someone else for not being an expert.


Exactly, but somehow people are who self appointed "esteemed members" of the legal profession, often presume themselves to be superior to us all in nearly all things. 

Like I said, I spent eight years there and I know what goes on. After those eight years, I spent 13 more years visiting monthly in a senior management role. 

Post all the links you want pal, but until you go and live there, know the people and feel the impact, stifle yourself, as Archie Bunker used to say.

Besides, the so-called legal experts I trust are few and far between. Kinda like judges if you get my drift.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> Nor do a bunch of links mean you are an expert. It just means that it's very easy to post links to any sources that back up your feelings. Thank you for verifying that.


At least I had some authority to back up my position, unlike you or Mr. Fort McMurray. 

I never claimed to be an expert. I was responding to Mr. Fort McMurray, who characterized my observations as ignorant based only on his own imagined expertise.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> At least I had some authority to back up my position, unlike you or Mr. Fort McMurray.
> 
> I never claimed to be an expert. I was responding to Mr. Fort McMurray, who characterized my observations as ignorant based only on his own imagined expertise.


Your links didn't back up your position, they simply made big statements with no basis for 'badness' or 'goodness', just statements of assumed consent on their implicit definition of 'badness'. They were the equivalent of stating 'activist judges' as evidence, something you strongly opposed. Although, fighting fire with fire does have a certain appeal.
...
True, you never claimed to be an expert and the tone of my posts may have been too harsh in interpreting the tone of your posts. I apologise.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Exactly, but somehow people are who self appointed "esteemed members" of the legal profession, often presume themselves to be superior to us all in nearly all things.
> …
> Post all the links you want pal, but until you go and live there, know the people and feel the impact, stifle yourself, as Archie Bunker used to say.
> 
> Besides, the so-called legal experts I trust are few and far between. Kinda like judges if you get my drift.


I can always count on you maligning an entire profession whenever you have nothing intelligent to say. That's why you do it so often.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> I can always count on you maligning an entire profession whenever you have nothing intelligent to say. That's why you do it so often.


Tell you what. When you begin to respect the opinions of people who are not members of the legal profession, and stop with the legal attitude, I will forget to mention judges who should not have been appointed in the first place.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Tell you what. When you begin to respect the opinions of people who are not members of the legal profession, and stop with the legal attitude, I will forget to mention judges who should not have been appointed in the first place.


What legal attitude? Really SINC, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder with anyone that disagrees with you or pokes holes in your theories/prejudices/logic/, or just disagree with your rural point of views....  We can't all be beer and pork rinds...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> What legal attitude? Really SINC, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder with anyone that disagrees with you or pokes holes in your theories/prejudices/logic/, or just disagree with your rural point of views....  We can't all be beer and pork rinds...


That's odd, I don't recall asking you?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Tell you what. When you begin to respect the opinions of people who are not members of the legal profession, and stop with the legal attitude, I will forget to mention judges who should not have been appointed in the first place.


I don't weigh others' opinions based on what they do for a living and you have no basis to suggest that I do.

There are plenty of people on this board who make informed and thoughtful posts, whose opinions I find interesting and thought provoking, whether or not I agree with them. I don't respect opinions that are patently grounded in ignorance: Your disrespect of the _institution_ of the judiciary, because judges are lawyers, is a prime example.

Your emulation of Archie Bunker a few posts back could not have been more apt.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Your disrespect of the _institution_ of the judiciary, because judges are lawyers, is a prime example.
> 
> Your emulation of Archie Bunker a few posts back could not have been more apt.


A quick overview of your continued postings conveying an attitude of legal superiority:



nxnw said:


> News reports on legal proceedings are, in any event, frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue. Frankly, you can't really do justice, in a couple of short paragraphs, to issues that will take hours to present in Court.


Note "court" capitalized.




nxnw said:


> As Captain Renault from Casablanca might have said: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!" Surely not in our Judiciary and Civil Service! It can't be!Not in the judiciary. Not by Martin, not by Chretien and, for that matter, not by Mulroney either. Just because we don't appoint Supreme Court judges in a US style circus does not mean the appointments are tainted.


Note "judiciary" capitalized.



nxnw said:


> What law school did YOU go to? It is bad enough that you (or one of your fellow anonymous cowards hiding behind the name "The Macspeech team") imply that I am dishonest, by asserting that I cannot be trusted to have come by my disk, registration card, etc. honestly.


Note condescending attitude, suggesting one who attends law school is somehow "superior".

I


nxnw said:


> In fact, I DO know the difference, and I suspect I understand the issues much better than you.


Note the "I know, you don't, attitude".


I


nxnw said:


> There was a Federal Court case that said making a personal copy of a song is legal, but that particular element of the decision was reversed on appeal. The issue remains to be decided by a higher court.


Note naming court (with capitols) as superior to other opinions offered.



nxnw said:


> I also do not consider that it is appropriate to characterize what is happening here as fraud. Lousy and unacceptable customer service, but not fraud.


Note offering legal opinion.

At the end of the day. if I want a lawyer, I'll hire one. I really don't need or want all the legal advice thanks.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Really grasping at straws there SINC - taking a bunch of quotes out of context and putting them together to try and prop up your delusions. 
How about I start to piece together some of your quotes - bet I can easily make it sound like you are a cross-dressing albino midget (sarcasm)....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So Beej, do you disagree with the information in those links? Or are you just trying to enforce your idea of forum etiquette?


It occurred to me that maybe everybody isn't aware of the comprehensive application and hearing process that goes into getting a project approved. The applications are enormous (especially for the mines) and have full energy balance, enviornmental impact and reclamation plans included. All of which get scrutinized by environmental and communities groups and more. 

There is then a detailed hearing with many experts and finally a decision from the regulatory board (there is probably a question and answer pre-hearing phase, if it's like what I've seen). These are highly competent people who take their job seriously. 

Sidenote: This may have sparked some of my snappiness towards nxnw...after much defending of the judiciary's integrity in past threads it almost seemed like he pooped all over regulators (quasi-judiciary expert bodies, courts aren't designed to handle this stuff, they only do as a last resort). It may have been more a case of not knowing the full import of the process.

From this perspective, quotes that just talk about what a project is (big, lots of gases, dirty etc.) seem empty to me. They add nothing to a full consideration of factors and would just be acknowledged before the real questions got going.

Real intervention talks about specific things: is the tailings pond too close to the river; will there need to be lower water use during low-flow seasons; are any species put at risk; and many many more considerations. The regulator has forced applicants to change their project plans in the past and, as more projects go through the process, applicants learn what they can and cannot apply for.

For the process, however, opinions that just want the project to never happen are not, in my mind, remotely relevant. They're intransigent and inconsiderate of anything beyond the opposer's narrow world-view. If there is a specific environmental consideration, it gets taken up, as well as cumulative affects of the projects. The significance of this process should not be ignored, nor the fact that these projects are approved responsibly.

Greenhouse gases are a problem. They have no local environmental impact and there is no framework for controlling them. A regulator should not (can not) legislate. It is up to governments to tax GHGs and/or create a framework for regulation (cap and trade works too). Until then, I'm not sure a regulator has any role to play in GHGs except to require their measurement.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> A quick overview of your continued postings conveying an attitude of legal superiority:...


Context _would_ be nice. About the quotes ascribed to me, I'll say only this:
- The macspeech comment was rude, and I subsequently apologized for it;
- Only the second half of the "Captain Renaud" quote (after the sarcasm) was me;
- the proper usage of "Supreme Court" and "Federal Court" requires capitalization, like Parliament, Prime Minister, Star Wars, Captain Renaud, Stockwell Day, Minister of Foreign Affairs and, almost certainly, your name;
-I do have some expertise in legal issues, from my education and experience. Even if incorrect, my opinions in my sphere of knowledge at least have the merit of that education and experience. 

Ignorance is not a virtue. Hot air is not as valid as informed opinion. I think that, deep down, you know this, and it doesn't sit well with you.


----------



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

From CNN.com -- "Angry Fatah supporters took to the streets of Gaza City today, blaming Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for their party's trouncing by the militant group Hamas in this week's parliamentary elections. Protesters swarmed around Abbas' home in Gaza City, where they shot in the air...."

Liberals merely started looking for another leader.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

well this cartoon could have MUCH contextual appropriateness in this thread beyond the obvious


----------



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

"Et tu, Brute?"

""Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em." 

--From Twelfth Night (II, v)


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Nice cartoon MD. I hope for the Liberals sake that the leadership isn't a knife fest, they have enough internal divisions already.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When HASN'T it been  They have a long and gory tradition.










Where do you think Chretien honed his formidable political skills?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I don't think Trudeau (and I'm not a huge PET fan) came to power in the fashion that Martin did.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

via democratically elected processes?
did i miss something?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Um, I meant leadership of the party. Martins was a 22 year climb to the top, capped off with a brutal choking off of rivals during the leadership "contest"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i menat leadership too
both were duly elected at conventions
sheila copps ran against martin much longer than he would have liked and he rewarded her with the boot
your comment seemed to indicate some sort of clandestine process not unlike the Alliance takeover of the PC party by counting votes in favour of joining twice to make the results look overwelming in favour of merger

i don't think any vote in either martin's or PET's election to leader of the Liberal party were counted twice


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

No votes probably weren't counted twice, but it is a well publicized fact that Martin's people took over many riding associations to limit new members and control delegate selection for the liberal leadership contest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> No votes probably weren't counted twice, but it is a well publicized fact that Martin's people took over many riding associations to limit new members and control delegate selection for the liberal leadership contest.


Source(s)?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

for sources, see SSI sage


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Excerpts from the CanWest News service (the only wire I have archival access to)

Paul Martin takes early lead in weekend vote
Canwest News Service
Friday, September 19, 2003
Byline: Anne Dawson
Dateline: OTTAWA 

The early results from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, as well as a handful from Quebec and Ontario showed Liberals had elected 336 delegates who support Martin and 19 for Copps out of a total of 1,195 delegates to be elected tonight. A total of 4,770 delegates will be elected over the course of the weekend.
...
Martin's gigantic lead in this race for more than a year may have lead some Liberals not to bother casting a ballot because they consider the race all but over. 
...
From the day he lost to Chretien in 1990, Martin kept his leadership organization intact and upon becoming finance minister in 1993, he hit the hustings attending almost any Liberal event to which he was invited. Even his rivals that left the leadership race - Industry Minister Allan Rock and Finance Minister John Manley - acknowledged that Martin's stronghold over the Liberal grassroots and the party hierarchy was well earned from years of hard work.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

From Time Canada:
http://www.timecanada.com/CNOY/story.adp?year=2002

From summer onward, strategists for each camp fought for control of delegates to a Liberal Party convention that would determine whether to hold a leadership review. Martin’s loyalists had been taking grass-roots control of the party in skirmishes in riding associations across the country. Martin, a graying-at-the-edges shipping multimillionaire with a famous political pedigree, was nobody’s idea of a revolutionary, but he proved to be a powerful lightning rod for Liberal discontent...

...Martin has sucked most of the oxygen out of any future race. With a rumored $6.5 million war chest and a lock on the party’s vote-getting machine, he is virtually assured of victory at a Liberal leadership convention scheduled for Toronto from Nov. 12 to Nov. 15. He is thus almost certainly Canada’s next Prime Minister, despite the leadership aspirations of Manley and others. Yet it will be a year before Martin and family can move into 24 Sussex Drive. During that interregnum, he will have to hide in plain sight.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Do you want more sources or are you ready to lay off you're standard "SSI sage" crud.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nobody asked for sources on the Conservative double-voting (BTW 'David Orchard said', and similar comments is not a source)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Do you want more sources or are you ready to lay off you're standard "SSI sage" crud.


I did not compare you to the SSI sage - 
It was the "limit new members and control delegate selection" that I was interested in.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Do you want more sources or are you ready to lay off you're standard "SSI sage" crud.



you really need to try de-caf


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Do you want more sources or are you ready to lay off you're standard "SSI sage" crud.


It's a well known fact that Paul Martin deposed old King Jean in a hostile takeover. That's one of the things that did Martin in during this last election, and one of the key factors that put the Conservatives into power.

The Liberal party is deeply divided right now. Has been since Chretien was shuffled off to the golf links, about two years ago. The Chretienistas and the Martinites in the Liberal party are still fighting bitterly amongst themselves for the spoils that are no longer there. Now they are BOTH out in the cold and wondering "what the F*CK went wrong??"

Too funny. I'm larfing my butt off these days. 

Constantly. Deliriously. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



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

Nice to see you are so magnanimous in (minority) victory MacNutt. I guess its been a long time coming given the multiple previous misfires. Instead of kicking at the Liberals, you might do something a tad more constructive. Maybe that is just not in your DNA. Reminds me of Churchill - a great war politician but unfortunately hopeless during times of peace (not that you are a bit like Churchill by any stretch of the imagination). Will Stephen Harper be able to transition from the rhetoric of opposition benches to being the target for all malaise? I hope so, but we shall see.


----------

