# Election Timing



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I'm interested in when people think the next election will be held. 

Will the Conservatives have the patience to wait until the fall and take the chance that Paul Martin will not be directly implicated (but still negligent) by the Gomery Inquiry? Or do we already know enough from the Gomery Inquiry that there is no need to wait for the final report?

I wonder how this will play out. 

One possible situation that I throw out for debate is Paul Martin passing the government to the Conservatives. This would make him look like a statesman because he can claim to be taking the high road. I am assuming that Martin would prefer an election before the final Gomery report since he knows it could reveal more damaging information. Martin could go to the Governor General and recommend that she request the Conservatives to form a government. This is plausible because the Air India bill was passed by the Conservatives and the same sex marriage bill had the support for quite a few Liberals. The Conservatives would then have a very difficult time passing legislation with only 100 seats with limited support from right of centre Liberals. The Bloc and NDP would then do the dirty work for the Liberals and take the Conservative government down. Paul Martin ends up looking like he didn't call for the election and he can spout that the other parties are being opportunistic.


----------



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

Vandave, a very interesting scenario. I am not sure that the Conservatives would "take the bait", unless they felt that they could set a course for this nation that might be passed in the House.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martin's not going to call for an election or resign anyway and if the Bloc force the issue and Harper defies the polls and goes along then the Gov General has that option of forcing Harper to try and govern or even overruling the non confidence I beleive if she feels it is not in the best interests of the country.

Harper takes a huge risk, he is not well liked - hence his low personal stats and attempting to pull the trigger early against the clear wishes of the populace is a huge gamble.

He should be doing everything he can to appear to be a real alternative and getting legislation through the house while the inquiry moves forward. Right now we effectively have no government - mostly because he opened his mouth and said " I'm not waiting". 

If he had said I respect the wishes of the people to see the end of the inquiry then he may have gained some ground. Instead he's just wound up the Lib grassroots election machine which in Ontario is waaaaay better than the Conservatives.
If he waited he had time to build some "feet on the ground".

But no ol quickdraw popped the champagne too early again. My accountant a died in the wool Con supporter thinks the Libs will win again if Harper forces an election.
He agrees someone like Tory would be a different matter.

The Bloc is very dangerous to Canada right now and this lack of goverance as we head into a slowdown is very disheartening.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Saw this in the Economist today about the US situation.










We may be drawing and quartering OUR centre these days.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Saw this in the Economist today about the US situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the economist, but I don't agree with the joke. It's true the average american just sits around not paying attention to politics. But I don't think the Republicans and Democrats are really that different from each other and I don't think the average american is politically in the middle of these two parties.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc - I wouldn't consider that just about the US situation. I'd consider that about any political action, here on ehMac included.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If he had said I respect the wishes of the people to see the end of the inquiry then he may have gained some ground. Instead he's just wound up the Lib grassroots election machine which in Ontario is waaaaay better than the Conservatives.
> If he waited he had time to build some "feet on the ground".


I agree. I think the Conservatives are making a mistake by pushing for an early election. I don't think Canadian's want it, but I don't think there is a big window either. With the Queen coming, we can't have an election in May. After she goes, we already into summer and nobody wants a summer election.

It's best to wait until the Gomery inquiry is done, which is likely in November (I think). Again, that's not a great time for an election given the weather back east. Waiting until spring next year is too long as well.

I think time is on the side of the Conservatives. They have a solid party policy and it's their election to lose now. If Harper shows to Canadian's that he would be a responsible PM that they can trust, the Conservatives will win. Unfortunately, it will still probably only be a minority government. With 308 seats in the house and zero wins from Quebec (75 seats I think), they would have to win 155 out of 233 ridings. If the NDP holds at 36 seats, we are down to 155 out of 197 ridings (80% success rate). 

Without Quebec, I don't think any party can get a majority anymore. Looking forward, I think it will take a decade for the Liberals to come back there and it would take a decade for Quebec to elect the Conservatives in a big way. So, I think we are going to have minority governments for quite a while.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No I'd say in Canada the centre is crying out for good leadership quite loudly and has been for a while- the left edgers are quiet and the right edgers noisy.
The US on the other hand the middle is MIA except perhaps in California and at the state level.

The current adscam turmoil is not a left right issue it's a political tactics issue.

What we have in parliament right now is politics not governance.

Now Vandave's idea would show governance and mature compromise - the way a minority gov SHOULD work. It hasn't. The bulk of Canadians are middle slightly left - there is a hole in the middle right cuz there isn't one other than Martin's fiscal policies.

From the poll it looks like the red Liberal support is soft ( has been for a while). Will see if the neoCon boogie man pulls them back in. People just might not vote strategically this time and a Bob Rae surprise of a minor sort could bubble up.
A 6% national shift from the left side of the Lib support puts a 3 way balance in place. 

Now PR would make a difference bit time.

••••



> They have a solid party policy


 ........hunh???!!!! Just about every commentary I've seen say they have little in the way of policy and they just flip flopped on Kyoto. That's the problem all along they've been wranging on the Libs but have little to offer.

The phrase has been....Libs morally bankrupt........ Cons policy bankrupt.

Now the Greens and NDP do have solid thought through policies but whether Canadians are willing to take that large a social agenda leap is doubtful.....even tho I'd love it :clap:


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Unfortunately, it will still probably only be a minority government. With 308 seats in the house and zero wins from Quebec (75 seats I think), they would have to win 155 out of 233 ridings. If the NDP holds at 36 seats, we are down to 155 out of 197 ridings (80% success rate).
> 
> Without Quebec, I don't think any party can get a majority anymore.


I think this is a valuable observation. I wonder if we can resurrect Meech Lake again to bring the BQ back in the fold. That was the best resolution for Canadian unity, better than Charlottetown.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc - Of course the politicians are making this a political issue not a governance issue. Mainly because I don't think there is such a thing as governance. Politicians lie. They will do just about anything to stay in power (eg. scrapping the GST). Doesn't matter if they're Libbies, NDP or 'the NeoCon boogie men' (btw, calling all Conservatives 'NeoCon boogie men' makes you to be just as ignorant as the 'NeoCon boogie men'.). In Canada it's politics first (voting as the party votes) and the people second (actual governance). It's a shame that all this AdScam garbage is going to get an election called before we really need one. The Conservatives are moving (slowly) to the center and getting more popular because of it. The Liberals have been in power for too long, been far too arrogant and have been caught with their pants down. It's just a bad time for everyone right now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What possible evidence do you have for "moving to centre" for the Fed Cons!!!???...did you read the Harris/Manning manifesto ????? The ONTARIO Conservative party might be getting towards the centre with John Tory - the Fed - not a chance - Harper can't hide his real stripes and his bud's Ralphie and Preston and Mikie aren't helping the cause......NeoCon all the way.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=213422#post213422


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I guess you either have to be centre or left of centre not to be a neoCon these days.  I agree the conservatives have a way to go, but honestly, you think Harper is the same old Reformer as Preston or *shudder* Day? The Conservative aren't completely in the dark. They know Canada has gone center. They know that there is no way in hell they'll win if there is even a hint of a possibility of screwing around with health care. I personally like Green because they haven't had a chance to be corrupt or go back on their word. They just feel all nice and squeeky clean.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I grow so tired and weary of MacDoc and his term NeoCon that I have come up with my own term for his ilk.

In future they will be known as NonLibs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What possible evidence do you have for "moving to centre" for the Fed Cons!!!???...did you read the Harris/Manning manifesto ????? The ONTARIO Conservative party might be getting towards the centre with John Tory - the Fed - not a chance - Harper can't hide his real stripes and his bud's Ralphie and Preston and Mikie aren't helping the cause......NeoCon all the way.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=213422#post213422


I think their policy convention shows a move to the centre. The Conservative policy on abortion is one example. Also, the way leaders are elected is based on ridings, not the number of party members. This is a big step for traditional reformers as they have passed a lot of power to the east.

But, if you believe the are hiding their stripes, then why bother questioning their policy? You can just speculate on it yourself. Personally, I will take the party policy as what the Conservatives stand for.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ........hunh???!!!! Just about every commentary I've seen say they have little in the way of policy and they just flip flopped on Kyoto. That's the problem all along they've been wranging on the Libs but have little to offer.
> 
> The phrase has been....Libs morally bankrupt........ Cons policy bankrupt.
> 
> Now the Greens and NDP do have solid thought through policies but whether Canadians are willing to take that large a social agenda leap is doubtful.....even tho I'd love it :clap:


That's because all that commentary is old. There is some truth in it because the Conservatives never had a chance to formulate a party policy prior to the last election. Martin strategically called an election to take them by surprise. I thought that was pretty cheap. I also didn't like the way they fear mongered about the Conservatives.

I think Harper should reach out to Martin and say he will hold off on making an election and not be opportunistic the way the Liberals were in the last election. In exchange, Martin should agree to stop the fear monging and debate policy instead.

Did you read the recent commentary on NDP policy by one of their former policy advisors? I haven't read it yet, but I know the just of it. He says the NDP are a bunch of whiners and have no vision. They define themselves as not being what the other people stand for (e.g. big business = bad, corporations = bad, lower taxes = bad, etc...). I see no vision coming from the NDP at all. I follow politics closely and I have no idea where they would want to take us.

Now that I think about this, there is no way the NDP would ever form a coalition with the Conservatives. Since the NDP define themselves as anti-Conservative, they can't fundamentally compromise with them. I could see the Conservatives wanting to work with the NDP though. 

I think we are looking at a series of minority governments that may swing between Liberal and Conservative for many years to come. Most Canadians are politically aligned with either party. I think that in order for future minority governments to be stable, they will have to be comprised of the Liberals and Conservatives. This is another good reason for each party to keep the next election clean. If you believe in national unity, then a minority government with the Bloc is definately not preferable.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here ya go Dave, inform yourself - you might just be surprised.
http://ndp.ca/platform/

Perhaps one reason NDP are currently at 24% in the polls as of today - they represent a vision that appeals quite broadly. They've been consistent on equal rights/same sex, Staying out of Bush style adventurism, Kyoto and climate and health care.

Libs tend to steal ideas from both sides of the spectrum and so hold the centre.
There may not be enough centre core left for a majroity anytime soon.

What the NDP do not have nor Harper is the economic tack record Martin holds and that makes them both suspect.
in voters minds.
Tax cut matras on one side and a history of spend spend on the other. Harpers last proto budget was roundly condemned and his mentors in the US are the laughingstock of the world when they mouth "fiscal responsibility".

I like some of the "stronger provinces" ideas from Harper - it's the rest of the NeoCon claptrap that goes with it that smells.

I would have loved to see a Liberal NDP coalition - just a few seats short.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I like some of the "stronger provinces" ideas from Harper - it's the rest of the NeoCon claptrap that goes with it that smells.


Not nearly as bad as the rotten stench from the Liberals though.


----------



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

Maybe it IS time for the NDP to be given a chance to govern.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max had an excellent quote today on Magic and it would certainly apply to a certain one liner afficianado who beats a drum with one stick.



> misguided Harpoonian thrusts to take us all back a few dozen decades... not to mention confound voters who just want to know what the conservatives stand for... *beside hating liberals, that is.*


The cartoon gave Harper the bigger ball on the chain..........with good reason. Lipflappers are the Libs best friends.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Have you checked the recent poll numbers, macdoc? Especially in Ontario?

Looks like all of that "lipflapping" is having some effect, after all. And the Liberals continue to sink fast. ESPECIALLY in Ontario. 

The NDP are also in a bit of a dive. It would seem that support is shifting away from far left and even near left and going center-right all across the country. Again...ESPECIALLY in Ontario. The major news services are now calling it a "fundamental shift in Canadian voting patterns".

Expect a spring election. Probably in late june. The Gormery inquiry will have finished all testimony by mid may, and Canadians will be able to make of that whatever they want. No need to wait and see what the judge says he thinks about it. In fact...it would seem that most Canadians have already made up their minds about this, and want to distance themselves from the crooks who caused the stinky mess. ASAP.

And once the Liberals are out of power...then expect to see what the rest of this giant iceberg looks like as the inquiries and criminal trials REALLY get some momentum. The Sponsorship Scandal is just one of MANY Liberal criminal scams that went on. (hint...it's not even the biggest one).

It's only going to get worse from here. The Liberals are done. For good.

Prepare yourself.


----------



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

Prepare yourself for what, exactly? Seems to me that the electorate are just being told to jump off a bridge without a parachute. I simply do not understand why the Conservatives have not carefully laid out precisely what they would do if elected. This would surely act to reassure those who are concerned abouta hidden Conservative agenda. Indeed, by not doing so in very straightforward manner would suggest that even the Conservatives realise that their policies may scare away voters - even in the face of the high level dissatisfaction of the Liberal Party.

The country deserves to know its options beyond superficial rhetoric. Here's a golden opportunity - lay it out in plain sight. Intellectual honesty is just as important as fiscal integrity.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

From the polls we are all now seeing...plus the ongoing rage at the disgraced Liberals...I'd say that Canadians are ready to give the Conservatives a shot at the big time. There certainly doesn't seem to be any real momentum to return the Liberals to power. To say the least.

Especially in Ontario. And the Libs are now effectively dead in Quebec. In the west...._FUGEDDABOUTIT_.

The Conservatives policies are all clearly on file and have been presented to the Canadian people. The Conservative party's position on Canadian Health care is not all that different than the Liberal one. Neither Mike Harris nor Preston Manning are active in, nor do they speak for, the Conservative Party of Canada. (They are both a part of the Fraser Institute, and were publicly speaking on behalf of that body when the contentious statements were made).

Say...you want "hidden agendas"? Check out what the Liberals have _SAID_ they'd do and then compare that with what they have _ACTUALLY DONE_ after each election since the early nineties.

In many cases, they have done the polar opposite. And that's not even including all of that carefully planned theft and corruption, which they failed to tell us about pre-election.

Talk about "hidden agendas". The Liberal Party of Canada are EXPERTS at "hidden agendas".


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> The country deserves to know its options beyond superficial rhetoric. Here's a golden opportunity - lay it out in plain sight. Intellectual honesty is just as important as fiscal integrity.


Read it for yourself.

http://www.conservative.ca/english/issues.asp#1


----------



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

Vandave said:


> Read it for yourself.
> 
> http://www.conservative.ca/english/issues.asp#1


That's exactly what I mean Vandave. On one side of the website is a banner for the adscam Gomery enquiry then down the middle are statements such as this:

"Access to Health Care 
Canadians depend on our public system of health care. That’s why the Conservative Party supported the federal-provincial Health Accord. A Conservative government will cooperate with the provinces to ensure adequate funding, shorter waiting lists, and more doctors and nurses. We will improve access to health care for all Canadians, regardless of ability to pay. Demand Better. Demand improved access to health care."

What will they do and how? These statements are meaningless without a plan.

This is the time to spell it out, not talk as though they're the tooth fairy.....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> What will they do and how? These statements are meaningless without a plan.
> 
> This is the time to spell it out, not talk as though they're the tooth fairy.....


They proposed the highest increase in funding for health care out of all the major parties.

Like my avatar?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Dave - I have not seen a point by point analysis of the NDP platform - did you read it????

So far Harper has waffled on _ "well I didn't REALLY support us going to war in Iraq", Kyoto, abortion agenda, and now he's SUPPORTING the gas tax to cities - then he has to do damage control on the Harris/Manning manifesto and he expects people to believe centrist........get real.

Martin screwed the pooch calling the first election too early and the whole bunch have been useless.
Much of the current legislation on the go could have been passed with a majority in the year he had.
Instead it's a dogs breakfast with much needed programs that Canadians want at risk now and a handcuffed parliament as we come into a difficult economic period. 

NO leadership except in Quebec......a POX on them ALL.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hey Dave - I have not seen a point by point analysis of the NDP platform - did you read it????


A point by point response would take a long time. I have to say that was a little painful to read since I think Layton is out to lunch on a number of issues.

Does Layton understand the constitution and the division of federal, provincial and muncipal responsibilities? Time and time again, I see that Layton wants to get the feds involved in provincial and municipal matters. All this does is create a bloated government. As a taxpayer, I only want one branch of government to be responsible for something, not three. It just creates bureaucracy and slows government down.

- Municipal Gas Tax

Why should the feds collect a tax and then forward it to the municipalities? Why not let the municipalities collect the tax themselves and decide how they want to spend it? This is not federal responsibility.

- National Housing Program

That was a failed program and the Liberals knew it. Again, this is a provincial and municipal issue. They are closer to the communities and are in a better position to make effective decisions. The feds should simply stay out.

- Communities

Again, this is municipal and provincial responsibility. The feds should stay out. In Vancouver, it takes 10 to 20 years to decide whether we need a new bridge or rapid transit line. The reason is that there are four levels of government involved (feds, provincial, municipal, GVRD, translink, etc...). 

- Pensions

I am not sure Layton understands economics and the concept of risk vs. return. Any investment advisor will tell you that you need to diversify investments. Why should we ignore the stock market? Oh ya, when you are socialist (closet communist), you are not supposed to support free enterprise.

- Energy

Layton needs to take Economics 101 and learn about supply and demand and 'deadweight losses'. If you cut the price of something by subsidizing it, you increase its demand (simply supply and demand). So, basically, Layton advocates using more energy. This also creates a deadweight loss on society.

- Education

I agree with moderate priced tuition fees and I always thought I should pay more when I went to school. I definately don't want free university education, or reduced fees. I think we have a balanced system now (80% or so subsidy). It makes you value the education you are receiving, instead of sitting back and not taking it seriously. The problem of access to education can be addressed in other ways, such as guaranteed loans and no interest until graduation.

Layton doesn't agree with for profit education centres. That's really stupid. Many kids need extra help after school and benefit from tutors who charge money (i.e. for profit). This supplements our system.

I hate the early childhood education idea. We already have a daycare system in place that works reasonably well. Why create a new level of bureaucracy? I would rather give families tax breaks and let them decide how they want to spend their money. I understand that in Quebec many people treat these programs as free babysitting and parents can go out and do other things (e.g. shopping, recreation). If people have to pay out of their own pocket, they will be more effective with their spending. Again, economics 101.

- Drinking Water

This is provincial jurisdiction. 

- Economic

That was funny.... The NDP would pressure the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates low to create economic stability. I would like to see a respectable economist back that plan up.

The whole purpose of changing interest rates is to create a stable economy. Fixed interest rates would have major impacts on inflation and our dollar. 

Again, this is economics 101.

An NDP government would be a financial disaster. They left a trail of financial devestation in BC and Ontario.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Painful - never more so than your response. ....what a brain washed joke that was - .

You want municipalities to individually collect gas taxes for use in their communities !!!!!???????

Hey lets just let Toronto keep all the taxes it collects in it's jurisdiction period. How would that sit with you.....or Ontario perhaps. .

You're EXACTLY why moderate Canadians don't trust NeoCon concepts. You didn't read it you just gave the kneejerk Con responses.

So let's hear what your "model" gov on the planet is?????


••••

Large scale infrastructure projects require long term and large funding pools ( Superfunds etc ) The central bureaucracy could be trimmed and made more efficient - that's the nature of bureaucracies - they need constant pruning.

YOUR concept is something out of Greek City states. Not bad for a world population of a few 100 million...woefully inadequate for our current unfolding crisis in energy population and resources.

Bottom line I read there is no transfer payments etc- wow Ontario and Toronto would benefit greatly.......trouble is - that's NOT the Canada I want nor the one most would support.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Painful - never more so than your response. ....what a brain washed joke that was - .
> 
> You want municipalities to individually collect gas taxes for use in their communities !!!!!???????
> 
> ...


That's pretty weak on your part to make this personal and call my response a joke and brain washed. I took your previous postings seriously up until now.

I never said we should create super cities. I said, the feds should focus to their jurisdiction, which is not bridges, roads and sidewalks. I also never said that only municipalities should collect gas taxes. Obviously the provinces would have to be involved as well. If the feds can't fund Highway 1 (e.g. near Golden), why should I believe they can do anything within our cities and municipalities? I would rather a bureaucrat in Vancouver or Victoria decide what to do with the money as they are closer to the problems and will have better solutions (and can be held accountable by local voters). What does Ottawa know about traffic issues in Vancouver? I fail to see the link between world population and the divisions of government. 

What's the benefit of having Ottawa involved in municipal and provincial infrastructure? Oh, a long term funding pool. I guess this somehow creates free money out of nothing. 

As far as being brainwashed, these are my own thoughts and nobody elses. I didn't take any cues from any 'neocons (as you call them)' or others. 

My model government is one that understands basic economics and common sense, two things the NDP are clearly lacking. Care to comment on the economic issues?

As far as governments that I have respected, I would include Gordon Campbell, Bill Clinton, WAC Bennett and Winston Churchill. I respect Jimmy Carter as well. I haven't lived through any federal governments in Canada that I have particulary liked.

What is so radical about my thoughts. It's common sense. It makes no sense for three levels of government to collect a tax that ends up being spent on the same thing. It creates unnecessary bereaucracy and reduces the effectiveness of government. How do you hold anybody accountable?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Painful - never more so than your response. ....what a brain washed joke that was - .


Still usin' the sweet talk to keep 'em wanting to talk to ya, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In kind Peter or have you forgotten.

••••

"We are not here to bury Caesar but to praise him .....".



> Apr.*16, 2005. 01:00*AM
> 
> *Harper's agenda for huge change*
> 
> ...


----------



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

"The problem for Harper, though, is that he has shifted his position on many major issues over the months and years to the point where few Canadians really know where he or his party stands."

This is the key aspect of the article. I would vote for the Conservatives because the MP here in St.John's East, a Conservative, is an honest person, and has been for his two terms in Ottawa. However, I am not sure if he could tell me exactly what is the specific platform for the Conservative party.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> In kind Peter or have you forgotten.


Sorry, Dave, but that's a weak excuse for being insolent. I saw nothing of that "kind' in Vandave's post. Besides, I consider "an eye for an eye" to be oudated thinking. Like Vandave said in his reply, you lose credibility and loss of attention when you do this. Anyway, don't justify it to me, justify it to he person you intentionally offended. Your horse is sometimes w-a-a-y-y-y too high. Sorry to take this off topic, but this is a bone that gets stuck in my throat every time. I'm going no further on this sidetrack. Enjoy your day, everyone!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter Scharman said:


> Sorry, Dave, but that's a weak excuse for being insolent. I saw nothing of that "kind' in Vandave's post. Besides, I consider "an eye for an eye" to be oudated thinking. Like Vandave said in his reply, you lose credibility and loss of attention when you do this. Anyway, don't justify it to me, justify it to he person you intentionally offended. Your horse is sometimes w-a-a-y-y-y too high. Sorry to take this off topic, but this is a bone that gets stuck in my throat every time. I'm going no further on this sidetrack. Enjoy your day, everyone!


Correctly observed and well stated Peter.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Peter said:


> Sorry, Dave, but that's a weak excuse for being insolent. I saw nothing of that "kind' in Vandave's post.


MacDoc tends to take things very personally. It's not an excuse, but it might explain why people end up on the other end of his replies "in kind."


----------



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

There are quite a few on this board who give as much as they get. I've been offended by numerous posters but I have likely offended as many others through poorly constructed or emotional replies. The problem occurs when the offensive language or snipes get in the way of the debate. 

There are some people though, whose arguments seem to depend on being offensive. I often wonder if they are like that in real life, or its just a bulletin board ego problem.


----------



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

Jim, I am a passive soul, and not prone to offensive arguements. Still, I see your point. I also sense that there is more "low blows" these past few months. Maybe it's the winter, or maybe it is an ill-advised way of relieving tension. What shall happen when an election is actually called????


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> There are quite a few on this board who give as much as they get. I've been offended by numerous posters but I have likely offended as many others through poorly constructed or emotional replies. The problem occurs when the offensive language or snipes get in the way of the debate.
> 
> There are some people though, whose arguments seem to depend on being offensive. I often wonder if they are like that in real life, or its just a bulletin board ego problem.


Emotional replies certainly can play a role in offensive posts, which may not have been intended.

Pick me, I am likely guilty on a few occasions, but I usually come to my senses and retract or apologize for the statement.

Common sense over emotion usually rights the wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy - piss off. 
•••

Peter - read his reply again. "Painful".......was his word. His reply was dismissive and I challenged him on it. You have your style I have mine and mine is consistent.....see above.

Now back on topic. 

Hebert catches the overall situation with insight as usual.



> Apr.*18, 2005. 06:33*AM
> 
> *NDP is election's wild card
> Leftish coalition just might work*
> ...


and I noticed Layton came right out and supported the idea today



> *NDP offers to prop up Liberals*
> 
> Apr. 18, 2005. 01:21*PM
> 
> ...


hmmmmm seems a number of people are attempting to "buy" Ontario votes. .......'bout time.

*What percentage of support is needed to introduce PR legislation???* ....just to throw another wrinkle into the the mix.

Is the house still exactly even 154/154 ( Con/Bloc........Lib/NDP/Indep )

I still can't find a complete breakdown of seats that can show close ridings.

Remember Bob Rae's waking up to be premier in Ontario totally outside expectations????.........situation is ripe for some unexpected result here too especially with THE GAP in play. 

Must be some odd rumblings in BC as well.


----------



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

An NDP federal government? An interesting idea in the making? We shall see.

The flip side is a Bloc sweep of Quebec and the other parties getting somewhat equal amounts, with the Greens even picking up a few seats. Thus, the Bloc forms the minority government.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Peter - read his reply again. "Painful".......was his word. His reply was dismissive and I challenged him on it. You have your style I have mine and mine is consistent.....see above.
> 
> Now back on topic.
> 
> ...


How is responding to another party's platform being dismissive? If anything, it shows I am willing to debate the issues and consider the opinions of others. When I said 'painful', I said it with a little tongue-in-cheek (it's no secret that I am a Conservative supporter). It's a criticism towards the NDP and Layton, not you. However, your response was a direct attack on me. I'm not sure if something else I said set you off (e.g. closet commie - again tongue-in-cheek towards the NDP, not you). 

If I have said anything on this board that anybody has taken personally, I apologize. My intent isn't to make things personal. I can get worked up about politics fairly easily, but I am definately not a keyboard warrior.

The Liberals + NDP are down about 3 seats from holding a minority government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Posterboy - piss off.
> •••
> 
> Peter - read his reply again. "Painful".......was his word. His reply was dismissive and I challenged him on it. You have your style I have mine and mine is consistent.....see above.


Vandave, I think you make a valuable contribution to this board as someone on the right who will debate his ideas. While I often agree with some of MacDoc's political ideas and I think he posts many interesting things here, and is very helpful with Mac stuff, I hope you won't judge others here on the left by that type of response and that you continue on here. I don't think you wrote anything that warrants the "brainwashed joke" comment.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Posterboy - piss off.


I rest my case.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Slight tangent here: Can anyone point me to a page that describes the Conservative party platform that came out of the recent convention? I can't find anything remotely enlightening on their website.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mbaldwin said:


> Slight tangent here: Can anyone point me to a page that describes the Conservative party platform that came out of the recent convention? I can't find anything remotely enlightening on their website.


http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY DECLARATION.pdf

It is a little hard to find.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Before the convention....HIDDEN AGENDA

After the convention...NO AGENDA


----------



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

Peter, don't laugh, but that could be a winning combo. We shall see. It is looking like a possible Dr.G. and NDP vote.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Peter Scharman said:


> Before the convention....HIDDEN AGENDA
> 
> After the convention...NO AGENDA


That's how the Libbies did it when they blew the old PCs out of office. Well, except for 'we will remove the GST'. I think that was the only really interesting plank in their platform at the time. Common Libbies... since MacDoc says you never lie, never cheat, never steal and are always, always, always right... let's remove the GST. 

Waiting for MacDoc's 'in kind' reply.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Vandave, I think you make a valuable contribution to this board as someone on the right who will debate his ideas. While I often agree with some of MacDoc's political ideas and I think he posts many interesting things here, and is very helpful with Mac stuff, I hope you won't judge others here on the left by that type of response and that you continue on here. I don't think you wrote anything that warrants the "brainwashed joke" comment.


Thanks, I'll be here for sure.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As I may have noted earlier. On a number of threads.....

The whole "hidden agenda" or "NO agenda" argument against the Conservatives absolutely falls to pieces when you take a look at the Liberal's own record.

Chretien/Martin and Co. are the Canadian National Champions at "hidden agendas". This is not news to anyone. They always promise all sorts of things in the run-up to an election and then calmly abandon all of those principles once safely back in power. (Chretien used to explain all of those many solemn publicly proclaimed promises as only a simple "slip of the tongue". Just a mistake, really.)

Paul Martin hasn't done much better. Despite all of his heartfelt rhetoric.

I have no doubt that, when confronted with all of his broken and bent promises in the upcoming election campaign...he will likely either tell all of us that it was just a slip of the tongue, or loudly proclaim that "I knew NOTHING!!".

He's getting rather good at that these days. Too bad that nobody is buying it anymore..

I doubt if any thinking Canadian is also buying the freakish idea that Paul Martin...a guy who ONLY uses private-for-pay health clinics is THE GUY who will actually work real hard to stamp this travesty out while fighting for the public health care system in Canada. (Stephen Harper uses ONLY Canadian public health care, BTW. Always has.)

Total hypocracy. And one more sure indication that the Federal Liberals are the absolute masters at "hidden agendas". And what we have learned in the Gormery Inquiry has uncovered yet ANOTHER hidden Liberal agenda. (Guess what? They STEAL too. And they aren't telling us about THAT, either!)

It's high time for all of us to reach up and tug on that big silver handle that is hanging over the Federal Liberal party. And FLUSH em.

The bowl is beginning to stink. Really stink. Time to get rid of the mess.

Time to move on.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vandave, thanks for the link.

I went through much of the policy document and I have to say it's a lot more progressive than I expected. And I agree with most of the goals listed in it. But I get the feeling that my interpretation of how to achieve those goals differs greatly from the average Conservative.

And I have serious reservations about a couple of the most important policies. So while I am pleasantly surprised, I'm not sold yet. 

- Martin.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The question you really need to ask yourself is this:

Would the Liberals be likely to actually go through with ANY of their campaign promises or their pre-election policy statements? Especially given their well-known record over the past decade?

And would rewarding them with yet ANOTHER term in office actively discourage them from any further theft of tax dollars?

Or...would it be yet ANOTHER re-affirmation of their current feelings that they can do this as they please? That it is "their right" to do this to all of us.

That this "is the price for having superior Liberal management" in Canada?

Vote for the "Big Skim" (and gross mismanagement of government programs) once again...or vote for something entirely new.

Your choice.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Not sure if MacNutt's comment is directed towards me, but...

I have never voted for the Liberals in the past and don't intend on starting now.

And the two other major parties have at least one policy that I vehemently disagree with. So where does that leave me?

Likely with the Greens. True, some of their policies seem a bit silly to me. But they tend to be very minor points in my book. I agree with their position on what I consider big issues.


----------



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

The Prime Minister's Office said he will speak about the sponsorship program and the current situation in Parliament at 7:45 p.m. ET.

I get the sense that we are in for a Nixon-like "I am not a crook" speech. I have a sense, however, that he shall be telling the truth, unlike Nixon.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> The Prime Minister's Office said he will speak about the sponsorship program and the current situation in Parliament at 7:45 p.m. ET.
> 
> I get the sense that we are in for a Nixon-like "I am not a crook" speech. I have a sense, however, that he shall be telling the truth, unlike Nixon.


The reference to "the current situation in Parliament" is more interesting than the fact he is going to talk about the sponsorship program.

So let's get back to the point of the thread which is speculating on the timing of an election call.

Is Martin going to:

1. dissolve Parliament or pass Parliament over to the Conservatives (similar to my scenario presented on the first page)?
2. take a pre-emptive attack against the Conservatives saying they would be wrong to take his government down?
3. step aside until the Gomery report is released (under pressure of his party)?

My bet is on #2 as it is consistent with delaying the opposition days in Parliament for a month.


----------



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

Vandave, #2, of the three options, shall get my vote. However, I think that he shall come forth with "feel good rhetoric", mixed with outrage over the findings of the committee so far, in that it was the "other" Liberals who did these things. This sort of "no guilt by association" and "sins of the father" and "the acorn does not fall far from the tree" outrage might not play that well with the public. Still, I give him credit for coming forward to speak to the nation. He might just surprise us all and "pull a rabbit out of the hat". We shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Vandave, #2, of the three options, shall get my vote. However, I think that he shall come forth with "feel good rhetoric", mixed with outrage over the findings of the committee so far, in that it was the "other" Liberals who did these things. This sort of "no guilt by association" and "sins of the father" and "the acorn does not fall far from the tree" outrage might not play that well with the public. Still, I give him credit for coming forward to speak to the nation. He might just surprise us all and "pull a rabbit out of the hat". We shall see.


I agree that going on the offensive is a bad idea. If he acts like he is angered by it, then I also think it doesn't play very well. I think people would be too sceptical. So, basically, I think #2 is a lose-lose scenario.

That makes me think there could be a rabbit in the hat here.


----------



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

He could do a Clinton-like "I did not have a sexual relationship" sort of speech. Clinton convinced me, and I felt betrayed when the specifics of the situation came out. Martin is on a fine wire just now. Any movement to the left or right and he falls. However, if there is an ace up his sleeve, and it's an honest ace which will produce a winning hand, he might just be reelected. We shall see.

As I have said before, he HAS to convince the voters like me who voted Liberal in the last election and need to be convinced to vote for them again in the next election. We shall see.

Of course, I recall that in March of 1968, Pres. Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people with his classic words "I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for president of the United States." Could Martin be calling it quits after this term? Stay tuned Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think we have a forced coalition situation - Layton had his chance and blew it in my mind by failing to see that Martin's move was political not "antidemocratic" as jack tried to portray it.
If you are forced into a chess game you must play chess.

Jack may end the fall guy so other parties point to him and say - see he caused the election by failing to follow through consistently to do everything to keep governing and wait as the populace wishes.

His "rebalance" for Ontario I thought was smart tho transparent - now that rings hollow as he fell back to rhetoric without purpose.

I bet his numbers drop now.

Maybe Martin will commit to a Sept/October election in his speech and thereby reflect the poll consensus.
Puts the others in a tough spot.

I think we'll see Mr. Waffle tho - nostrums and platitudes.

Ed Broadbent for PM........


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

My inside source says May 15th or 17th


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> or vote for something entirely new.
> 
> Your choice.


Unfortuantely if that is the Party with the Blue colour... it's a pretty scary choice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> My inside source says May 15th or 17th


For what? The date of the election call? Remember BC has an election on May 17th and the message to the federal parties has been sent loud and clear to not have an overlapping election. 

Don't forget that the Queen is coming in May as well for her final visit to Canada. It's not possible to have an election during her visit (or even a couple weeks within her visit). To me, that makes late June the earliest for an election. But most people don't want a summer election.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> For what? The date of the election call? Remember BC has an election on May 17th and the message to the federal parties has been sent loud and clear to not have an overlapping election.
> 
> Don't forget that the Queen is coming in May as well for her final visit to Canada. It's not possible to have an election during her visit (or even a couple weeks within her visit). To me, that makes late June the earliest for an election. But most people don't want a summer election.


Nope... my source might be full of it, but I was told the election was on the 15th or 17th. Overlapping a provincial election might be a good strategy out west for the Liberals.

I know that when the Queen is in the country certain parlimentary rules kick in, I'm not sure if it affects election rules.

Who knows...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My bet is for a non-confidence vote sometime in may...followed by a late june election. This is what I'm hearing, anyway.

As for Paul Martin's unprecedented nationwide speech tomorrow night...here are MY thoughts on what could take place:

1) He will do a pre-emptive strike and dissolve Parliament before the impending vote of non confidence is tabled. This will give him a small bit of momentum and it would also mark the first time in ages that he was actually seen to be driving the train, instead of being caught in it's headlights. The fact that this train is headed over a cliff is a side point. He's desperate.

2) Paul Martin will make an impassioned speech to Canadians and beg the last few faithful not to abandon the Liberal Party in it's time of dire need. He will spew colourful rhetoric about how "committed he is" to all sorts of truly noble things, and he will remind us all that it was HE who initiated the investigation into his own party's large scale corruption. Yawn.

3) Paul Martin will announce his resignation. He will do this because the next few weeks of testimony in the Sponsorship Inquiry will reveal that he knew all about it...and he already said he would resign if that turned out to be true. (we are pretty much already at this point, BTW)

Martin will do this so that the next election will be fought by a brand new Liberal Leader. A vain attempt to preserve what is left of a party that is now clearly self-destructing before our very eyes. Won't work...and it's a long shot anyway. besides, he doesn't have the cojones for such a bold move.

...which brings me to the longest shot of all. AND the most tantalising of possibilities..

4) Paul Martin will appear before the Canadian people and humbly admit that his predecessor, Jean Chretien, was a deeply corrupt man and a thief who ran a large-scale criminal enterprise inside the Liberal Party for many years. He will then raise his voice and loudly swear on a stack of bibles to prosecute Chretien and all of his cronies to the full extent of the law. And he will also announce that criminal charges are being laid against Chretien for conspiracy and theft on a grand scale. He will then announce that Chretien is being arrested, or already HAS been arrested.

He will throw the old crook to the wolves, and will attempt to distance himself and his party from the corruption that was such a large part of King Jean's iron rule. He will tell us, in an impassioned way, that this is "not how I would ever conduct myself...and it's not fair that all the rest of the Liberals be tarred by the same brush". He will then beg that we all give him enough time and breathing space to actively prosecute the massive corruption of the Chretein era..and will prove it by having a whole whack of them arrested on criminal conspiracy charges (including old Jean himself) in the days immediately after the nationwide speech.

A super long shot? No doubt about it.

But...it _COULD_ work. It would certainly take much of the wind out of the accusations of corruption that the Liberals are dealing with right now. And it _MIGHT_ just buy Martin a few months of breathing room.

He certainly doesn't have much of that right now.

Interesting, eh? I know I'll be watching tomorrow night. Should be fun.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Martin speech was a dead bust. As we all know by now. A missed opportunity that was replaced by a plaintive wail from a dying party led by a man who is not a leader.

Kind of sad, really. Hope it's all over for them soon. A lingering death is so hard to watch. Pretty pathetic watching them clutch at straws and flail around in public.

Kind of amusing to listen to Paul Martin telling all of us that we will have to wait until december or january for an election. Like he had any real control over it or something. As IF.

So...now that we know that there is an election coming in the next month or two...what are your predictions?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> A lingering death is so hard to watch. Pretty pathetic watching them clutch at straws and flail around in public.
> 
> Kind of amusing to listen to Paul Martin telling all of us that we will have to wait until december or january for an election.


Hrmm..."lingering death"..."flail around in public"..."telling all of us that we will have to wait"? Sounds pretty applicable to...well, you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> The Martin speech was a dead bust. As we all know by now. A missed opportunity that was replaced by a plaintive wail from a dying party led by a man who is not a leader.
> 
> Kind of sad, really. Hope it's all over for them soon. A lingering death is so hard to watch. Pretty pathetic watching them clutch at straws and flail around in public.
> 
> ...


I think we might be looking at an early September election call with an election in October. That's about 4 1/2 months away. 

I don't see a summer election call so that rules out July and August. Late June is definately a possibility, but I think time is on the side of the Conservatives. I imagine more damaging information will come from the Gomery and it seems to be slowly working in the direction of Martin. If they find out that he had knowledge about the program (which I stongly suspect), he will be caught out in a big lie. 

I don't think the Conservatives risk losing much of the support they have gained. When it comes to issues of corruption, I don't think voters are going to flip flop their support. I say let Martin try and govern and show us all how ineffective his party is in Parliament.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here's a question:

Why would you want to have an election called now so everyone can knee jerk someone into office, when you can wait a few months and have the people actually choose based on information?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...and if I had a great big thorn in my foot then why would I grab a pair of pliers and remove it now, when I can get the doctor to do it for me after only a sixteen week wait. Why not just let it fester?

I mean, hey, the doctor will tell me if it's really serious and actually needs removing. Or if I can just live with it.

Nawww...I don't think I'll wait. Canadians won't either.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here's a quick question, aside from Paul Martin (because his involvement is just an allegation at the moment), how many people involved in the sponsorship scandal can you name that are still in power?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Perhaps a better question might be: "How many of the Liberal movers and shakers who were deeply involved in this scam are still working behind the scenes?"

Answer: MANY. Even in the PMO itself. Removing all of the people who are tainted by this mess would gut the whole Quebec wing of the party. Which is their true base, after all. Martin hasn't done this yet because the Liberal Party is still fighting amongst itself. Removing all of old King Jean's minions and lackeys and replacing them with his own...many of whom were ALSO in on the Big Skim...would simply wipe out the party. And the long knives would come out for poor old Paul, right after that. No question about it.

He's done. He's battling on two fronts right now, internal and external. He has nowhere left to turn.

Party's over.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

So you can't name any?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Do I know all of the names of the clerks and ministerial assistants and secretaries in the PMO? No I don't. Do I know all of the names of the people who were connected to ADSCAM, or any of the other scandals and skims that were going on under Chretien? Can I even begin to name all of the people who are involved in the massive cost overruns from the failed Gun Registry (which has now been connected to ADSCAM, BTW.)

Not a chance.

Can you?


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

So you'd rather add to the already exhorbitant cost of AdScam, the resulting and ongoing $100M Gomery Inquiry, the Gun Registry and the most recent federal election costs ($250 million) by spending a further $250M on ANOTHER election to, possibly, bring the Conservatives to lead us poor Canadians into the Promised Land?

Conservative Fiscal Responsibility my a**. Your MP and my MP will hear from "we the people" whether want another election NOW or NOT. But will they listen?

Bah, Humbug


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rhino said:


> Bah, Humbug


Ooooh, grouchy today, are we?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

rhino said:


> So you'd rather add to the already exhorbitant cost of AdScam, the resulting and ongoing $100M Gomery Inquiry, the Gun Registry and the most recent federal election costs ($250 million) by spending a further $250M on ANOTHER election to, possibly, bring the Conservatives to lead us poor Canadians into the Promised Land?
> 
> Conservative Fiscal Responsibility my a**. Your MP and my MP will hear from "we the people" whether want another election NOW or NOT. But will they listen?
> 
> Bah, Humbug


I'm probably in the minority here...but I'm wondering if a Conservative forced election at this time will not back fire.
First of all the testimony of some of the witnesses at the Gomery inquiry is questionable and contradictary...who do you believe is really telling the truth.
Secondly...all the potential benefits from February's budget (tax cuts, RRSP changes etc, municipal infrasturture funding etc.) and the current bills before parliament are out the window.
Thirdly...Martin makes a much better Prime Minister than Harper
And spending another $250M on another election so close to the previous one is also nothing to sneeze at.

The whole Conservative manouvering reminds me of a trial where 1/4 way through the fact-finding/witness testimony stage someone from audience (here the Conservatives) declares that all the allegations are true and everyone is either directly guilty or guilty by association.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

krs said:


> The whole Conservative manouvering reminds me of a trial where 1/4 way through the fact-finding/witness testinomy stage someone from audience (here the Conservatives) declares that all the allegations are true and everyone is either directly guilty or guilty by association.


"here the Conservatives"...no, more like "here be MacNutt".  

Let the enquiry takes its course...then, hang all the guilty ones!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_I'm probably in the minority here...but I'm wondering if a Conservative forced election at this time will not back fire"......._

Ummm no you're not alone in that assessment...... that's why the Cons are taking the week off to "talk to the people" and figure out just how much risk there is in forcing an election and why Layton backed on on the rhetoric and gave Martin a potential lifeline that would alos be popular in Ontario. No one wants to be seen as pulling the pin.

It's a real risk to go against a huge "no election now" sentiment AND in the face of historical punishment of those that forced a minority gov to fail. ( the stats are horrific )

Ontario hammered David Peterson for an unnecessary election and elected Bob Rae much to Rae's utter surprise., Martin got whacked by the country for jumping the gun in the last election.

This is a very fractious and pissed off electorate ( including me ) and as we saw in the last election even the pollsters can't figure out the directions with any accuracy.

Tipping points all over the place.

I JUST WANT TO SEE SOME OPERATING GOVERNANCE DAMMIT.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Don't we ALL macdoc. Don't we ALL! 

It's not going to come from Paul Martin or the severly wounded and completely discredited Liberals. Not any time soon.That's for sure. 

Fortunately there is some hope for the future. The Martin Liberals have been trying to limit the opportunities for the opposition parties to use their large majority in Commons to force a non-confidence vote...much the same as Martin tried to limit the Gormery Inquiry (just before he gave in and was forced to embrace it)...but just today, the opposition parties managed to tack a motion of non-confidence onto a nondescript bit of legislation that is due to come before the house on the 18th or 19th of May.

If this vote of non-confidence passes, and it looks as though it might...then we will all be going to the polls in late june.

Does _ANYONE_ here think that the end result of this new election will be yet another Liberal government? Or a more powerful Liberal majority??

Perhaps in some parallel universe. But NOT in this one.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> just today, the opposition parties managed to tack a motion of non-confidence onto a nondescript bit of legislation that is due to come before the house on the 18th or 19th of May.


Where'd you read that? I just did a quick Google News search and it didn't come up.


----------



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

For the sake of some rather enormous egos and impatience, a Summer election will create a huge amount of unnecessary chaos due to us being over half-way into a year with no legal budget. I sincerely hope that the Opposition parties have the common decency and sense to allow the budget to pass before calling a vote of no-confidence. If not, then millions of Canadians will have their lives and work in limbo due to the uncertainty. It might even be enough to shave a couple of points off the GDP and tip us into recession.

If you think this is not important, then you are very fortunate. Indeed, the first year or more of a new Government would likely be spent trying to deal with the problems caused by enacting a budget more than half a year after if was supposed to have been enacted. So it is in every party's interest to get this done first and worry about preening their egos second. But I think I know the answer.


----------



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

Jim, on this point ("I sincerely hope that the Opposition parties have the common decency and sense to allow the budget to pass before calling a vote of no-confidence.") we agree fully. Let the Liberals stand on some record, rather than just what they proposed in a budget.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It certainly looks like we will be headed to the polls in late June at this point. Unless something changes, the opposition parties are most likely to force a vote of non-confidence in late may.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Won't people be on vacation in late June?

It seems like a stupid mistake to go to the polls with a turnout likely to be the lowest seen in ages.

If anything we should wait till the results of the inquiry are in and prosecute the guilty parties accordingly. At least then everyone will be back from their vacations and be focused on the facts instead of just voting on the latest mud slinging campaign.


----------



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

I'll be in Mexico working in late June but I'll do what I did at the last election and cast an advance vote. Indeed, if there is an election in late June, I'll do my best to stay clear of the media, if not the country. The thought of both slimey and sweaty politicians gaggling at each other is not the best introduction to a Canadian Summer.....


----------



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

An election in late Jan/early Feb. would result in a great many absentee ballots being cast in the early polls. Traditionally, that period here in St.John's is rarely without a blizzard or two........or three.........or four........or...........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not to mention it is usually about -40 here that time of year. Great time to get every vote out, non?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Unless something truly bizarre happens...like all of Ontario being suddenly struck with mass amnesia...we will be going to the polls in late june.

Layton has "ridden to the rescue" of the failing Martin Liberals (in order to get some plum piece of his own personal agenda passed). But he doesn't have enough seats to add to the Liberal minority in order to stave off a vote of non-confidence.

Make sure you are registered. Voting day is approaching. 

This is going to be an IMPORTANT one, too.


----------



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

And at the same time, a clear majority of the electorate clearly does not want an election at this time (over two thirds). It will be interesting to see how this transpires but I think that the Conservatives might do a lot better in Ontario if they didn't push for an early election.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Last time I checked with all meembers present the Bloc and Cons don't have enough either. 

153 Lib and NDP 153 Con and Bloc.

It rests on 3 independents and who happens to be sick.

Under a different structure the situation would be this



> Under a mixed-PR system the results would have been approximately Liberals 115, Conservatives 92, New Democrats 49, Bloc Quebecois 39 and Greens 12 and one independent (elected locally).


Very very different. 

Referendum needed on a new form of voting results other than FPTP ????

Somebody knowledgeable set up a poll for here ???? ........ take maybe the top 4 optional methods plus the current one....

Personally I favour the ranking system...not sure what the formal name is.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Last time I checked with all members present the Bloc and Cons don't have enough either.
> 
> 153 Lib and NDP 153 Con and Bloc.
> 
> It rests on 3 independents and who happens to be sick.


Your numbers are slightly off but your conclusion is still correct.

Lib at 132
NDP at 19
Total...151

Con at 99
Bloc at 54
Total...153

Independent...3
Vacant...1

Total seats...308


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I stand corrected. There are several sick as well.
Wonder how hardball this will get. 

Was it Joe Clark went down on a an inattentive session??? 
This is hardball politics right now and not many experienced parliamentarians in the bunch.

Only one certain thing......a pissed off electorate.

Carolyn would proably vote with the continuance of governing - that makes it down to 2 indies.

Anyone have a sense of those two????


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

One of the independents is a hard line Conservative.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is that the Vancouver MP??? It also may not mean he thinks an election is a good idea immediately - he must be indie for a reason.

So who is the MP in the middle then - the guy that bailed on the Libs and went independent?????


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Conservatives and the Bloc currently outnumber the Liberals and NDP. The three independants are Carolyn "I hope Paul Martin burns in HELL!" Parrish, David "I can no longer with good conscience continue to sit as a Liberal" Kilgour, and Chuck Cadman...who was elected as an independant but who has always run as a Conservative. He hates the Liberals, BTW.

Good luck to Paul Martin on winning any sort of a contentious issue when his party is falling apart and outnumbered. And when the sitting independants aren't exactly their very best buddies. To say the least.

Anyone watch Question Period on CTV today? All three leaders were there and things don't look all that rosy between Layton and Martin. I'd say that unholy alliance is going to be a fizzle.

The gist of the whole show was that there is now an undeclared election campaign in full swing. The leaders are making campaign style appearences all over the place in the coming week...while watching the polls like a hawk. But it's doubtful if any of the parties could put the brakes on and avoid an election at this point. Too much momentum.

It was also noted that a late June election might still see the very tail end of the testimonies at the Gormery Inquiry. Especially if Gormery himself (who has been openly disgusted by the Liberal corruprtion he has uncovered) slows things up a bit.

Some of the criminal trials will be proceeding by then as well. Paul Martin is really going to have an uphill battle to try and save anything out of this upcoming election while all of that is going on around him.

Which might just be the understatement of the century. Should be fun to watch tho.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It still does not mean that any of them will bring down the government. 
Carolyn almost certainly will not. 
Can't say about the others but they COULD have been Cons and didn't so I suspect it's NOT a given that they will vote a for gov defeat and even then the GG has a say in this.

Interesting times.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have to agree. The polls will tell the tale. If the Martin Liberals make a sudden comeback then the whole thing may be avoided. But that hardly seems likely...especially since there is more testimony to come. And we will soon see the still-restricted segments of the previous testimonies released to the public.

Care to bet that there won't be some new bombshells in the next few weeks? Especially when Chuck Guite takes the stand?

I still say we'll be going to the polls in late june and the Liberals will be history shortly thereafter.


----------



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

MacNutt, its interesting that you say a Liberal-NDP alliance is un-holy. Are there any alliances that you can foresee involving the Conservatives that are holier? Cons-Bloc? Cons-NDP? And it's judge Gomery, not Gormery, or are you sarcastically trying to put the man down? 

Interesting times for sure, but meanwhile, we still lack any clarity of vision from any of the parties. The country deserves better and rushing headlong into an election on the basis of knee-jerk reactions is likely to create as much of a mess as the country is in right now. Despite the Adscam mess being a Liberal Party problem, the other parties have shown no inclination to raise the level of debate above spittle and rhetoric over the alleged corruption. It is possible that the election run-up may clarify a few things, but I sincerely doubt it, given the evidence of all of the parties behaviours to date. The Conservatives are counting on public disgust to Adscam to cover up any need on their part to run on their own manifesto. I think this is a significant miscalculation of the "devil you know" feelng of many voters.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Agree with what? I didn't say anything about polls.

The Cons ARE poll watching but the huge - "no election now" number should give any but the Bloc pause and a independent that is seen as the one that pulled the plug is very very vulnerable to a backlash.

MY sense is the electorate is engaged and does NOT want a "knee jerk" election. Will look at both the Gomery results AND party platforms/policies/leadership.

ANY party or MP could severely anger the electorate by a wrong move.....very volatile.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...pretty much everyone on "Question Period" was referring to the whole thing as "Gormery". And I'd just finished watching todays show, after all. It seems to have become a part of our national lexicon, like "Meech Lake".

By "unholy alliance" I was referring to the fact that, as pointed out during today's interviews with Jack Layton, Paul martin doesn't treat him very well in Commons. He often turns his back to poor smilin Jack and usually lets one of his lesser types answer Jack's questions. It was also revealed that a recent personal telephone call between the two leaders "didn't go all that well".

This "alliance" would be a very shaky deal. After watching what the two leaders said about it today, most thought it would never actually come about. Not that this would give Martin the numbers he needs anyway.

Which is why we are most likely headed into an election in late june. The campaign seems to be already underway. And Paul Martin was first off the mark with this undeclared election campaign as well....so blaming the Conservatives and saying that they will be "punished at the polls because of it" is beginning to sound a bit silly.

Let's see here:

Horribly corrupt government that also makes lots of bad decisions on large projects when they are NOT stealing. The whole nation is agahst at the depth of their criminal activities and everyone seems to want them OUT.

An election is called because of a vote of non confidence by the opposition parties (they can do this because they outnumber the failing Liberals)...

And we are being told that those same opposition parties will be "punished" for calling this election...and that the corrupt Liberals will somehow be returned to power???

Some say, with a _MAJORITY???_ 

Sounds like somebody's smokin the good stuff here. Time to get real.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No doubt that would explain why much of southern Ontario decided to vote for the Liberals in the last election. Even though the corruption was already well known and an Iquiry had begun. 

Hope you guys have it figured out this time. 

You know what they say:

"Screw me once, shame on you."
"Screw me TWICE...shame on ME"


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just bear in mind that to win the Consevatives will have to win a majority. If they don't, the Liberals still get first crack at forming the Government (with the support of other parties), but more importantly, we'll likely end up with another election within 2 years.

In other words, the only way for us to end up with a stable government for sure is for one of the parties to end up with a majority of the seats.

Ok, you can cue the MacNutt "<i>it'll be conservatives!</i>" rhetoric now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I see a split in the whole elctoral map right now. Quebec is offline and not likely to return the Liberals to power. The Conservatives might get a seat or two there, based on what some of their most recent candidate selections.

Ontario is "going Tory Blue" according to the headlines. The west is almost certainly going to reject the Liberals. Atlantic Canada will be backing local candidates who will have a shot at sitting on the power side of the house. Which would not likely be Liberals.

Do the math.

I see a Conservative sweep with NDP losses and the Liberals reduced severely in size. The Bloc will rule Quebec. (yawwwwn).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Coalition government ala Germany and many other nations is birthing in Canada.
It's only round one.
Strengthened regions, reduced central power will require new modes of governing and deal making. Laytons offer to the Libs is going to be the rule rather than the exception.

The MPs in play AND the parties have some learning to do.

You have NO IDEA what may happen in Ontario.....just like you didn't last time nor did the pollsters.
David Petersen learned that the hard way.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Ontario newspapers are the reference that I was using, David. "Ontario goes Tory Blue" and all of that. 

And it's certainly true that no one can accurately predict what the Toronto area types will do when confronted by such a large heap of data confirming the deep corruption of their favorite party. Perhaps they'll collectively shave their heads and take up some sort of eastern religion, en masse...or maybe they'll just refuse to vote in this election...or they might just throw all of their support behind poor old Paul Martin and send him a get well card...or maybe the Rhino party will make a sudden comeback....who knows?

Do you?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nope and I know enough not to think I do.

And what papers would those be Sun and and National Post??...why am I not surprised.

If Layton gets his deal........very different set of considerations.

Ontario knew the score last time and still rejected the Con agenda. Mike Harris et al lip flappin just nudges the memories........

You'll never know 'til the fat lady's last note.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I see a split in the whole elctoral map right now. Quebec is offline and not likely to return the Liberals to power. The Conservatives might get a seat or two there, based on what some of their most recent candidate selections.
> 
> Ontario is "going Tory Blue" according to the headlines. The west is almost certainly going to reject the Liberals. Atlantic Canada will be backing local candidates who will have a shot at sitting on the power side of the house. Which would not likely be Liberals.
> 
> ...


I'll have to agree with MacDoc on this one. Althought than may happen, I think the odds are very slim. We can always trust Florida... I mean Ontario P) to do something crazy in the upcoming election.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

The only way that the Conservatives will win in Ontario is if they their mouths shut and point to the Gomery inquiry. If those wackjobs opened their mouths they will certainly shock everyone back to voting Liberal.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacDoc is right:

With the currents of power blowing the way of deeper integration: a North American Security zone with "free-er trade" implications, Regionalism within that zone will grow- probably to the point of immense fragmentation in current modes of governance-deal making will be the rule, not the exception. 

it's just that the rule will span a larger geographic area. the idea of LIberal or Tory or Socialist will slowly, but surely be rendered ineffective within the sphere of strictly Canadian issues and concepts.

better get used to it. The Cheneys of the world won't see things any other way.

ps: the USA is sick of losing at the NAFTA game- the downward depression on wages alone in their 'homeland' has diminished non-military capabilities for dealing with 'partners' almost meaningless and tiresome

10 to 20 years. A whole new ballgame- this whole squabble is pointless within the bigger picture.
James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Interesting twist :clap: I certainly see similar trends in the US - ie California going it's own way on stem cell.

Funny that as Europe tries to coalesce NA may be Balkanizing.

•••

Errata



> The Liberals and NDP combined have 151 seats while the Conservatives and Bloc have 153. *Two of three independents have said they will support the government, while the third is expected to back the opposition but may not be available to vote *


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050424.wpoliticos0424/BNStory/National/


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

According to what Jack Layton was saying today on TV, the "deal" with the Liberals only covers the budget. And he wants to extract some concessions from Martin for that particular bit of co-operation. Ralph Goodale has said, publicly, that those concessions are not on the table.

It'll be interesting to see how this works out and who "gives" first.

Layton has also said, quite clearly, that the "deal" does not apply to the upcoming vote of non-confidence. Or may not (kind of hard to pin down Slippery Jack sometimes).

This election is already in it's first week of campaigning, in case anyone hadn't noticed. And some of the worst (and most damaging) testimony is still to come.

Anyone still betting on the Liberals?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone still betting on the Liberals?


I don't know...would you pay up?


----------



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

*Poll in Globe and Mail*

Interesting poll on the Globe and Mail web site today on which party Canadians feel is the *least* appealing.

Conservatives are ahead of the Libs or NDP by a margin of 2 to 1. Not a poll in which you want to be leading.....!


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Yeah, But it's the Globe and Mail. Wonder what the Post's poll results might be....
Still, it's (somewhat) comforting..
James


----------



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

It's sad when we try and make decisions upon the path of least resistance and which party we dislike the most/least. Sad indeed.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> It's sad when we try and make decisions upon the path of least resistance and which party we dislike the most/least. Sad indeed.




Kudos DR.G! Vote with your best wishes for everyone involved!


----------



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

In the past three federal elections, I have voted for all three of the main national parties. This year, I am still open as to whom I shall vote for, although my vote shall be one which is positive and not voting against any one party.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not so sure on that Dr. G. - I think it's indicative that policy trumps scandal in the priorities and that the NeoCon policies are unpalatable compared to Liberal or NDP policies.

It's been evident the Cons do not attractive the moderates and that shows here. I think it's positive in that Canadians are looking beyond the specific scandal to the broader policy issues and are very wary of the NeoCon agenda how gussied up it might be.

Pissed at the Libs yes indeed, but I would say the poll indicates they will not vote against preferred policies.

I'd say it represents a rational thoughtful response as oppsoed to a kneejerk anger responce


----------



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

Macdoc, I am only able to speak for my own point of view, and to vote for whom I want to vote. I don't want to vote to stop someone, albeit very tempting at times. I feel that a vote should be well thought out and one which represents a support of the views of the party for which you cast your vote. This may be idealistic, but this is how I shall vote. I shall let the Macnutt/IronMac/Macdoc, et al debate swirl around me, and take it ALL with a grain of salt. Then, from this and other sources, I shall make my final determination. However, I do NOT want to go to the polls soon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think that is what that poll indicates as well that Canadians are going to vote on policy not just against the Liberasl therefor for the Cons.

I suspect the NDP may do well out of that as there may not be the strategic voting that took place last time but it will also depend on what the quality of the candidate is.

Luckily for me we have a good candidate with a good track record representing my views and sitting as an independent :clap: Makes my task easy - she also does not support an early election.

I'm really NOT thrilled with government by who happens to be sick that day. 

I see Martin said no to the tax cut cut but may have counter offered the NDP.

Good analysis by Chantele Hebert

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...969907622983&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here's an interesting news article from only two days ago. You might want to skip to the bottom if you want to see what the future holds. (you might want to skip it entirely if you're name is macdoc and your bloodpressure is already hitting critical mass) 


Mark Kennedy

CanWest News Service Saturday, April 23, 2005

"The Conservative party, buoyed by a surge in support from Ontario voters unseen in 20 years, would win an election if it was held now, poll results released Friday show.

The survey by Ipsos-Reid, provided exclusively to CanWest/Global, reveals Stephen Harper's Tories hold a "solid" five-point lead over the Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin. Thirty-five per cent would vote Conservative nationally, compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 18 per cent for the NDP, 12 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, whose support is exclusively in Quebec, and five per cent for the Green party.

Most importantly, the Tories have broken the Liberals' grip in vote-rich Ontario, likely where the election will be decided.

Riding a newly formed wave of support, the Tories have the backing of 40 per cent of Ontarians, compared with 36 per cent for the Liberals, 20 per cent for the NDP and four per cent for the Greens.

"The minimum that you're looking at here is probably a pretty strong Tory minority government," Ipsos-Reid senior official Darrell Bricker said Friday. "And they're now bumping up against a majority."


----------



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

Yup, the pollsters were sooooo accurate in predicting the last election..... especially in Ontari-ario - right up to the last minute. There will be swings but noone can predict the degree. The electorate is fickle and rightly so. Not much trust for anyone in Ottawa.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Very true. I certainly hope that cooler heads prevail and no one manages to fear monger yet another kick at the old Liberal can out there. It's so full of dents these days, and all.

And it doesn't even hold water any more.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"another kick at the old Liberal can out there".....that's ALL you and Harper have to offer.....bad Liberals, naughty Liberals, corrupt Liberals...

Canadians are going to vote FOR policy.........remember that old fat lady????? and champagne on the plane?????


----------



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

"Canadians are going to vote FOR policy". At least THIS Canadian shall be voting for the party with the most relevant (in my opinion) platform.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let me know when you guys figure out what "Liberal Policies" really are.

All I've ever seen out of them is a bunch of rehtoric that is loudly blasted around before an election and then summarrily tossed out the window once they get back into power.

THAT...and a lot of poor management of large programs coupled with massive theft of Canadian tax dollars. And a wasted military and threatened soverignty.

Good "Policies", eh?

How about making health care sustainable? Reducing waiting lists down to a few days from the current year or so? Just for starters? the Liberals always crow loudly about doing this (along with a whole bunch of other stuff) but they never manage to get around to it. Or get around to any of the other stuff as well.

They are tired, old and deeply corrupt. They have proven that they are terrible at managing public projects of any size. Time to give them a rest.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Having just last night watched a CanWest/Global feature programme (out of Calgary) on the "Myth of Candian Healthcare," pardon me for having sincere doubts as to the methodology of that slippery-ethics bunch. Of the two guests, only one was a defender of the public healthcare system, and she had the data to back it up. When she was allowed to speak, she put the others to shame... but their bombastic and derisive put-downs (including by the female host of the programme) undermined her credibility.

Man - if that's what the public in Alberta gets on their TV every night, it explains a lot about Klein's ability to stay in office this long....

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Public delivery of publicly funded healthcare has been an unsustainable nightmare for every country that has ever tried it. Especially when Big Labour has a monopoly on the workforce involved.

Publicly funded health care with a mix of public and privately delivered services is now taking over all across Europe...and it seems to be working rather well. No waiting lists at all in most places. No idle equipment. No bed closures. Per citizen costs that are similar to...or actually BELOW our own Canadian ones, as well.

In fact...it's working pretty well in Quebec too. Which is the only Canadian jusrisdiction that has been quietly allowed to try it.

That's where Paul Martin always gets HIS health care needs met, BTW. At private health clinics in Quebec.

So why are the rest of us not allowed to do this?

Answer: "Liberal Policies". (it doesn't look good on paper. and it's not politically correct).


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Canadians are going to vote FOR policy". At least THIS Canadian shall be voting for the party with the most relevant (in my opinion) platform.


What if I can't find one? What do I do then? Don't like the Liberals (outside of the scandal), don't like the NDP, don't like the Conservatives... sheesh, this sucks. I'll probably vote Green so atleast I can vote... or maybe Natual Law if they're still around. I wonder how Americans cope with their two party system. :|


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> I wonder how Americans cope with their two party system. :|


They don't. Most of the country doesn't vote-mostly the religious south versus the rich northwest (and california) Those that do vote have sanctioned systemic access- ie: not minorities (think Florida circa year 2000) 
the USA realpolitik of White man's burden.

James


----------



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

Mugatu, you at least are intending to vote. Thus, you shall have some say in the outcome.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think they get about the same voter turnout as we do. Close to sixty per cent.

That would seem to indicate that most Americans...along with most Canadians...actually "do vote".

It would be nice to hear from the others who don't, though. That sometimes happens when the whole country is really incenced about some huge issue.

Like now, perhaps?


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> "another kick at the old Liberal can out there".....that's ALL you and Harper have to offer.....bad Liberals, naughty Liberals, corrupt Liberals...
> 
> Canadians are going to vote FOR policy.........remember that old fat lady????? and champagne on the plane?????



I keenly remember the 'red book' era of liberal policy/promises. Those went out the window real fast- Let's admit it. Chretien was only concerned with himself. Imagine trying to live up to the legacy of 'the old boss' Trudeau. In my mind- impossible.

Meet the New Boss- Same as the old boss.
Martin should at least be given his chance to prove the old adage true, once again...Cyclical History only the scenery gets more bleak every few years...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Except Europe doesn't have NAFTA to deal with Macnutt a small detail you always overlook.
Our costs per capita are reasonable and lower than your beloved US delivery system which causing a national scandal - 54% of personal bankruptcy's directly related to healthcare costs.

Let's chat about GM going bankrupt - one major reason $1600 per car for health care costs for workers.

How about the throngs that come in buses to buy drugs in Canada and the millions of prescriptions.

IF we get a rewrite of NAFTA then perhaps we can look to a European system for ideas.
The "private is good" mantra rings very hollow here in Ontario.

Financial ratios are good, some good stuff on the table as far as social programs AND moderate tax cuts go........no desire for NeoCon fiasco like the meltdown going on down south or their brand of social engineering - no thanks.

You want US style gov and policies - move there.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Europe doesn't have NAFTA. True. Are you trying to tell me that they DON'T have similar free trade deals as a result of the European Union??

You slay me macdoc. Especially when you are in full-tilt evangelical mode and on a crusade to help preserve the Liberals...no matter what sort of cruel realities are flung on your doorstep. 

I must say, I admire your blind loyalty. Even while finding it hard to understand.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I think they get about the same voter turnout as we do. Close to sixty per cent.
> 
> That would seem to indicate that most Americans...along with most Canadians...actually "do vote".
> 
> ...


http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

here you go. see page 12 for the full breakdown...interesting stuff.
James


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

i don't think macdoc really cares about the particularities of the 'Party'. 
I get the sense from him he's talking beyond your limited focus, MacNutt- not an insult- but you 2 are not discussing within the same context.

Macnutt is arguing about the CURRENT state of Canadian Political Affairs and its problems

MacDoc is arguing about the future stance of policy as it relates to the ideological affiliations of WHICHEVER party is in power. 

you two need to find some common ground to discuss from. it goes nowhere otherwise.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My "limited focus" has always involved turning health care into a sustainable program that will still be around when I need it and doing away with the massive corruption that I have been talking about since about two days after I got here. I would also love to see Canada become a true democracy with term limits, a real Senate with REAL power that was REALLY elected by the voters, and four year pre-scheduled elections (like we now have in BC). 

Doing those things involves removing the Liberals from power, and I see only one political party that is committed to making all of this come true. 

The rest are just blowing smoke.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

okay, but didn't mulroney just stack the senate to push the GST through? (1 example )
no party that exists today in canada has any interest in changing the Senate structure or dealing with patronage once they gain control of the House.
The whole health care issue revolves around stubborn beauracracy and health care professionals that are still seeking recompense since Tommy Douglas bent them over years ago.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Brian Mulroney was the leader of the now-defunct Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. (He was also a Quebec lawyer).

There is no connection to the new Conservative Party of Canada other than a similarity in names and a basic committment to conservative values.

We should also note that the two major policies that Mulroney worked so hard to bring in (the GST and Free Trade) were all maintained and strengthened by the incoming Federal Liberals...despite the fact that they swore up and down to remove them once they were elected.

THAT alone should tell you a lot about how real "Liberal Policies" are...and how soon they get tossed out the window. Especially during an election campaign. 

The current Gomery Inquiry should tell quite a bit about Liberal corruption. Nothing like it has ever been seen before in this country.

Time to let someone new try the helm. These guys are worn out and no longer welcome. Unless you want to guarantee more of the same.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

funny, I thought Mulroney came out an endorsed Harper in the last election...

Must be a lot of legal services needed for the Cons in the future 

Deep integration= a lot of paperwork and lawyers to bury the details

I wonder which firm will get the bulk of the work?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lots of people have been endorsing the Conservatives lately. Including quite a whack of Ontarian voters, it would seem:


Mark Kennedy CanWest News Service

Saturday, April 23, 2005

The Conservative party, buoyed by a surge in support from Ontario voters unseen in 20 years, would win an election if it was held now, poll results released Friday show.

The survey by Ipsos-Reid, provided exclusively to CanWest/Global, reveals Stephen Harper's Tories hold a "solid" five-point lead over the Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin. Thirty-five per cent would vote Conservative nationally, compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 18 per cent for the NDP, 12 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, whose support is exclusively in Quebec, and five per cent for the Green party.

Most importantly, the Tories have broken the Liberals' grip in vote-rich Ontario, likely where the election will be decided.

Riding a newly formed wave of support, the Tories have the backing of 40 per cent of Ontarians, compared with 36 per cent for the Liberals, 20 per cent for the NDP and four per cent for the Greens.

"The minimum that you're looking at here is probably a pretty strong Tory minority government," Ipsos-Reid senior official Darrell Bricker said Friday. "And they're now bumping up against a majority."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure about legal services for the incoming Conservatives...but I HAVE heard that the industrial-sized document shredding services are doing huge business with the Liberals these days. They seem to be packing their bags and preparing to move.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> The survey by Ipsos-Reid, provided exclusively to CanWest/Global, reveals Stephen Harper's Tories hold a "solid" five-point lead over the Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin. "


A poll by ipsos PAID FOR by 'ConWest' Global? Gee, I wonder what the questions were?

Q: If the current Prime Minister was a leprous, necrotizing Nazi, I would be more inclined to vote for the Handsome and Altruistic Stephen Harper.
Do you agree, strongly agree, somewhat agree or disagree with his statement?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Attacking the source while trying to ignore the message...especially when that message is being repeated all around you and is coming from many different sources...is simply a sign of desperation, thejst.

Or frustration. Which is completely understandable. This is a time of great change and uncertainty. Bound to ruffle some feathers.

Question here: If a very well known polling outfit like IPSOS-Reid were to produce a poll that showed Paul Martin to be suddenly on the upswing...would you point to it here and comment on it? No matter who had commissioned it?

You might want to ask yourself that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Latest word here at 2PM Pacific time is that Paul Martin is publicly refusing to give in on Jack Layton's demands with regard to changes in the budget. Layton has given Martin till tuesday morning to change his mind or the deal is off.

If Layton and the NDP refuse to vote with the Liberals on the budget..and if either the Bloc or the Conservatives do the same...then we will be seeing a vote of non-confidence even earlier than I'd thought. Perhaps as soon as next week.

Thirty odd days later we will be going to the polls.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Attacking the source while trying to ignore the message...especially when that message is being repeated all around you and is coming from many different sources...is simply a sign of desperation, thejst.
> 
> Or frustration. Which is completely understandable. This is a time of great change and uncertainty. Bound to ruffle some feathers.
> 
> ...


To Paraphrase: the source IS the [real] message, MacNutt. 'Reading' the conceptual infrastructure of how communication/ideology/culture/politics you name it...is the best way to sift through the crap and overload of conflicting messages. its called structural analysis...a far better way of getting ones theoretical bearings than by simply reacting or picking sides....(I believe they are otherwise called Lipflappers, NeoCon or otherwise)
Take a real look around you for a change.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My question remains: If the poll results were PRO Martin...would you publish them and point to them no matter what who had paid for the poll? Or would you studiously ignore them as being "biased". 

And I agree with you on one point....there is certainly a lot of crap flying around these days. Most of it is being flung about by those who would like to obscure the terrible revelations of criminality that we keep hearing out of the Sponsorship scandal. AND the resulting Liberal meltdown in the polls.

ALL of the polls.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

FYI studiously avoid them
Polls are full of hidden bias. Duh. Next Question...

And I can't wait to see the resulting mess MacNutt. I also can't wait to see Harper take the same abuse himself one day. He is a threat to Peace, Order and Good Government given the way he's been acting lately. Let him take power and eat his (and your own) 'prophetic' words. The current MOR political situation/struggle for control just is small potatoes compared to what is coming up on the horizon...
you best get ready for Deep Integration...Get busy thinking of some pithy quips about religious fundamentalism 
'protecting the homeland'
'economic parity'
et al, ad nauseum...

think about it...no matter who wins this is what's next around here. I thought I should prepare you. You could use the time to 'bone up' on the real issues.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Heard exactly the same sort of nonsense from some of my European friends in the run up to the current European accord. They told me that the sky would fall in and Germany would be ruining everyone's economy once monetary union took effect. Lots of wailing and beating of chests.

Yaawwwnnn.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Actually, they were right about that. The EU reliance on the BundesBank (and its obsession over raising interest rates to cool inflation) has actually provided several bumps in the road in what should have been a united european transitional economic...it is exactly what the UK was worried about. That and being colluded with the rise (once again!?) of ultra-right wing political factions. 

you euphemistically yaawwnnn
while real people are attempting to engage in meaningful discussions towards a better world, a common future for all, not just those with the life rafts
how arrogant.

"April is the cruellest month", after all
"breeding lilacs out of the dead land."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

theJst....

I mentioned that I USED to hear a lot about how terrible monetary union would be for the lesser nations of Europe. I don't seem to be hearing ANY of this stuff any more. The same people who were telling me that the sky was about to fall in are rather silent on the subject of late. Have been for a number of years now, actually.

As with most fear mongering, it has come to nothing. And the loudest fear mongers have decamped and slipped away quietly.

I suspect it will be the same on this continent.

So, again, I simply _Yaaawwwwnnnn..._


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Attacking the source while trying to ignore the message...especially when that message is being repeated all around you and is coming from many different sources...is simply a sign of desperation, thejst.


Pot, meet Kettle.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> theJst....
> 
> I mentioned that I USED to hear a lot about how terrible monetary union would be for the lesser nations of Europe. I don't seem to be hearing ANY of this stuff any more. The same people who were telling me that the sky was about to fall in are rather silent on the subject of late. Have been for a number of years now, actually.
> 
> ...



If only you had some real reasons, some evidence, some... anything... to back up your claims...the independent media is ALL over the EU and its monetary situation. The major media is all over the politics of the fractious situation there-mostly in regards to how the US will react....
People still talk about it, you know. it has not, as you say, come to nothing.

anyhow, MacNutt, it's a new day, and a gloomy one here in Winnipeg- let's find something else to 'talk' about, eh?
James


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> theJst....
> 
> I mentioned that I USED to hear a lot about how terrible monetary union would be for the lesser nations of Europe. I don't seem to be hearing ANY of this stuff any more. The same people who were telling me that the sky was about to fall in are rather silent on the subject of late. Have been for a number of years now, actually.
> 
> ...


actually there have been allot of bumps in the road, my family back in Europe lost allot of money because of the Euro. Allot of the basics of life cost allot more now than when they had there own currency the corporations once again in the infinite wisdom haven't matched the higher cost of living with raises so there is much hardship in most of Europe especially in the smaller countries, wich probably explains why there is a wave of Socialist or left biased governments in power troughout Europe now.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So..how soon are they planning to abandon this monetary union? How soon will they be dissolving the EU? Going back to the way it was?

Any time now? Sometime in the near future?

Or...is it a done deal with predictable and expected "bumps in the road". The sort that will always happen when countries form alliances and not everyone is happy about how it worked out. Particularly if their own reality took a negative hit during the process.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Meanwhile...back at the subject of this thread...

The latest news is that prominent Liberal MP Pierre Pettigrew may be about to leave his elected seat to become Canada's representative to the OAS. That would put another hole in the Liberal rolodex. 

-David Kilgour left the Liberal Party to sit as an independant last week, citing his inability to resolve his difference with the party and martin on several issues.

-Carolyn Parrish was booted out of the Liberal Party a few months back. Basically because she is a terminal whackjob and had become a public embarassment to everyone. She also sits as an independant these days.

-Now we are hearing that former Liberal bright light John Nunziata is actively considering re-entering federal politics to run as a...wait for it...CONSERVATIVE!  

John Nunziata left the Liberal party in the mid nineties as a personal protest when they broke their solemn campaign promise to eliminate the GST, if elected.

We are also still hearing the same rumors from the past week about several other Liberals who may be about to jump ship. Back then we heard that five LiberalMPs were on the brink of leaving. Only one (Kilgour) actually did at the time.

Who knows what may come next?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Meanwhile...back at the subject of this thread...


I didn't realize that Liberal bashing was the subject of this thread...I thought election timing was? But, I guess misdirection and legerdemain is justified from your viewpoint.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Tonight's news carried a whole bunch of interviews with prominent politicians from all the federal political parties. Pretty much ALL of them are saying that "a spring election is a certainty".

Most seem to be saying that we will be going to the polls around june 18th or so. Perhaps even sooner if the budget gets defeated next week. Which is a very real possibility.

Should be an interesting spring.  

Note to Ironmac: I wasn't "bashing the Liberals". I was just keeping score. If you want to see some real Liberal bashing...then I suggest you tune in to the Gomery Inquiry and watch the testimony yourself. Or listen to the news on TV or the radio. Or pick up a newspaper.

It's everywhere these days. And the Liberals themselves are the only ones to blame for it. They made the mess. And they are the ones who have to face the consequences.

Want to know something else? The very worst is yet to come. You aint seen NOTHIN yet.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

The push to force a spring election could backfire on Harper. Here's the most recent poll on public opinion on this. Martin's offer to hold an election AFTER the Gomery inquiry might be his saving grace.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Six months down the road is wayyy too long to leave a leadership-challenged lame-duck party in charge of Canada. And in charge of our money! Especially when they are under investigation for the most widespread political corruption in Canadian history!

Judge Gomery will have a chance to tell us what HE thinks about all of this criminal activity in december or so. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, all of us normal Canadian voters will be able to make our own decisions, based on the testimony that we have heard. Which will be mostly complete by the time we go to the polls in late june.  

I have a question and a scenario here:

-Major political party in Canada is found to be stealing massive amounts of Canadian tax dollars. And actively covering it up! There are also clear indications that they have been doing this for many many years, on a whole range of government spending programs.  

At the very same time it has become evident to pretty much everyone that this party has also been tragically negligent in the way they managed pretty much EVERY major government spending program! From soup to nuts, these guys have screwed it all up, every single time. And wasted (or stolen) mountains of hard earned Canadian tax dollars in the process. 

This political party (the Liberals) also have no solid policies that anyone can point to. They seem to claim one thing before each election...and then do another, once elected. Often they dump their whole party platform once they are safely back in a power position. Their only successful plans or policies have been stolen whole from the opposition parties (after a suitable period when they were loudly ridiculed by the Liberals, of course)

They steal money and they steal ideas. On a broad scale. This goes on for years and years. Then...they finally get busted for theft. In a BIG WAY. And then they get investigated for theft. In a BIG WAY!

And finally...during the "last straw" of the corruption investigation of this party, all but one of the opposition parties finally throw their hands into the air and say "That's _ENOUGH_! We are taking you guys down and forcing an election so that the Canadian people can decide if you are still fit to govern!"

And...then what? The Canadian electorate is so mad about being given this rare opportunity to express their own opinions on the corrupt party in power that they will happily re-elect that same deeply corrupt party BACK into power??   

In order to "punish" the guys who went out on a limb to give them a choice in the matter?  

What is this? Alice in Wonderland? Dante's Inferno? Is everyone here on narcotics or something??!!?? 

Too wierd. Wayyy too weird.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macnutt, settle down....you're gonna have stress problems if you keep it up.  The public is obviously able to differntiate between what the previous Liberal gang did and what Martin is doing. Maybe the bottom line is that the Liberal policies are what the general public really prefer and are willing to see if Martin was in any way personally part of the sponsorship fiasco. "Innocent until proven guilty" works when you actually like someone. Maybe people actually like or trust Martin more than the others. Why is that?


----------



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

What's weird is the way you seem to feel that continuous hyperbole is useful or necessary. The simple fact that there has been wrong-doing and that its being investigated thoroughly through an independent inquiry should be enough. You should give the public more credit. Not to do so, leads to the sort of mess of the last election. Conservatives should be treading very softly now since they are under the magnifying glass. Their performance in the next few weeks will directly impact their popularity whenever the next election is held. The Conservatives seem incapable of taking the high ground - which is surprising since the Liberals continually have yielded it. Very odd and definitely not the sign of reassurance Canadians are looking for.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Peter

My fellow Canadian puzzle me sometimes.  
Heres why: 
-Was Paul Martin punished for calling the last election before the sponsorship scandal dirt could come to light and before the new Conservative party could get organized? Now we know a mountain of dirty details form sworn testimony and would have heard all the testimony before we vote yet they would punish Harper by voting Liberal for forcing one before the judge summarizes the enquiry for them? People would actually be mad enough about forcing the election in 6 months earlier that they would return the Liberals to power?
-Everyone complains about the cost? Why? You'll be paying for one now or you can pay for one this winter as Martin promised. Either way your going to be paying for an election this year. I fear you'll be paying a hell of a lot more as the Liberals shower the land with vote buying gifts leading up to a winter election.
-People complain about the cost of the election ($250 million) yet Martin just cut a deal with Jack Layton to avoid one worth 5 billion in tax dollars?
-If they can't vote for the Conservatives because their "Oh so scary" then why the heck aren't the polls showing a surge of support for smiling Jack in protest of the unbelievable corruption of the Liberal party? The same party that can be credited with the recent majority surge is support for independence in Quebec. If I were a left leaning Canuck as the majority here are, I'd be willing to give Jack a crack at it before I could vote for the Liberals in light of the Banana Republic corruption we're seeing now. 
-When Mulroney's Government was accused of shady dealings Canadians were so mad that the Tories could held their party meetings in a phone booth after the election? The current scandal make Mulroney look like a saint in comparison. 

I just don't understand this love affair with the teflon coated Liberal party. If you had a business and had an employee that helped themselves to the till, would you promote them to head of accounting or would you fire them?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Peter
> 
> My fellow Canadian puzzle me sometimes.
> Heres why:
> ...


Well put MacGuiver. Bears re-reading by anyone who didn't get it in the first pass. Or who chose to skim over it because their ideological programming forbade them from seeing the cruel truth.

Bottom line here?

-Martin knew all about it and did NOTHING! Because he couldn't do anything if he still wanted a shot at the top job. He'd have been dumped if he spoke up. Fer SURE!

-Most of the behind the scenes people who made all of this happen are STILL a part of the Liberal Party of Canada. Many of them are STILL working right in the PMO, as a matter of fact.

-None of this will ever change...and the full extent of the deep rot will never be known...until we have a totally different party in power. One that will pursue this corruption with the very same single-minded zeal that Jean Chretien pursued Brian Mulroney in the early nineties.

Returning the Liberals back to power will simply tell them, once again, that they are ultimately "untouchable". And it will just make them work that much harder to cover up the next scam.

The Liberals are long overdue for a vacation from power. Time to grant them this much-needed break. (they need to re-group, after all.) 

Or, you can opt for "more of the same".   

Your choice.


----------



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

Hey MacNutt, I think most people on this board can read. They've been treated to your regurgitated posts for quite some time. Might be a good time to give them some credit instead of treating them like pre-schoolers?

MacGuiver, one very good reason for not rushing to judgement is to allow time for the opposition parties to demonstrate their competence to govern. Although they've been given this chance for the past year, they have failed miserably because they've felt it more important to bellow the standard rhetoric at the Liberals. In my view, this has been a major mistake and is a good reason why the majority of Canadians do not feel ready to go to the polls. Secondly, despite the distaste over the scandal, many people do not see it as a sufficent reason to trash the government. In other words, the perspective of people who voted in the Liberals is rather different from those who didn't. Not much of a surprise there. They are certainly not being reassured by images of Stephen Harper foaming at the mouth!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I am starting to think that a June election is becoming unavoidable. I think the budget will pass, but the Conservatives will make sure everybody shows up to take the Liberal government down on May 18th. Maybe the NDP will join in as well.

Bye bye Liberals.....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree. They're gonzola sometime soon. Probably VERY soon.

And I'm just wondering here what JWoodgett actually means by the "opposition parties not demonstrating the ability to govern"?  

The job of the opposition parties is to hold the governing parties toes to the fire at every chance they get. Every time they are out of line or obviously wrong...which is rather often with the leaderless and deeply corrupt Liberals these days.

The Conservatives have done this rather well, as near as I can see. But they've also co-operated with the Liberals and propped them up on several occasions in order to provide continuing governance to this land of ours. Despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the Liberals on a whole range of political principles.

And...now that the whole nation is aghast at the depth of the exposed Liberal corruption...and now that the Liberals have sold out their principles to the NDP in order to cling to power a little bit longer...the opposition Conservatives have decided to force them out and give us voters a chance to speak our mind, before the country moves on any farther down this particular road.

Is this not "demonstrating the ability to govern?"

And, if this doesn't do it for you, then just HOW does an opposition party that does not hold any real power "demonstrate the ability to govern" anyway?

Care to enlighten us on this point, Jim?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> I agree. They're gonzola sometime soon. Probably VERY soon.


Hi MacNutt,

I wish I could agreed with you but in light of these recent polls in the very vortex of the scandal I'm not too sure. I honestly think people in this country have grown apathetic and accept dishonesty and theft as normal. They automatically assume every party would have done the same as their beloved liberals. Its really sad that we've come to this. Its like sending a wolf to mind the sheep and refusing to give the sheep dog a chance because your afraid he has sharp teeth. 

Martin isn't stupid. He knows the reality distortion field he implanted in the last election is still intact, especially in TO. The longer he can ride this thing out, the easier he will win his seats in Toronto and hang on to power. In the mean time they'll be searching hard for some scary Presbyterian sermons Steven Harper has been hearing on Sunday.

Wether Martin is directly implicated in Gomery or not, he was the senior Quebec MP and Finance Minister at the time this was going on. Not to mention we've had billions blown on a worthless Duck hunters Registry, HRDC scandal etc. etc. If anything it speaks of his incompetence. He so much as admitted it in his recent plea for time. And as for his balanced budgets? He can thank Brian Mulroney for taking the heat for the GST and making that possible. These guys need a timeout!

I would love to see the regional breakdown of this poll. Me thinks TO would be credited with these numbers again. Is there any chance the rest of Canada could separate from Toronto? Either way Quebec is gone as a result of this government. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



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

OK, let me spell it out. I didn't say "demonstrate ability to govern" (gee, are you incapable of understanding the meaning of quotes or the problem with putting words into other peoples mouths??? Learn how to cut and paste). I said:


> one very good reason for not rushing to judgement is to allow time for the opposition parties to demonstrate their competence to govern.


 The important word here is COMPETENCE. The Conservatives are acting as though they should be elected by default. Liberals are bad. Therefore Conservatives must be good. Therefore Conservatives should govern. Why? Liberals are bad.....

The Conservatives have done their absolute best to keep the focus on the Gomery enquiry at every opportunity. Since that enquiry is actually in process and the testimony is widely reported, I don't see what the point of this continual focus is, other than to divert the Conservatives from providing Canadians with their points of view on other matters. When every press conference that Harper speaks at is focussed on Adscam and alleged corruption, there is no time for meaningful communication on other matters. If he becomes PM, what is Stephen Harper going to talk about? Is he still going to spend his time kicking the Adscam can? All the Conservatives have done over the past 6 months is prattle on about how bad the scandal is (perhaps because Canadians have noticed the sky hasn't fallen?). While I can sympathize with their wishing to paint the Liberals with charges of corruption at every chance, it's been done to the exclusion of just about everything else. Tell me why Harper and the Conservatives are not wiping the floor with the Liberals in the polls? Ask yourself why Stephen Harper has failed to strike a chord with the majority of Canadians? It's your problem (as a Conservative voter) - not mine.

What you do not seem to understand is that being thrown a series of underarm balls such as those being tossed at Harper not only makes the pitcher look bad, if you are unable to hit them, it makes the batter look even worse. To me, Harper has failed miserably in projecting the statemanship that is required for the office of PM. Given his opponents, this failure is doubly remarkable. Job One for Harper is to set his agenda for the future and to espouse that at every opportunity to win over Canadians who are highly suspicious of his motives (be they warranted or not). Harping on about Gomery is not only a wasted and redundant effort, it steals from the opportunity to connect to people. It may be the easy thing to do but that does not make it the right thing to do.

Perhaps the guy is a robot. If so he needs either a reboot or a new OS.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

No so fast Sinc and Macnutt....

Reports show Conservative drop at polls


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The frothing at the mouth right wing zealots are the Liberals best friends. Totally desperate for power and making assumptions about Ontario....same assumptions the champagne on plane bunch made last time. 
Keep that lipflapping coming.

Let's hear the REAL CON agenda - don't be shy - you're confident of a majority after all.
Y'know stuff like dump the judiciary so you can kill the same sex bill and re-introduce all sorts of regressive legislation ala the brothers in the US.

We'll have a Mike Harris makeover at the same time and a Kleinland Kanada. 

Say what you'd really like to see - not the moderate Harper is pretending to be.

Let's hear the full Con agenda here????

We know where the NDP stand..... very little new there.....most consistent party of all.

We've seen the POLICIES of the Liberals in practice and their execution both good and bad.

Let's hear the Con policies.....Kyoto, judiciary, gay marriage, missile defence, "integration" with the US, cities deal ( pretty quiet on that front from the Cons) et al. 

Forget the Liberals - if as you claim it's all over then lets hear the REAL agenda..........it's a done deal - go for it - lay it all out. Policies....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> We know where the NDP stand..... very little new there.....most consistent party of all.


I totally agree with you for once. There is nothing new coming out of the NDP. Same old, same old. They haven't changed anything for a couple decades now. This isn't a good thing and it probably explains why they have been stuck with so little support for so long. 

They need to look to what the left wing parties in Europe have done. Voters will not select a party that would destroy our economy within a term.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> -Was Paul Martin punished for calling the last election before the sponsorship scandal dirt could come to light and before the new Conservative party could get organized? Now we know a mountain of dirty details form sworn testimony and would have heard all the testimony before we vote yet they would punish Harper by voting Liberal for forcing one before the judge summarizes the enquiry for them? People would actually be mad enough about forcing the election in 6 months earlier that they would return the Liberals to power?


Ummm actually he was punished wasn't he? how many years of Liberal majority and then poof Liberal minority government. I'd say they were punished for calling that last election.



MacGuiver said:


> -Everyone complains about the cost? Why? You'll be paying for one now or you can pay for one this winter as Martin promised. Either way your going to be paying for an election this year. I fear you'll be paying a hell of a lot more as the Liberals shower the land with vote buying gifts leading up to a winter election.


This is Canada... an election can be called at any time for any reason. This is the way that our system works. If you don't like it then lobby for reform, however I don't think that it will get you anywhere since our system is written into our constitutional documents, and thankfully we don't have the option of allowing amendments to be written for every last thing. If you are looking for more structure in your electoral system I suggest moving south... but you only have two parties to choose from so I think our form of government is more democratic.



MacGuiver said:


> -People complain about the cost of the election ($250 million) yet Martin just cut a deal with Jack Layton to avoid one worth 5 billion in tax dollars?


Comparing 250 million in election cost is NOT the same as providing 5 billion in social programs. Sorry if you feel that social programs don't benefit you... I suggest looking elsewhere if you think our society doesn't benefit you.



MacGuiver said:


> -If they can't vote for the Conservatives because their "Oh so scary" then why the heck aren't the polls showing a surge of support for smiling Jack in protest of the unbelievable corruption of the Liberal party? The same party that can be credited with the recent majority surge is support for independence in Quebec. If I were a left leaning Canuck as the majority here are, I'd be willing to give Jack a crack at it before I could vote for the Liberals in light of the Banana Republic corruption we're seeing now.


Perhaps most people are sensible middle of the road type people, Perhaps they see the conservative leadership for what they are? Maybe what they want is a real choice? Not too left not too right... but somewhere in the middle. If you think that the conservative leadership represents that middle ground than why aren't polls showing them WELL into the lead. The latest polls show them falling behind ( polls ), even with this media manufactured scandal. 



MacGuiver said:


> -When Mulroney's Government was accused of shady dealings Canadians were so mad that the Tories could held their party meetings in a phone booth after the election? The current scandal make Mulroney look like a saint in comparison.


Well that says something doesn't it. Perhaps the electorate thought that there were more things wrong with the conservative agenda than just some shady dealings.



MacGuiver said:


> I just don't understand this love affair with the teflon coated Liberal party. If you had a business and had an employee that helped themselves to the till, would you promote them to head of accounting or would you fire them?


Government isn't a business is it? The government is about the people... it's for the people, by the people (wait I've heard that somewhere before). Clearly in this case there was some wrong doing... and I expect the Liberals to pay the price... the real question is... "where is leadership from the opposition?" If Canadians see a truly viable option in terms of an opposition they will vote it, the problem is that the conservatives don't really have that do they? or they would be polling in the 50's or 60's compared to the other parties.

I think that it is time for the conservatives to get their heads out of their asses and come up with something that Canadians can consider as viable. The problem all started in the late 80's and 90's... If the Reform party had never started we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we. There would be a real party to the right of the Liberals... a real choice for Canadians. What's happened to the political right in this country is laughable (as my friends from the south would say "it's like putting lipstick on a pig").


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Actually the last election, the majority was lost in Quebec - the rest of Canada really did not have much to say in the matter.

We'll likely never know the contretemps that went on with the Quebec Liberal Federal arm as they were clearly Chretien buds and on the outs with Martin.

Chretien clearly had a strong embedded and in some cases underhandedly funded polical organization and he himself was a masterful politician - he made use of whatever came his way - from Martin to Charest to upping the power of the PMO to the point where it was unconscionable yet he still managed to get elected with majorities every time. Machiavelli would be standing and cheering.

Martin is clearly no politician - he got bad advice calling that election then - he could have put a lot in place with a majority while digging out the rot in the Quebec situation.
He did most things right in being seen to be dealing with the loose cannons - he shoudl never ever have listened about an early election.

People are now doubly pissed but that still does not solve the uncomfortable situation vis a vie the Conservatives and moderate Canadians.

I'm still listening for those policies we're going to see with the upcoming "given" Conservative sweep. Nothing to hide, don't hold back......lets here; the re-engineering end to end.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I wish I had the time to read all of these posts....certainly gives some insight at least how some ehmac mambers think politically.
What I'm getting out of today's newspapers and current polls is that the peak for Conservative support has already passed - the longer an election call gets delayed the better for the Liberals.
There is also more and more conflicting *sworn* testimony at the commission. Really basic stuff like "I (insert name) dealt with this company" Company comes back immediately with "We never dealt with him (insert previous name).
We're not even dealing with subtle opinions or 'can't really remember' issues. This is pretty black and white...people are obviousdy lying under oath and a number of reporters have stated that very clearly on the evening news.
I think all this supports waiting for an election until the facts about the sponsorship scandal are known.
Another open question, one newspaper quotes the money spent in Quebec on that campaign at $100 million - another quotes $60 million. Don't know where these numbers come from but in either case, that's the total funds spent, not the funds misappropriated (which obviously must be less).
So are the politicians and the press making a mountain out of a molehill. From a financial point of view, even $100 million is a rounding error in terms of annual federal spending....the question really relates to criminal activity in that respect and the commission is not mandated to pursue that.
My feeling is that we will end up with the same type of minority government after we (the tax payer) spend the $250 million on an election that 2/3 of the electorate don't want.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And if that happens, then we will be going to the polls _AGAIN_ a year or so after that.  

Money was stolen. Of this there is NO doubt. It was stolen by people who are very close to the highest levels of the Liberal Party of Canada and several witnesses have told of "fat envelopes stuffed with cash left on restaruant tables" while they went to the can. The envelopes were always gone when they came back. Pretty much everyone who got one of these under the table contracts for work that wasn't done has said that the cost of this was "contributions to the Liberal Party". Yeah...to certain MEMBERS of the Liberal Party, is more like it.

This is organised crime stuff. And, despite all of their careful coverups, there is plenty of other evidence that this has been going on for a very long time in a whole range of government spending programs.

Liberal government spending porograms that always seem to go wildly over budget, by the way. Odd about that, eh? 

Trying to minimise this and make apologies for the corrupt Liberals is simply hiding one's head in the sand. And the only way we will EVER find out how deep it goes is by cancelling their ticket and giving them a timeout.

It's also the ONLY way we will ever get a health care system that is self-sustaining and the only way we will ever get a truly real senate. Among other things.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this was one single smallish incident. It's just the latest of many reasons to dump these clowns and replace them with a real government.

Another kick at the Liberal can will just prolong that eventual outcome. And cost us a bunch more money.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Ummm actually he was punished wasn't he? how many years of Liberal majority and then poof Liberal minority government. I'd say they were punished for calling that last election.


Last time I checked he was still Prime Minister. If getting elected is punishment then I guess he was.



da_jonesy said:


> This is Canada... an election can be called at any time for any reason. This is the way that our system works. If you don't like it then lobby for reform, however I don't think that it will get you anywhere since our system is written into our constitutional documents, and thankfully we don't have the option of allowing amendments to be written for every last thing. If you are looking for more structure in your electoral system I suggest moving south... but you only have two parties to choose from so I think our form of government is more democratic.


Not sure what the heck you're talking about here?  



da_jonesy said:


> Comparing 250 million in election cost is NOT the same as providing 5 billion in social programs. Sorry if you feel that social programs don't benefit you... I suggest looking elsewhere if you think our society doesn't benefit you.


I'm sure the predicted 170,000 jobs lost as a result of this budget tweek will generate lots more people thankful for a government handout. If I'm lucky they'll raise my taxes some more and we can all reap the benefits.



da_jonesy said:


> Perhaps most people are sensible middle of the road type people, Perhaps they see the conservative leadership for what they are? Maybe what they want is a real choice? Not too left not too right... but somewhere in the middle. If you think that the conservative leadership represents that middle ground than why aren't polls showing them WELL into the lead. The latest polls show them falling behind ( polls ), even with this media manufactured scandal.


I think its a stretch to call the modern day Liberals the middle ground. This may have been true 5 or 10 years ago but not today. Especially with regard to social policy. Unless you consider gay marriage, legalized prostitution, fast tracking visas for strippers from Eastern Europe, legalized drugs, State run daycare to be the middle ground?



da_jonesy said:


> Perhaps the electorate thought that there were more things wrong with the conservative agenda than just some shady dealings.


Yes it was about waistful spending of our tax dollars too. But the Liberals aren't guilty of that... cough cough! Have we got any helicopters yet or are they still crashing on the decks of our mighty fleet?



da_jonesy said:


> Government isn't a business is it?


Your right, who'd want someone with financial smarts handling the billions of dollars we tax payers hand them. Give me a carefree spender with grand schemes any day!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Where will the liberal support go?*

An election is inevitable, if, hopefully, not imminent. As has been pointed out already, Conservative support seems to have peaked and is falling fast.

Where will the people who voted Liberal last time, and who actually care about AdScam enough to change their votes go this time around? From the poling data, it doesn't look like the Conservatives are picking much up. Clearly, almost all of the Liberal support in Quebec will go to the Bloc.

It does look like the NDP and the Greens may be significant beneficiaries of the Conservative muck-raking.

I'm not making any predictions at this point, but I'd love to see another Liberal minority, but with the balance of power held by the NDP and the Greens. We might even see some real social and environmental progress for a change!

Cheers


----------



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

Bryan, you have hit the nail on the head re where those of us who voted Liberal in the last election (I am one of those voters) shall vote this time. I also agree with your hope that "I'd love to see another Liberal minority, but with the balance of power held by the NDP and the Greens." Canada would be a far better country if a minority Liberal government had to gain support from these two parties that will probably not ever hold power themselves.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Last time I checked he was still Prime Minister. If getting elected is punishment then I guess he was.


Did you miss them falling from having a majority government to having a minority government? I call what happened getting punished. 



MacGuiver said:


> Not sure what the heck you're talking about here?


My point was that you were complaining about the cost of an election. Elections (in Canada) can be called at any time for any reason, deal with it. Personally I think this system works for us in general as it keeps the politicians more on their toes.



MacGuiver said:


> I'm sure the predicted 170,000 jobs lost as a result of this budget tweek will generate lots more people thankful for a government handout. If I'm lucky they'll raise my taxes some more and we can all reap the benefits.


OK... show me the quote. Which conservative think tank came up with this? What economic model did they use to project this? I'm sorry but Canada's economy is not too bad compared to many around the world, and what amazes me is how the conservative right just fail to even recognize that this is the case. When was the last time we ran a deficit in this country? At this point given what I've see from our own history and examples to our south... I think we are pretty well off when it comes to fiscal management.



MacGuiver said:


> I think its a stretch to call the modern day Liberals the middle ground. This may have been true 5 or 10 years ago but not today. Especially with regard to social policy. Unless you consider gay marriage, legalized prostitution, fast tracking visas for strippers from Eastern Europe, legalized drugs, State run daycare to be the middle ground?


Yes... I do consider that the middle ground for Canada, I'm not alone. If you took those issues (your fast tracking strippers argument doesn't count) to the whole population I think you will that the majority of Canadians are quite progressive in those regards. If it came to a vote in Parliament, those issues would win handily given that the only party that opposes them are the Conservatives. I am missing something or haven't you been living in Canada for that long?



MacGuiver said:


> Yes it was about waistful spending of our tax dollars too. But the Liberals aren't guilty of that... cough cough! Have we got any helicopters yet or are they still crashing on the decks of our mighty fleet?


I would love to see an alternative, please, PLEASE... for the love of god, someone please show up to the table that could be a reasonable alternative.



MacGuiver said:


> Your right, who'd want someone with financial smarts handling the billions of dollars we tax payers hand them. Give me a carefree spender with grand schemes any day!


That's a load of crap and you know it. The Liberals have been running a fiscally tight ship and you know it. They've got plenty of balanced budgets (when was the last time they ran a deficit). Go out and rent "The Corporation" and then tell me that you want a corporation running your government. With the Enron's, Nortel's and Worldcom's of the world out there, don't think for a second that the corporate community has the corner of the market when it comes to fiscal responsibility.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> An election is inevitable, if, hopefully, not imminent. As has been pointed out already, Conservative support seems to have peaked and is falling fast.
> 
> Where will the people who voted Liberal last time, and who actually care about AdScam enough to change their votes go this time around? From the poling data, it doesn't look like the Conservatives are picking much up. Clearly, almost all of the Liberal support in Quebec will go to the Bloc.
> 
> ...


Kudos... somebody understands.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Did you miss them falling from having a majority government to having a minority government? I call what happened getting punished.


Mulroney was punished, the Libs got a slap on the wrist.



da_jonesy said:


> My point was that you were complaining about the cost of an election. Elections (in Canada) can be called at any time for any reason, deal with it. Personally I think this system works for us in general as it keeps the politicians more on their toes.


I wasn't complaining about the cost. Bring it on! Its the average joe Canadian thats threatening to punish the conservatives for forcing an expensive election meanwhile we're promised one within the year anyhow? What kind of logic is that?



da_jonesy said:


> OK... show me the quote. Which conservative think tank came up with this? What economic model did they use to project this? I'm sorry but Canada's economy is not too bad compared to many around the world, and what amazes me is how the conservative right just fail to even recognize that this is the case. When was the last time we ran a deficit in this country? At this point given what I've see from our own history and examples to our south... I think we are pretty well off when it comes to fiscal management.


You won't here an argument from me here. We are a wealthy nation. Just imagine how much better off we could be with prudent fiscal management. With prudent fiscal management maybe our DART team and our military could have a freakin transport plane or a ship to get them to a world crisis before it ends. Imagine how many MRI machines we could have with the billions sank into the Duck Hunter Registry (I don't know about you but I sure sleep better at night). The billion or so that disappeared in the HRDC scandal, the millions lost in adscam etc. etc.
State run Daycare/Indoctrination will be the next money pit while punishing stay at home moms or dads that want to do what they feel is best for their kids and stay home with them. 



da_jonesy said:


> Yes... I do consider that the middle ground for Canada, I'm not alone. If you took those issues (your fast tracking strippers argument doesn't count) to the whole population I think you will that the majority of Canadians are quite progressive in those regards. If it came to a vote in Parliament, those issues would win handily given that the only party that opposes them are the Conservatives. I am missing something or haven't you been living in Canada for that long?


You mean like the recent poll that shows the majority of Canadians oppose redefining marriage? If its such a given that these would pass, why has smiling Jack and Martin had to crack the whip and force members of their government to vote the party line? The majority of Canadians would like to legalize prostitution and drugs? Oh please if I laugh any harder I'll fall off my chair. Maybe here in ehmac land, Quebec or TO but outside that?.




da_jonesy said:


> I would love to see an alternative, please, PLEASE... for the love of god, someone please show up to the table that could be a reasonable alternative.


You might find one to suit your mainstream progressive desires in Holland or Denmark.



da_jonesy said:


> That's a load of crap and you know it. The Liberals have been running a fiscally tight ship and you know it. They've got plenty of balanced budgets (when was the last time they ran a deficit). Go out and rent "The Corporation" and then tell me that you want a corporation running your government. With the Enron's, Nortel's and Worldcom's of the world out there, don't think for a second that the corporate community has the corner of the market when it comes to fiscal responsibility.


I don't need to watch your movie to see coruption. After a day of the Gomery inquiry I've had my fill thanks.

Fiscally tight? Thats a load of crap and you know it! Oh my sides again! Its true they've had balanced books (Thank you Mr. Mulroney for the GST revenues and free trade) and among the highest personal taxes in the world. Thank you provinces for taking massive cuts in federal healthcare funding and accumulating massive debts of your own. Oh and thank you Canadian soldiers for putting up with the flying death traps, sinking subs and wearing green combat fatigues in desert combat in your paper thin armored vehicles.
Speaking of tight ships I wish I could have gotten one of Sheila's freebee flags for my boat this summer or one of Jean's autographed golf balls to play a few holes of golf in Shawinigan.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bring it on............ start the champagne corks for the Tory sweep.......keep those lipflappin' clips from the speech to the Fraser Institute humming....."closer integration with the US" .....yadayayada.....preach to the choir


oops......and it's early yet.



> Poll puts Liberals in front
> Martin's wait-for-Gomery campaign appears to strike a chord with voters
> By CAMPBELL CLARK
> Friday, April 29, 2005 Page A1
> ...


Oops
Two provinces just signed on for the daycare program..........no budget???,........does anyone really think the Cons will reintroduce the legislation....

Oops
The Atlantic accord has not been signed into the budget.......

Champagne time - let the lipflappers rejoice.......it's a done deal..........err
Oops


> t really does show that the Conservatives continue to have a real ceiling to their support. *For example, they are running third in cities over a million in population right now, at 18 per cent, behind the New Democrats," Mr. Gregg said.*
> 
> And Mr. Harper's own standing with Canadians has not improved; 22 per cent said their view of the Conservative Leader has improved in the past year, while 21 per cent said it worsened. "He's stuck in the mud," Mr. Gregg said.


And one thing and perhaps only one thing is FOR SURE.............



> as the Liberals and Conservatives batter away at each other,* many Canadians appear dissatisfied with both*


C'mon - keep the agenda coming, .....let's hear the Con Canada vision..........it's working very very well.....










more please........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where the buck REALLY stops











> Chretien 'sorry' for scandal
> 
> Apr. 29, 2005. 09:47 PM
> 
> ...


 full story


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, Crime Minister Jean Chrétien defending Crime Minister Paul Martin.

Interesting times indeed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc is right. Sadomasochistic Canadians will be lining up for another Lib/NDP flogging in the next election.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A few of them. And mostly from the 905 area surrounding Toronto. This is, after all, a reality distortion zone where deeply corrupt Liberals who are VERY poor managers of public programs who break all of their stated policies once they are in office, are considered to be vastly preferable to the alternative. Whatever that alternative may be.  

Todays poll numbers say that fully 63% of the Canadian people "Don't trust Paul Martin". In any way shape or form.

Even Paul Martins biggest fan, BONO of U2, is deeply dissapointed at Paul Martin these days. At last nights Vancouver concert, Bono expressed how pissed off he was at Martin. He went so far as to post our PM's office phone number on the megascreen while inviting the whole crowd to phone the PMO and tell Paul Martin to "get ON with it and keep your PROMISES!!"

Apparently, the PMO switchboard was swamped for _HOURS_ afterwards! 

Let's all hope that, during this upcoming election, the 905 Toronto area finally figures out what the rest of the country (and Bono) already knows....

The Liberals _DON'T keep their PROMISES, and they CAN'T be TRUSTED!_  

So much for "Liberal policies". Whatever THEY might be.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> State run Daycare/Indoctrination will be the next money pit while punishing stay at home moms or dads that want to do what they feel is best for their kids and stay home with them.


How is it punishing a stay at home parent? As it stands Canada has one of the most progressive policies when it comes to having children. We need to have this, we have a declining population growth rate. We are not having enough babies... We need to have Daycare programs like this or start being even MORE flexible when it comes to immigration. You choose, it's one or the other or kiss our economy good by.




MacGuiver said:


> You mean like the recent poll that shows the majority of Canadians oppose redefining marriage? If its such a given that these would pass, why has smiling Jack and Martin had to crack the whip and force members of their government to vote the party line? The majority of Canadians would like to legalize prostitution and drugs? Oh please if I laugh any harder I'll fall off my chair. Maybe here in ehmac land, Quebec or TO but outside that?.


Don't kid yourself... it's only a matter of time (same sex marriage will pass as it should, marijuanna will be decriminalized and prosititution... my gut feel is that it will also be decriminalized... considering that it is already technically legal anyways). If it doesn't pass now, it will in the future. Younger canadians are more open to these issues and as our population ages they will become more and more acceptable. The only thing which might change this is if the immigrant population increases more than it is planned to, as first generation canadians tend to be more socially conservative.



MacGuiver said:


> I don't need to watch your movie to see coruption. After a day of the Gomery inquiry I've had my fill thanks.


Your loss. Everyone should watch that movie.



MacGuiver said:


> Fiscally tight? Thats a load of crap and you know it! Oh my sides again! Its true they've had balanced books (Thank you Mr. Mulroney for the GST revenues and free trade) and among the highest personal taxes in the world. Thank you provinces for taking massive cuts in federal healthcare funding and accumulating massive debts of your own.


Oh... yeah, Free Trade... been talking to an Albertan cattle farmer lately about free trade? or anyone in the softwood lumber industry? How about the automotive industry? Yeah, thanks Brian way to go buddy great toothless treaty. 



MacGuiver said:


> Oh and thank you Canadian soldiers for putting up with the flying death traps, sinking subs and wearing green combat fatigues in desert combat in your paper thin armored vehicles.


Brian and the boys had the opportunity to pitch in and revamp the military as well... they left their stamp on the military as well... a great big blank. At least the Liberals have addressed it in this budget (and I bet the conservatives are steaming mad as they took most of their policy and now have nothing to complain about).

In this day and age there is no armoured vehicle on the planet that can stand up to a hidden IED. The amercian's are loosing M1 Tanks, what makes you think anything we get will be any better.

We need a rethink on what the canadian military is all about. We need more medium lift capability (not heavy lift or stragetic lift) so that we can assert our forces within Canada to maintian sovereignty. We need subs and frigates for costal patrols for the same reasons.

I'm not sure that we need peace keeping forces anymore. I'm not sure that in this day and age that those forces are effective given the global geopolitical atmosphere. I think Rwanada is a case in point as to why any force we put into the field would be rendered useless due to the poltical framework that is put in place for these operations.

I for one do NOT feel safer that we have troops in Afganistan. I admire the work that our force do, but their presence in Afganistan is not contributing anything to my safety as a Canadian.



MacGuiver said:


> Speaking of tight ships I wish I could have gotten one of Sheila's freebee flags for my boat this summer or one of Jean's autographed golf balls to play a few holes of golf in Shawinigan.


In the "where are they now" category...


----------



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

> MacNutt: Todays poll numbers say that fully 63% of the Canadian people "Don't trust Paul Martin". In any way shape or form.


The other interesting number to come from that poll as that fully 57 % of Canadians believe Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda. As I've said before, the Conservatives are spending too much time bashing the Liberals and not enough time communicating their own agenda - perhaps for good reason.

And the Conservatives are not going to get very far on asking people to trust them given the fact that MacKay broke a promise he made not to merge with the Alliance to secure his leadership win of the PCs. The fact is, no Canadian political party commands trust from the people.

And why bother with the editorializing, selective reporting and exaggeration. "In any way shape or form" is your opinion, it was not part of the poll question.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Liberals do all of their policy shopping at "Hidden Agendas-R-US". 

This is a matter of historic record, Woodgett. Practically all of the nasty stuff that the Liberals have done to us could only be construed as a "Hidden Agenda", after all. And most of the stuff they SAID they'd do, never got done once they were elected.

Or...perhaps you'd like to tell us how many of their solemn pre-election promises have ever been kept? You could even start a new thread entitled "Liberal Promises that have been KEPT"

A list would be nice.


----------



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

MacNutt, why do you bother posting? Your one-sided posts barely relate to what's previously been said (unless that happened to be you). I pointed out that 57% of Canadians polled think Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda. You might like to call up your buddies in the Conservative Party and yell at them to get with the message. Instead, you do precisely what Stephen Harper has been doing for the last 6 months which is to throw more muck at the Liberals. Can't you see THAT IT ISN'T working? Perhaps if the Conservatives talked more about what they would do if elected, things might turn around for them. I note that Stephen Harper yesterday said he was 100% behind the Canada Health Act and would not do anything to weaken it. Perhaps he's finally listening to people who can see further than the Gomery enquiry?

As for election promises, you might note that they are in the budget. If it gets passed, the only promise that won't be kept is the cut to corporate taxes which was clearly a nod to get the Conservatives to support the budget (since our corporate tax rates are supposedly lower than the US).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I tend to summarize the effect under "lipflapping"........very prevalent condition 'mongst the Cons......you get farther out on the edge and they need prosthetics to support all that flappin' tissue...not a pretty sight.

•••

Policy you say........this must REALLY stick in Cons craws.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/speeches/2003/sp03-2.htm

*Meeting Global Challenges: The Importance of Sound Economic Policies*



> Let me conclude. At the beginning of my talk today, I noted that, for over a decade now, Canada has followed a policy based on the four key principles: trade liberalization, structural reform, fiscal prudence, and inflation control. It's never easy to follow those principles, but, over the medium term, they do lead to better economic performance.
> 
> *Canada's recent economic record is evidence of that. We have maintained an enviable growth performance through what has been a very difficult period for the world economy.* We remain optimistic—and so do others—that we will continue to do so. Both the OECD and the IMF predict that Canada's economy will outperform those of other G-7 countries this year.
> 
> ...


then there's the NeoCon brothers to the south......tax cutters, world adventurers.......fiscal fools.

and on the nationstate scene



> Chapter 4. Canada
> Experience and Lessons for the Future
> Document(s) 5 of 9
> Terrance Hunsley
> ...


...continued.......http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-29619-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

THAT's policy......AND it's real and in my mind it's reflective of the kind of nation Canadians for the most part want to see.
It can be better...work in progress.

Regressives need not apply....there's a wealth of opportunity awaiting you one border south.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



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

Ed Broadbent has stated that he shall not seek re-election in the next election. All oc Canada owes him a debt of gratitude and his stature and honesty shall be missed in the House of Commons.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

very sad


----------



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

True. He would have made a fine PM. Respected and well spoken. He shall be missed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ed "bent-broadly" would have made the worst PM in Canadian history. If we look at the record of the provincial NDP governments we can see fiscal mismanagement on a grand scale, huge labour strife, and failed policies that are based on bad ideas.

Good thing Chretien beat him to it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm guessing that the explosive new testimony in today's Gomery Inquiry will have a rather negative effect on Liberal hope in the upcoming election. Except amongst the most myopic diehards in parts (shrinking parts) of Southern Ontario.

As I write this, we are hearing that Paul Martin's Liberals seem to be engineering their OWN defeat on the upcoming budget! It's on the news right now. 

I'm guessing that when things are THIS bad for a wounded minority that is under siege for deep corruption....it seems like a positive thing if they still seem to retain _some_ measure of control over the situation. 

Even if that tiny sliver of control means causing their own defeat. ("HEY! We're in CONTROL, at least! sort of..."). 

These guys are cooked. Done to a turn.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You know, I always thought that judgement (and indeed, sentencing) came after the inquiries, not right in the middle.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAA

go liberals go? 

or like they say:

golf liberals golf 

I don't know if you get fringe benefits in Jail? maybe politicians do 

anyways...keep the good news a comin...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You are a smart guy, PB. Make your own decisions based upon the weeks of testimony and the documentation that has already been presented to the Canadian people.

Or...you could just listen to what the Auditor general has had to say about the depth of the corruption in the Liberal Party of Canada. You can bet SHE studied the subject at great length before she used words like "corruption" and "money laundering" etc. while making her public accusations about the Liberals.

Of course...all of these instant millionaires who were close friends of Jean Chretin might just be lying through their teeth. About everything.

Pigs may fly, as well. Let me know if you see any sailing past your window. Try to get a photo too.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'd rather wait until the testimony in the weeks ahead is heard, and to hear the conclusions the inquiry itself makes. Hear all the evidence, not just part of it.

Of course, if you want to make uninformed decisions, go right ahead.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

All of the testimony will have been heard by the time we go to the polls in June. And we will all be able to make our own decisions on what we have heard, and on the evidence we have seen, by that time.

In fact...many people have heard enough already. The massive theft of Canadian tax dollars is not in question. Neither are the main players. All were close associates of, or actually related to, the Liberal Prime Minister of the time.

And our current Liberal Prime Minister (Paul Martin) was his number two man during that time period. Martin also the guy in charge of the finances. And he has also now been closely linked to both the scam and the people involved in it. By both testimony and supporting documents.

What more do you need to know?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Ed "bent-broadly" would have made the worst PM in Canadian history. If we look at the record of the provincial NDP governments we can see fiscal mismanagement on a grand scale, huge labour strife, and failed policies that are based on bad ideas.
> 
> Good thing Chretien beat him to it.


The thought of an NDP PM gives me the shivers. You should read their economic platform. I find it hard to believe that nobody edited some of the garbage out. 

Their official platform says they would keep interest rates low, regardless of what is happening in the economy. I can only imagine what David Dodge would say about that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm pretty sure that, outside of the rareified confines of this rather left-oriented forum, most people are quite aware of how truly ridiculous the federal NDP policies really are.

And of how totally unsustainable and unrealistic they are, as well. 

NDP says: _WE will do THIS! And WE will do THAT. EVERYONE will have a good union job with fine benefits and total health care! All you need to do is elect US!!"_

Canadian says: "WONDERFUL. I LIKE it!! But how will you PAY for it all?"

NDP says: "We will TAX the hell out of the rich until they all leave...then we will BORROW vast amounts to make up the shortfall and leave the debt and the interest payments to the next generation!! Let THEM worry about it...cause we got OURS in our time. Then we can sit back in our declining years and watch new governments make the deep cuts that are necessary to put things back on an even keel....and snipe away at them and call them BIG MEANIES! The best of all worlds!"

THAT is the cruel reality. Too bad they will never EVER admit it to you.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> What more do you need to know?


Not sure yet. That's the point of an inquiry.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good PB. Then you no doubt also agree with all of the judges rulings in many other cases. Like the Air India trials. Or all of those car theives who get let out onto the street again after more than 100 charges of auto theft. Some have even been known to show up for their court dates in stolen cars.

Personally, I have heard enough already to make a value judgement as to whether these guys are fit to govern this country...and to be in charge of our hard earned tax dollars.

Actually, like many other Canadians, I had already decided that their gross mismanagement of the military, the billion dollar HRDC scandal, the billion dollar failed gun registry etc. was enough to put these totally incompetent clowns on waivers.

Now that we have heard from so many different witnesses about how they were ALSO selling government contracts (to their best buddies) and recieving fat envelopes of unmarked cash in exchange (among other things), I have decided that they are now off the list, and are truly unfit to govern. Or to manage my hard earned tax money. 

But...you could always sit there like a good little sheep and wait for the judge to proclaim HIS decision on all of this corruption.

Or you could stand up on your hind legs and make your OWN decision.

Your choice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

So the Liberals lost today in a vote of confidence, but the Liberals refuse to step down as they would rather the vote happen over the budget. That way they can brag about all the new spending the NDP forced them to do.

It looks like a late June election is a certainty, unless Martin were to pass the government over to the Conservatives and Bloc (unlikely at this point).

The Globe and Mail just published an interesting survey, which found that the Sponsorship Scandal was the biggest issue for voters, following by health care.

The Conservatives are still ahead in Ontario. All in all, its not looking good for the Liberals.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I've never voted Liberal*

but I might be forced to this election.

If we get a premature election, I'd much rather have the crooks we know than the crooks we don't know (i.e. the conservatives, who may actually be honest, but are certainly the most honestly horrible people we could have in power over us I can imagine).

I've been resisting moving to the U.S. because of the Taliban in power down there, but if we elect our own mini-taliban, I may as well take an job in the 'states because at least they have money, if not freedom.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

And that's just the foreplay!


----------



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

Theater of the Absurd. Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco would be proud of this foolishness.

The term "theater of the absurd" derives from the philosophical use of the word absurd by such existentialist thinkers as Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre. Camus, particularly, argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd. 

The playwrights loosely grouped under the label of the absurd endeavor to convey their sense of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe. They rely heavily on poetic metaphor as a means of projecting outward their innermost states of mind. Thus, the actions in the House are like a pack of doxies arguing over toys when each has their own toy.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Now, how did I know _doxies_ would somehow work their way into this thread???


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives are still ahead in Ontario.


Just wait til they have to start talking about policy.

The Bloc would make huge gains in this election if it had any room to make "huge" gains. The NDP will make gains, emerging with a half-dozen new seats. The Tories will see a lot of growth in popular vote squandered in "safe" ridings in the West. And Ontario will taste "Memories of Mike Harris Sauce" whenever there's a Tory policy position to be swallowed. 

Result: another Lib minority, an even more fractured House, a Conservative leadership convention, yet another election. Bad news all around, but this is what you get for having no realistic alternative to the government, including the government itself. 

A fine mess, and if we want to point fingers maybe we need to look back to a certain prime minister who thought he could negotiate a new constitution like a mere business deal and wound up seeing his party splintered into two regional rumps.

BTW, I think Martin is being incredibly idiotic and self-defeating by not recognizing the motion as a confidence motion. Even if it isn't technically one, he should know that the percentage of voters who know <i>and</i> care that it isn't is vanishingly small.


----------



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

Peter, it was only used to provide an example of the absurdity of what is taking place in Parliament. I think that they should fast-track the readings and committee work on the budget and let that come up for a vote. Then, if the government falls on this vote, and an election is called, each party will be able to state what their economic policies are for a budget.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not much time lately...but as I write this Parliament seems to be crippled by last evening's defeat of the Liberals on an important vote. Both Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe are saying that there will be no co-operation with the Liberals on ANYTHING until Paul Martin recognises that this government is now finished.

A Federal Election is just around the corner. (And the industrial sized shredders have been called into Ottawa.)

Stay tuned. This should be fun.


----------



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

It weas not an important (i.e. substantive) vote. It was a carefully manipulated process. I don't blame the Tories and Bloc for contriving it since the Liberals have been just as sneaky and artificial in their machinations to retain power but if Cadman and the two sick cabinet ministers had been in the House, it would very likely have been defeated by the Speakers vote. But we are in an era of political absurdity that is only matched by the Italian parliament. The Conservatives are against same sex marriage, but seem quite excited to get into bed with the Bloc - an entirely different species (that would be human....).

I just hope that the collection of so-called elected representative on the Hill can keep their spittle inside their mouths until they pass the budget..... The Conservative ideologues may soon be in some sort of power but if these people have any real compassion for Canadians, they need to approve this budget. Major parts of the country are running on fumes and the consequences of not passing the budget will be calamitous for tens of thousands of people, not to mention the economy.

As for Gomery, let's just dispense with the judicial system and install cowboy courts. Shoot first, ask questions later. Where's Saddam when you need him?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The bottom line here, Jim, is that this particular government can no longer govern. Period.

It's time to go to the polls. Not a particularly good time for the Liberals, but that's the bed they made. Now they have to sleep in it.

A deadlocked minority that is under investigation for corruption...and is dropping in the polls...is not the horse I'd bet on to win this particular race either.

But then, that's just me.


----------



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

"I just hope that the collection of so-called elected representative on the Hill can keep their spittle inside their mouths until they pass the budget". Jim, I strongly agree. I would like to see the budget passed and then, and only then, the possibility of an election. There are too many important aspects of the budget that shall be delayed even further (e.g., the ChildCare Iniative, The Atlantic Accord, etc) if an election is called. Then, when an election is called, parties can provide their specifics for their socio-economic-enviornmental platforms (I include health care in the socio component of my trilogy).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*IF* the Cons grab a minority government in a new contest, although I don't think that even that is guaranteed, who will they be depending on to implement their shiny, fabulous, neo-conservative agenda? The left-wing, Ottawa hating, Bloc.

I highly doubt that the Cons have a chance of capturing a majority. Without the Quebec seats that the Mulroney PCs got in the 80s, I don't see how they could make it.


----------



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

GA, I don't see how the Conservative can bring back their number of Quebec seats which they held in the Mulroney years. I was speaking to our provincial leader of the NDP and he agrees with my speculation that the NDP shall gain the greatest number of seats in the House, followed by the Bloc. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

True. The conservatives would have to get about an 80% success rate in all of the other ridings to get a majority. This is not an impossibility, but it does seem like a longshot.

On the other hand, all during this election campaign we will be hearing more and more damaging testimony from the Gomery Inquiry. Lately we have been seeing Liberals themselves talking about recieving fat envelopes stuffed with money under the table. This is not playing well, even with the most dedicated of Liberal supporters.

Watch for tens of thousands of them to either stay away from the polls, or to vote for an alternative.

Anything can happen. And probably will.  

The only thing I can't see happening at this point is another Liberal minority.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes Dr. G...

I'm certain that your NDP rep thinks that the socialists will win BIG on this next vote. While ignoring the fact that most every province has tried this and most all have rejected it quite soundly in the past.

Now, back to the real world...


----------



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

Macnutt, re your prediction "The only thing I can't see happening at this point is another Liberal minority." I take the counter view. This is what I see, with the NDP and Green party holding the influence to keep a Liberal minority government in power. Whomever is incorrect buys a round for everyone at "Ye Olde Dox and Whistle" (see the Shang thread for this citiation). Agreed? 

Now, if you say yes, you can't somehow spin this speculation around. A Conservative minority/minority government and YOU win.......a Liberal minority/majority government and I win. Should the NDP or the Bloc form the next government, we shall call it a tie. I shall promise on the head of Rootie, my first doxie, that I shall abide by these rules. You should swear on a bottle of your fine water that you shall abide by these rules. Agreed??????


----------



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

Macnutt, our NDP provincial leader said that he has seen some independent polling that shows the NDP moving forward from their current position in the BC provincial election. In that I have no real knowledge of this election, I cannot say if this is possible.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

They are up one single point in current BC election polls. And that is only one poll. They are still trailing the BC Liberals.

This is what passes for "forward movement" by the BC NDP during this current BC election. Faint hope...especially when one remembers what a horrible mess the previous NDP decade was here in BC.

I suspect that memories of past NDP governments will be in the back of many people's minds when the Federal Election is finally upon us. It's not exactly a shining example of great government, nor is it a ringing endorsement of what we want to see in Ottawa.

To say the least.


----------



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

Gerry, getting back to Federal politics, what about our bet?????? Remember, you swear upon a bottle of your fine water, claiming that it is as pure as your agreement, and I shall swear upon the head of our first "fur-child doxie", Rootie. Agreed???????


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

[quote='Nutt]They are up one single point in current BC election polls.[/quote]

Actually, Mr. MacNutt ...

The latest poll from the Mustel group, shows the BC Libs dropping 1 point and the BC NDP gaining 2, leaving only 5 points between them, over 8 points in the last poll.

But that's only one poll, agreed. I'm guessing that the NDP have momentum right now, which is why the BC Libs have just come out with negative ads, laughingly accusing the NDP of being negative.

Carole James looked good in the TV debate, Campbell looked like a deer caught in the headlights.

This is a federal thread, for another ehMac thread with more on BC politics look here: The BC Libs Big Fib


----------



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

GA, let Macnutt answer MY challenge first before you get him going on BC provincial elections. I shall abide by my agreement if I am proven incorrect. However, I want him to state categorically that he shall abide by the final numbers in the next Federal election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr. G said:


> GA, let Macnutt answer MY challenge first before you get him going on BC provincial elections.


We posted at the same minute, 11:49. I directed the discussion of BC politics to another thread, BTW.

Don't expect 'Nutt to answer your challenge. He seems to be answering challenges challenged.


----------



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

GA, Gerry is a man of honor. I have distant relatives on my mother's side who were from Scotland, so I know and understand the Code of Honor among those of Scottish heritage. If he wants, he can take my side of the challenge, and bet on the Liberals. Either way, he shall accept this challenge before the end of the day here in St.John's. Too many people have taunted him and approached him like a fool. I offered him a straightforward bet, and, as a man of honor, he shall accept this wager and live by his decision. Trust me on this.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, Gerry is a man of honor. I offered him a straightforward bet, and, as a man of honor, he shall accept this wager and live by his decision. Trust me on this.


Barkeep! I will have what he's having!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Barkeep! I will have what he's having!


Yeah, pour me one, too! LMAO


----------



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

IM, GA, I don't say I agree with Macnutt's socio-economic-political views on most things, but I still contend that he is a man of honor. If he makes this bet, it is there for all to see before the election. There is no room for either of us to wiggle out, since this is a firm speculation -- a Conservative majority/minority government, he wins the bet; a Liberal majority/minority government, I win the bet. Anything else is a tie. Men of honor stand by their decisions.


----------



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

GA and IM, you have scared Macnutt away with your taunts. He is posting all around this thread. I know that he can't ignore this thread because this is the way to prove both of you, and me, and some others, incorrect in our speculations. Men of honor live by a common code of ethics -- "Death before dishonor".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Haven't been around for a while because buisness is booming. I have to get back at it right now as well.

But I honestly think that the BC Liberals will take a majority in the BC election, and that the Conservatives will be in power after the upcoming Federal election. Probably in a strong minority. Possibly even a majority. The Liberals will be decimated.

That okay for you?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

G said:


> GA and IM, you have scared Macnutt away with your taunts.


While I can't speak for IM, I wasn't taunting, just laughing.

Somehow I can't imagine that scaring MacNutt. Something I've observed while on this board is that nothing he likes better than getting in the thick of it.

Anyway, you have your answer, direct from sunny, Salt Spring Island, BC.


----------



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

Gerry, then it is agreed upon. Whomever is incorrect buys a round for everyone at "Ye Olde Dox and Whistle". If I buy for you, then I was incorrect and no one can say you twisted the interpretation of what you said about the result of this election. If you buy for me, then you were incorrect in your speculation. Regardless, one of us shall have to spit out the crow feathers before we give our first toast of "le chaim" ("to Life" in Yiddish) over one of "Ye Olde Dox and Whistle's" finest ale. We shall see.

See, I told you that Macnutt was a man of honor.


----------



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

Macnutt, I have Lloyd's of London certify our agreement. This way, if shall be official. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Whew - Sheila Copps sure put the boots to Martin in a letter to the Globe this morning.
But she didn't stop at Martin......she nailed the press for ignoring her own warnings in her book and said look to Ontario and BC for much more scandal to emerge. 

Grain and salt 'n all with Copps but more fuel on the fire. Can we say ......volatile.


----------



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

Volatile!!!! Yes, this may turn out to be a turning point in Canadian history. We shall see. I still stand by my bet with Macnutt, however. We shall see.


----------

