# The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread



## Yrys (18 Mar 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/17/harper-election.html



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Conservative members on Saturday that an election call could come without warning, and he urged the party to see itself as representing the interests of everyday Canadians.
> 
> "Never forget why we are here and who we serve — Canadian families and Canadian taxpayers," Harper said in Mississauga, Ont.
> 
> "We cannot worry about what they say about us around the boardroom tables, but but we must care what they talk about at the kitchen tables."


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2008)

At least according to the Globe & Mail, anyway.  My bet is that Dion caves rather than face the electorate.  Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Harper to put government on line*
Tories are readying a confidence motion over extending Canada's role, PM says
BRIAN LAGHI, Globe & Mail, 6 Feb 08
Article link - .pdf permalink

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to put his minority government on the line over the future of the Afghanistan mission after he warned Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion that the Tories are preparing a confidence motion that could be voted on as early as next week.

A source told The Globe and Mail that the government is prepared to give notice tomorrow of the motion that Canada's role be extended. If the government were to lose, it could plunge the country into an election.

Mr. Harper issued the warning during a 25-minute meeting between the two men yesterday to discuss the future of the Afghan mission and a possible compromise over Canada's presence in the strife-torn province of Kandahar.

The Liberals are divided on the issue, but Mr. Dion has said that he will whip the vote, meaning the party must vote as one. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois are already against the mission, demanding that it end by 2009. The Liberals, however, have said there may be room for some compromise.

However, Mr. Dion has told Mr. Harper that he won't budge from his condition that any Canadian role in Afghanistan after 2009 not include a combat function.

Mr. Dion laid out the position as he and Mr. Harper discussed ways for Canada to move forward in warring country after its mission ends in 2009.The two men got together for 25 minutes in a meeting aimed at finding common ground on a report from the panel led by former foreign affairs minister John Manley, which suggests that Canada leave Kandahar in 2009 if NATO doesn't provide another 1,000 troops, helicopters and unmanned aircraft.

"Mr. Dion made clear the Liberal Party's long-standing position on the mission in Afghanistan, including our firm and unwavering belief that the combat mission in Kandahar must end by February, 2009," said a statement released by Mr. Dion after the meeting ended late yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Dion would release no further details yesterday. The Tories support the Manley proposal and need the backing of the Liberals to push ahead with continued Canadian presence in Kandahar. It's unclear whether Mr. Dion offered a compromise. His officials said yesterday that the leader plans to discuss the issue with his caucus today.

"The Prime Minister reiterated the government's position - that we are adopting the bi-partisan recommendations of the Manley panel - and that if we are unable to secure extra combat troops and equipment, Canada will not be extending the mission in Afghanistan," said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office.

A source with knowledge of the meeting said last night that the two sides seemed fairly entrenched in their positions.

The British newspaper The Guardian reported yesterday that France may increase its military presence in Afghanistan. 




_*Edited to update the thread title*_


----------



## Mud (6 Feb 2008)

I was surprised this subject did not come up today - apologies if if it did on another thread, I could'nt find it.

Seems the PM is going to play hardball with Dion, good for him, I don't think many Canadians want to see another election but I really think we need to clear the air (again) on this critical issue.  I'm pretty tired of the Libs playing politics with this one, at least the PM has, it seems to me, been very clear - we are in Afghanistan for a good reason and there is no point in talking only of aid and reconstruction as long as a insurgency in bent on bringing the country down, so we cannot ignore the immediate need to fight that insurgency.  

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6K8CNnipUVz9HAesdGIC4zNOHbQ


----------



## sgf (6 Feb 2008)

Dion may indeed be playing politics over this issue, but so is every other political party, including the tories


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2008)

Sadly, the opposition parties really don't care what happens to the people of Afghanistan, they are willing to sacrifice an entire nation and people to the most horrible of fates for their own personal gain.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (7 Feb 2008)

as a side issue
the people who will be going on the next rotation are training already for it I think (could be wrong here)
so it seems to me (and I so could be wrong here please correct me) that the sooner they know what type of mission they will be on the better suited their specific training will be

this is just something I was thinking about yesterday, and I dont have any supporting evidence and could be way off base.


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2008)

I find it to be a bit of a flaw in the system that Canadians have chosen the Conservatives to lead the country and yet such a huge decision, the biggest since the Conservatives have come into power for sure, comes down to the Liberals. Maybe if they let all the MP's vote however they wanted it might be a better display of a democracy, or even just the liberals, since I think they're the only party really split up about the decision. I'd suggest a referendum but I don't think enough Canadians know enough on the situation to make an educated decision.

But I don't know, just seems to me that what's going to be debated about is whether or not it's a good time to defeat the Conservatives or whether they should wait, etc. I don't think the actual issue at hand is going to all that relevant.


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I find it to be a bit of a flaw in the system that Canadians have chosen the Conservatives to lead the country and yet such a huge decision, the biggest since the Conservatives have come into power for sure, comes down to the Liberals. Maybe if they let all the MP's vote however they wanted it might be a better display of a democracy, or even just the liberals, since I think they're the only party really split up about the decision. I'd suggest a referendum but I don't think enough Canadians know enough on the situation to make an educated decision.
> 
> But I don't know, just seems to me that what's going to be debated about is whether or not it's a good time to defeat the Conservatives or whether they should wait, etc. I don't think the actual issue at hand is going to all that relevant.


how does this come down to the liberals, its not the liberals who said the matter of afghanistan will be a confidence vote.. ? again.. all parties are playing politics here, and all are using this for their own gain. maybe if all party leaders should  allow a free vote, without consequence but we all know what happened to bill casey


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Feb 2008)

The government will not fall over Afghanistan. The vote on the mission is scheduled for after the vote on the budget, and the crime bill. Dion has already stated he won't endorse the budget... so we're going to the polls. Dion is going to defeat the budget so that he's not embarrassed in the house when his members split on the Afghanistan issue.


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The government will not fall over Afghanistan. The vote on the mission is scheduled for after the vote on the budget, and the crime bill. Dion has already stated he won't endorse the budget... so we're going to the polls. Dion is going to defeat the budget so that he's not embarrassed in the house when his members split on the Afghanistan issue.


or harper doesnt want to go to the polls on the Afghanistan issue... thats why he scheduled the budget before.... its all a ploy to see who can get the most votes


----------



## Donut (7 Feb 2008)

As well, with the Liberals holding the crime bill up in the Senate, which is now also a confidence issue, if that gets rejected before the budget it gives the Conservatives the ability to campaign on a "tough on crime" plank, too, which will play well in Toronto and other urban centers which have seen recent high violent crime rates.

Their challenge is to orchestrate these converging issues to best effect for the current government, and try not to go to the NATO Leaders Summit in Bucharest with their hands tied by an upcoming election or a rejected Manley report.

Interesting times.


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

i am such a political junkie! it will be such an interesting time indeed, if an election is called.. probably another minority tho.. not necessarily a bad thing


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> i am such a political junkie! it will be such an interesting time indeed, if an election is called.. probably another minority tho.. not necessarily a bad thing


I agree, however this will only be the case if the opposition, regardless of the party, does what they're supposed to do. That is, they don't take a contrary view on everything the government proposes solely because they're on the other side of the house. The current opposition parties are all check and no balance, where balance is what is required in a minority government situation.


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

and it was different when the liberal were in power.. hardly.. 

the house of commons is not the most civil place, and frankly it is the job of the opposition to oppose the government.. if the libs form the next govt, and it is a minority i cant see the tories behaving any differently than the liberals are now


----------



## Blindspot (8 Feb 2008)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> ... it gives the Conservatives the ability to campaign on a "tough on crime" plank, too, which will play well in Toronto



No it won't. I can't recall one blue ward in Toronto elected in the last 3 elections, Federal and Provincial.


----------



## Donut (8 Feb 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> No it won't. I can't recall one blue ward in Toronto elected in the last 3 elections, Federal and Provincial.



Sorry, I'm from BC.  Toronto is defined as everything south of a line drawn from Orillia to Belleville   ;D (just as Vancouver is everything West of Hope to most Canadians)

Much of which is already blue on this map, too:  http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/elections/elections2006

If those in the center of the universe Toronto still think the Liberals are a viable alternative, more power to them, but from my perspective Dion is not a viable candidate for PM, nor is Jack Layton.


----------



## Blindspot (8 Feb 2008)

Let me put the current Toronto (not GTA) in general political perspective for you. Dion and Layton could go out on a sealpup hunting photo op with bloody clubs in hand the day before election and Toronto would still not vote Conservative.


----------



## Donut (8 Feb 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Let me put the current Toronto (not GTA) in general political perspective for you. Dion and Layton could go out on a sealpup hunting photo op with bloody clubs in hand the day before election and Toronto would still not vote Conservative.



Hell, I'd pay to see that, I'd probably vote for one of them!


----------



## bbell (8 Feb 2008)

thats quite sad that that's true. God bless the the gun totin', meat eatin, truck drivin', conserative albertans.


----------



## geo (8 Feb 2008)

There are times when I wish we had an elected body like they have down south.
Two elected houses & a presidency that's elected separately...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is the Red Star _Toronto Star’s_ Jim Travers’ take on the politics:

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/301338


> Afghanistan leaves Dion cornered
> 
> Feb 07, 2008 04:30 AM
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with Travers:

•	Dion is, indeed, dumb as a bag of hammers;

•	If Harper gets to fight an early 2008 election he can/will do so on _leadership_ in tough and dangerous times and Dion will lose, badly; and

•	Harper might, indeed, end up hooking our foreign policy wagon to one, tired, old horse: Afghanistan – that would be a mistake but it may be hard to avoid.


----------



## Mud (8 Feb 2008)

And that from the Star!  I agree completely,  this guy is the best thing to happen to theTories in decades.


----------



## geo (8 Feb 2008)

If it wasn't so close to a new federal election I could only pray that lightning would strike Mr Dion down & open the floor for a new Liberal leader.... anyone....please!


----------



## ballz (8 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> how does this come down to the liberals, its not the liberals who said the matter of afghanistan will be a confidence vote.. ? again.. all parties are playing politics here, and all are using this for their own gain. maybe if all party leaders should  allow a free vote, without consequence but we all know what happened to bill casey



because we know which way the bloc, NDP, and conservatives will vote... it only depends on what the liberals decide right now, its all in their hands.

hopefully the budget fails and an election will get the conservatives a majority gov't..... wishful thinking?


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> and it was different when the liberal were in power.. hardly..
> 
> the house of commons is not the most civil place, and frankly it is the job of the opposition to oppose the government.. if the libs form the next govt, and it is a minority i cant see the tories behaving any differently than the liberals are now


It was absolutely different when the Liberals were in power. They were a majority and didn't need the acquiescence of the opposition to pass legislation.


----------



## sgf (8 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It was absolutely different when the Liberals were in power. They were a majority and didn't need the acquiescence of the opposition to pass legislation.



again you are right, however that had no bearing on the tory behaviour when they were sitting as opposition.. it was hardly civil then either


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_ is Jeffrey Simpson's take on the matter:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080208.cosimp09/BNStory/Front



> Oh, what a tizzy it is in our little capital of Fantasyland
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



His bit is, I think at the heart of the matter:



> It is also part of his (and many other Liberals') fear of the NDP that causes the Liberals to forget time and again that elections are won and lost in the centre of the political spectrum, not on the extremes.



The real battle here is between the NDP and the Liberals. Both are feeling heat from the Greens. While the majority of Canadians are not Conservative that majority can only be sliced and diced so often before the Tories become the _natural governing party_. The Liberals have, for a half century, plus, seen the NDP as a safety valve for the left wing of the party. That was an acceptable position since, thanks to 1885 and all that, _les rouges_ had an electoral stranglehold on Québec. Now it doesn't work. A Conservative government is a fairly _natural_ outcome when the non-Conservative majority is divided three ways. If the Greens can eat into Liberal and NDP support and if the Conservatives can take bits from both the BQ and the Liberal right wing then Conservative majorities, back-to-back and beyond, are possible – not likely, just possible.

Simpson is right and _waaaaay_ too many Conservative supporters are wrong: majority governments are won by in the political centre. Like it or not (and I know many, many Canadians don't) Ontario is absolutely, unalterably essential – just look at Jean Chrétien’s 1993, 1997 and 2000 general elections – he won majority after majority after majority, despite Reform/Alliance/Conservative strength in the West and BQ strength in Québec because he swept _centrist_ Ontario. All policies and election platforms – including foreign affairs, defence and military issues must pander to Ontario. The Tories need to get 20+ ‘new’ seats in the next general election – almost all of them have to be found in Ontario and Québec, maybe even more that ‘all’ because they might lose a few seats in Atlantic Canada. Ontario = the national political _centre_ and, therefore, the Conservatives must temper their policies and promises to suit Ontario; sorry about that Alberta.

----------

Mods:  

I wonder is this thread and "Therefore ... we should stay~" (here in Military Current Affairs) should not be merged and then merged into Confidence Motion Coming~ (in Canadian Politics).


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2008)

Now where did my Princess Patricia's Albertan Light infantry crest go...


----------



## scoutfinch (9 Feb 2008)

One can only hope that the Liberal party will see the light after they lose the next election, remove Dion and elect Ignatieff as leader.  Then Canada stands the chance of having an effective opposition party.

To be honest, I don't think most Canadians trust Harper sufficiently to give him a majority but no one has enough faith in Dion's abilities to give him power.  I suspect the next election will result in another minority Conservative government until the Liberals have a leader that can galvanize Canadians.  Right or wrong, the majority of Canadians just don't trust (or even like/respect) Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> One can only hope that the Liberal party will see the light after they lose the next election, remove Dion and elect Ignatieff as leader.  Then Canada stands the chance of having an effective opposition party.
> 
> To be honest, I don't think most Canadians trust Harper sufficiently to give him a majority but no one has enough faith in Dion's abilities to give him power.  I suspect the next election will result in another minority Conservative government until the Liberals have a leader that can galvanize Canadians.  Right or wrong, the majority of Canadians just don't trust (or even like/respect) Harper.



I think you're nearly on target, scoutfinch, but I think Canadians:

1. Respect Harper, but

2. Mistrust him, and his party cohorts; and

3. Dislike him, probably quite intensely.

I think he can work around the dislike factor - Canadians disliked Mulroney and he won back-to-back majorities - but I think mistrust is his _Achilles' heel_.

The mistrust is:

1. Partially _institutional_ and goes all the way back to R.B. Bennet;

2. Partially based on excellent propaganda by the Liberals and the anti-Conservative (not necessarily pro-Liberal) mainstream media; and

3. Partially a self-inflicted wound by Harper, himself, and his _communications_ staff.


----------



## Cheshire (9 Feb 2008)

Mr. Campbell,

Mistrust, or hate......I will never....EVER trust another French speaking liberal to run the country. 

Mulroney's kick-backs and lack of decision making on his part, pale in comparison to the millions flushed down the loo from sponsorship scandals, Jane Stewart's HRDC boondoggle and canceled helicopter penalties under the Liberal watch....or lack thereof. 

Rant over.


----------



## sgf (9 Feb 2008)

mulroney taking over a million dollars from the taxpapers of this country, when he knew that he was not entitled to the money is sort of a deal breaker for me there the tories are concerned. politicans are politicans, but he was a Prime Minister, and I hold him to a higher standard.


----------



## scoutfinch (9 Feb 2008)

Mr. Campbell:

Perhaps I am wrongly rendering respect and trust interchangeable to a certain extent; however, I think certain incidents of pettiness demonstrated by Harper over the past 2 years are going to come back to haunt him in regards to respect levels.  I think people respect his 'managerial' skills but I don't think people respect him as an inspiring leader.  But when the alternative is Dion....???

Moreover, I don't think Canadians have a palate for blatant partisanship or interference in rule of law/public administration.  (We managed to maintain a wilfull blindness under past governments  ).  I suspect that handling of the Chalk River incident (and other similar events where there politics have trumped proper process) -- while not a matter to defeat a government -- will leave Canadians with a sufficiently bad taste in their mouths that it will cause them to think twice before casting their vote.  Also, the electorate is getting tired of hearing 'it wasn't us, it was them'.  

Anecdotally, a great number of former Progressive Conservatives are having difficulty with what was described to be as 'the King and his new court'.  By many, Harper and his cohorts are seen as nothing more than Reformers that overthrew Manning and his cohort.


----------



## stegner (9 Feb 2008)

The knives will be out in the Conservative Party if Harper gets another minority-his personality would perhaps be more tolerated if he had a majority, but he does not, and in the process he has made a lot of enemies within his own party.  Harper is under more pressure than Dion.  Dion is expected to lose this election and will be allowed another chance to win.  Harper is supposed to win big.  If he does not do well this election, anything short of a majority, he will not get another chance.  Thus, I am already listing possible successors to Harper: John Baird, Maxime Bernier,  Peter Mackay and even Rona Ambrose.  Perhaps, Dion will outlast Harper-never underestimate the enemy.


----------



## ballz (9 Feb 2008)

I like harper as a leader of our country if only for his policies on sovereignty and military mite. He may have the personality of a plastic doll, but he sure is putting sovereignty down as a priority. To me, it's too bad provinces hold regionalism above nationalism, as that seems to be the trend, and a growing one at that. I think it holds our country back leaps and bounds from where we should be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2008)

My choice for Harper's replacement is: Jim Prentice.


----------



## McG (10 Feb 2008)

> Is Harper trying to force a spring election?
> Updated Sat. Feb. 9 2008 8:23 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080209/tories_preelxn_080209/20080209?hub=Canada


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> mulroney taking over a million dollars from the taxpapers of this country, when he knew that he was not entitled to the money is sort of a deal breaker for me there the tories are concerned. politicans are politicans, but he was a Prime Minister, and I hold him to a higher standard.


How is that any worse than "Shawinigate" and the golf course deal? By your logic, you shouldn't vote Liberal either.


----------



## stegner (10 Feb 2008)

Shawinigate (the golf course deal):   Chretien lobbied a federal government agency to fund a project in his riding. He happened to own property next to the project so which gave the appearance of a scandal.  He did not get any money directly from government funds-he may have benefited indirectly.   

Airbus: Mulroney sues the Federal government and the RCMP for 50 million dollars claiming they have defamed him.  Says he barely knows Schreiber.  Forgets to tell everyone that he has gotten 225,000 or 300,000 from Schreiber. Government settles suit for 2.1 million which goes to Mr. Mulroney.  This also gives the appearance of scandal.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (10 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Shawinigate (the golf course deal):   Chretien lobbied a federal government agency to fund a project in his riding. He happened to own property next to the project so which gave the appearance of a scandal.  He did not get any money directly from government funds-he may have benefited indirectly.
> 
> Airbus: Mulroney sues the Federal government and the RCMP for 50 million dollars claiming they have defamed him.  Says he barely knows Schreiber.  Forgets to tell everyone that he has gotten 225,000 or 300,000 from Schreiber. Government settles suit for 2.1 million which goes to Mr. Mulroney.  This also gives the appearance of scandal.



You fail to mention that Mulroney donated the 2.1 million to charity. You also fail to mention that it was not taxpayers money that Mulroney got from Schreiber, it was a business deal, after Mulroney left politics. How about the 40 million the Liberals still owe the taxpayers for adscam, money they took from us, the taxpayer? The appearance of scandal is a witchhunt by the opposition, why did Pablo ask unrelated questions of a former PM, fed to him by a CBC reporter? Why did Szabo, the Liberal chair, allow the questions, actually cutting Mulroney off when he objected to the line of questioning? Why did Thibault and Szabo meet with Schreiber's lawyer? Why did Thibault visit Schreiber in jail way before this became news? Why was Thibault seen at a restaurant with Schreiber during Christmas break pouring over documents? This all gives the appearance of scandal as far as I'm concerned, but you don't hear about it in the media.


----------



## TCBF (10 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The knives will be out in the Conservative Party if Harper gets another minority-his personality would perhaps be more tolerated if he had a majority, but he does not, and in the process he has made a lot of enemies within his own party.  Harper is under more pressure than Dion.  Dion is expected to lose this election and will be allowed another chance to win.  Harper is supposed to win big.  If he does not do well this election, anything short of a majority, he will not get another chance.  Thus, I am already listing possible successors to Harper: John Baird, Maxime Bernier,  Peter Mackay and even Rona Ambrose.  Perhaps, Dion will outlast Harper-never underestimate the enemy.



- In politics, a 'C' is a 'P'.  A minority under difficult circumstances will not necessarily lead to a change in leadership any more than three consecutive majorities will garuntee a knife-free back.  Remember: The Conservatives not only have to fight the opposition, but the left-leaning public service, supreme court and quasi-communist provincial governments.  For example, the civil situation in Kandahar is being exacerbated by CIDAs incompetence (border-line sabotage, actually, considering we are at war).  Who do you think is behind that?


----------



## sgf (10 Feb 2008)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> You fail to mention that Mulroney donated the 2.1 million to charity. You also fail to mention that it was not taxpayers money that Mulroney got from Schreiber, it was a business deal, after Mulroney left politics. How about the 40 million the Liberals still owe the taxpayers for adscam, money they took from us, the taxpayer? The appearance of scandal is a witchhunt by the opposition, why did Pablo ask unrelated questions of a former PM, fed to him by a CBC reporter? Why did Szabo, the Liberal chair, allow the questions, actually cutting Mulroney off when he objected to the line of questioning? Why did Thibault and Szabo meet with Schreiber's lawyer? Why did Thibault visit Schreiber in jail way before this became news? Why was Thibault seen at a restaurant with Schreiber during Christmas break pouring over documents? This all gives the appearance of scandal as far as I'm concerned, but you don't hear about it in the media.


it was tax papers money that mulroney got from the govt  and it was obtained under false pretences. it doesnt matter one whit that he donated it to charity. 
a business deal? right.. lets not forget that mulroney was a prime minister of this country and for him to be accepting envelopes full of cash by a person with the reputation that schrieber has is not acceptable for a man in his position. 
you are complete right about abscam, and the liberals paid a heavy price for that.  but this discussion is on mulroney and his scandal.. seems there are scandals enough to go around to all the political parties, including the tories. 
interesting harper doesnt seem to think that mulroney is the party's elder statesman these day.. i wonder if lyin brian will be making any speeches for the tories in the next election.. somehow i think not.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ..........you are complete right about abscam, and the liberals paid a heavy price for that.  but this discussion is on mulroney and his scandal.. seems there are scandals enough to go around to all the political parties, including the tories.
> interesting harper doesnt seem to think that mulroney is the party's elder statesman these day.. i wonder if lyin brian will be making any speeches for the tories in the next election.. somehow i think not.



WRONG!  This topic is not about mulroney and his scandal; it is about the Manley Report and its affects on the political situation in the country.  The diversion to other aspects must remain balanced, and that means the Liberals are just as fair game as Harper and Lyin Brian.


----------



## armyvern (10 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> i wonder if lyin brian will be making any speeches for the tories in the next election.. somehow i think not.



The tories won't need him too ...

not while it's Stephane Dion making speaches for the Lieberals.


----------



## sgf (10 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> The tories won't need him too ...
> 
> not while it's Stephane Dion making speaches for the Lieberals.



i agree about dion, he will have some issues getting his message across... i do have to wonder tho why the polls arent any higher for the tories


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> One can only hope that the Liberal party will see the light after they lose the next election, remove Dion and elect Ignatieff as leader.  Then Canada stands the chance of having an effective opposition party.
> 
> To be honest, I don't think most Canadians trust Harper sufficiently to give him a majority but no one has enough faith in Dion's abilities to give him power.  I suspect the next election will result in another minority Conservative government until the Liberals have a leader that can galvanize Canadians.  Right or wrong, the majority of Canadians just don't trust (or even like/respect) Harper.



Too bad for Iggy many Liberals seem to believe young(ish) Justin Trudeau is that man. Having sat through one of his speeches, I don't understand what the attraction is (the speech was full of airy platitudes and had no challenging questions for the audience, no well thought out positions to think about, and was delivered with the smug assurance from the presenter that he was above doing all that for an audience. What a winning combination...... :rage:.). Add Trudeau's CV to the mix and Mr Dion comes across as a political giant in comparison.

Prediction: there will be oceans of ink and streams of rhetorical blood spilled in the next election, as each party predicts a Canadian _Götterdämmerung_ and universal child care unless THEY are elected. When the smoke clears we will have a Conservative minority government, any Ontario CPC seats will have been won through vote splitting by the Left. Prime Minister Harper, by far the most skilled tactician in the house, will be able to play pinball with the other three (or maybe four) parties for two more years when we go through the same sad exercise again in 2010.

No offense against Prime Minister Harper, but what we need as a nation is not a _tactician_, but a _strategist_ as the head of Government.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (11 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> it was tax papers money that mulroney got from the govt  and it was obtained under false pretences. it doesnt matter one whit that he donated it to charity.
> a business deal? right.. lets not forget that mulroney was a prime minister of this country and for him to be accepting envelopes full of cash by a person with the reputation that schrieber has is not acceptable for a man in his position.
> you are complete right about abscam, and the liberals paid a heavy price for that.  but this discussion is on mulroney and his scandal.. seems there are scandals enough to go around to all the political parties, including the tories.
> interesting harper doesnt seem to think that mulroney is the party's elder statesman these day.. i wonder if lyin brian will be making any speeches for the tories in the next election.. somehow i think not.



Why did the Liberals pay that money out, they wrote a slanderous statement about Mulroney, that is still slanderous today, even with all this "new" (15 year old) information. 

Mulroney accepted no money while he was PM, this is a witch hunt, and if we are going to have witch hunts, lets look at Chretien and golf courses, also Martin and his cocaine carrying steamship lines, let's get the dirt on all parties. 

The Liberals paid a heavy price for adscam? Like the Conservatives being reduced to 2 seats by their own members? I think not. They still have members from Quebec, like Dion, who were in the Cabinet at the time, and could have been the winners of the brown bag lotto. Why is Chretien taking Gomery to court for blaming him for adscam? Where is that missing 40 million taxpayers dollars? Only Liberal know!

Harper ran AGAINST the PC party, Mulroney has never been a part (elder statesman) of the Conservative party we have now, no matter how hard you try to frame it that way. No mud will stick on PM Harper. It sure is sticking to Pablo, Thibault, Szabo, and the ethics committee. Asking questions from the CBC, seems a little unethical to me. The CBC receives over $1 billion from taxpayers, seems the Liberals are still up to their old steal from taxpayers tricks, even when they aren't in power. 

Getting back to the Manley report, why can't the Liberals understand that guns without bullets are more dangerous than guns with them? Maybe they should BAN the Taliban? But, when your defence critic marches with the Hezbollah, I guess it's easy to understand why they don't. How can they even propose that development can happen without combat troops? Their position last week makes no sense, we will see what their position is this week.


----------



## sgf (11 Feb 2008)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> Why did the Liberals pay that money out, they wrote a slanderous statement about Mulroney, that is still slanderous today, even with all this "new" (15 year old) information.
> 
> Mulroney accepted no money while he was PM, this is a witch hunt, and if we are going to have witch hunts, lets look at Chretien and golf courses, also Martin and his cocaine carrying steamship lines, let's get the dirt on all parties.
> 
> ...


Harper indeed ran against the PC party and when he realized that he had no chance of winning any election, he quickly changed his tune. His party, embraced Mulroney and Harper himself consulted him often. This is a quote from the National Post


> There's a strange symmetry to watching the world's biggest jetliner, the Airbus 380, make its first touchdown Monday in Montreal just as turbulence from an Airbus scandal puts a former prime minister's reputation on course for a crash landing.
> 
> Brian Mulroney was declared a parliamentary pariah last week by a Conservative government that had hailed him as its mentor and elder statesman.



http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Story.html?id=93773
now you can drag all the red herrings you care too, into this debate but at the end of the day Brian Mulroney is what he is.. a PM who took cash in envelopes, not once, but three times. You said the liberals are the only ones to know where the adscam money is, well let me suggest Mulroney is the only one that knows where this cash he received is.. (a good guess would be a Swiss bank account). He compounded this by sueing the Liberal govt and taking money he was not entitled too..


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> .............now you can drag all the red herrings you care too, into this debate but at the end of the day Brian Mulroney is what he is.. a PM who took cash in envelopes, not once, but three times. You said the liberals are the only ones to know where the adscam money is, well let me suggest Mulroney is the only one that knows where this cash he received is.. (a good guess would be a Swiss bank account). He compounded this by sueing the Liberal govt and taking money he was not entitled too..



A Liberal government lead by a crooked lawyer who had his fortunes made and covered up by a golf course and several other deals; but enough of that - the topic is still not about Mulroney, but about the Manley Report and its affect on current politics.  

Let's stay on topic, or it will be locked and cleaned up so that we do.


----------



## stegner (11 Feb 2008)

Will the Harper government fall?

If so, do you think it will fall on:

A) Afghanistan
B) Crime Bill
C) Budget

I vote c)


----------



## TCBF (12 Feb 2008)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> ...Jane Stewart's HRDC boondoggle ...
> Rant over.



- Hey, we forgot all about her!  She was described as having the effect of a walking, talking, six foot tall blonde ATM machine stuck on send ( Pity she couldn't have boondogled as MND - those were lean years for us).

- Frankly, I think she may have taken the hit for the team.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2008)

If you're going to swear off political parties, it helps to remember that Mulroney is a single man and that the number of people involved in Adscam who were Liberal party members is certainly greater than 1.  I assume you will be voting NDP or Green or for an independent or fringe candidate.

The real scandal is that, based on recent historical evidence, Canadian voters will tolerate much worse from the Liberal party than from the Conservative party.  The Liberal party has yet to be sent packing in the way the Conservatives were, despite the breaches of trust, number of people involved, and amounts of money all being much larger.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (13 Feb 2008)

The crime bill passeed this afternoon and it seems both parties are coming together on the afghanistan issue so I can't see Dion triggering an election over the budget, not after the compromises both parties made on the afghan issue. The budget will be a watered down version of the one in the throne speach, besides there isn't that much money left to spend and parliment will go on as usual.


----------



## sgf (13 Feb 2008)

as much as i would love to see Harper defeated, I also feel that if there was an election this spring, it would end up with just another minority govt. Dion doesnt want an election neither does Harper, because if he can only get another minority, his job could be on the line. If Dion loses, his job could be on the line. I am glad to see compromise being reached, so why not muddle along for a bit. In the last few weeks, all political parties have been playing politics. lets hope they get down to the business of running the country.


----------



## TCBF (13 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ... as much as i would love to see Harper defeated, ...



- And replaced by whom?


----------



## sgf (13 Feb 2008)

well seeing as i am a Liberal,  of course I would like to see them form the government...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> well seeing as i am a Liberal,  of course I would like to see them form the government...



Given their performance in the House over the last two years, I will only offer the caution: "_*be careful what you wish for.*_"


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

how a party perform in opposition is entirely different when they form the government.  i am sure that combined with their many years actually forming the govt, plus this short term in oppositon will give the libs more than enough experience in running the country...


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

Dion does not want to campaign over Afghanistan.
The house will not fall over the Cdn participation in Afghanistan... Accordingly, Mr Dion has watered down his party's stand accordingly - he figures he can always modify same said stand if and when he gets into the driver's seat.

But - prediction here - unless NDO or BQ are willing to support Conservatives on Budget vote, the gov't will fall and we will be going to the polls.  It is said in MsM that Without having seen the budget, Dion has already told his troops to vote it down...... BRILLIANT!


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

BTW, anyone watch MARKETPLACE last night.  They did a investigation on how merchants handled the 1% GST/HST reduction......
Easy - they just increased their revenues / profits by same said 1%................ PRICELESS!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2008)

Well, *maybe* stand-down rather than stand-by.

See my comments/articles in Military Current Affairs. It appears that M. Dion is exercising leadership again.


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

I am certain he figures it would be easier to campaign on the Budget VS Afghanistan.

I figure that since Afghanistan is a divisive issue in his own party, it's not a good subject to take a stand on... else his party will disintegrate before the campaign even starts.

Oh well.... wait and see... or NOT!


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

i really doubt that harper wants to campaign on Afghanistan either


----------



## stegner (14 Feb 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080214/confidence_matters_080214/20080214?hub=TopStories

It looks I voted correctly in the poll.  But time will tell if we will have an election over the budget.   The last Conservative Prime Minister who lost on a confidence vote on the budget did not fare well.  Sad because Joe Clark was a man of character and actually an Albertan.  He was not the _faux _Albertan that Harper is.


----------



## TCBF (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ... i am sure that combined with their many years actually forming the govt...



- HRDC boondoggle, ADSCAM, Gun Registry, Shawinigate, Billions lost on the cancelled EH-101...

Think they've learned?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> how a party perform in opposition is entirely different when they form the government.  i am sure that combined with their many years actually forming the govt, plus this short term in oppositon will give the libs more than enough experience in running the country...



Oi.  ADSCAM?  Indecision?  Yikes, I'm moving to Florida! ;D


----------



## armyvern (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> i really doubt that harper wants to campaign on afghanisan either



sgf

As a retired Adm Clerk, especially if of the rank you indicate in your profile -- I am quite sure that you are familiar with the English language requirement for proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization. In the case of your above post, even spellcheck would have picked up "afghanistan".

As per this site's guidelines -- start doing it.

Fair warning

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..


----------



## armyvern (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..



As this one probably was too.

Nice try. Inadvertant typos are common and will earn you no grief. Blatant refusal to use "Caps" certainly will though; especially after fair warning was given.

Welcome to the warning system.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> my apologies,it was a simple typing mistake.. there was also one in another post that i just responded too..



I don't think so:

"My apologies.  It was a simple typing mistake....There was also one in another post that I just responded too.."

Seems you are not what you seem.  Reviewing all of your posts, it is impossible to believe that you were a WO in the CF who happened to also be an Administrative Clerk.  You typing is atrocious.  You use of capitals suck.  Your spelling and grammar are not on par with what a WO Admin Clerk would be expected to produce.  

I would say you are a fraud.  A High School student, who has very little knowledge of politics in the long run.


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - HRDC boondoggle, ADSCAM, Gun Registry, Shawinigate, Billions lost on the cancelled EH-101...
> 
> Think they've learned?


Lets hope the govt has learned from the broken promises Harper made: income tax trust, appointing non elected people to the Senate and the Atlantic Accord. (just to mention a few).


----------



## JesseWZ (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> appointing non elected people to the Senate


.... 
The senate is made up of _appointed_ people. Of course they aren't elected.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> appointing non elected people to the Senate



As oposed to what ?

The entire senate is made up of political apointees. Last time i checked, its the senate and the oposition parties that have given Harper nothing but trouble and have resisted senate reform.


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ... appointing non elected people to the Senate ...


Yet, is he not the only PM to have appointed any elected people to the Senate?  Sounds like progress (though slow progress) to me.


----------



## TCBF (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Lets hope the govt has learned from the broken promises Harper made: income tax trust, appointing non elected people to the Senate and the Atlantic Accord. (just to mention a few).



- Income trust: could go either way.
- Non elected people to the senate: well, until the provinces start holding elections for their senators - like Alberta did once - he has no choice.
- Atlantic accord: wasn't his promise to keep.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2008)

I lost the link, but there was some speculation that the Bloc might be on board to possibly support the next budget. A certain sweetening of the pot for Quebec interests would do the trick.

Although from a moral standpoint (among others) this sucks, we must keep in mind that Prime Minister Harper is by far the best _tactician_ in the House. Prolonging the agony of the Liberals will only decrease their effectiveness as the opposition, drain off funds (which their fund raising isn't making up), exacerbate splits between factions inside the caucus, as well as create potential splits between the grassroots riding associations and the Party as members get disgruntled by lack of results or Imperial meddling from the centre like Mr Dion appointing candidates who are not the choice of the riding membership. For the Liberal party, they may have to trigger an election now while they are still somewhat functional and before their supporters move towards the NDP or Greens. The alternative calculation might be to grit their teeth and try to use the time to shake out and reorganize, although with the knives out Mr Dion might not like his chances.

For the NDP, they have the potential to siphon off Liberal votes and the potential to become the opposition in a minority house. Letting the Liberals flounder makes them look better, although they also have to look out for a potential surge in support from the Greens. This scenario works better the longer the Liberals are thrashing on the floor, but you can never count out sheer greed; Mr Layton might decide it would be better to make a move into official opposition status now rather than let the Liberals get a breather and reorganize, or let the Greens catch up.

For the Bloc, they are slowly loosing relevance in their only province (and by their very nature have no way to expand), so hanging on to their current roster of seats and influence in the house might well be worth while. They only have to sit quietly until October 2009, plenty of time for events to change and offer the prospect of a turn around. 

The Prime Minister's confidence motions are designed for more than two purposes, in each case there is the win/win component of the measure itself, while at the same time it is playing pinball with the opposition, alternatively strengthening and weakening the opposition parties and keeping them off balance.


----------



## sgf (15 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Yet, is he not the only PM to have appointed any elected people to the Senate?  Sounds like progress (though slow progress) to me.


No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ....... (S)He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. ........



OK.  That covers almost every politician in Canadian Politics.  Dalton McGuinty has to have been the worse of the lot recently.

The thing is, which one has managed to keep the most promises that have benefited the nation.


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.



I find it hard to fathom that the Libs keep promising this & that to look after YOU each and every election, thereby earning your vote. Then, they'd go about blowing money that it takes to hold those promises to look after YOU on Via, Adscam, Gun Registrys, Flags, Income Trust, Quebec Sponsorship, Shawinigate, 10 billion to "Government" "foundations" outside of Attorney General auditing authority which are headed by Liberal appointees, 100 million in untendered contracts to Bombardier, Paul Martin's "Cordex" (invested into by Saddam),  Helicopter cancellations costing you 5 billion, 1 billion dollar boondoggles at HRDC, that 500 million "secret" Unity fund ...

(It's a very long list -- I could go on, but it seems that even this site has a size limit to posts)

And, THEN people like you -- still go out and vote for them, forgiving and forgetting.   :


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

Vern,

So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?   Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.   They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.   Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.   You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.   But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.          

Stegner


----------



## geo (15 Feb 2008)

Let's face it, this minority gov't has lasted longer than anyone would have expected.

Then again, the various leaders that are lined up against Mr Harper couldn't fart together and blow they way out of a wet paper bag.

Pathetic!


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?   Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.   They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.   Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.   You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.   But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.
> 
> Stegner



Stenger,

Get a grip on reality buddy. I didn't say anywhere that the Tories were scandal free. My post was made directly to "sgf" and her seeming ability to ignore every thing the Liberal party has ever NOT DONE for her. It was a post made to point out to her what the LIBERALS had done scandalously.

My post was about the Liberals -- to a Liberal with big old blinders on her head.  As apparently you had on when you read my post in relation to what I was responding to.  :

Now, go ahead and do a search ... and find me one place, just one single post, where I've said the Tories were angels, had no scandals, or anything of the sort.

Why TF would I post about Tory scandals in a post I was making *about Liberal scandals*?? 

By the way -- did you notice that others have posted that this is applicable to all politicians and that I didn't pull up their posts to quote and say "well NO this is NOT applicable to the Tories!!" I haven't forgotten a thing. 

You'll find threads on this site where I have clearly stated that I do NOT VOTE along a party line simply because I am "for" or "against" another party. 

Quite unlike sgf here, I actually consider the merits (and remember the governship - and consider it's scandals, pros/cons etc) and demerits of the candidates who are on my ballot. I make an INFORMED choice with my vote rather than simply voting Red for Liberal/Blue for Tory _'just because_'. 

It may be either/or/neither that gets my vote ... exactly BECAUSE I don't just "forget and vote red for Liberal anyway." 

Yes some of those scandals were 10 years old!!! That is precisely why I made the comment at the end of that post which said:



> And people like YOU still go out and vote FOR them.



Seems to me --- that's exactly why the Liberals ended up with their back-to-backs then ... because of the blindness and forgetfulnees of their voting public and tit's ability to write-off/IGNORE how much that government was taking for itself --- while screwing them. Quite ironic.

sgf should try it sometime.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.


You mean breaking it in this fashion: Harper appoints Albertan senator-in-waiting. Mr Harper has appointed exactly two senators. One from Alberta (Bert Brown - elected) and one from Quebec (Michel Fortier). The terms of Mr Fortier's appointment are that he is expected to resign his seat in the next general election and run for a seat in the House of Commons. Doesn't look like a whole lot of promise breaking going on.

Considering Alberta is the only province to hold senatorial elections, and considering the other provinces have steadfastly refused to hold similar elections, it's going to be pretty hard to not to appoint unelected members. Or are you suggesting that under the current conditions only persons from Alberta should be appointed to the senate?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?   Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.   They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.   Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.   You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.   But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.
> 
> Stegner



Scandal has been a feature of Canadian politics since well before 1867. What has changed, since the 1970s, is that we used to be scandalized, at least a little bit. In the ‘70s we learned to accept lies and scandal as the price we had to pay if we wanted (as we most certainly did) to slavishly emulate our American neighbours.

They, the political _”pros”_ in Ottawa – schooled by their friends in Washington – told us not to worry: we had out very own, _Kennedyesque_ leader, just the like the Americans; we were “cool,” too, because our leader was bedding Hollywood celebrities, just like the Americans we idolized; we were “with it,” far removed from the old, white, mostly WASP men who had governed from the grey background for so long. So the ‘price’ was more than just a whiff of corruption and incidents of incompetence; so the price was a stark repudiation of decades of sound, solid, prudent policy in return for a dilettante’s flirtations with the communist dictator flavour of the month, so what? We had our very own little, frozen, imitation _Camelot_.

Scandals are, indeed, part of the price of partisan politics; politics is a highly human enterprise and humans, as we all ought to understand, are very, very imperfect – that’s why socialism is, always and everywhere and without exception, a stupid idea. “From each according to ability and to each according to his needs”: *might* be wonderful (but I doubt it) and it might even be achievable when/IF humans are perfect; we aren’t, so socialism = pushing on a rope – an exercise in futility that keeps the terminally stupid busy.

The fact that some level of scandal is inevitable does not mean we have to just “lie back think of England.” We, citizens, can and should keep our political leaders’ feet to the ethical fires and demand that they keep cleaning house. The House of Commons in Ottawa is, as it always has been, a sort of _Augean stables_ and rivers of effort will be required to get it fairly clean and keep it that way; the fact that it is a _Herculean_ labour ought not to keep us from it.

I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like _Shawinigate_ and _l’affair Beaudoin_ (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to *require* our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like _Shawinigate_ and _l’affair Beaudoin_ (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to *require* our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.



Not to mention the ensuing RCMP witch hunt, with the PMO's blessing, on Mr. Beaudoin that horribly tarnished his reputation. It seems Mr Chretein used the RCMP for PERSONAL reasons. But the Liberals are far better than the Conservatives. :


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

> I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like Shawinigate and l’affair Beaudoin (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to require our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.



Exactly!  

There used to be a really good RCMP investigation unit that looked at political scandal, but it was doing its job a little too well, and was decommissioned sometime in the 1990's.   For more details you can read this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Last-Guardians-Crisis-RCMP-Canada/dp/0771069065

I think there should be a special federal law enforcement agency established that reports directly to Parliament, as a whole, or the Governor General, as Commander-in-Chief, that investigates these political scandals to ensure that politicians cannot in anyway influence investigations as they have with the RCMP, as noted by 2CDO and by the book I have provided a link for.   




> Quite unlike sgf here, I actually consider the merits (and remember the *governship *- and consider it's scandals, pros/cons etc) and demerits of the candidates who are on my ballot. I make an INFORMED choice with my vote rather than simply voting Red for Liberal/Blue for Tory 'just because'.


  

Sgf did not claim that the Liberals were scandal free either.  I am sure sgf has considered the pros/cons of the Liberal party as well as the other parties. The truth is on the political spectrum both the Conservatives and the Liberals are centrist parties.  Both parties have really big tents.   Heck, Martin was just as much of a fiscal hawk when he was finance minister as Flaherty is now-maybe even more so.


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike,

The Alberta senate elections are not in any way shape or form the resemblance of democracy.  The only candidates are from the PC's with even the "independents" being conservatives.  Lots of people vote for their MLA and not their senator in these events.  None of the opposition parties contest them-so these events largely resemble the voting in a communist country.  The last election was significantly before the date of the appointment too.  Also these elections are a violation of the_ Constitution Act, 1867_.  I would love to vote for my senator in Alberta-but it should be the feds not the province running the elections-as senators are federal employees.

Stegner


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sgf did not claim that the Liberals were scandal free either.  I am sure sgf has considered the pros/cons of the Liberal party as well as the other parties. The truth is on the political spectrum both the Conservatives and the Liberals are centrist parties.  Both parties have really big tents.   Heck, Martin was just as much of a fiscal hawk when he was finance minister as Flaherty is now-maybe even more so.



One more time ... I say again ... one more time ... over. Read her posts before you start flying your silly little accusations at me. Party colours ... colours that blind. I believe I was pointing out the blinders which she wears when SHE profess' to write off Liberal scandal as meaningless yet not do so with Tory scandal.

She has claimed that the Tories are scandal ridden and break all their promises .. which causes her to want to see them gone ... and processing votes based upon this:



			
				sgf said:
			
		

> well seeing as i am a Liberal,  of course I would like to see them form the government...



Are you getting it yet? She's a Liberal. She votes Liberal ... regardless of any scandal etc that occurs with them YET she uses that very "scandal" ideal to write off voting for the Tories. That's pretty unbiased eh?

No thanks. I'd rather belong to NO party, vote along NO party lines, and make an INFORMED choice based upon the actions/deeds & doings of the candidate on my ballot form -- regardless of party.

And you're making me out to be the biased one who forgets? Can I please have some of whatever you're smoking?


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

> Are you getting it yet? She's a Liberal. She votes Liberal ... regardless of any scandal etc that occurs with them YET she uses that very "scandal" ideal to write off voting for the Tories. That's pretty unbiased eh?


  My response:  So what.  Canada is a free country.  We are entitled to be politically biased if we so choose


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ModlrMike,
> 
> The Alberta senate elections are not in any way shape or form the resemblance of democracy.  The only candidates are from the PC's with even the "independents" being conservatives.  Lots of people vote for their MLA and not their senator in these events.  None of the opposition parties contest them-so these events largely resemble the voting in a communist country.  The last election was significantly before the date of the appointment too.  Also these elections are a violation of the_ Constitution Act, 1867_.  I would love to vote for my senator in Alberta-but it should be the feds not the province running the elections-as senators are federal employees.
> 
> Stegner



The fairness or unfairness of these elections was not at issue. The issue was Mr Harper's actions WRT senate appointments and the contention that he had broken a promise. The fact remains that Mr Brown was elected and subsequently appointed to the senate by Mr Harper. Something Mr Cretien refused to do, and in fact appointed a different, unelected Albertan. 

As to the fairness on the elections... There is certainly the appearance of unfairness, but if only Conservatives run, then they are the only ones from which to choose. Lay the blame on the other parties for not proposing candidates. From my perspective, the Senate should be apolitical, that is, no party affiliations. And I agree with you, the elections should be federally administered.

BTW, Mr Harper only promised to advise the GG to appoint persons selected through popular vote. He didn't promise not to appoint others. In the end, the GG makes the appointment and has the power to ignore the PM on the issue. I know it's a power that has seldom if ever been exercised, but it exists none the less.


----------



## sgf (15 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You mean breaking it in this fashion: Harper appoints Albertan senator-in-waiting. Mr Harper has appointed exactly two senators. One from Alberta (Bert Brown - elected) and one from Quebec (Michel Fortier). The terms of Mr Fortier's appointment are that he is expected to resign his seat in the next general election and run for a seat in the House of Commons. Doesn't look like a whole lot of promise breaking going on.
> 
> Considering Alberta is the only province to hold senatorial elections, and considering the other provinces have steadfastly refused to hold similar elections, it's going to be pretty hard to not to appoint unelected members. Or are you suggesting that under the current conditions only persons from Alberta should be appointed to the senate?



What bothers me about the Fortier issue, is Harper ran and won on accountability. He said on Radio-Canada that he would not appoint non elected people to the cabinet. He broke this the day his party took power. Now having said that, I dont have a problem with non elected in the Senate, its been done many times in the past. The issue I have is the broken promise. 
I also find it interesting that Fortier did not take the opportunity to run in a by election held in Repentigny  27 Nov.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ........... The issue I have is the broken promise.



Come on now!  You seem to be fixated solely on "Conservatives promises", specifically Prime Minister "Steven Harper's promises".  You don't seem to have any problems with the promises broken by Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, PET, and numerous others of the Liberal persuasion.  Talk about biased.   :


----------



## sgf (15 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Scandal has been a feature of Canadian politics since well before 1867. What has changed, since the 1970s, is that we used to be scandalized, at least a little bit. In the ‘70s we learned to accept lies and scandal as the price we had to pay if we wanted (as we most certainly did) to slavishly emulate our American neighbours.
> 
> They, the political _”pros”_ in Ottawa – schooled by their friends in Washington – told us not to worry: we had out very own, _Kennedyesque_ leader, just the like the Americans; we were “cool,” too, because our leader was bedding Hollywood celebrities, just like the Americans we idolized; we were “with it,” far removed from the old, white, mostly WASP men who had governed from the grey background for so long. So the ‘price’ was more than just a whiff of corruption and incidents of incompetence; so the price was a stark repudiation of decades of sound, solid, prudent policy in return for a dilettante’s flirtations with the communist dictator flavour of the month, so what? We had our very own little, frozen, imitation _Camelot_.
> 
> ...



There have been a lot of real scandals in recent years: tunagate with Mulroney in 1985; the problem with some Mulroney Cabinet Ministers:


> First there was Robert Coates, who stepped down as defence minister in 1985 after it was revealed that he had visited a strip club in West Germany while in that country on official business. Communications Minister Marcel Masse left over an alleged violation of the Canada Elections Act (he was later exonerated), followed closely by John Fraser.
> 
> In 1986, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion Sinclair Stevens stepped down because of conflict of interest allegations related to a $2.6-million loan to a Stevens family company. André Bissonnette, the minister of state for transport, resigned in 1987 while the RCMP investigated his alleged involvement in land speculation. Roch La Salle, who served Mulroney in the public works, and supply and services portfolios, left cabinet the same year after being charged with demanding a bribe and accepting money from businesses looking for government favours. The charges were later dropped.
> 
> ...



then other Lib scandals - the APEC Inquiry,Jane Stewart,Shawinigate and of course the sponsorship scandal. Lets not forget the Airbus Scandal which is still not resolved. 
http://www.cbc.ca:80/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/scandals.html

I do agree that scandals are much more damaging than broken promises. I realize that politicans have been making and breaking promises since the beginning of time. I just am sick of both.. the scandals and the promises not kept (and there have been enough  from both)

I am well aware of the faults of all political parties, well aware that mistakes have been made, and have voted over the years for both Liberals and Consevatives.  For many reasons I am not a fan of Harper (both the man and his method of government), I am also not all that keen on Dion either. I also feel the next government will be another minority govt and dont really see the need to go to the expense of an election right now. I also dont think either Harper nor Dion want an election right now. Having said all that, if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!!


----------



## sgf (15 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Come on now!  You seem to be fixated solely on "Conservatives promises", specifically Prime Minister "Steven Harper's promises".  You don't seem to have any problems with the promises broken by Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, PET, and numerous others of the Liberal persuasion.  Talk about biased.   :


See my new post, that may respond to this


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ......... Having said all that, if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!!



Yeah.  We know.    :-\




Yup!   :


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Exactly!
> 
> Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.  Is such a debate worthy of a new thread?



Only if the person were truely qualified and knowledgable about the Constitution and their role as Her Majesty's representative, instead of the political hacks and media hangers-on we've had since Roland Michner (with the exception of former diplomat Jules Leger).


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ... if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!!



Good for you; that makes you a better citizen than 40_ish_ percent of our fellow Canadians.

I'll vote too - I have no doubt that my choice will not be 100% well reasoned because, regardless of the merit of the candidates, I will not vote for a Liberal.

I used to vote Liberal. I have not since the mid '60s. I disagreed, vehemently, with Mike Pearson's decision to bring Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau into his government. I thought all three were economic illiterates: socialists. I also thought, and still think, that Pierre Trudeau was a pompous, puffed up, petty, provincial, pseudo-intellectual poltroon. I will never vote Liberal until the party wrings the last remnants of Trudeau out of its policy fabric; that will be so hard to do that I expect that even my grandchildren will never vote Liberal.

But, sgf, what matters is that you and I will vote so we will earn the right to complain about the results; those who don't vote don't matter; most are *lesser* Canadians.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... so we will earn the right to complain about the results; those who don't vote don't matter; most are *lesser* Canadians.



That's why I tell my troops that they have a duty to vote. If you're going to risk your life for the country, you should at least have a voice in how it is run.


----------



## stegner (16 Feb 2008)

> Less layers of Gov'mnt crap is what I want, not more.


From my current understanding,  the GG is already a layer of Government, as all executive power resides with that office or with the Queen of Canada.  In a formal sense, the Prime Minister has no power and is not even mentioned in the written Constitution-his source of power is being the Chief advisor to the GG.   Any law passed in Parliament or a  Governor-in-Council decision or appointment (and there are a gazillon those needed to run Canada), requires the GG to sign off on it.  This office, the oldest political office in North America, has been acting as a check and balance on the legislature, long before any American President.   Given all these power provided to the GG and the theoretical possibility that this individual might have to act contrary to the Prime Minister , I was of the mind that this person should have a little more democratic legitimacy to act (thus my proposal to elect this office). Also to quote ModlrMike the GG should be 





> truely qualified and knowledgable about the Constitution and their role as Her Majesty's representative, instead of the political hacks and media hangers-on we've had since Roland Michner (with the exception of former diplomat Jules Leger).


   Let the people decide on this matter.  I would add that Schreyer was a decent GG-he understood the Constitution quite well having served as the Premier of Manitoba and he checked PM Trudeau when he wanted to patriate the Constitution unilaterally and without consent of the provinces back in 1980-81.  Schreyer made clear that any attempt to do that would result in him dismissing him as PM and the holding of an election.    Clarkson was decent too,  she had some scandal but handled some of the intrigue in the 38th Parliament quite well.   Her efforts in supporting the CF as Commander-in-Chief were remarkable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That's why I tell my troops that they have a duty to vote. If you're going to risk your life for the country, you should at least have a voice in how it is run.



Good on you, too, ModlrMike. More leaders should do the same.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good on you, too, ModlrMike. More leaders should do the same.



- I have a different view.  The planet is run by people who show up.  I would rather have a million people casting INFORMED votes than 20,000,000 aimlessly casting their votes and undoing the good being done by those who thought things through.  For those who would later claim the results are flawed, I would reply that politicians are elected to represent ALL of the people in their ridings, not just the ones who vote.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2008)

From CTV Newsnet.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080217/qp_elxn_080217/20080217?hub=TopStories



> *Chretien advises Dion to trigger election: analyst*
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2008)

Stephane Dion has an image problem WRT his leadership. Does he really need to take advice from Jean Chretien?
_
Edit for spelling._


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Feb 2008)

Lets all just hope Harper gets in, or you can kiss your miitary and guns (ya the ones you own) good-bye.

Keep the Libs on the UI line.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2008)

I doubt that there are many journalists with political connections as good as those of the _Globe and Mail_’s Lawrence Martin. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a piece that I find persuasive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080218.wcomartin18/BNStory/Front/?query=


> Why the Grits won't go to the polls
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



I’m away from Ottawa, and away from my (limited) sources of *gossip* and _rumour_, so I am poorly placed to judge the accuracy (or wishful thinking) of the _” stubbornly inevitable quality about this reticent-looking creature _[Dion] [who]_ somehow keeps moving forward.”_ Perhaps Canadians are warming to him, seeing something there that is not visible by reading news reports from 2,200 km away. I am more inclined to think that the newfound caution is based on a combination of polls indicating that Liberals cannot win with Dion but that the Conservatives might make further inroads against him and the political ambitions of e.g. Hall Findlay, Ignatieff, Kennedy and Rae.


----------



## GAP (18 Feb 2008)

I think the problem Dion has is his reflection of strength when he looks in a mirror.....I think Chretian told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Thus, when he looks in the mirror, he sees something no one else sees......I think he will go for it.


----------



## stegner (18 Feb 2008)

> Lets all just hope Harper gets in, or you can kiss your miitary and guns (ya the ones you own) good-bye



Nice try.  Let me guess you are part of Preston Manning's fan club?  



> Stephane Dion has an image problem WRT his leadership. Does he really need to take advise from Jean _Chretien_?



I would take advice from Chretien he is 10x the strategist that Harper is.  How many Canadian Prime Minister's have had 3 consecutive majority governments?  One: Chretien.  Harper often lauded for his political genius has had no majority governments and is 1-1-0-0 against Paul Martin.   I don't see any political genius there, only mediocrity.   Many folks claim Dion is pathetic and weak on here-but I think Harper is pretty pathetic and weak too if he is still running neck and neck and often behind the Liberals in the polls.      




> But this meeting, with only a few dissenters, offered a consensus. Now, if the Liberal leader is to force an early election he will be up against a majority in his party. *Not a wise choice.*



Ditto with Chretien in 1997 and 2000 and he said I'm the leader and your not and went to election.  Worked out all right for him and was a wise choice.  Gee Lawrence I would think you should know all this having written biographies on Chretien.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Nice try.  Let me guess you are part of Preston Manning's fan club?
> 
> I would take advice from Chretien he is 10x the strategist that Harper is.  How many Canadian Prime Minister's have had 3 consecutive majority governments?  One: Chretien.  Harper often lauded for his political genius has had no majority governments and is 1-1-0-0 against Paul Martin.   I don't see any political genius there, only mediocrity.   Many folks claim Dion is pathetic and weak on here-but I think Harper is pretty pathetic and weak too if he is still running neck and neck and often behind the Liberals in the polls.
> 
> ...



You call Harper weak with what he has accomplished with a MINORITY government?  : As for Chretein, the less I say the better.

I'd say Harper isn't further ahead due to the number of people in Canada who vote Liberal no matter what illegal or dishonest actions the party commits. Unlike Conservative voters who truly showed their disgust towards the Mulrooney Conservatives, reducing them to 2 seats under Kim Campbell. You will never see Liberal supporters truly punish the party to that extent. Most Liberal supporters would vote for a dead goat if it was wrapped in Liberal red, you seem to be one of those.


----------



## stegner (18 Feb 2008)

> You call Harper weak with what he has accomplished with a MINORITY government?  Roll Eyes



Just what has Harper accomplished?




> I'd say Harper isn't further ahead due to the number of people in Canada who vote Liberal no matter *what illegal or dishonest actions the party commit*



What illegal actions did the Liberal government perform and what provision of the Criminal Code of Canada where they charged with? 




> Most Liberal supporters would vote for a dead goat if it was wrapped in Liberal red, you seem to be one of those.



Ditto with you and the Conservatives.

Say what you want but the Liberals did a lot of good in turning the Canadian economy around.  And given that they were in power for 13 years if Shawanigate is the worst scandal of Chretien I would say it was not too bad.  Mr. Chretien told Harper to bring it on if he wants to open up the investigation again-he has nothing to hide.  By the way Shawanigate was Chretien basically do his job as the MP for his riding and using his executive powers to make sure that his riding got a grant.   He was elected.  The President of the Business Development Bank was not.   Civil servants should defer to wishes of those elected and especially a Prime Minister.    

The other scandals of the HRDC, Sponsorship, gun registry had primarily civil servants performing the scandalous activities.  In these cases civil servants were charged not members of the Liberal government.  Google it if you don't believe me.


----------



## GAP (18 Feb 2008)

Oh, of course .....


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Nice try.  Let me guess you are part of Preston Manning's fan club?



Ya, typical comment form yet another person with an empty profile, who is rude. Have some phucken manners PAL! You can politely get your message accross without being such a wanker.

If you want to stir the pot with an attitude and be the troll, just remember, its your integrity on here, not ours.

Secondly, I like a voice from the west, a good pro Defence Force and supporter of firearms owners for starters.

I did enjoy Manning yes, he was a breath of fresh air for the west, and a good change from the Liberal 'toilet breath' which had dominated federal politics for far too long.

EDIT: Had a squizz and all your posts and most are somwhat politically motivated and pro left. Thats fair enough, as we each have our own views, but I am beginning to sense a hidden agenda which seems to be coming out of the closet lately.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I would take advice from Chretien...



But your not the one with leadership image problems. If Dion accepts Chretien's direction, then he creates a tailor made opportunity for his detractors... both within and without the Liberal party.

Here's some advice for Mr Dion:

Beware the ides of March.


----------



## stegner (18 Feb 2008)

> I did enjoy Manning yes, he was a breath of fresh air for the west.



There is nothing wrong with liking Preston Manning.   He did make a lot of sense in saying that the West needs to be let in-something I don't think has happened yet.   



> Secondly, I like a voice from the west.



Couldn't agree with you more being from Alberta.  Though I am not noticing as many benefits heading Alberta's way (or more specifically Edmonton) since the defeat of Liberal MP and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan :-[  A strong voice in the west needn't always be Conservative and Anne McLellan was an excellent voice that benefited all Albertans. 




> But your not the one with leadership image problems. If Dion accepts Chretien's direction, then he creates a tailor made opportunity for his detractors... both within and without the Liberal party.



Fair enough.


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2008)

Was listening to the news.... Mr Dion has come out to say that the Liberals might support the next Flaherty budget after all..... 

I guess someone pointed out to him that coming out & saying he would not support it, before knowing what was in it demonstrated a certain amount of "close mindedness".

They may very well vote it down - but, it certainly didn't make sense to diss it before knowing what was in it.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Was listening to the news.... Mr Dion has come out to say that the Liberals might support the next Flaherty budget after all.....



......or go down in flames. The Liberals might have better polling numbers, but in terms of fund raising, organization, caucus unity and having a coherent platform or philosophy they are far behind the Conservatives. Of course supporting the budget and putting off the day of reckoning doesn't work out much better for the Liberals. Mr Dion is seen to cave yet again, the Conservatives deliver a budget and can carry on with "Getting things done for Canadians tm" to the delight of their base and this makes them more attractive to moderates and undecided voters while the NDP and Greens gnaw away at the electoral "Left".

Even hoping for an economic slowdown will not help as much as some bloggers in the Liberalverse seem to think. Most people will understand it is a result of conditions in the United States, and the classical economics being promoted by the Conservative government will reduce the most dramatic effects of a US recession on Canada. For those people who still believe in Keynesian economics, they will be attracted to the NDP and Greens, so Mr Dion loses yet again.

The downside of this for Conservatives a weak opposition can lead to _Hubris_ and a sense of complacency. For the people of Canada, we could see the next election (whenever it occurs) leading to a minority government with the NDP as the opposition, or in the kingmaker role in some Left wing coalition.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2008)

There are a number of possible outcomes for Mr Dion, none of them particulary good:

1. Defeat the budget and appear to be led by the "ghost of Chretien past" into an election you're not prepared for;

2. Support the budget and hemorrhage support to the NDP, Greens, and Bloc;

3. Abstain and look weak;

4. Support the budget/abstain and look forward to possibly fighting the election on Afghanistan;

5. Support or abstain on the Afghanistan motion and allow the Torries to remain at the helm.

I'd like to think of positive outcomes, but I'm not sure that I can. Any of these results will give the Conservatives significant campaign fodder. I think we're looking at our own "night of the long knives" in the Liberal party.


----------



## sgf (19 Feb 2008)

Or, one other outcome

6. Defeat the government on either the budget or Afganistan, go into an election and form the next government.  Look at the latest polls, this is a very real possibility.



> Liberals pull ahead of Tories in new poll
> Updated Mon. Jan. 28 2008 7:16 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/dead_heat_080128/20080128?hub=Politics


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Or, one other outcome
> 
> 6. Defeat the government on either the budget or Afganistan, go into an election and form the next government.  Look at the latest polls, this is a very real possibility.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/dead_heat_080128/20080128?hub=Politics



Considering a large portion of the voting public don't want an election now, this may be possible, though not probable. I wager that voter backlash might come into play.

_Edit for grammar._


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2008)

Could this be the trigger?

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/02/election-trigger-dion-budget-gaffe.html



> *The election trigger: Dion's budget gaffe*
> 
> Loads of people are making all kinds of speculation on whether or not we're going to have an election over the Budget.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carbon-14 (20 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Or, one other outcome
> 
> 6. Defeat the government on either the budget or Afganistan, go into an election and form the next government.  Look at the latest polls, this is a very real possibility.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/dead_heat_080128/20080128?hub=Politics




And another poll shows Conservatives still in the lead
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=61902181-1fc7-427a-b736-fdece3497271
Theres only 1 poll that matters.  And thats on election day

(anyone else notice Harris-Decima surveys always favours the Liberals and Angus-Reid always favours Conservatives?)


----------



## sgf (20 Feb 2008)

I do agree, the election is anyones to win. Interesting point in that poll is that the liberals are the only one to remain steady, with the other parties losing points. I dont think anyone really wants an election right now, including the Canadian public


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2008)

Here is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, that indicates the depth of the split within the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=12eeb5e5-f9ac-45fb-895e-79bcc9479934


> Former Liberal MP Boivin poised to run in Gatineau riding for NDP
> 
> Juliet O'Neill, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




My _guesstimate_, based upon what I can read/hear from 2,200 km away, is that if there is to be a general election in Spring 2008:

•	The most likely outcome is: *a strong* Conservative minority* – a repeat of the _status quo_ with minor shifts, to-and-fro, between the established parties;

•	The next most likely outcome is: *a weak** Conservative minority* – the Tories lose a few seats to the Grits who, in turn lose a few (but fewer) to the NDP and Greens even as the NDP lose a few to the Greens;

•	A somewhat unlikely outcome is: *a weak** Liberal minority* – that involves a substantial shift of seats from Tory to Grit in Ontario and Québec;

•	The highly unlikely outcome is: *a strong* Liberal minority*; and

•	The least likely outcome is: *a majority* of any kind for anyone.

I also think that Stephen Harper can survive, party leadership intact, if he gets another strong minority; he might even survive a ‘victory’ with a reduced minority. Dion, on the other hand, is toast, I suspect, if he cannot win a strong minority, at least; he’s no Mike Pearson who, despite being a ditherer, had immense public popularity – almost celebrity status thanks to his Nobel and his public tiff with the (thoroughly disliked in Canada) US President LBJ.

----------
* Strong means that the governing party can win a confidence motion with the support of any one other party – the _status quo_
** Weak means that the governing party need the support of two or more opposition parties to win a confidence motion; the corollary is that the official opposition and one other party can combine to defeat the government


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2008)

I still am of the opinion that the solid management of the government, abet sporadically, will see Harper more seats once the writ is dropped....for the last 2 years, despite the oppositions biting and stabbing, Harper has been pretty solid..


----------



## TCBF (20 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...A strong voice in the west needn't always be Conservative and Anne McLellan was an excellent voice that benefited all Albertans. ...



- What!!?? By limiting the custodial rights of divorced fathers?  By pushing an anti-white-middle-class gun grabbing agenda?  By allowing the building of unit lines so close to a strategic runway as to limit it's usefullness?

- Want more?


----------



## stegner (20 Feb 2008)

> - Want more?


Sure-sounds good.  Would you submit she did a good job when she was  Minister of Natural Resources and got very generous federal tax breaks for oil sands development.

I can agree with about limiting the custodial rights of divorced fathers-that is bull.  But I am curious about the 





> gun grabbing agenda


 Just out of curiosity whose guns did they take? 



> By allowing the building of unit lines so close to a strategic runway as to limit it's usefulness?


But McLellan was never MND or CDS.  She strongly advocated that Edmonton get a Army super base when the the Air Force stopped using Namao, but I seriously doubt she was involved in the re-designing of the base.  I will take your word for it that the building of unit lines might limits it usefulness-but the blame should go to the MND or CDS of the time if what you say is true-they are responsible for defence-not her.  On the plus side at least the runway can be heavily guarded in a flash.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Feb 2008)

Just to keep the speculation rolling:

CTV/Strategic Counsel Poll

I know that CTV is more Conservative friendly than CBC, but this is the same polling firm that had the Liberals ahead two months ago.


----------



## RangerRay (21 Feb 2008)

Some of CTV's coverage has been even more anti-Conservative than CBC.  I think Craig Oliver is still upset that he will never become a Senator as long as Harper is the PM!  ;D

I find this interesting considering that it is a Strategic Counsel poll.  SC is not known for overestimating Tory support.


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Feb 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Some of CTV's coverage has been even more anti-Conservative than CBC.  I think Craig Oliver is still upset that he will never become a Senator as long as Harper is the PM!  ;D
> 
> I find this interesting considering that it is a Strategic Counsel poll.  SC is not known for overestimating Tory support.



Funny you saying that as I am noticing a shift, albeit slight, in the way the CBC and CTV look at the Conservative party and Stephen Harper. Overall, it seems the CBC is taking a less confrontational approach towards the Conservatives while taking a harder stand against the Liberal party. Witness last nights questions to John McCallum where in the span of 2 minutes he said the Liberals were against the Conservatives cororate tax breaks followed by a statement that the tax breaks weren't enough. Confusing to say the least. ???

CTV on the other hand, especially Craig Oliver, seem to be taking a harder line in questioning the Conservatives actions. There is a shining light at CTV and that is Mike Duffy, who asks hard questions of ALL candidates. Nobody gets a free ride on Mikes show. ;D


----------



## larry Strong (21 Feb 2008)

Well this should mute Dion a bit. reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080220/poll_story_080221/20080221?hub=TopStories



> Conservatives flirting with majority support: poll
> Updated Thu. Feb. 21 2008 8:21 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## stegner (21 Feb 2008)

I have found Nik Nano's SES  to be more accurate than the Strategic Counsel and this was their most recent poll.  So who is to say what is truly going on.   My opinion is that pollsters are roughly like the weather person.  They kind of have a rough estimate of what is going on, their process is scientific (sorta), but yet it still rains on a day they predicted to be sunny and vice versa.    



> Nik on the Numbers
> 
> Our latest tracking shows a statistical tie between the federal Liberals (33%) and the Conservatives (31%). Support for the Harper Conservatives has marginally slipped in the past 90 days. Conversely, the Layton New Democrats have slowly regained ground over the past three waves of Nanos tracking.
> 
> ...



http://www.electionprediction.org/  These folks are good to have a look at a couple days before the election.


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> My opinion is that pollsters are roughly like the weather person.  They kind of have a rough estimate of what is going on, their process is scientific (sorta), but yet it still rains on a day they predicted to be sunny and vice versa.



Finally, you have posted something that I can agree with. As others have said, the only poll that matters is election day.


----------



## TCBF (21 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> But I am curious about the  Just out of curiosity whose guns did they take?



- Bill C-68 and C-10A moved several categories of Handguns and Rifles from the Restricted class to the Prohibited class.  As the 'grandfathered' owners die off, these will be destroyed without restitution. We are talking over 500,000.


----------



## stegner (21 Feb 2008)

> - Bill C-68 and C-10A moved several categories of Handguns and Rifles from the Restricted class to the Prohibited class.  As the 'grandfathered' owners die off, these will be destroyed without restitution. We are talking over 500,000.



Wow that's a lot guns.   I checked the list of prohibited/restricted weapons at http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/r&p_e.asp.

Which weapons do you think should be taken off the list?  Do you know who came up with the list?  Was it the RCMP?


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2008)

The Harper Gov't has ammended it's stand on Afghanistan (sorta) and Mr Dion, Coderre et all appear to be reconciled with the Gov't on a uniform stand ... that won't cause the Gov't to fall ( probably)

Then Mr Dion has backpedaled about flat out rejecting the new budget - at least not without 1st having seen it.

With polls giving Mr Harper a presumed / ass-u-me-d lead in the intentions of decided voters, there is a good chance that we won't be going to the polls anytime soon.... Let's face it - Paul Martin had waaay more personality than Stephane Dion.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Feb 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it - Paul Martin had waaay more personality than Stephane Dion.



That's funny geo, but unfortunately true. Paul Martin had all the personality of a dithering carp, and Dion is even less.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2008)

Some information about a prospective Liberal candidate parachuted into a riding by the head office:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=947



> *Etobicoke North: Can You Judge A Candidate By Her Book Review?*
> 
> (Hat tip: Canadian Blue Lemons).
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (22 Feb 2008)

> Now — if Dr. Duncan is to be credited with one thing, it’s the apparent candidness with which she wrote about her relationships with her team members. At the same time, given how she managed her project, how she got along with the members (who are probably just as qualified as scientists working for Environment Canada), and how the project as a whole compared with an alternative work, potential voters really should ask if they want this sort of person as an MP, let alone a Minister.



Academia is full with people who are malicious and unpleasant.  Not a big surprise.  I am not supporting this person. I have no idea what she is really like. But, as I rule, I don't take my opinions from academic book reviews, because having spent sometime in academia I know them to be incredibly vindictive at times.  However, if we assume for our purposes that everything in the article is correct and that she is as described, I think she will fit very nicely in the House of Commons with all those folks with similar behaviours.   I think the activities during Question Period support my case.   By the way, do you think Stephen Harper, or any other PM for that matter, got an A+  in school for playing nicely in the sandbox with the other children?   Probably not.  Politics doesn't have many nice guys/gals.   However, I don't mind occasional arrogance if there is some brilliance behind it.    

Note to Stephan Dion: you really got to stop parachuting people.


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2008)

Stegner....  The Liberals don't have exclusive use of the Parachute option.
The Conservatives, NDP and BQ all make err... liberal use of that process.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2008)

Stegner, I am well aware of the childish and stupid behavior on display during question period. If Stephan Dion was to ask a real question of substance with the expectation of a clear and detailed answer, I suspect the Conservative front bench would be gobsmacked. Of course if the Conservatives gave a clear and detailed answer the opposition benches would probably require immediate CPR......

The reason I highlighted the section I did was because it probably spoke most clearly to the character both of the prospective candidate and the nature of Liberal politicians and programs over the last decade or more:



> _Duncan’s bloated, over-funded, overpublicized expedition, which had taken six years to organize, had failed, whereas someone else, working on his own, quietly and with no publicity and little in the way of funds, had succeeded. . . . _



Now, should the Liberal party manage to reincarnate some of their great leaders from the past like Lester B Pearson, Louis St Laurent or Sir Wilfred Laurier I would be more than willing to take a look, but their current "socialist lite" version holds few attractions, even for socialists.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2008)

And now a look farther to the Left. The comments to this post are also illuminating:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/into-abyss-afghanistan-jack-layton-and.html



> * Into the Abyss: Afghanistan, Jack Layton, and the Fall of the New Democratic Party*
> 
> The Strategic Counsel poll released this week puts national support for the NDP at what may be its lowest ebb since 2004. It's tied with the Green Party at 12 per cent. The poll also provides some solid statistical insight into how the NDP's position on Afghanistan figures into it.
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (23 Feb 2008)

> Now, should the Liberal party manage to reincarnate some of their great leaders from the past like Lester B Pearson, Louis St Laurent or Sir Wilfred Laurier I would be more than willing to take a look, but their current "socialist lite" version holds few attractions, even for socialists.



I can respect that.  Would you be more amenable to a Liberal Party lead my Michael Ignatieff?


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I can respect that.  Would you be more amenable to a Liberal Party lead by Michael Ignatieff?



I would.


----------



## stegner (24 Feb 2008)

Yet another poll

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/02/24/4872028-sun.html



> Tories, Grits in dead heat
> 
> By CHRISTINA SPENCER, NATIONAL BUREAU
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I can respect that.  Would you be more amenable to a Liberal Party lead my Michael Ignatieff?



Considering I had thought Mr Dion would raise the intellectual bar and challenge the Conservatives (before seeing him in action), I will reserve judgment on Mr Ignatieff for now.


----------



## geo (25 Feb 2008)

Based on his performance to date.... I don't rate Mr Ignatieff very highly... he's running neck & neck with Stephane IMHO

Unfortunately, I don't see any real leadership in the Liberal party at this particular moment.... great critics but, no leaders in sight


----------



## GAP (25 Feb 2008)

Remember that when the Liberal leadership review first came up, all the first stringers opted out.....this has been, and continues to be the B team we are playing with....


----------



## stegner (25 Feb 2008)

> Remember that when the Liberal leadership review first came up, all the first stringers opted out.....this has been, and continues to be the B team we are playing with....



Maybe even the "c" team.   That darn Paul Martin scared away a lot people from the Liberal party.  

Though looking at the Conservatives; they are no great shakes either.  Harper is no John Diefenbaker (my favorite Prime Minister ever) or even a Robert Stanfield.  Sigh.  What happened to the visionaries in Canadian politics?


----------



## TCBF (25 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ... John Diefenbaker (my favorite Prime Minister ever) ....  Sigh.  What happened to the visionaries in Canadian politics?



- I'll take Borden over Dief the Chief.  

- A true visionary would have funded the AVRO Arrow somehow.  Also, his vacillation over accepting nukes gave the U.S. a reason to sub in their ringer: Pearson.

Lesson: Visionaries must survive in government to actually accomplish anything.


----------



## stegner (25 Feb 2008)

> - A true visionary would have funded the AVRO Arrow somehow.



His one mistake.   



> Visionaries must survive in government to actually accomplish anything.



There was a lot of American pressure to oust Diefenbaker-while I will take the histories that claim the CIA ousted Diefenbaker with a grain of salt- it is clear that there was American interference in the Chief's ouster.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Feb 2008)

Whoa on the Avro Arrow and Diefenbaker. The program was based on cost plus ten(?) percent and was wildly overbudget. It threatened to consume the entire defence budget, not just the capital program. As I understand it, the military chiefs, including the chief of the air staff, had recommended it be cancelled. The Liberals had dodged the issue and the Chief finally took the unpopular and unfortunate decision.

This was during a tough economic downturn and a drop in the value of the dollar. The defence budget was targeted for economies; one effect was that the money from the sale of surplus equipment to other NATO countries that had been banked by DND to purchase new equipment was siezed and applied to other uses. 

Like it or not, Dief had made enemies in the Kennedy adminstration by his obvious personal dislike of JFK and his refusal to order the Canadian forces to support the US and the other NATO allies during the Korean missile crisis. His vacilliation on the subject of arming the already purchased and deployed weapon systems in Europe and at home resulted in public interference by the Americans in the general election that resulted in a minority Liberal government. He had already been damaged when the MND and number of other ministers resigned over the same issue and publicly criticized him.

edit  - typos corrected.


----------



## TCBF (25 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Whoa on the Avro Arrow and Diefenbaker. The program was based on cost plus ten(?) percent and was wildly overbudget. It threatened to consume the entire defence budget, not just the capital program. As I understand it, the military chiefs, including the chief of the air staff, had recommended it be cancelled. The Liberals had dodged the issue and the Chief finally took the unpopular and unfortunate decision.
> 
> This was during a tough economic downturn and a drop in the value of the dollar. The defence budget was targeted for economies; one effect was that the money from the sale of surplus equipment to other NATO countries that had been banked by DND to purchase new equipment was siezed and applied to other uses.
> 
> Like it or not, Dief had made enemies in the Kennedy adminstration by his obvious personal dislike of JFK and his refusal to order the Canadian forces to support the US and the other NATO allies during the Korean missile crisis. The MND His vacilliation on the subject of arming the already purchased and deployed weapon systems in Europe and at home resulted in public interference by the Americans in the general election that resulted in a minority Liberal government. He had already been damaged when the MND aa number of his ministers resigned over the same issue and publicly criticized him.



- CF-105: Should have funded as an "Industry Canada demonstrator", or somesuch. Rather than chop up 31 airframes.
- Korean missle crisis?: So much for my Spanish lessons before going to Miami!


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Feb 2008)

Yeah, I meant Cuban, but my brain farted.

There wasn't the money in the Federal budget (which was tiny in constant dollars terms compared to today) at the time to fund the project. The challenge was that the unit cost was going to be too large to provide the number of aircraft needed. There is some documentary evidence (which I have not seen) that the Americans approached the Canadian ambassador in Washington with an offer to aid in the funding, but he turned them down without forwarding the offer to Ottawa.

In my opinion the decisions that doomed the industry was made several years later when the government axed the Avro Jetliner program. It is not generally known that Canada had developed the second jet civil transport to fly, but cancelled the program to concentrate on defence production.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2008)

The entire Arrow thing is a thread hijack, and should be split from this thread.

There were lots of different reasons that conspired to kill the Arrow program, everything from technical challenges with the missiles and fire control system, ever escalating unit cost, changing military environment (ICBM's were becoming the obvious threat, so there would be no Soviet bomber armadas to shoot down) and national pride when approaching other nations as potential customers ("Not invented here, I'm afraid"). Like dinosaurs, the CF-105 was very specialized for it's defence niche, so when the environment changed, it could not adapt and survive.

Now back to the crystal ball to see if there will be an election or not..................


----------



## stegner (25 Feb 2008)

*Bold prediction. *  Election begins tommorrow.   Or not.


----------



## sgf (26 Feb 2008)

> If Stephan Dion was to ask a real question of substance with the expectation of a clear and detailed answer, I suspect the Conservative front bench would be gobsmacked. Of course if the Conservatives gave a clear and detailed answer the opposition benches would probably require immediate CPR......



Thucydides, was it so very different when the Liberals formed the government? The House has been run this way for decades, and it doesnt matter who is in power.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Feb 2008)

My feelings are that the Conservatives think they can (and are quite prepared to) fight an election on any issue the Libs might throw at them.  

Witness the Budget, responsible, cautious, prudent.  No huge vote buying, but lots of little focused programs which can be seen as down-payments on previous election promises.

While I believe that Harper has sold his soul to the devil re his Afghanistan compromise it is a platform to drag the uninformed on side, and therefore should an election be called a position he could spin to win.  

The crime bill threat to the Senate was perhaps Harpers boldest step.  He issued an ultimatum to the Senate knowing full well his party's ability to fight an election on that bill and also knowing that De-Yawn would issue martching orders to the Liberal Senators to avoid any such election.

Steven Harper continues to play chess at a "Deep Blue" level while Dion plays tic-tac-toe...  Yes I know the analogy usually used is checkers, but that is far too advanced a game for Dion in my opinion.


----------



## stegner (26 Feb 2008)

> Steven Harper continues to play chess at a "Deep Blue" level



Proof of this would be a majority government.   Grandmaster's wouldn't need to sell their souls either.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Proof of this would be a majority government.   Grandmaster's wouldn't need to sell their souls either.



No, proof of that is that he continues to govern in spite of the fact that all the rest of them who control the majority have said they want him gone.


----------



## stegner (26 Feb 2008)

> No, proof of that is that he continues to govern in spite of the fact that all the rest of them who control the majority have said they want him gone.



They say that but they don't mean it.  The NDP seems to like Harper more than Martin.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2008)

The math seems simple enough: the combined number of opposition seats is greater than the governing party, therefore the governing party can be ejected at will. Given @ 60% of Canadian voters will support left wing parties, the calculus won't change much in the short to medium term.

Despite all this, the Conservative government has not only lasted two years in office, but also passed much of its legislative platform, rather than cowering in the front benches and letting the opposition dictate the agenda as the previous minority government did.

Would a majority government be nice? Sure it would. Is it required? We have a rare example of a minority government which can govern as a majority, so as long as Prime Minister Harper can play his masterful tactical game, they will govern until October 2009.


----------



## sgf (27 Feb 2008)

or until the polls indicate either party will do better than what is indicated now!!


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2008)

The real race to watch is shaping up on the Left:

http://right-direction.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-becoming-irrelevant.html



> *Jack Layton becoming Irrelevant?*
> 
> Is Jack Layton is becoming increasingly irrelevant? With the Green Party taking on more popularity, especially in the 18-24 age group--the area from where the NDP draw most of their votes--I wonder about the future of the party. I subscribe to all of the party's mailing lists. I like to hear what everyone is saying and get a full circle perspective. Jack Layton's Mantra is "corporate tax giveaways." It seems that York University Political Science department fails to require anyone to take an economics class. NDPers cry foul when there are layoffs and moan about jobs leaving our Canada, but don't see the connection with inflated union-wages and how it is unable to stimulating business growth, to create Canadian jobs, with tax incentives to keep a business in a province or our country. It appears, my own MP Dalton McGuinty doesn't understand this either.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2008)

> Parliament to resume with more Liberal threats
> Updated Sun. Mar. 30 2008 5:13 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080330/parl_opens_080330/20080330?hub=Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2008)

All I can say is "BRING IT ON!!!" ;D I'm ready to vote today.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2008)

So what are they really thinking?

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=989



> *The Libranos Reach the Fifth Stage*
> 
> There’s an interesting theme running across this week’s Hill Times, which focuses on the return of the House of Commons to work.
> 
> ...



The two quotes seem at odds with each other, if the Liberal caucus wants to fight an election they must see the possibility of at least a minority in sight, but if their internal polls see a Conservative majority, would they willingly go to the slaughter (especially if that means their lucrative allowances will be on the line)?


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So what are they really thinking?
> 
> http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=989
> 
> The two quotes seem at odds with each other, if the Liberal caucus wants to fight an election they must see the possibility of at least a minority in sight, but if their internal polls see a Conservative majority, would they willingly go to the slaughter (especially if that means their lucrative allowances will be on the line)?



But that slaughter would be the only sure way to replace Stephie De-yawn.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Mar 2008)

From another thread:

<a href="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72407.30/topicseen.html">LINK</a>



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> According to the latest CROP poll, the Tories and BQ are in a statistical tie in Quebec, and the Liberals and NDP are far behind.  Must be something to this putsch from the Quebec wing...
> 
> <a href="http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080329/CPACTUALITES/803290815/6730/CPACTUALITES">Link to article</a>
> 
> ...



From what I have heard, in Quebec there are two polling companies: CROP and the others.  I agree with Reccesoldier...these MP's want to pull the plug so they can ditch Citoyen Dion.  I would imagine that these MP's are also in ridings where a dog could run as a Liberal and still win, so they know they are safe...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2008)

Some thoughts for all party leaders and candidates to ponder:

http://kerplonka.blogspot.com/2008/04/leadership.html



> *Leadership*
> 
> Exhibit 1:
> 
> ...



I'm sure that if you do the research there is plenty to applaud in the legacies of Brian Mulrouney and Mike Harris as well (if the overriding criterion is the same as Chretien; i.e. they weren't total screwups, then perhaps only Bob Rae has anything to fear.....)


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2008)

This is interesting:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/259884.php?utm_medium=RSS



> *Has the Liberal Party leader finally appeared?*
> Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 10:46 AM
> 
> What will be different in two weeks?
> ...



If this is even close to the truth, it is more confirmation (as if we need any) that Liberal party members seem more devoted to self interest and power than the greater good; even the greater good of the party. I also wonder if Bob Rae and his supporters believe that Ontarians have forgotten about his term as premier? Of course Dalton McGuinty is recreating the Rae government in spirit and practice, so reminders will be there in everything we see and do here in Ontario.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2008)

How the future is shaping up. Demographics is a wonderful thing:

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080430_67049_67049&page=1



> *The Tories are having better luck in reaching out to their young, post-boomer voters*
> PAUL WELLS | April 30, 2008 |
> 
> The Liberal opposition's favourite game, Retreat From Defeat (Step 1: Threaten to bring down the Harper government; Step 2: Change your mind; Step 3: Repeat) cannot last forever. It only feels that way. The good news is that by October of 2009 there will be a federal election whether Stéphane Dion wants one or not. And then it will matter which leader has done his homework in the interim, and which party's message finds a receptive audience.
> ...


----------



## JesseWZ (3 May 2008)

That was an extremely interesting read. As part of this new under 40 generation, I can actually assign my friends to either group in my head. A lot of them fit the mould. (sp?)
Very interesting.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (3 May 2008)

spring electton.
canada


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> spring electton.
> canada



Shift Key
For Capitals


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2008)

My guess is that if we don't go to the polls before the end of Sept, then we won't go until next year. I think the Liberals would like to attempt to unseat Mr Harper before he has a chance to cozy up to the new Democratic party president, and defuse the Liberal's GW Bush line of attack.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My guess is that if we don't go to the polls before the end of Sept, then we won't go until next year. I think the Liberals would like to attempt to unseat Mr Harper before he has a chance to cozy up to the new Democratic party president, and defuse the Liberal's GW Bush line of attack.



Quite an assumption there. How should the Government or the Opposition be prepared to respond to a McCain Administration then?


----------



## stegner (4 May 2008)

> I think the Liberals would like to attempt to unseat Mr Harper before he has a chance to cozy up to the new Democratic party president, and defuse the Liberal's GW Bush line of attack.






> Quite an assumption there. How should the Government or the Opposition be prepared to respond to a McCain Administration then?



Gee what a marvelous idea we decide who is our government on the basis of who the Americans elect.  NOT.   We are an independent country it should not matter who is in the White House.   What should matter is who has the most credibility in their vision of the nation not on how their relationship with the Americans would be.   Frankly,  Harper's relationship with Bush is no great shakes it is mediocre at best and certainly not light years ahead of Martin's relationship with Bush.   Personally, Bush and Chretien got along in social situations as they are far more alike then Bush with Harper-the two would frequently joke about A-Rod's salary.  And let's not forget that Chretien and Clinton had an amazing relationship for two terms.  Nevertheless, that should mean squat if they don't handle the domestic situation appropriately.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How the future is shaping up. Demographics is a wonderful thing:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080430_67049_67049&page=1



A book for you on this same topic - how demographics affects what old time Big Government can't do for your by Mark Steyn - "America Alone" 

Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=america+alone+steyn

It tracks eerily close to to Macleans Article - families with kids will defend their future options - singles and no kids families head for Cancun and want their pension from their home at 4:30 Government Job

Among other things - Pension benefits system and government paybacks for high taxes are unsustainable because couples marry late and don't have 3 kids - makes the claim that depending on immigration for the fill up of workers to support the pensioned off is dead wrong.

About 200 pages - fast read - and non stop amazement

Enjoy!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 May 2008)

> We are an independent country it should not matter who is in the White House.   What should matter is who has the most credibility in their vision of the nation not on how their relationship with the Americans would be.



Stegner- That's nice theory, but in practice it does matter how we handle relations with the neighbours.  It frankly does form part of the vision one must have for Canada.  We simply cannot ignore the US.


----------



## stegner (4 May 2008)

> Stegner- That's nice theory, but in practice it does matter how we handle relations with the neighbours.  It frankly does form part of the vision one must have for Canada.  We simply cannot ignore the US.



Frankly, changes in administrations in either country do not substantively change really much of anything.   The U.S relationship largely transcends politicians.  It does not matter if it is Obama, Clinton or McCain in the White House the relationship will change very little.  Or if it is Harper or Ignatieff in 24 Sussex.   Even with the MSM claiming bad blood between Chretien and Bush can you find any concrete example on how the relationship suffered terribly that may be measured in a quantitative fashion?  Did they stop buying oil and gas from Alberta and Saskatchewan or manufactured products from Ontario or Quebec?


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2008)

But after Bush is gone, who will Canadians blame for eveything ?


----------



## KJK (4 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But after Bush is gone, who will Canadians blame for everything ?



My thoughts exactly only maybe you should substitute 'liberals' for 'Canadians'.  

KJK


----------



## armyvern (4 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But after Bush is gone, who will Canadians blame for eveything ?



The next _gal_; like normal.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Quite an assumption there. How should the Government or the Opposition be prepared to respond to a McCain Administration then?



Frankly, I don't know. It will certainly throw the Opposition for a spin, as I feel they are expecting a Democrat as the next president.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Gee what a marvelous idea we decide who is our government on the basis of who the Americans elect.  NOT.



I didn't say that. I said that the US election *could* have bearing on when our election is. If Mr Harper is able to defuse the Liberal's preocupation with painting him as a GWB clone, then they will have lost their primary line of attack.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2008)

Given that Ontario appears, to me to be rock-ribbed Liberal for some time to come, I think Lysiane Gagnon may have the right idea here, in a column reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080505.COGAGNON05/TPStory/specialComment/columnists


> Losers in Quebec
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> 
> ...



I think she is right in these insights:

•	_”The next federal election - whenever there is one, and *it won't be soon*;_”

•	_”The numbers by regions are devastating for the Liberals;”_ and

•	_”Voters like impotent governments, which means that they are pretty happy with the status quo.”_

If she’s right then Harper has time to repair the damage his own PMO has been doing to his own government and he has an opportunity to win successive majorities based on strength in Québec – just as the Liberals used to do back in he ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s. It means excessive pandering to Québec – just as the Liberals did in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s and as Mulroney did in the ‘80s – but that’s acceptable _doable_ if he can keep the West onside.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 May 2008)

When I go visit the in laws in the Quebec City area and the talk gets to politics, it was always the same thing,....the rise of the Bloc was because the voters were tired of the Quebec Liberal Mafia, but had no alternative as the provincial Tories were pathetic and most couldn't even tell ya what an NDP was.

At least a vote for the Bloc could mean the decades old feed trough might get cleaned up, but now, I think monetary reality has sunk in for a lot of people and even talk of independence hurts the pocketbook. So......


----------



## geo (5 May 2008)

When Brian Mulroney came to power, he brought in a majority Progressive Conservative government.  That election saw a large number of dissatisfied Quebec Liberals who, motivated by Lucien Bouchard & Brian Mulroney's Quebec roots - threw their lot in with the PCs.
It is these same dissatisfied Liberals who voted PC - that are at the root of the Bloc.  When Lucien decided that Brian wasn't going to provide him with what he wanted - he struck off on his own with his Quebec based PCs.....


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> When Brian Mulroney came to power, he brought in a majority Progressive Conservative government.  That election saw a large number of dissatisfied Quebec Liberals who, motivated by Lucien Bouchard & Brian Mulroney's Quebec roots - threw their lot in with the PCs.
> It is these same dissatisfied Liberals who voted PC - that are at the root of the Bloc.  When Lucien decided that Brian wasn't going to provide him with what he wanted - he struck off on his own with his Quebec based PCs.....



I'm not sure I agree. The Progressive Conservative Party of the day was "Red Tory" (i.e. a very soft form of social democratic party), and hardly different from the Liberals in terms of many policies. While Bouchard led the defection away from the Progressive Conservatives, I doubt that it was made up of dissatisfied Liberals. A look at the policies of the BQ (and the PQ for that matter) shows this is a "Social Democratic" party more closely aligned with the ideas of the NDP, although it also carries a strain of Nationalism as well (and we know how well Nationalism and Socialism mix.....).

Their overriding goal seems to be draining the pond so they can seem to be bigger fish, rather than finding ways to grow in the larger pond of Canada. Recent polls seem to indicate this strategy is no longer resonating, the CPC and the NDP have made very signifigent gains in Quebec at the expense of the BQ and Liberals.

At any rate, demographics and economics are rewriting the rules and redrawing the political map of Canada, people and power is flowing to the West so we need to change our Ontario and Quebec centric views on "what is best for Canada".


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2008)

While the Liberals have gone into a ditch, the CPC has issues of their own to deal with:

http://www.petercsillag.com/2008/05/10-things-conservatives-need-to-face.html



> *10 things Conservatives need to face, ideally soon*
> 
> Although Stephen Harper's Conservatives seem to be running a careful show in Ottawa, they need to overcome ten (count'em, ten) problems before they can move beyond being a minority government. Basically speaking, I really think the governing party needs to overcome the majority of these problems before anything better can happen come the next election.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2008)

The Liberals have (to date) only one plank in their platform; a "Carbon Tax". Why such a seemingly self destructive platform is being warmed up might have to do with the behaviour of voters.......

http://voterick.com/wordpress/?p=98



> *Will Dion Respect me Next Morning?*
> 
> The two  most recent Liberal dynasties owed a great deal, for their existence, to world class lies.
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (18 May 2008)

Canada is both a net importer and a net exporter of oil and gas.   West of the Ottawa Valley it is an importer, west it is an exporter.

This Conservative blogger and all Conservatives should look to Germany as a model.   They have an economy that makes ours, which is practically solely reliant on primary resource extraction making us technically pre-Industrial, look like a 90 pound weakling and they do so with having a very sound environmental plan.   I am sick and tired of people using the spectre of Canada going into bankruptcy to justify destructive and wasteful practices of industry.   Why can't industry realize that if you produce less waste you are more efficient?  If German can be environmental friendly and have one of the most powerful economies in the world why can't we?  Could it be that Mr. Harper is beholden to oil companies?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2008)

We can only sell what people are willing to buy.

Germany, any European country for that matter, is a useless model because the European Union is, primarily, a huge protectionist collective acting, usually improperly - according to the agreement EU members have signed, to restrain trade. The EU improperly restrains trade through tariff barriers, protectionist standards and regulations - closing the European market to foreign competitors, export subsidies disguised as domestic support programmes and internal price fixing. Any of these would get a Canadian company hauled into a European court but the EU has become a major economic power: too powerful to punish. Thus, Germany, like the all the Europeans, thrives within a highly protected, closed trade and commerce system – as the old Gershwin song said: _”It’s nice work if you can get it.”_

Our manufactured goods are, broadly, excluded from the European market – as are American, Australian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Korean goods - *not wholly excluded*, of course, but the data with which I am familiar shows that Europe is much more _self sufficient_ (closed) than the NAFTA or ASEAN+China+Japan blocks.

With most of the rest of the world (Australia, (closed) West Europe and USA excepted) we face a steep cost disadvantage for our manufactured goods relative to e.g. China, India, Indonesia and Philippines.

Others want, indeed need our resources and food. We produce and they will buy. They are less inclined to buy manufactured or even processed goods – witness our ‘finished’ lumber trade problems with Japan.

Canadians are, always, fascinated by the _”Third Option”_ myth. “Most favoured nation” status does not cut the mustard in world trade and that’s all Trudeau ever accomplished with his “Third Option” plan. Our established trade patterns are not matters of intellectual laziness on the part of Canadian industrialists and entrepreneurs; they represent the optimal risk/reward equilibrium for businesses – companies can only sell the goods and services others want or need. Governments have proven one thing, consistently: they cannot run businesses. Trade strategies developed by politicians and bureaucrats almost always fail – when they succeed it is by happenstance, not good planning.

Now, friend stegner, environmentalism should be encouraged, even *demanded* in all of our commercial endeavours. The costs need to be borne in one of two ways:

1.	By the end user, when that end user is a Canadian – there is no alternative, as Maggie Thatcher used to say, because taxes or fees imposed on the manufacturer or vendor are, always and without fail, passed on to the consumer, just disguised; or

2.	By *all* Canadians through export subsidies paid with tax dollars.

That’s good public policy and has nothing more to do with good industry, trade and commerce policy than it does with good health policy or even defence policy.


----------



## stegner (18 May 2008)

Or the state could stop subsidizing the polluting companies.   The oil companies in Alberta are subsidized by billions from the federal government and even more billions from the provincial government.  And yet those in Alberta have to experience inflation because these subsidized companies can afford to outspend the citizenry.  These companies are pleading poverty though they are experiencing record profits and building huge skyscrapers in Calgary with majestic views of the rockies.   This program amounts to corporate welfare and needs to be stopped.  Take the billions from these price gougers and invest heavily in R & D and subsidize companies that do things greener.   I bet you that would motivate these abusers to reform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2008)

I have no problems with withdrawing subsidies, but:

1. Withdraw them for *ALL* subsidies - to energy, food production, autos and aviation, pharmaceuticals and so on and so forth, _ad infinitum_; and

2. Withdraw them just as soon as the *A*mericans, *B*elgians, *C*hileans, *D*anes and so on and so forth do - not quite infinitely, but you get the idea.

Subsidies for products are wasteful and are never _*earned*_ back by the subsidizer - you and I, through our taxes - but they are, also, part of the international trade landscape.


----------



## stegner (18 May 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2008)

Another strong factor against an election in the near future. What is the penalty for illegal campaign contributions, and will Elections Canada be raiding Dion's office with the RCMP and press Wednesday morning? If there is not wall to wall press coverage I would write your media outlets and ask why not?

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/06/deadline-for-grits-june-3.html



> Monday, June 02, 2008
> *The deadline for the grits June 3 *
> 
> The grits "leadership" candidates will have to .come clean on their loans on June 3. Iggy is still begging Dion is forlorn and many of the others have paid little on their debt.
> ...


----------



## geo (2 Jun 2008)

Oik... the Liberals fortunes have dwindled & "members" have elected to not send in their $$$ in the light of Mr Dion doing a commendable impression of a weather cock (up).... spinning to all 4 corners of the electoral map, you can,t nail him down to taking one firm position..... 

If that,s all ya can offer, I would suggest they give the job to someone else.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Jun 2008)

Liberals have long been the party of big business, that is where the lions share of their donations used to come from.  Well the teat has been removed from suckling lips.

Of course the other side of the coin is that when your platform is socialist, i.e. taking more in taxes to "provide essential services" like crack pipes, safe injection sites and protecting the human right to not be offended, the people who the party naturally attracts are those people who want something for nothing and want everyone to pay for it.  And that does not logically lead to them opening their wallets to personally ante up.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2008)

Tic, Tock, Tick..........





> *Will Elections Canada come down hard on Liberals and their unpaid campaign loans?*
> 
> Today is June 3, meaning all Liberal leadership debts must be paid off according to the rules set out by Elections Canada. Will there be a raid at Liberal headquarters in Ottawa today to obtain documentation related to these debts? How will Elections Canada deal with the majority of leadership candidates who still have balances outstanding in violation of the rules? According to the Star, Stephane Dion owes somewhere around $400,000. Martha Hall Findlay $200,000. Ken Dryden $375,000. Scott Brison owes somewhere around $40,000. Gerard Kennedy owed $400,000 a couple months ago. Joe Volpe owed around $135,000; Maurizio Bevilacqua owed about $243,000 and Hedy Fry owed about $107,000. Bob Rae and Carolyn Bennett have paid off their debts already. It will be interesting to see how Elections Canada deals with this situation. Ultimately I am sure the candidates will be granted extensions and a lesson will be learned for future leadership races. In granting that extension, Elections Canada will have to explain why they are showing preferential treatment to Liberals after organizing an RCMP raid at Conservative headquarters only a few months ago on the so called “in and out” scandal.
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (4 Jun 2008)

Harper campaigned for leadership without these rules that were brought in by Jean Chretien.  So he can hardly claim some superiority over Mr. Dion.  Apples and Oranges I say.  If he wants to talk about leadership campaign I am all for him opening up the books for his leadership election, something he has never done, though he claims otherwise.  Are the allegations of American money true?  Harper has never proved otherwise.   The difference between this scandal and the in and out is that in the allegation of the later, the Conservatives allegedly defrauded or allegedly attempted to defraud the Canadian taxpayer and exceeded election spending limits by allegedly money laundering.  In this case the Liberals have failed to repay loans for a leadership election, not a general election.   The parties who have loaned the Liberals money are welcome to sue to recover funds.   Canada does not have a debtors prison-so I am not sure what actual coercive force they or Elections Canada can impose in this instance.  In any event I think the Liberals are covered under 435.38 3 (d).  They are the first to experience these new rules.  If Harper is strong on enforcing these rules I will propose him voluntary and retroactively applying them to his leadership campaign.   After all he is more accountable than the Liberals no?  Will he agree to that?  Not a snowball's chance in hell.  So perhaps the Conservatives can stop with all the drama and count their blessings that they got off easy.   

Btw.  Thanks to Prime Minister Chretien for bravely changing the law in the first place and taking big business out of the electoral process in a big way.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Btw.  Thanks to Prime Minister Chretien for bravely changing the law in the first place and taking big business out of the electoral process in a big way.



Mr Chretien bravely changed the rules to undercut Mr Martin, and long term consequences (i.e. the inability of the party to raise funds) be damned!

Mr Harper, as you say, campaigned under different rules. Claiming there is some sort of scandal seems to be the MO for virtually everything the opposition does these days; I say *Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*, and we will all be happy to see your documentation. I believe the government house leader has said that the election financing technique known as "in and out" is used by all parties; if true then we should be left to wonder where are the high profile raids on other party offices? The CPC has said they are prepared to defend their interpretation of the Elections Act in a court of law, which is a much higher bar than the court of public opinion, the MSM or (God forbid!) the HRC.......


----------



## stegner (4 Jun 2008)

> I believe the government house leader has said that the election financing technique known as "in and out" is used by all parties; if true then we should be left to wonder where are the high profile raids on other party offices?



He has indeed said this.  But he is making a very misleading statement.   The methods of the CPC of transferring large sums of money into accounts at the local level only to transfer them out in a rapid fashion while subsequently making the statement that those funds (which had originated from the central party were local funds) was NOT used by the other parties.   Elections Canada refused to reimburse the CPC  for the 'local expenses' and they sued that organization.   Elections Canada will see them in court on that matter.   However, the investigation about the raid is too see if the federal party exceeded spending on the national campaign.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Jun 2008)

So what was Elections Canada's desicion? This seems to have fallen off the radar.


----------



## stegner (6 Jun 2008)

> So what was Elections Canada's desicion? This seems to have fallen off the radar.



Indeed


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2008)

Making words mean whatever they want.......

http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-accuse-conservatives-of_05.html



> *Liberals Accuse Conservatives of Misleading in Order to Cover their Efforts to Mislead*
> 
> The Liberal Party's website has a press release from yesterday which attempts to mislead Canadians about the Canada Elections Act and its legal obligations. Either the Liberal Party doesn't understand the Elections Act, hasn't even read it, or just hopes that Canadians are too stupid to understand it themselves.
> 
> ...



So the real question is what is Elections Canada doing about this?


----------



## stegner (6 Jun 2008)

Again, I would make a bigger deal if Stephen Harper had followed the same rules for his leadership campaign.   He didn't so maybe he and the Conservatives should not claim moral superiority since 'he' and 'they' was able to use big business.  Again apples and oranges.  As said before he wants to retroactively apply the new rules to his campaign to prove that he is more accountable I would applaud him-otherwise the Conservatives should concentrate on governing and let the opposition make fools of themselves.  Though the government has been doing a pretty good job of that itself.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jun 2008)

Jeezus, man, do you ever stop?  You don't like Harper or the Conservatives, we get that.  Find a new set of drapes to shred, will ya?   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2008)

At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -

1.	The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;

2.	The Bloc is terrified of being reduced to rump status. It needs time to rebuild and recast its message to Québecers;

3.	Ditto the NDP, but it needs to recast its message to almost everyone living beyond Trinity-Spadina; and

4.	The Conservative brand and Prime Minister Harper’s reputation for honesty and political savvy are damaged – through his own fault and the fault of his PMO. The media is *not* to blame. Harper had a real media _honeymoon_ back in 2006; the media fell all over themselves gushing about his political acumen and personal probity. He and Sandra Buckler _screwed the pooch_ and gave the media reason after reason to dislike them and all their works. Then he buggered up the business art of political cabinet-making and now it looks like he has dropped some of the few balls he was carrying.

I’m looking for an election in 2009 – probably on 19 Oct 09, as specified in law.


----------



## Rodahn (6 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -
> 
> 1.	The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;
> 
> ...



This is probably the best assessment that I have seen on this thread thus far, and very likely not to far off the mark.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Again, I would make a bigger deal if Stephen Harper had followed the same rules for his leadership campaign.



I am curious. Since he followed the rules in place *at the time*, what is the problem? 

You want to retroactively apply today's rules, so may I suggest you allow the Canadian Revenue Agency to audit your 1999 tax return but using the laws, rules and regulations in force today? If you see a problem with a retroactive audit using different sets of rules, then you see why your suggestion is also problematic (to say the least).


----------



## stegner (6 Jun 2008)

> I am curious. Since he followed the rules in place at the time, what is the problem?



Sure.  There would be no problem were it not for Harper making one.  Moreover, Harper should not pretend that he would not be having the same difficulties if he would be following the new rules.   Under the new rules, he would not be able to take as much money from big oil or other corporations in the west, which would place him in a similar position to Dion.   So he should stop pretending that he is superior, because his supposed superiority is derived from the old rules.  I also think it laughable that a guy who never disclosed who donated to him would be critiquing others on leadership election.     



> Jeezus, man, do you ever stop?  You don't like Harper or the Conservatives, we get that.  Find a new set of drapes to shred, will ya?



I don't like Harper. I don't mind Conservatives.  I was responding to an off-topic comment that I did not initiate.  Again, to get back on topic as E.R Campbell suggests.



> This is probably the best assessment that I have seen on this thread thus far, and very likely not to far off the mark.



I fully agree.  I suspect that even if Harper wanted to go to Rideau Hall this fall and ask Her Excellency to dissolve Parliament that she would tell him to wait a year until October 19, 2009 as prescribed by law.  The government kind of shot itself in the foot by passing that law.  I suspect as bad as things are for them now they will only get worse, unless the PM can articulate a vision if where he want to take this country.    



_*Edited to update the thread title*_


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -
> 
> 1.	The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;
> 
> ...



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an article from today’s _Globe and Mail_ that illustrates the divisions in the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.welection07/BNStory/National/home


> Dion rejects Liberal pleas to trigger election
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK AND BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> ...



In addition to the Liberals’ well known financial woes, I see three important issues:

1.	“Defending the controversial plan could raise respect for Mr. Dion's mettle, if he is seen fighting for a bold policy idea despite the political risks”; but

2.	“More time will give Mr. Harper an opportunity to regain political momentum by shuffling his cabinet, announcing new policies, attacking the Liberals with advertising – and possibly proroguing Parliament to delay the fall Commons session and limit the opportunities for triggering a pre-Christmas election”; and

3.	Above all, “there is little sense that the public is clamouring for a summer election”.

For all those reasons, and ohers, I still think 19 Oct 09 is the most likely election date.


----------



## stegner (7 Jun 2008)

Indeed.  I am troubled though by the rumors of the proroguing of Parliament until November.   That sort of behaviour is suitable for banana republics not a democracy, especially one with a strong commitment to responsible government.  Will we start to see governance through order-in-council instead of legislation? Are we returning to the strategies employed by Mackenzie King where there were so many orders-in-council that the Governor General would sign the top of the stacks of them claiming that his signature would soak down to the bottom?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2008)

The other big problem with the Liberal Party is they cannot seem to get organized and execute a plan. Consider that Mr Dion has floated the idea of a carbon tax for a while and the idea that they will spend the summer selling a carbon tax to the public (during bbq season; how ironic!), yet the CPC is _still _ first off the mark in defining the issue. 

Given the Liberal party seems to have no funds, no ideas and no leadership, October 2009 is indeed the most likely date for an election. My big fear is that an unorganized and ineffectual opposition will eventually lead to complacency on the government bench (see the record from 1993-2005), which is equally bad for Canadians:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-tory-ad-campaign.html



> *New Tory ad campaign *
> 
> It looks like the Tories will define the new dion proposede carbon tax before dion can. The grits want to call this a "green shift". It would be a huge tax grab. It will increase the price of everything and increase GST revenues. It is yet another tax from the grits.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2008)

Yet another reason to believe the election will happen in October 2009: the Liberal Party will have no funds to fight the election after being drubbed in the court system. The now have _two_ potentially expensive lawsuits on their hands, and even if they win, there are still lots of legal expenses to deal with:

http://rightoncourse.blogspot.com/2008/07/another-possible-lawsuit-against.html



> *Another Lawsuit For the Liberals? *
> 
> The legal battle over Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party's infringement on the trademark name of Green Shift Inc. for Dion's carbon tax plan is heating up further. After ignoring the cease and desist request that was issued last week by the environmental firm, Dion and the Liberals' true arrogance on the matter is becoming even more glaring. Stephane Dion has now gone on record as saying that the Liberals pose no threat to the company in stealing their trademark, and that "it will be okay".
> 
> ...



Other financial issues include the unpaid loans for the leadership convention (which are now considered illegal campaign contributions), and of course someone will eventually come looking for the $40 million unaccounted for in ADSCAM.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2008)

Has Dion paid back his loans yet, or did he cut a deal with Elections Canada? Just wonderin'.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Has Dion paid back his loans yet, or did he cut a deal with Elections Canada? Just wonderin'.



You can hear the sounds of chirping crickets from the MSM on that issue................





_edit for spelling_


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jul 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Making words mean whatever they want.......
> 
> http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-accuse-conservatives-of_05.html
> 
> So the real question is what is Elections Canada doing about this?


The answer was a whisper in the news today here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080728/elections_liberals_080728/20080728?hub=Canada


> OTTAWA -- Elections Canada has accepted debt paydown agreements totalling nearly $1.4 million from eight Liberals who ran for the party leadership in 2006.
> But Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand is still reviewing a paydown plan submitted by party leader Stephane Dion.
> Dion, whose debt from the campaign was recently reported at more than $800,000, had the largest outstanding obligations from the campaign.
> Toronto MP Ken Dryden was next, with $300,000 in loans to repay, all to himself as the lender, by June 3.
> ...


I've put the emphasis on the last sentence.  Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2008)

If the debts were converted to campaign contributions, what does that do?

Can you imagine any of these wannabe leaders (Dion included) itching to have an election this coming fall......with what?


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The answer was a whisper in the news today here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080728/elections_liberals_080728/20080728?hub=CanadaI've put the emphasis on the last sentence.  Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?



Elections Canada helping the "Natural Governing Party" avoid bankruptcy. :


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> . . . Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?



This (highlighted below) may be the most obvious reason.  The article mentions only Dryden as having outstanding debt to himself, but even that could be subject to a binding agreement to repay.
http://www.canlii.org///ca/sta/e-2.01/sec435.29.html


> Canada Elections Act
> PART 18: FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
> Division 3.1: Registration and Financial Administration of Leadership Contestants
> Financial Administration of Leadership Contestants
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Jul 2008)

Maybe it's time to re-title this thread, "Speculation on a Fall 2008 Election". Or maybe Dion will just avoid committing to anything, a plan that he has followed since taking leadership of the Liberal party.


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time to re-title this thread, "Speculation on a Fall 2008 *2009 * Election". Or maybe Dion will just avoid committing to anything, a plan that he has followed since taking leadership of the Liberal party.



Made a minor correction.  I think this parliament is going to go the distance, and will be disolved sometime in October of 2009.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2008)

At this rate Mr Dion might be hoping for an election call in 2010!

http://stevejanke.com/archives/269701.php



> *Riding associations backing Liberal Party loans*
> Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 01:02 PM
> Previous Post
> In my previous post, I looked at Liberal Party fundraising for the second quarter.  Not surprisingly, fundraising for the Liberals is flat.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2008)

Here is a platform plank I will support:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/01/national-post-editorial-board-cancel-the-welfare-cheque-for-federal-parties.aspx



> *National Post Editorial Board: Cancel the welfare cheque for federal parties*
> Posted: August 01, 2008, 7:00 PM by Kelly McParland
> Editorial, Full Comment
> It has been nearly five years since political finance reforms forced taxpayers to underwrite much of the day-to-day operations of Canada’s political parties. The result has been predictable: The parties have become hooked on easy cash.
> ...


----------



## jeffb (3 Aug 2008)

Yes... except that when the public funding was brought in there were all kinds of funding restrictions brought in. 

In my experience (and I've been working in politics since 2004), this has limited the ability of individuals to buy influence with major donations. For the record, I've never been on the payroll of any party receiving public money, all of my work has been at the provincial and constituency levels and on a federal leadership campaign. The Conservatives further tightened donation rules by prohibiting corporate and union giving, a good move in my opinion. It really sucker punched the Liberals, and, as the former Toronto-Centre Conservative candidate told the audience at a debate, was the whole reason for the reforms.

That being said, the money comes from the public purse, IE. our tax dollars. It is allocated on a per-vote basis. This means that individual voters really get a say in the day to day finances of political parties and it only costs us $1.75 (plus inflation) per year. In my professional experience, I would have to say that it's gone a long way to cleaning up politics in Ottawa.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (3 Aug 2008)

Bahh, Harpers opposition is split and inept. He'll lose seats in the east and gain some in central canada. Hell just have another minority. Dion will then resign and Rae or Ignatieff will probably be the next Liberal Leader. The bloc will also lose seats. Greens will do well in Alberta (largely because of their circumstances), Ontario, and BC, and poorly everywhere else but Quebec, where they will do decent, but nothing remarkable. Ndp will gain in the east, but probably lose 4-8 seats.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> Bahh, Harpers opposition is split and inept. He'll lose seats in the east and gain some in central canada. Hell just have another minority. Dion will then resign and Rae or Ignatieff will probably be the next Liberal Leader. The bloc will also lose seats. Greens will do well in Alberta (largely because of their circumstances), Ontario, and BC, and poorly everywhere else but Quebec, where they will do decent, but nothing remarkable. Ndp will gain in the east, but probably lose 4-8 seats.



Another profound statement,...................... if you can understand it.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (4 Aug 2008)

Yeah, because its a real enigma, isn't it


----------



## tabernac (4 Aug 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> Yeah, because its a real enigma, isn't it



He's just saying you gave nothing to substantiate it. No proof behind your claims. 

I would like to know why the Greens *HACK* should do well in my home province.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (4 Aug 2008)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> He's just saying you gave nothing to substantiate it. No proof behind your claims.
> 
> I would like to know why the Greens *HACK* should do well in my home province.



They will do well because Alberta is the province where the greens got the highest proportion of the vote last election (6.5%), which is probably due to these factors:

-The utter unpopularity of the Liberal party outside of parts of Edmonton more or less cancels them out as an option

-You are then left with the Greens and NDP, and this is where the Albertan right wing tendencies come in. Out of the two they will lean towards the more right wing of the two, which is the Green Party

-Due to the oilsands the highest support for the projects is in Alberta, but also some of the strongest opposition is in the province as well. This create strong feelings on the environment and some will vote for the party they think is the most gung-ho on the environment,which is the Green Party.

As for the previous Comment on the Liberals, there are no Dion'ites in the party, there are Rae'ites and Ignatieff supporters, these are the two biggest fish, and they will be the first to fill the void. 

Dion is hanging on a string day by day and this Green shift, which is his last gasp, his chance to connect with canadians, is getting lukewarm responses. If he loses an election, it is unlikely he can win another one(dont say that to Pearson though)  and remain an effective opposition leader, and it will be his last chance as to say, and he will more or less be forced to resign.

Harper is doing better than the Liberals, but a lot  of canadians dont like him for whatever reasons, especially in the Big 3 Cities and the Atlantic Canada(especially Newfoundland). His opposition is between a weak liberal party, an NDP, BLoc, and a Green party which is siphoning off votes off from the Liberals and NDP, further equalizing all opposition parties, making it harder for one to get near the Tories. This will lead to the NDP losing some seats as well.

The bloc, well, theyre becoming somewhat irrelvent and people are considering their options, the bloc, well, arent a real force despite the seat count. Theres no seperation question as to say, which further makes people wonder if they can vote for somebody else. They arent making a big enough splash to hold  to their seats. They wont go any lower than 38-40 seats, though.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2008)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Yes... except that when the public funding was brought in there were all kinds of funding restrictions brought in.
> 
> In my experience (and I've been working in politics since 2004), this has limited the ability of individuals to buy influence with major donations. For the record, I've never been on the payroll of any party receiving public money, all of my work has been at the provincial and constituency levels and on a federal leadership campaign. The Conservatives further tightened donation rules by prohibiting corporate and union giving, a good move in my opinion. It really sucker punched the Liberals, and, as the former Toronto-Centre Conservative candidate told the audience at a debate, was the whole reason for the reforms.
> 
> That being said, the money comes from the public purse, IE. our tax dollars. It is allocated on a per-vote basis. This means that individual voters really get a say in the day to day finances of political parties and it only costs us $1.75 (plus inflation) per year. In my professional experience, I would have to say that it's gone a long way to cleaning up politics in Ottawa.



The big problem with your statement is that individual voters DO NOT get a say in the day to day finances of political parties. If you re read the post you will see that parties are receiving lots of money _in spite of _ the fact they have no connection to voters (look at the amounts of money real voters donated out of their after tax dollars to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP), while minor or "fringe" parties are cut off, preventing any change in the status quo or wider discussion of political issues (which was probably the intention behind these rules).

Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the *Marxist-Leninists* or *Progressive Canadians* accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The big problem with your statement is that individual voters DO NOT get a say in the day to day finances of political parties. If you re read the post you will see that parties are receiving lots of money _in spite of _ the fact they have no connection to voters (look at the amounts of money real voters donated out of their after tax dollars to the Liberals, Bloc and NDP), while minor or "fringe" parties are cut off, preventing any change in the status quo or wider discussion of political issues (which was probably the intention behind these rules).
> 
> Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the *Marxist-Leninists* or *Progressive Canadians* accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?



Come on Thucydides, you don't want real political freedom do you?  I mean with limitless money any crooked politician could buy the votes he needs, because as we all know the average Joe is so stupid that flashy advertisements and gala dinners are all that is required to render him thoughtless and willing to support anyone who has some glitz in his/her campaign.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2008)

> Come on Thucydides, you don't want real political freedom do you?  I mean with limitless money any crooked politician could buy the votes he needs, because as we all know the average Joe is so stupid that flashy advertisements and gala dinners are all that is required to render him thoughtless and willing to support anyone who has some glitz in his/her campaign.



Maybe I am waiting for the _Progressive Canadians_ to invite me to dinner.  



> *Free speech? Next thing you know everyone will want free will*.


Anon


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2008)

Oct 2009:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1077



> *Tory Rule In the Middle of Chaos . . .*
> 
> , , , and the chaos, in this case, is the muddle of the Opposition parties, at least according to pollster Nik Nanos in this week’s Hill Times.
> 
> ...


----------



## rtangri (12 Aug 2008)

hahhaha,

all you guys fail to realize that it wont be that Harper is doing amazing or bad, or whether he funds the army well enough (not great but much better than any Liberals), but
based on how badly Dion falls. Dion is awful, he is handing the election on the plate to Harper (thank god). Dion is perfect considering he explains the Liberal message: Steal a companies name from Toronto to promote an awful CO2 plan, and like the very honourable Liberal plan is: Complain until we get elected, and after, we take the previous governments policies and continue with how its going. If it fails, blame the previous government, and say we are fixing it. 

Like father(dion), like son(mcguinty)


----------



## DBA (13 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Frankly, I do not wish to be forced to support political parties that do not represent my ideals, and I don't think that you should be forced to do so either. As for the minor parties; if the *Marxist-Leninists* or *Progressive Canadians* accurately represent your political views, then why should they be suppressed by State financed "official" parties who can use your tax dollars to effectively price them out of the campaign?



Whichever party(1) you voted for gets $1.75/year till the next federal election. Same for everybody else and it doesn't matter if it's a fringe party that has no representatives in parliament, they still get the funding. More rules have been passed since like capping individual donations at $1000 and banning donations from unions and corporations. Together the goal was to reduce the influence of private money on the electoral process as a lot of people thought large donors had too much of a say. 

(1) The party has to get over 2% of the federal vote, or over 5% in all the ridings in runs in for regional parties to qualify. Currently only the greens out of the fringe groups do.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2008)

Whatever you may think of a "fringe party", it is quite clear they must operate at a disadvantage, their supporters are required to support other political parties with their tax dollars, while they must attempt to operate and spread their message through the after tax dollar donations of their members.

Rather than futile debates over what level of support moves you from "fringe" to "mainstream" or what sorts of political philosophies should or should not be supported by tax dollars, it would make far more sense to simply say _any_ group is free to organize and run for political office (or comment on political matters, parties and candidates; the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws), but can *only* receive donations from individuals and *cannot* receive any funding from taxpayers.

If they have a coherent message and the ability to communicate, then they will be able to grow and expand their electoral foothold. If they are lacking in message or content, then they will wither and shrink in the polls and parliament (a natural progression we are already seeing, but delayed due to taxpayer funded life support).


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Whatever you may think of a "fringe party", it is quite clear they must operate at a disadvantage, their supporters are required to support other political parties with their tax dollars, while they must attempt to operate and spread their message through the after tax dollar donations of their members.
> 
> Rather than futile debates over what level of support moves you from "fringe" to "mainstream" or what sorts of political philosophies should or should not be supported by tax dollars, it would make far more sense to simply say _any_ group is free to organize and run for political office (or comment on political matters, parties and candidates; the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws), but can *only* receive donations from individuals and *cannot* receive any funding from taxpayers.
> 
> If they have a coherent message and the ability to communicate, then they will be able to grow and expand their electoral foothold. If they are lacking in message or content, then they will wither and shrink in the polls and parliament (a natural progression we are already seeing, but delayed due to taxpayer funded life support).



Tsk tsk.  That means that parties would have to EARN their way to expanding.  How is that fair in our welfare-addicted nanny state? [/sarcasm]


----------



## DBA (13 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> the gag law is the flip side of the funding laws



Spending caps, donation limits, restrictions on what is considered a political party and gag laws all have to be combined to have the effect desired. Take away any one and it's trivial to circumvent the others. The $1.75/year/vote was a deal to get the amendments passed. 

For example, start a "we are being victimized by a weak justice system that panders to criminals" interest group that runs very graphic ads highlighting the crimes of recent parolees. Ties in well with the conservative message of getting tough on crime but isn't direct support. Still people can donate to support the group and help run more ads. The other parties can either spend party money to counter or encourage other interest groups to form and do it. So much for spending limits and getting rid of influence peddling. "I ran group X for you and helped you get elected, you owe me". 

The smaller parties may have to fund themselves but at least they won't be going up against endless money and spending by the current parties. The real aim of the changes however is to lessen the "I helped get you elected, now pay me back" influence peddling.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2008)

You are actually contradicting yourself. If the established parties can receive millions of dollars in tax dollars then the smaller parties are indeed up against "endless money and spending" by current parties.

As for the gag laws; most politicians at all levels do not want to discuss certain topics. Endless amounts of time and effort are given over to what is essentially trivia in order to distract attention from larger issues. In my home town of London Ontario, the amount of time City Council spent on discussing a pesticide ban [despite scientific evidence that the products are safe], banning drive troughs and now banning plastic water bottles, vastly exceeds discussion on civic infrastructure, despite the fact London is routinely voted as having Ontario's worst roads and a huge sinkhole appearing downtown last October that devoured the main intersection and knocked out power and telecommunications to most of the core area (and that was only unusual due to the size of the sinkhole!).

If politicians and political parties don't care to discuss the issues, then citizens should be able to raise the issues. Otherwise, political discourse is distorted in favour of what political parties and their interest groups favor, not issues the citizen and taxpayer might wish to see discussed.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Aug 2008)

When the BC Liberals were elected here in 2001, the first thing they did was get rid of the gag laws.  The NDP brought them in to shut up their critics in the business lobby.

Now, the BC Liberal government is bringing back those laws because they want to shut up their critics in the labour lobby.

Either way, it reeks.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Either way, it reeks.



That's Politics.


----------



## DBA (13 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You are actually contradicting yourself. If the established parties can receive millions of dollars in tax dollars then the smaller parties are indeed up against "endless money and spending" by current parties.



No contradiction. Without caps and restrictions spending on elections has tended to spiral upwards. As I said the public funding was a trade off to get the caps and restrictions in place. An example of spending out of control would be Vancover municipal elections in 2005: Vancouver Election Spending Out of Control.  More recent CBC commentary on the same: Fight over campaign financing in Vancouver likely to be rough. The end result tends to the elected having to do something for those who got them there even if it means poor governace: Civic spending 'out of control': Report B.C. municipalities are spending faster than people can pay according to report.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2008)

There can be restrictions in the amounts spent on election campaigns and the source and amounts of contributions without invoking taxpayer support for political parties. Re read the article. So long as parties do not have to "work" for their money, they will feel free to ignore the voters to whatever extent they can. They can also indulge in a great deal of nonsense, even the mighty Conservative money machine provides only 8.5 million dollars of the quarterly funding, so they got an additional 5.2 million from the taxpayer to fund attack ads and other "fun" stuff that would otherwise have to be on hold. (I'd rather they concentrated on governing)

just look at the figures again. If a political party like the BQ receives 95% of its income through tax dollars, where is the incentive to craft and articulate meaningful policies? The Liberals at 71% taxpayer funding can continue to flog ideas like the carbon tax and raising the GST despite the fact these ideas have no traction, and the NDP with 58% taxpayer funding are almost as disconnected from the public.

Ditch the taxpayer funding, and these parties will almost immediatly become irrelevant, joining the Progressive Canadians and Marxist Leninists, until such time that they choose to craft and articulate policies that are actually meaningful to voters. Making parties dependent on only individual donations by their supporters is the just solution, the parties that are actually crafting policies that are meaningful to their supporters get rewarded and those that don't pay the price.


----------



## GAP (14 Aug 2008)

A cannibal was walking through the jungle and came upon a restaurant 
operated by a fellow cannibal. Feeling somewhat hungry, he sat down 
and looked over the menu ...

Baked or Grilled:
Tourist - $5.00
Broiled Missionary - $10.00
Fried Explorer - $15.00
Conservative - $50,000.00
Liberal - $150,000.00
NDP - $75,000.00

After looking over the menu, the cannibal called the waiter over and 
asked, 'Why such a price difference for the politicians?'

The cook replied, 'Have you ever tried to clean one? They're so full of 
shit, it takes all morning!'


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> But, it does, I suppose, set Liberal hearts all aflutter - we'll see how fast they flutter if the PM sends us to the polls this fall.



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is an article by Don Martin that predicts that we do, indeed, go to the polls this fall:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=723862


> Don Martin: Harper's possible forced election, a 'galling move'
> 
> Don Martin, National Post
> 
> ...



I understand what Martin means when he says that _” Waiting until _[the mandated election date in Oct]_ 2009 comes with the risk that the oncoming economic slowdown will hit hard on his budget books, turning what is now a small fiscal deficit into a red-inked torrent of bad news next spring.”_ The Liberals have inculcated Canadians with the canard that “Tory times are hard times.”

Harper’s one real advantage is that, much as Canadians may actually dislike him, they do not like Dion – he fails to ‘connect.’ Countering that is an apparently rock-solid Liberal “base” in Ontario – one that the _commentariat_ (people like the _Globe and Mail’s_ Jeffrey Simpson) keep firm by a steady stream of Alberta bashing. It appears that a substantial number of Ontarians are actually persuaded that a *”beggar thy neighbour”* policy could be good for Canada. Of course that’s nonsense, absolute rubbish, but it is the heart and soul of the Liberal’s ’green shift’ plan and it appeals to those Canadians (a majority?) driven by greed and envy rather than good sense.

If we go to the polls this fall I GUESS that we will see another Harper minority – perhaps a bit bigger than the current one. I also GUESS that the Liberals will replace Dion and Harper might decide that he, too, should go – making way for Jim Prentice? But the two big results of another Conservative minority will be:

•	The Liberals will be nearly bankrupt. The big banks will loan the Liberals enough money to run a first rate election campaign – secured by the taxpayers’ money – but the terms will be tougher than they were when Senator Smith could get as much money as he wanted for as long as he wanted with a wink and a nod. This time the Liberals will be in the pay, pay, pay mode, for years; and

•	The minority parliament will suffer from all the same problems as the current one and Harper (or the new PM) will engineer an early (18 month? Apr/May 2010?) election when he can face a bankrupt Liberal Party still recovering from a bruising leadership campaign – one of Ignatieff or Rae is going to be really unhappy.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Aug 2008)

And still nothing will change.


 Same old same old with a huge waste of cash and peoples time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> And still nothing will change.
> 
> 
> Same old same old with a huge waste of cash and peoples time.



Better than letting the libs waste our time and money stalling the house & senate.  Dion is the fungal toenail on this footnote of the libs legacy. Personally, I have no trouble going to the polls, even if the CPC gets another minority. They've done more with this government, and kept more promises, that that other bunch did with three leaders and a majority, IMHO.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Aug 2008)

Then our political system needs an overhaul to remove fungus without going back to the polls. ALA YOUR FIRED!  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2008)

Unfortunately the only way we have to "throw the rascals out" (or send pretty much the same, sorry crew back to Ottawa) is through elections.

Dion's 'green shift' is *worth* a national, popular 'review' and, even though I agree with Kim Campbell that election campaigns are the worst forum within which to debate policy, elections are also the only mechanism we have for a real 'popular review' of policy proposals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2008)

Latest verbal salvo via today's Toronto Star:



> "Two of the three opposition parties don't support the government and say we should be defeated. Mr. Dion says he doesn't support the government but won't say, you know, whether he will defeat us or not," Harper said. "I don't think that's a tenable situation.  I think that Mr. Dion will have to make up his mind, and I think quite frankly I'm going to have to make a judgment in the next little while as to whether or not this Parliament can function productively."





> Although he would not discuss timing, (Harper's director of communication Kory) Teneycke said the government expects the Commons to sit as planned on Sept. 15, but wants to see a signal from Dion that the "games-playing will stop.  Being government means a lot more than just not being defeated in a confidence motion. It means actually being able to pursue a legislative agenda," said Teneycke.





> Dion was unavailable to speak to media yesterday .... Rae would not discuss what Dion should do, but suggested an election is in the air.  "From the point of view of members in the House and candidates who have been nominated, and we have a lot of nominated candidates across the country, I think there's a sense that people say enough's enough, let's clear the air."





> Layton welcomed Harper's tougher tone, and invited Dion to join the NDP in a vote to defeat the Conservatives.  "Let's put an end to the Harper policies and government. Take it to the Canadian people," he said in a telephone interview en route to Bathurst, N.B.


----------



## Sheerin (15 Aug 2008)

This is going to be a tough election for me, you know if we ever have one.  Traditionally i've always voted liberal, but this time around I don't think i can.  I just don't like where Dion is steering the party, not to mention some of his policies.  

I refuse to vote for the federal NDP.  And that leaves the Tory's.  And i'm not sure if i'm prepared to make the jump to the right.


----------



## stegner (15 Aug 2008)

> Better than letting the libs waste our time and money stalling the house & senate.  Dion is the fungal toenail on this footnote of the libs legacy. Personally, I have no trouble going to the polls, even if the CPC gets another minority. They've done more with this government, and kept more promises, that that other bunch did with three leaders and a majority, IMHO.



I have always heard this rhetoric from the Conservatives that they have done more than the Liberals did in 13 years.  However, there is almost no evidence of this and I would welcome you to qualify what exactly the Conservatives have accomplished.   To be fair in their first year they passed the Federal Accountability Act and fixed election dates.   However, I don't think they have really done much of anything since   They are currently working of their fourth environmental strategy in three years.   Mr. Martin was known as Mister Dithers and I think Harper is Mister Dithers II.   Harper is most outspoken and decisive about foreign policy-which is not a surprise given that he often verbatim repeats the U.S position-without taking into consideration that Canada's interests are not always the interests of the U.S.  We have not seen his strong warnings to the U.S about arctic sovereignty that we saw after the election.   Sad that he has copped out in this respect.    In domestic affairs he almost has no voice or vision.   

Harper's problem is that he is governing as if he has a majority.    He rants and rails about how the House is delaying things.   Well sir, a majority of the country did not vote for him or his party and this can be seen in the fact that he has a minority.    I think another sign of the lack of  accomplishments are his attack ads.   Someone who has truly accomplished something would focus on that, not attacking Dion and the Liberals.   You don't go negative if you have lots of positive things to say about your government.   The silence in this respect is deafening.   Personally, I think his desire to force an election is indicative of his inability to come up with any new ideas.  Paul Martin experienced even more Parliamentary disturbances than Harper and yet he did not ponder elections.  He had the audacity to lead in his own dithering way.   

Instead of defining a grand vision for Canada, Harper has assured the media that the central plank of the election will be the carbon tax.   I think it is pretty ridiculous that a government is not defining the issues, but is leaving that task to the opposition.    As the Conservative ads assure us Dion is not a leader, but I think the same applies to Harper as PM he has failed a basic task: to lead.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2008)

stegner.  I know you are a staunch, die in the wool, Liberal; but did Jean Chretien keep his promise to get rid of the GST?  NO! he did not.  Stephen Harper said he would drop the GST 1% in a year and another 1% the following.  He kept those promises.  I know that it is only one promise right now, but it jumps right out in my memory at this very moment as a response to you.  We can also look at the work the Conservatives have done to "rebuild" the CF, quite the opposite of what the Liberals have been doing since Trudeau, but I guess that also escapes your scrutiny.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> stegner.  I know you are a staunch, die in the wool, Liberal; but did Jean Chretien keep his promise to get rid of the GST?  NO! he did not.  Stephen Harper said he would drop the GST 1% in a year and another 1% the following.  He kept those promises.  I know that it is only one promise right now, but it jumps right out in my memory at this very moment as a response to you.  We can also look at the work the Conservatives have done to "rebuild" the CF, quite the opposite of what the Liberals have been doing since Trudeau, but I guess that also escapes your scrutiny.



Why bother George. Stephen Harper could end world hunger and find a cure for cancer and stegner would still vote Liberal. His comment about Harper always following the US position is pure rubbish. In fact, he is the type of person I have in mind when I state that some Liberal supporters would vote for a rock if it was wrapped in Liberal red. He ignores broken Liberal promises and downplays Conservative promises that were kept.

On reflection Chretein did keep one promise, he cancelled the Sea King helicopter replacement which cost us millions. Then he bowed to pressure and opened up the bidding again, but kept changing the requirements when the EH-101 kept proving to be the best helicopter. :


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2008)

> Instead of defining a grand vision for Canada, Harper has assured the media that the central plank of the election will be the carbon tax.   I think it is pretty ridiculous that a government is not defining the issues, but is leaving that task to the opposition.    As the Conservative ads assure us Dion is not a leader, but I think the same applies to Harper as PM he has failed a basic task: to lead.



I didn't vote for a Leader.  I've had enough of Gunslingers with Grand Visions.  I wanted a Manager that will do the things I want done.  Not someone to tell me that I am a baaaaad boy and that if I pay enough penance then "Mein Fuehrer/Mein Gott" will square the bill at some future date.


----------



## stegner (15 Aug 2008)

> stegner.  I know you are a staunch, die in the wool, Liberal; but did Jean Chretien keep his promise to get rid of the GST?  NO! he did not.  Stephen Harper said he would drop the GST 1% in a year and another 1% the following.  He kept those promises.  I know that it is only one promise right now, but it jumps right out in my memory at this very moment as a response to you.  We can also look at the work the Conservatives have done to "rebuild" the CF, quite the opposite of what the Liberals have been doing since Trudeau, but I guess that also escapes your scrutiny.





> I didn't vote for a Leader.  I've had enough of Gunslingers with Grand Visions.  I wanted a Manager that will do the things I want done.  Not someone to tell me that I am a baaaaad boy and that if I pay enough penance then "Mein Fuehrer/Mein Gott" will square the bill at some future date.



Yes he kept that promise.  But that is just my point he did that in the first year and a half of his mandate-there has not been much done since in the way of major policies.   That's the point I was trying to make. Indeed Harper has helped to rebuild the Canadian Forces.   However, I think a lot of credit should go to Hillier for this-who was hired as CDS by the Liberals.   It is worth noting that under Martin there was a beginning of rebuilding the CF also.   In fact, many of the purchases  announced by the Harper government were in the works already under Martin.   The C-17, C-130 and supply ship purchases come to mind.   I don't think there would be a lot of difference in the defence policies of Harper and Martin were he still to be in office.  Martin, after all, was the PM that sent the CF into Kandahar.   However, Harper did have the decency not to pull a Chretien and cancel the contracts or the supply process.  So besides defence what exactly has Harper accomplished since 2007?



> Why bother George. Stephen Harper could end world hunger and find a cure for cancer and stegner would still vote Liberal.



I assure you if Harper did either of those things he would get my vote.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> In fact, many of the purchases  announced by the Harper government were in the works already under Martin.   The C-17, C-130 and supply ship purchases come to mind.



The difference is, the Liberal party talked about things but didn't often do anything.



> Martin, after all, was the PM that sent the CF into Kandahar.



After Jean Chretein initially put us their. Which is something you should remind your fellow Liberal supporters when the state Stephen Harper put us in Afghanistan.



> I assure you if Harper did either of those things he would get my vote.



And based on your rather slanted political views, I highly doubt it. But we'll never know because it wouldn't happen.


----------



## stegner (15 Aug 2008)

> After Jean Chretein initially put us their. Which is something you should remind your fellow Liberal supporters when the state Stephen Harper put us in Afghanistan.



Indeed!


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2008)

Like Kirkhill, I find the idea of political parties and politicians as being "Leaders" to be rather disturbing. On a local level, my city council has exercised "leadership" and "vision" to the extent of spending $100 million on downtown redevelopment. This "leadership" and "vision" resulted in a drop in downtown property values of between $60 and 75 million dollars between 2000 and 2007 (the City's own Downtown Task force provides the figures, but fudge it so it is not clear which is the correct figure).

Rather than learning from that mistake (and the ballooning of the city's debt to over $360 million dollars in the same time period), or concentrating on fixing infrastructure (which has been crumbling for years), the local politicians are now exercising "leadership" and "vision" by attempting to ban drive throughs and actually banning bottled water in city owned venues. Oh, and they also want to spend another $125 million on Downtown redevelopment.......

On a grander scale, the "leadership" and "vision" of successive Federal governments has resulted in over half a trillion dollars in debt (plus about the same amount in unfunded liabilities through government pensions), with really precious little to show for it. The streets are not paved in gold, wait times for healthcare constantly escalate, our children's education is becoming rubbish (check out this billboard in Saskatoon) and we can go on and on. The cult of "leadership" has had some pretty negative effects in other parts of the world; the most dramatic example is to look at a night time photo of the Korean peninsula from space; you can really see the difference "Leadership" makes.

If the government (at any level) is to concentrate on protecting my rights of Freedom of Expression, Property Rights, and enforces the Rule of Law, then all Canadians are free to work to achieve their own goals. In that regard, I am not a big fan of the current government, although I realize that electoral politics in a minority government does hamper their freedom of action to some extent (Imagine what the lefties would say if Prime Minister Harper dismantled or even spoke out against the "Human Rights" commissions; despite the overwhelming evidence they are attacking free speech in Canada and are otherwise capricious and out of control institutions) still it would be nice to get an unambiguous signal that this and future governments will not be constantly crowding out individual choice and freedom.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2008)

>Well sir, a majority of the country did not vote for him or his party and this can be seen in the fact that he has a minority.

Which was the last sitting majority government which commanded a "majority of the country", vote-wise?

I increasingly hear and read opinions by which I conclude that Liberal partisans fervently believe it is fine and proper for them to control the nation with vote shares in the mid to high '30s, but that it is a social crime for a Conservative government to exist one second longer than necessary to corral the necessary votes to declare non-confidence.  If that is the collective (approximate) view of Liberals, then the time of rational debate and give/take has ended because there is only take and no give from them.  Do not come to me with entreaties of political accommodations and compromises when you have declared war.


----------



## geo (18 Aug 2008)

I can tell you that, so long as the Liberal leadership behaves more like a weathervane than anything eles, flipping and flopping all over the place.... the Conservative minority government will not be at risk.... IMHO


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcomartin20/BNStory/specialComment


> Bumbling Grits give Team Harper an economic free ride
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Lawrence Martin is well plugged into the Ottawa political scene, especially, being Jean Chrétien’s biographer, to the Liberals and, within that fractious family, to the _Chrétienistas_. It is interesting that he quotes Maurizio Bevilacqua, a well known _Martini_. It appears that the internecine warfare is still going strong.

A few quibbles:

•	The deficit had two components –

o	The _programme_ deficit – which was put right by Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson in the late ‘80s, and

o	The _structural_ deficit that is based, largely, on interest on a too large national debt. It is that which Mulroney, Wilson and Mazankowski lacked the political courage to attack. Full credit to Chrétien and Martin for screwing _downloading_ enough expenses onto Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario to deal with it. The national debt is still too high, especially when provincial debts are factored into it. The interest payments are still wasted money and wasted opportunities for Canadians. The *right answer* is: less debt not more social programme spending;

•	Former Prime Minister Chrétien’s recent comments re: Harper’s error in not visiting China for the 2008 Olympic opening ceremonies are highly suspect because he is a big time lobbyist with many clients who need better access in China. He loses when they lose and Harper is not doing well by them. I agree that Canada should have had a *better* delegation – Her Excellency the Governor General should have led our delegation, but that’s all water under the bridge; and

•	Dion is, surprisingly (to me) popular, despite being “a willowy styled academic and an expert on things constitutional.” Or, perhaps it’s just that Canadians do not like Stephen Harper.
But, on the main point, Martin is right: the Liberals have failed to exploit opportunities, the Tories have had a free ride. It bodes well (or ill, depending upon one’s point of view) for the forthcoming election campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2008)

Well, I suppose there are worse reasons for calling an election. Putting ‘Partisan Paul’ Szabo’s _Unethical Committee_ out of business will be a big favour for all Canadians. Partisan Paul is doing more than the other 307 MPs combined to drag Canadian politics into disrepute.

What am I babbling about?

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the story:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcontempt21/BNStory/National/home


> Tories pushing fall election to shut down probe, MPs say
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



NDP MP Pat Martin occasionally stumbles into the truth telling mode. He did so here, saying, _”... we are bound and determined to drag … all these senior Conservatives before the committee. And it's going to be embarrassing,”_ That’s the goal of _Szabo’s Zoo_: to embarrass the Conservatives; the Ethics Committee has been turned on its head by unethical party hacks, flacks and bagmen in an effort to find some way to tar Harper _et al_ with the scandal brush.

As George W Bush said, *Bring it on!* – the election, that is.


By the bye and on a slightly different tack – an acquaintance tells me that some Liberals don’t want an election because ... wait for it:

*They are afraid they will win!*

The problem is that some Liberals think we are on the cusp of a recession or, at best, a prolonged period of slow growth and the government (which might be Liberal) will find itself unable to spend, something that will not bother the Conservatives, too much, but which will make Dion’s plans unaffordable. The Liberals would, in that scenario, be blamed for doing nothing, breaking their promises and bringing economic hard times to Canadians. (The corollary (about which I have not heard a word!) is that Harper would not mind *losing* in fall 2008 – being confident of a majority in spring 2010 based on the problems foreseen by some Liberals.)


----------



## a_majoor (21 Aug 2008)

The bigger problem if they win is Mr Dion will _still_ be their leader  

I imagine Bob Rae, Micheal Ignateiff and "King in Waiting" Justin Trudeau and their courtiers will not be too pleased with that outcome..... >


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.   His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.   His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.



In think you are on the right track, but:

•	The _traditional_ Conservatives are dead and buried, never to be seen again.

•	Peter McKay wants to be the face of the new 'progressives' but he is getting a lot of competition from former Reformers who are willing to give us a flash of _'caring and sharing'_ pinkish petticoats when they rustle their long, severe, dark blue skirts.

•	Harper is not, I think, enjoying himself. I suspect he would much rather swap jobs with Kevin Lynch. If he doesn’t get a majority – so that he can implement *his own* agenda - he may well want to step aside.

•	The Conservative Party, I agree, is waiting for improvement; if it doesn't come the 'new' Conservatives may resurrect an 'old' Conservative sporting even: the inwards facing, circular firing squad!

•	There are several attractive alternatives to Harper - starting with Jim Prentice; but do not discount the ambitions of and/or support for (in no particular order):  Diane Ablonczy, Lawrence Cannon, Jay Hill, Jason Kenny and a few others.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.   His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.



It is, and would be, difficult for his 'naysayers' to attack his leadership. He's had the most successful minority government in the country's history. Anyone wishing to negate or excel that would be hard pressed without following his model and acquiescing to his foresight.

Anyone not reaching that bar, because of partisan politics, is wasting our time, money and future.


----------



## geo (21 Aug 2008)

Most successful minority government CAUSE they have been faced by the most dissorganized, poorly led opposition parties in the country's history...


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> It is, and would be, difficult for his 'naysayers' to attack his leadership. He's had the most successful minority government in the country's history



He has had the longest.  That does not necessarily the most successful, but I guess it depends on you define success.   I would submit the Chief and Pearson got more done during their shorter minorities.   But that is just me.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2008)

The only thing I can say is that, during Mr Harper's tenure, the CF has at long last received the attention it's desperately needed.  And the CF as a whole has gotten a lot of respect from John Q Public.

I believe that Mr Chrétien had absolutely no use for the Military - xcept for international window dressing - peacekeepers with their arm(s) tied behind their back.
I believe that Mr Martin, with Gen Hillier & an assist by Mr Graham started the turnaround.  A lot of the projects that came thru during the Harper government were started during the Martin government - lord knows the procurement system is SLOW and cumbersome.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> The only thing I can say is that, during Mr Harper's tenure, the CF has at long last received the attention it's desperately needed.  And the CF as a whole has gotten a lot of respect from John Q Public.
> 
> I believe that Mr Chrétien had absolutely no use for the Military - xcept for international window dressing - peacekeepers with their arm(s) tied behind their back.
> I believe that Mr Martin, with Gen Hillier & an assist by Mr Graham started the turnaround.  A lot of the projects that came thru during the Harper government were started during the Martin government - lord knows the procurement system is SLOW and cumbersome.



Agreed, geo and you are, correctly, giving credit where credit is due: to Paul Martin who really did want to turn Canadian Foreign Policy onto a radically 'new' (50 year old) course. Sadly, Stephen Harper takes a far less _*optimistic*_ view; but, I suppose, his main interests are domestic and systemic.

You are quite correct, I think, re: Chrétien’s distaste for the military. He always was a Trudeau acolyte and Trudeau had a real, active dislike for all things military. 

(_Pace_ friend  stegner; Trudeau is important – even long after his death; his influence remains powerful because he was incredibly charismatic and he had, and *still has*, an expert PR team at his service.

To the degree that Trudeau had any coherent political philosophy it was based on anti-nationalism. That’s why he opposed the Québec separatists even as he sympathized with and shared many of their grievances. Almost all anti-nationalists are knee-jerk anti-military types, too. They cannot, mostly, accept that there are degrees of nationalism that are healthy and that a nation with a healthy sense of its own ‘place’ in the world might want, even need to use military force to protect and advance it own interests.)


----------



## stegner (22 Aug 2008)

> You are quite correct, I think, re: Chrétien’s distaste for the military. He always was a Trudeau acolyte and Trudeau had a real, active dislike for all things military.



I agree to some degree.   However, there was an intense pride by Chrétien that his older brother had served in the CF during the Second World War.   I just think Chretien thought that in a time of deficit that the military should be a very low priority.   Whether this was fair considering the operational tempo he subjected the CF is an entirely different matter.   You don't cut the military and then place huge demands on them.    



> (Pace friend  stegner; Trudeau is important – even long after his death; his influence remains powerful because he was incredibly charismatic and he had, and still has, an expert PR team at his service.
> 
> To the degree that Trudeau had any coherent political philosophy it was based on anti-nationalism. That’s why he opposed the Québec separatists even as he sympathized with and shared many of their grievances. Almost all anti-nationalists are knee-jerk anti-military types, too. They cannot, mostly, accept that there are degrees of nationalism that are healthy and that a nation with a healthy sense of its own ‘place’ in the world might want, even need to use military force to protect and advance it own interests.)



Agreed.

Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.   He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.   I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.   He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.   I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.



I actually agree with this part. Trudeau oozed elitism and thought that all military personel were "beneath" him. In reality, I would take one 'low class" soldier over an entire brigade of Trudeauites.


----------



## stegner (22 Aug 2008)

> I actually agree with this part. Trudeau oozed elitism and thought that all military personel were "beneath" him. In reality, I would take one 'low class" soldier over an entire brigade of Trudeauites.



Quite.   I think Trudeau's elitism was clear in that he refer to opponents from the low-middle class as 'eaters of hotdogs.'   Now I for one will always proudly eat hotdogs!


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I agree to some degree.   However, there was an intense pride by Chrétien that his older brother had served in the CF during the Second World War.   I just think Chretien thought that in a time of deficit that the military should be a very low priority.   Whether this was fair considering the operational tempo he subjected the CF is an entirely different matter.   You don't cut the military and then place huge demands on them.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.   He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.   I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.



Gatineau Highlanders, wasn't it?    >


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> That does not necessarily the most successful, but I guess *it depends on you define success*.



*This* might help: http://jacksnewswatch.com/2008/04/20/sandy-harper-govt-accomplishments/

60 items as of 20 April 2008.


----------



## stegner (23 Aug 2008)

> This might help: http://jacksnewswatch.com/2008/04/20/sandy-harper-govt-accomplishments/
> 
> 60 items as of 20 April 2008.



Thanks for this.  It's appreciated.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Aug 2008)

Harper may ask for election as soon as Sept. 5
Updated Sun. Aug. 24 2008 10:27 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may go to the Governor General as early as Sept. 5 to ask for a general election, senior Conservative sources have told CTV News. 

That would cancel four byelections already scheduled for next month, with three set for Sept. 8. Campaigns have already kicked into gear in the Guelph riding of Southwestern Ontario, and the Quebec ridings of Westmount-Ville Marie in Montreal and nearby Saint Lambert. 

A fourth byelection in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West is scheduled for Sept. 22. 

Liberal candidate Marc Garneau, who is running in Westmount-Ville Marie, said the Conservatives want an election to avoid addressing issues like the economy.

"I'm not surprised the Harper government is doing this because I think they're very embarrassed the economy is softening, and they have nothing to propose to Canadians," he told CTV News. 

Sources say Conservatives favour a short election campaign because anything longer would waste taxpayers' money. The shortest allowed by law is 37 days, so an election call on Sept. 5 would mean a vote on Thanksgiving Monday. Because of the holiday, the vote would be pushed to Tuesday Oct. 14. 

That would send Canadians to the ballot box before the U.S. holds its presidential election on Nov. 4. Some analysts believe a Democratic win by Barack Obama would help the Liberals north of the border. 

"There's something coordinated about all of this," said NDP Leader Jack Layton. "I think it's a charade. Harper's up to no good here." 

Harper has said Parliament has become too "dysfunctional" to continue, although his governmental has legislated a fixed election date for October 2009. 

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has been coy about triggering an election, saying he wants to wait until Canadians are ready to head to the polls. 

For the past 10 days, senior government officials have been signalling they don't believe Dion is serious about allowing Parliament to work. But in Saskatoon on Sunday, Dion said he's ready to meet the prime minister. 

"Parliament is working. Parliament is not dysfunctional. This is an invention by Mr. Harper to trigger and election," he said. 

With a report by CTV's Graham Richardson in Ottawa


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2008)

It's getting to be a wee bit boring.
At every turn, Mr Harper is threatening to bring the Gov't down and call for an election.

Umm... why ???  The opposition parties have not opposed & all tabled legislation remain on the table... so, once again - why call an election.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Aug 2008)

We're going to end up with another minority. then whats he going to do? he can't call another election. I think most Canadians are happy with the status quo, the government is working somewhat, no one party is holding both the reigns and things are still getting done. I think most Canadians are still a bit edgy about giving one guy the key to throne room and if we learnt anything over the the past decade or so, majority governments are not always a good thing.

I agree with many of Harper's ideas, but that doesn't mean I trust him enough to give him the reigns and I think many Canadians feel the same way. Lets just say, that it's cautious optimism.


----------



## Lord_Stephens (28 Aug 2008)

I'm not sure myself if I want a majority government of any party.  The recent dumping of certain programs has me worried.  I am not a member of the armed forces, but I respect what it has done for myself and for the country and well let's face it the rest of the world.

And the past 20 years I know the military has gotten the shaft so to speak.  I am not going to base my vote on which party will do the best for one issue.  Even if I 100% agree with that party, this country as many issues.  I did however used a program the CBC had on its website to help me decide who to vote for, http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/ that is what I used in 2006 for the election.  For those who are uncertain about voting I found it helpful. 

For those who are wondering,

12/12 with the NDP
10/12 with the Liberals
9/12 with the Bloc - I'm confused about this one, I consider them traitors to Canada.
6/12 with the Cons.

But oddly I did not vote NDP, because the NDP candidate for my riding I live in, well let's just say not the brightest person you met.  

But if there is an election I do hope we can get a party to help our military get the equipment it needs to get the job done and safely.   I know with some parties that is like asking for a miracle.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2008)

Interesting:

11/12 Conservative
9/12 Liberal
8/12 NDP

Of course this is based off the 2006 platforms and not the platforms of today, though I wager the difference in results might be minimal.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

I am surprised that the media is not reporting about the discretion of the Governor General in this case.  Harper is saying that Parliament is dysfunctional-which is analogous to a _de fact _ admission that he cannot maintain the confidence of the House of Commons.   Responsible government dictates that unless you have the confidence of the House of Commons your advice is not advice _per se_, but suggestion at best and by no means does this need to be heeded.   If I were the Governor General (one day, one day) I would ask Harper to do two things before listening to any of his advice.  Firstly, demonstrate that Harper as PM holds the confidence of the House of Commons.   Since Harper has had Parliament prorogued it is not clear whether is trying to deliberately avoid losing confidence.  He must empirically demonstrate that he is able to govern!  Though he runs the risk of be defeated and will fight tooth and nail to avoid this as the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are perfectly able to go to the Governor General and ask to form a coalition government in this instance, with one of those three leaders being commissioned as Prime Minister.  Or the Governor General can appoint Dion as PM at this point.   The second thing I would ask Harper as Governor General would be to amend the elections act to remove the provision of fixed election dates.  Harper is trying to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to be hailed as a reformer though be willing to break the law (its non-binding so they are no punishments except in public opinion) when it suits him.  He is claiming now that it was never intended to deal with minority governments.  However, this seems a little disingenuous.  Why did he not mention this when he passed the legislation?  His explanations this past week seem a little too convenient for me.   As well, it is bad form for the PM request that the Governor General help him break the laws of Canada.   Given these factors, I argue that the Governor General is able to and in fact should refuse Harper’s advice.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Aug 2008)

Just heard on the radio this morning that Harper is being advised to hold off on the election plans due to the Listeria (Hysteria) fiasco.  :


----------



## Adamant (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The second thing I would ask Harper as Governor General would be to amend the elections act to remove the provision of fixed election dates.  Harper is trying to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to be hailed as a reformer though be willing to break the law (its non-binding so they are no punishments except in public opinion) when it suits him.  He is claiming now that it was never intended to deal with minority governments.



So I take it if the Government was defeated in a confidence motion then you would acuse the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc of breaking the law too, as they would not be following the "fixed election date" as prescribed in the Elections Act.  I would think not.

Clearly this legislation was not intended for a minority government as the PM has only partial control over election dates.  The spirit of this law was to force majority governments to have a fixed date so that an election could not be called on convenience. 



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> He has had the longest.  That does not necessarily the most successful, but I guess it depends on you define success.   I would submit the Chief and Pearson got more done during their shorter minorities.   But that is just me.



And just for clarification Stegner, the current government is not the longest serving minority.  Both PM King and PM Pearson had minority governments that lasted longer.  

That being said this has been a reasonably successful government.  It could have been better, it could have been worse.  The key is to keep the balances of minority government, ensuring that no one party has complete control to ram their agenda down our throats.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> Clearly this legislation was not intended for a minority government as the PM has only partial control over election dates.  The spirit of this law was to force majority governments to have a fixed date so that an election *could not be called on convenience*.



The bold is precisely what Harper is doing now.   



> So I take it if the Government was defeated in a confidence motion then you would acuse the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc of breaking the law too, as they would not be following the "fixed election date" as prescribed in the Elections Act.  I would think not.



It is a little different for the opposition they did not propose this legislation, and nothing in the act prevents them from bringing down the government has been explicitly noted in this act.  However, if Harper does what he is saying that he will this is a clear breach of the law.   
If Harper is defeated that does not necessarily mean an election.   The Gov Gen could for instance appoint one of the opposition leaders as PM until October 19, 2009 (the fixed election date.)  The new PM could have the fixed election date removed and govern theoretically until Jan 2011, though convention holds that terms should be limited to four years, not the five prescribed by law.  So that would be Jan 2010.  There is a bit of obfuscation on this issue.  The issue is not that the Opposition wants an election, as Harper claims, and has put a stranglehold on Parliament.  The issue is that Harper wants an election-but is trying to blame it on the opposition.  If the opposition wanted an election they would brought down the government on the many many confidence votes and would have delayed the vast majority of the Conservatives legislation.  This is clearly not the case.


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2008)

Telling the GG that he can no longer govern & thereby bring down the gov't....

I would contend that, the moment Mr Harper turn up at the GGs house, the GG could conceivable turn around and ask the opposition if they can form a coalition government.  They probably couldn't.

If Mr Harper choses to bring his own government down, it just leaves to question the need for the law in the 1st place.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Aug 2008)

Stegner,

I probably shouldn't be inserting my thoughts here, as I will be leaving in about 90 minutes for a extra-long weekend, but here goes. 

Certainly the Governor General could, and there is the Byng precedent, but it would be a difficult step to justify. Whoever was asked to form a government should have to have the guaranteed support of enough votes from the opposition to carry out his agenda. Think Trudeau-Lewis in 1972 and the deal that kicked off a quarter century of massive deficits. Are both the Bloc and the NDP apt to guarantee their support to the Liberals? Otherwise we are faced with another trip to the polls in short order.

I subscribe to the theory put forward by Mr Flanagan about the PM's strategic purpose. Think an election campaign that returns a minority government of whatever stripe and the more or less concurrent judgement against the Liberals in one or both of the two lawsuits against the Grits. Now follow that with another federal election in 18 months with the Conservatives flush with cash and the Liberals in debt big time and owing a judgement to, let us assume, the Green Shift company. 

Possible yes; probable - maybe. I suggest the possibility of financial collapse has been a major factor in the Liberals allowing this government to survive for so long, despite all their rhetorical indignation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I am surprised that the media is not reporting about the discretion of the Governor General in this case.  Harper is saying that Parliament is dysfunctional-which is analogous to a _de fact _ admission that he cannot maintain the confidence of the House of Commons.   Responsible government dictates that unless you have the confidence of the House of Commons your advice is not advice _per se_, but suggestion at best and by no means does this need to be heeded.   If I were the Governor General (one day, one day) I would ask Harper to do two things before listening to any of his advice.  Firstly, demonstrate that Harper as PM holds the confidence of the House of Commons.   Since Harper has had Parliament prorogued it is not clear whether is trying to deliberately avoid losing confidence.  He must empirically demonstrate that he is able to govern!  Though he runs the risk of be defeated and will fight tooth and nail to avoid this as the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are perfectly able to go to the Governor General and ask to form a coalition government in this instance, with one of those three leaders being commissioned as Prime Minister.  Or the Governor General can appoint Dion as PM at this point.   The second thing I would ask Harper as Governor General would be to amend the elections act to remove the provision of fixed election dates.  Harper is trying to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to be hailed as a reformer though be willing to break the law (its non-binding so they are no punishments except in public opinion) when it suits him.  He is claiming now that it was never intended to deal with minority governments.  However, this seems a little disingenuous.  Why did he not mention this when he passed the legislation?  His explanations this past week seem a little too convenient for me.   As well, it is bad form for the PM request that the Governor General help him break the laws of Canada.   Given these factors, I argue that the Governor General is able to and in fact should refuse Harper’s advice.



I think stegner and *most* of the ‘experts’ whose opinions litter our daily papers are wrong. They, stegner and the ‘experts’ misunderstand our Constitution and misread our history – and the two are intertwined.

The _*King Byng thing*_ (1926) confirmed two provisions of the Constitution:

1.	The sovereign (governor general) must take appropriate Constitutional action when her (or his) prime minister no longer has the confidence of the House. Broadly the sovereign has two options:

a.	Call a general election, or

b.	When the situation permits call upon another (party) to form a government and seek the confidence of he House. This is the course of action Byng chose to follow in 1926 – against he advice of Prime Minister King; and

2.	The sovereign must _receive_ the advice of her (or his) prime minister but (s)he is not *obliged* to follow it.

But, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution *as it existed n 1926*, Byng and the Crown soon learned (through Meighen’s failure to secure confidence and the results of the consequential general election) that the *political* advice of the prime minister is – and must be accepted as – the final ‘authority’ on how to manage parliament.

Despite Trudeau’s 1982 amendments, the most important parts of the Constitution are unwritten – and are likely to remain so. The Constitution changes, day by day and year by year. The Constitution of Canada in the summer of 2008 is different, more ‘advanced’ than was the Constitution of Canada in the fall of 1926.

In 1926 there is little doubt hat Byng did the right thing because:

•	The Conservatives, not King’s Liberals, were the largest party in the House; 

•	The last (1925) election was not ‘far enough’ in the past; and

•	King was seeking dissolution to avoid censure in the House.

But, while those facts were legally and properly sufficient in 1926 *they do not exist today*. The Liberals are not the biggest party, the governing Conservatives are. The last election was more than two and a half years ago – quite long enough for most minority governments. Harper is not in any danger of being censured. The _Szabo Zoo_ may be able to embarrass the Conservative Party in its kangaroo court but that has zero, zilch Constitutional significance. Further, the *principle* King established – that the prime minister, not the sovereign, is the best judge of how to mange parliament – means that the sovereign’s ‘reserve powers’ are further defined than they were n 1926.

The situation is: Nothing in the fixed election date law interferes, in even he smallest way, with the sovereign’s right to call an election when she ‘decides’ (on the advice of her prime minister) to do so. The law is, clearly, applicable only to stable, majority situations. The sovereign (governor general) must receive her prime minister’s advice re: dropping the writs and, post 1926, she is also bound to give it great weight. There is nothing in our (or Britain’s) Constitution to say that a ‘dysfunctional’ parliament is not good grounds for dissolution and a general election. Losing a vote is the most common way for parliament to deny a government confidence but it need not be the only one; the Constitution, being unwritten, is flexible and changes, as I said, day by day and so on.

I suspect that the GG’s political and legal advisors are very cognizant of the Constitutional and historical realities – unlike most of the ‘experts’ – and will advise HE to grant Mr. Harper the election he wants when he wants it and for the reasons he offers.

To do otherwise would be to turn the clock back by 80+ years and that, in an of itself, would be *unconstitutional*. The Constitution has changed since 1926; the situation is also quite different; if Prime Minister Harper says he cannot govern then the GG must call an election. She is duty bound to uphold the Constitution.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> The King Byng thing (1926) confirmed two provisions of the Constitution:
> 
> 1.   The sovereign (governor general) must take appropriate Constitutional action when her (or his) prime minister no longer has the confidence of the House. Broadly the sovereign has two options:
> 
> ...





> Despite Trudeau’s 1982 amendments, the most important parts of the Constitution are unwritten – and are likely to remain so. The Constitution changes, day by day and year by year. The Constitution of Canada in the summer of 2008 is different, more ‘advanced’ than was the Constitution of Canada in the fall of 1926.



How exactly has the Constitution changed vis a vis the powers of the Governors General since 1926?  How is the BNA Act, 1867 anymore advance now than it was in 1867?  It is not.  This is the document that outlines the legal powers of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governor in (i.e. Sections 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 34, 38, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 90 & 99 of the _Constitution Act, 1867_.  I am afraid Mr Campbell to paraphrase Eugene Forsey that you have been taken in by the 'Liberal Party folklore' that has masqueraded as convention re the power of vice-regals in Canada since the Byng episode.  Byng won not because he was right but because he played on colonial resentment of Britain and Imperialism in the era after the First World War.  I think the _Letter Patent _of 1947 was a polite screw you to Canadian PM's as it did not codify any of the conventions that you claim were established.  Thus, the Byng episode establishes that a snotty PM managed to get away with quite a lot back in 1926.  It does not establish the broad set of conventions you claim.  King was an opportunist and when he tried to provoke another crisis involving the Governor General in 1934-35 it largely failed, but Liberal historians forgot to document this episode.  As well, I would advise that you read the _Letters Patent _as well as the proceeding of the Imperial Conferences post-Byng-King before commenting further on the role of the Governor General.  I think some of the material therein may change some of your opinions. 




> if Prime Minister Harper says he cannot govern then the GG must call an election.



Respectfully, if he says this he is asserting that he no longer has the confidence of the house of the commons.  At this point his advice is no longer advice, but it is suggestion.  If he doesn't want to demonstrate that he can maintain the confidence in the face of this dysfunction-his advice should should be viewed as such. 



> To do otherwise would be to turn the clock back by 80+ years and that, in an of itself, would be unconstitutional. The Constitution has changed since 1926; the situation is also quite different; if Prime Minister Harper says he cannot govern then the GG must call an election. She is duty bound to uphold the Constitution.



How so?  Which part of the Constitution would be violated?

I think the Governor General would be well within her rights to refuse Harper's dissolution request and say that he either remain in power until October 19, 2009 or resign.   I challenge you to find how this would violate the Constitution.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2008)

I think you are mixing up Canada's written constitution and its unwritten conventions.  This is Poli Sci 101.  With Parliament, there is a big difference between the _de jure_ and _de facto_ administration of the country.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> I think you are mixing up Canada's written constitution and its unwritten conventions.  This is Poli Sci 101.  With Parliament, there is a big difference between the de jure and de facto administration of the country.



I have got news for you unwritten covention is part of the Constitution.  If you look at any intro to Canadian politcs textbook thay will tell you that the Canadian Constitution is comprised of legal documents and unwritten convention.  Don't believe me?  Try finding the position of Prime Minister in the Constitution Act, 1867 or 1982.  You will not be able to, as the PM is part of convention rather than any legal document.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

Btw.  If Harper is going to call an election how appropriate is that he is government funds to travel up North for some photo-ops that will be undoubtedly used in election campaign.  If the _de facto_ campaign has begun, perhaps the CPC should be paying for this and not the tax payer.   I am used to these kind of things with Liberal PM's.  However,  I thought Harper would be at least be a bit better in this respect (accountability and all that jazz).  Alas, he is not


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> How exactly has the Constitution changed vis a vis the powers of the Governors General since 1926?



In its unwritten provision that the 'reserve powers' give gave the sovereign good political judgment to go along with her undoubted rights. King proved that political judgment of elected leaders is superior to that of the sovereign. No GG since Byng has attempted to manage the way Byng did. (And we've had minority parliaments in 1963, '66, '73, '79, 2004 and '06.)

Now, in fairness, no GG has faced quite the same situation - and Michaëlle Jean does not face a similar (to the _Byng King thing_) situation now - but the sovereign's reserve powers have been constrained in Constitutional practice - which is all that matters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> Respectfully, if he says this he is asserting that he no longer has the confidence of the house of the commons.  At this point his advice is no longer advice, but it is suggestion.  If he doesn't want to demonstrate that he can maintain the confidence in the face of this dysfunction-his advice should should be viewed as such.
> ...



Not at all! He remains PM and the sovereign remains bound to take his advice until a new cabinet is sworn into office.

Once again, Constitutional convention limits the sorts of advice he may offer, but one can quite *reasonably* imagine all sorts of situations, including national emergencies, that might occur during a general election campaign and that might require the government - the one seeking re-election - to seek an Order-in-Council and might, equally, require the GG to give it.

The fact is that the PM can claim that dysfunction means that *Canadians need* a general election. There is no situation, as there was in 1926, that might give the GG valid cause to refuse to drop the writs.

PMs with majorities went to the GG on a routine basis and said, "Give me an election just because I want one, just because I think the time is right." A PM does not have to lose confidence to trigger an election.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> Now, in fairness, no GG has faced quite the same situation - and Michaëlle Jean does not face a similar (to the Byng King thing) situation now - *but the sovereign's reserve powers have been constrained in Constitutional practice - which is all that matters.*



Says who?  Where is the proof of this?  It's not in the _Letter Patent, 1947_ which was implemented post Byng-King?  I think you should consider  the actions of Edward Schreyer as GG, John Bowen in 1937-38 (as LG of Alberta), Bastedo in 1961 (as LG of Saskatchewan) and David Lam in 1991 (as LG of British Columbia).  Those vice-regals demonstrated the continued efficacy of the reserve power.   With respect to the Commonwealth, look no further than the actions of Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975 and Sir Paul Scoon in Grenada in 1983.  The reserve powers are still in effect.   Read Eugene Forsey!


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

I never said the reserve powers were cancelled, but they have been, steadily, 'defined' and 'refined' - especially during the 20th century.

(By the way, that long list of Constitutional clauses you provided is quite irrelevant. The discussion is not about the written *duties* of the GG; rather, what matters now are the unwritten 'powers' of the GG and of the PM.)

The GG has the Constitutional power, in the current situation, to *deny* an election. The fixed election dates act means that Harper must find a 'Constitutionally plausible' rationale for calling an election prior to Oct 09. A 'dysfunctional parliament' ought to do the trick. But, so long as he does offer some 'plausible' reason the GG would be hard pressed to find any way to refuse because, in the end, Byng won the first and second rounds but King KO'd him (and all subsequent GGs) in the third!


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Btw.  If Harper is going to call an election how appropriate is that he is government funds to travel up North for some photo-ops that will be undoubtedly used in election campaign.  If the _de facto_ campaign has begun, perhaps the CPC should be paying for this and not the tax payer.   I am used to these kind of things with Liberal PM's.  However,  I thought Harper would be at least be a bit better in this respect (accountability and all that jazz).  Alas, he is not



Oh please, as if the Lieberals couldnt not be accused of the exact same thing.

As for the GG, i'm sure it is not lost on her office that if she were to go against the advice of the PM, it would be seen by the public as one unellected official going against the decision made by an ellected one. Constituional powers or not, i'm sure even she sees the pitfalls.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> King KO'd him (and all subsequent GGs) in the third!



Not true-see aforementioned my last post.  

John Diefenbaker noted of Byng-King:



> Mackenzie King then produced one of the most transparent falsehoods of any made in any generation of our country. He claimed that Canada was in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis, that the Governor General, Lord Byng, had acted on instructions from Downing Street inviting Meighen to form a government, and that he, Mackenzie King, would save the common people of our nation from colonial peril. King’s “challenge of imperialism” was so phoney it made Barnum look like an amateur. There was no substance in it, either in law or logic.



Eugene Forsey:



> “It is often glibly asserted that King’s victory in 1926 destroyed the reserve power of the Crown in Canada. But King was very careful to say, repeatedly, that there could be circumstances in which the Governor General would be justified in refusing dissolution.”





> A 'dysfunctional parliament' ought to do the trick.



How is it dysfunctional though?  Is it dysfunctional in that no legislation is being passed?  No.  Is it conveniently dysfunctional in that Harper's defeat in the House is imminent and the PM wants to avoid this?  More likely.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> As for the GG, i'm sure it is not lost on her office that if she were to go against the advice of the PM, it would be seen by the public as one unellected official going against the decision made by an ellected one. Constituional powers or not, i'm sure even she sees the pitfalls.



Sure.  But if she does not follow Harper's request because the official opposition leaders convey to her that they do not want an election, this is not undemocratic.  As most Canadians did not vote Conservative.   If the opposition wants to get together and form a coalition there is nothing Harper can do.   This happened in Ontario in 1985.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sure.  But if she does not follow Harper's request because the official opposition leaders convey to her that they do not want an election, this is not undemocratic.  As most Canadians did not vote Conservative.   If the opposition wants to get together and form a coalition there is nothing Harper can do.   This happened in Ontario in 1985.



One word.....Quebec


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> One word.....Quebec



Please explain?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Please explain?



What you want is for someone who represents the British Crown ( very popular in la belle province) and have her put in power a Party (which enjoys a really good reputation there) that a majority people in Quebec did not vote for ( remember that they love the BQ over there).

That is a can of worms that no one, the PM, the GG or even Dion wants to open.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

I don't really think that matters.  Besides in the Spring 2005 Giles Ducceppe was calling for the Governor General to intervene and force Martin from power.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I have got news for you unwritten covention is part of the Constitution.  If you look at any intro to Canadian politcs textbook thay will tell you that the Canadian Constitution is comprised of legal documents and unwritten convention.  Don't believe me?  Try finding the position of Prime Minister in the Constitution Act, 1867 or 1982.  You will not be able to, as the PM is part of convention rather than any legal document.



Thanks tips, I read that book too.  Infact, I still have all my textbooks from university in the office.

"Mixed up" was the wrong choice of words - "Seemingly ignorant of" was more what I was looking for.  Pull out all your fancy references to bedazzle us, but it doesn't change the fact that if the current Governor General tried to actually execute her legal powers, it would be a field day for all parties concerned; all these politically "easy" issues like Kyoto and Afghanistan would fall away for more post-1982 Constitutional wrangling.

Or maybe, seeing how all the parties suck these days anyways, some relish the excitement.  I'm all for it; I've long supported the idea of re-distributing the powers in Ottawa.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> Thanks tips, I read that book too.  Infact, I still have all my textbooks from university in the office.
> 
> "Mixed up" was the wrong choice of words - "Seemingly ignorant of" was more what I was looking for.  Pull out all your fancy references to bedazzle us, but it doesn't change the fact that if the current Governor General tried to actually execute her legal powers, it would be a field day for all parties concerned; all these politically "easy" issues like Kyoto and Afghanistan would fall away for more post-1982 Constitutional wrangling.



Dude.  The current Governor General executes her legal powers all the time, in fact on a daily basis, on the advice of the PM and other Cabinet ministers.  The PM has no actual legal power, as the PM is not mentioned in the Constitution.  Of course the PM has incredible _de facto_ power being the chief advisor to the Crown, which executes power on this advice.  The Governor General exercises formal governance within Canada and has the option to exercises her legal powers without advice (the reserve powers).   With respect to the Constitutional wrangling in the early 1980's, I think if you looked at the activities of Governor General Schreyer you would be most surprised.  Opposition parties can not tender exercisable executive advice to the Crown, unless they demonstrate they have the confidence of the House of Commons, which would necessitate a fall of the government and the appointment of a new one, either immediately or after an election.   So I would not worry about Kyoto and Afghanistan.  Avoid the textbooks with discussions about the GG-that's basic stuff for undergrads.  Instead, look at the works by the specialists in this field (i.e. Eugene Forsey, Norman Ward, David E. Smith & Edward McWhinney).


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2008)

Dude.  I'm really impressed with your knowledge of undergrad and graduate-level discourse in Canadian politics.

However, it still doesn't address the point I made.  Nothing changes the fact that the Prime Minister is elected by the citizenry to run the country.  When people vote for an MP, they are actually voting for a party that the PM is the head of.  I didn't vote for Dick Smalltown, who is representing the farm in Ottawa, I voted for Stephen Harper.  This is where his authority really comes from.  The Governor General does not get up in the morning and make decisions concerning the running of the country, she decides which dress she is going to wear to her function in _________<insert meaningless PR thing here>.

That is how the country works, irregardless of what was written in 1867 or 1982.  That is convention and that is what Edward was referring to earlier when he summed you up.  Throw a wrench into this and watch the knives come out in Ottawa.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

Wow! It’s sure tough to come back to this thread after a few hours.

The big ‘scandal’ (or whatever) in the _’Byng King thing’_ was that King wanted Byng to consult London in the issue – assuming, probably correctly, that Leo Amery (the colonial/dominion secretary in Baldwins’s cabinet) would be advise/direct Byng to give King his election, despite the issues. Byng demurred; he said that Canadians should decide Canadian political and Constitutional issues in Canada. King then turned the truth on its head and suggested that this was, somehow or other, the big, bad *imperialists* against the plucky little Canadians. It was a lie, even a big lie but it worked. But that had nothing to do with King’s KO in the third round: Byng was legally correct but politically wrong. Byng might have ‘won’ on points if King hadn’t won, decisively, at the polls. (It wasn’t really decisive but King got the most seats – reversing he 1925 situation – and was able to govern for a few years with the support of the minor parties, including the Progressives who later merged with Bennett’s Conservatives.) 

The unwritten bits and ‘Constitutional conventions’ matter just as much, maybe more, than all the written bits. A lot of people don’t like that but that’s no never mind. There are ‘reserve powers’ related to the very real ‘royal prerogative’ – these cannot die unless or until we change the Constitution. Byng was correct: these ‘reserve powers’ should be exercised, in Canada, by Canadians. *How* these ‘reserve powers’ are exercised can be a significant political problem – for the GG and the PM.

We are long past the sage where any GG can make up the Constitution on the fly – this is the 21st not the 19th century. Now that we have a fixed election date law, the Constitutional conventions require the PM to have a ‘reasonable’ or, at least, ‘plausible’ excuse to demand an election before the fixed date despite not having lost the confidence of parliament. But, given such an excuse – and absent the sorts of circumstances that existed in 1926 - those same conventions require the GG to grant an election.

That's my opinion, anyway, and I've read all the references stegner provided and a few lot more.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> That's my opinion, anyway, and I've read all the references stegner provided and a few lot more.



I am sure that we will continue to disagree on this, so let's just say you have your position and I have mine.  This is all very theoretical anyway.  Most likely the current GG will do whatever Harper tells her.   My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.  But meh not that big of a deal I guess-this kinda of thing has happened quite a bit.  I think everyone (political parties) wants an election at this point.   However, if all the opposition parties were to agree to a coalition government say theoretically as you read this email-what be your opinion be at that point Mr. Campbell on Harper's right to a dissolution?

Edited for grammar


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Aug 2008)

> My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.



Not really- he still has to face the electorate.  They, we, us are the ultimate authority- not Parliament.

Harper rolls the dice- he may get more or less seats out of it. That's democracy.

And for the record, I would have just preferred that he recall Parliament and force a vote something along the lines of " Hey, what do think- do I still have your confidence or not?"  And then gone to the GG.

All this talk of hypothetical GG powers has been, frankly, fascinating.  And it's a rare shining example of good internet, where even when people disagree, the tone is respectful and lots of good stuff gets aired.  Good work all.  Even you, Stegner   ;D


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2008)

Don Martin: Election means long-delayed retirement for veteran MPs  
Posted: August 28, 2008, 5:43 PM by Kelly McParland 
Article Link

The last Stetson-sporting MP is fading into the Alberta sunset, the richest MP returning to much greener pastures and the prime minister of dashed expectations retreating to his Quebec farm with its own six-hole golf course.

With a federal election call expected a week from today, it will be a long overdue blessing to some famed, infamous or plain ordinary workhorse MPs who have been impatiently waiting to be retired by the drop of a writ for a year or more. 

But some of the nearly departed MPs deserve a passing mention before becoming parliamentary footnotes, even if their legacy was more force of personality than political impact.

Paul Martin: Never have greater expectations taken a more dramatic downturn than the rock star finance minister of the 1990s who become the falling star Liberal prime minister in late 2003.  If there’s a legacy or lesson from his 2.5-year stint as Prime Minister, beyond the folly of grasping at power without a plan for using it, look to the premiers. Heard them bellyaching about Ottawa’s lack of health care funding lately? Nope. That’s because Mr. Martin filled their coffers with long-range money and may have actually delivered on one pivotal promise, that being to deliver a heath care funding fix for a generation. For that, at least, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be thankful.

Myron Thompson: The burly five-term southwestern Alberta MP with the signature white cowboy hat never entirely grasped the concept of political correctness, refusing to sugarcoat the hard-right views that made him a Rocky Mountain phenomenon. He could never be missed in a crowd but will be missed in the Commons as the friendly redneck with a voice like a gravel mixer who represented his voters well. 
More on link


----------



## Rodahn (29 Aug 2008)

I for one, wish that the PM would just get on with it. Enough of the verbal diarrhea from all parties, and let the people of Canada decide what they want.


----------



## Fraz (29 Aug 2008)

News from CTV http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/harper_meeting_080829/20080829?hub=TopStories

Election date likely to be October 14
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 5:13 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Officials in the Prime Minister's office say that Stephen Harper will likely call an election next week and send voters to the polls on Oct. 14. 

These officials told The Canadian Press no decision has yet been made, but they indicated he will go to the Governor-General sometime between Sept. 2 and 7. 

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe met with Harper Friday morning and said Harper "absolutely wants to call an election." 

"It gave me an opportunity to see for myself that he absolutely wants to call an election even if it doesn't jive with his legislation and even if he has to cancel the (Sept. 8) byelections," said Duceppe. 

Harper has sought meetings with all three opposition leaders to discuss whether they can agree on an agenda for Parliament's fall session -- set to begin Sept. 15. 

"I asked him what the priorities of the government were -- it wasn't very clear," said Duceppe. Duceppe said Harper should be seeking common ground with the opposition parties instead of trying to trigger an election. 

The Prime Minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, claims during the meeting Mr. Duceppe said he had no confidence in the government. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton is supposed to meet with Harper Saturday but Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he can't meet until after the three scheduled byelections. 

On Thursday, Conservatives launched their first campaign-style television ad. 

Rather than attacking Dion, the commercial features Canadians describing what they like about Harper. It seems designed to portray a kinder, gentler side of the prime minister. 

"Stephen Harper's the kind of person who knows where he stands. He's a straight up guy," says one man. 

"He's doing a good job," another says. "He's the steady hand we need when the world's economy is so uncertain." 

Dion has also stepped up his pre-election rhetoric. On Thursday, he portrayed his party as a champion of the arts during a campaign-style announcement in Montreal. 

He pointed to Harper's plans to cut $45 million in arts and culture funding. He said a coming election would serve as a referendum on the arts in Canada. 

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2008)

See this and this _Globe and Mail_ story suggesting that we will go to he polls on 14 Oct 08.

Like others I *wish* Harper had engineered a proper defeat in the Commons about this time last year or, at least, in early spring.

That being said, I understand that he really needs to go now - before the economy gets worse, before Dion gains _traction_ from the US campaign and so on.

If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.

If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

> If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.



Agreed.


> If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.



I think he might defer defense policy to Ignatieff (or let's hope so).   Dion has to keep some of the big names happy.  I don't think Iggy's views on defense are significantly different than Harpers.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.
> 
> If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.



Now the latest Polls have the Liberals and Conservatives neck and neck nationally, and the Liberals third, behind the Bloc and Conservatives in Quebec.  What I found interesting was that when people were asked who made the best PM, stats placed Harper in the lead, followed by Jack Layton, then Dion, Duceppe, and lastly May.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.



To the contrary, another Tory minority works well - it means the Liberals will draw from the old Tory playbook and have a messy regicide, leaving Caesar's corpse in the rotunda and an all but bankrupt party working to pay off its own debts, those of the last round of leadership hopefuls, and a new round of leadership debts.  Meanwhile, any delays or problems can be laid at the feet of the minority situation - "Imagine what greatness we could produce with a majority!".

The Liberals, even with another Trudeau after the fall of Dion (your choice as to whether that's actual or symbolic), have seen their traditional support wane and wither and would be in no position to rebuild.

As long as the Tories hold their ground or show some improvements Harper is safe - as long as the Liberals expend their energy in self-immolation... something they're showing a knack for.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2008)

Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......

Game on i guess !


----------



## Mike Baker (29 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......
> 
> Game on i guess !


I had 5 in about an hour earlier today. 

The very last part matches me (This will be my first time voting, and I'm voting for Stephen Harper) ;D

-Deadpan


----------



## stryte (29 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......
> 
> Game on i guess !



I had 4 Conservative party pamphlets in my mailbox today. 

1) On how they right for farmers
2) On how they are tough on crime
3) On the gun registry fiasco
4) On how they are helping senior citizens

I read them all so they did accomplish that.


----------



## RangerRay (29 Aug 2008)

> Dion has also stepped up his pre-election rhetoric. On Thursday, he portrayed his party as a champion of the arts during a campaign-style announcement in Montreal.
> 
> He pointed to Harper's plans to cut $45 million in arts and culture funding. He said a coming election would serve as a referendum on the arts in Canada.



If Dion's campaign is this and the Green Sha...er...Shift, then I would say that the Tories have a shot at a majority!

I'm not sure if this was already posted, but <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080827.welectionwhy0827/BNStory/National">Ted Flanagan</a> says that even if the Tories get another minority (with more seats), the PM will survive, and it's possibly part of the Grand Plan.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Aug 2008)

Harper set to trigger election call next week: PMO officials
Last Updated: Friday, August 29, 2008 | 7:59 PM ET 
CBC News 
Stephen Harper is poised to trigger an election call for Oct. 14, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.

The officials said no firm decision has been made, but that it's probable Harper will seek to dissolve his minority government next week, sending the country to the ballot box the day after Thanksgiving.

Harper has said the workings of the House of Commons, where his party's 127 seats give him a minority, have become "dysfunctional." The Liberals hold 95 seats, the Bloc 48 and the NDP 30. There are four independent MPs and four vacant seats.

PMO officials on Friday also intimated at the direction Harper's election campaign will take and the question Conservatives will pose to voters as they head into the vote. 

"We think it will be a choice between certainty and risk," one official said on condition of anonymity.

Officials described Harper as the "steady hand at the wheel" as the Canadian economy faces "rough waters."

"Love him or hate him, our prime minister knows where he stands on the issues and will offer Canadians certainty," the official said.

In particular, officials pointed to the $15.3-billion carbon tax proposed as part of the Liberals' Green Shift environmental plan, warning it would bankrupt the country's treasury if implemented.

No compromises with Bloc
A meeting Friday between Harper and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe gave the prime minister little hope that a fall session of Parliament can be productive, the officials said.

Earlier Friday, Duceppe also suggested that a federal election is imminent, saying he and Harper had laid out their positions, but did not talk about compromises.

"We explained our positions and [Harper] will consider them. I told him what our position was on all of the issues. Now, I think that beyond that, he is determined to have an election," Duceppe said following the meeting at the prime minister's residence in Ottawa.

Duceppe is the first opposition leader to respond to Harper's call for one-on-one meetings. Harper has sought meetings with all three opposition leaders to see if they can agree on an agenda for the fall session of Parliament, scheduled to begin Sept. 15.

NDP Leader Jack Layton will meet with Harper at 24 Sussex Drive on Saturday.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's office has told Harper he would be available to meet with the prime minister on Sept. 9, a day after three byelections are to be held in Quebec and Ontario.

PM not willing to wait
Harper, however, has said he is unwilling to wait until Sept. 9 to discuss whether Parliament can continue as is.

PMO officials said Friday it is unlikely Harper will wait for a meeting with Dion to call the election.

The Jewish holiday of Sukkot, which falls on Oct. 14, may present a conflict for the Conservatives and prompt a backlash from the Jewish community, Liberal insiders said Friday. 

A PMO official acknowledged that Sukkot, along with Thanksgiving and several other religious holidays during October, "does present challenges" in choosing an election date, but suggested people can make use of advance polls in such a situation.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

> I'm not sure if this was already posted, but Ted Flanagan says that even if the Tories get another minority (with more seats), the PM will survive, and it's possibly part of the Grand Plan.



It's Thomas Flanagan not Ted Flanagan. 



> If Dion's campaign is this and the Green Sha...er...Shift, then I would say that the Tories have a shot at a majority!



If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?



You can have all the pre-election polls you want. When people enter the voting booth, its all fair game.


----------



## RangerRay (29 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> It's Thomas Flanagan not Ted Flanagan.



Thanks.  I had a brain fart there.  :-[



> If this is the care wouldn't this be reflected in the current polls?



Polls are good for observing trends, but things get quite fluid during an election campaign.  IMHO, if Dion were going on about funding arts and an inflationary policy to change peoples' behaviours, and PM Harper was going on about reducing taxes and fighting crime, _in the full glare of an election campaign_ the Tories' poll numbers will rise significantly.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2008)

I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives got a majority. I just don't see it happening; with two mainstream left parties and a very centrist population, the Conservatives would have to perform brilliantly to pick up that many seats.

It would be nice to see a larger minority though- it would be an affirmation form the electorate that the Conservatives are on track.


----------



## TCBF (30 Aug 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> .... it would be an affirmation form the electorate that the Conservatives are on track.



- They aren't.  Even with a dead opposition, they accomplished little CONSERVATIVE work.  Most of their legislative action was increasing the powers of the bureaucracy - essentialy a Liberal agenda.  Their substitute for the Firearms Act would have made things WORSE for gun owners - not better, and the Gun press in Canada (such as it is ) was hoping it would not be enacted.  The one thing they COULD have done to please the two million known (and three million unknown) gun owners would be to allow the Library of Parliament's opinion on SAPs and start issuing transport permits for Prohibs again. 

- If something positive is not done fast, a lot of us will just sit this one out.  Read Pierre Lemieux:

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2830


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I am sure that we will continue to disagree on this, so let's just say you have your position and I have mine.  This is all very theoretical anyway.  Most likely the current GG will do whatever Harper tells her.   My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.  But meh not that big of a deal I guess-this kinda of thing has happened quite a bit.  I think everyone (political parties) wants an election at this point.   However, if all the opposition parties were to agree to a coalition government say theoretically as you read this email-what be your opinion be at that point Mr. Campbell on Harper's right to a dissolution?
> 
> Edited for grammar



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the opinion of an expert in our Constitution which I copy here because Prof. Monahan agrees with me, right down the line   :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wcoessay30/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=2


> The request the G-G can't refuse
> *If Stephen Harper comes calling, and wants an election, Michaelle Jean will have to dissolve Parliament*
> 
> PATRICK MONAHAN
> ...



Dean Monahan touches on all the key points:

•	The “saving provision” gives the GG nearly unfettered power to cal an election – and it does not say why she might do that;

•	The situation in which Byng acted is not duplicated or even approached today – his experience, the _Byng King thing_ is irrelevant; and

•	This is a political, not a legal matter.


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

;D  This does not surprise me.  This is a position consistent with most legal scholars.  It is kind of worrisome though, that he  really only uses the Byng precedent of the use of the 'reserve powers.'  Does he not realize the 1975 Whitlam-Kerr precedent or any other actual usages?   There are a host of precedents that must be considered post-Byng-King.  I would be more curious about the opinions of specialists of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governor General in the social sciences who have a stronger understanding of history.  David E. Smith comes to mind.   Half the role of the Governor General deals with convention something that lawyers know almost nothing about, not should they, as conventions cannot be adjudicated by the courts.  Thank you Mr. Campbell for linking this.   It is nice to know that armyforums.ca was ahead of the MSM on this discussion   By way of critique, Monahan avoids a discussion on how Harper is delaying a returning  of session, which seriously saps the legitimacy of the PM.   If session was on I would have no problem with the election request.  However, delaying the return to the House and than trying to call an election seems a bit in breach of democratic principles and responsible government.    Harper cannot play the democracy card in a minority parliament which seeks to oust him!


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2008)

Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....

Regards


----------



## Rodahn (30 Aug 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....
> 
> Regards



And they haven't even officially called an election yet.... Getting a bit of a head start...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Well I just saw the first Conservative ad on Discovery....
> 
> Regards


Is it an actual new campaign ad, or just another 'public service' announcement telling us what a ditz Dion is?


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is it an actual new campaign ad, or just another 'public service' announcement telling us what a ditz Dion is?



Nope...an actual ad with a few people on it....including one fella that looks awfully familiar with his gongs on saying he likes how Harper supports the troops.

Regards


----------



## Armymedic (30 Aug 2008)

Layton is up to his normal no good. 

Can't stay away from cameras, that one.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2008)

Well, looking at this as a positive...

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=755963



> *Six reasons Harper should call an election*
> 
> National Post  Published: Friday, August 29, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## larry Strong (2 Sep 2008)

Some interesting news. Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

_"Fall election right time for Conservatives: poll"_

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080901/strategic_counsel_080901/20080901?hub=TopStories



> Fall election right time for Conservatives: poll
> Updated Mon. Sep. 1 2008 10:00 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## karl28 (2 Sep 2008)

The new polls seem interesting  hopefully it will help strengthen Harper postion going into the election if and when it is going to be called .


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2008)

The newspapers and TV news broadcasts are chock-a-block full of:

1.	Polls showing that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (no longer just the Conservative Party of Canada, apparently) are poised to seize a majority government; and

2.	Mostly anguished cries that Harper is one or more of –

a.	Unfit to lead anything, anywhere,

b.	A control freak who (inexplicably to journalists) detests journalists,

c.	Dishonest – for using the _dysfunctional_ parliament argument to secure a general election at the last, best possible moment, and

d.	The best choice to lead Canada is perilous times.

There is no doubt that Harper is _engineering_ an election despite both a law, his own law, that says (absent a defeat in the house) he ought to continue to govern until Oct 09, and not having (formally) lost the confidence of the HoC. His _trust factor_ ought to have been reduced. On the other hand, Harper can, rightfully, claim that Canadians’ idea of a minority government, being one in which (some of) the opposition parties _temper_ the government’s proposals thereby taking proper account of a majority of Canadians’ views, has been tossed on its head by opposition parties that, for PR reasons, propose legislation, on their own, for no practical reason except to embarrass the governing party. On that basis he can ague, not convincingly to those who are not Tory partisans, that he has lost the confidence of parliament but that the opposition wants to control he election date for *it’s own partisan political advantage*. Advantage to the opposition parties – but it is a diffused advantage, no big gain for anyone.

Canadians seem intent on addressing environmental issues but the parties, all of them, appear unable to connect their plans with Canadians’ ambitions.  It seems to me that Canadians want to _”do something”_ – *for the better* - about the environment but they are quite ignorant of the issues. My sense is that Canadians are frightened of climate change but concerned about pollution. The Tories, back in 06/07 tried to sell a pollution clean up plan that ignored climate change – they failed. The Liberals are now trying to sell their _”Green Shaft Shift”_ but it appears that Canadians are not ready to buy it – perhaps because it seems to do little about either pollution or climate change. I think one of the three main national parties can get some ‘traction’ by offering a comprehensive _environmental_ plan that promises to _”do something”_ – *for the better* – about pollution and climate change. Potential advantage to the Conservatives – if they can move quickly and with some imagination.

Afghanistan has moved, I think from a major issue to something akin to _”festering sore”_ status – generally bad for the Tories but very dangerous ground for the Liberals. The advantage, such as there is one, probably goes to the NDP; the party has a consistent and broadly popular position.

The economy should be the big issue – but, as Kim Campbell so correctly said: complex policy matters cannot be (properly or adequately) discussed in a 47 day election campaign. The advantage, based on many polls, is with the Conservatives – except amongst the economically illiterate who vote NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2008)

I think that the _Good Grey Globe’s_ Lawrence Martin is one of the primary *anti-Conservative** voices in Ottawa. He is also well connected and, especially amongst Liberals, plugged in at the highest levels and he is an astute observer of Canadian politics (but not of foreign and defence policy or military matters).

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is Martin’s view on how Dion *might* win:



> This campaign will come down to one geeky guy
> 
> September 4, 2008 at 1:07 AM EDT
> 
> ...




I’m not exactly certain how much of this is real, thoughtful analysis and how much is just wishful thinking based on a hope that someone, anyone, can rid us of the hated (in Martin's mind, anyway) _Bushite_ Stephen Harper. 

I suspect Martin is right: there is no issue. That’s too bad; there should be one: the economy. But: it is dangerous ground:

•	The Conservatives are still tarred with King’s canard that “Tory times are tough times” - Dion used the line in a speech quoted this morning on CBC radio; and

•	The Liberals propose to raise taxes in tough times – not the most appealing prospect for many Canadians. 

That being said, the economy matters: more than Afghanistan, more than the environment because if our economy falters (and it will grow less than the much beaten and battered US economy next year) then we can and will do nothing about environmental issues, and even more than democratic reform – we cannot fix what we cannot afford.

It will be too bad if Martin is right.


--------------------
* I repeat, yet again, my assertion that *most* journalists and *most* media outlets are not biased for any particular party or candidate (the Toronto Star, with its *required* adherence to the Atkinson Principles being the exception that proves the rule). But some? many? most? of them are biased against both the Conservative Party and, especially, Stephen Harper - both being seen as _handmaids_ of the _Great Satan_: George W Bush and his Republican led USA. If I had to guess I would say that most of the media people I have met – a pretty small sample I hasten to point out – probably support the NDP. They (journalists) appear to me to be quite innumerate and economically illiterate – the NDP appeals to that particular segment of society.


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2008)

ER...you are right...there isn't an issue....no 5 points to accomplish, no burning need, with the exception of the fact that peeking out of the woodwork is the idea that something has to be done about the "unelected senate". That said, nothing constructive can be done about that until he appoints enough senators to vote themselves out of existence (I think that is sometime around 2013....).

on the other hand, I think Lawrence Martin is getting to like Stephan....you think?


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> ER...you are right...there isn't an issue....no 5 points to accomplish, no burning need, with the exception of the fact that peeking out of the woodwork is the idea that something has to be done about the "unelected senate". That said, nothing constructive can be done about that until he appoints enough senators to vote themselves out of existence (I think that is sometime around 2013....).
> 
> on the other hand, I think Lawrence Martin is getting to like Stephan....you think?



You don't honestly believe that PM Harper would go to the polls without some plan of what he wants to accomplish in the next term do you?  

In my opinion this is the calm before the storm.  Remember this is the guy (Harper) that everyone accuses of playing Chess while the rest fool around on the Checkers board.  While Dion is staking his ground and digging in, while Layton is beating his economically blind zealots into a frenzy and Gilles Duceppe is wondering where all his support has gone, the PM is planning the feints and flanking manoeuvres that will relegate the others to interested spectator status.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Sep 2008)

PM expected to launch election campaign Sunday
Last Updated: Thursday, September 4, 2008 | 1:14 PM ET 
CBC News 
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion adjourned his party's caucus retreat early on Thursday, amid reports that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will pull the plug on his minority Conservative government on Sunday.

Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve Parliament, the Canadian Press reported Thursday.

Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14.

Liberal MPs have been sent back to their ridings to prepare for the long anticipated election call.

The Liberal caucus was in Winnipeg and was to have wrapped up on Thursday. But Dion cancelled his closing speech.

The prime minister was with his cabinet Thursday for a pre-election meeting in Meech Lake, Que.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC’s website, is good news for Conservatives is, and it is a Great BIG *IF*, the numbers hold up for the next six weeks or so:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/04/poll-results.html


> Canadians set to vote Conservative: poll
> 
> Last Updated: Thursday, September 4, 2008 | 5:02 PM ET
> CBC News
> ...



This means that the Conservatives must _help_ Canadians to focus on *leadership* as a key issue and on Harper vs. Dion as a leader.

The Conservatives need to keep all (or equivalent to all) the seats they have now AND gain 27 more at the expense of the Liberals (in Québec, Ontario and BC) and the BQ (in Québec). It’s easier said than done.

Dion has the great advantage of very, very low expectations coupled with Canadians broad, general distaste for Stephen Harper; Canadians may think he’s the best leader but they wish he wasn’t.



Edit: typos


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

While the CBC/_Environics_ poll (just above) says that the Conservatives and Liberals are virtually tied in Québec (at 22 or 23%) – each more than 10 points behind the Bloc (34%), a new _Globe and Mail_/_Léger Marketing_ poll says that the Bloc and Conservatives are tied, at 30% each while the Liberals are back at 23%. The two polls are fairly consistent in results for the BQ and the Liberals but they show a large (7 point) variation for the Conservatives.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080904.welection_poll05/BNStory/National/home


> Conservatives, Bloc in virtual tie in Quebec, poll finds
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> 
> ...




If, and again it is a Great BIG *IF*, these polls are both accurate, in themselves, and part of a trend that will last for the next five weeks then there is hope for a stable Conservative majority government - something I believe will be good for Canada, especially if it is followed by another Conservative majority in the fall 2012 election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

And IF the _Good Grey Globe's_ most recent reader survey (*not* a scientific poll) is to be believed Dion has got very little room to grow.

In the early going (about 15% of 'normal' response levels) nearly 85% of respondents say they have already decided how they will vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is the contrary (Liberal) POV:



> Susan Riley
> Liberals shift down
> 
> Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...



I think Riley is wrong, from top to bottom, but I think the case she makes for the Liberals, while weak and disorganized, just like Stéphane Dion, is about the best that can be made.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Sep 2008)

*Canada's not in the market for heroes*
http://www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/491062


> Richard Gwyn Toronto Star Sep 05, 2008 04:30 AM
> 
> Any day now, a perfect political storm (North American version) will burst out in the form of simultaneous elections in the U.S. and Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rodahn (5 Sep 2008)

Link here

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gnGWQ-pi421in_2VE1ff9ffwJjEA

*Tories slammed for $8.8-billion pre-election spending splurge
1 hour ago

OTTAWA — The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the Harper government's pre-election spending is out of this world.

The group says the Conservatives have doled out a whopping $8.8 billion since June - including a $2,000 grant to commemorate a UFO sighting.

Federation director John Williamson says there have been almost 300 pre-election commitments, adding up to about $94 million a day, or almost $4 million every hour.

Williamson says the spending binge is exactly the kind of pre-election splurge Prime Minister Stephen Harper criticized the Liberals for in the run-up to the 2006 federal election.

Among the big-ticket Tory commitments: $1.1 billion for a so-called "road map for linguistic duality;" $350,000 for an ice cream company in Prince Edward Island; and $297,000 for a ski club in Newfoundland.

Canada's faltering economy seems likely to be a dominant issue in a federal election campaign that's to begin Sunday, and Williamson says Ottawa should be showing the same spending restraint as Canadian families. * 

From my understanding based upon what I have heard from economists, the government should spend more money in a recession, to stimulate the economy. Having said that, it may or may not just be pre-election hype.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

See this latest report of a DND poll on Canadians' attitudes towards the military.

It is *bad news* for the country, save for the intellectually challenged minority that votes BQ and NDP.

It is especially bad news for the Conservatives because it says that a major part of PM Harper's 're-branding' of Canada is failing, here at home.

It ought to be bad news for thinking Liberals, too - although the left leaning Trudeauists like Dion will not see that - because it was Paul Martin who changed the direction of Canadian foreign and defence policy with is Role of Pride and Influence in the World paper.

Trudeau was wrong - even Chrétien saw that. Canada needs influence in the world if we are going to protect and promote our vital interests there. And we need to be ‘in the world’ unless we want to become a simple appendage of the USA. Influence in the world is not hard to earn but there is a price and part of that price is a strong, active military that shoulders a fair share of the global security burden.

The fact that Canadians neither care for that role nor understand the reasons for it *must not* deter the Conservatives. Canadians are often wrong; governments may have to pander to them but when Canadians are dangerously wrong – as they are with this clinging to the Trudeauite BS about peacekeeping (a myth that Lester Pearson never believed because he had an IQ with three digits in it) – then it is the duty of the government to ignore their ‘wishes,’ lie to them and then act in the best interests of the country despite the ‘will if the ignorant masses.’

The Tories need to take this poll, perforate it every four inches, roll it up and put it in the other 'reading room.'


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Sep 2008)

After reading the story again, and without having seen the detailed poll results, I have a nagging feeling that the report may not reflect exactly what the data contain. It seems, and I am going from Mr Brewster's story only, that people could select multiple roles for the CF from the menu(es). Also a small majority support early intervention in international crises, and most respondents support our troops. 

I wonder how much of the story is from the poll, which may be embargoed, and how much is personal opinion. Did the commentators see the poll, or did the reporter tell them what it contained? As for the low level of support among the 18-24 group, these people have little to no recollection of the cold war, the wars in the Balkans we were supposedly preventing and, for the bottom of the age group, even the events of 9/11/01. As they also are the most idealistic, I am not surprised at all.

Having said all that, I suspect the attitude of the Canadian public in the period 1933-1937 was not much different. It may have become more resigned in 1938-1938 as it was realized war was inevitable. Perhaps in this poll we are seeing a combination of resignation and the grasping at straws for an alternative to war that still allows a (delusional) amount of national honour from doing our international bit.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat, I must have been "channeling" you.  Link:My thoughts exactly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2008)

I guess someone can take the question mark out of the subject of this thread now.....

From the Prime Minister's Office


> Public event for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Sunday, September 7th is:
> 
> Ottawa
> 
> ...



Let the games begin!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> After reading the story again, and without having seen the detailed poll results, I have a nagging feeling that the report may not reflect exactly what the data contain. It seems, and I am going from Mr Brewster's story only, that people could select multiple roles for the CF from the menu(es). Also a small majority support early intervention in international crises, and most respondents support our troops.
> 
> I wonder how much of the story is from the poll, which may be embargoed, and how much is personal opinion. Did the commentators see the poll, or did the reporter tell them what it contained? As for the low level of support among the 18-24 group, these people have little to no recollection of the cold war, the wars in the Balkans we were supposedly preventing and, for the bottom of the age group, even the events of 9/11/01. As they also are the most idealistic, I am not surprised at all.
> 
> Having said all that, I suspect the attitude of the Canadian public in the period 1933-1937 was not much different. It may have become more resigned in 1938-1938 as it was realized war was inevitable. Perhaps in this poll we are seeing a combination of resignation and the grasping at straws for an alternative to war that still allows a (delusional) amount of national honour from doing our international bit.




I’m not so sure about 1938/39.

Many years ago I discussed the matter of concentration camps etc with a relative. “Oh dear,” she said (approximately), “of course we knew. Kristallnacht was all over the papers, * you know. We could read, we could listen to the radio – we understood what Hitler was going to do. We couldn’t *imagine* it, but we understood it well enough.”

Despite understanding the threat, even if being unable to imagine the full horror of it, Canadians remained reluctant to rearm and then to fight – our rates of enlistment being lower that those in Britain (which also maintained a large, productive defence industrial sector) and of Australia and New Zealand  (which also maintained large, productive agricultural sectors). 

I think the very real horrors of the First World War left us reluctant to face the Second, so soon.

I also think that we talked ourselves in to an unearned peace dividend in 1969/70 and then convinced ourselves, dishonestly, that _peacekeeping_ was a cheap, easy and *acceptable* alternative to doing our fair share.

But, starting at the end of the Send World War, we also adopted the unpleasant (and unearned) _position_, especially vis à vis the USA, that Dean Acheson described as "the stern daughter of the voice of God." Moralizing felt better than acting and we took a liking to it; we did and still do a lot of it, too much of it, and it is still unearned and unpleasant.


--------------------
* Something that that was confirmed in 2000 when the _Globe and Mail_ ran a series of front pages from throughout its history (or just the 20th century?) – one was a report on Kristallnacht, it had a big, bold headline and photos, all ‘_above the fold_’ as they say, very prominent. 'We' knew but we chose to ignore reality in favour of wishin' and hopin'.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Sep 2008)

Is Susan Riley gunning for a Senate seat from Dion?


----------



## JBG (5 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The fact that Canadians neither care for that role nor understand the reasons for it *must not* deter the Conservatives. Canadians are often wrong; governments may have to pander to them but when Canadians are dangerously wrong – as they are with this clinging to the Trudeauite BS about peacekeeping (a myth that Lester Pearson never believed because he had an IQ with three digits in it) – then it is the duty of the government to ignore their ‘wishes,’ lie to them and then act in the best interests of the country despite the ‘will if the ignorant masses.’
> 
> The Tories need to take this poll, perforate it every four inches, roll it up and put it in the other 'reading room.'


I agree, governments need to lead, not hold a wet finger to the air to find out which way "public opinion" blows for each step.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2008)

JBG, I am afraid it must be something in the water today....First Edward and now you prompt a challenge.

Obama wishes to lead (and his acolytes wish to be led).  Dion's party relishes leaders and is perturbed that, as much as he may wish it himself, Dion is no leader.

McCain wishes to serve (which is to say wishes to follow the will of the public).   And Harper, in so far as we can be sure of anythng of his wishes, seems to want to manage - and most on this site would agree that management, while it may be many things, is not leadership.

So - do we/you really want your government to lead?

Personally I don't mind following if the mob is going where I want to go but I am less than thrilled if I am swept to a destination undesirable or unclear at a pace uncomfortable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2008)

Just for fun, here is a link to the _Globe and Mail’s_ *Poll of Polls*.

The _Good Grey Globe_ say that:



> The Poll of Polls aggregates major election polls released over the past seven days. Sample size is taken into account. For polling firms that have released more than one poll over the past seven days, only the most recent one is used.



The current (as at 0730 Hrs, 6 Sep 06) the ‘national’ results are:

Conservatives:  36%
Liberals:           30%
NDP:                17%
BQ:                   8%
Green:               8%

It is worth noting that (‘currently,’ again) the Liberals lead (39% vs 34%) in Ontario and (42% vs 24%) in Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada the NDP outpoll the Conservatives at 27% vs 24%. In Québec the three major parties are close to what is probably a statistical tie (19 times out of 20): BQ = 31%, Conservatives = 27% and Liberals = 24%.

Enjoy! But remember that the parties, themselves, have much more accurate, carefully targeted 'rolling' poll data and also remember that even a fairly large 'national' sample (say, 2,000 or even 3,000 respondents) is 'small' at the provincial and too small (from which to extrapolate) at the regional level.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Sep 2008)

I just don't trust this poll of polls. The various companies ask different questions, may use different methodolgies and distribute their collected data differently. Did they include the two firms that accurately measure data in Quebec with a sample of about 1,000 compared to the national firms that have a sample in that province of about 250, with most on the Island of Montreal?

Apples plus oranges plus peaches plus pears equals fruit flies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is political columnists Don Martin’s advice to Stéphane Dion:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/05/don-martin-when-attacks-on-harper-just-won-t-cut-it.aspx


> Don Martin: When attacks on Harper just won't cut it
> 
> Posted: September 05, 2008, 6:54 PM by Ronald Nurwisah
> 
> ...




I find it moderately interesting that both Dion and Harper are being counselled to ‘sell the team’ – Dion because he is perceived to be a weak leader with a good, strong party ‘brand,’ and Harper because he is perceived to be too ‘strong’ and because he, personally, is more popular than the party’s brand.

I *do* think Harper has an agenda; I don’t think it is very well hidden but I do believe that many, many Canadians, maybe most, would not like it very much if they bothered to read about it. Fortunately, for Harper, his _hidden agenda_ is very hard to describe and discuss on TV and Canadians appear (when asked, in polls) to regard reading about issues as a very poor third choice for information gathering.

While it might be useful, for the Liberals, to remind Canadians of how ‘*comfortable*’ – socially, economically, and so on - they were with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin they (Liberals) risk moving into dangerous territory because, on economic issues, Canadians, according to the polls, trust Harper/Conservatives more  than they do Dion/Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2008)

Hello Mods: could we change the Poll at the top of this thread, please? After all, we can, apparently, stop speculating about when the election will be held.

Maybe we could say:

"Please tell us how you intend to vote *when you have decided*:

BQ: ___
Conservative: ___
Green: ___
Liberal: ___
NDP: ___
Other/will not vote/will spoil ballot: ___"

For consideration.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2008)

Liberal divisions are coming to the surface right on the eve of the election:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=774378



> *Good Grits*
> 
> National Post  Published: Saturday, September 06, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Sep 2008)

There indeed is a place for the kind of Liberals that fit this description:

. . . But, when it comes to policies for the new century, these two [Grafstein and Axworthy] are on the ball. They both seek to strengthen links with the United States to combat terrorism, defend the continent from missiles launched by rogue states and make the newly defended border even more secure while remaining open to the rapid traffic of goods and people. They also hold to small-c conservative economic views that would, if accepted by the party, make Ottawa less of a tax-and-spend monstrosity.

Since there is no place for them in the Liberal Party of Dion et al, and they recognize this, I am sure the Conservative Party of Canada would welcome them and their energy, dedication and ability. I don't think we would turn down their votes, either. This could start the process of re-aligning Canadian politics into two parties - one centre-right conservative and moderate and the other far left, radical and strident.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just don't trust this poll of polls. The various companies ask different questions, may use different methodolgies and distribute their collected data differently. Did they include the two firms that accurately measure data in Quebec with a sample of about 1,000 compared to the national firms that have a sample in that province of about 250, with most on the Island of Montreal?
> 
> Apples plus oranges plus peaches plus pears equals fruit flies.




The _consultants_ at Strategic Counsel agree with you. They are _targeting_ 45 close ridings, according to this _Globe and Mail_ story which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080906.wcampaignpolls06/BNStory/Front


> Battleground smaller than you think
> *A few dozen ridings in three provinces expected to help decide election outcome*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> ...




Now, Peter Dolonlo is a very smart fellow and I admire his political acumen, but he must remember that campaigns matter. Some candidates, by their very presence in the race, are going to change the dynamics of some ridings. Equally, the national campaigns, themselves, may neutralize some candidates’ advantages – make currently close races into sure things and making some sure things into close races.

There’s a list of the 45 _key_ ridings in the print edition of the _Globe and Mail_.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Sep 2008)

Tracking a few ridings is just one of the useful tools available to professional users of the pollers' craft. I would also be terribly interested in the possibility for vote spliting or strategic voting and suspect it will be watched carefully. 

Compared to the Liberals, the NDP is flush with cash and apt to be quick off the mark. Apparrently the Liberals will be without a plane for the first few days of the campaign, while their Air Inuit 737 (the only jet in that company's fleet) is being kitted. Will the NDP take advantage of their advantage, or will they fail selection and maintenance of the aim? Is their choice to demonize the CPC and risk vote splitting, or worse from their point of view, strategic voting? Or will they go for the long run and aim for closing the gap with the Liberals and perhaps even becoming the official opposition? Imagine what that improbable event would do to the Grits.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Sep 2008)

Here is an article by Quebec commentator L. IAN MacDONALD  on recent polls on Quebec voting trends, and whythey should not be trusted.  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act). 



> Don't trust the polls: The Liberals are down in Quebec
> 
> by L. IAN MacDONALD
> National Post, Friday, September 5, 2008
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... [W]ill they go for the long run and aim for closing the gap with the Liberals and perhaps even becoming the official opposition? Imagine what that improbable event would do to the Grits.



That would be my strategy, were I leading the NDP.

I would savage the Liberal/Green carbon tax, even as I lashed Stephen Harper for doing nothing at all about the fearful climate change crisis, and stress the advantages, to _ordinary Canadians'_ wallets, of my _cap and trade_ system. I would (dishonestly) tell Canadians that George W Bush doesn't like _cap and trade_ but Europeans do - that always works.

I would, with disarming simplicity, tell Canadians that I would _bring the troops home* now!*_ (perhaps even with honour) and then put them back on baby-blue beret wearing _peacekeeping_ duties - where they will not need all those new, expensive weapons.

That's probably about all I would need to say to accomplish my strategic mission of _uniting the left_ and moving Olivia Chow and I into Stornoway.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2008)

> ....and moving Olivia Chow and I into Stornoway



In which case I would be the first to offer my sincerest condolences......although to which one I am not sure. ;D


----------



## geo (6 Sep 2008)

What do you mean that liberal divisions are coming to the surface all of a sudden..... they've been staring ya in the face ever since the knives came out for Paul Martin.


----------



## JBG (6 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Personally I don't mind following if the mob is going where I want to go but I am less than thrilled if I am swept to a destination undesirable or unclear at a pace uncomfortable.


I cannot disagree with those sentiments in the least.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2008)

Assuming that, a bit later this morning, we will be in an election campaign, and assuming that Afghanistan will be an issue, I think we should revisit this topic from about a year ago.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Sep 2008)

And off to the races we go.


Federal election called for Oct. 14
PM predicts Tories will win: 'We believe in all likelihood it will be a minority' 
Last Updated: Sunday, September 7, 2008 | 8:35 AM ET 
CBC News 
Canadians will head to the polls in a general election on Oct. 14, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday in Ottawa after meeting with the Governor General.

Harper made the announcement outside Rideau Hall where he met briefly with Michaëlle Jean, and asked that the minority government be dissolved.

"We have come to the moment that requires the people of Canada to choose the way forward," Harper said.

"Our government is offering a clear direction," he said, describing the current Parliament as "dysfunctional."

Harper took direct aim at the Liberals, led by Stéphane Dion. The prime minister said Dion is going into the election promoting large-scale spending and a new carbon tax.

When asked about what the outcome of the vote might be, Harper said, "We believe it is going to be a tough election. We believe it will be a tight election. And, yes, we believe in all likelihood it will be a minority."

'A stark choice' is before voters: Dion
Dion promised an open style of government, and said the election poses "a stark choice" for the country and slammed Harper's party for not planning for future generations.

"Stephen Harper has formed the most conservative government in our history," Dion said in the foyer of the House of Commons.

Dion said he would champion a "richer, fairer, greener Canada," and this "may well be the most crucial campaign in our election history."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe called for the election of a large number of Bloc MPs, and said he would work to prevent Harper from gaining a majority.

"In order to have Quebec respected in Ottawa, we need to have a team that puts Quebec first," Duceppe said in Montreal.

"With the Bloc, Quebec can present a united stand in Ottawa," he said. 'We want Quebec to be the winner."

4 byelections cancelled
Harper's Conservative party has been in power since Jan. 23, 2006, when it won a minority of seats.

Heading into this election, the Conservatives held 127 seats, while the Liberals had 95. The Bloc Québecois had 48 seats, the New Democratic Party 30, and there were three Independent members of Parliament.

The Green party had one MP and four seats were vacant.

The calling of the Canada-wide vote means the cancellation of four federal byelections that were scheduled to take place this month. Three were set for Monday and one was to be held later this month.

Before taking questions from reporters outside Rideau Hall, Harper praised Canada as the "best country in the world," and said serving as prime minister has been an honour.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2008)

I find it amusing watching Jack Layton announce his candidacy for PM and launching his campaign from the "Backside" of Parliament, over on the Quebec side of the river.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find it amusing watching Jack Layton announce his candidacy for PM and launching his campaign from the "Backside" of Parliament, over on the Quebec side of the river.



Amusing and appropriate that he's talking from the 'backside.'
He's always talking from there anyways.

This is going to be the first time I can vote, and I know who that'll be for. I don't have that CPC membership card in my wallet as a decoration.

Midget


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2008)

Weeeeee!  Elizabeth May's turn (in reference to why people don't want to vote):

"It doesn't matter who I vote for, the Government always wins"..............Well D'uh!

Of course the Government wins.  That is what we are electing members to Parliament for; to create a Government.   :


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Weeeeee!  Elizabeth May's turn (in reference to why people don't want to vote):
> 
> "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the Government always wins"..............Well D'uh!
> 
> Of course the Government wins.  That is what we are electing members to Parliament for; to create a Government.   :



Liz May, she's running against Peter MacKay this time. You know, her desperate bids for attention and thus airtime would be humorus if they weren't so sad. Threatening to take the Media to court for airtime during debates sounds more like a kid threatening to 'taddle-tale' than the leader of a political party. 

Midget


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2008)

That solid majority (according to our very unscientific poll at the top of the page) of Army.ca members who want a Conservative victory (and, I’m assuming, a Conservative *majority*, too) had better start hoping that both Jack Layton and Elizabeth May run good campaigns and win more seats that they have now. We, Conservatives, need them (Greens and NDP) to take votes away from the Liberals - especially in ridings where the Conservatives can benefit from a tight race on the left and ‘come up through the middle.’

I see three *key* _races_:

•	In Québec, outside of Montréal, between federalists – who, according to the polls I have seen, favour the Conservatives - and the BQ supporters. The Conservatives need to aim to pick up 15 seats– partially to offset a few losses in Atlantic Canada. That, going from 15 to 30± seats in Québec, involves the virtual annihilation of the BQ;

•	In Ontario, outside of Toronto, between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives need to aim for 10+ new seats in Ontario; and

•	In the major urban centres (outside of Alberta) between the Greens, Liberals and NDP. The Conservatives *might* pick up a few (one, two, three even four or five) seats when the 'left' vote splits three ways.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Sep 2008)

For the Conservatives in this election there are a couple of long term goals. The short term goal is to retain power, perhaps with a majority or at least an increased minority. In an ideal world the CPC would hope to split the left vote by driving Liberal voters to the Greens and the NDP, and for what Edward might term the St Laurent Liberals to the Tories. This would produce a strategic defeat for the Grits and guarantee another Liberal leadership race within a year or so, when that party's finances are still deeply crimson. The reduced Liberal vote would also decrease the available cash based on the votes received and make their financial position more and more precarious. Is it possible? 

The other long term goal is to demoralize the Separatist vote in Quebec. While a gain of 15-20 seats does not seem like all that much, it would reduce the BQ to around 30 seats or just ahead of the Tories. Both would be ahead of the Liberals, especially if the NDP/Greens pick up a couple of seats. The future for the Bloc would be grim and in time they could go the way of the Creditistes of the 60s and 70s.

The NDP could be the strategic victors in this election. While they will not gain power, they could be poised to replace the Liberals as official opposition, or at the very least pick up a tidy chunk of Grit ridings. To do this, they will have to convince the electorate that strategic voting is not an option.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2008)

And Canada will become a series of distinct "colonies" (in the microbial, Petrie dish type sense) isolated by their natural geography into distinct cultures......

Unlike Liberals (and strident Nationalists) I don't consider this to be a problem.  I consider it a natural stage in the evolution of a population (mitosis - the spreading of the seeds of a stressed organism).

With the establishment of a variety of healthy and growing independent cultures we can then hope that our politicians will find new opportunities to bind us together on the basis of symbiosis (mutual advantage between discrete organisms) or even meiosis (sexual reproduction between two separate organisms resulting in a related but distinct new organism).

Mitosis
Symbiosis
Meiosis

We are truly Slime. ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill,

I am always amazed at your political/biological analogies...


----------



## Celticgirl (7 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Weeeeee!  Elizabeth May's turn (in reference to why people don't want to vote):
> 
> "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the Government always wins"..............Well D'uh!
> 
> Of course the Government wins.  That is what we are electing members to Parliament for; to create a Government.   :



I saw that today and I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it to be a ridiculous statement.  :blotto:


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Sep 2008)

Dion had his miscue in his opening address. The report is here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080907/election2008_dion_080907/20080907?s_name=election2008

In the report he says that details of his plan can be found at GreenShift.ca, which is the site for the company that is suing the Grits for stealing the name. The Liberal site is thegreenshift.ca


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Sep 2008)

Here's a question for those with more technical knowledge on politics/elections:
Is there any such a thing as a 'cut off date' for a party to enter a candidate? I ask because here in Kings-Hants we have no Conservative running against Brison yet. I know there had been plans to nominate a member to run in October or November, but it would seem the election call came a bit early. 
Is there a certain date where the CPC will no longer be able to enter someone for this riding?

I've met with and spoken with Mr.Brison on a number of occasions, and personally I think it is a shame he crossed the floor. 
Had he _not_ crossed, he'd have my vote just like that. Yes, I can understand completely why he would choose to cross, I just think it's a shame he's part of the dark side now.

Midget


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> ...
> Is there any such a thing as a 'cut off date' for a party to enter a candidate?
> ...



Nominations close at 1700 Hrs on the 21st day before the election which means, I guess, if I am counting correctly, on 23 Sep 08.


Edit: removed an Elections Canada link (to the nomination form) that would not work.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nominations close at 1700 Hrs on the 21st day before the election which means, I guess, if I am counting correctly, on 23 Sep 08.
> 
> 
> Edit: removed an Elections Canada link (to the nomination form) that would not work.



Thanks.

Midget


----------



## JBG (7 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And Canada will become a series of distinct "colonies" (in the microbial, Petrie dish type sense) isolated by their natural geography into distinct cultures......
> 
> Unlike Liberals (and strident Nationalists) I don't consider this to be a problem.  I consider it a natural stage in the evolution of a population (mitosis - the spreading of the seeds of a stressed organism).
> 
> ...


Why not what you have,  one of the greatest countries ever known to man, a proud, English-speaking country?


----------



## Yrys (7 Sep 2008)

I went to Radio-Canada to see what was the vote the last time 
in my  circonscription. Doesn't matter for who I vote, BQ will win...

Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie
BQ 55,99 %
LIB 15,76 %
NPD 11,55 %
PC 9,30 %
PV 6,60 %
PM 0,80 %

By the way, PM is Parti Marijuana ...


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Why not what you have,  one of the greatest countries ever known to man, a proud, English-speaking country?



The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.  I just figure that the tensions and the path will be similar regardless of the details.  As to it being an English speaking country - likely, in the same sense that both Holland and England currently speak variants of Fries,  or Britain, Hong Kong, India, the US and Australia currently speak English - in a mutually incomprehensible fashion.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Sep 2008)

I decided to do some research to see what sound bytes might come up next week.  It seems the NDP are ... playing catch up.

http://www.ndp.ca/platform  (as at sept 7, 2008)

Platform: Getting results for people
RELATED LINKS
NDP – The Better Choice for WomenmoreNDP platform gets results for artistsmorePLATFORM 2006: Getting results for peoplemoreGetting results to clean up politicsmoreGetting results for children and young peoplemoreGetting results to improve public health caremoreTaxes
In November 2005, the Liberals unveiled their budget priorities for Canada – and in the process made it clear whose side Liberals are on. » More

Education
It’s time to give hope to young Canadians. Hope for good jobs in a growing and prosperous economy, and help for families so their children can succeed. » More

Health care
Canadians value our public health care. But after 12 years of Liberal government, its erosion is more dramatic than most people realize – as individuals, we’re spending vastly more than ever before on basic health care needs. » More

The Environment
No issue has been handled more ineptly by the Paul Martin Liberal government than the environment, and few broken promises are clearer. » More

Aboriginal Peoples
People from the Original Nations of Canada can and do make prominent contributions to a better Canada and a better world: in the arts, media, science, government, business, health and education. » More

Ethics
During the past months, Canadians have witnessed the spectacle of almost-daily revelations of the abuse of public trust by the Liberal Party. » More

Getting More Done
The Liberals are out of steam – and their list of neglected commitments is evidence of that. They’ve become so mired in the corruption scandal and so concerned about trying to talk their way out of their broken promises that they are doing nothing on the priorities on which people expect action. » More

Jobs
Canadians are looking for evidence of a strong economy that brings direct benefits to them and their families. The Liberals’ answer is to take credit for the drop in Canada’s unemployment rate, while ignoring the dangerous loss of manufacturing jobs and failing to respond to George Bush’s attack on forest workers and businesses. » More

Children
There can be no clearer example of the difference in priorities between New Democrats and Mr. Harper’s Conservatives. We believe Canada should look after its people – beginning with our children – before investing in lower-priority measures like broad-brush tax cuts. » More

Child Care
The NDP has fought for years alongside women, early childhood education experts and parents for a national commitment to quality child care. » More

Housing
In his 1996 federal budget, Paul Martin abolished Canada’s internationally recognized affordable housing program created by New Democrats and Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s. » More

New Canadians
Canada is a nation, largely, of immigrants. Our cities are powerful magnets for talented and creative people from around the world who look to Canada for economic opportunity, social cohesion and political freedom. » More

Seniors and Pensions
It has been 40 years since the last major, comprehensive reform of Canada’s income security system for the elderly. Our economy and our labour market have changed a great deal since then. » More

Ending Violence
While Canada’s overall crime rate has held steady and declined over the last few years, there are serious crime issues that threaten the security each of us feels in our own community. » More

Respect. Renewal.
The Liberal Party of Canada has gravely damaged the federation within Quebec due to its conduct, while gravely damaging the effectiveness of the federal government in the rest of the country – without the apparent intended benefit of building unity. » More

Peace and Security
In this Parliament, the House of Commons adopted unanimously an NDP motion calling on the government to honour its commitment to overseas development assistance. Meeting these commitments is not a matter of altruism. It is the most practical response Canada can offer to reduce global economic inequality. » More


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went there to see if their position on the Afghanistan mission has changed.  Apparently I traveled back in time... damm I should have loofed for Lottery numbers.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2008)

I have to admit I'm not very happy with the election, nor the current campaign platforms of *any* of the major parties. (most of the minor ones as well, but as a realist, I'd rather vote and get half a loaf....). Thoughts?

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011838.html



> *The Canadian prisoner's dilemma*
> 
> Why vote for any party? David Warren is mad as hell and doesn't want to have to take this any more:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just don't trust this poll of polls. The various companies ask different questions, may use different methodolgies and distribute their collected data differently. Did they include the two firms that accurately measure data in Quebec with a sample of about 1,000 compared to the national firms that have a sample in that province of about 250, with most on the Island of Montreal?
> 
> Apples plus oranges plus peaches plus pears equals fruit flies.




The Conservatives’ lead is not *strong*, in fact, not all the pollsters agree there even is one.

Looking at the component polls we see:

Poll                      Cons     Libs
Strategic Counsel     37      29
Ekos                      37      24
Environics               38      28
Ipsos                     39      31
Nanos                    33      *35*
Angus Reid              36      28
Harris/Decima          33      *34*


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

But if we average them all, it still looks like they have about a 7% lead.


----------



## GAP (8 Sep 2008)

*Strategists' corner*
Globe and Mail Update September 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM EDT
WHAT DOES EACH LEADER NEED TO ACHIEVE IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS?  
Article Link

Rod Love (Calgary-based political consultant and former chief of staff to Ralph Klein): I'm working on the assumption that this might be the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. If I'm right, then it is important for each leader to engage and energize their base. The swing voters will come later.

For Stephen Harper, the narrative is clear in the ads they have already been running: strong leader, experienced, competent. A message to the Conservative faithful that they are starting from a position of strength will galvanize their volunteers.

For Stéphane Dion and the Liberals, the challenge is different. Morale and money is low, and their organization is weak in too many parts of the country. Mr. Dion should attack – the Liberal foot soldiers need to see a leader who is going to fight from the opening bell. But not the silly “hidden agenda” line of attack. Attack where Mr. Dion is strong – on policy.

My sense of both the Bloc and the NDP is that victory would be holding on to what they have got. While the Conservatives and Liberals will eventually end up fighting for the centre, Jack Layton needs to hold on to the left, while Gilles Duceppe needs to keep the nationalists in the fold.

The Greens? Focus on three or four ridings where there is hope, and work them.

Scott Reid (former director of communications for Paul Martin):  If you want to know what campaigns think, watch what they do, not what they say.

Stephen Harper is running ads about what a nice fellow Stephen Harper is. That tells you the Conservatives remain worried about the way their leader is perceived. For Mr. Harper, his early focus must be to echo the efforts of his advertising by being a reassuring rather than polarizing figure. As he argues that he and not Stéphane Dion is best able to manage a teetering economy, Mr. Harper must keep his Jekyll mask firmly in place and his inner Hyde well concealed.

Mr. Dion faces not one but two early challenges. First, he has to directly counter the Conservative effort to fortify Mr. Harper's image. That means tugging at Jekyll's mask to reveal the nasty, hyper-partisan face that has given Canadians such pause in the past. And yes, that means Mr. Dion must okay “negative” ads. There is little logic in dividing your paid and earned media efforts into competing camps. Mr. Dion's second early challenge is to demonstrate basic competence. He doesn't need to be spectacular. No one is expecting the Cirque de Soleil. A capable, well functioning campaign that stays on track, stays on message and smiles through the early pressures will reassure voters that he is up to the task.

The others? Jack Layton must show that he, not Mr. Dion is the legitimate foil to Mr. Harper's right-wing vision. Gilles Duceppe must persuade Quebeckers there remains a battle that requires the Bloc to wage. And Elizabeth May just needs to be seen. Everywhere she goes, she'll walk away with votes in her pocket. Entry into the leaders' debate must remain her guiding objective.

Gerald Caplan (former NDP campaign manager and national director): Each leader has daunting challenges that need to be addressed promptly though they're almost certain to recur until the very last moment.

Stephen Harper has to insist that he's not going to win a majority government even though that's what he lusts after and it's the only objective that justifies his decision to call an election. For him, the worst news of the last week came from polls showing him on the brink of majority territory. Many Canadians who are prepared to see him lead a second minority government will think twice about electing him to lead a majority. This is particularly true in urban and even suburban Ontario, where his party seems to have made a real breakthrough in the last few weeks. But achieving this tactical goal is not at all easy, since the distance between Conservative support in the last election, 36 per cent, is only a few points away from a possible majority - in fact close to the margin of error in many polls. And we can be sure that his opponents will cry majority on an hourly basis.

Stéphane Dion needs to show that he's actually a leader. For most of his pathetic tenure as Liberal chief, he's conveyed the sense that he has no idea why he ever wanted to run for the job. For a brief moment not long ago, as he unveiled his green plan, he seemed at last to be in control. He gave, even in English, first-rate interviews and exuded a confidence that seemed genuine. Unaccountably, that moment was allowed to slip away, and he enters the campaign perceived as a weak individual with no apparent policy priorities other than a muddled green one. Mr. Dion was right, of course, to chastise Mr. Harper for demanding that the opposition support a non-existent public agenda (the hidden agenda is a different matter). The irony is that Mr. Dion seems to have none either, and while Mr. Harper got away with his cheeky little game, Mr. Dion cannot.

Jack Layton faces the same old impossible dilemma that has haunted the NDP since the far right of the Conservative party first split and then reunited as a far more American-style right-wing entity. Somewhere between 60 per cent and 65 per cent of Canadians will never support Mr. Harper and his policies. The threat of a majority Harper government is enough to persuade many progressives that they must hold their noses and vote for their local Liberal candidate. Call it strategic voting. Mr. Layton needs to convince every living, breathing New Democrat that they need to stick with the party even in the face of a possible Harper majority, about which the Liberals will remind them at every opportunity. Several compelling policy priorities would make this uphill task easier.

Elizabeth May faces the same dispiriting challenge. Most of her natural band of supporters fear a Harper majority and see that Mr. Dion is a pretty reliable green advocate. (Compared to Mr. Harper and John Baird, who isn't?) And after all, Ms. May herself vouches for Mr. Dion's green credentials. Voting Green can wait till the next election. But Ms. May is an extremely appealing campaigner and must try to keep her flock from straying by sheer force of personality.

A weary Gilles Duceppe has to demonstrate a raison d'etre for his party's very existence. The task become harder and harder each year. A few small missteps and it's good-bye Charlie Brown.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But if we average them all, it still looks like they have about a 7% lead.



Yes, but see Old Sweat's comment: averaging them, which is, essentially, what the _Good Grey Globe's_ *Poll of Polls* does, means you are averaging apples, oranges and pears - and you're not even gong to make good marmalade.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, but see Old Sweat's comment: averaging them, which is, essentially, what the _Good Grey Globe's_ *Poll of Polls* does, means you are averaging apples, oranges and pears - and you're not even gong to make good marmalade.



Reading some of the early analysis coming out of some political strategists in the Press gives the impression that we will likely get bad marmalade in Oct.  This being Day 2, we can only wait and see how many days it will take to change/confirm/modify these comments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2008)

I have several issues; here, in no particular order, is a _six-pack_ of what I want the next government to:

1.	Read former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s introduction to A Role of Pride and Influence in the World. There is a lot of good policy there. It needs to me updated and implemented;

2.	Deal with productivity. The problem is not that Canadian workers are either lazy or overpaid. The problems include, in the main –

•	Timid, grovelling leadership management in our corporate boardrooms,

•	Ill conceived government policies that tax savings and investments, thereby frustrating job creation and innovation,

•	Political pork-barrelling,

•	Under-funded education (_academic_ and _applied_ (practical) – at the post secondary level, and

•	Incoherent R&D policies and programmes;

3.	Address the democratic deficit by, both, reforming the Senate (which can be done, partially, without any constitutional changes), and adding enough seats to the House of Commons to repair the *equality* imbalance;

4.	Withdraw from areas on shared federal/provincial jurisdiction – leaving tax points behind;

5.	Craft a ‘customs union’ with the USA – that may, also, involve an ‘immigration union,’ too. The creates a *common* CANUS ‘border’ for the rest of the world and, effectively, erases the existing border between Canada and the USA for goods, services and people (and their jobs); and

6.	 Continue, simultaneously, to –

•	Reduce both corporate and personal income taxes so that future governments will not have the resources to implement ill-considered (Trudeauesque) programmes without either raising taxes or running a deficit, and

•	Lower the total (federal and provincial) debt to some level =< 20% of GDP.

I think the kinds of social changes people like Warren want, a few of which, I agree, are necessary, some of which are likely desirable and many of which are downright silly, can come only after some structural changes have been made to the national governance and management systems.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2008)

Wanted to:
1)  share my own collection of links for tracking the election, and 
2) start a thread where you would feel free to post any links to help keep track of the latest "running of the snakes" you might think others would enjoy.

Feel free to share your sources of info (no individual stories, please - lotsa threads already out there discussing specific MSM coverage).


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2008)

This is a bit of a rant, but: here’s another issue:

•	The poor, abused US taxpayer just bought Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (originally established, as US government entities, as Federal National Mortgage Association (1938) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (1970)) for about $200 Billion – that is *about* (a very rough about) $1,400 for every one of the (roughly) 135,000,000 US taxpayers;

•	I have no great problem with the bailout. Here are good and valid, albeit very debatable, political and economic reasons for so doing.

•	*But*: the CEOs of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac will each get multi-million dollar buyouts for, essentially, as former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee put it on TV, earlier today, “flying their airplanes into a wall.”

My *issue* is not the too generous ‘retirement’ and ‘termination’ payments built into too many executive contracts, my *issue* is with executive compensation.

About _nn_ years ago executives, typically, earned about forty (40) times the wage of a typical hourly wage rate employee in the same industry. If automotive assembly line workers got $15/hr (which was about $30,000/year – without any overtime) then a typical senior executive in the automotive industry probably got an annual salary of, say, $1.2 Million/year. Now a typical Canadian autoworker (in the middle of an effective three tier wage structure) might earn $45/hour or  $87,750/year but senior executives now *routinely* get $10 Million/year – more than *100 times* the hourly rate. There’s something wrong with that model. A multiplier of forty or even fifty can be justified, (even though, in the CF, the multiplier for the CDS (vs. a Cpl) is only about 5) but 100? No!

We have entered an era of *celebrity CEOs* who command fabulous salaries – which *might* be tolerable IF they were accompanies by strict performance *requirements and penalties* for failure to perform. But the executive compensation is a one way ladder, leading ever upwards, even for CEOs who “fly their airplane into a wall.”

CEOs, like hourly wage rate workers, are nothing more than *employees* of the shareholders – they are hired to do one, and only one thing: make money *for* the shareholders. Those who put nice, consistent profits in the shareholders’ bank accounts *deserve* a good, even excellent salary – and 40 times a typical hourly wage *IS* excellent. Those who cost the shareholders money, who fail to deliver profits, who lower value deserve a swift kick in the ass and summary dismissal with NO benefits or bonuses at all.

The government cannot do anything about this except to *lead by example* – in both the public sector, proper, and in the Crown Corporations. The Government of Canada should be an exemplary employer: hiring good people to work hard at useful jobs and rewarding them, through a mix of salary and benefits, in an appropriate manner. Executives should *want* to come to work for the Government of Canada because the work should be challenging and fulfilling – even if the most senior executive salaries are paid only, say, 10 to 20 times what most clerks earn. (By the way, that would see most senior civil servants and CEOs of Crown Corporations earning *around* $500,000.00/year – twice what some of them get now.)

We need to change our socio-economic and political _culture_, not our social _mores_.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Under-funded education (_academic_ and _applied_ (practical) – at the post secondary level, and



I'd argue this point.  Post-secondary institutions are over-resourced, fat, and too large.  We've destroyed any value in the concept of a degree, amking instead an exercise in credentialism.  The unfortunate truth is that half of all people are below average.  Steering everyone to a degree serves no one well - the standards become so diluted that the value to society is eliminated.

Providing better post-secondary options may be one worthwhile tact - encouraging people into skilled trades, for example.  But I'd also argue with direct governmental investment in education.  Better to provide post-graduation tax relief to students, and charge whatever the freight will bear at the front end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Debates are hard to control; it is too easy to ‘score’ in even a carefully scripted debate. Big debates, four or five people, are harder to manage than small, one on one debates, simply because the dynamics are more complex.

Were I Stephen Harper I think I could prefer three (six?) one-on-one debates: SH vs GD, SH vs SD and SH vs JL. I I were Jack Layton *I know* I would prefer one-on-one debates.

Only Stéphane Dion clearly benefits from larger debates – the complex dynamics are most likely to provide opportunities for the weakest leader/debater even as they provide challenges or threats to the stronger leaders/debaters.

Maybe there is method in the (reported) threats by the Conservatives and NDP to withdraw if May is allowed in. Maybe a whole hockey sock full of short, one-on-one debates would serve them better.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe there is method in the (reported) threats by the Conservatives and NDP to withdraw if May is allowed in. Maybe a whole hockey sock full of short, one-on-one debates would serve them better.



If I were in May's situation I would do whatever it took to gain attention.....which she is doing...

While unlikely to be accepted unless Harper backs out of a major debate, the  one-on-one debates would benefit the smaller parties, if only for the exposure they generate and the antics they could get up to with questioning why Harper will not debate them individually....


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> While unlikely to be accepted unless Harper backs out of a major debate, the  one-on-one debates would benefit the smaller parties, if only for the exposure they generate and the antics they could get up to with questioning why Harper will not debate them individually....



Which quite obviously, to the knowledgeable observer, shows that Harper has everything to loose, and the small party leader has everything to gain through these antics.  It would also show Harper to be a strong candidate should he be able to turn those antics around on the persons initiating them, deflating their arguments.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Which quite obviously, to the knowledgeable observer, shows that Harper has everything to loose, and the small party leader has everything to gain through these antics.  It would also show Harper to be a strong candidate should he be able to turn those antics around on the persons initiating them, deflating their arguments.



agreed....so why put yourself in the firing line if you don't need to....just suppress them when they are politically weak. 

The court challenge thingy isn't going to cut it...they have a choice to participate or not, and the Conservatives simply said  that if May is in, they are out....the courts can't force you to debate someone.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (9 Sep 2008)

It just shows how narrow minded the elitist parties really are. It's a shame that even in this day and age Canada is still in the dark ages. Why vote or even waste the time of voting if people are herded through corruptive motives and biased media outlets.

 Besides the debate is a just a none swearing mud tossing slanderfest anyways. It's not actually going to change anyones opinions on what they think of them. Everyone already knows what to expect from all sides except the greens at this point.

 The BLOC would relocate ottawa across the river in Gatineuax and then claim independence from Canada taking the rest of the countries tax pot with them...
 The NDP would make a ton of promises and much like yesteryear break them all, steal till they can't steal no more then claim it's our own fault and launch another massive lawsuit against us...
 The Cons would go back to where they are now and carry on blissfully while the economy goes in the tank...
 The LIBs  would raise taxes to the point of starvation en masse, point thier fingers at the CONS and NDP and blame them for everything in the hopes of justifying thier tax hikes and ruination of the country.

 Thus that leaves the greens... a  new party with no experience at any of the above mainstream politics, thus we have a 50/50 shot that they will screw up in favour of the common folk...

 Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Thus that leaves the greens... a  new party with no experience at any of the above mainstream politics, thus we have a 50/50 shot that they will screw up in favour of the common folk...
> 
> Cheers.



Sorry, but I don't see any 50/50 shot for the Greens.  At this latitude I do not want to be living in a Grass Hut.  I do not want to be wearing clothes made solely of hemp to keep warm in February.  I do not want to see our Industry destroyed in favour of Cottage Industry.  I do not want to see my lifestyle drastically reduced to please every and any environmental fanatic nut job.  I do not want to see my diet reduced due to fanatical Animal Rights advocates.  I do not want to see extra taxes put on my automobile, my gas, my electricity, my water, my clothes, my food, my electronics, etc.  I don't look at this as being a 50/50 shot at giving the Greens a chance to govern; more like a 99.9999/.0001 chance.  The Greens would destroy the nation faster than any of the other Parties.  Good intentions, but no thought.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is some food for thought for all us Ontarians from _Queen’s Park_ columnist Murray Campbell (no relation, I hasten to add):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080909.CAMPBELL09/TPStory/National/columnists


> McGuinty's sad refrain on the problem of fairness
> 
> MURRAY CAMPBELL
> mcampbell@globeandmail.com
> ...



Despite being a card carrying Tory (and I’ll retain that descriptor on my Army.ca _identity_ until the election is over) I agree with Dalton McWhimpy: Ontario got royally screwed by the Chrétien/Martin team (although the vast majority of Ontarians are too dumb to comprehend that) and Harper has done little, too little, to repair the damage.

Ontario is the “engine of economic growth” for Canada. Yes, yes, I know Alberta and BC and Newfoundland and even Saskatchewan are resource rich but Ontario has ⅓ of Canada’s population and *used to* produce 40% of our GDP- Alberta, BC, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan *combined* cannot replace that.

There is, as historian Michael Bliss put it a few years ago, a _national divide_ right on the Ottawa River. Old Canada is East of that divide – despite some offshore oil it is in graceful decline: social decline, economic decline and political decline. New Canada is West of that divide and it is should be booming because it is wealthy and has a good, albeit underutilized, industrial base, a growing and dynamic population and good physical access to the large, existing US and growing Asian markets. The problem is that, right now, there is too little, beyond resources, being produced to sell into those markets.

Distributing the _national entitlements_ on a less unfair basis would provide some help but, really, we need new tax and trade policies and programmes that make Ontario, indeed all of ‘New Canada,’ a more attractive place to produce goods and services for the global market.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (9 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't see any 50/50 shot for the Greens.  At this latitude I do not want to be living in a Grass Hut.  I do not want to be wearing clothes made solely of hemp to keep warm in February.  I do not want to see our Industry destroyed in favour of Cottage Industry.  I do not want to see my lifestyle drastically reduced to please every and any environmental fanatic nut job.  I do not want to see my diet reduced due to fanatical Animal Rights advocates.  I do not want to see extra taxes put on my automobile, my gas, my electricity, my water, my clothes, my food, my electronics, etc.  I don't look at this as being a 50/50 shot at giving the Greens a chance to govern; more like a 99.9999/.0001 chance.  The Greens would destroy the nation faster than any of the other Parties.  Good intentions, but no thought.



 I disagree.

 For one hemp a readily known non drug related weed can provide fibres for clothes and paperlike products, thus saving more trees. The use of hemp has been around for eons. Ask any of the navy guys about a hemp rope. 

The military is here to stay, even peacefull people know it's better have than need when the time comes. We all know it's coming sooner or later. 

 The environment can be cleaned up without destroying anything, the ownus is on the companies NOT the consumer. If joe blow makes steel and he does so in the hopes of getting rich, then he is the one footing the bills for damages. Thus he pays not you and i. If we leave a trail of destruction behind us YES we should be held accountable for it. 

 The automotive industry is 50 years past evolution, time for fully electric cars to take over anyways. One is already manufactured here in Canada and sold in the US due to our useless goverment and it's political dickerydoonothing attitude. Electricity is available in many sources. We have the means to change to wind and solar power, we also have the means to be more efficient with our water. The technology is there, the willingness to change IS NOT. This is not all about money either, it's a mindset that everyone can't seem to wrap thier heads around.

 But hey your free to choose another 4 years of status quo...


Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2008)

All good things, if not taken to the extreme.  Unfortunately, I look at their wishy washy policies and see the extreme.  Sorry but I am not Amish.  I do worry about the environment and economy and am willing to make changes, but I am not willing to give everything away on the words of fantics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson’s take on Harper’s _strategy_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080908.wcosimp09/BNStory/specialComment/?query=


> Harper tries to resuscitate the Mulroney coalition
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



Simpson is correct, as far as he goes, in telling us that Harper needs to unite his strong Western base with a lot of Québec and Ontario seats in order to form a majority government.

But, the way appeal to Québecers *without alienating other Canadians* is *not* to repeat Mulroney’s constitutional fiascos (Meech Lake and Charlottetown), it is to offer (force upon?) all provinces the same degree of _autonomy_ that Québec desires. And that, I think, is Stephen Harper’s not at all well hidden agenda.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

> But, the way appeal to Québecers without alienating other Canadians is not to repeat Mulroney’s constitutional fiascos (Meech Lake and Charlottetown), it is to offer (force upon?) all provinces the same degree of autonomy that Québec desires. And that, I think, is Stephen Harper’s not at all well hidden agenda.



That makes for a stronger, less centralist Canada....there will still be individual issues, some probably pretty controversial, but I believe that is what was originally envisioned of the Confederation...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> ... I believe that is what was originally envisioned of the Confederation...



*Most* historians disagree.

The 'Fathers of Confederation' were seeking a strong central government. The recent US Civil War weighed heavily on their minds.

The problem was that the real authors of the British North America Act were bureaucrats in London who guessed wrong on the division of responsibilities and crafted a Constitution that created one of the most decentralized federal states in the world. But that wasn't what the politicians had in mind.

Stuff happens, as they say.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

I did not know that....thanks


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

Pooping puffin pulled from Tory ad
STEVEN CHASE AND JANE TABER Globe and Mail Update September 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM EDT
Article Link

The Conservatives have edited an Internet ad showing a bird pooping on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to remove the defecation scene.

Tories say the clip was the result of an overzealous web designer and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper apologized for the defecating puffin, calling it “tasteless and inapropriate.”

Mr. Harper said he didn't know about the web clip before it was posted Monday night. “Belittling images are not fair game,” Mr. Harper said.

The web ad at www.notaleader.ca still shows a puffin flying around Mr. Dion, but it no longer defecates on his shoulder. Instead, it now links through to a video of Michael Ignatieff saying: “And they put their excrement in one place, they hide their excrement. This seems to me to be a symbol of what our party should be.”
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is a column by Andrew which, as a card carrying Conservative, I find a bit troubling but which, despite being a card carrying Conservative, also says much with which I agree:

 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=aaf0af2d-6590-4e91-9316-cc88557cd24b


> Don't go sleepwalking to the polls
> 
> Andrew Cohen, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...



I disagree with Cohen on one point. He says: “...they have shrunk the surplus so they can cry poor and, eventually, cut social programs.” Not true, I think; some, maybe even many social programmes actually make fair to good economic sense. Sometimes only a ‘public’ (government) programme can achieve the economies of scale that bring costs down. I do think that Harper wants to prevent the creation of new social programmes, to constrain the unchecked growth of existing social programmes and to actually shrink some, maybe many of the current programmes, but I doubt we will see any wholesale cuts if there is a Conservative majority.

But, Cohen is right when he says that Harper’s “theology is devolution. With a majority, he will be unencumbered in reshaping the federation.” And: “*Bring it on!*” I say.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

> But, Cohen is right when he says that Harper’s “theology is devolution. With a majority, he will be unencumbered in reshaping the federation.” And: “Bring it on!” I say.



And also work towards getting the EEE senate....


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

Andrew Cohen and a whole bunch of the MSM may not want the Liberals in, but they sure want Harper out....I have seen very little break for the Conservatives other than reporting that they are ahead....

I guess the media/goverment battle is still going on....


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> And also work towards getting the EEE senate....



Two Es: *E*lected and *E*ffective are fairly easy - not even too much political capital needs to be spent. See my comments here. The third E (*E*quality) would require a Constitutional amendment and we spent most of the '80s agonizing over those.


----------



## Rodahn (9 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Pooping puffin pulled from Tory ad
> STEVEN CHASE AND JANE TABER Globe and Mail Update September 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM EDT
> Article Link
> 
> ...



This may very well come back and bite the Conservative party on the buttocks, (as happened in 93 I believe).


----------



## Celticgirl (9 Sep 2008)

I went out for coffee with my dad this afternoon wearing the Forces t-shirt my fiance brought me from his office one day. A local politican (PC) called me over to talk to me and ask if I was a member of the CF. When I told her that I had just joined and would be starting in January, she congratulated me on making a good career choice. She told me her mother was in the CF and had just returned from Afghanistan. Then she said, "The Conservatives are very pro-military."  Well, yes, I had gathered that. I guess that is why the military is very pro-Conservative these days. Judging from the poll results in this thread thus far, CF members appreciate this government's recognition and cooperation. I certainly know where my vote's going.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> This may very well come back and bite the Conservative party on the buttocks, (as happened in 93 I believe).



I don't think so. So far the MSM has been grasping at straws and trying to find something, anything, that will stick to the CPC that they can make hay with. They're not having much luck.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> This may very well come back and bite the Conservative party on the buttocks, (as happened in 93 I believe).


All mistakes are dangerous and that ad was a mistake.

But, the Conservatives have, so far, avoided the trap Dion's team set for them, hoping for a repeat of the '93 blunder. Dion told reporters that his stumbling English is a result of partial deafness* - he wants the Tories to make his language skills an issue so that he can replay the outrage that characterized the reaction to the 1993 Tory ad that focused on Chretién's speech.

I suspect that, absent another rogue ad, this error was made early enough to fade away before it does much harm. By 1700 Hrs it had moved from 'hard news' to curiosity, overshadowed by the (small) cut to the diesel fuel excise tax. 


--------------------
* I have some sympathy for him; I’m deaf and it does make learning a new language difficult, especially a tonal language.

I blame the deafness, anyway – there are those who suggest I’m just stupid and or lazy, but that’s only her opinion.


----------



## Rodahn (9 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All mistakes are dangerous and that ad was a mistake.
> 
> But, the Conservatives have, so far, avoided the trap Dion's team set for them, hoping for a repeat of the '93 blunder. Dion told reporters that his stumbling English is a result of partial deafness* - he wants the Tories to make his language skills an issue so that he can replay the outrage that characterized the reaction to the 1993 Tory ad that focused on Chretién's speech.
> 
> ...



Mr Campbell for the most part I agree with your synopsis. However I also believe that the current attack ads being shown by the CPC, could adversely affect the voters opinion, as occurred in 93. Human nature being such as it is, the voters will begin to wonder if this is the sort of party that they want governing the country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2008)

If the CPC plays it down the middle, I think they'll be fine. Canadians, right now, seem mostly complacent and content, that includes with the current ruling party. The CPC has time to watch the others make their mistakes before stating a solid platform.

Dion is the best thing that could have happened to the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> ... if this is the sort of party that they want governing the country.



A whole lot of them are already in that camp. Fortunately, for us Tories, a whole lot more wonder that same thing about Dion's Liberals. The trick is to keep the ratios the same - or 'better.'

The Liberals will try to keep the _pooping puffin_ in the public eye; the Conservatives will have other, better attack ads and they will be watching for and pouncing upon the (inevitable?) Liberal error.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2008)

An awful lot of people won't forget the pooping puffin.....it is a capstone to the image of Dion.....the CPC won't pay a heavy price because the image matches theirs....


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> The *Poll of Polls* now says:
> 
> Poll                          %
> ...



_Nanos_ (which used to be _SES_ and was noteworthy for the accuracy of its predictions in the last two or three elections) is, as it was in some past elections the CPAC pollster but it is also , now, the Sun Media pollster, too. Maybe that's why the _Good Grey Globe_ dropped them from their list of polling firms.

_SEGMA_ appears to be the polling firm working for _La Presse_. It's numbers (for the Conservatives) are pretty far out of line, but not, maybe, far enough away to be classified as a _rogue poll_.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2008)

Re the Puffin.

Idiotic play.  And highly dangerous.

Having said that, it is not in the interest of either the CPC nor the LPC to dredge that to the surface.  Some portion of the population will find themselves laughing at Dion's expense - while the rest merely remember the image.

Unlike the 93 ad (presumably the one making fun of Chretien's paralysis) this image is not benign.  The Chretien ad replayed Chretien as he was.  It reinforced the image of him as the hard-done-by little guy from Shawinigan.  

This one has no redeeming value and is best buried.  For both parties' sakes.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2008)

Another factor waiting in the wings (and another, unacknowledged player in the election)

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011859.html



> *Taliban on target*
> 
> Our election, that is (via Danjanou):
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxhound (10 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Unlike the 93 ad (presumably the one making fun of Chretien's paralysis) this image is not benign.  The Chretien ad replayed Chretien as he was.  It reinforced the image of him as the hard-done-by little guy from Shawinigan.



I _somewhat_ disagree, Kirkhill.

Re: the Chretién speech impediment ad, I believe that people were more outraged at what they percieved as the Conservatives 'making fun of' an unfortunate physical impediment.  Whereas the "Pooping Puffin" ad looks like an amateurish homemade YouTube® chuckle.

Can you seriously imagine Stephen Harper looking at a rough draft of the ad and then turning to a flunky and saying, "Y'know, I like it, but maybe you should have a bird fly by and poop on him."?

Neither can I, and I don't believe that most voters will ascribe much significance to it either.

The image may not be benign and it was idiotic, but as others have said, it is early in the campaign, and I can't see this as having a profound effect on where people put their "X".


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2008)

Foxhound, 

I agree that it is unlikely to have an effect, and you make a good point about the amateurish aspect.  I doubt that the PM would have anything to do with such an undertaking (perhaps I just hope so).  But there are such things as underground ad campaigns and people are making big bucks selling shampoo by YouTube.  It is not an unknown art.

Unfortunately it seems that over-zealous youngsters, and oldsters, are not beyond planting ads with the intention of creating a backlash.  It is not beyond the possibility that the "ad" was posted by a Young Liberal with the intention of discrediting those nasty Tories.

In the States, in the past few days, it seems that some young lefties posted a Sambo ad targeted at Obama, purporting to come from a right wing source.


----------



## Foxhound (10 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it seems that over-zealous youngsters, and oldsters, are not beyond planting ads with the intention of creating a backlash.  It is not beyond the possibility that the "ad" was posted by a Young Liberal with the intention of discrediting those nasty Tories.



I could consider this a possibility except for the fact the the Conservative team has already admitted complicity citing, "an overzealous Web designer" ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.welxnmain10/BNStory/politics/ )*

*Sorry, don't know how to insert links.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2008)

Thanks Foxhound.  I wasn't aware of that.  Mea Culpa.


----------



## RangerRay (10 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Thus that leaves the greens... a  new party with no experience at any of the above mainstream politics, thus we have a 50/50 shot that they will screw up in favour of the common folk...



I would think with <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-with-these-crackpots-is-anti.html">crackpots</a> like these for candidates, the odds of the Greens screwing up are considerably larger than 50/50...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

I inadvertently deleted most of an earlier post about what I called the _”delightful inconsistency”_ of the reports on polls.

My point was that while, according to the _Globe and Mail’s_ *Poll of Polls*, the leads the Liberals held in two of the component polls have disappeared the _Globe_ reports that:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.welxnpoll10/BNStory/politics/home


> Tory momentum slows in swing ridings since election call
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



It is apparent that Harper is assiduously courting _traditional_ Liberal voters: ethnic families in the suburbs in an effort to firm up his support in the ridings the _Strategic Counsel_ pollsters have identified as ‘key.’


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

Notwithstanding the consensus here in Milnet.ca that the JSS, _per se_, was not a good idea it appears hat some Newfoundlanders are reading something else into it all:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/09/10/williams-leaders-elxn.html


> burin891 wrote: (Posted 2008/09/10
> at 7:01 AM ET) the ABC [_NF Premier Danny Williams’ *A*nyone *B*ut the *C*onservatives_] campaign should come to a thundering halt.
> 
> There are several reasons for this with the main one being - I don't need the Premier to tell me who to vote for. I am a grown man and can make my own decisions.
> ...



Can anyone from Newfoundland and Labrador shed any light on how Williams’ ABC campaign is going over. I guess I can understand some of his frustrations, and his somewhat over the top negotiating tactics have been used against Conservatives and Liberals alike, but is this really in NF’s best interests?


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2008)

> There are several reasons for this with the main one being - I don't need the Premier to tell me who to vote for. I am a grown man and can make my own decisions



I think that comment alone is going to gather some momentum.....the rest of his comments make perfect sense to me, but is everybody in NL so starry eyed about Williams they would ignore it?


----------



## Celticgirl (10 Sep 2008)

I was reading an article on CTV.CA today about Harper's announcement re: our commitment in Afghanistan ending in 2011 (if he is re-elected). There was also a mention in the article about the 'pooping puffin' ad. Guess what the comments that follow the article zeroed in on? It seems the mission has been forgotten thanks to some cartoon bird pooping on Dion's head. This is what people think is a major issue worthy of extended discussion, debate, and analysis?  :

Link to CTV article and comments


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I was reading an article on CTV.CA today about Harper's announcement re: our commitment in Afghanistan ending in 2011 (if he is re-elected). There was also a mention in the article about the 'pooping puffin' ad. Guess what the comments that follow the article zeroed in on? It seems the mission has been forgotten thanks to some cartoon bird pooping on Dion's head. This is what people think is a major issue worthy of extended discussion, debate, and analysis?  :
> 
> Link to CTV article and comments



If the *issue of choice* for the majority of my fellow Canadians is _poopin' puffins_ or the Afghanistan mission then I prefer that they debate the puffins. _Poopin' puffins_ are just about complex enough for most Canadians.


----------



## Celticgirl (10 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Poopin' puffins_ are just about complex enough for most Canadians.



I think you may be right.  :blotto:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

Like many members here at Army.ca, I have taken the view that we accepted the commitment to Afghanistan and we need to see the job through to its *proper* conclusion. But, what’s *proper*? We stayed in Cyprus for something like 30 years – but with very light casualties. Shall we stay in Afghanistan for 20 and take, what, 300 dead and thousands more wounded? To what end?

The Government of Canada has, just recently, offered some Priorities “for the next three years.” But they are, to be charitable, a bit loose.

But, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an election *promise* that says _“we’re outta here”_ in 2011:



> Harper ups the Afghanistan ante
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2008)

Sadly, a combination of public ignorance and partisan politics will decide the fate of the mission (as well as potentially Afghanistan and the entire central Asian region). If anyone cared to examine the facts, they would conclude the true end date for our mission should be no earlier than *2015*: the year the six million children who started going to school in 2005 begin graduating. Only when a large pool of educated people start entering Afghan business, politics and the military will the nation really be able to stand on its own.

Of course, simply walking away in 2015 won't cut it either, that is the *start year* for truly rebuilding and reforming Afghanistan from within. Our Field Force might not be needed beyond 2015 (and indeed if the ANA continues its really impressive gains the mission of the Field Force could be scaled back in 2011). Alas, Kim Campbell was right in suggesting an election campaign isn't the time to discuss issues. Sadly, there are no other good times to carry out the discussion in Canada.


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2008)

Harper, Layton back down from blocking May
Updated Wed. Sep. 10 2008 3:07 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton have both reversed their opposition to Green Leader Elizabeth May's participation in the leaders' debates.

Layton was the first to back away from his previous position, saying he didn't want to keep "debating about the debate." 

"As long as Stephen Harper takes part, I don't care who else is on the stage," he said Wednesday afternoon on his campaign bus. 

Less than an hour later, Conservative representatives informed reporters that the Tories would not stand alone against May's inclusion. 

The five networks in the consortium -- CTV, CBC, Radio-Canada, Global and TVA -- said May was excluded because some leaders threatened to boycott the debate if she was allowed to participate. 

Both Harper and Layton had previously said May shouldn't be included because the Green leader has repeatedly said she would prefer Dion win the election instead of Harper. 

May said Wednesday now that only one leader opposes her inclusion in the debate, there is no reason to exclude her. 

Some commentators also argue that May should first have an elected MP before she's allowed into the debates. 

Both Harper and Layton have said the decision was ultimately made by the consortium. 

On Wednesday, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion accused the opposition leaders of "hiding themselves" behind the consortium. 

"I cannot accept that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe decided that Madame May will not be there," Dion said Wednesday during a news conference in Mississauga, Ont., about women's participation in politics. 

He said he will seek an explanation from the consortium about the decision. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a comment by former CBC big-wig Tony Burman:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.wburman0910/BNStory/politics


> Former CBC News chief: The election debate process is a sham
> 
> TONY BURMAN
> 
> ...



I disagree with Burman. We should have a totally _ad hoc_ system, devoid of _*regulation*_ by anyone, including the CRTC. The parties, themselves, and the networks, individually or collectively in each case, as they see fit, should negotiate, each with the others re: number of debates, who’s in (and not), when, where and so on. The matter is urgent once a campaign starts: reasonable people can and will come to sensible agreements quickly. We have quite enough busybodies in Ottawa _managing_ things that are best left alone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

The campaign heated up a bit in Québec today, according to his article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright ct from today’s _Globe and mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.welxnbloc0910/BNStory/politics/home


> Bloc accused of being NDP clone
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC and OMAR EL AKKAD AND GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...



CBC reports that Brassard’s comments went somewhat further. He appears to be suggesting that the BQ does not (adequately?) reflect Québec’s interests.

Good news for Harper ... maybe good news for Layton, too: if the Bloc is just an NDP clone (but you are a _loony lefty_) then why not vote for the real thing?


----------



## RangerRay (10 Sep 2008)

Well, I'm really disappointed with Harper for this announcement.

I guess no party is pro-mission now...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree with Burman. We should have a totally _ad hoc_ system, devoid of _*regulation*_ by anyone, including the CRTC. The parties, themselves, and the networks, individually or collectively in each case, as they see fit, should negotiate, each with the others re: number of debates, who’s in (and not), when, where and so on. The matter is urgent once a campaign starts: reasonable people can and will come to sensible agreements quickly. We have quite enough busybodies in Ottawa _managing_ things that are best left alone.



While I agree with you in principle, the stakes are so high that political parties will do everything possible to wargame the system(s) to their advantage. Note for example that Senator Obama will not debate Senator McCain in informal "town hall" type debates during the campaign since Senator McCain can easily connect with viewers in a town hall while Senator Obama makes carefully scripted performances in large venues (whenever Senator Obama is away from the Teleprompter he is prone to make gaffes).

Informal and ad hoc debates are fine, but a clear venue that is not under the control of the political parties is also important to avoid the problems of war gaming. IF a party leader refuses to debate in this forum, the conveners should say "fine" and go ahead with everyone else....


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2008)

I thought we had a forum for debate.  Some place up there on the Rideau?


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I thought we had a forum for debate.  Some place up there on the Rideau?



Unfortunately debates seldom occur there as the place is usually overrun by people resembling selfish and spoiled children (children who would be expelled from any school for like behaviour).


----------



## Koenigsegg (11 Sep 2008)

I dunno Vern...At least in Ontario, school discipline can be sorely lacking.  I was assaulted with a weapon in halls during one of my years in Highschool and the offender got a twenty day suspension.
Then a month later he was caught drunk at school (and with alcohol in his backpack) and again, a twenty day suspension.

We have MPs that sit in the house on a less regular basis than that kid got suspensions.
I wish there were more regular debates there, but sadly there is too much of: 
Sir #1 "you're a bad leader"
Sir #2 "Oh  yeah? Well you're fat"

So I agree, but you're giving the school system too much credit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Remember, please, that the _National Post_ has a pretty strong and clear political _position_ (as does e.g. the _Toronto Star_) and it is not favourable to Stéphane Dion. But, Don Martin has always appeared to me to be a fairly even handed political commentator. His most recent report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, paints a pretty bleak picture of Dion’s campaign thus far:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/10/don-martin-liberals-campaign-almost-falling-down-on-the-job.aspx


> Don Martin: Liberal campaign almost falling down on the job
> 
> WALKERTON, Ont.  — There’s a dizzy falling-down-the-rabbit-hole sensation to riding with Liberal leader Stephane Dion as his four-day-old tour finally defied gravity aboard a generation-old jet heading into Atlantic Canada.
> 
> ...



This may be good news for the Conservatives but it *may* be even better news for the Liberals.

The Liberal Party of Canada is a formidable organization – full of skilled, even ruthless campaigners who hate to lose. This may be the wakeup call they need to revamp the campaign. As others have said about the Clintons: don’t turn your back on the Liberals until they are dead, buried and a stake has been driven through their hearts. They don’t carry the descriptor _”Canada's natural governing party”_ for nothing.


----------



## larry Strong (11 Sep 2008)

I wonder if there is some inside going's on in the Lib machine to scuttle Dion?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Despite Goldfarb’s deep, deep Liberal roots, I think there is a lot of truth in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.welxngoldfarb0910/BNStory/politics


> How to beat Stephen Harper
> 
> MARTIN GOLDFARB
> 
> ...



Much as it pains a highly partisan Tory like me to say, the Liberal ‘brand’ is well liked and respected in Canada. That’s a huge advantage which, thus far it appears to me, the Liberals have failed to exploit. I don’t expect them to keep making the same mistake.

For now Harper is running ahead of the Conservative ‘brand’ and he will have to do that for the whole campaign because he is the best thing the Tories have in 2008 – even if Canadians do not like him they do respect him and his judgement. He needs to keep telling us that he is safe and secure and Dion is a reckless, untested choice for worrisome times.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is evidence of *another Tory PR blunder*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnsparrow0911/BNStory/politics/home


> Senior Tory spokesman suspended
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...



The media will have a field day with this one.

Does anyone still wonder why Harper is a control freak? The ‘war rooms’ are filled with keen young _thirty-somethings_, most of whom have more enthusiasm than brains.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Here is a pretty hard hitting NDP attack ad.

It's a good piece of TV. I hope it doesn't work.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a pretty hard hitting NDP attack ad.
> 
> It's a good piece of TV. I hope it doesn't work.



Layton comes across strong in that video (And I didn't need to understand french to see that). He's finally gotten Broadbents rantitize out of his system publicly, but I still wouldn't buy a car from him.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on Defence Minister McKay’s comments:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnmackay0911/BNStory/politics/home


> Canada will still have a role in Afghanistan: MacKay
> 
> BILL CURRY
> 
> ...




Not really much new on the Afghanistan issue.

Haiti remains one of the least favoured nations in the whole world - near the bottom of the Bottom Billion.


----------



## Celticgirl (11 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on Defence Minister McKay’s comments:



I'd say MacKay did a good job of smoothing out the ripples from Harper's statement about the mission 'ending' in 2011. It does help to clarify what will happen and lets Canadians know that this is not a complete pull-out and 'fuggedaboudit' kind of thing, which it shouldn't be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

This, from Angus Reid, was released yesterday. Some interesting points (my *emphasis added*):

•	In British Columbia, the NDP has managed to tie the usually dominant Tories (both at 31%), while the Liberals are third with 23 per cent, and the Greens are fourth with 12 per cent—their best showing in any of the six regions surveyed;

•	In Quebec, the Bloc is barely ahead of the Conservatives (33% to 31%), with the NDP in third place (18%) and the *Liberals running a distant fourth* (12%); and

•	The *Conservatives also enjoy a five-point advantage over the Liberals in seat-rich Ontario* (38% to 33%), with the NDP at 20 per cent.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2008)

I guess if May wants to play with the big boys, she's going to have to pay the same price for dumb comments

*'Canadians Are Stupid!" - Elizabeth May*
Article Link

Oh bring on the debate!!! Let's see Elizabeth May call Canadians 'stupid' on a live National Leaders Debate ... just like she did in this clip!

Make sure you read my friend, Dipper Chick's analysis of Canada's Green Party.

NOTE: (There is high traffic on youtube tonight watching this video so if you can't access it at the moment ... try back in a bit. The rightwingosphere is going nuts with this clip tonight as well on Steven Taylors site and oher blogging tory sites - Here is an mp3 copy - it comes up at the 1:50 minute mark. You should be able to play it on realplayer or some such. mp3 format
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Take these data from Ekos with a grain of salt – which they, truthfully, provide - but they do provide one scenario for a Conservative majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Sep 2008)

Well... I can see that comment surfacing early in the debate.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2008)

*This is sure heating up what with May threatening legal action AGAIN...last time the party leaders backed off, this blogger is not....[/*color]



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I guess if May wants to play with the big boys, she's going to have to pay the same price for dumb comments
> 
> *'Canadians Are Stupid!" - Elizabeth May*
> Article Link
> ...



Thursday, September 11, 2008 
Green Party Of Canada Threatens BUCKDOG BLOG With Lawsuit In Attempt To Suppress Freedom Of Speech!

From: John Bennett 
To: leftdog@hushmail.com
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:37:56 -0600 

Please be informed that the if the video

Canadians Are Stupid!" - Elizabeth May

is not removed from your site with the hour the Green Party of Canada will seek means to prevent legal proceedings further slander.


John Bennett
Director of Communications
Green Party of Canada
(613) 562-4916 ext. 230
(Cell: 613) 291 6888
Fax: (613) 482-4632
-------------------------- (To which I replied) ----------------

Dear Mr. Bennett
You are attempting to shoot the messenger here. I am merely
reporting ... as is my right as a citizen journalist ... an item
that is CURRENTLY POSTED ON YOUTUBE ... with the following URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxmfBPrptM

I did NOT post this item on youtube NOR did I produce it.
Therefore your threats to me as a citizen journalist have been
turned over to my solicitor.

Should I receive an apology from you within the hour, I will take
no further action against the Green Party of Canada which would
include:
1) A nationwide news release which includes the text of your
threatening email to me,
2) Details which show that I had NOTHING to do with the production
nor posting of the item in question on youtube,
3) That as a citizen journalist, the Green Party of Canada is
attempting to suppress my freedom of speech,
4) A blog posting itemizing what has occured here including your
threatening email to me.

Should your apology to me be received within the hour as I stated,
I will take no further action against the Green Party of Canada

Leftdog
Regina

------------------------ (To which Ms. May's representative replied --------
From: John Bennett 
To: leftdog@hushmail.com
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:11:13 -0600 

You are knowingly asisting in slander get it down or you face legal action us & TVO.

Journalism is more than repeating. You have a responsibility to verify the facts.

Get get it down now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE -
You will note that it appears that I am the ONLY blogger carring this story who had legal action threatened by the Green Party of Canada. The video still remains at Stephen Taylors site!More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Here is the Nanos poll released today - which makes it he most recent poll:

The numbers in (brackets) are changes from the last poll, I assume

*Party Preference*
BQ:               9% (+1)
Cons:           37% (+4)
Greens:        9% (+2)
Libs:            32% (-3)
NDP:            13% (-4)
Undecided:   19% (+3)

So the big winners are the Conservatives; the big losers are the NDP and Liberals who send their supporters to the Conservative and Undecided columns.

*Best PM*
Dion:         4% (-1)
Duceppe:   3% (-2)
Harper:    38% (+2)
Layton:    15% (-2)
May:         5% (+1)
Unsure:   19% (+7)

Wow! More people (38%) think Harper is the best choice for PM than have that opinion about Dion, Duceppe, Layton and May *combined* (37%).

*Most competent/trustworthy leader*
Dion:       42 (-6)
Duceppe: 10 (-2)
Harper:   103 (+10)
Layton:    42 (+2)
May:       17 (+3)

This time Harper’s total (103) exceeds that of Dion, Layton and May combined (101).


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on a Liberal misstep:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlibresign0911/BNStory/politics/home


> Dion fires Quebec candidate for contentious native remarks
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> 
> ...



A quick survey of a few media web pages, including _La Presse_ and _Le Droit_, indicates that the Ryan Sparrow firing (Conservative mistake) is still big news; one is hard pressed to find any news about M. Bédard’s demise.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2008)

> A quick survey of a few media web pages, including La Presse and Le Droit, indicates that the Ryan Sparrow firing (Conservative mistake) is still big news; one is hard pressed to find any news about M. Bédard’s demise.



It will be interesting to see what Mike Duffy and CBC National have to say about it (there WAS a short blurb about it on CBC radio news at 6)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2008)

Well, this kind of bafflegab may sway some emotional and ill informed voters, but not me. I haven't even been watching the news or reading the papers. I'm basing my vote on the history, accomplishments and carry through of promises made by the parties of today. My mind is already made up. Barring a catastrophic meltdown, my vote is cast. 

IMHO, given today's politics, anyone voting for on the platform and promises of the current election hype, hollow promises and cheap double talk of the campaign, is wasting their vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on a Liberal misstep:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlibresign0911/BNStory/politics/home
> A quick survey of a few media web pages, including _La Presse_ and _Le Droit_, indicates that the Ryan Sparrow firing (Conservative mistake) is still big news; one is hard pressed to find any news about M. Bédard’s demise.




Looking a the front pages of three newspapers (_Globe and Mail, National Post_ and _Ottawa Citizen_) I see stories on:

•	Dion’s green plan would ‘wreak havoc’
•	Harper plays populist tune on arts cuts
•	*Soldier’s father shows grace under fire – a revisit to the Ryan Sparrow blunder*
•	Mother killed sons four years apart – if it bleeds it leads, I suppose
•	Parties clash over economy
•	*Election 2008: Tory aide suspended – Ryan Sparrow, again*
•	*Top Tory aide suspended over gaffe*
•	Cosgrove’s apology in handling of 1998 trial ‘too little, too late,’ murder victim’s son says 

Not a mention, anywhere on the front pages, of the dumping of Celine Stéphane Dion’s candidate Simon Bédard for suggesting that shooting aboriginals is good public policy. In fairness, I did find the story at the bottom corner of page 5 of the _Citizen_ – in the *IN BRIEF* section.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2008)

Greens showing their true colours:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080912/CPELECFED02/809120850/7068/CPELECFED



> *May ready to do anything to beat Harpe*r
> Joel-Denis Bellavance
> La Presse
> Ottawa
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not a mention, anywhere on the front pages, of the dumping of Celine Stéphane Dion’s candidate Simon Bédard for suggesting that shooting aboriginals is good public policy. In fairness, I did find the story at the bottom corner of page 5 of the _Citizen_ – in the *IN BRIEF* section.



Links?

This is pretty quiet.  First I have heard of this.  So many times in the past the Liberals have done this.  Reminds me of the way they handled the purchase of the Griffons;  small article on page 5, while front page news on them cancelling the EH 101.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Links?
> 
> This is pretty quiet.  First I have heard of this.  So many times in the past the Liberals have done this.  Reminds me of the way they handled the purchase of the Griffons;  small article on page 5, while front page news on them cancelling the EH 101.




The original story (yesterday), proper, is here.

Here is the 'story' as it appears at the bottom corner of page 5 in the print edition of the _Citizen_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2008)

Now, if it comes true, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, might be the *best* promise Harper can make to address the *real* problems facing Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.welxnharper0912/BNStory/Front


> Harper promises to relax foreign investment rules
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...




This part (_this would only apply to foreign jurisdictions — such as the EU and the US — once those nations granted the same rights to Canadian investors_) is good policy, but this other bit (_the Tories are steering clear of any pledges on far more controversial ideas such as allowing bank mergers or opening up Canada's telecommunication sector to more foreign investment_) is bad policy – bad for consumers, bad for investors and bad for productivity. Competition works.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looking a the front pages of three newspapers (_Globe and Mail, National Post_ and _Ottawa Citizen_) I see stories on:
> . . .
> •	*Soldier’s father shows grace under fire – a revisit to the Ryan Sparrow blunder*
> •	*Election 2008: Tory aide suspended – Ryan Sparrow, again*
> ...



While it is a given that there may be is some media bias in their stressing of some stories over others, there is a difference between the two firings.  Sparrow is (albeit but one of the many brash, inexperienced thirty-somethings) at the national level of the Tory election bid plus his comments were recent and directly related to a recent "untouchable" subject in the Canadian discourse, the memory of our war dead.  Bédard, on the other hand, made his comments back in the early 90s when he was of that other brash group who speaks before thinking and believes that volume trumps intelligence, the radio talk show host.  While the Liberals should be faulted for a poor screening of this particular candidate (though this is probably more the fault of the riding leadership), this is more of a "local" story than a national one.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2008)

Nik on the numbers...

CPAC-Nanos nightly tracking completed last night (September 11th) shows the Conservatives seven points ahead of the Liberals among decided voters. (CP 38%, Lib 31%, NDP 14%, BQ 9% GP 9%). The Tories and Liberals continue to be statistically tied in Ontario (Lib 40%; CP 39%) with the Tories extending their lead in the West to 18 points (CP 45%; Lib 27%). 

On the best PM front Stephen Harper was the choice of four in ten Canadians (39%), followed by Jack Layton and Stephane Dion. (Best PM - Harper 39%, Layton 15%, Dion 14%, May 4%, Duceppe 3%, None 7% and undecided 18%). 

The CPAC-Nanos Leadership Index shows Harper continues to lead the other party leaders by a wide margin with an Index score of 105 points compared to Jack Layton (45 points) and Stephane Dion (43 points). Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe trailed the other party leaders with leadership index scores of 16 and 12 points respectively. 

Tune in to Prime Time Politics tonight at 8 pm on CPAC for a recap of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website at www.nanosresearch.com. 

Visit Nik on the Numbers and join our national political conversation and post your comments on this poll. 

Nik will be on CPAC Prime Time Politics every night except Sundays. Also watch for his live blogs on CPAC every Thursday night. 

The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our new polling portal website at www.nanosresearch.com. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates at the Nanos polling portal.


  Methodology and Results
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1200 random interviews. 


The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on September 11, 2008. 

Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported) 

Committed Voters - Canada (N=975, MoE ± 3.2%, 19 times out of 20) 
Conservative Party 38% (+1) 
Liberal Party 31% (-1) 
NDP 14% (+1) 
BQ 9% (NC) 
Green Party 9% (NC) 
Undecided 19% (NC) 


Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,201,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)

Conservative leader Stephen Harper 39% (+1) 
NDP leader Jack Layton 15% (NC) 
Liberal leader Stephane Dion 14% (NC) 
Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (-1) 
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (NC) 
None of them 7% (-1) 
Unsure 18% (-1) 


Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The most trustworthy leader
The most competent leader
The leader with the best vision for Canada's future 
[Leadership Index Score] (N=1,201, MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20) 

Stephen Harper 105 (+2) 
Jack Layton 45 (+3) 
Stephane Dion 43 (+1) 
Elizabeth May 16 (-1) 
Gilles Duceppe 12 (+2)


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

Here is the Ekos data. Some highlights are:

The Tory lead is in “gentle decline” and, according to Ekos, puts them back in *minority* territory. I would suggest that the Liberals had not wasted the first week of a five week campaign IF they got most of  the 5 points the Conservatives lost over four days BUT that is not the case – the gains (plus gains resulting from the NDP's decline - which, in statistical terms, is not so gentle) were distributed fairly evenly between the Liberals (+3), Greens (+2) and BQ (+2). In fact, I’m guessing that the big winner is the BQ, in its battle with Tories in Québec (outside of Montréal). I’m also guessing that:

•	The Liberals and Greens gained most at the expense of the NDP – an early sign of _strategic voting_ that must terrify Jack Layton; and

•	The Green gain is temporary – caused by low level outrage (at Harper and Layton) over he debate debacle.

It is worth noting that the Tories lead in all age and income groups – the lead grows with age and income but even young people and low income earners prefer the Conservatives, albeit not by large margins. I think that means that the “safe, sound _management_ in uncertain times” message works.

Dion has four more weeks to remind Canadians that they neither like nor trust Stephen Harper – even though they respect him.

Harper has four weeks to convince Canadians that Dion, himself, is weak, feckless and downright dangerous to their pocketbooks.

Layton has four weeks to convince Canadians that:

•	Strategic voting is bad; and 

•	He, not Stéphane Dion, was the *real* opposition leader in the last parliament and is the *best* choice to face Harper in the next one.

Duceppe has four weeks to convince Québecers that they still have real grievances and that they should vote with their hearts, not their brains.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

Jeffrey Simpson is not famous for being in love with Conservatives, in general, or Stephen Harper in particular, but he is virtually gushing in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.wsimpson13/BNStory/Front


> Despite goofs and gaffes, Harper wins the week
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Now, the partisan _talking heads_ are suggesting that the lead Harper’s Conservatives enjoy - in pretty much every poll and every question - is dangerous. Canadians, some suggest, are afraid of Harper’s _hidden agenda_™ and they will, in due course, come to their senses and vote strategically - against a Tory majority. A conspiracy theorist might, therefore, suggest that Simpson is trying to help the anti-Tory crowd by scaring Canadians into fearing a Harper majority.

I think Simpson is sounding a warning but it is about Liberal failure, not Conservative  success.

The Liberals *lost* the first week – no question in my mind. Effectively, they wasted 1/5th of the campaign.

I think the Liberals need to:

•	Emphasize the Liberal ‘brand’ and the Liberal leadership *team* – Canadians will, I think, react more favourably to e.g. Hall-Findlay, Ignatieff and Rae than they do to Dion; and

•	Broaden the platform base. The Green Shaft Shift scares many, too many, Canadians. The Liberals know how to appeal to Canadians, I’m surprised they’re not doing it better.

But I’m a card carrying Conservative so the Grits are unlikely to heed my advice.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Sep 2008)

It sometimes seems that the Liberals are shopping for the mercy vote. In our riding (Leeds-Grenville, which makes up the two united counties that run south from the Rideau to the Seaway) they held their nomination meeting Wednesday evening with two female candidates running for the slot. One was from within the riding and the other was parachuted in. The latter lived in Ottawa and had served in the Chretien PMO for ten years.

Not surprisingly the outsider won the nomination. In her acceptance speech, as dutifully reported in the Brockville Recorder and Times, she said as a resident of Ottawa she had always wanted to visit *Belleville. *


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

_*And its working!*_    You know things are bad when even *I* start to feel sorry for the Liberals.


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2008)

You will notice the complete absence of all other Liberal Leadership candidates on the Liberal trail....the only one I even heard of was Ignatiaf speaking on Dave Rutherford the other day....otherwise they are minding their own business and essentially telling Dion to have a go at it


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

And yet more poll data, this time from Harris-Decima, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from the _Canadian Press_ web site:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXNa8Kb7CaCsaeHKBTG1l3BG98fA


> Tories on brink of majority despite bad press: poll
> 
> 18 hours ago
> 
> ...




There are four weeks to go, and even one week can be a very long time in politics, as former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out.

The Liberals have time to turn this campaign around and the Tories have plenty of time to stumble and fall but, for now, it’s looking good – for my side.


----------



## Bograt (13 Sep 2008)

Does anyone have a link on what the Green Shift will cost me and my family. I was on the Liberal site and their calculator said I would be getting 1000 bucks back at the end of the year, but I don't know if I am in the Red or the Black.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

Any simple ‘calculator’ is going to lie to you.

Your tax breaks will, of course, depend on the tax bracket you are in. You also may benefit more or less than your neighbours from any new or _upgraded_ social programmes. Additionally, Dion promises to do away with the $1,200.00 child care benefit - you may or may not get or want that.

The Green Shaft Shift is just another GST – a consumption tax. I *like* that part of it, it’s a good thing. I much prefer consumption taxes to income taxes – the latter are taxes on savings and investments and jobs.

I also *like* that Dion promises income tax breaks – for the reasons I stated above; another good thing.

Increased social spending is a *very* bad idea. It is not that we should not have social programmes, the problem is that we have too many overlapping programmes now. We can do more - if not with less at least without any new money.

I would approve of the Green Shaft Shift IF Dion applied the carbon tax all across the board - especially at the gas pumps and on home heating oil - and made it honestly revenue neutral by cutting income taxes by the amount collected through the carbon tax in each previous year. But he's not planning to do that; thus it is a  bad plan, even if it does give you and other Canadians some tax breaks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a long but important article on the *real* issues n this election:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=788042


> Falling Behind
> *Why Canada is fading on the global economic scene and what policymakers should be doing about it*
> 
> Paul Vieira, Financial Post
> ...



This is the first of multi-part (two part?) series. I’ll post the second part on Monday.


Edit: corrected format error.


----------



## JBG (13 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I agree with you in principle, the stakes are so high that political parties will do everything possible to wargame the system(s) to their advantage. Note for example that Senator Obama will not debate Senator McCain in informal "town hall" type debates during the campaign since Senator McCain can easily connect with viewers in a town hall while Senator Obama makes carefully scripted performances in large venues (whenever Senator Obama is away from the Teleprompter he is prone to make gaffes).
> 
> Informal and ad hoc debates are fine, but a clear venue that is not under the control of the political parties is also important to avoid the problems of war gaming. IF a party leader refuses to debate in this forum, the conveners should say "fine" and go ahead with everyone else....


Correct me if I'm wrong but won't one of the debates be "town hall" style?


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Any simple ‘calculator’ is going to lie to you.
> 
> Your tax breaks will, of course, depend on the tax bracket you are in. You also may benefit more or less than your neighbours from any new or _upgraded_ social programmes. Additionally, Dion promises to do away with the $1,200.00 child care benefit - you may or may not get or want that.



True, and if you're in one of the lowest brackets, you may not get anything back. After all, as the plan is income tax based, if you pay no tax, you'll see no savings.



> The Green Shaft Shift is just another GST – a consumption tax. I *like* that part of it, it’s a good thing. I much prefer consumption taxes to income taxes – the latter are taxes on savings and investments and jobs.



Agreed, however I would much rather see tax breaks and investment for projects and companies that work with green technologies. This approach would stimulate the industries and generate jobs. The current plan is based on the theory that one can be punished into changing one's behaviour. All stick, no carrot.



> I also *like* that Dion promises income tax breaks – for the reasons I stated above; another good thing.
> 
> Increased social spending is a *very* bad idea. It is not that we should not have social programmes, the problem is that we have too many overlapping programmes now. We can do more - if not with less at least without any new money.
> 
> I would approve of the Green Shaft Shift IF Dion applied the carbon tax all across the board - especially at the gas pumps and on home heating oil - and made it honestly revenue neutral by cutting income taxes by the amount collected through the carbon tax in each previous year. But he's not planning to do that; thus it is a  bad plan, even if it does give you and other Canadians some tax breaks.



Like many, I'm having difficulty with the "revenue neutral" concept of the plan. When was there ever a time in history that a government programme was ever revenue neutral? There's going to be an increased bureaucracy to pay to administer the plan, added to which, the plan calls for at lease one billion dollars of the tax collected to be funnelled into green initiatives. Unless these funds will be coming from other areas, the plan can in no way be considered revenue neutral. I'm also having difficulty accepting that they won't succumb to the temptation to spend the money on social programmes that as less "green" tax is collected, will have to be funded from increased taxes in other areas.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2008)

Edward has mentioned this point several times in the past; perhaps the real "hidden agendatm" is what he suggested all along:

http://imrightasrain.blogspot.com/2008/09/harpers-hidden-agenda-revealed.html



> *Harper's Hidden Agenda Revealed*
> 
> I think most of us can agree that Stephen Harper's particular take on conservatism is not very conservative. He has campaigned and governed mostly from the centre since the writ was dropped last election.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

The CBC has used TV Ontario’s archives to prove that, *Yes, Elizabeth May, did say she agreed, fundamentally, with those who  think Canadians are stupid* – despite her protestations to the contrary and despite Green Party threats to sue a NDP blogger over the ‘truth.’ 

I note that the Greens are nearly was well supported as the Liberals here on Army.ca. (Is ‘well’ really the right word? Wouldn’t ‘sickly’ be more appropriate?) What do Green supporters think. Are Canadians stupid or does May have really, really poor political judgement? If the latter, does that really, really poor judgement qualify her to sit in the HoC?

May is Rex Murphy’s guest on (CBC Radio) Cross Country Checkup this afternoon. I wonder if Murphy will hold her feet to the fire on this gaffe.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2008)

Disturbing Trend in Wildlife - 

The photos below capture a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife in the Canada . 

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Liberal and New Democrat Party.....as they have
apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Any simple ‘calculator’ is going to lie to you.
> 
> Your tax breaks will, of course, depend on the tax bracket you are in. You also may benefit more or less than your neighbours from any new or _upgraded_ social programmes. Additionally, Dion promises to do away with the $1,200.00 child care benefit - you may or may not get or want that.
> 
> The Green Shaft Shift is just another GST – a consumption tax. I *like* that part of it, it’s a good thing. I much prefer consumption taxes to income taxes – the latter are taxes on savings and investments and jobs.



And, of course, if you live in rural areas you will be shafted by the "consumption tax" as you don't have access to public transit, must travel by car for doctors, schools, you know --- essentials in life. Must consume that gas to work those farmers fields.

But hell, if you live in a metro area where public transit is available to get you to all these essentials in life --- the benefits of this type of system would be so much more appealing.

Kind of all has me wondering exactly where the NDP and Liberal voting base is situated ... oh!! - that's right - right in the heart of downtown TO. Kind of eerie isn't it? That'll keep me voting Conservative this election. 

I'm a small town NB girl, who's relatives are farmers and lobstermen. I'm already rich by their standards --- I'll not be giving a vote to a party that would like to see them "consumption taxed" down the drain while their party "Pro-Voters" in the big metro areas reap the benefits of that policy.


Sorry M. Dion - you lost me; like you ever had me in the first place.  :


----------



## Hawk (14 Sep 2008)

I was talking to a clerk at the grocery store yesterday. The cost of my shopping for a week went up by 50% - food prices are going through the roof in Winnipeg already without the Green Shaft Shift. My comments were that I wondered if Dion was going to provide us with extra grocery money every month. Oh yes - - we're getting a rebate at tax time. Nice - once a year we can afford to eat, whether we're hungry or not.

I was looking for the stats on how many Winnipeggers are using the food bank now, and couldn't find stats more recent than 2005. More of us are going to be depending on others to provide sustenance if the Libs get in.

And if you believe the Liberals will give us a tax break - I have a bridge for sale.


Hawk


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> I'm a small town NB girl, who's relatives are farmers and lobstermen. I'm already rich by their standards --- I'll not be giving a vote to a party that would like to see them "consumption taxed" down the drain while their party "Pro-Voters" in the big metro areas reap the benefits of that policy.
> ...




You are correct, Vern but the situation does not mean that *consumption taxes* are bad.

The purpose of any tax is to raise money for the _common_ or _public *good*_ (_commonweal_ originally; _weal_ ≠ wealth, _per se_, rather it meant ‘well being’) – those thing that, in a democratic society, a majority of us agree ought to be funded by all of us and provided, ‘free,’ to some, many, most, occasionally even all of us. A tax should do the least possible damage to the individuals who pay it and to the economy as a whole. The two aims are, essentially, irreconcilable: a tax that does the least damage to the poorest, those who can least sustain ‘damage,’ is a *progressive* tax, like an income tax. A tax which does the least damage to the economy is a *discretionary* tax, like the GST.

By *discretionary* I mean that one can decide to pay less GST simply by buying less – fewer or lower cost goods and fewer or lower cost services. Of course we must (almost?) all consume some goods and services: food, hydro, a phone line, some transportation (even we central city dwellers take the occasional taxi – especially when are legs are in a cast!  :crybaby: ) and so on. A *level* tax, like the GST, punishes the poorest because they have some irreducible amount they *must* consume, to live, and, therefore, they, despite their lack of means, have an irreducible tax bill. So do I. But my tax bill is low, as a percentage of my disposable income and relative to, say, a small farmer only an hour’s drive from downtown Ottawa. There *must* be some way to correct the basic unfairness: *maybe* through some sort of  guaranteed annual income programme.

Now, Vern, in *my perfect* world we would have no income taxes at all, nor would we have corporate taxes (which are just income taxes with a few extra collection inefficiencies tossed in to waste money) at all. Property taxes would be gone – but cities would be allowed to levy *consumption taxes* on a range of goods and services.

We would, however, all submit an annual ‘statement of income’ (that would probably be a lot simpler than our current income tax return) to determine if we qualified for monthly payments in the following year. (Of course, there would have to be mechanisms to allow ‘advance’ payments when one lost a job, etc – but those are details best left to accountants and bureaucrats.)

We would pay the *consumption taxes* on absolutely everything legal. All food, all rent all medical expenses, all gas for the car, all bottles of cheer at our neighbourhood _”People’s Happiness Store”_ – everything. The tax rates would be set high enough, in each taxing jurisdiction, to pay for schools, foreign aid, sewers, airports and air traffic control, hospitals and ‘free’ (and *medically necessary*) health care, navigation services, roads and snow removal, foreign aid, water treatment, diplomacy and the national defence, and, and, and almost _ad infinitum_ *and* the guaranteed annual income programmes.

The guaranteed annual income programme, if it is to work, must be universal and must not be impacted by earned income until the combination of the GAI and earned income = low income cut off + _n_, or some other, better measure that LICO (and there are plenty of them, almost all better); _n_ is a political choice.

But that’s *my perfect* world and I doubt Stephen Harper (or most Canadian Conservatives) lives in it.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You are correct, Vern but the situation does not mean that *consumption taxes* are bad.



No but, I know my relatives ... and they'd rather be working hard in those fields than collecting from any "programme". It's quite the conumdrum as every single thing they do to put food on the tables of Canadian families is exactly that which will bear the brunt of 'consumption' taxes. It takes a whole lot of fuel to work those acres and acres of fields and run that equipment. 

That's exactly my issue with consumption taxes ... those that _must_ consume the most in order to produce essentials like food *for* Canadian dinner tables ... will be those who end up "consumed the most by those taxes". In order to produce, they must be in rural areas, they must travel for doctors and school, they must fuel up farm equipment to feed "us". Someone has to do it.

It's those "essential to production" areas that I have issues with applying consumption taxes. To apply it to joe-blow in dowtown TO when he gasses up his car to drive 2 blocks to 7/11 instead of walking/taking public transit is one thing ... but to apply it to those farmers etc who MUST consume that fuel to provide essential basic foodstuffs to Canada and her citizens is quite another.

Oh, the communist thoughts running through my brain right now.

But, forget the programmes ... my relatives are also a very proud bunch ... they'd much rather be working hard every day than collecting anything from a 'programme". It does seem kind of twisted to "consumption tax" them ... only to give part of it it back through some machine-signed cheque at a later date. My grandfather has a great "red" joke about "_Social_ Programmes" - he has the tendancy to think that he went to war to avoid exactly those things.

Tell you what -- YOU run for Prime Minister and I'll be your Vice-Prime-Minister (Yes, I'm switching up the proper terminology too; and, I DO look good in lipstick by the way) ... it'll be a whole new way of doing business; they'll never know what a whirlwind hit them!! ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> But, forget the programmes ... my relatives are also a very proud bunch ... they'd much rather be working hard every day than collecting anything from a 'programme". It does seem kind of twisted to "consumption tax" them ... only to give part of it it back through some machine-signed cheque at a later date. My grandfather has a great "red" joke about "_Social_ Programmes" - he has the tendancy to think that he went to war to avoid exactly those things.
> ...



But they already "collect" from a "programme" - the income tax system starts with a bunch of "give-aways" - the basic personal exemption, then an exemption for this and another for that. There are special "give-aways" for farmers and fisher-folk and clergy and union members, and, and, and ...

Wouldn't a fair, _transparent_, simple 'programme' be better? I'm about 97.5% it would be a whole lot cheaper to administer.


----------



## Rodahn (14 Sep 2008)

I actually like Mr Campbell's idea of a flat consumption tax, as it would in the long run be much fairer than the current system in place. Using the model of GST, a company/business would deduct what it expends vs what it charges and remits the difference. Should the expense be larger than charges, then a rebate is granted.

Also if a family were to be below a median total income (based upon national average) then they would be given quarterly rebates. 

I believe this would be actually advantageous to lower income families, vice the current income tax system, as the rich have much better ways of being able to "hide/defer" taxable income.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2008)

Everyone is forgetting that those on low income are going to get this additional $$ needed to satisfy the consumption taxes from where?

Getting a cheque in 3 months does not help put food on the table this week....


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Sep 2008)

So, back to the Green Shift and revenue neutral. From here: (with the usual disclaimers) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080911/election2008_promises_080913/20080913?s_name=election2008&no_ads=

Add $350 to the $1,200-a-year child-care allowance. Low-income families would also receive another payment of up to $1,225 a year. Costs paid for with carbon tax.


Now I'm not against increased fundings for families, but I was pretty sure that the Liberals said the weren't going to fund social programmes from the Carbon Tax. This is dangerous ground. The temptation to spend any new tax revenue on social programmes is just too great. What happens when the Carbon Tax revenues decrease because people move to less carbon intense activities? How will the new social programmes be funded? Where is the revenue neutrality in this?


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But they already "collect" from a "programme" - the income tax system starts with a bunch of "give-aways" - the basic personal exemption, then an exemption for this and another for that. There are special "give-aways" for farmers and fisher-folk and clergy and union members, and, and, and ...
> 
> Wouldn't a fair, _transparent_, simple 'programme' be better? I'm about 97.5% it would be a whole lot cheaper to administer.



That's exactly his argument about "_Social_ programmes" ... that he's quite sure all these "taxes" were brought in only as "temporary measures" while HIS dad fought in World War One, and that while HE fought in World War two and the following spread of "red communism" that we were (and are) still paying those "temporary income taxes" because people have gotten too used to "programmes" and will never give them up now - and, quite frankly, just _expect_ more and more of them.

As for the "give-aways" they get ... I'll stick with my standard of living compared to theirs (my relatives) any day. I've become accustomed to it. Apparently their give-aways are received and go towards/are reinvested into production costs - certainly not towards enjoying the movies in a movie theatre or eating out at restaurants a couple times a month. When I get a "give-away" I get to spend it on recreation and liesure ... they don't and therein is the big difference to me. To me it's a "bonus"; to them it's "essential". 'Tis a very lovely capitalistic society that we live in.

The consumption tax, to me, will benefit those who have access to the "green" things and will see them reaping greater rebates from the "green things" --- those who can afford the liesure and recreation.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Where is the revenue neutrality in this?



I think that's a big misnomer with all this "green" talk of consumption taxes.

So, you pay a tax on consupmtion, but you get it back at tax year (thus they say you are "saving"); but, if you didn't pay out that 10 bucks on item "X" in consumption taxes ... you'd have spent that ten bucks on buying something else you need like a sweater. When you do get your rebate back ... you're going to then buy those things you needed to buy anyway, but couldn't because your household disposable income decreased due to the consuption tax.

No one is saving shit. Whatever you do get back (if anything) will be spent on the things you needed to buy anyway. They're only shifting the time that you can "afford" buy them. And you will be buying less ... because you sure as hell aren't going to get back *all* the money you put into consumption taxes back.


----------



## Rodahn (14 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Everyone is forgetting that those on low income are going to get this additional $$ needed to satisfy the consumption taxes from where?
> 
> Getting a cheque in 3 months does not help put food on the table this week....



Well, there is nothing to say that the cheques can't be sent out on a monthly basis. I was just using quarterly as an example. Obviously people would have to budget, just like the rest of us folks.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

We have to have taxes;  :rage:  some taxes pay for things we *need*, some taxes pay for things we want, some taxes pay for things that only some of us need or want.

No taxes are especially good.

The issue is what are the least bad taxes?

We’re not going to get anything like “least bad” with Dion’s Green Shaft Shift; it is *not* that a carbon tax is bad, it is that the whole Liberal plan is designed to raise even more money to spend on programmes that too few of us *need* and only some of us even want.

It is just plain poor public policy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

The bad news just keeps on coming for Celine Stéphane Dion.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site is a report on another poll that reflects poorly on Dion’s leadership:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080914.wnewpoll0914/BNStory/politics/home


> Tories strengthen their grip
> 
> JULIAN BELTRAME
> Canadian Press
> ...




I still believe that the Liberals are making a serious tactical blunder by keeping Dion front and centre. Canadians appear to neither trust nor respect him – giving them more of him is unlikely to change their minds. Canadians do appear to respect Ignatieff, Rae and, sadly for the Liberals, Layton and, above all Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

Be prepared for an ugly Monday on Wall Street tomorrow.

Lehman Bros. will go bankrupt; Bank of America will buy Merrill Lynch at fire sale prices because the Federal Reserve ordered Merrill Lynch to sell itself. AIG, the insurance giant, will ask the Fed to rescue it.

Panic will spread to Canada.

Stephen Harper’s campaign will ask: *”Do you really want to trust reedy Prof Dion, the guy you cannot even understand, with your life savings when Wall Street is in turmoil?”*


----------



## RangerRay (14 Sep 2008)

Advocates of the carbon tax/Green Shift are being disingenuous when they say the plans are "revenue neutral".  They will be revenue neutral to *government*, not to individual taxpayers.  Some will pay less, more will pay more. 

Here in BC, the carbon tax is so unpopular, that Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have gone from a 10 point lead over the NDP for years, to trailing by a few points in recent polls.  People are p!$$ed if they are considering letting the Socialist Horde back into power!  I predict that the Liberals will lose big time in BC to the Tories and the NDP.

Another interesting article on the <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=787998">crackpots</a> running for the Greens...



> A higher profile can only bring increased scrutiny. But the Green party has so far seemed to have difficulties keeping out, or perhaps even spotting, eccentric and occasionally dangerous elements in its house who are as eager to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories, Israel's "40-year occupation of  Arab lands" and NATO's "imperialist" war in Afghanistan, as they are the environmental issues that comprise the Green Party's public face.
> 
> *That practice, Prof. Ellis says, is something the Reform party avoided.* "Manning wasn't about picking up cast-aside or thrown-over politicians." He thinks the Green party still has work to do in presenting an image something more than a benign, if unserious band of hemp-wearing counter-culturalists. *"When I see a Green candidate in the news, too often they look like they're about to be or were recently tear-gassed,"* he says. "Organizationally, if that's your best choice, I'm saying you've got a lot of work to do. If that's not your best choice and he just sort of got there ... then, organizationally, you're not equipped to put your best foot forward."





> Most recently, the party was forced last week to drop its candidate in Newton-North Delta, B. C., after Internet blogs picked up on a comment John Shavluk made on a marijuana legalization Web site *referring to the World Trade Center towers destroyed by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, as "shoddily built world Jewish bank headquarters."* The party, Ms. May declared, had no room for anti-Semites. But the comments had been public for years before her decision, posted under Mr. Shavluk's own name and accompanied by his photograph.
> 
> The party, Mr. Shavluk insists, certainly knew about his past criminal record -- two years in prison for drug trafficking -- and his juror.caWeb site urges Canadians called for jury duty to disregard laws they don't agree with. His posts alleging that the official 9/11 story was a cover- up ("so many holes in the story its [sic] laughable," he wrote) had been on the Internet since 2006, as were his rants against police officers, calling them "racists" and "goons" -- all just a Google search away for anyone bothering to take the time to vet Mr. Shavluk's candidacy. Either no one did, or the Green party's internal red flags are not raised easily. "We're going through a lot of the rookie mistakes," explains John Bennett, the Green Party's communications director. As for the anti-Semitic stuff, he says, "The honest truth is we missed that posting."





> *She dithered for several days when confronted last year with statements by Vancouver Green candidate Kevin Potvin, calling the 9/11 attacks something "beautiful" -- first giving him, as she said, "the benefit of the doubt," before ultimately bowing to pressure to drop him.*
> 
> *The party continues to stand behind Ottawa-South candidate Qais Ghanem, who in addition to railing on the Green party blog against the pro-Israel "oligarchy" controlling the media, and defending Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also questions the official version of 9/11. That's OK, Mr. Bennett explains, because Mr. Ghanem is a prominent doctor and says he is devoted to Mideast peace.*
> 
> Canada's first Green MP, Blair Wilson, meantime, left the Liberal caucus under a cloud of questionable campaign financing and an undisclosed history of soured business dealings and lawsuits. After having been found by Elections Canada to have violated the Federal Elections Act on three occasions, and after the Liberals refused to take him back, the Green party nevertheless was more than happy to have him.



Not to mention questions of how deep Liberal/Green collusion in this election really is...

In my opinion, the Greens under Lizzy May are not ready for primetime.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2008)

Apparently vote  swapping has reached facebook and is gaining momentum......

ps....elections canada has no law against it...


----------



## armyvern (15 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Apparently vote  swapping has reached facebook and is gaining momentum......



What!!??

Gawd ... send a link.  :


----------



## armyvern (15 Sep 2008)

Never mind ...

Google is my friend tonight.

Just finished my Mil Law OPME, and my 1st assignment for the Canada and Modern Society OPME ... and needed something to do (other than more damn lesson plans and power-points!  )
_
Reproduced under the fairdealings provisions of the copyright act ... _ 

Facebook Vote Swapping



> Last Updated: Friday, September 12, 2008 | 7:53 PM ET Comments73Recommend50CBC News
> Canada's election watchdog is probing whether a vote-swapping group set up on Facebook is illegal or just strategic voting.
> 
> The online group, titled "Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada," is trying to match Canadians who are willing to swap votes to keep the Conservatives from winning a majority in the Oct. 14 federal election.
> ...



Unfreakingbelieveable


----------



## armyvern (15 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Apparently vote  swapping has reached facebook and is gaining momentum......
> 
> ps....elections canada has no law against it...



Seems that they're up to 2870 now ... 



> Group: Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada
> Size: 2,870 members
> Type: Common Interest - Politics
> New:2,214 More Members, 52 Board Topics, 319 Wall Posts
> ...



And they've taken it to the "outside" of Facebook with this link - hoping to gain some swappers from the non-Crackbook masses:

http://www.votepair.ca/

All I can say is "wow."


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is the second part of the “Falling Behind” series:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=791029


> Falling behind: Part II
> 
> Paul Vieira, Financial Post
> 
> ...



OK, the operative words are: *complacent* and *comfortable* and those words are applicable right across the country and from top to bottom. But the big problem area is in the centre (Ontario and Québec) at the *top*. We are not uncompetitive because our workers are lazy or overpaid! We are uncompetitive because our corporate, financial and government *elites* are timid and overpaid.

Government ‘leaders’ are afraid of an electorate that is, itself, timid, protectionist/isolationist (and especially anti-American) and self-satisfied. Business ‘leaders’ are afraid of institutional investors who focus on the next quarter and, effectively, punish companies that take some risks to try to grow and secure their long term futures. The individual investor is still constrained, mostly by tax policy, by governments that want to “pick winners” in Canada - taking risks with someone else’s money.

The US is our biggest and *best* trading partner but it is neither benign nor guaranteed.

The Canadian government can help companies by going out into the world – to Asia – and negotiating free trade agreements. That will make opening new markets easier, it will also broaden the range of sources of supply for much needed industrial modernization. Governments can also help by lowering corporate taxes and taking taxes and duties off imported industrial equipment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from a summer edition of the _National Post_, is one of the essential ‘good ideas’ that scares the livin’ you-know-what out of every single politician and bureaucrat in Ottawa:

http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=688480&p=1


> Who needs our Ministry of International Trade?
> 
> Vincent Geloso, Financial Post
> 
> ...



This is a perennial. It gets raised about every year and every years it is ignored – even though about 99% of Canadians would benefit from getting rid of the farm marketing boards.

Why?

Because politicians and bureaucrats know that Québec dairy farmers would attack Ottawa – literally. They would seize parliament hill, they would storm the parliament buildings, they would burn chairs and desks and papers, they would assault parliamentarians and workers. And who could blame them? The proposal, *my proposal* is to make them compete with big, efficient milk, cheese and egg producers. *I propose* that family farms that have been family farms for 300 years should be driven into bankruptcy. Comfortable, prosperous farmers should be rendered, almost overnight, unable to provide for their families – all just so that the other 99% of Canadians should live better lives. "It'll never happen" - not any time soon, any way.

But it needs to happen.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (15 Sep 2008)

This sounds nice, but there is no way for people to "prove" who they voted for. I know that in Italy the election officials there had to crack down -*HARD*- on people bringing cell phones with cameras / cameras.  Not because people were trying to record what other people were voting for, but what they were voting for.

Apparently people were first being bribed,  but to get the money you had to show proof that you voted a certain way.  This sounds shady, but hey "if a person chooses to sell their vote, their choice eh"  Not really.  Believe it or not it is a threat to democracy.  

If people were free to get proof of who they voted for ie take a video clip of them marking the ballot, then you could 'pressure' people to record and prove who they voted for.  People who didn't do so, obviously voted for someone else... it isn't very hard to see how badly things can get as soon as people ballots are no longer secret...

But there are other problems. I worked as a scrutineer,  it was shocking.  I saw several times a husband and wife would get their ballot and go behind the screen together.  Doesn't sound bad but three of those women simply handed their ballot to their husband who also marked it for them.  (this wasn't the most shocking thing I saw that day)


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> ...
> But there are other problems. I worked as a scrutineer,  it was shocking.  I saw several times a husband and wife would get their ballot and go behind the screen together.  Doesn't sound bad but three of those women simply handed their ballot to their husband who also marked it for them ...



You cannot imagine the self control I am exercising ... forcing myself not to tell Vern this is the way things ought to be.  >


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2008)

There did not seem to be any hesitation when they dismantled the Crow Rate and other subsidies in the 80's for the western farmers....ah, the crying, twas terrible.....but, in hindsight, only the inefficient and underfunded went under....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Québec farmers appear on parliament hill every couple of years – to remind parliamentarians and civil servants that they, the farmers, are big, powerful and, above all, militant. It is a campaign of intimidation aimed at keeping their marketing boards – extortion is another word for it, just like the “protection rackets” to which some (one is too many) small shop owners fall victim.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, highlights yet another problem with Dion’s Green Shaft Shift:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=790969


> Carbon tariffs pose risk of trade war, OECD told
> *Green Shift Plan*
> 
> Paul Vieira, National Post
> ...



I, personally, think a carbon tax *might* be a good idea IF:

•	It is a fairly ‘pure’ consumption tax – paid by the end user at the pump, in the market, when the home heating oil tank is filled, etc; and

•	It is not levied at borders – on either incoming or outgoing carbon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Now, for all you Liberals, Greenies and NDippers here on Army.ca, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ (Yes, I know, it’s a fascist rag that _disses_ Smilin’ Jack Layton, but ...) is some real red meat about the _hidden agenda_™:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=791059


> Commentary: 'Conservative' in name only
> 
> Theo Caldwell,  National Post
> 
> ...



While I have sympathy for his dismay, I *do not* agree with all of Caldwell’s whinging.

For example:

1.	Cutting the GST is good policy – which trumps good economics – because it *constrains* government spending. If you want to spend more you must tax more. Canadians do not like new taxes. Politicians do not like annoying Canadians. It will be easier to spend less than to tax more.

2.	I support the income trust decisions because public policy is about serving the common good, not just that of a few investors looking for cheap, easy tax avoidance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

And one more from the _Tory blue rag_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=791004


> No easy win for Liberals on economy
> *Party needs to refine message to score points against Harper*
> 
> Craig Offman,  National Post
> ...




I well remember the Stanfield/Trudeau race and I agree that, at the end of week one of five of this campaign, it is looking like *Dion ≈ Stanfield* and *Harper ≈ Trudeau*.

The problem, for the Liberals, is that Canadians ought to remember, fondly, the economic good days of Chrétien/Martin but, apparently, Dion inspires fear, not confidence and Martin is long gone and forgotten.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Sep 2008)

I am going to throw a strawman out in the open to provoke some discussion. It is a theory that I do not subscribe to, but it perhaps is a possibility.

What would the result be if Dion suddenly resigned as leader "for the good of the Liberal party  Canada' and was replaced by Iggy, who came second in the leadership race, as interim leader? I suspect any resignation on his part would not be voluntary, but that is cynical speculation on my part. 

There is still nearly a month to run in the campaign. With Dion gone and maybe the Green Shift put on hold or postponed, is there time to turn the race around, or at least salvage a strong second place in another minority Parliament? Consider that a lot of money has been spent on commericals featuring Dion, and the party is in a dubious financial position. Is this the time and place for a Hail Mary pass, or does the party take the long view and take the next several years to rebuild itself?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am going to throw a strawman out in the open to provoke some discussion. It is a theory that I do not subscribe to, but it perhaps is a possibility.
> 
> What would the result be if Dion suddenly resigned as leader "for the good of the Liberal party  Canada' and was replaced by Iggy, who came second in the leadership race, as interim leader? I suspect any resignation on his part would not be voluntary, but that is cynical speculation on my part.
> 
> There is still nearly a month to run in the campaign. With Dion gone and maybe the Green Shift put on hold or postponed, is there time to turn the race around, or at least salvage a strong second place in another minority Parliament? Consider that a lot of money has been spent on commericals featuring Dion, and the party is in a dubious financial position. Is this the time and place for a Hail Mary pass, or does the party take the long view and take the next several years to rebuild itself?




The problems with that theory, it seems to me, include:

•	Bob Rae’s ambitions – he will not want Ignatieff to get the leadership by _coup_; 

•	The left wing of the Liberal Party – the group that rejected Ignatieff and gave the leadership to Dion in a compromise. It still doesn’t like or *trust* Ignatieff; and

•	Tradition – the Liberals are were a highly disciplined party. To overthrow Dion, apparently in a panic, makes them look foolish and ill-prepared – not a good message to send when the economy is shaping up to be the only issue.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Sep 2008)

Those are all good points.

However if Ignatieff clearly stated he was the interim leader, and named a date for a leadership convention, that might satisfy the Rae and Dion camps. It would, however, make it even more difficult to campaign while the competing factions plotted and schemed away for advantage in the post-election bloodbath.

The sign of panic during an economic downturn is probably the show stopper. Was it in the 2000 campaign that a coup by Martin to usurp power from Chretien failed, or was that only a rumour? The economy was doing a lot better back then.

I still don't think it is going to happen, but one can only hope.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

Quebec farmers are not the only ones:

http://prairietory.blogspot.com/2008/09/corporate-welfare-belly-up-bar.html



> *Corporate Welfare - Belly up the bar!!!*
> 
> Wow. I read Mark Milke's book A Nation of Serfs and it was fantastic. The chapters on corporate welfare and free speech were especially interesting to me, along with the historical information about our roots in limited-government, and the garrison culture. The latter I hadn't ever heard or learned of before, so that was cool. Anyway, here's some more data on corporate welfare handouts in this Fraser Institute report.
> 
> ...



Imagine the tax cut the CPC could deliver if they acted like _real_ Conservatives and ended corporate welfare. Injecting $19+ billion dollars into the productive economy with a tax cut like this would certainly take the edge off any real or potential economic downturn as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> The sign of panic during an economic downturn is probably the show stopper. Was it in the 2000 campaign that a coup by Martin to usurp power from Chretien failed, or was that only a rumour? The economy was doing a lot better back then.
> 
> I still don't think it is going to happen, but one can only hope.




That was _waaaaay_ back when Liberal and discipline could be used in the same sentence.

I think Dion and the Green Shaft Shift are about all the gifts the Liberals will give to us Tories this year. We must be thankful for small, weak mercies.

Meanwhile: a majority means that Harper must gain seats in Ontario and Québec. The seats he can reasonably hope to win in Ontario are Liberal seats - Ignatieff would help the Liberals there; the ones he must get in Québec belong to the BQ - Ignatieff did well in QC, as I recall.

That means Harper must run two quite distinct campaigns. Dion continues to help him in both.

I’m guessing that the Conservatives may get a seat or two more in BC but the real big *green shift* will be from the Liberals to the NDP and Greens. I’m also guessing that the Conservatives will be lucky to hold their own in Atlantic Canada: down one or two in NF, maybe up one or two in the other provinces.

So, 25 to 30 ‘new’ Conservative seats needed – almost all  Ontario and Québec. For this week, anyway, the economy is probably the *only* issue. And economic worries tend to make (perceived) good leaders even more popular.

And, on that note, excuse me, please, while I hide under my bed as the markets open on Bay and Wall Streets!  :crybaby:


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2008)

> And, on that note, excuse me, please, while I hide under my bed as the markets open on Bay and Wall Streets!



By the end of today a lot of people will think the income trust decision was mild.....the markets will be all over this news from the weekend


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

I have some sympathy for Lawrence Martin’s view in his latest column which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.wcomartin15/BNStory/politics/?query=


> Stephen Harper: the tactics, the leadership (Part 1)
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



I think, in stating his six attributes of political leaders, Martin is forgetting his history but that’s a small quibble. I agree that most of us *wish* that our leaders could possess “a capacity to inspire, to define and chart the direction of the country.” We would like to think we could have “political figures with personal magnetism and oratorical skills.” We want leaders to display “civility” and to honour democratic principles. But it is too much, even for Martin, to expect any political to be “someone who stands above the fray.” No Churchill, no Roosevelt, not even a Jefferson or a Pitt would come anywhere nar Martin’s idealized list, but, we can *wish* ...

He is correct, however, in suggesting that Harper is parlaying Canadians *respect* for his focus (pigheadedness for some Canadians) and tactical shrewdness (lying and cheating if you’re Celine Stéphane Dion) into a reputation for leadership.

I *wish* there could be political leaders of the type Lawrence Martin imagines; there aren’t; there never have been – especially not in Canada. Maybe we got close, 60 years ago – at least M. St Laurent was civil and had a capacity to chart a clear course for the country; he was a pretty thoroughgoing democrat and not a poor orator, either; but he was never stood “above the fray” and nor can any political leader – not one who wants to last beyond coffee break, anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Part 2 of “ Stephen Harper: the tactics, the leadership”:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.wcotories15/BNStory/politics


> Stephen Harper: the tactics, the leadership (Part 2)
> 
> BOB PLAMONDON
> 
> ...



He’s got it! He’s used his secret decoder ring and he’s nailed the _hidden agenda_™: Harper wants to make the Conservatives into a “middle of the road,” Canadian political party – albeit  a wee bit 'right of centre.’

Canada is a cautious, _centrist_ country, Canadians are cautious, _centrist_ folks, a successful political party must also be _centrist_.

The smart right wingers, like Stephen Harper, know that is the best they are ever going to get. The dumb ones may form socially conservative _movements_ on the fringes, à la the Greens, but Harper aims to force the Liberals and NDP into a generation long fight to the death for the large ‘left of centre’ position while he commands his own chosen (large enough) ground and wins election after election.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Quebec farmers are not the only ones:
> 
> http://prairietory.blogspot.com/2008/09/corporate-welfare-belly-up-bar.html
> 
> Imagine the tax cut the CPC could deliver if they acted like _real_ Conservatives and ended corporate welfare. Injecting $19+ billion dollars into the productive economy with a tax cut like this would certainly take the edge off any real or potential economic downturn as well.



Sorry but I have to take issue with the golden concept that tax cuts are inherently efficient.  If you're dealing with a closed ecomony and money is trapped within borders, I'm with you....individuals will always use their funds more efficiently than government will...However in a globalized trading system where competitors are intentionally devaluing their currencies and not allowing reciprocal trade access, tax cuts in Canada often provide little more than indirect transfer of wealth to China as we purchase Chinese-made HDTV's, iPods and other miscellaneous crap.  Bottom Line:  Pay down the debt first.  We shouldn't have a debt in the first place and the fact we still spend upwards of $40 billion per year on interest servicing (even with record low interest rates) is pathetic.  Then as the debt is retired, continue to work towards reciprocal trade access (or begin applying barriers of our own) with those nations currently employing unfair trade practices (China, Japan, South Korea).  Then as the debt is eliminated and on a more even playing field THEN provide tax cuts.  


Matthew.   

P.S.  Count me onboard with the "Elminate the supply side controls on agricultural products" BS.  Complete and utter rip-off of taxpayers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Harper is “on message” according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080915.welxnmarkets0915/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper unfazed by market crisis
> *Dion accuses Conservative Leader of leading Canada's economy to a performance that lags even the troubled U.S.*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI AND CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...




Investors and economists are like small children in the family car, all saying, “Are we *there* yet?” There is the so-called “bottom” – the point where the precipitous decline in stock values ends, “bottoms out,” and a rise (back towards 15,000) starts. Harper hopes the “bottom” will arrive, or may appear to have arrived, sometime next week, maybe even the week after.

But consider the clarity of the message.

Here’s Harper (in 66 of his own words):

•	“I wouldn't throw in the towel on any of this [economic bad news] quite yet”

•	“My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now”

•	“This is not a time for wild experiments and new taxes or grand new spending schemes” and

•	“Governments must be able to act with prudence during a difficult economic time.”

Here’s Dion (in 137 of his own words):

•	“What is the main problem that the world has today? It's energy costs. And it will grow. It's not something that will disappear. So if you have a strategy to make this country more energy efficient…you will increase the profitability of our economy, and its productivity. And it will create green jobs” and

•	“We need to cut taxes on the productive activities – on our income, savings, investments. On the investments the fishermen need to do to have good vessels – we need to cut taxes on that. And we need to shift it to pollution. And then it will be good for the economy because you will cut taxes on productive activities. It will be good for the environment because you out a price on pollution. As long as it is free, it will be difficult to reduce it.” 

Listeners and readers ‘got’ Harper’s message on the first pass. I’ll bet Dion’s audience is trying to figure out what he thought he was saying. Even when Dion is talking good sense he buggers up the ‘delivery.’


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

It is only peripheral, perhaps, but Marion Dewar, former mayor of Ottawa and long time NDP leader died today. She was very popular and respected here in Ottawa - even amongst those who disagreed with the NDP's policies.

Her son, Paul Dewar is the sitting (NDP) MP for Ottawa Centre (my riding). He is popular and, arguably, a good constituency MP.

Even though the Conservatives are running a very credible candidate against him, Paul Dewar will be hard to beat and he will get a bit of a sympathy 'bounce.'

Mr. Dewar has my personal sympathy for the loss of his mother: a fine woman and a good public servant - in the best sense of that word; but he will not get my vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

More polling data>

Harris-Decima says “Conservative Lead Narrows” but with a margin of error of ±2.6% the headline could, equally well read “No change over four days” or, even “Tory lead widens.”

It is only the first week of a five week campaign but Canadians' intentions seem remarkably static: *another Conservative minority* - maybe with a bit bigger or better seat distribution, for the Tories, than the current one.


----------



## foresterab (15 Sep 2008)

One issue here is that although Canada has a large trade surplus due to it's high volume and value of commodity goods the relative productivity of workers to produce  that good is low.   As you move up the secondary, tertiery.. manufacturing process you are able to take advantage of increased mechanization/robotics in lieu of workers and increase the overall value of your end product and provide a more efficent economy.

This is an area where the US is kicking our butts and as long as we are a hewer of wood and bearer of water we will never become the feudal lord supervising it all.  

Unfortunately given the cost of setting up such facilities, labour shortages and lack of infrastructure this dream is a long ways away.  

But some starting points...

1) Twin the transcanada highway to a modern, high speed standard for it's entire length.  Add in cell phone towers to fill in communication gaps.  This helps nationally increase the rate of goods trafficing and communication.  Why I can't call out through large portions of Northern Ontario and the Prairies is beyond me...no wonder people fly or go via the US.
2) Build at least 1, preferably 2 large scale pipelines running east/west through Canada for the purpose of fossil fuel transportation.  This reduces dependency on US refinery production while adding value to canadian production.
3) A common securities regulator so as Canadians we can invest in a company that doesn't have to maintain different books for each jurisdiction they operate in.  Currently the incentive is there to stay in a single juridiction just for accounting purposes.  The merger of the TSX and Montreal Stock Exchanges recently might help this.
4) EI should be adjusted annually so that premiums = payouts from previous year.  No more, no less.  Overcharging employers for employee benifits is not conductive
5) A national infrastructure plan should be made and updated annually with projects most likely to contribute to the overall gain of Canada's economy funded first.   Prime examples...Prince Rupert Port, a second Windsor/Detroit bridge, increased ferry service to Newfoundland.  This needs to be public on how the decision was made and posted for all to see.  
6) Kill some of the reality shows on CBC and instead increase the exposure of shows like "Dragon's Den" where new inovators compete in order to get new ideas put into production.  Start putting CEO's from Canadian buisnesses and politicians on there and force them to think of positive changes.  CBC already loses money so losing more won't hurt if we have a national forum brainstorming for national improvements.
7) Revise the tax structure to a flat tax format for all corperations with investments into the company directly chargeable against profits.  Quit taxing incoming equipment...we'll get more from more efficent profitable companies and employees long term than we do on a $3 million metal press once.

Anywho...rant over.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

Dion qould have a much better chance if he reduced his message to this:



> “We need to cut taxes on the productive activities – on our income, savings, investments."



Oh, wait, that is the Conservative platform. All we need is assurance Prime Minister Harper will actually follow through (with spending and *broad based* tax cuts), and things will look much better in the long term.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

I will have to disagree with you here Matthew. While tax cuts will have second and third order effects outside of the country in a globalized economy, they are still the fastest and most efficient means of energizing the economy, which will (given prudent fiscal management) provide the revenues required to pay down the debt.

The real problem is that tax cuts do energize the economy, but there is little or no corresponding pressure for politicians to limit spending (and great institutional pressure to increase it). The Harris government is an excellent example. Their tax cuts increased economic activity and thus revenues by a fairly large amount, which was funneled into increased government spending rather than debt reduction, creating a reserve fund similar to the Alberta Heritage Fund or other "productive" activities.

ForesterAB, I'll take your point 7. The rest will either require huge subsidies which the market will not make up (if the market was there, it would already have happened), or goes against too many entrenched institutional interests to get passed. As for point 6, why stop at the reality shows? Just eliminate the CBC and reap an annual $1 billion tax savings.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

And still more polling:

Nanos confirms the Harris-Decima conclusions – with the a higher ±3.2% margin of error: the Tories are losing a bit of ground, they have fallen back into *minority* territory, and the Liberals are gaining a bit – not in too much danger of losing official opposition status to _Smilin’ Jack_ Layton..

The biggest shift, for both, is in Atlantic Canada; maybe Danny Williams’ *ABC* is working and maybe it has legs. But, with margins of error like ±10.3% or ±6.6% it is difficult to say anything for certain.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2008)

The CPC is probably hoping, and I think they will, gain many more than 10 more seats in Quebec. 

Now is not the time for them to count their chickens, but I suspect that even with losses in the Maritimes, they are slated for a small majority...


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ForesterAB, I'll take your point 7. The rest will either require huge subsidies which the market will not make up (if the market was there, it would already have happened), or goes against too many entrenched institutional interests to get passed. As for point 6, why stop at the reality shows? Just eliminate the CBC and reap an annual $1 billion tax savings.



And contract out "Dragon's Den" and it's ilk to CTV....still cheaper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

I suspect the Conservatives are actually glad to be back in minority territory - until the very last moment.

For a majority they need something like:

20 in BC - a gain of two, just possible given some three way (Green/Liberal/NDP) splits;
28 in AB - no change;
23 in SK/MB - a gain of three, difficult but possible;
52 in ON - a big gain of 11 but, once again, difficult but possible with some three way splits;
24 in QC - another big gain of 14, once again difficult but possible; and
7 in Atlantic Canada - no change, but still difficult and still possible.

Big ON and QC gains are the key but they need some small gains out West and they need to hold the line down East, too.


----------



## Rodahn (15 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And still more polling:
> 
> Nanos confirms the Harris-Decima conclusions – with the a higher ±3.2% margin of error: the Tories are losing a bit of ground, they have fallen back into *minority* territory, and the Liberals are gaining a bit – not in too much danger of losing official opposition status to _Smilin’ Jack_ Layton..
> 
> The biggest shift, for both, is in Atlantic Canada; maybe Danny Williams’ *ABC* is working and maybe it has legs. But, with margins of error like ±10.3% or ±6.6% it is difficult to say anything for certain.



I don't pay too much attention to polls, as they have proven to be misleading. If memory serves, did not the Liberals have a large lead in the polls, just prior to Brian Mulroney's Conservatives being elected to a majority government?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> ... did not the Liberals have a large lead in the polls, just prior to Brian Mulroney's Conservatives being elected to a majority government?



Possibly, I don't recall; but polling is a fairly well established technique and it has improved since 1984. Some pollsters, Nanos being one, have pretty fair track records.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

There is a problem with polls in that the respondent is under no obligation to tell the pollster the truth. The US elections of 200 and 2004 had polls and even exit polls at variance to the actual result allegedly because of this (no other statistical or mathematical explanation seems to fit), and we may be seeing something like this going on as well.

This can even be wargamed to a certain extent: one can imagine party supporters being instructed to give misleading answers to the polls for _maskirovka_ and mislead their opponents. The only poll that counts is the one you cast your ballot in; the rest is fill for the newscast and chattering classes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Sep 2008)

> Big ON and QC gains are the key but they need some small gains out West and they need to hold the line down East, too.



www.electionprediction.org  is showing that the Conservatives are likely to take two of the three Northern Ridings (not Yukon- the other two), based on the strength of the two candidates there.

It ain't much, but every little bit helps, right?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> www.electionprediction.org  is showing that the Conservatives are likely to take two of the three Northern Ridings (not Yukon- the other two), based on the strength of the two candidates there.
> 
> It ain't much, but every little bit helps, right?



It sure does!

Four weeks to go.


----------



## JBG (15 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We’re not going to get anything like “least bad” with Dion’s Green Shaft Shift; it is *not* that a carbon tax is bad, it is that the whole Liberal plan is designed to raise even more money to spend on programmes that too few of us *need* and only some of us even want.
> 
> It is just plain poor public policy.


You mean $1000 CDN Canadian flags in Quebec (with $200 to the LPC) isn't something that most people want?


----------



## Rodahn (15 Sep 2008)

Well on my way home from work today, I took a round about route, and noticed a grand total of 1 Conservative, 4 NDP,  and 0 Liberal signs. This in a riding that during the last election voted for a Liberal candidate, who had previously been a Reform party member. I'd personally hate to be represented by the party who's leader is Taliban Jack, especially considering CFB Esquimalt is within the riding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2008)

There appear to be problems within the Dion *campaign team*, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080915.welectionliberals16/BNStory/politics


> Insiders hint at unrest in Liberal ranks
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...



This stands in sharp contrast with Harper’s organization and, despite the puffins and Mr. Sparrow, disciplined Tory and NDP campaigns.

I heard/saw David Herle (former manager of the 2004 Liberal (Paul Martin) election campaign) on just this topic. He said, roughly: Pri 1 is to stop the bleeding – admit (privately, within the party) that there is a problem, make real changes (in staff and direction) to address the problems; and Pri 2 is to get back into the fight, with the ‘new’ plan, message, team etc. I wonder if he was using the TV news to ask for a job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Jeffrey Simpson’s take on the impact of the Wall Street crisis on Canada and the current election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080915.wcosimp16/BNStory/specialComment/?query=


> There is no shelter for Canada from the gathering economic storm
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Simpson’s ‘litany of sins’ (_”Americans consumed more than they produced, borrowed beyond their assets, paid for wars with borrowed money, went deeper into personal and collective debt”_) parallels DeCoet’s which I quoted here.

Simpson quotes GDP figures as though they actually mean something, in and of themselves. *They do not* - not unless they are read as part of a table showing other countries’ GDP, all measured over time so that we can see and compare trends. Dion also likes to quote GDP figures – they are equally meaningless when he does so. He’s not even scaring anyone.

Simpson's advice to the three real party leaders is mixed. He’s right: Jack Layton’s proposal to increase corporate taxes will destroy jobs and hurt _ordinary_ Canadians. He’s right, injecting money without addressing some of the underlying productivity issues (most cannot be addressed by governments), as Dion proposes, is also a bad idea. And he’s right: the Conservatives are playing politics with taxes rather than helping the country. But what does he think they should propose? Simpson is usually full of ideas, but not today - maybe he doesn't understand the problem, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2008)

Maybe Dion (and/or his team) is finally getting things right.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an article that says he’s finally getting off the Green Shaft Shift and talking about economic *management*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.welexndioneconomy0916/BNStory/Front


> Dion shifts focus to the economy
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



Dion needs to remind Canadians that:

•	They actually dislike and mistrust Stephen Harper – even if they do respect him;

•	Dion is rooted in the Chrétien/Martin ‘team’ that Canadians liked and to which Canadians give considerable credit for good economic management – even if monkeys on marijuana could have managed the Canadian economy almost as well through the '95-'05 decade.

He also needs to stop ‘selling’ himself and his Green Shaft Shift and start selling the respected, trusted Liberal brand and the better liked Liberal team.

Even if he does that he is still going to have an uphill struggle to unseat Harper but he will have a very good chance of returning Harper with a smaller, less tenable minority and then winning in late fall 2009 or spring 2010.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2008)

There are three new polls, here (Ekos) (Cons = 38%, Libs = 23%), here, Harris-Decima (Cons = 38, Libs = 27%), and here, Nanos (Cons = 38%, Libs = 31%).

All three have the Conservatives at 38% but they have quite different figures (an 8% spread – 23% to 31%) for the Liberals . 

The Ekos people go so far as to make seat projects; a mug’s game, I think, but here is their _guesstimate_:



> EKOS’ SEAT PROJECTION
> *EKOS ELECTION.COM – September 2008*
> 
> [OTTAWA – September 16, 2008] A seat projection based on the latest EKOS rolling poll shows the Conservatives now clearly in majority territory. Although the 38% support that the Conservatives enjoy in the most recent EKOS poll is low by historical standards to produce a majority, in the current configuration of party support, with the opposition split four ways, the Tories benefit.
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Sep 2008)

Well, I do think that Ekos got the Green Party seat numbers about right


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

I don’t, normally, agree with very much that Jeffrey Simpson says about foreign policy, although I do respect his knowledge of Canadian politics and his firm grip on the Ontario position. These are normal times, despite the election.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Simpson’s most recent column in which he whinges about a lack of foreign policy debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wcosimp17/BNStory/specialComment/home


> In election 2008, as in 2006, the world just doesn't exist
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Let me deal with Simpson’s whinges, with a few of which I do agree, in some (small) part:

•	“*Afghanistan* might have provided fodder for a debate” – yes, and it might have been a useful debate IF anyone in either Dion’s or Harper’s teams had anything new or insightful to say. They don’t – as far as I can see;

•	“It used to be that when Canada wanted a seat at the *United Nations Security Council*” – true and, apparently, we now care less about the place. Now that IS fodder for a good debate because the parties, I think have different views, BUT I doubt anyone in either the Conservative of Liberal Parties thinks the debate will attract any interest amongst Canadians;

•	“The government's one-sided approach to the *Middle East* has cost Canada support in the Muslim world” – probably true but here is an un-stated assumption that we had Muslim support for e.g. a UNSC election. I’m not at all sure that’s true;

•	“The stick-in-the-eye policy on *China* has frozen us out with the emerging superpower” – yes, true, and it is a bad policy (albeit it’s good politics with the ‘base’) and the Conservatives’ feet should be held to the fire on it, BUT, few Canadians know or care;

•	“The refusal to support the desire of *Japan, India and Brazil* for Security Council seats has irritated them” – yes, it probably has, but what’s in it for us? Not much;

•	“The indifference toward *Africa* has been widely noted on that continent” – hu-hum, BUT see here. Africa will matter, again, but not in anything like the way Simpson hopes;

•	“By embarrassing Barack Obama with leaks about *NAFTA*, and deliberately absenting himself from Ottawa when John McCain came, Mr. Harper succeeded in annoying both presidential candidates” – highly unlikely, despite being overplayed in the Canadian media it is forgotten;

•	“By refusing to attend the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing and by generally giving *China* the cold shoulder, his government has left Chinese relations in the cooler” – yes, but see above, _’asked and answered’_ as the lawyers say on TV. This appears to be Simpson ‘padding’ his thesis;

•	“Serious *trade* agreements have been few and far between” – agreed and, again, it is poor policy for which the Conservatives should be made to answer. BUT there are so many protectionists in the Liberal Party that it’s not gonna happen;

•	“As usual, Canada was unhelpful in world *trade* talks, because it defended to the end the stupendously high tariff walls around supply management in agriculture” – yes, indeed, BUT see here. No one in Canada, especially not the Liberals, is going to argue *for* good public policy or the national interest on this issue;

•	“On *aid*, as on trade, the accomplishments have been steady increases largely committed to by the previous government”  if this even made sense it would still be partisan rubbish!

•	“On *climate change*, a huge international issue, foreign governments have already seen through Canada's hypocrisy” – yes, indeed, and we have seen through theirs, too. Who amongst the OECD countries, I wonder, does Simpson think *will* keep heir Kyoto promises?

•	“Which *Conservative* minister or MP by training, interest and experience could be foreign affairs minister? Answer: None” – arrant, partisan *nonsense!*

•	“The *New Democrats* are scary on foreign policy” – true;

•	“The *Liberals* actually do have some people with a lot of international experience, although not their leader” – true, but it s just as highly partisan and nonsensical as his comment about the Conservatives having “None.” It is nonsense and Simpson does nothing but tell us that he doesn’t much like Conservatives and worships Liberals; and

•	“But the Liberals don't talk much about foreign affairs, either, perhaps because they're searching for coherence or, more likely, because they understand that, in Canadian election campaigns, *all politics is parochial*” – yes, agreed. So, what, besides slagging Stephan Harper and providing free advertising for the Liberals, was the point of the column?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

Here reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ are some pertinent question, about one of the *real issues*, from historian Jack Granatstein:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wcodefence17/BNStory/specialComment/home


> There's no life like it? Tell us more, Mr. Harper
> 
> J.L. GRANATSTEIN
> 
> ...


_


Good questions, all.

I'm not holding my breath for answers from Harper,  or promises from Dion.



_


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting analysis of Liberal misfortunes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.welectionanalysis15/BNStory/politics/home


> Liberals' leftward tilt throws campaign off balance
> *Party fears legacy for balancing progressive politics and hard-nosed economics is fading*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> ...




I wonder if Canadians are smarter than I generally give them credit for being. I wonder: does the old adage that Liberals “campaign Left and govern Right” actually reassure Canadians - who are not fooled by the campaign promises? Is Don Johnston’s assessment of “balance” correct? Do Canadians vote Liberal when they ‘see’ the balance and vote Tory only when the (preferred) Liberals lose their economic balance?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2008)

I for one am not surprised at the hard left direction the Liberals have taken; looking/listening to such "Liberal" luminaries as Bob Rae, Justin Trudeau etc. is kind of like being in an echo chamber with Jack Layton. By allowing these characters to enter the Liberal fold (or even encouraging them as with the young Dauphin) and making an open alliance with Elizabeth May and the Green Party they have openly moved away from the business end of their traditional coalition of brokerage politics and are now busy fighting it out with two major and several minor parties for the "Left".

This may have seemed like a sensible move at some point in the past; @ 66% of Canadians identify with the political "Left" so the pool of potential voters is much larger than the "Center" or "Right" of the political spectrum. On the other hand, "Left" wing voters have had decades to be entrenched with *real* Left wing parties like the NDP, so the Liberals are now finding the "Left" part of their brokerage coalition is realizing "why vote for the Liberals when we can have the real thing?", while the "Right" part of the brokerage coalition has migrated towards the new and improved CPC.

Given the opportunistic nature of most politicians and their bagmen, I would think there would be few takers for the task of rebuilding the wreakage of the Liberal party after this election, and given their party's limited resources, even the most energetic and zealous Liberals won't have a lot to work with anyway. Should the seat count turn out anything like the EKOS poll, the Liberals will be reduced to a rump Ontario party hovering on the fringes of the political spectrum, and will become as relevant as the "Progressive Canadian" party


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Sep 2008)

It's a little early to count the Grits out with almost four weeks left in the race. However I can't understand what their brain trust is thinking when they put Bob Rae front and centre, especially if he talks about economic issues. Bob, after all, was christened Buffalo Bob for the boost he gave to that city's economy during his term as Premier of Ontario.

There are crack's appearing in their iron discipline with even some of the denials of discord seeming insincere at best. Under the previous financial rules the Liberals could survive a humiliating electoral defeat and bounce back. They have done it twice in my lifetime. Now, with funding restricted to a relatively paltry thousand dollars per individual and union and corporate donations banned, they are behind the financial curve. If their vote drops, this will reduce their per capita grant from the taxpayers and put them even farther back. With unpaid debts from their last leadership race as well as one owed by the party, and the some of the costs of this election to be repaid, the Liberals are in a difficult - I don't want to use precarious or dangerous yet - position. Perhaps they have the intelligence, discipline and vision to pull themselves out of the mess. Certainly some businesses manage to do so, while others crash and burn. However, based on their tactics during the campaign, I am not betting on success.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is an opinion piece by William Watson that is very worth a read:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=b0d4aa57-5817-4f6d-aff2-6940d54b14d0


> William Watson
> Beware economic promises
> *We'd be better to ask which politician is least likely to mess things up further*
> 
> ...




Here, and it deserve to be repeated in big, bold letters, is the key bit: *"Good management of the government means: not wasting money on feel-good policies whose main virtue is to make a show of concern for social problems; paying for current spending out of current taxes, not loans; and raising revenues with broad-based taxes and few exemptions so you can keep tax rates low and not discourage the activity being taxed, for if you tax something, you generally get less of it."*

A carbon tax, à la Dion’s, that applies at the gas pumps and home heating fuel tanks, too, is a good idea if, as Watson says, it is both revenue and impact neutral. Dion’s Green Shaft Shift tax does none of those three essentials: it is targeted to ‘reward’ Torontonians who drives their SUVs to the convenience store, it is not revenue neutral and it is not impact neutral, either. It is a *bad tax embedded in a weak plan* - according to this card carrying Tory.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2008)

Tories Well Placed to Take Military Votes  
Experts say equipment purchases, reassurances of importance are key to gaining soldiers' support. 
By Jeff Davis
Article Link

After being elected to office in January 2006, the Conservatives came out strong and bought the military plenty of expensive and much-needed equipment. Even more important, they reassured Canada's airmen, soldiers and sailors of the important role they play in Canadian society. 

Now, despite extending the Afghan mission till 2011, military watchers say, soldiers are not unhappy with the government and predict they will continue to vote Conservative this time around. 

"I would suggest that most of the members of the Canadian Forces would probably vote Conservative in this election," said retired colonel Alain Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations. "I think the message from the current Conservative government probably resonates more with the troops." 

In the last election, the Conservatives succeeded in winning many ridings that are home to soldiers and their families. There are some 62,000 registered military voters in Canada. 

Embassy examined the top 10 ridings in which military ballots were cast in the last election. Nine of these ridings contain major military bases. The Conservatives won five of the top ten, the Liberals three, the Bloc Québécois two and one went to independent Quebec MP André Arthur. 

Canadian military historian and senior research fellow with the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Jack Granatstein expected similar results this time around. 

"I suspect [the military vote] will stay heavily Conservative," he said. "They essentially gave the Afghan force everything it could possibly want, except for helicopters. My guess is that the Tories have earned the vote." 

In the same vein, the executive director of the Royal Canadian Military Institute, retired colonel Chris Corrigan, said the Conservatives should net the soldier vote for the "very obvious reason that they have rebuilt the military." 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, may refer to good politics but I’m not sure it is good policy, *yet*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welxnharperafghan0917/BNStory/politics/home
My *emphasis* added


> Harper OKs release of Afghan cost report
> 
> MARTIN O'HANLON
> The Canadian Press
> ...



My understanding, from some previous reading, was that Mr. Page had two concerns:

1.	He wanted all party support to release the report during an election; and

2.	It is a very first DRAFT report and he was not satisfied that he has all the right and necessary information in useful forms and only the right and useful information, _ie_ everything leaders need to know to understand the costs, without extraneous details.

Anyway, here it comes, and I am 99.99% certain that both politicians (all parties, including my own) and the media will misunderstand and misrepresent the data.


----------



## Celticgirl (17 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> "I suspect [the military vote] will stay heavily Conservative," he said. "They essentially gave the Afghan force everything it could possibly want, except for helicopters. My guess is that the Tories have earned the vote."



No kidding. Just looking at the poll results on this thread thus far, it is fairly obvious that Tories will get a majority of the military vote(s) this time around. What have the Liberals and NDPs offered to do for the CF besides rip our troops out of Afghanistan?


----------



## Snafu-Bar (17 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> No kidding. Just looking at the poll results on this thread thus far, it is fairly obvious that Tories will get a majority of the military vote(s) this time around. What have the Liberals and NDPs offered to do for the CF besides rip our troops out of Afghanistan?



 Knockoff Kit, fake tanks,planes and ships(recycled cardboard cutouts) and food even the most hardened criminals would put back on the cart.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

Yesterday Celine Stéphane Dion was blasting Stephen Harper for “coming close to a deficit.” Now it appears that he’s promising to actually deliver one!

This article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welxndiondeficit0917/BNStory/politics/home


> Dion refuses to categorically rule out deficit
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



Actually, that may be the smartest thing he’s said all week. Tax revenues will be down. Canadians will not want big programme/spending cuts – except that they do like cuts to the arts and defence. Ergo income may be less than expenses – for a year or two.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

And further to my last: Earlier this week Celine Stéphane Dion, correctly, pointed out that our _national accounts_ ran perilously close to deficit in the first quarter of this year. Now, according to this story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, Dion and Layton are proposing *Billions* each year in new spending – day care and education and, and, and ... Dion, at least, has a new *not revenue neutral* carbon tax to pay for it – but there go the tax breaks he also promises:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welxnkids0917/BNStory/politics/home


> Leaders focus on the children
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK AND BRODIE FENLON
> 
> ...



I hope someone in the media is going to tally up the bills for all these wild, irresponsible promises. I want to know how big a deficit Dion is offereing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

And, as usual, Ekos, Harris-Decima and Nanos all have new polling data:

Ekos says: “Structurally, the single most important change from the last election is a drop in the Liberal vote. So where are those voters going? Well, pretty much everywhere. In fact if you compare voters’ current vote intentions with how they report having voted in 2006, you’ll see that former Liberals are the single largest source of new recruits to every other party.”

Harris Decima says:

•	In *Ontario*, the race continues to narrow, with Conservatives at 39%, Liberals 36%, the NDP 14% and the Greens 10%. The Liberals have picked up 6 points from a low-water mark last week.

•	In *Quebec*, the BQ continues to poll well back of its 2006 numbers. Over the last four days, the BQ leads with 33%, the Conservatives follow with 25%, the Liberals with 22%, the NDP at 11% and the Greens at 7%. Among men in Quebec, the BQ leads with 35%, the Conservatives have 28%, the Liberals 18%, the NDP 13% and the Greens 5%. Among Quebec *women*, the BQ holds 30%, the Liberals 26%, the Conservatives 23%, the Greens10% and the NDP 10%.

•	In *Atlantic Canada*, the Conservatives lead with 34%, followed by the Liberals with 33%, the NDP 19% and the Green Party with 10%.

•	In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 38%, followed by the NDP with 25%, the Liberals with 22% and the Greens with 13%.

Nanos says:

•	Tories slide in Atlantic and Ontario, up in Québec and West; and

•	Dion drops in leadership index

BUT, re: the _Nanos_ numbers, the margins of error are in the ±5% to ±10% range and, since the differences are all in the 2 to 4% range the numbers are, likely, meaningless.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2008)

And, regarding those rolling polls: William Fox who authored the article that is reproduced below under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from todays’ _Globe and Mail_ web site is the same Bill Fox who was Brian Mulroney’s press secretary back in the ‘80s. He is, therefore, a Tory partisan – like me – and you ought to take his views with a grain of salt, as you take mine.

That being said, what he suggests is interesting.

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welectionmedia17/BNStory/politics/home


> Toronto, Atlantic Canada may be Dion's last battlegrounds
> 
> WILLIAM FOX
> 
> ...



I’m not at all sure that I fully understand the power of _communications_ – not just the obvious political _bumph_ from the parties or the equally obvious media reports, but the subtle messages delivered by daily reports on the rolling polls and our reaction to them.

I think Fox has the question right: *do we* want to give Harper a majority government?* We are only ⅓ of the way through he campaign but I *feel* that Dion has already lost it. So, do we trust Harper enough? What’s more scary: Harper or the economic crisis?


------------------
* By ‘we’ I means Canadians at large. About 38% of us Canadians are firmly in the “Yes! We want a majority Conservative government in 2008” camp already – that ‘we’ needs a few hundred thousand of our fellow citizens – mostly in Ontario and Québec - to make the same choice.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

I watched May deliver her party's platform today. Sounded an aweful lot like what the liberals are proposing with a touch of " but but, but.....we're better than they are" mixed into it.

Not impressed in any way and look forward to her downfall apearance at the leader's debate.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I watched May deliver her party's platform today. Sounded an aweful lot like what the liberals are proposing with a touch of " but but, but.....we're better than they are" mixed into it.
> 
> Not impressed in any way and look forward to her downfall apearance at the leader's debate.



From the little I saw and read, I think the Green numbers are going to go the way of Dion....


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> From the little I saw and read, I think the Green numbers are going to go the way of Dion....



Just listening to her speak is like nails on a chalk board. She sounds more like a child saying "please listen to me" than someone who is a candidate for PM.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Sep 2008)

Fortunately for all of us, May is not, nor will she ever be, a candidate for Prime Minister of Canada.  The Nanos poll had a more interesting element to it than merely who would you vote for which went a long way towards answering Mr. Fox.  52% of Canadians would not be upset by a Conservative Majority.  Such a figure would suggest that the potential for vote switching if being reduced and people will support their traditional party rather than voting for the candidate with the best chance to upset the Conservative.  

But one thing is for sure, Harper will be looking for a new person to head up the Health Department.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And further to my last: Earlier this week Celine Stéphane Dion, correctly, pointed out that our _national accounts_ ran perilously close to deficit in the first quarter of this year. Now, according to this story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, Dion and Layton are proposing *Billions* each year in new spending – day care and education and, and, and ... Dion, at least, has a new *not revenue neutral* carbon tax to pay for it – but there go the tax breaks he also promises:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welxnkids0917/BNStory/politics/home
> 
> I hope someone in the media is going to tally up the bills for all these wild, irresponsible promises. I want to know how big a deficit Dion is offereing.




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of today’s _National Post_, is one look at the spending promises:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/17/ka-ching-ka-ching-liberals-and-ndp-run-up-the-bill-of-election-promises.aspx


> Ka-ching, ka-ching: Liberals and NDP run up the bill of election promises
> 
> Posted: September 17, 2008, 1:29 PM by Kelly McParland
> 
> ...



By my calculation the totals are:

•	Conservatives: $1.217 Billion
•	Liberals: $4.335 Billion
•	NDP:  $2.5 Billion

Given that the *projected* surplus for 2008/09 is only $2.3 Billion and for 2009/10 $1.3 Billion it appears that:

•	The Conservatives are flirting with a deficit – not good;

•	The Liberals are promising deficits year after year after year – very, *very bad* and *totally irresponsible*_; and

•	The NDP are promising continual deficits – *very bad*.



_


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is proof of Harper’s _wisdom_ in being the sole face and voice of his government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.writz0917/BNStory/politics/home


> Easter calls for Ritz's resignation
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> ...




Gerry Ritz is not an idiot nor, in my (admittedly limited) experience with ministers, is his ‘humour’ much different from that of others, in other parties. But he forgot what ought to be a cardinal rule: Think before you speak!









The problem – *for all parties* – is Gotcha!  journalism that is (usually) factual enough but distorts the facts to discredit the protagonist. Ritz is a ‘victim’ but, thus far in the campaign, I would say that Dion has suffered more than any other from this particular curse.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

This is good news!

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on Canada/EU free trade negotiations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wtrade18/BNStory/International/home


> Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA
> *Plan to lift barriers for goods and labour to be discussed at summit after election*
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> ...



A few points:

•	The problem of the provinces – _“Because Canada's fractious provinces have killed attempts at a trade pact in the past, Europe is demanding that Canada accept a more far-reaching agreement than Canada and Europe had attempted before ... Major “deal-breaker” conditions, officials said, include full agreement by all 10 provinces, especially on the issue of European companies providing government services, and what are known as “geographic indicators,” which forbid products such as champagne and feta cheese to be produced under those names outside their nations of origin.”_ – is very real. Canada is pretty much the * most decentralized* federal state in the modern world* and Canadian provinces have, in some respects, more power vis à vis the national government in Otawa than do sovereign EU members states vs the EU, proper, in Brussels.

•	Free trade deals are just that: deals. When we want (or need) something and the other guy(s) want (maybe need) something too a ‘deal’ is always possible. The trick is to understand what they want. While I believe free trade is, in and of itself, always a good idea and, eventually, always serves the best interests of all parties, at the start (say the first ten to twenty years!) one side or the other may get screwed. 

•	I wish we had concurrent negotiations with China. It is always nice, in big league negotiations, to have ‘options:’ to be able to say, “Well, I would love to sign that deal, but my other negotiating partner is offering me ________  and he only wants _____ ___ in return. Can’t you get a bit closer to his position?” The problem is that negotiations at this level require large teams of highly skilled experts – especially when dealing with partners whose markets are 15 or 30 times the size of ours. We, a small country, have a limited supply of such experts and maybe one deal is all we can manage at one time, *BUT* Harper should, at least, have gone to Beijing and started head-of-government level discussions so that we could wave a _possible_ Chinese deal at the Europeans. Harper’s China ‘policy’ hurts Canada. 

All that being said, it is still *good news!*


--------------------
* That’s not how the _Fathers of Confederation_ planned it; quite the contrary, in fact, they were very conscious of the problems that had (just recently) led the US to a bloody civil war and they wanted a strong central government. The ‘problem’ was that the civil servants who drafted the Constitution got the distribution of powers ‘wrong.’

But, I hope Stephen Harper will go even further on decentralization.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Sep 2008)

Humour is often used as a means to try and deal with stress.  Controllers forever called the tristar "the swamp crawler" and a citation a Munson Burner as proof of that statement.  Unfortunately, when talked about afterwards, even the author can seldom find anything humourous in his remarks and such humour has probably ended more than one promising political career. I suspect that this will be the case here.  He has hung himself here, hoisted by his own petard. We will forgive his raiding the till (if he ever did-not an allegation at all), but never his attempt at humour  Hence the term 'gallows' humour, I suppose.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2008)

Black Humor is exercised by most people (if they have a sense of humor), but the false indignation by the press and opposition is over the top....yeah, he was dumb to say the stuff, but isn't that what mouths are for.....to put feet in?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ are two items:

•	A report by Jane Taber suggesting, as I have done, that the Liberals need to *shift* away from new, big, green carbon taxes and onto the Liberals’ perceived traditional strength: prudent, competent economic management; and

•	A comment by Norman Spector suggesting that while that’s probably a good idea it will be very difficult because too many Canadians don’t trust Dion to be a traditional, *economically conservative* Liberal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.welection-liberals18/BNStory/politics/home


> Dion urged to use Liberal strategy of the past
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...



And:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/Spector


> The perfect economic storm (for the Conservatives)
> 
> Norman Spector, today at 7:12 AM EDT
> 
> ...




IF, and we are only ⅓ of the way through his campaign, so it’s a *Big IF*, Harper can:

1.	Keep the ballot question focused on leadership in difficult times; and
2.	Keep Canadians convinced that he, not Dion, is the best leader; 

Then Dion cannot seize the economic high ground and, most likely, Harper wins – maybe a majority.

Uncertainty, even fear, is a weapon *for* Harper because he is, at this time, perceived to be the best leader. But if Canadians become too fearful they may be enticed, by, say, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, back to the ‘safe,’ comfortable, trusted Liberals.

Harper needs to calm fears while stressing the uncertainty of the *global* situation – the one NOT of his making – and the need for firm, fiscally prudent leadership. He also needs to continue to bash Dion for fecklessness and poor leadership.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Sep 2008)

My feigned indignation allows me to appear to be ever so superior since I haven't been caught yet.   But he did exercise a monumental lack of good judgement.  Gallows humour on an open line conference call is just sticking your chin out and daring someone to take a swing.  

The other half of this conversation has been dealing with election promises.  Dion promised that the Green thing would be revenue neutral.  Is this the same Dion that promised to pay off his election debt before September?  Just curious!


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2008)

The is also a way for the European Block to gain access to ALL of North America's markets, without having to negotiate with the US


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The is also a way for the European Block to gain access to ALL of North America's markets, without having to negotiate with the US



Not unless the US agrees - the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement has 'third country' rules designed to protect existing tariff arrangements. I think the same (similar, anyway) rules are in the NAFTA, too.


----------



## Jed (18 Sep 2008)

Exactly GAP, we should be able to forgive anyone of making the odd inappropriate comment. What truly irritates me is over the top, drama and indignation regurgitated by other leaders who routinely practice hypocrisy as they outline and defend their own campaign platform.

Pretty easy to see which side of the fence I am on eh? lol


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not unless the US agrees - the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement has 'third country' rules designed to protect existing tariff arrangements. I think the same (similar, anyway) rules are in the NAFTA, too.



Fair comment, but I can still envision a Canadian supplier importing a European product, repackaging enough to allow a stamp of "Made in Canada"....the European supplier may not be so tied to a brandname as it is to making a massive sale of it's product under a generic brand name.


----------



## YZT580 (18 Sep 2008)

A report by Jane Taber suggesting, as I have done, that the Liberals need to shift away from new, big, green carbon taxes and onto the Liberals’ perceived traditional strength: prudent, competent economic management; and

Have I pulled a Rip Van Winkle or something.  Since when were the LIEberals traditionally prudent spenders?  Seems to me that, with all respect to Chretiens economic record, it was the Libs. that created the mess that required fiscal prudence in the first place.  While at the same time they were short changing the military, closing bases, selling assets and generally creating a 3rd world nation.  The spending notions of Dion are more in line with traditional policies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> A report by Jane Taber suggesting, as I have done, that the Liberals need to shift away from new, big, green carbon taxes and onto the Liberals’ *perceived* traditional strength: prudent, competent economic management; and
> 
> Have I pulled a Rip Van Winkle or something.  Since when were the LIEberals traditionally prudent spenders?  Seems to me that, with all respect to Chretiens economic record, it was the Libs. that created the mess that required fiscal prudence in the first place.  While at the same time they were short changing the military, closing bases, selling assets and generally creating a 3rd world nation.  The spending notions of Dion are more in line with traditional policies.



The operative word is *"perceived"*. I think most Canadians give Chrétien/Martin full, albeit undeserved credit for correcting a decade of *perceived* Conservative mismanagement.

The inconvenient facts are:

•	Canada did not cause the global recession in the ‘80s – not even Brian Mulroney did that;

•	Mulroney and the Conservatives did not set us on course for ever increasing deficits – Trudeau did that in the ‘70s; and

•	Mulroney and Wilson actually *balanced* the _programme_ budget. They got a grip on spending BUT they were afraid, during a recession, to take the steps necessary to deal with the rest of the deficit – the interest on the national debt. Chrétien was not; he just transferred the problem to AB, BC and ON by, unilaterally, re-jigging the equalization system. Canadians still paid and _paid_ and *paid* but the ‘blame’ was shifted to their provincial premiers and ‘Tit Jean and whatisname Martin and the Liberal Party got the credit.

But facts don’t really matter to Canadians. They *perceive* the Liberals to be good, prudent managers who were able to slay the deficit dragon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Fair comment, but I can still envision a Canadian supplier importing a European product, repackaging enough to allow a stamp of "Made in Canada"....the European supplier may not be so tied to a brandname as it is to making a massive sale of it's product under a generic brand name.




I don’t think that’s such a bad idea.

Look at item 5 in this list.

We should craft a customs union – which is how the EU started – with the USA. Effectively we, Canada and the USA, would deal with all of the outside world’s products (goods and services) in *exactly* the same way: same rules of origin, same tariffs and so on. The Canada/US border ceases to exist in so far as goods and services are concerned and there is a new, *common border* surrounding both, together. We are, already, about 95% there.

I would go further and recommend that we, Canada and the USA, craft a variant of the Shengen Agreement and remove the restrictions to the movement of people between the two countries. This is a bit, but not much, more complex than dealing with goods and services because the US would have to agree to adopt some *tougher* Canadian standards – especially for tourist visas. (Our tourism lobby is not as powerful, or as irresponsible, as the American one that would like a gold card to be the only document needed to enter the USA.) But, we are, probably, about 90% there and a few billion dollars spent dealing with landed immigrants’ documentation (on both sides of the border) would be recouped in border savings in a very, very few years.


----------



## Rodahn (18 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gerry Ritz is not an idiot nor, in my (admittedly limited) experience with ministers, is his ‘humour’ much different from that of others, in other parties. But he forgot what ought to be a cardinal rule: Think before you speak!
> 
> The problem – *for all parties* – is Gotcha!  journalism that is (usually) factual enough but distorts the facts to discredit the protagonist. Ritz is a ‘victim’ but, thus far in the campaign, I would say that Dion has suffered more than any other from this particular curse.



There could be more of a backlash than anticipated, as one of the persons who died was in Ritz's own riding, and the son is livid. Granted they are still investigating how the contamination affected the woman.

Link here:

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n091861A.xml


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

New daily polls, again.

Ekos say:

“The EKOS tracking poll shows the national parties holding steady for the moment, though daily shifts suggest there may be a softening of Conservative support and a perceptible growth for the Greens this week.”

BQ: 8
Cons: 38
Greens: 12
Libs: 24
NDP: 18

But, Ekos adds:

“Conservatives were [earlier this week] doing a much better job of retaining their supporters, and that the Liberals were experiencing unhealthy levels of defection. This finding can be expanded to reinforce our growing conviction that we may be witnessing some more profound shifts in the structure of party affiliation in Canada ... this analysis places both the Liberal and the Bloc Québécois prospects in a rather gloomy, longer-term context. Both parties have been failing to recruit replacements from first time voters, and this (coupled with other recent campaign difficulties) should do little to raise the spirits of either BQ or, more pointedly, Liberal supporters. It may be that we are shifting from a more centrist, politics of consensus, to a more ideologically polarized electorate – a movement that may not auger well for future Liberal prospects ... While none of these trends are definitive, the overall emerging picture is of a very different Canadian political landscape which no longer anoints the LPC as the natural governing party.”

Harris-Decima says:

*Conservative Support Inches Downward, NDP Gaining Among Some Key Demographics*

•	In *Ontario*, the race is tight, with Conservatives at 37%, Liberals 34%, the NDP 15% and the Greens 12%. In *Quebec*, the BQ leads with 33%, the Conservatives follow with 24%, the Liberals with 20%, the NDP at 14% and the Greens at 8%.

•	In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals lead with 36%, followed by the Conservatives with 28%, the NDP 21% and the Green Party with 11%. In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 35%, followed by the Liberals with 25%, the NDP with 23% and the Greens with 14%.

•	Among *urban women*, the NDP has gained ground in recent days to 18%. Among women 18-34, the NDP stands at 25%, an 8-point jump since the writ was dropped. Among single women, the NDP are now leading. The Green Party has also been showing increasing strength with younger and single women.

•	Positive feelings towards Stephen Harper have slide somewhat. From a peak of 53% favourable in the September 8-11 period, his positives are now averaging 47%. His negatives have risen from a low of 40% to a current 45%.

•	The BQ appear to have stabilized, and one of the reasons for this is likely increased impact of their advertising.


Finally, Nanos says:

*Tories lead by nine points*

BQ: 7
Cons: 39
Greens: 6
Libs: 30
NDP: 18


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2008)

Still more polling, but this is interesting.

Leger Marketing, in a poll of 1005 people, has the *BQ in second place* in QC for the first time in years and years and years.

The Conservatives are one point ahead of the BQ (with or without undecided voters), the Libs are 10+ points behind them; the Greens and NDP are in single digits. The 'lead' is, in fact, a statistical tie given the margin of error (unstated, but, typically, 2.5% to 3.5% 19 times out of 20 with a poll of that size).


----------



## Dog Walker (18 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> There could be more of a backlash than anticipated, as one of the persons who died was in Ritz's own riding, and the son is livid. Granted they are still investigating how the contamination affected the woman.
> 
> Link here:
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n091861A.xml



Another related article. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080917/cma_listeriosis_080917/20080917?hub=Health



> Medical journal slams Tories over listeriosis cases
> Updated Wed. Sep. 17 2008 9:21 AM ET
> The Canadian Press
> …an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal slammed the federal government for undermining public health safeguards.
> ...



Links to the CMAJ articles:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081477

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081459

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081441


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> There could be more of a backlash than anticipated, as one of the persons who died was in Ritz's own riding, and the son is livid. Granted they are still investigating how the contamination affected the woman.
> 
> Link here:
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n091861A.xml




The Ritz story certainly has “legs,” as the journalists say.

Assuming Gerry Ritz is fairly safe in his seat (he got 14,666 votes out of 27,332 in the last election and his nearest competitor, an NDipper, was 10,000+ votes behind) and will be re-elected, gaffe or not, minister or not, the question becomes: should Harper –

1.	*Fire* Ritz, now, allowing Public Works Minister Christian Paradis (who is still Secretary of State (Agriculture)) to carry on? or

2.	*Accept the resignation* of Mr. Ritz? Or

3.	*Tough it out*?

 Option 1 has two advantages:

I.	It appears to be what a lot of Canadians want, right now. Many Canadians are not buying the “stress” defence and the media will not let this go away soon – it’s selling soap; and

II.	It makes Harper appear decisive and “caring.” 

Option 2 has no particular advantages for Harper and the Party but it might save Mr. Ritz’s skin for a future cabinet appointment.

Option 3 retains a competent minister and ‘feeds’ the Western (Reform) Conservative base. Option 3 works IF the “legs” fall off this story because someone else screws up – please gods, not another Tory! And that is something that can and likely will happen in the next three weeks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is more grist for the mill from Jeffrey Simpson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wcosimp19/BNStory/politics/home


> In search of the Liberal brand
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



I have often cited historian Michael Bliss’ ‘Old Canada/New Canada’ article (a copy of which I cannot find, now, except in an allusion) from about 10-15 years ago. The Liberals are very much “old Canada” – patronage, handouts, ‘programmes’ and ‘_programmes_’ and even more ‘*programmes*.” The old Reform Party (‘_Refooooooorm!_’) might have been ‘new Canada’ but it was sidetracked by social conservatives who represent neither the old nor the new.

Stephen Harper ran (2006) and governed as a stereotypical ‘old Canada’ Liberal.

There are 107 seats in ‘old Canada’ and only 95 in ‘new Canada,’ West of Ontario. Ontario, with the other 106 seats, is ‘new Canada,’ but neither (‘new Canada’ nor Ontario) is monolithic. New Canada (West of Ontario) still sends several NDippers and some Liberals to Ottawa. Now that there is a credible capitalist alternative (not present 1993 through 2000) the Liberal stranglehold on Ontario has loosened. But, as Simpson says, the Liberals’ hold on Canada, old and new, is done – for now.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

> New Canada (West of Ontario) still sends several NDippers and some Liberals to Ottawa. Now that there is a credible capitalist alternative (not present 1993 through 2000) the Liberal stranglehold on Ontario has loosened. But, as Simpson says, the Liberals’ hold on Canada, old and new, is done – for now.



The question then becomes, but what about the old diehards who harken back to a better day dreaming of lotus blossoms, and such....Between listening to propaganda from all sides, remembering the heady days when it seemed the government could do no wrong and it was a land of plenty (or none of the above...your choice)....the liberal base is still searching for Mr/Mrs Right...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> ...the liberal base is still searching for Mr/Mrs Right...



And, <♯ fanfare ♯> their prayers are answered:

Heeeeeere’s Justin!


                                                                                                                   :


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

The sons do NOT always mirror the father...... :


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Sep 2008)

Sometimes they take after their mothers.  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2008)

I still contend that a key dynamic in Canadian politics, in addition to the Old/New dichotomy and the Urban/Rural split, is the desire on the part of a large sector of the community for "The Man on the White Horse".


The Old Canada has the most heavily entrenched Urban population, having the oldest cities.  New Canada's cities are recent creations with most of them within one lifetime of their pioneers.

New Canada is largely populated by people that have moved to seek opportunity or that are children of people that moved to seek opportunity.  This self-selecting group of individuals, by and large, are, pretty much by definition, disinclined to look for support and likewise disinclined to tolerate the fetters of restrictive laws.  The leavening in Western politics is supplied by the "communitarian" colonists of the 1900s that were imported and settled as functioning entities offered the opportunity (that word again) to try out various social experiments (Hutterites, Doukhobrs, various Scots, German, Ukrainian, Hungarian and French ..... amongst others).

Old Canada seeks the comfort of company, and dogma and rote and is quite willing to exchange the restrictive embrace of the law, comfortable in the knowledge that it will never apply to them because they are "Good People" who  not only follow, but make, the laws.  All they have to know is what is "Right".  Canada being as big as it is Old Canada still provides space for those inclined to live outside the tight confines of the law and town.


The problem for Old Canada is knowing what "Right" is when "Right" is hard to define.  The Church used to provide the answers via men in robes. Now that the Church has been largely discredited by other men in robes that portion of the population that has been convinced that it is "Right" that the Church is a spent force still seeks someone to tell them what is "Right".  

These people want to imbue the Prime Minister, The Supreme Court, and even Parliament with the same authority as the Pope but because the Conclaves of the Cardinals are held in open forum they can see the tarnished process and know that these people are not up to the task because they are not any different than them or their neighbours.

For another part of the population that is actually a strength of the system.  Our parliamentary system is not designed to secure justice and right.  It is designed to secure a pragmatic peace.  

The role of Prime Minister descends as much from the position of "Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland" as it does from ancient ties to Belted Earls and English Lords.  That portion of the population, that includes Cromwellian presbyterians, French Huguenots and Reformed Dutch Calvinists (all individually sure that they know the will of God at least as well as any Pope and thus free from the need of further advice) only seeks a dispute settling mechanism and a competent manager.   They are the bases for your "Classical liberals" Edward, while "Old Canada" - including the socialists - is as "conservative" as any Han Chinese, and as hierarchically inclined.

Hmm, interesting take on the concept of Mandarins now that I think about it. 

 By the way, there is the tale of the Rangers supporter that found himself alone in a crowd of Celtic fans.  As a matter of survival he covered up his Blue and White scarf that identified his as a Presbyterian amongst all these Green clad Catholics and aimed to keep a low profile.  He managed to maintain his composure throughout most of the game but the "gers" had a rough first half.  They managed to fight back in the second.   All the while he is more and more worked up.  Finally the Rangers score the go ahead goal  and he could contain himself no longer.  He yells out, with particular vehemence "Up, the Pope" in a not at all complimentary sense. This attracts the attention of the by now sullen and silent Celtic fans staring at his by now exposed blue and white scarf.  Realizing his predicament and knowing that he has offered a grave insult to the Pope as well as being one of "They Prods"  all he can think of to offer in way of explanation is "Well, its easier than saying Up the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland".  It didn't save him from his beating.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is the real “shame,” from a partisan Conservative perspective:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/decisioncanada/story.html?id=0840189c-f05c-4f75-acb0-0963e5921428


> COLUMN: Spendthrift Liberals get free kick at 'sorry' Conservatives
> 
> Don Martin, Canwest News Service
> 
> ...



The ‘good news,’ for Tories, is in Martin’s words:

•	“The race is still young and there are still three weeks' worth of partisan openings for derision and ridicule;” and

•	“The mood is souring against vote-buying tactics in trying times.”

But, Gerry Ritz cost Stephen Harper at least one important day’s worth of big time campaigning.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

More daily polls.

Ekos says:



> *Are the Greens Set to Break Through?*
> 
> [OTTAWA – September 19, 2008] In our latest EKOS tracking poll, the Green Party has achieved its highest level of support ever, at 13% — very close to triple the level of support it garnered in the last election.
> 
> ...



The Ekos numbers are:

BQ: 8 (NC)
Cons: 36 (-2)
Greens: 13 (+1)
Libs: 25 (+1)
NDP: 18 (NC)

Ekos also says, in “a deeper analysis”:



> [OTTAWA – September 18, 2008] A deeper analysis of the campaign to date should provide encouragement to Conservative supporters and could be quite disheartening for Liberal supporters.
> 
> Increasingly, the question appears to be shifting from the initial, “Who will win?” to whether it will be a majority or a minority for the Conservatives, and who will lead the diminished and fragmented opposition?
> 
> ...




Harris-Decima says

*Liberals fall back*

BQ: 8
Cons: 38
Greens: 12
Libs: 25
NDP: 15

•	In *Ontario*, the Conservatives lead with 40%, Liberals 33%, the NDP 13% and the Greens 12%.

•	In *Quebec*, the BQ leads with 32%, the Conservatives follow with 25%, the Liberals have fallen back to 17%, the NDP at 15% and the Greens at 9%.

•	In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals lead with 33%, followed by the Conservatives with 31%, the NDP 23% and the Green Party with 10%.

•	In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 36%, followed by the Liberals with 22%, the NDP with 22% and the Greens with 18%. Green Party support has been rising markedly in the province.


Finally (in alphabetical order) Nanos says:

*Tories 11 points ahead of Liberals*

BQ: 7 (NC)
Cons: 39 (NC)
Greens: 7 (+1)
Libs: 28 (-2)
NDP: 18 (NC)

--------------------

Not much change except that Ekos has the Conservatives down 2 points, nationally, and the Liberals up one point, while Nanos has the Liberals down 2 points and the Conservatives unchanged. All of which, given the margins of error, means “No Change” to anyone. It may be too early for _l’affaire Ritz_ to have had any impact.


----------



## Rodahn (19 Sep 2008)

Well thus far in the riding that I'm in, it is almost as though there was not election in progress. I've seen less than a dozen signs for various candidates, and there has been no debates as yet.... I'm beginning to wonder if any of the parties are interested in representing this riding, which makes it difficult to decide how to vote.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2008)

While channel surfing this afternoon I hit upon a journalist asking what I think is the key question about _l’affaire Ritz_: why was Gerry Ritz discussing the (public relations) “message” in a teleconference with scientists who were supposed to help him solve a problem that was (is) killing people?

It is not a new phenomenon.

During the Chrétien years, in a least two government departments (one being DND), political staffers – mostly _thirtysomethings_ with a very partisan agenda, were allowed into meetings where the ‘workers’ (directors and directors general in the civil service, LCols, Cols and BGens in the military) were trying to solve problems, craft sensible plans and policies, etc and the minister’s staffers were allowed to *direct* the departmental staff on maters like the ‘message.’

I believe that practice predated the Chrétien years, even the Mulroney years, and I’m pretty sure it still goes on today.

I can tell you that it bothered, annoyed even infuriated the staff at the ‘worker’ level – some just grumbled and got on with their work, others complained, formally, and some, I’m guessing tried to find ways to get back at the minister and his (or her) political staffers – mostly by leaking embarrassing information.

For the record, *I never leaked any information* to anyone, especially not the media, and *I do not know of anyone who did leak information* but, it happened – too much, and it still happens – too much. And that’s exactly why we have _l’affire Ritz_ someone, one of Ritz’ political staffers or, much more likely, one of those scientists (workers) who was pissed off because they were trying to tell the minister how to solve a problem that was killing people and the minister’s staffers, a bunch of _thirtysomethings_, were telling them how to “manage the message” and the stressed out minister was making bad jokes to try to cope with the fact that he didn’t (doesn’t) understand the crisis or the solutions being proposed.

Now, I have no objection to the minister’s staff (_thirysomethings_ or not) *directing* the ‘communications’ strategy; that’s heir job. But, there is a right way and wrong way to do it. The right way is for the minister’s staff to deal directly and only with the departmental ‘communications’ branch – usually headed by a very, very senior official (Assistant Deputy Minister) and with the department’s most senior staff: the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Ministers, and, sometimes, in DND, with the CDS and VCDS. Just like a military staff, the minister’s staff should deal with and, on he minister’s behalf, *direct*, the minister’s immediate subordinates and their staffs. A company commander would not be happy if a brigade staff officer came into his company HQ and told the CQMS what to do – nor should deputy ministers or the CDS be happy when minister’s staffers direct working level people – colonels and the like.

But: That’s not how the ‘system’ was working and, I suspect that’s not how the system is working, and the price politicians are going to pay is embarrassing leaks. Civil servants (and military people) should not, ever, leak private information, but they do. Sometimes they do it because they feel that the government is making a mistake or breaking the law, sometimes they do it for partisan political reasons, sometimes they do it for money, but sometimes, I’m sure they do it because they are sick and tired of political interference in their proper, ‘administrative’ domains.

If Prime Minister Harper, or another PM, wants to prevent further embarrassments like _l’affaire Ritz_ all he or she need do is to tell his own political people to stop trying to usurp the responsibilities of the civil service (and the military) and leave them alone to do their own work – loyally and professionally, as 99% of them want and try to do. Harper is reaping what he and Martin and Chrétien and Mulroney and Trudeau all sowed.

----------

By the way, my apologies to all the corporals for usurping your status as the real 'workers' but, in NDHQ, it is colonels who do all the had work. And I'll let you in on a secret, corporals; I'll leak some _privileged_ information: the sergeants say that *they* are the real workers in the army.  >


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

DND restricts interviews during election campaign  
Updated Fri. Sep. 19 2008 6:08 PM ET The Canadian Press
  Article Link

The Defence Department has ordered staff to limit media interviews during the federal election campaign in a move critics charge is nothing more than an attempt to contain potentially damaging coverage of the Afghan mission. 

An official within the department said this week that a directive had been issued to staff that they cannot grant interviews for the duration of the five-week campaign. 

"During an election period it is of utmost importance that National Defence employees and Canadian Forces members do not act in any way that could influence -- or be perceived as influencing -- the outcome of the electoral process," reads the directive, sent to The Canadian Press following a request for an interview on a health matter affecting Canadian Forces personnel. 

"The government acts with restraint, confining itself to necessary public business. It is hoped that you may want to continue with your query after Election Day." 

However, Marc Raider, a Defence spokesman, called the instruction "a guideline not a directive" and denied there is a total ban on media interviews during the election. 

"It's not like we're not granting interviews," he said Friday, adding they are merely being cautious about not influencing the outcome of the election. 

One Defence staffer said the instruction was issued just before the election call Sept. 7, and has been sent to personnel as a standard response for media requests. 

"It's very frustrating" a Forces member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said while fielding a reporter's query. 

The edict is affecting Canadian journalists at the military base in Kandahar, where they have been told that it could take days to set up interviews, if granted at all, and that the flow of information would be slowed during the campaign. 
More on link


----------



## Greymatters (19 Sep 2008)

So we revert back to the 'zone of silence' status...


----------



## RCD (19 Sep 2008)

Not good if your trying to sell the mission to the public


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2008)

For 3 weeks....STFU


would you want to be the next gaffe?


----------



## GAP (20 Sep 2008)

Finally, someone who calls a spade a spade....

A bit of private black humour has the sanctimonious seeing red
 CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD cblatchford@globeandmail.com September 20, 2008
Article Link

In the past week, I flew with one airline where the salted snacks were corn nuts (WestJet) and with another (Air Canada) where they were sesame crunchies - anything but real nuts, which are the new cigarettes, so verboten that the mere sight of them in their sealed foil-wrap bag in someone else's possession is deemed dangerous and offensive.

I spoke at a college campus (North Island College, Courtenay, B.C.) where the sign in the women's loo announced that the campus has gone scent-free and that I was in a "scent-free zone," due to the rising number of people who are uncomfortable with (not allergic to, let alone seriously allergic to) perfume.

And now, or should I say still, this Gerry Ritz business, which for the third consecutive day was yesterday dominating the election news in print and on the airwaves.

(Lest you doubt me, Thursday's broadcast of The National, and this was Day 2 remember, devoted five minutes and 10 seconds, an eternity in television, and no fewer than three reporters to its coverage - chief political correspondent Keith Boag, on the so-called main story, Susan Ormiston reporting on the reports from blogland and Laurie Graham interviewing those whose relatives died in the listeriosis outbreak.)

The whole thing - Mr. Ritz's black humour and the attention it continues to receive - is the epitome of the insufferable, sanctimonious orthodoxy which now reigns in the land, and which makes me rue for my country far more than any looming world financial fiasco.

For the record, a quick summary of the facts: Mr. Ritz, the federal Agriculture Minister, late last month had a conference call with his staff and department officials in which they were discussing the listeriosis situation. At one point, Mr. Ritz noted that the crisis was causing the government a "death of a thousand cuts - or should I say cold cuts." When someone informed him that a death had occurred in Prince Edward Island, Mr. Ritz replied, "Please tell me it's [PEI Liberal MP] Wayne Easter."

Frankly, the lines are funny, and I would have thought given comfort to those who persist in seeing Stephen Harper and everyone in his government as humourless robots. This is precisely the sort of remark (minus my expletives) I make every day of my working life to my colleagues, superiors, peers and juniors.

The fact that Mr. Ritz is "in public life," which his critics now hold up as the critical difference between ordinary folk and cabinet ministers, isn't relevant. He wasn't making a public statement. He wasn't speaking publicly. He was at work, with people he works alongside or who work for him. He was having what he assumed was a private discussion with those who, like him, were dealing with an enormous and difficult problem, except one of them kept careful notes and released the minister's remarks almost a month later, in mid-campaign.

Do people really believe these remarks represent what Mr. Ritz, or his government, think about the outbreak, least of all about the 18 Canadians who have died?

It is what we are meant to think, apparently.
Much More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a piece by the _Globe’s_ resident ‘lefty-humanist’ and occasional NDP candidate Michael Valpy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.welxnvote20/BNStory/politics/home


> The growing ideological no man's land
> 
> MICHAEL VALPY
> 
> ...



I think Valpy is on to something.

I refer to myself as a “classic, 19th century liberal” because I cannot find myself in the ‘sound bite’ type descriptors of *liberal* (Valpys says they’re really “red Tories” in Canada and describes them as placing emphasis on “equality, collectivism, statism and tolerance,”) and *conservative* (who Valpy says value “self-reliance, individualism, [and] respect for authority”). I value equality (of opportunity and at law), self-reliance, tolerance and individualism. I detest collectivism and statism and I believe whatever respect ‘authority’ wants it must earn. That's pretty much exactly what *liberal* meant in the last half of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th.

I am, now, a card carrying, partisan Conservative, but I used to vote Liberal – back in the ‘60s. I stopped voting Liberal when Mike Pearson bought his “three wise men” (Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau) to Ottawa in 1965. I had and retained some respect for Pelletier and Machand – even though I disagreed with their political views – but  though then, as I continue to think now, that Pierre Trudeau was a second rate human being: a petty, provincial, pseudo-intellectual poltroon. I decided that I would not vote Liberal again until Trudeau and his ideas were flushed from that party – they aren’t so I don’t. But I do not agree with all of the Conservative’s policies, either. I support them, actively – financially, because I think they are the best choice, not a perfect choice – just the best of those available to Canada, now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Finally, someone who calls a spade a spade....
> 
> A bit of private black humour has the sanctimonious seeing red
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD cblatchford@globeandmail.com September 20, 2008
> ...



I agree with Blatchford, too, but my comments, here stand.

Blatchford addresses a very real problem of hypocrisy in politics and, above all, in the media. But that is just one problem and it is, probably, impossible for any political leader to address.

The *improper* insertion of partisan politics deep into the public's _business_ - that which is conducted on the _people's_ behalf by their _public servants_ - is easier, indeed simple to solve. A clear directive, ruthlessly enforced, would put things 'right' in days.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ is a day old (and I’ve been focusing on the rolling, daily polls) but still useful:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.welxnpoll20/BNStory/politics/home


> Voters in swing ridings worried by U.S. economic crisis
> 
> OMAR EL AKKAD
> 
> ...



As readers of this thread know _Strategic Counsel_ recognized the essential truth that elections are pretty routine matters with largely foregone conclusions in, say, 200 of Canada’s 308 constituencies – there are many, many safe seats for the BQ, Cons, Libs and even the NDP. Strategic Counsel decided to focus their efforts on 45 ridings in ON (20), QC (15) and BC (10) that were close in 2006.

While I think their sample is dangerously _slanted_ it is interesting to read their observations. Especially now that the economy is, as CNN says in the US, *Issue #1*.


----------



## combatbuddha (20 Sep 2008)

From the PAFFO note I was forwarded, it mentioned that we are not to comment on the upcoming election while in uniform. It said nothing about off duty hours.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2008)

This is a directive from the Privy Council Office that effects every part of government, not just DND. It is not just *comment* that is closed – some contract work will not be allowed to proceed lest it appear that the government is “playing politics” with the day-to-day business of government. It particularly applies to senior officials/officers – no one wants a “decade of darkness” comment from a senior person during an election campaign. 

Nothing in this, as far as I can understand, applies to individuals' *right* to participate, privately, in the political process – you can speak your mind, you can put a sign on your lawn. Just don’t, if you are serving, put a regimental crest on the lawn sign!


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Sep 2008)

To give an indication of how far down this has trickled, in my area cadet units are not supposed to alter their websites during the election campaign so, in theory, my list of upcoming activities should continue to show September's activities until well into October.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2008)

BQ ↓	CON ↓	GRN ↓	LIB ↓	NDP ↓
*2006	                 10.5	36.3	4.5	30.2	17.5*

Nanos	                  7	38	8	31	16
Harris-Decima	  8	38	10	27	15
Ekos	                  8	37	11	25	19
Ipsos-Reid	                  8	38	11	29	13
Angus Reid	  9	39	9	24	20
*Average                  8	38	10	27	17*

*Variation* 
Nanos	                18%	2%	13%	2%	11%
Harris-Decima	4%	5%	8%	3%	5%
Angus Reid	13%	3%	6%	4%	2%
*Average                12%	3%	9%	3%	6%
*
*Support Base	77%	104%	214%	89%	95%*


Playing around with These Numbers and considering This Chart.

I looked at the data within each company first, averaging their results over the period from about 1 Sept to 17 Sept.  As the Graph shows the campaign seems to have entrenched.  The data bears that out as well  There is no momentum.  There is no horse race.  There is statistically insignificant  normal variation.

As it stands  the Conservatives are on about  38%, up from 36.3% at the last election.  That is only an increase of 4% in their support  base (100 to 104) since 2006.  But that support base is remarkably loyal.  They waffle only 2-3% in their preferences.

The Liberals likewise have very loyal supporters, left, that are only waffling 2-3% but their support base has dropped by 11% (100 - 89) taking their numbers from 30% in 2006 to 27% now.

The Dippers are hanging on to their 17% but true to form they are a bit more wobbly - no doubt torn between principle (support their party) and fear/hate (Anybody But Stevie) - and even they may have lost some support .

The Big News is the Rise of the Greens - a whopping 114% increase in their support base (214-100) from 4.5 to 10%.    And that seems likely to be coming out of the hide of the Liberals, Dippers AND the Bloc.

And the Bloc - bleeding profusely it has lost 23% of its support base (100-77) to federalist parties across the spectrum.

If this holds then we may indeed be seeing a new alignment of the stars as the Liberal and Bloc Coalitions blow apart.  The Bloc because they are Johnny One Note - singing a monotonous tune of which everyone is tired.  And the Liberals, because they have been singing so many songs for so long nobody can make sense of what that noise is anymore - a discordant cacophony of tone-poem and static hiss.

The Left may take a while to get its act together here.  The Liberals run the risk of going the way of their British forebears - stuck between poles in the absence of a cross cultural tribe.  

I believe that Canada dodged the Class Wars to this date because the Liberals effectively brought French and Brit Catholics into a coalition that crossed class lines leaving rich protestants (Conservatives) and poor protestants (CCF socialists) to fight it out on the fringes.

It will be interesting to see where we go from here.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Sep 2008)

Something merely anecdotal,but it may be a sign of a deeper malaise.

Traditionally, jobs like erecting posters along the roadside are handed off to the more junior members of the campaign staff.  You know, the young volunteers not yet jaded or obsessed with power.  A party without such low-level workers is indeed in trouble.

Imagine my surprise this evening when I saw a former cabinet minister, all by himself, pounding stakes into the ground so he could erect signs for his wife's bid.  If the Liberals cannot find volunteers in Ottawa Centre and are resorting to having a former MND, David Collenette, putting up posters all by himself, there may be deeper problems within the Liberal party that this election will bring out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2008)

Three more polls this morning:

Angus Reid says:
 
Steady Conservatives Ahead, As 2006 Liberal Voters Look Elsewhere 
*Jack Layton improves his standing, as Stéphane Dion struggles to generate momentum.*

BQ: 9%
Cons: 38%
Greens: 10%
Libs: 24%
NDP: 19%

•	The regional breakdowns see the Tories way ahead in Alberta (67%) and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (54%). The Conservatives now have a six-point advantage over the Liberals in seat-rich Ontario (38% to 32%), with the NDP at 14 per cent. 

•	In British Columbia, the Tories are leading the NDP (38% to 29%), with the Liberals (18%) and Greens (14%) far behind. The Greens also surpassed the 10-point threshold in Atlantic Canada, the Prairies, and Ontario.

•	The survey shows the Conservatives holding on to 86 per cent of Canadians who supported them in the 2006 election. The retention rate for the Bloc is equally high at 85 per cent, while the NDP stands at 72 per cent. Only 58 per cent of decided voters who supported for the Liberals in the last House of Commons ballot are sticking with the same party this time around, with support bleeding to the NDP (16%), the Tories (13%), and the Greens (10%).

•	As the second week of the federal campaign draws to a close, the approval rating for Conservative leader and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stands at 32 per cent, down four points in a week, while his momentum score is -21 (11% of respondents say their opinion of Harper has improved, while 32% say it has worsened).

•	In the preferred prime minister question, Harper remains ahead with 36 per cent (-4), followed by Layton with 19 per cent (+3), Dion with eight per cent, May with five per cent, and Duceppe with four per cent. When assessing the potential of Harper and Dion at 24 Sussex, voters continue to pick the Tory leader by a four-to-one ratio. 

•	Harper also gets better numbers than his two main rivals in most qualities and characteristics. At least two-in-five respondents think of Harper as a strong and decisive leader (50%), who has a vision for Canada’s future (50%), understands complex issues (46%), and who can manage the economy effectively (40%).


Ipsos says:

BQ: 8%
Cons: 40%
Greens: 10%
Libs: 27%
NDP: 15%

•	In seat-rich Ontario, where the biggest Conservative gains have been realized, the Tories (41%) have catapulted themselves into first place and are now running ahead of the Grits (33%), NDP (15%) and Green Party (10%).

•	In Quebec, the Conservative (29%) are now tied with the Bloc (29%) for first position. The Liberals (23%) lag behind, as do the NDP and (13%) and the Green Party (6%).

•	In British Columbia, the Conservatives (44%) are the front runners, while the Liberals (23%), NDP (19%) and Greens (14%) are splitting the rest of the vote.

•	In Alberta, the Conservatives (61%) continue to dominate over the struggling Liberals (19%), NDP (11%) and Green Party (9%).

•	In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Tories (51%) are also well ahead of the Grits (25%), the NDP (13%) and the Green Party (10%).

•	In Atlantic Canada, a tight race is ensuing. Currently, the Liberals (33%) hold a slight lead over the NDP (29%), and the Conservatives (27%) are not far behind. The Green Party (11%) trails.

With this current poll contribution to that aggregate base, the projection shows the Conservatives just shy of a majority with 152 seats for the Conservatives, 95 for the Liberals, 34 for the Bloc and 27 for the NDP. (The seat model has been rendered by Dr. Barry Kay from the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy. The seat projection is based on an aggregate of polling data collected by LISPOP since the outset of the election, and this latest seat model has been updated to include this latest Ipsos Reid poll. Ipsos Reid does not create the seat model but contributes its findings to an aggregate base of polls used by Dr. Kay for the analysis.)

But, Ipsos adds, “it doesn’t appear that Canadians are getting too excited about this election when compared to previous elections. Only two in ten (21%) Canadians are paying more attention to this election than ones in the past. The majority (65%) say they’re giving it about the same amount of attention as others, while 14% even say they’re paying even less attention than previous elections.”


Nanos says:

Tories lead Grits by 9 points
First Ranked Ballot (N=1,203 Canadians, 986 decided voters)

BQ: 7% (NC from yesterday)
Cons: 38% (-1 from yesterday)
Greens: 7% (NC “ “)
Libs: 29% (+1 “ “)
NDP: 18% (NC " ")


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2008)

And, if you haven’t had enough, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC’s_ webs site, is a report on the Harris-Decima polls:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/21/poll-harris.html


> Conservative lead widens, poll suggests
> *Liberal, Tory support falling, NDP and Greens gaining*
> 
> Last Updated: Sunday, September 21, 2008 | 11:53 AM ET
> ...



Given the 2.7% margin of error, the only *real* (statistically significant) change is in the Liberal’s support which – by the polls standards, has really declined. Within that margin Conservative support *could* be up a point and the Greens and NDP *might* be down.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2008)

As you say Edward, could be and might be.

The Press is working awfully hard to drum up some interest in this horse race - except the Nags are old and running on a muddy track with nobody in the stands.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The sons do NOT always mirror the father...... :



Thank God for that.  Are we really ready for True Dough, The Next Generation (Tm)?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2008)

Mod squad, feel free to move this to a separate thread if warranted - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Tories, Grits target military vote in '08 campaign*
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, 21 Sept 08
Article link

As war in Afghanistan rages unabated, a critical political battle for the hearts and minds of Canada's military voters is shaping up in 17 key ridings across the country.

This electoral fight extends to both Canadian coasts, the near and far North, while encompassing Quebec and some key Ontario battlegrounds that include a suburban Ottawa big-box community, according to a computer-assisted analysis of Elections Canada data by Punditsguide.ca and Canwest News Service.

On Oct. 14, the Conservatives will look to build on their success in the 2006 election that brought them to power when they won 54 per cent of the federal ridings deemed to be home to either a Canadian Forces base or Defence Department office, while many other ridings contain smaller installations or reserve units.

Of the 308 federal ridings, 59 can be called military ridings, and on Jan. 23, 2006, the Conservatives were able to win 32 of them.

Of those 32 seats, 13 came from Ontario, where the Tories were able to win 40 over all. That wasn't enough for a Conservative breakthrough in Canada's most populous province, and this time, the Liberals are fighting hard to win back some traditionally loyal Grit strongholds they lost by the slimmest of margins.

During the campaign, Harper has also visited many military ridings held by the Bloc Quebecois.

In 2006, the Liberals won 14 military seats, the Bloc Quebecois won seven, the NDP got five, and a Quebec independent garnered one.

"The majority of soldiers tend to be small C conservatives so they'd probably tend to lean towards the patriotism and defence of the country. I think the Tories would benefit more," said retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, who was a failed candidate for the old Progressive Conservatives 11 years ago, and who maintains he is strictly non-partisan now.

Two and a half years ago, the Conservatives campaigned on a platform of Arctic sovereignty, and promised almost $20 billion in new spending on military hardware, including ships, planes and armoured vehicles. Since then, 89 Canadian soldiers have been killed on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's watch. 

_More on link_


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (22 Sep 2008)

After watching and observing the four ring circus over the past 2 weeks, I've come to the conclusion that none of the main performers are "Master of Ceremony" material. It's like watching four clowns in the center ring performing a comedy act.

I had an idea at the beginning of the campaign who I would vote for, but as the circus continues on, I've come to the conclusion that none of the party leaders has offered me anything to chew on, but the same old worn out promises that we've been hearing about for the past 30 years which (very few have been kept) and some new ones thrown in, that in all honesty are to "out there" to ever see the light of day, let alone be of any consequence to the country, other than to keep wasting our money. All they've been doing so far is putting out fires in their own party lines and wasting my time. The 200 or so million of wasted dollars that this election will end up costing us, could have been better spent in so many other places in our economy. 

So to me the change in strategy that the candidates have taken to appease and come of looking more paletable to the voters, as far as I'm concerned, is a waste of time. What, they think we all have a very short memory and can't see through the smoke and mirror facade, Give me a break. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck. 

Put away the charade and the smoke and the mirrors and enlighten us. At the very least give us some return on that 200 million that we're footing for this circus and show me why we should choose one of you clowns to lead this country. "Until that happens", it's still, just a circus and the clowns are still the main act.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

This is another of the *real issues*.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Lawrence Martin that asks a really important question:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wcomartin22/BNStory/politics/home


> Why is no one talking about immigration?
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



I agree and disagree with James Bissett; I agree we must ask and answer some key questions. For example:

•	What _shape_ of Canada do we want – do we *want* Vancouver to be an Asian city? Does it matter if Vancouver becomes an "Asian city?"

•	Do we know what we mean when we say “Asian city?”

•	What is the ROI (return on investment) for immigrants? Is it not until the second generation (the first one born in Canada) that most immigrant become *productive*? (There’s *that* word, again.)

•	Does culture mater? Do some immigrant ‘communities’ settle, integrate and prosper more readily than others? If *Yes* (as I believe is the case) then why do we ‘recruit’ any immigrants from ‘communities’ (countries or cultures) that have high failure rates?  Conversely, if culture does mater, why don’t we focus our immigration efforts in the countries/regions with the ‘best’ track records for integration and prosperity?

•	To what extent does systemic racism explain the high failure rates of some immigrant ‘communities?’ What, if anything, can we do about racism? Do we understand the differences between _personal_ and _institutional_ racism?   

•	How do we separate and explain that immigration and refugee policy are quite different things? How do we develop a sound, sensible refugee policy that keeps refugees safe and close to (their) home?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is rather like dapasterson’s recent contribution, anecdotal, but it reflects on the ‘value’ of Celine Stéphane Dion’s income trusts promise:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/markets


> Snoozing over income trusts
> 
> David Berman, today at 11:05 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Ritz story certainly has “legs,” as the journalists say.
> 
> Assuming Gerry Ritz is fairly safe in his seat (he got 14,666 votes out of 27,332 in the last election and his nearest competitor, an NDipper, was 10,000+ votes behind) and will be re-elected, gaffe or not, minister or not, the question becomes: should Harper –
> 
> ...




Well there is some 'good' from all this: here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2008)

Great contributions to the discussion, ERC - thanks!



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	What is the ROI (return on investment) for immigrants? Is it not until the second generation (the first one born in Canada) that most immigrant become *productive*? (There’s *that* word, again.)



I'd be interested in seeing more than just government addressing this one.  For example, I live in a part of the world where about one out of three residents of a city the size of Burlington have no family doctor.  I hear anecdotes, however, of MDs from afar who have to face all sorts of hurdles to practice here.  Should they be conversant in English?  Yes.  Should they be deemed competent before being let loose on patients?  Yes.  Is there a better way to ensure both without having such professionals work as health care aides in nursing homes or driving taxis?  There has to be.  Also, where "doctor", read many other professionals.

Second part of your question here leads me to ask this:  Did my dad (off the boat in the 50's) contribute more or less to Canada working in a gold mine and building sidewalks and other infrastructure still in use in my hometown than I do now in a white-collar position with a university education?   How about the "off the boat" merchants, small business owners and entrepreneurs, many still in business, compared to their born-here-and-now-university-educated-white-collar kids?  I think there's cases to be made for both "yes" and "no" to both of these questions (not to mention every other combination/permutation of immigrant parents/born-in-Canada offspring).  How do you define "productive"?


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... How do you define "productive"?...



- In a word:  Italian.

 8)

- Edited to add: ... for the unknowing, I am from the same city milnews is living in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...  How do you define "productive"?



At least there is one easy question.

This, with its qualifiers about measurement difficulty, is the pretty standard definition. But I like the one in this picture better. Pulling a cart with square wheels when it is loaded with round wheels is not *productive* because it is not *smart*.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Mod squad, feel free to move this to a separate thread if warranted - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._
> 
> *Tories, Grits target military vote in '08 campaign*
> Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, 21 Sept 08
> Article link



Once again, the ignorance of the media comes out.  The majority of the Regular Force are not residents of the ridings where they live - for federal electoral purposes, unless they complete a set of paperwork, they are deemed to be electors in the riding where they enrolled.  While their spouses and families are deemed residents of the location where they are currently resident, the Regular Force member (or Reservist moved at Crown expense for full-time Reserve employment) are still deemed residents of their old home.

Thus, Flora MacDonald's claim to have been defeated by the military rings entirely hollow - the majority of the military votes out of Kingston went to other ridings.

I'm not surprised that journalists and politicians don't know about the electoral laws and regulations governing the military, though I always harbour a secret hope that some of them might take the time to learn...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

The Liberal platform is here

On defence it says:

--------------------
6. Defence

Canada’s ongoing commitment to the military mission in Afghanistan has depleted our ability to deploy the Canadian Forces elsewhere in the world. When combined with the commitments that will be necessary in order to provide the needed security requirements when Canada welcomes the world to the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, we are severely limited in our ability to offer assistance to other international efforts as they arise. By putting a firm end date on the military deployment in Kandahar, we will regain flexibility with respect to our military to respond to emergency situations both domestically and internationally.

A Liberal government will remain committed to the money allocated in the fiscal framework to the Canadian Forces (CF) over the coming four years – much of which was originally committed in the Liberal Budget of 2005. But the job of supporting Canada’s armed forces doesn’t end when our troops return home. Military life, overseas deployments, and dangerous missions take a heavy toll. Our soldiers need adequate support services when they return from overseas or leave the service. A Liberal government will support the current members of the CF and our veterans by establishing a dedicated $60-million fund to help them cope with post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. As previously mentioned, a Liberal government will also establish a health ombudsman both within the CF and within Veterans Affairs Canada.

The federal government must also ensure that our forces get the most value for money on military contracts. We will abandon the sole-sourcing approach to defence contracts taken by the Conservatives, ensuring that Canadian industry can compete for contracts while guaranteeing the best equipment at the best price. We will also finally act on the purchase of much needed replacements for the fixed-wing search-and-rescue (SAR) planes to replace the current ageing fleet. The previous Liberal government set aside money to make this purchase in 2005 but the Conservatives have failed to act. These SAR planes are needed both for the safety of Canadians but also to promote our sovereignty in Canada’s North. That is why we will ensure that some of the new fleet of SAR planes are based in the North.


--------------------

That's it; that's the whole thing. Pretty thin gruel, I think – they’re offering another ombudsman, some SAR aircraft and $60 Million to help members with PTSD “and other ailments.”


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2008)

Another decade of darkness.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Another decade of darkness.....



... if Canadians are dumb enough to put the Liberal's back in power.


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... if Canadians are dumb enough to put the Liberal's back in power.



This time around I doubt the Liberals will get back in, but somebody in the Conservative Party had better be keeping clippings from the promises/not promises being touted.....rather than reinvent themselves, it might be prudent to point out what their plans were in 2008...

ps: that should have put paid to little to no support from the CF for Dion and company....


----------



## Greymatters (22 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Providing better post-secondary options may be one worthwhile tact - encouraging people into skilled trades, for example.  But I'd also argue with direct governmental investment in education.  Better to provide post-graduation tax relief to students, and charge whatever the freight will bear at the front end.



A good point I would agree with.  There is an ever-increasing gap between the academic arena and the trades/unions that is only just being dealt with over the past couple of years, but has yet to be improved to the point where it can solve itself without government assistance.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canada’s ongoing commitment to the military mission in Afghanistan has depleted our ability to deploy the Canadian Forces elsewhere in the world.



So, instead of one large inadequately supported mission, they would propose several smaller inadequately supported missions?  In other words, back to the pre-2005 status quo?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Sep 2008)

If the government is going to encourage people into the skilled trades and help finance it, on whatever level, many will feel (moreso than now) that, it will also be the government's responsibility to ensure that those occupations are viable, available to those graduates, and for the long term.


----------



## Redeye (22 Sep 2008)

When I was going to high school there was almost a stigma against trades - everyone was thrust toward university whether it was where they wanted to be or not - and now the country is full of university degree holders who can't really do anything or get gainful employment.  My wife graduated two years ago and has yet to find employment in the field she wants to get into and is learning quickly (and the hard way) that she probably should have gone to college instead.

Meanwhile there's massive shortages of tradespeople.

As for the customs union concept - in general terms I think that's a fantastic idea - and that's a lot of what was on the agenda at the SPP conference that the loony left were getting all up in arms about - even if there's not such a union - standardization agreements on labelling of products, safety standards, etc will go a long way to help trade and benefit everyone.  Labour mobility at least in limited terms is also important - but it exists already under NAFTA - skilled workers in a variety of fields can move across borders with relative ease.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> A good point I would agree with.  There is an ever-increasing gap between the academic arena and the trades/unions that is only just being dealt with over the past couple of years, but has yet to be improved to the point where it can solve itself without government assistance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - In a word:  Italian.


By that yardstick, then I still consider myself productive (without thinking other western and eastern European immigrants were any less "productive")  ;D



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> When I was going to high school there was almost a stigma against trades - everyone was thrust toward university whether it was where they wanted to be or not - and now the country is full of university degree holders who can't really do anything or get gainful employment.  My wife graduated two years ago and has yet to find employment in the field she wants to get into and is learning quickly (and the hard way) that she probably should have gone to college instead.  Meanwhile there's massive shortages of tradespeople.



Based on my personal experience, some of this can be linked to previous-wave immigrants thinking, "my daughter/son will not be a success if s/he has to work with their hands like I do", thus crowding the more academic end of post-secondary and leaving us with the current shortage of trades?  

Does this become another indicator to assess ROI on next-wave immigrants, then?

Hmmm...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> By that yardstick, then I still consider myself productive (without thinking other western and eastern European immigrants were any less "productive")  ;D
> 
> Based on my personal experience, some of this can be linked to previous-wave immigrants thinking, "my daughter/son will not be a success if s/he has to work with their hands like I do", thus crowding the more academic end of post-secondary and leaving us with the current shortage of trades?
> 
> ...



That attitude "success = not working with hands" is not confined to immigrants; it is common in some 'old countries,' too.

But I can tell you about one family of my acquaintance: Grandpa came here about 60 years ago, an educated man but he took whatever jobs - often two at a time - he could find; son (born here) went to medical school, as did one sister - the other is a lawyer; son's first son shows neither interest in nor much aptitude for higher education but Dr. X will not be unhappy if son masters a skilled trade and is both happy and financially successful. But grandpa is horrified and, in their culture, grandpa/elders must be satisfied. Grandpa may be mollified by, or may choose not to really notice the fact that grandson is going to a community college taking a mechanical/tool and die making programme.

Tool and die makers are earning $75,000+/year (i.e. top end sergeant to bottom end MWO pay scales) upon getting a licence. They can earn salaries equivalent to CWO or Maj after a very few years - fewer than it takes to make CWO. Many skilled and experienced tradesmen take home about the same salaries as many doctors - GPs in group practices, not specialists - for far fewer hours worked and with far smaller student loans.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Tool and die makers are earning $75,000+/year (i.e. top end sergeant to bottom end MWO pay scales) upon getting a licence. They can earn salaries equivalent to CWO or Maj after a very few years - fewer than it takes to make CWO. Many skilled and experienced tradesmen take home about the same salaries as many doctors - GPs in group practices, not specialists - for far fewer hours worked and with far smaller student loans.



Edward,

From experience and being very close to the heartbeat of the metal cutting trades, what you say is a very broad generalization and more the exception instead of the norm. The metal cutting trades are more oft than not feast or famine. Many will aslo have substantial collateral (that $75,000 you talk about) tied up in personal tools to make themselves viable in the workplace. The apprenticeship programs are no walk in the park either, on top of their 3-4 years full time schooling, and then constant upgrading courses. Many that are making that MWO's pay are earning it the same way, as floor leader or shop foreman, with 'essentially' the same duties as that MWO.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

More polls:

--------------------
Ekos says:

*TORY LEAD IS “GELLING”… BUT PLENTY TO PLAY FOR AMONG OTHER PARTIES*

... the Tories, have the most committed following. That means they are less likely to “bleed” to the other parties.

As our analysis showed last week, up to this point, the Conservatives have been the single largest beneficiary of Canadians straying from the Liberal fold since the last election. They were picking up about half the Liberal strays, while the other half has been divided among the other parties.

However, if the Liberals slip any further, that could change. Only about a fifth of the remaining Liberal supporters list the Conservatives as the second choice. Most of the rest go to the NDP or the Greens.

So, solid as the Tories’ support now is, it may be tougher for them to grow than it is for the other parties.

As for the Liberals, they will find it hard to wrest votes from the Tories, who are, as mentioned above, quite committed, with less than a fifth holding the Liberals as their second choice. The Liberals might find more fertile ground to their left, where they are the second-choice for many current New Democrats and Greens. Their best hope remains becoming the most viable champion of the “anyone-but-Conservative” (ABC, as Danny Williams calls it) vote, which was important to the party in both the 2004 and 2006 elections.

The NDP, meanwhile, still have potential themselves to become that ABC champion since they are the second choice for many Liberal and Green supporters. However, they probably need to close or eliminate the gap with the Liberals before they can benefit from this kind of tactical vote.

The Greens now have two tasks. They may have some potential to continue growing, as they have done since the campaign began. But more important may be their ability to consolidate the support they already have. Thirty per cent of Green voters say they are likely or somewhat likely to change their preference before voting day – the highest of any party. And although the Greens are now neck and neck with the Conservatives for the lead among voters 25 and under, this is a notoriously hard group to turn out on election day.


*NATIONAL FEDERAL VOTE INTENTION*
_Q. If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?_

BQ: 8% (NC from 19 Sep 08)
Cons: 37% (+1 “ “)
Greens: 12% (-1 “ “)
Libs: 24% (-1 “ “)
NDP: 19% (+1 “ “)

--------------------
Harris-Decima says:

*Conservative Lead is 15*

BQ: 7% (-1 from 19 Sep 08)
Cons: 38% (NC “ “)
Greens: 12% (NC “ “)
Libs: 23% (-2 “ “)
NDP: 17% (+2 “ “)

In *Ontario*, the Conservatives lead narrowed slightly. They stand at 38%, followed by the
Liberals at 32%, the NDP 16%, and the Greens 11%.

In *Quebec*, the BQ has slid to 30%, the Conservatives follow with 24%, the NDP at 16%, the
Liberals with 19%, and the Greens at 11%. This is the highest level of support measured for
the Greens in Quebec since the writ was dropped; their low point was 5%.

In *Atlantic Canada*, the Conservatives have 34%, followed by the Liberals with 28%, the
NDP 26% and the Green Party with 10%.

In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 36%, followed by the NDP with 30%, the
Greens at 20% and the Liberals at 13%.

--------------------
Nanos says:

*Tories lead Liberals by 5 points, NDP up*

BQ: 7% (NC from 19 Sep 08)
Cons:  35% (-4 “ “)
Greens: 6% (-1 “ “)
Libs: 30% (+2 “ “)
NDP: 22% (+4 “ “)

--------------------

_Ekos_ and _Harris-Decima_ are pretty close; _Nanos_ (which was deadly accurate back in 2006 when it was _SES_) is rather different. _Nanos_ sees a sharp Conservative drop and an even sharper NDP rise. Is that the effect of _l’affaire Ritz_? If so, how long will it last?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

Thanks for some real world clarity, recceguy. I was repeating what the father told me - and I suspect he got his information from the community college recruiting _bumph_, becaise I cannot imagine that he knows anything more about the metal cutting trades than I.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2008)

I was surfing the channels and Mike Duffy’s _talking heads_ are saying that the NDP are, as we reach the middle of the campaign (week 3 of 5), shifting their attack towards the Liberals.

They are, finally, reminding Canadians that Jack Layton and the NDP *were* the (effective) Opposition in parliament because Celine Stéphane Dion and the Liberals chickened out on (according to Mike Duffy) 43 confidence votes over the past couple of years. 43! Is that right?

Layton must have some poll numbers that tell him, either:

1.	He can shake loose some Liberal votes and gain a few seats at their expense – but *enough* to make him Leader of the Opposition? Hmmmm; or

2.	He must fight, now, to prevent _strategic voting_ which, in past elections, has seen votes and seats go from the NDP to the Liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2008)

The National Post has a flash of clarity:

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2008/09/strong-language-from-national-post.html
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/22/national-post-editorial-board-message-to-campaign-leaders-grow-up.aspx



> *Strong language from National Post's Editorial Board to all politicians: Grow up*
> 
> The National Post Editorial Board has this message to campaign leaders—"Grow up."
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (22 Sep 2008)

That seems like a logical reasoning - I went to school with a lot of Portuguese and Italian kids in particular who were told that rather clearly by their parents when they didn't do well at school.

That said, a lot of them were able to go on to pursue trades and have done well at them.  University doesn't seem to really be a determinant of success.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> By that yardstick, then I still consider myself productive (without thinking other western and eastern European immigrants were any less "productive")  ;D
> 
> Based on my personal experience, some of this can be linked to previous-wave immigrants thinking, "my daughter/son will not be a success if s/he has to work with their hands like I do", thus crowding the more academic end of post-secondary and leaving us with the current shortage of trades?
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2008)

Jack Layton is probably also hoping to ride on the Tory coat-tails.  With the Tory ads focusing on denigrating Dion's leadership ability, the NDP is trying to attract voters who agree with that message but whose loyalties lie to the left and can't stomach a Harper vote.

If the NDP can make a solid go of this it could spell significant trouble for the Liberals.  The Tory manoeuvrings to establish themselves as the centrist option has left the Liberals crowded to the left with the NDP; if the NDP can define themselves as the only viable opposition on the left the Liberals may well find themselves in Campbell Tory territory... without a Jean Charest to rebuild the party.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Sep 2008)

From <a href="http://stevejanke.com/archives/273961.php">Steve Janke</a>



> Liberal Platform Meeting Call: Childcare low priority, *gut the military*, silence on the Green Shift
> 
> *If you're interested, I have here an MP3 of the conference call held today by the Liberal Party with MPs and community activists to discuss today's launch of the Liberal Party platform.*
> 
> There are several interesting points.  *Going back to standard Liberal-style practise, the military is going to be bled dry.*  Childcare spaces will be made if the Liberals find money after paying for everything else.  And the Green Shift?  Not mentioned during the main presentation.



Some interesting stuff here...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

Celine Stéphane Dion still has trouble connecting with voters. Here, in an article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, Jane Taber says, “the more voters get to know the Liberal Leader, the less they like him.”

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080922.welectionpoll23/BNStory/Front


> Voters not warming to Dion: poll
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...



It appears that Stephen Harper is suffering from the _gaffes_ of the first two weeks. Voters *like* Layton and May; that’s not surprising – they can promise “good” and “green” and “golden” without anyone, themselves included, ever believing, for even a few seconds, that either will ever lead.

Harper, in my view, needs to make himself *reassuring* – because I doubt Canadians are ever going to like him very much. Given that we are only a couple of days away from the mid-point of the campaign I’m guessing that Dion, himself, can do nothing to turn things about – he must pray that Harper screws everything up, massively.

The _Strategic Counsel’s_ national numbers are very consistent with others: 39% > 28% > 22% > 11%.

The Tories are, nationally, tantilizingly close to majority territory (generally thought to require 41 or 42% in the polls). I think Harper’s hope for a majority rests on the NDP and Greens doing better and better – mostly at the expense of the Liberals - thus creating tight three or four way races from which several Conservatives can emerge as winners in unexpected ridings.

OK, all you Conservative supporters, let’s hear for _Taliban Jack_ and _Lizzie the Loony_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Margaret Wente that reinforces the media’s apparently general ‘buy in’ to Harper’s *Dion is NOT a Leader* campaign:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080922.wcowent23/BNStory/politics/home


> Any weaker and Mr. Dion would need a transfusion
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> ...




I watched parts of Dion’s _circuit_ of the TV networks to ‘sell’ the Liberal platform; I, of course – being a highly partisan Tory, was prepared to be under-whelmed by the content but I never got that far. Dion *stinks* on TV; I could not bring myself to think about his words because his style (appearance and delivery) was dismaying. Wente is right – Liberals must be dreading the debates.

If he Liberals want to avoid an electoral  meltdown, I think, they must drop the gloves and go really, really negative on Harper, bring out the “team” to replace Dion on the nation’s TV screens, and promise, PROMISE, PROMISE! And to hell with fiscal responsibility.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2008)

Williams won’t support Green party  
By STEPHEN MAHER Staff Reporter Tue. Sep 23 - 5:29 AM
Article Link

Anything But Conservative doesn’t seem to include the Greens.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams will not be coming to Central Nova to campaign for Green Leader Elizabeth May, a spokeswoman for the premier said Monday.

Ms. May, who is in an uphill battle to unseat Defence Minister Peter MacKay in his Central Nova riding, had hoped Mr. Williams would give her a hand, but her position on the seal hunt makes that impossible, the premier’s communications director, Elizabeth Matthews, said Monday.

"Actually, the premier sent Ms. May’s daughter a response to her request last week indicating that in large part due to the seal issue, he wouldn’t be able to campaign with her," Ms. Matthews said in an e-mail.

Mr. Williams has denounced Mr. MacKay in the past for sticking with Prime Minister Stephen Harper during the dispute over the offshore accord.

Mr. Williams has vowed to work against the re-election of Mr. Harper, saying a Harper majority would be a dark day in Canadian history.

He has even registered Anything But Conservative as a third party with Elections Canada, which would allow the group to advertise against the federal Tories.

Mr. Williams has offered to campaign against Mr. Harper for independent Bill Casey, for instance, but he observed recently that Mr. Casey doesn’t seem to need his help.

Asked if Mr. Williams’s refusal to campaign for Ms. May means that the group should be renamed Anything But Conservative or Green, Mr. Williams’s spokeswoman said the name can stick. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That said, a lot of them were able to go on to pursue trades and have done well at them.  University doesn't seem to really be a determinant of success.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But grandpa is horrified and, in their culture, grandpa/elders must be satisfied. Grandpa may be mollified by, or may choose not to really notice the fact that grandson is going to a community college taking a mechanical/tool and die making programme.



Picking up from these points, I'm also noticing more people being WAY more flexible in their education options - the hybrid reflected by some saying "I went to university to get an education, and to college to get a job".  I value what I learned in university, but it certainly wasn't the preparation for the real-world job experience that college was.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was surfing the channels and Mike Duffy’s _talking heads_ are saying that the NDP are, as we reach the middle of the campaign (week 3 of 5), shifting their attack towards the Liberals.
> 
> They are, finally, reminding Canadians that Jack Layton and the NDP *were* the (effective) Opposition in parliament because Celine Stéphane Dion and the Liberals chickened out on (according to Mike Duffy) 43 confidence votes over the past couple of years. 43! Is that right?
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is the answer to two questions:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1d03c0cc-0b85-42c3-824e-1ea7979dfc99&sponsor=


> Methodology explains higher support for Liberals in Nanos poll
> 
> Glen McGregor
> Canwest News Service
> ...


----------



## YZT580 (23 Sep 2008)

It would seem that Ms. May keeps lousy company.  The link will eventually bring you to some photos of the lady in question in attendence at a Hezbollah rally in Toronto (2006)  /torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/09/ellie-may-at-hezbollah-rally.html
That leaves only Jack as the leader of H.M. Loyal Opposition and that bodes ill for Canada for the next 4 years. There is a dirth of talent in the opposition leadership ranks and an even greater dirth of alternative ideas.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is ‘old hat’ but still interesting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.welectionstrategists0923/BNStory/politics/home/?pageRequested=1


> Splitting the centre-left vote
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> September 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM EDT
> ...



The most important observation, I think comes from Greg Lyle, managing director of the polling firm Innovative Research Group. He noted that: *” whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.”*

That’s about it: most people who support the BQ, Greens and NDP (say 21% of Canadians) and, probably more than half of those who support the Liberals (another 13% of Canadians, let’s say) (that’s 33.33%+) believe that income redistribution is the primary role of government. Most people who support the Conservatives (say 35% of Canadians) and some of those who support the Liberals (another 15%, I would guess) (50% of Canadian, overall) believe that creating equality of *opportunity* is government’s main role. I’m guessing that 15% of Canadians either do not know or do not care or think it is something else.


----------



## PanaEng (23 Sep 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> I think he might defer defense policy to Ignatieff (or let's hope so).   Dion has to keep some of the big names happy.  I don't think Iggy's views on defense are significantly different than Harpers.


How about Colin Kenny (chair of the standing Senate Comity on National Security and Defence) - he is liberal but criticized the previous governments just as much as he criticizes the current one for not spending enough on the military to actually increase the size and quality of our equipment in the years to come. He suggested that the current level of spending will only maintain our capabilities and not address the commitment/capability gap.
Maybe he is too outspoken for the current liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The most important observation, I think comes from Greg Lyle, managing director of the polling firm Innovative Research Group. He noted that: *” whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.”*
> 
> That’s about it: most people who support the BQ, Greens and NDP (say 21% of Canadians) and, probably more than half of those who support the Liberals (another 13% of Canadians, let’s say) (that’s 33.33%+) believe that income redistribution is the primary role of government. Most people who support the Conservatives (say 35% of Canadians) and some of those who support the Liberals (another 15%, I would guess) (50% of Canadian, overall) believe that creating equality of *opportunity* is government’s main role. I’m guessing that 15% of Canadians either do not know or do not care or think it is something else.



I suspect you are being too generous with the number of Canadians who believe in equality of opportunity; neither polls, historical experience or examination of the issues under discussion seem to reveal anything like that level of support. If it was true, then I submit that there would have been Conservative governments at the national level much more often than was the case, and even more small "c" conservative governments at the provincial level (up until very recently most Conservative parties were Red Tory at the provincial level. Today, the Wild Rose Alliance, Saskatchewan Party and Reform Ontario stand out as the only small "c" conservative parties, and only the Saskatchewan party holds power).

Fracturing the left wing vote is the only clear way for a Tory majority (or even gains in a minority situation), and uniting the Left will probably be as difficult a job as uniting the Right was in the 1990's. Will a renamed New Democratic Party do a reverse takeover of the Liberal machine the way Reform eventually consumed the PC party? Will the 2020 election be fought between the Conservative Party and the "Liberal-Democrats" or "Gaia Party"?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be so if the "military" vote in a riding was defined only by serving military members (and their families), but it seems that some candidates' (and perhaps the media's) definition encompasses not just those who remain in uniform.

An additional quote from the article originally referenced:


> One of the toughest fights is taking shape on the West Coast in the riding of Vancouver Island North, home of CFB Comox.
> 
> Conservative John Duncan is trying to unseat New Democrat Catherine Bell, who beat him by 1.1 per cent in 2006. Two years earlier, Mr. Duncan carried the day over Ms. Bell by an even slimmer 0.9 per cent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

More polls:

---------------------
Ekos says:

TORIES ARE THE PARTY OF MEN AND THE OVER-65S, BUT NOT BOUND BY CLASS

[OTTAWA – September 23, 2008] With all the parties once again today tracking steadily in their well-established “zones”, it’s a chance to look at where the front-running Conservatives are finding their support; and while the typical Tory voter has some of the characteristics you might expect – older and much more likely to be male – somewhat more surprisingly, the party’s appeal now cuts across economic classes.

We’ve said it before: if only men could vote, Stephen Harper would easily triumph with a healthy majority. Forty per cent of men support the Conservatives. But if only women could vote, the Conservatives would be fighting to squeak out a win. Just 33% of women support the party.

Right now, the Conservatives are winning every age category, from youngest to oldest. But there are huge differences in the levels of support. Among seniors (over 65 years of age), the Conservatives have 44%. The second-place Liberals, with 28%, aren’t even close.

The middling age cohorts track quite closely to the national norm. But then, when you get to the 18-25 year olds, the story is different again. The Conservatives are narrowly in the lead in a four-way race, with 27%.  And who is in second spot? The Green Party. The Liberals and NDP trail not too far behind.

Perhaps the most fascinating story, however, has to do with household income. Contrary to the conventional picture of the Conservatives as the party of the better-off, they are an almost completely uniform across income groups in terms of their support. In other words, whether you are making less than $40,000 a year or more than $80,000, your likelihood of voting Conservative is almost exactly the same. Our other recent and more in-depth surveys have also shown that these voters tend to see themselves as being of middle rather than upper socioeconomic standing, and are more likely to be college rather than university-educated.

In contrast, the Liberals, once the prototypical class-less party, now skew clearly towards wealthier voters. The NDP, more in keeping with expectations, skew towards lower-income voters, as does the Bloc Québécois. The Greens, like the Tories, draw their support fairly evenly across income groups.

The Tories have serious demographic handicaps in the breadth of their appeal. They still have not connected with women. They are struggling to connect with urban voters. And they have not caught on with the very young the way they have with other age-groups. Unless they do so, they are going to have difficulty rising above the “glass ceiling” which seems to have prevented the party from rising from their accustomed levels of support.

But that should not disguise a historic accomplishment by the Conservatives, to have shucked off the trappings of class, appealing as much to Joe Lunch-Bucket as to the more prosperous who once were their main social base.

BQ: 8% (NC from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 36% (-1 “ “)
Greens: 12% (NC “ “)
Libs: 25% (+1 “ “)
NDP: 19% (NC “ “)

--------------------

Harri-Decima says:

Liberals stabilizing: Ontario tightening

BQ: 8% (+1 from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 37% (-1 “ “)
Greens: 11% (-1 “ “)
Libs: 24% (+1 “ “)
NDP:  17% (NC “ “)

In *Ontario*, the race has again tightened. The Conservatives have 35%, the Liberals 34%, the NDP 16%, and the Greens 12%
.
In *Quebec*, the BQ is at 33%, the Conservatives follow with 24%, the Liberals at 19%, the NDP 16% and the Greens at 8%.

In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals have 32%, the Conservatives 31%, the NDP 26% and theGreen Party 8%.

In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 39%, followed by the NDP with 30%, the Greens at 18% and the Liberals at 11%.

--------------------

Nanos says:

Conservatives lead Liberals by 11 points nationally


BQ: 8% (+1 from 22 Sep 08)
Cons: 38% (+3 “ “)
Greens: 6% (NC “ “)
Libs: 27% (-3 “ “)
NDP: 21% (-1 “ “)

--------------------

The rather large changes in Conservative (+3) and Liberal (-3)scores today offset the equally large but reversed changes (Cons: -4/Libs: +2) recorded on 22 Sep 08, indicating it may have been that 19th time out of 20 when things go wrong.

Beyond that small observation things remain remarkably static – despite pollsters’ and the media’s attempts to _sex up_ the news.  :boring:


----------



## JBG (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberal platform is here
> 
> On defence it says:
> 
> ...


I guess the LPOC forgets two things: 
They started Canada's Afghan role; and
The war against radical Islam is the principal engagement of Western militaries. What other "deployments" are needed other than the war against terror?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> ... The war against radical Islam is the principal engagement of Western militaries. What other "deployments" are needed other than the war against terror?




I think one, even one who is not a Liberal partisan, can make a very good case - and make it very easily - that neither "radical Islam" as an *the* enemy nor the "war against terror" make a whole lot of sense for anyone, especially not Canada.

The Liberal platform is very well crafted. *Canadians do not like the military*; they (a few of them) may wear red T-shirts on Fridays but they have almost no _personal_ connection to the military. Most Canadians *oppose* military spending, more even than oppose spending on symphony orchestras and opera houses. The Liberal platform trots out a few "feel good" platitudes - helping injured people, SAR, who can be against that? - and makes a very weak 'spending' promise. It will work well on the 60%± of Canadians who will always vote against Conservatives.


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

Cadman whisked out of Tories' candidates meeting
CAMPBELL CLARK Globe and Mail Update September 23, 2008 at 11:09 PM EDT
Article Link

SURREY, B.C. — The Conservatives whisked Surrey North candidate Dona Cadman out the door Tuesday night before reporters following Stephen Harper's campaign could speak to her.

Ms. Cadman is at the centre of the so-called Cadman-affair: She has said the party offered her dying husband, the late independent MP Chuck Cadman, a $1-million insurance policy for his vote in a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

But when reporters asked to speak to her after Mr. Harper gave a speech to a Surrey rally, she was instead whisked out of the back door, and out the building.

Reporters tried to reach her as she and other candidates were rushed off the stage by Mr. Harper's aides after the rally behind the Conservative Leader, but RCMP officers shielded the media.
More on link

Then there is this in the sidebar......

Harper seeks delay in hearing over Cadman libel suit
TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press September 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wants a judge to put off a hearing in his $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party that is scheduled to be held during the federal election campaign.

Mr. Harper's lawyers filed an “emergency” motion for an adjournment with Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland, court officials said Friday.

It is expected that Richard Dearden, Mr. Harper's lawyer, will argue Mr. Harper's campaign schedule prevents him from paying close attention to the legal details of the lawsuit he filed over an allegation that Conservatives attempted to bribe a terminally ill MP in 2005.

The move came at the same time lawyers for the Liberal party filed their own motion with Judge Hackland asking him to order Mr. Harper to produce documents which Mr. Dearden has failed to provide, despite promises to do so.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of today’s _National Post_, is one look at the spending promises:
> 
> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/17/ka-ching-ka-ching-liberals-and-ndp-run-up-the-bill-of-election-promises.aspx
> 
> ...


_


First, I would like to remind you that the TSX – a fair barometer of the state of the economy in Canada, and an excellent indicator of e.g. the ‘value’ or ‘strength’ of Canadians’ pension plans – has fallen to about the level as it sustained in early 2005. That means that we have ‘lost’ about three years worth of productive growth. I suspect we will need less than three years to get back to the levels we reached early this year, but it is still a time when fiscal prudence ought to be the order of the day.

Here is a link to a Globe and Mail interactive feature that shows spending promises to date:


BQ: N/A
Cons: $5.59 Billion over four years - sustainable, may not run a deficit
Greens: $22.5 Billion *annually* over four years - unsustainable but also unimportant because May/Greens don't matter
Libs: $54.5 Billion over four years – nearly an order of magnitude more than the Conservatives! - totally unsustainable during a recession
NDP: $37.4 Billion over four years - totally unsustainable during a recession


Celne Stéphane Dion says that ” “We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period.” But Layton appears quite *moderate* in his spending proposals – Dion’s plan is to drive Canada into deficit and a deep, long recession.

The 20% of Canadians who will vote Liberal despite everything must recognize that they, themselves, are greedy, envious economic illiterates.

_


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The 20% of Canadians who will vote Liberal despite everything must recognize that they, themselves, are greedy, envious economic illiterates.



You kind of have to wonder where their heads are, that is for sure. Perhaps, just too loyal to the party to see the economic pitfalls of voting for them this time around.

I'm just watching Canada A.M. and they were showing that the NDP is leaving a much bigger "carbon footprint" on their campaign trail than the Libs or Cons. (Cons being third behind the Libs.) Talk is cheap.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ deals with another of the *real issues* - Canadian foreign policy/relations with China:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.wexlnharperchina24/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper commits to China visit in interview
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI AND STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...




Harper’s China ‘policy’ plays well enough in the small Canadian ‘market.’ There is, in Canada, a strong and deep current of old fashioned anti-communism mixed with fear and racism. 

Our China policy must have more to it than just trade. Harper claims he wants Canada to play a more important role in the world – well China matters in the world and we need to deal with it, like it or not.

Finally, it is a good idea to keep China and India on the same ‘level’ of importance.


----------



## Rodahn (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> First, I would like to remind you that the TSX – a fair barometer of the state of the economy in Canada, and an excellent indicator of e.g. the ‘value’ or ‘strength’ of Canadians’ pension plans – has fallen to about the level as it sustained in early 2005. That means that we have ‘lost’ about three years worth of productive growth. I suspect we will need less than three years to get back to the levels we reached early this year, but it is still a time when fiscal prudence ought to be the order of the day.
> 
> Here is a link to a _Globe and Mail_ interactive feature that shows spending promises to date:
> 
> ...



Mr. Campbell; just a quick question, but do your figures include the billions of dollars in promised spending announced by the government just prior to the election call?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell; just a quick question, but do your figures include the billions of dollars in promised spending announced by the government just prior to the election call?



No, I think not. Those promises total about $8.9 Billion, right? But, the government claims that they (at least some (many? just a few?) of them) are already included in spending plans.

I think it is fair to say that at least some of those promises are *new* and that the Tories should be 'accused' of promising something like $10 Billion - still less than half of the least big spender (the Greens) amongst the other contenders.

Of course, I expect that IF the Liberals are elected the first things they will say is: _"Oops! The Tories cooked the books! Things are worse than we were led to believe! We cannot keep our promises! Sorry ..."_


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

This opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, by former Liberal Party of Canada President  Stephen LeDrew, says much with which I agree:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=822209


> A beating is what the Liberals need
> 
> Stephen Le Drew, National Post
> 
> ...




I need to remind Army.ca members that, despite being a card-carrying Conservative:

•	I regard the Liberal Party of Canada as a proud and important national institution that has, over the decades, done much good for Canada. I want it to survive and prosper as the _Party of the Centre Left_; and

•	I used to vote Liberal, back in the ‘60s, when I found Lester Pearson’s principles better than John Diefenbaker’s politics.

The problems that I believe have finally brought the Liberals to this sad state are all rooted in the famous Kingston Conference of 1960 at which Tom Kent, Allan MacEachen and Mitchell Sharp shifted the Liberal Party sharply to the left, well away from the Laurier-King-St Laurent _vision_ of Canada. They used King’s saying that “They (the  CCF) are just Liberals in a hurry” as an excuse to “hurry up” the social-welfare state that was gaining popularity amongst Canadians – and threatening to squeeze the Liberals out. They imposed their _vision_ on Lester B Pearson and made it possible, indeed very attractive for Trudeau to switch his allegiance, weak though it was, from the NDP to the Liberals.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course, I expect that IF the Liberals are elected the first things they will say is: _"Oops! The Tories cooked the books! Things are worse than we were led to believe! We cannot keep our promises! Sorry ..."_



Standard fare and nothing more than a flimsy excuse to break promises they never intended on keeping anyway. The opposition parties may not be privy to the account books, but their finance critics and staff should be able to follow the gov't spending and revenues and be able to ball park, at almost any time, what is in the coffers. If they can't they are not being the watchdogs that their terms of reference define them to be. As such, when they trot out that line about not knowing, I know they have lied flat out and have NO intention whatsoever of keeping any promise they made, unless convenience dictates.


----------



## Redeye (24 Sep 2008)

I got lucky that I had some good "real world" experience and had a good job lined up when I graduated.  My wife, on the other hand, has found getting off the ground substantially more difficult.  She started university in the US a few years ago, left when her scholarship money ran out without finishing, and then finally went back after being able to transfer most of her credits to a university here.  In the interest of getting done faster she went to school year round and didn't really pick up any experience of value and has now basically found it hard to get doors to open for her, to the point that she may well end up going to college next year to try to build on what she got out of university, and get some real experience in a work term.  A lot of people I graduated with wound up going straight on to a college postgrad program, I too considered until I had an offer in my hand the February before I finished school.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Picking up from these points, I'm also noticing more people being WAY more flexible in their education options - the hybrid reflected by some saying "I went to university to get an education, and to college to get a job".  I value what I learned in university, but it certainly wasn't the preparation for the real-world job experience that college was.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Something merely anecdotal,but it may be a sign of a deeper malaise.
> 
> Traditionally, jobs like erecting posters along the roadside are handed off to the more junior members of the campaign staff.  You know, the young volunteers not yet jaded or obsessed with power.  A party without such low-level workers is indeed in trouble.
> 
> Imagine my surprise this evening when I saw a former cabinet minister, all by himself, pounding stakes into the ground so he could erect signs for his wife's bid.  If the Liberals cannot find volunteers in Ottawa Centre and are resorting to having a former MND, David Collenette, putting up posters all by himself, there may be deeper problems within the Liberal party that this election will bring out.



More anecdotal sign evidence from the same riding (Ottawa Centre): I just walked from my home (a condo on the West edge of the downtown core) to my doctor's office in Chinatown. In my neighbourhood (a mix of highrise and new, lowrise (stacked 'townhouses') condos and single family homes - some occupied by seniors/owners and others by young renters - some of which are being 'collected' for future condo development) the signs were relatively few and far between but evenly mixed, about:

Cons: 2
Greens: 1
Libs: 2
NDP: 1

As I got into Chinatown the situation changed dramatically to:

Cons: 2
Greens: 0
Libs: 3
NDP: 15+

(And that does not count the (10+) Chinese food stores, bakeries and restaurants that have signs for all three main parties (but NO Green signs, at all, anywhere in Chinatown and I looked closely on the walk back home).)

I'm not surprised that our NDP MP (Paul Dewar) leads in Chinatown. Our City Councillor is hard working and popular, a good constituency 'ward heeler,' and a NDP stalwart who is working hard on Paul's behalf. But I am surprised at the poor showing of both the Conservative and Liberal candidates:

Brian McGarry, the Conservative, is a well known local businessman with a fairly high profile; he is the first really credible candidate the Conservatives have found in years and years. His poor performance in Chinatown is not too surprising: he made his money in the funeral business and many, many superstitious Asians - especially hyper-superstitious Chinese - would not want to even talk to someone who dealt with death, very bad luck!

But Penny Collenette is a Liberal STAR in a riding with strong Liberal roots and lots of Liberal workers - at least there *should be* lots of Liberal workers. I'm surprised she hasn't plastered the area with signs, other Liberals have done so in past elections campaigns. I wonder: no money to buy signs or no volunteers to put them up?


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

Harper represents the middle class
FEDERAL ELECTION Posted 5 hours ago
   Article Link

I have to chuckle a bit when I read about this so-called Liberal front bench strength. 

Let's begin with Bob Rae. He's the same guy who was a total disaster as our premier. During his term in office, he doubled Ontario's debt from $50 billion to $100 billion. Additionally, our province's civil servants, including teachers, municipal employees and OPSEU workers still shudder at his Rae Days. They haven't forgiven him to this day. 

Rae did more to cause our doctor shortage in Ontario than anyone else, by reducing the number of medical students in Ontario's universities during his tenure. When he was booted out of office in the mid-1990s, his approval rating was around 10 per cent. 

Now on to Ken Dryden. Before switching jobs to become a Liberal politician, he was the president of the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey team. He was a failure in that job before being released by the team's owners. 

And with respect to Michael Ignatieff, he loved Canada so much, he spent most of the past 35 years living in the United States. 

So much for this great Liberal team! I could barely wait for Paul Martin to become prime minister but, unfortunately, he turned out to be a very weak leader. However, I voted for him and Lloyd St. Amand in the 2006 election. 

This time I will be supporting Stephen Harper and Phil McColeman. Harper looks and talks like a leader. He makes me proud to be a Canadian when I watch him during meetings with other world leaders. 

In my opinion, he represents the middle class of this country better than any of the other parties and leaders. 

Art Stanbridge 

Brantford
End


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

Public Works cracks down on contracts
Department monitoring deals during election campaign in effort to thwart any controversy
Kathryn May, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Article Link

OTTAWA - In an unprecedented clampdown, Public Works and Government Services Canada is vetting all federal purchasing to ensure only contracts for "essential or urgent" goods and services are issued during the rest of the election campaign.

Public Works, the government's procurement arm, has become more vigilant in the past week, screening all contracts being tendered or awarded to avoid any deal, gaffe or misstep that could somehow spill into the hustings and affect the election.

Contracts are still being posted on MERX, the government's online bidding system, but the department has been ordered to closely monitor all contracts and amendments that are being posted on MERX and Contracts Canada. Any contracts considered "essential" are vetted by a team of senior bureaucrats. The final word rests with Deputy Minister François Guimont.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2008)

Here's a sense of what's making it onto MERX these days - seems to be a lot of repair work - for today....

"Complementary Environmental characterization of the garbage dumps in the DRDC Valcartier" (what's up with the ground water around the dumps?)

Construction of "Urban Operations Breaching Facility" for Gagetown

Rebuild shooting range stop butts and bullet retrieval box, Valcartier

Construction of a marquee above an exit door, Valcartier

Extend Line Servicing Shack, Hanger 11, 14 Wing Greenwood

Repair Sewer Line From Building 377 to MH 604 and Replace Sanitary Sewers at Buildings 393 to 377, CFB Suffield


----------



## Rodahn (24 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's a sense of what's making it onto MERX these days - seems to be a lot of repair work - for today....
> 
> "Complementary Environmental characterization of the garbage dumps in the DRDC Valcartier" (what's up with the ground water around the dumps?)
> 
> ...



Most of these are normal O & M items within the yearly BCEO budget's. The esitmated cost of the item dictates that they are processed through Defence Construction Canada.


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

Kevin Libin: Liberals eye military budget to fund campaign pledges
Posted: September 24, 2008, 11:33 AM by Kelly McParland 
Article Link

Someone in the Liberal camp isn’t happy with the party’s new platform, it seems. On Monday, just hours before it released its official platform --  "Action Plan for the 21st Century -- the party held a conference call, an “insider briefing,” for party workers and activists. In it, MP and finance critic John McCallum explained how the Liberals would manage to afford its spending promises.

Somebody in on the call taped the conversation. Then they leaked it. Blogger Steve Janke, who put the recording on his website. In an interesting study in contrasts, McCallum made some frank comments to insiders that didn’t show up later  when unveiling the platform to the public.

As CBC’s Political Bytes website reported, McCallum admitted in not as many words that the party did not, as supporters had apparently expected, really have a national housing strategy, but rather had some targets for upping affordable housing units. “Well, I suppose you could call it a national housing strategy . . .” McCallum said -- and you can almost hear him shrugging. Another voice elicited laughs when he chimed in "We definitely have a strategy,” after which it sounds like another participant cried: “Thank God!” When asked what the whole platform’s package will cost, McCallum first gives the official answer -- that it’ll cost “$15.5 billion dollars over five years”-- but added, “that's a little bit misleading,” without elaborating on exactly how Canadians were being be misled.

 What the CBC didn’t mention may be a more interesting revelation about how the Liberals wish to reconstitute the federal deficit contingency reserve (to cushion the government against slipping into the red): a total of $12 billion over four years. The former Liberal cabinet minister and Bay Street economist is careful to explain that the party is “committed to find $12 billion over four years through more efficient delivery of programs to Canadians. . . If we cant find savings of that magnitude than we’re not good economic managers.”

You’d certainly have to be: $12 billion is a lot of money to squeeze out by just delivering programs with more efficiency. At least one Liberal thought so too, and asked McCallum for some examples of where those “efficiencies” might be found, or more bluntly, “what will we be accused of cutting?”

Here’s the interesting part: McCallum (a former defence minister, by the way) suggests that one of the first things he’d tighten spending on is the Canadian Forces. “I think the defence budget in recent years has gone up at a very dramatic rate and that for us to continue . . . without further ramping up is responsible, particularly at a time of shortage of money.” (Arts funding, however, will get more money from the Liberals).

Military cuts, of course, have long been top on the Liberals’ hit list when it comes to finding money for, as McCallum put it “new priorities.” The military was “burned out during years of Liberal cutbacks,” as the party’s own Senator Colin Kenny once put it. Canada’s budget for national defence was lacerated by 23% between ’93 and ’98 as Liberals closed bases, cut staff and cancelled equipment upgrades. Whether you’re Liberal or Tory, it’s hard to dispute that Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been dealing with some of the repercussions of those decisions with, among other things, a lack of transport aircraft.

That Liberal era of military shrinkage was, arguably, a different time: Canada was in need of emergency financial intervention with out-of-control debts and deficits, and the social democracies of the world had anyway decided to cash in their peace dividends, convinced Huntington’s end of history had come to pass. Soft power was then the Liberals’ calling card. 
More on link


----------



## Rodahn (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I think not. Those promises total about $8.9 Billion, right? But, the government claims that they (at least some (many? just a few?) of them) are already included in spending plans.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that at least some of those promises are *new* and that the Tories should be 'accused' of promising something like $10 Billion - still less than half of the least big spender (the Greens) amongst the other contenders.
> 
> Of course, I expect that IF the Liberals are elected the first things they will say is: _"Oops! The Tories cooked the books! Things are worse than we were led to believe! We cannot keep our promises! Sorry ..."_



Well according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Government spent or promised $19,000,000,000.00 between June and the election call.

Link here http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Conservative_Spending.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2008)

Budgeted or unbudgeted Rodahn?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Well according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Government spent or promised $19,000,000,000.00 between June and the election call.
> 
> Link here http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Conservative_Spending.pdf



Just a quick perusal, didn't add anything up or really study it, but:

It looks like mostly to federal infastructure projects and upkeep - what they, or any sitting gov't, are supposed to do. Unless you want disasters of federal bridges falling down at rush hour.

Shitloads to the arts & heritage - guess those current whining artists and Dionites just didn't get their hand in my pocket fast enough.

Pretty large bail out to the tobacco farmers - Federal and provincial gov'ts ran them out of business, so that much, at least, is owed them.

What is in that report is nothing more than what it costs for ANY party to run this country.

Let's not try make it out to be more than it really is.


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

recceguy you are right....the annual budget is how many Billions? This just looks like normal budget spending. You are also right about a whole wack going to Arts and I see ALCOA in there like a dirty shirt quite often.....for all the whining from the Atlantic Politicians, I saw no newscasts that any of that $$ was refused.... (ps: I don't care about them getting grants, programs, etc, just don't whine that you are being hard done by.....eg: Arts)


----------



## Rodahn (24 Sep 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Budgeted or unbudgeted Rodahn?



A very good question, I don't really know. I'm assuming that the additional 8.9 billion (that had the taxpayers federation up in arms) that was announced just prior to the election call is included in the 19 billion. I performed a google search, but could only find figures on the 2007 budget.

There also appears to be quite a bit of funding for the Arts, which has become an election issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> There also appears to be quite a bit of funding for the Arts, which has become an election issue.



...but that funding was paid out before Dion & Layton decided to try and say the CPC didn't give a hoot about the arts. In other words, it wasn't\isn't REALLY an issue. Just rabble rousing and mud slinging by a couple that can't stand on merit and accomplishment. Trying to create a crisis and divert attention from their incompetence.


----------



## Hot Lips (24 Sep 2008)

Our unit was asked to participate in an Op Connect tasking in NS which occured today...there were to be many school children and of course adults at this event today...so in preparation to complete this tasking I went to CFRC Halifax and was going to acquire promotional items to give to the children...as we do with most taskings similar to this one...

The staff at CFRC said that due to the upcoming fall election we were not able to hand any of the usual promotional items out...I found this odd...and was told there was a CANFORGEN out re:same...I have not been able to find said CANFORGEN and wondered if anyone else has been told the same?

HL


----------



## Rodahn (24 Sep 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...but that funding was paid out before Dion & Layton decided to try and say the CPC didn't give a hoot about the arts. In other words, it wasn't\isn't REALLY an issue. Just rabble rousing and mud slinging by a couple that can't stand on merit and accomplishment. Trying to create a crisis and divert attention from their incompetence.



Or before the PM announced that the CPC was going to cut the funding 45 million....


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

Another day, another set of polls:

Ekos says:

--------------------
CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE ENGLISH CANADA; DOGFIGHT IN QUEBEC

[OTTAWA – September 24, 2008] – The Conservative Party now has a lead in every major region of the country except Quebec, where they are competitive outside Montreal. They have formidable strength in British Columbia, especially outside central Vancouver, and in the rest of the West. They lead in Ontario, by a wide margin outside of Toronto, and are ahead, if only barely and intermittently in the Atlantic provinces.

Increasingly, the Conservative lead over the other parties seems “locked in”, and it would take a major event to disrupt their path to victory now. Liberal support also seems to be gelling (at a much lower level), though there is considerable volatility still among the NDP and the Greens. There is some sign that the growth of the Greens that was a striking element in last week’s story has begun to plateau.

Unless one opposition party emerges more strongly from the pack, which again would take a major breach in the dynamics of the campaign, it seems that the Tories have a prospect at winning a majority, despite their inability so far to break past the 40% barrier. Whether non-Tory voters are aware of it or not, two unusual factors give Harper an excellent shot at a majority: 1) the dispersion of their vote among four parties, and 2) the size of the lead they have opened over the second place Liberals.

So, lets look at some of the regional races. Our large sample sizes give us an excellent picture into what is happening in the larger provinces.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives have established a commanding lead. The Green Party, which was threatening to make it a four-way race in the province just a few days ago has now faded, leaving the Liberals and NDP duking it our for second spot. However, this broad provincial picture disguises the urban/rural split that we dealt with yesterday. The NDP is in a powerful position in central Vancouver. The further you move from downtown “Van”, however, the greater the dominance of the Conservatives.

In Ontario, there has also been a bit of a Green fade, but here to the apparent benefit of the Liberals. That has kept the Liberals within striking distance of the leading Conservatives in the province, but like B.C., the provincial picture disguises the urban/rural reality. The Liberals dominate central Toronto, but the further you get from the CN Tower, the more competitive the Conservatives are. In fact, outside the GTA, they are dominant. The NDP has regional concentrations, of course, that will win it seats.

In Quebec, we see continuing strength for the Bloc Québécois, who in our soundings are running strong – well ahead of the other parties. The reason the race seems so competitive in the province is that, while the BQ is a significant force in most of Quebec (with some exceptions in predominantly non-francophone areas), it faces different opponents in the city of Montreal and the other parts of the province. The Conservatives, who are their principal opponents outside Montreal have actually sagged somewhat since the race began. The Liberals seem set to capture seats again in the Montreal area, but the NDP and even the Greens may also be competitive enough in some seats to seriously complicate the Liberals’ hopes.


BQ: 9% (+1)
Cons: 37% (+1)
Greens: 11% (-1)
Libs: 24% (-1)
NDP: 19% (NC)
--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Up 13

BQ:  9% (+1)
Cons: 37% (NC)
Greens: 12% (+1)
Libs: 24% (NC)
NDP: 16% (-1)

In *Ontario*, the Conservatives have 37%, the Liberals 33%, the NDP 15% and the Greens 12%.

In *Quebec*, the BQ shows some signs of recovering lost ground and stands at 37%, the Conservatives follow with 23%, the Liberals at 16%, the NDP 14% and the Greens at 9%.

In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals have 35%, the NDP 28%, the Conservatives 26% and the Green Party 8%.

In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 37%, followed by the NDP with 26%, the Greens at 19% and the Liberals at 15%.


--------------------


Nanos says:

Tories lead by 11, Liberal slide continues

BQ: 9% (+1) 
Cons: 37% (-1)
Greens: 7% (+1)
Libs: 26% (-1)
NDP: 21% (NC)

--------------------

What does it mean? Nothing.

Nothing has changed because all day-by-day _movement_ is well within the statistical margins of error.

Neither the Conservatives _gaffes_  nor the Arts Funding issues is making any difference. Their votes stays, pretty much, where it was when the election started and where it was when we last voted in 2006. But the poor Liberal campaign and Dion, _per se_ and/or something else are doing something to them – they are down fairly dramatically from Day 1 of the campaign and they are 4 to 6 points (statistically significant numbers) below their 2006 support levels (30%). The NDP is up from the start and from 2006; the Greens and NDP are about level. But even the shifts (-5 for the Liberals and +4 for the NDP are not very large – apply the margins of error and we’re taking, maybe, 1 or 2 points, either way, for each of them.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Sep 2008)

It's fascinating watching the statistics and the commentary roll in - it's like watching rats abandon a sinking Liberal ship.  Every news report talks about how, desperate for momentum, the latest campaign schtick fails miserably.

I dunno - perhaps the Liberals are reaping their just reward for opting to take up an anti-Bush stance which gave set them up to veer off to an adventure in the left; they were only preyed on by NDP/Green party wolves once they did that.


----------



## JBG (25 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think one, even one who is not a Liberal partisan, can make a very good case - and make it very easily - that neither "radical Islam" as an *the* enemy nor the "war against terror" make a whole lot of sense for anyone, especially not Canada.


Until Canadians learn the hard way. Just ask any New Yorker.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberal platform is very well crafted. *Canadians do not like the military*;


How would they feel if they weren't in the US's defense shadow?


----------



## Hot Lips (25 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Until Canadians learn the hard way. Just ask any New Yorker.How would they feel if they weren't in the US's defense shadow?


Yes...totally agree JBG...apparently the loss of the 3400 Canadians in NY...has been quickly forgotten and I wonder as well if the same will have to happen on Canadian soil for people to wake to f&$# up!!!!

HL


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2008)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Yes...totally agree JBG...apparently the loss of the *3400 * Canadians in NY...has been quickly forgotten and I wonder as well if the same will have to happen on Canadian soil for people to wake to f&$# up!!!!
> 
> HL



34 Canadians, right?  (Unless there is a BIGGER conspiracty to 9/11!!!)


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2008)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Yes...totally agree JBG...apparently the loss of the 3400 Canadians in NY...has been quickly forgotten and I wonder as well if the same will have to happen on Canadian soil for people to wake to f&$# up!!!!
> HL


Ummm..... WTF - where do you get 3400 canadians ???

At least 24 Canadians died or are presumed to have died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. according to families and a list of the victims obtained from Foreign Affairs. 

They came from across Canada, and most of them lived and worked in New York. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/cdncasualties.html

Almost 3,000 people (of all nationalities) died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Until Canadians learn the hard way. Just ask any New Yorker.How would they feel if they weren't in the US's defense shadow?




I have two problems:

Islam, even radical fundamentalist Islam,  is *NOT* the enemy. Those who suggest it is are helping to lose the *real* war which is against *movements* that are characterized, in part, by being _Islamic_. But, these movements – though their leaders *may* want to see a strict, fundamentalist version of Islam imposed on everyone – are really all about politics, especially Middle Eastern, dynastic politics. They are not about Islam. Islam is not our enemy. Those who suggest Islam *is* the enemy are wrong – dreadfully and dangerously wrong, and they are giving aid and comfort to the real enemy.

The ‘war on terror’ is a silly idea. Terror is a weapon – usually used by those with limited power – but it is a weapon we have used and may have to use again. What on earth do you think Churchill meant when he said (to SOE and the other ‘raiding’ organizations) “Set Europe ablaze!” Do you think he planned a birthday bash for the Germans? Not at all, he authorized and launched a campaign of terrorism – and it worked, since ‘we’ had quite limited power at the time it was the best available weapon.

We do want to erase some/most of the nihilistic terrorist groups that serve those generally Arabic, Extremist, Fundamentalist Islamic and Medievalist *movements* that are our real enemies, but a 'war on terror' is an error; it is just plain dumb.


----------



## MARS (25 Sep 2008)

> Yes...totally agree JBG...apparently the loss of the 3400 Canadians in NY...has been quickly forgotten and I wonder as well if the same will have to happen on Canadian soil for people to wake to f&$# up!!!!
> HL



I don't know if the same thing will have to happen here for people to wake up...perhaps it does, given the continued perpetuation of the "peacekeeping myth" and the anti-american sentiment that continues to be thrust upon, and resonate with the Candian public, as evidenced here:



> "I don't really follow the American troops, per se," admits Smith. "I find [them] very politically oriented and controlled, and there's more of a focus on the politics than the soldiering... I definitely think we have a better rapport worldwide because we're known as more of a peacekeeping nation as opposed to Americans."
> 
> Do you worry that Canada's current role in Afghanistan may be changing that?
> 
> ...



Article link is here  

http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=10989


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2008)

And still more polls:

--------------------
Ekos says:

BLOC POWERS TO BIG LEAD IN QUEBEC; LIBERALS NARROW GAP IN ONTARIO

[OTTAWA – September 25, 2008] – It seems that rumours of the Bloc Québécois’ death are premature. Contrary to much of the speculation, the BQ’s strength in Quebec has been growing stealthily since the beginning of the election campaign, and the party now has a commanding lead in Quebec with 40% — double the second place Conservatives.

The Conservatives now barely outrank the Liberals in the province, who are in turn chased closely by the NDP.

These numbers are based on a large sample size of more than 900 respondents in the province over the last three days – part of EKOS’s national daily tracking poll.

“The BQ’s overall strength in public opinion may overstate somewhat its ability to win seats, since the Bloc faces different opponents in different parts of the province,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “In Montreal, their opponent is mainly the Liberal Party, and to a degree, the NDP. In the rest of the province it is the Conservatives. Moreover, it is strongest among some of the demographic groups least likely to vote. Nonetheless, it is well within the BQ’s grasp to win the majority of the seats in the province once again.”

Meanwhile, in Ontario, the Liberals may have narrowed the gap; the three-day roll-up shows them to be within three percentage points of the Conservatives. However, there are different races going on within the province. The Liberals dominate Toronto, the Conservatives most of the rest of the province, but both parties are competitive in smaller urban centres and suburban communities. The NDP is also running well in its traditional strongholds.


BQ: 10% (+1)
Cons: 36% (-1)
Greens: 11% (NC)
Libs: 25% (+1)
NDP: 19% (+3)

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

BQ Fighting Back in Québec

BQ: 9% (NC)
Cons: 36% (-1)
Greens: 12% (NC)
Libs: 23% (-1)
NDP: 17% (+1)

In *Ontario*, the Conservatives have 37%, Liberals 32%, NDP 15% and the Greens 13%.

In *Quebec*, the BQ continues to recover lost ground and stands at 39%, the Conservatives follow with 23%, the Liberals at 17%, the NDP 12% and the Greens at 8%.

In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals have 31%, the Conservatives 30%, the NDP 27% and the Green Party 8%.

In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 36%, followed by the NDP with 28%, the Liberals have 18% and the Greens have 16%.

--------------------

Nanos says:

Tories lead by 15 points

BQ: 9% (NC)
Cons: 40% (+3)
Greens: 8% (+1) (second +1 gain in as many days)
Libs: 25% (-1) (second -1 loss in as many days)
NDP: 19% (-2)

--------------------

_Harris-Decima_ records no changes of any statistical significance but _Ekos_ and _Nanos_ do: +3 for the NDP and Conservatives, respectively. The _Nanos_ +2 for the NDP ends to confirm _Ekos_’ reported change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2008)

If Don Martin’s prognostications, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, are accurate then life is, indeed, over for the _Dion Liberals_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=838673


> Liberals' Fortress Toronto no longer impregnable
> 
> Don Martin, National Post
> 
> ...




The 905 region was the key to Mike Harris’ first victory; Harper hopes (dreams?) he can get it and parts of 416, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2008)

Further to Don Martin’s column, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Jane Taber’s take on Dion’s prospects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080925.welection-iberals26/BNStory/politics/home


> Liberals already musing about potential leaders
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




If, and it’s a Great *BIG IF*, Harper wins a majority then the next general election is in the fall of 2012 – Michael Ignateiff will be 65 years old, Bob Rae will be 64 and “yesterday’s man” will, surely, be trotted out against them – as it was against Jean Chrétien, too, back in 1989/90. And look how ‘badly’ he did!

The big message is that the Chrétien/Martin battle, which is, in many ways, just a replay of the Trudeau/Turner fight of the '60s and '70s, is still tearing the Liberals apart. Forty years on and he, Trudeau, "haunts us still."


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2008)

If you want to know what drives the left loony you have to look no farther than T Boone Picken’s comment that he “doesn't consider Canada a “foreign” oil and gas source.” Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an article about his natural gas ‘vision,’ but the important paragraphs are at the end:

 http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080925.wboone0925/BNStory/Business/home


> Pickens' natural gas nation
> 
> DAVID PARKINSON
> 
> ...




This, renegotiating the CANUS part of NAFTA should be one of the *real issues* that we should be discussing and upon which we should make our democratic decisions. We do, indeed, “want something” from the US: we want the US to stop the Department of Homeland Security from using ‘security’ to impede the free flow of goods and services – to the advantage of American producers. But we should want much, much more than that: a customs union, for sure, and, perhaps, an ‘immigration union,’ too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is tied to the Ontario story. Until recently it appears, to me that the Conservatives aimed for some gains in Ontario outside of the 416/905 area codes and *BIG* gains in Québec, outside of Montreal. Now it is starting to appear that the Tories are *alienating* many (but not all, by any means) Québecers with the arts/culture funding imbroglio and the ‘get tough on youth crime’ project.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080925.welectionpoll26/BNStory/Front


> Poll shows support for Tories' justice plan for youths
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...




But the strategy may not be all that clear. As this article points out the BQ and Conservative vote is Québec is ‘firm’ and the Tories might, actually, pull some middle class votes away from the Liberals just on the ‘unpopular’ issues, because the middle class, including, by and large the Québec middle class, does not support arts/culture spending and is sick and tired of violent youth crime– enough, perhaps to win a few more seats. In Ontario these same ‘unpopular’ (with the media) policies may help the Tories to reconnect with the ‘Harris Tories’ in the 905 area code region, surrounding Toronto, and get a lot more seats.


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2008)

On Mike Duffy last night he was chatting with reporters regarding the Quebec issues, and one of the comments that came out was that there were a fair amount of Liberals going over to the Conservatives ( especially as the Liberals in Quebec are dead in the water) in an effort to get rid of the Bloc.

The polls might show this more in the next week or so...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2008)

Feell free to post your fave "I didn't really mean to say that" moments here...

"Shut down the oilsands, NDP candidate (Michael Byers) urges" - It all started with him being a polar bear....

"Liberal Leader Stephane Dion dumped a candidate Friday after she was accused of anti-Semitism.  Lesley Hughes -- who's running for the party in a Winnipeg riding -- had faced criticism for an old blog posting in which she suggested Israeli intelligence warned the United States in advance of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and "Israeli businesses" vacated the premises before the attack ...."

"Calgary Tory offers no apology for immigrant-crime comment"


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2008)

Well!  Just saw a NDP commercial equating Harper's environmental policy and support of the big Oil Companies to those of George W. Bush and was surprised that the sublimial "Anti-American" stance was being played on the air.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

Here we are, closing in on the end of week three of the campaign, and the Strategic Counsel poll of 45 close (in the 2006 election) races has the Conservatives projected to win in 32 of those ridings (+16), the BQ projected to win 9 (+1), the NDP projected to win in 3 (-1) leaving 1 (count ‘em: ONE) win projected for the Liberals!

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_, is the report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080926.wElectionpoll-projections27/BNStory/politics/home


> Liberals projected to lose almost all close races
> 
> BILL CURRY
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

And, day after day, week after week, there are polls:

Ekos offers a seat projection:
EKOS’ SEAT PROJECTION - SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
  
*BQ ON TRACK TO BIG QUEBEC WIN*

[OTTAWA – September 26, 2008] – We offer this seat projection, based on our latest EKOS tracking poll, released earlier today. Most strikingly, the projection shows the Bloc Québécois resuming its dominance in Quebec. For the moment, the Tory prospects for a Quebec breakthrough do not seem as ripe as they were when the campaign began.

Also notable is the apparent Liberal improvement in Ontario, where they have closed the gap with the Conservatives somewhat since our last projection a week ago. 

The NDP also has very strong prospects for improving their standing in Ontario, based on this projection.

Meanwhile, the Tories do not quite have the majority they seek, but are achingly close.

Although the ranking of the parties in terms of seats remains the same as it did in the outgoing parliament, there is much less spread between them than there was previously. 

Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton could both construct plausible scenarios in which they might emerge as Leader of the Opposition after this election, based on relatively modest shifts in public support in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and depending, of course, on splits in individual ridings.

As always, we caution that seat projections have inherent limitations. However, this projection offers a plausible scenario of what might happen if Canadians voted as they told us they intend to do over the last few days.

BQ: 55 (+4 from the 23 Jan 06 general election)
Cons: 148 (+24 “ ) (155 seats required for a majority – a difference of 7 from this projection)
Greens: 0 (NC “ )
Libs: 66 (-37 “ )
NDP: 38 (+9 “ )
Other: 1 (NC “ )

The Ekos data for 26 Sep is:

BQ: 10% (NC)
Cons: 35% (-1)
Greens: 10% (-1)
Libs: 25% (NC)
NDP: 20% (+1)
Undecided: 8%
Will not vote: 4%

-------------------------

There is no new data from Harris-Decima or Nanos

--------------------

There are two more weeks available for Harper to:

1.	Beat back the Liberals in Ontario – for another 3 or 4 seats;

2.	Beat back the BQ in Québec for another 2 or 3 seats; and

3.	Beat back the NDP in BC for another 1 or 2 seats.

Essentially, Harper has to run three separate and distinct campaigns and hope that he can prevent to much ‘cross pollination’ of his (necessarily) mixed messages.

Harper can have an *effective majority* with 154 seats IF Peter Milliken (Liberal) is re-elected in Kingston and is re-elected as Speaker because, by parliamentary convention, the speaker votes only to break a tie and he votes for the _status quo_ which, almost always, means he votes to support the government.


Edit: typo


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2008)

Wonder why Harper is taking such a beating in Quebec over the Youth Crime bill, yet it played well elsewhere....The Bloc is using it as a lever to pry out support quite effectively....

Maybe the CPC is peaking too early...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

Québecers have, traditionally, taken a different approach to crime and punishment – especially youth crime and punishment. The data I have seen would seem to indicate that Québec’s ‘softer’ approach works at least as well, maybe better, than various ‘harder’ alternatives. Québecers are, It appears to me quite proud of their ‘system’ and its good (at least not too bad) results and resent criticisms from the rest of us.

Given the relative ‘stability’ of all the polls, Conservatives ‘up’ only slightly above the margin of error and the NDP gaining most from the Liberals’ precipitous decline, I think Harper has just enough time to win a bare majority IF he campaigns hard – at least three quite distinct and separate campaigns, really, with considerable risk of (incorrectly) mixing messages and targets. He has to get a big share of that 8% ‘undecided’ vote and he has to shake loose a few thousand NDP, Liberal and BQ voters in each of a few ridings. If he has ‘peaked’ now, with two weeks to go, then he has failed. He needs to keep this level of support and improve upon it over the next two weeks – the ‘peak’ has to come on 14 Oct, when Canadians look at the choices on their ballot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is and essay (opinion piece) on another of those *real issues*, fiscal policy and management, that will not be debated:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080926.wcoessay/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Where the surplus went
> *Why do we teeter on the brink of new deficits? Our allergy to red ink and our anchorless policy-making.*
> 
> HEATHER SCOFFIELD
> ...



I think that Canadians are wise to demand that politicians avoid deficits. Debt, in and of itself, is not always a bad thing – many of us went into big time debt when, for example, we took out a mortgage on a house. That is a productive sort of debt; most of us, most of the time, ‘invested’ in our homes and we, mostly, paid of the debt as soon as we could and then enjoyed our property – property which is, in fact, wealth. But there is unproductive debt and too much of Canada’s nation debt results from the very nature of our political system which *obliges* politicians to buy our votes with our own money.

The huge surpluses of the '90s were a result of over-taxation. The near deficit of 2008 is a result of over-spending – not all of it bad.

Governments need to tax *just enough* to pay for current programmes and, steadily, pay down the national (or provincial) debt. The annual federal surplus, after a sum of, say, 1% of the national debt (which currently stands at about $535 Billion), should be a few hundred million dollars, at most. An occasional deficit of something less than $1 Billion is not a crime but it is nothing to celebrate, either. Obviously in crises (wars, for example) policy may dictate that large, continuous deficits are necessary. But as soon as the crisis is resolved (peace is restored) spending must contract until the debt to GDP ratio is at an acceptable level (20&% works for me).


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is more evidence of the Liberals’ woes:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=843634


> Liberals keep watch on wallets
> *Time soon to cut campaign spending, insiders say*
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...




But we must remember Harold Wilson’s dictum that a week is a long time in politics and we have more than two weeks to go. The Conservatives have plenty of time to make serious errors and the Liberals can still turn things around - if they hurry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

Bear in mind, please, that this story – reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act – is from today’s _Red Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507484


> Harper edges closer to majority
> 
> *TORONTO STAR/ANGUS REID POLL*
> 
> ...




I don’t think anyone else has put the Liberals quite this low (21%). Maybe the story is intended to frighten lefties into voting Liberal to stave off a Conservative majority. That’s _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s worst nightmare.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2008)

And yet another report on the decline of the Liberal Party of Canada, this one is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0e2f0b87-a52e-4c42-bb80-112055934da0&sponsor=


> Fortress to flophouse?
> *A new poll shows support for the Grits is evaporating across the country. Has the once impregnable Liberal Party of Canada mortgaged its hold on power?*
> 
> Andrew Duffy
> ...



Those of us who are long time Conservative partisans will know that the Liberal Party of Canada is a strong and formidable machine. It will “not go gentle into that good night.” It will lick its wounds and “rage, rage against the dying of the light” for a few days but then cool heads will rebuild and, probably, regain power – which is, in our system, how it should be.

Stephen Harper hopes, eventually, to reshape Canadian politics so it looks more like its US and UK _cousins_ with strong parties of the centre right and centre left. But Harper hopes that the centre left party will be an amalgam of the Liberals and the NDP and will be too far left for many Liberals who will join a demonstrably more moderate Conservative Party.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2008)

> "The nightmare scenario," Mr. Winn contends, "is a decline into poverty."



If the CPC is to win even a small majority, they could deliver the killing stroke by simply eliminating the $1.75/vote subsidy and insist that all parties can only live from contributions from individual taxpayers. The Bloc would only have enough money to register a candidate in each riding in Quebec, and the Liberals would be submerged under almost unmanageable amounts of debt (they can hardly keep their heads above water now).

Like I have predicted before, the real crunch might be finding anyone with the required amount of drive and talent willing to do the job of rebuilding the LPC, and the time factor; can they rebuild fast enough to keep ahead of the NDP and Greens? The collapse of the Liberals might actually be swift and total, like the implosion of the former Soviet Union (or the disappearance of the Progressive Conservative party in Canada. Only 12 people are running under the Progressive Canadian banner this time.)


----------



## JBG (27 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have two problems:


Really?


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Islam, even radical fundamentalist Islam,  is *NOT* the enemy. Those who suggest it is are helping to lose the *real* war which is against *movements* that are characterized, in part, by being _Islamic_. But, these movements – though their leaders *may* want to see a strict, fundamentalist version of Islam imposed on everyone – are really all about politics, especially Middle Eastern, dynastic politics. They are not about Islam. Islam is not our enemy. Those who suggest Islam *is* the enemy are wrong – dreadfully and dangerously wrong, and they are giving aid and comfort to the real enemy.


Isn't that a distinction without a difference? Whether Islam is the cause or the unifying excuse matters little. It is an important factor.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The ‘war on terror’ is a silly idea. Terror is a weapon – usually used by those with limited power – but it is a weapon we have used and may have to use again. What on earth do you think Churchill meant when he said (to SOE and the other ‘raiding’ organizations) “Set Europe ablaze!” Do you think he planned a birthday bash for the Germans? Not at all, he authorized and launched a campaign of terrorism – and it worked, since ‘we’ had quite limited power at the time it was the best available weapon.


The problem is that wars of days gone wars were waged by states against states. The formation of the United Nations (to its very limited credit) has eliminated most but not all wars between nation-states. That of course does not banish hatred from the world. Haters use terror rather than state power to punish those they hate. Unless one is going to indiscriminately turn the Middle East into a parking lot one must wage war on terror.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We do want to erase some/most of the nihilistic terrorist groups that serve those generally Arabic, Extremist, Fundamentalist Islamic and Medievalist *movements* that are our real enemies, but a 'war on terror' is an error; it is just plain dumb.


OK, how would you define it?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> The formation of the United Nations (to its very limited credit) has eliminated most but not all wars between nation-states.



I don't have enough fingers to count the number of times there have been wars between Nation States, since the inception of the UN.  I could start with Korea, and move on to Vietnam, Algeria, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Lebanon, Sudan, Argentina, etc.  Just because we haven't seen a major conflict in the form of a World War, doesn't mean that war has gone away.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2008)

A pretty interesting interactive electoral map. Click on your province then drill down to your riding. IF you live in an urban area, look for the white square and click on it to zoom in:

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog/?page_id=46

Enjoy


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

Here, from the same source as Thucydides’ neat, interactive map, is another seat projection:

BQ: 41
Cons: 153
Greens: 0
Libs: 86
NDP: 27
Others: 1

WLU gives more seats to the Conservatives (+5) and Liberals (+20) and fewer to the BQ (-14) and NDP (-11) than does _Ekos_ as reported here.

Here, for those of you who managed a bit more than Grade 10 math, is a paper on the methodology used for the seat projections by WLU.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

The University of British Columbia ‘samples’ opinion by a different method: an Election Stock Market. One needs to read in a bit before deciding if this a good or not so good predictor, but their seat projection is:

BQ: 37
Cons: 145
Greens: 2
Libs: 79
NDP: 44
Other: 1

Remember that people are ‘betting’ here and some highly partisan folks may have bet good money just to advance their cause – which may explain the projected 2 Green seats. (Note: I project that André Arthur will, again, win Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier as an independent. I’m guessing the other two “Otr” seats are ‘earmarked’ as Green by the buyers.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2008)

Sorta-kinda like polls (in terms of allegedly predictive numbers) are some prediction projects online, and what they show.

Here's what UBC's Election Stock Market is showing (graphic may change from current posting because it appears to be updated periodically):






The Election Prediction Project shows this:
CPC     118
Liberal   72
NDP       22
Bloc       29
Other      2
Too Close  65

And Laurier's Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy shares this:
CPC          153
Liberal       86
NDP           27
Bloc           41
Independ     1

Feel free to track, share and discuss!


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

Here, from _Hill and Knowlton_ is another interesting tool:

You use the “Make a prediction” button/bar to enter your own data – maybe from some of the polls reported here or here – and then ‘see’ the seat results.

Using _Nanos_ most recent numbers (very moderately adjusted to give 1% to ‘Others’ and get down to 100%), for example, I get:

BQ: 49
Cons: 155
Greens: 0
Libs: 65
NDP: 38
Others: 1 

Have fun!


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

The NDP, bless their pointed little heads, have returned to their Stalinist roots according to this article reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080928.welxnndpplatform0928/BNStory/politics/home


> NDP platform pledges billions for child care
> 
> OMAR EL AKKAD
> 
> ...




This will appeal to the NDP’s base and to the left wing of the Liberal Party, both of which are economically illiterate and socially irresponsible (and to some Greens – but not the pre-May Greens who were of a fiscally prudent mind). Elsewhere Celine Stéphane Dion called this platform a job killer: that shows he might not be *all* wrong *all* the time. But, basically, this budget would satisfy Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pierre Trudeau or Tim Buck, but one suspects that poor old Tommy Douglas is rolling in his grave. The ‘no deficit’ promise is on par with Jean Drapeau’s whopper about the (1976) Montréal Olympics not losing money.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

> The ‘no deficit’ promise is on par with Jean Drapeau’s whopper about the (1976) Montréal Olympics not losing money.



Was there not the comparison to the likelyhood of him having a baby.?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

Fiddling with the Hill and Knowlton predictor and following some reported trends, I entered these support level ‘splits’ in the "Make a prediction" thingy:

BQ: 8% - assuming a very slight loss of support over the next two weeks
Cons: 39% - assuming they cannot break the 40% ‘ceiling’ 
Greens: 6% - assuming voters go ‘strategic’ in favour of the NDP 
Libs: 22% - assuming their recent fall continues for two weeks
NDP: 24% - assuming their recent rise continues for two weeks and they gain at the Greens’ expense
Others: 1%

I got these results:

BQ: 47 seats
Cons: 155 seats – a Conservative *majority*, albeit the barest possible one
Greens: 0 seats
Libs: 52 seats
NDP: 53 seats – Jack and Olivia move into _Stornoway_ because he becomes the *Leaders of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition* 
Others: 1 seat


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2008)

The percentages are a very fine line in this election. It is conceivable that the Torries can still gain a majority while below the magic 40% threshold. With the vote split on the left, they are left in the same situation that Cretien was in during his last two majorities... both of which he achieved with 37 and 38 percent.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Sep 2008)

Edward is tech staff qualified thanks to having attended the excellent course run at the Royal Military College of Science in the UK. Thus he can carefully pick the data apart, give it the shake, rattle and roll test and voila, out pops a prediction based on something more that a guesstimate. I am, on the other hand, a graduate of Foxhole U, the old one year course at the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College at Fort Frontenac in Kingston. Thus I am highly schooled in the principle that tactics is the opinion of the senior officer present, and he learned his tactics two decades and several changes in doctrine and equipment ago. Moreover I have learned that a SWAG (scientific wild-assed guess) usually can be used to prove one's presience as the result, no matter how far off the mark, can be argued as being pretty good, giving the changing conditions. Thus, a couple of weeks ago, I came up with the only number the matters, the ones won by the winning party, and predicted the max the CPC will do is 162.

And if all else fails, when I am proven once again to be wildly wide of the mark, I will use the gunner's last resort and claim I could not hear my own prediction because of hearing loss.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Sep 2008)

I just ran some rough numbers for the NDP child care promise of 225,000 daycare spaces by year 4 (if elected).

Assuming 5 children per daycare worker, we are talking 45,000 trained and accredited early childhood workers that don't exist (unless Jack intends on using laid-off GM and Chrysler workers in the child care field).  This also speaks nothing of the bureaucracy to manage this, which, would have to add at least another 10,000 people, you are looking at an organization the size of the CF, created from scratch, to look after your kids.  Yeah, I'll be lining up to drop my kid into that  :

Let's talk cost.  I think we can safely assume that these will be union jobs.  Using a very conservative $20.00/hr wage, you are looking at $40K/yr/worker ($80K/yr one benefits are factored in).

Multiply that by 55,000 and you get....$4.4  *BILLION*/year for wages alone- and you still haven't built one building or bought one toy.  

Dream on, Mr Layton.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

OK; *Predictions* AKA SWAGs

Old Sweat: Conservatives - *162* seats and a Majority
E.R. Campbell: Conservatives - *155* seats and a Majority

Who else wants in?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Sep 2008)

The number 136 and a minority with the Liberals (barely) holding Opposition sticks in my head for some reason that I cannot shake.

I think that the Liberals are likely to go super-negative this week and also start to encourage strategic voting.  The Tory numbers could start to soften- they did last time.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

Conservative Majority 178 seats

edited to add: Layton just gave a passel of ammunition to both Dion and Harper with his platform announced today...

Used judiciously, you should see NDP poll numbers drop, but the dabates are going to determine a lot...


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2008)

My call: 158 - Conservative majority.


----------



## Greymatters (28 Sep 2008)

Conservative Majority - 181 seats


----------



## JBG (28 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Used judiciously, you should see NDP poll numbers drop, but the dabates are going to determine a lot...


Will Dion need a translator for the debates?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

I suspect the thinnest of majorities (or even a virtual majority, once you discount the speaker of the house and assume the independent MP will side with the governing party), and also predict some opportunistic floor crossing that solidifies the majority the day after.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2008)

;D  With the number of candidates who have been forced to withdraw from the race, I am beginning to wonder if we will really have any left to elect.  Perhaps it will boil down to "the Last One Standing" and we will have Parliamentarians by default.


----------



## Kalatzi (29 Sep 2008)

Conservative minority - Number say 130

Liberals in minority 

Given recent news in the states the big issue is likely to be ECONOMIES. 

I can understand the noises that the liberals are making about folding. 

Whoever gets in is likely to hav e to deal with some brutal times. 

US gets a cold...

Bye Bye Jack and Child care. Good riddance., 

Bye Bye Stephan and Green. 

Prediction for next election. A BIG conservative majority 

And I tend to be liberal


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

Predictions (SWAGs) Updated:

•	Greymatters: Conservatives 181 seats – effective landslide
•	GAP: Conservatives 178 – substantial majority
•	Old Sweat: Conservatives 162 
•	ModlrMike: Conservatives 158
•	E.R. Campbell: Conservatives 155 – bare majority
•	Thucydides: 154 – barest possible majority
•	SeaKing Tacco: Conservatives 136 - minority
•	Kalatzi: Conservatives 130 seats – minority, only slightly better than 2006


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ and based upon the most recent polling (26/27/28 Sep 08) is an assessment of the Conservatives’ strategy for the last two weeks of the five week campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080928.welxnmajority29/BNStory/politics/home


> Majority movement gains speed as Harper's lead soars
> 
> HEATHER SCOFFIELD
> 
> ...




I think here will be some strategic voting on the ‘left’ but I suspect it will counter-balance itself. I’m guessing that many BC Liberals will jump to the NDP (leaving the Liberals with only two or three seats in Vancouver) while, in Ontario, the ‘jumps’ will go both ways. Strategic voting *will hurt* Harper’s Tories but it will do much *for* either the Liberals or the NDP. I’m also _guesstimating_ that there will be much soul-searching in Atlantic Canada next week: how long can one, voluntarily, stay on the outside looking in?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2008)

Predictions (SWAGs) Updated:

•	Greymatters: Conservatives 181 seats – effective landslide
•	GAP: Conservatives 178 – substantial majority
•	Old Sweat: Conservatives 162 
•	ModlrMike: Conservatives 158
•	E.R. Campbell: Conservatives 155 – bare majority
•	Thucydides: 154 – barest possible majority
•	Milnews.ca: Conservatives 140 seats – minority, bit more than last time, though
•	SeaKing Tacco: Conservatives 136 - minority
•	Kalatzi: Conservatives 130 seats – minority, only slightly better than 2006


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site, are some insights from polling firm experts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080928.WPollsters29/BNStory/politics/home


> Pollsters' Corner
> *Some of the country's leading public opinion experts give their take as the federal election campaign enters its final two weeks*
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




It appears that Trudeau, Chrétien, Martin and Dion have managed, over a generation, to reduce the once proud, mighty and, above all *national* Liberal Party of Canada to a regional rump: with real ‘strength’ only in downtown Toronto (20± seats), Montréal (15± seats) and Atlantic Canada (20± seats). What a sad legacy from four successive lightweights. Laurier, King and St. Laurent must be despairing in whatever corner of whatever comes after is reserved for successful politicians.


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

Fired candidate: Was Liberal lefty clobbered by her own swing?
 CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD cblatchford@globeandmail.com September 27, 2008
Article Link

The most wonderful thing about the Lesley Hughes story is not that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion finally asked her to step down yesterday, or her odd beliefs that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that the war in Afghanistan is the result of "lengthy failed negotiations between American business and the Taliban over access to drugs and oil," or even her bewildered, injured insistence yesterday that her firing "is so incredibly unjust."

No, what is wonderful is that Ms. Hughes has had such a good go of being such a proper little Canadian lefty (I rarely use words like this, but there ain't no other way to describe her) that I have no doubt she's genuinely bewildered.

She's played by all the rules as she knew them, embraced all (well, okay, almost all, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theory, being a shade out there) the right causes, and what, now this kick in the teeth?

Not even a Raging Granny, one of those women who with hideous regularity show up at protests and the like to sing hideous ditties, could have summoned up greater righteous indignation.

As a perfect illustration of the peculiar sort of Canadian-ness Ms. Hughes seems to embody was what she said yesterday when a TV reporter broke the news to her that Mr. Dion was giving her the boot, and then, it being television, asked her how she felt.

"I guess this is how soldiers die in trenches, eh?" she said. "This is how it must feel."

Only a particular kind of Canadian woman of a certain age who has spent her life in the safe and cozy confines of Winnipeg, making a decent living and reputation as a caring social activist and never coming within a hair of a battlefield could compare her suffering as a cruelly aborted Liberal candidate to that of a dying soldier.

Ms. Hughes is by my count the eighth candidate to be given the boot in this campaign. She joins two other Liberals, three New Democrats and two Conservatives who have stepped down, under threat of being stepped upon, as a result of dope or dopey statements. She's the one who most interests me, however, because she was so good.

She is a journalist, a member of the Canadian Association of Journalists, a former writer at both her hometown papers, for a time a popular columnist with the city's free paper, and for a decade ending in 1995, the co-host of Information Radio, a local CBC show.

She was fired in 1999 by the Sun, apparently for taking the paper to task in a column for what she considered its "anti-Cuban bias" during the Pan-Am Games, and promptly launched a complaint with the provincial human rights commission; she ended up winning a settlement of $1,000.

When, in 2003, she was bounced from her job at the free paper, she said she would launch another complaint, but I couldn't find any record of whether she did, and what the resolution was, if any.

Even a sympathetic columnist in the Sun noted that Ms. Hughes's work "stood out for its fiercely anti-establishment views and she has often been labelled stridently left-wing."

Now, she is a member of the "collective" that runs Canadian Dimension magazine (which bills itself as being "For people who want to change the world" and describes itself as an "independent forum for left-wing political thought and discussion") and is a frequent contributor to it, too, as well as a co-host of the magazine's online radio show, where she and her fellow host still sound for all the world as though they were reading for the Mother Corp. 

In Winnipeg, where she has raised two sons (one of whom, Geoff, is an actor and proud pro-marijuana activist who credits his mom with teaching him "to fight for what I believe in"), she appears to have led a rich life.

She has taught at the University of Manitoba (journalism basics in the school's continuing education side), been the media liaison for the Lieutenant-Governor's Advisory Council on Children with Disabilities in Manitoba (and was publicly thanked by the L-G three years ago in a speech for her writing on fetal-alcohol issues), and is routinely described as a passionate advocate for various causes, including women's equality and aboriginal rights.

She is a member of the Ba'hai faith, whose cornerstone, she said in a 1998 online report of a "Faith in the Newsroom" workshop, "is that the law is love." 

Two years ago, she was a supporter of the United Nations Platform for Action Committee (Manitoba), or UNPAC for short, and did a radio interview with the "Femme Fiscale", a superheroine created by the group, who "flew into the Manitoba Legislature to ask how Budget 2006 would make life better for the province's women."

She also has written a one-woman play, Bloomberg's Radio, launched in 2002 at the city's famous Fringe Festival.

It was there that the first glimmer of what was to come may have showed itself, for in an interview, Ms. Hughes told the writer Morley Walker, "Both U.S. and Canada have become quasi-security states" because of laws passed since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We just haven't found that out yet," she said. "And the mainstream media in North America are doing little to challenge this."
More on link

Lesley Hughes is coming across as a real nutter. If Christie Blatchford can quickly find this much garbage, whatever happened to the vaulted vetting process of political parties?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a column by Lawrence Martin that I members may find interesting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080926.wcomartin29/BNStory/politics/home


> Incrementalism in a time of upheaval
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Canadians as I never fail to mention, are timid; we are averse to big ideas; we like a small, narrowly focused, indeed “parochial society” and we are unwilling to jump into _”The Global Society”_, not, at least, until almost everyone else including Belgium and New Zealand are already there – proving it’s not too dangerous. Harper knows us; Martin doesn’t – neither Lawrence Martin nor Paul Martin.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

What might the future hold?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1081808.html



> *Tory win could force a merger on the left*
> 
> By DAN LEGER
> Mon. Sep 29 - 6:09 AM
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

Globalization, the economic crisis and job creation can all be tied together in one neat package. Too bad the Progressives will froth at the mouth over any mention of this solution (and see where it is being proposed!)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264826575484095.html?mod=todays_us_opinion



> *The Stockholm Curve*
> 
> With the economy struggling, at least some people are urging a pro-growth tax cut. *Too bad they live in Stockholm*. As a recent headline in Agence France-Presse put it: "Sweden Announces Income Tax Cuts to Boost Jobs." The government is planning to cut business taxes and the personal income and payroll tax.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Globalization, the economic crisis and job creation can all be tied together in one neat package. Too bad the Progressives will froth at the mouth over any mention of this solution (and see where it is being proposed!)
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264826575484095.html?mod=todays_us_opinion



The article you've presented dramatically oversimplifies the situation and omits something so important, it makes the rest of the article downright silly....

*Sweden has now accumulated Net Assets of >20% of GDP, so they can afford to cut taxes as not only do they have no net debt-servicing costs, they have asset-derived income. * 

Australia, New Zealand, Denmark as well as Singapore and a good chunk of the Persian Gulf and Asia are in similar situations and as long we remain in the "Yes we have debt camp", we'll fall further and further behind those other nations on a competitive basis because they can afford to cut taxes where we can't.




Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2008)

*Mr. Pickens is quick to clarify, though, that he doesn't consider Canada a “foreign” oil and gas source. “It's considered North America – we're all one big happy family.”*

Not everyone has the same opinion on that subject:

From June 2008
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256576
U.S. Mayors pass boycott of Alberta oil sands-derived gasoline


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2008)

A merger - and then Layton potentially being the leader of the Lib/NDP party?

Sounds like something from Turtledove...


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

There is absolutely no way the rank and file will join with the NDP, other than to take their voters.....

There may be a lot of talk, but it really amounts to nothing.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no way the rank and file will join with the NDP, other than to take their voters.....
> 
> There may be a lot of talk, but it really amounts to nothing.



Just like Reform and the Progressive Conservatives will never merge?

Just like a party can't go from a record-setting majority to two seats in only two elections?

Just like Bob Rae could never run federally after his tenure as Ontario's premier?


Never is a long time in politics...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Just like Bob Rae could never run federally after his tenure as Ontario's premier?



Or just like "Ontario'll never have an NDP government"?  (Although if you qualify it by adding "again in a long time", you'd be closer).


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Just like Reform and the Progressive Conservatives will never merge?
> 
> Just like a party can't go from a record-setting majority to two seats in only two elections?
> 
> ...



All true....but can you imagine the power brokers and back room boys acceding to a merger?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> All true....but can you imagine the power brokers and back room boys acceding to a merger?



Yes.

They, the Liberals power brokers, *know* that the *only* reason Jean Chrétien won back-to-back-to-back majorities was because the ‘right’ was fragmented. They understand that three successive Harper majorities will change Canada in ways that will make it very, very hard for even a moderate centre-left party to achieve power and govern.

BUT: 60+% of Canadians are ‘lefties’ of one sort or another and united – even with a consequential ‘hard left’ cast off - they can run the place almost forever.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

The Liberals are, finally, with only two(of only five) weeks to go, running a sensible campaign: stressing their economic record in the Chrétien/Martin years – which Canadians remember fondly. But they have wasted three of those five weeks. Does anyone really think Celine Stéphane Dion is fit to run a country?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

The abortion ‘question’ is, of course, being asked by “_*gotcha* journalism_” types who are trying to provoke controversy where none exists, but, as this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act demonstrates, it still works:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080929.welxnabortion0929/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper says no to abortion debate
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

Just in case you think all the Green Party candidates are loony left fruitcakes, check out this fellow.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

Matthew, in a globalized economy with easy capital and labour mobility, the status of the debt is less important than the comparison of tax rates and ROI between competing jurisdictions. If one jurisdiction has an economic surplus (a real surplus like you describe, not an overtaxation like our political class likes to define as a surplus) then they have more flexibility to make large tax cuts.

Sweden made the tax cuts to stay competative with places like Ireland and Poland, not because they have a comfortable cusion of accumulated assets. Indeed, you could make the argument that a nation like Canada without an asset cusion needs to make _more_ agressive tax cuts in order to prevent bleeding of current labour and capital.


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just in case you think all the Green Party candidates are loony left fruitcakes, check out this fellow.



Does not the CF reflect the same general dispersal as the country?  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

It’s a new day so here are new polls.

--------------------
Ekos Says:

[OTTAWA – September 29, 2008] – Relatively little change in the national top line numbers today. We continue to see the Conservatives weaker in Quebec and the BQ stronger than at the beginning of the campaign.

Note that due to technical problems, we had fewer cases this weekend than we normally do. We have extended our reporting period to four days to ensure a sound sample.

BQ: 10%
Cons: 34%
Greens: 10%
Libs: 26%
NDP: 20%

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

BQ: 8%
Cons: 36%
Greens: 9%
Libs: 26%
NDP: 19%

--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ: 9%
Cons: 36%
Greens: 9%
Libs: 26%
NDP: 20%

--------------------

The numbers are pretty consistent and they lead us to _guestimate_ a *Conservative minority*, albeit somewhat stronger than in 2006, a much reduced Liberal Party and a much stronger NDP.

But the polls probably don’t mean a lot until Friday’s results start to show up. The last 10 days matter most.


Edit: typo - corrected date in my comment


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just in case you think all the Green Party candidates are loony left fruitcakes, check out this fellow.



Air Force officer, AERE no less... how does that disprove the loony fruitcake part of your assertion ?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Matthew, in a globalized economy with easy capital and labour mobility, the status of the debt is less important than the comparison of tax rates and ROI between competing jurisdictions. If one jurisdiction has an economic surplus (a real surplus like you describe, not an overtaxation like our political class likes to define as a surplus) then they have more flexibility to make large tax cuts.
> 
> Sweden made the tax cuts to stay competative with places like Ireland and Poland, not because they have a comfortable cusion of accumulated assets. Indeed, you could make the argument that a nation like Canada without an asset cusion needs to make _more_ agressive tax cuts in order to prevent bleeding of current labour and capital.



Thucydides, in a globalized economy with easy capital and labour mobility, the "status of debt" is becoming the single greatest determining factor impacting various jurisdictions abilty to adjust their competing tax rates. This is not an economic policy issue.  This is a very simple accounting issue.  If you can't visualize the impact of the different balance sheets in this regard, I don't know what to tell you....


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

I think we are looking at the same problem from two different angles:

You say (correctly) that a good balance sheet with accumulated assets can allow a tax cut, and prudent fiscal management is its own reward.

I say (also correctly) that Company "X" is looking for the best ROI, so if Jurisdiction "Y" has a better ROI due to low taxes and regulations, they will tend to go to that jurisdiction. If Jurisdiction "Y" happens to have a poor balance sheet, then they need to attract as many business and investors as possible. Holding onto high rates of taxation to balance the books becomes a loosing proposition when the very business and workers who's tax dollars you need choose to do business outside your jurisdiction.

Remember, Sweden did not choose to lower their tax rates because they have a positive asset balance; they did so to stay competitive with nations like Poland and Ireland (who, so far as I know, do not have a positive balance of assets on their books).


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Air Force officer, AERE no less... how does that disprove the loony fruitcake part of your assertion ?



Yeah, OK ... game, set and match to you.


----------



## JBG (30 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The numbers are pretty consistent and they lead us to _guestimate_ a *Conservative minority*, albeit somewhat stronger than in 2008, a much reduced Liberal Party and a much stronger NDP.


Did you mean 2006 rather than 2008 by any chance? Or did I miss a writ-drop from stateside?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Did you mean 2006 rather than 2008 by any chance? Or did I miss a writ-drop from stateside?



Fixed, thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

I’m guessing that the ongoing financial crisis plays, big time, in Stephen Harper’s favour.

The debates, upon which Celine Stéphane Dion appears to be placing _sooooo_ much hope, will take place before the US Congress can do much except start talking amongst themselves (_ Rosh Hashanah_ – the Jewish New Year – isn’t over until sunset, Wed, 1 Oct). Dion and _Taliban Jack_ Layton will be easy targets for a calm, cool, *competent* Harper who can say, “This is exactly the wrong time to impose a carbon tax on Canadians and it is exactly the wrong time to raise corporate taxes. Dion and Layton want to put tens of thousands of ordinary, hard working Canadians on EI – if they aren’t already here. I want to go slow and steady; I want to allow the well regulated Canadian economic system to recover and to continue creating new jobs. Dion and Layton want to experiment and run deficits and drive us into a recession and kill jobs.”

Of course, that’s not at all what either Celine or _Taliban Jack_ really want to do – but it will, likely, work in the debate.

I expect the financial news to stay bad for the duration of the election – and for the duration of the US election, too. There will be a few good days (today may even be one as smart investors rush in to snap up bargains left behind by the panic stricken stampede towards the bottom by the _mainstream_ ‘investors’) but, by and large, bad news will keep Canadians frightened for their jobs and pensions and may make them shift away from the NDP and towards the Liberals and, in greater numbers, away from the Liberals (and the BQ) and towards the Conservatives.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2008)

Another view of a possible "Progressive" merger after the wreckage clears on Oct 15:

http://www.politicalstaples.com/2008/09/30/too_many_left_wing_parties.html



> *Too many left wing parties?*
> 
> Check out an episode of The Agenda from last week entitled The Left - Too Many Parties?. Even though the episode is disappointing, not the fault of the topic, the fault of the guests, is does speak to an interesting dynamic going on in the election, as the chorus increases for a united left. The way I see it is that there is not a divided left, there is a divided non-Conservative vote. The Green Party used to be a post-ideology party under Jim Harris but you can make an argument that Elizabeth May is a left-wing leader. The BQ got criticized for turning into the NDP during this campaign but they are a separatist party so they can't be brought into the fold. Sure the NDP are an actual left-wing party but the Liberals? Because of Stephane Dion's focus on the Green Shift the Liberals have "moved to the left" but the Turner-Martin-Ignatieff wing is not giving this ground without a fight.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Another day another set of polls ...

--------------------

Ekos says:

LIBERALS GET SOME MOJO BACK; TORY MAJORITY SLIPPING AWAY

[OTTAWA – September 30, 2008] – After a difficult start on the campaign trail, in the media and in the polls, the Liberal brand has begun to re-assert itself in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The race has tightened somewhat and the Conservatives have fallen back short of majority territory – something that many voters, especially in Ontario, seem to want.

“The race in Ontario began tightening markedly last week,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “Now the Liberals appear to be eking out a small lead.“

There is evidence of a “re-coil” impulse by some voters against the idea of a Conservative majority, particularly in Ontario, where almost a quarter of voters say they would reconsider their vote choice if they were sure the Tories were headed to majority. These “re-coil” voters are mostly now sitting with the Greens and the NDP, and if they started to move, the Liberals would be the principal beneficiaries by far.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Party has re-asserted itself in Quebec in its traditional redoubts. The Liberals are now essentially level-pegging with the Conservatives, both well behind the Bloc Québécois. However, that may be enough for the Liberals to hold onto the seats they already have there, and potentially make small gains.

In Atlantic Canada, too, the Liberals are once again competitive.

In most of Western Canada, however, the Liberal Party continues to languish in third place, though the Greens no longer threaten to eclipse them in British Columbia as seemed possible just ten days ago.

“The Liberals’ gains, though modest, are significant, because they maintain their lead nationally over the third place NDP, who are running well by historic standards,” said Graves. “Meanwhile the gap between the Liberals and the first-place Conservatives has begun to narrow, though not enough to make them a serious threat to Conservative victory.”

The Liberals seem to be drawing some of this recent support from wayward Liberals, who had moved into the Green camp in the second week of the campaign, or were sitting on the sidelines as undecideds, and have now plunged back in behind the Liberals.

“It is worth noting that the Liberal Party, even with these first signs of resilience, is still tracking at historic lows,” said Graves. “However, after weakening dramatically in the weeks before and after the election was called, Liberal support plateaued, and has now begun a gentle drift into more familiar territory. Whether this can be sustained may turn on Stéphane Dion’s debate performance and the capacity of the Liberal ground campaign in the remaining weeks of the campaign.”


BQ: 9% (-1) 
Cons: 34% (NC)
Greens: 10% (NC)
Libs: 27% (+1)
NDP: 19% (-1)

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

BQ: 9% (+1)
Cons: 36% (NC)
Greens: 11% (+2)
Libs: 26% (NC)
NDP: 18% (-1)

•	In *Ontario*, the Conservatives have 37%, Liberals 31%, NDP 17% and the Greens 14%.

•	In *Quebec*, the BQ stands at 37%, the Conservatives follow with 27%, the Liberals at 18%, the NDP 12% and the Greens at 5%.

•	In *Atlantic Canada*, the Liberals have 40%, the NDP 31%, the Conservatives 23% and the Green Party 4%.

•	In *British Columbia*, the Conservatives lead with 36%, followed by the Liberals with 23%, the NDP with 22%, and the Greens with 18%.


--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ: 10% (-1)
Cons: 37% (+1)
Greens: 8% (-1)
Libs: 26% (NC)
NDP: 20% (NC)


--------------------

Given the margins for error there are no statistically significant changes anywhere. There are 13½ campaigning days left. While a week may, indeed, be a long time in politics, we have less than two of them left for:

•	The Conservatives to get a good, solid 39+% of the popular vote (+3) – if they are going to have a majority;

•	The Liberals to get up to a good, solid 30+% (+4) - if they want to deny the Conservatives that majority and prevent the NDP from eating their (Liberals) breakfast; and

•	The NDP to get to a good, solid 22+% (+3), all at the Liberals’ expense - if they want to Jack and Olivia to sleep in _Stornoway_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Today we saw a severe weakness in Stephen Harper’s _system_: the Liberals hit a home run on the ‘plagiarism’ issue.

Now, it is not a ‘foreign’ issue: Celine Stéphane plagiarized much of the Green Plan from David Suzuki; he got caught and, within 24 hours he had apologized and properly attributed the material. The press made nothing of it.

Bob Rae, a very effective communicator, played the Iraq speech plagiarism for all it is worth all day on every TV screen in sight. He got a very sympathetic hearing from TV hosts who thoroughly detest Harper for his vendetta against the media. Some media types promised a payback – it’s being delivered.

One of the reasons this got so much ‘free’ time was that Harper’s team, with its emphasis on control, *Control*, *CONTROL* was slow to react (the _grownups_ are all busy preparing for the debates) and then refused to apologize, quickly.

Everyone, even the most anti-Harper media admit that no-one (not Harper, not Dion, not Chrétien) writes their own speeches – but they do have to ‘own’ them, once made. So it doesn’t matter if the speechwriter has resigned; it was Harper’s speech; he has to ‘explain’ it. Unlike Dion’s misuse of Suzuki’s words, the copying of Howard’s speech cannot be easily undone. It was something in which Harper took some considerable pride; he has to wear it, publicly (none of the Becket’s hair shirt stuff) – as gracefully as possible – and get it behind him because the media are really, really, really having fun with this.

*Gotcha!* 


Edit: added a link to the report of the Green Shaft Shift plagiarism issue.


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

CBC is positively ecstatic....


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Harper has one day to ‘craft’ his story. The French debate is tomorrow night and the English debate is on Thursday. He will get hammered with the plagiarism charge – again and again.

I hope someone on his staff took a junior NCO course and remembers that, when one screws up, one:

1.	Takes responsibility – takes ownership of the issue as some political types like to say – admits the error;

2.	Figures out – in a debate explains – how one will avoid making the same (or similar) mistake again; and

3.	Get on with the work at hand, having learned from one’s mistake - in a debate turn the topic back to the economy.

This issues hurts his reputation for *leadership* and honesty. Harper is going to have to face this issue, squarely, and deal with it in a way that mollifies Canadians and _defangs_ the media vipers.


----------



## Rodahn (30 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Harper has one day to ‘craft’ his story. The French debate is tomorrow night and the English debate is on Thursday. He will get hammered with the plagiarism charge – again and again.
> 
> I hope someone on his staff took a junior NCO course and remembers that, when one screws up, one:
> 
> ...



I agree, but at the same time I wonder if the CPC spin doctors (through the Prime Minister) have requested that the debate format be changed to a one hour segment on the economy to try and avoid the issue.

Edited to add the following link in reference to the above speech issue, with the speech writer and spokesman quitting.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n093091A.xml


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I agree, but at the same time I wonder if the CPC spin doctors (through the Prime Minister) have requested that the debate format be changed to a one hour segment on the economy to try and avoid the issue.
> 
> Edited to add the following link in reference to the above speech issue, with the speech writer and spokesman quitting.
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n093091A.xml



The Consortium has has gone some way towards meeting Harper's request. From a purely partisan (Conservative) POV the change benefits Harper's campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is another poll story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.welxnpoll01/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper majority a concern to more than half of Canadians
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> ...



The plagiarism fiasco is liable to give Canadians even more cause to worry about a Harper majority – it goes to his honesty. He needs to be trustworthy and competent; his image is tarnished. He has 13 days to polish his image.


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

> The plagiarism fiasco is liable to give Canadians even more cause to worry about a Harper majority – it goes to his honesty. He needs to be trustworthy and competent; his image is tarnished. He has 13 days to polish his image.



If he handles it right, it will be a one day burp....the French debate will overtake the issue, Bernier's girlfriend is doing an interview on Thursday (a LOT of Quebecers are waiting for that one), people are concerned what will happen in the US, and this plagiarism fiasco  has a due date of 2003.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The plagiarism fiasco is liable to give Canadians even more cause to worry about a Harper majority – it goes to his honesty. He needs to be trustworthy and competent; his image is tarnished. He has 13 days to polish his image.



I don't think his image is damaged in the West, they can look past what the liberals are saying and don't really pay them much heed. The die is cast out there. For Ontario, _I think_ having Rae lead the charge in all the smear campaigns about Harper, will have a negative effect. Too many here still despise him, for his time as Premier, to give him much credence. He's seen as an economically incompetent opportunist. If Dion is losing votes in Ontario, Bob Rae is not helping. He's hated here, _probably_, more than Dion himself. So far all the things he's throw and tried to make a big issue of, have amounted to farts in the wind. I don't think anyone can predict Quebec as the polls seldom tell the true story there. I can't read the Maritimes, but i don't think Danny Williams has got as much grass roots backing as he thinks he does for his campaign of disinformation. 

I'm not following the polls on any of this, just my gut and listening to people here at home. That's all my opinion is based on.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> If he handles it right, it will be a one day burp....the French debate will overtake the issue, Bernier's girlfriend is doing an interview on Thursday (a LOT of Quebecers are waiting for that one), people are concerned what will happen in the US, and this plagiarism fiasco  has a due date of 2003.....



I agree, and, as a Conservative partisan, I hope you're right.

It is, already, off the 'top' of both the _Globe and Mail_ and _CBC_ web sites.

Time will tell.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Sep 2008)

I wonder how long before the Tory ads start reminding Ontario about Rae-days and Ignatieff's support for both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  if nothing else it may re-ignite infighting in the Liberals and bleed more votes to the NDP...


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

Williams vendetta has hurt the CPC in getting the provincial PC's to help with their campaign, but I think there will be some backlash as people (as least those I know from the maritimes) resent having anyone, especially government tell them how to vote.


----------



## armyvern (30 Sep 2008)

Well, I voted today.

Two weeks ... two more loooonnnggg weeks - and it is done. 

Yay!!


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Sep 2008)

Conservative Minority...  :-\

I am sure of it...I think the real question is who will be the opposition


----------



## Rodahn (1 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Conservative Minority...  :-\
> 
> I am sure of it...I think the real question is who will be the opposition



In these times I think that a minority government of whichever ilk would be in Canada's best interest. Actually if memory serves, a minority government is probably, the best type to have due to the checks and balances inherently inbred in such type of a government, and they do accomplish a good deal for the benefit of the country due said checks and balances.


----------



## JBG (1 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fixed, thanks.


You are welcome. I know little about Canada and thought I may have missed something.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> In these times I think that a minority government of whichever ilk would be in Canada's best interest. Actually if memory serves, a minority government is probably, the best type to have due to the checks and balances inherently inbred in such type of a government, and they do accomplish a good deal for the benefit of the country due said checks and balances.



Under normal circumstances, I would agree with this assessment, however as the current minority situation has shown, there is a requirement for the opposition to participate rather than just opposing everything the government proposes. I am dismayed at the potential for a repeat of the current strictly adversarial situation in a new minority parliament. I would much rather see an opposition that took an active part in guiding the government rather than opposing for the sake of opposition.


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2008)

Interesting chart from the Globe & Mail


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2008)

May may have stepped into it again, at least in the blogosphere

Green Party to me : “Shame on you”
Published September 30, 2008 Politics 
Article Link

Woe is me.  The Green Party has shamed me.

Here is the situation.  If you read this site or any blogs actually, you might know that I came across pictures of Elizabeth May at an anti-Israel protest.  It was in front of the Israeli consulate and the crowd and speakers were insulting Israel and Jewish groups like the JNF.  You can watch the video, look at the pics.  There’s not a lot of ambiguity when you’re chanting the Hezbollah battle hymn in front of the Israeli consulate.

That battle hymn?

Give me my weapon oh mother, and load the machine gun!

Oh mother pray for me in your night so that I can become a tough Mujahid standing against Israel!

God-willing I will be granted martyrdom in this battlefield so that my path and blood will remain a light!

Standing in front of the Israeli consulate while men chant THAT and wave a flag with a machine gun (!) on it - this is not something Ms. May thinks deserves a cross word or two.  Go figure.

So right, the situation.

I post these pictures, it bounces around the internet, and Warren Kinsella reacts.  He demands that Elizabeth May make a strong statement condemning Hezbollah.  She doesn’t.  She condemns their missiles - but the group and the racists standing 10 feet in front of her, not at all.

So I try to meet her.  That doesn’t work out (my fault entirely) and I decide instead to poll the Green Party to get their views.  Those views range from ‘Zionists = Hezbollah’ to ‘Hezbollah are terrorists’ - though none think it is their duty to fight racism here at home.

This gets the attention of the Green Party media office and the Jewish Tribune - the B’nai Brith’s newspaper.  They contact me to ask a few questions and during that interview, they tell me that the Green Party rep called this blog a “right wing white supremacist” site - and by extension, they called me a “white supremacist”.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2008)

At least some journalists get it. The rest still scratch their heads and wonder why the blogosphere has grown in power and importance as a news media:

http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080917_10717_10717&id=8



> *How journalists get in the way of the election*
> 
> Politicians learn from their mistakes, sometimes. The media keep repeating theirs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Oct 2008)

WRT journalists, and I use that term very lightly, what I have always wondered was what are their qualifications to write their opinions as to what was happening. Have they had the education to do a e.g. estimate  (or a quick estimate for an sound bite/print article {attack})? What life {combat} experiences have they had? To me they are mostly telling fishing {war} stories that get bigger by the second. The are repeaters, as the article states, hanging around for the story (the proverbial Ernest Hemingway bar) instead of digging for it. That's why the hate Harper, cause he won't hand it to them on a silver platter. They sprout THEIR opinion and/or the agenda of the media outlet that employs them. But do we question the repeaters qualifications to express their opinions? If the repeaters were so brilliant, why are they not the Comd of the BG in Afghanistan, the Minister of Health, or even the PM. They hide behind journalist ethics which are as clearly defined as term, Canadian "values". These repeaters are mainly nobodies, who can repeat what they are told, and type on a piece of paper. They do not take the info, analyze, research, confirm/disprove then go back to the source and say BS, that's not true. There are tons of examples out there including shoving back at the Lieliberals what really is a surplus, how the Lieliberals slayed the deficit, Liz May's assertion that Harper has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs. No they just sit there and repeat what they are told. No challenges to the  misinformation. Just repeat it. And, they PROVE this daily. Not all, but nearly all.

Rifleman62 has no intention ever, at this stage of my life, to run for public office, not even municipal dog catcher.

PS If the Bloc has the numbers to become Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I pray Harper will have the internal fortitude to tell the Bloc to shove it where the sun does not shine, and have the next most popular party become opposition. The Liberals didn't, because they didn't have the guts. Does Harper, or do we have to continue to bow to Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2008)

Our friend Steven Staples brings up a good point; where *do* the candidates stand on these issues? As Edward notes, there has been a notable silence about this. (Please note, I give Kudos to Steven for bringing up the issue, I _do not_ agree with his point of view about the issue)



> *Where do your candidates stand on human rights and the war?*
> Ask your local candidates automatically.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Our friend Steven Staples brings up a good point; where *do* the candidates stand on these issues? As Edward notes, there has been a notable silence about this. (Please note, I give Kudos to Steven for bringing up the issue, I _do not_ agree with his point of view about the issue)



Are you sure?  It looks more like a plug for his book and website than anything else.

I doubt the world would survive if we were to make the West into the world that Steven Staples dreams about.  It would be much better if he were to go off to the Third World and convert them, bringing them more in line with the West, than the weakening of the West and neutering of the West's defences.  His work here is done for now, time for him to move offshore and convert the really "Bad Guys" out there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2008)

WTF?  Is this going to have any real impact?  Links to Fed Ct files at bottom of story.  Shared with the usual caveats...

*Canadian Government Sued Over Oct. 14 Election Date*
Joe Schneider, Bloomberg wire service, 1 Oct 08
Article link

Canada's Conservative government was sued by an independent watchdog group for breaking a year-old law fixing the date of federal elections, now scheduled for Oct. 14.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused the previous Liberal government of calling elections only when its poll numbers were high. Last year, Harper enacted a law fixing the date of federal elections to the third Monday in October. On Sept. 7, he said a federal election would be held the second Tuesday of this month. A political deadlock in the legislature, where his party is 27 seats short of a majority and needs support from rivals to pass laws, made the election necessary, he said.

``Fixed election dates will improve the fairness of Canada's electoral system,'' Conservative House Leader Rob Nicholson said when he introduced the law. The Conservatives defeated the Liberal Party in 2006.

Democracy Watch, which said it's a non-profit, non-partisan group that advocates government accountability, filed suit today in federal court in Ottawa. A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow on the group's request that a federal judge rule the Sept. 7 dissolution of parliament illegal.

According to most recent opinion polls, the Conservatives are close to winning a majority of the seats in the Oct. 14 vote.

Non-Confidence

``Democracy Watch is filing this case not only to challenge the calling of the current election, but also to win a ruling that will prohibit future prime ministers from calling elections'' without having been forced to by a vote of non- confidence in the legislature, the group said in a statement.

Harper's spokeswoman Deirdra McCracken argued the Oct. 14 date was legal, and that there is a stipulation in the 2007 law that allows dissolution of parliament in cases where rival parties threaten to bring down the government.

Democracy Watch argued that the early election call violates Canada's constitution, which it said includes the right to fair elections, according to Canada's Supreme Court.

``The clear intent of the fixed election date measures was to make elections fair for all political parties,'' Duff Conacher, the group's coordinator, said in a statement.

The case is Between Duff Conacher and the Prime Minister of Canada, Federal Court of Canada (Ottawa). File No. T-1500-08.

_To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Schneider in Toronto at jschneider5@bloomberg.net. _



What's happened to date on the file, from the Federal Court of Canada


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2008)

I entirely agree with you about the outcome of a Steven Staples (NDP/Green/Communist/Marxist-Leninist) "West"; the point I am getting at is how come the *politicians* are not talking about this?

Kim Campbell was derided for saying "an election is not the time to discuss issues" and she was probably right in one way (try distilling foreign policy into a 30 second sound bite. Now do it in 8 seconds....). The problem is there never seems to be a time when anyone wants to discuss the issues. The MSM is the worst bunch of offenders; they could ask *real* questions and do *real* research to hold the political class' feet to the fire, but they have morphed into "Progressive" cheerleaders and the main conduit for predigested news releases.

The fact that a person like Steven Staples is trying to spark/influence/sway the debate is somewhat alarming; in a mature democracy there should be groups representing other points of view, and political parties and politicians willing to address these issues and debate the various ideas. Canadian people seem stuck on one point of view, which makes conducting foreign policy difficult; look how hard it was to keep a consensus on Canada's participation in the Afghanistan mission, and how easily it seems to have been shaken off in this election cycle. A robust discussion (at any time) on why we are there, what we hope to achieve and what the victory conditions are would have been much more illuminating, and perhaps a better policy would have emerged as well.


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2008)

The French Debate

Harper held his own, but it must have been a bitch having 4 other people coming at you from all sides..

Best description I have heard so far, is Quebecers now have a choice....Mr Harper or.......those others over there....


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2008)

An analysis on what went wrong for the Liberal Party (note, the author is thinking of long term structural issues, not Stephan Dion)

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/i-for-one-will.html



> *True Patriots*
> 
> I for one will be sad to see the Liberal Party go.  Oh I know... those of you who remember my more partisan days will recollect my old and now defunct Brock: On The Attack blog, where I never showed a smidgeon of mercy for the Grits.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2008)

And a real laugh riot:

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=5413


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Oct 2008)

History dictates that majority governments have a bad habit of derailing after a very short period of time. After 13 years of a liberal majority government, we got what? (0) I'm all for a minority. I'm not about to make the same mistake twice.

I agree that we need a steady hand at the tiller in these uncertain times, but we also need the parties to work together to weather the storm and a minority government is our best bet. With a majority your placing all your eggs in one basket and hoping none will get broken on the way to the market and we all know how many eggs didn't make it the last time around.

I threw away my rose coloured glasses a long time ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2008)

No statistically significant changes in the polls: _Strategic Counsel_ (for CTV) has the Tories up and the Liberals down while _Ekos_ and the others have either no change or the Tories down and the Liberals up, ever so slightly.

I don't think we will see useful polls until next Monday.


----------



## Slim (2 Oct 2008)

Yesterday, while watching TV, I was exposed to the latest Liberal attempt to turn Steven Harper into a greedy, corporation-promoting thief.

 Some of you may be familiar with the add in question, which accuses the Harper govt. of putting millions (billions?) into the coffers of corporations, while robbing the poor folk. 

To my mind it didn't really work.

Isn't the idea to _ENCOURAGE AND ASSIST _ business in Canada? so that we can be competitive, create jobs and whatnot?

To me, the add came off like  an attempt at a Liberal scare tactic..

Just my 2 pennies...but I know how I'm voting.

Slim


----------



## Rodahn (2 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> Yesterday, while watching TV, I was exposed to the latest Liberal attempt to turn Steven Harper into a greedy, corporation-promoting thief.
> 
> Some of you may be familiar with the add in question, which accuses the Harper govt. of putting millions (billions?) into the coffers of corporations, while robbing the poor folk.
> 
> ...



I believe that ad is produced by Taliban Jack and his gaggle..... Just giving the dysfunctional the credit where it's due.....


----------



## Slim (2 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I believe that ad is produced by Taliban Jack and his gaggle..... Just giving the dysfunctional the credit where it's due.....



Yep, no doubt about it.

But the funny thing about the add is...that if you really listen to it, it's not a slight against the Conservatives at all.

Which led me to the scare-tactics comment.

Just now while writing this, I got a cold call from the Liberal party rep in my area...When I explained that my wife and I are staunch PC supporters she didn't event try to argue with me...just said thanks and hung up...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2008)

More from Steven Staples. I wonder if he and his fellow travellers will be able to push this issue up in the final weeks of the election?





> *Which party leader is speaking out for peace? *
> Tell us your opinion on Ceasefire.ca
> 
> Dear Ceasefire.ca supporter,
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2008)

Unfortunately, I think Steven Staples has named his organization incorrectly.  It should be "capitulate.ca".  He is not talking about Peace in Afghanistan at all.  We have "peace" here in Canada.  We are trying to bring peace to the people of Afghanistan.  Our giving up on the Afghans does them more harm than good.  Everything we have strived for and been able to do to help the Afghans will be thrown out the window if we listen to Staples' rhetoric.  It would be more productive if he were to take that rhetoric to the Afghans, not Canadians.  We are already living in a peaceful society.  They are not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2008)

I hate how these guys keep intimating that we are not doing and aid and development. We've been doing it all along. Roto Zero Athena did approx 155 projects while on the ground, in 03\04. This included refurbing, or building, schools and hospitals, bridges and roads. Projects for helping women develop and run their own businesses were also a priority. Orphanages were supplied with PP&S for the students as well as grain for the bakery that was rebuilt. Another approx 30 projects were in the initial stages and turned over to the follow on BG. CIDA funds were procured because we ran out of money. That was just a start, The CIMIC teams and mandates have grown since that time when we had only three teams on the ground.

But that stuff is boring and doesn't sell newspapers. People that harp on us not doing any of this stuff just don't want to admit we are, because it would totally deflate the only argument they have.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Oct 2008)

Anyone else see the disconnect in the whole NDP plan?  To summarize...

"We are going to build jobs for the average worker, by punishing the corporations that create the jobs for the average worker..."

So let me get this right.  The END (Jobs for the "workers") are going to be had by the MEANS (punishing the Corporations that create jobs).  Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the means lead you to your ends not away from them?'


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2008)

Zip

From there straight to the planned economy producing mass quantities of wagon wheel spokes and candle stick holders......and concisely described in this tale from a friend of mine that grew up in a planned economy: 

Two men were spotted moving across a field.  The man in front was digging a trench.  Following along, exactly 12 minutes and 42 seconds later, the second man was filling the trench in again.  When asked what they were doing the guy filling in the trench said: "Well there was supposed to be a third guy here laying pipe - but he called in sick."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think we are looking at the same problem from two different angles:
> 
> You say (correctly) that a good balance sheet with accumulated assets can allow a tax cut, and prudent fiscal management is its own reward.
> 
> ...



It's not a matter of different angles.  You've posted an article then further commented that "We should cut corporate taxes like Sweden" and then "National Debt level have little bearing in that discussion."  

I'm saying the exact opposite.  That unequivocally, a nation's debt (or accumulated asset) level is the key determining factor in its ability adjust corporate tax rates and that a nation's focus on reducing its debt and that in looking at a global playing field, it will be each nation's debt/accumulated asset which will drive their competitive advantage in future years as those with accumulated surpluses will have an ability to provide identical services to their citizens at significantly lower individual and corporate tax rates.

Let's look at two hypothetical cases.

Both Countries X & Y:
Population 30,000,000
GDP: 1,200,000,000,000 (or $40,000.00 per citizen)

Country X:
National Debt: $600,000,000,000 (or $20,000.00 per citizen)
Debt Servicing: $45,000,000,000 (or $1,500.00 per citizen based on 7.5% interest rate which is a low estimate)

Country Y:
National Surplus: $150,000,000,000 (or $5,000.00 per citizen)
Interest Earnings: $8,250,000,000 (or $275.00 per citizen again based on 5.5% interest rate which again is a low estimate)

The comparison therefore is that on a national basis with identical government service delivery and individual tax rates, Country Y has the ability to reduce corporate taxes by $1,775.00 per citizen without either raising individual tax rates above the level of Country X, nor cutting services below the level of Country X.  That number multiplied by 30 million citizens is $53.5 billion in unneeded tax revenues.  Putting that into context, Canada currently collects roughly $39,000,000,000.00 billion per annum in corporate taxes (this is from the Fiscal Monitor - July 2008).  If Canada therefore were in the position of being Country Y instead of Country X, we could not only eliminate all our corporate taxes, but could also reduce our personal taxes by an additional $12.5 billion.

The 'lightbulb issue" being Canada is roughly in position of Country X while many of our competitors are in the position of being Country Y (obviously with different populations).  And that although you're claiming our debt is inconsequential, it is in fact an albatross that most certainly impedes our ability to compete with those countries who are in the status of Country Y.  Specifically, on a globally competitive playing field, should these Country Y states decide to go to a 0% corporate tax rate (which they can afford to do), Canada has little option but to try to match that rate in order to compete for corporate investment due to mobility of capital which leaves us one of three options: i) Increase Individual Taxes, ii) Cut services, or iii) Run Deficits which will only compound the problem.  I should add that one solution (raising individual tax rates) creates its own problems as not only in a global world do we face mobility of capital, we face mobility of talent.....and should places like the Persian Gulf offer opportunities at both 0% corporate tax, and 0% individual tax, we run the very real risk of losing some of our best and brightest.....and for the record, don't think for one second that the Country Y's out there aren't in the process of trying to steal not only our corporate offices but also our best talent with their competitive advantage.

Bottom Line:  We are not paying too much tax.  We are paying too little.  Our debt at the very least needs to be eliminated, and at best moved to mild accumulated surplus as otherwise Canada will become a "have not" country by the time our children reach working age.   

Welcome to the new reality....


Matthew.


----------



## GAP (4 Oct 2008)

some of those savings might be in the Health Care area....efficiencies, etc might reduce the 41% (?)of the budget spent on Health and related areas.


----------



## GAP (4 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Two men were spotted moving across a field.  The man in front was digging a trench.  Following along, exactly 12 minutes and 42 seconds later, the second man was filling the trench in again.  When asked what they were doing the guy filling in the trench said: "Well there was supposed to be a third guy here laying pipe - but he called in sick."



 :rofl:

You just described Jacko's concept* exactly*


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2008)

The NDP, like other "Progressive" parties plays on the powerful human emotions like Greed and Envy. It is easy to play on these tropes with short soundbites (Tax the Rich; "Kitchen table, not Boardroom table"), but much harder to refute these tropes with a 30 second soundbite (even that may be too long; it seems an 8 second soundbite is the current ideal. Any shorter and you are into subliminal advertising!).

Imagine the fallout if Stephen Harper was to state the real, unvarnished truth: *Corporations pay no tax*. Regardless of the rates governments set, corporations simply pass on the costs to consumers, and if the costs are too high, in foregone opportunity costs (i.e. no new investments, products or hiring), and if that is still too high, then by decamping the jurisdiction entirely.

Now: 
a. Explain that in 30 seconds or less
b. Refute the argument (presented in it's entirety) that "*This idea is just an example of corporate greed*"

Also:
a. Explain the best economic policy is to *abolish corporate income tax*
b. Refute the argument (presented in it's entirety) that "*This idea is just an example of corporate greed*"

Add an MSM that won't provide the time or space for the detailed analysis of the idea or refutation of argument "b" and you see why the Conservatives seem rather muted. (Anyone who *can* explain the concept or refute argument b in >30 seconds should contact their local CPC candidate or riding office immediately).


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The 'lightbulb issue" being Canada is roughly in position of Country X while many of our competitors are in the position of being Country Y (obviously with different populations).  And that although you're claiming our debt is inconsequential, it is in fact an albatross that most certainly impedes our ability to compete with those countries who are in the status of Country Y.  Specifically, on a globally competitive playing field, should these Country Y states decide to go to a 0% corporate tax rate (which they can afford to do), Canada has little option but to try to match that rate in order to compete for corporate investment due to mobility of capital which leaves us one of three options: i) Increase Individual Taxes, ii) Cut services, or iii) Run Deficits which will only compound the problem.  I should add that one solution (raising individual tax rates) creates its own problems as not only in a global world do we face mobility of capital, we face mobility of talent.....and should places like the Persian Gulf offer opportunities at both 0% corporate tax, and 0% individual tax, we run the very real risk of losing some of our best and brightest.....and for the record, don't think for one second that the Country Y's out there aren't in the process of trying to steal not only our corporate offices but also our best talent with their competitive advantage.



But that is exactly what I am saying. Corporation "X" does not care if the nation they are setting up shop in has a surplus or a debt, they care about ROI. Sweden is reducing its taxes *not because* their balance sheet is better than Poland's or Ireland's, but because they must remain competitive with other nations within their region. The fact they do have a positive balance sheet makes it easier for them to do so, but if they didn't cut taxes, they would see their business bleeding away to other nations _regardless_ of the balance sheet. (and after a while, they would go into the red as they lost their business and talent).

So nations with a debt must maintain a competitive tax rate with other nations in their region regardless of their balance sheet. The unpalatable options really boil down to one; they must cut Government spending to match their tax revenues and then cut even more to work on paying down the debt, but the paramount issue is to remain competitive in the tax arena.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Imagine the fallout if Stephen Harper was to state the real, unvarnished truth: *Corporations pay no tax*. Regardless of the rates governments set, corporations simply pass on the costs to consumers, and if the costs are too high, in foregone opportunity costs (i.e. no new investments, products or hiring), and if that is still too high, then by decamping the jurisdiction entirely.
> 
> Now:
> a. Explain that in 30 seconds or less


"Lower corporate taxes means lower costs to consumers"


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> b. Refute the argument (presented in it's entirety) that "*This idea is just an example of corporate greed*"


"All businesses, big and small, are out to make money.  Lower taxes makes business in Canada viable.  This translates into jobs for Canadians"


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Also:
> a. Explain the best economic policy is to *abolish corporate income tax*


"Lower corporate taxes means lower costs to consumers"


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> b. Refute the argument (presented in it's entirety) that "*This idea is just an example of corporate greed*"



"All businesses, big and small, are out to make money.  Lower taxes makes business in Canada viable.  This translates into jobs for Canadians"


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting bit of speculation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081004.ELECTIONNDP04/TPStory/politics


> * THE FEDERAL ELECTION: POLITICAL STRATEGY: ENDGAME: WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE PLANNED FOR THE LAST 10 DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN*
> [SIZE=14PT]THE NDP: A LIBERAL COALITION?[/SIZE]
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> ...



This is intriguing as a _numbers game_. First, if the _numbers_ are there and IF the Conservatives are defeated soon enough, the GG would be had pressed not to invite Dion/Layton to form a government.

The easiest numbers are:

•	C < 154

•	L+N >C

The Liberals and NDP, *combined*, can defeat the Tories and can secure the confidence of the House – therefore they can form a fairly ‘hard’ left of centre (not just centre-left) government.

------------------

The harder numbers are:

•	C < 154

•	L+N < C

•	B < C

•	B+L+N ≥ 155

In this case life is very complex for Dion/Layton. It is one thing to join with the Bloc to defeat Harper _et al_ but it is quite another to, even just implicitly, unite with the _separatists_ – the people who want to *destroy Canada* – to govern. It is not clear to me that the risk is worth the 'rewards.' Canadians might severely punish the Liberals and NDP for being in league with the enemies of Canada.


Edit: for format and accuracy/clarity - which were sacrificed on the alter of brevity


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

Canadian leader backs visa office in Mumbai, official status for Punjabi
September 29th, 2008 - 1:32 pm ICT by IANS - 
Article Link

Toronto, Sep 29 (IANS) Canadian opposition leader Jack Layton has promised support for a new visa office in Mumbai and official status for the Punjabi language in Canada  if he becomes prime minister after the Oct 14 polls.Jack, whose New Democratic Party (NDP) has fielded a record 14 Indian Canadian candidates to woo the million-strong community, said his party will also roll back a newly passed immigration bill that the community finds discriminatory.

India will be a priority nation for his government if it comes to power and he will visit New Delhi at the earliest, Layton told IANS in an interview.

Layton noted that given the increasing influence of India in the international business and political realms and the increasing number of immigration applications in India, “it would only make sense to expand our diplomatic and administrative presence in India.

“A visa office in Mumbai is one way that increased presence could be realized and my party government will be open to studying the merits of this proposal,” Layton added.

He said that if he becomes prime minister, “I would look forward to visiting India early in my term to discuss a variety of opportunities that exist to strengthen ties between our countries”.

Layton also made clear his displeasure over a new bill that nixes India’s chances of becoming the number one source of immigration to Canada.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, I voted today.
> ...



I did too, yesterday.

I cannot think of anything that *might* happen in the last 10 days of the campaign that would cause me to change my vote:

1. I don't live in QC so I could not vote BQ even if wanted to, and I would not want to do that;
2. The Greens are a sad political joke;
3. I could not support the NDP - on too many grounds to list; and
4. While I have voted Liberal in the past, the conditions that might allow me to do so again do not exist - and those conditions go well beyond leadership or/and policy, combined.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

As quoted in the news last night, it is fairly standard, at this point in the election, for the Liberals to decry possible defeat and call all Liberals, Dippers, and other such sundry to come home and ward off the evil Conservatives........apparently it isn't working.

Let's hope so, that might allow the CPC to come up the middle of a lot of split left votes and win the seats...


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2008)

I also voted yesterday. The requirement to verify one's identity and address, and the recording of the details by the clerk writing them by pen on a form meant that it took about three minutes to process a voter from arrival at the desk to the deposit of the ballot. Given that the poll is open for a total of 24 hours over three days, that means that a maximum of 480 voters can cast their ballot at least at this polling station. Will the system be able to handle the numbers who wish to use the advance polls? I don't know, but the flow of voters was fairly steady.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2008)

More polls, but polls that may be *starting* to matter:

--------------------

Ekos offers a seat projection:

BQ:        54 (-1 from the 27 Sep 08 projection)
Cons:   *152* (+ 4 “)
Greens:   0 (NC “)
Libs:     60 (-6 “)
NDP:     41 (+3 “)
Others:   1 (NC)



> *A note on our methodology*:
> 
> This seat projection is based on the results of a recent poll conducted using Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the keypad on their phone, rather than telling them to an operator.
> 
> Taking our three-day rolling sample (September 30 – October 2) of 3,192 decided voters from across Canada, we have run them through a model that takes into account both the special arithmetic of our first-past-the-post system, and the parties’ historical patterns of support.



The latest Ekos daily tracking (of voter preference) is:

BQ: 10% (=1 from the 30 Sep 08 report)
Cons: 36% (+2 “)
Greens: 11% (+1 “)
Libs: 24% (-3 “)
NDP: 19% (NC “)

--------------------

Harris-Decima’s latest voter preference data are:

BQ: 9% (NC from the 30 Sep 08 report)
Cons: 35% (-1 “)
Greens: 13% (+2 “)
Libs: 22% (-4 “)
NDP:  20% (+2 “)

--------------------

Nanos says

BQ: 10% (NC from the 30 Sep 08 report)
Cons: 35% (-2 “)
Greens: 9% (=1 “)
Libs: 30% (+4 “)
NDP: 18% (-2 “)

--------------------

I am a little surprised that Nanos found a Liberal surge which was invisible to Ekos and Harris-Decima (in fact both saw statistically significant declines in Liberal support), but different firms poll differently – different questions and different numbers and so on – so variations are quite normal.

What we can do it track _trends_ within each poll. 


Edit: to note that this is my 4,444th post! I don't think that makes me a 'beast' or devil' but it does indicate that I spend _waaaaaay_ too much time here!
BZ! to Mike Bobbitt for running a site where we can discuss a wide range of things in a (mostly) friendly and respectful manner.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a _good news_ story from Afghanistan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081004.wafghanvoting1004/BNStory/politics/home


> Canadian soldiers turn out en masse at Afghan advance poll
> 
> BOB WEBER
> The Canadian Press
> ...




One thing surprised me just a bit:

_“All soldiers will have the opportunity to vote, except for those few who were stationed in the field during the entire polling period.”_

It’s been a long, long time but I seem to recall a general election when I had a fairly small number of people scattered over a very wide area (in a only very modestly dangerous place) but I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to make sure that every single person had an opportunity to vote. I hate to think of how much it must have cost – including a ‘rental’ helicopter – but, somehow, we (one other officer and three or four senior NCOs) managed to meet up with each guy (they were all guys) and offer each his ballot. Maybe the rules were/are different then/now. Maybe I'm misreading the article.








Captain Chris Reeves, seated at left, assists a soldier at a remote forward operating base in Afghanistan cast an advance ballot on Oct. 4 for the Oct. 14 Canadian federal election. (Bob Weber/The Canadian Press)


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2008)

I believe that, outside of Quebec, come the day, that demotivated, divided and underfunded Liberals, whose leader has endorsed the leader of a competing party, the Greens, will not turn out in the same proportion as other parties. This will drive their voter share down and could produce a Turner sized party of 40 or less.  Turner's Party included 17 Quebecers (14 Montrealers) and those seats are no longer safe.

The Dippers will hold their 17 to 20% of national market share that has been traditional and in a divided market could get Jacko up to the levels seen by Ed Broadbent.  Something on the order of 40 seats which would see them in a run with the Liberals. I don't think that strategic voters will drift to the Liberals if they don't see any advantage in that strategy.  If the Liberals can't win even with your vote then you may as well vote your conscience and at least divert your future tax dollars to your preferred party.

The Greens are a bit of a wild card.  Some of them are disaffected Liberal voters, who their leader has let off the hook by endorsing his competition, but some of them are young anarchist types and it remains to be seen if they are voters.  No track record to read there.

That leaves Conservatives, well funded, organized and motivated with a likelihood that they will outperform the polls on election day in popular vote which, in combination with vote splitting in the other camps could result in seat gains outside of Quebec.

What remains to be seen, as ever, is how Quebec votes.  This election Quebecers will be voting with their heads and not their hearts.   They will be voting their advantage - as do many others - and it will be interesting to see how they see their advantage this time.

With the Quebecers every election is like Christmas.  You don't know what you are getting until you open the package.

I think the prospects of a Conservative majority are actually pretty good - depending on what Quebec does.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

In response to the Quebec vote, journalist Belvonte (?) on Mike Duffy regularily comments on Quebec....he thinks the rural Quebec vote is pretty solid in favor of the CPC


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (5 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I believe that, outside of Quebec, come the day, that demotivated, divided and underfunded Liberals, whose leader has endorsed the leader of a competing party, the Greens, will not turn out in the same proportion as other parties. This will drive their voter share down and could produce a Turner sized party of 40 or less.  Turner's Party included 17 Quebecers (14 Montrealers) and those seats are no longer safe.
> 
> The Dippers will hold their 17 to 20% of national market share that has been traditional and in a divided market could get Jacko up to the levels seen by Ed Broadbent.  Something on the order of 40 seats which would see them in a run with the Liberals. I don't think that strategic voters will drift to the Liberals if they don't see any advantage in that strategy.  If the Liberals can't win even with your vote then you may as well vote your conscience and at least divert your future tax dollars to your preferred party.
> 
> ...



I think the tories are going to need to do damage control in Quebec. These arts cuts and proposed prison reforms didnt go over well in Quebec. It isnt hopeless yet, they still have time to repair. The chances of a tory majority are probably around 50/50. They also did well at the beginning by remaing relatively gaffe free and expousing certainty on the economy, which went over well with canadians, now hes in sweater vests and whatnot. I dont like him or his party, but id say go back to whatever he was doing at the beginning of the campaign. Hvae issues with the east, and probably his prairies base soon enough, it really depends on what happens in central canada in the not-so-distant future.

Liberals have enginnered a recipe for disaster and if they had been in an unpopular government before they would be finished. They have more or less put their campaign on a policy most regular canadians wont endorse, and one that is easy for the tories to pick apart, with party dissent, and an unpopular leader. Look at it like this, if you cant see yourself buying steak knifes off dion, do you think youd really buy a tax shift ? It has gone over especially bad with rural people. The party is also coming off as stale, somewhat arrogant, lacking new ideas, and an inability to get them across. The party has tried new ads attacking haroers history witrh the reform party, which seem to have had a bit of an effect, and they may try it further. They also have a very strong party brand. People are also afraid of a tory majority, and will blink and vote liberal.

NDP are doing rather well, but have slipped away from the uniting ed broadbent behaviour and gone to the socialist-urbanite way somewhat. Frankly, i have to say layton hasnt done bad, hes done almost everything right (except for what ive mentioned). i think he should focus his time on faultering liberal/tory/bloc seats.

Green party leader ms.may has come as articulate and knowledgable (on some issues) and did well in the debates. her party vote rate however is flat. This means that if theyre support in a aprticular region is like 12% then thats proably what the riding results will be with them. Thjey arent concentrated enough to win many, if any seats. They have to rely on "star" candidates like nagy, carr, and maybe may, but I wouldnt hold my breath on her winning in central nova. In addition, the party suffers from alientation issues with eatserners, prairies residents, and rural people in general.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2008)

Socialism Is Never Having To Say You're Responsible


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Oct 2008)

Much is being made in the media about the arts cuts and prison reform vis-a-vis Quebec. When I dig deeper, it seems that they are a factor solely in Montreal, and that rural Quebec is not the least bit concerned. Rural Quebec is where the Torries currently have their seats, so it may not make a great deal of difference on the day.


----------



## geo (5 Oct 2008)

I expect a Liberal leadership review sometime soon......


----------



## Slim (5 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> I expect a Liberal leadership review sometime soon......



...And they might think about a *POLICY* review along with it.

Times are changing in Canada it seems that the average Canadian has found a voice and won't be hoodwinked by scare tactics and cry that gun control will change the world. the Libs and their policies are (as they currently exist) a thing of the past for the next few years...Or so I hope. :cdnsalute:

Gotta love the Punjabi language an Official language of Canada! I wonder if they're going to Make '_Canadian_' an official language of the Punjab?


----------



## Hollywog (5 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Much is being made in the media about the arts cuts and prison reform vis-a-vis Quebec. When I dig deeper, it seems that they are a factor solely in Montreal, and that rural Quebec is not the least bit concerned. Rural Quebec is where the Torries currently have their seats, so it may not make a great deal of difference on the day.



Lets see would you rather have body fluid hurling tax subsidized artists who can't sell anything at a mall or,... more doctors? I think is the fundamental question.

I'd rather more doctors or tanks.  If they produced art Canadians liked they wouldn't need tax dollars People would buy what they are selling.  

Anyone remember paying for dead rabbits to be strung up in Winnipeg?  Do we need to waste tax dollars on that?  

Or to *subsidize porn* I mean if *porn* needs a handout well is it *porn* that is really worthy of tax dollars?  Arg,

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080529/ypf_film_080529/20080529?hub=TopStories&s_name=


----------



## Infanteer (5 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> Gotta love the Punjabi language an Official language of Canada! I wonder if they're going to Make '_Canadian_' an official language of the Punjab?



English is one of India's official languages.


----------



## Slim (5 Oct 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> English is one of India's official languages.



You took my point litterally...Not what I was getting at. >


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> ...And they might think about a *POLICY* review along with it.
> 
> Times are changing in Canada it seems that the average Canadian has found a voice and won't be hoodwinked by scare tactics and cry that gun control will change the world. the Libs and their policies are (as they currently exist) a thing of the past for the next few years...Or so I hope. :cdnsalute:
> 
> Gotta love the Punjabi language an Official language of Canada! I wonder if they're going to Make '_Canadian_' an official language of the Punjab?




The last _Great_ Liberal Policy Review was the _Kingston Conference_ in 1960. There were others, in Halifax in 1985 and in Alymer QC (a suburb of Ottawa) in 1991, but none had the impact of the Kingston Conference which moved the Liberal Party of Canada sharply to the left on social issues.

Nothing in the Halifax or Alymer conferences challenged the orthodoxy of Kingston in 1960. This is, probably, because, starting with the 1933 policy conference, the Liberals only confer when they have just suffered a severe electoral defeat and the aim is to find the part back to power.

I think the Liberals will be smart – they usually are – and, assuming the Conservatives and the NDP both gain at the Liberals’ expense, they will elect a new leader. If they are really smart they will postpone a serious policy conference until sometime after 2012 (assuming a Conservative majority).

If there is another Conservative minority then anew leader and a better _packaged_ message may be all they need. If there is a Conservative majority, however, then the Liberals should want to watch and see how Canadians react to a new political regime – which is something we haven’t really had since 1948. (The Conservative interregna of 1957-63 and 1980-88 were not marked by anything like a radical reform of much of anything. Diefenbaker was _sui generis_ – a prairie populist with some, until we got to know him, massive popular appeal. Brian Mulroney was, _de facto_ a Liberal who ‘took the blue’ for convenience – because the route to the top for an Anglo-Québecer was blocked in the Liberal Party.) When the Liberals can see how Canadians react to a Harper regime, which I suspect will *not* be _Liberal_ in its outlook, they can then tailor their policies to absorb whatever Canadian like about Harper’s Conservatives’ policies and combine them with an appeal to other, more popular areas.

The Kingston conference was held shortly, but not immediately after the Liberals finished a 20 year stretch in office. They needed renewal – even though Louis St Laurent had broken with many, many of King’s policies, more, perhaps, that the breaks Trudeau made with Pearson's policies or that Mulroney made with Trudeau's – and they took their time (seven years) before they got their new policies on track.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Oct 2008)

Anyone else find the NDP's ad rather ironic?

In one line they say something in the order of "Harper giving great gobs of cash to corporations".

Then at the end, Layton says the NDP will do something in the order of "giving incentives to companies to stay in Canada".

Is this not the same thing?  The only thing that I can think would be different would be the NDP would be targeting their "incentives" at heavily unionised, old inefficient industries (auto manufacturing, lumber, etc.) that are threatening to shut down.

Another note on the NDP...

Why they are not hammering the Liberals is beyond me.  People who may be thinking of voting Conservative will not vote NDP at this time.  Layton should be trying to keep his supporters from fleeing to the Liberals.  He can do this by not demonising Harper and the Tories, and by saying why the NDP is a better choice than the Liberals to oppose the Conservatives.  IMHO, Layton's attacks on the Tories will only help the Liberals.


----------



## Slim (5 Oct 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Why they are not hammering the Liberals is beyond me.



No threat from the Libs as they are not ahead probably


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Oct 2008)

DND will be callled the Department of Peace

Ms. May, you are one wonderful wack-job...... :rofl:

I guess the interview is from last week but I only saw a few minutes last night and when she said that I thought Peter Mansbridge's head was going to swivel off.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2008)

According to Newsmet the NDP has unveiled a new ad campaign aimed at the Liberals. (I saw a clip of one of the ads and it certainly goes after Dion, not Harper.) The aim is clearly to paint the Grits as bumbling, indecisive and unable or unwilling to stand up to the Conservatives. Ergo, the real opposition is Jack Layton and his band of caring social warriors. To my mind, the real aim of the ads is to deter wavering voters who are scared of the prospect of a Tory majority from casting strategic ballots, which is an euphenism for voting Liberal. This, of course, might move Layton into Storoway, and will put the Liberals in an even more precarious financial position for the next few years.


----------



## Blindspot (5 Oct 2008)

*Liberal supporters find car brakes vandalized*
Updated: Sun Oct. 05 2008 1:41:53 PM

Article Link

Vandals attacked a midtown Toronto neighbourhood this weekend, cutting off phone and cable lines, spray-painting property and cutting brake lines on a number of vehicles. 

Although there were reports the vandalism appeared to be linked to Liberal party supporters, Staff Sgt. Glenn Gray refused to confirm a motive behind the attacks, telling CTV.ca it was too early in the investigation to comment. 

However, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who represents the St. Paul's riding where the vandalism occurred, posted a note on her blog condemning the "life-threatening" acts. 

"I was sickened to hear today about several acts of vandalism involving cutting the brake lines on the cars of Liberal supporters in my riding," she wrote on Saturday. "This dangerous threat to our democracy must stop." 

About 13 homes were hit overnight on Friday. Gray said police did not receive any reports of vandalism Saturday night. All the homes were in an area between Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue, Merton Street and Eglinton Avenue East. 

Bennett said all of the homes that were hit had lawn signs showing their support for the candidate. She also said that several cars had the letter "L" scratched on them, and that her campaign's official agent was one of the people who had property vandalized. 

"(He) went through a stop sign and nearly hit a bus because he did not know that his brake lines had been cut," she said in the blog. 

She called on her supporters to be vigilant and to carry a camera to photograph anyone suspicious in their area. However, she also acknowledged the possible danger of putting a Liberal sign on a front lawn in plain site to vandals. 

"We of course understand if supporters choose to take down their signs...But we would very much like to catch the people doing these vile acts," she said. "We cannot give into these people who are putting the lives of engaged citizens at risk." 

In a news release published Sunday, she said if the attacks can't be stopped, she would work with her supporters to remove the lawn signs and ask other candidates to do the same. 

Bennett said she spent Saturday phoning her supporters to warn them of the attacks. 

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion also condemned the incident, saying in the news release that "there is no place for these types of dangerous and reckless intimidation tactics in our democracy." 

Police will step up their nightly patrol in the area, said authorities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things appear to be getting strange(r) in Toronto. I can only see two logical explanations for these tactics and one implausible. This is a tightly contested race between Liberals and NDP. CPC won't even be a factor. With that said, it is either a) a Liberal hoax, engineered to garner sympathy or b) NDP attacks. For me 'a' is sounding about the most tangible explanation.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

Conservatives fear N.L. wipeout in federal election
Updated Sun. Oct. 5 2008 10:22 AM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- A Conservative radio ad in Newfoundland provides an insight into the party's fear of being shut out from the province after the federal election. 

"We're facing big issues this election, but none bigger than whether we're going to take up our role in the next federal government," says Craig Westcott, a Tory candidate in St. John's East. 

"Voting ABC will hurt Ottawa, but it will hurt Newfoundland even more. Isolating ourselves from Canada is not an option." 

Premier Danny Williams and his so-called Anything But Conservative campaign have gnawed away at the party's foundation in the province. The co-chairman of the Conservative campaign in Newfoundland recently blamed the premier's offensive for the party's struggles in fundraising and recruiting volunteers. 

There has been growing debate on radio call-in shows on the impact of a "big goose egg," as Williams has characterized it, if the Conservatives win the Oct. 14 election but the province elects only opposition MPs. 

Williams has argued that even with federal government representation, the province has been short-changed, so he is calling on Newfoundlanders to "stand together" and oust the Conservatives. 

It is rare for a province not to elect any governing members. In seven federal elections since 1984, only two provinces have done it -- Prince Edward Island in 1988 and 2006, and Nova Scotia in 1997. 

Jeff MacLeod, a political studies professor at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, said the lack of government representation in Ottawa can have consequences for a province, such as delays in funding projects. 

"It does contribute in general to a sense of political isolation," MacLeod said. 

"Dialogue doesn't take place. You can see relationships not working and that can influence the bureaucracy and you can lose out on programs and various initiatives as a result. People are human." 

Nova Scotians rejected the Liberals in 1997 because they felt Ottawa had neglected their interests, MacLeod said. 

"Nova Scotians were annoyed, and that's putting it mildly," he said, in what could also describe a sentiment widely felt in Newfoundland and Labrador. 
More on link


----------



## JBG (5 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> Gotta love the Punjabi language an Official language of Canada! I wonder if they're going to Make '_Canadian_' an official language of the Punjab?


I wanted to take "Canadian" as my foreign language in college, to get language credit. They couldn't find an instructor.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2008)

Talking about what can or can't be done with respect to taxes and debt is meaningless without considering spending.  Debt is just a form of spending: we bought something today using money we expected to earn tomorrow.  Interest is the transaction cost of that convenience.  In some cases, that spending was an investment for which the gains outweigh the loss of interest payments; in other cases, it was consumption (flushed away).  A fact: not long after the federal deficit gap was eliminated and the revenue take ticked upward, our federal governments resumed pushing spending to higher levels.  Not all countries have taken on the same recurring spending obligations, so without identifying those it's impossible to quantify just how much a given country can really afford to trim from its tax take.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (6 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Conservatives fear N.L. wipeout in federal election
> Updated Sun. Oct. 5 2008 10:22 AM ET The Canadian Press
> Article Link
> 
> ...



fabian manning will get re-elected in avalon, he is very very popular down there.


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2008)

In stormy economic seas, put Harper at the helm of the ship of state
PRESTON MANNING From Monday's Globe and Mail October 6, 2008 at 7:03 AM EDT
Article Link

You are a Canadian voter trying to decide whom to support in the federal election. In recent days, you have seen the headlines of chaos in the financial markets. You've read about lenders tightening credit and businesses delaying plans and purchases. You've felt the cost of living, especially energy costs, rising. And you've heard the rumours of worse to come: mortgage defaults, lost homes, companies closing their doors, layoffs, runaway inflation.

So, you look at our political leaders and are left with the question: Who would be the best person at the helm of the ship of state as Canada heads into stormy economic seas?

As a former leader of the Opposition, I have met all five of the federal party leaders. I've known Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and Stéphane Dion the longest, having sat with all three in Parliament. Jack Layton and Elizabeth May I know only peripherally, but have followed their utterances and activities carefully since they assumed the leadership of their parties. Here is my personal assessment of their capacities for strong economic leadership.

Gilles Duceppe: Hopeless. He has a single-minded dedication to Quebec seceding from Canada - something that would be economically disastrous, especially now - and gets full marks for dedication to his cause. But real-world economics has never been, and never will be, Mr. Duceppe's or the Bloc's strong suit.

Elizabeth May: Strong and well meaning on the environment  - the raison d'être of her party. But weak, terribly weak, on the economy. In some future election, how to marry a genuine commitment to environmental conservation with the prerequisites for a strong economy may well be the No. 1 issue. But, unfortunately for Ms. May, and perhaps for Canada, not this time.

Jack Layton: When I listen to Mr. Layton, and hear him prescribing corporate tax hikes on the very day stock markets were crashing  to record lows, I think of two other NDP leaders: Bob Rae and Dave Barrett. One was pleasantly sincere and the other was bombastically entertaining. But both were economic disasters for their provinces - Ontario and B.C. - following outmoded anti-business, anti-investment and anti-American policies that cost their provinces capital investment, jobs and growth for years, even after disillusioned electorates had removed them from office. Mr. Layton is cut from the same cloth.

Stéphane Dion: What can one say about Mr. Dion? Whereas Mr. Harper grew up in an accountant's household, Mr. Dion grew up in an academic's household. Whereas Mr. Harper studied economics at university (writing his master's thesis on monetary policy), Mr. Dion's degrees are in political science and sociology - adequate preparation for salon politics but not for economic crises. Whereas Mr. Harper spent his initial four years in the House as an opposition finance critic, attending finance committee meetings and addressing the major fiscal and trade issues of the time, Mr. Dion's first years in Parliament were spent on constitutional issues. Whereas his concern about the environment may be sincere, the mismatched handling of environment and tax policy in his Green Shift plan underscores that economics and finance are his weaknesses, not strengths.

Stephen Harper: Of course, I am prejudiced when it comes to evaluating Mr. Harper. I hired him as the first policy chief of the Reform party while he was still a graduate student in economics at the University of Calgary. Soon after, he became the principal architect of the deficit- and debt-reduction campaign that eventually forced the Chrétien government to balance the federal budget. Elected to Parliament in 1993, Mr. Harper was a primary source of analysis of the economics of secession in the runup to the sovereignty referendum, as well as providing insightful analysis of NAFTA. No major economic issue in the Western world over the past 20 years has escaped his attention. And since becoming Prime Minister, he has proven his ability to more than hold his own in economic discussions with other world leaders.

Whether you agree with the particular positions of his party or his government, when it comes to having a background, a foundation and a grasp of economic issues in all their bewildering complexity, surely it must be acknowledged that Mr. Harper surpasses any other federal party leader.
If you have a heart problem, you go to a cardiologist. If you have an abscessed tooth, you go to a dentist. If the biggest challenges facing your country are economic, who should you put in charge?
End of article

My emphasis


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2008)

Harper: Tories will act on banks, if needed
Conservatives also offer sweetner on child care program 
STEVEN CHASE AND TENILLE BONOGUORE Globe and Mail Update October 6, 2008 at 9:27 AM EDT
Article Link

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he has plans to help Canada's banking system if the U.S.-led financial meltdown spills over heavily into this country's lending and deposit taking institutions.

But he did not elaborate on the proposal, put forward with one week left in the federal election campaign.

Mr. Harper said Canada still does not have a crisis in its financial and banking sector, but said Ottawa has secondary plans in place for the banking sector.

The main concern he said is the tightening around the world of lenders' willingness to extend credit.

It was as close as Mr. Harper has come to admitting that Canada could face financial system trouble as a result of the credit meltdown plaguing the United States.

The statements came as the Conservative leader pledged to modestly sweeten the $1,200 per year Universal Child Care Benefit during a campaign stop in Nepean, just outside Ottawa.

“The contrast is very clear. The opposition parties say they want to do more. What they want to do more of is spending and taxing,” Mr. Harper said. “Our policies are appropriate for this period.”

That is yet to be seen. The Conservatives will release their platform tomorrow, one week before the Oct. 14 vote.

While Canada is in a relatively good position compared to some other nations, Mr. Harper acknowledged the country “is not an island”.

“We can't pretend that we will escape the effects of world developments,” he said.
More on link


----------



## Sheerin (6 Oct 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> *Liberal supporters find car brakes vandalized*
> Updated: Sun Oct. 05 2008 1:41:53 PM
> 
> Article Link
> ...



To suggest that this is a 'hoax' by the liberal party to garner support is idiotic at best, and at worst incredibly insulting.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2008)

I personally can't see it being a 'hoax'...and if it is then someone will going to jail for it from the party. I believe that one of the Liberal support workers was almost involved in a car crash due to cut brake lines on his POMV.

That goes way beyond bickering political parties and the sympathy that it would generate is not, to my mind, commensurate with the potential damage that it almost caused.

my 2 pennies


----------



## Sheerin (6 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> I personally can't see it being a 'hoax'...and if it is then someone will going to jail for it from the party. I believe that one of the Liberal support workers was almost involved in a car crash due to cut brake lines on his POMV.
> 
> That goes way beyond bickering political parties and the sympathy that it would generate is not, to my mind, commensurate with the potential damage that it almost caused.
> 
> my 2 pennies



I cannot fathom this being done with the knowledge of any of the political parties, let alone being condoned by them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2008)

New polls

--------------------

Ekos notes that a small fluctuation in polling numbers can make a big diference in seat projections and offers this revised one:

BQ:  58 (+4 from the 3 Oct projection)
Cons: *130 (-22 “ )*  
Greens:  0 (NC " )
Libs: 78 (+18 “ )  
NDP:  42 (+1 “ )
Other: 1 (NC)

The Ekos daily tracking data that caused those changes is:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 35% (-1 “ )
Greens: 10% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+1 “)
NDP: 19% (NC)

-------------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Drop urther

BQ: 8% (-1 from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 32% (-3 “ )
Greens: 12% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+3 “ )
NDP: 21% (+1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 7% (-2 “ )
Libs: 30% (NC “ )
NDP: 19% (+1 “ )

--------------------

I would better understand the *Ekos* seat projection if it was based upon the *Harris-Decima* data; but what the polls do tell us, with some consistency, is:

•	The Conservatives are in decline. They have one week of campaigning within which to stop that decline and then reverse it if they really want hat majority;

•	The Greens are also in decline – doubtless the first victim of the Liberal and NDP _strategic voting_ campaigns - but how far down can one go from zero? and

•	The Liberals and NDP are engaged in a real fight for second place and the keys to _Stornoway_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2008)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ amplifies the polling data just a bit, maybe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.welectiongta06/BNStory/politics/home


> Tories see support growing in Toronto suburbs
> 
> JENNIFER LEWINGTON
> 
> ...



The 905 belt was the core of Mike Harris’ success 1995 and ’99.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (6 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> New polls
> 
> --------------------
> 
> ...



take into account they are probably losing support in ridings that never really vote for them anyways


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> take into account they are probably losing support in ridings that never really vote for them anyways



Polls always kill me.

Besides your point above - there's always the fact that one actually has to get off the couch, go to the polling station, and cast their vote for any of the parties rather than just answer the phone for a pollster.

We'll soon be hearing of all the buses, vans etc being laid on by the parties to get their "faithful" transported to the booths on the 14th.

Who wants to bet what the the numbers will be for the percentage of eligible voters who actually get out and do their civic duty? I'm wagering it's short of the 65% turn out of 2006. There are a great many "vocal" Canadians who turn apathetic of election day.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2008)

Well...

I'm proud to say that I have voted today at one of the advance voting stations set up near home.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2008)

Slim said:
			
		

> Well...
> 
> I'm proud to say that I have voted today at one of the advance voting stations set up near home.



Hehehe. I voted last week at the advance poll here on base. I wanted to write my own name in. > - then at least I could say honestly "in a Federal Election someone voted for me", but hell - figured then they'd have my name ... and what with actually running for federal office being an offense for serving members - I disregarded the option that my red hair was striving for. After a mere 2 minutes of pondering "my name or his" - I wrote in his - figured it would be better spent that way.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2008)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, could signal a big problem for the Liberals – at least a very unwelcome distraction from a campaign that is, finally, starting to work as planned:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.welectionmartin07/BNStory/Front


> Leak of Martin memoirs sends Liberals scrambling
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> 
> ...



The Chrétien/Martin civil-war still rages, but it’s not, really, a Chrétien/Martin war, it is much older: it is, at least, a Trudeau/Turner civil-war.

Back around 1967 John Turner made his first run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada but it was too soon and Pierre Trudeau was too popular and too French and the Party has a long established tradition (policy) of alternating English and French speaking leaders.* He served in both Mike Pearson’s and Pierre Trudeau’s cabinet – in very senior appointments (Justice and Finance) in the Trudeau government – but his disagreements with Trudeau’s political philosophy (far to the left, farther left than planned by the Kingston Conference (1960)) and policies were deep and bitter and he resigned from cabinet and politics in 1975.

The Trudeau/Turner wars continued in the 1984 Liberal leadership convention when Turner defeated Trudeau acolyte Jean Chrétien. But it was a pyrrhic victory, Liberals, dutifully, kept to the alternating rule but the _Trudeauites_ gave fair warning to Turner than he would not have their support when, at the end of the process, then Liberal Party President (and former Trudeau minister) Iona Campagnolo said of Chrétien that  he was “second on the ballot, but first in our hearts.” It was a signal to all Liberals that Turner and his _conservative_ policies were damaged goods.

In 1990 Chrétien won the Liberal Party leadership, defeating the ‘ideological heir’ to St Laurent, Pearson and Turner: Paul Martin.

And so it goes, on and on, and on ... until, I suppose, Pierre Trudeau haunts the Liberals no more.†


--------------------
* Blake (1880), _Laurier_ (1887), King (1919), _St Laurent_ (1948), Pearson (1958), _Trudeau_ (1968), Turner (1984), _Chrétien_ (1990), Martin (2003) and _Dion_ (2006) – interim leaders (McKenzie in 1919 and Graham in 2006) don’t count
† See: http://www.canadiancontent.net/people/politics/Pierre-Trudeau.html - 2nd paragraph


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2008)

Rather curious, what sides do Mr Dion, Bob Rae and Micheal Ignattief fit in the Liberal "civil war"

As for Mr Martin's Memoirs, I expect to see the CPC and the NDP making a lot of hay over this, the CPC to stop the bleeding and the NDP to eat the Liberal's lunch and put Smilin' (Taliban) Jack in as Leader of the Opposition.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

Interesting heading on National Citizens Coalition's email's header (click on picture to enlarge it and activate it)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Rather curious, what sides do Mr Dion, Bob Rae and Micheal Ignattief fit in the Liberal "civil war"
> ...




Dion and Rae are, I think, squarely in the Trudeau/Chrétien camp – both by inclination and experience/loyalty.

Ignatieff appears to be a more nuanced person – even after he tosses aside his principles and worships at the alter of _Trudeaumania_.

Consider this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wcoadams07/BNStory/politics/home


> How conservative are Canadians?
> 
> MICHAEL ADAMS
> 
> ...



I think Adams is right and I’m guessing that Michael Ignatieff (like most of us here) falls rather neatly under the centre of his (Adam's) bell curve:

•	We are, by and large, fiscal conservatives – we expect the government of the day to manage the economy (our money, after all) in a prudent manner – a large political plus for Stephen Harper. I'm guessing that, despite his public comments, Ignatieff falls into this camp;

•	Equally by and large, but to a lesser degree, we are social liberals – we tend to ‘live and let live’ even when our own personal, private values are offended by the actions of others – a moderate political minus for Harper because many Canadians suspect that he is a closet social conservative. I'm certain this (social liberal) view describes Ignatieff; and

•	Many, but by no means most of us are wary of the power of markets – many agree that the state can use the market to promote _equality_ but at least as many believe that _equality_ can only be advanced by lawful individual actions – a political _wash_, I think: no advantage for anyone. I'm not sure where Ignatieff sits on this but my guess would be that he tends to the _individualistic_ point of view.

Ignatieff used to be a fiscal black hole – he had no discernable interest in economics, nor did he display any strong (published) opinion on those issues. Until, that is, he ran for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership when he proposed to campaign “on the left” in order to regain power. This appeared to many, including many Liberals, to be a cynical attempt to join the _Trudeaumania_ wing of the Party where, many Liberals felt, he did not belong because of his recent philosophical musings on the use of American power.

For me, the most significant and illuminating thing about Ignatieff is his biography of Isaiah Berlin. I do not claim to have read everything Ignatieff has written, not even most of it, but I have read some and _Isaiah Berlin_ is an outstanding piece of work and, again and again, as is so often the case in really first rate biographies, the author’s (Ignatieff’s) views are clear and, like his subject, he makes a resounding defence of _classical_ liberal values. Those values are decidedly a odds with almost everything for which Trudeau stood. Ignatieffwas not an anti-Trudeau, he was, like most _classical liberals_ about 90° (rather than 180°) out of phase with him (Trudeau).

Thus, I’m guessing that Ignatieff is in the St Laurent/Turner/Martin camp – a _traditional_ Liberal, in other words, with some quite _liberal_ values.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

Military spending
Where the parties stand on the big-ticket items
Last Updated: Monday, October 6, 2008
Article Link

We are involved in a war in Afghanistan, and it's not cheap. But by most accounts, we have a well-equipped military in the war zone, after defence spending almost doubled in 10 years.

The days of an under-equipped Canadian military seem over, but they came with a price: the annual budget for the military in 2008 is slightly more than $18 billion, up from slightly more than $9.92 billion in 1997-98 (with the actual expenditure turning out to be $10.12 billion). The cost of the mission in Afghanistan up to 2011 should be released shortly, and there are many numbers out there — all guesses so far — ranging from $4 billion to $22 billion.

Equipping the Afghanistan mission has moved along fairly smoothly (including purchasing high-tech unmanned aerial vehicles and tanks), but in other areas of the military, there have been some big blips, particularly when it comes to procuring helicopters as well as new Arctic patrol vessels and search and rescue ships, all of which are outstanding.

Late in the summer, for example, the Conservatives announced that the $340-million plan to purchase patrol vessels for the coast guard was put on hold "because the bid prices exceeded the anticipated cost," according to Public Works. As well, a $2.9-billion plan to build two supply ships was also put on hold.

When the election campaign turns to defence, much of the focus has been on what our role is in Afghanistan (where we have been since 2002) and what's going to happen after 2011, when our military operations there are supposed to cease.

But military spending itself is an important and obvious issue when looking at how governments spend and budget, especially so when one considers the dozens of communities that rely on this type of spending, either because a base is in the community or a local industry helps supply the Defence Department.

The recent problems in the world economy may make some military supporters wonder if the money earmarked for the Armed Forces is safe, whether the budget is an easy target for cuts, as it once was. That is up in the air in these uncertain times.

An upward trend
Military spending in Canada is clearly on an upward trend.

"Since Sept. 11, 2001, Canada's military spending has increased by 27 per cent, and after the next two years of planned increases, will be 37 per cent higher than 2000-01," according to a 2007 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The group said: "Canada is the 13th highest military spender in the world this year, up from 16th. Within the 26-member NATO alliance, Canada has moved from 7th to 6th highest military spender, dollar for dollar."

With that in mind, we take a look at where the parties stand on defence spending and plans for the future.

Conservatives

The Conservatives have painted themselves as friends of the military and the numbers appear to support that.

They have promised a budget boost of $12 billion over 20 years beginning in 2011-12 and have produced a document titled Canada First that addresses everything from military equipment needs and Arctic sovereignty to border defence. They have also promised to boost capital spending by between $45 billion and $50 billion.

Among the big-ticket items: $250 billion over the 20-year period on personnel, with the military's numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members (currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.); $140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment and $40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure. As part of that, CFB Trenton in Ontario will get a $500-million facelift.
More on link


----------



## Shec (7 Oct 2008)

And in his government's first defence procurement Prime Minister Layton announced the proposed acquisition of 33 million flags, white, various sizes, Canadians for the use of.

Seriously, I find it curious that defending Canada is the last of his 3 defence priorities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2008)

Here is the Conservative Party’s platform.

This, from pages 29 and 30, is what Harper has to say about national defence - generally, Afghanistan - in particular, and veterans:

--------------------​
_Building on the Canada First Defence Strategy_


A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue rebuilding the Canadian Forces and providing the equipment that our Navy, Army and Air Force require. We are committed to a Canada First Defence Strategy that will provide predictable growth for Canada's defence budget, increase the size of our forces to 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserves. The Strategy will also invest $45 to $50 billion over the next 20 years in the purchase of major equipment, including replacements for our destroyers and frigates, maritime patrol, search and rescue, fighter aircraft and land vehicle fleets.

We will ensure that we acquire the ships, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment our Forces need in a manner that ensures our troops have the best possible equipment and that taxpayers' dollars are prudently spent. A re-elected Conservative Government will leverage these dramatic increases in defence procurement to ensure that new high technology jobs are created in Canada through a combination of buying Canadian-made defence equipment and securing high-value industrial benefits when equipment is purchased abroad.

_Supporting Canada's Mission in Afghanistan_

A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue to support Canada's military and development mission in Afghanistan and will respect the terms of the Parliamentary resolution passed in March, 2008. Under this resolution, Canada's military mission in Kandahar will continue until July, 2011 now that that NATO and allied forces have agreed to provide additional troops and resources in Kandahar.

Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will cease by the end of 2011.

_Supporting Canada's Veterans_

A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue to improve the lives of Canada's veterans. We will:

•	Restore Veterans Allowances for veterans living in Canada for more than 10 years who fought for Commonwealth or Allied Forces during World War II or the Korean War.

•	Increase funeral and burial assistance rates for veterans to bring the rates for veterans in line with those of active duty Canadian Forces and RCMP officers.

--------------------​

That’s pretty much it: 335± words, including titles.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

It's far and away better than the alternatives offered by the opposition parties en masse.....


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

Harper unveils Tory platform in Toronto

Video Link


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2008)

So at the end of the day our choices boil down to the following:

Two professional academics (Dion, Layton), a lawyer (May), or an economist (Harper). With global financial challenges facing us, I know who I would choose.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2008)

Polls again.

--------------------

Ekos says:

Tories retain significant lead

BQ: 10% (NC from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 11% (+1 “ )
Libs: 25% (NC “ )
NDP: 20% (+1 “ )

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives at 31, Gap Narrows to 5 Points

BQ: 8% (NC from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 31% (-1 “ )
Greens: 13%  (+1 “ )
Libs: 26% (+1 “ )
NDP: 21% (NC “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Election race tightens

BQ: 11% (+1 from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 34% (NC “ )
Greens: 6% (-1 “ )
Libs: 31% (+1 “ )
NDP: 18% (-1 “ )

--------------------

These kinds of small changes – not statistically significant – mean that the race remains stalled. The Conservatives have somewhere between 28 and 37%; the Liberals are somewhere between 22 and 34% and the NDP are somewhere between 15 and 24%. All that means:

•	We’re likely to have a Conservative minority government again and it *might* be smaller than today. But, we still *might* get a very bare Conservative majority;

•	The Liberals may “win” by having more seats than they do today. But, it is equally likely that the Liberals will fall to 40± seats; and

•	The NDP might actually beat the Liberals in the seat count and become the official opposition. But, it is more likely that they will remain mired in 3rd place.


----------



## Rodahn (7 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So at the end of the day our choices boil down to the following:
> 
> Two professional academics (Dion, Layton), a lawyer (May), or an economist (Harper). With global financial challenges facing us, I know who I would choose.



Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.

If the green shift is being used simply as a tax grab then yes I oppose it, however if it causes our lifestyle to wake up, then I for one would be for it, given the neutral tax benefit. 

Bottom line, this ain't the 50/60's anymore, and this is the only planet we currently have. We as the dominant species have to look after it, 'cause we got no where else to go.

To bury ones head in the sand (when other economists disagree) with the current economic landscape is inane in my opinion.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

I still wander away from all these polls with the feeling that there is much, much more support for the conservatives than is showing up in the polls...


----------



## Rodahn (7 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I still wander away from all these polls with the feeling that there is much, much more support for the conservatives than is showing up in the polls...



I'm not so sure about this at the moment, given the current economic climate in Ontario and Quebec... Mr. Harper appears to have disenfranchised them.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.



Yes, but Sweden and Denmark would fit in the palm of your hand. Canada's challenge is our diverse geography. It takes a great deal of energy to move people and material across this land of ours. Not that I disagree with your later statements, just that using these countries as an example is a little unjust. 



> If the green shift is being used simply as a tax grab then yes I oppose it, however if it causes our lifestyle to wake up, then I for one would be for it, given the neutral tax benefit.



Therein lies the flaw in the plan. The Liberals in their own material expect to generate 40B in tax revenue, but refund only 26B. Where is the other 14B going?

What I would rather see than a tax are tax breaks for green initiatives. The breaks could be offered to both business and individuals so that any investment in green technology results in some form of tax reduction. For example, a company could install 100K worth of pollution control measures, and receive a 100K tax deduction. An individual can spend 6K on new, energy efficient windows and get a 6K tax deduction. I think that any measure that is all stick and no carrot is destined for failure.



> To bury ones head in the sand (when other economists disagree) with the current economic landscape is inane in my opinion.



There's an old saying that if you put 6 economists in a room they'll generate 7 opinions. My recollection is that 3 banks said recession,  and 3 said downturn. Which side do you think the media focused on. Personally, I agree with Mr Harper. I think that our banks are reasonably protected from the mortgage problems of the US. I also think that given the government's positive balance sheet and steady financial policy will insulate us from the worst of the damage. What I'm seeing is a panicked sell-off. My advice would be to buy some of those shares now... they're on sale! We all know that the markets go down much less frequently than they go up, and that the losses of yesterday will more than be made up tomorrow. When the dust settles, those that held their investments will likely be better off because they will have taken the opportunity to acquire more equity at a discount.


Edit for clarity.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Therein lies the flaw in the plan. The Liberals in their own material expect to generate 40B in tax revenue, but refund only 26B. Where is the other 14B going?



May I ask where you get your figures from?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.



The European tax model is a VAT or sales tax that puts the costs directly to the end consumer, while the "Green Shaft Shift" is directed at producers (who of course can choose not to produce in Canada), and is also designed to appeal to regional voting blocks (i.e stick it to Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are Liberal deserts, in order to buy votes in Ontario and Quebec).

The other thing which differentiates the two models is the "Green Shaft Shift" siphons monies out of the productive economy and channels it to welfare ('social programs') which consume wealth rather than create it. The Nordic nations are generally using their tax receipts to invest and create real assets (think of a "sovereign wealth fund"), and ultimately reducing taxes as their governments earn income from these assets.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> May I ask where you get your figures from?



Well, I'll admit I can't attribute my comment to a source. None the less, they've already dipped into the tax revenue to fund social programmes.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Oct 2008)

Before you jump on the green band wagon take a real good look at Germany.  They claim that they have created thousands of green jobs but in actuality, their industries are exiting in droves and the jobs created are on life support by the government.  They cannot stand on their own.  Electricity is about to go through the roof in any country that cannot count on either water or nuclear.  The economics of green is simple: transfer the factories to a 3rd world country i.e. China or pay Angola billions in credits to enable current production to continue.  Europe is about to feel a real big hurt and it can be greatly attributed to green.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2008)

A carbon tax, the core of Dion’s Green Shaft Shift, is a consumption tax and, therefore, is a *good thing* IF:

• It applies to all carbon emissions; and

• It is applied, à la the GST, at every step of the process including at the pump and home heating fuel tank – and refunded to the intermediate ‘processors,’ again à la the GST.

The Liberal Green Shaft Shift meets neither of those conditions. It is a *bad thing*.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Well, I'll admit I can't attribute my comment to a source. None the less, they've already dipped into the tax revenue to fund social programmes.



And where does any government get the funding for social programs?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2008)

And still more polls:

--------------------

Angus Reid says:

 Tories Outside Majority Territory as Liberals Leave NDP Behind

BQ: 9%
Cons: 35%
Greens: 10%  =>  no recent Angus Reid polls to show trends
Libs: 27%
NDP: 18%

--------------------


Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives at 31, Gap is 4 points

BQ: 8% (NC from the 7 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 31% (NC “ )
Greens: 12% (-1 “ )
Libs: 27% (+1 “ )
NDP: 20% (-1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Election race remains close, Tory lead holds at 4 points

BQ: 7% (-4 from the 7 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 33% (-1% “ )
Greens: 11% (+5 “ )
Libs: 29% (-2% “ )
NDP: 20% (+2 %)

--------------------


I may have messed up the _Nanos_ figures yesterday – that would explain the _turbulence_ in the BQ and Green numbers.

Overall: Harper is either stalled, deep in minority territory, or is actually losing ground as Canadians are reminded of how much they dislike him.

Being “liked” is a funny thing.

Canadians hardly knew King – _communications_ were poor and slow. What they knew they didn’t much like but they kept voting for him. Canadians *liked* St Laurent – he ushered in the age of _mass media_ – and they re-elected him a couple of times. Canadians *liked* Diefenbaker – until they got to know him. Canadians also *liked* Pearson – but they never gave him a majority government. Maybe it was more respect that affection. Canadians *loved* Trudeau and, simultaneously *hated* him – but here was no real affection, not à la St Laurent and Pearson. Canadians *disliked* Mulroney. They *liked* Chrétien. Canadians *dislike* Harper.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> And where does any government get the funding for social programs?



Yes, from tax revenues, however it is bad finance to fund programs from a tax that is designed to decrease as time goes on. If the Green Shaft Shift tax is successful in reducing carbon emissions, then it will have the net effect of reducing the income it returns to the government. In addition, we were promised the tax would be revenue neutral. I am presuming that most of us infer that to mean that as much tax will be refunded to consumers as is collected from polluters. My other problems stem from the obvious requirement to increase bureaucracy in order to administer and control this money flowing from one hand to the other. Where is the funding for that coming from?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, from tax revenues, however it is bad finance to fund programs from a tax that is designed to decrease as time goes on. If the Green Shaft Shift tax is successful in reducing carbon emissions, then it will have the net effect of reducing the income it returns to the government. In addition, we were promised the tax would be revenue neutral. I am presuming that most of us infer that to mean that as much tax will be refunded to consumers as is collected from polluters. My other problems stem from the obvious requirement to increase bureaucracy in order to administer and control this money flowing from one hand to the other. Where is the funding for that coming from?



Stop that; you're using *logic and facts* again. This is not permitted when discussing "Progressive" ideas. *You have been warned*


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2008)

We have seen various artist screaming "censorship", and it is true....

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=011a1893-ae23-4af4-ba0c-59ff265a5ee3



> *Artists themselves are the real 'censors'*
> Peer review groups that dole out arts grants keep things in the family
> 
> LICIA CORBELLA
> ...



We can fight the censors by making donations to Garth, or better yet, demanding these documentaries be shown on "public" channels like CBC and TVO, and buying the DVD's if they exist. It is long past time that a supposedly mature and profitable industry (claimed revenues @ $8 billion) is taken off the public funding trough, and artists could be able to appeal to a wide range of potential patrons, not just their buddies and bureaucrats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

Here reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and mail_ is an uncharacteristically optimistic look at Tory fortunes:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081008.welxnanalysis09/BNStory/politics/home


> How Harper can stay the course and prevail
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI AND CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...




Kevin Page’s report may also be an opportunity for Harper to argue that he has been moving away from the old, Liberal systems of bookkeeping and towards a modern, businesslike accounting system.

The Tory challenge is:

•	‘Soften’ Harper’s uncaring image – it cannot be replaced because he is who he is, and Canadians know it – but here is more to the man that just the fellow whose only ‘programme’ for about-to-be unemployed Canadians is “buy low, while the market’s down;”

•	Emphasize the *risks* inherent in Dion’s plans – ignore Layton, he’s an ally right now;

•	Remind Torontonians and Vancouverites that gunfights on their streets are all too prevalent.

It’s late; but not too late, perhaps ...


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2008)

National Post Editorial Board: A Conservative majority serves Canada's needs
Posted: October 08, 2008, 9:30 AM by Kelly McParland Editorial, Full Comment, canadian election
Article Link

 Last month, Stéphane Dion called the upcoming federal election “among the most important in the history of our country.” He may be right. Next week’s vote will determine whether Canada’s tax system is overhauled through the imposition of a massive levy on carbon-based fuels; the nature of our continuing presence in Afghanistan; and how our government will respond to the historic meltdown unfolding in financial markets. Faced with these high stakes, we believe, Canada would be best served if Stephen Harper’s Conservative government were to receive a second mandate, this time in majority form.

We have no illusions that Mr. Harper’s government has been perfect. It’s decision to tax income trusts, in particular, stands as a bald-faced betrayal of its earlier promise on the issue. Moreover, Mr. Harper did not make any serious attempt to clean up some of the more appalling residue left behind by previous governments -- the gun registry, the gag law, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. We also have been disillusioned by the Conservatives’ continual spending increases, Mr. Harper’s flouting of his own fixed election date, and the petty, partisan spirit that often has pervaded Parliament under the Tories’ watch. 

But given the huge range of other activities undertaken in the course of leading Canada, it must be said that Mr. Harper has governed the country well overall. He has stuck by Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, provided sound stewardship for the economy (notwithstanding the inevitable buffeting we are now taking thanks to Wall Street’s meltdown), managed the Quebec file well, returned Canada-U.S. relations to their normal level of amity, lowered taxes, and implemented a number of welcome tweaks to our criminal justice system. 

Most importantly of all, Mr. Harper has avoided the temptation to impose any large-scale Trudeauvian social-engineering schemes on the country, of the type the Liberals seem to cook up every few years. Yesterday’s Tory platform, largely a rehash of previous announcements, is admirable stingy. It contains no multi-billion-dollar pharmacare program, no federally micromanaged daycare, no new National Energy Program. And for that, Canadians should be thankful.

This brings us to the main reason why we cannot endorse the Liberals. Putting aside Stéphane Dion’s reflexive leftward tilt on everything from foreign affairs to social issues, his “Green Shift” carbon-tax scheme is, by itself, enough to persuade us that he is the wrong man to be running this country. As our banking and financial-services sectors become strained by the worldwide credit crunch, this country is increasingly dependant on our oil and gas sector to sustain us through rough waters. Yet these are exactly the industries Mr. Dion wants to soak. 

We also are not impressed by Mr. Dion’s plan -- and general attitude -- in regard to Canada’s economic challenges. In recent days, he truly has sounded like a hysteric, trying to convince Canadians that our relatively sound economy is on the brink of a cataclysmic depression. There is no evidence of this: Indeed, the latest economic numbers on jobs and growth are excellent. And as a stack of reports from our major banks attest, the fundamentals of our real estate market bear no comparison to America’s sub-prime mess. Indeed, the only thing that could tip this country into full-blown depression is wide-scale investor panic of the type Mr. Dion seems intent on fomenting.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a column by Lawrence Martin that shows the sort of domestic political insight that makes him worth reading:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081009.COMARTIN09/TPStory/TPComment/?query=


> And the winner is ... the party that cuts a deal
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



I described, a few days ago the conditions that might, in very late 2008 or early 2009, lead to a new, Dion government – without another election.

If situation 1 (Liberals + NDP > Conservatives) then I would not be surprised to see Harper’s government fall on the vote to adopt the Throne Speech, later this fall. I would then expect a Liberal/NDP *coalition* – with a few NDP members in cabinet and joint caucus meetings to keep the troops in line. I cannot see any reason for Jack Layton to settle for less. If Dion is as power-hungry as I think – he needs to gain power to keep his job – the he only has two choices: NDP or Bloc. He is all too aware that *both* the Conservatives and the NDP will heap scorn and ridicule on him if the Party of Trudeau and Chrétien crawls into bed with the separatists – and it will stick, too.

If situation 2 prevails (Liberals + NDP < Conservatives, but Liberals + NDP + Bloc > Conservatives) then, for the reason I cited above, I think Dion may join with the Bloc and NDP to defeat Harper but he will try to govern, alone, on a vote-by-vote basis, with Bloc and NDP support. In that case he would not want a coalition with the NDP because they, alone, cannot guarantee him power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ are Jeffrey Simpson’s views:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081009.COSIMP09/TPStory/TPComment/?query=


> Why Canadian politics will never be the same
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




While I agree with Simpson re Québec being a _demandeur_ rather than a participant in the political process, I doubt that we are headed for a very long period of coalition managed minorities. 

I suspect there are only 35 to 40 *hard* separatist _demandeaur_ seats in Québec; the other 35 or 40 can split, fairly evenly, between the Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are unlikely to lose their stranglehold on 20± of Atlantic Canada’s 32 seats just as the Conservatives have a very, very good chance of winning 70± of the 95 seats West of Ontario. That means that Ontario’s 106 seats become critical – and Jean Chrétien won three successive majorities by ‘owning’ Ontario.

The Liberals can get majority after majority with 25 Atlantic seats, 20 Québec seats, 15 seats West of Ontario and, therefore, 95 of Ontario’s 106 seats.

The Conservatives can win with 10 Atlantic seats, 15 Québec seats, 70 seats West of Ontario and 60 Ontario seats.

One of those two possibilities is, in my opinion, the mos likely result of the next general election.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Oct 2008)

The only thing Harper can hope for now is a weak minority, he slipped the tongue these past few days and it hurt his numbers. If he had  kept his mouth shut and stop talking about his mother or how Canadians could get bargains in the stock market right now (true as that may be), that's the last thing people want to hear if this chaotic financial environment. he may of had a chance, but now its a bit to late, because the others parties have used this in whatever way they can to gain the advantage and the cracks in his campaign are getting wider.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2008)

I read one blog which suggested a grand coalition between the CPC and Liberals here. I suspect this would be far more palatable for either party than letting the NDP or Bloc or (shudder) the Greens anywhere near the levers of power.

A secondary suggestion might be to have a coalition cabinet: leading Liberals invited to assist the government during the crisis with an agreement to dissolve the arrangement once the crisis is over (although given FDR's interventions made the Great Depression even greater, this could be a long time with a Democratic Administration or Congress at the wheel in the United States).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

A new day: new polls.

--------------------

Ekos says:

Tories Fighting Regional Battles But Winning Nationally

BQ: 10% (NC from the 7 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 35% (+1 “ ) (_Ekos_ have the Tories at 33% to 36% for the entire election campaign) 
Greens: 11% (NC “ )
Libs: 24% (-1 “ ) (_Ekos_ have the Grits at 24% to 26% for the entire election campaign)
NDP: 20% (NC “ )

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Stabilize, Lead by 5

BQ: 8% (NC from the 8 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 32% (+1 “ ) (_Harris-Decima_ have had the Tories at 31% (yesterday) to 41 a month ago)
Greens: 12% (NC “ )
Libs: 27% (NC “ ) (_Harris-Decima_ have had the Liberals at 23% to 28%)
NDP: 19% (-1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Status quo overnight, Tories hold on to 4 point lead

BQ: 10% (+2 from the 8 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 33% (NC “ ) (_Nanos_ has had the Tories at 32% to 40% during the campaign)
Greens: 7% (-4 “ )
Libs: 29% (NC “ ) (_Nanos_ has had the Grits at 24% to 35% during the campaign)
NDP: 20% (NC “ )

--------------------

So, except for the _Nanos_ reporting of the BQ and Green numbers (not my transcription), essentially a no change day – despite all the economic bad news. Ho-hum.  :boring:


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2008)

Andrew Coyne coming out is support of Harper? Almost "Alice in Wonderlandish". He does do a good job of showing people what the stock market is doing to them.

*The only thing they have to fear*
By Andrew Coyne October 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm Posted to: Andrew Coyne's Blog, 
Article Link

I didn’t care much for Stephen Harper’s accusation, earlier in the campaign, that the opposition were cheering for a recession. At the time, it seemed like a cheap shot. But the longer this goes on, the more I’m starting to think there’s something in it. The Liberals are now trying to make a “gaffe” of Harper’s perfectly sensible observation that the present panic on the stock markets presents a remarkable buying opportunity, for those with cooler heads. Stephane Dion, in particular, was quick to denounce the advice as “so insensitive.” 

I’m sorry? How? What would they have him say? Sell? Take your lumps? Do nothing? You can only call it “insensitive” if you are bound and determined that nothing should break the spell of panic that now grips the country — that no possibility of an upside should be allowed to intrude. Just so long as cooler heads do not prevail.

This is demagoguery of the worst sort. And I don’t just mean that nothing about the present state of the Canadian economy justifies lumping it in with the United States or Europe, still less invoking the ghost of R. B. Bennett. We have not suffered a real estate crash, nor are we likely to; we have not seen a single financial institution go under, nor is any likely to; we did not have anything like the sub-prime mortgage mess; nor do we have the institutional equivalents of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns — large, highly-leveraged, stand-alone investment banks without the backing of a chartered bank.

But that’s not what distinguishes the opposition demagoguery in this case. It isn’t that they’re fear-mongers: it’s that, having mongered such fears, they do not propose to do anything about them. Sensibly enough — the problems of the Canadian economy, such as they are, find their origins outside our borders, and will find their solutions there. But it’s the height of hypocrisy, whaling away at the government for doing nothing while offering precisely the same themselves. The 85 lefty economists who signed that letter demanding the government go into deficit and otherwise “stimulate” the economy might have been out to lunch, but they were at least putting their names on the line, and exposing their proposals to public criticism. The opposition are taking no such risk, or responsibility.

So. We are not in a depression. We are not even, so far as anyone knows, in a recession. And while the rest of the world’s financial system dissolves in panic, Canada remains a notable island of stability. We do not have an emergency on our hands. What we have is a nasty downdraft in the stock market — one that is reflective of a deeper crisis, to be sure, but a crisis not of our making.

Is a 35% drop in the stock market (from its June peak) a crisis in itself? No it is not. The stock market does not owe you a living. It’s down 35% from four months ago, but it was up 50% in the three years before that (see chart). The present “crisis” has taken prices on the TSE all the way back to where they were in the dark days of 2005 — when they had just finished climbing 50% in two years. Think back to that time. You were rich! You were happy! You were counting your money!

Maybe you should have sold then. But you didn’t, because you wanted more. Now you’re paying the price. You’ve given up three years of gains. But you’re still up 50% from where you were five years ago. And, if you’re sensible, you’ll make up for not selling then by buying now. Those who were on the buy side on October 19, 1987 made a killing in the months that followed. 

Not willing to risk it? Fine. Just sit tight. Worried about your retirement? If you’re anywhere under 55, you’ll be fine. You don’t need the money for 10 or 15 years. Stocks will have more than recouped their losses by then (at a compound annual growth rate of 5%, you double your money every 14 years). If you’re over 55 — what are you doing in the stock market? 

This bears emphasis: If you’re old enough to be worried about your stocks, you’re too old to own them. Stocks earn more in the long term, because they’re riskier in the short term. You should be heavily in stocks when you’re young, because you’re not going to need the money any time soon. But you should be gradually shifting into safer investments — bonds, T-bills — as you get older. By the time you’re of retirement age, they should be only a small part of your portfolio. That’s not complicated. It doesn’t take a PhD or a high-powered investment adviser. It’s just common sense. 

So when the Liberals invoke the pensioner who’s lost half of his savings in the stock market plunge, you have to ask: what was he thinking? To be sure, on this one point the Grits have actually proposed something creative — allowing pensioners to keep their investments in their RRIFs a while longer, rather than being forced to sell at these prices in order to make the required withdrawals on the usual schedule. 

But at some point, people have to take a little responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, we have the individual version of moral hazard: everyone has a great ride on the stock market on the way up, but comes crying to government to bail them out when things turn south.
More on link


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2008)

John Ivison: Dionmania and the Spruce Goose -- two ideas that just won't fly
Posted: October 09, 2008, 6:30 PM by Kelly McParland 
Article Link

HALIFAX • Dion-mania, a three-day-old irrational exuberance that results in its victims believing Stéphane Dion might actually become Prime Minister, started to wane yesterday, in direct proportion to the stability returning temporarily to some stock markets. 

You could see reality dawning on those in the audience at the Halifax Chamber of Commerce yesterday who started to notice inconsistencies between the world the Liberal leader inhabits and the one where they live. 

Assertion after unchallenged assertion created a picture of the sunny uplands to which a Dion government would lead Canadians. But there seemed to be a sense in the crowd that it was all too good to be true. Increasing government spending at a time when your tax revenues are drying up has the same logic to most people as putting your foot on the gas as you hurtle towards a brick-wall. 

Mr. Dion claims that his plan would “unleash” a welter of economic opportunies. “Two hundred and thirty of Canada’s leading economists have written a letter advocating for the principles of the Green Shift...They have all said this is good for the economy and good for the environment. Good for your wallet and good for the planet,” he said yesterday. 

Not quite. While the economists did say that government should put a price on carbon, they admitted that “substantive action will involve economic costs”, not financial benefits. 
More on link


----------



## TCBF (9 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> John Ivison: Dionmania and the Spruce Goose -- two ideas that just won't fly
> Posted: October 09, 2008, 6:30 PM by Kelly McParland
> Article Link
> ... Mr. Dion claims that his plan would “unleash” a welter of economic opportunies. ...
> More on link



- The 'opportunities' he speaks of are the lavishly-funded bureaucracies, consulting firms, and advisory panels 'administering' the application of these funds.  Needless to say, they will all be staffed with campaign workers and the party-connected.  Immigration and Refugee Board, anyone?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Oct 2008)

I've been holding off making a prediction.  Looking at the fractured left combined with the solid centrist Conservatives, I foresee a majority for Stephen Harper et al.  With regional representation, national numbers can be misleading.  Myabe it's wishful thinking on my part, maybe it's my spider senses, but this is my prediction.  Come Next Wednesday, I'll know if I was right or wrong.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2008)

Maybe spiders in empathy, but I too have the same feeling.....it still feels like there is massive Conservative support out there.....


----------



## TCBF (10 Oct 2008)

- A future majority government might get support, but will it get the votes it needs to become a majority?  How many out there will just believe it will happen and not bother?  Nothing beats organization at the grass roots level.  Remember "Landslide Annie" and her teams? She won in 93 by ONE VOTE (grew to 12 after the re-count) and in 2000, TWO radio stations declared her opponent the victor - prematurely. Seems the old-folks polling stations votes got counted last, and who was getting them out to the polls?  "Need a ride, Ma'am?" Organization pays.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (10 Oct 2008)

> I've been holding off making a prediction.  Looking at the fractured left combined with the solid centrist Conservatives, I foresee a majority for Stephen Harper et al.  With regional representation, national numbers can be misleading.  Myabe it's wishful thinking on my part, maybe it's my spider senses, but this is my prediction.  Come Next Wednesday, I'll know if I was right or wrong.



Please can you pass over what ever your smoking, must be some good stuff.

 A majority may have been in the stars two weeks ago, but now the world economic crisis has lifted it's ugly head out of the ashes that was the world economy and blasted that "majority" all to hell. Along with tongue tied comments like "now is a good time to buy stock" or don't panic it will all be OK". Or the interview with Mansbridge Wednesday night when he said, two minorities in a row is a warning to the opposition and in itself is a majority", come on, with comments like that, he's starting to sound as flabbergasted as Stephan Dion. He's all but lost Quebec on the arts cutbacks and throwing 14 year olds into jails, (petty as these things may sound), but they are all important matters to quebecors and Ducceppe made sure of that earlier last week. 

When he released his platform on Tuesday all he said over and over again is "lets be clear, we intend to keep on doing the same thing we've been doing for the past 2 1/2 years and that's making sure that Canada's fundamentals are sound". We all heard that line 4 weeks ago, please tell us something we don't know, enlighten us.  

Then he comes out and says the world economic crisis won't be to bad on Canada and just a day later Flaherty comes back and says just the opposite, that we're in for much darker times, that shows that the farmer doesn't know were all his cows are or that Flaherty has aspirations of his own of moving up the food chain. People are scared right now, so to tell them not to panic, is not a very bright idea, especially not during a global financial meltdown. People are worried and for good reason and his off comments are just going to hurt him at the polls.

On October 14Th , people are going to be looking for one thing from a leader "empathy" they want assurances that the government will help them through these hard times and whatever party can show that they can deliver that result will come out ahead. So far he's shown resolve and restraint, but he hasn't shown much empathy or given very many assurances and those are the weaknesses that the opposition parties are capitalizing on right now and hoping he will continue doing.  

So roll me one of those doobies, I could sure use some inspiration right about now. hell, after this past week I think Harper could probably use one to, it may help him have pleasant dreams of that majority.


----------



## TCBF (10 Oct 2008)

- The facts:
1. The USA has practically nationalized it's mortgage market.
2. Britain has partially nationalized it's banking sector.
3. Spain has created an $80 billion bail out fund.
4. The EU can't decide on what to do.
5. France has imposed resrtictions on executive pay.
6. Iceland has pleaded for an emergency loan from Russia! (Perhaps with basing priveledges?)
7. Canada...   Canada... ugh, Canada....   what was the question?  Canada had a functioning set of safeguards in place and our banks are now buying foriegn institutions at firesale prices.  Meanwhile, the NDP and Liberals are squeeling gloom and doom.  Where do they live? ICELAND?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Please can you pass over what ever your smoking, must be some good stuff.
> 
> \\\\\\\
> 
> So roll me one of those doobies, I could sure use some inspiration right about now. hell, after this past week I think Harper could probably use one to, it may help him have pleasant dreams of that majority.



Well, I am in Afghanistan, and there is plenty of illicit stuff growing all around, so...

But in all seriousness, I think that in the final few days, Harper just has to point South, East and West and say "We were prepared thanks to our (read: the conservatives') actions.  If you want continued stability, vote Conservative".  I think in the end, people vote with their wallets, not their hearts.  People already know Stephen Harper to be a bit of a social dud.  But, when it comes to "Hands in our Pockets", they would rather Stephen Harper et al, not the tax and spend liberals, especially when one looks to Europe, Asia and the USA and see nothing but chaos.

Anyway, just my thoughts.  I will watch nervously on Tuesday evening (Wednesday am here) to see if my dope is really that good!

Cheers!


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2008)

Well, Harper is learning, albeit the hard way, but after awhile you learn what and how to say things, and what not....by 2015 he should have it down pat and everybody will be simply amazed at how astute a politician he is.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is that journal’s endorsement of a party and leader:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.weelection2008/BNStory/politics


> * GLOBE EDITORIAL*
> 
> Harper is growing into the job
> 
> ...



It is woth noting that the _Good Grey Globe_ is not a *Tory rag*. It’s own published record is:

•	2006: Globe endorses Harper and Tories 
•	2004: Globe endorses Martin and Liberals 
•	2000: Globe endorses Paul Martin, not Chrétien or Day

This is a qualified endorsement. The _Globe’s_ editorial board takes issues with Harper’s Conservatives on a variety of issues from _Aboriginals_ to _China_. But, that being said, the _Globe and Mail_ endorses Harper and the Tories, perhaps as the best of a bad lot, but mainly because Harper is a competent manager, not an ideologue.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2008)

I have noticed that in the last while, as the prospect of Dion gaining support enough to challenge Harper, suddenly staid "liberal" media outlets (except the CBC), have begun to turn the theme of their articles towards Harper, and that maybe he isn't so bad after all.....this is done with enough panache that they can criticize him handily once the election is done and over with.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

Harper has *one weekend*, including the Sunday he habitually “takes off” for a rest/family time, to parlay this ‘good news’ – reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ – into votes:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wjobs1010/BNStory/Business/home


> September employment soars unexpectedly
> 
> HEATHER SCOFFIELD
> 
> ...




It is not too late to remind Canadians that:

•	Liberals lie – Dion _et al_ are spreading false rumours and inciting panic, *pushing Canada down*, in their efforts to frighten voters away from good, sound, prudent, factually based crisis management; and

•	Harper’s leadership and management *work* for ‘ordinary Canadians’!


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

These two items, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, ought not to come as a surprise – the _Post_ is, after all, a _Tory rag_ despite the deep Liberal roots of the Aspers – but they are worth a read because they are *TRUE*:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=871656


> Panic-mongers
> 
> *National Post*
> 
> ...




*Panic* is Canada’s enemy and, through Stéphane Dion, the  Liberal Party of Canada campaign office is spreading panic: hurting, rather than helping, our country.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/10/david-asper-liberals-ndp-steal-a-page-from-chicken-little.aspx


> David Asper:
> Liberals, NDP steal a page from Chicken Little
> 
> Posted: October 10, 2008, 8:04 AM by Kelly McParland
> ...




Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Finally, of course, the _National Post_ endorses the Conservatives, saying _”Like all elections, this one presents Canadians with a choice between imperfect options. But on balance, the Conservatives are clearly the best choice for this country. We urge our readers to vote accordingly on Oct. 14.”_ -  but who would have expected anything less?


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (10 Oct 2008)

The latest story seems to be the YouTube video of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrliDQs1Jps&feature=bz301">Dion interview</a> that is in the news this morning...

*Tone gets nasty as campaign nears day of decision * 
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081010/delection/fedelxn_main
By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
OTTAWA - The argument over the state of the Canadian economy is taking on a sharply personal tone as the federal election campaign speeds toward the day of reckoning. 


Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pointing to a bungled English-language interview by Stephane Dion as proof that the Liberal leader doesn't have what it takes to cope with the current financial crisis. 

The Liberals retort that Harper is taking a cheap shot at a man whose English is imperfect, and who has a hearing disability to boot. 
The row was sparked by an interview Thursday in which Dion complained he didn't understand the opening question and asked to start over. 

It took three false starts before he finally solved the problem by repeating the 30-day economic action plan he's been touting for the last week. 

Harper pounced on the incident after a day that had been marked by more bad news for his Conservative campaign. 

It started with a report by Parliament's budget officer warning that the cost of the Canadian military deployment to Afghanistan could reach $18 billion - far above the $8 billion the prime minister had claimed. 

That was followed by another day of falling stock prices and further losses by the Canadian dollar on international markets. 

All eyes will turn Thursday to the latest unemployment figures due to be released by Statistics Canada. Analysts have been split in recent days on what the numbers will show, with some predicting little change and others fearing more job losses. 

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will have his say on that and a variety of other issues at an Ottawa news conference, his second in as many days in an effort to allay public concern. 

Harper and Dion will be barnstorming through vote-rich southern Ontario with just four days of campaigning left until next Tuesday's vote. 

Jack Layton of the NDP will start the day in Toronto before moving on to western Quebec, while Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe will be in the Montreal area. 

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be in Nova Scotia, where she's been concentrating on trying to win her own seat ever since the televised campaign debates a week ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

And, before I go off to run the morning’s errands, another bit of *TRUTH*, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.wreynolds1010/BNStory/robColumnsBlogs/home


> One can only hope Harper responds like Bennett
> 
> NEIL REYNOLDS
> 
> ...




Two points:

•	_”The demagogue as [is] a politician who says what he knows to be untrue to people he knows to be idiots”_ – that’s Jack Layton in spades; and

•	Harper _”has been much more disciplined this time out, promising a dime for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's dollar. Contrary to Mr. Layton's libel, Mr. Harper has calmly coped with the ominous approach of what may very well be dark days ahead.”_

Both are true


----------



## Kalatzi (10 Oct 2008)

Semi last chance prediction. 

Liberal majority

Long weekend here and in the states, so markets likely to continue to go south in a big way. 

Huge problems for whoever gets in. 

Happy thanksgiving!


----------



## Rodahn (10 Oct 2008)

No bailout for the banks according to the PM, and yet according to the following article the government is buying $25 billion in mortgages.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n101027A.xml


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Oct 2008)

So Many Votes; So Little Intelligence.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (10 Oct 2008)

> Well, I am in Afghanistan, and there is plenty of illicit stuff growing all around, so...



Happy Thanks giving brother, we're all thinking of you guys over there, stay safe.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Oct 2008)

My unscientific impression after years of being a political junky, is that too many Canadians who bother to vote, use their vote tactically i.e.” I’m alright Jack, what’s in it for me?”,  rather than strategically,  “What’s good for Canada”.  

“Québec being a demandeur rather than a participant in the political process”? I fully believe in that statement. It is too bad that the feelings/wants of Quebec get in the way of what is best for Canada due to the number of parliamentary seats there.
  
Quebec voters have bled every national political party dry, then created their own national political party, while continuing to bleed the other national political parties dry. They are like the energizer bunny, they keep going and going. More power to them I guess. It works, but this is the “I’m alright Jack” principal. 

Ontario is somewhat the same. Think about it, Dion as PM, Bob Rae as Finance Minister, and McCallum as Treasury Board!!! And people in Ontario want to vote Liberal??? It’s a free country.

So Harper is cold, so what. Does Canada want a dither as PM? We already had him with all his number one priorities. 

I am opinionated. I am also a card carrying Conservative.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> No bailout for the banks according to the PM, and yet according to the following article the government is buying $25 billion in mortgages.
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n101027A.xml



The government is reacting to the global credit crunch, as the LIBOR goes through the roof. They have not nationalized the banks or the debt, nor does it seem they will have to unless global conditions worsen considerably. Remembering history, FDR's massive interventions created the "Great Depression" out of what would probably have been a market correction followed by a recession, so whoever is PM on the 15th better have a contingency plan in place if there is a Democrat Administration in the United States.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2008)

Preparation is the key; while the "Progressive" parties cry like Chicken Little, the government was taking steps a year ago to deal with this issue. I notice for all the fearmongering, I still have no idea what the NDP, Greens or Bloc intend to do about the global financial crisis:

http://www.clangmann.net/?p=142



> *On the Economy, Harper Was Right: The Oracle Project*
> Filed under: Harper, economics, politics — langmann @ 12:38 pm
> 
> A list of newspaper articles demonstrates Harper’s prescience one year ago.
> ...



The problem is that the government has not communicated clearly on the economy, as well as on other issues, with the consequent inability to frame or express the issues at election time.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> No bailout for the banks according to the PM, and yet according to the following article the government is buying $25 billion in mortgages.
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n101027A.xml



Yes, but unlike the mortgages in the US, ours are not in default. What the government is doing, is injecting cash into the banking system so that banks can execute loans to Canadians. One of the effects of the credit crunch is that of supply and demand. There is a far greater demand for cash now as US and European banks hoard cash to prevent "runs" on their banks. The result is a drop in the available cash for Canadian banks.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2008)

The way it was just explained on a CTV clip, the government will purchase mortgages from the banks to ensure the banks are capitalized enough to make loans, etc...I assume the government just collects on the mortgages until they are renewed with whomever....


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The way it was just explained on a CTV clip, the government will purchase mortgages from the banks to ensure the banks are capitalized enough to make loans, etc...I assume the government just collects on the mortgages until they are renewed with whomever....



Exactly! The government even stands to make a profit because it will cost less to finance these mortgages than they paid for them.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The way it was just explained on a CTV clip, the government will purchase mortgages from the banks to ensure the banks are capitalized enough to make loans, etc...I assume the government just collects on the mortgages until they are renewed with whomever....



They are covering the Mortgage Insurance, not collecting mortgages.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are covering the Mortgage Insurance, not collecting mortgages.



seen


----------



## Rodahn (10 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are covering the Mortgage Insurance, not collecting mortgages.



Not according to this....

The government moved to lubricate a rapidly congealing credit market by swapping $25 billion in mortgage assets with Canada's big banks - a move the prime minister billed as necessary, sensible and risk-free.

Link to article here.....

http://www.680news.com/news/national/more.jsp?content=n1010105A


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

New polls as we get closer and closer to the end.

--------------------

Ekos says:
SEAT PROJECTION - OCTOBER 10, 2008
Tories Once gain Knocking on Door of Majority

BQ: 57 seats (-1 from the 6 Oct 08 projection)
Cons: *152 seats (+22 “ )*
Greens: 0 seats (NC “ )
Libs: *60 seats (-18 “ )*
NDP: 39 seats (-3 “ )
Other: 0 seats (-1 “)

The Ekos data that provoked this major change is:

Conservative Lead Grows as Canadians Expect 2nd Harper Government

BQ: 10% (NC from the 9 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 36% (+1 “ )
Greens: 11% (NC “ )
Libs: 24% (NC “ )
NDP: 19% (-1 “ )

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservative Support Firms, Lead by 8

BQ: 9% (=1 from the 9 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 34% (+2 “ )
Greens: 12% (+1 “ )
Libs: 26% (-1 “ )
NDP: 18% (-1 % )

--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ:  10% (NC from the 9 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 33% (NC “ )
Greens: 8% (+1 “ )
Libs: 27% (-2 “ )
NDP: 22% (+2 )

--------------------

All I can _divine_ from all this is that the Liberals’ frantic attempt to woo NDP and Green voters is not working.

Just one or two more polls to go.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Oct 2008)

Is there not a restriction on publishing poll results in the last few days of an election campaign? Or have I been listening to the little voices in my head; the same ones that tell me not to go to work and instead stay home and clean my guns?


----------



## Rodahn (10 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Is there not a restriction on publishing poll results in the last few days of an election campaign? Or have I been listening to the little voices in my head; the same ones that tell me not to go to work and instead stay home and clean my guns?



 :rofl: 

We must have the same sort of little voices... I'm thinking about a combined low wire entanglement and minefield.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Is there not a restriction on publishing poll results in the last few days of an election campaign? Or have I been listening to the little voices in my head; the same ones that tell me not to go to work and instead stay home and clean my guns?



There *was*, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember how long it was (does 48 hours sound right?) or even if it is still in place.

Anyone? Bueller ... anyone?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Not according to this....
> 
> The government moved to lubricate a rapidly congealing credit market by swapping $25 billion in mortgage assets with Canada's big banks - a move the prime minister billed as necessary, sensible and risk-free.
> 
> ...



Not being an Accountant or Financial guru, but:  $25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper



> "We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks."
> 
> Earlier in the day, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced the government's plan to buy the securities through the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. and provide much-needed cash to financial institutions that sell the so-called "National Housing Act mortgage-backed securities."
> 
> ...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (10 Oct 2008)

I haven't posted here for a while...

1)  Opinion Poll Blackout:  http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-877/1998rcs1-877.html  But for a really fun read http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=leg/fel&lang=e&textonly=false  


2) Mr. Dion's supposed flub during the interview.,..  http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/10/10/198100.aspx it has a full clip of it.  I love how the reporter says "I'm okay to start again"  then says "oh I shouldn't have agreed to start over"

Now,  grammatically the question doesn't make sense.  It really doesn't. It has logical issues - if you were now something that were were being what would you do different from what now had been done"  (now say that in french)    This really was a misunderstanding and god knows we've heard PM Harper's french... 

Which reminds me,  Stephen Harper pounced on that flub like a drowning man grabs a life preserver.  


3)  The recent action of a $25-billion backstop for the banks,  despite Mr Layton's opposition will benefit the kitchen table.  The cost of borrowing money has gone up for the banks,  this action is a quick cheep way for the government to help lower the bank's costs of borrowing money.  Upon the announcement the interest rates the banks lend out at went down - that helps the economy.  I think it was an innovative and creative solution,  paired with the lowering of the interest rate from the central banks will be like pouring gasoline on a fire.


----------



## Celticgirl (10 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Now,  grammatically the question doesn't make sense.  It really doesn't. It has logical issues - if you were now something that were were being what would you do different from what now had been done"  (now say that in french)    This really was a misunderstanding and god knows we've heard PM Harper's french...



Having taught English (including grammar) for more than 7 years, I am going to have to disagree with you. The question was posed using the second conditional - also known as "unreal" conditional. That is to say that it's not possible or real, just hypothetical. E.g. "If I were you, I would not have done that."  In this example, I am not you nor can I be you. Stephane Dion is not the Prime Minister, nor can he be in this exact moment. It's a hypothetical situation, and personally, I thought it to be a legitimate question (and not a confusing one at all). Dion has been criticizing Harper left and right for not doing enough in the wake of this financial crisis. Ergo, it is only reasonable to ask _what he would have done differently_ in Harper's situation.



> Which reminds me,  Stephen Harper pounced on that flub like a drowning man grabs a life preserver.



In all honesty, I would have, too! (if I were Stephen Harper.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2008)

I agree with Celticgirl.

"If you were the Prime Minister now, what would you have already done, in this crisis, that Mr. Harper has not done?" is a clear enough question. The journalist even said, a one point, "hypothetically." I'm not sure why Dion was confused but he was - that was clear enough, too.

Perhaps he's just tired but, equally, perhaps, he has never thought about what he would have done, in the past few weeks - in other words perhaps he hasn't bothered to analyse the situation facing Canada today.


----------



## Rodahn (11 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not being an Accountant or Financial guru, but:  $25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper



Fair enough George; however should the government not get the finacial backing that they are seeking; where does the $25 bilion come from?
According to world reports our banks are in great shape, why do they need this much cash inlux, from the government? BTW we as a country only have a 2.5 billion dollar projected surplus, what is to happen should this not be the case?


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2008)

The 25 billion is simply Harper's answer to the clamoring left wanting him to do something......so he made sure the banks were well capitalized


----------



## Rodahn (11 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The 25 billion is simply Harper's answer to the clamoring left wanting him to do something......so he made sure the banks were well capitalized



But where is the funding coming from? That is the penultimate question.


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> But where is the funding coming from? That is the penultimate question.



We have a machine that prints it.


----------



## Rodahn (11 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> We have a machine that prints it.



Riiiight, just like happened in the depression!


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> But where is the funding coming from? That is the penultimate question.



It's an asset swap. The money is coming from the government and CMHC.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (11 Oct 2008)

Its called deficit spending. Buy now pay later, or rather they spend now, "we" pay later. Just add this latest amount to the tab and we'll see how much tax relief we get when the tab comes due. "Nada" . Its almost as good as having a platinum visa card, feels good when your spending, hurts like hell when you have to pay it back. Or they can go the other way, slash social programs, health care, child care and still give the tax cuts, either way the tax payer is on the hoof for the bill.

Your going to see more of this before this crisis is over and any government that claims this won't push them into a deficit, is lying.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2008)

Oh my lord, people. Read the freakin article. It's money we already have. What has happened, is that the goverment (and CMHC) have invested in Canadian homeowners. By purchasing these mortgages, they've injected sorely needed cash into the banking system. Unlike the US, our government has bought good quality instruments that will make money.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (11 Oct 2008)

> Oh my lord, people. Read the freakin article. It's money we already have. What has happened, is that the goverment (and CMHC) have invested in Canadian homeowners. By purchasing these mortgages, they've injected sorely needed cash into the banking system. Unlike the US, our government has bought good quality instruments that will make money.



I read the article.

Riiight and you really believe that, don't be so naive. You think that pulling 25 big ones out of a hat is money they just happened to have sitting around, "no" its money that was probably taken from future spending, because up until this past week Harper said himself, he would not have to give the banks anything. You think the government had a crystal ball a year ago and seen this crisis coming and just so happened to set a side, Oh $25,000,000,000.00 for this very reason. Hogwash! Governments most of the time can't see past their own noses, let alone see a train wreck like this coming down the tracks.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (11 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Having taught English (including grammar) for more than 7 years, I am going to have to disagree with you.



 :rofl:  When will that be?  


Well if I had done things I am going to do before I will have already will have done them,  I will, having done things differently than I will have, have done things differently.  How many of you understood that,  how many of you could do that in French?  (This is playing differently in the east than in the west.)  All I'm hearing is about the ethics of the reporter,  how Harper showed how he can't stop himself from going for the jugular, and how would you say that in french.  (I couldn't do it on the spot)

Agreeing to purchase high quality commercial paper is not something that will affect future federal spending in a huge way.  Remember we just gave 50 Billion in cooperate tax cuts.  (and now the tax code is over intergrated which will result in some interesting tax loopholes - other accountants just giggled reading that)

*silly ramble*
It is interesting though how 'troubled economic times' actually helped the Liberals.  Remember out west the Liberals destroyed the economy, where as out east it is know that Tory times are tough times.  The Conservatives have dropped the ball in Quebec and with Harper's latest gaff, kinda sealed the deal.  In Ontario they will loose seats... I think we are looking at PM Dion without an NDP balance of power....


----------



## Blindspot (11 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> All I'm hearing is about the ethics of the reporter,  how Harper showed how he can't stop himself from going for the jugular, and how would you say that in french.  (I couldn't do it on the spot)



I watched that on the CBC too. Funny how they only showed a portion of the clip which didn't make him look like that much of a bafoon and then the panel all piled on Harper. Maybe you should've watched Mike Duffy.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Well if I had done things I am going to do before I will have already will have done them,  I will, having done things differently than I will have, have done things differently.  How many of you understood that,  how many of you could do that in French?  (This is playing differently in the east than in the west.)  All I'm hearing is about the ethics of the reporter,  how Harper showed how he can't stop himself from going for the jugular, and how would you say that in french.  (I couldn't do it on the spot)


Nobody asked M. Dion to say anything in English.  They asked him a question in English.  The question should be this: pose the same question, in french, to Mr. Harper, and watch his response.

Now, to satiate the masses, here's my attempt:
"Si vous etiez le premier ministre maintenant, qu'est-ce que vous aviez fait en reponse de la crise economique?"

I don't know if that's close, but heck, if it is: whatever.  I'm not running for PM.  And as I recall, Mr. Harper's french is actually quite good and surprised a bunch of Quebecois reporters back in 2004 when he first ran against Mr. Martin.

Anyway, I counter your PM Dion prediction with a CPC majority prediction (I think we're both on the dope!)  :rofl:


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2008)

Conservatives' fate could hinge on Ontario vote  
Updated Fri. Oct. 10 2008 10:04 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

With just days remaining before Canadians go to the polls, Ontario is looking more and more like the battleground where the election race will be won, or lost. 

A Strategic Counsel poll finds that 37 per cent of Ontarians would vote for the Conservatives if the election were held today, while 32 per cent indicated they would support the Liberals. 

The New Democrats would take 20 per cent of the vote while the Green Party would receive 11 per cent. 

The detailed polling by The Strategic Counsel was conducted from Oct. 7 to Oct. 9 for CTV and the Globe and Mail. 

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion all hammered their messages home on the Ontario hustings on Friday. 

Following are the results when Ontarians were asked how they would vote if the election was held today, compared to the 2006 election result, which is in brackets. 

Conservative: 37 per cent (35 per cent) 
Liberal: 32 per cent (40 per cent) 
NDP: 20 per cent (18 per cent) 
Green Party: 11 per cent (5 per cent) 

When broken down by region, the Conservatives were strongest in towns and rural areas, with 43 per cent support from respondents in those areas. 

Liberals had 36 per cent, the NDP 13 per cent and the Greens nine per cent in towns and rural areas. 

In urban areas, the Liberals had an advantage with 30 per cent support, while the Conservatives had 26 per cent, the NDP 23 per cent and the Greens had a strong 21 per cent. 

In Toronto's 416 area-code, the poll results showed the Conservatives up to 29 per cent, a gain of five points from the 2006 election. The Liberals, by comparison, are now at 39 per cent, a drop from 51 per cent in the 2006 election. 

However, the Strategic Counsel's Peter Donolo said it is still a stretch to assume the Conservatives will actually gain seats Canada's largest city. 

In the 905 area code or the South Central region of Ontario surrounding Toronto, the Conservatives polled at 40 per cent, one point above their 2006 result. The Liberals' dropped from 44 per cent down to 33 per cent, with the Greens gaining seven points and the NDP gaining three points. 

Much of that Tory strength is due to the Conservatives work in targeting minority groups and new Canadians. 

When the results were tracked by gender, the Conservatives were stronger among men, with 40 per. But they also held the lead among women voters -- suggesting the Liberals have lost much of their historic grip on the female vote. 

Following are the results when results were broken down by gender: 

Among male voters: 

Conservative: 40 per cent 
Liberal: 33 per cent 
NDP: 16 per cent 
Green Party: 11 per cent 

Among female voters: 


Conservative: 34 per cent 
Liberal: 31 per cent 
NDP: 24 per cent 
Green Party: 11 per cent 

When tracked by age, the Greens and NDP found most of their support among young people between 18 and 34. However, that age group is historically the least likely to show up at the polls. 


When categorized by age, education, household income and gender, the Conservatives have the edge in all categories. 


The Conservatives also have a lead among religious voters and those who own their own home, according to the poll. But they were in a virtual tie with the Liberals among visible minorities -- a demographic the party has targeted. 


Though the Green Party has enjoyed its highest poll numbers yet, 44 per cent of their supporters somewhat likely to very likely to change their preference on election day. 


Conservative supporters are the most solid in the province, with only 19 per cent somewhat or very likely to switch their vote, however. 


Technical notes: 


The Strategic Counsel is pleased to present findings of a survey of 1,000 Ontarians. 

Results are based on random samples of adults 18 years of age or older in each of the 106 ridings in Ontario. Results were weighted by age and region to be proportionate to the provincial population. 

Interviews were conducted between October 7th and October 9th, 2008. 

Note: Proportions may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 

Regional and Demographic Breakdowns 
Sample Size and Margin of error:

Ontario: 1,000 - 3.1% 
Toronto: 230 - 6.5% 
South Central Ontario: 250 - 6.2% 
South Central Ontario (inner 905): 150 -8.0% 
South Central Ontario (Outer Suburbs): 100 - 9.8% 
South Western Ontario: 300 - 5.7% 
South Western Ontario (Cities): 140 - 8.3% 
South Western Ontario (Towns & Rural): 160 - 7.8% 
South Eastern Ontario: 190 - 7.1% 
Northern Ontario: 90 - 10.3% 
Conservative Ridings: 400 - 4.9% 
Liberal Ridings: 540 - 4.2% 
NDP Ridings: 120 - 9.0% 
Note: Because of the smaller sample size, the margin of error for demographic breakdowns is significantly larger than for the overall percentages. 

End


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is another *editorial board* endorsement of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=2c2083b9-4d72-4fe3-874f-2b00eba5d867


> It is about leadership
> 
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

And yet another endorsement for Harper’s Conservatives. This one is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Montreal Gazette_:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=842b61df-7004-4cfb-9f61-513309031805


> Conservatives are our best bet in troubled times
> 
> The Gazette
> 
> ...





It’s not clear, not to me, anyway, how much ‘good’ these endorsements do, but parties work hard for them so I’m guessing that they may _swing_ a few votes and that *might* make a difference in a few close ridings.

In this campaign, one characterized by some commentators as exceptionally boring, some voters may decide to vote for _a_ or _b_ at the very last minute and the local newspaper’s editorial position might influence that choice.

At the very least, editorial support should help, just a wee bit, to reduce the _scary_ image of Harper’s Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Not surprisingly, given the paper’s obligation to adhere to the Atkison Principles, the Toronto Star endores Stéphane Dion’s Liberals in this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from today’s _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/515895	


> Star's choice: Dion, Liberals
> 
> Oct 11, 2008 04:30 AM
> 
> ...



This is an effective _critique_ of Harper and his policies. I, obviously, do not find it persuasive but hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of Canadians will agree with the Red Star.

Equally well done is the plea to vote _strategically_, despite Jack Layton’s acknowledged personal _charisma_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Finally, my last endorsement, bringing together Canada’s four largest cities, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Vancouver Sun_, is that paper’s endorsement of Harper’s Tories:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=17bb47c2-8415-47a8-8711-bd772cb3fb5a


> Stephen Harper is our choice for the rough road
> *The economic squeeze we're feeling puts the emphasis on needing a government that can best manage the economy*
> 
> Vancouver Sun
> ...





This is an effective counter to the points (well) made by the _Toronto_ Red _Star_.


----------



## Celticgirl (11 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> :rofl:  When will that be?


 
Right now. I'm sorry, but you've just failed my grammar class. There's the door. Don't let it hit your  > on the way out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an article that expands a bit upon the one GAP posted earlier today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.welectionpoll11/BNStory/politics/home


> Tories' lead picking up steam
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> ...



Harper has two real *working days* – today and tomorrow – to convince a great many Canadians to decide, over their Thanksgiving dinners, to vote Conservative – if he really wants that majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Another day, another poll, this time reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=873860


> Tory minority seems likely, latest poll shows
> 
> Norma Greenaway, Canwest News Service
> 
> ...



It appears that Harper’s _empathy_ problem is worth 2 or 3 points, nationally.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is Don Martin’s take on the Conservative campaign:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=874165


> Once invincible Tories fail to take stock
> *How a rout became a bout*
> 
> Don Martin, National Post
> ...




Yet another credible observer says that Harper's personality, the lack of _empathy_ thing again - what Martin alls his "natural aloofness," is going to cost him votes.

Martin’s overall assessment, _”Quebec is a write-off for new seats ... little prospect of gains in Ontario, likely losses in Newfoundland and a lot of uncertainty in British Columbia,”_ *seems*, to me, a little out of synch with the polls, but we’ll all know Tuesday night, wont we?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2008)

What I find most useful about ongoing events is that the government is executing reasonable, perhaps even inspired, plans to deal with the credit crunch while in the final stages of an election.  It is dealing with a crisis and election at the same time with no sign of panic (unlike some nations).  When the $25B mortgage purchase plan was announced, I read one response from Dion that amounted to a snide whine rather than admitting the idea was a good one.  The responsible and calm government is the one I want on Oct 15.

AIUI - and I am interested in doing so properly, so would appreciate corrections/clarifications from anyone who understands it better:

1) One of the key factors in the current economic mess is that those who have money to lend are reluctant to lend/spend it today in case they need the money if someone calls in an obligation tomorrow.  (Shades of 1930's.)  The inability to borrow is what is crashing some institutions - they can't borrow to cover emergent obligations.

2) Mortgages are receivable assets on a bank's books, but can't be called in on short notice.  The principal and earnings (interest) are expected to trickle back in over a long time.  All the capital the banks have tied up in mortgages is money they can't access quickly, and therefore can't lend out - unless they sell the mortgages to someone else.  But, again, who is willing to tie up their own cash-on-hand in mortgages right now?

3) The government is using the CMHC to buy CMHC-backed (insured) mortgages.  Example: if you take out a mortgage and your down payment on the property is insufficiently large, you will be required to buy a policy with CMHC.  The bank's capital (your mortgage) is protected; the CMHC is the backer; you get the money you need.  In effect, the CMHC (federal government) is already exposed to any of these mortgages which might default.  Buying these mortgages amounts to being in the mortgage business and self-insuring (which is the same as a bank granting a mortgage with no other security than the property itself).

4) So the CMHC get mortgages (receivable assets) in exchange for cash.  The banks are able to convert nearly immovable assets into movable ones (cash, and whatever financial instruments they obtain with the cash), which effectively injects the money into the general credit pool, thereby mitigating the problem described at (1) - the illiquidity of mortgages in the general market is overcome.  The federal government, which has the deepest pockets around and is effectively the single agent no-one expects to default on obligations except in the most horrible and unimaginable crises, is the lender of last resort.  The federal government will over the long term realize a profit (interest on mortgages) unless the mortgages it bought really tank.  But, again, the government is already exposed to that risk for these particular mortgages.

5) The interesting question remains: from where does the $25B come?  The feds didn't have a $25B contingency pool lying around, nor a massive projected financial surplus.  From what the reports stated, it is done in the usual way: issue federal bonds, or convert other assets.  If the interest the government will have to pay out to the bond holders etc is less than the gains realized from the mortgage, the federal government profits.

6) But, referring back to (1), who had money available to lend to the federal government?  I assume the answer to this is: everyone.  The money is out there, but people and institutions are reluctant to commit it and uninterested in buying illiquid assets.  The answer - I suppose - is that a federal government bond is easily tradable/salable, and doesn't represent much of a step down from plain cash.  Even the banks selling mortgages to the CMHC might have elected to buy the federal government's debt instruments.

I am not sure whether the profit gains are really significant, but even a break-even or (very) small loss is more acceptable than the current locked-up situation.  But, emphatically, this is not a bailout: a bailout would be something for nothing, or very little.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2008)

Well said, Brad. Not to detract from any of your writings, but the transaction an be boiled down to a single idea:

By buying up these mortgages, the government has invested in the average Canadian home owner.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Oct 2008)

I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me that the government (CMHC) pays the banks far less than they would receive over the long haul. This provides an 'immediate' injection of cash to the banks, which allows them to start to generate new income, and gives the new holder a long term steady flow of cash into the coffers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What I find most useful about ongoing events is that the government is executing reasonable, perhaps even inspired, plans to deal with the credit crunch while in the final stages of an election.  It is dealing with a crisis and election at the same time with no sign of panic (unlike some nations).  When the $25B mortgage purchase plan was announced, I read one response from Dion that amounted to a snide whine rather than admitting the idea was a good one.  The responsible and calm government is the one I want on Oct 15.
> 
> AIUI - and I am interested in doing so properly, so would appreciate corrections/clarifications from anyone who understands it better:
> 
> ...




According to this report _”Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $25 billion. Then CMHC will ask the banks and other financial institutions to ascertain how much debt they would like to sell to the agency, using a process known as a reverse auction.”_


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

From Reply # 828:


$25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper



> "We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks."
> 
> Earlier in the day, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced the government's plan to buy the securities through the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. and provide much-needed cash to financial institutions that sell the so-called "National Housing Act mortgage-backed securities."
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Thanks for that, George, my tired old eyes are failing.

Any other useful information to impart?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

Two views on spending over he next wee while, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081011.welxndion1011/BNStory/politics/home


> Economic crisis could slow Liberal agenda, Dion says
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081011.wharper1011/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper calls possibility of spending cuts a ‘ridiculous' scenario
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...




While most senior economist agree with Harper that _“there's no recession on the horizon for Canada,”_ his assurances that _”there's enough leeway on the books to avoid a deficit given the party's relatively modest platform cost of $8.67-billion over four years and five months”_ should be treated with a wee bit of suspicion. He says, _“Our spending and our tax reductions fit easily within [the platform promises,”_ but that’s based on hope.

If When the US goes into a long, deep recession we will be hurt; businesses will close, jobs will be lost, tax revenues will fall. *Some* spending should fall, too. Most people with whom I have spoken and who might reasonably be described as _knowledgeable_ and/or _insiders_ _guesstimate_ that $15 to $25 Billion of our annual spending is wasted and can and *should* be cancelled (out of about $235 Billion – see here for a good, _broad-brush_ breakdown of where the money goes).

Dion, if he is elected, will, surely, I’m 99%certain, scream (girlishly?), during the very early days, that the Conservatives mismanaged the economy worse then even he imagined and that the cupboards are bare and, while there will be a big, broad, green carbon tax – one on seniors’ home heating fuel and Torontonians gas, too, there will be almost no new social programmes (goodbye publicly funded, government regulated day-care, again) and precious few tax breaks, either. He already knows that the most senior _officials_ in Ottawa – the people who will make his programmes work – favour a broad carbon tax and income tax cuts (corporate and personal) but vehemently oppose new spending – specially on social programmes that are, broadly, matters of provincial jurisdiction. Dion will insist upon big EI increases – the bureaucracy will agree, the boss has to be allowed to win a few.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Oct 2008)

I spent the afternoon looking after the CPC campaign office in our hunk of Leeds-Grenville. Our larder is pretty bare as we are down to about a dozen lawn signs. The main office in Brockville tells me the CPC has put about 5000 signs in response to requests. We have over 400 out around here, and the only red signs seen are real estate ones, with a couple of exceptions. Having said that, I sense interest is low as the advance polls were down 65%, but the last time around the aim was to toss the Liberals out. 

As part of the grand strategy my co-workers, that is the sign guy (Ottawa Police) and the guy I split duty with (retired RCMP), and I mapped out how we would handle election day. We have our scrutineers selected and they will go to the five polling stations and phone in the results after voting ceases. We in turn phone these to Brockville where a huge gathering is planned. As for us, we have decided to blow the remainder of our petty cash float on catered goodies, already ordered, and suitable libations. Win, lose or draw, we plan to end the thing with a bang.

So what? Well, Leeds-Grenville is a typical Eastern Ontario rural riding, sort of a Red Deer of the East. (One of the earliest visitors to our office was a nurse from Lethbridge who lives here and works in Ottawa. She remarked that the scenery is different, but the people are the same.) If our experience is typical, this hunk of Ontario will stay blue. I suspect there are many ridings, apt to re-elect various political persuasions, that fall into the same boat. We will be watching, or rather listening because we don't have a TV, to the results and it may be a long night.

A bit from the trenches to put a human touch to the big picture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

I expect that my riding, Ottawa Centre will stay NDP. The local MP, Paul Dewar looks to be a shoo-in.

Our Conservative candidate, Brian McGarry is a well known and respected local businessman who, normally, would have given Dewar a run for his money but he (McGarry) has not campaigned at all due to his wife's very serious illness.

The Liberal, Penny Collenette (long time Liberal _insider_ and wife of former MND David Collenette) is a Liberal *Star!* but she hasn't connected with the riding, I think.

Penny Collenette is a very nice person; smart, too. The Liberal Party of Canada is lucky to have her on the _inside_. It's too bad they didn't _parachute_ her into a safer riding - she would be a good, effective MP.

Paul Dewar is a good, hard working constituency MP. I'm not going to weep and wail when he's re-elected - not unless we lose by one seat!


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2008)

Was it not Paul Dewar that lost his mother during the campaign? There were 3 MP candidates who did.



> $15 to $25 Billion of our annual spending is wasted and can and should be cancelled


 Arts & Culture!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Was it not Paul Dewar that lost his mother during the campaign? There were 3 MP candidates who did.



Yes. Matian Dewar was a popular Ottawa mayor and indefatigable NDP stalwart.

She is, perhaps, best remembered as the driving force behind the immigration of the Vietnamese _boat people_; I hear that was the accomplishment of which she was most proud.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Oct 2008)

After the election, too bad it is not possible to apply, as a (social) experiment, the Green Shift to all the Liberal candidates who where successfully elected or were not.  As the Green Shift is revenue neutral, any costs for the program that just happen to occur ( of course there would not be any cost!!) would also be paid individually by the candidate. The government would pay the costs of the Auditor General to audit the program though, just to make it fair and ensure the costs/benefits were passed on. The experiment could be conducted until the next election is called. Then based on this experience the Liberal Party could state how wonderful the results were. Oh, add all the employees of The Toronto Star, or at least the editorial board, Jim Travers et al.
One too many Martinis tonight.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2008)

I went to Prime Minister Harper's London campaign stop, and was struck by the man's personal empathy and warmth. I suspect that there is a lot of selective "editing" of the Prime Minister's appearance in the MSM (the front page picture of the Prime minister with his back to the camera after the leader's debate is a prime example), but I also think that he is essentially a private person, and really does not see why he has to share his family and personal life with "us". In a way, the Prime Minister is a victim of our celebrity and Oprah media cultures, which demand that people expose themselves to total strangers.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Oct 2008)

Someone is "a victim of our celebrity and Oprah media cultures, which demand that people expose themselves to total strangers."

Geez, people will come up with an excuse for anything these days. I always thought folks that did that sort of thing were just dirty old men.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Arts & Culture!!



Actually, _Arts and Culture_ is a pretty large and important _industrial_/commercial sector - several tens of thousands of skilled and decently paid Canadians work in that sector. Very, very few of them are on the '_crucifix in a jar of urine"_ fringes.

We subsidize the _Arts_ for exactly the same reason we subsidize the aerospace sector and the auto industry: to preserve good jobs that earn dollars by exporting their products.


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2008)

Agreed ER, but I couldn't resist a sly smile as I typed it....


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ is worth reading – especially by those who plan, right now, to vote BQ, Green, Liberal or NDP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wcosimp11/BNStory/politics/home


> Economic illiteracy and the policies of harm
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Most economists agree with Simpson that GST cuts are bad _economic_ policy because the GST, like all consumption taxes – including a carbon tax, is about as ‘good’ as a tax can be. *But*, the GST cuts are good _national_ policy because they take money away from government and it is hard to re-impose a tax that was, once-upon-a-time, cut. Whenever we say or write the word “government” we should think: smaller is better: *“The government is best which governs least.”* (_Thomas Paine_)

Voting for BQ, Green or NDP candidates is the same as trying to put the inmates in charge of the asylum. We are in the midst of a global economic crisis; this is not the time for the Marxists, nor the Marxists-Leninists, nor even the Groucho Marxists.

The Liberals have some excellent candidates and some good ideas but they are poorly ineptly led by a man who *cannot* get the priorities in order. They are not ready to govern Canada again. Leaving aside the vestiges of _Trudeaumania_ that still make nonsense of too many of their policies and proposals, they need to stay in the political _’wilderness’_ for a while longer to sort out heir own, internal affairs.

Only about ⅓ of Canadians think the Tories are really ‘good’ for the country but many more suspect that there’s no one any better, right now; they’re right – both groups.

I, personally, as someone who I hope some of you think of as a reasonably level headed old soldier, urge any undecided to “hold your noses” and vote Tory, for the good of the country.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Voting for BQ, Green or NDP candidates is the same as trying to put the inmates in charge of the asylum. We are in the midst of a global economic crisis; this is not the time for the Marxists, nor the Marxists-Leninists, nor even the *Groucho Marxists*.


Ummm.......is it too late to change my vote?  I couldn't help it: I love Duck Soup too much!  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2008)

I am actually with the NDP on one (*and only one*) issue; ending corporate welfare. Providing State funding to mature, competitive and profitable industries (and the Arts and Culture crowd claims to generate $8 billion for the Canadian economy) is counterproductive, since these industries (Arts & Culture, Aerospace, High Tech, Agriculture and anyone else at the trough) will have less reason to stay innovative and competitive, while potential challengers and new industries are deprived of funds as wealth is taxed away for corporate welfare. In a global economy, they will become less competitive against their foreign challengers in the domestic and overseas markets.

I will have to dig through some old posts to find the figure, but I believe that subsidies cost @ $19 billion per year (and since it might not include Arts & Culture, Agriculture or regional subsidies), it could actually be far higher. Even cutting the $19 billion would create a nice cushion for contingencies and emergencies. Passed back to the productive economy in tax cuts it would provide resources to create @ 380,000 jobs. (BTW Jack, a $50 billion tax cut translates to the resources to create 1,000,000 full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables!)


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I am actually with the NDP on one (*and only one*) issue; ending corporate welfare. Providing State funding to mature, competitive and profitable industries (and the Arts and Culture crowd claims to generate $8 billion for the Canadian economy) is counterproductive, since these industries (Arts & Culture, Aerospace, High Tech, Agriculture and anyone else at the trough) will have less reason to stay innovative and competitive, while potential challengers and new industries are deprived of funds as wealth is taxed away for corporate welfare. In a global economy, they will become less competitive against their foreign challengers in the domestic and overseas markets.
> 
> I will have to dig through some old posts to find the figure, but I believe that subsidies cost @ $19 billion per year (and since it might not include Arts & Culture, Agriculture or regional subsidies), it could actually be far higher. Even cutting the $19 billion would create a nice cushion for contingencies and emergencies. Passed back to the productive economy in tax cuts it would provide resources to create @ 380,000 jobs. (BTW Jack, a $50 billion tax cut translates to the resources to create 1,000,000 full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables!)



I agree with you, with only one proviso: a level playing field.

Our industries - aerospace, agriculture, arts, technology, transportation and so on - must all compete in a _global_ market, all of which is broadly and deeply subsidized, especially in the USA, our largest market and main competitor.

It is true that subsidies stifle initiative and inventiveness - but they lower costs and this is a _WalMart_ world.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Oct 2008)

And now for something completely different. In a Pythonesque twist a story has surfaced that Dion and May have cooked up a deal. The report, which Pierre Bourque has posted on his news site, is that in return for urging Green Party supporters to switch their votes to the Liberals, Dion has agreed to appoint May to the Senate and appoint her Minister of the Environment in any government he heads.

Check the story here: http://www.bourque.com/

Bourque admits that his unidentified source is a Liberal and a supporter of one of Dion's leadership rivals. This means he would stand to prosper from a Liberal crash and burn.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

Mods: Could  you put up a new poll - in the early evening of 14 Oct 08 - saying:

--------------------
"*I voted*:
BQ __ (1 person or 0.5% intended to vote BQ)
Conservative __ (157 people or 82.6% intended to vote Conservative)
Green __ (6 people or 3.2% intended to vote Green)
Liberal __ (11 people or 5.8% intended to vote Liberal)
NDP __ (9 people or 4.7% intended to vote NDP)
Other Party of Independent__ (3 people or 1.6% intended to vote Other/Independent)
_or_
I spoiled my ballot __ (3 people or 1.6% intended to spoil their ballots)
_or_
I did not vote __ (0 people or )% intended not to vote)"
--------------------

Of course someone (a Mod) would have to correct the 'intended' figures on Tuesday afternoon.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And now for something completely different. In a Pythonesque twist a story has surfaced that Dion and May have cooked up a deal. The report, which Pierre Bourque has posted on his news site, is that in return for urging Green Party supporters to switch their votes to the Liberals, Dion has agreed to appoint May to the Senate and appoint her Minister of the Environment in any government he heads.
> 
> Check the story here: http://www.bourque.com/
> 
> Bourque admits that his unidentified source is a Liberal and a supporter of one of Dion's leadership rivals. This means he would stand to prosper from a Liberal crash and burn.



With Dion exhorting Green voters to vote Liberal today, this story might have legs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

A few more new polls, probably the last we’ll see:

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

BQ Up, Some signs of Green Party Slippage

BQ: 10% (+1 from the 10 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 35% (+1 “ )
Greens: 9% (-3 “ )
Libs: 26% (NC “ )
NDP: 18% (NC “ )

-------------------------

The _Globe and Mail_ reports the _Strategic Counsel_’s national numbers as:

BQ: 9%
Cons: 35%
Greens: 9%  -- _Strategic Counsel_ rarely report national numbers so here is no daily comparison
Libs: 28%
NDP: 19%

--------------------

Two other _periodic_ reports are also in:

Ipsos-Reid presents a detailed report, the ‘big’ numbers are:

BQ: 9%
Cons: 34%
Greens: 8%
Libs: 29% - this is *nearly* the highest anyone has ‘scored’ the Liberals since the first couple of weeks of the campaign
NDP: 18%

Angus Reid says:

Tories Have 10 Point Lead as Federal Election Day Looms

BQ: 9%
Cons: 38%  --  this is as high as anyone has had the Tories for more than a week
Greens: 6%
Libs: 28%
NDP:  19%

--------------------

There is something for everyone as the “days dwindle down to a precious few” (as Kurt Weill and Maxwell Anderson put it): big Conservative gains in the final hours or a Liberal surge if you prefer or Layton holds on to his voters, for a change. Take your pick.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And now for something completely different. In a Pythonesque twist a story has surfaced that Dion and May have cooked up a deal. The report, which Pierre Bourque has posted on his news site, is that in return for urging Green Party supporters to switch their votes to the Liberals, Dion has agreed to appoint May to the Senate and appoint her Minister of the Environment in any government he heads.
> 
> Check the story here: http://www.bourque.com/
> 
> Bourque admits that his unidentified source is a Liberal and a supporter of one of Dion's leadership rivals. This means he would stand to prosper from a Liberal crash and burn.



Well.  If we ever hear of Elizabeth May getting appointed to the Senate; we can say we heard it here first.   :'(


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

Here are the latest UBC Election ‘Market’ seat predictions:

BQ: 48 Seats (48 seats held at dissolution on 7 Sep 08) (NC predicted)
Cons: 132 seats (127 seats “ ) (+5 predicted)
(Greens &) Others: 2 seats " ) (3 seats “ ) (-1 predicted)
Libs: 88 seats (96 seats “ ) (-8 predicted)
NDP: 38 seats  (30 seats “ ) (+8 predicted)

On 7 Sep 08 four seats were vacant.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Oct 2008)

If the seat predictions are correct, the Liberals and Greens will for sure get together, with May as Minister for the Environment. Then add the NDP to form the government. Reason: Dion "wins" the election, holds on to the leader position; Liberals again become natural governing party; Jack wants power, any kind of power, just power and he will become deputy PM. Since there has never been a microphone that Jack does not love, Jack will eloquently drive the Liberals/Dion crazy with his pronouncements of how he is 9er Actual, de facto, running the government. May will be happy as she hates. hates Harper. (Also more money for a single mother with her Minister's pay check). Harper will resign. The media can get back to being spoon fed.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

I wonder who is taking responsibility for these ads on YouTube?

Who is behind bushharper.com?

Is it our fanatic GeorgeHarper?

Is that fanatic now in charge of the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada?


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Libs: 88 seats (96 seats “ ) (-12 predicted)



Something's wrong with the math here.


----------



## TCBF (12 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Something's wrong with the math here.



- Can't see the Media screwing up basic arithmatic...


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Oct 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Can't see the Media screwing up basic arithmatic...



 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Something's wrong with the math here.



Fixed! Don't blame the media, it's just old age.  :'(


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fixed! Don't blame the media, it's just old age.  :'(



You could always chalk it up as an age old problem with political statistics.  They are never accurate.   ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fixed! Don't blame the media, it's just old age.  :'(



Blaming the media is more fun.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder who is taking responsibility for these ads on YouTube?
> 
> Who is behind bushharper.com?
> 
> ...



You know, every time the opposition makes the Bush - Harper link the decrease the possibility that I would ever vote for them.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here are the latest UBC Election ‘Market’ seat predictions:
> 
> BQ: 48 Seats (48 seats held at dissolution on 7 Sep 08) (NC predicted)
> Cons: 132 seats (127 seats “ ) (+5 predicted)
> ...



Given these numbers, it would take all 4 of the opposition parties in coalition to form the government. I doubt there's that much political will on the left for this to ever happen.


----------



## TCBF (13 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Given these numbers, it would take all 4 of the opposition parties in coalition to form the government. I doubt there's that much political will on the left for this to ever happen.



- Ohhhhh... they sure hate Mr. Meanie though.  Yup.  Sure do.  Now repeat after me: Bob Rae as Minister of Finance...


----------



## GDawg (13 Oct 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If the seat predictions are correct, the Liberals and Greens will for sure get together, with May as Minister for the Environment. Then add the NDP to form the government. Reason: Dion "wins" the election, holds on to the leader position; Liberals again become natural governing party; Jack wants power, any kind of power, just power and he will become deputy PM. Since there has never been a microphone that Jack does not love, Jack will eloquently drive the Liberals/Dion crazy with his pronouncements of how he is 9er Actual, de facto, running the government. May will be happy as she hates. hates Harper. (Also more money for a single mother with her Minister's pay check). Harper will resign. The media can get back to being spoon fed.



For May to be a federal minister, wouldn't she have to be an MP? For May to be an MP, wouldn't she have to beat Peter McKay? I am certain Peter McKay will keep his job. My personal prediction is that the Green party will get the highest percentage of votes it ever has, but that will not translate into many seats. For the Greens I predict less than 5 seats, probably just 1.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Oct 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> For May to be a federal minister, wouldn't she have to be an MP? For May to be an MP, wouldn't she have to beat Peter McKay? I am certain Peter McKay will keep his job. My personal prediction is that the Green party will get the highest percentage of votes it ever has, but that will not translate into many seats. For the Greens I predict less than 5 seats, probably just 1.



1)  Well it would be completely unheard of for a government to have a minister who wasn't elected... I mean would a government dare do such a shocking thing?

2) The Liberal candidate isn't running in her riding,  she's in a dead heat,  statistically she could do it.

3) 5 seats would be absurd,  1 or two is extremely likely.... I remember something about a political party that had only 2 seats.... (*reee foorm*) :-D

(just being silly)


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2008)

WHERE THEY STAND 8 Each Monday through to election day, The Globe has tried to cut through the campaign rhetoric by examining one issue - and each party's position on it. Our final instalment: The Afghan war and the parties' plans to withdraw troops by 2011
 MARCUS GEE mgee@globeandmail.com October 13, 2008
Article Link

In Canada today, one foreign-policy issue towers above any other: Afghanistan. Canadian troops based in Kandahar find themselves in their biggest fight since the Korean War. Nearly 100 have been killed combatting an attempt by the resurgent Taliban to undermine the Western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai. The Canadian mission has only shaky support at home and is especially unpopular in Quebec, where the Conservatives hope to win more seats.

Trying to defuse the issue, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper surprised everyone by announcing in the first week of the election campaign that his government would withdraw all troops by 2011. That went beyond his pledge in Parliament earlier this year to end the mission in Kandahar by 2011, which left open the option of deploying Canadians to another, less dangerous part of Afghanistan.

The announcement put the Liberals in a tight spot. They too favour a 2011 endpoint for the mission and supported that date in the parliamentary vote. So it is hard for them to tell voters - as Barack Obama has in his debate with John McCain over Iraq - that they would get troops home faster.

But two events during the campaign helped thrust Afghanistan into the election and give the Liberals a way to go after the Tories. First, the top British commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, said it was wrong to expect a decisive military victory. He also said that bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table for a political settlement "shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
More on link


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2008)

>We subsidize the Arts for exactly the same reason we subsidize the aerospace sector and the auto industry: to preserve good jobs that earn dollars by exporting their products.

We earn nothing when we funnel money to foreigners (subsidy in effect is what gets passed on to foreigners as a price cut when goods are exported).

I have no sympathy for subsidies.  But not all subsidies are equal.  There is a vast difference between a subsidy to agriculture/industry and a subsidy to cultural activities.  The products of the former have intrinsic value.  "We" are not all culturally poorer if certain cultural activities and products can not survive in an open market.  Some people might feel shortchanged, but I will not.  Those who feel strongly about any particular sort of art should pay to consume it.

The fact is that subsidies prop up sharedholder profits, employee wages, and purchaser discounts.  Why should a fraction of my salary be transferred to a GM shareholder, a Bombardier engineer, or people in another country?


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2008)

'If you work for an MP who won by 200 votes' in 2006, you're nervous: staffers  
The Hill Times, October 13th, 2008
Article Link

Hundreds of staffers across the country will be watching the election results nervously. When their bosses get the boot from federal public office, they lose their jobs too. 
By Abbas Rana
Hundreds of political staffers in Ottawa and across the country, who have invested emotionally in the election campaign, will be watching Tuesday's election results anxiously because if their bosses are defeated, they lose their jobs. 

"All staffers are nervous unless you're working for some guy who won by 70 per cent, you're always nervous. If you work for an MP who won by 200 votes, you have to be nervous. For ministerial staffers, you are thinking whether your guy is going to win and whether he's going to be back in Cabinet. Is he going to be in the same position in Cabinet? So there's all kinds of uncertainty," said one senior Cabinet staffer last week. 

"You're sitting there wondering if you're going to have a job the next day. You've invested a lot of emotional capital into the campaign. You've probably invested time and effort, money into the campaign either by giving up part of your job or giving up your job for a certain amount of time during the campaign, or by giving money to candidates or the party. If the race is close, you're nervous, you're down, you're emotionally invested in the outcome." 

Some 33 incumbent MPs are not seeking re-election in this campaign. Generally, each MP has four full-time staffers, including two in the Hill office and two in the riding office under the MPs' office budgets, which run between about $280,500 to $339,360 depending on the riding's population and landmass. Automatically, an estimated 132 Hill and ridings office staffers are expected to lose their jobs on Tuesday. 

But political staffers who lose their jobs will also likely be rehired by other and new MPs too. 

"It's like anywhere else, if you're good at your job, you won't be unemployed for long. A political party is a family and, like all families, they spend an inordinate amount of time talking about one another. So everybody knows who is moving, who is going where. We have our own internal Hill Climbers and 'Hill Tumblers,' so we know who is moving where." 

As well, there are also about 380 Cabinet ministerial and secretary of state staffers and an estimated 90 PMO staffers. 

Other Hill staffers told Hill Climbers that experienced Hill staffers will be snatched up by new MPs because they "know their way around" the Hill and the legislative process. 

"Newly-elected MPs tend to hire experienced staffers. It's important because new MPs don't know their way around on the Hill but experienced staffers know how the legislative process works and who specifically to call if the MP needs any help. New MPs usually need help in putting together their [SO-31] statements, speeches, communication material and committee work," said one Liberal staffer who requested anonymity. 

If the staffers are not hired back, they also have good job prospects in the private sector too. 

Before the Tories won the last federal election in January 2006, former Cabinet staffers were allowed to work as lobbyists or were given preferential treatment in the federal bureaucracy, but with the Federal Accountability Act (FAA), Cabinet staffers can't work as registered lobbyists for five years, and no political staffer has any preferential treatment to join the public service. 

Exempt political staffers work at the pleasure of Cabinet ministers and due to the inherent uncertainty in the nature of their jobs, staffers are entitled to separation and severance pay if they lose their jobs. According to Treasury Board guidelines, Cabinet ministers set how much separation pay a staffer gets and it could be "a maximum of up to four months' separation pay." Severance pay, according to Treasury Board guidelines, "is calculated at the rate of two weeks' pay (based on salary at termination) for each year of service." 

Staffers who work for MPs are also entitled to separation and severance pay. According to the Commons Board of Internal Economy guidelines, if an MP loses an election, the staff are entitled to 60 days of separation pay. They are entitled to two weeks of severance pay "for the first completed year of continuous employment and one week's pay for each succeeding complete year of continuous employment to a maximum of 28 weeks upon termination." 
More on link


----------



## Rodahn (14 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> 1)  Well it would be completely unheard of for a government to have a minister who wasn't elected... I mean would a government dare do such a shocking thing?



It would? How about Micheal Fortier in the Public Works portfolio?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

Here, on election day, are the final polls.

--------------------

Ekos offers a final seat projection:

BQ: 51 seats (+3) (48 seats held at dissolution on 7 Sep 08) 
*Cons: 136 seats* (+9) (127 “ )
Greens: 0 seats (-1) (1 “ )
Libs: 84 seats (-12) (96 “ )        According to this projection the Liberals and NDP do not have enough seats, themselves, (119)
NDP: 35 seats (+5 “ ) (30 “ )      to defeat the Conservatives. They would need to join with the BQ to topple the government, quickly, and take power 
Others: 2 seats (NC) (2 “ )

The Ekos based that projection on these final numbers:

BQ: 9.8%
Cons: 34.8%
Greens: 9.6% 
Libs: 26.4%
NDP: 19.4%

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

BQ Soaring, Ontario Race Volatile

BQ: 11% (+1 from the 12 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 9% (NC “ )
Libs: 25% (-3 “ )
NDP: 19% (NC “ )

--------------------

Nanos provides a breakdown of its three day rolling poll:

Party  11 Oct  12 Oct  13 Oct  3 Day Projection  Trend
BQ:     10.0%    9.7%    8.7%       9.5%             *↑*
Cons:  32.8%   32.6     37.1%     34.2%             *↑*
Greens: 8.5%     9.0%   7.1%       8.2%             *↓*
Libs:    26.8%  26.7%  26.7%     26.7%             *↔*
NDP:    21.9%  22.1%  20.3%     21.4%              *↓*

---------------

That’s all, folks!


----------



## Rodahn (14 Oct 2008)

Well, today is the ultimate poll. I expect that we will end up with another minority government. Though by the time I get the opportunity to vote the outcome will, in all likelyhood, have been decided by Quebec and Ontario.


----------



## GAP (14 Oct 2008)

I think it will be the day of the "Undecideds".....

with 25+ % of the voters undecided, they will make the ultimate decision....

Listening to CFRA this morning, I find most (maybe 75%) of the callers phoning in are voting Conservative.....if that's the case, I see a small majority on the horizon...


----------



## Teflon (14 Oct 2008)

Personally I'm expecting a Conservative Minority with a Liberal Opposition (Jacky and his Wacky NDPers not far behind)


----------



## Celticgirl (14 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Listening to CFRA this morning, I find most (maybe 75%) of the callers phoning in are voting Conservative.....if that's the case, I see a small majority on the horizon...



I hope you're right! We need a majority right now. However, I think it's not very likely, unfortunately.

My father this morning told me he was going to vote for the local Liberal candidate. I said, "Well, just remember, a vote for Liberal is a vote for Carbon Tax." He went, "Oh S***! That's right. I can't vote Liberal!" LOL   Let's hope there are more people like him having 'aha' moments at the polling stations today!


----------



## dwalter (14 Oct 2008)

As much as I'd like to see something else, I know we are going to have a Conservative Minority again, Liberals as opposition, NDP after that, and perhaps one or two seats for Green this time. If the Liberals and NDP could get along however, they could steal the confidence of the house and force the conservative resignation. That however likely won't happen because Dione has already made it clear that he isn't exactly willing to work with Layton, and the leader of the NDP himself also seemed stubborn about working with the Liberals.


----------



## Teflon (14 Oct 2008)

Intelligent Design said:
			
		

> As much as I'd like to see something else, I know we are going to have a Conservative Minority again, Liberals as opposition, NDP after that, and perhaps one or two seats for Green this time. If the Liberals and NDP could get along however, they could steal the confidence of the house and force the conservative resignation. That however likely won't happen because Dione has already made it clear that he isn't exactly willing to work with Layton, and the leader of the NDP himself also seemed stubborn about working with the Liberals.



I would love to see a Conservative Majority but don't see it happening, as to the Greens, if they get a seat at all it would be May's and she's running in a riding against a strong Conservative.

I really can't see Layton and Dion working together at all as well, both have hinted it might be possible but only if They where in charge and Layton has put alot of heat against Dion as well so their feelings for each can't be too high


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Oct 2008)

I wish I would see a Conservative Majority, but sadly I believe it will just be another Minority.


Beav


----------



## Teflon (14 Oct 2008)

Just a little Request for this Poll

Please VOTE FOR WHAT YOU *EXPECT* TO HAPPEN AND NOT WHAT YOU *HOPE* FOR as it is a prediction not a desire

Thanks


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Oct 2008)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Just a little Request for this Poll
> 
> Please VOTE FOR WHAT YOU *EXPECT* TO HAPPEN AND NOT WHAT YOU *HOPE* FOR as it is a prediction not a desire
> 
> Thanks


Not only that, but actually go out and Vote today 


Beav


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think it will be the day of the "Undecideds".....
> 
> with 25+ % of the voters undecided, they will make the ultimate decision....
> 
> Listening to CFRA this morning, I find most (maybe 75%) of the callers phoning in are voting Conservative.....if that's the case, I see a small majority on the horizon...




Here is how the Conservatives can squeak out a bare majority:


Province                        BQ/*Cons*/Libs/NDP/Ind

Territories:                         0/*1*/1/1
BC:                                   0/*22*/3/11
Alberta:                             0/*28*/0/0
Saskatchewan:                   0/*13*/1/0
Manitoba:                          0/*11*/1/2
Ontario:                            0/*62*/29/15
Québec:                          51/*10*/12/1/1
New Brunswick:                  0/*3*/5/2
Nova Scotia:                      0/*4*/4/3
PEI:                                  0/*0*/4/0
Newfoundland & Labrador:    0/*1*/5/1


I know that gains of that order will be hard in BC and Ontario, keeping 10 out of 11 (currently held) seats in Québec might be difficult, too, and keeping one seat in NF may be a stretch, but it is _just_ within reach.


----------



## Bane (14 Oct 2008)

I don't expect anything beyond minor changes in the seat distribution of the Commons.  I must admit that as a bit of a politics junkie I've kinda liked this string of minority governments, quite a difference from the healthy majorities of the Mulroney and Chretien periods.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2008)

So Many Votes; So Little Intelligence

I was watching a one hour phone in/text in/video cam television program last evening with my wife. As a Westerner, but new BC tree hugger,I could not for the life of me understand what is in the water in Ontario and Quebec. The misinformation/uniformed statements these people were making was scary. The best one was from Stan, somewhere in Ontario. He spoke of the rumors he had heard of Harper bringing in the Draft to keep young people out of trouble.

I also think it is time to stop treating Quebec with kid gloves if the Bloc gets most (define most??) of the seats. If Quebec doesn't want to be at the table, then so be it. Arts anyone?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

I still *hope*, probably foolishly, for this sort of result: a Conservative majority – narrow though it may be. I would be almost as happy with this result. But I’m guessing – *optimistically*, based on the recent polls, something like this:

BQ: 55 seats
Cons: 148
Greens: 0 seats
Libs: 69
NDP: 35 seats
Inds: 1 seat

Don’t forget, please, that, a couple of weeks ago, before the financial crisis dominated the news, some of us began making predictions.


Edit: corrected link to the most recent polls and to the latest 'old' predictions


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2008)

I stand by my prediction of a Conservative Majority.  I may be smoking reefer, but there it is.


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I stand by my prediction of a Conservative Majority.  I may be smoking reefer, but there it is.


God I sure hope your right!


Beav


----------



## GAP (14 Oct 2008)

> I also think it is time to stop treating Quebec with kid gloves if the Bloc gets most (define most??) of the seats. If Quebec doesn't want to be at the table, then so be it. Arts anyone?



I agree 100%

Charest (among all the others) and the Bloc have been extorting the Federal government for far too long. They keep using the threat of separation if they don't get it.....well, so be it, but I am sick and tired of the rest of Canada's representatives sucking up to Quebec on a maybe....


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2008)

The Beaver said:
			
		

> God I sure hope your right!
> 
> 
> Beav


You hope that I'm right about what: the conservatives or the fact that I'm smoking reefer? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think it will be the day of the "Undecideds".....
> 
> with 25+ % of the voters undecided, they will make the ultimate decision....



I agree, and I'm stickin' by my 140 seat prediction for Stephen and Co. (minority, but bigger than last time).


----------



## Teflon (14 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> You hope that I'm right about what: the conservatives or the fact that I'm smoking reefer? ;D



I think your smoking reefer and it's got nothing to do with your prediction, I'm just a naturally suspicious person!  >


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> You hope that I'm right about what: the conservatives or the fact that I'm smoking reefer? ;D


Little bit of both really 


Beav


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...
> I also think it is time to stop treating Quebec with kid gloves if the Bloc gets most (define most??) of the seats. If Quebec doesn't want to be at the table, then so be it. Arts anyone?




I think that if, as the pundits predict, we end up with a (slightly larger) Conservative minority, Stephen Harper’s first instinct – one of the ones that make him so _unlikeable_ – will be to _punish_ both NF and QC.

But, Harper is, above all, rational and, after stamping his feet and cursing, in private, he will reflect upon his AIM, which is a new *political Canada* that looks something like this:

Province  BQ/*Cons*/Green/LibsNDP/Inds



Terrs: 0/ *1*/0/  1/  1/0 (3)
BC:    0/*20*/2/  4/  9/1 (36)
AB:    0/*26*/1/  0/  1/0 (28)
SK:    0/*11*/0/  0/  3/0 (14)
MB:    0/*11*/0/  0/  3/0 (14)
ON:    0/*65*/1/19/20/0 (106)
QC:  35/*21*/1/13/  4/1 (75)
NB:    0/  *3*/0/ 4/  3/0 (10)
NS:    0/  *4*/0/ 4/  3/0 (11)
PEI:   0/  *2*/0/  1/ 1/0 (4)
NF:    0/  *2*/0/  2/ 2/1 (7)

BQ = 35/*Cons =  166*/Greens = 5/Libs = 49/NDP = 50/Inds = 3 


The only two _national_ parties, in Harper's 'perfect world' are the Conservatives and the NDP. The Bloc, Greens and Liberals are all regional parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mods: Could  you put up a new poll - in the early evening of 14 Oct 08 - saying:
> 
> --------------------
> "*I voted*:
> ...




Mods: I have updated the figures:


--------------------

"*I voted*:
BQ __ (1 person or 0.5% intended to vote BQ)
Conservative __ (164 people or 81.6% intended to vote Conservative)
Green __ (6 people or 3.0% intended to vote Green)
Liberal __ (11 people or 5.5% intended to vote Liberal)
NDP __ (11 people or 5.5% intended to vote NDP)
Other Party or Independent__ (5 people or 2.5% intended to vote Other/Independent)
_or_
I spoiled my ballot __ (3 people or 1.5% intended to spoil their ballots)
_or_
I did not vote __ (0 people or 0% intended not to vote)"
--------------------


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Oct 2008)

Well, the usual adminstrative nausea of election day in our campaign office. A gentleman dropped in to find where he is supposed to vote as he had not received a voter's card. He went to the usual place, and it was no longer a polling station. So off to the local CPC office trundled he. Anyway, we searched the voter's list for what should have been his poll, but his street did not appear. So, on the phone to the riding Elections Canada office. The worker there was not pleased to find that when she entered the street it popped up with no one shown as living on it. However she was able to tell him where his poll was, and off he went. 

(I didn't mention that I called the main campaign office which was less than helpful. One fool even suggested it was not our place to help voters. It was refreshing to find that despite having been retired for nearly 14 years, I haven't lost my ability to chew butt.)

The gentleman in question had only lived at that address for two years. Another one of the workers in our office (ex-RCMP) who knew him kidded him about being in the Witness Protection Progam and therefore not existing. This is just the latest hassle with the permanent voters list, which as usual manages to be rife with errors, omissions and the like. Why the heck doesn't Elections Canada confirm it on the ground never ceases to amaze me.

A woman dropped in to report that one of the polling places which housed seven or eight individual polls did not have a sign indentifying it as such. (The voter's cards merely identified it by its name on the local university campus.) People were driving aimlessly about and some were heading home without voting. So, on the phone to Elections Canada again. The lady there may think I am hitting on her by the end of the day.

The main campaign office sent us an email to remind us of the gathering to watch the returns tonight in Brockville with large screen TVs, free food and drink, etc. The ex-Mountie phoned them to ask if they were going to send one of the TVs up to Kemptville, as we planned to keep this office open until the polls close and the votes are counted in our area. He added we would be luxuriating with a portable radio and a bag of chips. Unbeknownst to them and the official agent, we have already arranged for our own food and drink courtesy of the petty cash float. 

On the other hand, our candidate with his entourage and accompanied by the local MPP dropped in as part of his election day drive around the riding to thank us for our efforts. I am off for a few hours and go back on duty at 1500. I should be home around 2300.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2008)

Good luck, and good work, Old Sweat.

This is where I think the Torries may have an edge. Their riding organizations are much more rooted in the community and tend to work to bring out the vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think that if, as the pundits predict, we end up with a (slightly larger) Conservative minority, Stephen Harper’s first instinct – one of the ones that make him so _unlikeable_ – will be to _punish_ both NF and QC.
> 
> But, Harper is, above all, rational and, after stamping his feet and cursing, in private, he will reflect upon his AIM, which is a new *political Canada* ...





And speaking of Newfoundland and Labrador, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _The Telegram_ in St. John’s, is an interesting story about just how vindictive Danny Williams’ ABC campaign has become:

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?pid=1154&cpcat=election&stry=91407039


> Tory candidate told not to meet with N.L. gov't because of federal feud
> 
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...




This goes a bit beyond politics, in my opinion, and looks a bit like intimidation. Williams may be immensely popular in NF, but he’s acting like a cheap thug.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2008)

Harper will not be able to, and no other PM could, _punish_ Quebec cause the Lieliberals and the NDP, let alone the Bloc, will suck up to get the Quebec vote. Without Quebec seats, very difficult to form a government, let alone a majority. And Quebec knows that, and utilizes that fact. 
Even in war time, politicians dared not lose the Quebec vote. WW II was a good example. Liberal Mackenzie King and the conscription crises. In late 1944 Cdn Inf Bns were extremely short of *trained*infantry replacements. Canada was full of trained Zombies, who would not go "Active", and the government was not going to send conscrips overseas. Meantime Inf units were half strength, replacements were found from other Arms and Corp, given scant Inf trg , then thrown into the battle of the Sheldt. Look at some of the headstones. Why are there 40 year old Inf Ptes KIA in late 44 or 45?
Zombies were eventually sent overseas very late in the war. Very few saw action. Many deserted.
Newfoundland is a different matter. But if Nfd is punished, where would the CF gets it's recruits?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

There are still more than four hours for Ontarians to give Stephen Harper his majority according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081014.wexlnontario1014/BNStory/politics/home


> Ontario 'more crucial' to election outcome
> *Analysts says Harper's stumble in Quebec leaves Ontario as the main battleground province*
> 
> COLIN PERKEL
> ...




A lot may depend on the 905 area code which gave Mike harris two majority governments back in the ‘90s and which Stephen Harper has courted with targeted programmes and policy proposals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Harper will not be able to, and no other PM could, _punish_ Quebec cause the Lieliberals and the NDP, let alone the Bloc, will suck up to get the Quebec vote. Without Quebec seats, very difficult to form a government, let alone a majority. And Quebec knows that, and utilizes that fact.
> ...




One can win without Québec with this:

-------------------
Terrs: 1 )
BC: 20   )
AB: 28   }  All fairly easily done by the Conservatives
SK: 12   )
MB: 12  )
ON: 70  --  A real challenge, but if you accept that the Liberals have a ‘lock’ on only 20 seats and the NDP on less than 10 then it’s *possible* 
QC: 2  )
NB: 4   )
NS: 4   } All ‘doable’ by the Conservatives
PEI: 1  )
NF: 1  )
--------------------

The Québcec vote might split along these lines:

BQ: 54
Cons: 2
Greens: 0
Libs: 16
NDP: 2
Others: 1


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2008)

ERC, the exposure you have had says it all . I only state my 2 cents.

I previously said "Without Quebec seats, very difficult to form a government, let alone a majority"  you say "One can win without Québec with this". We both agree that  The "Greens' will fly first, before that happens.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (14 Oct 2008)

I wonder how accurate this prediction will be.   http://www.electionprediction.org/2007_fed/index.php 

wel tories at 125,   libs at 94 and ndp at 36 ... we might see a swift formal agreemnt on the left for PM Dion ... 

I guess 4 hours from now we'll see.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .  .  . an interesting story about just how vindictive Danny Williams’ ABC campaign has become:
> 
> http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?pid=1154&cpcat=election&stry=91407039
> 
> This goes a bit beyond politics, in my opinion, and looks a bit like intimidation. Williams may be immensely popular in NF, but he’s acting like a cheap thug.



It's been a few decades since I left the rock, but vindictiveness and an autocratic streak are almost in the DNA of Newfoundland first ministers (pre and post Confederation).  Danny Williams is a pussycat compared to Joey Smallwood, however Joey's vindictiveness was usually reserved for his home-grown opponents; much of his time with mainland (business and political) interests was spent sucking up.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2008)

Just back from doing my civic duty.

Mark one more for the Conservatives... two if you count my wife.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Oct 2008)

Well, like you said in less than 4 hrs we'll all know.

Eastern Canada, particularily Ontario and Quebec have always decided the fate of all elections, and the west as usual gets the shaft IMHO anyways  ;D

Do they still have that blackout??

OWDU


----------



## dangerboy (14 Oct 2008)

Just got back from voting; luckily did not have any of the problems old sweat mentioned in his post.  The voting station had lots of signs and the staff working there were friendly and able to knew how to handle all the little problems that crept up while I was waiting.  Now the wait begins for the results.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2008)

Well...on a non-serious side of the Federal Election...I just watched the CBC pre-election coverage with The Rick Mercer Report and This Hour Has 22 Minutes and...I laughed harder than I have in a long time.   ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (14 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well...on a non-serious side of the Federal Election...I just watched the CBC pre-election coverage with The Rick Mercer Report and This Hour Has 22 Minutes and...I laughed harder than I have in a long time.   ;D



Agreed! The skit with Elizabeth May was hysterical!  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> ...
> Do they still have that blackout??



Yes, we've got just over 2 hrs (2130 Hrs Eastern) before we start to see results.

The polls have closed in NF but the CBC's Internet radio network is 'blocked' so I cannot listen in.

Edited to add: Here is a pretty clear explanation of the timings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Agreed! The skit with Elizabeth May was hysterical!  ;D



Ya!  I LOLd at that one too!  My sides are sore, and not just from X amounts of crunches and leg raises today!

Rex is talkin' on CBC now and I can NOT keep a straight face!


----------



## kratz (14 Oct 2008)

Just got barred from an PEI website becasue of the election blackout.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Well, like you said in less than 4 hrs we'll all know.
> 
> Eastern Canada, particularily Ontario and Quebec have always decided the fate of all elections, and the west as usual gets the shaft IMHO anyways  ;D
> 
> ...



Although I'm not holding my breath, it's just possible that the Torries will garner enough seats in the centre and east to make the votes in the west count this time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2008)

If you have time swiching channels through your cable provider or Star Choice/Bell, the CTV national election coverage on ATC is showing 7 elected now. (I am in BC)


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2008)

Plug pulled at 1714 local


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

Well, the good news is that Elizabeth May just conceded, live, on air on CBC radio.

Defence Minister McKay increased his vote share so the Liberal _stunt_ to not run a candidate against May backfired.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Oct 2008)

Looks like the Conservatives have won.


----------



## chris_log (14 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Looks like the Conservatives have won.



I'll say they 'won' when they get a majority (fingers crossed). I don't think I could stand another minority government having to pander to the whims of the other parties. 

The Conservatives seem to have lost Quebec (IMHO, who cares, but they need those seats to form a majority) but have made some pretty good gains in Ontario.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2008)

Just read this:
In one major loss for the Liberals, Garth Turner was defeated by Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt.


;D

Link


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Oct 2008)

Can you say Majority Government ?


----------



## Celticgirl (14 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can you say Majority Government ?



They are only 10 seats away!


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can you say Majority Government ?




Probably not.  :'(

It is shaping up as:

BQ: 50-55
Cons: 140-150 – stronger minority   :cdnsalute:
Greens: 0  
Libs: 75 to 85 
NDP: 30-35
Inds:  2 or 3


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Oct 2008)

What about Taliban Jack?

Did he loose his seat?


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Oct 2008)

Nope retained his seat..by a vast majority....From downtown hippy/immigrant/not really Canadian (IE: Radical Islam) population


Elizabeth May however got her BUTT whipped!!! Going back to herforrest to meditate on why she really isn't a leader or a party


----------



## TacticalW (15 Oct 2008)

Gooooo CONSERVATIVES! Well, you know who I voted for (and everyone I know)  Here's to a group effort in DT Vancouver  

Watching the counters avidly on CBC atm


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Nope retained his seat..by a vast majority....From downtown hippy/immigrant/not really Canadian (IE: Radical Islam) population



Dangerous undercurrent to that, mate... "Not really Canadian"?  Folks who fled their homeland, chose Canada, and had to make an effort to become citizens, vice the many slack and idle do-nothings born into citizenship with no understanding of its value?  I know my first choice as "Canadians".


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ....From downtown hippy/immigrant/not really Canadian (IE: Radical Islam) population



So I guess these are the Canadians who got off their asses and actually voted?


----------



## JBG (15 Oct 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> It's been a few decades since I left the rock, but vindictiveness and an autocratic streak are almost in the DNA of Newfoundland first ministers (pre and post Confederation).  Danny Williams is a pussycat compared to Joey Smallwood, however Joey's vindictiveness was usually reserved for his home-grown opponents; much of his time with mainland (business and political) interests was spent sucking up.


As in the boffo job he did negotiating with Quebec on Churchill Falls?


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So I guess these are the Canadians who got off their asses and actually voted?



In short yes...

However when one wants to win a war they do so also on a domestic front, Taliban Jack almost openly supporting the Taliban (well certainly not supporting the Afgan people nor the CF) would be the strongest candidate for them to vote for so they move into his riding. You'll also notice the hippy vote in his area went to him aswell. I am using hippy to include the very strong gay and labour communities in Danforth as well. 


It's unfortunate that the populace of Canada is so blase about the leadership of this country, though I am huge fan of Harper few Canadians will see him as the man I do. He still to this day cannot seem personable via mass media. It's his weakest point sadly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Dangerous undercurrent to that, mate... "Not really Canadian"?  Folks who fled their homeland, chose Canada, and had to make an effort to become citizens, vice the many slack and idle do-nothings born into citizenship with no understanding of its value?  I know my first choice as "Canadians".



Whether or not they appreciate it....they were born into that 'freedom' by our forefathers who paid for their 'freedom' to be that way....they should not be looked down upon by those in uniform who continue to protect/provide that freedom, such as you and I, should they?

You called BM for a dangerous uncurrent but then laid into one yourself...pot...kettle.

*edited for spelling (aggain...dammit!  :blotto


----------



## Celticgirl (15 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *editted for spelling



Oh, the irony. LOL


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2008)

My current group of "fellow Albertans" come from all parts of the Globe, including some locals.   All of them put in a pretty hard slog in a job that we can't seem to hold "Canadians" in.  And many of them have more reason than most to appreciate the opportunity to argue about policy, vote for more than one party, vote more than once and not have to worry about violent transitions of power.

Pretty good Canadians from where I sit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Oh, the irony. LOL



Goddamn PEI education kicks me in the arse again! And..it is late!


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ..., vote more than once ....



How do they run elections in Alberta?    ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (15 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Goddamn PEI education kicks me in the arse again! And..it is late!



Sorry. I am beat tired and that struck me as funny. 

It is definitely late...way past my bedtime, too. I think it's time to accept the minority win (albeit with more seats) and get some zeds.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> How do they run elections in Alberta?    ;D



Sorta sounds like the way they run them in Florida!   ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Oct 2008)

You will notice I quantified "Non Canadian" and I stand by my quantification of who I say is not really a Canadian.

Those who come to this country and try to make our country more like theirs is not a Canadian. And you all know the type of person I am talking about to. Those people and families who bring with them their religious agendas or their ideas of how THIS country should be more like the old country from which they originate. Those people are the people I reffer to.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> How do they run elections in Alberta?    ;D



Early and often  ;D


$2 used to get you a horse, a *****  (lady of the night  - Dammit! You can't even use the Queen's English round here any more) or a vote  

And Bullet Magnet - you're right.  Taking things a little seriously me.

Cheers, and join me in a Chivas.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> You will notice I quantified "Non Canadian" and I stand by my quantification of who I say is not really a Canadian.
> 
> Those who come to this country and try to make our country more like theirs is not a Canadian. And you all know the type of person I am talking about to. Those people and families who bring with them their religious agendas or their ideas of how THIS country should be more like the old country from which they originate. Those people are the people I reffer to.



I know the idea of the +1 posts are now a no-no here but thats about all I could say about BMs post.

+1 to your post, in particular the underlined portion.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know the idea of the +1 posts are now a no-no here but thats about all I could say about BMs post.
> 
> +1 to your post, in particular the underlined portion.



Yeah, kick whitey out and return to the traditional native religions.

Oh, wait...

Not quite what you meant?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not quite what you meant?



I think we're all supposed to "understand" that he wasn't referring to pseudo-English pubs, Highland games, Carnival, or any use of the French seigneurial or British survey methods for dividing the land (_inter alia_, of course).     ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Oct 2008)

Well I would much preffer we kick whitey out but I don't think my brothers and I can manage so we take the ong approach.... Cheap smokes and gambeling

Payback is a B1tch for the small pox blankets and fire water!  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Oct 2008)

Voter turnout - historic vs. today

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html







And for 2008:



> Polls reporting: 66,215/69,632
> 
> Voter turnout: 13,009,994 of 23,401,064 registered electors *(55.6%)*



http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx


There's probably few, if any, ridings in the country that couldn't have been overturned if the other half of the voters had shown up and voted for the runner-up.



(Edited to update Elections Canada data.)


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So I guess these are the Canadians who got off their asses and actually voted?



Hear!  hear!  These are the Canadians who ensure that I'm not wasting my time for democracy on foreign shores (though it is a land locked country)


----------



## chanman (15 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Voter turnout - historic vs. today
> 
> http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html
> 
> ...



I'm hoping that they go back to the longer polling station hours in BC.  The 7am to 7pm thing very nicely brackets morning and evening rush hours, and Vancouver traffic was absolutely _abysmal_ today.

Cast my ballot with an hour to spare, but if there had been one more stupid driver stalling on the Alex Fraser...


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Oct 2008)

I got home at 2345 last night with all the polls reporting in our part of Leeds-Grenville except one of the advanced polls and it was predicted to go until 0200. We carried all the polls, most with amazingly high numbers (usually three figures) with the other parties in the one and low two figure range. My guesstimate is that our candidate got close to two thirds of the vote across the riding, but that just might be what one would expect when the Liberals and Greens both parachute a candidate into the riding. Our candidate also works extremely hard serving the public, which is the greater part of a MP's duties, regardless of their political leanings. We made a large sign saying "Thank You North Grenville [our municipal title]" and posted it in one of the front windows. After that, pull pole time.

Up at 0520, walked and fed the dog, and on the net. Back over to the office to pack it up this morning and nap time this pm.


----------



## old medic (15 Oct 2008)

Hopefully someone comes up with a list of the Dion's hand picked star candidates and their poll results.
I'm curious.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Oct 2008)

I guess you can say this election was a referendum on Afghanistan and Harpers government. Canadians seem to like the direction Harper is going and maybe when the next election is called Canadians will give the Conservatives a majority.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess you can say this election was a referendum on Afghanistan and Harper's government. Canadians seem to like the direction Harper is going and maybe when the next election is called Canadians will give the Conservatives a majority.



I think Harper took the Afghanistan issue off the table early in the election, and I didn't see anything resounding coming out of the "cost of the war", any of the peacenik groups, NDP musings, or any such throughout the rest of the campaign. 

The Liberals had a weak, very weak leader and it showed, both before and after. The Conservatives can't count on that the next time around....the Liberal Party has its' stupid moments, read Dion, but you can't count on them to remain collectively stupid. If they elect Bob Rae as the next leader, he will the equivalent of another Dion in Ontario....Rae is a good politician, but the Ontario memory of him being premier can and will be used against him with success. Reality says Ignatiaff is probably the most logical next B team candidate (the A team all opted out early before the Dion crowning) while the party bids it's time waiting for Trudeau to grow up...

Harper himself, and only Harper cost the CPC the majority. He got cocky and shot off his mouth about the arts & culture community. I and probably 3/4 of the west agree with him, but nonetheless, the Bloc used it to their advantage.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Oct 2008)

Don't forget the dauphin was crowned last night in the Papineau riding.


----------



## geo (15 Oct 2008)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Don't forget the dauphin was crowned last night in the Papineau riding.


That is in spite of Mr Dion not really wanting him in the 1st place.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Oct 2008)

At least Michael Byers didn't win, he came third in his selected riding. And Hedy Fry was elected again? Wow.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

Danny Williams is now saying that "as far as he is concerned, the feud between himself and Harper is finished"

This came after Harper he would announce "elected" members to represent both NFL & Quebec....

This is kinda like some jerk thowing a shot, then quickly saying "I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it!!!.....friends??"

It might take a couple of years, but I think somewhere down the line Danny Williams is gonna be saying "ouch"


----------



## PanaEng (15 Oct 2008)

> Reality says Ignatiaff is probably the most logical next B team candidate (the A team all opted out early before the Dion crowning) while the party bids it's time waiting for Trudeau to grow up...
> 
> Harper himself, and only Harper cost the CPC the majority. He got cocky and shot off his mouth about the arts & culture community. I and probably 3/4 of the west agree with him, but nonetheless, the Bloc used it to their advantage.


Ignati*e*ff also has some baggage among the left wingers - his support for intervention in Iraq and Afgh. But he will pull some people from the right - the progressive c. crowd that are uneasy with the social conservative views of the right wing.
As a commentator in CBC this morning said (I paraphrase and can't remember who) Dion did his job; he was a compromise leader - one faction could not abide by Rae and his obvious handicap in Ontario and the other - the left wingers - could not support Ignatieff. Now that both issues have had some time down the river and both have had their term as MP's let the hounds loose and see who comes out on top - I bet on Ignatieff but have been wrong before.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2008)

I agree with you entirely GAP.

With respect to the election I tend to see the result this way:

Two Parliaments sitting together.

75 Quebec seats
233 For the Rest of Us.

Harper gained a Majority of the 233 (133) but only won 10 of 75 in Quebec.

For Quebecers this works fine.  The returned a few Liberals and Tories so they covered their bets for representation but they also returned a large block of representatives that can divert the government to act on Quebec's behalf.  This has nothing to do with sovereignty.  It has everything to do with their personal and provincial interests.  

The worst thing that could happen to Quebecers now would be for the country to split.  They have clout. They have the ear of government. 

In the rest of Canada the Tories are the preferred party while the Liberals are a marginalized party relegated to University Ghettoes.  The NDP is depriving them of the centre-left-right unionists.  (A unionist is an individual coerced into paying dues to support progressive causes while being socially conservative and economically "progressive" except when it comes to paying taxes).

I can foresee this situation lasting a very long time.

The long question will be: Can the Government reach past the Quebec media and the Bloc to talk policies to right-wingers in Quebec that would force the Bloc to become more accomodating to retain their seats?

Remember 3 or 4 BQ voted against gun control.  And many Quebecers are pro-life.

Not all Francos are Social Democrats.

I don't think the Quebecers see the Bloc as sovereigntists or even in terms of their policies.  I think they just see them as Quebecers representing their interests in Ottawa.  And isn't that what Reform called for?  For MPs to be agents of their electors.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

Interesting take on Obama and Harper

What the Canadian election means to Barack Obama if he wins
Submitted by Chad on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 11:04am.  
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS by Chad Rubel
Article Link

You probably didn't watch C-SPAN's coverage of the CBC from Canada in its coverage of the Canadian federal elections. And even if you did, you might wonder how last night's results affect the U.S. and our presidential race. 

Stephen Harper was elected to another minority government in Canada last night. It's a stronger minority government, 143 seats of a possible 308. After the last election, Harper had 126 seats.

The Liberals, who have been in the charge for most of the last 45 years, now have 77 seats, a whopping 26 seats down from the last election. THis is the fewest seats the Liberals have had since 1984.

The key issues between the two countries are oil, immigration, trade, border crossings, Afghanistan, and for a lack of a better word, terrorism. Canada is the U.S.' largest trading partner and the U.S. gets more oil from Canada than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. 

In the last 45 years, there have often been polar opposites in charge of the two countries: Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau, Bill Clinton and Brian Mulroney, George W. Bush and Jean Chrétien. 

So the prospects of Barack Obama and Stephen Harper getting along are entirely possible. But there was hope on a number of fronts that the Liberals could run a better race, but Stéphane Dion ran a terrible race, and likely won't be back as the opposition leader. 

If the Liberals had won, there was hope that talks on border crossings, trade, and "terrorism" would go smoother and more commonality would be found.

Harper had, as CBC's Rex Murphy said last night, the perfect storm last night: weak Liberal leader, an improved Green Party, and improved New Democratic Party. And he still couldn't get a majority.

But Harper will try and run the government like a majority. For what it's worth, Harper had been able to run a minority government for the last two years with fewer seats. And now he has more power.

The implications of Harper not having a like-minded person in the White House are unknown. Harper, having been ignored by Bush, has tried to come up with policies, especially on "terrorism," to try and please Bush. And Bush has pretty much ignored him.

Bush wasn't really paying much attention to Canada even before 9/11 and the Iraq War. Then-PM Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq. If you think that snub is petty, think of John McCain and Spain. Even if you don't believe his handlers that McCain knew what he was saying to the reporter, the McCain campaign believes Spain should be punished for not keeping troops in Iraq. And yes, Spain has troops in Afghanistan. 

If Obama wins in November, he needs to be pro-active with Harper right away. Harper will have the upper hand, but Obama needs to be direct on what we need and want, while also understanding where Canada is coming from. 

McCain has been on Canadian soil in 2008, and Obama's Canadian connection was the talk about reopening NAFTA. Obama definitely would need to schedule a trip very soon after taking office.

Obama can also expect some animosity. Traditionally, Canadian prime ministers don't like to be seen as being too chummy with U.S. presidents. That didn't bother Harper with Bush, but with Obama, Harper will likely develop a different tone. And Obama needs to be ready.

Obama also needs to be welcoming on trade issues, and perhaps offering a few concessions (think softwood lumber). And Obama needs to be clear with Harper that trade needs to flow easier between the two countries. Border crossings have a lot to do with trade, since trucks bring lots of products back and forth. 

All of this would have been much easier with Obama and Dion (or anybody but Harper). But it can be done: Harper wants attention from a U.S. president, and Obama wants to work well with Canada. 
End of article


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Oct 2008)

Interesting article, GAP. I Mr Harper is successful in cultivating a positive relationship with Mr Obama (which I think he's smart enough to work towards), what will the Liberals et al have to demonize him with in the next election? He's too close to the left? He's too chummy with the Democrat president? The satanization of Mr Harper has been the main talking point for the left for the last two elections.

Don't forget that the Canadian right is left of the American left.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2008)

Regardless of who is in the White House, Canada really isn't going to be on their radar a lot of the time. We are not the neighbour from "Lakeview Terrace", who gets in your face and causes trouble. (That would be Mexico).

On the other hand, should Senator Obama win, he will be in a difficult position. The Democratic congress will not feel beholden to him, which should make governance especially rocky in these tough economic times. Should he or his advisors decide to bring up NAFTA or import other rules and initiatives to Canada, they will suddenly discover that Prime Minister Harper holds the whip hand with Alberta oil (see, they _should_ be paying more attention to us!), which will really change the dynamic of the relationship. States which rely on cross border trade will also oppose protectionist initiatives.

WRT Newfoundland and Quebec, since "courting" seems to pay little or no dividends, I would think Prime Minister Harper has an opportunity to cut many government initiatives and programs (in the name of cost cutting to protect the Canadian economy), and simply provide Quebec and Newfoundland access to what remains with the same terms as the other provinces. I think this is one of the long standing goals of the Reform movement anyway, and fits in with the Prime Minister's putative long term vision of the Canadian Federation of equal provinces and a far reduced role for the Federal Government. Indeed, this could effectively defang a lot of the chattering class and MSM opposition to the Harper Government; the message will be everyone has to take one for the team to preserve the Canadian economy, jobs, savings and opportunities. Duccepe and Williams can be painted as opponents to the Canadian recovery and their authors of their own misfortunes.


----------



## wannabe SF member (15 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not all Francos are Social Democrats.


Exactly!! 

The medias here have done an excellent job of making Montreal, or more the Montreal "in progressive" people the poster children of this province.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2008)

David Frum takes a 10,000 foot veiw:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI3ODI3ZTM3YWM0NTY5Yjg5NGQzOTAyODg0MjQ3NGY=



> Wednesday, October 15, 2008
> 
> *Harper's Triumph*
> For one brief moment during the Canadian election campaign, polls held out hope that Stephen Harper might win a majority government against his weak Liberal opponent, Stephane Dion. Those hopes have been disappointed, leaving some Harper supporters with a vague feeling of disappointment in the ultimate result, a gain of 16 seats (as compared to a Liberal loss of 19).
> ...


----------



## Hot Lips (16 Oct 2008)

Pretty sure we won't see any majorities in this country...there are too many parties...seems like common sense to me... : too many to share votes over...
Perhaps that's why the Americans only have the two...

My .02

HL


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Oct 2008)

The BQ will prevent any majorities, failing a massive inroads into that province by either Liberals or Conservatives.  Or Danny Williams can STFU :rage:

Of 233 non-Quebec seats, 133 went to the Conservatives, a clear majority outside of Quebec.

Another way to look at it is the "Big Smoke".  It is almost as though Toronto is out of touch with the rest of Canada.  (I know, quel surprise!!)  
30 seats or so of all liberal seats are in the GTA.  Wow.  Just half of them to the conservatives, and there's the majority.  I just don't get it.


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2008)

Outgoing MP's Receive Rich Severance Packages  
10/16/2008 
Article Link

The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says Canadians don't have to worry about the financial situation of members of Parliament who were defeated in Tuesday's election.

Outgoing M-Ps will be getting a lot more than a gold watch.

The federation's acting director, Adam Taylor says defeated and retiring M-Ps are eligible for a generous pension plan and rich serverance payments.

Taylor tells CJOB a former Prime Minister is at the top of the list.
Click on link to hear audio portion


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Oct 2008)

Oh this sounds fun,  lets continue with this "if not for this group of 'others' we would have won" logic.

If not for Newfoundland, which out of regional interests failed to elect a single conservative and PEI which only elected one and Nova Scotia which only elected 3 of their 11 seats... so that is 4 seats out of 22 for those "provinces".  I put "" around that because I wanted to highlight that they are different,  you know not like us.  You know the 37.63% that voted conservative...  you know as opposed to the 44.44% that voted Liberal (26.24%) or NDP (18.2%).

I don't like it when people start 'stripping out regions' and seeing the results.  This put into mind us vs them.  We're all Canadians.  The Conservatives came in second in Toronto Center,  and the NDP came in second in my home riding in Alberta (Red Deer) as they did in all but 5 or so seats (not including the one they won)

Every region/riding elected the person/party they wanted.  Many decided on which party would be the best to serve them.  Conservatives were elected in Alberta because they have policies that favour Albertans.  The liberal green shift plan,  cutting income tax and taxing carbon,  would have saved this TTC taking guy in Toronto allot of money.  People can act in their own best interest without malice towards other regions.

Which reminds me,  who saw the daily show when they mentioned Canada?  http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=3350  click on the Canuck vote.  Apparently we're the creepy older brother that lives in the attic - the "Gay Nader fans for Peace" won.  ;-)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Outgoing MP's Receive Rich Severance Packages
> 10/16/2008
> Article Link
> 
> ...



You can't imagine how happy I am that my tax dollars go to pay people who loose...some of them for the rest of their lives. 

*/sarcasm on   * 

However, I believe deep deep down that their *service* to Canada is worth every penny.  I don't disagree at ALL that they get better pensions, after shorter periods of *service* than members of the CF.

*/sarcasm off*


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I don't like it when people start 'stripping out regions' and seeing the results.  This put into mind us vs them.



In my own honest opinion, the only group that owes the rest of us an answer is the 41% of registered voters who didn't care enough to show up at the polls.

How about some peer pressure? Let's try adding this to the process next time.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> How about some peer pressure? Let's try adding this to the process next time.



And for 4 days after the election,  nobody without the inked finger could 1)go into a bar 2)buy cigarettes 3) buy booze .... or the other things only adults are allowed to do.


Can you imagine the spike in voters if we did that?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Oct 2008)

In Australia, voting is compulsory. There is a $20 fine for not voting, and if you don't pay the fine, that rises to $50 plus court costs. I wonder about the reaction of Canadians if this was proposed for us.


----------



## Mike Baker (16 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In Australia, voting is compulsory. There is a $20 fine for not voting, and if you don't pay the fine, that rises to $50 plus court costs. I wonder about the reaction of Canadians if this was proposed for us.


My gosh, they actually do that! 

Why don't we?

Beav


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> And for 4 days after the election,  nobody without the inked finger could 1)go into a bar 2)buy cigarettes 3) buy booze .... or the other things only adults are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the spike in voters if we did that?



Like...you never heard of markers?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Oct 2008)

Next election, if Scott Brison is running again, I'm booking the day off work.
On Tuesday, after voting I had to work. My shift starts at noon, and while I'm pulling into the parking lot, I see none other than Mr.Brison himself walking into the building. This in itself isn't out of the ordinary, as he comes in every now and then, but seeing how it was election day while I was going out back to the kitchen I kept my ears open to see what he was saying. Feeling nosey, rather than go to the kitchen right away like I normally do, I just stood behind the counter looking like I was checking the showcase, when in fact I was eavesdropping.
  Now here's  a little piece of advice for everyone: Whenever you have a gathering of some sort, or just feel like eating like an elephant, give Tim Horton's some advance warning so the bakers can get your food ready in advance.
 Mr.Brison bought every single timbit of every kind that was made up. When that wasn't enough, he decided to place an order for half an hour later. Twenty forty packs.
 Here's where the advice and lesson of the day comes in.  When you forget to let Tim Horton's know in advance that you've got one helluva order you're going to make, the baker will become grumpy. Example: On election day, because Mr. Brison failed to inform us that he was going to feed the entire liberal population of Kings and Hants counties, I had zero timbits for anyone during one of the busiest times of the day, and I couldn't get bread in the oven for people during the lunchtime rush. 
The ten dollar tip almost made me feel bad for voting against him, but then whenever I looked at the showcase and saw that I had to spend the next two hours making timbits that feeling faded away quickly.
  
Anyhow, that's the story of my first election day. It doesn't really add a whole lot to the thread, I just found it a bit amusing.

Midget


----------



## wannabe SF member (16 Oct 2008)

The Beaver said:
			
		

> My gosh, they actually do that!
> 
> Why don't we?
> 
> Beav



Belgium does it too. 

Provided that it was clearly said that spoiled ballot was still an option, I would agree with a fine for not voting. 

In my opinion, voting is a duty.

People that tell me they're not voting because they don't agree with any party can always put in a blank ballot.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Oct 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> In my opinion, voting is a duty.



Now, that's something that I disagree on. To me, voting is a priviledge. When the voter turnout is as low as it is today, it would be a safe bet to assume that a lot of those people who didn't vote, have no idea what any of the parties are riding on. They would likely end up casting their vote  based on something that they heard, like "Harper is Bush's puppet."  If someone with next to zero knowledge of Canadian politics/parties is forced to vote, they'll vote for what sounds good on the outside without bothering to read between the lines or look on the inside. And you know, the greens and NDP would just love that (even though their official stance would be against it).
Just my 2 pennies, anyhow. 

Midget


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2008)

Look at it this way, have you folks that are advocating fines stopped to consider that these people are also exercising their rights/privilege as well by remaining silent? Silence is telling in itself. Some people just don't care either way who is elected and who isn't. and I find this attitude more and more prevalent with a lot of my peers. If you advocate fines then I ask you this; do you feel members of the CF should suffer disciplinary action as well if they did not vote?


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Now, that's something that I disagree on. To me, voting is a privilege. When the voter turnout is as low as it is today, it would be a safe bet to assume that a lot of those people who didn't vote, have no idea what any of the parties are riding on. They would likely end up casting their vote based on something that they heard, like "Harper is Bush's puppet."  If someone with next to zero knowledge of Canadian politics/parties is forced to vote, they'll vote for what sounds good on the outside without bothering to read between the lines or look on the inside. And you know, the greens and NDP would just love that (even though their official stance would be against it).
> Just my 2 pennies, anyhow. Midget



Democracy is built on the participation of the population. When the population stop participating in the selection of their government, they relinquish their rights. First by the manipulation of the populous by well meaning but controlling officials, then by less scrupulous members that realize that if the population is told certain things they will accept them.  Laws get changed to give more and more power to the officials, finally resulting in the population being totally controlled by the officials, with no recourse to removing the officials from office.

Still think your vote does not count? It is your duty to give new blood to the democracy by voting, it is not someones right to give you the privilege.


----------



## DBA (16 Oct 2008)

Our democracy relies on the people expressing their desires about who should represent them in government. Not voting destroys that. Compulsory voting also gets rid of all the voter registration drives and get out the vote efforts. Both of which are huge wastes of time and money. 

Myself I do not like the volatility that changes in voter turnout can have on election outcomes. Voter turnout can be too easily increased by massive spending, which I think corrupts the process.


----------



## Celticgirl (16 Oct 2008)

Does anyone else think that democracy and "compulsory" or "forced" voting don't seem to go together? Like that old Sesame Street tune..."One of these things is not like the others..."


----------



## DBA (17 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Does anyone else think that democracy and "compulsory" or "forced" voting don't seem to go together? Like that old Sesame Street tune..."One of these things is not like the others..."



There is lots of compulsion and forcing in a democracy. Every law is a compulsion to act or not act in a some way. The basics of democracy is the people get a say in how they are governed. Some argue (like I do) that compulsory voting would strengthen the connection between those that govern and the people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Oct 2008)

While I think everyoe SHOULD vote, I don't agree with MAKING them vote.  

If people have no desire to vote, then they take what they get, and I've heard many people on radio shows, and on the news, etc state they didn't see anyone worth voting for, or they didn't think it would matter as they are all pretty much the same.

Forcing people to vote does NOT address the real issue of why they have no desire to vote.

And..do you really want people showing up to vote who will just pick a candidate and vote for them?  Myself, I'll take the results from the ones who go of their own free will over an additional 41% of people who just go to save themselves a fine, as they are not likely to vote "seriously" and what happens when some shitp**p gets voted in when the mass of forced voters all band together in a Facebook group and agree to vote for some smuck??  And don't think that is such a ridiculous example, it would likely happen.

Nope, forced voting is too dangerous to introduce IMO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2008)

If you force people to vote, you'll have a false election. Those forced to vote will spoil ballots and vote opposite their heart and gut to prove their point and hit back at athourity. Next thing you've got is a party in power that NOBODY really wanted, and NO ONE can figure how they got there. Power should be decided by those with interest and those that come out. The parties that motivate their people get the votes, proven by this election. The rest can pound salt and decide, if four years later, they want to step up and make a difference. I don't think I've ever voted for a local rep that's won. However, I've not missed a vote, municipal, provincial or federal, since I became of age.

You can be a driver or a passenger. Drivers get to determine how you're getting there. Passengers are along for the ride with no say whether you get there safely, or you crash and burn.

I don't want disinterested knobs, joints or diseffected arseholes determining which way my country is heading. We have enough of those elected and making the decisions already.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Oct 2008)

Unfortunately, this is too true in the current era of "I know my rights, me first" Canada. I don't imagine that there are too many false elections in Australia because people are accustomed to the requirement to vote. Regardless, I'm at a loss to suggest how we improve voter turnout.


----------



## Celticgirl (17 Oct 2008)

DBA said:
			
		

> Some argue (like I do) that compulsory voting would strengthen the connection between those that govern and the people.



I disagree. I think that we should encourage people to vote but not force them to vote. Part of the problem is that many Canadians don't recognize what a *privilege* it is to vote in this country, and how there are many people who do not enjoy that same privilege in their own countries. However, I think that forcing them to vote would not drive this point home. In fact, it would make people feel that their rights are being violated in some way, and as recceguy pointed out, we would end up with a false election with results based on the voting of an angry, resentful public.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2008)

The right not to vote has actually been discussed here. I would side with the people who say you should not force electors to vote, for many of the same reasons we are against conscripting people to serve in the Armed Forces. *The word "Idiot" is derived from an ancient Greek word reffering to a person who refused to participate in the assembly; the ancient Greeks felt they were contemptable individuals for refusing to contribute or allowing others to decide for them*.

If the problem is engagement, then perhaps you should consider joining a political party or advocacy group and start engaging with people. I suspect one of the reasons for low engagement and turnout is the very limited scale and scope of the discussion in the MSM, aided and abetted by the parties themselves (see the "gag law" as a prime example). Think of how many political ideas never see the light of day because of this filtration mechanism. During this election, how much discussion of the Christian Heritage Party's did you hear? How about the Canadian Action Party? The Libertarian Party? The Progressive Canadians? The Communist Party of Canada?

Sure, most of these parties only appeal to a limited number of people today, but they cover a far broader range of the political landscape than the "Progressive" troika of the Greens, NDP and Liberals, and the centerist CPC. If more people are aware of the choicesopen to them, then maybe more people would exercise these choices. In any free market for any other good, more choices provides more competition and better goods and service. Why should the political market for ideas be any different?


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Oct 2008)

Jack Granatstein is right on the money (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=886486



> The just-completed election had its interesting moments and its surprises. What it did not have was much policy content. The ongoing American election, by contrast, features candidates debating real policy positions. Sometimes the policies are less than coherent, but at least the American electorate has been granted the opportunity to choose between serious leaders advancing genuine plans.
> 
> In the United States, candidates talk about issues such as defence, foreign policy, trade and national security. Not in Canada. This country might be fighting a war in Afghanistan, but up until the very end of the election campaign, the war was barely on the radar. And when Afghanistan finally came up for serious discussion it was only because the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a cost analysis that seemed to have more what-ifs than one usually finds in accountants' studies.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> During this election, how much discussion of the Christian Heritage Party's did you hear? How about the Canadian Action Party? The Libertarian Party? The Progressive Canadians? The Communist Party of Canada?



Heard plenty from Jack Layton and the NDP. Oops, sorry got them confused with the other communist party again. Easy mistake I guess ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Oct 2008)

too bad Jack never decided to move on like Stephane Dion is most likely planning to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2008)

Simpson does an interesting round up on the election 

Source




> Campaign endnotes: Tory gains, NDP pains
> Article  Comments (6)  JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Maiil
> ...




I disagree with Mr. Simpson on the highlighted points.  

I think it displays a difference of understanding.  He sees ethnic, francophone and aboriginal Canadians migrating towards the Conservatives (perhaps as a result of that charismatic magnetism of Stephen Harper - or some other equally unknown force) and concludes that this will make Conservatives more "moderate", more "Canadian" or dare I say more "Liberal".

I rather choose to think that those ethnic, francophone and aboriginal voters that chose to vote Conservative did so because they chose Conservative policies over the Liberal induced phobia of Harper/Day/Manning et al.  

I think Simpson is right when he says that moderation is the key to success in Canadian politics.  But moderation is hard to define.  Moderation, like porn, is recognized only by the beholder.  The critical issue in politics is to be perceived to be moderate.

When it was only redneck WASPs voting for Reeefoooooorm, it was easy to marginalize them and paint them, and by extension their policies, as immoderate.  

It is considerably harder to paint Conservatives as anything other than Canadian when the supporters of the party's policies include all species of Hyphenated Canadians (and that includes my many hyphenated self).

I don't think that the Conservatives will become more moderate in the sense Mr. Simpson expects.  I do think that they will be perceived as being more moderate and thus their policies will become more acceptable.....except in the Ghettoes of Academia and the CBC.


----------



## JBG (18 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> On the other hand, should Senator Obama win, he will be in a difficult position. The Democratic congress will not feel beholden to him, which should make governance especially rocky in these tough economic times.


You're quite right.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.


----------



## JBG (18 Oct 2008)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Pretty sure we won't see any majorities in this country...there are too many parties...seems like common sense to me... : too many to share votes over...


Actually (and forgive me if my ignorance about Canada is showing) they do a lot more damage than that. They make the attainment of a majority government by a national party almost impossible by taking out of circulation between 45 and 60 ridings. If the Bloc gets, say, 50 ridings (less than they hold now) there are 258 ridings left available to the national parties. Take away another 15-30 for the NDP, and that leaves roughly 240 ridings available and in order to form a majority government either the LPOC or the CPC needs 2/3 of the remaining ridings. A pretty daunting task. The Bloc then can throw its weight around and has much more power than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thus, they are worse than obstructionists; they are minority dictators (again, I may be wrong since as a Yank I know little about how your country works).





			
				Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's why the Americans only have the two...
> 
> My .02
> 
> HLW


Since we're not a parliamentary country the issue of a "majority government" doesn't really apply. The fact is we have almost no party discipline here. The party leader, President and/or Presidential Candidates have zero influence over who the local candidates are.

The reason for the two party system is the fact that the Electoral College system makes it almost impossible for 3rd parties to even get a seat at the table.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Oct 2008)

Fairly good analysis JBG, and something most Canadians probably don't recognize as a dynamic in our elections.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2008)

Here's a view from south of the Border:

The Bulletin Newspaper
Philadelphia's Family Newspaper

Article Link




> *So Near But So Far
> By James G. Wiles, For The Bulletin*
> 10/17/2008
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Here's a view from south of the Border:
> 
> The Bulletin Newspaper
> Philadelphia's Family Newspaper
> ...



WELL!  That was interesting.   :-\


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2008)

> Legal redress is limited. Class action litigation is unknown; contingency fees are banned; andmost business laws which allow lawsuits to be filed have a deterrence damages scheme rather than a compensation one.
> 
> It's so quick and easy to visit Canada. I wouldn't like to have to live there.
> 
> *James Wiles is a Philadelphia lawyer*.



Killing myself laughing.


----------



## Teeps74 (18 Oct 2008)

> At the same time,Canada has an amazingly laissez faire business culture. There are no national securities laws. Stock exchanges, especially in the so called Wild West, are basically wide open. Caveat emptor style business practices which have been illegal here for decades still flourish in Canada.




This guy is funny. He wants us to adopt the American system? The American system which is now bankrupt? The American system which is bankrupting the American middle class?

I'll take our "laissez faire" system over theirs anyday. It apparently works... (Though, I was under the understanding that we have much tighter controls then the Americans do... But then, I am not an economist, so what exactly do I know? These are my own ignorant comments, feel free to correct me, I do want to know better.)


----------



## JBG (18 Oct 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> This guy is funny. He wants us to adopt the American system? The American system which is now bankrupt? The American system which is bankrupting the American middle class?
> 
> I'll take our "laissez faire" system over theirs anyday. It apparently works... (Though, I was under the understanding that we have much tighter controls then the Americans do... But then, I am not an economist, so what exactly do I know? These are my own ignorant comments, feel free to correct me, I do want to know better.)


Some rather influential and formerly wealthy adventurers may be in trouble. We're hardly bankrupt or finished.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (18 Oct 2008)

Wow interesting article.  It is always nice to read what foreigners think of us.

(the following is meant as a joke)

Yes it is true,  Americans have elections like married women argue with their partner - it is never really over, there are just lulls while they collect ammunition/dirt, and it seems to flair up in regular cycles.  There are ONLY TWO involved, if a third is introduced it is looked on as scandalous.

Canadians have elections like drunken frat guys.  They start the moment they think the woman (The GG) says the election is on,  they are short, intense, sloppy with no real finesse or subtlety.  Any name calling is amusing only in the "wow he actually said that and didn't get slapped?"  The more parties involved, the interesting the outcome. Even after the election we have people 'crossing the floor', party whips and bi - elections.

(okay, the rest, while funny, is just a personal comment on things most people know but never really focused on)
In the article it mentioned that outside Quebec Canada is very secular - most Canadians would misread that to think "they think we don't believe in God".  It actually means that if we had a leader of a political party give a speech with a bible in one hand and claiming that god spoke to them and they will do gods work... we'd laugh, then feel very awkward.  It is considered something very personal up here,  and people who put it on display to appeal to voters cheapen their beliefs. (they look like hookers)

The article also mentioned that we don't have the same regulations as in the states.  This is very true.  It also is at the heart at another difference between our cultures - we're fiscally conservative.  *gasp and clutch pearls*  I would point out a major difference is in how we do accounting.  Canadian GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles) are like "general rules and guidelines".  There are very few "hard if this you do that" rules.  It is based upon the ethics and judgement of the accountant.  Auditors will look to see if the accountant's work is a "fair and accurately reflects the economic reality" and that's it. In the states they have FASB - a book thick enough to crush an elephant, filled with rules.  If you find a loophole that allows you to tweak your books,  good for you.  Our stock exchanges reflect these differences in our cultures.  Enron got away with it because they found 'quirky loopholes' and the banks in the states thought it was a great idea to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford they pay them back because they were allowed to tweak their books and present the "loans" in a certain way.  (they couldn't do that up here and hence no Canadian bank is in trouble)  (gee sound principled approach vs clever tricks to make quick money)

During our last election,  the Conservatives hammered the Liberals with "you'll run a deficit".  As a few people suspected,  we were already running a deficit. Somehow cutting 50 billion in tax revenues and increasing spending meant that the Federal government  was spending more than it earns.  *shocking* Conservatives being bad with budgets?  I thought they were all good with money like George Bush and Brian Mulroney.  Funny how Bush was given a huge surplus and turned it into a deficit,  while action pious about the need for tax cuts on the wealthy, it looks like Stephan Harper has done the same.  (Supply side economics, aka trickle down theory, aka 'peeing on the poor', isn't the economic cure all. Sometimes the economy needs other tools used to stimulate it - but if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem you see begin to look like nails)

In Canada the political leader that was the most conservative - Jack Layton.  He was the only one who said he would restore the corporate tax rate.  So insted of having the lowest rate in total,  we'd be 'middle of the G8'.   

Now,  funny thing,  I think the yanks go to the polls on Nov 4th... we almost have enough time to get another election in before then :-D  We could get voter turnout to record lows again - think of it 5% of the population could put in place a majority government!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2008)

The election isn't over for some people. What is really frightening is the intemperate language being used; in legal terms they are openly calling for an overthrow of the lawfully elected government. Since from appearances most of these people would have a hard time organizing a hockey tournament, I don't think we are in any danger (yet), but eventually constant repetition will get some people thinking....

The more realistic option of the Liberal Party splintering is also discussed. I know Edward may be nostalgic for the Liberal "brand" and the proud traditions of Laurier, but lets face it; it hasn't been that party for decades. I believe a new Centre Left party will arise from the Liberal Rump, disgruntled Dippers and Greens (leaving a smaller far left rump), but it took the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives a decade of hard work, so don't expect anything until we are reaching the 2020's

http://stevejanke.com/archives/276775.php



> *From Lloyd Axworthy's union of the left to riots in the streets*
> Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 01:06 PMComments: 20
> Previous Post
> Frankly, people opposed to the Conservatives just can't seem to accept that they lost an election.  The reactions range from wishful thinking to the deranged.  The thing that links them together is the notion that the Conservatives have to be removed from power, now, immediately, before they destroy everything.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2008)

This is my greatest concern.  I alluded to it in the comments on the US election.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are becoming too heavily invested in the political process.  They are no longer willing to "play up, play up and play the game". 

Western Democracies function because people accept the peaceful transition of governments.  They must accept that all candidates are reliable, honourable people that, while they have different views on policy, they are all equally committed to the well being of local society and will do nothing to damage that fabric.

When that trust erodes how far removed are we from Kenya?

The woman that faked the attack by an Obama supporter.  Obama supporters macing a McCain office because they believed they were stealing signs.  White thugs planning to assassinate Obama....................and many more.

All indicative of the break down of civility.    


The young, radical left has always preached against the hypocrisy of society that allows people to exchange pleasantries, smile, shake hands, with people with whom they violently disagree.    And yet it is that very hypocrisy, that willingness to suspend disagreements and adhere to convention in the interest of "peace, order and good governance" that permits western democracies to survive.

My concern is that that is also the weak flank of civilization.

If society can be polarized, as it has been (and maybe it is a natural progression) then it becomes harder to see the "opposition" as "one of us".

And that way lie dragons.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Oct 2008)

As I've said before: if the people who support the parties not currently in power can't be happy with anything less than never-a-Conservative-government, it will end in gunfire.  Here is the stark reality for the non-CPC voters: you have to be willing to put up with at least two solid terms of majority CPC government once in a while.  If you can't do that, let's start negotiating the breakup of the country to ensure everyone has a region suited to their cultural/political preferences right now.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2008)

The problem (on both sides of the border) is the stakes have become far too high. The "Progressives" want the levers of government and the resources of the State in order to institute their program, while "Classical Liberals" need to deny these resources to the progressives to protect small government, property rights, freedom of speech and association and the Rule of Law (but alas, fall prey to temptation to use the power and resources of the States all to easily). The problem is summarised:



> The problem is that once the scope of government is vast and sweeping, and the power of the office is enormous; once you get to where you must have vast sums to get the office, and you must win because otherwise you are ruined by your borrowing, and possibly up for prosecution for criminalized policy differences -- *then you are where the Roman Republic was, and it is worth everything to win.*



http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#scope


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (31 Oct 2008)

Thucydides,

I find your reference actually quite spot on.  I must however take issue with the conclusion you drew.  I don't think it was the "progressives" (which I think you mean non Tory) that passed laws in America that concentrated power in the executive,  nor did they pass laws that striped citizens of civil protections most English speaking people have 'enjoyed' since the Magna Carta.  In Canada,  we can thank the Liberals for our proud moments of rendions and the laws that allow actions that were outlawed near the end of the dark ages.

Also the idea that "progressives" are the bane of small government is false.  Both in America and in Canada Conservatives were given huge surpluses when they started,  in both cases they cut taxes AND increased spending.  In Canada,  a month before they Tories drooped the writ (against the spirit of their own election promise and the law they enacted) they worked hard to increase spending by 19 billion.  Announcing 8 billion-ish the week before the election on programs they previously said they wouldn't support.  Going into the election,  the Tories were running a deficit.  (14 billion surplus - 19 billion increase in spending - 50 billion in cooperate taxes = Big government that runs a deficit)

I'm from Alberta, my family lost allot of money when Treadu enacted the national energy program.  I remember the disdain for the liberals the view being "take from Alberta and give to Quebec".  I know personally a few Conservative MPs,  good guys.  I now live dt Toronto,  I can say the feeling isn't 'anti Alberta' it is mostly people who are 'uncomfortable' with the rhetoric coming from the 'political right'.  Talk of things ending in gunfire,  forcing two terms of Marjory Tory governments on people... seeing what the Tories did to the budget after one minority government,  gritting out teeth waiting to hear what will happen to our children's money (federal debt is our children's money)  When people metion "Tory majority" it is spoken with genuine dread.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2008)

Spoken like a true 905er.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (1 Nov 2008)

905?  eeeew. (kidding)  I'm dt, 416 -  slightly east of the Eaton Center.  (oh my I should be nicer here,  I put it out there where I am and I do look just like my pic)


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Nov 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Thucydides,
> ...  forcing two terms of Marjory Tory governments on people... When people metion "Tory majority" it is spoken with genuine dread.



I take it you are talking about Mike Harris' two majority terms. If so, I would remind you that no one *forced* Harris on the people of Ontario. He came to power through a fair and democratic election, not by coup d'etat.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2008)

I do not propose to force two terms of CPC majorities on anyone.  What I state is this: for any franchise-based system of selecting governments, the structure only lasts as long as the losers in each round concede peacefully (if not gracefully) and stand aside until, inevitably, they are allowed their turn back at the wheel.

What the Tories did to the budget after one minority government is just what the Liberals did to the budget over the last few years of majority government - Chretien et al.  Look at the trends in federal spending.  There is a dip right around the time the major shifts were made to eliminate the deficit; once the economy (and hence federal revenues) picked up steam, the spending proceeded apace to new heights.

Everyone who tells me now that Tory spending is unreasonable, or that a government elected by less than 50% of the popular vote has no legitimacy, is either uninformed or worse (ie. ignorantly or hypocritically dismissive of past governments).  Here is one example.  If governments of every stripe continue to spend as heavily as they believe they can, then the "progressives" have won the big- vs small-government battle and have no reason to complain except for this: they disagree only on how the money is spent.

Gunfire will not come to pass unless we enter a prolonged period of one-party rule.  If that happens, it is highly improbable that the party will be the CPC.  If Canada ever has an oppressive federal government, it is most likely to occur under LPC or NDP rule.  While there is plenty of vile rhetoric emanating from supporters of all points of the political map, I find it instructive that among the very small educated and intelligent fraction of the population the distribution is not as uniform.  When I wish to read spittle-flecked invective from the supposed intelligentsia, I mostly find it on the left.  I simply can't find many in the commentariat who describe Liberal and NDP governments in Canada in the same overblown terms inflicted upon the Conservatives.

Consider the problem this way: if you convince people there is nothing more than this life, but insist on telling them how it must be lived, why should they submit?  If there is no higher power to which people are accountable, then they will either tolerate what they can or resist what they can not.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2008)

The difficulty lies in the comment "but they are prone to temptation". The CPC, American Republicans, British Tories and virtually every other party in the world which supposedly stands for "Classical Liberal" values seem to end up like kids in a candy store once they achieve office. Even if they implement part of the program, they don't provide the entire loaf: even Mike Harris failed to reduce spending along with taxes (in fact, as anyone with a passing knowledge of economics could forecast; revenues increased markedly during the Harris years, which they government proceeded to spend. Had they cut spending when elected and then used the revenues to pay down debt, we might be sitting pretty like Alberta with little or no debt).

The other part (which events south of the border are making pretty clear) is that so much power has been appropriated by non elected functionaries, and if they are working to maximise their power (either through greed or to increase the powers of the State or both), then only an active and uncorrupted legislature will be able to stop them. The "long march" of the Left through our institutions doesn't help either; once again this is something that legislatures *could* deal with, but as we saw with the Democratic Congress (or the Liberal "Ethics" committee chair), the temptations of power are very great...


----------



## TCBF (1 Nov 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> Consider the problem this way: if you convince people there is nothing more than this life, but insist on telling them how it must be lived, why should they submit?  If there is no higher power to which people are accountable, then they will either tolerate what they can or resist what they can not.



- Now THAT is a quote that should appear on billboards all over the country.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2008)

Tracking the money is always interesting. The real question here is "what does this mean?"





> *Massive transfer from the BQ riding of Chambly-Borduas to the Liberal Party*
> Saturday, November 01, 2008 at 08:06 PM Comments: 19
> 
> The latest returns for the Liberal Party are in, and between July and September of this year, the Liberals pulled in less than the NDP.  Again.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (12 Nov 2008)

Oooohh...now THAT sounds juicy!


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (24 Nov 2008)

Well, I voted for scott simms, first time voting, no line ups really to vote... mostly older people, really


----------

