NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize this post is not exactly timely but I have been away from the internet.

I was pleasantly surprised when the Liberals elected Dion as their new leader. He is the one mainstream Canadian politician who I have heard consistently talk about sustainability as THE 21st century challenge for Canada. It may not be a novel vision but it is reasonably bold as far as mainstream politics goes. He has also impressed me in the past as hard-working, motivated and honest, and willing to take principled positions even when they are not popular. HOwever, he is far from an electrifying public speaker and is hardly charismatic. So I question whether he will be able to mobilize people behind his vision.

So how do people fancy his chances ... does he have what it takes to be PM or not?

Is he related to Celine?

Where does one start?

He seems to have fabricated a childhood story that never happened..

"My first interest was for the society of animals, not of man,” he recalls. “We had a neighbour named Gaston Moisan, a biologist who was a deputy minister of natural resources. He set traps for the rabbits, to band them, and used to take me with him. He was 5-foot-7, but he was a giant for me.”
A charming childhood anecdote — except, according to Mr. Moisan, it never happened. “I don't know how he could have imagined that,” the retired bureaucrat and university professor says. “I had nothing to do with Stéphane. And I never sensed any interest on his part for my work.”

source:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070119.cover20/BNStory/National/home

He claims to be unaware of discussions about the expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands when Dion was the environment minister, is he was in fact unaware, why did the Prime Minister of the day deem in prudent to make sure one of his cabinet ministers was so far out of the loop??

source:http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=43ba8184-4635-46a0-92cd-40f55b152777&k=65822

On the defection of Wajid Khan to the Conservatives:

Mr. Dion prior to the the defection.
"In politics you hear many things and to me, Mr. Khan is a colleague. He will be part of the caucus; he will work in a positive way. To me, we co-operate with the government, but we are not the government."

Mr. Dion after the defection.

"I was never comfortable with Mr. Khan serving as an advisor to a Conservative Prime Minister, as Mr. Khan has done since August of last year.

source:http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bf620dff-c5da-41da-bfa2-a41eaf21802e

He insulted workers in Alberta

“All these workers living too fast for the easy money in the north,” [Stephan Dion] blasted as Liberal-appointed senators Tommy Banks and Grant Mitchell looked on. “It’s not good for the economy.”

source:http://www.uncommontruths.blogspot.com/

Help me out here...Mr Dion has been leader of the Liberals for how long now??

Anything is better than what we have now; I'd take a Liberal majority any day. Though, I would prefer an NDP government (the pipe dream), Liberals would be the better bet; anything to NOT have the conservatives in power.

I could handle Dion in charge. Still, pity that McKenna decided not to run. Guess he's too smart for politics.

I was cheering for Rae.

I know very little about Dion... except I'm beginning to hear mixed reports of 'he's a great guy' and 'there's something kinda off about him'.

I was cheering for Rae.

I was sorely dissapointed with Rae the first (and only) time I heard him speak. He was so glib and cliched. I had expected more. Most of my friends from Ontario had a great deal of respect for him, even if they didn't like his government. Even Conservatives seemed to respect him.

Where does one start?

He seems to have fabricated a childhood story that never happened..

"My first interest was for the society of animals, not of man,” he recalls. “We had a neighbour named Gaston Moisan, a biologist who was a deputy minister of natural resources. He set traps for the rabbits, to band them, and used to take me with him. He was 5-foot-7, but he was a giant for me.”
A charming childhood anecdote — except, according to Mr. Moisan, it never happened. “I don't know how he could have imagined that,” the retired bureaucrat and university professor says. “I had nothing to do with Stéphane. And I never sensed any interest on his part for my work.”



I've seen this being mentioned on all of the Conservative blogs, and have yet to figure out what the relevance of this is. I know lots of people who seem to remember certain things having occurred during their childhood, only to later have their parents or relatives point out that things did not happen that way. Children have vivid imaginations.


He claims to be unaware of discussions about the expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands when Dion was the environment minister, is he was in fact unaware, why did the Prime Minister of the day deem in prudent to make sure one of his cabinet ministers was so far out of the loop??

Good question, but I think that reflects more on the character of the PM of the day than the Minister. Martin could hardly remove Dion from cabinet entirely (he was too qualified), but as a past supporter of Chretien, he probably didn't entirely trust him either.


On the defection of Wajid Khan to the Conservatives:

Mr. Dion prior to the the defection.
"In politics you hear many things and to me, Mr. Khan is a colleague. He will be part of the caucus; he will work in a positive way. To me, we co-operate with the government, but we are not the government."

Mr. Dion after the defection.

"I was never comfortable with Mr. Khan serving as an advisor to a Conservative Prime Minister, as Mr. Khan has done since August of last year.


Fair enough. He contradicted himself.


He insulted workers in Alberta

“All these workers living too fast for the easy money in the north,” [Stephan Dion] blasted as Liberal-appointed senators Tommy Banks and Grant Mitchell looked on. “It’s not good for the economy.”


How is that an insult to workers in Alberta? He is aboslutely correct that some of the big money being made in the oil fields in Alberta is fuelling some serious social problems ... drug use, gambling addictions, etc. If other politicians don't have the courage to speak out about it, that is a knock on them, not Dion.

I could handle Dion in charge. Still, pity that McKenna decided not to run. Guess he's too smart for politics.

Yep. He pretty much said as much.

Dion isn't particularly offensive to me, but Harper has actually been a lot less problematic than I thought he would be. It will probably come down to the local campaign for me.

Dion isn't particularly offensive to me, but Harper has actually been a lot less problematic than I thought he would be. It will probably come down to the local campaign for me.

Harper has a minority government he isn't going to do anything that would risk him getting a majority government. He hasn't done anything controversial or dramatic but he has ignored the environment which he now realizes was huge error and is doing a quick step to get onside with the public.

I really fear this government, Harper has deliberately muzzled his MPs as not to scare the voters, there are a number of extremists in his party that will reveal themselves if they get a majority gov. Stockwell Day(the earth is 6,000yrs old)and other christian fundies, Rob Anders(Nelson Mandela is a terrorist), Vic Toews(we need to consider the imprisoning of 10yr olds).

Then there is Harpers attempt to muzzle the media as the White House does, only answering questions from approved friendly(pro-conservative)media, ask a tough question and you'll never ask another...

Anything is better than what we have now; I'd take a Liberal majority any day. Though, I would prefer an NDP government (the pipe dream), Liberals would be the better bet; anything to NOT have the conservatives in power.
The Conservative government have been remarkably centrist, which just goes to show that any good idea that comes out of Alberta will get screwed up as soon as you put an Ontarian in charge.

Long live a free Alberta.

I was cheering for Rae.

I know very little about Dion... except I'm beginning to hear mixed reports of 'he's a great guy' and 'there's something kinda off about him'.The people who knows him best.. are probably the "Quebecois."

ask them.. about Dion.

The people who knows him best.. are probably the "Quebecois."

ask them.. about Dion.

since he is a committed federalist who came up with the Clarity Act asking Quebecois(as in separatists) wouldn't tell you much...

I realize this post is not exactly timely but I have been away from the internet.

I was pleasantly surprised when the Liberals elected Dion as their new leader. He is the one mainstream Canadian politician who I have heard consistently talk about sustainability as THE 21st century challenge for Canada. It may not be a novel vision but it is reasonably bold as far as mainstream politics goes. He has also impressed me in the past as hard-working, motivated and honest, and willing to take principled positions even when they are not popular. HOwever, he is far from an electrifying public speaker and is hardly charismatic. So I question whether he will be able to mobilize people behind his vision.

So how do people fancy his chances ... does he have what it takes to be PM or not?

Well, when you look at the current incumbent you'd see he isn't exactly an "electrifying public speaker" nor is he very charismatic either...but he still sucks.:D

As for Dion, I was somewhat surprised by him being chosen for the leadership, really expected either Ignatieff or Kennedy to take it. But yet another Frenchy takes it.:p I think he'd make atleast a decent prime minister, just to get the Tories out of government atleast. I don't particularly have anything against Tories in history bu fuck...Harper sucks.:(

P.S.: Call me naive, but Dion has restored my faith in politicians (Canadian only really) to a point.

The Conservative government have been remarkably centrist, which just goes to show that any good idea that comes out of Alberta will get screwed up as soon as you put an Ontarian in charge.

Long live a free Alberta.

No... long live a free Ontario - screw the rest of Canada.

I really fear this government, Harper has deliberately muzzled his MPs as not to scare the voters, there are a number of extremists in his party that will reveal themselves if they get a majority gov. Stockwell Day(the earth is 6,000yrs old)and other christian fundies, Rob Anders(Nelson Mandela is a terrorist), Vic Toews(we need to consider the imprisoning of 10yr olds).
Stockwell Day, despite being a creationist, and despite that unfortunate foray into party leadership, has done a fine job as an MP. He was an excellent Foreign Affairs critic, and is a perfectly adequate Minister of Public Safety.

Rob Anders is a lunatic, but I happen to agree with him that Nelson Mandela is a communist and a terrorist.

And Vic Toews recognises that kids under 12 know they can't be punished under the law. That needs to be fixed.

since he is a committed federalist who came up with the Clarity Act asking Quebecois(as in separatists) wouldn't tell you much...then ask the Loyalist Quebecois.. they are supossed to be 50% of them.

Stockwell Day, despite being a creationist, and despite that unfortunate foray into party leadership, has done a fine job as an MP. He was an excellent Foreign Affairs critic, and is a perfectly adequate Minister of Public Safety.
And he'll make an equally adequate Opposition Critic after the next election.
Rob Anders is a lunatic, but I happen to agree with him that Nelson Mandela is a communist and a terrorist.
Well, I don't - and most others don't, either. I don't want a government staffed by lunatics, even if you happen to agree with him in some aspect of his lunacy.
And Vic Toews recognises that kids under 12 know they can't be punished under the law. That needs to be fixed.
So you are in favour of imprisoning the under-twelve. How... illuminating. I rather suspect you and Mr. Anders have far more in common than you're letting on.

I am concerned about what Dion will do to business in this country in the name of saving the environment.

I am concerned about what Dion will do to business in this country in the name of saving the environment.

And I'm equally concerned about what business in this country will do to the environment in the name of saving a buck - without someone like a Stephane Dion to hold them accountable to a higher standard.

I have rather high hopes for Dion as a Liberal leader. He certainly seems to have more of a backbone than Martin, and as a poster said earlier, anything is better than what we have right now. Besides, Dion will put more of an emphasis onto environmental issues, which is what the world needs right now. The next election should be interesting to watch.

And I'm equally concerned about what business in this country will do to the environment in the name of saving a buck - without someone like a Stephane Dion to hold them accountable to a higher standard.
We shouldn't need a politician to hold business accountable. Government tends to be clumsy about these things. I, for one, have started making more environmentally friendly purchases where they are available despite the higher cost. We, the people, should be the ones holding business to higher standard, not the plodding bureaucracy.

With a name like Stéphane, I hope so.

"Haha, the Canadian Prime Minister's named like a girl."

We shouldn't need a politician to hold business accountable. Government tends to be clumsy about these things. I, for one, have started making more environmentally friendly purchases where they are available despite the higher cost. We, the people, should be the ones holding business to higher standard, not the plodding bureaucracy.

On the whole, the "people" can't be trusted to do much other than hunt for bargains - and damn the consequences to our or anyone else's environment. It's dangerously wishful thinking to imagine that meaningful changes in how business comports itself in this nation can be mandated from the grassroots and not the Federal level.

With a name like Stéphane, I hope so.

"Haha, the Canadian Prime Minister's named like a girl."
Our PM's name can be Stephanie for all I care. At least he's not Dubya.

Our PM's name can be Stephanie for all I care. At least he's not Dubya.
Touché.

I'd rather have Belinda Stronach as a Prime Minister,then Stephane Dion, and i hate Belinda!

Hmm. I'm baffled as to why you'd want her to be PM prior to Dion becoming PM, in that case.

I'd rather have Belinda Stronach as a Prime Minister,than Stephane Dion, and i hate Belinda!

One more edit and you'll get it right.

I'd rather have Belinda Stronach as a Prime Minister,than Stephane Dion, and i hate Belinda!

On the whole, the "people" can't be trusted to do much other than hunt for bargains - and damn the consequences to our or anyone else's environment. It's dangerously wishful thinking to imagine that meaningful changes in how business comports itself in this nation can be mandated from the grassroots and not the Federal level.
Hybrid cars seem to disagree with you, for one.

However, leaving that aside, if the average consumer cares more about low prices, why shouldn't the government be representing that desire for low cost?

I'd rather have Belinda Stronach as a Prime Minister,than Stephane Dion, and i hate Belinda!
O_o

Such a person exists?

Out of curiosity, are you Quebecois by any chance?

However, leaving that aside, if the average consumer cares more about low prices, why shouldn't the government be representing that desire for low cost?

Because it's contemptible? No, really - what's life supposed to be for? Getting as much as you can for as little as possible, with no concern for anyone's well-being other than for those within your immediate orbit? Sounds like a recipe for the absolute worst sort of society in my opinion.

Because it's contemptible? No, really - what's life supposed to be for? Getting as much as you can for as little as possible, with no concern for anyone's well-being other than for those within your immediate orbit? Sounds like a recipe for the absolute worst sort of society in my opinion.
And I would agree, but who am I to contend with the will of the masses?

since he is a committed federalist who came up with the Clarity Act asking Quebecois(as in separatists) wouldn't tell you much...

I was also under the impression that he was not very popular in his home province, but most Quebecois seem to view his election as a good thing. Whether it will convince them to vote for him or not is another question. But I think more people now respect the stand he took on the Clarity Act for which he was vilified at the time.

Long live a free Alberta.

Free from what exactly? The massive federal subsidies that made the oil patch viable in the first place?

No... long live a free Ontario - screw the rest of Canada.

Free from what? Ontario complains about how much it pays into transfer payments, ignoring that the massive amount of federal procurement that goes on in Ontario means that Ontario is a net financial beneficiary from federal spending. Without that massive subsidy from the rest of the country, Ontario's economy would falter.

We shouldn't need a politician to hold business accountable. Government tends to be clumsy about these things. I, for one, have started making more environmentally friendly purchases where they are available despite the higher cost. We, the people, should be the ones holding business to higher standard, not the plodding bureaucracy.

The market by itself will never hold these businesses accountable, because in a competitive marketplace there is always an incentive to lower your costs, and one of the easiest ways to do this is by externalizing their costs onto a 3rd party or the public at large. Both the business and the consumer get a free benefit at the expense of someone else. The proper role of government is to ensure that these 3rd parties (or the public at large) are protected and that the business is required to internalize all of their costs. This can be done through market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. But first the government has to create the market for what would otherwise be free goods.

The market by itself will never hold these businesses accountable, because in a competitive marketplace there is always an incentive to lower your costs, and one of the easiest ways to do this is by externalizing their costs onto a 3rd party or the public at large. Both the business and the consumer get a free benefit at the expense of someone else. The proper role of government is to ensure that these 3rd parties (or the public at large) are protected and that the business is required to internalize all of their costs. This can be done through market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. But first the government has to create the market for what would otherwise be free goods.
I don't entirely disagree. However, at the same time, if the public is committed to "going green", they will seek out green products even at higher prices, which will give companies an incentive to use green methods, because while they may raise costs, they will also raise sales. If consumers were green, all it would take is a few enlightened businesspeople to start the ball rolling.

NDP!!!!!!!!!11111 *cheers*

:cool:

And he'll make an equally adequate Opposition Critic after the next election.
But his religious beliefs grant you no reason to dislike the man. That was my point.

That's like opposing some politicians for being Jews.
Well, I don't - and most others don't, either. I don't want a government staffed by lunatics, even if you happen to agree with him in some aspect of his lunacy.
Rob Anders was my boss in my first job out of high school. I can't say I like the man.
So you are in favour of imprisoning the under-twelve. How... illuminating.
I didn't say that. Nice baseless inference, though.

I'm in favour of deterring crime by the under-twelve. I do think the predecessor to the Young Offenders Act (the Child Delinquency Act) did a better job of that. It held the parents of children over 6 responsible for the crimes of their children. As such, the job of stopping the kids from breaking the law fell to their parents.

Under the Young Offenders Act, no one is held responsible for crimes commited by kids under 12. A child of 11 knows that if he breaks the law, NOTHING will come of it. I can't imagine why anyone ever thought that was a good idea.

Free from what? Ontario complains about how much it pays into transfer payments, ignoring that the massive amount of federal procurement that goes on in Ontario means that Ontario is a net financial beneficiary from federal spending. Without that massive subsidy from the rest of the country, Ontario's economy would falter.

Our civil infrastructure is a damn joke, and I will be surprised if we can go six months without one of Toronto's roads imploding on itself. (Finch Ave W at York University; Shepard Ave W at Bathurst...)

If it were really a beneficiary, we wouldn't have to have the city in debt unable to get more money because the province refuses to cough it up, because the federal government won't amend the funding formula to return more than that scant amount to the taxpayers of Ontario.

We have those damn long waiting lists.

Hospital beds were closed and so are schools, and the federal government won't say anything when the damn provincial politicians give themselves a raise without putting money back into the province.

Schools shouldn't have to charge money for tutoring! It's creating a two-tiered system because the province won't pony up the money because the federal government won't give us enough to do so in the first place.

The transit system is a joke...

...

*decides to stop ranting for a while to let her blood pressure go back down*

If it were really a beneficiary, we wouldn't have to have the city in debt unable to get more money because the province refuses to cough it up, because the federal government won't amend the funding formula to return more than that scant amount to the taxpayers of Ontario.
And where, praytell, would the feds get that money?

I mean, aside from giving less to Quebec.
We have those damn long waiting lists.
All provinces have those - no differentiation there.
Hospital beds were closed and so are schools, and the federal government won't say anything when the damn provincial politicians give themselves a raise without putting money back into the province.
The Ontario government is grossly inefficient. Both Eves and McGuinty have done a dreadful job of running the place.

Plus, the federal government cut the health & social transfers to the provinces when it balanced its budget in the mid-90s (the feds didn't actually cut any program spending - they just stopped funding provincial programs like healthcare).
Schools shouldn't have to charge money for tutoring! It's creating a two-tiered system because the province won't pony up the money because the federal government won't give us enough to do so in the first place.
Education is a provincial area of control - Ontario should fund its own schools. If you don't have enough money to do that, try not running huge deficits with Hydro One.

Stephane Dion: Future Prime Minister and Dud.

But his religious beliefs grant you no reason to dislike the man. That was my point.

That's like opposing some politicians for being Jews.

Rob Anders was my boss in my first job out of high school. I can't say I like the man.

I didn't say that. Nice baseless inference, though.

I'm in favour of deterring crime by the under-twelve. I do think the predecessor to the Young Offenders Act (the Child Delinquency Act) did a better job of that. It held the parents of children over 6 responsible for the crimes of their children. As such, the job of stopping the kids from breaking the law fell to their parents.

Under the Young Offenders Act, no one is held responsible for crimes commited by kids under 12. A child of 11 knows that if he breaks the law, NOTHING will come of it. I can't imagine why anyone ever thought that was a good idea.

holding the parents responsible for their children's offenses is lunacy...other than chaining kids to their beds there is not a thing a parent can do to stop a kid who is intent on committing a crime...plus it's probably unconstitutional holding an innocent person accountable for another's crimes...

there is little that can be done with child offenders other than counseling...FAS and incomplete frontal lobe development prevent kids and teenagers from making the proper decisions, so the fact is they are not responsible for their actions...FAS is incurable so imprisonment is likely in their adult future, the lack of frontal lobe development is temporary and they will grow out of it, turning them into criminals with imprisonment isn't the answer...if they are a danger to society they need to constrained in some way, other than that we need to be patient with them...

But his religious beliefs grant you no reason to dislike the man. That was my point.

That's like opposing some politicians for being Jews.


when a politician lets his religious beliefs guide his political agenda that's reason for me to want him outa there...we are a secular state with a good record for previous leaders putting the nations secular views ahead of their personal religious beliefs...Day is not one of those and I don't believe Harper is either, a majority conservative gov with a core of Fundies at the helm is troubling...

Hybrid cars seem to disagree with you, for one.

However, leaving that aside, if the average consumer cares more about low prices, why shouldn't the government be representing that desire for low cost?
Hybrid cars are a half assed attempt that only really make you feel better about what your damaging. Even then, they are going to be just as useless as a regular car come peak oil.

As for your second point, what may be the cheapest in purchase price may not always be cheapest in the long run. Many simply do not have the money to make up the extra cost of a hybrid. Government subsidies could lower this extra cost. Even if most don't give a rats ass about the environment, they would at least appreciate the fact that hybrids are cheaper to operate.

when a politician lets his religious beliefs guide his political agenda that's reason for me to want him outa there.
You have no reason at all to believe Stockwell Day would do that (I can't believe I'm defending Stockwell Day). He hasn't done that; he hasn't promised to do that.

holding the parents responsible for their children's offenses is lunacy...other than chaining kids to their beds there is not a thing a parent can do to stop a kid who is intent on committing a crime...plus it's probably unconstitutional holding an innocent person accountable for another's crimes...
Then that's the fault of Trudeau's constitution. The old one permitted it.

And it worked.
there is little that can be done with child offenders other than counseling.
And why would counselling work? The kids I'm talking about are the ones smart enough to realise that there is no punishment waiting for them. These are rational kids.

The Young Offenders Act is basically teaching children how to game the system.
making the proper decisions
And what are the "proper decisions"?

I'm in favour of deterring crime by the under-twelve. I do think the predecessor to the Young Offenders Act (the Child Delinquency Act) did a better job of that. It held the parents of children over 6 responsible for the crimes of their children. As such, the job of stopping the kids from breaking the law fell to their parents.

Under the Young Offenders Act, no one is held responsible for crimes commited by kids under 12. A child of 11 knows that if he breaks the law, NOTHING will come of it. I can't imagine why anyone ever thought that was a good idea.
The Juvenile Delinquency Act wasn't worth the paper it was written on. It was ambiguous. "Crimes" such as coming home late, or loitering were enough to land the child in court because it completely failed at concisely defining the word delinquency. It also gave the police officer or judge free reign in choosing the sentence. It also did nothing to guarantee the child a lawyer. If the child is barely capable of comprehending the crime, how the fuck are they to defend themselves?

You have no reason at all to believe Stockwell Day would do that (I can't believe I'm defending Stockwell Day). He hasn't done that; he hasn't promised to do that.
Politicians do allot of shit they don't say they are going to do, like the Sponsorship Scandal. Hell, they'll even do shit they promise not to do, like sell BC Rail.

And why would counselling work? The kids I'm talking about are the ones smart enough to realise that there is no punishment waiting for them. These are rational kids.

The Young Offenders Act is basically teaching children how to game the system.

And what are the "proper decisions"?

counseling may not work but throwing them in prison is an almost guaranteed way of turning them into career criminals...

you don't understand how the brain works, these rational kids you speak of are missing the ability in their thought processes that prevent them from doing bad things...despite the image you have of them being smart kids they are mentally undeveloped and not yet capable of making the correct decisions as their inhibitors do not work as yet...inhibitors are part of the decision making process we have that tells us not to do something, to control our impulses...

if these kids have underdeveloped frontal lobes and FAS they are most likely f***ed in the long term...but underdeveloped frontal lobes alone is something they can grow out of, we need to be patient with those types and not turn them into career criminals...

counseling may not work but throwing them in prison is an almost guaranteed way of turning them into career criminals...
I didn't advocate prison, though, did I?
you don't understand how the brain works, these rational kids you speak of are missing the ability in their thought processes that prevent them from doing bad things.
Define "bad".

If I'm 11, and I want to get across town to pick up some comic books, the Young Offenders Act COMPLETELY FAILS to deter me from stealing a car to get there, and then stealing the comics themselves.

The police, should they catch me, can't do anything. They wouldn't even know who I was, because kids usually don't carry ID.

This further encourages older criminals to use children as a buffer against the law. Kids acting as drug couriers isn't uncommon - and the kids do it because they get paid but face no consequences.
..despite the image you have of them being smart kids they are mentally undeveloped and not yet capable of making the correct decisions as their inhibitors do not work as yet...inhibitors are part of the decision making process we have that tells us not to do something, to control our impulses...
You don't understand how reason works. What is a "correct decision"? Why would "inhibitors" tell me not to do things if I have every reason to want to do them?

The threat of punishment deters crime. These kids are subject to no such threat. At least the Juvenile Delinquency Act offered parents an incentive to enforce discipline.

Politicians do allot of shit they don't say they are going to do, like the Sponsorship Scandal. Hell, they'll even do shit they promise not to do, like sell BC Rail.
And they don't do things they promised they would (like privatise BC Liquor Stores).

You still haven't offered any evidence that Stockwell Day will impose his (admittedly weird) religious beliefs on public policy.

If I'm 11, and I want to get across town to pick up some comic books, the Young Offenders Act COMPLETELY FAILS to deter me from stealing a car to get there, and then stealing the comics themselves.

The police, should they catch me, can't do anything. They wouldn't even know who I was, because kids usually don't carry ID.

This further encourages older criminals to use children as a buffer against the law. Kids acting as drug couriers isn't uncommon - and the kids do it because they get paid but face no consequences.
Something tells me his parents would be plenty pissed. Its not like the police are going to leave him where they caught him. They are going to return him to his parents and if he won't say were he lives, he'll have to wait at the station until he is willing to talk.
The threat of punishment deters crime. These kids are subject to no such threat. At least the Juvenile Delinquency Act offered parents an incentive to enforce discipline.
Except the average 11 year old does think that they can get charged. You wouldn't end up in jail, but Juvy, which is just as bad when you are 11.

And they don't do things they promised they would (like privatise BC Liquor Stores).

You still haven't offered any evidence that Stockwell Day will impose his (admittedly weird) religious beliefs on public policy.
Who cares what Stockwell day wants to do. You tried to defend a politician by saying "He never said he would." Your point just further proves they are lieing scumbags.

Then that's the fault of Trudeau's constitution. The old one permitted it.Trudeau was a rock star..

Trudeau was a rock star..
Trudeau was an unabashed Maoist.

He's also the main reason I distrust central Canada.

Trudeau was an unabashed Maoist.

He's also the main reason I distrust central Canada.
But he was dead sexy.

Who cares what Stockwell day wants to do. You tried to defend a politician by saying "He never said he would." Your point just further proves they are lieing scumbags.
Socialist Pyrates argued that he was an extremist who would do crazy things should the Conservatives ever hold a majority. I'm simply pointing out that we have no evidence to support that.

Except the average 11 year old does think that they can get charged. You wouldn't end up in jail, but Juvy, which is just as bad when you are 11.
We weren't talking about the average 11 year old. And he wouldn't end up in Juvy, because the laws don't apply to him.

He's soft on everything except on the idea of an independent Quebec. I'm a Canadian immigrant and even I don't want a separate Quebec :D If the Conservatives keep getting too close with the bloc Quebecois, they might get burnt.

Dion will be Prime Minister. He's going to change Canadian colours to red, white, and green. Doesn't sound bad to me.

Our civil infrastructure is a damn joke, and I will be surprised if we can go six months without one of Toronto's roads imploding on itself. (Finch Ave W at York University; Shepard Ave W at Bathurst...)

If it were really a beneficiary, we wouldn't have to have the city in debt unable to get more money because the province refuses to cough it up, because the federal government won't amend the funding formula to return more than that scant amount to the taxpayers of Ontario.

We have those damn long waiting lists.

Hospital beds were closed and so are schools, and the federal government won't say anything when the damn provincial politicians give themselves a raise without putting money back into the province.

Schools shouldn't have to charge money for tutoring! It's creating a two-tiered system because the province won't pony up the money because the federal government won't give us enough to do so in the first place.

The transit system is a joke...

...

*decides to stop ranting for a while to let her blood pressure go back down*

Most of which comesdown to poor management by provincial governments. You may not get much in transfer payments, but more federal tax dollars are spent in Ontario than are collected from it. Remember where the capital city is, after all.

He's soft on everything except on the idea of an independent Quebec. I'm a Canadian immigrant and even I don't want a separate Quebec :D If the Conservatives keep getting too close with the bloc Quebecois, they might get burnt.

They already have been burned. In return for supporting the Conservative budget, the Bloc got a nice little quid pro quo; the declaration of Quebec as a nation within a nation. I think the Conservatives believe that pandering to the seperatists will win them votes in Quebec. In reality, it will do the same thing it did when Mulroney did it; make the seperatists stronger.

Is he related to Celine?
Good question.

They already have been burned. In return for supporting the Conservative budget, the Bloc got a nice little quid pro quo; the declaration of Quebec as a nation within a nation. I think the Conservatives believe that pandering to the seperatists will win them votes in Quebec. In reality, it will do the same thing it did when Mulroney did it; make the seperatists stronger.
The real prize Quebec got was Harper completely breaking his equalisation promise, and thus screwing over the oil-producing regions (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia). All all it does it funnel $2 billion/year into Quebec that otherwise woldn't need to be taxed at all.

Hey, Ontario. There's your "fiscal imbalance".

Most of which comesdown to poor management by provincial governments. You may not get much in transfer payments, but more federal tax dollars are spent in Ontario than are collected from it. Remember where the capital city is, after all.

Ottawa is on its own damn planet. Just because it's in Ontario means squat! They have the 'National Capital Commission' which gets more money than it deserves. It's purpose to keep the city pretty; of course, it can't change that Ottawa is a hellhole armed to the teeth with assholes, jerkoffs, morons, corruption officials and hostile cynics.

I don't entirely disagree. However, at the same time, if the public is committed to "going green", they will seek out green products even at higher prices, which will give companies an incentive to use green methods, because while they may raise costs, they will also raise sales. If consumers were green, all it would take is a few enlightened businesspeople to start the ball rolling.

True. But there will always be those free-riders who purchase the environmentally unfriendly goods and make everyone else pay the cost. Rather than a few socially consious people buying environmentally friendly goods at a premium, those who purchase environmentally unfriendly goods should be forced to pay the full cost of their goods. Only then will we be playing on a level playing field.

Ottawa is on its own damn planet. Just because it's in Ontario means squat! They have the 'National Capital Commission' which gets more money than it deserves. It's purpose to keep the city pretty; of course, it can't change that Ottawa is a hellhole armed to the teeth with assholes, jerkoffs, morons, corruption officials and hostile cynics.

Ottawa is a city like any other. The fact that it is in Ontario merely means that Ontario derives a disproportionately high benefit from federal spending, which more than makes up for their lack of transfer payments. Ottawa is pretty ... and it should be. What kind of nation has so little pride and is so tight that they refuse to spend money on beautifying their capital?

Stephane Dion: Future Prime Minister and Dud.
I'm intrigued ... please elaborate!

You have no reason at all to believe Stockwell Day would do that (I can't believe I'm defending Stockwell Day). He hasn't done that; he hasn't promised to do that. What reason do we have to disbelive that anyone's personal beliefs do not influence their decision-making?

Trudeau was an unabashed Maoist.

Ah yes ... how well I remember his attempts to turn Canada into a peasant-based, communist agrarian state. Especially the collectivization of farms ...

The real prize Quebec got was Harper completely breaking his equalisation promise, and thus screwing over the oil-producing regions (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia). All all it does it funnel $2 billion/year into Quebec that otherwise woldn't need to be taxed at all.


In fairness, he was pandering to Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and PEI as well.

What reason do we have to disbelive that anyone's personal beliefs do not influence their decision-making?

and of course revisiting the same sex issue wasn't at all related to fundy christian beliefs...what else will come up for a rethink if a fundy based government becomes the majority, abortion? capital punishment? prayer in schools? creationism as a legitimate science?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llewdor View Post
Trudeau was an unabashed Maoist.

Ah yes ... how well I remember his attempts to turn Canada into a peasant-based, communist agrarian state. Especially the collectivization of farms ...

I couldn't be bothered to answer that as it was just to absurd...Trudeau a Maoist, just silly...

Trudeau was an unabashed Maoist.


Trudeau was a lot of things in his life. His political beliefs shifted radically a number of times.

I couldn't be bothered to answer that as it was just to absurd...Trudeau a Maoist, just silly...

But he was for a time.

But he was for a time.he also didn't like gays at one time but it was Trudeau who was responsible for the decriminalization of gay behaviour....

our beliefs we have when young shape our adult years, Trudeau's investigation of extreme socialism was idealistic and normal what good politician hasn't searched out other options?...eventually he chose a moderate form of socialism as being more practical...

he also didn't like gays at one time but it was Trudeau who was responsible for the decriminalization of gay behaviour....

our beliefs we have when young shape our adult years, Trudeau's investigation of extreme socialism was idealistic and normal what good politician hasn't searched out other options?...eventually he chose a moderate form of socialism as being more practical...

Yes yes, all fine and good and I agree....but no point in flat out denying that he was at one time a Maoist. What you've said here is a much better point.

But he was for a time.
Our Home Secretary John "fucking blairite ****" Reid used to be a commie, but, as he put it, also used to believe in Santa Claus.

Our Home Secretary John "fucking blairite ****" Reid used to be a commie, but, as he put it, also used to believe in Santa Claus.

in my idealistic teenage years I too thought communism was the perfect system and it is but that doesn't define me as a communist......even back then I knew communism wasn't workable, I like Trudeau accepted a more moderate socialism as the way to go...

Has anyone noticed the conservative smear campaign already?

There isn't an election coming up I was unaware of, is there?

in my idealistic teenage years I too thought communism was the perfect system and it is but that doesn't define me as a communist......even back then I knew communism wasn't workable, I like Trudeau accepted a more moderate socialism as the way to go...
I was agreeing with you. Reid used to be a communist, but it doesn't make him one now. Now, he is a right wing tard, and an incompetent one at that. Reid isn't half the man Trudeau was.

Has anyone noticed the conservative smear campaign already?

There isn't an election coming up I was unaware of, is there?
Harper might want one to try and sneak a majority in. You never know, he might want to appoint more senators to the cabinet despite (so I've heard) promising not to.

Has anyone noticed the conservative smear campaign already?

There isn't an election coming up I was unaware of, is there?

yup...in a minority government it's always election time...conservatives trying to smear Dion early as most people don't have a negative view of him in regards to the environment...Conservatives hoping the public forgets their early environmental policy when it was obvious they didn't give a fuck and only now that it is an huge issue with the public they're backtracking...the conservatives have the financial backing of the worst environmental polluters, the oil industry... so I don't expect them to do anything worthwhile which may hurt their political base, oil rich Alberta...

yup...in a minority government it's always election time...conservatives trying to smear Dion early as most people don't have a negative view of him in regards to the environment...Conservatives hoping the public forgets their early environmental policy when it was obvious they didn't give a fuck and only now that it is an huge issue with the public they're backtracking...the conservatives have the financial backing of the worst environmental polluters, the oil industry... so I don't expect them to do anything worthwhile which may hurt their political base, oil rich Alberta...
In order to win a majority he will have undoubtedly have to break into Ontario and Quebec. That may just mean losing support in Alberta, but I don't see them losing any seats to the Liberals there just yet.

Lester Pearson was a terrible public speaker but he was by far the best PM we ever had. I was happy when Dion beat Iggy, but I hate the Libs regardless. Why is it that people are so afraid to vote for a party other than Whigs or Tories? We have a multi-party system for a reason! And now friggin' Harper is running attack ads AND IT'S NOT EVEN ELECTION SEASON. What a coward. I hope this backfires.

Lester Pearson was a terrible public speaker but he was by far the best PM we ever had. I was happy when Dion beat Iggy, but I hate the Libs regardless. Why is it that people are so afraid to vote for a party other than Whigs or Tories? We have a multi-party system for a reason! And now friggin' Harper is running attack ads AND IT'S NOT EVEN ELECTION SEASON. What a coward. I hope this backfires.

I liked Pearson too, very much under appreciated...

people are afraid to vote for a smaller party for fear that the hated worst option should win..many NDPers vote Liberal just to be sure the conservatives don't win(better moderate socialist Liberals than Conservative)...it'll be interesting next election to see if the Greens finally win a seat or two, if they can find some credible canidates they just may ...

I liked Pearson too, very much under appreciated...

people are afraid to vote for a smaller party for fear that the hated worst option should win..many NDPers vote Liberal just to be sure the conservatives don't win(better moderate socialist Liberals than Conservative)...it'll be interesting next election to see if the Greens finally win a seat or two, if they can find some credible canidates they just may ...
Moderate socialists? WTF? The Liberals are moderate right.

And now friggin' Harper is running attack ads AND IT'S NOT EVEN ELECTION SEASON. What a coward. I hope this backfires.
Attack ads work. They drive down your opponent's voter turnout.

They only backfire when they're ridiculable. See Kim Campbell's hasty withdrawl of her Chrétien attack ads, or the Paul Martin attack ads of the last election.

What reason do we have to disbelive that anyone's personal beliefs do not influence their decision-making?
That's a false dichotomy. You're not required to believe either A or Not A. Your default position should be to believe neither, and only adopt one position when presented with evidence.

Just because you don't have evidence that Day's work is not influenced his beliefs is not then evidence that it is. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

and of course revisiting the same sex issue wasn't at all related to fundy christian beliefs...what else will come up for a rethink if a fundy based government becomes the majority, abortion? capital punishment? prayer in schools? creationism as a legitimate science?
It wasn't, necessarily. It was an election promise that was consistent with their behaviour in the house during Martin's government. They demanded a free vote and were not granted one. As such, it was a very easy promise to both make and keep, thus improving their credibility.

The whole point of this Conservative government is to appear moderate.

Attack ads work. They drive down your opponent's voter turnout.

They only backfire when they're ridiculable. See Kim Campbell's hasty withdrawl of her Chrétien attack ads, or the Paul Martin attack ads of the last election.
I don't know that they always work. For me, they're always a total turnoff. It's one thing to say "this guy says this, I say this" but to just be like "this guy sucks" it makes me want to vote for someone less.

Also, next election, I want to run for the pot party in my riding. It will be sweet.

I don't know that they always work. For me, they're always a total turnoff. It's one thing to say "this guy says this, I say this" but to just be like "this guy sucks" it makes me want to vote for someone less.
Here in the UK we had the 'Cameron the Chamelion' ads. Major mistake.

Also, next election, I want to run for the pot party in my riding. It will be sweet.
You in BC then?;)

True. But there will always be those free-riders who purchase the environmentally unfriendly goods and make everyone else pay the cost. Rather than a few socially consious people buying environmentally friendly goods at a premium, those who purchase environmentally unfriendly goods should be forced to pay the full cost of their goods. Only then will we be playing on a level playing field.
We are agreed so far.

The question becomes whether we accomplish more harm than good correcting this free rider problem, which is up in the air. A great example of this is eating junk food. Eating junk food causes people to gain weight. In turn, heavier people tend to be a greater burden on the government health program. Should we be imposing taxes on junk food? So far the answer is no, simply because to take action against this problem would probably require a bureacracy that would cost more than the actual benefits gained from this kind of system.

Also, next election, I want to run for the pot party in my riding. It will be sweet.
I voted for the Marijuana Party in a provincial election at least once. They seem like good libertarians.

We are agreed so far.

The question becomes whether we accomplish more harm than good correcting this free rider problem, which is up in the air. A great example of this is eating junk food. Eating junk food causes people to gain weight. In turn, heavier people tend to be a greater burden on the government health program. Should we be imposing taxes on junk food? So far the answer is no, simply because to take action against this problem would probably require a bureacracy that would cost more than the actual benefits gained from this kind of system.
Alternately, you could stop offering everyone free healthcare, and thus they'd be forced to pay the costs themselves.

I'm intrigued ... please elaborate!

Sorry, just a little electoral cynicism.

My impression is that Stephane Dion will give a rather lacklustre performance in any upcoming election, yet will win a minority government nonetheless. Now that Canadians don't have to feel dirty voting for the Liberals anymore, they can blissfully vote for the party of least offense again - despite their tendency to promise everything, and often deliver the opposite of what they promised.

The man just doesn't seem like leadership material to me. I think he'll win by default. I don't think he has to be any good, he just has to appear non-offensive. Pundits claim his accent will cost him votes. I'm not so sure - Chretien managed to score three majorities with his.

I'm not so sure - Chretien managed to score three majorities with his.
I think Chrétien's facial paralysis helped him out, there. People felt like his accent wasn't his fault.

But really, a federal party leader should be able to speak English better than Gilles Duceppe does, and Dion fails that test.

You're right about the election, though. Unless the Conservatives can effectively blame him for the election happening at all (that, I think, will be a major issue - whose fault is it we're having one), Dion wins.

Moderate socialists? WTF? The Liberals are moderate right....Liberals, total socialists all the socialist programs we have now were created by Liberals after they borrowed/stole the ideas from the NDP or CLC, CCF(universal medicare-CCF creation then adopted by the federal liberals Pearson) ...want to see what the liberal agenda will be in 5-10yrs, look at the NDP's policies now...a definition of a NDP supporter "a liberal in a hurry"...

Moderate socialists? WTF? The Liberals are moderate right.
You can't create that many useless government programs and engage in that much social engineering and be called right-anything.

Sorry, just a little electoral cynicism.

My impression is that Stephane Dion will give a rather lacklustre performance in any upcoming election, yet will win a minority government nonetheless. Now that Canadians don't have to feel dirty voting for the Liberals anymore, they can blissfully vote for the party of least offense again - despite their tendency to promise everything, and often deliver the opposite of what they promised.

The man just doesn't seem like leadership material to me. I think he'll win by default. I don't think he has to be any good, he just has to appear non-offensive. Pundits claim his accent will cost him votes. I'm not so sure - Chretien managed to score three majorities with his.

what's leadership material? King(nutjob), Dief-hardly, Pearson devoid of charisma but a good leader, Trudeau lots of Charisma, a weenie but very smart, Mulroney-fucking ass nearly bankrupt us, Chretien very smart played the country boy part to his advantage, Harper-totally devoid of personality a great public speaker he's not, Dion-his English is no worse than Chretien's and his personality is as drab as Harpers...

but we're in Canada and Canadians don't really care about personality all that much and we don't care if their English isn't perfect it's the substance we care about...myself I'd vote for Gilles Duceppe but he's not running outside Quebec so Dion will do...

It wasn't, necessarily. It was an election promise that was consistent with their behaviour in the house during Martin's government. They demanded a free vote and were not granted one. As such, it was a very easy promise to both make and keep, thus improving their credibility.

The whole point of this Conservative government is to appear moderate.

To be honest, I don't think the rights of individuals should be put to a vote. The rights of the individual should not be decided by the will of the majority. It was a blatantly reactionary move to garner support in rural areas. And it directly threatened the rights of Canadians. That is why they should never have been given a free vote on it.

It's called democracy. Some of us like it.

To be honest, I don't think the rights of individuals should be put to a vote. The rights of the individual should not be decided by the will of the majority. It was a blatantly reactionary move to garner support in rural areas. And it directly threatened the rights of Canadians. That is why they should never have been given a free vote on it.

It's called democracy. Some of us like it.
I would tend to agree with you. That the vote took place highlighted my primary objection to democracy, in that the majority has the power to subjugate individuals. And I don't think they should be allowed to do that. Despite your trumpeting of it, democracy was the problem here, not the solution.

My point was that the vote (which they probably hoped they'd lose, and they did) wasn't evidence of their religious leanings so much as a political ploy.

what's leadership material? King(nutjob), Dief-hardly, Pearson devoid of charisma but a good leader, Trudeau lots of Charisma, a weenie but very smart, Mulroney-fucking ass nearly bankrupt us, Chretien very smart played the country boy part to his advantage, Harper-totally devoid of personality a great public speaker he's not, Dion-his English is no worse than Chretien's and his personality is as drab as Harpers...

but we're in Canada and Canadians don't really care about personality all that much and we don't care if their English isn't perfect it's the substance we care about...myself I'd vote for Gilles Duceppe but he's not running outside Quebec so Dion will do...

Well, that's what I'm talking about. I don't think Canadians care about substance. I think they care about choosing the lesser of evils. I don't know about you, but I can't think of any particular Canadian politician that's made me think 'that person has what it takes!'.

Did Chretien have substance? Or did he win back to back majorities due to our outdated FPTP electoral system? I think he won because the first time around, it didn't matter what he promised, people were out to sink the conservatives. The rise of the BQ and Reform parties pretty much meant that the Liberals were going to keep winning unless they did something really stupid.

Then along comes the sponsorship scandal. Even that didn't sink them right away. But 'what did the latest poll say' Martin couldn't figure out where he stood on any particular issue and his lack of leadership cost the liberals their throne temporarily.

Now that they've had their 'time out', all the liberals have to do is trot out someone who isn't going to offend the electorate and take their automatic votes.

Personally, I'd like to see someone coming out of the Canadian political scene who comes across as decisive, visionary, and charismatic. Harper just isn't it. He's definitely decisive. He's lost any credibility on the visionary part of things in my book, and I don't think charisma was ever in his cards. He's definitely a canny politician (despite a couple of blunders), but every decision he makes seems like it's calculated to meet the latest objective, and not out of a sense of a vision for the country, or out of personal conviction.

Anyway I'm rambling. I'd like to see the whole system completely remodelled, but in the meantime, I would like to see the Liberal party win an election because their leader was convincing, and not due to people's natural distaste for the alternatives.

My point was that the vote (which they probably hoped they'd lose, and they did) wasn't evidence of their religious leanings so much as a political ploy.

Exactly. In my view, it was a calculated risk on Harpers part to appease the 'traditionalists' in his party. I don't think the majority of them really wanted to turn back the clock on this. It was an ugly political roadblock that had to be cleared in order to move on.

Personally, I'd like to see someone coming out of the Canadian political scene who comes across as decisive, visionary, and charismatic. Harper just isn't it. He's definitely decisive. He's lost any credibility on the visionary part of things in my book, and I don't think charisma was ever in his cards. He's definitely a canny politician (despite a couple of blunders), but every decision he makes seems like it's calculated to meet the latest objective, and not out of a sense of a vision for the country, or out of personal conviction.
Harper's a wonk, not a politician. In fact, earlier in his career he exhibited open scorn toward those he called "future Prime Minister types".

Harper's a wonk, not a politician. In fact, earlier in his career he exhibited open scorn toward those he called "future Prime Minister types".

For the most part he seems to know what he's doing, and he seems capable of steering the ship of state. That's my primary concern. If he can come out of his whole career reforming the senate, that'll be far more impressive to me than Dion's ability to push the 'green' button.

For the most part he seems to know what he's doing, and he seems capable of steering the ship of state. That's my primary concern. If he can come out of his whole career reforming the senate, that'll be far more impressive to me than Dion's ability to push the 'green' button.

What Stevie Harper plans to do to the Senate is just plain wrong. I don't feel that his scheme, whereby he is handed the election results, and then privately (and supposedly fairly, though why Elections Canada is not to be involved is no small puzzler) allocates Senate seats to the political parties is nearly democratic (or honest) enough for Canadian sensibilities. I refuse to have faith in a supposition coming from one of the most opportunistic politicians to have ever emerged from the backrooms in Canadian history. This all just serves to underscore the need to have more than one party involved in this sort of reform process.

Alternately, you could stop offering everyone free healthcare, and thus they'd be forced to pay the costs themselves.
For better or worse, privatizing health care is not a politically winnable case. Economically, now that's a different issue.

What Stevie Harper plans to do to the Senate is just plain wrong. I don't feel that his scheme, whereby he is handed the election results, and then privately (and supposedly fairly, though why Elections Canada is not to be involved is no small puzzler) allocates Senate seats to the political parties is nearly democratic (or honest) enough for Canadian sensibilities. I refuse to have faith in a supposition coming from one of the most opportunistic politicians to have ever emerged from the backrooms in Canadian history. This all just serves to underscore the need to have more than one party involved in this sort of reform process.

To be honest, I wasn't aware that was how he was going to go about it. That's kinda stinky. Although, constitutionally, he appoints them now anyway. Exactly how is this all supposed to work? Is he going to tell all the existing senators that their terms are up and start appointing senators? Or is he going to hold mini-elections once each vacant seat comes up or something?

I'd sooner scrap the whole damn thing than put anything less than true democratic process to the system.

To be honest, I wasn't aware that was how he was going to go about it. That's kinda stinky. Although, constitutionally, he appoints them now anyway.

Yup. Lifelong appointments.

Exactly how is this all supposed to work? Is he going to tell all the existing senators that their terms are up and start appointing senators? Or is he going to hold mini-elections once each vacant seat comes up or something?

No, it's tied into his scheme to synchronize Canadian elections to the US model. His current intention is that he dissolve the Senate in 2008, reconvening his own version of a semi-elected, semi-appointed Senate upon winning re-election, with the same process repeating itself every four years, like clockwork.

Mikesburg, I won't fault a Canadian political Conservative for wanting Federal representation and a voice in Parliament - but never, ever lose sight of the fact that these aren't your father's Tories. The only thing these people want to 'conserve' have dollar signs printed on them.

I'd sooner scrap the whole damn thing than put anything less than true democratic process to the system.

Hey, we have more in common than you'd think. Guess you must be one of those 'Red' Tories what's been left out in the cold the last fifteen years. My commiserations, sir.

Hey, we have more in common than you'd think. Guess you must be one of those 'Red' Tories what's been left out in the cold the last fifteen years. My commiserations, sir.

Although I have a tendency to espouse conservative politics, I don't really consider myself a Tory by any respect. If anything, I think of myself as a democrat (small 'd').

I'm most certainly not a social conservative, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. I most certainly believe that the government has a role to play in the economy, but I am most definitely a capitalist. I'm a federalist, but I believe in a confederation that gives the provinces a reason to want to stay Canadian. But most importantly, I'm a believer in a democratic process that works; and Canada's is in poor shape.

I just don't believe in branding myself as a loyal party supporter. I like to weigh the options that all parties present, and make the decision that is most relevant to the time.

I think you'd agree that the last two decades of federal politics has shown that we need to change the system. Say what you will about the American system, I believe it has many strengths. I wouldn't want to make a carbon copy of it, but an elected senate would be a good start.

But this hybrid elected/appointed thing that Harper has up his sleeve? Egads, what kind of Frankenstein's monster is that?

Alternately, you could stop offering everyone free healthcare, and thus they'd be forced to pay the costs themselves.
Just the motivation I'd need to leave the country.

Although I have a tendency to espouse conservative politics, I don't really consider myself a Tory by any respect. If anything, I think of myself as a democrat (small 'd').

I'm most certainly not a social conservative, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal.

Congratulations, Mikesburg. Maybe you've never known what you are 'til just this moment, but my dear - you are the very model of the traditional Progressive Conservative Party voter. Congratulations upon learning you are, and always have been, a Red Tory - by profile only, obviously, as the Progressive Conservatives no longer exist as a party. And there's nothing wrong with that - except insofar as the existing Conservative Party has done a great deal to rebuff the traditional Red Tory voter within the Party and more importantly amongst the MPs, within the Caucus - and done exceedingly little to endear themselves to any save their core constituency (Alberta).

I most certainly believe that the government has a role to play in the economy, but I am most definitely a capitalist. I'm a federalist, but I believe in a confederation that gives the provinces a reason to want to stay Canadian. But most importantly, I'm a believer in a democratic process that works; and Canada's is in poor shape.

I don't agree; I think we need some fine-tuning, but I don't think our system is broken.

I think you'd agree that the last two decades of federal politics has shown that we need to change the system. Say what you will about the American system, I believe it has many strengths. I wouldn't want to make a carbon copy of it, but an elected senate would be a good start.

I don't object to a fully-elected Senate; I have my own ideas as to how it could be best implemented, but I wouldn't object to abolishing the Senate outright, either. But I will not countenance synchronizing our elections with those of a foreign power. I will not support four-year set terms in office. We need to retain our own ways of doing things, our own traditions.

But this hybrid elected/appointed thing that Harper has up his sleeve? Egads, what kind of Frankenstein's monster is that?

The sort that hopefully we'll never hear about again after Stevie loses the next election.

Yup. Lifelong appointments.



No, it's tied into his scheme to synchronize Canadian elections to the US model. His current intention is that he dissolve the Senate in 2008, reconvening his own version of a semi-elected, semi-appointed Senate upon winning re-election, with the same process repeating itself every four years, like clockwork.

Mikesburg, I won't fault a Canadian political Conservative for wanting Federal representation and a voice in Parliament - but never, ever lose sight of the fact that these aren't your father's Tories. The only thing these people want to 'conserve' have dollar signs printed on them.

,

Hey, we have more in common than you'd think. Guess you must be one of those 'Red' Tories what's been left out in the cold the last fifteen years. My commiserations, sir.

any attempt to copy an american system of government will get Harper chucked out on his arse...changing the senate isn't likely as I believe that would mean amending the constitution would it not?

and I agree these aren't the old Tories, these Tories have a different agenda, that's the reason Joe Clark left the party...

Congratulations, Mikesburg. Maybe you've never known what you are 'til just this moment, but my dear - you are the very model of the traditional Progressive Conservative Party voter. Congratulations upon learning you are, and always have been, a Red Tory - by profile only, obviously, as the Progressive Conservatives no longer exist as a party. And there's nothing wrong with that - except insofar as the existing Conservative Party has done a great deal to rebuff the traditional Red Tory voter within the Party and more importantly amongst the MPs, within the Caucus - and done exceedingly little to endear themselves to any save their core constituency (Alberta).

Well, I suppose if you have to stick a label to me, that one isn't totally off the mark. There are some 'blue tory' concepts and political philosophy I agree with, but by and large I believe in conserving a prosperous and stable economy, and government that keeps its nose out of our everyday lives.

Closer ties to the United States is an inevitability. FTA and NAFTA have closed the door on traditional conservative protectionist policies, so we may as well make the most of it. But I agree, we have to maintain our own way of doing things.



I don't agree; I think we need some fine-tuning, but I don't think our system is broken.

Well I dunno. We give almost dictatorial powers to one Member of Pariliament who happens to be the leader of the party with the most seats, and not by popular vote. That might be fine in a two-party system, but our multi-party system combined with our ever more frustrating regional disparities means that you don't have to be popular, you just have to be the least unpopular. You don't even have to live up to your campaign promises. You just have to suck less than the other guys. To me, that's just not functioning democracy.


I don't object to a fully-elected Senate; I have my own ideas as to how it could be best implemented, but I wouldn't object to abolishing the Senate outright, either. But I will not countenance synchronizing our elections with those of a foreign power. I will not support four-year set terms in office. We need to retain our own ways of doing things, our own traditions.

I'm a little curious as to what you would propose for senate reform. At a glance, I think the distribution of senators by region is just about right. I would personally propose that we keep those distributions, but elect senators directly from the riding they represent, and have senators represent their constituency, rather than a party whip.

With regional voices being represented that way, I would go with proportional representation for the house of commons.

As for set election dates, I think they make sense, but I'm not screaming for them.


The sort that hopefully we'll never hear about again after Stevie loses the next election.

I looked into that a little bit, and from what little I've gleaned, the idea is that he can get around having to go through yet another constitutional accord by 'appointing' the elected senators to their seats. But you're right; it definitely requires multiparty consultation and non-partisan judgement. If it's just a matter of getting the idea off the ground, making a constitutional accord to remove the necessity of the PM's appointments would be far easier. As I can see it, the major roadblocks to Senate Reform have been redistribution of seats.

I'm a little curious as to what you would propose for senate reform. At a glance, I think the distribution of senators by region is just about right. I would personally propose that we keep those distributions, but elect senators directly from the riding they represent, and have senators represent their constituency, rather than a party whip.

With regional voices being represented that way, I would go with proportional representation for the house of commons.

As for set election dates, I think they make sense, but I'm not screaming for them.



I looked into that a little bit, and from what little I've gleaned, the idea is that he can get around having to go through yet another constitutional accord by 'appointing' the elected senators to their seats. But you're right; it definitely requires multiparty consultation and non-partisan judgement. If it's just a matter of getting the idea off the ground, making a constitutional accord to remove the necessity of the PM's appointments would be far easier. As I can see it, the major roadblocks to Senate Reform have been redistribution of seats.

constitution adjustment is very difficult and unlikely, easiest way to adjust senate is have elections then appoint senators who win...redistribution of seats, we'll never get an agreement...best option ban the senate, useless bunch of political cronies who do little work...an effective senate will only give Canada the same political gridlock that the USA experiences...

constitution adjustment is very difficult and unlikely, easiest way to adjust senate is have elections then appoint senators who win...redistribution of seats, we'll never get an agreement...best option ban the senate, useless bunch of political cronies who do little work...an effective senate will only give Canada the same political gridlock that the USA experiences...
How often is the US Senate in gridlock, and why would an effective Senate automatically lead to it? Australia is a Parliamentary Federation similar to Canada, and not just is the Australian Senate, along with State upper houses, elected, but also by PR to ensure no party dominance. Yet Australia, except for one budgetary disagreement leading to an election, works. From an outside objective viewpoint, I'd say it would be a good idea.

How often is the US Senate in gridlock, and why would an effective Senate automatically lead to it? Australia is a Parliamentary Federation similar to Canada, and not just is the Australian Senate, along with State upper houses, elected, but also by PR to ensure no party dominance. Yet Australia, except for one budgetary disagreement leading to an election, works. From an outside objective viewpoint, I'd say it would be a good idea.

I was thinking the same thing when I was overlooking Australia's system. Although I don't think the same number of seats per province would work in Canada. Keeping the 24 per 'region' would work fine, and wouldn't require constitutional amendment in that area.

How often is the US Senate in gridlock, and why would an effective Senate automatically lead to it? Australia is a Parliamentary Federation similar to Canada, and not just is the Australian Senate, along with State upper houses, elected, but also by PR to ensure no party dominance. Yet Australia, except for one budgetary disagreement leading to an election, works. From an outside objective viewpoint, I'd say it would be a good idea.

our system works well as it is(other than a bunch nearly dead political hacks sponging off of us)so I say don't fuck with it...another effective level of government is a waste of money and will only slow down legislation it can't do anything but slow things down...

constitution adjustment is very difficult and unlikely, easiest way to adjust senate is have elections then appoint senators who win...redistribution of seats, we'll never get an agreement...best option ban the senate, useless bunch of political cronies who do little work...an effective senate will only give Canada the same political gridlock that the USA experiences...

Gridlock might not be all that bad, when you consider that our system allows individuals with less than half of the popular vote to have complete legislative and executive authority. Some politicians need to be gridlocked.

I would tend to agree with you. That the vote took place highlighted my primary objection to democracy, in that the majority has the power to subjugate individuals. And I don't think they should be allowed to do that. Despite your trumpeting of it, democracy was the problem here, not the solution.

My point was that the vote (which they probably hoped they'd lose, and they did) wasn't evidence of their religious leanings so much as a political ploy.

Democracy is one of those words that everybody defines differently. As long as we agree that there should have been no vote. And it was a political ploy.

Gridlock might not be all that bad, when you consider that our system allows individuals with less than half of the popular vote to have complete legislative and executive authority. Some politicians need to be gridlocked. if we change anything I would prefer we change how we elect MP's...if a party gets 35% of the vote they get 30% of the seats not 50%...parties like the Greens get 5% of the votes they need 5% of the seats not zero% they have now, how can we let 5% of the population not have representation in government?...

if we change anything I would prefer we change how we elect MP's...if a party gets 35% of the vote they get 30% of the seats not 50%...parties like the Greens get 5% of the votes they need 5% of the seats not zero% they have now, how can we let 5% of the population not have representation in government?...

I'm not going to argue with you there. I've been saying that all along. But in order to effectively implement proportional representation, you have to somehow also address the issue of regional disparity, which is why I'm in favour of an elected senate based on regional representation.

I oppose an elected senate. Making the senate an elected body would give it added legitimacy, and thus empower it to spend more money,tus leading to bigger government. This always happens when countries start electing their upper house.

There was a clear shift toward bigger government in the US when they started electing their senators.

I'd rather just abolish the thing. Sure, the House of Commons would then have absolute power, but that's not much different from how it works today and it would save us all a bunch of money.

As for proportional representation, I oppose that, too. PR leads to minority parliaments, and those also tend to produce bigger government (there's all sorts of international evidence supporting that). Plus, since minority parliaments are more beholden to public opinion, they're far less able to enact unpopular legislation, which a country sometimes needs.

The current Canadian system allows a sort of Machiavellian pattern of giving the voters the bad news all at once and the good news little by little, and that's how governments can enact unpopular legislation.

I oppose an elected senate. Making the senate an elected body would give it added legitimacy, and thus empower it to spend more money,tus leading to bigger government. This always happens when countries start electing their upper house.

There was a clear shift toward bigger government in the US when they started electing their senators.

I'd rather just abolish the thing. Sure, the House of Commons would then have absolute power, but that's not much different from how it works today and it would save us all a bunch of money.

As for proportional representation, I oppose that, too. PR leads to minority parliaments, and those also tend to produce bigger government (there's all sorts of international evidence supporting that). Plus, since minority parliaments are more beholden to public opinion, they're far less able to enact unpopular legislation, which a country sometimes needs.

The current Canadian system allows a sort of Machiavellian pattern of giving the voters the bad news all at once and the good news little by little, and that's how governments can enact unpopular legislation.

Hooray for Machiavellian Democracy.... yaaaaaaayyy....

Mikesburg: here's my idea of Senate Reform.

One hundred Senate seats - in perpetuity, no seats ever to be added. When the results of a Federal election are available, the official parties running for seats in the House of Commons are allotted Senate seats, purely on a percentage basis - with numbers rounded up or down to the nearest percentage point. It then falls to the individual political parties to determine the means by which their caucus or leader goes about the process of appointing their party's Senators.

The beauty of this setup is that a small party, such as the Greens, could have an actual presence on Parliament Hill - even if the old 'first-past-the-post' method results deny them a proper seat in the Commons.

and of course revisiting the same sex issue wasn't at all related to fundy christian beliefs...what else will come up for a rethink if a fundy based government becomes the majority, abortion? capital punishment? prayer in schools? creationism as a legitimate science?

All of the above. And sadly, they won't need to hld a majority ... merely the balance of power. Harper is not a seperatist but he is willing to deal with them to keep his government in power. He would probably deal with the devil if Lucifer supported a program of tax cuts and "small government".

he also didn't like gays at one time but it was Trudeau who was responsible for the decriminalization of gay behaviour....

our beliefs we have when young shape our adult years, Trudeau's investigation of extreme socialism was idealistic and normal what good politician hasn't searched out other options?...eventually he chose a moderate form of socialism as being more practical...

It was more like liberal welfarism. There was a focus on social justice but he was still a small-l liberal.

That's a false dichotomy. You're not required to believe either A or Not A. Your default position should be to believe neither, and only adopt one position when presented with evidence.

NO it's not. You either believe that people's personal beliefs affect their decision-making or you believe that they don't. There is no middle ground. And I happen to believe from experiece that they do.

Sorry, just a little electoral cynicism.

My impression is that Stephane Dion will give a rather lacklustre performance in any upcoming election, yet will win a minority government nonetheless. Now that Canadians don't have to feel dirty voting for the Liberals anymore, they can blissfully vote for the party of least offense again - despite their tendency to promise everything, and often deliver the opposite of what they promised.

The man just doesn't seem like leadership material to me. I think he'll win by default. I don't think he has to be any good, he just has to appear non-offensive. Pundits claim his accent will cost him votes. I'm not so sure - Chretien managed to score three majorities with his.

But Chretien scored three majorities when the right wing was divided. Had they not been split, he would have had a great deal more difficulty. Dion will have to pick up some of the red tory votes in order to win a majority.

He looks more like a leader to me than anyone else on the federal scene right now. His vision may not be incredibly bold, but he has articulated one, which is more than I can for any other party "leader".

As for proportional representation, I oppose that, too. PR leads to minority parliaments, and those also tend to produce bigger government (there's all sorts of international evidence supporting that).

Actually, First Past the Post is far more likely to lead to minority governments or false majorities, and rcent Canadian experience has shown the pitfalls of both. PR tends to lead to coalition governments, which are more stable in the long run. No voting system necessarily leads to "bigger government" per se. (I would like to see this "international evidence" you mention). Where PR does lead to bigger government, it is because that is what the voters wanted.

our system works well as it is(other than a bunch nearly dead political hacks sponging off of us)so I say don't fuck with it...another effective level of government is a waste of money and will only slow down legislation it can't do anything but slow things down...
Why would that be a bad thing? An elected upper house would be able to block unpopular legislation and respond more to voters, since it would not be under as much executive influence, if at all.

I oppose an elected senate. Making the senate an elected body would give it added legitimacy, and thus empower it to spend more money,tus leading to bigger government. This always happens when countries start electing their upper house.
What if an elected Senate opposed a budget based on too high taxation and spending? In any case, most upper houses have much less control over budgets anyway.

There was a clear shift toward bigger government in the US when they started electing their senators.
There was a clear shift towards bigger government in most European states too. It was a sign of the times, not because they elected Senators.

I'd rather just abolish the thing. Sure, the House of Commons would then have absolute power, but that's not much different from how it works today and it would save us all a bunch of money.

As for proportional representation, I oppose that, too. PR leads to minority parliaments, and those also tend to produce bigger government (there's all sorts of international evidence supporting that). Plus, since minority parliaments are more beholden to public opinion, they're far less able to enact unpopular legislation, which a country sometimes needs.

The current Canadian system allows a sort of Machiavellian pattern of giving the voters the bad news all at once and the good news little by little, and that's how governments can enact unpopular legislation.
Abolishing the Senate seems better than what you guys have now (a place where senile old guys go to have tea) in any case.

NO it's not. You either believe that people's personal beliefs affect their decision-making or you believe that they don't. There is no middle ground. And I happen to believe from experiece that they do.
Are you honestly arguing that it's not possible not to hold a belief on this issue? That you have a firm position on every single person in the world as to whether their beliefs influence their professional behaviour?

Because that's an unsupposrted generalisation.

Actually, First Past the Post is far more likely to lead to minority governments or false majorities, and rcent Canadian experience has shown the pitfalls of both. PR tends to lead to coalition governments, which are more stable in the long run.
Find me a majority government elected by PR.

First-past-the-post elects majorities all the time. Regardless wif whether you think they're "false", they're still majorities, and carry the benefits associated therewith.

And those coalitition governments are necessarily centrist, because they hold only compromise positions. Again, they cannot enact broadly unpopular legislation, and that's sometimes necessary.
Where PR does lead to bigger government, it is because that is what the voters wanted.
Because bigger government is the fastest and easiest way to appease the voters. I'd rather an electoral system that did that less often.

Mikesburg: here's my idea of Senate Reform.

One hundred Senate seats - in perpetuity, no seats ever to be added. When the results of a Federal election are available, the official parties running for seats in the House of Commons are allotted Senate seats, purely on a percentage basis - with numbers rounded up or down to the nearest percentage point. It then falls to the individual political parties to determine the means by which their caucus or leader goes about the process of appointing their party's Senators.

The beauty of this setup is that a small party, such as the Greens, could have an actual presence on Parliament Hill - even if the old 'first-past-the-post' method results deny them a proper seat in the Commons.

I like it. It's simple, and proportionate. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone outside of heavily populated Ontario would like it all that much, since it doesn't address regional disparity, which has been one of the major sticking points of the senate since almost day one.

But Chretien scored three majorities when the right wing was divided. Had they not been split, he would have had a great deal more difficulty. Dion will have to pick up some of the red tory votes in order to win a majority.

He looks more like a leader to me than anyone else on the federal scene right now. His vision may not be incredibly bold, but he has articulated one, which is more than I can for any other party "leader".

I suppose I'm looking from an Ontarian viewpoint. With our electoral clout, almost every single election could have been different if Ontario didn't almost uniformally vote Liberal. Undboutedly, the vote splitting cost right-wing parties votes, but something as simple as 'I promise to scrap the GST' was ignored, because there was this 'barbarians at the gates' syndrome going on with the Reform party. They couldn't crack that Ontario border. What I'm getting at, is that the Liberals have been the dominant party for the last decade and a half because people were afraid to rock the boat. Campaign promises didn't mean a damn thing. Remember the 'red book'?

As for Dion's ability as a leader, time will tell. It's easy enough to promise something that is an obvious achilles heel for the conservatives. All they have to do is get their foot in the door after all. History has shown that Ontario is willing to forgive the Liberal party any of their mistakes, as long as it keeps those 'damn westerners' out.

Because bigger government is the fastest and easiest way to appease the voters. I'd rather an electoral system that did that less often.

Would you rather we just appoint someone to rule by decree? Who decides who that person is? A minority? What's the point of democracy if it doesn't represent the will of the majority, or at least a compromise of the electorate?

Switzerland seems to have gotten along quite fine with a PR system. And best of all, it's highly decentralized. Almost sounds like something you'd like. No?

Would you rather we just appoint someone to rule by decree?
No. You write the rules and then take away anyone's power to change them.
Switzerland seems to have gotten along quite fine with a PR system. And best of all, it's highly decentralized. Almost sounds like something you'd like. No?
A decentralised system would be great. Then the voters couldn't impose their will on communities who vehemently disagreed with them. You'd see migration where like-minded folks lived together.

Exactly. In my view, it was a calculated risk on Harpers part to appease the 'traditionalists' in his party. I don't think the majority of them really wanted to turn back the clock on this. It was an ugly political roadblock that had to be cleared in order to move on.

But the fact that he has to pander to those elements in the party remains a concern ... what else does he have to do to appease them and retain their support ... a referendum on abortion?

For the most part he seems to know what he's doing, and he seems capable of steering the ship of state. That's my primary concern. If he can come out of his whole career reforming the senate, that'll be far more impressive to me than Dion's ability to push the 'green' button.

As far as I can tell, he is steering the ship of state right into a couple of icebergs. One is called seperatism (which he seems to be fuelling) and the other is climate change (which he seems unwilling to take realistic action on).

Senate Reform is more cosmetic than anything else. It won't make much of a difference if the House of Commons continues to be elected under First Past the Post.

Alternately, you could stop offering everyone free healthcare, and thus they'd be forced to pay the costs themselves.

Yes. Because a private health care system has made Americans such a healthy people.

We are agreed so far.

The question becomes whether we accomplish more harm than good correcting this free rider problem, which is up in the air. A great example of this is eating junk food. Eating junk food causes people to gain weight. In turn, heavier people tend to be a greater burden on the government health program. Should we be imposing taxes on junk food? So far the answer is no, simply because to take action against this problem would probably require a bureacracy that would cost more than the actual benefits gained from this kind of system.

Not necessarily the case for most environmental problems however. Most of the recent studies on climate change (the Stern report in particular) tend to suggest that the costs of prevention will cost a great deal less than the problem itself will cost if it continues unabated.

The cap and trade system used to address acid rain was a fine example of an emissions trading system that not only addressed the problem with a minimum of bureaucratic cost, it actually ended up being profitable for the former polluters once they realized they could sell the chemicals they were scrubbing out of their smokestacks.

Are you honestly arguing that it's not possible not to hold a belief on this issue? That you have a firm position on every single person in the world as to whether their beliefs influence their professional behaviour?

Because that's an unsupposrted generalisation.

Nope. That's human nature.

Find me a majority government elected by PR.

Firstly, Ireland has elected several majority governments under it's version of PR. I'm sure I could find lots of other examples if I bothered to take the time.

Secondly, I never said that PR consistently produced majority government anyway. But when it does produce majorities they tend to be real majorities; a majority government that actually got a majority of the votes at the ballot box (and not just a plurality, or as frequently happens in Canada, the 2nd highest number of votes). There is no good reason to consider majority governments to be inherently desirable.


First-past-the-post elects majorities all the time.

In Canada, at the federal level, it has produced several minority governments. None have lasted more than two years. Is that beneficial?


Regardless wif whether you think they're "false", they're still majorities, and carry the benefits associated therewith.

Which are?


And those coalitition governments are necessarily centrist, because they hold only compromise positions. Again, they cannot enact broadly unpopular legislation, and that's sometimes necessary.

Our existing cadre party system produces compromise positions all of the time. Unfortunately, those compromises are generally reached within the party, often behind closed doors. I would like to get them out in the open.

In some ways, it is easier to enact unpopular legislation under a PR system because parties are not disproportionately punished for a small swing in the vote the way they are under FPTP.


Because bigger government is the fastest and easiest way to appease the voters. I'd rather an electoral system that did that less often.

Again ... do you have any evidence for this?

I suppose I'm looking from an Ontarian viewpoint. With our electoral clout, almost every single election could have been different if Ontario didn't almost uniformally vote Liberal.

The thing is ... Ontario almost uniformly ELECTED Liberals. Under FPTP, that is not quite the same as uniformly voting for them. They only barely got the majority of votes in Ontario in 1994 and 2000, and didn't even get that in 1997. They just happened to have a plurality of votes in almost every single riding, notably some where the right-wing vote was split between PC's and Reform/Alliance. The PC's and Reform actually didn't do too poorly on popular vote ... it just didn't translate into seats.


Undoubtedly, the vote splitting cost right-wing parties votes, but something as simple as 'I promise to scrap the GST' was ignored, because there was this 'barbarians at the gates' syndrome going on with the Reform party. They couldn't crack that Ontario border. What I'm getting at, is that the Liberals have been the dominant party for the last decade and a half because people were afraid to rock the boat. Campaign promises didn't mean a damn thing. Remember the 'red book'?

Campaign promises generally haven't meant a damn thing ... no matter who gets elected.


As for Dion's ability as a leader, time will tell. It's easy enough to promise something that is an obvious achilles heel for the conservatives.

I would agree with you if Dion had only recently started hitting the Green issues. But as far as I can recall, he has been talking about sustainability as a core issue since at least 2003, maybe earlier. Plus the Conservatives misjudged public opinion on this issue and totally overstepped themselves.


All they have to do is get their foot in the door after all. History has shown that Ontario is willing to forgive the Liberal party any of their mistakes, as long as it keeps those 'damn westerners' out.

I'm still not convinced it is a "Western"/"Eastern" thing. Just like the Liberals in Ontario, Reform/Alliance in the West tended to win a number of seats that were disproportionate to it's share of the vote. I have the utmost personal respect for Preston Manning, but as a Westerner, he never represented my views on most issues. FPTP tends to exxagerate regional differences.

Find me a majority government elected by PR.
Almost every parliamentary system using PR is a majority government, since two or more parties can form a coalition.

First-past-the-post elects majorities all the time. Regardless wif whether you think they're "false", they're still majorities, and carry the benefits associated therewith.
No they don't. Hint: Canadian federal election, 2006.

And those coalitition governments are necessarily centrist, because they hold only compromise positions. Again, they cannot enact broadly unpopular legislation, and that's sometimes necessary.
From my experience of FPTP, I'd rather have less unpopular legislation. The contempt people have for unpopular governments in the UK is quite literally killing democracy here.

Because bigger government is the fastest and easiest way to appease the voters. I'd rather an electoral system that did that less often.
Example: Ireland. Uses PR-STV, similar to the susyem proposed in BC. Cut taxes in the 1980s.

But the fact that he has to pander to those elements in the party remains a concern ... what else does he have to do to appease them and retain their support ... a referendum on abortion?

Well, that's democracy for ya. Just because we don't like the fact that there's a strong fundie presence out west, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to exercise their political clout. And unfortunately for anyone who wants a right-of-centre alternative to the Liberals, we're going to have to live with that.

As far as I can tell, he is steering the ship of state right into a couple of icebergs. One is called seperatism (which he seems to be fuelling) and the other is climate change (which he seems unwilling to take realistic action on).

Senate Reform is more cosmetic than anything else. It won't make much of a difference if the House of Commons continues to be elected under First Past the Post.

On the issue of climate change, I agree with you. To say that he's fuelling separatism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Separatists will be separatists regardless of what any PM is going to do. If anything, ignoring Quebec interests is more likely to fuel separatism.

And I think we can both agree that we need to abolish FPTP.

Has anyone noticed the conservative smear campaign already?

There isn't an election coming up I was unaware of, is there?
Yeah, I've been wondering about that. I don't recall ever seeing such a reaction so quickly after a leadership convention. Makes you wonder what they're afraid of, hey?

On the issue of climate change, I agree with you. To say that he's fuelling separatism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Separatists will be separatists regardless of what any PM is going to do. If anything, ignoring Quebec interests is more likely to fuel separatism.

And I think we can both agree that we need to abolish FPTP.

I would like to see it abolished but we need a referendum to do it...as it is now whichever party wins an election has done so as a result of FPTP so once in they do nothing because it worked for them and they like it...neither liberals or conservatives want to see the Greens get 15 seats or the NDP 60, it might give the population cause to vote for them...

I would like to see it abolished but we need a referendum to do it...as it is now whichever party wins an election has done so as a result of FPTP so once in they do nothing because it worked for them and they like it...neither liberals or conservatives want to see the Greens get 15 seats or the NDP 60, it might give the population cause to vote for them...

Well, there are democratic reform movements going on at the provincial level as we speak. One in Ontario at the very least.

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en-CA/home%20page.aspx

If that motion were to pass in Ontario, it could be a step into getting the idea in the public conscious and affecting change at the federal level. We need it more at the federal level than we do at the provincial level in my opinion. Perhaps, if the liberals and NDP find themselves with a 'unite the left' problem, maybe we'll see change sooner than we think.

I envy Ontario if that becomes reality....living where I do in Alberta it's hell being dominated by rednecks, fundys and big oil CEO's...as it is the conservatives get 75% of the seats with less than 47% of the vote, the non conservatives are badly under represented in this province...of course the system suits the conservatives just fine as it is...

of course the system suits the conservatives just fine as it is...

As it suited the Liberals and NDP in their times too. It seems that when a political party in Alberta loses, thats it for them. Someday, it will be the conservatives time too.

I'm thinking it will be the greens that replace the conservatives.

Has anyone heard about Canadian age of Sexual consent being raised to 16? I don't want to google.

As it suited the Liberals and NDP in their times too. It seems that when a political party in Alberta loses, thats it for them. Someday, it will be the conservatives time too.

I'm thinking it will be the greens that replace the conservatives.

Same thing with BC. Although the NDP has bounced back. But so did the Soc Creds before they finally died. But the Soc Creds were in power for a long time (3 decades IIRC), so it is not that shocking that they could bounce back after losing all their seats.

Same thing with BC. Although the NDP has bounced back. But so did the Soc Creds before they finally died. But the Soc Creds were in power for a long time (3 decades IIRC), so it is not that shocking that they could bounce back after losing all their seats.

I had a reply to this Posi, but it might make a good separate thread. I'll start one.

If you would be so kind as to read and reply here? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12290521#post12290521

As it suited the Liberals and NDP in their times too. It seems that when a political party in Alberta loses, thats it for them. Someday, it will be the conservatives time too.

I'm thinking it will be the greens that replace the conservatives.

doesn't matter who is in power the system is wrong...it does not adequate give representation...

Rainbowwws Has anyone heard about Canadian age of Sexual consent being raised to 16? I don't want to google.

It's been discussed but it's still 14...it will be difficult to change to 16, pros and cons to both sides...

Yes, I would like to see first past the post gone, as well as the senate. ALL the parties need to be stirred up or replaced.

Well, that's democracy for ya. Just because we don't like the fact that there's a strong fundie presence out west, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to exercise their political clout. And unfortunately for anyone who wants a right-of-centre alternative to the Liberals, we're going to have to live with that.

I just think that their political clout is disproportionate to their numbers ...

On the issue of climate change, I agree with you.

I'm just amazed (but not surprised) that any government could name five priorities and not include the environment ... just a complete lack of long-term thinking if you ask me. And now their environmental strategy seems to consist of repackaging watered-down versions of the Liberal programs they cut a year ago ... programs which fell far short of what we needed anyway.


To say that he's fuelling separatism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Fair enough. I should have said "pandering to". I still think it will strengthen the seperatists hand in the long run, just as it did under Mulroney.


And I think we can both agree that we need to abolish FPTP.
Amen to that!

A decentralised system would be great. Then the voters couldn't impose their will on communities who vehemently disagreed with them. You'd see migration where like-minded folks lived together.

For once I don't totally disagree with you. More power should be situated at the community level. One of the greatest problems with politics these days is that issues are set at a scale where people feel powerless to do anything as individuals to address them. Once they are broken down to a more human scale, it is amazing what individuals and communities can do to address them.

However, I am not convinced that devolving power to the provinces actually accomplishes that. The provinces are politicial units ... arbitrary lines on a map in many ways, that are not themselves communities. The provinces often hoard what power they are given, and have been in many ways pretty heavy handed in their ability to regulate local government. Our cities and towns don't have the same kind of historic protections they enjoy in some other countries. When the provinces do devolve decision-making to local authotiries, they usually just devolve the issues they don't want to deal with, and rarely provide the power and resources needed to deal with it in meaningful ways. The feds should make any devolution of powers to the provinces contingent on a further devolution of powers to local communities, and if the provinces refuse, they should bypass the provinces and provide more power and resources to communities directly.

However, community-based governance has also been under attack by "small government" advocates who have pushed for (and in some cases forced communities to accept) municipal amalgamations and mega-cities.

Also, I totally disgree that communities should be formed of like-minded people. The strongest communities are those in which there is genuine debate over the appropriate goals for the community and the appropriate means for achieving those goals. There merely needs to be the right systems in place to ensure that different viewpoints are represented and discussed. Another thing which FPTP fails to accomplish ...

Same thing with BC. Although the NDP has bounced back. But so did the Soc Creds before they finally died. But the Soc Creds were in power for a long time (3 decades IIRC), so it is not that shocking that they could bounce back after losing all their seats.

The Socreds pretty much took over the BC Liberals and are back in power under a new name.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that. I don't recall ever seeing such a reaction so quickly after a leadership convention. Makes you wonder what they're afraid of, hey?

Welcome to Stephen Harper's Americanada ...

Yeah, I've been wondering about that. I don't recall ever seeing such a reaction so quickly after a leadership convention. Makes you wonder what they're afraid of, hey?

They're afraid that their penises don't measure up.

I'm just amazed (but not surprised) that any government could name five priorities and not include the environment ... just a complete lack of long-term thinking if you ask me. And now their environmental strategy seems to consist of repackaging watered-down versions of the Liberal programs they cut a year ago ... programs which fell far short of what we needed anyway.

It's just a tough sell to their power base in Alberta. And for anyone east of the Ontario/Manitoba border, it's something you put up with if you want to be able to have an alternative to the liberals once in a while. (I just can't get myself to vote for the NDP. And I like Jack. Bob Rae's NDP reign in Ontario was enough for me.)

But you're right on the environment. Even most conservatives and industry leaders look to sustainablity as a key factor for the future. Even if they aren't doing it for the cuddly animals or extra greenery, sustainability is viewed as a necessity for a resource-based economy. The Oil-Grab in Alberta is not unlike overfishing in the Atlantic in my book. But, I'm no expert on it either.

At the very least, Harper, who likes to seem morally superior about Canada sticking up to its international obligations in Afghanistan, is strangely silent on the environmental international obligation that Canada also pledged to. More than just a little inconsistent.

The Oil-Grab in Alberta is not unlike overfishing in the Atlantic in my book. But, I'm no expert on it either.



good observation.....oil, it's like a gold rush in the 1800's, get as much profit out as quick as possible and screw the environment and anyone gets in our way....over fishing, same mindset but fish stocks given time can recover it's a renewable resource, oil obviously isn't renewable and the environment will take centuries to recover..

Originally Posted by Mikesburg
Well, that's democracy for ya. Just because we don't like the fact that there's a strong fundie presence out west, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to exercise their political clout. And unfortunately for anyone who wants a right-of-centre alternative to the Liberals, we're going to have to live with that.


Thats a nice way to put it. However, I would like to educate you on something.

The top three regions in Canada that profess having "no religion", which isnt to say no beliefs, but precludes fundamentalism is:

1. Yukon
2. British Columbia
3. Alberta

I believe that Yukon was 26% or so, and Alberta was at 18%. BC was in between. I had posted a StatsCan web page with the full stats at some point in NSG. Number 10 on the scale was Newfoundland, at 2%. Not even they are known for fundamentalism.

That isnt to say that there is no fundamentalism, but the whole bible thumping, fire and brimstone, pulpit pontification and doorstep objurgating is at odds with the western mindset, and even the average very religious westerner would be horrified at the thought of subjecting a fellow canadian with the ear bashing that American preachers seem so fond of.

Its not even very common for the Mormons and Jehovas witnesses to knock on my door.

So, in short, you are perpetuating a stereotype and a myth, while disregarding the fact that there is a larger portion of religious people in your own neck of the woods.

I like your posts. You are intelligent and rational. I hope that you take what I have said into consideration, and refrain from making this spurious claim again.

Thats a nice way to put it. However, I would like to educate you on something.

The top three regions in Canada that profess having "no religion", which isnt to say no beliefs, but precludes fundamentalism is:

1. Yukon
2. British Columbia
3. Alberta

I believe that Yukon was 26% or so, and Alberta was at 18%. BC was in between. I had posted a StatsCan web page with the full stats at some point in NSG. Number 10 on the scale was Newfoundland, at 2%. Not even they are known for fundamentalism.

That isnt to say that there is no fundamentalism, but the whole bible thumping, fire and brimstone, pulpit pontification and doorstep objurgating is at odds with the western mindset, and even the average very religious westerner would be horrified at the thought of subjecting a fellow canadian with the ear bashing that American preachers seem so fond of.

Its not even very common for the Mormons and Jehovas witnesses to knock on my door.

So, in short, you are perpetuating a stereotype and a myth, while disregarding the fact that there is a larger portion of religious people in your own neck of the woods.

I like your posts. You are intelligent and rational. I hope that you take what I have said into consideration, and refrain from making this spurious claim again.

Don't mean to offend friend. However, let's not forget that the party that wanted to put that old time religion into politics was the reform party, which was based out west. I realize there are 'fundies' (and I actually don't like using the word, but it gets the point across) out here as well. Harper had to shut one up in Ajax during the election campaign.

However, all the statistics in the world aren't going to change the fact that the western-based party formerly known as 'Reform' dominates the new Conservative party. Which is what I was getting at. If Canada want's a viable right wing alternative, non-religious conservatives have to work with the former reform party members, who have shown a tendency in the past to be social conservatives. After all, it's Harper, an adopted westerner, who uses the phrase 'God Bless Canada' after every speech.

Oh.... and thank you for your kind comments. :p

Thats a nice way to put it. However, I would like to educate you on something.

The top three regions in Canada that profess having "no religion", which isnt to say no beliefs, but precludes fundamentalism is:

1. Yukon
2. British Columbia
3. Alberta

I believe that Yukon was 26% or so, and Alberta was at 18%. BC was in between. I had posted a StatsCan web page with the full stats at some point in NSG. Number 10 on the scale was Newfoundland, at 2%. Not even they are known for fundamentalism.

2001 census, Yukon was at 39%, BC was at 36%, and Alberta was at 24%. And yes, they led the nation.

good observation.....oil, it's like a gold rush in the 1800's, get as much profit out as quick as possible and screw the environment and anyone gets in our way....over fishing, same mindset but fish stocks given time can recover it's a renewable resource, oil obviously isn't renewable and the environment will take centuries to recover..
The environment will NOT take centures to recover. Even the tar mines, which are an absolute disaster environmentally, have already been party reclaimed, and are being used to graze bison.

I'm not going to vote him in.

[QUOTE=Llewdor;12296888]The environment will NOT take centures to recover. Even the tar mines, which are an absolute disaster environmentally, have already been party reclaimed, and are being used to graze bison.[/QUOT
partly reclaimed...destroying sensitive forested area the size of Floridaand turning into a grassland isn't reclamation....and the estimated time the planet will take to recover from the current levels will take an estimated thousand years...and the oil industry has barely started this project...

partly reclaimed...destroying sensitive forested area the size of Floridaand turning into a grassland isn't reclamation....and the estimated time the planet will take to recover from the current levels will take an estimated thousand years...and the oil industry has barely started this project...
If you're talking about carbon dioxide levels, we could forcibly remove that from the atmosphere. But no one seems to propose that.

Your timeline only applies if we do nothing and wait for the problem to go away. Sure, great plan.